Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Religion is probably the biggest divider in world history, but for those that believe in God it is central to our existence. Share your views.
bumperjack
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1062
Joined: March 9th, 2014, 10:38 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Hawaii
What city do you live in now?: Honalulu

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by bumperjack » January 23rd, 2015, 5:55 pm

Silent, I understand it as you state it and agree or disagree I believe isn't important. I totally understand what your belief is on "Tradition" brother enjoy your family thats first and foremost homie and thank you for re-posting it.

silentwssj
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 866
Joined: November 27th, 2013, 6:13 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: SJ

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by silentwssj » January 23rd, 2015, 8:33 pm

Right on Brother Bumperjack! Honestly that is where I am at with all of this as well! I know what I know and I believe what I believe. I know that is how you feel as well! It is not me against you or Catholicism against Protestantism. We are simply presenting our sides of what is really basically the same religion! Wow, did I say that, yes I did! Anyways, you know it is always all good with me Brother! We will talk later, Peace be with you, Silent!

MMRbkaRudog
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 3531
Joined: April 4th, 2004, 6:07 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: SJ
Location: WWW

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by MMRbkaRudog » January 24th, 2015, 12:09 am

It's all good, thanks silent

bumperjack
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1062
Joined: March 9th, 2014, 10:38 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Hawaii
What city do you live in now?: Honalulu

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by bumperjack » January 26th, 2015, 8:50 am

Silent, take a look at this it lays in all out on the line basically,and in a respectful way really,I believe not putting either side down just the facts on beliefs...I thought it was a good article.L&R BJ
Roman Catholicism Compared To Biblical Chrsitianity
written and compiled by Barbara Wilhelm, 9/01

The following contain excerpts and/or references from Roman Catholicism: Scripture vs. Tradition by Mike Gendron, head of "Proclaiming the Gospel”; James G. McCarthy, author of The Gospel According to Rome and the tract What You Need To Know About Roman Catholicism; and T. A. McMahon of The Berean Call. Mr. Gendron, Mr. McCarthy and Mr. McMahon are former Catholics and present born-again Christians with ministries to Catholics. The author of the following position paper, a former Catholic of 35 years and a born-again Christian of 23 years, has, in recent years, taken a course from the Catholic Church itself dealing with their current beliefs. Annotated references to Catholic doctrine were obtained from the official Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Austin Flannery edition of Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents.

*There is also a section entitled Catholic Doctrinal Guide with definitions of various Catholic terminology. The source book for the Guide was a Catholic family Bible which carries the “imprimatur” (official authorization) of the Roman Catholic Church.

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS

“It is important to realize that most of the clergy and lay people that teach Roman Catholic doctrine are not deceiving people with malicious intent. They are simply passing on what has been passed on to them, sincerely believing that they have the truth. Catholics must believe ALL dogmas of their church or be anathema (eternally condemned and accursed) by their church. Prayer, love, compassion and understanding are needed along with the power of the Word of God to penetrate their hearts. Patience is needed to untangle Roman Catholics from the dogmatic web in which they are held captive” (Roman Catholicism: Scripture vs. Tradition by Mike Gendron).

It must also be remembered that there are those in the Catholic Church who love the Lord and have had a genuine born-again
experience yet remain in that church out of ignorance of her doctrines.

In 2 Cor 11: 2-4 Paul states: “For I am zealous for you with a godly jealousy, for I have betrothed you to one Husband, to
present you a chaste virgin to Christ. But now I am fearful lest even as the serpent beguiled Eve by his cunning, so your minds
may be seduced from the simplicity of Jesus. For you seem readily to endure it if a man comes and preaches another Jesus
than the One we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you once received, or a different gospel from the
one you received and welcomed.”

In what is called the “unity chapter”, John 17, Jesus Himself states that doctrinal truth is to be the primary unifying factor
between believers and the basis for sanctification: v.17 “Sanctify them by Thy truth; Thy Word is truth.”

A CLARIFICATION OF TERMS

Before we can even start a meaningful discussion of the differences between Catholicism and Biblical Christianity, it is
imperative to clarify what different words and terms mean when viewed from each perspective. Some of the following words
may sound the same to Bible-believing Christians as they do to Catholics – but their meanings will differ sharply. In addition,
there will be terms totally unfamiliar to Christians but which must be discussed because they play such an integral part in Roman
Catholic theology.

CATHOLIC DOCTRINAL GUIDE

Preface: We Catholics maintain that the Bible is not the sole source of Christ’s teaching, but that we have a double rule of
faith, namely, Bible and Tradition. Tradition is the sum of revealed doctrine which has not been put down in Sacred Scripture
but has been handed down through legitimate pastors of the Church from age to age.

Baptism: the sacrament of spiritual cleansing and rebirth, instituted by Jesus Christ. In baptism a human being is born again
spiritually and made capable of receiving the other sacraments.

Church Legislation: (Canons 1391, 1399 1400) the faithful are not permitted to read vernacular translations of the Bible
which do not have the approval of the Holy See (Pope) and are not published under the vigilance of the bishops. For the
Catholic, the private interpretation of the individual is regarded as worthless, and only the authoritative verdict of the
infallible (Catholic) Church, exercising in this sphere its divine commission to teach, is valid. “If anyone believes any
scriptures beyond those which the Catholic Church has received are to be regarded as authoritative or held in esteem, let him
be anathema.”

Confession to and Absolution by a priest: (Confession is) the clear avowal of all sins committed after Baptism, made to a
priest who has the power to absolve (those sins). The priest imposes upon the penitent sinner acts of penance to make
reparation for his sins. These acts of penance may include saying specified amounts of “Hail Marys” and “Our Fathers”,
self-denial, or performing good works. The priest’s role in this sacrament is as representative of Christ.

Council: The assembly of the bishops (including the Bishop of Rome, the Pope) convoked to define questions of faith, morals
and discipline. (Throughout history) there have been numerous councils: Nicea (325), Trent (1545-1563), Vatican I (1869) and
Vatican II (present-day).

Dogma: When this word is applied to Catholic teaching, it refers to a formal statement of doctrine, as contained in divine
revelation, concerning faith or morals, made by the Pope as universal teacher, or by an ecumenical council in union with him.

Eucharist: From the Greek word meaning to thank, a sacrament of the New Law in which, under the appearances of bread
and wine, the Body and Blood of Christ are truly, really and substantially present, as the grace-producing food of the soul. The
priest, who alone has the power given him by God to prepare the ingredients for this sacrament, by pronouncing the words of
consecration, changes the substance of bread and wine into Christ’s Body and Blood. The Holy Eucharist is the living
(emphasis in original) Christ: the wafer containing the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ (1374) that is to be
worshipped, consumed and sacrificed (1378).

Expiation: The work of expiation continues through the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass for all time. Hence, for us (Catholics),
the greatest work of expiation is through the sacrifice of the Mass by which God is placated.

Grace: Grace is lost through mortal sin; it is preserved and increased through prayer and works done under the influence of
God, and by means of the sacraments duly received.

Indulgence: The means of remission of the temporal punishment for sins of which the guilt has been forgiven, either in the
sacrament of Penance or because of an act of perfect contrition, granted by the competent ecclesiastical authority from the
Treasury of the Church to the living by way of absolution, to the dead by way of others prayers for them. When the guilt of a sin
is removed from the soul there always remains temporal punishment due to sin and this temporal punishment must be removed
before a soul can enter heaven. An indulgence is received by good works and penances and can be applied to the sins of the
living and the dead (1471-79).

The Council of Trent stated – “Since the power of conferring indulgences has been granted by Christ to His Church, this Holy
Synod teaches and orders that the use of indulgences is to be retained in the Church. It also condemns under anathema those
who say they are useless or who maintain that the Church has not the power to confer them.”

Infallibility: The belief that the pope and bishops are said to be incapable of error when proclaiming definite doctrines
involving faith and morals.

Vatican Council I stated – “It is divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra (that is, when
acting as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he, by his supreme apostolic authority, defines a doctrine touching faith or
morals, which is to be held by the whole Church) said definitions are of themselves irreformable (infallible). If anyone shall
presume to contradict this our definition, let him be anathema”.

Mortal Sin: A grave sin committed with full knowledge and consent (1857 from the Catholic Catechism). Those who die in
this state descend into hell (1035).

Penance (Also known now as the Sacrament of Reconciliation) The sacrament of confessing sins after baptism to a priest and
asking for his forgiveness so that you are reconciled back to God (1456)

Pope: this word comes a Greek term for father. As bishop of Rome, the pope is St. Peter’s successor and is therefore the
visible head of the Church on earth.

Purgatory: The place and state in which souls suffer for a time after death and are cleansed of their sins, before entering into
Heaven. Here, venial sins, which have never in this life been remitted by an act of repentance or love or by good deeds, are
removed. The debt of temporal punishment due to grave (mortal) sins, the guilt of which with its eternal punishment has indeed
been remitted by God in the Sacrament of Penance must also be removed here. It is of faith that the souls in Purgatory can be
helped by the prayers and sacrifices of the Faithful on earth and especially by the Mass.

Rosary: an expression of devotion to Mary which uses beads to count 53 repetitious prayers to Mary, six to God the Father
and six to the Trinity.

Sacraments: The Catholic Church teaches that there are seven sacraments and each of them contain grace. The seven
sacraments are: baptism, penance, eucharist, confirmation (to receive Holy Spirit), matrimony, holy orders (vows taken by
priests and nuns) and anointing of the sick. These are the primary means by which God bestows grace upon people in the
RCC. Church teaching is that the sacraments themselves are necessary for salvation [1129 –Catholic Catechism].

Venial Sin: a sin that merits only temporal punishment and does not deprive the sinner of grace or friendship with God. Venial
sins can be atoned for with acts of penance and good works.

Vicar of Christ: one of many titles claimed by the Pope. This one means representative of Christ on Earth. (end of Catholic
Doctrinal Guide section).

ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS - FROM CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Apocrypha: 12 writings were declared inspired by the RCC and were added to the Catholic Canon in 1546. Many of the
teachings in the apocrypha contradict the Bible – indulgences, paid masses for the dead, magic performed by Jesus as a child,
etc.

Magesterium: comes from Latin for “Master” and refers to bishops who are the teaching authority of the RCC. The
magesterium consists of all the bishops including the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. They are the ones who pass judgment on
doctrine, state what interpretation a Catholic may give to a scripture verse, and they are the ones who dole out grace in partial
payments depending on the amount of good works that are done.

Treasury of the Church: (From The Gospel According to Rome by James G. McCarthy: “Another way in which the living
can help the dead is by acquiring special credits, called indulgences, that cancel out temporal punishment [1032.1471] Roman
Catholicism teaches that the Church has the power to dispense indulgences from a vast reservoir of merit called the treasury of
the Church [1476-1477]…The “treasury of the Church” is the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ’s
merits have before God…This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary and…the
prayers and good works of all the saints.)

Vatican II: The conference was held 1962-65 and from it came the New Catholic Canon of Laws. After Vatican II there was
a strong ecumenical outreach to other churches, culminating in the un-Biblical agreement called “Evangelicals and Catholics
Together.”

CATHOLICS AND CHRISTIANS:ESSENTIAL DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES

The Roman Catholic Church (much like the Judaizers in the book of Galatians) upholds four fundamental tenets of the Christian
faith: the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the virgin birth, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. However, it denies that Christ’s work
of redemption is finished and that His atonement is sufficient.

In addition, Catholic teaching opposes the doctrine most essential to the Christian faith – the doctrine of justification by
faith alone. The RCC not only denies this doctrine, but also condemns anyone who believes it. The Catholic Church may say
that it believes in salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, but the doctrines of that church deny these words.

The Roman Catholic Church says it believes in salvation by grace alone. However, their “grace” is not the free gift of
Christianity but can only be received by the individual in partial installments dispensed through the “magesterium” of the RCC *
(see Catholic Doctrinal Guide for definition). The RCC says it believes in salvation through faith alone - but adds works to that.
It says it believes in salvation through Christ alone - but adds, among other things, membership in the Catholic Church, a belief
that water baptism, even of infants, is what constitutes being born-again, and unbiblical beliefs about Mary. If doctrine is not
discussed, then Christians will never realize that the doctrines of the Bible are different from the doctrines the RCC adheres to,
no matter what they say to the contrary. More importantly, if we do not delineate the differences in doctrine between the
Christian Church and the Catholic Church, we do an incredible disservice to those Catholics who believe they are born-again
yet still continue in the church of Rome. If we evade doctrinal issues, we are not giving Catholics the chance to escape from a
deception that will condemn them to eternal death. If a man believes a false gospel, he is not saved and cannot be discipled.
The discussion of doctrinal differences is truly a life – or - death matter.

HOLY SCRIPTURE

Bible: “Every Scripture is God-breathed – given by His inspiration – and profitable for instruction, for reproof, for correction of
error, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, well-fitted and thoroughly equipped for every
good work” (2 Ti 3: 16-17). See also 2 Pe 1: 3-10 and 1 Cor 2:13.

Deut 4:2; Prov 30:5,6; Rev 22: 19 are just some of the warnings in the Bible dealing with adding to or subtracting from God's
Holy Word. The RCC, however, does not seem to heed these warnings. As just one example, the Catholic Church does not
profess the simple Ten Commandments, eliminating the second commandment to have no idols before God and to create no
graven images. The RCC then takes the Biblical tenth Commandment and makes it into two instead of one. Hence, the RCC
Ten Commandments are not the Biblical Ten Commandments. The Roman Catholic Church believes that there are more than
the 66 canonical books of the Bible, adding what they call the Apocrypha*. The Apocrypha contains descriptions of Jesus
performing magic as a child, and the Catholic beliefs in praying for the dead and purgatory. “Purgatory is the place of suffering a
Catholic enters after death when he may need to make additional reparation for his sins. There he pays for the temporal
punishment of sins not previously atoned for by acts of penance* or canceled by indulgences*, special credits obtained from the
RCC by performing religious acts” (J. McCarthy: What You Need To Know About Roman Catholicism).

The Catholic Church also adds tradition and papal infallibility* to the teachings of the Bible, thereby placing both above the
inerrancy of the Bible. (Mt 15:6 states: “So for the sake of your tradition, you have set aside the Word of God and made it null
and void.”)

(following is excerpted from Roman Catholicism: Scripture vs. Tradition by Mike Gendron):

DOCTRINE OF JESUS

JESUS, THE SAVIOR:

Bible: "He saved us not because of any righteous deeds we had done, but because of His mercy" (Titus 3:5)

Roman Catholic Church teaches that "by His death and resurrection, Jesus Christ has 'opened' heaven to us" (1026 -references
are from 1994 Catholic catechism). Each person attains his own salvation by grace and good works (1477).

JESUS, THE SINLESS REDEEMER:

Bible: "For you know it was not with perishable things...that you are redeemed...but with the precious blood of Christ" (1 Pe
1:17-18).

RCC teaches that Mary is the sinless co-Redeemer. "Without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person
and work of her son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with Him...being obedient, she became the cause
of salvation for herself and for the whole human race" (494)

JESUS, OUR ADVOCATE AND ONLY MEDIATOR:

Bible: "God is one, one also is the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Ti 2:5, 1 Jn 2:1)

RCC teaches that Mary "did not lay aside her saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. She is Advocate…and Mediatrix” (969)

JESUS, HEAD OF THE CHURCH:

Bible: "He has put all things under Christ's feet and made Him, thus exalted, head of the Church" (Eph 1: 22,23).

RCC teaches that the Pope, "by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire church has full, supreme and
universal power over the whole church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered" (882). He exercises infallibility
when "he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals" (891)

JESUS, THE SOON-COMING KING:

Bible: "This same Jesus, who has been taken away from you into heaven will come back in the same way you have seen Him go
unto heaven" (Acts 1:11).

RCC denies this by teaching that Jesus returns daily to the altars of Catholic churches to worshipped: "The body and
blood...soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ...is truly, really and substantially contained" in the Eucharist* (1374-78).

CHRIST’S WORK

JESUS EXPIATES OUR SIN:

Bible: "Through His blood, God made Him the means of expiation for all who believe" (Ro 3:25)

RCC teaches that sins are expiated in purgatory through a "cleansing fire" and that we "must strive to accept this temporal
punishment of sin as a grace" (1030,31; 1472-75).

(It is also noteworthy that the Word of God consistently affirms that sins are expiated by blood and not by fire. Biblically, the
“fires of purgatory” cannot purge or atone for sin.)

JESUS FINISHED THE WORK OF REDEMPTION:

Bible: "By one offering He has forever perfected those who are being sanctified" (Heb 10:14). "Unlike the other high priests,
He does not need to offer daily sacrifices" (Heb 7:27,28).

RCC denies that Jesus' work on the cross is finished. "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single
sacrifice...the same Christ who offered Himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an
unbloody manner in the Eucharist"(1367). "Every time this mystery is celebrated the work of our redemption is carried on"
(1405). The sacrifice "is offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead" (1414). Over and over again in Roman
Catholicism, Jesus dies on the cross as the eternal victim.

HIS LIFE, DEATH AND RESURRECTION PROVIDED THE ONLY WAY TO BE SAVED:

Bible: "There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name in the whole world given to men by which we are to be
saved" (Acts 4:12).

RCC denies this by claiming the Catholic Church "is necessary for salvation" (846).

HIS SHED BLOOD IS THE ONLY REMISSION FOR SIN:

Bible: "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness for sin" (Heb 9:22). "Since these sins have been forgiven, there is
no further offering for sin" (Heb 10:18).

RCC teaches that "an indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been
forgiven which...may be applied to the living or the dead" (1471)

This is absolutely contrary to Scripture because it undermines the total cleansing of Jesus' blood. By stating that indulgences
are needed to further cleanse the sinner, indulgences make man's actions of higher worth than Jesus' blood.

JESUS CLEANSES US FROM SIN:

Bible: “When He [Jesus] had cleansed us from our sins, He took His seat at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven” (Heb
1:3). “Christ…presents you to God holy, free of reproach and blame” (Col 1:22)

RCC teaches that “all who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified…undergo purification, so as to
achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven” (1030)

DOCTRINE OF SALVATION

SALVATION IS PROCLAIMED IN THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST:

Bible: "It is the power of God leading everyone who believes in it to salvation" (Ro 1:16). It relates Jesus' life, death and
resurrection according to the Scriptures (1 Cor 15: 1-4).

RCC preaches a different gospel by demanding additional requirements for salvation including: the sacraments (1129),
meritorious masses (1405), church membership (846), purgatory (1030), indulgences *(1498), and baptism (1256).

SALVATION IS OF GOD, NOT MAN:

Bible: “When you heard the glad tidings of salvation, the word of truth, and believed in it, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit
(Eph 1:13). Those “who believe in His name were begotten not by…man’s willing it, but by God” (Jn 1:13).

RCC teaches “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration…without which no one can enter the kingdom of God” (1213, 1215).

SALVATION IS THROUGH FAITH, NOT WORKS:

Bible: "Salvation is yours through faith. This is not of your own doing, it is God's gift, neither is it a reward for anything you have
accomplished, so let no one pride himself on it" (Eph 2: 8,9). "Yet in no way can a man redeem himself, nor pay his own
ransom to God. Too high is the price to redeem one's life; he would never have enough" (Ps 49: 7,8).

RCC teaches salvation through faith plus works. They say people can obtain their own salvation and at the same time
cooperate in saving their brothers through good works and indulgences (1477, 1479).

(The Lindsell Bible Commentary’s introduction to the book of Galatians states: “ When you mix faith with works, the error is of
such magnitude that it will result in the loss of the true gospel.”)

SALVATION IS BY GRACE, NOT MERIT:

Bible: "All men are now undeservedly justified by the gift of God" (Ro 3:24). "…But if it is by grace it is no longer conditioned
on works or anything men have done. Otherwise, grace would no longer be grace – it would be meaningless.”(Ro 11:6).

RCC denies justifying grace is undeserved. "We can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal
life" (2027).

(RCC source used is Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994.)
(excerpt ended)

NONE OF THESE ARE SECONDARY ISSUES. ON THE CONTRARY,THEY ARE THE PRIMARY
DOCTRINES OF OUR FAITH.

While there are a great many other topics that can be discussed in relation to the Catholic faith, only three others will be
attempted at this time. The first topic is the difference between Christian Communion and the Catholic Eucharist; the next, the
difference between the Biblical Mary and the Catholic Mary. The last topic is the mistaken belief that Vatican II significantly
changed the tenets of Catholicism.

CHRISTIAN COMMUNION AS OPPOSED TO CATHOLIC EUCHARIST

There is a very real difference between the Communion and the Lord's Supper as observed by born-again believers as
opposed to the Eucharist and the Mass* as observed by Catholics. Born-again believers contend that the bread and wine are
the elements and that Communion and the Lord's Supper are done in remembrance of Jesus' "once for all" sacrifice. Catholics,
on the other hand, believe that the Eucharist offered at the Mass is the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. This, they state, is
done by means of transubstantiation, the Catholic doctrine wherein the bread and wine actually become the real body and
blood of Jesus.

The Council of Trent, 13th Session, Canon I stated: “(the Eucharist) is truly, really and substantially the body and blood
together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Catholic Mass is the “unbloody sacrifice” of Jesus repeated over
and over. Yet the Bible repeatedly states that “without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.” The word for the
wafer that is offered at Catholic Mass is “hostia” which means victim. Hence, Jesus as the eternal victim is repeatedly being
sacrificed at each Catholic Mass.

Of the Mass, the Council of Trent also stated (Session 22, Chap.2): “In this divine sacrifice the same Christ is present and
immolated (sacrificed) in an unbloody manner on the altar of the Cross…only the manner of offering is different.” Heb 9: 22
and 10:10-17 totally contradict these Catholic doctrines. Therefore, how can Biblical Communion be equated with the Catholic
Eucharist and Mass?

Also, instead of centering worship around the Person of the Lord Jesus and His redeeming work on the cross, it is the Catholic
Church that makes the wafer of bread – the Eucharist – the “centerpiece of worship” and actually says, in its catechism, that
their communion is the “sacrament of redemption” (1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church section 1846) and the place
where “ the work of our redemption is accomplished” (Vatican II Austin Flannery p.1). When the priest holds the wafer and
presents it to the congregation saying “Behold the Lamb of God”, he truly means that that wafer is the real Lamb of God, Jesus
Christ. The Catholic Church emphasizes this adoration of the wafer – not the Person of Jesus – during the feast called Corpus
Christi, a Latin term meaning “body of Christ.” On that day a procession of Catholics follow the priest in adoration of the
Communion wafer which is carried in a vessel called a “monstrance.”

In simple terms that means that Roman Catholicism believes that redemption comes through ingesting the Eucharist –the wafer
which they say is Jesus – not through Jesus’ work on the cross. Hence, Catholic Communion is not Biblical Communion: they
may use the same words, but the meaning is totally different.

MARY OF THE BIBLE AND THE MARY OF CATHOLICISM

(the following information is excerpted from T.A. McMahon’s article entitled Mary Who?):

“…The only trustworthy account of Mary is found in the Scriptures where information is presented by those who knew her
personally and, more importantly, whose writings were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Fewer than 90 Bible verses
address the life of Mary. In them we find a wonderful humble servant of the Lord who rejoices in Him as her Savior (Lk 1:
47)… Mary’s ministry was simply the birth and nurturing of the child Jesus. Once He reached adulthood, she played no
influential part in His earthly service. It’s at the wedding feast of Cana, which began the public ministry of Jesus, that her last
words are recorded. Fittingly, she tells the servants, ‘ Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it’ (Jn 2:5)… Mary then fades into the
background.

Search the Scriptures as you will and you will find no leadership role for Mary among the Apostles. She taught no doctrine.
We never hear of the Apostles seeking her out for counsel. Other than the gospels, Mary is mentioned only once in the New
Testament, where the Book of Acts tells us of her simple participation in a prayer meeting along with her sons. The teaching
that Mary was a perpetual virgin is contradicted by many verses (Mt 12:46; Mk 6:3; Jn 7: 3,5; 1Cor 9:5; Gal 1:19; Ps
69:8,etc.)…The Apostle Peter, a contemporary of Mary and regarded by Catholics as the first pope, wrote nothing about her.
The Apostle Paul…made no mention of the alleged importance of devotions or reparations to Mary…The Apostle John, who
wrote the last book of the Bible and was given the care of Mary by Jesus Himself, says nothing about venerating her…Although
mankind is being drawn into every kind of spiritual deception in the last days before the return of Jesus, it is especially sad that
the real mother of Jesus, the remarkable ‘handmaiden of the Lord’ (Lk 1:38) is so terribly misrepresented, thereby drawing
millions away from her Son…

(Conversely), the Mary of Catholicism was immaculately conceived, the Mother of God, a perpetual virgin, Mediatrix between
God and man, and the Queen of Heaven…The ‘Mary’ who spoke to Father Gobbi, the founder of the Marian Movement of
more than 100,000 priests, declared, ‘Each of my statues is a sign of a presence of mine and reminds you of your heavenly
Mother. Therefore it must be honored and put in places of greater veneration…’

Consider Our Lady of Fatima: (she said) ‘Say the Rosary every day to obtain peace for the world…God wishes to establish in
the world the devotion to My immaculate heart. If people do what I tell you, many souls will be saved and there will be peace.’

This is not the humble and submissive Mary of the Bible. The rosary invokes prayers to Mary ten times for every one for the
Lord; Jesus is the Prince of Peace; only Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice saves souls from hell; neither is Mary’s heart immaculate,
nor are we to be spiritually devoted to anyone other than our Lord and Savior” (excerpts ended).

The Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is NOT the Christian doctrine which states that Jesus was born without
sin. Rather, it states that Mary was born free of any sin: “O, Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to
thee.” The prayer specifically presents her as intercessor. In addition, Catholics believe that as a special privilege Mary was
preserved from all sin, even venial sin*. Catholics also hold to the doctrine that Mary, after her death, was “assumpted” bodily
into heaven and, therefore, never saw corruption.. Both the Feast of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are
“holydays of obligation” in the Catholic Church and require Catholics to attend a Mass on those days under penalty of
“mortal”* sin.

One of the titles the Catholic Church gives Mary is “Queen of Heaven.” In chapters 7:18 and 44:19 Jeremiah actually speaks of
the people of Israel making offerings to a “queen of heaven.” Yet a simple reading of the chapters shows that God was
exceedingly angry because of this heathen worship.

There is also a mixing of what is Biblical and what is Catholic in the “Hail Mary,” the prayer used repeatedly in the rosary. It
states: “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with Thee. Blessed art thou among women…” This is actually found in Luke 1:28.
However, the rest of the prayer is not Biblical. It states “…Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the
hour of our death. Amen.” Mary is “holy” only as she is holy in Jesus. She was not the mother of God, but of the child Jesus -
stating it as the Catholic Church does confers upon her a title that denotes her superiority over Jesus. She cannot pray for us
sinners because she herself was a sinner, and because only Jesus “ever liveth to make intercession for us” (Heb 7:25).

WHAT DID VATICAN II REALLY CHANGE?

In the 1960’s after Vatican II was convened, the Roman Catholic Church made some sweeping reforms that attempted to
bridge the gap between Catholicism and Protestantism. The Sacrifice of the Mass could now be offered in the local language
instead of in Latin. Catholics were no longer forbidden to read a Protestant Bible or attend a Protestant church service. The
priest now faced the congregation at an altar instead of having his back to them. There were no longer just old Catholic hymns
and responses sung. Now up-beat folk songs were allowed.

But notice what did not change. There is still the mandatory priest who stands at a mandatory altar, still offering Jesus up as
an eternal victim at the Sacrifice of the Mass. The crucifix with Christ still on the Cross is ever-present. Yes, Catholics can now
read a Protestant Bible but no private interpretation is allowed and only the magesterium’s interpretation is permitted. There
are still novenas(nine-day prayer vigils) and rosaries offered to Mary, who is still co-Redeemer, co-Mediatrix, Queen of
Heaven. The Pope is still considered to be infallible, even when his encyclicals contradict the Bible. Tradition is still given equal
ranking with Scripture. The adoration of the wafer – not of Jesus – still continues at Catholic Communion, as does the priest’s
ability by means of transubstantiation to transform the bread and wine into the living Body and Blood of Jesus. Some things
changed, but not one fundamental doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church changed at all.

Vatican II is thought by most Catholics and non-Catholics to have changed centuries-old doctrines of the Catholic Church,
especially those that evangelical Christians were troubled by. As has been seen, however, this is not the case.

“It fact it reaffirmed the canons and decrees of previous key councils: ‘This sacred council accepts loyally the venerable faith of
our ancestors…and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, of the Council of Florence (purgatory) and
of the Council of Trent (masses said for the dead , papal infallibility, Catholic sacraments necessary for salvation)’ (Austin
Flannery, Vol. 1, p.412). The Council of Trent denounced the Reformation and damned evangelicals’ beliefs with more than
100 anathemas. All of these condemnations of the gospel of God’s grace are endorsed and reaffirmed by Vatican II” (Dave
Hunt: A Woman Rides the Beast).

(excerpt follows from T.A.McMahon’s tract Why It Matters, Part I):

“The following citations are from the Council of Trent, which met over a nineteen-year period primarily to denounce the
teachings of the Protestant Reformation. Although the Council met in the sixteenth century, its decrees were reaffirmed by both
Vatican I & II. Consider Catholicism’s position on what evangelicals uphold as the gospel (that is, salvation is by grace through
faith alone in Christ alone who, through His sacrificial death on the cross, paid the full penalty for all the sins of humanity):

6th Session, Canon 9: If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate
in order to obtain the grace of justification…let him be anathema (accursed, eternally condemned).

6th Session, Canon 12: If anyone shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy, which remits
sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.

6th Session, Canon 30: If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of
eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either
in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.

7th Session, Canon 4: If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law [canons and decrees of the Church] are not
necessary for salvation but…without them…men obtain from God alone through faith alone the grace of justification, let him be
anathema.

As the above decrees demand, Roman Catholicism requires more than faith in Christ for salvation…The clear denunciation of
the Biblical gospel by the Council of Trent, with its more than 100 anathemas, and reaffirmations by the Second Vatican
Council of the 1960’s, comes from the highest Roman Catholic authority (College of Cardinals and the Pope)…Few lay
Catholics are familiar with the Code of Canon Law, containing more than 1,750 laws which dictate Church rules and practice.
(Yet these rules and practices must be obeyed in order for a Catholic to be considered a Catholic by that Church).

(Since Vatican II) Rome has donned evangelical apparel and added some biblical accessories (although her unbiblical salvation
remains the same). (Seemingly), her goal has been to seduce evangelical Christians into believing that Roman Catholicism is
proclaiming the same gospel and the same Jesus…

(Yet it might be asked) Haven’t the modifications instituted by Vatican II, the ecumenical dialogues with evangelical
denominations and the ‘Evangelicals and Catholics Together’ accord at least demonstrated that the Roman Catholic Church is
indeed changing and becoming more biblical? Augustin Cardinal Bea, president at the time of the Vatican Secretariat for
Promoting Christian Unity, makes clear Rome’s intentions:

‘The Roman Catholic Church would be gravely misunderstood if it should be concluded that her present ecumenical
adventuresomeness and openness meant that she was prepared to reexamine any of her fixed dogmatic positions. What the
Church is prepared to do is take…a more imaginative and contemporary presentation of these fixed positions’” (excerpt
ended).

OUR RESPONSIBILITY

Our greatest responsibility is to pray and to do so with deep compassion and love. When we share these truths with Catholics,
we must do so with a tenderness of spirit for unless the truth is told with love they will not be able to receive it. We do not need
to come to them with “lofty words of eloquence or persuasiveness of human wisdom…(we need only share) Jesus Christ, the
Messiah, and Him crucified “ (1Cor 2: 1-4).

If we, or any organization, continue to call Catholics Christians, the true gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ alone will never
be presented to those deceived Catholics, nor will born-again Catholics ever know the truth of Catholicism. They will perish. In
Christian love must we not draw the line between what is true Christianity and what is not? To continue to accept Catholics as
Christians is not the love of God Who wishes all to be saved and come unto a knowledge of the truth (1 Ti 2:4).

The purpose of this paper was simply to make the truth known. The love that will be needed to share it can come only from
prayerful time with the Lord. He has a deep burden for those caught in the web of the Catholic Church. As we pray He will
share that burden with us that we may share His love and truth with them.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

BOOKS:

All Roads Lead to Rome by Michael de Semlyen
The Gospel According to Rome by James G. McCarthy
Protestants and Catholics: Do They Now Agree? By John Ankerberg and John Weldon
The Secrets of Romanism by Joseph Zacchello
The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop
A Woman Rides the Beast by Dave Hunt

WEB SITES and MINISTRIES:

http://www.pro-gospel.org Mike Gendron, Proclaiming the Gospel P.O. Box 940871 Plano, TX 75094.
e-mail: ptg@pro-gospel.org
http://www.gnfc.org
http://www.reachingcatholics.org/articles.html

Barbara Wilhelm

bumperjack
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1062
Joined: March 9th, 2014, 10:38 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Hawaii
What city do you live in now?: Honalulu

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by bumperjack » January 26th, 2015, 3:23 pm

Are Bishops the Only Accurate Interpreters of God's Word?
Mike Gendron
Two friends recently returned from a Catholic Apologetics Conference where they learned how to defend and explain the Catholic faith. Upon their return they were invited to an evangelical Bible Study but declined, saying that only the Magisterium of the Catholic Church can interpret the Bible accurately. Wow! What a way to maintain control over Catholics! Tell them no one else has the authority to interpret Scripture except their own Bishops.
This brings to mind a Catholic named Rose who heard the Gospel through our ministry and trusted Jesus as her all-sufficient Savior. Convinced she had to leave her church, she asked me to go with her to tell her priest. I welcomed the opportunity, not wanting to give the adversary an opportunity to pluck the imperishable seed from her heart. So, I asked her priest to explain to Rose what she had to do to enter heaven. He responded that she must be baptized, receive the sacraments, attend Mass every week, do good works, obey the commandments, and die without any "mortal" sins. I then asked him to open his Bible to the book of Romans and to read several key verses out loud. When he finished reading, I asked him to reconcile what God’s word said with what he told Rose. Now the priest knew why I was there. He became defensive and appeared irritated. Each time he tried to reconcile the Bible with Catholic teaching, I gently confronted him with another verse that exposed his error. Finally he threw up his hands and said in frustration, "Look, I don’t have the authority to interpret the Bible. We rely on the Magisterium to interpret it for us."

After Rose and I left his office, I opened my Bible to what the apostle Paul wrote: "by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God" (2 Cor. 4:2). Rose then understood that Paul was presenting the Scriptures to everyone for their own interpretation and accountability to God. She knew Paul did not write to a Magisterium or grant anyone sole authority to interpret the Bible. Rose knew she had made the right decision to leave the Roman Catholic Church, which had deceived her on the critical issue of her salvation.

Since we will all be held accountable for knowing God’s word, we must be sure we use good principles of interpretation (hermeneutics). This is because, historically, men have twisted and distorted God’s word for selfish ambition and power (Micah 3:9, Ps. 55:4-5; Gal. 1:7; 2 Pet. 3:16). Paul said man-imposed religions may have an appearance of wisdom but their commandments and teachings only keep people in legalistic bondage and have no value (Col. 2:20-23). He exhorted us not to base our faith on the persuasive words of human wisdom but on the power of God manifested in His word (1 Cor. 2:5; Rom. 1:16). Only by abiding in God’s word and knowing the truth can captives be set free from religion (John 8:31-32).

We have biblical examples of how religious leaders became corrupt and led people away from the truth. Jesus condemned the leaders of God’s chosen people with seven woes in the 23rd chapter of Matthew. They were soundly rebuked for shutting off the kingdom of heaven from men who were entering, for making their converts sons of hell and for hiding their self-indulgence and uncleanness with external righteousness. Jesus called them serpents and a brood of vipers and questioned how they thought they would escape the sentence of hell. This is why the psalmist says, "It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man." (Psalm 118:8).

The things that condemned the Jewish leaders are similar to the practices that have brought condemnation to the Roman Catholic religion today. The Catholic clergy stands condemned because they shut off the kingdom of heaven with a gospel other than the one Paul preached (Gal. 1:6-9). Accordingly, "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom. 1:18). Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, God has given them over to degrading passions and depraved minds to perform indecent acts as the due penalty for their error (Rom. 1:25-28). The number of reported pedophiles, homosexuals and rapists within the Roman Catholic clergy has grown to epidemic proportions. For centuries many Cardinals, bishops and priests hid their sexual sins, cover-ups and crimes under robes of self-righteousness. Only recently have their atrocities been exposed.

To paraphrase the words of the Apostle John, "They say they have fellowship with Jesus, yet walk in the darkness, thus they lie and do not practice the truth" (1 John 1:6). It is indeed incredulous how Catholics continue to blindly trust their Bishops for spiritual truth after observing their depraved judgment in reassigning pedophiles to prey on more vulnerable children. These clergymen are incapable of making accurate spiritual judgments. Paul said we are to avoid such men who have a form of godliness but are unholy, arrogant, brutal and without self-control (2 Tim. 3:2-5).

Roman Catholics must be persuaded to study the Bible for themselves and not to rely exclusively on what their priests and bishops teach them. To blindly trust fallible men for their eternal destiny is utterly foolish. To replace Jesus Christ with any other mediator leaves people open to deception. The Bible warns its readers over and over again that man cannot be trusted. "Let God be true, and every man a liar" (Rom. 3:4). Scripture must be our final court of appeal for correcting and reproving those who misinterpret, twist or distort the word of God (2 Tim. 3:15-16). The Bible is what God says. Religion is what man says God says.

Another example of how the actions and influence of fallible men can divert people from the truth is the Apostle Peter. In a public confrontation, Paul opposed Peter to his face because he was "not straightforward about the truth of the Gospel" (Gal. 2:11-14). Peter’s actions were causing Barnabas and the Jews to join him in his hypocrisy. Paul used the authority of God’s word to correct Peter. Once again we see that if an apostle can err in matters of faith, we must test every teaching with the infallible word of God. We also see from this example that Peter was not infallible, as the Roman Catholic Church would have you believe.

The Lord said, "Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind…for he will be like a bush in the desert and will not see when prosperity comes, but will live in stony wastes in the wilderness, a land of salt without inhabitant" (Jeremiah 15:5-6). What a vivid picture of those who trust what man says God says instead of what God says. The Lord Jesus said, "Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able" (Luke 13:24). We must strive by searching the Scriptures to test every teaching. Why? Because many wolves, [false teachers] dressed up in sheep’s clothing, are pointing people to the wide road that leads to destruction. The only way we can know who is telling the truth is by challenging every teaching with God’s word.

Many Catholics point to the early church fathers in an attempt to give credence to unbiblical, post apostolic traditions such as the sacrifice of the Mass, purgatory and indulgences. But some of these church fathers may be the very men Paul warned us about when he wrote, "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock, and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears" (Acts 20:29-31). The church fathers must be tested using the plumb line of Scripture just as Paul, himself, was tested in Berea.

Paul commended the Bereans for using Scripture to verify the veracity of his teaching. "They received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true" (Acts 17:11). Here is an apostle, who wrote over half the New Testament, being held accountable to Scripture. This should be an exhortation for all of us to carefully challenge the teachings of every teacher! Every preacher, teacher, pastor, pope and priest should come under the same type of scrutiny. Don’t miss the fact that it was the lay people of the church who were individually responsible to interpret and test Paul’s teaching in the light of God’s word. We must all be good Bereans and reject any teaching not in harmony with Scripture.

In conclusion, it is clear that the Scriptures were written for individuals, not to a Magisterium or a group of clergymen. Many of the epistles were written to all the saints (Christians) at different churches. John wrote his gospel to all people, persuading them to believe in the person and finished work of Jesus Christ (John 20:31). His first epistle was written to all believers in Christ to give them assurance of eternal life (1 John 5:13). The Bible never directs us to another man, another book or another authority to interpret the Scriptures for us. For Catholics to rely on the Magisterium to interpret God’s message of love would be like relying on a stranger to interpret a personal letter from a loved one. God’s message of love, mercy and grace is not too difficult to understand. He does not try to confuse anyone who seeks Him through His word. The Gospel is so simple that children can understand it, yet so profound that theologians spend an entire lifetime trying to grasp the infinite riches of God’s amazing grace.

All are called to obey Christ’s first command, "repent and believe the Gospel" (Mark 1:15). Jesus proclaimed His Gospel with profound clarity, "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" (John 3:36). Those who believe the Magisterium have not believed Jesus. They are disobeying Christ by going through other mediators (John 14:6; 1 Tim. 2:5). In fact, until one turns to Jesus Christ, there is a veil that blinds them from the truth of the Gospel (2 Cor. 4:3). Only by turning from the teachings and traditions of men to Christ and His word will the veil be taken away (2 Cor. 3:16).



Reaching Catholics For Christ
P.O. Box 7019
Bend, OR 977

bumperjack
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1062
Joined: March 9th, 2014, 10:38 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Hawaii
What city do you live in now?: Honalulu

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by bumperjack » January 26th, 2015, 3:25 pm

The Most Trustworthy Authority
Mike Gendron
Possibly, the most important decision we all make in this life is choosing which authority to trust for our eternal destiny. We can be wrong about a lot of things in this life and still survive, but if we are wrong about that decision we will pay for it throughout eternity. The decision requires diligent study since every religion has an authority—a person, a book, an experience or a combination of all three. But there is a supreme authority that has no equal.
The Bible has no equal because it is the most authoritative, perfect, influential and powerful book ever written. God chose forty men to pen His word "as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21). His word is the standard by which we discern truth from error because it is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18; 1 John 4:6). God has exalted His Word above all things, even equal to His holy name (Psalm 138:2). The Lord Jesus used the power and authority of the Scriptures to rebuke Satan (Matthew 4). The Bible does not refer to any other rule of faith because everything that one must know, understand and believe to become a Christian is found in the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:14-16; 1 Cor. 15:1-4). Therefore, after considering each source of authority we must ask, "But what does the Scripture say?" (Galatians 4:30).

The Bible’s supreme authority is established by its divine origin. The Bible is the only book that can claim all of the following characteristics:

• Prophecy—It foretells the future with great precision and detail.

• Influence—Abundant evidence of radically changed lives throughout human history.

• Unity—It describes one complex drama from eternity to eternity.

• Indestructibility—It has withstood continuous attacks and intense scrutiny.

• God Inspired—The only religious book that gives solid proof of its divine inspiration.

• Freedom—The only book that has power to set people free from bondage.

• Popularity—It is the most circulated and translated book in history (1800 languages).

• Character—40 authors from all walks of life, spanning 1500 years and 3 continents.

• Reliability—Its historical, geographical and cultural references agree with external evidence.

The Bible is the most unique book ever written. No other religious book dares to predict the future. When the Bible was written, over 30% of the Scriptures foretold future prophetic events. There are extensive prophecies dealing with nations and cities, all of which have been literally fulfilled. Over half of these prophecies have been fulfilled in the precise time and manner as predicted. Jesus Christ fulfilled three hundred prophecies at His first coming, and many more will be fulfilled at His Second Coming. Only a book inspired by God, Who alone knows the end from the beginning, could foretell the future with 100% accuracy. We see seven characteristics of the Bible from the following verses:

All your words are true (Psalm 119:160).

…from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,… (2 Tim. 3:15-16).

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart (Hebrews 4:12).

We have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:19-21).

The Apostle Paul commended the Berean Church for using Scriptures to verify the truthfulness of his teaching. Since an apostle, who penned over half the New Testament came under the scrutiny of the Scriptures, we must hold all religious teachers to the same accountability.

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true (Acts 17:11).

The Catholic Church recognizes the Bible as a sacred book, but not as the sole and final authority for truth. Its tradition and teaching authority are said to be equal in authority. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states, "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God has been entrusted to the living teaching office (the Magisterium) of the Church alone" (para. 85). All Catholics are required to comply with all the teachings of their Magisterium (para. 88). Thus Catholics are commanded to trust a group of fallible men to interpret the Word of God for them. Were the Scriptures given to a select group of men (Magisterium) to interpret or to every man?

Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God (2 Cor. 4:2).

The Catholic Church teaches that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus would build His church. They base this doctrine on a misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18 where Jesus said, "You are Peter (petros—stone) and on this rock (petra—mass of rock) I will build my church." However, the Greek word "petra" is feminine and therefore is not normal to use it in reference to the masculine Peter. Jesus did not say, "Upon thee I will build my church." Peter knew, without a doubt, that Jesus was not referring to him as "the rock" because in one of his epistles he proclaimed Jesus as "the rock" (1 Peter 2:6-8). "Petra" probably refers to Peter’s confession of faith after Jesus asked him, "Who do you say I am." Furthermore, it was James, not Peter, who presided over the first Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:13, 19). And it was the apostles who sent Peter to preach, rather than Peter sending them to proclaim Christ (Acts 8:14). The apostle Paul also referred to Jesus as the rock: "they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ" (1 Cor. 10:4).

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus gave Peter and his successors supreme authority over the church when He offered them the keys to the kingdom (Matt. 16:19). However, all born-again Christians are his successors and possess the keys. The Gospel is clearly the only key that has the power to open the gates of heaven. Peter first opened heaven by proclaiming the Gospel to the Jews (Acts 2:14), then the Gentiles (Acts 15:7, 14). It is only by believing the Gospel that people are loosed from their sins. Anyone who rejects the gospel remains bound in sin.

I am not ashamed of the Gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile (Rom. 1:16).

The Catholic Church declares its popes are infallible when speaking "ex cathedra" in matters of faith and morals, but are they really? There have been numerous accounts of popes contradicting each other’s proclamations. When we look at the life of Peter, whom Catholics believe was their first pope, we see clearly that he was not infallible.

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.… The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?" (Gal. 2:11-14).

Jesus never established the papacy or a hierarchy of authority that we see within the Roman Catholic Church. In fact he instructed the apostles to avoid ruling the church this way.

Jesus said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant" (Matt. 20:25-26).

The Sacred Scriptures give numerous warnings against trusting men rather than God and His word.

This is what the Lord says: "Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord. He will be like a bush in the wastelands…But blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, whose confidence is in Him" (Jeremiah 17:5-7).

It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man (Psalm 118:8).

Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save (Ps. 146:3-5).

The Roman Church teaches Scripture and tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion, reverence and authority (CCC, para. 82 and 95). Yet God’s word clearly warns against trusting the traditions of men.

Jesus, said, "They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men. You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that" (Mark 7:7-8,13)

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ (Col. 2:8).

Most Roman Catholic traditions have developed and evolved over the last 1600 years such as Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Assumption into heaven, papal infallibility, purgatory, and indulgences. Since none of these were apostolic traditions taught in the first century, they are to be rejected. Any tradition that opposes God’s word must be rejected. The only traditions Christians are to hold onto are those which were once delivered to the saints in the first century.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us (2 Thes. 2:15).

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

In conclusion, there is no greater authority than God and His Word. His word is pure, perfect, inerrant, infallible, living, sure, truth, light, holy, eternal, forever settled in heaven, and will exist even when heaven and earth pass away. It illuminates, cleanses, saves, frees, guides, converts, heals, quickens, judges, and sanctifies. It also brings conviction, gives knowledge, gives wisdom, produces faith, refutes error, searches the heart, equips for every good work, and is used as a weapon. God’s word reigns supreme!



Reaching Catholics For Christ
P.O. Box 7019
Bend, OR 9770

bumperjack
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1062
Joined: March 9th, 2014, 10:38 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Hawaii
What city do you live in now?: Honalulu

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by bumperjack » January 26th, 2015, 3:31 pm

Silent: here are some things to think about and read brother dont take none of this personal because its not the intensions of this writer to show Nothing but his views and Love of Christ he has studied beyond my understanding, bu it is also what I believe also to be the truth.
Be Ready To Give A Defense
Mike Gendron
As Christians, we need to be always ready to give a defense to everyone who asks for the reason of our hope in Christ Jesus (1 Peter 3:15). Since I am an evangelist working in the white fields for harvest in the Roman Catholic Church, I often receive emotional letters from Catholics who challenge me about my faith in Jesus. Following are several letters from Catholics and the defense I gave them for my faith in Christ Jesus.

I am a Catholic who is well educated with a minor in theology. You know nothing of Catholicism except the lies you have been taught. You are the one who is deceived. Christ founded my Church, a human founded yours. You are unable to interpret the scriptures properly because you are prejudiced by the Protestant Tradition (invented in the 1500’s). The Catholic Church doesn’t teach salvation is by good works or adhering to a religious system. This is a lie that you were told. You may be surprised, but the main function of the pope is to insure that nothing is added or deleted from both the Bible (written Tradition) and Oral Tradition. The Catholic Church is the only church which takes the Bible seriously. I’m sorry that you’ve been so brainwashed with your Protestant traditions that you refuse to submit to the teachings of the Bible. Catholics wrote the Bible. It’s obvious you don’t take the Bible seriously, because if you did, it would bring you into the Catholic Church. Either the Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ or it is the Whore of Babylon. It cannot be somewhere in between. I trust in God, you trust in men. In Christ Jesus and Mary, D.R.

Personal bias and prejudice are difficult to set aside when one’s religious faith is involved. Accordingly, we must examine all the facts objectively. We must be careful what we accept as truth. My knowledge of Catholicism comes from its official teachings. From your comments, I wonder if you have read the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. In paragraph 1821 we read, "each one of us should hope...to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ." According to the Bible, heaven is not a reward but a gift, and it is by grace through faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9). In fact, when you mix works with grace as your Catechism teaches, grace is no longer grace (Romans 11:6). You are correct, Rome has always taught salvation by grace alone, but Catholic grace is not true grace. God’s grace is unmerited. It does not flow from the side of Christ, through the hands of Mary, through the sacraments administered by Catholic priests as your church teaches. It is not earned as described in paragraph 2027, "We can merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed to attain eternal life." If the Pope’s main function is to insure nothing is deleted from the Bible, how do you explain his approval to delete the 2nd Commandment of God from page 496 of the new Catechism? When I took the Bible seriously I left the Catholic Church, never to return to a system which deceives its people concerning the most critical issue of their lives—how can sinners be reconciled to a holy God.

There are millions of Christians who interpret scriptures differently than you do. Who is right? Who has the real truth? Saying that you are right & the rest of the world’s Christians are wrong is not acceptable. M.L.

I have never said I am right. In fact I never ask people to believe as I believe, but to believe only what God has revealed through His written word. I point people to the Scriptures which are able to make them wise unto salvation. As the Holy Spirit illuminates their minds and hearts they will find the narrow road that leads to eternal life (Matthew 7:13-14).

Where in the Catechism does it say that Catholics need the sacraments to get to heaven? I am trying hard to understand your motives for lying. Every time you attack and claim that my church is anti biblical you are showing your ignorance. The bible is the corner stone of our religious education, and our spiritual lives. How would Jesus look upon you and your followers? You are spending your time creating a rift with fellow Christians. Why do you continue to lie about the Catholic Church? I will continue to pray for you and hope that you see the light. I pray that you will stop spreading untruths and hurt and start really doing God’s will. S. S.

Paragraph 1129 of your new Catechism states, "The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the Covenant are necessary for salvation." In paragraph 1257, it further states: "Baptism is necessary for salvation… the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude." Many Catholics do not know what their Catechism teaches. Roman Catholicism is a very complex religion which attempts to control its people with obligatory sacraments and rituals. If you desire to be a disciple of Jesus, do as He says. Abide in His Word! Only then will you know the truth which will set you free from the bondage of deception. Repented sinners are "justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus [not sacraments]; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith" (Romans 3:24-25). Be obedient to the Scriptures and withdraw yourself from the Catholic clergy who teach doctrines contrary to the words of Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 6:3-5).

Jesus said that He came to build His Church. Which one of the 23,000 Protestant churches do you think He was talking about? Protestants say that they only need the Bible and yet you all believe differently. How is that unity? Dawn

The church Jesus established is made up of all who have been called by the Father and sealed by the Holy Spirit upon repenting and believing the glorious Gospel of grace. They are called saints because He has saved them completely, having obtained their eternal redemption by shedding His blood to purge away their sins. They were baptized by one Spirit into one body, which is the church. The physical building where people worship or their denominational affiliation does not determine membership in the true church. Accordingly there are many people within Catholic and Protestant churches who profess Christ but have never experienced the second birth. Everyone born of God believes the same Gospel. All believers of Jesus Christ are united in God’s Gospel.

Christians do good works, just like Catholics, so what is the difference? I need to get this issue straight. Faith with no works is "useless" (James 2:20) and "dead" (James 2:17), so why we do God’s work? When are good works not for salvation but as a reason to be further justified? E.C.

The difference is found in Ephesians 2:10. Those who have been born of God will do works God has prepared for them. Prior to being born again and justified, sinners are spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1). Therefore any righteous works are done in the flesh and not in the Spirit and are filthy rags in God’s sight (Isaiah 64:6). James is addressing those who profess Christ, but their lack of evidence (works) indicate they may not really possess Christ. The Bible teaches that justification = Faith + nothing, whereas Roman Catholicism teaches justification = faith + works. No one can add to Christ’s perfect work of redemption. Any attempt to do so nullifies God’s grace. Once Jesus saves us we do the works God has prepared for us out of love and appreciation and to glorify our Father in heaven. Christians do works because Jesus has saved them. The new Catholic Catechism teaches that Catholics do works to merit their salvation.

Since born-again Christians "evangelize" Catholics, why shouldn’t the Catholic Church also "evangelize" or "steal sheep" away from those Christians who claim to be born-again? If Catholics can become Christians, can Christians become Catholics? E. C.

According to John, chapter 10, when any lost sheep, no matter what church or religion they are in, hears the voice of the Good Shepherd they will follow Him. They hear His voice when His Gospel is proclaimed. The Good Shepherd protects His flock from sheep stealers. As long as Christians continue receiving spiritual food from Him through His word, they will never follow the voice of a robber or a thief trying to steal them away. A Catholic can become a Christian when the true shepherd calls, but a Christian following Christ will never follow the voice of a stranger whose deceptive motive is to capture and hold in bondage.

I know that Jesus would not want me bashing other religions, but rather to seek to understand and to love our fellow brothers on earth with respect for what they stand for. Jesus would not want us fighting amongst ourselves, but rather living out his word. Spreading untruths and hurting others by insulting their faith is the work of the devil. E. K.

How well do you know Jesus of the Bible? Have you read that Jesus came to earth "not to bring peace, but a sword... to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother?" (Mat. 10:34-36). Disciples of Jesus will rebuke false religious leaders as He did. Have you read the terrible rebukes Jesus gave to the false teachers in Matthew 23:13-36? Did you know that God hates what is false (Psalm 119:104)? Christians are also to hate what is false (Prov. 13:5) The doctrines of the Mass, purgatory and indulgences are not only false, they rob Christ of His glory and devalue His precious blood which was shed to purify sin. Until you come to the Jesus of the Scriptures with a broken and contrite heart, you may never find the narrow gate that leads to eternal life.



Reaching Catholics For Christ
P.O. Box 7019

bumperjack
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1062
Joined: March 9th, 2014, 10:38 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Hawaii
What city do you live in now?: Honalulu

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by bumperjack » January 27th, 2015, 7:33 am

"Sola Scriptura"?
James McCarthy
Today, even as in the time of the Reformation, thousands of Catholics worldwide are leaving Roman Catholicism for biblical Christianity. And once again, the rallying cry of the sixteenth century, Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone, is being heard.

Roman Catholic defenders have responded to this challenge by going on the offensive. A typical argument sounds something like this:

The Bible cannot be the sole rule of faith, because the first Christians didn’t have the New Testament. Initially, Tradition, the oral teachings of the apostles, was the Church’s rule of faith. The New Testament came later when a portion of Tradition was put to writing. It was the Roman Catholic Church that produced the New Testament, and it was the Church that infallibly told us what books belong in the Bible. It is the Church, therefore, that is the authoritative teacher of Scripture. Sola Scriptura is not even taught in the Bible. The rule of faith of the Roman Catholic Church, therefore, is rightly Scripture and Tradition together.

Christians confronted with such arguments should keep the following points in mind:

Christians have never been without the Scriptures as their rule of faith.
The unforgettable experience of two early disciples shows the fallacy of thinking that the first Christians were ever without Scripture as their rule of faith. Three days after the crucifixion, two of Jesus’ disciples were walking home. A fellow traveler, whom they took for a stranger, joined them along the way. The conversation quickly turned to the events that had just taken place in Jerusalem. With deep sorrow, the disciples told the story of how the chief priests and rulers of the nation had sentenced Jesus to death and had Him crucified by the civil authorities.

To the disciples’ shock, the stranger rebuked them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!" (Luke 24:25, NIV). Then beginning with Moses and proceeding through the prophets, the stranger explained to them the truths concerning Jesus in the Old Testament Scriptures.

Eventually the two disciples realized that their fellow traveler was no stranger at all but the Lord Jesus Himself! Later they recalled, "Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?" (Luke 24:32).

The experience of those two early disciples was not unique. With the Holy Spirit’s coming at Pentecost, and with the aid of the apostles’ teaching, Jewish Christians rediscovered their own Scriptures. Their common conviction was that the Old Testament, properly understood, was a revelation of Christ. There they found a prophetic record of Jesus’ life, teaching, death, and resurrection.

The Old Testament Scriptures served as the standard of truth for the infant church, Jew and Gentile alike. Within a short time, the New Testament Scriptures took their place alongside those of the Old Testament. Consequently, the early church was never without the written Word of God.

Scripture is not simply written Tradition.
Roman Catholic descriptions of the origin of the New Testament stress that the oral teachings of the apostles, Tradition, preceded the written record of those teachings, Scripture. Often the New Testament is presented as little more than a written record of Tradition, the writer’s recollections, and a partial explanation of Christ’s teaching. This, of course, elevates Tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture—or, more precisely, drops Scripture to the level of Tradition.

But the New Testament Scriptures are much more than a written record of the oral teaching of the apostles; they are an inspired record. A biblical understanding of inspiration makes clear the significance of this distinction. Peter writes,

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20-21 (NIV)

Here we see that Scripture is not "the prophet’s own interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20, NIV). The word translated "interpretation" means to solve or to explain. Peter is saying that no writer of the New Testament simply recorded his own explanation of what he had heard Jesus teach and had seen Him do. Scripture does not have "its origin in the will of man" (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). The writers of the Bible did not decide that they would write a prophetic record or what would be included in Scripture. Rather, they were "carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21, NIV).

The word translated here "carried along" is found in the New Testament in Mark 2:3. There it is used with reference to the paralytic whose friends carried him to Jesus for healing. Just as the paralytic did not walk by his own power, a true prophet does not write by his own impulse. He is "carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Men wrote the New Testament; "men spoke" (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Their writings reflect their individual personalities and experiences. But these "men spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:21). Men wrote but God was the author.

For these reasons, Scripture is revelation perfectly communicated in God-given words:

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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NKJV)

The phrase "inspired by God" is the translation of a compound term made up of the words God and to breathe. The verse can be translated: "All Scripture is God-breathed. . . " (2 Timothy 3:16, NIV). Scripture is therefore rightly called the Word of God.

In reducing Scripture to simply written Tradition, Catholic proponents are able to boost the importance of Tradition. But in doing so, they distort the meaning of inspiration and minimize the primary difference between Scripture and Tradition.

The Bible contains all essential revelation.
It is true that the New Testament does not contain a record of everything that Jesus did. John makes this clear in the conclusion of his gospel:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written. John 21:25

John’s point in concluding his gospel with this comment was to acknowledge that the life of the Lord Jesus was far too wonderful to be fully contained in any book. He was not commenting on the general purpose of Scripture or the need for Tradition. Neither was he implying that he had left out of his book essential revelation received from Christ. Indeed, earlier in his gospel, John implies the opposite:

Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. John 20:30-31

We can infer from this statement that John included in his gospel all the essential teachings of Christ necessary for salvation. Significantly, he makes no reference to seven sacraments, the Sacrifice of the Mass, sanctifying grace, penance, purgatory, or an institution such as the Roman Catholic Church—all necessary for salvation according to Roman Catholicism.

The Scriptures achieve their stated purpose: "that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:17 NIV). They are the perfect guide to the Christian faith. Unlike Tradition, the Scriptures are accessible and open to all. Translations of the entire Bible have been made into the primary languages of the world, 276 in total. It is the most widely distributed and read book in all of history.

To define Roman Catholic Tradition as a font of extra-biblical revelation is to add to God’s Word. Scripture warns us "not to exceed what is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6). "Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar" (Proverbs 30:6). The last book of the New Testament ends with this solemn warning:

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19

At question is the authority of Tradition, not Scripture.
There are hundreds of verses in the Bible establishing the truth that the Word of God is the church’s sufficient and supreme rule of faith. Psalm 119 alone dedicates 176 verses to the unparalleled value of God’s Word. The Lord Jesus taught:

Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4

Though Scriptures can be multiplied on this theme, it is not necessary to do so. The Roman Catholic Church agrees that the Bible teaches that the Word of God is the supreme rule of faith and that all theology must rest upon it. There is no question as to the sufficiency or authority of the Word of God.

The controversy revolves around the identity of God’s Word. Namely, is the Word of God Scripture and Tradition? Or, is the Word of God Scripture alone?

In the ongoing debate, Roman Catholic proponents enjoy taking the offensive by challenging non-Catholics to prove that God intended that the Scriptures alone were to serve as the church’s rule of faith. "Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?" they demand.

Though this tactic is effective in putting their opponents on the defensive, it is in fact misleading. Both sides agree that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that as such they speak with divine authority. The Lord Jesus Himself, in John 10:35, clearly identifies the Word of God as Scripture.

The point of controversy is Tradition. The Roman Catholic Church asserts that Tradition is also the Word of God.

The question which the Roman Catholic Church must answer, therefore, is: Where does Jesus, the prophets, or the apostles teach that Tradition is the Word of God? Or, more precisely: Where in the Bible can it be found that Scripture and Tradition together, as interpreted by the pope and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, are to be the church’s rule of faith? This is what Roman Catholicism is really asserting and should be the topic of debate. And since the Roman Catholic Church is the one asserting the authority of Tradition and the Magesterium, the burden of proof lies with Rome.

Adapted from The Gospel According to Rome (Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, 1995).

i. Compare: Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation," no. 19
ii. Patrick Johnstone, Operation World (Grand Rapids, MIchigan: Zondervan, 1993), p. 22
iii. Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation," no. 21 a

bumperjack
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1062
Joined: March 9th, 2014, 10:38 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Hawaii
What city do you live in now?: Honalulu

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by bumperjack » January 27th, 2015, 7:36 am

Silent all this is for you to take a look at hopefully it will open your eyes a little wider with L&R BJ
Examine Yourself! Are You in the Faith?
Mike Gendron

Many Catholics are known to have an unyielding strong and impregnable faith. They stubbornly refuse to be swayed by any teaching that is not endorsed by their church. Even lapsed Catholics who have not been to church in years will come to the defense of their church whenever it is criticized. Most Catholics exhibit more trust and loyalty to their church than to Jesus. Is this the right kind of faith? From the Scriptures we see there are two kinds of faith—a faith that effects salvation and a false or spurious faith that leaves its adherents condemned. When we compare Roman Catholicism to Scriptures we see two gospels preached, two roads to eternity with only two destinations. So the inescapable question is: "How can anyone know if they have true faith and have believed the true Gospel?"
The apostle Paul provides the answer in the form of an exhortation: "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! (2 Cor. 13:5). Ever since Paul first penned those words many false teachers have been leading people away from "the faith" which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians he pleaded with them to be aware of false teachers who were perverting the faith, the very gospel which he preached to them, and which they received, and in which they stand. Paul warned them they must hold fast to the word he preached, otherwise they would have believed in vain.

So how are we to test ourselves? What tests can we employ to see if our faith is genuine or spurious? First we can examine the source and object of our faith. If faith is genuine its exclusive source will be the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). This type of faith forsakes all that does not conform with the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:15-16). If faith is genuine the object can only be the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12). The eternal Son of God who sovereignly secured the salvation of His people by satisfying all the demands of God’s holy law, then laying His life down as a Substitute for sinners who come to Him with empty hands of faith. To trust Jesus for salvation is to forsake all other efforts and means to save oneself.

The faith of Catholics rarely pass these two critical tests. More often than not they have the wrong sources. The Catholic faith relies heavily on extra-biblical sources such as Catechisms, infallible dogmas, new papal revelations, apparitions or man-made traditions which are inconsistent with the profoundly theological and resolutely historical Gospel. The object of most Catholics’ faith is not Jesus alone. In fact, Jesus is seldom mentioned when Catholics are asked how they hope to get to heaven. To a greater extent Catholics trust their church and their priests to dispense all the graces needed for salvation. Seldom is their faith "alone" because good works, sacraments, and personal righteousness are necessary for Catholic salvation.

Four other indicators of spurious faith would be evident when Catholics: 1) desire Christ only as a Priest to procure pardon and peace, but not as a Prophet to instruct them or as a King to rule over them; 2) desire to be saved from the punishment of sin, but not from sin itself; 3) desire the blessings of Christ, but not a relationship with Him; 4) reject many of Christ’s promises because they go against their traditions.

The New Testament gives several examples of non-saving faith. Jesus told us about temporary faith (Matt. 13:19). James wrote about dead faith (James 2:17). Paul warned against believing in vain (1 Cor. 15:2). Simon the Sorcerer believed and was even baptized but for the wrong motivation. He attempted to buy the grace of God in order to obtain miraculous power (Acts 8:9-24). Surely the most vivid example of spurious faith was given in the Sermon on the Mount. It is here the most sobering words that any professing Christian could ever hear are pronounced by Jesus: "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness." Jesus doesn’t say these words to pagans, Muslims or Hindus but to professing Christians who prophesied, cast out demons and performed miracles in His Name (Matt. 7:21-23). How terrifying it will be for Catholics, who thought they received Jesus through the Eucharist, to hear that He never knew them. How horrifying it will be for those who were baptized into a counterfeit Christianity to meet the Lord Jesus at the Great White Throne judgment instead of at the wedding feast of the Lamb.

Believing another gospel and trusting another Jesus also produces spurious faith (2 Cor. 11:4). The exclusivity of God’s gospel will not allow a person to be saved while believing another gospel. Catholics not only believe another gospel but also another Jesus who is not the Jesus of Scripture. The Catholic Jesus never finished the work of redemption. Instead He is immolated on Catholic altars over 200,000 times each day. He needs purgatory and indulgences to do what He was unable to do on Calvary’s cross—purify sins and pay the punishment for them. Whenever Jesus is not proclaimed in all His sufficiency another gospel is needed to make up for what the counterfeit Jesus was unable to accomplish.

Priests that preach another Jesus point people away from the narrow door that leads to life. Jesus said "Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able" (Luke 13:24). The Greek word for strive is "agonizomal" which means to wrestle, to make every effort to achieve the goal. The word implies there will be hindrances or obstacles to overcome. Here we see how great and powerful Satan and his instruments of deception are as they block the only door that leads to life (John 10:9). Those who desire to know Jesus must strive in their search and not be carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming (Eph. 4:14). They must diligently search the Scriptures and rely on the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit to discern the true way from the counterfeit way (1 Cor. 2:6-16). What a contrast this is to the easy way of salvation Rome promotes. "Get baptized and you are born of God!" Paradoxically, it is the easy way of baptism that causes so many to miss the true way of faith alone in Christ alone. The easy way becomes one of the obstacle sinners must overcome to enter the narrow door.

Baptismal regeneration is one of the many lies from the god of this world who has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4). He uses his false teachers and their religion to shut the kingdom of God from those trying to enter. Jesus said "woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from men; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in" (Matt. 23:13). Very few ever find the narrow gate. Jesus said: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it" (Matt. 7:13-14). Could the reason that very few ever find the narrow gate be because not many believers are pointing people to "the way, the truth and the life"?

When we examine ourselves we need to examine the source and object of our faith. We need to check which door we have gone through—the narrow or the wide, and which group we are in—the few or the many. It is easy to be deceived because both doors bear the same sign: "The only way to the Father." One door is the Lord Jesus while the other is a counterfeit Jesus cleverly crafted by Satan. The narrow way that leads to life is paved with divine accomplishment while the wide road is built with man’s achievement. One road has few travelers the other has many who have been deceived and do not even know it. Those on the narrow road have strived to enter it. They have humbled themselves under the Sovereign hand of God. They have mourned for their sins and hungered and thirsted for righteousness.

Those who have spurious faith think they have been saved by the will of man, cleansed by the water of baptism, convicted by the spirit of confirmation and believed the traditions and teachings of men. Those who have true faith have been saved by the will of God, cleansed by the blood of the Son of God, convicted by the Spirit of God and believed the Word of God.

bumperjack
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1062
Joined: March 9th, 2014, 10:38 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Hawaii
What city do you live in now?: Honalulu

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by bumperjack » January 27th, 2015, 7:41 am

Silent again some things for you to take a look at These writers really put it down one was a catholic for "35 years" they explain things way better than I can and basically really know both arguments very wel.l better than you or myself.
The Forsaking of Jesus Christ
Mike Gendron

Have you heard what Pope John Paul II has been saying about Jesus Christ? One of the reasons Roman Catholics are uncertain about their salvation is because of the deranged teaching that is coming out of the Vatican. The conflicting pronouncements of the pope are making him appear more and more like a double-minded man, unstable in all he does (James 1:8). While he consistently rejects the necessity and sufficiency of Jesus Christ as the Savior, he has been inconsistent on the role of the Roman Catholic Church’s in salvation. In less than 3 years, Pope John Paul has renounced the Word of God with three controversial declarations: 1) knowledge of Jesus Christ or His church is not necessary for salvation; 2) the Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation; 3) members of other religions can be saved even if Jesus Christ is not recognized as savior. Let us examine the pope’s well-documented statements in the light of Scripture.
The Vatican Information Service (VIS) reported what the Pope had to say on the Seeds of Truth in Non-Christian Religions:

"The Holy Father explained the Holy Spirit is mysteriously present in the heart of every person. Through the practice of what is good in their own religious traditions, and following the dictates of their consciences, members of other religions positively respond to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even though they may not recognize Him as their Savior." (VIS, 9/9/98)

Two years later, in his papal encyclical Dominus Iesus, John Paul denies the sufficiency of Christ by proclaiming the Roman Catholic Church is necessary and efficacious in saving the world:

"The Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation." It declares that: "God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity." (VIS, 9/6/00)

Three months later, the pope once again contradicts himself in message to a general audience at the Vatican:

"The Gospel teaches us that those who live in accordance with the Beatitudes–the poor in spirit, the pure of heart, those who bear lovingly the sufferings of life–will enter God’s Kingdom. All who seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ and his Church, contribute under the influence of grace to the building of this Kingdom." (VIS, 12/6/00)

It is because of fallacious teachings such as these that sinners are diverted away from the narrow gate that leads to life (Mat. 7:13). The Roman Catholic Church has a history of false teachers who have stood in front of the narrow gate pointing gullible, lazy, undiscerning victims to the broad road that leads to destruction. In doing so, they shut off the kingdom of heaven from men (Mat. 23:13). Only the few people who strive to enter the narrow gate can ever find it (Luke 13:24). It takes effort to avoid being deceived by false apostles masquerading as apostles of Christ (2 Cor. 11:13). It takes discipline to examine every teaching in light of Scripture (Acts 17:11). It takes an unwavering loyalty to truth to reject anything that does not conform with God’s word (Eph. 5:11).

The Bible boldly and clearly proclaims the Lord Jesus Christ as God’s only provision for sin. Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. Sinners need Jesus as the way, the truth and the life because they are lost, deceived and spiritually dead.

Why is Jesus the only way?

When you are lost you need to know the way, and if there is only one way, you need to know Jesus. "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10). Whenever lost sheep hear His voice they will follow Him and be saved (John 10:3-9). God’s way is through His Son and leads to life. Man’s way is through self righteousness and leads to death. There is a way which seems right to a man but its end is the way of death (Prov. 14:12). Jesus is a sinner’s only approach to a holy, righteous and just God because sin has made man unrighteous. God’s holiness demands perfect righteousness; nothing impure can enter into heaven (Rev. 21:27). Jesus is the only way because the perfect righteousness He earned during His life on earth is necessary to enter into heaven. The righteousness we need to enter heaven is nothing less than the very righteousness of Jesus. God credits His righteousness to all who trust Him. Jesus becomes our righteousness when we believe He is the only way (1 Cor. 1:30).

Why is Jesus the truth we need?

People are easily taken captive through philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men and the elementary principles of the world (Col. 2:8). For this reason Jesus came into the world to bear witness to the truth (John 18:37). Jesus said, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:31-32). He sets people free from the bondage of deception. Jesus is not only the personification of truth, His word is truth (John 17:17). Those who reject His word are rejecting Him as well (John 12:48). The world needs a standard for truth because Satan leads the whole world astray through false teachers and false prophets (1 John 5:19; Rev. 12:9). The only way to discern God’s truth from Satan’s lies is to use Christ and His Word as the ultimate standard for truth. To use any other standard is to invite deception.

Why is Jesus the life we need?

We are born spiritually dead in sin. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned (Rom. 5:12). It is for this reason Jesus announced, "unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). When one is born again he receives the life of Christ. Jesus declared, "He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life" (1 John 5:12). Jesus gives life to whom He wishes (John 5:21). Paul describes the new birth, "when you were dead in your transgressions...He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions (Col. 2:13). The gift of eternal life is "eternal" because it is the very life of Jesus, who can never die again (Rom. 6:6-9).

Why is Jesus the only mediator?

Whenever two parties are at enmity with one another a mediator is needed. The relationship unforgiven sinners have with God is one of hostility and wrath. A mediator is one who can effect a change in the relationship with God, from one of hostility to one of peace and harmony. Jesus Christ is the only one qualified to do this. He is God’s perfect man and man’s perfect God. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5). Only in Christ Jesus can those who formerly were far off, be brought near by the blood of Christ. Only in Christ can the sin, that separated us from God, be removed (Isaiah 59:2). For He Himself is our peace, who... broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity...through the cross (Eph. 2:13-16). Only in Christ, can believers be permanently united with God forever (Rom. 8:31-39).

Why is Jesus the only savior?

Peter proclaimed: "there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Jesus is the only savior because no other man can pay the price. No man can by any means redeem his brother Or give to God a ransom for him—For the redemption of his soul is costly, And he should cease trying forever (Psalm 49:7-8). The redemption of a sinner’s soul requires an infinite payment because the debt for sin is eternal. The debt is punishment in the eternal lake of fire (Rev. 20:14). Even after a thousand years in hell, the debt owed is still infinite. It is utterly impossible for a finite man to pay an infinite debt. Only an infinite and eternal God can pay the eternal debt for sin. Jesus paid it in full "having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross (Col. 2:14).

Jesus Christ is necessary!

Putting aside the fallacious and deceptive teachings of Pope John Paul II, it is perfectly clear that Jesus Christ is the only way, the only mediator, the only name, the only savior and the only provision for sinners to escape the wrath of God. He is the truth that can set Roman Catholics free from the bondage of papal deceit. He is the life that can awaken souls dead in their sins.

The night before Jesus went to the cross to experience the cup of God’s wrath, He sweat drops of blood and prayed, "Father, if Thou art willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Thine be done" (Luke 22:42). Jesus asked His Father—if there is any other way by which sinners can be saved, reveal it to me now. The heavens were silent because there is no other way. Christ had to die for sins, once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God (1 Pet. 3:18).

If there is anything incomplete in Christ, then He did not satisfy God’s justice and He did not finish the work of redemption, which He declared He had done (John 17:4). The pope makes Christ out to be a liar and makes a mockery of Christianity. His pronouncements are blasphemous insults to Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ is forsaken when any other way of salvation is proclaimed. I would use stronger language if I could find the words.

When will Roman Catholics wake up and hold their pope accountable for what he says? How long will they allow their "infallible" leader to deny Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation. When will more Christians openly and publicly rebuke this pope for proclaiming another gospel that leads millions to a Christless eternity? When will evangelicals recognize this man is not a servant of God but an enemy of Christ and His Gospel?

People must decide whether it is wiser and safer to trust the infallible word of God as a guide or to believe the teaching of a man who foolishly usurps the authority and role of Jesus Christ, and who tells you God’s word does not mean what it says

bumperjack
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1062
Joined: March 9th, 2014, 10:38 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Hawaii
What city do you live in now?: Honalulu

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by bumperjack » January 27th, 2015, 7:44 am

Revelation and the Church
James McCarthy

Roman Catholicism teaches that Jesus Christ revealed the Christian faith in all its fullness to His twelve apostles. They in turn entrusted it to the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church. Known as the Magisterium, the pope and bishops are the guardians, interpreters, and authoritative teachers of revelation.
The Church refers to the body of beliefs and practices entrusted to its pope and bishops as the sacred deposit of faith. It says that the apostles passed on this deposit to the bishops in two distinct ways. The first was through unwritten means, such as the apostles’ preaching, conduct, prayer, and worship. The Church refers to that portion of revelation received from Christ and passed on by the apostles through unwritten means as Tradition. The second form in which the apostles passed on the revelation received from Christ was in written forms. The Holy Spirit moved men to record a portion of the deposit of faith as inspired Scriptures. These are the writings of the New Testament.

The Church teaches that Scripture and Tradition together form the Word of God. Together they preserve the entire sacred deposit of faith and serve the Church "as the supreme rule of her faith."i

This explanation of revelation may sound reasonable to some, especially when Rome describes Tradition as nothing more than the apostles’ preaching and example. The Church even cites Scripture to support its position. For example: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."—2 Thessalonians 2:15

But look more closely at what the Roman Catholic Church means by Tradition, and you will find that it has little to do with what Paul means by "traditions" in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. There Paul is writing to his contemporaries, Christians living in Thessalonica, whom he had personally taught. He tells them to hold fast to the "traditions" they have received from him. The Greek word translated "traditions" simply means something handed down. Paul uses the word to stress that the truths that he had taught them did not originate with him. He simply passed on that which he had received from the Lord. The same is true of two other verses often cited by the Catholic Church to support its view of Tradition: 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6. These verses also speak of truths that Paul personally passed on to the first Christians in Thessalonica and Corinth.

Is this what the Roman Catholic Church means by Tradition? Not at all. Catholic Tradition is not Paul’s oral teachings recorded on some kind of first century audio device. Neither is it a first-hand account of the apostles’ preaching, their conduct, or their worship.

So what is Roman Catholic Tradition? It’s difficult to say. The Church appears to be purposefully vague when describing it. Rome is clear enough in its claim that the source of Tradition is the unwritten teachings of the apostles. But source, as the Church well knows, isn’t the issue. Transmission, how apostolic teaching has been passed down in unwritten form for some 20 centuries without being corrupted—that’s the issue. How has this supposedly happened? Where does this unwritten sacred deposit of information currently reside? And how can anyone today distinguish the authentic oral teaching of the apostles from beliefs and practices introduced in later centuries by others? These are the questions that reveal the true nature of Roman Catholic Tradition.

In addressing these questions of transmission, Rome is far less explicit, except to say that they each have their answer in the Church—the Roman Catholic Church in general and the Magisterium in particular. It says that the Church is the vehicle by which Tradition is transmitted, the means by which it is kept from corruption, the abode in which it resides today, and the final arbitrator as to what is authentic Tradition. Indeed, the Church’s understanding of revelation is so closely linked to the Church’s understanding of itself that the two cannot be separated. According to the Second Vatican Council, "…sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others."ii

In trying to grasp what the Church means by Tradition, don’t think of it as something you can pick up in your hands and read. Even today Tradition is unwritten; it is not contained in books. It might be expressed in the writings of the early Christians, such as the so-called "Church Fathers." Other "witnesses," as the Church calls them, to Tradition include early creeds, ancient liturgies, inscriptions on monuments, and the documents of various synods and councils. These may express doctrines and practices derived from Tradition, but they are not Tradition itself. Neither is Tradition the result of scholarly research performed by historians and archaeologists trying to reconstruct the faith of the primitive church. Roman Catholic Tradition is not any of these things.

If you want to understand Tradition you must look to the Church, for Tradition, says Rome, lives within the Church. It is a living thing, the life experience of the Catholic people. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that revelation is "written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records."iii Catholic theologians describe Tradition as "the word living continuously in the hearts of the faithful,"iv a "current of life and truth coming from God through Christ and through the Apostles to the last of the faithful who repeats his creed and learns his catechism."v And since Tradition lives within the Church, only the "living Magisterium" of the Church, the pope and bishops of Rome, can define it with infallible precision.

This concept of unwritten divine revelation living within the Roman Catholic Church is totally foreign to the Scriptures. Nowhere does the Bible teach such a thing. Jesus identified Scripture as the Word of God (John 10:35), but never Tradition. To the contrary, He condemned the Jews for elevating their Tradition to the same level of authority as God’s written Word (Mark 7:1-13). This is the very thing that the Roman Catholic Church has done with its Tradition. According to Rome’s bishops: "… both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence."vi

The Church is unmoved by criticism that its concept of Tradition cannot be found in the Scriptures. It reminds its opponents that Roman Catholicism holds that a belief doesn’t need to be established by Scripture before it can be held as a doctrine of the Church. In the words of the Second Vatican Council: "…the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone."vii Catholicism, says the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is not a "religion of the book."viii In Roman Catholicism beliefs and practices can be established from Tradition. This means, of course, that Rome’s doctrine of Tradition doesn’t need to be established by the Scriptures. It can be infallibly defined by the Magisterium based on revelation passed on as—you guessed it—Tradition!

Such self-validation, of course, is meaningless circular reasoning. Meaningless, that is, unless one is willing to first accept the Magisterium’s claim to infallibility. In that case, Rome can’t go wrong. The doctrine of infallibility itself, however, cannot be established from Scripture. It must, therefore, also be established on the authority of Rome’s second font of revelation—right again!—Tradition. And so, we’re back to where we started, having completed the circle one more time.ix

The bottom line is that Tradition is whatever the Roman Catholic Church says it is. It’s a blank check that Rome can fill out virtually as it desires. Examples of Roman Catholic doctrines based primarily or wholly on Tradition include purgatory as a place to atone for sin after death, the necessity of seven sacraments as channels of grace, the worship of the Eucharist, the supreme authority and infallibility of the bishop of Rome, the veneration of Mary, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the Assumption of Mary.

In Roman Catholicism, if the Church’s pope and bishops say that a certain belief or practice is part of the sacred deposit of faith, no one can say otherwise. Not even opposing arguments founded on Scripture will be heard, for in Roman Catholicism the teachings of the Church determine the meaning of Scripture. The Bible, says Rome, must be read within "the living Tradition of the whole Church."x Tradition is the key to interpreting the Bible, and the Magisterium alone holds that key. The interpretation of Scripture, says the Church, "is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church."xi

Notes:

i. Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation," no. 21.

ii. Ibid., no. 10, or see Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 95.

iii. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 113.

iv. The German Bishop’s Conference, The Church’s Confession of Faith (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 45, quoting J. A. Mohler. See also the Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation," no. 8; and the Council of Trent, session 4, "First Decree: Acceptance of the Sacred Books and Apostolic Traditions."

v. Jean Bainvel, The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, NY: Robert Appleton Co., 1912), "Tradition," vol. 15, p. 9.

vi. Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation," no. 9.

vii. Ibid.

viii. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 108, quoting the Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation," no. 11.

ix. Some have accused Christians of using similar circular reasoning in arguing for the authority and inspiration of Scripture when they say things such as: "I know the Bible is inspired because it says it’s inspired." Such reasoning, critics point out, is fallacious.

The point is well taken. Nevertheless, there are valid reasons for believing in the authority and inspiration of the Scriptures. As others have demonstrated, ultimately it is Jesus Christ who establishes the Bible as the inspired and authoritative Word of God. The argument goes as follows: Textual and historical evidence show the New Testament to be a reliable and trustworthy document. In the New Testament is found a record of events related to the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. These provide sufficient evidence to believe with confidence that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God is an infallible authority. He taught that the Scriptures are the Word of God. As the Word of God, the Bible in infallible, supremely authoritative, and utterly trustworthy.

x. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 113.

xi. Ibid., no. 119, quoting the Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,"

bumperjack
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1062
Joined: March 9th, 2014, 10:38 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Hawaii
What city do you live in now?: Honalulu

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by bumperjack » January 27th, 2015, 7:46 am

Only Christ Can Provide What Sinners Need
Mike Gendron
Ever since man’s first sin, he has been trying to cover his guilt and become acceptable to God through self-effort. Adam and Eve made a covering for their sin by sewing fig leaves together, but God quickly showed them that the works of man could never cover sin. Innocent blood would have to be shed, "for without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Heb. 9:22). An animal had to be slain so God could use the skin to cover their sin. "The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them (Gen. 3:21). This act of God’s mercy foreshadowed His slaying of another innocent lamb, Jesus Christ, the perfect Lamb of God. His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin for all who believe.
Adam and Eve’s futile attempt to become righteous before God was indeed the first religious act by man. Since then, thousands of religions have sprung up, each creating their own worthless set of legalistic works and rituals in an attempt to gain acceptance before God. Religious work can never earn acceptance from God. Jesus said that it is impossible for man to save himself (Luke 18:24-27). There is absolutely nothing man can do to make peace with God. Only when we realize our hopeless condition can we begin to understand the good news—that which is impossible for man is only possible with God. Everything needed to save sinners has been accomplished through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The mission Christ came to earth to do for sinful man has been completed. It is finished. The work of salvation is done. The eternal debt for sin has been paid in full.

Sinners must understand that perfect righteousness is necessary for entrance into God’s Kingdom. "Nothing unclean… shall ever come into it (Rev. 21:27). Since sinful man can never become perfectly righteous, Christ is our only hope. "Christ is the end of the Law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes" (Rom. 10:4). Consider this wonderful promise of God: "those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:17). The righteousness that Jesus Christ earned on this earth is given as a gift to all who come to Jesus with empty hands of faith. The only thing we can bring to the cross is our sins. What a glorious exchange—my sin for His righteousness!

Jesus is our perfect Savior and only mediator of God’s grace. Had Jesus sinned, even once, He would have been disqualified to pay the ransom for our sins. He willingly died for our sins, in our place, to pay the debt that we could never pay. "He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by His wounds you have been healed" (1 Pet. 2:24). How devastating it is for Catholics, who continue to trust in things that cannot save them from God’s wrath. No one would be foolish enough to copy a $100 bill and trust it to have purchasing power. Yet Catholics trust in the sacrifice of the Mass (a blasphemous copy of Calvary’s sacrifice) as a sin offering to God, rather than trusting in the one-time, sufficient, sacrifice of Christ. Jesus appeared "to take away sins once for all" by His sacrifice (Heb. 9:26). "Through His blood God made Him the means of expiation (of sin) for all who believe" (Rom. 3:25). Vatican Council II denied the truthfulness of these sacred Scriptures by teaching that "Sins must be expiated... on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments." What a terrible deception to impose on faithful Roman Catholics who look to their church for the truth! The very reason and purpose Christ became man and suffered such an excruciating death was to expiate sin, once and for all, by His perfect sacrifice. How can any church, which claims to follow Christ, withhold this truth from its people, and create in its place doctrines that nullify the Savior’s finished work?

Roman Catholic teachings also nullify another accomplishment of Christ—the purification of sins. The writer of the book of Hebrews declared that "when He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Heb. 1:3). The apostle John also proclaimed that those who trust Christ are purified from all sin, by His blood (1 John 1:7). Vatican Council II states that "in purgatory those... who have not made satisfaction with adequate penance for their sins and omissions are cleansed after death with punishments designed to purge away their debt." Jesus reconciles sinners to God, changing their relationship with God from hostility to harmony. The sinner is reconciled to God when he trusts in Christ as his Savior. "It is in Christ and through His blood that we have been redeemed and our sins are forgiven" (Eph. 1:7). Being reconciled to God is difficult for Catholics to comprehend, for they have been taught the only way to make peace with God is through a life long journey of doing good works, receiving the sacraments, going to Mass, obeying the law, and doing penance. Peace can never be gained this way. The only response to the Gospel that will reconcile one to God is a response of repentance and faith. We must cease from trusting in things that cannot save us and put our trust in the only one who can—The Lord Jesus Christ. Sinners must believe that salvation is not based on what we can do for God but on everything God has already done for us through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. As we look to what God has done for His people, let us be mindful that everything has already been accomplished by the Lord Jesus Christ. To enjoy these spiritual blessings we must cease from trusting what we can do and trust the One who did it all!

The Accomplishments of Jesus For His People:

¨ He is the only name by which men can be saved. (Acts 4:12)

¨ He gave us His word as truth, testified to the truth and is the manifestation of truth. (John 17:17; 18:37)

¨ He is life to sinners who were spiritually dead. (John 14:6)

¨ He gave us victory over death. (1 Cor. 15:56-57)

¨ He showed the lost He is the only way to the Father. (John 14:6)

¨ He gave His life as a ransom for many. (Matt. 20:28)

¨ He bore our sin in His body on a tree. (1 Pet. 2:24)

¨ He died for the ungodly. (Rom. 5:6)

¨ He gave Himself up for us as a sacrifice to God. (Eph. 5:2)

¨ He died for us so that we may live together with Him. (1 Thess. 5:9)

¨ He gave Himself to purify a people who are His very own. (Titus 2:14)

¨ He died for sins, once for all, to bring us to God. (1 Pet. 3:18)

¨ He became sin for us so, in Him, we could become the righteousness of God. (2 Cor. 5:21)

¨ He has forgiven all our sins. (Col. 1:14)

¨ He purified us from all sin. (1 John 1:7; Heb. 1:3)

¨ He has reconciled us to God, changing our relationship from hostility to peace. (Eph. 2:14-18)

¨ He redeemed us from the power of sin. (Gal. 3:10-14, 22)

¨ He provided God the grounds to justify us—to acquit us of our sins. (Rom. 3:23-25)

¨ He expiated (took away) our sins and will never count them against us. (Heb. 9:26; Rom. 4:6-8)

¨ He saved us from condemnation. (John 3:18, 5:24)

¨ He is able to save forever since He always lives to make intercession. (Heb. 7:25)

¨ He delivered us from the dominion of Satan. (1 John 3:8)

¨ He satisfied (propitiated) completely the wrath of God for our sin. (1 John 2:2)

¨ He made us perfect forever by the offering of Himself. (Heb. 10:14)

¨ He transformed us into new creations that long to obey God. (Gal. 2:20; 2 Cor. 5:17)

¨ He delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us into His kingdom. (Col. 1:13)

¨ He holds us in the palm of His hands no one can snatch us out. (John 10:28-29)

¨ He has become to us wisdom from God, our righteousness, sanctification and redemption. (1 Cor. 1:30)

Why would anyone want to trust anyone or anything else? The Lord Jesus Christ is sufficient to save sinners completely and forever! Trust Him alone!

bumperjack
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1062
Joined: March 9th, 2014, 10:38 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Hawaii
What city do you live in now?: Honalulu

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by bumperjack » January 27th, 2015, 8:45 am

What Catholics Don't Know
Mike Gendron

I often say that anyone who grows old today has to successfully navigate through a minefield. Some of the hazards to avoid include drunk drivers, cancer, violent weather, earthquakes, accidents, and war. Each day we are faced with many unknown dangers that could end our lives and bring us face to face with our creator. Those who have a lack of knowledge or awareness of God and His Gospel are in a most dangerous position. What could be more precarious than to be one heart beat from eternity and be unaware you are under God’s condemnation? What could be more devastating than to leave this world believing you were destined for heaven, only to find out you were misguided and misinformed? I am often amazed at how many people have little or no concern about their eternal destiny. We can be wrong about a lot of things in this life and still survive, but if we are wrong about God’s Gospel, we will pay for that mistake forever.
The Bible tells us there is no excuse for those who are ignorant of God (Rom. 1:20). A lack of knowledge about God is indicative of a lack of desire to read His word. Indifference, laziness or a preoccupation with the things of this world is what keeps people from reading the Bible. Still there are people who are zealous for God but lack knowledge about His Gospel. We see an example in Romans 10:1-4. Paul said, "For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Paul recognized their lost condition and prayed for their salvation.

Many Roman Catholics also have a zeal for God but it is not based on biblical knowledge. Since they do not know the righteousness of God, they seek to establish their own. If they knew that God’s righteousness requires perfect righteousness they would give up trying to appease Him and gain His acceptance through good works. They would recognize their own righteousness appears as filthy rags before a holy God. Roman Catholics need to go to the Bible—the divine source for the truth about God and His Gospel.

What Catholics Don’t Know About Salvation

They do not know the meaning and relationship of justification, sanctification and glorification in salvation. In Roman Catholic theology, justification and sanctification are not distinct but have similar meanings and thus interchangeable. Both are part of a process of becoming holy. For a Roman Catholic this process begins at water baptism and extends through purgatory. According to The Pocket Catholic Dictionary, justification "is the supernatural sanctification and renewal of a person who thus becomes holy and pleasing to God and an heir of heaven." "Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy" (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], 1992). It is a process whereby good works are necessary to gain and maintain a right standing before God. "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification...let him be anathema" (Canon 9 of the Council of Trent). The Catholic Church states that the grace of justification comes, not through faith but through the sacraments, beginning with baptism. The sacraments conform Catholics to the righteousness of God. Catholics are taught they can then merit the graces needed for the attainment of eternal life through the sacraments, good works and obeying the law (CCC, 2027). Catholics commit a sin if they presume they can be glorified without merit (2091, 2092).

Catholics don’t know that justification, sanctification and glorification are three distinct elements of the saving grace of God. Salvation is the saving of man from sin—the punishment, the power and the presence of sin. When God justifies, He saves the sinner from the punishment of sin because sin has been imputed to Christ. As God sanctifies those He justifies, he saves them from the power of sin through the indwelling Holy Spirit’s omnipotence. Ultimately when God glorifies those He justifies, He saves them from the presence of sin by taking them to heaven where sin cannot exist (Rev. 21:27).

For a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ salvation is past, present and pending. Justification is past, sanctification is present and glorification is still pending. All born-again Christians (alive today) have been justified, are being sanctified and will be glorified. This is why the Bible reveals that Christians have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved.

Justification for a believer occurs at the moment of faith in Jesus Christ. Christians know they were saved (past tense) from the penalty of sin when God justified them. "For by grace you have been saved through faith" (Eph. 2:8). "He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).

Sanctification is the process whereby a Christian overcomes the power of sin, through the indwelling Holy Spirit. Sanctification cannot begin until one is justified and receives the Holy Spirit. Paul exhorts believers to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil. 2:12-13). Again Paul speaks of the process of being saved: "For the message of the cross…to us who are being saved, it is the power of God (1 Cor. 1:18).

Glorification ultimately removes the Christian from the presence of sin. "Christ…will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him" (Heb. 9:28). God promises to glorify all whom He justifies (Rom. 8:30). Therefore "salvation is nearer to us than when we believed" (Rom. 13:11).

What Catholics Don’t Know About God’s Attributes

God alone is holy. "Who will not fear you, O Lord, and glorify Thy name? For Thou alone art holy" (Rev. 15:4). The pope is not holy nor should he be addressed as "Holy Father."

God alone is infallible. "As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is flawless (Psalm 18:30). The pope is not infallible. Pope John Paul II has a history of making pronouncements that violate the truth of God’s word:

"If God is the one true God, He must save all people. The conviction that God is preparing all people for salvation is the foundation of inter-religious dialogue" (Vatican Information Service [VIS], 4/21/99).

"Hell is not a punishment imposed by God" (Detroit News, 7/28/99).

"Today, new knowledge leads us to recognize the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis" (VIS, 10/23/96).

"The plenary indulgence [remission of punishment for sin] can be gained...[by] abstaining for at least one whole day from unnecessary consumption [of tobacco or alcohol] and donating a proportionate sum of money to the poor" (VIS, 9/29/99).

As head of the Roman Catholic Church, the pope declares the Muslims are part of God’s plan of salvation thus justifying the wicked (CCC, paragraph 841). The pope also condemns the righteous by imposing over 100 anathemas on justified believers (Trent and Vatican Council II). Catholics don’t know that: "He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous…are an abomination to the Lord" (Prov. 17:15).

What Catholics Don’t Know About Jesus

Jesus is not and never was a victim. The Lord said: "I lay down My life…I lay it down on My own initiative" (John 10:17-18). Numerous references to Christ as the victim are found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: The victim is one and the same" (CCC, 1367).

Jesus does not appear every day in the form of a wafer to be worshipped and re-presented as a sacrifice. "This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven" (Acts 1:11). "He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God" (Hebrews 10:12).

Jesus is sufficient to save sinners completely and forever. "Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him" (Hebrews 7:25). Catholics reject the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work by believing their good works and indulgences play a part in their salvation.

Jesus alone purifies sin. Purgatory does not exist. The teaching of it denies the cross work of Christ. Yet Rome dares to declare that purgatory is necessary because Jesus was unable to do what His word proclaims—to purify for Himself a people for His own possession (Titus 2:14). "When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Hebrews 1:3). Fire has no effect on sin. Only the blood of Jesus can cleanse us from all sin (1 John 1:7).

In conclusion, it is clear that Roman Catholics don’t know about God and His Gospel because they have not gone to the primary source for these truths. They must realize that the Bible is what God has revealed and religion is what man says God has declared. Anytime people go to a secondary source for truth they leave themselves open to deception. Sinners might be able to navigate through the minefield of life on earth but should take this warning to heart. The Lord Jesus said, "Do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Mat. 10:28).



Reaching Catholics For Christ
P.O. Box 7019

bumperjack
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1062
Joined: March 9th, 2014, 10:38 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Hawaii
What city do you live in now?: Honalulu

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by bumperjack » January 28th, 2015, 7:37 am

Silent: Im posting things so you can actually see the "deception" that is really There in the Catholic Church and it is not bashing your faith it is just bringing things into the light as my brothers keeper I believe it is my duty. and Bible Christianity is sufficent! Reaching Catholics for Christ is a website with believers who are really intune with the real Truth I believe,This isnt to disrespect your faith or you so please do not take it personal as The master of deception is smarter than most. L&R BJ.
The Eternal Consequences of Papal Infallibility
Mike Gendron
The most dangerous Roman Catholic teaching that makes Catholics easy prey for deception is the dogma of papal infallibility. The Roman Catholic Church proclaims its popes are infallible, which means they cannot err in matters of faith and morals. However, there is no evidence of infallible men in the New Testament. In fact, the apostle Peter (who Catholics believe was their first pope) was publicly corrected by Paul for not being straightforward about the truth of the Gospel.
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

According to the Roman Catholic Church, the source of papal infallibility is the Holy Spirit, who protects the supreme teacher of the church from error and therefore from misleading the people of God. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 892, we read:

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a ‘definitive manner’, they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful ‘are to adhere with religious assent’, which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

However, a close examination of the writings of popes throughout history proves there has been no divine assistance given to them. The Holy Spirit, who inspired the writers of the New Testament, can not be the spirit who protects popes from error. There are numerous papal statements that stand in direct opposition to God’s holy word. Yet in spite of these contradictions, Catholics remain steadfast in their loyalty to popes. From the selected quotes below you can see how popes have rejected the words of the Lord Jesus Christ who said: "I am the way, and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). The apostle Peter made it clear that Jesus is the only way of salvation when he said, "there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Yet popes, throughout history, have led Catholics down the wide road to destruction by offering other ways and means of salvation.

Salvation Only Through Mary

"The foundation of all our confidence is found in the Virgin Mary. God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will: that we obtain everything through Mary. Sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation!" Pope Pius IX

"For, since it is the will of Divine Providence that we should have the God-Man through Mary, there is no other way for us to receive Christ except from her hands." Pope Pius X

"He will not taste death forever who, in his dying moments, has recourse to the Blessed Virgin Mary. What will it cost you to save us? Has not Jesus placed in your hands all the treasures of His grace and mercy? You sit crowned as Queen at the right hand of your Son: your dominion reaches as far as the heavens, and to you are subject the earth and all creatures dwelling thereon. Your dominion reaches even down into the abyss of Hell, and you alone O Mary, save us from the hands of Satan." Pope Pius XI

"Nothing comes to us except through the mediation of Mary, for such is the will of God. O Virgin Most Holy, no one abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; no one O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee! Every one of the multitudes, therefore, whom the evil of calamitous circumstances has stolen away from Catholic unity, must be born again to Christ by that same Mother whom God has endowed with a never-failing fertility to bring forth a holy people." Pope Leo XIII

"Mary, not one of thy devout servants has ever perished; may I, too, be saved!" Pope Benedict XV

Salvation Only Through The Catholic Church

"Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins." Pope Boniface VIII

"We believe with our hearts and confess with our lips but one Church, not that of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, outside of which we believe that no one is saved. " Pope Innocent III

"He who is separated from the Catholic Church will not have life. He who is separated from the body of the Catholic Church, however praiseworthy his conduct may seem otherwise, will never enjoy eternal life, and the wrath of God remains on him by reason of the crime of which he is guilty in living separated from Christ...All those who are separated from the holy universal Church will not be saved." Pope Gregory XVI

"It must be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only Ark of Salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the Flood. It is a sin to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church! You must indeed see to it that the faithful have fixed firmly in their minds the absolute necessity of the Catholic faith for attaining salvation. Protestantism is the Great Revolt against God." Pope Pius IX

"Those outside the Church do not possess the Holy Ghost. The Catholic Church alone is the Body of Christ...and if separated from the Body of Christ he is not one of His members, nor is he fed by His Spirit." Pope Paul VI

"No one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." Pope Eugene IV

Salvation Only Through Popes

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Pope Boniface VIII

"Into this fold of Jesus Christ no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff, and Only if they be united to him can men be saved." Pope John XXIII

"Those who are obstinate toward the authority of the Church and the Roman Pontiff... cannot obtain eternal salvation." Pope Pius IX

Conclusion

Throughout history Roman Catholics pontiffs have shut off the kingdom of heaven from men by proclaiming their own way of salvation. These destructive heresies have sent millions to their graves with a false hope. Only when they come before Jesus Christ at the Great White Throne Judgment will they realize they were deceived about life’s most important decision—whom will I trust for eternal life. Instead of trusting God and His word they put their trust in fallible popes and their heretical teachings. If only they had paid attention to the message of the Bible: "It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man" (Psalm 118:8). "Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation" (Psalm 146:3). "Cursed is the one who trusts in man...but blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord" (Jeremiah 17:5-7).

There is good news for the one billion Catholics who follow the pope today. They can still repent from the Catholic plan of salvation and believe the glorious Gospel of grace. By turning from the teachings and traditions of fallible men to the living and abiding Word of God—the imperishable seed which brings forth life—they can know the truth and be set free from the bondage of deception.

All pope quotes were taken from The Apostolic Digest, Sacred Heart Press, Irving, TX, 1987.

bumperjack
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1062
Joined: March 9th, 2014, 10:38 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Hawaii
What city do you live in now?: Honalulu

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by bumperjack » January 28th, 2015, 7:42 am

Why Do Catholics Reject The Words of Jesus?
Mike Gendron

Have you ever wondered why "professing" Christians often dispute the words of Jesus? Is it rational or sensible for Christians, who say they believe in Jesus, to deny His teachings and promises? This would be similar to a Mormon rejecting the words of Joseph Smith or a Roman Catholic refuting the teachings of their "infallible" Pope. What causes those who name the name of Christ to substitute His word and authority for something else?
We know the devil’s ongoing strategy is to lead Christians away from their pure devotion to Christ (2 Cor. 11:3). One of Satan’s most successful techniques has been to convince man that God’s Word is not sufficient, that it must be combined with extra-biblical revelation or experiences. This strategy produces an apostate form of Christianity whereby the master deceiver leads people away from the faith of the Apostles and convinces them they are genuine Christians when they are not. Tragically, those who dismiss or renounce the words of Jesus Christ may not be aware, that they are also rejecting Him. Jesus said, "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day" (John 12:48).

When a "professing" Christian does not believe the words of Christ, it shows their faith is ultimately in someone or something else. But what on earth could cause "Christians" to reject the very words of God? Clearly, "it is impossible for God to lie" (Heb. 6:18). The revealed word of God reigns supreme in authority, infallibility and truth. Yet historically, we find professing Christians supplanting the words of Christ with their religious traditions (Mark 7:13); false teachers (2 Peter 2:1-3); another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9) or "supernatural" experiences (Mat. 7:21-23). It is truly amazing how these professors of Christ respond when confronted with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Some believe it and are gloriously saved for all eternity, while others reject it and continue to follow their religious traditions to the lake of fire.

Why Do Some Follow the Words of Men?

Without the Spirit of God no one can know the things of God and without faith no one can understand the word of God (1 Cor. 2:12, 13; Heb. 11:3). According to Jesus, the reason people do not understand what He says is because they cannot hear His word (John 8:43). They cannot hear because they are not "of God" (John 8:47). Jesus said, "You do not believe, because you are not of My sheep" (John 10:26). The ears of unbelievers are tuned in to the wisdom of the world (1 Cor. 1:21). They follow ways that seem right to man—self-righteousness, religious rituals, good works or the traditions of men. They are taken captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the principles of the world, rather than according to Christ (Col. 2:8).

Satan who is the prince of the world uses the wisdom and principles of the world to veil the Gospel from those who are perishing (2 Cor. 4:4). The Apostle Paul wrote that the message of Christ is foolishness to "those who are perishing" (1 Cor. 1:18). He said, "A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor. 2:14). The veil that covers an unbeliever’s heart can only be removed by turning away from other mediators and turning to the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 3:15-16).

Why Do Others Believe the Words of Jesus?

Those who believe the words of Jesus are those who receive His word in humility, for the salvation of their souls (James 1:21). The Lord Jesus describes them as being "of God" and "of the truth" (John 8:47, 17:37). Jesus said they follow Him because they know His voice (John 10:4, 27). They trust Him as the Good Shepherd to feed them spiritual truth and protect them from error. Clearly, it is a sovereign act of God to draw His lost sheep to the Shepherd (John 6:44). Those who believe Jesus are a gift from the Father to the Son (John 6:37). Jesus promises never to cast out or lose anyone the Father has given Him (John 6:37, 39), He said, "I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand" (John 10:28-29).

Those who believe the words of Jesus Christ have the assurance of eternal life based on the power and faithfulness of the Father and the Son. By keeping His words they will never taste spiritual death (John 8:52; 11:26). Jesus gave this promise, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life" (John 5:24). There is no condemnation or judgment for believers because all the sins of all believers were judged and punished at Calvary’s cross.

Whoever rejects the word of God is rejecting the "imperishable seed" which brings forth divine life. It is for this reason Jesus warned, "Take care how you listen" (Luke 8:18). He said, "The ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast" are the ones who "bear fruit with perseverance" (Luke 8:15). Let us look at some of the words of Jesus that many Roman Catholics have rejected or renounced because they oppose the teachings of their church.

You Must Be Born Again

Jesus declared: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). The way to be born again is "through the living and abiding word of God" (1 Pet. 1:23). When one, who is dead in their sins, looks into the word of God, enabled by the Sprit of God to trust the Son of God, they become a child of God. Yet, it is interesting to note, this essential requirement to be "born again" does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).

No One Comes to the Father But Through Me

Jesus also made it perfectly clear that there is only one way to the Father. He renounced any other means of salvation when He declared, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me" (John 14:6). Again, the Roman Catholic Church does not receive these words of Christ as binding authoritative truth. The "infallible" Pope John Paul II rebuked Jesus as "the only way" by declaring the Kingdom of God is for "all who seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ and His Church" (VIS 12/6/00). The Catholic Catechism teaches: "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims (CCC, 841). The Catechism also renounces the words of Christ by stating; "Those who do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but…try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation" (CCC, 847).

It Is Finished

The Catholic Church repeatedly rejects the words of Jesus in its daily sacrifice of the Mass. When Jesus declared, "It is finished," then gave up His Spirit, the punishment for sin was paid for completely (John 19:30). Yet Rome’s sacrifice of the Mass continues to re-present Jesus as a sacrificial "victim" for the forgiveness of sin (CCC, 1371). By referring to Jesus as a "victim" Rome again denies His words: "I lay it [my life] down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again" (John 10:18).

Behold, Here is the Christ

The Roman Catholic tradition of calling Jesus Christ physically down from heaven through the "miracle" of transubstantiation is a direct assault against His word. Jesus said when He returns physically to the earth, it will be "after the tribulation" (Mat. 24:29; 23:39). The priest ignores this clear statement of Christ by holding up a wafer and announcing this is "the body of Christ." Catholics need to listen to Jesus who said, "If anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ’…do not believe him" (Mat. 24:23). The Eucharist is a false Christ and those who worship it are committing the most serious sin of idolatry. Idolaters will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6:9).

Pray To The Father

Catholics who pray the rosary by reciting repetitious prayers to Mary are disobeying the words of Christ on two accounts. He said when you pray, pray to the Father (Mat. 6:9). And secondly, He said, "When you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition, as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words" (Mat. 6:7).

Worship God Only

Jesus said, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only" (Mat 4:10). Yet Catholic priests are taught to disregard what Jesus said by declaring: "devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship" (CCC, 971).

The apostle Peter spoke of the importance of heeding the words of Christ over anything else. He said, "You shall give heed in everything He says to you." Those who fail to do so will be "utterly destroyed" (Acts 3:22-23). The words of Christ bring knowledge of the truth and the power to set sinners free from the bondage of sin and religious deception (John 8:31-21). His words also bring salvation to those who believe them and condemnation to those who reject them (John 5:34). Those who are allowing extra-biblical teachings and experiences to nullify Christ and His Word must repent. Anyone who "strays from the truth," must be turned back because a sinner who turns "from the error of his way will save his soul from death" (James 5:19-20).



Reaching Catholics For Christ
P.O. Box 7019
Bend, OR 97708
www.reachingcatholics.org

bumperjack
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1062
Joined: March 9th, 2014, 10:38 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Hawaii
What city do you live in now?: Honalulu

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by bumperjack » January 28th, 2015, 7:44 am

.



Should All Christians Unite with Catholics?
Mike Gendron
Since the dawn of the new millennium we are witnessing the greatest push toward ecumenical unity the world has ever seen. The Roman Catholic Church is fervently building bridges to all Christian denominations. Through the dedicated efforts of Pope John Paul II, the Vatican is urging all professing Christians to return home to Rome. Dialogues and accords have been initiated and created to seek unity through common beliefs. An example of this is the 1999 Lutheran-Roman Catholic "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification." In the declaration, Rome uses equivocal and ambiguous words to affirm agreement on the doctrine of "justification by faith alone." but, at the same time, continues the anathema’s on all whom believe this doctrine. We must not be misled. Rome has not changed its position on things that really matter! Instead they continue to take advantage of professing Christians who lack discernment or who are unwilling to contend for "the faith."
The key to the success of this unity effort has been a commitment to "love one another and tolerate one another’s beliefs." The proposal for all Christians to ignore their doctrinal differences for the sake of unity completely overlooks the fact that Roman Catholic, Orthodox and many Protestant churches preach a false gospel that denies the sufficiency of Jesus Christ and His finished work of redemption.

This ecumenical movement has provided fertile ground to rebuild the religious tower of Babel. Multitudes are being influenced by perverted gospels, doctrines of demons and false teachers. Many more are being persuaded by highly visible evangelicals to join the crusade. It is no surprise the Roman Catholic Church has been the driving force behind this ecumenical movement. Since the close of Vatican Council II in 1965 Rome has been courting those she once called "heretics" by renaming them "separated brethren." No longer able to force people to submit to its popes under the threat of death and persecution, the Vatican has changed its strategy to win the world. Wearing a new face of love and concern for these "separated brethren," she is now offering them the "fullness of salvation" upon their return to the "one true church."

With so many professing Christians jumping on the ecumenical bandwagon, there is evidence of the spirit of Antichrist at work building his one-world religion. Propelling the movement are church leaders who fail to warn their congregations of the great apostasy and increased deception during the last days. Instead of church leaders hating everything false, many are tolerating false doctrines and counterfeit gospels (Psalm 119:104, 128). Instead of church leaders exposing the prevailing doctrines and agents of compromise, many are enduring them.

Tragically, many pulpits are also incredibly silent regarding the numerous scriptural warnings against being yoked with unbelievers. As under-shepherds of the flocks entrusted to them, pastors must warn their sheep of the dangers of ecumenical unity. Jesus and His disciples never tolerated unity without the foundation of biblical truth. Time after time zealous religious leaders, with their own agendas, were strongly rebuked:

• Jesus did not join hands with the religious leaders who shut off the kingdom of heaven from men (Matt. 23:13).

• Paul did not unite with the Judaizers who only wanted to add circumcision to the Gospel (Gal. 1).

• Jude refused to cooperate with those who crept in unaware to pervert the grace of God (Jude 4).

• John did not seek to establish unity with those "who went out from us because they were never really of us" (1 John 2:19).

• Peter never joined hands with the false teachers who had forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam (2 Pet. 2:15).

• The writer to the Hebrews never united with those who would ignore such a great salvation (Hebrews 2:3).

In light of the "cloud of witnesses set before us" one must wonder why some evangelicals ignore the lessons of Scripture by embracing the false gospel of Roman Catholicism. Surely they are not ignorant of their numerous anathemas that condemn born again Christians! Surely they are not ignorant of the many additional requirements Rome has added to the gospel of salvation. Could they be so easily persuaded by the Catholic Church’s worldly influence, incredible wealth, one billion followers and a leader that is so loved by the world?

How are Christians to protect themselves in the midst of the religious deception so prevalent in the world today? The Bible exhorts us to test every teaching. We are warned not to believe every spirit because many false prophets have gone out into the world. It is only by God’s Word that we can know the Spirit of Truth and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:1,6).

We are to be like the Bereans who examined the Scriptures daily to verify the truthfulness of the Apostle Paul’s teachings (Acts 17:11). If Paul, who wrote over half the New Testament was tested, it stands to reason that every priest, pope, prophet, or preacher should also be examined in light of God’s Holy Word.

So what are we to do with the false teachers within Christendom? We are not to partake in their endeavors but to expose their false teachings (Eph. 5:6,11). With gentleness, we are to correct those who are in error in hopes that God may grant them repentance leading to the truth (2 Tim. 2:25). Those who "profess to know God but by their deeds they deny Him" must be exposed and silenced so others will not be deceived. (Titus 1:9-16). Those who do not listen to apostolic teaching are not from God. We are commanded to separate from those who persist in false teaching (Rom. 16:17; Titus 3:10). For some, this may mean finding another church; for others, it may mean withholding support from ministries that continue to compromise the Gospel.

As end time deception increases and more and more people are led into apostasy, we must contend fervently for the faith that was once delivered to the saints (Jude v. 3). As more Christian leaders seek the approval of men rather than God, the way of truth will become more narrow and less traveled. Those who remain faithful will be persecuted for refusing to compromise (2 Tim. 2:12). They will be accused of being intolerant, unloving and narrow minded. But we must always be mindful of the warnings of the apostles—if we do not separate from false teachers we could be disqualified for service (2 Tim. 2:20), become identified with them and their error (2 John 10-11), or risk being partakers of their fate. (Jude vv. 11-13).

As church leaders continue to teach partial truths and tolerate doctrinal error the body of Christ must take action. We must avoid the rebuke Paul gave to the Corinthian church. He wrote: "I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough" (2 Cor. 11:3-4). As the ecumenical movement grows in popularity within the church, we must accept the fact that contending for doctrinal purity will be an unpopular position to pursue. Yet it is indeed what we are called to do! By pointing out false doctrine and practices, we will be good servants of Christ Jesus as we are nourished by His word and sound doctrine (1 Tim. 4:6). Upholding truth can, and will be divisive within the church, but division is sometimes good for the church. Occasionally it is necessary to show which ones are approved of God (1 Cor. 11:19).

Those who contend for the purity of the Gospel are often criticized for quibbling over things that don’t appear to be that significant. However, contenders for the faith realize that the most dangerous lie is the lie which most closely resembles the truth. Conversely, ecumenists consider anything that appears close to the truth as an opportunity for unity. Thus they embrace the false gospel of Catholicism because it is the most clever of all counterfeits.

In these days of apostasy, the body of Christ needs to boldly and courageously proclaim the whole counsel of God and expose as error everything that opposes it. May God give all His servants the grace, power, discernment and courage to be contenders for the faith.



Reaching Catholics For Christ
P.O. Box 70

MMRbkaRudog
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 3531
Joined: April 4th, 2004, 6:07 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: SJ
Location: WWW

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by MMRbkaRudog » January 28th, 2015, 12:32 pm


bumperjack
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1062
Joined: March 9th, 2014, 10:38 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Hawaii
What city do you live in now?: Honalulu

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by bumperjack » January 28th, 2015, 1:19 pm

Are Catholics Deceived?
Mike Gendron
Deception will always be exposed by Truth. Have you ever realized that you could be deceived and not even be aware of it? Those who are deceived will never know it unless they are confronted with the truth. Many go to their grave deceived about the most important issue we all face, and that is, locating the narrow road that leads to eternal life. Who are you trusting to show you the way and the truth to eternal life? What is your source for truth? Is it absolutely trustworthy? Will it protect you from the schemes and lies of the master deceiver? The prophet Jeremiah gave us wise counsel for choosing whom we should trust. He said if you trust in man you will be cursed liked a bush in the parched places of the desert. But if you trust in God you will be blessed. You will be like a tree planted by water always bearing fruit, whose leaves are always green. No worries or fears will come upon you in a year of drought or when the heat comes (Jeremiah 17:5-8).

Who will you trust? Many people disregard Jeremiah’s advice and put their trust in religious leaders. Catholics believe that the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church accurately teach what Jesus and His Word reveal. This can be a fatal mistake. Those who disregard the objective truth of the Bible and rely only on the subjective teachings of men leave themselves open do deception. We know God would never deceive anyone because He wants all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (l Timothy 2:3). He gave us His Word so we could know, understand and believe the truth (John 17:17).

Would the Pope have a person believe what is not true? Maybe not intentionally, but what if he was deceived by previous popes who were also deceived? How do we know if any of the pope’s teachings or dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church are true? The only way we can be 100% sure is to do as the Bereans did --- check everything with the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). If the apostle Paul’s teaching had to be verified for its truthfulness, it stands to reason we must use the same standard for any religious leader. Unfortunately the elevation of tradition along with infallible teachings of popes to the same authority as Sacred Scripture has allowed deception to go unabated in the Roman Catholic Church. Popes and their teachings constantly change, whereas Jesus and His Word are constant and never change.

The Apostle Paul revealed the source of all deception, "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons" (1 Tim. 4:1). You may be familiar with some common deceptions taught by religious leaders today: heaven is a reward for those who live good lives...water baptism is necessary for salvation...purgatory purges and removes sin...the sacrifice of the Mass can turn away God’s wrath on sinners...God’s grace can be earned and purchased. Satan has used lies like these to become the greatest "soul winner" in human history. For two thousand years, the master deceiver has perverted the Gospel of salvation by grace. His ferocious wolves, disguised in sheep’s clothing, preach counterfeit gospels that seduce people who are ignorant of God’s word (Matt. 7:15). A counterfeit Christianity is Satan’s ultimate weapon, so he can, one day be worshipped as Christ. His worldwide religious system is taking shape and unfortunately it includes many people in our churches today.

All this should come as no surprise to those who know the Scriptures. For this scenario was revealed by Christ and the apostles as a warning of things to come. Jesus announced that right before His second coming the deception will be so convincing that even the elect might be deceived (Matt. 24:4,11,24). The deceit will come from false prophets, false teachers and false Christs, who will snare people from both inside and outside the church. Peter warned people of spiritual deception, "There will be false teachers among you. They will be secretly introduce destructive heresies...and will bring the way of truth into disrepute" (2 Peter 2:1-2).

Satan uses deception to prevent people from being saved. God uses the truth to proclaim salvation to all who believe it. Man is either saved by believing God’s truth (Ephesians 1:13) or condemned by believing Satan’s lie. Satan blinds the minds of unbelievers by perverting God’s truth through false religious systems (2 Corinthians 4:4). Any religion that teaches salvation is obtained through human effort and merit is nullifying the grace of God to its followers. We are saved by grace, "And if by grace, then it is no longer by works, if it were, grace would no longer by grace" (Romans 11:6).

The truth will set you free. How can we avoid falling prey to these subtle and scheming impostors? Our only defense is to experience the emancipating truth of Scripture (John 8:32). We must know and live the truth. All teaching must be filtered through God’s Word. We are to use the Bible to lovingly correct and rebuke all teaching that contradicts God’s inspired word (2 Tim. 3:16). The Scriptures must become our ultimate authority in all areas of our faith. We must cling to Jesus who came to testify to the truth (John 18:37) and who is the truth (John 14:6). We are to stand firm with the belt of truth buckled around out waists (Eph. 6:14). It is through living the truth that we are sanctified (John 17:17). Does the church where you worship submit to the truth of the Gospel? It is of vital importance to God that you worship Him in truth (John 4:24).

There are consequences for those who do not seek God's truth through His Word. Those people who blindly put their faith in religious leaders are most susceptible to deception. Many assume that religious leaders would never seduce anyone with a false plan of salvation. Yet Luke warned, "Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:30).

Other people choose not to let truth interfere with their lives. They turn away from it and listen to teachers who say what their itching ears want to hear (2 Tim. 4:2-4). Truth demands a response. The choice is to believe it and conform, or reject it and go our stubborn way.

There are people who are devoted to God, but do not know Him personally because religious leaders conceal the source and authority of truth. People who have been indoctrinated with false teaching have difficulty believing the truth. They are always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth (2 Tim. 3:7). Acknowledging the truth requires a "turning away" from all unbiblical doctrines.

It was a lack of faith in God’s purpose, plan and word that separated Adam and Eve and their offspring from God. They chose to put their faith in the deceiver, which brought spiritual and physical death to us all. How divine for God to use the very instrument that separated us from Him--faith, to restore us back to Him. It is now through faith in God that we receive His gift of spiritual and eternal life (Ephesians 2:8).

The object of our faith determines who we are --- a child of the devil (John 8:43-45) or a child of God (John 1:12); how we live --- as slaves to sin, or slaves to righteousness (Romans 6:16-18); and how we will spend eternity --- under the wrath of God or in his loving presence (John 3:36). Faith in anyone other than Jesus, and in anything other than His Word will allow deception to creep into our lives. Those who follow the traditions, opinions and philosophies of men and reject Christ and His Word will be condemned on the last day (John 12:48). By contrast how wonderful are the words of Christ that those who believe in Him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).

Jesus and His Word teach...

You are saved by faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9).
All who rely on observing the law (commandments) are under a curse (Galations 3:10).
Salvation occurs at the moment you believe the Gospel (Ephesians 1:13).
Jesus purifies sin (Hebrews 1:3).
You can know for sure you are saved (1 John 5:13).
The sacrifice of Jesus is finished (John 19:30).
The Pope and his church teach...

You are saved by faith plus works.
Obedience to the commandments is a condition for salvation.
Salvation is a process from baptism through purgatory.
Purgatory purifies sin.
You are condemned if you claim to be saved.
The sacrifice of Jesus continues in daily Mass.
As you can see these two teachings directly oppose one

bumperjack
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1062
Joined: March 9th, 2014, 10:38 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Hawaii
What city do you live in now?: Honalulu

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by bumperjack » January 28th, 2015, 1:38 pm

MMRUDOG,Just because someone calls you a liar doesn't mean you are,Reaching Catholics for Christ are Three guys who run that website and one or two of them where catholics at one time.They talk Nothing but the truth as far as I can see by scripture which is our measuring stick from truth and deception.I believe they are offended because sometimes the truth will offend people. but in reality it will set someone free who has been held captive also if they remain humble is the only way. I believe anybody can be called a liar.But I dont see anyone challenging what he says, its hard to challenge the truth with calling someone a Liar.BJ

silentwssj
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 866
Joined: November 27th, 2013, 6:13 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: SJ

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by silentwssj » January 28th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Hey there! I honestly have not had the time to read any of these posts! I am super busy at work right now. I should be getting laid off in a week though 8) . My work offered me a transfer to Texas and I denied it! I am already 5 hours from home right now! It is time for this run to end! Give me another week to finish this job and make my way back home and we will resume! Honestly, I cant wait to just simply relax! I have been hitting 60 hours a week now plus everything else in life and I am ready for a break! I am looking forward to a few months of unemployment and some side work here and there! I wont even comment on any of the things that you posted Bumperjack as I have not honestly looked at it! Peaceout and we will resume after next weekend! Silent!

silentwssj
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 866
Joined: November 27th, 2013, 6:13 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: SJ

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by silentwssj » January 28th, 2015, 8:39 pm

Ok real quick! I read only that last essay! That guy is full of it to put it bluntly! His teachings are the false ones that he is talking about, Lol! We as Catholics say that you are saved by Grace? It is Justification where works play a role! We already covered all of this BJ! We Catholics are the ones that follow Scripture and that means all of it! We don't Cherry pick verses out of context, Drop certain books, Add words here and there. That is the work of Protestants! Real talk right there! We follow the original deposit of Faith As commanded in Scripture. We also follow Scripture itself and the Magisterium of the Church! This is easily verifiable from everything that I have given you to read so far. Protestants are the ones that make up there own Traditions that are completely new and found nowhere in early history! They also follow their own authority which is why we literally have thousands upon Thousands of different denominations. The Bible was never meant to be the sole rule, the Church was and always has been! We already covered the fact that the Bible as we know it was not even put into a complete cannon for the first four hundred years. What were those first Christians doing then, they were all following Catholic Church and her Traditions! I have already proved this! I have produced countless early writings that show the First Christian were Catholic in name and belief! It is indisputable Bumperjack! Look I was just talking to an assemblies of God Pastor a week ago. Even he acknowledged that we all originate from Catholicism. It is ridiculous to state otherwise! Read this article about the Bible and tell me what you honestly think. Much love and respect, Silent!


For Whom The Bell Tolls... It Tolls For Thee...

It Is The Death Knell Of Sola Scriptura!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BONG.G..G...G....G.....
BONG.G..G...G....G..... BONG.G..G...G....G.....

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please remain in silent reverence as we play Taps...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


I have several documents posted on the subject of Sola Scriptura. You might wish to read these first.
Sola Scriptura, Our Side, The Other Side, The Pendant, and Fr. Damen's excellent homilies titled The One True Church, and The Church or the Bible.
For anyone who still believes in the false man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura, after reading the files listed above, I have a few observations of interest for you that no one has been able to counter with authentic historical documentation.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since you are still here, I will assume you are set in concrete for your belief of Sola Scriptura (SS).
Okay, let us see if you can answer these very serious conclusions of what Holy Scripture really says about your belief.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Scriptura means "Scripture Alone", or "Scripture Only".
In other words, say the SS believers,"Everything I need to know, is in Holy Scripture, and everything outside of Holy Scripture, is not to be believed...unless of course it supports my SS beliefs".
By its very title, in order to believe in Sola Scriptura, you must be able to show the verse(s) in which it is authorized and can be found in Holy Scripture. Verse(s) please?

2Timothy 3:16-17 are the only verses which I always receive when I ask that question. First of all, please tell me why I am given only these two verses and not the whole chapter of 2Timothy 3?
One of the very basic rules of Bible interpretation is, "to never take verses out of context".
Those who violate this basic rule, will invariably attempt to show that the Bible will "prove" what they teach is true. It is a well known fact, that verses taken out of context can be made to "appear" to support practically any heretical teaching. Instead of conforming their teaching to Scripture, the people who do this attempt to twist Scripture to conform to their teaching.
Always remember this, "a text without a context is a pretext and nothing more".
Now let us examine these two verses in detail, and in proper context.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do non-Catholics quote 2Timothy 3:16-17 out of context? I believe it is because when taken in context, the verses clearly show the fallacy of SS and offer no support for it whatsoever. Biblical exegesis taken out of context is a major reason why many simply have the wrong understanding of Scripture.
You should always start with the first verse of a chapter in order to put later verses in the proper context. In some cases you might even have to go back to a previous chapter, in order to be safe.

Please back up to verses 2Timothy 3:1-6. They are about what is happening today in our society.

Verse 7 is a favorite, as it fits right in with SS believers, "EVER LEARNING YET NEVER ATTAINING KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH."

Verses 8-9 reinforce verse 7.

Verse 10, Paul lauds them for following his doctrine. What is his doctrine? Is it a book that he wrote? No, Paul spoke orally. His doctrine was oral Tradition which he passed on to others.

Verses 11-12, Paul is persecuted for teaching the truth, and the same will happen to us.

Verse 13, another favorite, some will lead others to error and it will get worse. The false doctrine of SS is part of the "worse" of which Paul spoke.

Now it becomes most interesting in verse 14, "continue in the things you have LEARNED and that have been ENTRUSTED to you". What can this verse possibly mean, except to KEEP THE TRADITIONS of which you have been taught?

Verse 15, "from your infancy, you have known the Sacred Writings which are able to instruct you unto salvation..." Since 2Timothy was written probably between 63 and 66 and before 67 A.D., when St. Paul was martyred, then the infancy of Timothy, to whom Paul addressed this epistle, had to have been many years earlier, before any New Testament (N.T.) book was written. Timothy was regarded as the Bishop of Ephesus (1Timothy 1:3) and had to have been at least 25-30 years of age at the time the epistle 2Timothy was written. If we subtract an age of just 25 from a possible 66 A.D., Timothy would have been an infant in 41 A.D., and even earlier if he was older than 25 and/or the Epistle was written before 66. Paul had to have been talking about the Old Testament (O.T.)only. The SS believer is then forced to accept only the O.T. to which Paul referred in this verse. The same is also obligated to reject the entire New Testament altogether, since none of it was even written by 41, and it was not even canonically decided until the end of the fourth century, over 300 years later.

Verse 16 says that all Scripture is inspired by GOD and is useful for teaching, reproving, and instructing in justice. That is fine. But, please note that all this verse says is that Scripture is useful, and in no way does it say, or even insinuate, that it is the only useful tool for teaching. This one observation of this one verse is sufficient to destroy the false doctrine of SS by itself, but there is much more to come.
Paul said, "ALL Scripture is inspired by GOD...". Just what Scripture did Paul have at the time? The only Scripture available to Paul was the Old Testament in either of two forms, the Hebrew, or the Greek Septuagint. Scholars agree that the Septuagint was the most quoted in the N.T., and it had all of the books including those which Protestants rejected during the reformation. This then puts SS believers in the difficult position of having to accept the "Deuterocanonicals" (called "Apocrypha by them"), which were in the Septuagint which Greek speaking Jews, including Saint Paul used. Read the files "Deuters", and "Is the Catholic Church the Mother or the Daughter of the Bible", found elsewhere on this website for the details. Remember, these were the seven books rejected by Martin Luther almost 1500 years later, Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. Since those two translations were the only ones available to Paul, and he did say all Scripture was inspired by GOD, then those seven books had to have been inspired by GOD also, were they not? If so, then who would have the authority to remove them? Do you remember what the Bible said about adding to, or removing from the Word of GOD, and what would happen to those who did it?
Obviously, Sola Scriptura believers cannot use 2Timothy 3:16-17 without throwing out all of the New Testament, and they would have to accept all seven Deuterocanonical books as being inspired.
Once again, since Paul said all Scripture was inspired, do you feel this remark was meant for all future Scripture from his time also? It obviously could not, as Paul would not make such a blanket statement about future writings, with his not knowing their content.
If you still insist that ALL Scripture is inspired, then please tell me why the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, James, Matthias, Barnabas, Bartholomew, and Andrew, or the Acts of Peter, Paul, and Philip are not in your Bible?
If you insist on believing it does cover future writings, then you would have to admit that the hundreds (250-300) of books, that were rejected as not inspired, are in fact inspired, simply because Paul said so. By the way, who do you think rejected these many uninspired books, and retained the books you now have in your Bible?

Now we come to verse 17, that the man of GOD may be perfect, equipped for every good work. Does that verse say fully equipped? Does that verse mean that Scripture alone will make a man perfect and fully equipped and lacking nothing? If that is your trend of thought then I will have to remind you of James 1:4, which says, "And let patience have its perfect work, THAT YOU MAY BE PERFECT AND ENTIRE, LACKING NOTHING." Now that verse is more definitive than 2Timothy 3:17, perfect, entire, and...lacking nothing. James 1:1-4 does not even mention Scripture, does it?

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

In summation:
*People of our time, not ever knowing the truth will lead many astray, vs 1-9.
*Keep the TRADITIONS you have been taught and be prepared to receive persecution for doing it,
vs 10-13. I would say we Catholics are persecuted for keeping the 'T'raditions, wouldn't you agree?
*Continue in the truth you have learned from the oral teaching, vs 14-15.
*You cannot use the N.T. at all, and you must accept the 7 disputed books as canonical, vs 15-16.
*Use Scripture, as it is useful for teaching, but by no means the only means, vs 16-17.
*We Catholics abide by all of 2Timothy 3. Do you?
*When you quote Scripture, please do not take it out of context, as it is so obvious that you can easily fall into error.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The very earliest mention of the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura was by Martin Luther as he was questioned in the Synod of Augsburg (Germany) in October 1518. In his appeal to the Council, Luther placed the Bible and its decision (his interpretation of it) above the Pope. Even so he admitted that the authority of the Synod and of the Bible were on a par, only in hope that the Synod would give him a favorable decision. In the Leipzig Disputation in July 1519, Luther declared that Scripture ranked above a Church Council, and that Ecumenical Councils had already erred in matters of faith.*
I presume Martin Luther had "forgotten" that by an infallible decision, it was the Pope and the Magisterium, who decided the canons of both the Old and New Testaments in earlier Church Councils.

*Reference: "Martin Luther, His Life, and His Work", 6 volumes, 1930 Volume 4: page 388-389,
by Hartmann Grisar, a German Jesuit.

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

Sola Scriptura, as I have shown, is non-Scriptural. It cannot be shown that it is historical before the reformation either. That classifies it as a false man-made tradition (small 't') and is therefore condemned by Jesus Christ Himself, as He said in Matthew 15:1-9, and in Mark 7:3-13, and by Saint Paul in 1Corinthians 2:13, Colossians 2:8, and Titus 1:14. This means that non-Catholics who take the Bible literally by lumping Apostolic 'T'raditions and man-made 't'raditions together, must condemn Sola Scriptura as well. Holy Scripture tells us very clearly that man-made 't'raditions are to be condemned as shown above, while Apostolic 'T'raditions are to be preserved (Philippians 2:16, 2Thessalonians 2:14-15, 2Timothy 1:13-14, 2:2, 3:14, Hebrews 2:1).

Again, I will ask of SS believers:
"Please show me the verse(s) in Holy Scripture which authorize the false man-made doctrine
of Sola Scriptura?"



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do Sola Scriptura believers ignore so many verses in the Bible which have instructed us to do the exact opposite of what SS proponents would have us do? The Bible is full of them and some are so clear and to the point, that I do not see how they can be misinterpreted. SS in effect, is the false belief that Scripture has all of truth inclusive and that tradition has no place whatsoever in salvation. For a start, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold the TRADITIONS that you have LEARNED, WHETHER BY WORD OR BY LETTER OF OURS." That comes from 2Thess 2:15. By word or by letter, how plain could Paul have made it? But that falls on deaf ears by believers of SS.
Back up one verse to 14, "For this purpose He also called you by our preaching to gain the glory of Our Lord Jesus Christ." What is preaching other than by word of mouth or 'T'radition. Both verses, 14 and 15, are ignored by proponents of SS.
How about, "Now I praise you brethren, because in all things you are mindful of me and hold fast my 'T'raditions as I gave them to you", 1Corinthians 11:2, ignored by SS proponents.
Matthew 28:20, "Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." This verse also ignored by SS proponents. I could list many more but I feel I have made my point. Did Jesus Christ command anyone to write a Gospel, or did he say to go out and teach?
None of the Bible can be deliberately ignored, as SS proponents would have us believe. We cannot be pickers and choosers and accept this verse, and reject that one, as in a smorgasbord, just because it flows with or runs against the grain of our beliefs. This is exactly what proponents of SS do however.
Remember all those verses regarding not adding or taking away from the Word of GOD? Scripture is full of references to it. Here are a few: Deut 4:2, Prov 30:5-6, Gal 1:8, 2Pet 3:15-16, and of course Rev 22:18-20.
Since Paul did say all Scripture is inspired, then that would have to include all verses that even mention tradition, or word of mouth. Is that not true? Since the Old Testament is the only one they can use, if they insist on accepting 2Timothy 3:16-17 as the "authority" for SS, then look at these examples of keeping the traditions from the O.T.: Psa 44:1, Psa 78:5,10-11, Psa 105:5, Psa 143:5, Prov 2:18, Isa 40:8, *Isa 59:21, Jer 6:16-17, Jer 31:36, Dan 7:28, and Zech 1:6.



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

Did Paul, or any other writer of New Testament books, know they were writing inspired books at the time of writing? If not, then how do you know the books from which you quote, such as 2Timothy, are inspired at all? Is there a list of inspired books somewhere in the Bible? If so, then please show me the verse(s).
If you cannot find such a list, then please tell me, by what authority do you take these books to be inspired? Did the New Testament just fall out of Heaven into the arms of Luther? Believe it or not, that is what some have been taught.



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

When was the earliest possible time that the New Testament, as we know it now, came into being? For Sola Scriptura to work at all, it had to be available to the people so they could practice it, is that not true? What New Testament Bible did someone living in 333 use? 222? 111? After all, there were Christians around in those times in order to keep the lions fed, if you will recall. That reminds me, what was it that motivated these early Christians to such a fervor that they sacrificed their lives by the thousands, and in horrible ways of martyrdom, in staunch refusal to give up their Christian faith? Was it the book? If so, what book?

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

How were Bibles reproduced before the invention of the printing press in 1450? Did Heaven once again drop them out of the skies by the millions for all the people who had lived since the time of Christ? Where did the masses of Christians get their Bibles so they could practice SS?
The answer is, the masses did not have Bibles, as each and every Bible was hand copied by monks. Do you know how long it took one monk to copy one Bible? It took 10 to 20 years. Now after putting that many years into copying one Bible, how much do you suppose each Bible cost? The average person could not afford to pay for 10-20 years of a monk's labor for one book. So there were very few copies available, and they were in the Churches. How then could anyone before 1450 practice Sola Scriptura even if the idea had existed then?



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


Do you believe George Washington was the first president? Why? Do you believe the civil war really happened? Why? Do you believe King John signed the Magna Carta? Why? None of these facts are in the Bible, yet you believe them, because you have been taught to believe them, and they are recorded elsewhere in history books. Why then do you not believe anything about the Catholic Church, such as the fact that Peter was indeed in Rome, or that Peter was the first Pope, unless you can find it in the Bible?
Do SS proponents believe in the Trinity? If so, then please show me the word Trinity in the Bible? The Catholic Church has thousands of documents which show exactly how the Church came to be, and how it grew to become the Church that it is today. All of these questions and thousands more are answered in authentic historical documents from the very beginning of the Church.
Eusebius wrote a book of the history of the Church from before it even began, and for the first 200 years or so after it was started by Jesus Christ. Would any SS proponent believe the history book written by Eusebius? No, because they cannot find it in the Bible. Why then would they believe anything written in any history book? Aren't they setting a double standard in not believing Church history as it is recorded, and in believing only non-church history as it is recorded?

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

Sola Scriptura enthusiasts will never get it right, and will never find the truth. They have built their beliefs on the foundation of the sand of SS, and not on the rock of the Church. Foundations of sand are shifty and unstable. No matter how much patching they do, their house of faith will not be solid, but will shift continually as the wind and water erode the sandy foundation they have built upon. They will spend all of their days trying in vain to prove this, or to prove that, from Scripture.
One denomination has "proven" from Scripture that Jesus Christ was divine and not human, while yet another has "proven" from the very same Scripture, that He was human and not divine.
The man-made false doctrine of Sola Scriptura simply does not work, and never will work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura appeared on the scene at the time of the reformation as I have previously stated. It did not, and could not exist before the invention of the printing press, when Bibles were finally made available at low cost and in abundance, for the masses. The doctrine of SS, is not Scriptural, as I have shown. It is not historical before the reformation, as I have shown also, and it is not workable.
This false doctrine of SS, and "individual interpretation" of Scripture (forbidden by Scripture itself in Acts 8:26-35, and 2Peter 1:20), are the root causes of the splits in the Body of Christ in Protestantism.
There are now over 37,000 non-Catholic denominations* in existence in the world today. How else would you explain these divisions? Each one claims the truth, "as the Holy Spirit has told them", they claim. Are there 37,000 Holy Spirits telling each one a truth? Or is there one Holy Spirit telling each a different truth? Truth is one and not 37,000. There can be only one truth.
There is only one Holy Spirit.
Jesus Christ said, "There will be ONE fold with ONE shepherd." John 10:16.
He did not say there will be 37,000 folds with one shepherd.
How do you explain the underlying reason for 37,000 splits in protestantism other than by the adoption of Sola Scriptura and its accompanying individual interpretation of Holy Scripture? Catholics are chastised by some for having a Pope, who is a Father Figure, the Vicar of Christ, the visible head of the Catholic Church on earth, to guide the Church which Jesus Christ founded, in all truth. Aren't all of those non-Catholics who run around practicing individual interpretation of Scripture, in reality, calling each of themselves his or her own pope?

* World Christian Encyclopedia, April 2004, a Protestant publication.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are just a few of the many genuine historical writings by early Church authors and Fathers in support of keeping the Traditions.
Someone please show me similar authentic historical writings before the reformation which say,
"Do not keep the Traditions"?
Show me a genuine historical document defining the Protestant invented false doctrine of Sola Scriptura before the reformation?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keeping the Tradition...

Polycrates, Letter to Victor of Rome 5:24:1. J190a
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:10:2, 2:9:1. J192,198,209
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2, J210-213,226,242,257
Irenaeus, Letter to Florinus 5:20:4. J264
Tertullian, Demurrer Against Heretics 19:3. J291-296,*298
Tertullian, The Veiling of Virgins 2:1. J328a,329
Tertullian, Against Marcion 4:5:1+. J341,371
Hippolytus, Against Heresy of Noetus 17. J394
Origen, Fundamental Doctrines 1:preface:2,4. J443,445,785
Athanasius, Letters to Serapion 1:28. J782
Foebad of Agen, Against Arians 22. J898
Basil The Great, Transcript of Faith 125:3. J917
Basil The Great, The Holy Spirit 27:66. J954
Basil The Great, Faith 1. J972
Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius J1043
Epiphanius, Against All Heresies 61:6,73:34. J1098,1107
Chrysostom, On Romans 1:3. J1181
Chrysostom, On Second Thessalonians 4:2. J1213
Jerome, Dialogue between Luciferian & Christian 8. J1358
Augustine, Letter to Januarius 54:1:1,3. J1419,1419a
Augustine, Against Letter of Mani 5:6. J1581
Augustine, Baptism 2:7:12, 4:24:31. J1623,1631
Augustin, Literal Interpretation Genesis 10:23:39. J1705
Augustin, City of GOD 16:2:1. J1765
Augustin, Against Julian 1:7:30, 2:10:33. J1898-1900
Innocent I, Letter to Council of Carthage 29:1. J2015f
Theodoret of Cyr, Letter to Florentius 89. J2142
Vincent of Lerins, The Notebooks 2:1, 9:14. J2168,2169,
Vincent of Lerins, The Notebooks 20:25, 22:27. J2172-2175
Gregory I, Homilies on Ezechiel 2:4:12. J2329
Damascene, Homilies 10:18. J2390

The Jxxxx references are paragraph numbers for
"The Faith of the Early Fathers", by William A. Jurgens.

These documents of the Fathers may be downloaded from Here... or Here...



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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The words "Sola Scriptura" are a misnomer for those who practice it, and who believe that everything necessary for salvation is in Holy Scripture. The reason for this, is that much of what is in Scripture is not even believed by SS adherents. Consequently SS believers will believe only what they want to believe in Holy Scripture, and will discard the rest. Sola Scriptura is then twisted to become Not Sola Scriptura.
Cases in point:
They believe in the Holy Trinity which is defined in Scripture but is not named as such, but will reject Purgatory which is equally defined in Scripture, and again is not named as such.

They reject the True Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist even though it is clearly defined by Jesus Christ Himself in John chapter 6, and in all three of the other Gospels, and by Saint Paul in 1Corinthians 11:23-30.

They will claim that it is the Bible which is the "Pillar and the Foundation of Truth", and will reject the fact that it is not the Bible, but the Church, as stated in 1Timothy 3:15.

They will claim that everything is in the Bible despite the fact that the Bible says everything is not within its pages in John 20:30-31, and John 21:25.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Scriptura believers will attempt to inject their own beliefs into Scripture in a pretense that they are Biblical, when in fact they are not.
Cases in point:
They will claim that it is the Bible which is the final authority, despite the fact that the Bible clearly states that it is the Church which is the final authority in Matthew 18:15-18.
Nowhere in Scripture can it be found where the Bible claims that it is the final authority.

They will claim that the Bible is self authenticating, when in fact it is not.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say this.

They will claim that Scripture is easily interpreted by anyone, when in fact Scripture says just the opposite of what they claim. See Acts 8:30-35 and 2Peter 3:15-16.
The Bible does not define what it means.

They will claim that Mary had other children despite the fact that nowhere in Scripture is this stated.
By making this false claim they must realize that by doing so, they have insulted the Holy Family and the Holy Trinity.

They will say that the Bible describes something called "The Rapture", when in fact it does not. That term is a 19th century Protestant invention of John Nelson Darby in 1827, and popularized by Cyrus Scofield in 1909 by a footnote in his Scofield Reference Bible.

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is some food for thought for Sola Scriptura believers. It is the last nail in the coffin for this false doctrine if you cannot answer these simple questions...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where in Scripture did Jesus give instructions to His Apostles to write a Gospel?

If the Gospel writers believed in SS, why did they recall oral Tradition, such as Matthew 2:23, "...that there might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."? That statement made by the prophets is nowhere to be found in Holy Scripture.

Of the 39 Articles of Religion Established by the Bishops, the Clergy, and the Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, in Convention, on the twelfth day of September, in the Year of our Lord, 1801, article # 6 states:
"6. The sufficiency of Holy Scripture for salvation:
Holy Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation. Consequently whatever is not read in Scripture nor can be proved from Scripture cannot be demanded from any person to believe it as an article of faith. Nor is any such thing to be thought necessary or required for salvation. By holy Scripture is meant those canonical books of the Old and New Testaments whose authority has never been doubted within the church."
Where in the Bible are the words which state that the Word of GOD is restricted solely to what is written within Scripture? Where in the Bible is the above paragraph #6 written? Where in the Bible is the authority given for anyone to make such a statement?

Where in the Bible is authority given to anyone to form yet another Church other than the one which Jesus Christ founded? Psalms 127:1

How do we know that the books within the Bible are the Bible?
Does the Bible itself provide us with a list of inspired books?

Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals?

If "all scripture is inspired", as stated in 2Timothy 3:16, then why aren't the Gospels of Andrew, Bartholomew, Peter, Marcion, Thomas, Nicodemus, and many others in the Bible?
Who had the authority to decide not to include them?

If the meaning of the Bible is so clear, and so easily interpreted, as many non-Catholics say, and if the Holy Spirit leads every denomination to interpret it in truth, then why are there over 37,000 non-Catholic sects, and millions of individual non-Catholics, all interpreting the Bible differently?

Since non-Catholics claim "the Holy Spirit is guiding them", how can the Holy Spirit be 'telling' each of them a different 'truth'? It would seem to me that if all taught the same 'truth', then there would be only one Church, not tens of thousands as we now have.

Non-Catholics usually claim that they all agree "on the important things". If so, then who of the thousands of sects, is able or has the authority to adjudicate doctrinal disputes between themselves?

Did the reformers follow SS in the teaching of Holy Scripture? I refer to Hebrews 13:17, for one.

Where in the Bible does it say, "If you do not agree with the Church which Jesus Christ founded, you should form your own church"?

Can anyone start his or her own church simply by holding up a Bible and claim it alone to be his or her authority? Where does it say that in Scripture?

How did the early Church evangelize and survive and prosper for over 350 years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of Scripture?

Who had the authority to infallibly decide which books belonged in the N.T. canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians?

Why do non-Catholic scholars recognize the Catholic Church councils of Hippo and Carthage as having made infallible decisions in deciding the canon of the N.T., while at the same time denying the O.T. canon decided by the same Bishops in the same councils?

Why do non-Catholics accept Jewish Council of Jamnia, decisions regarding the O.T. canon while at the same time denying the Christian canon decided in the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage?
After all, the Council of Jamnia was specifically called by the Jews to counter Christian usage of the Old Testament.

How can non-Catholics accept the infallible decisions of the Bishops of Hippo and Carthage regarding the canon of the N.T., and at the same time reject other teachings of those same Bishops such as the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the honoring of Mary? It is to be noted that many of the original reformers such as Martin Luther, taught these truths themselves.

How could SS possibly work for over 1400 years after Jesus Christ founded His Church when the vast majority of people were illiterate?

How could SS possibly work for all the years before the invention of the printing press in 1450, when Bibles were prohibitively expensive because they had to be hand copied by Monks over a period of many years for each copy?

Why are there no genuine historical documents in support of Sola Scriptura before the Reformation?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the reformers separated themselves from the authority of the Catholic Church, they lost all authority for themselves, so they turned to the Bible and declared it to be their sole source of authority (SS). By doing this they ignored the very words of Jesus Christ, as He told us very clearly wherein lies the highest visible authority on earth. Review Matthew 18:15-18 again. Pay especial attention to verse 17, as He tells us what happens to those who will not listen to the authority He had designated.

Since there is only one truth in Holy Scripture, and only one Holy Spirit to prompt us,
how then can:

Baptists believe once saved, always saved, yet the Church of Christ says this is not scriptural?

Seventh Day Adventists say we have to worship on Saturday, but Presbyterians say on Sunday?

Lutherans believe in the 'true presence' in the Holy Eucharist, yet Baptists do not?

Episcopalians say The Trinity is 3 persons in one GOD, yet Mormons say it is 3 separate GOD's?

Methodists accept female ministers, yet Baptists say it is not Biblical?

The Assembly of GOD uses instrumental music, yet the Church of Christ says it is not Biblical?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the above denominations use the same Bible, so why do they not all teach the same doctrine?
The answer is simple. They all practice the false man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura and its accompanying individual interpretation of it. If you would put in one place 37,000 people all of which practiced SS, and asked each of them to interpret the Bible, you would get 37,000 different opinions, exactly what we see today.

"The Bible is a supernatural book and can be understood only by supernatural aid."
A.W. Tozer

Personal opinions have no bearing whatsoever on doctrinal truth.
Do you see now why there are tens of thousands of non-Catholic denominations?
So which of these 37,000 non-Catholic sects has the authority to say, "This is the way it is,
or this is the truth of what Holy Scripture tells us"?
The answer to that question is that none of them do.
Consequently, it is the obligation of everyone to find the only Church which does have that authority. To have only one truth, you must have only one authority, and that one authority was given by Jesus Christ Himself to the one Church which He founded in Matthew 16:18.
Read Matthew 18:18 and Luke 10:16.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This document is part one of a two part series. If you have not read it previously, please continue with part 2, "The Origin of Sola Scriptura".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






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

BONG.G..G...G....G.....
BONG.G..G...G....G.....
BONG.G..G...G....G.....
BONG.G..G...G....G.....
BONG.G..G...G....G.....
BONG.G..G...G....G....
BONG.G..G...G....G.....


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but the patient just died...
It bled to death...

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

Did anyone send for the undertaker?
All silent for Taps Please...




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
©
Written by Bob Stanley, October 14, 1997
Updated September 2, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to Home Page:





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

bumperjack
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1062
Joined: March 9th, 2014, 10:38 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Hawaii
What city do you live in now?: Honalulu

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by bumperjack » January 29th, 2015, 6:49 am

Silent: Sounds like your sticking to your story, but Christians have never been without the Scriptures as there rule of faith.
"Sola Scriptura"?
James Mc Carthy
Today, even as in the time of the Reformation, thousands of Catholics worldwide are leaving Roman Catholicism for biblical Christianity. And once again, the rallying cry of the sixteenth century, Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone, is being heard.

Roman Catholic defenders have responded to this challenge by going on the offensive. A typical argument sounds something like this:

The Bible cannot be the sole rule of faith, because the first Christians didn’t have the New Testament. Initially, Tradition, the oral teachings of the apostles, was the Church’s rule of faith. The New Testament came later when a portion of Tradition was put to writing. It was the Roman Catholic Church that produced the New Testament, and it was the Church that infallibly told us what books belong in the Bible. It is the Church, therefore, that is the authoritative teacher of Scripture. Sola Scriptura is not even taught in the Bible. The rule of faith of the Roman Catholic Church, therefore, is rightly Scripture and Tradition together.

Christians confronted with such arguments should keep the following points in mind:

Christians have never been without the Scriptures as their rule of faith.
The unforgettable experience of two early disciples shows the fallacy of thinking that the first Christians were ever without Scripture as their rule of faith. Three days after the crucifixion, two of Jesus’ disciples were walking home. A fellow traveler, whom they took for a stranger, joined them along the way. The conversation quickly turned to the events that had just taken place in Jerusalem. With deep sorrow, the disciples told the story of how the chief priests and rulers of the nation had sentenced Jesus to death and had Him crucified by the civil authorities.

To the disciples’ shock, the stranger rebuked them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!" (Luke 24:25, NIV). Then beginning with Moses and proceeding through the prophets, the stranger explained to them the truths concerning Jesus in the Old Testament Scriptures.

Eventually the two disciples realized that their fellow traveler was no stranger at all but the Lord Jesus Himself! Later they recalled, "Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?" (Luke 24:32).

The experience of those two early disciples was not unique. With the Holy Spirit’s coming at Pentecost, and with the aid of the apostles’ teaching, Jewish Christians rediscovered their own Scriptures. Their common conviction was that the Old Testament, properly understood, was a revelation of Christ. There they found a prophetic record of Jesus’ life, teaching, death, and resurrection.

The Old Testament Scriptures served as the standard of truth for the infant church, Jew and Gentile alike. Within a short time, the New Testament Scriptures took their place alongside those of the Old Testament. Consequently, the early church was never without the written Word of God.

Scripture is not simply written Tradition.
Roman Catholic descriptions of the origin of the New Testament stress that the oral teachings of the apostles, Tradition, preceded the written record of those teachings, Scripture. Often the New Testament is presented as little more than a written record of Tradition, the writer’s recollections, and a partial explanation of Christ’s teaching. This, of course, elevates Tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture—or, more precisely, drops Scripture to the level of Tradition.

But the New Testament Scriptures are much more than a written record of the oral teaching of the apostles; they are an inspired record. A biblical understanding of inspiration makes clear the significance of this distinction. Peter writes,

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20-21 (NIV)

Here we see that Scripture is not "the prophet’s own interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20, NIV). The word translated "interpretation" means to solve or to explain. Peter is saying that no writer of the New Testament simply recorded his own explanation of what he had heard Jesus teach and had seen Him do. Scripture does not have "its origin in the will of man" (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). The writers of the Bible did not decide that they would write a prophetic record or what would be included in Scripture. Rather, they were "carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21, NIV).

The word translated here "carried along" is found in the New Testament in Mark 2:3. There it is used with reference to the paralytic whose friends carried him to Jesus for healing. Just as the paralytic did not walk by his own power, a true prophet does not write by his own impulse. He is "carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Men wrote the New Testament; "men spoke" (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Their writings reflect their individual personalities and experiences. But these "men spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:21). Men wrote but God was the author.

For these reasons, Scripture is revelation perfectly communicated in God-given words:

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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NKJV)

The phrase "inspired by God" is the translation of a compound term made up of the words God and to breathe. The verse can be translated: "All Scripture is God-breathed. . . " (2 Timothy 3:16, NIV). Scripture is therefore rightly called the Word of God.

In reducing Scripture to simply written Tradition, Catholic proponents are able to boost the importance of Tradition. But in doing so, they distort the meaning of inspiration and minimize the primary difference between Scripture and Tradition.

The Bible contains all essential revelation.
It is true that the New Testament does not contain a record of everything that Jesus did. John makes this clear in the conclusion of his gospel:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written. John 21:25

John’s point in concluding his gospel with this comment was to acknowledge that the life of the Lord Jesus was far too wonderful to be fully contained in any book. He was not commenting on the general purpose of Scripture or the need for Tradition. Neither was he implying that he had left out of his book essential revelation received from Christ. Indeed, earlier in his gospel, John implies the opposite:

Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. John 20:30-31

We can infer from this statement that John included in his gospel all the essential teachings of Christ necessary for salvation. Significantly, he makes no reference to seven sacraments, the Sacrifice of the Mass, sanctifying grace, penance, purgatory, or an institution such as the Roman Catholic Church—all necessary for salvation according to Roman Catholicism.

The Scriptures achieve their stated purpose: "that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:17 NIV). They are the perfect guide to the Christian faith. Unlike Tradition, the Scriptures are accessible and open to all. Translations of the entire Bible have been made into the primary languages of the world, 276 in total. It is the most widely distributed and read book in all of history.

To define Roman Catholic Tradition as a font of extra-biblical revelation is to add to God’s Word. Scripture warns us "not to exceed what is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6). "Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar" (Proverbs 30:6). The last book of the New Testament ends with this solemn warning:

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19

At question is the authority of Tradition, not Scripture.
There are hundreds of verses in the Bible establishing the truth that the Word of God is the church’s sufficient and supreme rule of faith. Psalm 119 alone dedicates 176 verses to the unparalleled value of God’s Word. The Lord Jesus taught:

Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4

Though Scriptures can be multiplied on this theme, it is not necessary to do so. The Roman Catholic Church agrees that the Bible teaches that the Word of God is the supreme rule of faith and that all theology must rest upon it. There is no question as to the sufficiency or authority of the Word of God.

The controversy revolves around the identity of God’s Word. Namely, is the Word of God Scripture and Tradition? Or, is the Word of God Scripture alone?

In the ongoing debate, Roman Catholic proponents enjoy taking the offensive by challenging non-Catholics to prove that God intended that the Scriptures alone were to serve as the church’s rule of faith. "Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?" they demand.

Though this tactic is effective in putting their opponents on the defensive, it is in fact misleading. Both sides agree that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that as such they speak with divine authority. The Lord Jesus Himself, in John 10:35, clearly identifies the Word of God as Scripture.

The point of controversy is Tradition. The Roman Catholic Church asserts that Tradition is also the Word of God.

The question which the Roman Catholic Church must answer, therefore, is: Where does Jesus, the prophets, or the apostles teach that Tradition is the Word of God? Or, more precisely: Where in the Bible can it be found that Scripture and Tradition together, as interpreted by the pope and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, are to be the church’s rule of faith? This is what Roman Catholicism is really asserting and should be the topic of debate. And since the Roman Catholic Church is the one asserting the authority of Tradition and the Magesterium, the burden of proof lies with Rome.

Adapted from The Gospel According to Rome (Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, 1995).

i. Compare: Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation," no. 19
ii. Patrick Johnstone, Operation World (Grand Rapids, MIchigan: Zondervan, 1993), p

bumperjack
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1062
Joined: March 9th, 2014, 10:38 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Hawaii
What city do you live in now?: Honalulu

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by bumperjack » January 29th, 2015, 9:12 am

Silent as we trace back in History your claims have merit to some degree. I accept that far as being right and wrong isnt the issue at hand.Its actually how ALL THE EXTRA BIBLICAL TEACHINGS CAME ABOUT AND THE THEOLOGY BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, iF YOU EVER GET A CHANCE TO READ THIS BOOK THE CHRISTIAN STORY YOU WILL LIKE ITS CONTENT.THERE ARE MANY DEBATES WE CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT IN QUESTION ALL YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT IM NOT GOING TO SAY ARE FALSE,BUT THE FINISHED WORK OF JESUS HAS BEEN DOWN ON THE CROSS AT CALVERY MY BROTHER IM JUST POSTING THINGS THAT I FEEL ARE IMPORTANT FOR US BOTH TO LOOK AT. I HAVE LEARNED ALOT IN THE PROCESS BUT I WONT ARGUE RATHER A DEBATE IS BETTER THE FIRST TRUE CHURCH DOES NOT MAKE CATHOLISCISM SUPERIOR TO OTHER DENOMINATIONS MY FRIEND THE CHURCH YOU ARE SOLD ON BUT ITS ABOUT FOLLOWING CHRIST WHATS IMPORTANT NO CHURCH SAVES YOU MY FRIEND IT DOES NOT MATTER THE ONE YOU BELONG TO.THERE IS ALOT OF CORRUPTION IN RELIGION BECAUSE OF FALLIABLE MEN WHO RUN "ALL CHURCHS"BY FAITH MAN IS JUSTIFIED BY FAITH APART FROM WORKS FOR SALVATION BY WHAT CHRIST HAS DONE ON THE CROSS,NOT BY BAPTISM AND WORKS.i GUESS WE CAN GO ON AND ON WITH KNOW RECOURSE.WITH RESPECT YOU HAVE OPEN MY EYES TO CATHOLISISM FOR SURE HAS IT GONE OFF TRACK OVER THE CENTURIES OF COURSE IT HAS.AS FAR AS CATHOLICS BEING THE FIRST CHRISTIANS I DO NOT AGREE,L&R BJ

Catholicism VS Christianity I was told that from the beginning there was one real church, which was the Roman Catholic Church. But later on because of conflicts within the church, a man named Luther left the Catholic Church and formed another church which is today’s Christian church. How much truth is in this?



What you heard is about 20% true and 80% false. In the beginning of Christianity there was just one church, founded by the apostles. This church rejected a number of false teachings over the first three or four centuries, but gradually the church itself evolved away from some of the basic qualities of the primitive church. Many traditions were added, such as a priesthood, sacraments, veneration of saints and much more. By the fifth century, what had been a single united church began to split apart over fairly subtle theological points, but also over language, culture and various traditions. By the seventh century there were at least four distinct churches, which were the Orthodox Church (which included Rome and Constantinople), the Nestorian Church, the Jacobite Church and the Coptic Church. As time passed, the Orthodox Church split in the eleventh century into the Western version, which is now known as Roman Catholicism and the Eastern version which is known as Orthodox Christianity. So, there are five distinct churches which can honestly claim to be traced back to the original primitive church. One of them, of course, is the Roman Catholic Church. Technically, all other Christian groups were begun by someone other than the apostles. This would include the Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Quakers, Pentecostal and many other Christian groups.

Whether the modern Roman Catholic Church is closer to the original kind of Christianity than the Methodist Church of the Church of Christ is something to be established by reading the Bible and perhaps by studying very early church history. The fact that the Lutheran or the Dutch Reformed Church broke away from Catholicism does not in and of itself establish who is closer to being “right.” It is by comparison to the scriptures that we can best judge who is most closely following the teachings of the Bible. So, what your friend said is partially true in that the very early church did evolve into the Roman Catholic Church, but the fact is that there are several other groups which can make the same statement, which makes the statement of your friend not completely true.

If you want to know more about this, I strongly suggest you get a copy of my book, “The Christian Story” It covers all the history of the evolution of these churches in the first five centuries. It is available at www.ipibooks.com

bumperjack
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1062
Joined: March 9th, 2014, 10:38 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Hawaii
What city do you live in now?: Honalulu

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by bumperjack » January 29th, 2015, 9:15 am

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christi ... #Mithraism THIS IS SOME HISTORY CATHOLICS WERE NOT THE FIRST CHRISTIANS SILENT.

bumperjack
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1062
Joined: March 9th, 2014, 10:38 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Hawaii
What city do you live in now?: Honalulu

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by bumperjack » January 29th, 2015, 1:29 pm

Silent: I understand your point of view and truth be told there are many things that are legitimate about both debates or arguments. Iam open and praying to stay humble as we must at this point and time,there are things I believe and things I don't.Just like yourself.I understand with Catholicism you have to believe it from the beginning to present and really stay focused on what the church teaches.I know we have went over many issues more than once.So for that reason I apologize and please don't lose your patience with me as there are still things that are very cloudy and throughout history things have drastically changed on both issues in question. I posted alot of things I believe have merit.I'm understanding you believe not so,but like I said before learning is a daily endeavor.with respects always BJ.

bumperjack
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1062
Joined: March 9th, 2014, 10:38 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Hawaii
What city do you live in now?: Honalulu

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by bumperjack » January 29th, 2015, 3:21 pm

Scriptual Truths for Roman Catholics: This guy has a Ph.D and was a former Catholic Priest Silent! This is Why I dont believe in Catholicism Brother, you can detest this also! I understand sometimes when people are hit with the truth they get mad & upset, its human nature.I know you are sold not decieved about Catholicism. so I will never disrespect your known faith by any means so please dont take this out of context but this has alot of merit whether you want to except it or not!?! Again take it for what its worth is all...Its not posted with any intent other than trying or trying to disrespect your faith brother.L&R BJ

Bartholomew F. Brewer, Ph.D.
Former Roman Catholic Priest

**All Scripture quotations and references are taken from the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Translation of the Catholic New Testament and the Douay Version of the Old Testament**

THE TRUE CHURCH

The Roman Catholic Church claims to be God's true Church and all members are to promise obedience to the Bishop of Rome, whom she claims is successor to Saint Peter, Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ.

The Roman Catholic Church is built on the assumption that in Matthew 16:13-19 Jesus appointed Peter the first pope and so founded His Church and established the papacy. If this is true, then all true Christians must become Catholic. If it is false, the whole Catholic religion is false and cultic and no true Christians could be identified with such a system. We must, then, search the Scriptures in order to know what is true. The Scriptures are not merely the writings of men, “But holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (II Peter 1:21). “All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice; that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work: (II Timothy 3:16-17). “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words (the Bible) shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). Both Scripture and history testify to the authenticity, reliability, efficiency, and sufficiency of the Bible. Though some Catholic translations are better than others, all are reliable enough for general study with Catholics.

When Jesus, in Matthew 16:18, said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" He used the demonstrative "this" (taute), pointing to Peter's confession, "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God" as the rock. Jesus said, "Thou are Peter (petros, a stone - all believers are stones, see I Peter 2:5 and Ephesians 2:21), and upon this rock (petra, a huge rock foundation - the confession that Jesus is the Christ), I will build my church". He did not promise to build His Church upon Peter. Jesus would not have trusted such a precious possession as His Church to the leadership of even one fallible man much less a whole succession of them. The pope of Rome is called the Vicar of the Son of God (Vicarius Filii Dei). In the Bible we find that the Holy Spirit, not a pope, was sent to take the place of Jesus on earth. That is what Vicar means. The Holy Spirit was given to guide us into all truth (John 16:7-15) and the Scriptures were given for teaching, for reproving, for correction, and for instruction (II Timothy 3:16). Christ did not leave His Church to human leadership. Jesus Himself is still the Head of His Church. He speaks to us through His infallible Word, the Holy Scriptures, by His ever present and infallible Holy Spirit.

Let us remember that Christ is the Rock and only Head of the Church. I Corinthians 3:11. For other foundation no one can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus.
I Corinthians 10:4. The rock was Christ.
Ephesians 1:22,23. Head over all the Church.
Ephesians 2:20. Christ Jesus... the chief corner stone.

Around thirty-four times in the Old Testament God is call a Rock or the Rock of Israel. You see, the Bible clearly teaches that when Jesus founded His Church, He was to be the only Head, the Holy Spirit the Vicar and Guide, and the Bible the only authority for faith and practice. All true Christians constitute THE TRUE CHURCH (those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, who believe and obey Christ's teachings). True believers were called "Christians", not "Catholics".
Acts 11:26 Disciples were first called Christians.
Acts 26:28 Persuade me to become a Christian.
I Peter 4:16 Suffer as a Christian

There were no Roman Catholics until Christianity was merged with paganism into a state religion around 315 A.D. The true Christians obeyed God's Word, they never joined in the pagan corruption. The gates of hell have never prevailed against the true believers, they are few, their way is narrow, they would rather suffer martyrdom than compromise the Word of God or deny their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. "Go out from her, my people, that you may not share in her sins, and that you may not receive of her plagues" (Apocalypse 18:4). Believers must not be identified with compromising or counterfeit Churches!

THE POPE

The Pope is called "Our Holy Father". See encyclical letter of Pope Leo XIII in the Douay Version of the Bible. He is also called "Our Most Holy Lord", Pope Pius X. See Cardinals Oath. Moreri, a famous historian said, "To make war against the Pope is to make war against God, seeing the Pope is God and God is the Pope". Decius said, "The Pope can do all things God can do". Pope Leo XIII said of himself, "The supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God himself." Pope Pius X said, "The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ himself hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks." Pope Pius XI once declared, "You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on the earth." All this is blasphemy!
Isaias 44:8 Is there a God besides me?
Matthew 23:9 Call no one on earthyour father.
Ephesians 4:5 One Lord.
Philippians 2:11 Jesus Christ is inthe glory of God the Father.
I Peter 5:3 Nor yet as lording it over your charges.
I Peter 5:1-4 I, your fellow-presbyter.

Peter called himself a presbyter (pastor), not a pope. He refused honor (Acts 10:25,26) saying "Stand up for I myself also am a man". The apostles argued regarding who was greatest in the kingdom (Matthew 18:1) which indicates that even they did not accept Peter as head of the Church. The wealth and power of the Roman Popes could have come to Peter or any of the apostles. They had charisma, they could heal and raise the dead and perform many other miracles. They could have accumulated gold and land and conquering armies, but they gave away all that was placed at their feet (Acts 4:37, 3:6). They rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer for the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 5:41). How could anyone be so naive as to think that the papacy evolved out of such humility and simplicity. The office of Pope is of pagan origin and cannot in any way be substantiated in Scripture. Because of the work and ministry of the Holy Spirit, such an office is not necessary or even desirable.

THE PRIESTHOOD

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ ordained the twelve apostles to the priesthood at the Last Supper and that the powers of the priesthood were handed down during the past two thousand years. This teaching is clearly contrary to the Word of God.

In the Old Testament the work of Christ was prefigured under the three offices of prophet, priest and king. The nation of Israel had each office. With the coming of Christ each of these offices found its fulfillment in Him. Thus in the New Testament there is no need for a human sacrificing priesthood.
John 19:30. It is consummated.
I Timothy 2:5. There is one God, and one Mediator...Christ Jesus.
Hebrews 7:24. Because he continues forever, has an everlasting (non-transferable, intransmissible) priesthood.
Hebrews 7:25. He lives always to make intercession.
Hebrews 7:27. He does not need to offer sacrifices daily.
Hebrews 9:12. Having obtained eternal redemption.
Hebrews 10:10. We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
I Corinthians 12:28. God indeed has placed some in the Church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers...(no mention of sacramental priests).
Ephesians 4:11. He Himself gave some men as apostles, and some as prophets, others again as evangelists, and others as pastors and teachers...(again no mention of sacramental priests).
I Peter 5:1-3. I, your fellow-presbyter and witness...(Nothing about being a priest).

The office of priest is not the same as minister. The concept of a mediating, sacrificing priesthood originated and developed under Cyprian, the theological authority in the West until the time of Augustine, and was part of the merger of paganism with Christianity. Nowhere in the Scriptures will on find evidence of a mediating, sacrificing priesthood after Christ.

THE MASS

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. It also teaches that the Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross. Both are against God's teaching.
Hebrews 7:27. He died once for all.
Hebrews 9:11-15. He entered once for all.
Hebrews 9:26. Once for all.
Hebrews 9:28. Christ offered once.
Hebrews 10:10. Once for all.
Hebrews 10:11,12. One sacrifice for sins.
Hebrews 10:14. For by one offering.
Hebrews 10:15-20. There is no longer offering for sin.

If Christ is offered again by Roman Catholic priests as they claim, then the above Scriptures are not true. There are more than 100,000 Masses said all over the world every day. Jesus suffers the terrible agony of Calvary at least 100,000 times every twenty-four hours instead of "once for all" as the Scriptures teach. We must believe the Scriptures. If we truly love the Lord Jesus Christ and seek to follow His Word, we will have no regard for the teaching that the bread and wine are "changed" into the body and blood of Christ and then presented to God as a sacrifice by which God is appeased and atonement o sin is made. When Jesus said, "This is my body" or "blood", He did not "change" the substance, but was explaining that He is the one "represented" by the Passover bread and wine. Jesus did not say touto gignetai, this has become or is turned into, but touto esti, which can only mean this represents or stands for. Just as the Passover was a remembrance, so is Communion of the Lord's Supper a remembrance until He comes. The Roman Church, in advocating the doctrine of transubstantiation, departs from the literal sense of Scripture. May we be able to say with the Apostle Paul: "We at least, are not, as many others, adulterating the Word of God." (II Corinthians 2:17)

CONFESSION OR THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that her priests exercise the power of forgiving sins by hearing confession of sins and granting pardon for them as ministers of God and in His name.

This teaching is not from the Bible.
I Esdras 10:11. Now make confession to the Lord the God of your fathers.
Mark 2:7. Who can forgive sins, but only God.
Acts 4:12. Neither is there salvation in any other.
Acts 8:12. Repent...and pray to God. (Peter did not hear his confession and forgive him, but said, "pray to God".)
I John 1:7. The Blood of Jesus Christ...cleanses us from all sin.
I John 1:9. If we acknowledge our sins. (To God, not to a priest - automatic confession and absolution.)
I John 2:1. If anyone sins we have an advocate (Jesus) with the Father.

Throughout the Bible remission of sin and salvation are connected with faith in Christ, nowhere with priestly absolution. In order to support her tribunal upon earth, the Roman Catholic Church mis-interprets Matthew 16:19, "I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven". Also Matthew 18:18, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". And John 20:23, "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained". First of all, the "keys of the kingdom" refers to the authority to proclaim the terms of salvation in Christ. This is the privilege and duty of all Christian believers. The authority to bind and loose is first and foremost the commission to proclaim the gospel which liberates those who believe it, and consigns to bondage those who reject it. The Roman Catholic Church misinterprets this text in order to support the practice of confessing sins to a priest. The Biblical context clearly indicates, however, that the words of Matthew 16:19, 18:18, and John 20:23 were not only spoken to the apostles but also to those believers who were with them. Christian ministers are to preach repentance, but nothing is said about hearing confession and the granting of absolution (forgiveness of sins).

JUSTIFICATION

The most important question pertinent to religion is, "how may a man obtain the forgiveness of (his) sins?" Here is where the most significant deviation occurs. The Bible teaches that "faith" secures the remission of sins (Acts 10:43) while Roman Catholicism teaches that the "sacraments" (in addition to faith) do. We must be very precise here for the Apostle Paul said that any different way of salvation, even if given by an angel, would be accursed. Jesus said that the seed sown on good ground "understood" the way of salvation (Matthew 13:23). We urge you to embrace the Lord's way and let go of the former way. The Scripture says, "Having been justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:1). One Catholic writer is defending his Church made a statement that we all should heed. He said that if faith alone saves "the whole traditional structure of Christianity is a needless empty show, the Mass, the sacraments, the sacrificing priesthood, the teaching hierarchy, the papacy, practices of penance, asceticism, habits of self-restraint, prayer. Nay, these things are a hindrance, an enormous sham, a terrible system of lies, and therefore to be utterly swept away and destroyed." Philip Hughes, A POPULAR HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, p. 176. True Biblical Christianity rejects the notion that salvation is a moral process, that the sinner is "made" just, or "works out" his salvation by his own deeds.

Heed what God teaches in the following texts:
John 3:3. Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:16. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that those who believe in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.
John 5:24. He who hears my word, and believes him who sent me, has life everlasting, and does not come to judgment, but has passed from death to life.
Acts 4:12. Neither is there salvation in any other.
Romans 4:5. but to him who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the impious, his faith is credited to him.
Romans 4:6. David declares the blessedness of the man to whom God credits justice without works.
Romans 3:28. We reckon that a man is justified by faith independently of the works of the Law.
Romans 5:1. Having been justified therefore by faith.
Romans 10:3. Ignorant of the justice of God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to the justice of God.
Titus 3:5. Not by reason of good works that we did ourselves, but according to his mercy...

Prayer: Heavenly Father, in the name of Jesus I ask forgiveness of my sins. I give my life to you that I may receive the Son and that the Holy Spirit may work in me to will and to do of His good pleasure. Because your Word says so, I believe that You have heard my prayer and have forgiven my sins. I promise to study and obey the Scriptures so that my knowledge and faith can increase. Amen.

ROMAN CATHOLIC INVENTIONS

1. Presbyters first called priests by Lucian 2nd c.
2. Sacerdotal mass instituted by Cyprian 3rd c.
3. Prayers for the dead A.D. 300
4. Making the sign of the cross A.D. 300
5. Wax candles A.D. 320
6. Veneration of angels, dead saints, and images A.D. 375
7. Mass became a daily ritual A.D. 394
8. Beginning of exaltation of Mary, term "Mother of God"
first applied to her by Council of Ephesus A.D. 431
9. Priests began to wear special clothing A.D. 500
10. Extreme Unction (Rite of Healing) A.D. 526
11. The doctrine of Purgatory by Gregory I A.D. 593
12. Latin used in worship A.D. 600
13. Prayers offered to Mary, dead saints and angels A.D. 600
14. First man to be proclaimed Pope (Boniface III) A.D. 610
15. Kissing the Pope's feet A.D. 709
16. Temporal power of Popes, conferred by Pepon, King of the Franks A.D. 750
17. Veneration of cross, images, relics authorized A.D. 786
18. Holy water, mixed with pinch of salt, chrism, and blessed by a priest A.D. 850
19. Veneration of St. Joseph A.D. 890
20. College of Cardinals begun A.D. 927
21. Baptism of bells instituted by Pope John XIII A.D. 965
22. Canonization of dead saints by Pope John XV A.D. 995
23. Fasting on Fridays and Lent A.D. 998
24. The Mass developed gradually as a sacrifice, attendance made obligatory 11th c.
25. Celibacy of priests declared A.D. 1079
26. Rosary adopted (pagan) by Peter the Hermit A.D. 1090
27. The Inquisition instituted by Council of Verona A.D. 1184
28. Sale of indulgences A.D. 1190
29. Seven Sacraments, defined by Peter Lombard 12th c.
30. Transubstantiation, defined by Innocent III A.D. 1215
31. Auricular confession (Rite of reconciliation) of sins to a priest instead of God, instituted by Innocent III A.D. 1215
32. Adoration of the wafer (called the Host), decreed by Pope Honorius III A.D. 1220
33. Scapular invented by Simon Stock of England A.D. 1251
34. The cup forbidden to the laity at communion by Council of Constance A.D. 1414
35. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma by the Council of Florence in A.D. 1439
36. Tradition declared of equal authority with the Bible by the Council of Trent A.D. 1545
37. Apocryphal books are added to the Bible by the Council of Trent A.D. 1546
38. Creed of Pope Pius IV imposed as the official creed in place of the original Apostolic Creed A.D. 1560
39. Immaculate Conception of Mary (not virgin birth) proclaimed by Pope Pius IX A.D. 1854
40. Syllabus of Errors proclaimed by Pope Pius IX and ratified by the Vatican Council; condemned freedom of religion, conscience, speech, press and scientific discoveries which are disapproved by the Roman Church; asserted the Pope's temporal authority over all civil rulers A.D. 1864
41. Infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith and morals proclaimed by the Vatican Council A.D. 1870
42. Assumption of Mary proclaimed by Pius XII A.D. 1950
43. Mary proclaimed the "Mother of the Church" by Pope Paul VI A.D. 1965
Cardinal Newman, in his book, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, admits that "temples, incense, oil lamps, votive offerings, holy water, holidays, and seasons of devotion, processions, blessings of fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure (of priests and monks and nuns), images ..are all of pagan origin." (p.359) Yet, we are told that to practice these traditions is to make void the Word of God (Matthew 15:16), to worship in vain (Matthew 15:9). Also see II John 9-10.

The Bible itself declares that the way of salvation is so plain that even "fools shall not err therein" (Isaias 35:8). When the blind lead the blind, both fall...(Matthew 15:14). The urgent need of our day is to search the never changing Scriptures to see if what popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, minister, and teachers tell us is the truth or not. In apostolic days this was done: "Now these were a nobler character than those of Thessalonica and they received the word with great eagerness, studying the Scriptures every day to see whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11). Those who do not teach and preach the Gospel as it is found in the Scriptures are under the curse of God. "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema!" (Galatians 1:8). Do not be deceived by false teachers. See Colossians 2:8. Test everything! (I Thessalonians 5:21)

These Biblical truths are offered in a spirit of true Christian love. We ask you to consider them objectively so that with the Psalmist you can declare, "I have chosen the way of truth" (Psalm 118:30).

MMRbkaRudog
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 3531
Joined: April 4th, 2004, 6:07 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: SJ
Location: WWW

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by MMRbkaRudog » January 30th, 2015, 1:45 am

bumperjack wrote:http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christi ... #Mithraism THIS IS SOME HISTORY CATHOLICS WERE NOT THE FIRST CHRISTIANS SILENT.
Are you saying it says that? Well it doesn't if that's what you're saying.

MMRbkaRudog
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 3531
Joined: April 4th, 2004, 6:07 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: SJ
Location: WWW

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by MMRbkaRudog » January 30th, 2015, 3:06 am

I would think he would have a better understanding if he was a priest, but obviously he agrees with what some people are saying about Catholicism. One thing I think is stupid is how some Christians are translating the Scripture where it says call no man father. I mean I know someone who would say she didn't call her dad father, she called him dad. #facepalm
bumperjack wrote:Scriptual Truths for Roman Catholics: This guy has a Ph.D and was a former Catholic Priest Silent! This is Why I dont believe in Catholicism Brother, you can detest this also! I understand sometimes when people are hit with the truth they get mad & upset, its human nature.I know you are sold not decieved about Catholicism. so I will never disrespect your known faith by any means so please dont take this out of context but this has alot of merit whether you want to except it or not!?! Again take it for what its worth is all...Its not posted with any intent other than trying or trying to disrespect your faith brother.L&R BJ

Bartholomew F. Brewer, Ph.D.
Former Roman Catholic Priest

**All Scripture quotations and references are taken from the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Translation of the Catholic New Testament and the Douay Version of the Old Testament**

THE TRUE CHURCH

The Roman Catholic Church claims to be God's true Church and all members are to promise obedience to the Bishop of Rome, whom she claims is successor to Saint Peter, Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ.

The Roman Catholic Church is built on the assumption that in Matthew 16:13-19 Jesus appointed Peter the first pope and so founded His Church and established the papacy. If this is true, then all true Christians must become Catholic. If it is false, the whole Catholic religion is false and cultic and no true Christians could be identified with such a system. We must, then, search the Scriptures in order to know what is true. The Scriptures are not merely the writings of men, “But holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (II Peter 1:21). “All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice; that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work: (II Timothy 3:16-17). “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words (the Bible) shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). Both Scripture and history testify to the authenticity, reliability, efficiency, and sufficiency of the Bible. Though some Catholic translations are better than others, all are reliable enough for general study with Catholics.

When Jesus, in Matthew 16:18, said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" He used the demonstrative "this" (taute), pointing to Peter's confession, "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God" as the rock. Jesus said, "Thou are Peter (petros, a stone - all believers are stones, see I Peter 2:5 and Ephesians 2:21), and upon this rock (petra, a huge rock foundation - the confession that Jesus is the Christ), I will build my church". He did not promise to build His Church upon Peter. Jesus would not have trusted such a precious possession as His Church to the leadership of even one fallible man much less a whole succession of them. The pope of Rome is called the Vicar of the Son of God (Vicarius Filii Dei). In the Bible we find that the Holy Spirit, not a pope, was sent to take the place of Jesus on earth. That is what Vicar means. The Holy Spirit was given to guide us into all truth (John 16:7-15) and the Scriptures were given for teaching, for reproving, for correction, and for instruction (II Timothy 3:16). Christ did not leave His Church to human leadership. Jesus Himself is still the Head of His Church. He speaks to us through His infallible Word, the Holy Scriptures, by His ever present and infallible Holy Spirit.

Let us remember that Christ is the Rock and only Head of the Church. I Corinthians 3:11. For other foundation no one can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus.
I Corinthians 10:4. The rock was Christ.
Ephesians 1:22,23. Head over all the Church.
Ephesians 2:20. Christ Jesus... the chief corner stone.

Around thirty-four times in the Old Testament God is call a Rock or the Rock of Israel. You see, the Bible clearly teaches that when Jesus founded His Church, He was to be the only Head, the Holy Spirit the Vicar and Guide, and the Bible the only authority for faith and practice. All true Christians constitute THE TRUE CHURCH (those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, who believe and obey Christ's teachings). True believers were called "Christians", not "Catholics".
Acts 11:26 Disciples were first called Christians.
Acts 26:28 Persuade me to become a Christian.
I Peter 4:16 Suffer as a Christian

There were no Roman Catholics until Christianity was merged with paganism into a state religion around 315 A.D. The true Christians obeyed God's Word, they never joined in the pagan corruption. The gates of hell have never prevailed against the true believers, they are few, their way is narrow, they would rather suffer martyrdom than compromise the Word of God or deny their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. "Go out from her, my people, that you may not share in her sins, and that you may not receive of her plagues" (Apocalypse 18:4). Believers must not be identified with compromising or counterfeit Churches!

THE POPE

The Pope is called "Our Holy Father". See encyclical letter of Pope Leo XIII in the Douay Version of the Bible. He is also called "Our Most Holy Lord", Pope Pius X. See Cardinals Oath. Moreri, a famous historian said, "To make war against the Pope is to make war against God, seeing the Pope is God and God is the Pope". Decius said, "The Pope can do all things God can do". Pope Leo XIII said of himself, "The supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God himself." Pope Pius X said, "The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ himself hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks." Pope Pius XI once declared, "You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on the earth." All this is blasphemy!
Isaias 44:8 Is there a God besides me?
Matthew 23:9 Call no one on earthyour father.
Ephesians 4:5 One Lord.
Philippians 2:11 Jesus Christ is inthe glory of God the Father.
I Peter 5:3 Nor yet as lording it over your charges.
I Peter 5:1-4 I, your fellow-presbyter.

Peter called himself a presbyter (pastor), not a pope. He refused honor (Acts 10:25,26) saying "Stand up for I myself also am a man". The apostles argued regarding who was greatest in the kingdom (Matthew 18:1) which indicates that even they did not accept Peter as head of the Church. The wealth and power of the Roman Popes could have come to Peter or any of the apostles. They had charisma, they could heal and raise the dead and perform many other miracles. They could have accumulated gold and land and conquering armies, but they gave away all that was placed at their feet (Acts 4:37, 3:6). They rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer for the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 5:41). How could anyone be so naive as to think that the papacy evolved out of such humility and simplicity. The office of Pope is of pagan origin and cannot in any way be substantiated in Scripture. Because of the work and ministry of the Holy Spirit, such an office is not necessary or even desirable.

THE PRIESTHOOD

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ ordained the twelve apostles to the priesthood at the Last Supper and that the powers of the priesthood were handed down during the past two thousand years. This teaching is clearly contrary to the Word of God.

In the Old Testament the work of Christ was prefigured under the three offices of prophet, priest and king. The nation of Israel had each office. With the coming of Christ each of these offices found its fulfillment in Him. Thus in the New Testament there is no need for a human sacrificing priesthood.
John 19:30. It is consummated.
I Timothy 2:5. There is one God, and one Mediator...Christ Jesus.
Hebrews 7:24. Because he continues forever, has an everlasting (non-transferable, intransmissible) priesthood.
Hebrews 7:25. He lives always to make intercession.
Hebrews 7:27. He does not need to offer sacrifices daily.
Hebrews 9:12. Having obtained eternal redemption.
Hebrews 10:10. We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
I Corinthians 12:28. God indeed has placed some in the Church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers...(no mention of sacramental priests).
Ephesians 4:11. He Himself gave some men as apostles, and some as prophets, others again as evangelists, and others as pastors and teachers...(again no mention of sacramental priests).
I Peter 5:1-3. I, your fellow-presbyter and witness...(Nothing about being a priest).

The office of priest is not the same as minister. The concept of a mediating, sacrificing priesthood originated and developed under Cyprian, the theological authority in the West until the time of Augustine, and was part of the merger of paganism with Christianity. Nowhere in the Scriptures will on find evidence of a mediating, sacrificing priesthood after Christ.

THE MASS

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. It also teaches that the Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross. Both are against God's teaching.
Hebrews 7:27. He died once for all.
Hebrews 9:11-15. He entered once for all.
Hebrews 9:26. Once for all.
Hebrews 9:28. Christ offered once.
Hebrews 10:10. Once for all.
Hebrews 10:11,12. One sacrifice for sins.
Hebrews 10:14. For by one offering.
Hebrews 10:15-20. There is no longer offering for sin.

If Christ is offered again by Roman Catholic priests as they claim, then the above Scriptures are not true. There are more than 100,000 Masses said all over the world every day. Jesus suffers the terrible agony of Calvary at least 100,000 times every twenty-four hours instead of "once for all" as the Scriptures teach. We must believe the Scriptures. If we truly love the Lord Jesus Christ and seek to follow His Word, we will have no regard for the teaching that the bread and wine are "changed" into the body and blood of Christ and then presented to God as a sacrifice by which God is appeased and atonement o sin is made. When Jesus said, "This is my body" or "blood", He did not "change" the substance, but was explaining that He is the one "represented" by the Passover bread and wine. Jesus did not say touto gignetai, this has become or is turned into, but touto esti, which can only mean this represents or stands for. Just as the Passover was a remembrance, so is Communion of the Lord's Supper a remembrance until He comes. The Roman Church, in advocating the doctrine of transubstantiation, departs from the literal sense of Scripture. May we be able to say with the Apostle Paul: "We at least, are not, as many others, adulterating the Word of God." (II Corinthians 2:17)

CONFESSION OR THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that her priests exercise the power of forgiving sins by hearing confession of sins and granting pardon for them as ministers of God and in His name.

This teaching is not from the Bible.
I Esdras 10:11. Now make confession to the Lord the God of your fathers.
Mark 2:7. Who can forgive sins, but only God.
Acts 4:12. Neither is there salvation in any other.
Acts 8:12. Repent...and pray to God. (Peter did not hear his confession and forgive him, but said, "pray to God".)
I John 1:7. The Blood of Jesus Christ...cleanses us from all sin.
I John 1:9. If we acknowledge our sins. (To God, not to a priest - automatic confession and absolution.)
I John 2:1. If anyone sins we have an advocate (Jesus) with the Father.

Throughout the Bible remission of sin and salvation are connected with faith in Christ, nowhere with priestly absolution. In order to support her tribunal upon earth, the Roman Catholic Church mis-interprets Matthew 16:19, "I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven". Also Matthew 18:18, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". And John 20:23, "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained". First of all, the "keys of the kingdom" refers to the authority to proclaim the terms of salvation in Christ. This is the privilege and duty of all Christian believers. The authority to bind and loose is first and foremost the commission to proclaim the gospel which liberates those who believe it, and consigns to bondage those who reject it. The Roman Catholic Church misinterprets this text in order to support the practice of confessing sins to a priest. The Biblical context clearly indicates, however, that the words of Matthew 16:19, 18:18, and John 20:23 were not only spoken to the apostles but also to those believers who were with them. Christian ministers are to preach repentance, but nothing is said about hearing confession and the granting of absolution (forgiveness of sins).

JUSTIFICATION

The most important question pertinent to religion is, "how may a man obtain the forgiveness of (his) sins?" Here is where the most significant deviation occurs. The Bible teaches that "faith" secures the remission of sins (Acts 10:43) while Roman Catholicism teaches that the "sacraments" (in addition to faith) do. We must be very precise here for the Apostle Paul said that any different way of salvation, even if given by an angel, would be accursed. Jesus said that the seed sown on good ground "understood" the way of salvation (Matthew 13:23). We urge you to embrace the Lord's way and let go of the former way. The Scripture says, "Having been justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:1). One Catholic writer is defending his Church made a statement that we all should heed. He said that if faith alone saves "the whole traditional structure of Christianity is a needless empty show, the Mass, the sacraments, the sacrificing priesthood, the teaching hierarchy, the papacy, practices of penance, asceticism, habits of self-restraint, prayer. Nay, these things are a hindrance, an enormous sham, a terrible system of lies, and therefore to be utterly swept away and destroyed." Philip Hughes, A POPULAR HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, p. 176. True Biblical Christianity rejects the notion that salvation is a moral process, that the sinner is "made" just, or "works out" his salvation by his own deeds.

Heed what God teaches in the following texts:
John 3:3. Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:16. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that those who believe in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.
John 5:24. He who hears my word, and believes him who sent me, has life everlasting, and does not come to judgment, but has passed from death to life.
Acts 4:12. Neither is there salvation in any other.
Romans 4:5. but to him who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the impious, his faith is credited to him.
Romans 4:6. David declares the blessedness of the man to whom God credits justice without works.
Romans 3:28. We reckon that a man is justified by faith independently of the works of the Law.
Romans 5:1. Having been justified therefore by faith.
Romans 10:3. Ignorant of the justice of God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to the justice of God.
Titus 3:5. Not by reason of good works that we did ourselves, but according to his mercy...

Prayer: Heavenly Father, in the name of Jesus I ask forgiveness of my sins. I give my life to you that I may receive the Son and that the Holy Spirit may work in me to will and to do of His good pleasure. Because your Word says so, I believe that You have heard my prayer and have forgiven my sins. I promise to study and obey the Scriptures so that my knowledge and faith can increase. Amen.

ROMAN CATHOLIC INVENTIONS

1. Presbyters first called priests by Lucian 2nd c.
2. Sacerdotal mass instituted by Cyprian 3rd c.
3. Prayers for the dead A.D. 300
4. Making the sign of the cross A.D. 300
5. Wax candles A.D. 320
6. Veneration of angels, dead saints, and images A.D. 375
7. Mass became a daily ritual A.D. 394
8. Beginning of exaltation of Mary, term "Mother of God"
first applied to her by Council of Ephesus A.D. 431
9. Priests began to wear special clothing A.D. 500
10. Extreme Unction (Rite of Healing) A.D. 526
11. The doctrine of Purgatory by Gregory I A.D. 593
12. Latin used in worship A.D. 600
13. Prayers offered to Mary, dead saints and angels A.D. 600
14. First man to be proclaimed Pope (Boniface III) A.D. 610
15. Kissing the Pope's feet A.D. 709
16. Temporal power of Popes, conferred by Pepon, King of the Franks A.D. 750
17. Veneration of cross, images, relics authorized A.D. 786
18. Holy water, mixed with pinch of salt, chrism, and blessed by a priest A.D. 850
19. Veneration of St. Joseph A.D. 890
20. College of Cardinals begun A.D. 927
21. Baptism of bells instituted by Pope John XIII A.D. 965
22. Canonization of dead saints by Pope John XV A.D. 995
23. Fasting on Fridays and Lent A.D. 998
24. The Mass developed gradually as a sacrifice, attendance made obligatory 11th c.
25. Celibacy of priests declared A.D. 1079
26. Rosary adopted (pagan) by Peter the Hermit A.D. 1090
27. The Inquisition instituted by Council of Verona A.D. 1184
28. Sale of indulgences A.D. 1190
29. Seven Sacraments, defined by Peter Lombard 12th c.
30. Transubstantiation, defined by Innocent III A.D. 1215
31. Auricular confession (Rite of reconciliation) of sins to a priest instead of God, instituted by Innocent III A.D. 1215
32. Adoration of the wafer (called the Host), decreed by Pope Honorius III A.D. 1220
33. Scapular invented by Simon Stock of England A.D. 1251
34. The cup forbidden to the laity at communion by Council of Constance A.D. 1414
35. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma by the Council of Florence in A.D. 1439
36. Tradition declared of equal authority with the Bible by the Council of Trent A.D. 1545
37. Apocryphal books are added to the Bible by the Council of Trent A.D. 1546
38. Creed of Pope Pius IV imposed as the official creed in place of the original Apostolic Creed A.D. 1560
39. Immaculate Conception of Mary (not virgin birth) proclaimed by Pope Pius IX A.D. 1854
40. Syllabus of Errors proclaimed by Pope Pius IX and ratified by the Vatican Council; condemned freedom of religion, conscience, speech, press and scientific discoveries which are disapproved by the Roman Church; asserted the Pope's temporal authority over all civil rulers A.D. 1864
41. Infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith and morals proclaimed by the Vatican Council A.D. 1870
42. Assumption of Mary proclaimed by Pius XII A.D. 1950
43. Mary proclaimed the "Mother of the Church" by Pope Paul VI A.D. 1965
Cardinal Newman, in his book, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, admits that "temples, incense, oil lamps, votive offerings, holy water, holidays, and seasons of devotion, processions, blessings of fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure (of priests and monks and nuns), images ..are all of pagan origin." (p.359) Yet, we are told that to practice these traditions is to make void the Word of God (Matthew 15:16), to worship in vain (Matthew 15:9). Also see II John 9-10.

The Bible itself declares that the way of salvation is so plain that even "fools shall not err therein" (Isaias 35:8). When the blind lead the blind, both fall...(Matthew 15:14). The urgent need of our day is to search the never changing Scriptures to see if what popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, minister, and teachers tell us is the truth or not. In apostolic days this was done: "Now these were a nobler character than those of Thessalonica and they received the word with great eagerness, studying the Scriptures every day to see whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11). Those who do not teach and preach the Gospel as it is found in the Scriptures are under the curse of God. "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema!" (Galatians 1:8). Do not be deceived by false teachers. See Colossians 2:8. Test everything! (I Thessalonians 5:21)

These Biblical truths are offered in a spirit of true Christian love. We ask you to consider them objectively so that with the Psalmist you can declare, "I have chosen the way of truth" (Psalm 118:30).

silentwssj
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 866
Joined: November 27th, 2013, 6:13 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: SJ

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by silentwssj » January 30th, 2015, 8:38 am

THE “ANTI-CATHOLIC’S BIBLE” REFUTED By Cyril of Ephesus


January 13, 2015 by Cyril of Ephesus





7


GE DIGITAL CAMERA


No anti-Catholics worth their salt should use this much discredited book as reference to attack the Church. (COE)






The “Boettner List”: Fact or Fiction?



By: Wolseley

Anyone is free to reproduce the following material in any form, as long as the author is given full credit for the material reproduced.

“ROMANISM” REVISITED: A FACTUAL AND HISTORICAL REFUTATION OF THE “BOETTNER LIST”(Copyright 2003 by Wayne A. Ariss; all rights reserved.)


In the years since the Internet became a worldwide communications tool, many types of “bulletin board” have become popular. These are a type of forum where a topic is introduced, and others may “post” replies to the topic by typing their thoughts into the bulletin board’s online system, and clicking on the “reply to topic” button on their computer screen. Their reply will then appear below the previous post, often with highlighted quotations from preceding posts, and the discussion will progress, sometimes with dozens of people joining in.



Some of these bulletin boards, naturally, are Christian discussion boards, where Christians and others can discuss topics such as theology, eschatology, doctrine, current events, and so on, from various Christian perspectives. Inevitably, the old dichotomies between Catholics and Protestants will make their appearance in these discussions, and the doctrinal positions from both sides will be endlessly debated. On boards of a generic Christian nature, or on boards that are of a primarily Protestant makeup, Catholics and Catholic doctrine will often take quite a pounding from non-Catholics—but I can attest from personal experience that the major differences have little to do with what Catholics actually teach and believe, but misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and old canards which sometimes go all the way back to the 16th century.Having spent years now discussing topics on these Internet bulletin boards, I have seen various claims and charges leveled at the Catholic Church, sometimes over and over again. One of the most common sources for this material consists of a familiar “laundry list” of charges against Catholicism, which I have seen posted literally dozens of times—either in part or in whole—usually verbatim, and tossed out as “proof” of the errors of Catholicism. Although the author of this list is not often identified, anyone familiar with the material will immediately recognize it as the work of one of the 20th century’s premier anti-Catholic screedists, Loraine Boettner.

Boettner was born in Missouri in 1901, and graduated with a Master’s degree in Theology from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1929. He held a variety of teaching positions around the country, and was an eminent and well-respected Reformed theologian; he died in 1990. Boettner wrote several books, including The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Studies in Theology, The Millennium, Immortality, and A Harmony of the Gospels. Unfortunately, what he seems to be the most remembered for was his 1962 book Roman Catholicism, published by the Reformed and Presbyterian Publishing Company of Philipsburg, New Jersey.

On pages 7, 8, and 9 of Roman Catholicism, Boettner included a “list” of claims against the Catholic Church—the very same “list” that is repeatedly posted, verbatim, on the Internet by those who disagree with Catholicism and who wish to point out its “errors”. Subtitled “Some Roman Catholic Heresies and Inventions, and the dates of their adoption over a period of 1650 years”, the grouping contains 44 items running from 300 AD to 1950 AD, with the addition of one item from 1965 in subsequent printings. Thus we have the source of the infamous “Boettner List”, as it is sometimes known.

For each item, Boettner first spells out the “heresy” or “invention” he claims the Church concocted, which is then followed by the date when it supposedly appeared. My purpose in this treatise is to refute each one of the items on Boettner’s list, both by correcting Boettner when he misrepresents the material in his item, and by providing primary source documents—or of materials which quote the primary source documents—that give the actual date of the practice in question, and thereby illustrating that the practices Boettner condemns actually existed in the Church much earlier than he claims. They were not “invented” at very late dates—indeed, many of them existed from the Patristic Era, or at least much earlier than Boettner would have us believe.

This is not meant to be an all-encompassing treatise, nor is it meant to be a deep scholarly endeavor. It is merely meant to highlight the wild inaccuracies in Boettner’s chronology, and let the reader decide for him or herself whether a man who manages to miss the mark so many times has any credibility in other areas as well. I do not present this as a condemnation of Boettner, or of his Reformed theological works or viewpoints; I am concerned with Roman Catholicism alone, and the claims which he makes against the Catholic Church which he provides early on in the book. Whatever the merits of his other works may be, I hope to show that in Roman Catholicism, Boettner truly has little to say with any factual credibility.

I have employed a variety of sources, making heavy use of the old Catholic Encyclopedia; but not all of my sources are Catholic, and all of the works I have used contain further cites from other works in which the material may be found. It remains only for the reader to locate the references I have provided to corroborate my sources and to do his own research to prove, or attempt to disprove, my findings.

1. Prayers for the dead, began about….300 AD.The first Scriptural mention of prayers for the dead occurs in the Deuterocanonical book of 2 Maccabees, chapter 12, verses 39 through 46, in which Judas Maccabeus and his men pray for their fallen comrades, that God may forgive the sins of the dead men. 2 Maccabees was written sometime after 124 BC [1], which makes Boettner’s date more than 400 years off.

Examples of Christians offering supplication for the dead are found in grave scripts such as the Epitaph of Abercius, the Bishop of Hierapolis, written in 180 AD. On this grave marker, Abercius asks all who may read his marker to pray for him [2].

Other examples can be found in the works of the Christian apologist Tertullian, who lived approximately from 155 AD to 250 AD. In his work The Crown (211 AD), Tertullian mentions Christians offering sacrifices for the dead on the anniversary of their deaths [3], and makes a similar reference in his work Monogamy (213 AD), where he mentions widows offering prayers and sacrifices for their deceased husbands [4].

In even the very latest of these two examples, Boettner is still nearly a hundred years off.

[1] Introduction notes to the book of 2 Maccabees, New American Bible. New York: Catholic Book Publishing Company, 1969; pg 546.

[2] William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1970, pg 78.

[3] Jurgens, pg 151.

[4] Jurgens, pg 158.

2. Making the sign of the cross….300.

Again we go back to Tertullian’s The Crown of 211 AD: “In all the occupations of our daily lives, we furrow our foreheads with the Sign” [5]. This makes Boettner’s date 89 years off.

[5] Jurgens, pg 151.

3. Wax candles, about….320.

The extant Roman record of the execution of Cyprian of Carthage (Acta Proconsularia) indicates that his funeral included the use of candles and torches; this occurred in September of 258, more than 60 years before Boettner’s date [6].

[6] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, “Candles”. New York: Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1907; pg 246.

Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, “Cyprian of Carthage”, pg 588.

Patrick Hamell, Handbook of Patrology. New York: Alba House, 1968; pg 75.

4. Veneration of angels and saints, and use of images….375.

The veneration (or respect) paid to angels can be found in the First Apology of Justin Martyr (148 AD). In Chapter VI, he states that “the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him…we worship and adore” [7].

Likewise, Athenagoras of Athens wrote in Chapter X of theSupplication For the Christians (c.177 AD): “Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confined to these points [the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit]; but we recognize also a multitude of angels and ministers”[8]. It will be noted in both these examples that Boettner is off by approximately 200 years.

The earliest reference to veneration of the saints can be found in The Martyrdom of Polycarp, a document dating from around 155 AD: “Christ we adore, because He is the Son of God. To the martyrs, on the other hand, we offer the love which is due to disciples and ministers of the Lord, on account of their unsurpassable devotion to their King and Lord” [9]. This again makes Boettner’s date 200 years off.

Insofar as images go, both Exodus 25:18 and Numbers 21:8 mention images being constructed at God’s command. Boettner apparently gets his date of 375 AD from Basil the Great, who writes in his treatise The Holy Spirit from that same year that honor paid to an image is honor paid to God Himself [10]. Basil appears to be merely offering adefinition of the use of images, however, since images go as far back as the late 2nd century; archaeological discoveries have revealed paintings on the walls of Roman catacombs depicting Christ, the saints, and scenes from Scripture, which gradually developed into frescoes, then mosaics, and finally bas-relief and statues [11]. Eusebius, who lived from 263 to 340 AD, described a statue he had personally seen, depicting Christ healing the woman of Caesarea Philippi (History of the Church, VII, xviii; 300-325 AD). All of these examples place Boettner anywhere from 50 to 200 years off the mark.

[7] http://www.ccel.org/fathers/2/

[8] ibid.

[9] Maxwell Staniforth, Early Christian Writings. New York: Penguin Books, 1968; pg 131.

Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1960; pp 318-319.

[10] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers. Volume 2, pg 18.

[11] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, “Catacombs”, pp 422-424.

Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, “Images”, pp 665-668.

5. The Mass, as a daily celebration….394.

The Mass, in the earliest years of the Church, appears to have been celebrated on Sunday only, but it was gradually extended to a daily celebration by the time of Augustine (d.430 AD). This, however, was by no means universal, being confined to specific geographical areas until the end of the 500’s AD. In some places, priests began to celebrate multiple daily Masses, until Pope Alexander II (d.1073) decreed that priests should content themselves with one or at the most two Masses, one being a requiem Mass, and then only if necessary [12]. What remains unclear is why Boettner felt this to be something sinister, to be labeled a heresy or an invention.

[12] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 2; “Bination”, pp 568-569.

6. Beginning of the exaltation of Mary, the term “Mother of God” first applied to her by the Council of Ephesus….431.

The Third Ecumenical Council, held at Ephesus in 431 AD, did indeed declare that Mary was the Mother of God. However, Mary bore this title long before Ephesus; Ignatius of Antioch states in his Epistle to the Ephesians (110 AD): “For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan” [13]. Irenaeus of Lyons writes inAgainst Heresies (180-199 AD), “The Virgin Mary…being obedient to His word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God” [14]. Finally Ephraim the Syrian (d.373 AD) composed a hymn with the words “This Virgin became a Mother while preserving her virginity….and the handmaid and work of His wisdom became the Mother of God” [15]. In these three examples, Boettner is off by 321 years, 232 years, and 58 years, respectively.

[13] Jurgens, Vol. 1. pg 18.

[14] ibid., pg 101.

[15] ibid., pg 312.

7. Priests began to dress differently than laymen….500.Boettner here is half right. In the 6th century the manner of dress between clergy and laity was different; however, it wasn’t the clergy that changed and began dressing differently, it was the laity.

In the early years of the Church, clergy dressed no differently from the people around them, and indeed, priests were chastised for dressing in any manner that brought attention to themselves (letter of Pope Celestine to the bishops of Gaul, 428 AD; Council of Gangra, 340 AD). This seems to have remained the case up until the 500’s AD.

By then, the Western Roman Empire had collapsed, and the influx of northern Germanic tribesmen that came into Italy had begun to mix with the native Roman population. The clergy retained the common manner of dress that Romans had always worn—the long tunic and a toga or cloak; the laypeople, however, began to quickly adopt the style of dress of the Germans, being a short tunic, breeches, and a mantle.

A local council in Portugal in 572 and another in Germany in 742 mention clerical attire, but only insofar that clerics should be seemly attired and decently covered. The first actual indication of specific clerical dress comes in 875 AD, when Pope John VIII instructs the Archbishops of York and Canterbury to make sure that their clergy was wearing specific ecclesiastical attire. Universal enactments regarding clerical attire came in 1215, 1589, 1624, and finally 1725, when Pope Benedict XIII decreed that a cleric wearing lay garments was an infraction of the most serious order [16]. Boettner is thus off by a margin of 375 years in the earliest example.

[16] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4; “Costume, Clerical”. pp 419-420.

8. Extreme Unction….526.

Extreme Unction (or the Anointing of the Sick) is mentioned in the Epistle of James, 5:13-15, written sometime between 60 and 100 AD. In light of this fact, how Boettner came up with the idea that the Catholic Church “invented” it in 526 AD is a total mystery.

9. The doctrine of Purgatory, established by Gregory I….593.

The concept of sins being remitted after death is found in the Deuterocanonical book of 2 Maccabees, 12:38-46, which was probably written about 124 BC. This in itself makes Boettner more than 700 years off the mark, but the Catholic concept of Purgatory still pre-dates Boettner’s claim by hundreds of years; for further examples, see #1 of this list under “Prayers for the dead”.

10. Latin language, used in prayer and worship, imposed by Gregory I….600.

Latin was, of course, the language of the ruling culture in Western Europe at the time of Christianity’s inception, being the Roman Empire. As early as 180 AD, the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs mentions that the Gospels and Epistles of Paul had been translated into Latin, and pagan Romans such as Arnobius dismissed such translations as being of a trivial, common, and vulgar form of Latin [17].

The de facto “official” language of the Church appears to have been Greek up until the 3rd century, when official Papal documents began appearing in Latin. This was probably due to the overwhelming majority of Christians being located in the eastern, or Greek-speaking, half of the Empire. Paul, for example, in the 16th chapter of Romans, greets more than twenty people by name, and only six of the names are Latin, the remainder being Greek. However, Latin began to slowly gain more usage, especially in the Roman provinces of Africa, and moving northward. By the 4th century, Jerome had translated the Scriptures into Latin, and the liturgy was being celebrated almost exclusively in Latin in the western parts of the Empire [18].

Although there is no exact date when Latin took precedence in the western Church, virtually all authorities agree that it was during the period from the early 3rd to late 4th centuries. That, along with the lack of evidence of a definitive decree from Gregory I stipulating the use of Latin in his liturgical reforms after 590, places Boettner in a chronological error of several hundred years.

[17] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9; “Latin, Ecclesiastical”, pg 20.

[18] Peter Stravinskas, Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia; “Latin”. Huntington, IN: OSV Publishing, Inc., 1991, pp 575-576.

11. Prayers directed to Mary, dead saints and angels, about….600.

The most complete ancient prayer which was addressed to Mary asked for her intercession in times of difficulty and danger; entitled Sub Tuum Praesidium, or “Under Your Protection”, it dates from approximately 250 AD, making Boettner’s date approximately 350 years off [19]. Besides this, Marian devotions flourished after the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, nearly 200 years before Boettner’s date [20].

For prayers directed to saints and angels, see Number 4 above.

[19] Mark Miravalle, Introduction to Mary. Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Co., 1993, pg 27.

[20] ibid., pg 28.

12. Title of Pope, or universal bishop, given to Boniface III by emperor Phocas….607.Boettner apparently wishes to give the impression that the office of Pope was invented by the Byzantine Emperor Phocas in 607, and conferred upon Boniface. The actual facts are not so simplistic.

To begin with, the title of the Bishop of Rome—Pontifex Maximus—is a term meaning “bridge-builder”, which the Popes inherited from governmental functionaries of the pagan Romans. “Pope” is merely a derivation of a Latin word meaning “father”; and use of that term for various clerics is also found in both the Orthodox and Coptic churches.

Tertullian, writing in his treatise Modesty (written in 220 AD), cites a quote from “a pontiff—sovereign, of course—that is, a bishop of bishops” [21]. This places use and understanding of the term 387 years before Boettner’s claim. Two other instances of the term in the definition of apatriarch are found applied to the Bishop of Carthage in 250 AD [22], and to the Bishop of Alexandria in 320 AD [23]. However, the Bishop of Rome was always held to be Head of the entire Church, (as attested to by Ignatius, Hermas, Dionysius, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and others).

Shortly before Boniface III was elected, a dispute had arisen about the way that Cyriacus, the Patriarch of Constantinople, was using the term “ecumenical patriarch”; the manner in which Cyriacus was employing the title seemed to minimize the proper office of the Pope as universal head of the Church.

Once Boniface had been elected Pope, Emperor Phocas issued a decree—aimed directly at Cyriacus—which stipulated that the See of Rome was the head see of all the churches, and that the title “Universal Bishop” belonged only to the Bishop of Rome [24]. There was imperial precedent for this action, since Emperor Justinian (527-565 AD) had issued a similar acknowledgment some eighty years before [25].

The wrangling over jurisdiction between Rome and Constantinople would continue for another 400 years, and would eventually contribute to the final East-West schism in 1054 AD; but the examples provided here more than dispose of Boettner’s claim that the title of Pope was “invented” by the Byzantine Emperor in 607 AD.

[21] Jurgens, Vol. 1, pg 159.

[22] ibid., pg 227.

[23] ibid., pg 277.

[24] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 2; “Boniface III”. pg 600.

J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pg 68.

[25] ibid.

13. Kissing the pope’s foot, began with pope Constantine….709.

This is a practice which was absorbed from the Roman emperors; Roman court officials kissed the Emperor’s foot as a sign of respect for the head of the Empire. In like manner, kissing the foot of the Pope is a sign of respect for the head of the Christian Church, not the man himself—or, as Pope Innocent III described it, it is an act of “reverence due to the Supreme Pontiff as the Vicar of Him Whose feet were kissed by the woman who was a sinner”.

Boettner is incorrect to say that the practice began with Pope Constantine, since there is at least one earlier extant example of Emperor Justin kissing the foot of Pope John I (523-526 AD) some 180 years before [26].

[26] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8; “Kiss”, pg 665.

14. Temporal power of the popes, conferred by Pepin, king of the Franks….750.

During the years 741 through 747, the Frankish kingdoms that had been the domain of Charles Martel were in a state of rapid change and upheaval. By 750, Pepin the Short was in a position to take charge of the kingdom and establish stability. However, having been educated by Christian monks, and being well acquainted with St. Boniface, Pepin sought advice from Pope Zacharias as to whether he should take charge of the kingdom or not.

Pope Zacharias replied that since Pepin held de facto power over the Franks, it was better, indeed, that he should take charge of the kingdom. This confirmation disposed of the last Merovingian claimant to the throne (Childeric III), and Pepin was crowned king and anointed as such (by Boniface, acting as the Pope’s representative) the next year as Soissons [27].

In light of this examination of Frankish history, it can be seen that Boettner essentially has his facts reversed: Pepin didn’t confer temporal power on the Pope; rather, the Pope confirmed the temporal power of Pepin.

[27] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 11; “Pepin the Short”, pp 662-663.

Kelly, pg 90.

15. Worship of the cross, images and relics, authorized in….786.Boettner appears to get this date from the 2nd Council of Nicaea, even though he is off by one year (the council actually took place in 787). The council stipulated that the Cross should receive an “adoration of honor” [28}. However, the veneration of the Cross is mentioned as far back as 380 AD, in documents such as the Peregrinatio Etheriae, making Boettner’s claim 400 years off the mark [29].

Veneration of the relics of saints is mentioned much earlier than Boettner’s claim; The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, written in 155 AD, mentions that the bones of Polycarp, “more precious than costly gems and finer than gold”, were carefully gathered up after his execution, and put “in a suitable place” [30].

For more on veneration of images, see Number 4 above.

[28] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4; “Cross”, pg 524.

[29] ibid., pg 530.

[30] Jurgens, Vol. 1, pg 31.

16. Holy water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by a priest….850.

The Apostolic Constitutions, a document dating back to the 5th century, attributes the use of holy water to the Apostle St. Matthew; likewise, two more ancient documents called the Pontifical of Serapion of Thmuis and the Testamentum Domini contain liturgical formulas for the blessing of both oil and water at Mass.

The Council of Constantinople in 691 AD makes mention of the blessing of holy water at each church at the beginning of each lunar month. In any event, Boettner is off by anywhere from 400 to 159 years, depending on the source cited [31].

[31] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 7; “Holy Water”, pp 432-433.

17. Worship of St. Joseph….890.All Catholic saints are “worshiped”, of course, but only in the sense of dulia, or veneration, and not latria, the actual worship given only to God. In the case of St. Joseph, he was venerated by the Copts as early as the start of the 300’s AD; and an oratory was dedicated to him in a basilica erected by St. Helena around the same general time [32]. The apocryphal work The History of Joseph was widespread in the East from the 4th to the 7th centuries, although his cult was not widespread in the West until the 15th century, when his feast was introduced into the Roman calendar in 1479 [33].

In either event, Boettner has missed the mark by a margin of approximately 600 years in both directions.

[32] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, “Joseph”; pg 505.

[33] John J. Delaney, Dictionary of Saints. New York: Doubleday, 1980, pg 330.

18. College of Cardinals established….927.

At the Council of Rome, held in 499 AD, Pope Symmachus divided the City into various parochial units, each under the control of a priest known as a cardinale. Pope John VIII published a constitution between 873 and 882 which specifically mentions these cardinal priests, or presbyteri cardinales [34]. The office gradually developed into what we now have, meaning the body of higher clerics who meet to elect the next Pontiff upon the death of the reigning Pope; the actual term collegium comes into general use after 1150 AD [35]. The College of Cardinals was never so much an establishment as it was a development; but in any case, Boettner has again erred by anywhere from 200 to 500 years in either direction.

[34] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, “Cardinal”, pg 333.

[35] ibid., pg 340.

Baptism of bells, instituted by pope John XIII….965.

The phrase “baptism” of bells has been in use for hundreds of years, but it was a “pop” usage, which was never instituted by the Church. The actual practice involved the blessing of the bell and application of holy water, the same way that the Church blesses any object which is devoted to the service of God, i.e., an altar, a church, sacred vessels, vestments, vehicles, etc. In no way is the blessing of a bell (or any other object) the same thing as the Sacrament of Baptism, in which a new child of Christ is washed clean of original sin.

The blessing of bells is mentioned in documents dating at least as far back as Egbert, Archbishop of York, in the mid-700’s AD; thus we see that Boettner is about 200 years off [36].

[36] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, “Bells”, pp 420-421.

20. Canonization of dead saints, first by pope John XV….995.

Since veneration of Christian martyrs is mentioned by Eusebius, Augustine, Cyprian, and Cyril of Alexandria (see also Number 4 above), not to mention the religious celebration of the day of St. Polycarp’s martyrdom (155 AD), the veneration of saints has been around since the earliest days of the Church. Usually the bishop of a specific diocese would promulgate the veneration of a local martyr; when this veneration was confirmed by the Pope, it then became universal [37].

The specific instance mentioned by Boettner here, however, was the canonization of St. Ulrich, the Bishop of Augsburg (890-973). Pope John XV announced the canonization—much in the same way that any local bishop might—at a synod held at the Lateran Palace on 31 January 993, and also published the same in a bull to the German and French bishops dated 3 February [38].

This is the first time that a Pope solemnly canonized a saint, so Boettner is half right; however, it is not the first instance of a saint being recognized as officially canonized, as we have seen, although this is clearly what Boettner meant to imply. The striking part is that even when Boettner is partially correct, he still can’t seem to get his dates right, since he states this event took place in 995, when it was actually 993, making him two years off the mark.

[37] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, “Beatification and Canonization”, pp 364-365.

[38] ibid., Vol. 8, “John XV”, pg 428.

21. Fasting on Fridays and during Lent….998.

Fasting on Fridays is mentioned as far back as the Didache(140 AD) [39], thus rendering Boettner more than 800 years off the mark. As for the Lenten fast, Athanasius, writing in his Festal Letters of 331 AD, stated that the faithful should fast for 40 days during Lent [40]. This makes Boettner 667 years off the mark.

Canon

69 of theApostolic Canons, which pre-date 341 AD, admonishes bishops, clergy, and laity to fast during Lent; Canon 56 of the Trullan Synod of 692 AD contains similar regulations [41]. Here Boettner is anywhere from 657 years to 306 years off.

[39] Maxwell Staniforth (trans.), Early Christian Writings.Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1968, pg 194.

[40] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, “Lent”, pg 152.

[41] ibid., Vol. 5, “Fast”, pg 791.

22. The Mass, developed gradually as a sacrifice, attendance made obligatory in the 11th century.

The Didache, written somewhere around 140 AD, mentions that Christians should assemble on the Lord’s Day for the Eucharist, but that they should confess their sins beforehand, so that their “sacrifice may be a pure one” [42]; this sacrificial language is echoed layer by both Ignatius and Irenaeus. Thus, Boettner’s “gradual development” occurred, rather precipitously, within 50 years of the death of the Apostle John, and not over a course of ten centuries as he implies.

As for obligatory attendance at Mass, the Council of Elvira in 300 AD decreed temporary excommunication as a corrective measure for anyone who missed Mass three weeks in a row [43], 700 years before Boettner’s date.

[42] Staniforth, Early Christian Writings, pg 197.

[43] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 14, “Sunday”, pg 335.

23. Celibacy of the priesthood, decreed by pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand)….1079.

Celibacy, of course, is mentioned as an ideal by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7, although not as a mandatory injunction. Several early Fathers, including Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, and Epiphanius appear to have viewed the practice favorably as well; but it was the local Council of Elvira in Spain (295-302 AD) where celibacy was first imposed on bishops, priests, and deacons. The practice was held as the ideal for clergy, but was adopted—or imposed—piecemeal in various locations until it was decreed Church-wide for all clergy by the 1st Lateran Council in 1123 [44]. Boettner is thus off by 700 years in the first instance and 40 years in the second.

In the case of Gregory VII, he did indeed seek to strengthen the practice of clerical celibacy, but it was in two Lenten synods in 1074 and 1075, not in 1079 as Boettner asserts [45]. The second of these synods forbade married priests from saying Mass and laypeople from attending Masses celebrated by married priests [46]. Boettner is thus still off the mark by a margin of four to five years.

[44] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, “Celibacy”, pp 483-486.

[45] Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, pg 155.

[46] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, pg 486.

24. The Rosary, mechanical praying with beads, invented by Peter the Hermit….1090.

The Rosary had a long and slow development, going back to knots tied in cords and holes drilled in pieces of wood, both dating from the 300’s AD. The current prayer, and system of a crucifix and 59 beads, appears to be the result of the devotion as it was practiced in the 12th century; in this state of evolution, it was popularized by St. Dominic Guzman (1170-1221) and later by Alan de Rupe, around 1470 [47].

Peter the Hermit was one of the popular promoters of the 1st Crusade. Along with Walter the Penniless, he helped organize volunteers for the Crusade in 1096, and died in 1115, but there is no body of evidence indicating that he “invented” the Rosary devotion as it is presently known [48].

[47] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, “Rosary”, pp 184-186.

Matthew Bunson, Encyclopedia of Catholic History.Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 1995; “Rosary”, pg 733.

25. The Inquisition, instituted by the Council of Verona….1184.

Although there were both ecclesiastical and secular investigative bodies and tribunals which dealt with various heresies throughout the first 1200 years of Christian history [49], the actual first Papal Inquisition was established by Gregory IX in 1233 to investigate the Waldensian and Albigensian heresies; this was under the auspices of the Pope, as distinguished from episcopal bodies under the control of diocesan bishops [50].

Boettner is off by nearly 50 years for the establishment of the Papal Inquisition, and he is likewise inaccurate in calling the convocation at Verona in 1184 a “council”; more properly, it was a synod, and while severe measures were pronounced against the Cathari, Waldensians, and Arnoldists, the synod was a cooperative measure between Pope Lucius III and Emperor Frederick I, rather than an established Inquisition of later years [51].

[49] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, “Inquisition”, pp 26-30.

[50] Stravinskas, OSV’s Catholic Encyclopedia,“Inquisition”, pg 512.

Kelly, Dictionary of Popes, pg 190.

[51] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, “Lucius III”, pg 412.

26. Sale of Indulgences….1190.

Indulgences, or the remission (through the ministry of the Church) of temporal punishment due for forgiven sins, was bestowed upon the Apostles by Christ in John 20:23, and was thereafter mentioned by Tertullian (Ad Martyres, c.200 AD), St. Cyprian (Letter to His Clergy, 250 AD), and St. Basil (Letter to Amphilochius), 374 AD), as well as the Councils of Ancyra (314 AD), Laodicea (320 AD), Nicaea (325 AD), and Arles (320 AD) [52]. The abuse of indulgences has popped up from time to time throughout Church history, and has been condemned by the Church. The English Council of Clovesho in 747 AD sternly rebuked those who tried to hire penitents to perform austerities for them by means of proxy, with the indulgence thus gained supposedly going to the client of the penitent [53].

Boettner neglects to specify where he gets his date of 1190, which he apparently pulls out of the air at random; even later in his own book (pages 262-267) he blithely skips over this specific date. He is, however, in the general ballpark—the 12th century was about the time that indulgence “sales” gained popularity. Pope Urban II granted a plenary indulgence to all participants of the 1st Crusade (1095), and after this, “sales” came into prominence, the monies thus gained being used for such projects as building churches, roads, and bridges, care for the poor and the ill, or education of the young. William of Auvergne, the Bishop of Paris (1228-1249) justified these actions as acts of Christian charity [54].

[52] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, “Indulgences”, pg 785.

[53] ibid., pg 786.

[54] H.R. Loyn, editor, The Middle Ages: A Concise Encyclopedia. London: Thames and Hudson, Ltd., 1989; pg 1

27. Transubstantiation, proclaimed by pope Innocent III….1215.

As a concept, transubstantiation can be traced back at least to Tertullian, who states “He took bread, offered it to His disciples and made it into His body by saying, ‘This is My body'” (Against Marcion 212 AD); likewise Cyril of Jerusalem says “Once at Cana in Galilee by a mere nod He changed water into wine; should it now be incredible that He changes wine into blood?” (Catechetical Lectures [Mystagogic], 350 AD) [55].

As a term, transubstantiation was first used by the theologians Magister Roland about 1150, Stephen of Tournai about 1160, and Peter Comestor about 1170 [56]; this terminology was then used by the 1st Lateran Council in 1215, which is apparently where Boettner got his date from. As can be seen, however, Boettner is off by anywhere from 865 to 1003 years in the first instance, and anywhere from 45 to 65 years in the second.

[55] Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pp 381-382.

[56] ibid., pg 379.

28. Auricular confession of sins to a priest instead of to God, instituted by pope Innocent III, in Lateran Council….1215.

Cyprian of Carthage, in The Lapsed (251 AD) speaks of penitents “making confession of their crime”, and of “having their conscience purged in the ceremony and at the hand of the priest” [57]. Likewise, Ambrose, in Penance(387-390 AD) writes “Christ granted [the power of penance] to the Apostles and from the Apostles it has been transmitted to the office of priests” [58]. From this, it can be seen that Innocent III certainly did not “institute” the practice of auricular confession to a priest; in fact, it existed 964 years before Boettner’s claim.

[57] Jurgens, Vol. 1, pg 218.

[58] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vil. 11, “Penance”, pg 620.

29. Adoration of the wafer (Host), decreed by pope Honorius III….1220.

The implication here, of course, is that Catholics worship a piece of bread. Catholics do not worship bread, they worship Jesus Christ, Whose flesh and blood the bread hasbeome. The fact that Christians considered the bread and wine to be transformed into the flesh and blood of Christ can be found as far back as Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote in his Epistle to the Romans (110 AD), “I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ…and for drink I desire His Blood” [59].

As for the practice of perpetual adoration of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, the first recorded instance took place in 1226, although the practice did not become widespread until the 15th century [60]. From these examples it seems that Boettner erred more than 1000 years one way and about 200 years the other way.

[59] Jurgens, Vol. 1, pg 22.

[60] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, “Adoration”, pg 153.

30. Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden books by the Council of Valencia….1229.

The Index of Forbidden Books was a gradual development. The first general listing of proscribed books was under Pope Paul III in 1542. The Inquisition had an expanded list by 1559, which was intended to be world-wide, and was also the first list to bear the title “Index”. The “Index Tridentinus” was issued by the Council of Trent in 1564, and in 1571, Pope Pius V established a specific Congregation of the Index, which remained in effect until 1917 [61]. Since the earliest date for the formation of the Index is 1542, it would be rather difficult to place the Bible (or any other book, for that matter) on it in 1229, which is more than 300 years before the Index existed. This is Boettner’s first blunder.

The 1962 edition of Boettner’s tome opines that this proscription of the Bible took place at the Council of Valencia; however, as Karl Keating points out, there has never been a Catholic church council held in Valencia, Spain—neither local, regional, nor ecumenical. This is Boettner’s second blunder [62]. Keating likewise explains that even if there had been a council in Valencia, it couldn’t have been held in 1229, since in 1229, Valencia was under the control of the Muslims, who were extremely unlikely to allow a Christian church council to be held in their territory; a quick check of any encyclopedia or historical atlas will bear this out [63]. This is Boettner’s third blunder, and as may be seen, his chronology has completely missed the mark along with both his history and his geography.

[61] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, “Censorship of Books”, pg 521.

Stravinskas, OSV’s Catholic Encyclopedia, “Index of Forbidden Books”, pg 507.

[62] Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988; pg 45.

[63] The Columbia-Viking Desk Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, “Valencia”. New York: Viking Press, 1953; pg 1310.

Hammond Illustrated Family Atlas, Vol. 2; Map, “Europe, c.1200 AD”. Glen Cove, NY: Bobley Publishing Corporation, 1969; pg H-15.

31. The Scapular, invented by Simon Stock, and English monk….1251.

Boettner finally has something right. The brown scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel is, according to pious tradition, based on a vision had by Simon Stock in Cambridge, England, on July 16, 1251. In the vision, the Virgin Mary gave Simon a scapular, with the explanation that it was a “badge of her confraternity” [64].

Scapulars have always been associated with “third orders”, in which lay people affiliate themselves with one religious order or another, pledging themselves to live good Christian lives; so what Boettner found so awful about this remains a mystery.

However, Simon Stock’s vision falls into the category of “private revelation”, which means that even when approved by the Church, it is not a required belief of any Catholic by any means, remaining entirely the option of the individual believer. The so-called “scapular promise” given to Simon Stock is likewise nothing more than private revelation, and is certainly not a doctrine, much less a dogma, of the Church.

[64] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, “Scapular”, pg 511.

32. Cup forbidden to the people at communion by Council of Constance….1414.

Instances of Holy Communion under the auspices of bread alone can be found as far back as the Council of Laodicea in the 4th century and the 2nd Council of Trullo in the 7th, both of which specified Communion under the species of bread alone during all fast days in Lent; this makes Boettner about 1000 years off in the earliest example [65]. After this, the gradual removal of the Sacred Blood from laypeople was introduced, apparently for a variety of reasons; one of them was the Church’s desire to reinforce the Church’s authority against heretics and the Reformers, who rejected the idea that Communion could be received under only one species. This idea they enforced on their own, apart from the authority of the Church [66]. Another reason was to prevent spillage of the Sacred Blood, and another was to abolish the practice of self-communication by means of intinction [67].

Constance did indeed impose restricting the Sacred Blood from laymen (not in 1414 as Boettner asserts, but a year later in 1415, at the 13th session of the council), but this was a reiteration of previous rulings, including the councils above, the monastic rule of Columbanus (in which the Blood was restricted from novices), and the Council of Lambeth in 1281. It was by no means a new, novel introduction [68].

[65] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, “Communion”, pg 177.

[66] ibid., pg 175.

[67] ibid., pg 178.

[68] ibid., pp 177-178.

33. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma by the Council of Florence….1439.As was mentioned in #1 and #9 of this list, the concept of Purgatory pre-dates the Catholic Church, and the doctrine has been around since the 2nd century; the assembled bishops at Florence merely defined the existing doctrine;they did not invent it.

34. The doctrine of the seven sacraments affirmed….1439.

Seven sacraments are mentioned by Peter Lombard (who died in 1164) in the fourth Book of Sentences; seven are likewise numbered by Otto of Bamberg in 1139; the Council of London in 1237; and the Council of Lyons in 1274, all of which pre-date Florence [69]. Boettner is thus off by 300 years in his claim of when the seven sacraments were affirmed.

[69] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, “Sacraments”, pp 299-300.

35. The Ave Maria (part of the last half was completed 50 years later and approved by pope Sixtus V at the end of the 16th century)….1508.

If Boettner is asserting that the “Hail Mary” prayer was invented in 1508, that is nonsense, since the first part of the Hail Mary is found in Scripture; Luke 1:28 finds Gabriel saluting Mary with “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you”, followed by Luke 1:42, in which Elizabeth continues, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb”. The prayer remained thus until the 15th century, when the words “Jesus Christ, amen” came into common usage.

The prayer as we now know it first appears in the “Calendar of Shepherds”, which was published in France in 1493; a book written by Girolamo Savonarola in 1495 also contains the entire prayer as we know it, minus the word “us” [70]. Thus, Boettner is off by 15 years for the “first half” of his chronology for the end of the prayer, and by 65 years for the “second half”.

[70] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, “Hail Mary”, pp 111-112.

36. Jesuit order founded by Loyola….1534.

Ignatius Loyola did indeed found the Society of Jesus in 1534, although the Society did not receive Papal approbation until 1540. Why Boettner seems to feel that the Jesuit Order (as opposed to the Benedictines, Dominicans, Passionists, Franciscans, etc., whom he never mentions) is a “heresy” or an “invention” is puzzling, especially in light of the fact that his own Calvinist denomination did not exist prior to 1536.

37. Tradition declared of equal authority with the Bible by the Council of Trent….1545.

None other than the Apostle Paul warned about the importance of Tradition, or the oral teachings of the Apostles (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 3:6); and he equated Tradition with written Scripture (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Trent re-confirmed the authority and equality of Apostolic Tradition with Scripture in the face of the Reformation, which denied the inspiration and authority of Tradition—along with every doctrine it contained which the Reformers disagreed with. The view of the early Christians, however, is borne out in texts such as these:

“What if the Apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (Irenaeus of Lyons; Against Heresies, 3,4,1; 180 AD) [71].

“The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” (Origen; Fundamental Doctrines, 1, Preface, 2; 220 AD) [72].

“Of the dogmas and kerygmas preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force.” (Basil the Great; The Holy Spirit, 27,66; 375 AD) [73].

“It is needful also to make use of Tradition; for not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture. The holy Apostles handed down some things in the Scriptures, other things in Tradition.” (Epiphanius of Salamis; Against All Heresies, 61,6; 374 AD) [74].

These examples could be multiplied, but these few more than suffice to render Boettner’s idea that Trent “added” Tradition to the Church’s Deposit totally null; he again off by 1,365 years in the case of Irenaeus, and 1,171 years in the case of Epiphanius.

[71] Jurgens, Vol. 1, pg 91.

[72] ibid., pg 190.

[73] Jurgens, Vol. 2, pp 18-19.

[74] ibid., pg 73.

38. Apocryphal books added to the Bible by the Council of Trent….1546.

Canon 36 from the Council of Hippo (October 8, 393) lists the following Old Testament books:

“Sunt autem canonicae Scripturae: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronominum, Iesu Nave (Joshua), Iudicum (Judges), Ruth, Regnorum libri quator (1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings), Paralipomenon libri duo (1 & 2 Chronicles), Iob, Psalterium Davidicum, Salomonis libri quinque (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach), Duodecim libri prophetarum (the twelve minor prophets—Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi). Esaias, Ieremias (comprising the books of Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Baruch), Daniel, Ezechiel,Tobias, Iudith, Hester, Hesdrae libri duo (Ezra and Nehemiah), Machabaeorum libri duo” [75].

(Bolding mine for emphasis of the disputed books.)

Likewise, Augustine in Christian Instruction (2,8,13; 397 AD), lists the following:

“The whole canon of the Scriptures…is contained in these books: the five of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; and one book of Jesus Nave (Joshua), one of Judges; one little book is called Ruth…the the four of Kingdoms (1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings); and the two of Paralipomenon (1 & 2 Chronicles)…Job and Tobias and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees; and the two of Esdras (Ezra and Nehemiah)…the Psalms of David…Proverbs, Canticle of Canticles, and Ecclesiastes…Wisdom…Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)…the individual books of the twelve (minor) prophets…Isaias, Jeremias (including both Lamentations and Baruch), Daniel, and Ezechiel. With these forty-four books the authority of the Old Testament is concluded” [76].

(Bolding mine for emphasis of the disputed books.)

Again, these examples could be multiplied by examining the texts of the Decree of Damasus (382 AD), the 3rd and 4th Councils of Carthage (397 AD and 418 AD), and the Council of Florence in 1441 AD. Since the extant texts of these documents include the seven Deuterocanonical books within their lists of canonical Scriptures, it remains a mystery as to how the Council of Trent could have addedthem to the Bible (1,164 years later, in the earliest example) as Boettner claims.

[75] Mario Romero, Unabridged Christianity. Goleta, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 1999; pg 16.

[76] Jurgens, Vol. 3, pg 53.

39. Creed of pope Pius IV imposed as the official creed….1560.

There are three creeds used in the Catholic Church: the Apostle’s Creed, dating at least as far back as Tertullian; the Nicene Creed, formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD; and the Athanasian Creed, dating from the 4th century. The “Creed of Pius IV” however, was not a creed, but a profession of adherence to Catholic doctrine that all ecclesiastical office holders had to swear allegiance to. Contained in Pius’ bull Injunctum nobis, issued November 13, 1565 (not 1560 as Boettner erroneously claims), it contained a long list of doctrines, such as belief in seven sacraments, purgatory, the sacrifice of the Mass, obedience to the Roman Pontiff, acceptance of the Holy Scriptures, and so on, that any candidate for an office in the Church had to proclaim his belief in and adherence to [77]. As such, Boettner’s implication that Pius IV “invented a new creed” is baseless.

[77] Bunson, Encyclopedia of Catholic History, “Pius IV, Creed of”, pp 667-668.

silentwssj
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 866
Joined: November 27th, 2013, 6:13 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: SJ

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by silentwssj » January 30th, 2015, 8:40 am

Here is the other part of the post it is to long for just one post!



40. Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, proclaimed by pope Pius IX….1854.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary (meaning the doctrine that she was conceived free from stain of original sin) goes back at least to St. Ephraim of Nisbis, who wrote in 370 AD that Mary was “immune from all stain…no spot…nor any taint” could be found in her [78]. Various other Patristic Fathers also described Mary in like terms—St. Ambrose said she was “free from all stain of sin”; Severus of Antioch said she was “pure from all taint”; Sophronius of Jerusalem called her “pre-purified”; Andrew of Crete called her the “pure and Immaculate Virgin”; and Theognastes of Constantinople said she was “conceived by a sanctifying action” [79].

Pius IX officially defined this existing doctrine and declared it to be a dogma in his bull Ineffabilis Deus in 1854 [80]—but as with many things Boettner misinterprets, Pius did not invent the Immaculate Conception; it existed as a concept more than 1400 years before 1854.

[78] Mark Miravalle, Introduction to Mary. Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 1993; pg 40.

[79] ibid., pg 40.

[80] ibid., pg 41.

41. Syllabus of Errors, proclaimed by pope Pius IX, and ratified by the Vatican Council; condemned freedom of religion, conscience, speech, press, and scientific discoveries which are disapproved by the Roman Church; asserted the pope’s temporal authority over all civil rulers….1864.

The Syllabus of Pius IX ignited a firestorm when it was issued in 1864—condemned by Germany’s Bismarck and Italy’s Victor Emmanuel, forbidden to be published in Russia and France. Many saw it as the Pope’s declaration of war against the modern state [81].

However, Pius’ document is merely a list of viewpoints which, insofar as Catholic teaching is concerned, are erroneous. Among them are the contention that there is no God (#1); that the existance of Jesus Christ is a myth (#7); that all religions are equally legitimate (#16); that the Church has no right to possess property (#26); that bishops may not publish letters to their congregations without the permission of the state (#28); that the state may intrude on the governance of the Church, up to and including the specification of how the sacraments may be administered (#44); that the Church has no right to establish schools; that even seminaries must be subject to the state (#46 and 47); and that the state has the right not only to appoint and depose bishops, but to prevent them from communicating with the Vatican (#49 and 51) [82].

A careful reading of the Syllabus does not reveal a condemnation of freedom of religion or conscience, but rather an assertion that Catholics have the right to freedom of religion and conscience free from interference by the secular state. There appears to be little or no mention of freedom of speech or press, outside of condemning the viewpoint that the state has the right to interfere in the communication of individual Catholics, both lay and clerical, with the Holy See. There is likewise no specific condemnation by the Pope concerning scientific discoveries, as Boettner asserts; but rather a refutation of the wholesale idea that the Church “impedes the true progress of science” (#12). Further, far from asserting the Pope’s rights over temporal rulers, the Syllabus repeatedly asserts the right of the Pope to be free from the interference of the secular state in matters pertaining to the governance of the Church.

In short, Boettner created a monster of his own imagination in what he perceives the Syllabus to contain, while conveniently ignoring the stipulations upheld by Pius IX that call for the protection of not only the individual rights of Catholics, but of all Christians—the same rights which would prove to be especially important in the century which followed the issuance of the Syllabus—a century which saw the flourishing of atheism, Communism, Nazism, and secular humanism.

[81] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 14; “Syllabus”, pg 368.

42. Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council….1870.The concept of Papal infallibility has been around for a long time. The letter of Pope Clement I to the church in Corinth in approximately 80 AD issues instructions to that church, and Clement makes it clear that he is to be obeyed [83]; likewise, Irenaeus in Against Heresies (180 AD) states that all churches must conform to the church of Rome and be in agreement with it [84]. Augustine, in Against the Pelagians (420 AD)

quotes

a letter from Pope Innocent I, and declares, “Rome’s reply has come; the matter is closed” [85].

As a last example, Peter Chrysologus, the Archbishop of Ravenna, wrote to Eutyches in 449 AD, “We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the Most Blessed Pope of the City of Rome; for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try causes on the faith without the consent of the Bishop of the City of Rome” [86]. These examples more than suffice to show that the 1st Vatican Council merely defined the doctrine of Papal infallibility; as a concept it pre-dated the council by nearly 1800 years, and was not “invented” in 1870, despite what Boettner tries to imply.

[83] Jurgens, Vol. 1, pg 12.

[84] ibid., pg 90.

[85] ibid., Vol. 3, pg 142.

[86] ibid., pg 268.

43. Public schools condemned by pope Pius XI….1930.

Boettner is apparently referring to a document issued by the Catechetical Office of the Holy See on January 12, 1935 (not 1930, as he stipulates), entitled “Provido Sane Consilio: On Better Care for Catechetical Teaching”. The document nowhere condemns public schools, but merely insists on the right of Catholic students in public schools to receive proper catchetical instruction from the Church, as a safeguard against academic instruction hostile to the Catholic Faith.

For example, #12 of the document states that “in some nations, the very right of the Church to direct the Christian education of children is called into question or even denied by reason of political policy”; #15 states that this interference is exacerbated by “the fact that ravening wolves have come into the world, not sparing the flock; likewise, pseudo-teachers given to atheism and the new paganism have made their appearance, giving expression to clever falsehoods and sheer nonsense by writings and by other means cunningly attempting to destroy the Catholic belief in God, in Jesus Christ, and in the divine work of the Church” [87].

Clearly the purpose of the Pope, as evidenced by the issuance of this instructional letter, is not the condemnation of public schools, but a concern that Catholic students, whatever their educational disposition, are allowed access to proper religious instruction under the legitimate supervision of the Church—a right that was being denied even then in countries like Nazi Germany. Boettner has not only misinterpreted the purpose of the letter, but he is also off by five years concerning the date of its issuance.

[87] http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CATTEACH.HTM.

44. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascention into heaven shortly after her death), proclaimed by pope Pius XII…..1950.

As with the cases of the Immaculate Conception and Papal infallibility, Boettner tries to give the impression that the Assumption of Mary is something that the Vatican “invented” in recent years. While the Assumption was admittedly a gradual development within the belief of the Church, the fact is that the concept pre-dates its definition by better than 1300 years.

The first explicit reference to this doctrine is from Gregory of Tours (d.593), who states in his letter Libri miraculorum that Mary’s body was borne to heaven after her death; other references come from Germain of Constantinople, Andrew of Crete, and John Damascene, who mentions in his Second Homily on the Dormition of Mary (c.745 AD) that three days after Mary’s death, her coffin was opened, to reveal empty grave wrappings, but no trace of her body [88]. Although all of these references date from the 8th century, liturgical feasts in honor of the Assumption began to appear in Christian churches in Syria and Egypt during the 6th century; in Gaul in the 7th century; in Rome by the 8th century; and were universally celebrated by the whole of East and West by the 13th century [89].

[88] Romero, pg 282.

[89] Miravalle, pp 52-53.

45. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church, by pope Paul VI…..1965.

This was an addendum to Boettner’s original book, as the first publication date for Roman Catholicism was 1962; however, Boettner remains off in his dates, since the proclamation of Mary as Mother of the Church was issued by Pope Paul VI not in 1965, but on November 21, 1964: “Therefore, for the glory of the Blessed Virgin and our consolation, we declare most holy Mary Mother of the Church, that is of the whole Christian people” [90].

As with most of the other items in Boettner’s list, the subject of Mary’s title as Mother of the Church in neither anything new nor terribly controversial; the earliest reference to Mary as “Virgin Mother of the Church” can be found in a work by Berengaud of Treves (d.1125) in which he says “By the Woman (Revelation 12:1), we may understand Blessed Mary, for she is Mother of the Church for having engendered the one who is head of the Church” [91]. Rupert of Deutz (d.1135) in his Canticum Canticorum refers to Mary as the “Mother of Churches”; and Denis the Carthusian (d.1471) refers to Mary as “Mother of the whole Church” [92].

Further references to Mary under this title can be found in the writings of St. Antoninus of Florence, St. Lawrence, St. Peter Canasius, Matthias Scheeben, and St. John Bosco. As can be clearly seen, Mary was being referred to as “Mother of the Church” 840 years before Boettner’s implication that Pope Paul VI “invented” the title.

[90] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition. Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference/Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997; pg 251.

[91] Leon Suprenant, Jr., “Mary, Mother of the Church”. Catholics United For the Faith,http://www.cuf.org/member/motherofthechurch.pdf.

[92] ibid.

The forty-five “heresies and inventions” that Loraine Boettner lists at the beginning of Roman Catholicism did, indeed, develop over the course of Church history; but as we have seen, none of them are “heretical”; and neither were they “invented” at some point in time—and Boettner is a dismal failure at pinning down the correct dates of the development of these doctrines. As I stated at the beginning, I will leave it up to the individual reader to decide for themselves whether a man who is so grossly erroneous in the fixing of simple historical dates (leaving aside all of his other errors) can be trusted to to be correct in instructing his readers whether a Catholic doctrine is a heresy, and invention, or not.

Perhaps Karl Keating put it best in his assessment of Boettner’smagnum opus: “No effort is made to give sources for his charges, and little effort is made to say what the significance of the ‘inventions’ might be. That task is left to innuendo. What Boettner implies is that any belief or practice not found in the pages of the New Testament in plain words must be spurious and must have been instituted for some nefarious purpose” [93].

I believe that Boettner himself had a “nefarious purpose” in creating the infamous “list” on pages 7, 8, and 9 of his book: to discredit, malign, and denigrate the Catholic Church, at all costs—even if he had to prefabricate the charges against her. The sad thing is that so many good and sincere Christians, Protestant and Catholic alike, have been taken in by his falsehoods. With God’s kindness and grace, perhaps those who read this paper of mine will be helped to see that the only “inventions” to be found in Boettner’s book are the ones he concocted and wrote down himself.

[93] Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, pg 47.





Source: http://blackieschurchmilitant-apocalyps ... ction.html





7

Posted in Anti Catholicism, APOLOGETIC NOTES, Apologetics, Apologetics from Followers, Born-Again

Tagged with Born-Again, Refuting Boettner's LIst

silentwssj
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 866
Joined: November 27th, 2013, 6:13 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: SJ

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by silentwssj » January 30th, 2015, 8:44 am

Catholic "Inventions"

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







Share on twitter Share on email Share on print Share on gmail Share on stumbleupon More Sharing Services







There’s a well-known story—probably untrue—about a U.S. Senate race in a Southern state some years ago. One candidate realized that he would have difficulty winning if he took the high road, so he decided to employ the confusion factor.

In the cities, his campaigning was unobjectionable, but he thought he could fool the folks in the countryside. When he made a speech in a small town (and when he was sure no journalists were around), he would refer to his opponent and his opponent’s family using words chosen to mislead—for example, saying his opponent’s sister was a "thespian" (actress) and that his brother was an acknowledged homo sapiens (human being). To the inattentive ear he seemed to be accusing his opponent and his relatives of all sorts of perversions. Although everything the candidate said was accurate, the impression he gave was wrong.

Depending on which version of the story one hears, this man either won the election by a whisker or was revealed to be the scoundrel that he was.



The Confusion Factor Again



Similar posturing comes from the mouths and pens of some professional anti-Catholics. Much of what they accuse the Catholic Church of believing or doing is accurate, but is tainted by innuendo.

The impression is that there must be something seriously wrong with the Catholic Church if so many of its individual beliefs or practices are made to seem unusual. Of course, there are also accusations that simply misrepresent the Catholic Church’s position, and when these are mixed with the true-but-misleading statements, the Church comes away looking quite strange.

Does this matter? Of course it does, because so much of this kind of thing has been going on over the last few years that many non-Catholics have come to believe it, and many anti-Catholics have become confirmed in their antagonism toward the Church. Further, Catholics who lack a good grounding in their own religion find they cannot answer accusations to their own satisfaction and may fall away from the practice of the faith or abandon the Church entirely and sign up elsewhere. Non-Catholics who have always been uneasy about the Catholic Church find their doubts made stronger, even when they recognize that many of the anti-Catholic claims are made by people who are careless in their research and biased in their writing.



The Anti-Catholic Bible



Let’s look at a few examples of misleading charges. These are taken from Loraine Boettner’s book, Roman Catholicism, which might be called the "Bible" of the anti-Catholic movement. First published in 1962 by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company of Philadelphia, and reprinted many times since, this fat book is the source most anti-Catholic organizations rely on for information about the Church. Most borrow uncritically from Boettner, seldom giving him credit and never checking his sources. It must be admitted, though, that Boettner lists almost no sources for his claims, so the lack of documentation is not completely the responsibility of the people who have picked up his words.

Early in the book Boettner lists what he terms "Some Roman Catholic Heresies and Inventions." These consist of beliefs that were supposedly made up centuries after the New Testament era and practices or customs that bear little similarity to those mentioned in the Bible. The reader of these several dozen charges is supposed to turn from them in such despair that he will abandon the Catholic Church (if he is a Catholic) or will actively fight it (if he is a non-Catholic). Here are a few of the "inventions."

Item: "The Latin language, used in prayer and worship, imposed by [Pope] Gregory I [A.D.] 600."

It is true that Latin was used in worship in the year 600. The Church spread from the Greek-speaking East to the Latin-speaking West (for example, to Rome) during apostolic times. One of Paul’s letters was written to the Christians in Rome. More than one of his letters was written from Rome. And there were Christians in Caesar’s household in Paul’s day (Phil. 4:22). Worship, not surprisingly, was undertaken in the vernacular language, which was Greek in much of the East and Latin in the West (though at the beginning, Greek was used even in the West because it was then the lingua franca of the Roman Empire).

Latin was used in worship far earlier than 600. So what is Boettner trying to say here? Since Latin became the Catholic Church’s official language (and, in fact, it still is—all Vatican documents of any importance are issued in authoritative Latin versions), perhaps we are to conclude that there is some mystery about it? Well, there probably is, to people who do not read Latin, just as there is mystery in French to those who know only English. So what is Boettner trying to do with this "invention"? Perhaps he is attempting to heighten suspicion, even if it is directed at nothing in particular.

One can make any adoption of an official language sound sinister. All one has to do is say the language was "imposed"—implying that it was opposed or forced upon people against their will, no matter how untrue this may be. Boettner is simply using a cheap rhetorical device.

Item: "Baptism of bells instituted by Pope John XIII . . . [A.D.] 965."

What is the reader supposed to make of this? Most non-Catholics realize that Catholics baptize infants, but bells? If Catholics think they can baptize bells, why not baptize automobiles or any other inanimate object? The charge, if true, does make the Church look silly. But what happened was not what Boettner implies. There was indeed a "baptism of bells," but it was not a baptism in the sacramental sense of the word. When a church received new bells for its bell tower, the bells were blessed, usually by the local bishop. Any object can be blessed, a blessing being a dedication of a thing to a sacred purpose. The ceremony used in the blessing of the bells was reminiscent in some ways of the ceremony used in baptism, so in popular usage it came to be called the "baptism of bells," though no one thought the bells were actually receiving a sacrament. The phrase is innocent, but when anti-Catholics refer to it in just a few words, it looks particularly bad.



New Word, Old Belief



Item: "Transubstantiation proclaimed by Pope Innocent III . . . [A.D.] 1215."

The implication of this is that transubstantiation was not believed until 1215—that it was, indeed, an invention. The facts are otherwise. Transubstantiation is the technical term used to describe what happens when the bread and wine used at Mass are turned into Christ’s actual body and blood. The belief that this occurs has been held from the earliest times. It stems from the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel, the eleventh chapter of 1 Corinthians, and the biblical accounts of the Last Supper. As centuries passed, theologians exercised their reason on the belief to understand more completely how such a thing could happen and what its happening would imply. It was seen that more precise terminology was needed to insure the belief’s integrity. The word "transubstantiation" was finally chosen because it eliminated certain unorthodox interpretations of the doctrine, and the term was formally defined at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. So the use of the technical term was new, but not the doctrine.

Fundamentalists can’t have a problem with using a new word for an old belief since they use the term "Trinity" to express the belief that God is one being in three persons, though this word is not found in the Bible. Theophilus of Antioch first used it in A.D. 181 (in his letter Ad Autolycum), though Christians believed in the doctrine from apostolic times.

In the three items mentioned, Boettner has ascribed the actions to popes. However, he has provided no sources showing that popes did these things, and at least one of them is demonstrably inaccurate. (It was the Fourth Lateran Council, not the pope reigning at the time, that for the first time made official, magisterial use of the theological term "transubstantiation.") A suspicion is created that, in order to make these developments look like "inventions," Boettner wanted to name a particular "inventor" and looked up whoever was pope in the years he wanted to cite.

Not all items in his list refer to popes, however. Some do refer to councils:

Item: "Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Valencia . . . [A.D.] 1229."

This looks rather damaging, but Boettner has his history completely wrong. The first thing to note is that the Index of Forbidden Books was established in 1559, so a council held in 1229 could hardly have listed a book on it.

The second point is that there apparently has never been any Church council in Valencia, Spain. If there had been one, it could not have taken place in 1229 because Muslim Moors then controlled the city. It is inconceivable that Muslims, who were at war with Spanish Christians, and had been off and on for five centuries, would allow Catholic bishops to hold a council in one of their cities. The Christian armies did not liberate Valencia from Moorish rule until nine years later, 1238. So Valencia is out.

But there is another possibility, and that is Toulouse, France, where a council was held in 1229. And, yes, that council dealt with the Bible. It was organized in reaction to the Albigensian or Catharist heresy, which held that there are two gods and that marriage is evil because all matter (and thus physical flesh) is evil. From this the heretics concluded that fornication could be no sin, and they even encouraged suicide among their members. In order to promulgate their sect, the Albigensians published an inaccurate translation of the Bible in the vernacular language (rather like the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today publishing their severely flawed New World Translation of the Bible, which has been deliberately mistranslated to support the sect’s claims). Had it been an accurate translation, the Church would not have been concerned. Vernacular versions had been appearing for centuries. But what came from the hands of the Albigensians was an adulterated Bible. The bishops at Toulouse forbade the reading of it because it was inaccurate. In this they were caring for their flocks, just as a Protestant minister of today might tell his flock not to read the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation.



A Reasonable Reason



Item: "The cup forbidden to the people at Communion by Council of Constance [A.D.] 1414."

The implication here is that bishops and priests were trying to keep from laymen something they should have had by rights. But the real situation is not hard to understand. The Catholic position has always been that, after the consecration of the elements, the entire body and blood of Christ are contained in the smallest particle from the host and in the tiniest drop from the cup. One does not receive only the body in the host and only the blood from the cup. If that were so, then for a complete Communion one indeed would need to partake of both. But if the entire body and blood are contained in both, then the communicant needs to receive only one—if there are good reasons for such a restriction, and in 1414 there certainly seemed to be.

The first reason was that many people misunderstood the Eucharist and thought it had to be received under both forms for the Communion to be complete. By restricting communicants to the host only, the Church would emphasize the true doctrine. The other reason was a practical one. In giving the cup to the laity, there was a chance the contents would be spilled, so out of respect for Christ, the restriction was imposed.

These five "inventions" are representative of the forty-five listed by Boettner. He refers to a few of them again later in Roman Catholicism, but most make one appearance here and then disappear. No effort is made to give sources, and little effort is made to say what the significance of them might be. He suggests that any belief or practice not explicitly found in the New Testament in plain words must be spurious and must have been instituted for some nefarious purpose.

What Boettner does not point out is that modern Fundamentalism has beliefs and customs that are not found in the Bible, either. Many Fundamentalist churches, for example, forbid the drinking of wine as sinful, yet Christ not only drank wine (he was accused of being a drunkard; Luke 7:34), he transformed water into wine (this being a biblical example of a form of transubstantiation since the substance of water became the substance of wine, though the species changed, too, in this case) as his first public miracle, hardly something he would have done had he disapproved of wine (John 2:1–11). Boettner also notes that priests came to dress differently from laymen, without noticing that Fundamentalist ministers, who may wear expensive three-piece business suits or choir robes while conducting services, also dress differently from their congregants.

The examples could be multiplied, but the fact is, no church looks exactly the same as that of the New Testament era. Since Christ founded a living Church, one should expect it, like any living thing, to grow and mature, changing in appearance while maintaining identity in substance, holding on to the original deposit of faith, while coming to understand it more deeply and to apply it to new cultural situations. The real question is why anyone would think that the Church should have arrested its development and fossilized in one, immutable form at the end of the first century.


NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004


.



More like this


More Catholic "Inventions"
The Anti-Catholic Bible
The Institution of the Mass
Exposing Catholicism: Crisis of Faith
Constantine Has Been Beaten to Death

silentwssj
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 866
Joined: November 27th, 2013, 6:13 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: SJ

Re: Teaching Authority in Sacred Scripture?

Unread post by silentwssj » January 30th, 2015, 8:46 am

More Catholic "Inventions"

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







Share on twitter Share on email Share on print Share on gmail Share on stumbleupon More Sharing Services







One of the key points of Loraine Boettner’s magnum opus, Roman Catholicism (the main sourcebook for professional anti-Catholics) is that Catholicism must be untrue, because it differs in so many particulars from the Christianity of the New Testament. Over the centuries, Boettner says, the Catholic Church has added beliefs, rituals, and customs that contradict those in the Bible. He calls this "the melancholy evidence of Rome’s steadily increasing departure from the simplicity of the gospel," and he claims that repeatedly "human inventions have been substituted for Bible truth and practice" (p. 9).

He argues that Catholicism cannot be the religion established by Christ because it has all these "extras," forty-five of which he lists under the title "Some Roman Catholic Heresies and Inventions" (pp. 7–9). A few of these he examines at length in the book, but most of them are only mentioned and then conveniently dropped.

Many anti-Catholic organizations have reprinted all or portions of Boettner’s list of "inventions," usually in leaflets which are commonly distributed outside Catholic churches after Mass. Do they produce the intended results? Yes and no. It depends on the knowledge and sophistication of the reader. Some people laugh at the charges, knowing what the facts really are. Others are stumped for answers, but figure they can establish Catholicism’s credentials if they have to prove the Church’s legitimacy. Yet some people are taken in, thinking no one would go to the trouble of disseminating such information if it were false.

Catholics need to realize that professional anti-Catholics have dozens of charges like these up their sleeves, and they produce them whenever they think they can make an impression on people who know less than they. Bizarre allegations sow confusion in Catholic minds. After all, most Catholics are not conversant with the finer points of Church history and practice and are ripe targets for evangelistic Fundamentalists.

Item: "Making the sign of the cross . . . [A.D.] 300." That’s it. That’s the whole charge: that the sign of the cross was not "invented" until well into the Christian era. In reality, we can show that Christians were making the sign of the cross at a much earlier date. The theologian Tertullian, writing in A.D. 211, said that "In all our travels and movements in all our coming in and going out, in putting of our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupieth us, we [Christians] mark our foreheads with the sign [of the cross]" (The Chaplet [Crown] 3). Making the sign of the cross was already an old custom when he wrote. It may well have been common even while the apostles were alive.

But the mistake Boettner makes concerning the antiquity of the practice is not the important thing. The real question is: Why does he single out this practice at all? The answer: Because the sign of the cross is not mentioned in the New Testament. The reader is supposed to conclude that it must be contrary to Christian teaching. But that makes little sense and, in fact, this line of reasoning undermines Boettner’s own Fundamentalism.



The Pot Calling the Kettle Black



If Catholicism has changed matters of practice or customs over the centuries, Fundamentalism has done the same. Indeed, there were no altar calls and church steeples in the first century.

But the proper question is not whether Christ’s Church today looks exactly as it did then—if that’s the criterion for discerning the true Church from false ones, his Church cannot be found anywhere. Rather, what matters is whether his Church has kept the same beliefs as the early Church (which Catholicism has, unlike Boettner and all Fundamentalists—not to mention Evangelicals).

Item: "Priests began to dress differently from laymen . . . [A.D.] 500." So what? This charge can be brought against Fundamentalist preachers who conduct services while dressed in choir robes. Furthermore, Boettner’s statement is only a half-truth. The main vestment worn by priests during Mass is the chasuble, which is really nothing more than a stylized Roman overcoat. In the sixth century, while fashions changed around them, priests kept the same clothing they had used for liturgical purposes for some time. They did not adopt special dress for Mass; they just kept to the old styles, while everyday fashions changed, and over time their dress began to stand out.



But It’s in the Bible!



Item: "Extreme Unction . . . [A.D.] 526." This single line is no doubt intended to make the reader believe the Catholic Church invented this sacrament (also known as the anointing of the sick) five centuries after Christ. But Boettner makes no effort to give the Church’s explanation of its origin. Why? Because the origin is found in the New Testament itself: "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven" (Jas. 5:14–15). This scriptural practice dates from the very beginnings of the Church. If Boettner wants to say this sacrament was invented, he should have said it was invented while the apostles were still alive—but that would give the sacrament legitimacy.

Item: "Worship of the cross, images, and relics authorized in . . . [A.D.] 786." What’s this? Do Catholics give slivers of wood, carvings of marble, and pieces of bone the kind of adoration they give God? That is the implication. What if a Catholic were to say to Boettner, "I saw you kneeling with your Bible in your hands the other day. Why do you worship a book?" He would rightly answer that he does not worship a book. Rather, he uses the Bible as an aid to prayer. Likewise, Catholics do not worship the cross, images, or relics. They use these physical objects to help them focus their minds and hearts upon Christ and his friends, the saints in heaven.

The man who keeps a picture of his family in his wallet does not worship his wife and children; rather, he honors them. The woman who keeps her parents’ picture on the mantle does not subscribe to ancestor worship; the picture just reminds her of them so that she may more readily honor them. (Remember Exodus 20:12: "Honor your father and your mother.") No one thinks these pictures are objects of worship.

The origin of Boettner’s allegation is that in the Byzantine Empire there developed what was known as the Iconoclastic heresy, which held that all images (statues, paintings, mosaics) of saints and of Jesus must be destroyed because they would be worshipped. In 787, at the Second Council of Nicaea, this heresy was defeated, and the old custom (dating to the first century) of permitting artistic representations was again allowed. Boettner had this date almost right; he simply did not understand either the history or the doctrine.



Following Paul’s Advice



Item: "Celibacy of the priesthood, decreed by pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand) . . . [A.D.] 1079." Anti-Catholics take considerable delight in noting that some of the apostles, including Peter, were married and that for centuries Catholic priests were allowed to marry.

Catholics do not deny that some of the early popes were married or that celibacy, for priests in the Western (Latin) Rite, did not become mandatory until the early Middle Ages. Anti-Catholic writers generally fail to note that even today many Catholic priests in the Eastern Rites are married, and that it has always been that way. Celibacy in the Latin Rite is purely a matter of discipline. It came to be thought that priests could better fulfill their duties if they remained unmarried.

Nor is this an unbiblical notion; it is Paul’s advice. After saying he wished those to whom he was writing were, like he, unmarried (1 Cor. 7:7–9), Paul said he thought celibacy was the more perfect state (1 Cor 7:28b), noting that "[t]he unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife" (1 Cor. 7:32–33).

This applies specifically to ministers of the gospel. When Paul counseled Timothy about how to fulfill his ministry, he cautioned him: "Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him" (2 Tim. 2:3–4). And Paul refers applaudingly to an order of Christian celibate widows (first-century nuns), saying: "But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge" (1 Tim. 5:11–12).

So, the practice of clerical celibacy, even taking vows of celibacy, is thoroughly biblical. When a man becomes a priest in the Latin Rite he knows that he will not be able to marry. Marriage is a good thing (in fact, Catholics acknowledge that Christ elevated it to a sacrament), but it is something that priests are willing to forgo for the sake of being better priests.

No one is forced to be a priest (or a nun for that matter), so no Catholic is forced to be celibate. Those who want to take the vows of the religious life should not object to following the rules. That does not mean that the rules, as found at any one time, are ideal or cannot be modified—after all, they are not doctrines, but matters of discipline. However, it does mean that it is unfair to imply, as Boettner does, that the Catholic faith scorns marriage.



Christ’s Own Instruction



Item: "Auricular confession of sins to a priest instead of to God, instituted by Pope Innocent III, in [the] Lateran Council . . . [A.D.] 1215."

Charges like this might make one doubt the good faith of professional anti-Catholics. It would have taken little effort to discover the antiquity of auricular confession—and even less to learn that Catholics do not tell their sins to a priest "instead" of to God, but to God through a priest.

Origen, writing his Homilies on Leviticus, around 244, refers to the repentant sinner as one who "does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord." Cyprian of Carthage, writing seven years later in The Lapsed, says,"Finally, of how much greater faith and more salutary fear are they who . . . confess to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience." In the 300s, Aphraates offers this advice to priests: "If anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public" (Treatises 7:4; see the Catholic Answers tract Confession for additional quotations from the early Church Fathers).

These men, writing almost a thousand years before the Lateran Council of 1215, refer to a practice that was already well-established. In fact, it dates back to the time of Jesus, for Christ commissioned the apostles this way: "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:23). The Lateran Council did not "invent" the practice; it merely reaffirmed it.



Who Added What?



Item: "Apocryphal books added to the Bible by the Council of Trent . . . [A.D.] 1546." This reminds one of a famous comment made by a writer who joked, in discussing the English Reformation, that "the pope and his minions then seceded from the Church of England." It was not the Council of Trent that "added" what Protestants call the apocryphal books to the Bible. Instead, the Protestant Reformers excised out of the Bible these books that had been in common use for centuries.

The Council of Trent, convened to reaffirm Catholic doctrines and to revitalize the Church, proclaimed that these books had always belonged to the Bible and had to remain in it. After all, it was the Catholic Church, in the fourth century, at the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage (A.D. 382, 393, 397, respectively), that officially decided which books belonged to the Bible and which did not. This had been reaffirmed by many popes and councils later, including the ecumenical Council of Florence. When the Council of Trent was convened, it merely formally restated the constant teaching of the Church.



A Final Word



Bishop Fulton Sheen once said that few people in America hate the Catholic religion, but there are many who hate what they mistakenly believe is the Catholic religion—and that if what they hate really were the Catholic religion, Catholics would hate it too. Highly inaccurate and inflammatory lists, like the one published in Boettner’s Roman Catholicism, have done much to foster this kind of hatred. Even worse, they have discouraged Fundamentalists from finding out what the Catholic religion really is, and that is a disservice both to Protestants and to Catholics.

Like others before him, Loraine Boettner found an enemy of his own fashioning. He castigated it, misrepresented it, and ridiculed it; but it was not the Catholic religion as it truly is, and the "history" he presented is not the history of the Catholic Church. Fundamentalists who are curious about the Catholic religion do themselves no favor by allowing themselves to be hoodwinked by such lists of "inventions." If they want to know what really happened, how Catholic beliefs and practices really arose, they will have to turn to more careful and better-informed writers.

Post Reply

Return to “Religious Thought”