Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Don't call a man "Father"-Response to Christians Truth

File:McVey wide skyscraper.jpg

On Nick's Catholic Blog, Christians Truth and I went off topic and were invited to continue our discussion elsewhere.    Christian Truth's words in blue.  Here we go:

I'll start with my previous comment:

De Maria said...

‪Christians Truth‬ said...My reply: I will discuss anywhere you would like to. As for the commands of God Catholics do not obey, these I will list:

Thanks for your reply Christians Truth. If you don't mind, let us take each one of those objections, one at a time. Let us begin with this one. You said:

Catholics call their leaders "father," and the priests call each other "father." Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven…..

First, let us go to Matt 23 and see the entire context of that verse. The KJV renders it thus:

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Response to Russell's post on the Sacraments

File:McVey wide skyscraper.jpg

Response to Russell's article on the Sacraments, Russell's words in blue.

SACRAMENTS (God's Grace for Sale)
Today we will take a look at the concept of sacraments. The word “sacrament” comes from the Latin “sacramentum”, signifying something sacred, namely, an oath. It also denotes a “mystery.” Sacraments may be used differently by various groups and can be found in the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and even in some Protestant churches. But since they are most prominent in the Catholic Church, we will deal with the Catholic view of sacraments.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

THE EUCHARIST (Part 2)-response to Russell's article

Response to Russell's second article about the Eucharist.  Russell's words in blue.

File:McVey wide skyscraper.jpg

In Part 1, we demonstrated that the bread and the wine in the Lord’s Supper / Communion service are symbols, or signs, of the work that Jesus Christ did on the cross, but the Catholic Church teaches that the bread and wine miraculously change into the actual, literal body, blood, soul and divinity, of Jesus. We dealt with several Catholic arguments for this and found them lacking. This is a very extraordinary claim, and if one is going to make such a claim, he should likewise have extraordinary proof for it. But the Catholic Church doesn’t. They will attempt to use Scripture to prove the Eucharist, but it’s just not there. So, let us now look at more Catholic claims and see whether these will line up with Scripture.

I would say that in your first article, you did an admirable job arguing with a fictitious Catholic which you made up.  I am anxious to see how you respond to the words of a true Catholic.

John 6 (Once More)

Perhaps, by “forceful,” the Catholic means it was repeated again and again. But the “repetition argument” was already covered in Part 1. As for as “vivid” language, if one takes a look at the book of Revelation (which is, interestingly enough, also written by John) he would see some very “vivid” language used there also, and very much of it is undeniably symbolic. So this Catholic argument that “vivid means literal” is another one that fails.

Well, you are actually arguing against yourself.  As YOU mentioned in your previous article, Jesus customarily spoke to the multitude in parables.  But the norm which He established was to explain the parable to the disciples.  

In John 6, He did not set the disciples down and say that He was speaking metaphorically (i.e. in parables).  He repeated what He said, forcefully.  Each time emphasizing more that which He had previously said.  

There are some in both Protestant and Catholic circles who will often go to great lengths in dissecting the meaning of certain words in John 6. Now, we are not against word studies to improve our understanding of the Scriptures, but rather than trying to nit-pick to death individual words, we should allow the CONTEXT to be the main focus in determining the meaning of this (or any) passage. And, as demonstrated in Part 1, the context of John 6 strongly suggests the symbolism of the bread and wine.
It is Protestants who have an either/or mentality.  They as you, seem to think that it must be one way or the other but not both.  I don't know what you do with the fact that Jesus is both GOD AND MAN.  

Catholic doctrine accepts the fact that there are metaphorical elements and literal elements in the book of John 6 and therefore in the understanding of the Eucharist which is explained therein.

The Last Supper
Here is another reason that Jesus’ words, “This is My body…This is My blood” cannot be taken literally. The Bible gives us four accounts of the Lord’s Supper: Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, and I Corinthians 11:23-25. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus does indeed say, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” However, in the other two accounts, we see Jesus saying of the bread, “This is My body…”, but of the wine, He says, “This cup [wine] is the new testament in My blood…”. Now, right away the Catholic has a problem. If Jesus meant, “This bread is LITERALLY My body,” then He also had to mean, “This wine is LITERALLY a testament (covenant).”

It is difficult to explain.  But it has to do with this:

Genesis 4:10
And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
Jesus blood literally testifies to His death on the Cross for our salvation.  Therefore, Jesus is saying, this cup LITERALLY contains the blood that I will shed for you.  It is the evidence or testimony of my sacrifice in your behalf.
Hebrews 12:24
24And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

But the wine is obviously not a literal covenant. 

The blood is.

A covenant is an intangible thing. It is not something you can hold in your hand. It is an agreement, a contract, a promise or vow. The wine itself is NOT a covenant… it is a SYMBOL of the New Covenant. The only way that these passages would make sense when compared to Matthew and Mark is if both the bread and the wine are symbolic in all four accounts.
It makes quite a bit of sense to us and it has made sense since the time of the Apostles.  First, Christ says it is His Blood.  Second, He is making a literal, not metaphorical connection, between His Blood in the cup and the Blood He shed on the Cross.

Remember, just as God called Abraham’s circumcision (which was a SYMBOL) a “covenant” (Genesis 17:10-11), so does Jesus call the SYMBOL of the bread and wine, a “covenant” (Luke 22:19-20; I Corinthians 11:23-25).
You are correct in both cases.  The circumcision was a sign of the Covenant.  And the Bread and Wine are also "signs" of the Covenant.  They are EFFICACIOUS signs which symbolize that which God intends.  That He it is who gives sustenance to the world:
Matthew 4:4
4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Jesus Christ is that Living Word which proceeds from the mouth of God.

Indeed a Sign
It seems that some Catholics avoid any mention of symbolism toward the elements as they would avoid the plague. But there are some Catholics who will admit that the bread and wine have at least SOME “symbolic value.” Please note that the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly teaches that the Eucharist IS a sign (CCC # 1333-1336).
Furthermore, the Eucharist is one of the seven sacraments of the Church, and the very definition of “sacrament” tells us it is a symbol: “Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace…” (Online “New Advent Encyclopedia”). [See also CCC #1145-1152] So, no true Catholic can deny that the bread and the wine are signs, or symbols.

Please remember that you are not arguing with true Catholics, but with a figment of your imagination.  A fictitious Catholic into whose mouth you place many arguments which you can easily dismiss.

You are correct in saying that the Sacraments are signs.  But you left out something very important:
1131 The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions.

The Sacraments are efficacious signs which produce that which they symbolize.  In the Eucharist, Jesus Christ becomes for us the spiritual food which the bread symbolizes.  And He says that the bread is His Flesh.  By faith alone, we accept His Teaching.  Because He is God who creates from nothing with but a Word.

Now, what the Catholic will do at this point is to insist that the Eucharist is not JUST a symbol, but is much more. They’ll say that it can be both a symbol and its reality at the same time, because Jesus is present “sacramentally.” Of course, this is all a great “mystery” (CCC #1336), and it is at this point that the Catholic arguments must necessarily degenerate into the “mystical” realm.

It is strange that you say it with such disdain.  Of course, you say, it is all a great mystery, as though "mystery" is simply a convenient word behind which to hide the truth.  But since you are so smart, perhaps there are no mysteries for you.  Let me ask you, please explain the Blessed Trinity.  Oh, you can't?  Why?  Too mysterious for you?

Well, let me see.  How about the dual nature of Christ?  Please explain how this comes about?  Another mystery?  

Wait, you're a Protestant, perhaps you don't believe those things which you can't explain.  You folks aren't comfortable in the mystical range.  But we are:
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
No matter.  Whether you like it or not, there are some things which no one can explain, except God.

According to one encyclical (official papal statement) of Pope Paul VI, this mystery of the Eucharist "cannot be apprehended by the senses but only by faith, which rests upon divine authority” (Mysterium Fidei, paragraph 18). How interesting. But this type of argument could be used to support almost any “mysterious” concept (whether true or false) as long as they claim it rests upon “divine authority.” This is a cop-out and does nothing to help the credibility of the Catholic Church, but rather weakensit.

When you can explain the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, or something as simple as how Jesus cured the blind man, I will begin to believe that you are the wisest person in the world.  Until that time, I will continue to follow the Catholic Church.


Although Catholics claim a “special” miracle in the Eucharist, the miracles we see in Scripture were very different from this. They were VERIFIABLE and OBSERVABLE. What if Jesus' miracles were like the "miracle" of the Eucharist? What if Jesus said, "I am raising Lazarus from the dead, but ‘under the appearance’ of him remaining in the grave"? Or, "I am walking on water, but ‘under the appearance’ of swimming"? Or, how about, "I am healing the sick, but ‘under the appearance’ of them remaining diseased"? That would be nothing less than a cruel hoax, wouldn't it? But how is the consecration of the Eucharist any different than these scenarios? If the Catholic Church wants credibility in its claims, then its “Eucharistic miracle” needs to parallel the miracles in the Bible.

Do you believe you are born again?  Yet you look like a plain old sinner to me.  
1 Corinthians 15:12Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
 13But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen 14And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
Yeah, we step in faith.  To the whole world, it looks as though Jesus died on the Cross.  But we believe that He was raised.  To the whole world, we are hypocrites who deny the sinful feelings which abide in our bodies.  But we believe that we are also Eucharist, Christ lives in us, though no one can see Him but us in the eyes of faith (Gal 2:20).  Protestants and other unbelievers mock Catholics for this faith.  But we continue. For we live in this world but we are not a part of it. 

Philippians 3:8
Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
Catholics will no doubt point to certain occurrences of “bleeding hosts” which have been reported at different times and places in Italy. They insist that this proves that it is a miracle. But if the Eucharist is a true miracle, then it will be verifiable EACH AND EVERY TIME the bread and wine are consecrated. But this is certainly not the case.

God's ways are above our ways.  You don't believe and you question.  So be it.  We believe and we don't question for Scripture says:
Luke 4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

The Eucharist equals Calvary?
Calvary is a historical event, which is no more physically “made present” at the Mass than the death of every Egyptian first-born son was physically “made present” every time the Old Testament Jews celebrated the Passover. It is absurd to think that a past historical event would be physically “made present.” To claim that this event is made present in a “sacramental” sense (as some say) is simply begging the question. There is no such thing in Scripture. But you could rightly say that it is “made present” MENTALLY, i.e., in remembering His work on the cross. After all, the Communion service IS a memorial, and Jesus did say, “This do in remembrance of Me.” (Luke 22:19)
It is made present in both ways.  It is a memorial, a remembrance of that which transpired.  But it is also the Body and Blood of He who was crucified that day. 

Is it Really a Sacrifice?

Yes.  Protestants seem to think that a sacrifice ends when someone or something dies.  But that is just the beginning.  The sacrifice then must be offered and consumed.  That is what Priests do, the Ministerial Priests offer it in the name of Christ and along with the general priests, the laity, we consume it.
They call it a sacrifice, but Who is it that is able to offer this sacrifice (which is supposedly the same as Calvary)? The work that Jesus did on the cross is the perfect sacrifice offered ONLY by the perfect Person, the Son of God.

That is true.  And He offered it once for all.  

 The Catholic Catechism claims that both the priest and the Church “offer” Jesus as a sacrifice (CCC #1350; #1354; #1369). But the truth is, no other person, no priest, no church is even ABLE to “offer Him to God” as a sacrifice. 

You neglect to remember that the Priest acts in "persona Christi".  In the person of Christ.  Of course, you won't believe this, because it is another mystery.  But we all have to live with mysteries.

Christ alone has offered it. Nor does Jesus offer it “through priests” (as the Catechism also claims - CCC #1367). Jesus is not mankind’s offering to God, but rather, JESUS OFFERED HIMSELF to God as a sacrifice on behalf of mankind (Hebrews 7:27; 9:14). There’s a big difference.

Because you don't believe that Christ can work through us, you don't understand this mystery.  But yes, Christ offers Himself to God through the Priest.

And to whom must this sacrifice be “re-presented?” To God? 

Yes.  To the Father.

No, because Jesus presented Himself as a sacrifice to God ONCE FOR ALL (Hebrews 10:10). 

Yes.  The once for all sacrifice on the Cross continues to be offered for all in all time.  What, do you doubt that 
God can do this?

Please read it again… “ONCE…FOR…ALL.” 

I urge you to read it again.  Once for all.
Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

He does not NEED to be “re-presented” to God, 

Need has nothing to do with it.  God said and we obey.  No Catholic ever said that God needed to do it.

nor CAN He be. 

We believe He designed it that way in order that we might participate in His Grace.

Why the need to “re-present” the payment for a debt that has been paid? 

1.  In order to show your faith in Christ.
2.  In order to participate in His Sacrifice.
3.  In order to obey Him and be thus saved.

Many reasons, but most importantly, because it is His Will.

While souls are hanging in the balance, the Catholic Church is playing word games and inventing special terminology, in an attempt to justify its twisting of the gospel. This “RE-presenting” concept is a dangerous and unbiblical idea which only blurs and complicates the simple message of the gospel, and it attempts to give a power to the priest that few have ever dared to dream of.

It is the other way around.  While souls are hanging in the balance, Protestants do not enter into God's grace and deny others the way.  They claim everything is a word game which they refuse to obey.  

According to at least two encyclicals by two different popes, Jesus Christ supposedly “daily offers Himself” to the Father (Pope Pius XII, “Mediator Dei”, Section 73, November 20, 1947 and Pope Leo XIII, “Caritatis Studium”, Section 9, July 25, 1898). 

Why do you think Jesus Christ, slain once for all in Jerusalem in a time long past, still stands as the Lamb slain for our salvation in heaven.  Did you not realize that means that He is still offering Himself?!  Or did you just not think about it?

But as we just mentioned, the Bible tells us that Jesus offered Himself only ONCE, not “daily” (Hebrews 9:28).

It is the same offering.  What's that word again?  Oh, yeah, "mystery".  Its a mystery.  I know, you don't like mysteries.  But, c'est l'vie.  Christ offered Himself once for all on the Cross.  And that same offering, He offers continually in the heavenly Liturgy and on the earthly altars in the earthly Liturgy.  ONCE FOR ALL.

There is an obvious contradiction here, 

We don't consider it a contradiction.  We consider it a paradox.  Once for all time for all men.  

so which is it? 

Once for all.

Are we going to believe the popes on this matter… or the Bible? 


And just for the record, the Bible never views the bread and wine of the Communion service as a “sacrifice” at all, but rather, as elements that POINT TO His one, perfect sacrifice at Calvary.

True.  The Bread and Wine are symbols of that which God has effected.  The Bread and Wine signify His sustenance of the world.  It is the Body and Blood which Christ has given for the world which are the Sacrifice which we consume in order to partake of the Christian Passover.

Furthermore, if the Eucharist is the sacrifice that the Catholic Church claims it is, then why don't we see it in the book of Hebrews, since that book speaks more of sacrifices than any other New Testament book? 

We do:
Hebrews 10:29
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

But what we DO see in that same book is that there is NO MORE offering (sacrifice) for sin (Hebrews 10:18). 

Meaning there are no OTHER offerings for sin.  He took them away and replaced them with His own:
9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
 10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
This is the gaping hole in Catholic theology. Jesus paid the full penalty for our sins, once for all. There is absolutely no biblical need to “re-present” that sacrifice. According to Scripture, we get the benefits of Calvary through BELIEVING in it, not by “RE-presenting” it. (John 3:16)
John 3:16 says:
John 3:16
 16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
That is a far cry from that which you insinuate.  But in another place, Scripture says:
1 Corinthians 10:16
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Communion means sharing or participation in.  And therefore, we are participating in the BLOOD OF CHRIST and in the BODY OF CHRIST.  Not mere symbols thereof.

Consequently, there is no more need for a ministerial priesthood, either, as there was in the Old Testament. 

See my rebuttal here.

The veil separating us from God is torn (Matthew 27:51) 
That is funny.  See, you've made one of those comments which Catholics believe without seeing.  Yet, you apparently also believe it without seeing.  Although you previously ridiculed this idea.  Now, you earlier said, under the heading "Miracles?":  
What if Jesus' miracles were like the "miracle" of the Eucharist? What if Jesus said, "I am raising Lazarus from the dead, but ‘under the appearance’ of him remaining in the grave"? Or, "I am walking on water, but ‘under the appearance’ of swimming"? Or, how about, "I am healing the sick, but ‘under the appearance’ of them remaining diseased"? That would be nothing less than a cruel hoax, wouldn't it?

We believe it is true.  We receive Christ, God the Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, in Holy Communion.  The veil is torn.  We can do so.

But what about you?  How are you united with God?  Explain this mystery to me Mr. Know-it-all.  Since you ridiculed our use of the term "mystery", I know you will be able to explain this simple idea.

Oh, I know, explain how you are saved by the Blood of Christ?  You do believe that don't you?  How do you do it?  Do you kill Christ again and drain Him of His Blood?

and now ALL believers have access to the throne room without the aid of a priest or a daily sacrifice (Hebrews 10:18-19).
On the contrary, Christ established the Priesthood precisely because He knew that He would be replacing animal sacrifices with His Once for All sacrifice and He knew that Ministerial Priests would be necessary in order to offer it to All Men in All Time. 

God is Able
No truer words were ever spoken.

Of course He is able. But that’s not the point. This whole thing is not about God’s ability (which we have never questioned). The issue is not, “CAN God do it,” but it is, “DID He do it?” And we find this out by looking to His own Word, the Bible. But a miracle with no proof is foreign to the Scriptures.
Really?  Where's the proof of the Resurrection?  In heaven, with the Father.  Where's the proof of the existence of Noah's Ark?  Sitting on a mountain somewhere?  Where's the evidence of the existence of Moses' ark?  No one knows.

We have Scripture, you say! Well, so do we:
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Where’s Your Faith?
No, an unbiblical faith is what we are being asked to embrace. We don’t reject the Eucharist because it is “hard to believe,” we reject it because there is no support for this doctrine in the Scriptures.
There is more evidence in Scripture for the Eucharist than there is for the false doctrine of Scripture alone.  In fact, there is no evidence for that false doctrine.  And there is more evidence for the Eucharist in Scripture than there is for the false doctrine of faith alone.  There is more evidence in Scripture for the Eucharist than there is for any Protestant doctrine which contradicts any Catholic Teaching, Period.

We have examined some extraordinary Catholic claims concerning the Eucharist, and all of these Catholic arguments have fallen short. My heart goes out to you, my Catholic friends, and I pray that you would realize that you have been deceived. Please don’t trust in a “personal experience” that you may have had with the Eucharist, like many Catholics do. Experiences are very subjective, even “supernatural” ones. Look to the testimony of Scripture and ask God, prayerfully and humbly, to show you the truth.
In the same way, my heart goes out to you.  You have been fooled by the Reformers. They make up doctrines in contradiction of the Word of God and of each other.  And they multiply these errors continually.  God is not the author of confusion.  But the Reformers continue to be so.

Please notice that there are absolutely no examples in the Old Testament of any man-made objects (like bread or wine) that “changed into God” or were worshipped by God’s people (with God’s approval). 

We never said there were.

We don’t have a precedent for that, 

In the Old Testament?  We don't have a precedent for God made man either.  If the Old Testament is what is holding you back, then you had better become a Jew and leave Jesus Christ.  For in the Old Testament, God is not described as a Trinity.  

but we can sure find verses where God sternly warns His people (repeatedly) to avoid idolatry. That is abundantly clear. 

And Catholics do not worship idols. That is abundantly clear.

The New Testament also commands us to FLEE from this sin (I Corinthians 10:14), but so many Catholics take much too lightly the many biblical warnings. 

That is a very human trait.  I know many Protestants who believe that their sins are excused because Christ died for their sins.  Forgetting that the Bible says:
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
As we said before, if this Eucharist is not really Jesus, then Catholics are guilty of the sin of idolatry. In view of the evidence presented against it, are you still willing to risk your soul and bow down to the Eucharist?

You have presented no evidence against it.  You have only presented your opinions which are easily proven wrong.

Of course, the Lord’s Supper / Communion service is important, but it IS a ritual, just as the Passover was. 

I'm glad I had a chance to rebut this article of yours.  I love to highlight statements like those.  You say, "ritual" as though it were some sort of bad word.  Yes, it is a ritual.  A ritual of our faith.  But simply saying it is a ritual says nothing about the fact that it is an efficacious sign, effecting that which it symbolizes.  Nor does it say anything about the fact that it is a re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary.  Nor that it is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ.  Yeah, its a ritual and what a ritual!  It is the source and summit of our faith and brings about the Union of God and man right here upon this earth!

The Passover pointed FORWARD to the cross and the Communion service points BACKWARD to that same event. But a religious ritual like Communion is not an end in itself, nor is it the fulfillment of what it points to. The fulfillment of the Lord’s Supper is the work of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. Remember, the bread and wine don’t save us… they are simply symbols that commemorate and point to that Person and event that DOES save us.

It doesn't just point to the Person who saves us.  It is the Person who saves us and eating of it unites us with the Person who saves us.

I've got one more of your articles to address.  I'll do it another time though.  These two have been exhausting.  Thanks for asking me to look into these though.

See also part 1


De Maria

The Eucharist (Part 1)-Response to Russell's article

File:McVey wide skyscraper.jpg

Hi Russell,

You asked me to have a look at your articles and I accepted.  Here's my response. Russell's words in blue.

Today we will do something different and take on a new topic, namely the Lord’s Supper, from a Catholic point of view. 
Most Protestants that I know view the Lord’s Supper (or Communion) as a solemn ritual, a symbolic yet profound commemoration, or reminder, of the saving work that Jesus Christ did on the cross.

Question:  I have met Protestants who believe in the REAL SPIRITUAL PRESENCE of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.  In fact, I believe that is the most popular Protestant stance on this doctrine.  See this Wikipedia article.

Where do you stand in that regard?

A good book which disagrees with Scripture?

File:McVey wide skyscraper.jpg

You guessed it. Another weird doctrine by the quotable Martin Luther. In his preface to the Epistle of St. James, he said:

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book,...
And then he says:
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works 2:24).....

Now, let me ask you, would you esteem and regard a book as good which flatly contradicts the Word of God?

The Epistle of St. James is also the Word of God and here Martin Luther accuses the Word of God of contradicting Itself. 

What say you?


De Maria

Sunday, November 20, 2011

If the wife is unwilling, let the maid come?

File:McVey wide skyscraper.jpg

No one denies that Martin Luther made that statement.  Yet, Protestants defend i,  Here's an example:
Biographer Ewald Plass notes of this quote, “The words, ‘If the wife is not willing, bring on the maid’ have been notoriously misconstrued by having been quoted out of context. As the following words clearly show, Luther is thinking of a separation and a remarriage, not a sort of concubinage.” [Ewald Plass, What Luther Says II:901, footnote 20]. This is substantiated by a similar statement from Luther in the same year in the treatise, ‘The Estate of Marriage’.
(as reported on the Beggars all blog).

Out of context?  Really?  In what possible context could these words be acceptable?  Have they not read the words of Jesus Christ?

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Doers of the Law will be justified

File:McVey wide skyscraper.jpg
Scripture says:

Romans 2:13

King James Version (KJV)
 13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.


That is Catholic Teaching.  But Protestants invert that and say:

Good works are a result of justification. Example:
Good works are not the cause, but rather the result (the purpose, the fruit) of salvation. 

Scripture is clear, in order to receive eternal life, one must first keep the Commandments of God:

Revelation 22:14

King James Version (KJV)

 14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.


De Maria

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Pillar and Ground of the Truth-response to Russell's article

File:McVey wide skyscraper.jpg

Russell's words in blue.

You said:
Catholic Claim – We can’t go by “the Bible Alone,” because the Bible itself, in I Timothy 3:15, calls the Church (and not the Bible) the “Pillar and Ground of the Truth.” So, we need the Church also.

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (I Tim. 3:15)

Catholics seem to believe that this verse somehow suggests infallibility for the church, making the church equal with Scripture, and thus disproving the concept of Sola Scriptura. But this is simply wishful thinking on their part. Now, I am not saying that we don’t need the church. The church is established by God and it certainly has its place. But if you look at the context of I Timothy 3, Paul is describing the RESPONSIBILITIES and OBLIGATIONS of church leaders. He is speaking of the EXPECTATIONS of the church (…that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself). He is not speaking of privileges and special powers. He is not saying, “Hey Timothy, just kick back and relax, and bask in your infallibility, since we never have to worry about teaching false doctrine.” No, there is absolutely nothing in this context to suggest infallibility, nor is there any guarantee of being exempt from error. But again, he IS speaking of the duty and responsibility of those in the church (especially leaders) to preach, proclaim, and share the Truth.

St. Paul was telling his disciples that he would instruct them how to behave in the Institution which the the Holy Spirit inspired him to describe as the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Thus confirming that the Catholic Church is infallible.