1. 
   John, you said:You were discussing Scripture with Jason and authority with Bryan and others. In fact, authority comes into many of the discussions. I was reading those and I noticed that we come from different sets of presuppositions. I think you also admitted so in your discussions. Especially, you made that clear to Bryan.

   So, then, it is paramount to discover which presupposition is true. The one you function under. Or the one we function under.
   Does that sound logical?

   My fellow Catholics can correct me if I’m wrong. But I believe the Catholic Church teaches us the following.
   1. Jesus Christ did not write any Scripture.
   2. Jesus Christ established a Church.
   3. Jesus Christ commanded the Church to teach all which He commanded.
   Do you deny any of these three?
   Those are the basis of our presupposition which can be found in CCC #113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“. . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”).
   We can also see this presupposition confirmed in Scripture and how the Apostles applied it:

   Matthew 28:19-20
   King James Version (KJV)
   19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
   20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

   Luke 24:44-46
   King James Version (KJV)
   44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
   45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
   46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

   Acts 17:1-3
   King James Version (KJV)
   1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
   2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
   3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

   So, to summarize, we believe that Jesus Christ established a Church and commanded that Church to pass on His Sacred Tradition. That Sacred Tradition includes the knowledge that the Old Testament Scriptures reveal Christ. In other words, the Sacred Tradition of Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament in the sense that it contains and explains how Jesus Christ fulfilled the prophecies.
   But that is not all. Sacred Tradition is the basis of the New Testament. Jesus Christ did not write it. His followers wrote it based upon what His life, deeds and Teachings.
   Therefore, one must know and understand Sacred Tradition in order to understand the Scriptures. And since the Church is the one which has maintained these Sacred Traditions, she is the one which best understands the Scriptures.
   Would you explain the presupposition you function under so that we may compare it to Scripture and see which lines up better?

Frequently asked questions, "what is the Kingdom of God?" "What is the Gospel?"

The questions are very closely related, as we can see in this verse:

Mark 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
16 Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.

So, what Gospel is Jesus talking about? And where is the Kingdom of God that He is announcing?

For that, we have to go back to the time of Daniel.

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression,
and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

At this time, God will establish an everlasting Kingdom:

Daniel 2:34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image
upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.35 Then was the iron, the clay,
the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together,
and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away,
that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

And then, the explanation:

Daniel 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom,
which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break
in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, 
and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God
hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain,
and the interpretation thereof sure.

So, when Jesus says:

The time is fulfilled  He is talking about the 70 weeks. Which is talking about 70 weeks of years and so
amounts to approximately 490 years.

And, we know that at the time that Jesus was born, the Jews were anticipating the arrival of the Messiah.

And when Jesus says:

the kingdom of God is at hand  He is talking about this everlasting Kingdom. Did you notice where the
prophecy speaks of a stone which would be cut out of the mountain without hands. Have you ever
read in Scripture:

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church;
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This is that Stone.

John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said,
Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

And that stone is the Church which has become a huge mountain:

and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

And this is the Gospel that Jesus Christ was revealing to the Jews at that time.

What say you?

Did Jesus establish the Church just so you could snub your at her?

1. John, you said, I’ll leave aside all the issues ….. I would point out the hundreds (if not thousands) of different sects in Roman Catholicism which believe different things, hold to different theologies, and each have their own different interpretation of the supposedly infallible Roman Catholic interpretation of things.

   I’m not sure to what you refer. Would you provide an example please?

   I could point to wars which were fought in the past over different doctrines within the Roman Catholic Church itself by its own members.

   I can name one. The Protestant Revolution. But how does that disprove the Doctrine of the Church.

   There is almost as much disagreement within the Roman Catholic Church as there is outside of the Roman Catholic Church. But you would likely disagree. You would likely claim that there is unity in doctrine and always has been. Why? Because the Roman Catholic Church claims that there is unity in doctrine and there always has been.

   It is you making the claim. We see one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and we see what it teaches in the Catechism. Sure, there are dissenters. But there were dissenters in the time of Jesus and in the time of the Apostles.
   But the Catholic Church continues as one, under one Pastor appointed by Jesus Christ.
   So, please provide an example of what you are talking about to see if it is valid.



   
Or maybe, just maybe, God’s actually omniscient enough and omnipotent enough to be able to take care of that on His own, without submitting Himself to the Roman Catholic Church and its authority to do it for Him.
   

   Well then, why did He establish a Church. Scripture is clear that He established a Church. And Scripture says of the Church:
   Ephesians 3:10
   King James Version (KJV)
   10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
   And also:
   Matthew 18:17
   King James Version (KJV)
   17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
   Is it your opinion that Jesus established the Church simply so you could snub your nose at her?

Catholic and Protestant methodology

1. Hi John,  You said:I must admit, I don’t think I could have possibly asked for a better response to my posts….. We’re talking about what is the ultimate standard, and as such, there can only possibly be circular reasoning on the issue! I will freely admit that I start with God and his word as my foundation, and I end with God and his word as my foundation. Completely circular, and happily accepted as such.
   I’ll have to challenge you on two points you made there.
   1. That appealing to an ultimate standard must be by way of circular reasoning.
   There is more than one way to appeal to an ultimate authority.
   a. The Protestant methodology is circular. It is me and my Bible. If a Protestant is asked a question, the answer is invariably, “The Bible tells me so.”
   b. Whereas Catholic methodology is many and varied. It can be circular, inductive or deductive, depending upon the situation.
   i. Circular reasoning is not necessarily wrong. It is simply not persuasive when it is the only type of reasoning employed.
   ii. Inductive reasoning is reasoning from the specific to the general.
   iii. While deductive reasoning is reasoning from the general to the specific.
   The Catholic methodology is robust and persuasive than the Protestant methodology because we don’t rely upon Scripture alone. But upon Sacred Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium.
   So, to contrast the Catholic situation with the Protestant. A Protestant will say, “the Bible tells me so.” Whereas a Catholic will say, “The Bible tells me so and that is confirmed in Sacred Tradition and in the Teaching of the Church (Magisterium). In addition, the Catholic methodology also admits historical and archaeological evidence. In fact, all branches of science are admissible in the Catholic court.
   2. That you begin with God and his word as my foundation, and I end with God and his word as my foundation.
   In practice, you don’t. You begin with your own understanding and end with your own understanding. That is why Protestants accuse Catholics of checking their brain at the door of the Catholic Church.
   Let’s compare the Protestant and Catholic methodology again.
   Say to Christians have a dispute upon what it says in Scripture. If they are Protestant, they debate. If neither is persuaded by the other, they simply go their way.
   If two Catholics dispute about Scripture, they go to the Church for an authoritative decision. The Church tells them which is right and which is wrong. This is confirmed historically. See the debates between St. Athanasius vs Arius; and St. Augustine vs the Pelagians.
   You also said:

   As I mentioned last time, the Roman Catholic Church states that it’s ultimate authority is God. But in actuality, it is not God, but the Roman Catholic Church itself. So I’m starting to see that this is what I need to show my Roman Catholic friend – the Roman Catholic Church makes a subtle authority swap and slips itself into the place of God as the ultimate authority. Hopefully, he’ll be able to see it, and hopefully some of your comments here will help him. They really are quite good at exposing the ultimacy of the Roman Catholic Church in its own beliefs.

   I’ll have to dispute that one also.
   The authority over the Catholic Church is God. Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church and Jesus Christ is God. And it is Jesus Christ who empowered the Catholic Church to be the authority over His flock.
   This is based upon the principle established by Jesus Christ:
   Luke 10:16
   King James Version (KJV)
   16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
   Jesus Christ was sent by the Father:
   John 20:21-23
   King James Version (KJV)
   21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me,…
   And He sent the Church:
   … even so send I you.
   Again, Jesus was sent by the Father:
   Matthew 28:18-20
   King James Version (KJV)
   18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
   And He sent the Church.
   19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
   20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
   And that Church is the Catholic Church.

In regards to the traditions

Anonymous says,

De Maria,
In regards to the traditions mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 we don’t know specifically what traditions Paul is referring to.

We do.  All you have to do is trace back to the Missionary journey to Thessalonia and you'll see:

Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:  2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

Therefore, he passed on Christian Doctrine.  AKA Catholic Doctrine.

We can though get a good idea from his letters what Paul taught. What we don’t see in his letters are things like Mary being sinless, indulgences, papal infallibility.

But those are part and parcel of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  And St. Paul was passing on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Not some different version.

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Nor are these doctrines taught else in the New Testament. I don’t want to be blind and i hope you don’t either.  This is why exegeting the Scripture is so important because it will tell us if our doctrines are sound or not. So far, we have seen in our discussions that some your doctrines are not.

On the contrary, they are taught throughout the New Testament.

What does James mean in James 2:24? Is James teaching that we must do good works to be saved without faith in Christ?

No one can be saved without faith. 

Is he teaching that when Christ died for our sins that our good works helped Christ and added to it?

No.  But Christ died to give us an example to follow:

1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

Scripture is clear that Jesus did not expect people to sit around claiming salvation by faith alone and who would neglect to do the work of God.

Heb 10:36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. 

How does your church officially exegete this verse?

Basically, that we are justified by faith AND works.  Not works alone without faith.  Not faith alone without works.

It is true that Ephesians 2:8-9 is teaching we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone.

That's not true.  You're just twisting Scripture in order to go against the Word of God.  The word "alone" is nowhere mentioned in that verse.  Let alone twice as you've inserted it.

And also, in order to get the entire idea being presented, you need to include verse 10.  Let's look at it.

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith;
This is the Baptismal formula. It is in Baptism that we are saved by grace which is poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, when we proclaim our faith in Christ.

and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

God gives us this grace. It is the first grace which God gives us because without faith we can’t please Him. And faith is a very special type of grace. It is a grace which must be exercised. Faith ALONE is dead (James 2:17).

Faith is a grace.
Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace;….

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Therefore we can’t boast that we made ourselves faithful nor that we saved ourselves.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

We are ALL created in Christ when we are conceived. Christ has created all that is in creation:
John 1:3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

and we were all made to do good. We were all made to keep the Commandments.
Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

God gave this command from before time began. We were made for God. We were made to be righteous. This is why we are justified by DOING the faith OF Christ.

It is Christ alone who died for our sins and gained salvation for us.

True.  But He didn't die upon that Cross so that you would kick back, sip on your margarita and claim salvation without any effort on your part.  He frequently said:

Matthew 10:38

And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 

It is by faith alone in this that we are saved.

Nope.  But it is by faith ALONE that we believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.  And the Holy Eucharist is the New Covenant in the Blood of Christ.

Matthew 26:28

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

From this, as verse 10 says, the good works are the result of salvation and not the cause of it. The good works we do can do nothing to affect our salvation that Christ has already gained and secured for us.

You've misunderstood v 10.  Most Protestants do so.  You should have taken the Scriptural warning seriously:

2 Peter 3:15-17 King James Version (KJV)

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

It is true we are to obey God and work out our salvation (that Christ gained for us) in our lives. But our obedience does not keep us saved. Rather, it is the power of God that keeps us saved.

But the power of God only keeps the obedient saved.

Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Before you converted to the Roman Catholic church did you talk to your pastor or anyone who was knowledgeable on the Scripture?

Many.  Protestant and Catholic.  I also read many books.

Thanks for the questions.

Aren't you disobeying Christ on Ash Wednesday?

StepHeaven says
Why would Protestants go to the nearest Catholic Church for ashes if they strongly oppose Catholic teachings and doctrines?

There must be many more that don't, judging by the reaction amongst non-Catholics on this forum.

Wouldn't that make hypocrites of those that did so?

One more hypocrite won't hurt anything.

There were plenty of non-Catholic churches offering ashes yesterday, but as somebody who can not explain away the contradiction between the scripture of washing your face when fasting so that nobody knows what your doing, to the man made idea of taking on a clearly visible mark that symbolizes to everybody exactly what you're doing, I'm honestly kind of confused by the whole idea. 

 I understand your confusion. I'll explain below.

Matthews 6:19 "But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that your fasting will not be obvious to men, but only to your Father, who is unseen. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

Let's look at this in a bit more detail.

Let's start here:

Matt 6:6 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them.
If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.....

That's the main idea. Let's skip down a bit more.

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standingin the
synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received
their reward in full. ....

16 “When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 17 But when you fast, ....

Basically, this is preaching humility. In other words, don't stand on a street corner yelling,
"I'm saved by my faith alone." That is boasting in yourself and your abilities. It is trying to get
the approval of men and not of God.

And so, we see a difference between that type of behaviour and that of putting ashes on our foreheads.

First, the ashes do not simply symbolize fasting.

1. They also symbolize dying with Christ. Thus, they proclaim that we hope in the resurrection.

Romans 6:4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ
was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

2. And they symbolize the mark of all believers. The ashes are placed on our forehead in the shape of a cross. Thus,
they symbolize the mark that all believers in Christ will receive on the forehead.

Revelation 7:3 “Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads
of the servants of our God.”

3. Finally and most directly answering your question, we profess Christ before men. Anyone who sees us
will know by the very fact that there is a cross emblazoned on our forehead, that we are believers in Jesus
Christ.

Matthew 10:32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven.
33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.

So, I hope that helps.

St. Peter's confession

De Maria December 3, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Hello again,

Well.. it does not matter whether Peter, Nathaniel or Thomas made confessions.. the mere fact is St.Peter denied Jesus..

And the other Apostles abandoned him, except St. John. But Jesus forgave them all.

St Paul also rebuked St Peter for preaching wrong doctrine.

True. And in so doing revealed his human failings. St. Peter honorably and humbly never even mentions this episode in which St. Paul rebukes St. Peter for doing something which St. Paul no only recommends doing:
1 Corinthians 9:22
King James Version (KJV)
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

And preaches against causing our brothers to sin by eating certain foods:
1 Corinthians 8:9-12
King James Version (KJV)
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

And neglects to mention that he circumcised St. Timothy because of pressure from the self same group:
Acts 16:3
King James Version (KJV)
3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

So, what we have here is a St. Paul hypocritically rebuking St. Peter for actions which he commits on a regular basis and which he advises others to do as though they were virtuous.

Certainly no one will be in position to rebuke the popes’ when they dispense their heretic teachings, since they claim infallibility when speaking ex-cathedra.

1. The Popes have never dispensed heretical teachings.
2. Even so, there are many Saints which through the years have rebuked and advised Popes and Bishops.
3. It is the Protestants who will not listen to rebuke or advise concerning the errors which they have added to the Scriptures.

We also see criminals in court case proceeding make a confession on oath to speaking the truth before the judge, but eventually tell lies to get themselves bailed out. I do believe we have to go out into the world and proclaim the gospel and it is the duty of everyone. Many times it is recorded that Roman Catholics have denied Jesus as the only way (Mother Theresa for example), so it is insincere to make a case for Roman Catholicism by make making imaginary claims.

It is Protestants who deny Christ everytime they reject the Eucharist, the Mass and the Catholic Church. Mother Theresa is one of Christ’s shining stars. Catholics do not deny Christ but live in accordance with His Commandments and submit to His Church and His Sacraments.

Sincerely,

De Maria