The Catholic Church Teaches the Word of God

De Maria November 16, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Hi, you said,

By the way, I would not hold to a doctrine of “sola scriptura”. I respect the tradition of Christianity as well as Scripture, so long as either do not contradict.

Any doctrine which contradicts the doctrines of the Catholic Church, including yours, also contradicts Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Another response to more objections

De Maria November 14, 2012 at 10:37 PM

I appreciate you putting this information up here on your blog. This topic is of great concern to me it requires much thought and meditation. I have read your book on the Papacy, and I saw how early it was that Christians began to mention seed-forms of what would become the modern day papacy.

It is an excellent book. I enjoyed it immensely!

In the first place, I would agree with the poster who said that something so grounding and important as the Papacy would be mentioned from the very inception of it’s existence.

It is. Matt 16:18-19.

To carry the claim that Jesus Christ established a special, unique, singular, perpetual, indestructible, and infallible “office” which would begin with Peter (the rock of the Church) and that would continue on in the form of a successive dynastic structure, similar to that of the kings of Israel, and that would be the visible head and Shepherd of the world-wide church until the return of Christ, and which depends not on the holiness and righteousness and faith of the person fulfilling this office, is a VERY suspicious claim to carry when one considers the early church’s history.

You’re suspicious. I’m not. I believe in the promise of Our Lord, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Simply resorting to the later development of the NT canon will not do to justify as a comparison

That is a statement of opinion.

( I will mention why a little bit below).
We know that Peter was given the function as “rock” of the Church which would build, and that the “keys of the kingdom” would be given to Peter and that this would involve the functioning authority of “binding and loosing”.

You just proved yourself wrong. The New Covenant is better than the Old. God made an ongoing concern in the Old. Why would Jesus establish a Covenant which would break down in one generation?

Such words would have made sense to Jewish hearers. What Christ was doing was giving Peter authority as a steward of God’s kingdom on earth.

Catholic Teaching. That is what it means to be Pope.

This is why “whatever is bound on earth will be bound in heaven”: this gap which exists between “heaven” and “earth” will be regulated by the Steward of the earth part of God’s kingdom, and such exercises of authority will have it’s settlement in heaven, ultimately, as a result.

You are arguing in favor of the Catholic doctrine. Not against it. Have I misunderstood your post?

Also, this power of the keys, the function of being “rock”, and the authority of binding and loosing are not isolated endowments. Rather, Simon has been divinely inspired to know who Jesus was: The Christ of God. Peter came to know inspired and divine truth. It was Peter’s confession of the true identity of Christ that sets the stage for these figures of the “rock of the Church” and the “keys of the kingdom of God”. Truth is the circle that surrounds the situation.

Absolutely!

Nothing about succession,

1. That is what the keys signify. Succession. He will pass on the keys generation to generation.
Isaiah 22:22-24
King James Version (KJV)
22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
23 And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house.
24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons.

2. The name Rock signifies that the Church is building upon him for eternity. Not just when he is alive. That is why, the Church, at the time of the Apostles was built upon the foundation of the Prophets who came before them.
3. In Acts 1, Judas place is filled. Indicating that everyone of the Apostles is holding an office which will be filled in the future, when they pass away.

rather truth is the foundation to this situation where Simon is re-named and authority is granted to him.

That is true. And the next person to hold the office will be building upon the legacy which St. Peter left behind.

Moreover, the “church” is able to carry on the “function of the keys” in disciplinary proceedings.

Absolutely. That does not negate that the keys were given to St. Peter. It simply shows that St. Peter’s office is the highest in rank.

A person is “excommunicated” under and by the utilization of these “keys to the kingdom of heaven”. Interestingly, the “keys” are at work here in settling the issue of “offenses” in the Church. We see that it is not just “Peter” alone who can utilize the “keys” but also the “Church” –

1. Christ only gave the keys to St. Peter. Signifying that he is the Chief Officer.
2. The others have authority only when they are united to St. Peter, the holder of the keys.

(obviously Peter is in the Church as well). But we must see that the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” are somehow wider in it’s possession than simply Peter as an individual. In fact, Peter here is representing the whole apostolic church.

That is Catholic Teaching.

All this being said, we read nothing of a succession of bishops.

Yes we do. You simply missed it. Read Acts 1 and read where St. Paul made criteria for the selection of Bishops.

This is something that would have been in an instructional manual

The Bible is not a manual. It is a compilation of the Biographies of Jesus Christ known as the Gospels. It also contains a record of the activities of the Apostles after Jesus ascended to heaven. And it contains some letters exchanged between between certain Apostles and the various Churches.

However, the Bible is not a manual. Not in the Old nor the New do we find detailed instructions on how to run the Church.

As for Catholics, we get that information from Tradition.

or in a contextual conversation with Christ on how the Church was to continue in the world, but rather the Context of Matthew 16 is again the issue of “truth”. It was revealed to Simon who Jesus really was, and this sets the stage. An attempt to pull in Isaiah 22 into the picture here is rather weak in my opinion, for no one argued like this until Catejan in the medieval period.

I doubt that is true. But even if it is, what of it? The keys logically signify authority, you said so yourself. And authority is passed down. Jesus did not establish a Church which would die in one generation.

Finally, trying to appeal to a later development of the NT canon to try and make appropriate the later development of the Papacy is extremely faulty.

That is your opinion. An opinion which I find very faulty.

In the first place, the NT Canon is not a creation or development of the Church

In fact, it is. It is members of the Church who wrote the books of the New Testament.

that began with “seeds” and then eventually underwent a “watering process” and then with time undergoes a “sprouting process”, etc,etc,etc.

That is a poor metaphor. The Church grew. The New Testament Scriptures were written by Church men who were inspired of God to first to preach and then to write down what they preached.

Rather the documents of the NT Canon were already circulating and recognized as authoritative very early in the Church as is evident with Ignatius, Clement, Ireneuas, Tertullian, etc,etc….

How does that argue in your favor? These are all Catholic Bishops you have named. Members of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

It was not really a codified doctrine, rather it was just the logical nature of submitting to apostolic teaching.

Again, you’re arguing in favor of the Catholic Teaching. Your conclusions are completely illogical based upon the facts you are presenting.
1. The Bible is not codified doctrine. That is correct as I already mentioned. It is more easily classified as history.
2. Christ wanted us to submit to the Apostles, through the Church. Read Matt 18:17. It is the Church named there because the Apostles make up the Church and logically, because they would leave the Church behind and the Churcb needed to be authoritative throughout history (Matt 28:19-20).

For example, Paul just assumed the right to have his epistles read by more than one church “And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans, and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea” (Colossians 4:16). This doesn’t take great pain to assume that this was a practice from the very start does it? Peter also recognized that Paul’s epistles were circulating (2 Peter 3:16). Now grant it, Paul most likely wrote many more epistles than we have in the Canon, for instance, there is missing the prior letter to the Corinthians and then also the Laodicean epistle (which some believe to the epistle to the Ephesians), but we really are not concerned here with “which letters get in” or “do we have all of them”, rather the issue here is “should we hold them as authoritative scripture to be submitted to?”

You’re still arguing against yourself. It is the Church which answered that question and acted upon it. No one else. There was not some other entity involved in the selection of the New Testament canon.

and I think that such a conceptual question has warrant right from the get go and has evidence right in the NT documents themselves to support the logic of getting what books we know are circulating and must be read by all the faithful.

Again, a decision made by the Church. Namely by St. Jerome when he wrote the Latin Vulgate.

Therefore, the canonization of the NT is not a doctrinal development, rather it is a principle that was put into action.

It is both.
1. The doctrine which was developed is the Table of Contents, the Canon, which was now established for the Bible.
2. The principle was put into action BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

This principle is inherent in any historical investigation. For instance, if we want to know what happened in a homicide event, we consult the witnesses and hear their stories. This is not a development in principle, it is just the action put into practice of a principle that is assumed and inherent to be logical from the start. It is pre-suppositional. To gather the data closest to the apostles and which were being circulated around by all the churches and to put such a collection together is just compared to me cleaning up my library collection and putting things in order so that I know exactly what I have to use.

In that metaphor, you represent the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church put things in order in her library collection. A collection of books, which she had written.

Now grant it, there were many disputes for certain letters, as to whether there was certainty of it’s apostolicity such as Revelation, James, Hebrews, and 2 Peter. But still, whether these letters went into the NT Canon or not, there really is still not development of doctrine involved here. I am really quite puzzled that you use this argument in the book as well to try and legitimize a later development of the papacy.

The papacy did not develop, it was established by Jesus Christ.
The Canon developed as the Church wrote the different books and then sifted through and identified which books were authentic and which were not.

The Papacy claims to have it’s origin with Jesus and Simon at the moment where God reveals to Simon the true identity of Jesus.

Absolutely.

That Christ here established a dynastic structure consisting in an unbroken line of succeeding bishops, uniquely, particularly, singularly, visibly, perpetually, and indestructibly beginning with Peter and which would continue on and on until the end of the age is quite missing from the text of the gospel of Matthew.

For you, because your judgement is colored by the tradition of men which you follow.

But we follow the Tradition of Jesus Christ which is there recorded in the Scripture.

And that this unique and supreme “office” works to fulfill God’s purpose despite who is in the office, whether he is bad, good, believing, or disbelieving, is something which would of had to have it’s publication right from the inception.

Yep. We have faith in God.

For a serious thinker,

You consider yourself a serious thinker, I suppose. But I also consider myself a serious thinker. And I disagree with your opinion.

the analogy of a seed to it’s full blow tree structure is still not working

You mean the on that Our Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed?
Matthew 13:31-32
King James Version (KJV)
31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

here in comparison to the modern Papacy with what went on here between Jesus and Cephas. I mean for goodness sake, Paul missed out on telling Timothy about this foundational doctrine when he was giving Timothy sincere admonition to not stray from the truth.

I’m sure if St. Paul missed it, the other Apostles would have reminded him. The letters which St. Paul wrote, none of them were all inclusive of every doctrine of the Church. Do you see any mention of the Eucharist in 1 and 2 Timothy? And the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith.

If the Papacy and the surrounding college of Bishops were really what Christ had it mind when he said “on this rock I will build my church”,

Funny that He used the singular pronoun then.

specifically the reference to the Church, then Paul simply was unaware of this foundational “rock” function of the successors of Peter, and as such we have a witness to the post-apostolicity of the Papacy.

St. Paul was aware of it, although it is obvious that he chafed at it sometimes. But then, he was a work in progress. I’m certain, in the end, he submitted wholeheartedly to the authority of the Church which Christ built.

Sincerely,
De Maria

Response to objections

De Maria November 14, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Hi, if I may, here’s how I would respond.

1. In order for the papacy or an earthly head of the church with successors to be true as a definer and protector of truth, it would logically have to be described from the beginning of the church in the apostolic period and not as a later development.

It is described in Scripture.

?2. For the office of papacy to be true, it would need to be described with qualifications for successors, in the inspired writings among the gifts given by Christ for church unity when he ascended into heaven in Ephesians 4:7-16, yet the papacy is conspicuously absent.

Why does St. Paul need to mention it there when Christ has already said it here:

Matthew 16:18-19
King James Version (KJV)
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.

and here:

John 21:17?He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Note that St. Peter (aka Simon son of Jonas) is assigned the position of chief Pastor and the verse you provided says the following:
Ephesians 4:11?And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

3. Such a fundamentally important central role as the papacy, in order to be true, would be a central repeated theme of writings by the first Christians: Luke, James, John, Paul, and Peter himself, yet there is not a single mention.

1. In fact, there is.
2. But yours is a matter of opinion. I don’t see the need to repeat it since Jesus Christ already commanded it.
3. The fact is, that many things are assumed in Scripture. One of those is the primacy of St. Peter. Scripture follows the Tradition established by Jesus Christ. That is why St. Peter is so frequently mentioned first. Why he speaks with authority over the other Apostles. And why, at one point, he asserts that lying to him is tantamount to lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3).

4. Although “head of the church” is a phrase, office, and title in scripture, only Christ and never Peter was ever referred to as such.

Except when Christ referred to St. Peter as the Rock on which He would build His Church. The name “Rock” is very telling. Rock is God’s name. Yet Jesus gave St. Peter that name. Signifying that St. Peter would be as God before the Church.

T5. Peter is not explicitly identified as the head of the church in the Jerusalem council in Acts.15; rather James makes the closing summary, although even James is not identified as sole head or bishop of the Jerusalem church.

But it is St. Peter who makes the remarks upon which the meeting is resolved.
6. Peter is never identified in scripture as the singular bishop of the Jerusalem diocese or of any diocese.

1. No need. The New Testament is written based upon the Traditions of the Church. The Traditions are assumed in the writing and not always explicitly named.
2. Also, theological language is not yet developed at the time of the writing of the New Testament. For instance, the Trinity is yet unknown except as it it described. The Eucharist is still unnamed. And the Sacraments are not referred to as the Sacraments, but as the doctrine of Baptisms (Hebrews 6:2).
3. The New Testament was written at a time of persecution. St. Peter was in hiding. St. Peter is not mentioned as the singular Bishop of any Diocese for his safety.
4. However, Jesus names him the Bishop of the entire Church when He names him Peter and gives him the keys to heaven.

7. If there was an infallible head of the church and voice of Christ on earth with successors after Peter, there are no claims, writings, or pronouncements from them until Victor blunders onto the scene with his error, even though the period was fraught with heresies, and the entire NT was written when the apostles and church were persecuted from the beginning.

It is there from the time that Jesus pronounced the words, “Upon this Rock, I will build my Church. ” You are simply living in denial.

If the church was intended to be built on none other than the pope or person of Peter, why is he not mentioned at all by one of the most important first Christians in the following passage speaking of who the church is built upon?  Ephesians 2:19-22 “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.”

As Steve Ray has said in the past, you are mixing your metaphors.
1. It is obvious that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said He would build the Church on the Rock of St. Peter. The metaphor means that Jesus established St. Peter as the most important, foundational, leader of the Church.
2. However, Scripture gives us several metaphors of the foundation of the Church.
a. Christ as foundation.
b. Christ and the Prophets and the Apostles as foundation.
3. In order to understand how all these metaphors work together, we need to know how Jesus designed the Church.
4. The Church is the Body of Christ. He is the Owner. But the title, Body of Christ, gives the sense of the design. Christ designed for Himself a corporation. Complete with CEO and board of managers. And the Church has been an ongoing concern to this day.

The Achilles Heal of the Papacy Theory ?If indeed Peter was the head of the church with successors as the voice of Christ and the basis of unity, where is this voice during the turbulent years of persecution and heresy before Constantine? Someone will say, “They went to their deaths as martyrs.” But so did the apostles, yet we have their writings well-preserved for us. Where are the writings of the popes from 60 AD to 325 AD? (Clement’s letter is not from him as a singular bishop but from the church of Rome to the church of Corinth, not to the singular bishop of Corinth.) We have something recorded ABOUT some of the other alleged popes but not a single written word FROM them. But correct me if I am mistaken. I would find their writings most interesting.

Steve Ray corrected you already. Read the letter of St. Clement again. It is obvious that he is writing as the CEO of the Church. That means that he represents the entire Church. That is why, frequently, the Pope uses the royal “we” in his documents. Because he represents everyone in God’s Kingdom.

Sincerely,
De Maria

The Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the Mass

De Maria December 1, 2012 at 8:39 AM

Hi Dane,

You said,
You can attempt to twist Scripture all you want to justify a pagan sacrifice that is meaningless.

1. I don’t see any twisting of Scripture.
2. The Mass is not a pagan sacrifice.
3. The Mass is full of meaning. All of God’s plan of salvation for mankind is revealed in it. Because in it is revealed His love for mankind, Jesus Christ.

The Mass is not a propitiatory sacrifice

Yes, it is. Propitiatory means to “put an end to” or “wash away” sin. That is precisely what the Mass does. In the Mass, the Blood of Christ is applied to our sins and washes them away.

The Mass is our Passover feast. Because Christ is our Passover:
1 Corinthians 5:6-8
King James Version (KJV)
6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Perhaps you refuse to keep the Feast. But we don’t.

and does nothing but deny, denigrate, disparage, dishonor and DISANNUL the benefits of the ONE, ALL-SUFFICIENT SACRIFICE OF CHIST ON THE CROSS!

On the contrary, it is in the Mass that the benefits of the all sufficient Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is applied to our souls. If you choose to believe.

If you choose to deny, denigrate, disparage, dishonor and disannul the Mass, then Christ died in vain for you:
Hebrews 10:25-31
King James Version (KJV)
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 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? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

God always required the shedding of blood for sin. We see this from the fall in the Garden when Adam and the woman could not cover their nakedness of sin by any self-effort (as with leaves). For God to cover them with coats of skins there had to be the shedding of blood of spotless animal/s (pointing to the spotless Lamb of God, Jesus).

True.

That the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world does not mean that the sacrifice had been made at that time.

Who said that it had?

If it had, then: (1) Jesus would have had to have had a body prepared Him by the Father–being already become the seed of the woman [virgin born of the Holy Ghosty], (2) suffered and (3) died thousands of years before His crufixion.

Steve nowhere made any such remark, so that part of your objection is without any foundation.

What Steve did say, which I thought was Protestant doctrine, is that the grace which Christ poured out from the Cross is applied to all in all of time. Whether it be before the Sacrifice or after. From Adam to the future which we have not yet arrived. Without the Sacrifice of Christ, no one’s sins would be forgiven. This is why we depict Christ on the Cross (1 Corinthians 1:23). And this is why we believe it is an eternal Sacrifice.

No sacrifice prior to the Cross could take away sins and there is none thereafter that can take away sins.

Who said there was? Did you not understand that the Eucharist is the self same sacrifice that took place on Calvary?

Here is what Protestants miss and don’t understand. And the reason they don’t understand is because they don’t understand the Scriptures.

In the Old Testament, we learn that Sacrifice is not simply the slaughter of the victim. Sacrifice is also the offering of the Victim. And Sacrifice is also the consuming of the Victim.

Christ takes care of the first two aspects of His Sacrifice. We participate in the same Sacrifice by consuming the Passover. Have you not read in Scripture?

Exodus 12
King James Version (KJV)
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt saying, 2 This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. 3 Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: 4 And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb. 5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats: 6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. 7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. 8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. 9 Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof. 10 And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.

READ [in context] and CONSIDER WELL:

Excellent advice which you should take. We understand Scripture in the manner which Scripture advises:
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.

2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

The first thing that Protestants did wrong with regards to understanding the Word of God is to reject the Traditions of Jesus Christ. The Mass being one of them. These Traditions predated the New Testament Scriptures. And it is upon these Traditions that the New Testament is based. That is why, when you read the Scriptures, you don’t recognize the Traditions that are there illustrated.

Let us go over these in context.
Heb:9:22: And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

God’s word emphatically says that there is no remission [of sins] without the shedding of blood. Roman Catholicism teaches that the Mass is a bloodless sacrifice and therefore it cannot be a propitiary one for the remission of sins.

Not true. The actual word used is, “unbloody”. Not “bloodless”. The verbiage is thus:
1369 ….Through the ministry of priests the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is completed in union with the sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered through the priests’ hands in the name of the whole Church in an unbloody and sacramental manner until the Lord himself comes.

The words, “unbloody” and “sacramental” are united with the word “and”. Which means that they are together. Sacramental means “mysterious”. It is the mystery which existed from the foundation of the world:
1 Corinthians 2:7
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

We believe that the wine becomes the Blood of Christ. Therefore, Blood is involved. But it is not visible to the eye of flesh. By faith alone does one discern this Blood of Christ in the Cup of Salvation:
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?

1 Corinthians 11:27
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Therefore, the Blood of our Lord is consumed in the Eucharist and that is why it is propitiatory for our sins. Where do you get the Blood of Christ which you claim washes away your sins, since you deny the Eucharist?

Now, let’s look at your verses in context.

Heb:7:27: Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

True. But if that means that Christ no longer offers Himself to the Father, why is the Lamb standing in heaven as though slain?

Revelation 5:6
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

Heb:9:12: Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Well, He did. How does this contradict the Mass. It is because He did that we can celebrate the Mass.

Heb:9:26: For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Heb:9:27: And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

This also does not speak against the Mass, but confirms it.

Heb:10:10: By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Yes. Once for ALLLLLLLLL. That includes us. And the benefits of the Sacrifice of Christ, are applied to us, in the Mass.

Rom:6:9: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10: For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

Excellent! It is Protestants who accuse us of killing Christ over and over. But we don’t believe that at all. We simply obey His Word and “do this in remembrance” of Him. We “re-present” the once for all sacrifice upon the altar as He commanded. Yes, we have an “altar”. It is the Table of the Lord. But it is an altar of Sacrifice:

Hebrews 13:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

1Pet:3:18: For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: The payment for the sins of the world required not only the physical suffering at the hands of men and on the Cross, but required Jesus to suffer the equivalent of eternal separation from the Father…

Hm? One thing which that verse does not say is anything about the Mass.

However, what kind of weird heresy are you teaching there? What does that mean? “but required Jesus to suffer the equivalent of eternal separation from the Father”….

Huh?

You don’t believe that the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross is eternal, but you believe He is eternally separated from the Father?

Mt:27:46: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mk:15:34: And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Jesus is not there accusing the Father of forsaking Him. If you knew and understood the Scripture, you would know that Jesus is there calling to mind the prophecy of the Suffering Servant from the Psalm. It is the first verse of Psalm 22:

Psalm 22
King James Version (KJV)
1My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?….

Read the whole thing if you are not familiar with it. Jesus is letting the Jews know that His Crucifixion was prophesied, long ago.

…whereby He was suffered the wrath of God and was bruised (eg. Isaiah 53).

Still nothing which can possibly be construed to be in contradiction with the Mass.

Jesus had to suffer the equivalent of spiritual death (separation from God in suffering and torment–being forsaken) as well as physical death and then be raised again for our justification.

No He didn’t. Jesus was never forsaken or separated from the Father. This is your teaching which you are reading into the Scriptures because you don’t understand the Word of God.

Rom:4:25: Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. How many times does the Holy Spirit have to tell you through Scripture that Jesus was offered ONCE for the sins of the world?

Only once. How many times does Scripture have to tell you that you apply the grace of His Sacrifice on the Cross to yourself by consuming His Body and Blood in the Eucharist?

And Scripture says that if any sacrifice representative of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross could have taken away sins, then Jesus would have had to have suffered often since the foundation of the world.

But the Eucharist is not “representative” of Christ’s sacrifice. It is Christ’s sacrifice.

The Mass and the Catholic priesthood are meaningless

The Mass is our remembrance of Christ’s entire life.
The Eucharist is Christ’s re-presentation of His Sacrifice upon the Cross at Calvary.
The Catholic ministerial priesthood, is the ordination of men who are completely dedicated to Christ as is suggested in Scripture:
1 Corinthians 7:32
But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

except for holding people in bondage to a false sacrificial system

The false system of worship is the one you are proposing. The Scripture is very clear that it is in the breaking of the Bread, the Eucharist, that Jesus Christ is revealed:

Luke 24:35
And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

and good works for salvation

This is the main teaching of Scripture from one end to the other. St. Paul teaches:
Galatians 6:6-8

King James Version (KJV)

6Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.
7Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

That explicitly teaches that we are justified by works and not by faith only.

Here, lets go through it together.

Galatians 6:6-8

King James Version (KJV)
6Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.

If you read the previous 5 verses, this is a reference to Confession. St. Paul is saying, if you have sinned, you need to go to the Priest and confess your sin. But this has nothing to do with this discussion. I included this verse in order not to be accused of leaving anything or posting out of context.

7Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Here St. Paul states the overall adage. In more common language, our actions will result in consequences. If we do good, good will come of it. If we do evil, evil will come of it.

8For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

Now, St. Paul is more specific and explains what he has said in verse 7.

He that soweth to his flesh.

To me, that means the one that acts selfishly.

shall reap corruption.

To me, that means that individual will be condemned to “rot” in hell.

but he that soweth to the Spirit.

The Spirit, in this case, is a reference to the Law of the Spirit. Which is the Law of Love and therefore this is a person who acts with love towards his neighbors.

reap life everlasting.

To me, “live everlasting” means heaven.

St. Paul is here teaching salvation by works and not by faith only. One who sows good deeds will reap life eternal.

when salvation is all of grace through faith in Christ and His finished work alone.

That does not seem to be the case. Read also Matt 25:31-46. The sheep are rewarded for well doing. Just as again it is confirmed in Rom 2:7 and 2:13. You can actually see this teaching throughout the Scriptures, Old and New Testament.

If you continue to follow these false doctrines you will die in your sins.

I’m afraid it is the other way around.
1. It is you who follow false doctrines. Here, I’ll show you and exceptionally blatant one which you have just mentioned. Scripture nowhere says anything about faith “alone” except to decry its efficacy for salvation:
James 2:14
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

It is you who follow false doctrines. It is you who will die in your sins if you don’t reject them and come to the Fullness of the Truth which is only taught in the Catholic 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,

Works and grace cannot be mixed!

Works are grace.

Rom:11:6: And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Well, since you have taken this out of context, you simply post one verse. But in order to understand it correctly, you must post a great deal, both from the Old and the New Testaments.

Lets begin. Why does he say, “no more of works”? Have you not read in Scripture where Jesus says:
Matthew 20:1-3
King James Version (KJV)
1 For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. 2 And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace,

To what is Jesus here referring? To the Jews. The Jews made a contract with God. They had an agreement with God. Have you not also read in Scripture?

Exodus 19
King James Version (KJV)
3 And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; 4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. 7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him. 8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord.

In essence, the Old Covenant of the People of God through Moses with God, is a labour contract. They keep the works of the Law, God saves them.

But it is no longer of works. It is now of grace. Does that mean that there are no requirements. There remain the Ten Commandments:
John 14:21
King James Version (KJV)
21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

And Jesus has added the Sacraments:
Mark 16:16
King James Version (KJV)
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

That is what St. Paul means, no longer of works.

Old Testament. Do good deeds all your life. Maybe God saves you at the Judgement.
New Testament. Do good deeds meet for repentance. Wash away your sins calling on His name in Baptism. Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Walk upon Mount Sion with the Saints.

Romans 4, below, is actually a confirmation of the doctrine of faith AND works. But your tradition has twisted the Scriptures beyond recognition, therefore you don’t understand what you are reading.

Romans 4: 1: What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2: For if Abraham were justified by works,

First off, the Church does not teach justification by works “alone”. But by faith and works.

And that is only a “manner of speaking”. Because in reality, we are not justified by faith and works. But those who do the works of God are justified in His eyes.

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.

Do you understand? We don’t justify ourselves by faith or works. God justifies those who obey Him and do the works of the Law. God justifies. We don’t.

1994 Justification is the most excellent work of God’s love made manifest in Christ Jesus and granted by the Holy Spirit.….

he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

That is true. And it is again, the Teaching of the Church. That is, in fact, why works are so important:
Philippians 2:11-13
King James Version (KJV)
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

We work out our salvation because it is God working through us.

If we are not doing good works then God is not in us.

3: For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

This is an awesome Scripture which you have to follow throughout the pages of the venerable book in order to understand its true meaning. Study and show yourself approved! These words were first stated by Moses inGenesis 15:6. And they are explained in the book of St. James.

James 2: 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Did you notice that? The words, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works,….”

Was that by works or by faith? By works. When? When did this take place?

“when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?”

But you object? Pull up any Bible that you want, there it is in black and white. He was justified by faith AND WORKS.

You still object? Then explain this. If Abraham was justified by FAITH ALONE in Gen 15:6, or at anytime, why was he not justified back in Genesis 12:1-5? Because, you see, that is when St. Paul says is his first recorded action in faith.

Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

So, then, if Abraham were ever justified by faith alone, it should have been in Genesis 12. But since he first had to obey God’s commands and thus add works to his faith and thereby make his faith perfect, he was not justified by faith alone.

As you can see, Protestant theology has taken that verse completely out of context. But it is necessary that they do so in order to confound the populace. Because it is true that the Reformation stands or falls with the doctrine of justification by faith alone. And that doctrine never had legs. Therefore, they must confuse and contort the Scriptures in order to keep you in bondage to their lies.

4: Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Again, this is a reference to the Jew. Him that worketh. The Old Covenant.
But reckoned of grace is about the Sacramental System which Christ installed. Wherein, we, the laborers who were found late in the evening, are paid the same coin. We are saved in this life and walk with the Saints on Mount Sion.

And it is in the Sacraments, that we are justified by faith APART FROM WORKS. Baptism is the work of God. Not of man. Burn that into your brain. Justification, the washing away of man’s sins, is done in Baptism. No man can do that. God alone can do that.

5: But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

That is us. We who believe in Christ and obey His every word:
Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

We are saved according to our faith. A faith which is expressed in works:
Galatians 5:6
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Let me explain further. We are saved ACCORDING to our faith. Which is expressed in works. But we are neither saved by our faith or by our works. Except in a manner of speaking. Because without either or both, we are not saved. God, in His mercy, saves those who by their faith act out in love.

6: Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7: Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8: Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

King David is one of the circumcision. And he is making reference to one specific incidence in his life. His adulterous affair with Bathsheba and resulting murder of her husband. David repented. God forgave David. But all David did was ask forgiveness through God’s representative. Yeah. Just like we do in the Sacrament of Confession. God made his repentance known to the Prophet Nathan. And it is Nathan who advised him of God’s forgiveness.

Therefore, this confirms that this is a reference to the Sacraments. God washing away our sin, in the action of the Holy Spirit, when we repent of our sins before the priest (Heb 13:17).

9: Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10: How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

He is still explaining the same idea. The Sacramental idea. David represents the circumcision. But the New Covenant now includes the Gentiles. The uncircumcision. Abraham was not yet circumcised and had not yet offered Isaac upon the altar when his righteousness was first mentioned.

I highlight the word, first, because justification is a process. And apart from his works, Moses, inspired of the Holy Spirit, declares that Abraham is just in the eyes of God.

Abraham was called out of Ur in Gen 12. By faith, he obeyed.
He was first declared righteous in Gen 15:6.
And his righteousness was tested and confirmed in Gen 22.

That’s a process. Not a one time event.

11: And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

This is a reference to us. We who come from the pagan and gentile nations. He is our father also because God made the Covenant with him before he was circumcised. Circumcision was a sign of the Covenant. But God had declared him righteous before he was circumcised. And he was circumcised because of his righteousness.

12: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 13: For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14: For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 15: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

We need to look at Scripture more closely to see what St. Paul means here:

Genesis 26:5
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

The Commandments had not yet been written in stone when Abraham obeyed God’s commandments. Obviously, then, the Commandments existed although they were not written on a physical media. The Law has always existed. But it is in the heart of man.

That is what he means by, “where no law is”. If the law did not exist, God would not have destroyed the world in the Flood.

So, what does St. Paul mean in this verse? He means that the Jews kept the law BY FAITH. The Commandments are there to test the faith of man. This is why they continue to be essential to the Faith of Christ. People who do not keep the Commandments, have no faith in Christ.

1 Corinthians 7:19
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Therefore all who are of Christ, are His by faith. And all who live by faith are the seed of Abraham. That is what St. Paul is saying. Jew or Gentile, who keeps the Commandments because of their faith, is a child of Abraham, a child of the promise.

16: Therefore it is of faith,

There, you see. That is the conclusion to which we must arrive. It is of faith. Those who keep the Commandments do so, of faith. But there is more to that verse, so I only took it apart so you could see the conclusion of the previous idea. It also begins a separate idea which I will explain.

16: Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace;

You see, faith is the first grace which we receive. It is the prevenient grace of God, which we receive without any merit of our own.

to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Which confirms what I said above.

17: (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Remember the verse that says, “justifieth the ungodly”. That is what it is referring to, “quickeneth the dead”.

18: Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 19: And being not weak in faith,

Being not weak in faith, what did he do? Did he say, “Oh, I know you can do it God!” No. He, himself, entered into his wife in the physical, matrimonial sense and they bore a son. Even though they were both well beyond their child bearing years.

he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb: 20: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21: And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

There, you see? By his strong faith, he acted. He worked.

22: And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

And so, St. Paul has also explained that verse to you. By faith, he worked and THEREFORE, it was counted to him for righteousness.

23: Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24: But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25: Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

And St. Paul continues. It was not written for Father Abraham alone. But for us, that we, acting in faith, may be made just in the eyes of God.

Eph:2:8: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Repent, cry out to God for the free gift of salvation and come out of that false, idolatrous system unto eternal life.

Why’d you leave out verse 10?

Ephesians 2:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Now, ask yourself. Are we created in Christ Jesus when we are justified? Or are we created in Christ Jesus when we are born? Or when we are first conceived? What does Scripture say?

John 1:3
King James Version (KJV)
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

That means us. We were all made by Christ from the first moment of our existence. And we were all made to keep the Commandments of God. The Commandments are the works which existed from the beginning of time which God made that we should walk in them.

Rom:10:9: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10: For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11: For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Amen! Here’s a different version of the same teaching. It is directly from the mouth of Our Lord. Mark 16:16.

In love, Dane G. Durham

May you also receive these admonitions as they are intended. In love,

Sincerely,

De Maria