You will not be glad to be outside the Catholic Church in the end

De Maria November 22, 2012 at 1:16 AM

You said that I will not be glad to be outside of the Roman Catholic Church in the end.

Absolutely. You will not be glad to be outside the Catholic Church in the end.

Were you not implying that this is going to be me?

Did you not say you were glad not to be in the Catholic Church? What were you implying?

Since you cite Galatians 1:8-9, I would assume with good reason that you are calling me a false teacher,

Correct. Your teaching in contradiction to the Church which Scripture describes as:
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 therefore under the anathema of God pronounced by Paul. Basically you are saying that myself, and all Anglo-Catholic Clergy are going to hell because they preach a false gospel because the do not submit to the leadership of Peter.

If you don’t repent. I would say that is the teaching of Scripture. What do you think? Does Scripture say you are free to teach whatever you want?
James 3:1
My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

This is a grace pronouncement.

This is an admonishment:
2 Timothy 4:2
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

Also, if you are saying that in the end you will not be happy to be in the Catholic Church,

I am in the Catholic Church and quite happy to be here. I don’t know where you got that twist. I said that those who are outside the Catholic Church, will not be happy in the end.

understood as the “elect” of God, the ultimate community which will inherit heaven kind of Catholic Church, then of course I would not be happy. But this is the true Catholic Church, the resurrected community which is glorified in heaven.

I’m not sure what you are trying to say in that last part. I understood you to say you were happy to remain outside the Church. Sounds like you are now changing it.

Thirdly, you said “Can you see men’s hearts”? because I judge very little fruit from the Roman Catholic Church. This is actually a false argument to combat a righteous work.[/quote]

That is illogical. You are mixing subjects. But you are wrong on both counts.
1. The fruits of the Catholic Church are too numerous to list. If you haven’t seen any, you haven’t been paying attention.

a. The Catholic Church is the largest Christian Church in the world. Preaching Christ throughout the world and throughout the centuries.
b. She put the Bible together.
c. She wrote the New Testament.
d. She is the largest charity institution in the world. Has more schools, more hospitals, and gives more to the poor than anyone else and has done so for a longer time than anyone else.
e. She produces more saints than anyone else and of a higher quality.

2. You, however, are impugning all Catholics. Whereas, you don’t know many and even if you did, you can’t read their hearts. Here is the suggestion for folks like you in Scripture:
Matthew 7:2-5
King James Version (KJV)
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

[quote]Jesus taught us that YOU will KNOW THEM by their FRUITS.

That is true. The Catholic Church has produced more good fruits than any other institution that ever existed on this earth.

In other words, their lifestyle.

A Christian lifestyle.

We really do not need to perfectly read men’s hearts to be able to discern if they have been planted by God or not.

You judge by the outside. God reads the heart. If you think you know what God knows, you are exalting yourself.

Every plant which God plants bears good fruit. St. Paul told the Corinthians Church to judge the saints inside the Church (1 Corinthians 5-6). A man who is in a fornicating relationship was immediately excommunicated and turned over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. Paul taught that a little “leaven, leavens the whole lump” therefore to purge out the evil person from among the fellowship of the saints. Somehow, there is a judging authority that is invested in the Church that must be exercised, not just for the well-doing of the Church, but for it’s very life and state in salvation.

That is true. But that is not what you are doing. You are impugning all Catholics carte blanche.

Something that any Church historian recognizes is that the methods of ministry in Rome back in the 200?s and 300?s onto the 7th century were much much different than today. The Church did not have an open door policy for anyone and everybody.

It still doesn’t. Protestants do that.

If you were among the faithful, you were examined to see if you lived in the commands of Christ. If you were not living in the commands of Christ, you were brought under discipline, and eventually excommunicated, and then only restored after a very rigorous and long road of penitential discipline.

Perhaps. I don’t believe it though. The Catholic Church, from all I’ve read, has always been thoroughly reasonable.

You could not just be a “christian” and on with your life. The Church was a strict order back in the day, and has become very lax in it’s discipline and has employed very simple ways of penance that allows many heard-hearted slaves of sin to be absolved from sin.

Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. It doesn’t matter whether the Church issues discipline or not. Someone will find something to complain about. As for me, I believe the Church is doing just fine in its methods.

If you read the accounts of the early church and it’s fathers, you will see there were many discussions about penitential discipline. I am not the only one who wants to judge the outside cover of the book, your own fathers were very excellent (and rightly so) to do so.

There’s a big difference. You have no authority to judge anyone in the Church. They do.

Hebrews 13:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

And because they do, God has given many of them the charism of reading the heart. Read about Padre Pio.

Fourthly, you are not understanding my argument in respect to the disciples’ understanding of Matthew 16. According to you, Jesus’ statement “You are Peter, and on this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” does not necessarily have to be understood by the apostles in their life, is that right or wrong?

Wrong. It did not need to be understood when it was spoken. But it was definitely understood by the time of the Pentecost, where the Holy Spirit revealed to them all things.

It seems you implied this.

No. I didn’t.

However, it is very clear that the early church did not understand this text to be the foundation text which founded the dynastic petrine papacy.

It is very clear that the Church did understand it and exercised it.

Read Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, Tertullian, and others who cite this text and give another meaning to them!

I have read them many times. And they don’t give another meaning to them.

You are simply passing over this tremendous whole in the argument for a Christic establishment of the Papacy. St. John Chrysostom was a Bishop, and he also brought many many people through the process of the catechumenate, the course of baptism, and the laying on of hands. St. John Chrysostom himself went through much training in his life and was a professional catechist. And he does not know that Matthew 16 is the famous foundation for the construction of the very Church that he had been bringing people into for years?

You are confusing issues. As I told you before, the Fathers speak unanimously in the documents of the Ecumenical Councils. Outside the councils, the Fathers are not unanimous on any doctrine.

Tertullian himself was a scholar and studied in Rome. If he was a catechist (there is no doubt he was catechized), he was unaware of such a supposed famous and unanimous understanding of Matthew 16 carrying the foundation for the very singular and unique founding of the dynastic papacy.

The Fathers speak unanimously in the documents of the Ecumenical Councils. Outside the councils, the Fathers are not unanimous on any doctrine.

Something so foundational and essential to the life of the Church passed right over the head of Tertullian and many of the people who discipled him and whom he associated with. It is from Tertuliian that the Orthodox, Catholics, and Anglicans get their support to deny Sola-Scriptura and rely on tradition. And yet Tertullian is under no influence of a papal tradition that was unanimously understood in the 1 and 2nd century.

None of them are infallible. But the Church is infallible.

This would be like being a heart surgeon and not being aware that blood is pumped from it. It gets me very puzzled how Catholics can overlook such a huge whole in their arguments just from the life of Tertullian himself and his ignorance to the tradition of a papacy, or a roman succession as the singular means of God to build the Church. This would be like being a lawyer and not understanding the concept of law.

You keep mixing issues. The Fathers speak unanimously in the documents of the Ecumenical Councils. Outside the Councils, there are very few doctrines where we can legitimately say that the Fathers are unanimous.

It remains to be that if Jesus really did mean to tell Peter that he was the first in an office which would be uniquely perpetuated in the form of a succession (1 by 1) throughout all of the rest of human history, then this should have been essential, fundamental, and insistent right in the very instructions to all christians and catechumens from the very beginning, and what the historian finds when he studies the 1st and 2nd century is not this, not even a unanimous teaching in the 3rd and 4th century.

There are many things which are absolutely true from the beginning for which we have only found a few Early Fathers teaching. There are many reasons this is so. For one thing, we don’t have all of their writings. For another, we have no reason to believe they were compelled to write about everything in Christianity.

I am sorry, the very concept of the “papacy” was developed, not just the later organization and production. And this fact alone leaves the thinking person concerned about the immense claims of the modern day Papacy.

You are wrong. The Papacy was established by Jesus Christ and you are not understanding either the Scriptures nor the Church Fathers.

In addition, the historian cannot but help to notice the difference in worship from the first 5 centuries to the modern marian devotion which takes place in the RCC. This is also concerning and would be for any God honoring Christian who maintains a Jewish view of Yahweh, who is the same God who brought up Mount Sinai with Israel and is the same God who now exalted His Son as the head of the Church. I causes me to re-think bowing down on my knees before the shrines of Mary and giving up my whole life to serve her, which many Catholics have done with conviction and confession.

Then you have not understood the Scriptures concerning Mary.

Scripture says that God’s will should be done on earth as it is in heaven.
And God wills that the Angels praise Mary:

Luke 1:26-28
King James Version (KJV)
26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Let’s break this down:
ANGEL GABRIEL
1. an angel is a messenger of God. That is what the word, angel, means.
2. this angel, Gabriel, is one of the four angels that stands before the throne of God.
WAS SENT FROM GOD
1. God sent this angel to Mary.
2. Since this angel is a messenger of God’s, God sent Him to deliver a message.
3. Therefore, the angel was not speaking on his own, but was communicating God’s message to Mary.
4. If we skip down to verse 28, we see that this was a message of praise (i.e. blessed art thou).
5. Therefore God praised Mary through His Angel.
That is great praise indeed. Do you know of any man whose praise is worth more than God’s? In other words, what do you value more highly, the praise of man or the praise of God?
But, there’s more. God sent the Angel to do His Will. What is His Will. Obviously, God sent the Angel to deliver a message of praise. Therefore it is God’s will that the Angels praise Mary.
And there’s yet more. Because the Holy Spirit inspired a holy woman to exclaim, “”Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! ”
still in:
Luke 1:41-45
King James Version (KJV)
41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
Should we break this down?
1. The Holy Spirit is God the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.
2. Therefore, God inspired Elisabeth to praise Mary.
3. This praise is inscribed in the Word of God for all generations.
4. Since Elisabeth is a member of the human race, then it is safe to conclude that God wills that men praise Mary.
5. And we find, again, that God praised Mary through His Saint. Saint Elisabeth praised Mary when she was inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so. That means that it is the Holy Spirit’s praise which she passed on. That is why Scripture is called the Word of God. Because it is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Need we say more? Let’s do it anyway.
Mother of God
Luke 1:43-45
New International Version (NIV)
43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.45 Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!”
Lets break this down:
1. The word “Lord” is here mentioned two times.
2. In the second instance, it is an obvious reference to God. “Blessed is she who believes that the LORD would fulfill His promises.” That is an obvious reference to God.
3. Therefore, then, what could she possibly have meant when she said, “mother of my LORD”?
4. Since she was inspired by the Holy Spirit to utter these words, she must have meant what is most obvious. Is Jesus, God? Yes. Therefore, the words she uttered could also be translated, “mother of my GOD”.
5. So, God explicitly teaches us, in His Word, that Mary is the Mother of God.

Is there any higher praise than that?

And finally, Scripture says:
Matthew 6:10King James Version (KJV)
10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Thus, God wills that mankind PRAISE Mary. This is confirmed by Mary herself when she says,
“From now on all generations will call me blessed (Luke 1:48).”

And there’s still more. God gave Mary to us as our mother.

Protestants frequently question why the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is our Mother. Here’s what I tell them.

First, Scripture tells us to go beyond the letter to the Spirit of the Word:
2 Corinthians 3:6 (KJV)
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.

Because the truths of Scripture are spiritually discerned:
1 Corinthians 2:14
King James Version (KJV)
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.

So, let us go to the spirit of the text in question.

2nd:
John 19:26-28
26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. 28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

Catholics are taught to read Scripture as though God was speaking to us. Now, are you a beloved disciple of Christ? To put it differently, are you a disciple whom Jesus loves?

Catholics would answer, “Yes” to that question and therefore accept Jesus command to take Mary as our mother and bring her into our home (i.e. heart).

Then, you need to be aware of other verses in Scripture.
Genesis 3:15
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The seed of the Woman is not just Jesus. Let me show you:
Revelation 12:17
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Do you consider yourself someone who keeps the Commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus? If so, then you are seed or a child of the Woman. That Woman is Mary. And therefore, Scripture says that all who fight the good fight on behalf of God in Christ, are children of Mary.