The Catholic order is the best

DE MARIA May 8, 2013 at 7:29 pm

UK said:
Catechism1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. …The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care … to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. 

My reading of Jn 3 v5 AND 6 is that ‘water’ related to the natural birth of man through his mother’s uterine waters.

Because one is naturally born through the “uterine waters” of their mother, water is an apt symbol of birth. Therefore, in Water Baptism, the water poured on our bodies signifies and brings about the new birth of the Creature by the Spirit.

What then matters is subsequently being born of the Spirit. ‘Reborn’ is incorrect and very misleading if it implies that water is an agent of rebirth.

On the contrary, your statement simply shows a lack of faith in Christ. It is akin to Namaan who denied that God could cure him by the action of washing seven times in the waters of the Jordan. We believe that God can cause our new birth through water.

This antithesis between earth and heaven is continued in v6 with flesh v spirit.
The first line of 1257 is clearly wrong because Jesus Himself accepted the thief on the cross into His kingdom unbaptised.

On the contrary.  Christ certainly accepted the Good Thief.  But there are reasons why he is called the Good Thief and which are the basis of his salvation by Jesus Christ.

1. Scripture does not say that the Good Thief was not baptized.

2. Scripture says that everyone in Judea was baptized by St. John.

Matthew 3:5-7

King James Version (KJV)

5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, 6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.


3. Jesus and His disciples also baptized many.

John 3:22-24

King James Version (KJV)

22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.


4. In addition, Catholic Doctrine says that one may be baptized of blood. The Good Thief definitely meets this criteria since he was crucified alongside Jesus.

5. Catholic Doctrine also says that one must suffer with Christ to be saved. The Good Thief meets this criteria.

And finally, Catholic Doctrine says that one is saved if God says that one is saved. Jesus is God and Jesus saved the Good Thief, whether he was baptized or not.

Fortunately the last sentence of 1257 gainsays the first by removing it as an essential step.1257 also states “The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism…” Jesus mentions only belief in John 5 v 24. Yes, water baptism is important but I am not even sure that the Great Commission must of necessity mean water baptism as opposed to baptising in/into/with the Spirit

God has set out a normal means of salvation by the Church. If anyone strikes out on their own to be saved according to their own ideas, they are on their own. But God has been very clear that He saves the obedient:

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

I hope you will retain any earlier appreciation that creeds and catechisms are fallible.

Perhaps. But Catholic Doctrine is infallible because the Church is the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15).

This came home to me forcibly when I saw that Catholic Teaching had massaged and thereby set out 10 different Commandments from the ones listed in Exodus (and Deuteronomy)

They are the exact same Commandments. Protestants have changed some things but the Catholic order is the best.


Sincerely,


De Maria

Jesus was speaking plainly, John 6

JQ said,
That's completely irrelevant, since it was God who provided Ezekiel with all the details concerning what he should do and what he should say.

And it is God who explained the metaphor:
Ezekiel 5:1 And thou, son of man, take thee a sharp knife, take thee a barber's razor, and cause it to pass upon thine head and upon thy beard: then take thee balances to weigh, and divide the hair.  2 Thou shalt burn with fire a third part in the midst of the city, when the days of the siege are fulfilled: and thou shalt take a third part, and smite about it with a knife: and a third part thou shalt scatter in the wind; and I will draw out a sword after them.  3 Thou shalt also take thereof a few in number, and bind them in thy skirts.  4 Then take of them again, and cast them into the midst of the fire, and burn them in the fire; for thereof shall a fire come forth into all the house of Israel.


5 Thus saith the Lord God; This is Jerusalem: I have set it in the midst of the nations and countries that are round about her.  6 And she hath changed my judgments into wickedness more than the nations, and my statutes more than the countries that are round about her: for they have refused my judgments and my statutes, they have not walked in them.  7 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Because ye multiplied more than the nations that are round about you, and have not walked in my statutes, neither have kept my judgments, neither have done according to the judgments of the nations that are round about you;


8 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I, even I, am against thee, and will execute judgments in the midst of thee in the sight of the nations.

That's begging the question. Why should He have called "those guys" back?

Because an honest person would not allow people to make a decision based upon misunderstanding. And Jesus was nothing if not absolutely honest.

In fact, John 6:65 clearly indicates that those who went away in disbelief were not enabled by God to come to Him.

That is correct. They could not believe.

Elsewhere we read that Jesus spoke in parables so that the non-elect would not understand His message.

Elsewhere it says that Jesus spoke in parables to the unbelieving Jews, but He would explain them to the Apostles.

Mark 4:10-12
10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

That's an argument from silence.

You are confused. You are the one claiming that Jesus was speaking symbolically. But there is no evidence that He was doing any such thing. The evidence points to the fact that He was speaking plainly:

John 6

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world….

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Therefore, you are the one arguing from silence. I am arguing from what He said. You are arguing from what He didn't say.

There is no indication in that passage that His true disciples were offended by His words or that they took His words literally.

You are wrong. Amongst those who left were many true disciples. So says Scripture.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

One can use figurative language and still mean what one says, as in e.g. John 10:1ff and John 15:1ff.

And one can use explicit language as well. Its not a matter of what one can do, but of what Jesus actually did. He was speaking plainly.

Jesus meant what He said, John 6

JQ said,
Likewise, Ezekiel was commanded to take one third of his hair and beard and burn it in fire, take one third and strike it with the sword, and take the remaining third and let the wind scatter it. The interpretation of this symbolic act was to be presented as "This is Jerusalem". (Ezekiel 5:1ff)

Ezekiel is not God, is he? Jesus is God, isn't He?

If Jesus were speaking symbolically, He would have called these guys back and said, "Hey, guys, come on, I was speaking symbolically." 

John 6:60-66

King James Version (KJV)
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.


But He didn't. And He didn't take the Apostles aside and say to them, "This is a symbol." No, He didn't. He said:

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

He said exactly what He meant.

The best explanation for attending the Mass

De Maria April 28th, 2013 12:09 am :

I actually wanted to post in response to the excellent opening article. I believe that is probably the second best explanation of why we should attend the Mass I have ever read. The best is this:

Hebrews 10:25-36
King James Version (KJV)
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together,

As I read it, St. Paul seems to be saying that we should not neglect to assemble together. The assumption here is the assembling together for the worship of God.

as the manner of some is;

Apparently, some in that day, were already neglecting the Mass (i.e. the assembly. I recognize this assembly as the Mass because of the description which follows.)

but exhorting one another:

and so, we should encourage our brethren who might be slipping and back sliding to come to the assembly.

and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

I think this is the exhortation which he suggests we mention. It will be beneficial for them to attend as this will be considered on the Day which approaches. Do we all agree that this is the Day of Judgment?

26 For if we sin willfully

In the context in which we are reading this, St. Paul seems to call the neglect of joining the assembly a willful sin. Which is, of course, the precise definition of a “mortal” sin.

CCC#1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

This is the first consequence listed for the willful absence from the Mass. It has to do with the nature of the Mass. In the Mass, we participate in the once for all sacrifice for the sins of mankind. So, if we neglect to appear there, there remains no more sacrifice for our sins. There is no other sacrifice for sin except that presented at the Mass.

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

This is the other consequence which we look to if we miss the Mass. We become God’s adversaries and can expect nothing less than a fearful judgment and God’s indignation.

28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

Now, he contrasts the Old Law and its assembly to the New Dispensation and its Assembly. In the Old Law, which had a mere animal sacrifice at its center, if that assembly were missed, the offender would be stoned to death.

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?

Before I break this down, does anyone not recognize the Eucharist here? This is why I know this assembly is a reference to the Mass. Because it is in the Mass that we receive the Body of Christ and the Blood of the Covenant in the Holy Eucharist.

Anyway, St. Paul says:

29 Of how much sorer punishment,

Death is not a sufficiently severe punishment for one who misses the Mass? What could be more severe? The loss of eternal life. That’s what.

But why?

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?

Because those who miss the Mass intentionally, “…. crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. (Heb 6:6).

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.

Those are pretty strong words for simply missing an assembly. It sounds as though missing the Mass intentionally is a personal affront to God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The New Testament Scripture is based upon Catholic Tradition

Originally Posted by CQ

Never mind what Jesus said

That is precisely the Protestant attitude.

Jesus said:John 6:51

King James Version (KJV)
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

But you say:

Never mind what Jesus said

Jesus said:Mark 14:22And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

But you say:

Never mind what Jesus said

No, you said that.

You said you produced the NT

That is correct. The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament based upon the Teachings of Jesus Christ.

So it is clearly your opinion

Clearly, it is the Wisdom of God spoken through 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,

Assurance of Salvation is Catholic Teaching

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hello to all,

Hi

Quote:

Is there an official Catholic position on having assurance of the salvation of one's soul when he dies?

Yes. The official position is that one is assured of salvation when God says he is saved.

CCC 1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

Quote:

For the sake of discussion, let's assume we are talking about a good Catholic man who was baptized in the Catholic Church, is in good standing with the Church, is a regular attendee at Mass and who by all accounts loves and follows God with his whole heart.

The Catholic Teaching is that WE can't judge this man's heart. 

I'll give you an example. There was once a man who by all accounts, was considered a good person and was even a deacon in a church. It turns out that this man was a serial killer. 

Man cannot judge the heart. Only God can do so. There is the Wisdom of the Catholic Church confirmed.

Quote:

In my evangelical tradition, it is believed that if we believe in and accept Christ as our Savior and Lord, are baptized, and confess and turn away from our sins and live a God-fearing life with God's help (although we all sin and fall short on our own), that we may have assurance that when we die, we will go to heaven if we put our hope and faith in Christ. (John 3:16, I John 5:13, etc).

That agrees with the Catholic Church. We call this assurance, hope, or expectation. When we hope, we expect to receive something.

1 Thessalonians 5:8
But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

Quote:

Note: I am not speaking of OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) doctrine, which I don't ahere to. I am referring to a salvation experience that is like a person being thrown a lifesaver when Christ becomes his Savior and can exclaim "I am saved", then can say "I am being saved" as he is being pulled in to the boat, and then can say "I am saved" when he gets into the boat.

This is in agreement with the Catholic Teaching. I'm certain that a man can say, "I am saved", when his soul enters into heaven.

Quote:

To me, the lifesaver experience is what we get when we accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. We are saved when we accept Him as Lord and Savior. We are then in the process of being saved here on earth as we live out our faith with God's help until we die, at which time we are permanently saved upon arriving to be with God in heaven. The key is to hang on to the life preserver and not willingly let go, condemn it, or swim away from it. How is that view similar to of different from the Catholic position?

You don't have the Sacraments. Let me see if I can make point by point comparison.

Quote:

the lifesaver experience is what we get when we accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

I think this corresponds to the prevenient grace of faith, which God pours in our hearts and if we accept it, we turn to Him and begin to seek to please Him.

Quote:

We are saved when we accept Him as Lord and Savior. We are then in the process of being saved here on earth as we live out our faith with God's help until we die, .

This is where the Sacraments come in. It is in the Sacraments that we receive the help of God's grace that we may persevere through the hard times. Please see this. The pertinent matter starts at about 53 minutes.

Dr. Scott Hahn makes things easy to understand. But the point is, it is in the Sacraments that we receive the Sanctifying Grace of Jesus Christ. It is because of the Sacraments that we can call the Saints our brothers.

Hebrews 12:18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,

19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:

20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:

21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Quote:

Thanks in advance, Tom

I hope that helps,

Sincerely,

De Maria