Mary cooperated with God’s will.

De Maria March 6, 2013 at 9:40 PM

jason fernandes March 5, 2013 at 11:32 PM

It was God’s will for Mary to bear Jesus, not hers. Mary said to the angel – Thy will be done.

Mary cooperated with God’s will. If Mary had not done so, Jesus would not have taken flesh and become man. And man would not be saved.

Mankind “is spirtually” dead in sin after the fall of Adam and Eve and is unable to come to God in repentance and faith both of which God grants it.

True. But in order to be saved, man must make the conscious decision to accept God’s will:
Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Romans 6:16
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Salvation is of the Lord.

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

Repentance and faith to believe comes from the Lord.

True. They are gifts of God that must be accepted and exercised.
James 2:20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Arminianists wrong believe man has a “free will” to make decisions to accept or reject. The scriptures do not support such view.

You are wrong. Scripture teaches that man must cooperate with God or be lost.
Ezekiel 18:23-28
King James Version (KJV)
23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

25 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?

26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.

27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

St. John and the successor of Peter

De Maria December 2, 2012 at 9:00 PM

To whoever wrote the referenced comment,

Hi,

You said,

The basic problem here is that the authors are assuming that St John means the same thing by “successor of Peter” as what the modern RCC view of the papacy take it to mean. However, there is every reason to believe that St John did not mean this in the same sense.

The basic problem is not that the authors assume that St. John is accepting the proper interpretation of the phrase, “successor of Peter”.

The problem is that you and all EO (Eastern Orthodox) who disagree with the Catholic Church on this point, are assuming the modern and erroneous EO view of the Papacy.

I think to properly understand this from an Orthodox perspective, we need to go back toMatthew 16:18-24.

That is precisely what we need to do in order to understand the term correctly. I agree.

According to Whelton (p.61), the 17th century RCC scholar Jean de Launoy surveyed the Fathers and found that 17 considered Peter to be the rock, 44 considered his confession to be the rock, 16 considered it to be Christ and 8 considered it to be the apostles. However, what these raw statistics fail to show is that these interpretations are all interlinked: In reality, the rock is all of these:

-Christ is the rock (this is known from elsewhere).
-The confession is the rock because it is a confession about Christ, Who is the rock.
-Peter is the rock because he made this confession.
-The apostles are also the rock because they made the same confession.

I would disagree. Jesus is the Rock, in another Biblical metaphor. But in Matt 16:18-19, Jesus is speaking to Simon and the Apostles, about Simon Bar Jonah. And Jesus is describing Simon as “the Rock” upon whom He will build His Church. He is not speaking about anyone else. And when He gives away the keys, He uses a singular pronoun, addressing the person to whom He gives the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Simon Bar Jonah, aka as Cephas, Rock or Peter. He does not hand the keys to anyone else. He is not describing anyone else.

But the important thing to note about all of these interpretations is that they centre on the confession, and not on the person of Peter.

On the contrary, by centering on the confession, you center upon the man who uttered the confession. St. Peter is not the first man to utter this confession in the New Testament. Nathaniel does it the very first time he sees Jesus:

John 1:47-49
King James Version (KJV)
47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

Yet Jesus does not give Nathaniel any keys.

Another man also does it, Thomas:
John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

So, the simple confession is not enough. The confession was uttered by a particular man and that man is the subject and object of the Master’s lesson.

And its not as though Jesus Christ only did this once. What I mean is that, this is not the only time Jesus singled out St. Peter and made it clear that He considered St. Peter the Leader of the Apostles and of His Church.

Luke 22:30-32
King James Version (KJV)
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 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.

If Jesus had only done it once, it could be dismissed as coincidence. But Jesus reiterated the fact that He considered St. Peter the Leader of His Church, several times. Here’s another:
Matthew 17:27
King James Version (KJV)
27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

For me and thee.

But wait. In order to understand this verse, you must understand the verse you are questioning. Why did Jesus give Simon the name, “Rock”? Perhaps you never wondered. Here’s why.

Because He wanted all to know that Simon would be he to whom all must turn who want to know God’s will. There is a precedent for this in Scripture:

Exodus 7:1
King James Version (KJV)
7 And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Exodus 18:13-15
King James Version (KJV)
13 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening.14 And when Moses’ father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?15 And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:

Exodus 19:9
King James Version (KJV)
9 And the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord.

God put Moses in a position of authority over the people. Jesus has done the same thing with Simon. God covered Moses with the Cloud, Jesus gave Simon His own name, Rock along with the keys to the Kingdom (Matt 16:18-19) and appointed him Shepherd over the Church (John 21:15-17).

Jesus has appointed Simon as Shepherd over His flock. And in order to bring this point home, Jesus gave Simon His own name, “Rock” or “Peter”.

This is to signify the type of authority which Jesus has given to Simon. He has the authority to bind and loose in the God’s name.

And that is why, the coin is for Jesus and for Peter. Because Jesus knows that Peter is His representative to all mankind. Amongst men, St. Peter is the person of Christ in a very special way.

Peter, being the first to make this confession (remembering that the Latin for first is prima) quite literally has the primacy.

The primacy falls to him for other reasons. But not for being the first to make that confession. Nathaniel made it first as already mentioned.

Those that made the same confession after him are his successors.

Nope. He whom he appointed was his successor and the one appointed by that person, his successor.

And given that Peter’s authority rests on the confession that he made, his successors have the same authority that Peter does.

Many have made the same confession. But to none but St. Peter did Jesus turn and say, “you are Rock”, “I give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven”, “strengthen your brethren”, “this coin is for you and I”, and also, “feed my sheep”.

But the important thing to note in the above is the answer to the following question: who is Peter’s successor? ….

Non sequitur. That which you mentioned above is your line of reasoning. YOU proposed it. Now you are arguing against it. It is a classic “straw man argument.”

According to the above line of reasoning, those who made this confession is a successor of Peter. In short, every bishop is a successor of Peter – not just the bishops of Rome. Every bishop is a shepherd and must “feed Christ’s sheep” – that is, the Church that is placed under his guidance.

Nope. Successors of Peter are those who sit on the See of Rome. They are the ones to whom the Keys are passed down.

This understanding of the “successor of Peter” (which is also the Orthodox understanding) is also reflected in the writings of St Cyprian (another oft-miscited Father) – who uses the phrase “Chair of Peter” to refer to an episcopate. As far as St Cyprian is concerned, every bishop is the successor of St Peter.

I’d have to see the writings to which you refer. I believe it was St. Cyprian who wrote eloquently about the authority of the Pope. Until he found himself at odds with the Pope. Then, he changed his tune. But the fact that he recognized the truth until it was inconvenient to do so, proves that he understood the doctrine correctly before he changed his mind. The fact that he is considered one of our Saints, proves that he accepted the truth in the end.

There is every reason to assume that this is exactly the same interpretation that St John Chrysostom himself had in mind here, and the authors are jumping to conclusions and not considering the wider context.

Not if the comment which the author posted is compared to John 21:15-17. The reference to Jesus appointing Peter as the Shepherd of the entire Church, is unmistakable.

And just to put the final nail into the coffin,

You’ve put to rest the EO’s erroneous understanding. The Catholic doctrine stands tall.

and confirm that the Orthodox reading of St John Chrysostom is the correct one, let me tell you a little story…The most sensible way to understand his above words, then, is not as an argument for papal supremacy, but in-line with the Orthodox view – that is, every bishop is a successor of Peter (and not just the bishop of Rome).

Since you have shown a propensity to misunderstand the Scripture and the words of St. John Chrysostom, I take that story of yours with a mouthful of salt.

The argument which you attribute to the EO, has been proven false by a very simple review of the Scriptures and by referring St. John Chrysostom’s statement back to the Scripture to which he was obviously making reference.

The only way to come to the conclusion which you draw is by ignoring the Scripture to which St. John was referring and by purposesly rejecting Jesus’ intent in naming St. Peter the Leader of His Church and Shepherd over His Flock.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Valid Doctrines are found in Sacred Tradition and Scripture.

PG said:

Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is ]perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Psalm 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
..............
CCC-85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” [47] This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
==============================
I'm simple; therefore, Scripture will give me wisdom and understanding.

Prov 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

DS responded:

Makes me think of this quote:

“I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the scriptures than you!” - Willam Tyndale
Luke 10:21In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

DE MARIA SAID IN REPLY:

Its amazing then that Jesus did not write any Scripture.

In fact, what He did was establish a Church and command that Church to pass down His Traditions:

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.

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

In fact, let's review what Jesus did. 
Jesus Christ did not write anything down. He established a Church and commanded that Church to pass down His Teachings. Another word for Teachings is Traditions.

That Church then wrote down the Traditions and called that the New Testament.

This is why valid Doctrines are found in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. 

And invalid doctrines are found neither in Sacred Tradition nor in Sacred Scripture.

Take for instance, Sola Scriptura. You will find it neither in Sacred Tradition nor in Sacred Scripture.

Any Protestant doctrine which contradicts the Sacred Traditions taught by the Catholic Church also contradicts the Sacred Scriptures.


Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria March 4, 2013 at 11:00 PM

malbert February 18, 2011 at 6:26 AM
...i am malbert from goa can you please tell me how can u say that the bible belongs to us…where it is given in the bible…thanks.

I’m not sure if these will answer your question:
2 Pet 1:
16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

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.

Jesus baptized the Apostles

De Maria March 4, 2013 at 10:54 PM

Douglass October 27, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Maybe I don’t understand an answer you gave to Michelle on 10/26. She asked about John the Baptist and Jesus doing full emersion baptism. Part of your answer was that Jesus never did any baptisms. Yet in paragraph 7 of “Are You Born Again” you state,” He (Jesus) went down and baptized people in the Jordan with his disciples” (Jn 4:1-2). I read these verses in Chapter 4 and verse 2 states *(although Jesus himself was not baptizing, just his disciples). So I see Jesus didn’t baptize, but I don’t understand your reply in paragraph 7 of your article. If you have time can you clear up this for me. Thank you for your help.

Hi, I’m not responding to your question to Steve. I’m giving my opinion in the meaning of the seemingly contradictory Scripture verses. First one verse says that Jesus baptized. Then another says that only His disciples baptized.

I think though, that Jesus had to get the ball rolling, so to speak. Who baptized the Apostles? True, some of them were baptized by St. John. But St. John’s baptism did not give the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Jesus had to re-baptize those Apostles. And baptize the rest. And then, presumably, delegated the duty of baptizing the masses to them.

That is my speculative explanation intended to explain the seeming contradiction in those two verses.

Claiming to be born again does not guarantee your salvation

          ester :

Will anyone who is "born again " end up in Hell?

If they fall away, yes.

Hebrews 6:4-6
King James Version (KJV)
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Meat On Lenten Fridays: A Mortal Sin?
Thus one must substantially observe the law of abstinence on such days, and the obligation to do so is a grave one, meaning that it satisfies the condition of grave matter required for mortal sin. If one knowingly and deliberately fails in this obligation then one has committed mortal sin.

Scripture says that obedience to the Church is required of all believers:

Matthew 18:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Full submersion Baptism

De Maria March 4, 2013 at 10:41 PM

Hi michelle,

i heard this discussion on the radio. i was raised catholic, but married a divorced man and now attend a non-denominational church. Here is my question–john the baptist and jesus all did full submersion baptism.

There is an assumption here. The assumption being that they ONLY did full submersion Baptism.

how can/does the Catholic church justify infant sprinkling ?

By the authority given to the Church by Jesus Christ (Matt 16:18-19; Matt 28:19-20; John 20:21-23)

1. the infant is not old enough to make the choice on their own

In the Gospels, the children which Jesus saved were too young to seek His aid on their own. Their parents needed to do it for them. And Jesus always healed them on behalf of their parents. (Matthew 15:28; John 4:50).

Why then, would Jesus refuse to save the little children in Baptism? (Matthew 19:14)

and 2. the baptism is not submersion–like john the baptist and Jesus.

According to the Tradition of the Catholic Church, all three types of Baptism are permitted.

If you want to interpret the requirement of Baptism according to the letter, then you must be Baptized in the Jordan River. There is no other river mentioned where anyone else was Baptized.

By the way, full submersion is not mentioned either. That is a Protestant reading into Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Objections of a former Catholic

i heard this discussion on the radio. i was raised catholic, but married a divorced man and now attend a non-denominational church. Here is my question–john the baptist and jesus all did full submersion baptism.

There is an assumption here. The assumption being that they ONLY did full submersion Baptism.

how can/does the Catholic church justify infant sprinkling ?

By the authority given to the Church by Jesus Christ (Matt 16:18-19; Matt 28:19-20; John 20:21-23)

1. the infant is not old enough to make the choice on their own

In the Gospels, the children which Jesus saved were too young to seek His aid on their own. Their parents needed to do it for them. And Jesus always healed them on behalf of their parents. (Matthew 15:28; John 4:50).

Why then, would Jesus refuse to save the little children in Baptism? (Matthew 19:14)

and 2. the baptism is not submersion–like john the baptist and Jesus.

According to the Tradition of the Catholic Church, all three types of Baptism are permitted.

If you want to interpret the requirement of Baptism according to the letter, then you must be Baptized in the Jordan River. There is no other river mentioned where anyone else was Baptized.

By the way, full submersion is not mentioned either. That is a Protestant reading into Scripture.

Jesus died for the ungodly

1. MT said: 
   I hope you now can see the problem with interpreting the "we's" "us's" and "our's" in Romans 5:1-11 as applying universally to all humanity without exception. It leads to universalism, or the doctrine that all are now or will be saved.
   
   It is you who did so. I know what we, us and our means. I also know how to understand Rom 5:6 correctly. Ungodly means those who are not gods. Those who are not divine. Those who are mortal.

   Anyway, there's no need for me to debunk your whole article. The problem is your presupposition. Your starting point is false, your logic is wrong and the makes your conclusion false.
2. This is the truth.
   
   1 Jesus died for the ungodly.
   2 That includes us and all people and all creation.
   3 But those who accepted His sacrifice, repented of their sins, obeyed His Word and participated in His Sacraments. And must continue doing good their entire life. If they do, God will grant them eternal life.
   4 Those who do not accept His sacrifice, do not repent of their sins and will be condemned to hell.
   
   Romans 2:1-13
   King James Version (KJV)
   1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
   
   2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
   
   3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
   
   4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
   
   5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
   
   6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
   
   7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
   
   8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
   
   9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
   
   10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
   
   11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
   
   12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
   
   13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

We live in a time of trial

MT said: But if we were to do this, numerous absurdities would follow. For example:All humanity would presently be justified and be at peace with God (v. 1)All humanity would now stand in God's grace through faith and be rejoicing in the hope of glory (v. 2)

That's not true. Only those who obey Christ:

Hebrews 5:9

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

All humanity would be suffering in endurance which produces character and hope (vv. 3-4)

All humanity is suffering. We live in a time of trial. But suffering produces character and hope only with those who unite their suffering with God.

All humanity would have God's love in their hearts and possess the Holy Spirit (v. 5)

Not true. Only those who respond with faith:

Hebrews 11:6

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

All humanity would be justified by his blood and by Jesus from the wrath of God (v. 9)

Only those who drink His Blood as Jesus commanded:

John 6:54

Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Those like the Protestants, who reject this teaching, will not be included.

All humanity is now reconciled to God and shall be saved by his life (vv, 10-11).

Nope. Only those who work out their salvation in fear and trembling:

Philippians 2:12

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.

You're a Catholic. Or a former Catholic. You know I'm telling the truth. And you know that you are misrepresenting the Catholic Doctrine.

Sincerely,

De Maria

All creation suffers

MT said:So given that Romans 5:1-11 is written to believers, can we affirm as De Maria does that Romans 5:6 applies to all humanity without exception? 

Yes. And not just to all humanity but to all creation:

Romans 8:21-23

King James Version (KJV)

21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

The answer to that question is clearly no, since then we would have to apply virtually everything else in this passage to all of humanity. 

Not if you speak English.

Obviously when he says, us, we and our, that refers to believers.

And obviously when he says, "the ungodly", that refers to everything and everyone that is not divine. Everyone that is not God.

But if we were to do this, numerous absurdities would follow.

Of course. Because you want to exaggerate everything in order to create a nonsensical straw man you can knock down. But that is not truth. You simply endeavor to justify your errors.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Jesus died for all

Before I respond, I think De Maria's objection makes perfect sense, given his Roman Catholic perspective. 

The Catholic perspective is not the one you described. I have corrected your straw man and provided the true Catholic perspective.

And to complicate matters for the Reformed position, I must admit at the outset that I am unaware of any passage that specifically says "God died only for the elect." That said, what follows is a response to both De Maria's take onRomans 5:6 and De Maria's request for a passage that teaches that God died for the elect. Let's first begin with Romans 5:6

Romans 5:6 in Context

The problem is your presupposition. You start from the erroneous premise that Jesus died only for the elect. Therefore, when St. Paul says, "He died for US…" you read into it that He "only" died for those of us who chose to accept His sacrifice. But Rom 5:6 is the correction to that error in case anyone were to fall into it.

St. Paul says, "He died for US…" But in Rom 5:6, he clarifies that Jesus died for the ungodly. That means Jesus died for all creation. He died for the world. He died for us because He died for all. We are not excluded when we way He died for all. We are included in that number. We are a subset of that number.

Let's look at Rom 5:1-11 in context. First, St. Paul is contrasting the Jews and the Gentiles. He is showing how the Gentiles are now grafted into the tree and are savable. Because Jews thought that God would not save Gentiles.

So, we begin where he says:

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith 2 into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 

We, in this verse is a reference to Catholics. Although not yet called Catholics, it is Catholics who are justified by faith through the Sacraments. And that is what St. Paul is talking about. We who are justified by faith through the Sacraments.

3 Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. 

Here he mentions suffering which is an essential part of salvation. Unless we suffer with Christ, we will not be saved with Him:

Romans 8:17
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 

Here is the correction. While we were still weak. The we refers to those who prior to Christ's sacrifice were still sinners.

Note that He didn't say, "while we were still weak, Christ died for US." Why not say it. He had used that pronoun approximately 13 times in the past 11 sentences. But that is not what he means. He means exactly what the verse says. While we were sinners, weak in the flesh, Christ died for all who are not God. Christ died for all who are not divine. Christ died for the whole world. Christ died for all.

Therefore, Christ died for us because He died for all.

7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Then, St. Paul refocuses on those who have repented and accepted God's call. But that is not a denial of the fact that Jesus died for all.

9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 

This is a reference to the Mass and the original Passover, where God passed over the Hebrews who had marked their door post with the blood of the lamb.

Christ is now our Passover and we are justified in His Blood when we drink of the Cup of Salvation. And when we drink of His Blood, we are saved from God's anger.

10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 

This is still a reference to the Eucharist.

While we were dead in our sins, Jesus died for us in order that we might be reconciled to God. Now that we are reconciled to God, Jesus saves us by His life. His Blood that He shed for us on the Cross, is in the Holy Eucharist and is our life. If we partake of it.

11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation (Romans 5:1-11, ESV).

Furthermore, still talking about those who live according to the Catholic Faith, we now rejoice because God offers us forgiveness in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Why do so many Democrats claim to be Catholic?

The Catholic Church emphatically teaches that abortion is a mortal sin worthy of automatic excommunication.  The Democrat party stands for abortion on demand and heinously supports even partial birth abortion where a child is murdered after he is born.  And yet, many Catholics still vote Democrat.  

The Catholic Church teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman.  The Democrat party supports same sex marriage.  And still, many Catholics vote Democrat.

The Catholic Church is for the dignity of life from conception to natural death.  In six states, the Democrat party has legalized physician assisted suicide.  But many Catholics still support the Democrat party.

How can any Catholic vote Democrat?  #walkaway

The true Catholic position

MT said: 

Contrast this with the Reformed understanding that Christ made specific atonement for the elect, and that everyone for whom Christ died will be saved and that everyone else will be lost since Christ has not died in their place. 

Let's contrast the true Catholic position and not your version thereof.

Jesus Christ died for all. Some have refused to accept His offer of salvation, disobeyed Him and died in their sins. Contrast that to the Reformed misunderstanding that God elected some people to damnation without giving them the opportunity to be saved. And they believe this even though Scripture says:

1 Timothy 2:4

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Another word for teachings is tradition

Jesus Christ did not write any Scripture. He taught and passed down Tradition. The Church then wrote that Tradition in the New Testament. 

Protestants dislike the word, tradition, so they try to gloss over it or change it to something else.  For example, in the NIV translation of the Bible, they have changed the translation of the Greek "paradosis" to teaching, rather than "tradition".

2 Thessalonians 2:15
New International Version (NIV)¹⁵ So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. 

2 Thessalonians 2:15
King James Version (KJV)
¹⁵ Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Notice how the older, KJV translation, correctly translated the word to "traditions".  

Why is this important?  Because, as I said in the beginning, Christ did not write Scripture.  He passed down Teachings which He expected would be passed down in every generation.  Jesus established Traditions which He expected to be taught in every generation.  Here is what He said:

Matthew 28:18-20 King James Version (KJV)
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Thus, in condemning "traditions", they are condemning the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church does not teach universalism

MT said:
Prelude to the Controversy
Over at Nick's Catholic Blog, I had mentioned that the doctrine of universal atonement (as opposed to the doctrine of particular atonement), often leads to universalism, or the doctrine that since Christ died for all, all will be saved. In deed, many, if not most, Roman Catholic liberals believe precisely this.

Speculation. I've found plenty of Protestants who believe in universalism as well.

However, the Catholic Church does not teach universalism, so this is besides the point.

They may technically affirm the existence of hell. But they don't actually believe anybody will ever go there. 

1. We believe the devils are in hell, this is directly revealed by God.

2. Whether anyone else is in hell is God's business, not ours.

3. Our business is to make sure we don't wind up in hell.

This means they are universalists in practice, even if not in theory.

Exactly the opposite. We KNOW that hell exists. We live according to that fact. It is theoretically possible that no one is in hell. That is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely considering the heinous criminals which have died without ever showing any sign of repentance. But God alone knows.

In deed, no Roman Catholic has to believe anyone is in hell, for it is theoretically possible that anyone may choose to avail him or herself of the salvation that Christ's atonement has made possible in his or her behalf.

True. But we do believe that hell exists. That the devils are there because God made hell for them. And that we had better toe the line or we might wind up there as well.

Two more points.

1. If a Catholic does not believe that hell exists, he contradicts Catholic Teaching.

2. If a Protestant does not believe that hell exists, he is free to do so under the rule permitting private interpretation of any doctrine.

Sincerely,

De Maria

A recent discussion about authority

De Maria, 
The problem with your statement is that ROME had no authority over Christendom. 

On the contrary, Glenn, Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church and empowered her to:

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.  19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:  20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The Roman bishop originated as equal in authority to all other bishops (Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, et al). The Roman bishop apostatized and declared himself as authority over all the Church as he brought in all the heresy still taught by Rome today.

On the contrary, Jesus Christ appointed St. Peter as the head of His Church.  It is clearly stated in Scripture.

John 21:17 King James Version (KJV)

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.

And when the Protestants rebelled against the Catholic Church, they rebelled against Christ.  And today, when they reject the Eucharist, they make themselves the enemies of God.

Hebrews 10:25 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.

Hello De Maria,
Your argument does not hold water when Roman Catholicism is viewed from the perspective of it being a gradual historical development (and rightly so, I add). Your church has in fact contradicted the written Word of God.

That perspective is wrong.  Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church when He said:

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

While Scripture does indeed condemn acts of rebellion (1 Samuel 15:23), it is not rebellion to stand up against ungodly and unlawful governments. An unjust authority is no authority at all.

But Jesus Christ condemns any who disobey His Church:

Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Using your logic, the American Revolutionary War never should have happened. Using your logic, it would have been wrong for the apostles to speak against the Jewish Sanhedrin when it told them to stop preaching Christ in Acts 5. 

On the contrary, the King of England was not God.  While it is God who died upon the Cross to bring an end to Judaism and establish the New Testament Church.

The authority claims of the Roman Catholic Church are self-proclaimed and unbiblical.

Wrong.  The Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ and all who rebel against her, rebel against the Lord of Heaven and earth who established her and continues to speak through her to this day:

Luke 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.