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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At this time, God will establish an everlasting Kingdom:

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

And then, the explanation:

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

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

So, when Jesus says:

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

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

And when Jesus says:

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

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

This is that Stone.

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

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

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

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

What say you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Catholic and Protestant methodology

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

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

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

In regards to the traditions

Anonymous says,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No one can be saved without faith. 

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

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

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

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

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

How does your church officially exegete this verse?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew 10:38

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

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

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

Matthew 26:28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the power of God only keeps the obedient saved.

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

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

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

Thanks for the questions.

Aren't you disobeying Christ on Ash Wednesday?

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

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

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

One more hypocrite won't hurt anything.

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

 I understand your confusion. I'll explain below.

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

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

Let's start here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, the ashes do not simply symbolize fasting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, I hope that helps.

St. Peter's confession

De Maria December 3, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Hello again,

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

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

St Paul also rebuked St Peter for preaching wrong doctrine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

De Maria

St. Peter vs St. Paul and St. Peter vs Jesus

De Maria December 3, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Someone added these comments:
December 2, 2012 at 11:59 AM
I would also like to add the following…

St Paul makes a claim in Ephesians 3:2-4, that the dispensation of the Grace of God was given to him (St Paul). So, if St Peter was the rock, then surely the dispensation of the Grace of God would be given to him (St. Peter), instead. But it is not the case, which proves that St.Peter is not the rock – the rock is Jesus Christ.

December 2, 2012 at 12:06 PM
It is very clear in Ephesians 3:2-4 that the “revelation” of the dispensation of the Grace of God was given to St.Paul and not St.Peter, effectually shutting down the presumption that St. Peter was the rock and the bishop of Rome claiming apostolic succession is without foundation.

St. Paul received the same revelation which Jesus Christ dispensed unto all the Apostles and disciples before him. The only difference being that St. Paul was set apart that he might focus on the Gentiles. Oh, that dispensation of the Grace of God, is also known as the Mass:

1 Corinthians 11:23-25
King James Version (KJV)
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

This is how the Grace of God is dispensed unto the members of the Body of Christ. And it was revealed to the Apostles and Disciples, long before Christ revealed it to St. Paul:
Mark 14:21-24
King James Version (KJV)
21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born. 22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. 23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

St. Peter is the Rock and the dispensation was given to him long before it was given to St. Paul. Only it was revealed to St. Peter by Jesus Christ in the flesh. Whereas it was revealed to St. Paul by Jesus Christ in a vision.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Evangelicals becoming Catholic by reason

De Maria December 3, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Hi Erick,

I don’t know how I missed this message of yours. But I saw it and offer my response.

For those Evangelical protestants to have gone over to the Roman Catholic Church for historical and intellectual reasons, I simply cannot see how you made this decision solely on the basis of an intellectual quest.

There are glaring problems with your logic here.
1. What does it matter whether you can see it or not? Must they check their brains in at your door?
2. It is strange how Protestants who claim about their intellectual freedom will complain when someone exercises that freedom and becomes a Catholic.

Despite this fact, I have only heard of evangelicals becoming Catholics by some sort of intellectual historical quest in the early centuries of the church.

There were no evangelical protestants in the early history of the Church, or if there were, please provide an example.

Quite the opposite are the testimonies of those Catholics who become protestants. They are almost never the result of an intellectual quest, but rather are experiential in nature. They were brought up catholics but then they met jesus at some other point in time later in life, after leaving the catholic church.

This is true. But what’s the point? There are many cultural Protestants as well. I’ve met them.

There is something to learn from this that plays in our understanding of the differences that exist in the modern day Catholic church (orthodox as well) and the evangelical protestant churches. In the Catholic Church, the church is grown primarily through children of parents who are already in the catholic Church (via carnal generation) and they are already told they are “born again” through their infant baptism and so there only needs to be a nourishment of the conversion already in them. Therefore, most catholics never see a need to really become radiant for Christ

Whether the word, “most” applies, is questionable. Many Catholics remain faithful Catholics throughout their life.

and obedient to him in the specific context of the fellowship of his church.

On the contrary, “obedience” is a hallmark of Catholic Teaching. Catholics know the value of obedience.

Whereas, Protestants don’t. And many Protestants disdain obedience. Especially because they disparage the Commandments and do not consider them worth obeying anymore.

They most likely integrate into normal carnal society and remain attending catholics churches throughout their life. And they have kids who do the same, etc,etc,etc. This is why people in the Catholic churches are not clearly (on a large scale) on “fire” for God in bible study, Sunday Fellowship, love feasts, evangelism, bible conferences, missions (doctrinal), seminars, books on being studious, etc,etc

I’ve met many Protestants the same way. You are committing the fallacy of division. The car is blue therefore the car’s engine must be blue.

But that is not true. Protestants who attend Church are not the same as the run of the mill Protestant working stiff. The one’s who believe in abortion, contraception, and who don’t know one end of the Bible from the other.

In evangelical protestant churches,

Yeah, in evangelical churches. But not in typical Protestant homes.

it is a community of mainly spontaneous conversions of older people who come out of a conviction to be “saved” and to “serve” Christ. And because of this, it appears they are more interested in God and serving Jesus Christ. They are there, not by ordinary birth, but through the new birth created by the holy spirit.

Its too bad that these people who love Christ have been taught the errors of the Protestants. Spontaneity is not the sole ingredient of faith. More important is obedience and perseverence.

These differences are widely known by both Catholics and evangelicals. This is why if you reside in either camp, you will see Catholics seeing the need to regenerate people who are already catholic and you will see evangelicals trying to get other evangelicals to try and consider the traditions of old.

I’m not sure what you mean by that. Because evangelicals are Protestant and they have abandoned the Traditions of Jesus Christ.

St. Peter, the first Apostle to the Gentiles

De Maria December 3, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Hello,

you said:

In light of scripture in Ephesians 3:2-4, there is no “exclusivity” in the Kingdom of God.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I see nothing there which addresses “exclusivity”.
Ephesians 3:2-4
King James Version (KJV)
2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

Scripture clearly says that St.Peter was the apostle to the “Jews” while St.Paul was to the Gentiles.

Are you saying that Scripture exclusively appoints St. Peter to the Jews and St. Paul to the Gentiles? If so, then you are contradicting yourself.

And you are also wrong. Who said?

Acts 15:7
And when there had been much disputing,… rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

That’s why the Epistle of St.Paul to the Ephesians church is the”queen” of the New Testament epistles,

Really? Who made that decision? It sounds to me like a decision of men.

because it exhorts what God has wrought for all believers in Christ Jesus.

We find that exhortation in many Epistles:

Romans 3:24
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

1 Corinthians 1:30
But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Colossians 2:10-12
King James Version (KJV)
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

So, I disagree in your evaluation of Ephesians as the “queen” of the Epistles. My favorite, is Romans 8:
Romans 8:1-5
King James Version (KJV)
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

We are saved by “faith”

But not by faith alone.

and sealed by the Holy Spirit the moment we trusted completely in the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:13 – In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise).

That is a reference to the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation. After one believes, he requests Baptism. After he receives Baptism, he is confirmed and is sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise.

St.Paul clearly teaches in Ephesians 2:14 that Christ is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us (Jews and Gentiles).

True. And notice that he does not shun the Jews but also teaches them as well as the Gentiles.

Jesus/God chose to reveal the revelation on the Grace of God thru his servant and apostle St.Paul and not St.Peter.

Through both. But mainly by St. Peter. True, St. Paul wrote more books. But St. Peter had been the Prince of the Apostles and leader of the Church for many years before St. Paul came on the scene.

Is St.Peter is the rock, than the revelation would have been given to him (St.Peter) instead, which is not. I trust what the scriptures says. I’m skeptical of what church fathers taught.

You don’t understand what Scripture teaches. Here is what St. Peter says:
2 Peter 1
King James Version (KJV)
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.

You pit one Apostle against another as though they were from two different Churches. But there is only one Body of Christ. One Church. And He appointed St. Peter its leader and St. Paul one of his followers.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Peter and the Church Fathers

De Maria December 3, 2012 at 7:19 PM

December 2, 2012 at 10:57 PM
If we, being readers far away from the original readers in the 1st century, are so sure thatMatthew 16:16-19 teaches, by the very terminology itself, that Peter’s successors continue the “rock” function for the church, that “keys” denote succession (1 to 1) of a single person to take the office of Peter, and a Petrine Succession is clearly and unmistakably delineated from the text itself, then we are throwing many interpretations of Matthew 16 in the early fathers as if they had no clue what they are talking about.

Nope. I believe we’ve spoken before and if I remember correctly, you are Protestant. And the problem which Protestants have is what we call an “either/or” mentality.

The office of Peter and Petrine succession is not incompatible with anything else the Early Fathers have said. If you have one with which you are having a problem, post it and we can discuss it.

Having said that, the Church Fathers are not infallible. The Catholic Church is. Therefore, if it comes to a decision between what a Church Father may have said or what the Church says, we always follow the teaching of the Church:
Ephesians 3:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Sincerely,

De Maria