with respect to the doctrine of justification,

Hi,

I am new to this site, so I just want to quickly introduce myself. I was raised Catholic, became a protestant evangelical as an adult, was trained in theology from the camps of the modern reformed baptists such as D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, R.C. Sproul, John Macarthur, etc,etc.

I am very eager now, having learned much about history, to join the Catholic Church. However, there are many road blocks. I’ve read many books by Catholic apoologists and have found many arguments unconvincing. Obviously the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is true. There is no contest to that.

Good for you! It is good that you have not checked your brain at the door of Protestant heresy and are considering the teachings of the Catholic Church. I hope I can be of service in providing answers to your questions.

However, with respect to the doctrine of justification, I am afraid that your friend there had it right. 

No, he is wrong. We are not justified by faith alone.
1. Faith alone DIRECTLY contradicts Scripture:
James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

2. Scripture EXPLICITLY teaches that we are justified by faith and works:
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.

In that verse, faith is assumed, since the fruit of faith is works.
James 2:21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

3. Protestants misunderstand the Sacramental teachings of St. Paul and attribute to them the idea of faith “alone”. But St. Paul is simply stating the Catholic Truth that no one is justified by works. For a more complete unpacking of these explanations, please see these articles.
Manner of Speaking

Justification by faith and the Sacraments

However, I think he is wrong to downplay the necessity of works in the Christian life. Every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Agreed.

That being said, if you read through St. John Chrysostom on Romans, you will no doubt see that he believed in justification by faith alone because of God’s mercy and righteousness which comes to the sinner because of the death and resurrection of jesus Christ. Consider the following quote on Romans 4:1-2

Nope. Justification by faith “alone” means one thing to Protestants and another to ancient Christians.

Protestants deny the validity of the Ten Commandments. Whereas the ancient Christians all understood that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of the Christian faith.

A man who does not keep the Ten Commandments can not be justified. Only those who keep the Ten Commandments are justified without works, in the Sacraments of Jesus Christ.

A man who does not keep the Ten Commandments can not be saved. Only those who keep the Ten Commandments are saved by God on the day of Judgement.

What shall we then say that Abraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he has whereof to glory; but not before God.

Here he quotes Scripture. This is a Sacramental teaching of St. Paul. We don’t save ourselves by our works. It certainly doesn’t mean that Abraham didn’t work. St. James proves that and Scripture doesn’t contradict itself.

He had said (5 manuscripts ?????), that the world had become guilty before God, and that all had sinned, and that boasting was excluded and that it was impossible to be saved otherwise than by faith.

Because to an ancient Christian, meaning to say, to an ancient Catholic, because we believe the same thing today that they did back then, faith implies works. Scripture is clear:
James 2:14
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

He is now intent upon showing that this salvation, so far from being matter of shame, was even the cause of a bright glory, and a greater than that through works. For since the being saved, yet with shame, had somewhat of dejection in it, he next takes away this suspicion too. And indeed he has hinted at the same already, by calling it not barely salvation, but righteousness. Therein (he says) is the righteousness of God revealed. Romans 1:17 For he that is saved as a righteous man has a confidence accompanying his salvation.

That right there is the key to understanding this teaching. How is righteousness achieved? Is it achieved by “claiming to be faithful”? Or by keeping the Commandments?

Now, you’re going to say, “there were no commandments when Abraham lived.” But Scripture would prove you wrong:
Genesis 26:5
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

And he calls it not righteousness only, but also the setting forth of the righteousness of God. But God is set forth in things which are glorious and shining, and great. However, he nevertheless draws support for this from what he is at present upon, and carries his discourse forward by the method of question. And this he is always in the habit of doing both for clearness sake, and for the sake of confidence in what is said. Above, for instance, he did it, where he says, What advantage then has the Jew? Romans 3:1 and, What then have we more than they? Romans 3:9 and again, where then is boasting? It is excluded Romans 3:27: and here, what then shall we say that Abraham our father? etc. Now since the Jews kept turning over and over the fact, that the Patriarch, and friend of God, was the first to receive circumcision, he wishes to show, that it was by faith that he too was justified. And this was quite a vantage ground to insist upon (????????? ????? ??????).

In other words, the Jews thought that Abraham was justified by circumcision. But St. Paul proves that Abraham is justified by his faith. St. John knows, as does the Church and all Catholics, that this faith was proven in works. Read Heb 11 and read Gen 12-22. They show that Abraham obeyed God’s voice over and over again. Abraham proved his faith and in Gen 22, God fulfilled the promise spoken in Gen 15:6:

Confused? Please read this:
James 2:21-23
King James Version (KJV)
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.

For for a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely.

There are so many negatives here that the sense is confusing. I think he is saying that it is not possible that a man without any works will be justified by faith.

But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder, and to set the power of faith in a strong light.

But here, he is expressing the Catholic teaching and wondering about it. The man who keeps the Commandments is not justified thereby. He is justified by the faith he has exercised in so doing. It is because of his faith that he keeps the Commandments:

Romans 4:18-20
King James Version (KJV)
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, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb:
20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;

Not being weak in faith, he joined to his wife and produced his son. Even though his body was almost dead and Sarah had never conceived in almost 100 years.

And this is why he passes by all the others, and leads his discourse back to this man. And he calls him father, as pertaining to the flesh, to throw them out of the genuine relationship (?????????? ???????) to him, and to pave the Gentiles’ way to kinsmanship with him.

As I understand it, Abraham is the father of the Jews according to the flesh because the Jews are derived from him in descendance.

But all who come to Christ are descended of Abraham according to faith and are therefore Spiritual children of Abraham.

And then he says, For if Abraham were justified by works, he has whereof to glory: but not before God. After saying that God justified the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith, and making the same sufficiently sure in what he said before, he now proves it by Abraham more clearly than he promised, and pitches the battle for faith against works, and makes this ……”

Notice how St. John recognizes that Abraham was adorned with many good works at the time of his justification,

Correct. Ask yourself, would God have considered Abraham a just man if Abraham had said in Gen 12, “Oh, God, I believe you, but I’d rather stay in Ur with my Dad.” What do you think would have happened in that event? Faith is proven by works. Faith is proven by obedience. That is why Abraham was justified in Gen 22 not in Gen 15:6. Here is what St. Paul also says:

Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

Abraham was tried and proven just in Gen 18. Gen 15:6 is only a narrative comment anticipating the justification which would Moses, the author, full well knew was coming in the future.

and yet St. John recognizes that they had no justifying power, but only faith.

Actually, faith doesn’t either. The faithful, who have proven their faith in works of love, are JUSTIFIED BY GOD. God justifies. We don’t justify ourselves by either our faith or our works. God justifies the faithful man who keeps His Commandments.

This right here is very early testimony and source of communion of the protestant doctrine of justification.

1. You’ve only picked one Ancient Catholic father.
2. You’ve misunderstood his message.
3. If you read the other Catholic fathers on the same subject, you’ll see where you are making your error.

This is one that Catholics just have not gotten right.

The Catholic Church has it perfectly correct. It is Protestants who continue to misunderstand because they impose upon the word of God their traditions of men.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The Catholic Church Teaches the Wisdom of God, infallibly

De Maria October 21, 2012 at 9:58 PM

You said:

Doesn’t the Roman Catholic church takes verses out of context

No.

and teaches that its Baptism that saves when its not the whole truth?

It does not seem intentional, but that is a loaded question. It insinuates that a partial truth is somehow wrong. But it isn’t A partial truth is wrong if mixed with a lie. But a partial truth which simply leaves out other details is not a lie. For instance, a person can say that he lives in Texas and although that is only part of the story, there is no sin. The fact that he only lives their one half of the year, is another detail which does not make the first detail false.

It is true that Baptism saves. It is also true that anyone who is baptized and then falls away from the faith and from the grace of God, that person may lose his salvation:
1 Timothy 1:19
Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:

2 Peter 2:22
But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Verses taken our of context become pretext and prime candidates for breeding heresies.

I agree with you. But the Catholic Church teaches the fullness of truth. It is Protestants which teach heresies.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Well, from a Biblical vantage point, these feasts of the Old Testament are foreshadowings of the life of Christ.

De Maria October 20, 2012 at 10:29 PM

You said:

Very interesting. As one who grew up in an Evangelical/Fundamentalist home, this was certainly one of the arguments against Catholicism (Mary, praying to Saints, purgatory, etc., etc. were the others :) and it is still one I come across frequently as a convert to Catholicism within my (still not Catholic) family.

Hm? I guess I missed the reference. How do good works argue against communion with the members of the Body of Christ?

About this same topic – some fringe relatives are becoming more and more involved in celebrating Jewish holidays and feasts as Christians (I know celebrating Passover and having a Seder have become relatively common, but this is celebrating Rosh Hashanah) and stating that “they have not yet been fulfilled so they feel obligated to celebrate them and they feel terrible they never realized it before.” basically. They’re also subscribing to magazines like “Israel, My Glory.” I would love to get your viewpoint on this.

I have no opinion on that score. I’m not familiar with those magazines.

I am certainly pro-Israel, but am a little dumbfounded by these claims. I’ve tried to encourage them to consider Christian feasts that celebrate the same things or prepare them for Christian feasts (like Advent, for Christmas, or even the Embertides, since the Autumn Embertide falls at about the same time as Rosh Hashannah) but was met with statements that they were man-made and basically abominations.

That’s a different story. I don’t know how Advent and Embertides could be considered abominations, since they are seasons of the year which the Church has set aside for us to focus on God and doing His will. Christian feasts are all based upon the life of Jesus Christ and are a fulfillment of the feasts of the Old Testament. If any sin is being committed it is by those who sacrilegiously call Christian feasts abominations.

Nice.

So, I’d love your insight on a Biblical, Catholic viewpoint of this situation! At the moment, I’m just keeping my mouth shut because I’m not enough of a Biblical scholar (especially of the Old Testament) to argue my point with them. Neither of us would get anywhere but frustrated.

Well, from a Biblical vantage point, these feasts of the Old Testament are foreshadowings of the life of Christ. They point to Him. The clearest one, is of course, the Passover. Jesus, the Lamb of God, is sacrificed for our sins. We eat His flesh and are saved to eternal life.

Is this the type of information you are seeking?

Thank you so much for all you do (my husband and I are big fans of your show on EWTN and I often listen to you on the radio) – it’s always a joy!

I’m a big fan myself. I hope my response helped a bit.

Sincerely,

De Maria

the only part of the Old Testament that was written by God was the Ten Commandments

De Maria October 20, 2012 at 10:05 PM

I am a devout Catholic. I disagree with your claim that the tradition of the Jews disagreed with the Old Testament Bible. Your logic is flawed and your interpretation about what Jesus said is simply wrong.

First of all, the only part of the Old Testament that was written by God was the Ten Commandments which He wrote in His own hand, on a stone.

The rest were transmitted by word FIRST and then were written down, much later. If you read the text in context, you see that some of the writings attributed to Moses could not have been written by Moses since they were writing about the time when he died.

Deuteronomy 34:7
And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.

Therefore, except for the Ten Commandments, the rest of the Old Testament was first taught by word, handed down in tradition and then written down. And it was taught by Word and by Scripture through the centuries. Simultaneously. Just as the Catholic Church continues to do so today.

Leviticus 10:10-12
King James Version (KJV)
10 And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;
11 And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.
12 And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meat offering that remaineth of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar: for it is most holy:

Sincerely,

De Maria

All who remain in communion with the Pope will be saved.

De Maria November 24, 2012 at 11:28 PM

So when Jesus “the gates of hell will not prevail against it”, you mean to understand this as the whole community of human disciples in communion with St. Peter?

1. Yes. All who remain in communion with the Pope will be saved.
2. But I know what you are getting at and we will discuss it when you mention it expressly.

If not, what is it that cannot be overcome? Simply the doctrine? The people? The institution? do you see?

“If not” is not applicable.
A. The Church is still here and still preaching the Gospel.
B. All who remain in union with the Church will be saved.
C. Because all who remain in union with the Church follow the Church’s infallible teachings.

When “church” is used in the NT (I would look at a concordance)

Protestants love concordances. But I note that few of them actually speak the language they are looking up. I’d rather go by the actual interpretation of someone who knows the nuances of the language.

it is almost always referring to the community of disciples.

1. “Almost” being the key word there.
2. I would disagree.

When Jesus sent out the 12, he said “Go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28). This is parallel with “I will build my church”. In other words, Christ’s construction of the Church is in fact the creation of disciples through the apostolic ministry. There really is no case for limiting “Church” to be only that of it’s authoritative “institution” where the human itself is not included.

Who limited Church to that meaning? You are insinuating that I did, but I direct you back to the message where I told you the Catholic understanding.

Whether this is what you are saying or not is irrelevant even at this point.

You can’t be serious? What I’m saying is irrelevant?

I am just curious as to how we can understand “Church” in Matthew 16 as anything other than the community of disciples (whether universal or local).

Already explained.

Bill, if I was your son and I was trying to seek the truth and I began to debate with you about something, would you respond in loving, caring, gentleness, and humility “You must have bad reading comprehension”? Why insult me?

He’s not insulting you. He is saying precisely what I understood of your message. Your are ignoring what I said and making a straw man which you can knock down. Straw man arguments are false arguments.

I am performing to the best of my ability to throw out my barriers in order to have them put down. If this looks like deterministic argumentation, please allow yourself not to take it this way.

Why should he pretend that you are doing anything else? It is obvious what you are doing.

As an anglo-Catholic, I am not very comfortable at the moment being this. It is my great desire to become Catholic.

Just do it.

I might add, if you already do not know, I was born and raised Catholic. The very thing that led me away from Catholicisim in the first place is the very same thing that now keeps me away, and that it simply has very weak mechanisms (in my perspective) in sharing the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Look around. Haven’t you noticed that this is the only Church that has evangelized the world. No other Christian entity can boast of that fact.

A 7 minute homily is really miniature compared to old early Catholic fathers such as St. John Chrysostom.

Cultures change. The Eucharist is most important. Multiplication of words is not.

Back in the day, the Bishops were concerned that the people knew their faith.

They still are.

Nowadays, you get a lot of Catholics rising up and saying “Hell!?!? That’s not the God I serve. The God I serve is loving”!! or “The bible says not to judge” or “Everyone has a right to believe whatever they want to believe”.

1. You have a lot of Protestants saying that also.
2. The Church still teaches the truth. It is not the Church’s fault if people ignore or reject her teaching.
3. You have also rejected part of the Church’s teaching. So how are you better than they?

There is a huge need for evangelization. It is my prayer that this will eventually ease my submission.

I’ll pray for that intention also.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The authoritative Cathollic Church

De Maria November 23, 2012 at 8:18 AM

Notice how you understand “church” to be strictly the Papacy excercising it’s infallibility.

You never asked me how I understand “church”, nor did my understanding of the word, “church” ever come up in this discussion.

I understand “church” the way the Catholic Church teaches. Depending upon the context of its use, the word “church” can be the authoritative Church or it can be the “body of believers”.

In other words, you understand “church” in matthew 16 when Jesus said “I will build my church” as not referring to the whole community of disciples (human beings) but rather the institutional office (inanimate) of the Papacy (distinct from the human being who resides in it). Try to find another reference in Scripture where this meaning is given.

You exhibit the typical Protestant either/or attitude.

In Matt 16:18, Christ means all of the above.
1. He established the entire Church upon the confession of St. Peter. In other words, in order to be a member of the Catholic Church, one must make the same confession which St. Peter made. This is why St. Peter says:
1 Peter 2:5
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

2. Jesus also established the hierarchy of the Church. With St. Peter being the foundational member upon whom the other officials, the other Apostles, would rely.

3, And Jesus established the office of the Papacy when He gave St. Peter the keys and the authority to bind and loose.

The fullness of the meaning of the word, church, is exhibited in those verses.

Also, if you condemn Anglicans for preaching a false gospel, then you must also condemn all others who are preaching a false gospel.

Anyone who preaches a false gospel, condemns himself.

In other words, as Vatican II said that we are separated brethren and that we are to come into the “Fullness” of the faith is completely rejected by you.

On the contrary, the reason I show the separated brethren their error is so that they may repent of their error and turn to the Church.

Scott Hahn, leading Catholic apologist, does not even take this sectarian view as you do.

Scott Hahn is an awesome apologist. Tell him that you are happy to remain outside the Catholic Church and see what he says to you. If I remember correctly, he roundly ridiculed a priest who, when he was seeking to enter the Catholic Church, told him that he should be the best Protestant he could be. The episode is well documented. Apparently, he didn’t realize how much consternation he had caused the priest. Because the recording which contained Scott Hahn’s statement is the most popular Catholic recording ever produced.

Here, he recounts the same episode in a more diplomatic tone:

One of them actually said, “Are you thinking of converting? No, you don’t want to do that. Ever since Vatican II we discourage that. The best thing you can do for the Church is just be a good Presbyterian minister.” I said, “Wait a second, Father…” “No, just call me Mike.” I said, “OK, Mike. I’m not asking you to break my arm and force me in. I think God is calling me.” He said, “Well, if you want help from me, you’ve come to the wrong man.”

Sincerely,

De Maria

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

De Maria November 22, 2012 at 1:16 AM

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

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

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

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

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

Correct. Your teaching in contradiction to the Church which Scripture describes as:
Ephesians 3:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

and therefore under the anathema of God pronounced by Paul. Basically you are saying that myself, and all Anglo-Catholic Clergy are going to hell because they preach a false gospel because the do not submit to the leadership of Peter.

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

This is a grace pronouncement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words, their lifestyle.

A Christian lifestyle.

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

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

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

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

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

It still doesn’t. Protestants do that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems you implied this.

No. I didn’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then you have not understood the Scriptures concerning Mary.

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

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

Is there any higher praise than that?

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

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

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

First, Scripture tells us to go beyond the letter to the Spirit of the Word:
2 Corinthians 3:6 (KJV)
6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Because the truths of Scripture are spiritually discerned:
1 Corinthians 2:14
King James Version (KJV)
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answering more objections to Catholic Teaching

De Maria November 18, 2012 at 1:35 AM

Why didn’t the apostles appoint more than 12 then at the appointment of Judas?

They didn’t need any more.

There were plenty of people to choose from.

And many were considered. But only one was chosen because that is all they needed at the time.

And if there are “offices” for the apostles, such like the Petrine Papacy, why is it that the other 11 do not have a single person sitting in it like the petrine succession?

1. Because St. Peter is the only one to whom it was promised (Matt 16:18-19).
2. The other 11 also have successors. But that number has grown as the Church has grown.

In other words, can it be said that there really is 12 perpetual offices when Peter’s is the only one that can be filled by one person whereas the others can be filled by millions?

1. There are only 12 perpetual offices because Christ filled twelve offices. These twelve are represented in heaven:
Revelation 21:14
And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

2. But the twelve, including St. Peter, appointed many other Bishopricks in the Church as the Church grew.

And even if so, why not extend this right to many others in the book of Acts? There were 3,000 on the day of pentecost. There was about 120 who went in and out among the disciples with Jesus and saw him eat and saw him raised from the dead, why were none of these selected as bishops?

Who said they weren’t? If you read the lives of the Saints, you will find amongst them some who walked with the disciples and with Jesus, and they were appointed officers of the Church in various positions.

Only 12? Cmon, the middle east is much bigger than that.

C’mon what? Did they remain 12?

No, I think that if Catholicism were true, all 120 (or most) disciples would have become bishops right there on the spot, for all met the qualifications.

Catholicism is true. And there was no need for 120 Bishops at that time.

And you might say, “Well the apostles were not dead yet! Therefore, there was only need for 1 since the apostolic college is only 12!!” and yet I say to you that it did not remain 12, and why not?

Because the Church grew.

We simply do not have 12 men succeeding perfectly from that point onward, such would be the construction if all these things were true as you say.

1. All those things are true.
2. You don’t know whether there are twelve offices which still exist. The only one we follow is the Roman See. But it is quite possible that other Sees maintain their own histories back to the Apostles.

It is only logical to say that if there is an “office” which belongs to only 12 men, and that others would fill this “office” 1 by 1, then there would be a 12 man succession, at least in the beginning.

Why? From the beginning, Jesus commanded the Church to make disciples of the world. Therefore, they knew that they needed to appoint Bishops as necessary.

Or are you saying the other 11 apostles went apostate in the beginning?

What gives you that idea? It sounds as though you are making a straw man that you can knock down. I never said such a thing.

And only Peter and Clement were right?

1. Sts. Peter and Clement did not write in a vacuum. Do you find anyone who disputes their authority in the Church?
2. Or are you being cynical about the doctrine of Papal infallibility? The fact is that the Papal See has not fallen into heresy at any point in history. Whereas, many others, have.

In addition, if Matthew 16 was the foundational text which grounds the installation of the Petrine dynasty, why was this not common knowledge? It simply was not common knowledge.

It was common knowledge and it permeates the Scriptures.

You say that the disciples did not have to understand anything that Jesus said? And that only afterward when their hearts and minds were illuminated by the Holy Spirit would they be able to understand?

Another straw man.

1. It is clear in Scripture that the Apostles and disciples did not understand many things that Jesus said:
Matthew 15:16
And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?

2. But that doesn’t mean that they did not understand anything at all which He taught.
3. So, obviously, you are making a straw man argument which you can knock down. But you are not making this argument in good faith.

Well, that would go against what Steve Ray said.

1. If you were arguing logically, it might.
2. If that argument were in good faith, it might.
3. But it is obvious that you either misunderstand the Scripture concerning that how much the Apostles understood or you are arguing in bad faith. Therefore there is no challenge to Steve Ray’s explanation there.

According to him, any Jew who heard this issue of “rock” , “keys of the kingdom”, and “binding and loosing”, and the “gates of hell” would have Immediately thought in connection to Isaiah 22 and the idea of succession.

Obviously, that would be counted as hyperbole. Obviously, there were probably many Jews who would not make the connection. But certainly the educated Jews, would.

Why would the disciples simply not know this?

Who said that they didn’t? Read what I said with understanding. You are reading my words with the intent of twisting them.

Moreover, Catholic apologists go to great lengths to demonstrate Peter’s leadership in the book of Acts as a proof that Peter is the first pope. But I ask, if no one knew about this, how could they have acted in this way?

Hm? You just answered your own question. They did know, therefore they acted in that way. More importantly, God inspired St. Peter to speak out on behalf of the Church in order to show YOU and all who read the Scriptures whom He had appointed.

In other words, was Peter’s leadership an arbitrary selection from the 12 or did they all know unanimously that Peter was in charge?

1. Christ appointed him before all of them. They were all present when Christ appointed him the Rock.
2. They were all present when He appointed him the Shepherd of the Church.
3. They were all present when the Holy Spirit inspired him to speak for the Church.

Why do you need more?

If they knew, then they understood this Matthew 16 text. Therefore, your argument that the disciples did not need to understand what Jesus was saying (either right away or early on from the point).

I’m not sure what you just said, but it almost sounds like you validated what I said. Yes, therefore, my argument is proven true.

And as I was saying earlier, if the apostles knew that Jesus founded a dynastic leadership of the Church in Rome, why did some of the early church fathers not attribute the superiority to Rome by Peter alone, but also Paul?

The building of the Church has always been appointed to Sts. Peter and Paul in Rome. It is a fulfillment of the pagan myth. We even have a feastday for Sts. Peter and Paul commemorating the fact that they both built the Church in Rome.

But St. Peter remains the Rock upon which Christ built the Church.

Also, with respect to the end time judgement, which I think you were alluding to when you said “You might be glad now, but you will not be in the end”, (which I thought by the way was rude and a sectarian pop-shot that you only find in the cults)

Just giving you the facts. You might be glad to be outside the Church of God now, but you won’t be in the end. Do you believe that doctrine is important? Or not? Read the Scripture.
Galatians 1:8
King James Version (KJV)
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.

God is going to judge us according to our works.

God is going to judge everything we do:
Matthew 12:36
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

James 3:1
My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

You pass yourself off as a master, but you are teaching false doctrine. No, you won’t be glad then.

Jesus is returning to collect only a pure bride, those who practiced righteousness. People who did not deny themselves and pick up their cross and lose their lives for the sake of Christ and his gospel are the only ones who will merit eternal lives. In other words, those who bore the marks of the Spirit, righteousness, joy, gentleness, peace, love, patience, longsuffering, kindness, and who abstained from the works of the flesh: greed, selfishness, anger, malice, loss of self-control, sexual immorality.

Corect.

There are many protestants out there that shine with the works of righteousness that you cannot deny that Christ was born and nurtured inside of them.

Never did. But they won’t be saved by faith alone. They will stand before the judgment seat of Christ like all the rest of us.

In fact, I was born and raised Roman Catholic and I never even met a true disciple of Jesus until I met other christians from other denominations.

Can you read men’s hearts?

I have met a few Catholics who really love Christ (by obedience and the expression thereof), so I am not saying all Catholics do not obey, but it is hard to find; it is sad to say.

God is our Judge. Not you nor any Protestant. We don’t work to please you. Nor to say what you want us to say.

Also, one last thing. I am wondering how you would respond to the protestant argument of John 3. Jesus said we do not know where the Spirit comes from and where it is going, but we only see the effects of the Spirit. It would seem that the Papacy directs the Spirit and tells the Spirit where to go and where it can work.

Jesus was speaking of Baptism. There is one Baptism. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit. But Jesus tied that Baptism of the Holy Spirit to water when He said, “you must be born of water and spirit.” But then He said, “the Spirit blows where it will”. Meaning that God is not bound by His Sacraments.

An example is St. Cornelius. God showed St. Peter that St. Cornelius was already justified by the Baptism of the Spirit. Therefore, St. Peter did not withhold water.

What does all of that mean to us, Catholics?
1. Baptism is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
2. It is also a washing of water.
3. Jesus tied the Baptism of the Holy Spirit to the washing of water in the Sacrament. Therefore, we are justified in Baptism.
4. However, God is the Judge of all mankind, He can justify whomever He finds righteous, whenever He wants to do so.

Does this confirm the doctrine of the Protestants? By no means. The Protestants claim to be saved by faith alone and claim to know they are saved. But they will be judged by their faith and works at the judgment, just as we all shall.

Does this nullify the Sacrament of Baptism? By no means. Because the individual, unless he has a special revelation by God, does not know he is justified by the Holy Spirit. Nor does babbling in tongues guarantee that such a justification has taken place.

I hope that answers your question.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The Catholic Church is the House of God

De Maria November 16, 2012 at 11:25 PM

Hi,

I appreciate the correspondence!

You’re welcome.

I am actually an Anglo-Catholic.

The word Catholic, carries no magic. You are Catholic if you submit to and obey the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, the Pope and the Bishops united with him. If not, then the title bears no real meaning.

I admire the historical tradition of Catholicism (roman).

It takes more than admiration. It takes love and obedience. Because the Traditions of the Catholic Church are the Word of Jesus Christ.

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

I deny sola-scriptura and sola fide.

As you should. Both of those doctrines blatantly contradict the Scriptures.

At this point, Anglicans accept the “church tradition” as well as “scripture”, and these two are one and cannot contradict each other.

If you accepted Church Tradition, you would be a Catholic in communion with the Pope. You do not accept Tradition. You accept certain man made doctrines which resemble the Traditions of the Catholic Church.

At the moment, I cannot with good conscience say the modern Papacy is an outgrowth of the government of the Church in the first 5 centuries. I would say Roman Catholicism has carried well the tradition of the early fathers but has also added many things unfounded. I can only say this with honesty.

I appreciate your honesty. I am also being honest when I say that you are in error. The Catholic Church is the Church which Christ established and there is no other.

The canonization is not a development of doctrine, it is simply like a police department codifying it’s regulations and procedure, but these laws have always been practiced from the start of the department. The Papacy simply does not parallel this, in anyway.

1. You have argue against yourself yet again. The Catholic Church is the police department which codified it’s regulations and procedures when it canonized the Scriptures.

2. The laws which have always been practiced are the Traditions of the Catholic Church which is the Deposit of Faith which Jesus Christ commanded the Church to teach.

3. And yes, they have always been taught. Including the primacy of Peter and the succession of the Bishops.

4. The Papacy is an Office established by Jesus Christ.

Concerning Matthew 16. Let’s just consider this logically.

Ok.

If the following axioms are true, then there is no conceptual development of the papacy.

First, considering this logically, there is no development of the Papacy. Jesus Christ established it. Period. It is an office that has always existed in the Church of Christ.

Second, considering it logically, there are elements of development in every aspect of the Church. Doctrinally and Traditionally. It is inescapable. The Church is not the same today as the one which sprouted with 5000 members when Jesus Christ planted the seed.

It is interesting that when people who look for evidence of the papacy in the first 5 centuries must confess a “development” because the earliest fathers do not support a concept of the papacy,

That is a matter of your opinion. The Papacy is obvious from the inception of the Church and is depicted and explained in the Scriptures:
John 21:17
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Nothing could be clearer. Jesus Christ appointed Simon the Shepherd over His Flock, the Pastor of His Church.

but give small elemental reference to church authority, etc,etc.

You simply don’t give enough weight to the verses which say that the Church has complete authority over its members. Authority to punish, expel and condemn to eternal punishment.

However, if the following axioms are true:

Let’s examine them.

1) The “rock” function of Peter is an “office”, filled by Peter here but ultimately distinct from himself as a moral human being, outlives the life of Peter and is filled in by successors to that “office”.

True.

2) This specific and singular “office” is indestructible, perpetual, and will always channel the Shepherding of Christ from the beginning of Peter’s bishopric until the last Bishop who will witness the coming of the Lord.

Correct.

3) The “keys” of the kingdom automatically denote succession and therefore this “authority of binding and loosing” continues onward from Peter and it also lasts with the “office” of the papacy. ‘

Amen.

If these axioms are true, then all the essential elements of the Papacy are spoken by Jesus right here. I would admit this. However, if that is true, then there should really be no confusion as to how the Church should go henceforth into the world. The apostles carry offices which are perpetual as a college, with Peter as the head and chief, and the “office” itself, not the humans inside it, are what the “faithful” are to keep their hope in for the true construction of the holy Church. The apostles would have understood this right at the moment from which Jesus spoke this.

Why? There are many thing which the Apostles didn’t understand. Possibly the most important of which, is that Jesus had to suffer and die in order for the world to be saved.

So, it doesn’t follow that the Apostles had to understand anything the moment it was spoken. But they understood everything when the Holy Spirit opened their minds and hearts at the Pentecost.

My question is, why did no one else know this? Ignatius did not know this. The epistle of Clement does not really solve or explicate anything definitive. Tertullian especially does not know of it.

You are making sweeping assumptions. The fact they perhaps didn’t mention it, does not mean they didn’t believe it or accept it.

Tertullian is especially of importance in this matter. For he himself is the one who tells us how to understand the Christian faith. He explicitly denies sola scripture, and says that the only way to know apostolic truth is to be in succession with the apostolic churches wherein lies the deposit of the apostles themselves. He does not mention anything with regard to a papacy. He does exalt rome, but does not give the doctrine of perpetual infallibility.

Exalting Rome is enough. Tertullian does not deny the infallibility of the Pope. If that infallibility were challenged, he would certainly have defended it.

Is it possible that the other “offices” of the church do not retain this “infallible” charateristic? It is proven historicallty. Every other office has fallen to heresy, except the Papacy.

And if not, then all Jesus had in mind when he said “on this rock I will build my Church” is really the papacy and all who are united to it.And that is proven by history. All who are united to the Papacy are building their home on the rock and will not fall.

If this is all true and good to you, I am glad I am still on a journey.

You are glad now. But you won’t be in the end. The Catholic Church is the house of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The Catholic Church Teaches the Word of God

De Maria November 16, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Hi, you said,

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

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

Sincerely,

De Maria