Justification

Here's my understanding of the 

Catholic Teaching of Justification.

Justification in the Old Testament sense is, as the word itself tells us, becoming just or righteous in the eyes of God.  

We can see an example of this when Moses says:

Deuteronomy 6:24 And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day. 25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.

We still keep this mandate.  The Catholic Church teaches:

2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."

Justification in the New Testament sense is the washing of our sins by the washing of regeneration which is the work of God.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;  

 The Catholic Church says:

1215 This sacrament is also called "the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."

Justification in the Old Testament sense is justification by faith and works.  

Justification in the New Testament sense is the justification by faith apart from works.  which occurs in the Sacraments.

A better Covenant with better promises

Scripture says:

Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 

Just as the New Testament is a better Covenant than the Old, the justification effected by the Sacraments of God effect a more perfect justification than that which is accomplished by faith and works.  Justification by faith and works can not bring about perfection nor salvation.  Sacramental justification brought about by the Holy Spirit does bring about perfect cleansing of the soul and therefore salvation.

The Council of Trent, Session VI says:

CHAPTER IV

A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE

In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.

This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:

Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]

Perhaps you have noticed already that the Jews, with the exception of Enoch, Elijah and  Moses, did not enter heaven.  They awaited the coming of Christ and His Crucifixion before they were released from the limbo where they were awaiting the redemption of their sins.  Scripture says:

Hebrews 9:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

And again:

Hebrews 11:37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;  38 (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.  39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:  40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Do you know why they couldn't be made perfect without us?  Because it is in the Crucifixion that Jesus released the sanctifying grace which effects the washing of regeneration which the Holy Spirit applies to our souls in the Sacraments.  They received this washing of sanctifying grace by the Holy Spirit before they entered into heaven.  They couldn't be made perfect without it.

Therefore, the Justification which is effected by God in the New Testament is more perfect than that which the Jews received in the Old Testament.  St. Paul illustrates the difference graphically in the book of Hebrews:

Hebrews 12:18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:
20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:
21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:)   

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,  24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

But, although justification effected by the Sacraments in the New Testament is more perfect than that effected by faith and works, justification by faith and works is the prerequisite for all justification.  

Justification by faith and works and justification by faith apart from works are seamlessly combined in the Catholic Sacramental System.

First, justification by faith and works is required for salvation.  

Scripture says:

Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.  13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.  14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.  15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

The Catechism says:

682 When he comes at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, the glorious Christ will reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his works, and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace.

Second, justification by faith and works is the preparation of man for the reception of Sacramental justification: 

An adult who converts to the faith of Jesus Christ, must justify himself in preparation for the Sacraments by performing works worthy of penance. This is why I say that the Sacraments are pre-Judgement events.  Before a person may receive a Sacrament, he must be in a state of grace.  In order to be in a state of grace, he must repent of his sins and perform good works by exercising faith in God.

The Catechism says:

2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:" 

Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing.

Having received the Sacraments, the adult is then sent out again to continue doing the works which God prepared for him from the beginning of time (Ephesians 2:10) and continue to exercise and enlarge his faith so that he becomes more open and properly disposed to receive more Sanctifying grace which is imparted by the Sacraments.  Just as we exercise our muscles, this strengthens his faith making him more open to receive the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit which transforms him according to his faith.  

2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.  5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;  6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;  7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.  8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.  9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.  10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:   

I believe that in the phrase, "precious promises", St. Peter is referring to the seven promises we call the Seven Sacraments.  Seven promises of the grace filled outpouring of the Holy Spirit into our souls.

And so, the Council of Trent Session VI says:

CHAPTER X THE INCREASE OF THE JUSTIFICATION RECEIVED
Having, therefore, been thus justified and made the friends and domestics of God,[49] advancing from virtue to virtue,[50] they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day,[51] that is, mortifying the members[52] of their flesh, and presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification,[53] they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith cooperating with good works, increase in that justice received through the grace of Christ and are further justified, as it is written: 

He that is just, let him be justified still;[54] and, Be not afraid to be justified even to death;[55] and again, Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?[56]

This increase of justice holy Church asks for when she prays:"Give unto us, O Lord, an increase of faith, hope and charity."[57]

Outside the Church there is no salvation

The more perfect Sacramental justification does not exist outside the Church.  Without the Sacraments, a person must await the Judgement in order to be judged according to their works.  In other words, in order to be judged according to their faith and works.

However, the receiving the Sacraments does not guarantee salvation:

The Catholic Church says:

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"321

In other words, although the Sacraments bring about salvation, they also bring about judgement. They are pre-judgement events with all that entails.  Remember what Jesus said?

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

So, if an adult receives Baptism without believing, he is condemning himself.  God is not fooled:

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.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.  29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.  

Sincerely,

De Maria

A refutation of Sola Scriptura

Bob says:
If the Real Presence is true it leads to the conclusion that Jesus has another nature i.e. bread and wine. 

That is a misunderstanding of the Catholic Doctrine. Transubstantiation means that the bread and wine are no longer there. Only the appearance. Jesus is there present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. 

I repeat, NO BREAD AND WINE. The bread and wine are gone. 

The other problem is that the bread and wine have no characteristics of deity.

No one claims that bread and wine are deities. It is a straw man argument which you are making up.

Oh, you asked me a question which I had no opportunity to answer. You also asked:

You brought up this passage as a refutation of Sola Scriptura–”Let’s compare. You preach the Bible alone, which is the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura”. What does Scripture truly say?

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

Let me ask you: What traditions is Paul referring to here? 

All the Traditions. Including the ones that Protestants refuse to believe.

Surely he is not referring to

Yes, he is.

the Marian dogmas, 

The Queenship of Mary-Rev 12:1

a celibate leaderships

1 Cor 7:32-33

or purgatory

1 Cor 3:15

because these things were unknown in the NT and for centuries. 

They were taught by the Apostles. The reason you don’t recognize them in the NT is because you discarded many of the Traditions of Jesus Christ.

So what “traditions” is Paul referring to?

All of them. Including the ones that Protestants disregarded and cast aside.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Jesus said, “I am the sheep gate"

Fello said:

….Realize that if Jesus’ words, “this is my body” don’t mean (to borrow from Luther) that this is His body, we are all in big trouble. If His words, “my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink,” mean that His flesh and blood are not true food and drink, then the Bible is dang hard to understand, saying the exact opposite of what it seems to mean….

De Maria responds:

Jesus also says that He is the sheep gate. What are we to say?

Here’s what I say. There is no Tradition that Jesus is literally the sheep gate. When Jesus said, “I am the sheep gate.” You didn’t see the disciples grumbling, “this is a hard saying.” They understood that He was speaking metaphorically. And that is the Tradition that has been passed down through the centuries.

Whereas, when Jesus said, “I am the bread of life, my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” The disciples all left. Only the Apostles remained. And even they were dumbfounded. But although they could not understand it, they accepted it because, as St. Peter said, “To whom would we run, we have come to BELIEVE that you are the Messiah of God.” And that is the Tradition that has been passed down. Believe it! It doesn’t say, “understand it.” The Tradition says “Believe it!”

Therefore, an understanding of the Traditions of Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary for a correct interpretation of Scripture.

Can I get an, “Amen!”

Three Year Cycle Bible readings

Question: 

How well do you think a person would retain knowledge of the NT by listening to it over the course of 3 years?

Very well indeed.

What about the other 30% that is not heard?

Catholics listen to the entire Bible in a 3 year cycle.

Having said that, there are some parts of Scripture which seem to be emphasized over others.

There is information in the OT which is not essential for one’s salvation. Its stuff like this which was anulled by Christ on the Cross:

Leviticus 14:13
And he shall slay the lamb in the place where he shall kill the sin offering and the burnt offering, in the holy place: for as the sin offering is the priest’s, so is the trespass offering: it is most holy:

Because:

Ephesians 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Therefore, the ordinances about sacrifices and washings are not stressed to Catholics.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Mary is without sin

De Maria says:

January 11, 2013 at 8:25 am

Bob says:
I have heard RC’s claim that Mary is without sin, kept from sin based on Luke 1:28. No apostle taught this in their writings.

Hm? Bob, we see the teaching in Luke 1:28. Unless you are insinuating that the Apostles were not aware of that verse, you are contradicting yourself.

In Greek, that verse describes the Virgin as “kecharitomene” which means “ever full of grace”. Therefore, she never sinned.

So how could this be a Apostolic Tradition?

Catholics approach the Word of God in a manner fundamentally different to the manner used by Protestants. As Catholics, we accept the Teaching of the Church concerning the Word of God (Eph 3:10). We also recognize that the Word of God is contained in Tradition and Scripture (2 Thess 2:15).

The Tradition that the Virgin Mary is without sin is explicitly taught by our Catholic teachers (Heb 13:7). And it is implied in the Gospel of St. Luke (1:28). That doctrine is nowhere contradicted in Scripture. Therefore we accept it as truth.

Sincerely,

De Maria

IF WE ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN BAPTISM...THEN CHRIST DIED IN VAIN.

Re: If we are not justified in Baptism...Then Christ died in vain.

Appalled:
Its not just a few evangelicals who believe what I do. And if you engage evangelicals with the generalizations that you have expressed on this thread, you will only confirm to them that, as a Catholic, you have no idea what you are talking about, and they will have no reason to listen to anything you have to say. When you comment on evangelical theology but really have no idea what evangelicals believe, you only make yourself look ignorant.

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

1. I've engaged Evangelicals and Protestants of every variety for about two decades now.
2. Normally, my generalized comments are right on the money.
3. When they aren't, they simply correct me.
4. And then I disprove the errors in their specific and individual theology.

A perfect example is the discussion we've been having. Now that you've made your personal ideas clear, we have addressed them.

On the other hand, you began this discussion pretending that your views were the main line Evangelical view. Whether that is true or not, is besides the point. The fact remains that a significant number of Protestants and Evangelicals hold the position which you decry and which we initially began to confront.

I don't mean this to sound harsh or insulting to you.

That's ok. It is difficult to be 100% nonadversarial in an apologetical discussion where we each represent opposing views.

However, when you say, "It may not be completely universal. But enough Evangelicals believe it that we may safely generalize that they all do," you need to realize how wrong you are. This is not a case of a few evangelicals dissenting from the overwhelming majority view. This is more the case of an even split. I don't think you understand this, and until you do its not really possible to have a constructive debate with you.

I thought we were having a wonderful debate. I also addressed your current views. If you don't believe that I did, then please reveal that which you think I didn't address.

In either case, in the classic Evangelical position or in the one you claim now holds equal hold, there are elements which contradict Scripture and Catholic Teaching.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The Last Supper and the Crucifixion are inextricably united.

Anti-Catholic asks:

The Last Supper is not the Sacrifice on the Cross

WHEN did Jesus cry out to Abba to remove this cup from Him : before the Supper of before the Cross?

WHEN was the Sin of believers paid for: at the Supper or on the Cross?

WHEN was propitiation made: at the Supper or on the Cross?

WHEN was the Blood of Christ shed for our forgiveness ; at the Supper or on the Cross?

WHEN was the wrath of God appeased : at the Supper or on the Cross?

WHEN was he pierced for our transgressions, When was he crushed for our iniquities; at the Supper or on the Cross?

WHEN did the Lord lay on him the iniquity of us all; at the Supper or on the Cross?

WHEN was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin; at the Supper or on the Cross?

WHEN did God make Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God;at the Supper or on the Cross?

At what "event " did these thing happen?

Your questions are loaded with misunderstanding. The Last Supper and the Crucifixion are inextricably united.

You see, the Last Supper is the first Mass. And the Mass is our Passover. In order to understand the New Testament Mass, you must understand the Old Testament Passover.

1. In the Old Testament, 

a. The Passover Lamb was killed and 
b. The Passover Lamb was eaten.

Those are not two sacrifices, but one. The Passover Lamb was killed in order that it might be eaten.

2. The same in the New Testament.

a. Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God. 
John 1:29
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

b. Jesus Christ is also our Passover, sacrificed for us.
1 Corinthians 5:7
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:

c. He is sacrificed for us in order that He may be eaten:
John 6:57
King James Version (KJV)
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

d. Therefore, Christ released the grace of God from the Cross. But unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of God, you do not apply those graces to your life. And you will die in your sins:
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

e. And finally, the Crucifixion is the Sacrifice of the Mass which we participate in when we eat the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist.

Rev 12, Mary Queen of Heaven and mother of all believers

Anti-Catholic says:

I just showed you that Catholic interpreters commonly understand The woman in Rev 12 as the Church of Christ.

The key word there is "commonly". Catholic interpreters commonly understand the Woman of Rev 12 as the Virgin Mary as well. In fact, they also understand the Woman as Israel. All three interpretations are acceptable to the Church.

And you,  stated otherwise.

Please point us to vast treasury of Church teachings from the past 2,000 years that agree with you.

Why? You would reject them even if we did.  But here's one, anyway.

"He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to thy word.' And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him."Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100 (A.D. 155).

The bolded part is an obvious reference to the Woman of Rev 12 for anyone who knows Scripture.

This is a reference to Rev 11:19:
"O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides." Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373) .
And this is an obvious reference to Rev 12:17:
Again, there are those who say, "He is a man, and who shall know him?"(14) and, "I came unto the prophetess, and she bare a son, and His name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God;"(15) and those [of them] who proclaimed Him as Immanuel, [born] of the Virgin, exhibited the union of the Word of God with His own workmanship, [declaring] that the Word should become flesh, and the Son of God the Son of man (the pure One opening purely that pure womb which regenerates men unto God, and which He Himself made pure); and having become this which we also are, He [nevertheless] is the Mighty God, and possesses a generation which cannot be declared. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 4, chap. 33, paragraph 11.)

Protestant teaching is self contradicting

Anti-Catholic said:
It seems you are implying that Protestants would say Abraham's faith did not include hope, 

I would say that is true. Hope is against the Protestant mindset since they believe they are saved:

Romans 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. 24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? 25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

According to that Scripture, Protestants are hopeless (pun intended). They see themselves saved, therefore they do not hope for salvation.

wasn't growing strong, and was passive rather than active. 

You're talking about faith here, correct?

Then my answer would be, "No".

Protestants believe that justification is a one time event. Not a process. Therefore, they claim, the moment one believes in God, faith is born and one is saved. From that moment, faith may grow stronger, but that would only go towards one's crowns or rewards. No longer towards one's justification or salvation, since, according to them, that was done when they came to faith.

That's nothing but a straw man. I'm fairly confident any Reformed Christian would say Abraham's faith had all those things, but they would qualify it by saying that it is the work of Spirit of God through regeneration that produces the hopeful, strong, and active faith.

And I agree with that statement. But in so saying, Protestants contradict their stated doctrines of justification and salvation by faith alone.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Catholics approach the Word of God in the manner which Scripture Teaches

Anti-Catholic asks:
Where does the RC go to find out if they have the correct interpretation of a verse or passage if the RCC has never officially interpreted all the verses of the Bible?

Catholics approach the Word of God (that includes the Bible) in a manner fundamentally different than Protestants. We approach the Word of God in the manner which Scripture recommends. We learn the Word of God from our teachers (Heb 13:7). We learn the Word of God in Sacred Tradition and in the Sacred Writings (2Thess 2:15). When we do focus upon the Scriptures, we don’t neglect the spiritual meaning of the Word (2 Cor 3:6).

And most importantly, as Catholics, we understand that we are fallible. We also believe that God has established an infallible Teacher of His Wisdom (Eph 3:10). Therefore, we don’t go around re-interpreting what the Church has already explained. Since it is the Church which is called the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth (1 Tim 3:15), when it comes to Scripture, we believe the Church.

Protestants, on the other hand, discover the Word of God every time the open the Bible. That’s why they come up with so many innovations. That’s why they come up with so many errors.

The Word of God comes in the Traditions of Jesus Christ and Scripture

Anti-Catholic says:
Many Catholics DO know the Bible very well. But most lay people do not.
This is my experience as a 35 year Catholic. Most of my family are Catholics and extended family (aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews) are pretty much clueless when it comes to the Bible. And some of them are very active in the Catholic Church.
Most Lutherans don’t know it very well, either.
Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses, on the other hand, know it very well. And haven’t got a clue as to what it all means.

Please don’t be offended, but the truth is, most Catholic lay people know the Word of God better than any Protestant.

The Word of God comes in the Traditions of Jesus Christ and Scripture. The Traditions of Jesus Christ are essential for a proper understanding of the Word of God. They are the underpinning of the Scriptures. Jesus did not write Scripture. He established a Church and deposited in that Church the Traditions. It is based upon these Traditions that the Church wrote the New Testament.

And Protestants who think they know the Bible are only repeating the extra-biblical traditions of men taught them by their respective churches. They rejected the true Word of God when they rejected the Traditions of Jesus Christ. Now they try to pin the Word of God on top of traditions and practices which can nowhere be found in the Bible.

That’s the truth.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Sacred Tradition is the Word of God.

Anti-Catholic says:
I have yet to meet a RC that knows the Bible well.

Without meaning any disrespect. I don’t know any Protestant who understands the Bible, not even your best scholars. True, you guys repeat the words well enough. But you don’t know the true meaning of the words. And that’s the ones you know.

For the most part, you go by the extra-biblical traditions taught you by your church. I’ll give you an example:

Hebrews 13:17 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.

Most Protestants don’t even know that verse is in Scripture. Those who have read, disregard it. Here’s the Protestant doctrine, “I won’t check my brain at the door! I’m a free thinker.”

And here’s the kicker. Most Catholics know the Word of God better than most Protestants.  A devout Catholic, on the street, understands the Word of God better than Billy Graham or any other of your high and mighty televangelists or preachers.  You see, the Word of God does not come in the Bible alone.  It is passed down in the Sacred Traditions of Jesus Christ, which you have abandoned.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The Bible is Church Teaching

Anti-Catholic asks:Are you saying that church teaching determines the meaning of a verse-passage and not the Bible?  In other words, its not what the original intent of the author of a book of the Scripture that guides what the Scripture means but rather church teachings.

That’s a false dichotomy. The Bible is Church teaching. The Catholic Church inherited the Old Testament and wrote the New.

Have you ever wondered why Jesus Christ did not write a word of Scripture? Because He wanted us to flock to His Church to get His understanding of the Word. Jesus Christ taught the Church His understanding of the Old Testament. This is the understanding which the Church now passes down to us (Luke 24:32).

Luke 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

OSAS by any other name, is still an error

Anti-Catholic says:

I've already answered question.  I do not believe in OSAS.

Actually, you haven't addressed my point. Feel free to drop it if you feel badgered.But this is the point I'm making. The Pentecostal or Evangelical supposed denial of OSAS is simply a different version of the same doctrine. Why?

1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe that you were saved by your faith ALONE.. Because you said, "To have true faith is to be saved." Is that correct?

2. Now, if a person has true faith, according to you, can that person fall away?

3. Also, you know the day you were saved and the hour you were saved and you do not believe that you, personally, can ever fall away. Am I correct?

I believe I know the answer to those questions. But correct me if I'm wrong.

You believe you have true faith.

Therefore, you believe you are saved.

Therefore, you believe you will not fall away.

If that's what you believe, then you believe in OSAS.

If you do not believe that, then I have to admit that I have been wrong in this discussion. And I remain baffled by your statement that the parable of the sheep and goats can be viewed through the lens of faith alone. Because the only lens ever presented to me by a Protestant, Evangelical or otherwise, has been, OSAS. The sheep were saved because they were always saved. The goats were condemned because they didn't have true faith.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote:
this My pastor and other spiritual leaders will be held accountable for how they have lead me and what they have taught me. Therefore, I should respect, honor, and obey their godly counsel.

Wow! That is a first. The response is virtually the same as that I would receive from a Catholic.

Quote:
There is nothing about confession in this verse.

Except for this part. The verse in question, Heb 13:17, is a description of what occurs in the Sacrament of Confession.

1. We submit to our Priest.
2. We confess to them our sins because we acknowledge that they watch over our souls.

3. They give an account of our sins to God when they pray for God to forgive our sins.
4. We obey their command when they give us the penance which we must do in order to make satisfaction for our sins. Its all there in a very concise manner. Protestants don't recognize it because they have dumped the Traditions of Jesus Christ which are the basis of the New Testament.

Sincerely,

De Maria

How do I prove the divinity of Christ, to a Jehovah, from Scripture?

I recently saw this question asked on the Internet.  This is how I would respond.

In my debates with JW, Evangelicals and other Non-Catholics, I don't try to prove anything definitively from Scripture.

My reasons.

1. The old saying is true, "for some, no proof is necessary. For others, no proof is ever enough."

2. They read Scripture differently than we do.

a. They read Scripture to discover their doctrines within. In fact, the JWs are famous for rewriting Scripture in order to write their doctrines into it.

b. Whereas, we know that New Testament Scripture is written based upon the pre-existing Traditions of Jesus Christ. That which Jesus Christ taught the Apostles is the basis of the New Testament. Thus, we go to the Church for our understanding of the Word of God. Not to Scripture.

3. Remember, we do not believe in the false doctrine of Scripture alone.

Having said that, I still engage them. But on our terms. Not theirs.

First of all, I keep in mind that proof texting is a no-win plan. As many texts as you provide to back up Catholicism, they can provide texts, which they twist, to support their errors. So, it's a stalemate.

So, my game plan is like this. Let's take the Divinity of Christ, for example.

JW says, "Proskyneo means obeisance and that proves that no one worshipped Christ in the early Church". 

Me, "Mm? Then why do all the Early Church Fathers, worship Christ? Let me give you a list."
Polycarp, who was taught by the Apostle, St. John, in his Letter to the Philippians, said: 

Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth...and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead. 

Another disciple of St. John, Ignatius, said: 

Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plentitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy. 

Being as you are imitators of God, once you took on new life through the blood of God you completed perfectly the task so natural to you. 

There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord. 

You get the drift, right? Now, I can guess how the discussion might go. They'll say, "Christianity went into apostasy at the time of Constantine" 

And I say, "that's not true. Again, the Church Fathers prior to Constantine all teach the same things the Catholic Church Teaches today. It's your church that teaches heresy and your church is the new comer. Let's see what Scripture says about that: 

Gal 1:8 New World Translation
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly turning away* from the One who called you with Christ’s undeserved kindness to another sort of good news.+ 7 Not that there is another good news; but there are certain ones who are causing you trouble+ and wanting to distort the good news about the Christ. 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed. 

You, Jehovah's, are adding to the Teaching of the Church which came by Jesus Christ, something new which we do not accept.

And that's how I would respond.  I hope that helps.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Bye Ash

On Monday, August 14, we said goodbye to Ash, our dog.  It was heartbreaking.  

12 years ago, on Ash Wednesday (thus the name), I took the kids to the Dog Pound to get a dog (what else, right).  Although I had promised my wife that we would never have another pet, yet I felt it necessary to get a puppy, because our youngest son was developing a n irrational fear of dogs.  So, I thought the remedy might be to get a pup that our children could raise.  And it worked!  

The moment that I told my kids that we were getting a puppy, they were so excited.  It’s all they could talk about.  So, we got to the pound and there he was.  A majestic, black pup showing a great deal of confidence and looking very strong.  I looked him in the eye and he looked right back at me.  He stood out all the more because his kennel was right next to a sickly looking puppy that couldn’t even hold his head without shaking.  So, I told the kids, “we’ll take the black one.”  

But they weren’t looking at the dogs with a critical eye, like I was.  They were looking at the dogs through the eyes of their hearts.  And they said, “can we have the other one?”  Of course, I objected.  I said, “He looks sick.  He’ll probably die and then what?”  But they looked at me with their Betsy Clark faces and said, “But he’s so cute.”  Well, what could I say?  When they look at me like that, I’m putty.

So, we went home with a sickly dog.  But, I was encouraged, because my youngest held him all the way home.

We named him on the way home.  They were all throwing out names.  But I suggested Ash.  He was white with a bunch of dirty spots.  Not like a dalmation.  More like someone had spilled an ash tray on a white dog.  I said, “Well, you guys like Ash Ketchum (of Pokeman fame) and today is Ash Wednesday, why don’t we name him Ash?”  And they loved it.  So, it stuck.

At first, he just laid around.  I was afraid that he wouldn’t make it.  But after a couple of days, the sickly pup was jumping around acting like any other pup.  The only fear I had left was that my kids would love him to death.  At the Pound, they told us that Ash was a “German Shepherd mix”.  But, as he grew up, he looked more and more like a Catahoula.  

It was a match made in heaven.  My kids slept on him and he slept on them.  If he was on the floor, they slept with him on the floor.  If they were on the bed, he got into the bed.  They slept on top of him.  He slept on top of them.  I’m surprised the little pup that fit into the palm of my hand when we got him, survived.  But he did.  And he thrived.  Ash grew to be 40 pounds of sleek muscle.  He was fast and he was gentle.  And he was quiet. He wasn’t a barky dog.  He would bark occasionally, to be let out.  And to be let back in.  And when strangers knocked at the door.  He played with the kids and slept with the kids and they grew up together.

There were the usual growing pains.  “Dad!  Ash is biting us!”  “Dad!  Ash is scratching us!”  They ran together, they wrestled.  It was awesome!

He never did get the hang of “fetch” though.  He’d go get that first one.  But then, it was like, “Look, if you insist on throwing that, you’ll have to get it yourself.  I’ll be here when you get back.”   

And, of course, if he wasn’t playing or eating, he was sleeping.  He loved to find a sunbeam and curl up under it, as he’s doing in the photo.

As for me, he was my eating companion.  On my midnight sojourns to the fridge, or whenever we were alone in the house together, he would sit with me as I ate and tossed him some of my food.  He always caught it in the air and swallowed it without chewing.  We used to go on walks and I loved to let him go when we got to an area where he had room to run.  He loved to run.  And, oh man!  Could he run.  When I went to work, he would chase my car to the end of the block.  Then the kids, who were trying to keep up, would call him back.   When I came home from work, he would run down the stairs to greet me as soon as I walked in the door.

But then came a day, about a year or so ago, when I tossed him some food and he missed it.   And then came a day when I took him for a walk and let him go, but he didn’t run.  Then came a day when he just watched me drive away.  And a day when he didn’t run down to greet me.

Sometimes we would jokingly say, “Ash is getting lazier and lazier.”  Sometimes we would realize that he was getting older.  

But we never thought this day would come.  

The day when he couldn’t get up.  When he couldn’t raise his head.  He could barely wag his tail.  The day when he would leave us.   

Today is Tuesday, August 15th.  Whether it was a dream or what, I don’t know.  But Ash woke me up this morning.  It was 5am and I heard him bark the way he would when he wanted someone to let him out .  I threw my blanket off,… then I remembered.  I smiled and I said, “Good morning, Ash.”

Thank you, Lord, for this wonderful blessing you bestowed upon us, in the form of a little sickly dog.  Ash enlarged all of our hearts and gave all of us a greater capacity to love.  I can never thank you enough for the grace of our lovely little dog, Ash. 

Eternal life and the Blood of Christ

Anti-Catholic said:

de Maria -
Your polemic is so fatuous and blasphemous that I trust any reasonable fence-sitter who compares it with the scriptures will be repulsed. 

Big words. No meaning. Let us compare our respective arguments to the Scriptures. I guarantee, yours are found wanting.

If you think your soul got eternal life when you ate Christ's "blood" (i.e., sacramental wine according to the allegorical interpretation of your non-literal religious traditions) then don't be a hypocrite and claim you don't know if you are saved or not until the day of judgment - either Christ says you have eternal life, or Christ lied. So make up your mind what you believe, you fickle religious nut. 

I'll let the reader decide who is the religious nut between you and I. As for having eternal life, learn the meaning of the these words:
Matthew 24:13
King James Version (KJV)
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

I stand by what I wrote,

And God is your judge just as He is ours. You will be judged by every word you speak and every deed you have done, just as we will. You claim to save yourself by your faith alone. You have your reward. We, rely upon God to save us.

Revelation 22:14
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Sincerely,

De Maria

re: Can God wash away your sins by water? 2

Originally Posted by De Maria
Can we baptize without water? Here's what I say, correct me if I'm wrong:
It is not, "In Baptism, water is the sign of what the Spirit does". It is that "in Baptism, water is the effectual sign which signifies and produces what the spirit does."
To compare, if a man claims that he has been baptized by the Holy Spirit because he claims this happens by "faith alone", this may or may not be true. Scripture says the Spirit blows where it will.
But, if a man claims that he has been baptized by the Holy Spirit when he was baptized in the Sacrament of the Catholic Church, then this is true. Because Christ has tied the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, to the pouring of the water and proclamation of the word.
The Church says it this way:
1238 The baptismal water is consecrated by a prayer of epiclesis (either at this moment or at the Easter Vigil). The Church asks God that through his Son the power of the Holy Spirit may be sent upon the water, so that those who will be baptized in it may be "born of water and the Spirit."40
What do yo think?

Sincerely,



De Maria

response by fellow Catholic:

You bring up an interesting point here De Maria. I think the discussion can be broke down to (1) whether the sacraments are merely outward signs of an invisible reality i.e. the conferring of grace or (2) whether the sacraments are both outward signs of the conferring of grace and causes of grace.

Stated briefly, the Church teaches the second point. The sacraments worthily received confer the grace that they signify (CCC #1127). They are not just mere signs. The principle cause of grace is of course God or the Holy Spirit in the sacraments. According to St Thomas Aquinas, by divine power, the sacraments are an instrumental cause of grace such like the humanity of Jesus was an instrument of his divinity in bringing about the redemption of the human race. For example, the water used in baptism not only signifies a washing away of our sins and a cleansing of our soul, but there is in the water as well as in the words used in baptism, a divine spiritual power that actually causes the cleansing of the soul and the bestowal of grace. This seems to be the meaning of #1238 from the CCC De Maria quotes above.

St Augustine, which St Thomas Aquinas quotes in his Summa Theologica, says this:

"whence hath water so great a power , that it touches the body and cleanses the heart"

Again St Augustine:

"Nor should you marvel, if we say that water, a corporeal substance, achieves the cleansing of the soul. It does indeed, and penetrates every secret hiding place of the conscience. For subtle and clear as it is, the blessing of Christ makes it yet more subtle, so that it permeates into the very principles of life and searches the innermost recesses of the heart"

And St Bede:

"Our Lord conferred a power of regeneration on the waters by the contact of His most pure body."

Re: Can God wash away your sins by water?

Baptism now saves you

Quote:

More like a blowtorch.

Scripture says, more like a Tsunami:

1 Peter 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Can God wash away your sins by water?

saved through water

Can we baptize without water? Here's what I say, correct me if I'm wrong:

It is not, "In Baptism, water is the sign of what the Spirit does". It is that "in Baptism, water is the effectual sign which signifies and produces what the spirit does."

To compare, if a man claims that he has been baptized by the Holy Spirit because he claims this happens by "faith alone", this may or may not be true. Scripture says the Spirit blows where it will.

But, if a man claims that he has been baptized by the Holy Spirit when he was baptized in the Sacrament of the Catholic Church, then this is true. Because Christ has tied the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, to the pouring of the water and proclamation of the word.

The Church says it this way:
1238 The baptismal water is consecrated by a prayer of epiclesis (either at this moment or at the Easter Vigil). The Church asks God that through his Son the power of the Holy Spirit may be sent upon the water, so that those who will be baptized in it may be "born of water and the Spirit."40

What do yo think?

Sincerely,

De Maria

A Father is to be honored

1. 1. Confused Catholic said:

      
      I easily go along with calling a priest "father", I wouldn't address a priest without using a title. But how to justify calling a priest "My Lord" (Monsignor)? And what about the titles: excellence, eminence, right reverend, very reverend.. and so on. These titles from courtly times need to go; or just used as a private hierarchy within the clergy.

      
      
      You said they need to go, but why? Are these not consecrated people and, especially in the cases of bishops, direct successors of the Apostles
      
      These are all titles given a "father". A father is "Lord" of his house. A mother, the wife of the father, "Lady" of his house.
      
      Mister is simply a derivative of "master". And it means, "Lord". Likewise, Mistress, is a derivative of "master" as well. Although it now bears a bad connotation associated with adultery, the Mistress of the house is the Lady of the house
   2. This is one of the reasons why Protestants abhor the title in respect to priests. Because they deny that they must obey them. They claim they believe the Scriptures. I don't know what they do with Heb 13:17:
      
      Hebrews 13:17 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.
      
      Sincerely,
      
      De Maria
      
      
      
      

Evangelicals do not agree with Catholic Teaching

Quote: 

Your explanations betray your ignorance of the different views that evangelicals have on eternal security.

I don't concern myself with the errors of men but only with the eternal truth of the Word of God.

Quote:
Not all evangelicals believe in what you are claiming they believe.

Enough of them do that I can make a valid point against their theology.

Quote:
Therefore, when I and other posters articulate a very evangelical understanding of salvation, faith, and works, you are confused because it looks very similar to Catholic teaching, and yet it contradicts what you've come to think the "evangelical" position is.

It is you who made it seem as though Evangelicals unanimously believed what you are teaching. But you have now admitted that you follow a more Catholic position on this matter than the average Evangelical. Although your position, is itself, an error.

Quote:

I find that the Catholics on this forum tend to believe that all evangelicals believe in Once Saved Always Saved, and that is a universally held doctrine among evangelical churches.

It may not be completely universal. But enough Evangelicals believe it that we may safely generalize that they all do. Whenever the odd Evangelical appears who holds a slightly different variant of that belief, we can handle those argumens, case by case. Suffice to say, that if the variant does not agree with the Catholic Teaching, it is still in contradiction of the Word of God in Scripture, as well.

Quote:
It is not, and many, many evangelicals find it an abhorrent theology.

That is good to hear. Now if they would only take the next step and embrace the Catholic Church, it would be wonderful!

Good talking to you,

Sincerely,


De Maria