Thomas A. Droleskey on the Lies of Protestantism

Seattle Catholic ^ | September 29, 2003 | Thomas A. Droleskey

[Fifthmark]

Protestantism is founded on many lies: (1) That Our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did not create a visible, hierarchical Church. (2) That there is no authority given by Our Lord to the Pope and his bishops and priests to govern and to sanctify the faithful. (3) That each believer has an immediate and personal relationship with the Savior as soon as he makes a profession of faith on his lips and in his heart, therefore being perpetually justified before God. (4) Having been justified by faith alone, a believer has no need of an intermediary from a non-existent hierarchical priesthood to forgive him his sins. He is forgiven by God immediately when he asks forgiveness. (5) This state of justification is not earned by good works. While good works are laudable, especially to help unbelievers convert, they do not impute unto salvation. Salvation is the result of the profession of faith that justifies the sinner. (6) That grace is merely, in the words of Martin Luther, the snowflakes that cover up the "dungheap" that is man. (7) That there is only one source of Divine Revelation, Sacred Scripture. (8) That each individual is his own interpreter of Sacred Scripture. (9) That there is a strict separation of Church and State. Princes, to draw from Luther himself, may be Christians but it is not as a Christian that they ought to rule. These lies have permutated in thousands of different directions. However, they have sewn the fabric of the modern state and popular culture for nearly 500 years (I shudder to think how the Vatican is going to commemorate the 500th anniversary of Luther's posting his 95 theses on the church doors in Wittenberg fourteen years from now).

Here below are explanations of these lies and their multifaceted implications for the world in which we live:

(1-2) The contention that Our Lord did not create a visible, hierarchical church vitiates the need for a hierarchical, sacerdotal priesthood for the administration of the sacraments. It is a rejection of the entirety of the history of Christianity prior to the Sixteenth Century. It is a denial of the lesson taught us by Our Lord by means of His submission to His own creatures, Saint Joseph and the Blessed Mother, in the Holy Family of Nazareth that each of us is to live our entire lives under authority, starting with the authority of the Vicar of Christ and those bishops who are in full communion with him. The rejection of the visible, hierarchical church is founded on the prideful belief that we are able to govern ourselves without being directed by anyone else on earth. This contention would lead in due course to the rejection of any and all religious belief as necessary for individuals and for societies. Luther and Calvin paved the way for Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the French Revolution that followed so closely the latter's deification of man.

(3-6) Baptism is merely symbolic of the Christian's desire to be associated with the Savior in the amorphous body known as the Church. What is determinative of the believer's relationship with Christ is his profession of faith. As the believer remains a reprobate sinner, all he can do is to seek forgiveness by confessing his sins privately to God. This gives the Protestant of the Lutheran strain the presumptuous sense that there is almost nothing he can do to lose his salvation once he has made his profession of faith in the Lord Jesus. There is thus no belief that a person can scale the heights of personal sanctity by means of sanctifying grace. It is impossible, as Luther projected from his own unwillingness to cooperate with sanctifying grace to overcome his battles with lust, for the believer to be anything other than a dungheap. Thus a Protestant can sin freely without for once considering that he has killed the life of sanctifying grace in his soul, thereby darkening his intellect and weakening the will and inclining himself all the more to sin-and all the more a vessel of disorder and injustice in the larger life of society.

(7-8) The rejection of a visible, hierarchical Church and the rejection of Apostolic Tradition as a source of Divine Revelation protected by that Church leads in both instances to theological relativism. Without an authoritative guide to interpret Divine Revelation, including Sacred Scripture, individual believers can come to mutually contradictory conclusions about the meaning of passages, the precise thing that has given rise to literally thousands of Protestant sects. And if a believer can reduce the Bible, which he believes is the sole source of Divine Revelation, to the level of individual interpretation, then there is nothing to prevent anyone from doing the same with all written documents, including the documents of a nation's founding. If the plain words of Scripture can be deconstructed of their meaning, it is easy to do so, say, with the words of a governmental constitution. Theological relativism paved the way for moral relativism. Moral relativism paved the way for the triumph of positivism and deconstructionism as normative in the realm of theology and that of law and popular culture.

(9) The overthrow of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ as it was exercised by His true Church in the Middle Ages by the Protestant concept of the separation of Church and State is what gave rise to royal absolutism in Europe in the immediate aftermath of Luther's handiwork. Indeed, as I have noted any number of times before, it is arguably the case that the conditions that bred resentment on the part of colonists in English America prior to 1776 might never have developed if England had remained a Catholic nation. The monarchy would have been subject in the Eighteenth Century to same constraints as it had in the Tenth or Eleventh Centuries, namely, that kings and queens would have continued to understand that the Church reserved unto herself the right to interpose herself in the event that rulers had done things-or proposed to do things-that were contrary to the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law and/or were injurious of the cause of the sanctification and salvation of the souls of their subjects. The overthrow of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ deposited power first of all in the hands of monarchs eager to be rid of the "interference" of the Church and ultimately in the hands of whoever happened to hold the reins of governmental power in the modern "democratic" state. Despotism has been the result in both cases

[JohnnyM]

uncleanliness and sin are two different things entirely.

JM

[Elsie]

Adam's image was that of Whom?

I report.........

.....YOU decide!

[Elsie]

Genesis 6

 

 1.  When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them,
 2.  the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
 3.  Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with  man forever, for he is mortal ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
 4.  The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
 5.  The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
 6.  The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
 7.  So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them."

 

 

So. just who are these "sons of God"?

[Elsie]

And just WHO are these Anakites???

 

 

 

Numbers 13:17-33
 17.  When Moses sent them to explore Canaan, he said, "Go up through the Negev and on into the hill country.
 18.  See what the land is like and whether the people who live there are strong or weak, few or many.
 19.  What kind of land do they live in? Is it good or bad? What kind of towns do they live in? Are they unwalled or fortified?
 20.  How is the soil? Is it fertile or poor? Are there trees on it or not? Do your best to bring back some of the fruit of the land." (It was the season for the first ripe grapes.)
 21.  So they went up and explored the land from the Desert of Zin as far as Rehob, toward Lebo Hamath.
 22.  They went up through the Negev and came to Hebron, where Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai, the descendants of Anak, lived. (Hebron had been built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.)
 23.  When they reached the Valley of Eshcol,  they cut off a branch bearing a single cluster of grapes. Two of them carried it on a pole between them, along with some pomegranates and figs.
 24.  That place was called the Valley of Eshcol because of the cluster of grapes the Israelites cut off there.
 25.  At the end of forty days they returned from exploring the land.
 26.  They came back to Moses and Aaron and the whole Israelite community at Kadesh in the Desert of Paran. There they reported to them and to the whole assembly and showed them the fruit of the land.
 27.  They gave Moses this account: "We went into the land to which you sent us, and it does flow with milk and honey! Here is its fruit.
 28.  But the people who live there are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large. We even saw descendants of Anak there.
 29.  The Amalekites live in the Negev; the Hittites, Jebusites and Amorites live in the hill country; and the Canaanites live near the sea and along the Jordan."
 30.  Then Caleb silenced the people before Moses and said, "We should go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it."
 31.  But the men who had gone up with him said, "We can't attack those people; they are stronger than we are."
 32.  And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, "The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size.
 33.  We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them."

 

 

Deuteronomy 1:28-29
 28.  Where can we go? Our brothers have made us lose heart. They say, `The people are stronger and taller than we are; the cities are large, with walls up to the sky. We even saw the Anakites there.'"
 29.  Then I said to you, "Do not be terrified; do not be afraid of them.

 

 

Deuteronomy 2:9-21
 9.  Then the LORD said to me, "Do not harass the Moabites or provoke them to war, for I will not give you any part of their land. I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession."
 10.  (The Emites used to live there--a people strong and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites.
 11.  Like the Anakites, they too were considered Rephaites, but the Moabites called them Emites.
 12.  Horites used to live in Seir, but the descendants of Esau drove them out. They destroyed the Horites from before them and settled in their place, just as Israel did in the land the LORD gave them as their possession.)
 13.  And the LORD said, "Now get up and cross the Zered Valley." So we crossed the valley.
 14.  Thirty-eight years passed from the time we left Kadesh Barnea until we crossed the Zered Valley. By then, that entire generation of fighting men had perished from the camp, as the LORD had sworn to them.
 15.  The LORD's hand was against them until he had completely eliminated them from the camp.
 16.  Now when the last of these fighting men among the people had died,
 17.  the LORD said to me,
 18.  "Today you are to pass by the region of Moab at Ar.
 19.  When you come to the Ammonites, do not harass them or provoke them to war, for I will not give you possession of any land belonging to the Ammonites. I have given it as a possession to the descendants of Lot."
 20.  (That too was considered a land of the Rephaites, who used to live there; but the Ammonites called them Zamzummites.
 21.  They were a people strong and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites. The LORD destroyed them from before the Ammonites, who drove them out and settled in their place.

 

 

 Deuteronomy 9:1-3

 1.  Hear, O Israel. You are now about to cross the Jordan to go in and dispossess nations greater and stronger than you, with large cities that have walls up to the sky.
 2.  The people are strong and tall--Anakites! You know about them and have heard it said: "Who can stand up against the Anakites?"
 3.  But be assured today that the LORD your God is the one who goes across ahead of you like a devouring fire. He will destroy them; he will subdue them before you. And you will drive them out and annihilate them quickly, as the LORD has promised you.

 

 

 Joshua 11:21-23
  At that time Joshua went and destroyed the Anakites from the hill country: from Hebron, Debir and Anab, from all the hill country of Judah, and from all the hill country of Israel. Joshua totally destroyed them and their towns.
 22.  No Anakites were left in Israelite territory; only in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod did any survive.
 23.  So Joshua took the entire land, just as the LORD had directed Moses, and he gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal divisions.   Then the land had rest from war.

 

 

Joshua 14:11-15
 11.  I am still as strong today as the day Moses sent me out; I'm just as vigorous to go out to battle now as I was then.
 12.  Now give me this hill country that the LORD promised me that day. You yourself heard then that the Anakites were there and their cities were large and fortified, but, the LORD helping me, I will drive them out just as he said."
 13.  Then Joshua blessed Caleb son of Jephunneh and gave him Hebron as his inheritance.
 14.  So Hebron has belonged to Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite ever since, because he followed the LORD, the God of Israel, wholeheartedly.
 15.  (Hebron used to be called Kiriath Arba after Arba, who was the greatest man among the Anakites.)   Then the land had rest from war.

 

 

 Joshua 15:13-14
  In accordance with the LORD's command to him, Joshua gave to Caleb son of Jephunneh a portion in Judah--Kiriath Arba, that is, Hebron. (Arba was the forefather of Anak.) 
  From Hebron Caleb drove out the three Anakites--Sheshai, Ahiman and Talmai--descendants of Anak.

 

 

Joshua 21:11
  They gave them Kiriath Arba (that is, Hebron), with its surrounding pastureland, in the hill country of Judah. (Arba was the forefather of Anak.)

 

 

 Judges 1:20
  As Moses had promised, Hebron was given to Caleb, who drove from it the three sons of Anak.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Roman Ritual - Blessing of a Woman After Childbirth

That is the description TODAY . We were discussing the purification of Mary from the sin of childbirth .

No, you brought the Churching of Women into it.

In the Jewish law (Lev. XII.) women for forty days after the birth of a boy, and for eighty after that of a girl,were regarded as unclean and kept out of the temple,

Is "unclean" the same as "sinful"? I certainly don't understand these Biblical concepts as being identical.

As I had said originally that a woman that had given birth was considered sinful

Not in the Catholic Church.

That was my experience..I had to stand in the back of the church ..be sprinkled with holy water and have the priest pray , only then could i enter the church . So if you want to call it a "blessing" I had to be forgiven before i could enter the church.

Until you can quote a part of the ceremony to me showing how it pertained to "forgiveness" I refuse to accept your assertion, since I believe it entirely baseless. The Rituale Romanum I noted the title from is in my possession and dates to 1888. One of my old handmissals notes:

"The blessing of a woman after childbirt is a very ancient observance. It recalls the Jewish rite of purification, to which Our Lady submitted herself. But no idea of purification is contained in the Christian rite, for honorable childbearing is wholly without taint: "churching" is an act of thanksgiving and prayer for mother and child." (Layman's Missal)

"It is customary for mothers to go to church with their child as soon as they are able to go out to be churched. The ceremony consists in a special blessing which recalls the visit of the Holy Family at the Temple of Jerusalem for the Presentation of Our Lord and the Purification of the Blessed Virgin." (The St. Andrew Daily Missal)

Yes and she sent them to Hell

No human alive has such power, nor has any who are dead ever had such power, but Christ alone.

without knowing the gospel.

How do you know?

How do you know the man wanted to die a hindi?

Actually, I'm sure he didn't. Given where she lived (Calcutta), he probably fervently hoped to die a Bengali. I don't know of many people who want to change their ethnicity before their death.

She never offered him the gospel

How would you know? Were you there next to them?

I thought you did not believe in salvation by law keeping?.Actually Romens teaches that no man is justified by the law..the written law or the law on their heart,

The Law both Jewish and Natural includes faith in and worship of the True God. Any one non-Jew who has not heard the Gospel who follows the natural religion given to Adam and Noah, worshipped in by Melchizedek, spoken of by Job, and preached by Jonah can achieve salvation by following the natural law written on their hearts by means of grace, given by God who knows His own, and to whom He has made known Himself. You seem very eager to forget that God is not just the God of Abraham, but also the God of Nachor (Genesis 31.53), and in fact, the God of all descendants of Adam and Noah. Niether the Old Testament nor History give any reason to limit God's actions to the Jews alone.

No man comes to the Father BUT BY ME

I don't disagree. But you are too cocksure about who does know the Father and the Son and who does not.

[Fifthmark]

Your "plain truth" is your opinion and nothing more.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Hermann:

Your Post #2976 was exceptional, I thought. Bloody-well exceptional. Worthy, almost, of the original 16th-Century Jesuits.

A Friend of mine, in Denver Colorado, has recently determined to return to schooling and complete his computer science degree in attendance at Regis University. He, being Episcopalian (but reasonably devout -- as few Episcopalians are, anymore) asked me what I thought he should expect from a Jesuit College.

I told him, of course, that while the Jesuits are a far cry from what they used to be (as all will admit), I have a grudging adversarial respect for the Jesuit Order -- considering that they were originally founded for the main purpose of answering the onslaught of the Calvinists, who were winning entirely too many Debates and Exchanges of Correspondences for the comfort of Rome; at least until the organization of the Jesuit Order to counter us Calvinists (this is, as I advised him, the "quick and dirty" version of history; but it is not entirely inaccurate). As such, I did advise my friend to expect top-quality Instructors in Logic, which is (as I understand, not being a computer-geek myself) generally related to his degree program in terms of Formulation and Programming Architecture.

That's merely a personal anecdote on my part; I thought I would share it in the meanwhile, but your #2976 deserves a better response than that (which I shall attempt over the weekend).

While I should warn you in advance, that, in claiming that "The real Calvinist-Catholic dichotomy appears over whether or not God gives the sufficient means of salvation to all because of His love for all... or whether God gives the means of salvation only to the elect because of His love only for the elect (Calvinist position)", you have yet again misunderstood and misrepresented the Calvinist Argument in terms of the actuating distinction (this is critical) between gratia efficax and gratia mere sufficiens... at least you are familiar with the terms involved in a proper, Patristically-informed, discussion of the Biblical Doctrine of Predestination.

I do confess that I become a little sad, and frustrated, and disillusioned with debating Roman Catholics who claim, in essence, "oh, that Predestination business, that's a Calvinist thing -- we Roman Catholics don't believe in that!!" (as though they were modern theologically un-anchored Non-Denominationalists, who have not even studied the Sermons of the Fathers); or those Roman Catholics who wave their hands in the air and exclaim, "Mystery! Mystery!! It's all a Mystery!!" as though Scripture and Magisterium were SILENT on the matter (when in fact we know that they are NOT silent -- just like "Salvation" or "Baptism" or "Sanctification" or "Glorification", "Predestination" is a Holy-Spirit-chosen-Word on which the Bible and Tradition do provide a great and useful measure of Information and Instruction).

So while I do think that you have yet again misunderstood and misrepresented the Calvinist Argument in terms of the actuating distinction between gratia efficax and gratia mere sufficiens...

(Think back, if you will, to Augustine's disputation against his own disciple Prosper regarding the interpretation of Matthew 11 in consideration of the "Massilian" or "Semi-Pelagian" controversy; and remember also that Augustine utterly MAULED Prosper so decisively that for sixteen centuries the "free will" or "Semi-Pelagian" disputants within the Confession of Rome have never even attempted to answer Augustine's core argument, so total was their defeat [and if you have studied the matter, you know what I am talking about])

... It is nonetheless refreshing to think that I should have the opportunity to engage a Roman Catholic who actually knows his own Church Traditions on the Doctrines of Grace. I am getting a little sick and tired of educating Roman Catholics on their own Catechism. As a CALVINIST, that's not even my job!! I'm the "Devil's Advocate", supposedly. Or a "Separated Brethren", or whatever.

That said, yes -- I do have a lot to answer. As I said, your post was very good (better than I have come to expect of Romanists, I daresay!!). I honestly maintain that I did not intend to artificially shift the "burden of proof" upon you (I was overly enthusiastic at worst, not intentionally duplicitous), but I admit your criticisms as legitimate and demanding of my counter-citations (I'll probably start with Ecumenical Council of Orange, 529AD, though I may go back to Chalcedon and prior).

Before I respond, though (hopefully this weekend), I do admit a curiosity -- as to yourself, within which of the three great Schools of Romanistic theology on the matter of Predestination do you find yourself?

Molinist, Thomist, or Augustinian?

I shan't hold your answer against you, and I shall respond to your #2976 regardless, as soon as I am able. My curiosity is my own.

• Obviously, my own prejudice tends in favor of the hard-core Catholic Augustinians; although they sometimes come very close to the Jansenists, the "Catholic Calvinists" who were defined as Heretical despite their love of Papacy and Mother Mary, and who produced the finest Mathematician in the history of mankind -- the Jansenist Catholic Blaise Pascal, who is even today considered a devout Roman Catholic, given that his personal devotion to Jansenism was not defined as Heretical until after he died, unless I have mistaken my history.
• I can, however, also ply my trade with Thomists, although it's a little more bothersome... at times, even boring. Reading through the Summa Theologica, I think it is perhaps possible (though I am not certain) that Saint Thomas may have been the greatest Argumentative Debater who ever walked the Earth (even considering Solomon, perhaps). But that is not an unequivocal compliment on my part, speaking from experience. Debaters, like Lawyers, often dwell upon Technicalities -- and if the Roman Catholic argument is true that "Martin Luther was but little more than a mole-hill upon the great map of Thomas Aquinas' intellect", it must also be admitted that the great mountain-ranges of Thomas Aquinas rose always and only upon the continental foundations of Doctor Saint Augustine. As good as Aquinas was (and is today), the Summa still reads like an expanded Cliff's Notes -- taking us back to Augustine.
• And then, of course, you might be a Molinist. The Jesuits were (and are today) traditionally Molinist; and most Lay Catholics are today Molinistic in theology (to the extent that Lay Catholics study theology at all), although Conservative Catholic Academia is (as it has always been) predominantly Thomist with a few hard-core Augustinians here and there. But I'm willing to put up with Molinists, even, because it makes my job easier -- with the exception of a few Classically-trained Thomists (who are a bit more difficult), the Jesuit Molinists are the most rigorously-trained Roman Catholics in the 'hood, which means I need only say exactly four words: MATTHEW ELEVEN. AUGUSTINE. PROSPER. Game Over!! Like Vampires and sunlight, dude... game over.

Your #2976 was excellent, and deserves a response; and at the very least, I OWE you a response regarding your (probably uninformed and unintentional) misrepresentation of the Calvinist Argument concerning gratia efficax and gratia mere sufficiens...

But in the meanwhile, I do admit my own curiosity as to your Theological Position -- Augustinian, Thomist, or Molinist?

I think that's a fair question on my part. After all, I wear my own Theological Position on my sleeve (in fact, I advertise it by my screen-name).

best, OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

One correction:

I think it is perhaps possible (though I am not certain) that Saint Thomas may have been the greatest Argumentative Debater who ever walked the Earth (even considering Solomon, perhaps).

On reflection -- though I do still think it an open argument as to whether Solomon or Aquinas held the Penultimate place amongst argumentative debaters, (Solomon's gifts in Wisdom are a matter of Biblical Record, of course; but this is not precisely the same thing as Forensic Argumentation, at which Thomas Aquinas was very good, very very good) -- the first place must be granted to Jesus of Nazareth.

Nor am I going out of my way to compliment Jesus here (what need has He of MY approval)? But I must give the proper Dues.

Matthew 11 is rightfully called "the Hammer of Augustine", and it is true that Augustine picked up the ball, ran with it, and has been un-answered for sixteen centuries.

But Augustine did not write Matthew 11; Jesus did. And to this day, Matthew 11 likely remains the most theologically-airtight syllogism which I have ever encountered in the entire Bible. Far be it from the Logos to pronounce a syllogism which was anything less than Logically-perfect. Augustine may have run the ball down to the end-zone, but the Logos authored the play.

Mea Culpa; Correction advanced.

best, OP

[xzins]

You have never responded to the Matthew 11 response wherein the predestination is premised on foreknowledge rather than foreordination.

We sidetracked into a discussion on alternate realities that "could have" been the choice of God the Father when he set creation in motion. (E.G., He could have chosen the "reality" of Tyre seeing Jesus and believing....but, He didn't. The assumption was (I think) that the chosen reality was (for some reason) the better reality from God's perspective.)

You can see the implications of where we were driving that discussion.

We got into the "why" a particular reality was chosen when we should have answered the question: "Is this the means by which THIS reality in which we live actually did come about?"

Because it is a "predestination" based on "absolute foreknowledge."

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I would place myself as a Thomist in my understanding of the doctrines of grace, predestination, etc. I am not "trained" as such. I'm just a layman with no formal theological or debating background.

You should note that while St. Thomas rests comfortably upon the work of St. Augustine, his work is truly a "Summa", because he weaves St. John Damascence, Dyonisius the Aeropagite, Aristotle, and of course, the Holy Bible (which he had memorized) into one great synthesis.

I would appreciate, prior to any formal response to what I set out, that you clarify seperately what you view as my misperceptions of the Calvinist position by stating it formally and succinctly. I do not wish to debate a strawman.

[RnMomof7]

Again, do you think really desires that I totally ignore my wife and kids so that I can spend all my time totally focused on Him?
Do you think He wants me to have no pleasures at all? Does He begrudge me enjoying a Steeler game? (This year, apparently.)
God does not want you to worship Him instead of having a life. He wants you to worship Him by how you live your life.
And if you think God is not present while a married couple makes love, you are doing something wrong. Of course, you do need to be open to God and not uninvite Him through the use of contraception.

This is an "all about me " post Dave ..."God wants me to enjoy life"..I read the gospel to say give up your life..pick up your cross..leave your family..

But all of that still begs the question. Jesus said love me with ALL your heart etc..Just as He knew we could not do that because we are sinful and selfish creatures. I especially liked the line of God " begrudging" you some fun, as if it is your right He would take from you .:>) The only thing God owes us is Hell..everything else is His mercy .

This teaching (like the Law) shows us what sinners we are..and that we need a Savior

[RnMomof7]

RN: I have been declared not guilty.. I have been given a right standing before God . I have been adopted into His family. God does not throw His children out the door..
Hermann: If you continue to sin, you are none of His.

Seeing your need to go to a priest ever two weeks ..you must not be His then correct?

We say Christ is sacrificed bloodily once, and that the sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody re-presentation of the sacrifice of the Cross. We do not sacrifice Christ "anew".

YOUR church has traditionally defined it as the un-bloody sacrifice of Calvary .

I agree with that, but I disagree strongly with the idea that she was able to reason between what she was doing as being "wrong" and what is "right". She isn't doing it out of malicious spite to God aside from His commandments, therefore, it is not a true sin.

I agree with that, but I disagree strongly with the idea that she was able to reason between what she was doing as being "wrong" and what is "right". She isn't doing it out of malicious spite to God aside from His commandments, therefore, it is not a true sin.

The Jews had to offer a sin sacrifice for "unintentional sin" . ..That aside..the quote you disagreed with was they are born speaking lies..I did not say that I knew if it is accountable sin BEFORE they know "it is wrong" which is not usually long (mom or dad correct or punish her) , That was not the point..the point was that infants have an inborn ability /desire to sin without having to be taught.

I wrote;
Adam and Eve were not created Holy..they were innocent .
You wrote
Sure they could have. If God can create Adam and Eve sinless and full of grace, He can create Mary full of grace and free of original sin. Her parents had nothing to do with it. Freedom from original sin comes from grace, since original sin is the lack of grace in the newborn soul.

The point being that Adam and Eve were created not born..and when they were created their was no sin in the world.

Where is "avenge himself upon Jerusalem" in Chapter 17?

Where is Jesus in OT prophecy?

I do agree that we are to pray "without ceasing" That is a general teaching of scripture..but the particular verse you cited had a specific application..(Which I pointed out)
This is not what you originally said.

The original discussion was the context of that verse as part of our watching for Christ..and 18:1 being a part of the verse 17 discourse and a mis use of scripture if you intent it as a proof text for your point

You the questioned the connection between Vs. 17 and 18

If you read the sentence above you will see that what I said I pointed out was the misuse of the verse.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The point being that Adam and Eve were created not born..and when they were created their was no sin in the world.

Ummm ... what about the Serpent then?

I believe the Catholic position is that the Angels had already fallen.

Where is Jesus in OT prophecy?

In all of it.

If you read the sentence above you will see that what I said I pointed out was the misuse of the verse.

You claim a misuse of the verse. I deny it. The very point is repeated several times elsewhere with zero "context" concerning the end of the world.

[RnMomof7]

Yes and she sent them to Hell
No human alive has such power, nor has any who are dead ever had such power, but Christ alone.

Agreed but how will they know unless they are sent ?

without knowing the gospel.
How do you know?

The absence of her testimony to it. The fact that she encouraged the Hinds to use the name of their god as they died.

Actually, I'm sure he didn't. Given where she lived (Calcutta), he probably fervently hoped to die a Bengali. I don't know of many people who want to change their ethnicity before their death

But you do not know for sure..and it is too late to find out .

She never offered him the gospel
How would you know? Were you there next to them?

You your seif said

Her charism was not to preach Christ to people who did not wish to hear it, although she gladly preached and baptized all who evidenced an interest (she nicknamed her baptisms of the unconscious she found on death's door "Peter's Passport").(post 3037)

She may have called it "Peters Passport" But I doubt that it was a passport past the Judge Jesus .

The Law both Jewish and Natural includes faith in and worship of the True God. Any one non-Jew who has not heard the Gospel who follows the natural religion given to Adam and Noah, worshipped in by Melchizedek, spoken of by Job, and preached by Jonah can achieve salvation by following the natural law written on their hearts by means of grace, given by God who knows His own, and to whom He has made known Himself. You seem very eager to forget that God is not just the God of Abraham, but also the God of Nachor (Genesis 31.53), and in fact, the God of all descendants of Adam and Noah. Niether the Old Testament nor History give any reason to limit God's actions to the Jews alone.

I am interested in what the Rabbi Paul taught.Not the OT

Romans 2

    Rom 2:12    For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;   

This speaks specifically to the gentile , that they will be judged on their disobedience in relationship to their limited understanding of the Law.

  Rom 2:13    (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
     Rom 2:14    For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:   
  Rom 2:15    Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Man instinctively knows the law..it is written on the heart of all men..It is that law written on their heart that condemns them. All cultures value things like honesty, compassion, justice (the divine law written on their heart).So with out the law they are a law unto themselves. Their practice of some good deeds and their aversion to the evil ones show they have an inner knowledge of Gods laws. It is that very innate law that pricks their conscience , that will be the witness against them on judgment day .

The instinctive knowledge produces guilt and an innate knowledge of God's laws activates a warning system when they CHOOSE to ignore that warning system or disobey the law, they have an accountability for that sin. The simple fact is no man can keep the " natural law "perfectly any more than they can the written law..

If that be not the case, we condemn men to hell by giving them the gospel..because by your reckoning without it they are saved by their ignorance of the law (Rather like guaranteeing an infants salvation by abortion).

Jesus gave a command to go and teach the gospel to all men . He taught the necessity to be born again .

From Matthew Henry

Their thoughts the meanwhile, metaxy alleµloµn —among themselves, or one with another. The same light and law of nature that witnesses against sin in them, and witnessed against it in others, accused or excused one another. Vicissim, so some read it, by turns; according as they observed or broke these natural laws and dictates, their consciences did either acquit or condemn them. All this did evince that they had that which was to them instead of a law, which they might have been governed by, and which will condemn them, because they were not so guided and governed by it. So that the guilty Gentiles are left without excuse. God is justified in condemning them. They cannot plead ignorance, and therefore are likely to perish if they have not something else to plead.

No man comes to the Father BUT BY ME

I don't disagree. But you are too cocksure about who does know the Father and the Son and who does not.

I am sure what the scriptures teach about it .

Jhn 11:25    Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

[OLD REGGIE]

(Mom) Where is Jesus in OT prophecy?

In all of it.

Including this?

Douay-Rheims

The Book of Psalms



Psalm 68

Salvum me fac, Deus.

Christ in his passion declareth the greatness of his sufferings, and the malice of his persecutors the Jews; and foretelleth their reprobation.

9 I am become a stranger to my brethren, and an alien to the sons of my mother.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(This is a repeat of my post #2990 but you must have missed it.)

[RnMomof7]

uncleanliness and sin are two different things entirely.

Is it not true that an unclean person can not come into the presence of God? Can a sinful person come into the presence of God ?

Was the need of the cleansing by the blood of the sacrificed animal not a foreshadow of Christ and our need for Him to cleanse us?

[RnMomof7]

(Mom) Where is Jesus in OT prophecy?

In all of it.

We agree He is there from the beginning..But the Jews do not see it, because most prophecy is hidden and not direct ( I think) and thus it is not a surprise that the words of Jesus the prophet are veiled or that they are layered like an onion and may cover more than one event ....(as I would claim is the case in ch 17)

[First Conservative]

As I said, your argument - disagreement, whatever - is with Jesus, not me.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

9 I am become a stranger to my brethren, and an alien to the sons of my mother.

I didn't miss it. Brethren = his fellow Israelites who rejected Him. Mother = the "Church" of Israel.

If you want to hold this to mean natural sons of Mary, you will need to explain how St. James the Greater (an Apostle, and supposed "brother" of the Lord), could be both an alien to Christ and one of the twelve.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

But the Jews do not see it, because most prophecy is hidden and not direct ( I think) and thus it is not a surprise that the words of Jesus the prophet are veiled or that they are layered like an onion and may cover more than one event

Some time, it might be worth asking the Jews who they think is the Angel of Great Council in Isaiah 9, the person of the Theophanies, etc.

The Jews too, know of a Word of God and the Holy Spirit. I think their misunderstanding is over the philosophical terms of "homoousia", "hypostasis", etc., and the personal identification of Jesus Christ as the incarnate God.

You might find this interesting:

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.24.en.jewish_and_christian_orthodox_dialogue.htm