Thomas A. Droleskey on the Lies of Protestantism

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

Anti-Marian verses

******************* Mother of God *************

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

I had to add Gen 3 to build on mat 11:11. Both show that Jesus is not of Mary's seed since here we see that seed does NOT mean physical seed. If it did it would have to mean that for the serpent too.

Mat: 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

In other words He is not of Mary. She is not His mother genetically. He did not come from one of her eggs. Sure he came through her but he is not of her.

Mat 12:46-50 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Mark 3:31-35 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for the.
and he answered them, saying, who is my mother, or my brethren?
And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother and my sister, and mother.

Luke 11:27,28 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare these and the paps which thou has sucked.
but he said, Yea rather , blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

Gal 4:22-31:
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Notice that there really is a mother of the church and it isn't Mary! Once again Mary is not even mentioned.

Heb 6:20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisdec.

Heb 7: 1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
Heb 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Melchizedek is a type of Christ and is a priest of a higher order than Aaron. His priesthood is typified by being based on merit and not on blood and it is an eternal priesthood. This verse shows that in the sense of Jesus has no mother or father. Jesus has no mother or father physically like Melchizedek but in what sense if the Father His Father? We know that Jesus was not created so it is really positionally that the Father is His Father. This shows that the whole idea and title of "Mother of God" is anti-scriptural. b>

*************** Ever Virgin *************

Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Normal reading of this says they had sex after she bore the Lord.

*********** Queen of Heaven *********

Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger.

Jer 44:19 The women also said, "And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did we make cakes for her, to worship her, and pour out drink offerings to her without our husbands' permission?"

Jer 44:25 Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying: "You and your wives have spoken with your mouths and fulfilled with your hands, saying, "We will surely keep our vows that we have made, to burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her." You will surely keep your vows and perform your vows!'

Mat 22: 25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
27 And last of all the woman died also.
28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Mark 12:22

Luke 20:29

The fact that we are not given in marriage in heaven is repeated 3 times and usually with an exhortation about knowing the scriptures. The only reference to a queen of heaven is of a pagan idol. The rational for Mary being the Bride of the Holy Spirit is removed because we are not given in marriage in Heaven. The idea of her being Queen mother in heaven doesn’t work because if we don’t have wives in heaven, we don’t have kids in heaven. The Idea of Mary being the Mother of God and the wife of the Holy Spirit and the recipient of prayers makes her the 4th part of a man made quadiny.

****** Verses about Mary being assumed into heaven *****

None

******* Verses about Immaculate Conception of Mary *****

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

******* Verses about Mary distributing Grace ******

None

******* Verses that say to pray to dead people ******

None

Us Protestants won't be won over by church doctrine or any statements of men. To win us over you will have to make your arguments based on Holy Scripture. Since I see none here, in proving the 9 "lies", I wouldn't normally give you the time of day. But because this is so well written and clear, I will take just one of them:

(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.

I went to try to find a Catholic Bible online but the Catholic websites refered me contantly to http://bible.gospelcom.net/ so I will use the default scriptures found there. If you have a URL for Catholic Bible Onine, I would appreciate it.

Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

I think you and I could both agree that this verse is saying that you must have a Personal Relationship with Christ otherwise you do not go to heaven. And that driving out deamons, performing miricles does not constitute proof since the Lord says those coming to Him saying "Lord, Lord", many of them he will turn away saying "I never knew you"

John 8:23But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins." 25"Who are you?" they asked. (The Pharisees asked)

Ok, from this verse, the operative word is "Believe" and the object "that I am the one". So the Lord Jesus Christ is saying clearly that if one doesn't believe that Christ is the one He says he is, then one will Die in thier sins (and I.E. not go to heaven).

Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

And here, the Apostle Paul is saying that both the Lips (mouth) and heart believe that "Jesus is Lord", you will be saved. I do not see any other conditions, the tense "will be" indicates Christ's promise.

So I conclude that your number "3)" above is absolutely true and completely in accordance with Scripture.

What do you believe instead and where in Scripture do you find it? Remember, I am willing to be convinced by your arguments by Holy Scripture. I'm not interested in church doctrine or traditions, because then I might have to look at Mormonism, Budhism and get really confused.

I look forward to your reply.

If you cannot find Catholic arguments based on Scripture in this post, you should try looking a little more closely. Hermann in his wisdom has posted many of them throughout the more than 3,000 responses featured here.

As a Catholic, I am familiar with the Douay-Rheims version of Holy Scripture, which is a translation from the Latin Vulgate, the official text of the Bible used by the Church. It can be found at the following website:

http://www.scriptours.com/bible/

It is important to realize that Catholics do not hold the Bible to be the only rule of faith. The two sources of Divine Revelation are to be found in Scripture and in Tradition. Tradition contains revealed truths which were handed down by the Apostles by word of mouth to their successors and have always been taught by the Church. St. Paul in Scripture gives an exhortation concerning this second fount of Revelation: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle" (2 Thes. ii.xiv). It is also known that Christ did not tell His Church to teach by writing but by word of mouth: "He who hears you hears me" (St. Luke x.16). Scripture cannot be the only source of God's Truth, as the Church did not use written word at all in its early years and it was only later that some of the Apostles wrote down some of the teaching of Christ. St. John admits that Scripture is not an all-entailing account of Christ's life: "There are also many other things which Jesus did: which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written" (St. John xxi.25). Protestants should also note that without the Catholic Church, the Bible would not exist. It was the Catholic Church that gave Scripture its guarantee of authenticity and decided that many other books claiming to give accounts of Christ's life, such as the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Peter, were not inspired and should not be included. If you doubt the infallibility of the Church, then you doubt the infallibility of the Bible, as the latter necessitates the former.

It is agreed by Catholics and protestants that belief in Christ is necessary for salvation. The general disagreement is how to define "belief." Many protestants, such as yourself, tend to be exclusionary and find singular quotes in Scripture to defend themselves, rather than viewing it as a whole. I do not disagree with St. Paul in Romans x.9, but I know that when he says "...confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus," he does not simply mean to believe in the person of Christ, but he implies a belief of all Christ taught and obedience to His law. Those who think merely professing Jesus as Lord will earn them salvation should read St. Matthew vii.21. Belief for Catholics means assenting to all the truth God has revealed, including His building of a visibile Church to teach, govern, and sanctify.

"Perpetual justification" is a grievous error of the protestants that finds its beginning with arch-heretic Martin Luther, who preached that justification can be attained by faith alone. This was condemned by the Council of Trent: "If any one shall say that the wicked man is justified by faith alone, meaning that no other thing is required to co-operate for obtaining the grace of justification, and that it is not necessary for him to be prepared and disposed by the movement of his will, let him be anathema." This error is explicitly condemned by Scripture in a passage that Luther sought to remove in his translation: "Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only? ...For even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also faith without works is dead" (St. James ii.24,26). Catholics believe a man is justified by the remission or removal of the guilt of sin. This requires four things: 1) the infusion of grace; 2) the movement of the free will towards God; 3) the movement of the free will to reject sin; 4) the remission of sins. There is no assurance of salvation, as protestants maintain; all must "...with fear and trembling, work out your salvation," as St. Paul assures us in his Epistle to the Philippians. Those who believe in perpetual justification should hearken our Lord's words: "But he that shall perservere to the end, he shall be saved" (St. Matthew xiv.13).

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.

That is one of my objections to the Summa -- the inclusion of Aristotle. But I'll save that discussion for another time.

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.

Gladly. I'll have to state it Formally at first and follow with a Succinct summary, if that will be acceptable. Here goes:

It seems to me that one could legitimately hold that God gives sufficient grace to all that it can be said that would they have but followed through on its holy inspirations, they could have been given additional grace to come to life, but God foreseeing their obstinacy and rejection withheld this additional grace from them. This is my understanding of the Augustinian/Thomist position on the distinction between Efficacious Grace and Sufficient Grace. I would tend to hold to that myself. In other words: "St. Matthew 22.14 For many are called, but few are chosen." I don't see the real debate being over absolute or double predestination. 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 (Catholic position - avoiding the controversies over efficacious grace) or whether God gives the means of salvation only to the elect because of His love only for the elect (Calvinist position). Please correct me if I mistate the Calvinist position here.

Your mis-statement of the Calvinist position here is the statement that "God gives the means of salvation only to the elect". Strictly speaking, the means of salvation are equally and indiscrimately offered to All:

God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, but the ingratitude of the world is the reason why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few. (John Calvin, "The Synoptic Gospels", section 1:116)

In order to correctly state the Calvinist position, we should instead say that "God grants Regeneration only to the Elect".

Westminster Shorter Catechism (WSQ), Q88: What are the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption?
A: The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption, are his ordinances, especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.... Those ordinances may be performed by the people, but without receiving the benefits. For example, one might hear or read the Word, and yet not be converted. The reason is, that these outward means in themselves effect nothing. But Christ makes them effectual for salvation to the elect. The means in themselves do not much, but Christ makes use of them, and makes them powerful and effectual to the conversion and salvation of the elect people.

Allllllrighty then -- at this point, you may be asking:

the means of

But if 'the Means of Salvation are equally and indiscrimately offered to All', but 'God grants Regeneration only to the Elect' -- then what's all the fuss about? Certainly an Augustinian, or myself being a Thomist, or even a Molinist could agree with that!!"

But perhaps, in reading the excerpt from the WSQ, you may have noticed that "the real Calvinist-Catholic dichotomy appears" not over "whether or not God gives the sufficient means of salvation to all", but whether the means of salvation are efficacious at all absent prior Regeneration. A Calvinist would say that they are not, "that these outward means in themselves effect nothing" for it is only by prior Regeneration that the means of salvation become effectual.

*****

Succinctly stated in other words, then, the question is not "whether or not God gives the sufficient means of salvation to all". The question instead is:

Are the Means of Salvation efficacious unto the Regeneration of the Elect; OR...
Is it the Regeneration of the Elect which gives efficacy unto the Means of Salvation?

Calvinism and the Council of Orange

God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, but the ingratitude of the world is the reason why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few. (John Calvin, "The Synoptic Gospels", section 1:116)

Okay, so why all the fuss of 1 St. Timothy 2.4 and 2 St. Peter 3.9? Apparently you will grant with us that God desires the salvation of all, but that many spurn it. I assume then you accept the Catholic distinction of God's antecedent will and consequent will - namely the antecedent will to save all and the consequent will to elect some.

In order to correctly state the Calvinist position, we should instead say that "God grants Regeneration only to the Elect".

Okay. This gives us a working basis for further discussion. This reduces the argument to the Calvinist rejection of the Catholic sacramental system and its place in the scheme of justification and perseverance. Am I correct?

No, a Catholic (Augustinian, Thomist, Molinist, Congruist, etc.) couldn't agree with that, because a Catholic would hold that God grants regeneration to all within the Church, but that the Church includes both the elect and reprobate, and that the reprobate within the Church will fall away and return to their sins prior to their death.

1) God grants sufficent grace to the reprobate, but they spurn it.

2) God grants efficacious grace to become justified to all the regenerate, who constitute the Church militant.

3) God grants efficacious grace to persevere unto salvation only to the elect.

The difference between class 2 and class 3 would be that only class 3 will infallibly repent of all their sins they may commit after initial regeneration and prior to their death, while class 2 will eventually infallibly fall away from justice prior to their death through sins and join with class 1 to form the totality of the reprobate.

But perhaps, in reading the excerpt from the WSQ, you may have noticed that "the real Calvinist-Catholic dichotomy appears" not over "whether or not God gives the sufficient means of salvation to all", but whether the means of salvation are efficacious at all absent prior Regeneration. A Calvinist would say that they are not, "that these outward means in themselves effect nothing" for it is only by prior Regeneration that the means of salvation become effectual.

No, that does not appear to be the actual point of contention. Both Catholics and Calvinists it appears will grant that the sacramental grace (or grace given through participation in the sacramental rite, if you prefer) is only efficacious for those who are regenerated to justification either prior to their reception or by their reception in the proper priorly formed disposition.

In other words, a wicked man derives exactly nothing by receiving any sacrament while remaining in wickedness, including Baptism or Penance. Or actually, worse, he heaps up new sins upon himself by his sacrilege. To be Baptised (or to receive Sacramental Penance) and profit by it, one must intend to receive the remission of sins by the act (or more simply, intend to do what the Church does, we would say). So we would say sacramental grace is "ex operere opereto" only for those who are properly disposed to receive them.

Here a first difference crops up. Because Calvinists deny the intrinsic efficacy of the Sacraments upon those who do not hinder their action, a new solution is required for children and retarded persons who cannot have faith held by the intellect. Catholics would simply say, they are saved only by the grace received in Baptism (and the Eucharist for juvenile and adult retarded persons). Calvinists, I think, would deny this and hold that they do not need the Sacraments, and that God simply grants grace to them by the prayers and faith of their parents, and that Baptism is thus a sign of their being children of the covenant, but not the cause.

Are the Means of Salvation efficacious unto the Regeneration of the Elect; OR...

Is it the Regeneration of the Elect which gives efficacy unto the Means of Salvation?

Actually, this seems to be dodging the issue. For the elect, the means of salvation in sacraments, prayer, fasting, and almsgiving are made efficacious by their being or becoming just in them, and are obviously also efficacious for both creating their justification, causing their perseverance, and confirming their election. None of justification or perseverance comes from the elect, so it all must come from God, both by His giving it to us to come to the means of salvation, and his giving the means for us to continue in what He gave us.

The question really seems to be, can someone become justified, and then fall away? From what I have heard here, Calvinists would agree with Catholics that the Church eventually contains over time both all the elect and some of the reprobate. The distinction seems to be a denial by the Calvinists that those within the Church who are reprobated were ever truly justified. In other words, the means of salvation were not efficacious to make them part of the regenerate, and thus not part of the elect. The Catholic would say they are efficacious to make them part of the regenerate, but only sufficient to make them part of the elect, because it was not given to them to persevere.

For the Calvinist, this preserves the dictum that regeneration is efficacious unto salvation for all the elect, and thus your second proposition, that it is their regeneration that gives efficacy to the means of salvation; not that the efficacy comes from them, but that it comes through them from God.

This seems a sufficient background for beginning an examination of your next thread.

Hello Fiftmark, Thank you for your well written reply and thank you for a website with the online Catholic Bible. You sited some on Traditions and quoted 2 Thess 2:14 and wrote:

It is important to realize that Catholics do not hold the Bible to be the only rule of faith. The two sources of Divine Revelation are to be found in Scripture and in Tradition. Tradition contains revealed truths which were handed down by the Apostles by word of mouth to their successors and have always been taught by the Church. St. Paul in Scripture gives an exhortation concerning this second fount of Revelation

So the real question is, what takes precidence over what "Traditions or Scripture"? Let's look at our Lord Jesus Christ's own words (using the Douay-Rheims translation) here:

Matthew 15:3 Jesus replied, But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? For God said

Clearly our Lord, put the Command of God above tradition here. For if tradition supercedes Holy Scripture then by pronouncement man can overwrite the 10 commandments, can't they?

Matthew 15:6 And he shall not honour his father or his mother: and you have made void the commandment of God for your tradition

Here, Clearly again, our Lord Jesus Christ is concerned with men, 'made void the commandment of God ', 'nullifying the word of God' (According to the NIV). Not only this but if you read on, Our Lord Condemns the Pharasees in the strongest terms for doing this.

So my question to you is, Which takes precidence, Tradation or Scripture?

If you doubt the infallibility of the Church, then you doubt the infallibility of the Bible, as the latter necessitates the former.

Just by saying something does not prove it to be true. Where in the scriptures do you find this? Again, look at Our Lord Jesus Christ's Word's: John 10:35/36: If he called them gods to whom the word of God was spoken; and the scripture cannot be broken: Do you say of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world: Thou blasphemest; because I said: I am the Son of God?

Note that Our Lord Jesus Christ said here (Douay-Rheims) 'scripture cannot be broken'. From this I have a strong reason to believe in scripture first. As for the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Peter, I have never heard of them. Where can I see this? It is not in Douay-Rheims online? I suspect that there are scripture vs scripture problems in them, hence they are not included in Douay-Rheims or any other version I have ever seen.

Those who think merely professing Jesus as Lord will earn them salvation should read St. Matthew vii.21.

This is the verse I quoted to you earlier "...Lord, Lord..", how does this nullify the Romans 10:8 "Believe in your heart". I thing we both agree that lip service is not enough, once must believe with the core of ones heart. I do not see anything in Romans 10, that one must add believing in the Church as prerequisite to Salvation. Where do you find Believing in the Church as required for Salvation.

Realize that the Mormons say that you must believe in Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ to be saved. So again, if I take your requirement at face value, then I must also accept thiers.

"Perpetual justification" is a grievous error of the protestants that finds its beginning with arch-heretic Martin Luther, who preached that justification can be attained by faith alone. This was condemned by the Council of Trent

Fifthmark, remember that I said I wouldn't take anything but from scriptures? This is all from your church doctrine. How do you expect me to be persuaded by hatred of any man. I'm not persuaded by emotions.

Again, I point back to Peter quoting Scripture, was he not the first Pope according to your church?

Acts 2:21 And it shalt come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" and 40 And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation

Acts 3:19 Be penitent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out

Clearly The Apostle Peter, believed in being saved and sins remitted completely... Attonment once and for all.

My friend, isn't it great that our Lord, took all the sins onto Himself on the cross, for such as you and I, because if even one were left with us on our death bed, the penalty would be eternal death. Do you have faith that your sins would be completely wiped on your death bed, if so by what?

Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death. But the grace of God, life everlasting in Christ Jesus our Lord

Please keep away from keep away from hate speach on any man, or church stuff, I haven't a clue on. You don't want me to have to look into Mormon, Buddhist, and Moslem stuff too, do you? Because if I did maybe I would take them up?

Stay with scripture, it is safer.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.