The Passion of the Christ: A Powerful Spiritual Experience (review by Gretchen Passantino)

With these biblical truths in mind, I have a concern. Is it possible the film will be an evangelistic tool that will eventually play a role in bringing people to another Jesus?

I am familiar with certain criticisms of the movie (I've listened to James White's arguments against the film at www.aomin.org), but I've concluded the following:

1) Some of the criticisms get too close to "the genetic fallacy" (AKA "the source fallacy"). Many arguments by Jehovah's Witnesses against observing Christmas make the same mistake.

The mere fact that a cerain movie about Jesus could be used to mislead people into bad theology is not necessarily grounds for dismissing it. I suppose, for example, that any cult could use the movie "The Ten Commandments" to lead people astray, but that does not undermine the fact that such a movie would make a wonderful teaching tool to highlight the truth to people.

3) While I have some concerns regarding Catholic doctrine in the movie, the strengths and merits far outweigh the weaknesses and demerits. Some of the "filler" (based on catholic visions) does not distort or detract from the truth presented in the movie. There is no "heresy" to speak of (although the depictions in the film which were based on certain catholiv "visions" were both unecessary and unwise).

However, the truth of the gospels presented in that movie were so strong, and BIBLICAL that I think it would be "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" to dismiss the film as a teaching tool based on the speculative aspects of the movie.

I stress that this movie is a wonderful evangelism, and teaching tool.

Rome does not teach that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone.

8-) Of course we do. Well, at least we can agree on this definition if what you mean by "faith" is "formed faith," or "faith informed by works." "Faith without works is dead...," etc.

We would disagree if by "faith" you mean simple intellectual assent to the truths revealed to us by God.

The Catholic Chronicles The Catholic Chronicles By Keith Green
1981 | Keith Green

Posted on 02/11/2004 3:47:15 PM PST by Outer Limits

A young Catholic believer recently asked me, "What are Protestants still protesting about anyway?" The question caught me off-guard, and at the time I had to answer, "I don't really know . . . nothing, I guess." Well my on-the-spot answer really bothered me, and it started gnawing away at me. What were Martin Luther, the Hugenots, the Anabaptists, the Quakers, and the multitudes of others protesting anyway when they broke away from the Church of Rome? What did they suffer untold persecutions and martyrdoms for? I had to find the answer. . .and when I found it, I knew I had no choice but to share it.

So beginning with this issue, we are publishing a series of articles dealing with the Roman Catholic Church. Never has a more frightening task been set before me than editing this series of articles.

THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT

There has never been such wide-spread acceptance of Catholicism among Protestants and evangelicals as there is today. I don't mean that there are large numbers of main line evangelicals becoming Catholics. But today, for the first time in church history, an increasing majority of Protestants are regarding the Roman Catholic Church as simply another valid christian denomination. Meanwhile, gleeful shouts of "unity" are being heralded world-wide in ecumenical gatherings, festivals and conventions. (This is especially true among charismatics.)

I believe there has never been such a crucial need to ask these possibly disturbing questions: "Are the heresies of Romanism that brought about the Reformation still alive in the modern Roman Church, or are these doctrinal discrepancies now settled?'' Or worse yet, ''Should the scriptural issues that brought about the spilling of oceans of martyrs' blood now be considered unimportant'?

In pursuing this subject, I want to make it completely understood that neither I nor anyone else at Last Days Ministries have anything at all personally against Catholics. we know of many loving, committed and sincere believers among their ranks. In fact, there are quite a few who receive our newsletter, even a priest in New England who corresponds with me regularly (and if you're reading this now I love you!). No, it isn't Catholics themselves that we will be taking an in-depth look at, scrutinizing in the light of Scripture, but the Roman Church as a whole her history, doctrines, theology, and traditions.

It's not that all the many so-called "Protestant" denominations have such perfect doctrines or spotless histories there are crazy theologies galore, a few even bordering on heresy. But nowhere has such departure from scriptural truth been so tolerated, accepted, and made into tradition and pillars of church doctrine as in the Roman Catholic Church.

I can already hear the cries of "division!" And l am grieved to the heart that many will see this effort as such. But I am convinced in my spirit that we have nothing at all to fear from the truth, for Jesus has promised that it will set us free! (John 8:32). We are not attacking, but examining. We are not angry but deeply concerned. We are not on the ''war-path", but on the path of the search for what is right. And we are not out to divide anything but to ''divide accurately the word of truth" (II Tim. 2:15).

The Holy Eucharist-- Eating the Flesh of Deity

One might wonder why, in a Scriptural expose of the doctrines of the Catholic Church, I would choose this subject The Roman Interpretation of the Lord's Supper (more commonly known as "Communion") for the first of the "Catholic Chronicles". Most Protestants (today, Protestants are considered to be members of any church or church-group outside the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches) would expect me to deal with what they might consider the more obvious departures from biblical foundation such as the worship of and prayers to the Virgin Mary, the infallibility of the pope, purgatory and prayers for the dead, the history of the torture and burning of accused "heretics" and such like that and no doubt in future installments we shall look in-depth at each of these.

But for this first article I believe that we should get right to the root, before we begin exploring the branches of Roman Doctrine and practice. And any Catholic who has even a small knowledge of his church knows that the central focus of each gathering (known as the "mass") is the Holy Eucharist.

THE EUCHARIST The word "Eucharist" is a Greek word that means "thanksgiving". In the gospel accounts of the Last Supper, Jesus is described as "giving thanks" before breaking the bread (Luke 22:19), and so this word became a proper name for the Lord's Supper in the early Catholic Church. Today, it is more commonly associated with the elements in communion, especially the host or "wafer", although the ceremony itself is still called "The Holy Eucharist".

Now, you might be wondering why I'm taking so much time and effort to explain something as harmless as the ceremony known around the world as communion. If you've ever been to church at all, (Protestant or Catholic), you've probably taken part in a communion service. So why make all this fuss about bread and wine? Why? Because that's where the similarity between evangelical communion services and the Roman Catholic Mass ends^×at the bread and the wine!

TRANSUBSTANTIATION That 18-letter word above is a complete theological statement. . . and the name of a doctrine, out of which springs the most astounding set of beliefs and practices that has ever been taught in the name of religion. Very, very few people know what the Catholic Church actually believes and teaches concerning this subject. and I am convinced that even fewer Catholics realize themselves what they are taking part in. From earliest childhood, "This is the body of Christ" is all they've ever heard when the priest gingerly placed the wafer on their tongue. And as they grew up it was so natural and part of normal religious life, that their minds never even questioned the fact that Jesus Christ, Himself, was actually in their mouth!

It might be hard for you to believe, but that's exactly, literally, what "transubstantiation" means the Roman Catholic Church teaches their flocks that the bread and the wine used in the Mass actually, physically, turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ after the priest blesses it during the liturgy (ceremony). Although this in itself might shock you, it is really only the beginning. For the implications and practical conclusions of this doctrine are absolutely mind-boggling.

EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY For example, the Roman Church teaches that since their priests are the only ones who have the authority from God to pronounce the blessing which changes the elements of communion into the actual body and blood of Jesus, that they are the only church where Jesus "physically resides" even now! Let me quote a letter written to one of the girls in our ministry from a devoted Catholic:

"To explain the Catholic Church would take volumes, but basically the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ when He was here on earth. It is the only church founded by Jesus. The greatest asset of our church is that we have Jesus present in the Holy Eucharist He is really here, body, soul and divinity. He is God and in His omnipotence can do anything He wishes, and He decided to remain with us until the end of the world in the form of the host (the "wafer") in Holy Communion."

If you think this is just the isolated opinion of someone on the fringe of the church, or that the Catholic Church as a whole does not really believe or teach this, I beg you to read on. For not only is this the official teaching of Rome, but according to irreversible church decree (called dogma), anyone who does not hold to this belief, in the most explicit detail, is accursed and damned forever!

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT When Europe was electrified by the eloquent preaching of the sixteenth century Reformation, the Roman Catholic hierarchy gathered together her theologians who worked for three decades on the preparation of a statement of faith concerning transubstantiation. This document remains, to this day, the standard of Catholic doctrine.

As the Second Vatican Council commenced in 1963, Pope John XXIII declared, "I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent". What did the Council of Trent decide and declare? Some of the first sections are as follows:

Canon I: "If any one shall deny that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as a sign, or in a figure let him be accursed!" Canon II: "If any one shall say that the substance of the bread and wine remains in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ... let him be accursed!" Canon III: "If any one shall say that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, even with the open worship of Latria, and therefore not to be venerated with any peculiar festal celebrity, nor to be solemnly carried about in processions according to the praiseworthy and universal rites and customs of the Holy Church, and that He is not to be publicly set before the people to be adored, and that His adorers are idolaters, let him be accursed!" THE WORSHIP OF THE HOST "Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image. . Thou shall not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..." The 2nd commandment (Ex. 20:4-5)

"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."John 4:23

In Canon VI, a rite of worship called "Latria" was spoken of. This is not just an "ancient custom", it is thoroughly practiced today in every Mass. After the bread has been supposedly "changed" into Christ by the priest, it is placed in a holder called the monstrance. And before this monstrance the Catholic must bow and worship (this act is called "genuflecting") the little wafer as God! Sometimes they have processions where they solemnly march, as the congregation bows and offers praise and worship to this piece of bread!

The Roman teaching that Jesus Christ is physically present in each morsel of bread creates many other doctrinal and practical problems. For instance, when the service is over, what happens to all those leftover wafers that have been "changed into Christ"? Do they change back into bread again when the priest goes home? I'm afraid not. For according to Canon IV of the Council of Trent, they stay flesh! And don't think that 400 year-old decree is just some dusty old manuscript in a museum case somewhere it still is completely adhered to and passionately practiced. As an example, here is a passage from an official Catholic home instruction book, copyrighted 1978:

"Jesus Christ does not cease to exist under the appearances of bread and wine after the Mass is over. Furthermore. some hosts are usually kept in all Catholic churches. In these hosts, Jesus is physically and truly present, as long as the appearances of bread remain. Catholics therefore have the praiseworthy practice of 'making visits' to our Lord present in their churches to offer Him their thanks, their adoration, to ask for help and forgiveness; in a word, to make Him the center around which they live their daily lives." ("The Spirit of Jesus" Catholic Home Study Instruction Course, Book #3, p. 92.) That is an incredible interpretation of how to make Jesus the center of your daily life!

WHEN DID THIS TEACHING BEGIN? The teaching of transubstantiation does not date back to the Last Supper as most Catholics suppose. It was a controversial topic for many centuries before officially becoming an article of faith (which means that it is essential to salvation according to Rome). The idea of a physical presence was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose, but it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine Monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine. Even then, for almost another four centuries, theological war was waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike, until at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D., it was officially defined and canonized as a dogma (A "Dogma" is a teaching or doctrine that can never be reversed or repealed. It is equal in authority to the Bible) by Pope Innocent III.

The historian Tertullian tells us that when this doctrine first began to be taught in the Middle Ages, that the priests took great care that no crumb should fall lest the body of Jesus be hurt, or even eaten by a mouse or a dog! There were quite serious discussions as to what should be done if a person were to vomit after receiving the sacrament. At the Council of Constance, it was argued that if a communicant spilled some of the blood on his beard, both beard and the man should be destroyed by burning! (The Other Side of Rome, p. 21) (By the end of the eleventh century, lest someone should spill God's blood, some in the church began to hold back the cup from the people, and finally in 1415, the Council of Constance officially denied the cup to laymen. Although today, by decree of the Vatican, churches may now offer the cup optionally to communicants.)

HOW ROME VIEWS THE BIBLE Before we proceed to look at what the Bible has to say on this subject, it is important to understand the official Catholic view of the Scriptures. According to unquestionable decree, they hold that "Church tradition has equal authority with the Bible". This is not just a theological view, but it was made an article of faith by the same Council of Trent in 1545! And again, this view iscompletely held by the Church today:

"The teachings of the Church will always be in keeping with the teachings of the Scripture. . . and it is through the teaching of the Church that we understand more fully truths of sacred Scripture. To the Catholic Church belongs the final word in the understanding and meaning of the Holy Spirit in the words of the Bible."

And explaining the premise used in interpreting the Bible: "... Usually, the meaning of the Scriptures is sought out by those who are specially trained for this purpose. And in their conclusions, they know that no explanation of the Scriptures which contradicts the truths constantly taught by the infallible Church can be true." ("The Spirit of Jesus" Catholic Home Study Instruction Course, Book #3, pps. 94-95.)

Any thinking person can see how such a mode of interpretation can be dangerously used to manipulate Scripture to mean absolutely anything at all! Who has not observed this of the various cults? The Moonies, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses all back up their false teachings with "new revelations" and "inspired interpretations" of the Scriptures each claiming that the Holy Spirit revealed these new truths to their founders. One opens themselves to all kinds of deception when they judge the Bible by what their church or pastor teaches, instead of judging what their church or pastor teaches by the Bible!

CATHOLIC PROOF-TEXTS EXPLAINED With this in mind, we will briefly discuss the two main passages of Scripture that the Roman Church uses while trying to show that Jesus Himself, taught transubstantiation.

John 6:54-55: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. "

Catholics are taught here, that Jesus is explaining how He is literally offering them His flesh and blood, so that they may have eternal life by physically eating Him. With just a little study of the whole passage (vs. 27-71), it is clear that Jesus was not talking about physical, but spiritual food and drink.

Food is eaten to satisfy hunger. And in verse 35 Jesus says, "He who cometh to Me shall never hunger". Now, Jesus is not promising eternal relief from physical hunger pains. He is, of course, speaking of the spiritual hunger in man for righteousness and salvation. And He promises to those who will "come to Him" that He will satisfy their hunger for these things forever therefore, to come to Him is to "eat"! (See also Matt. 5:6, 11:28, John 4:31-34.)

We drink also to satisfy thirst, and again in verse 35 Jesus tells us, "He that believeth on Me shall never thirst." Therefore, to believe on Him is to "drink"! (See also John 4:13-14) No one can say that here Jesus was establishing the eating and drinking of His literal flesh and blood to give eternal life, for in verse 63 He says, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Thus Jesus makes clear what we should be eating and drinking to have eternal life! (See also Matt. 4:4.)

Matt. 26:26 and 28: "This is My body ... this is My blood." Catholics base their whole religious system on their interpretation of these two verses. They adamantly teach that right here, Jesus is pronouncing the first priestly blessing that mysteriously changes the bread and wine into His body and blood. The absolute folly of such a conclusion is proved by this one observation: He was literally still there before, during, and after they had partaken of the bread and the cup! He was not changed into some liquid and bread His flesh was still on His bones, and His blood still in His veins. He had not vanished away to reappear in the form of a piece of bread or a cup of wine! Let's look closer at His words. No one can deny that here we have figurative language. Jesus did not say touto gignetai ("this has become" or "is turned into"), but touto esti ( "this signifies, represents" or "stands for") (the New Testament was written in Greek). It is obvious that Jesus' meaning was not literal but symbolic! And He wasn't the first in the Bible to claim figuratively that a glass of liquid was really " blood ".

One time, David's friends heard him express a strong desire for water from the well of Bethlehem. In spite of extreme danger, these men broke through the enemy lines of the Philistines and brought the water to him. When David found out that these men had risked their lives in this way, he refused to drink the water, exclaiming, "Is not this the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?" (II Sam. 23:17).

Throughout the gospels we find similar metaphorical language: Jesus referring to Himself as "the Door", "the Vine", "the Light", "the Root", "the Rock", "the Bright and Morning Star", as well as "the Bread". The passage is written with such common language that it is plain to any observant reader that the Lord's Supper was intended primarily as a memorial and in no sense a literal sacrifice. "Do this in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19).

TRUE PAGAN ORIGINS Where did this teaching and practice really come from? Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practiced by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is "one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion" (The Story of Civilization, p. 741.) The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy. (Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, by Dill.) In Egypt, priests would consecrate meat cakes which were supposed to become the flesh of Osiris! (an ancient Egyptian god of the lower world and judge of the dead - Encyclopedia of Religions, Vol. 2, p. 76.) The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and haoma drink closely parallel Catholic Eucharistic rites. (Ibid.)

The idea of eating the flesh of deity was most popular among the people of Mexico and Central America long before they ever heard of Christ; and when Spanish missionaries first landed in those countries, "their surpass was heightened, when they witnessed a religious rite which reminded them of communion . . . an image made of flour...and after consecration by priests, was distributed among the people who ate it. . . declaring it was the flesh of deity. (Prescott's Mexico, Vol. 3.)

SO WHY DO THEY TEACH IT? Before concluding our first chronicle, the question needs to be asked, "Why does the Roman Catholic Church need to have such a doctrine why do they think that Jesus wants them to physically eat Him? That is what truly puzzled me as I read astounded through the catechism and doctrinal instruction books. But the answer to that question is not a pretty one. As I said before, the implications and practical conclusions of the teaching of transubstantiation are substantially worse than the doctrine itself and like a great web spun by an industrious spider, Rome's teachings spiral out from this central hub like the spokes of a wheel.

FOOTNOTES

1] - Today, Protestants are considered to be members of any church or church-group outside the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. 2] - Passed down through "Apostolic Succession" from Peter the apostle-the supposed "first pope." 3] - The "wafer." 4] - NASB reads, "You shall not make for yourself an idol." 5] - This act is called "genuflecting." 6] - "The Spirit of Jesus" Catholic Home Study Instruction Course. Book #3, p.92. 7] - A "Dogma" is a teaching or doctrine that can never be reversed or repealed. It is equal in authority to the Bible. 8] - The Other Side of Rome, p.21. 9] - By the end of the eleventh century, lest someone should spill God's blood, some in the church began to hold back the cup from the people, and finally in 1415, the Council of Constance officially denied the cup to laymen. Although today, by decree of the Vatican, churches may now offer the cup optionally to communicants. 10] - "The Spirit of Jesus," pp.94-95. 11] - If I held up a picture of my son and said, "This is my son," I am certainly not saying that the actual picture is literally my son. 12] - The Story of Civilization, p.741. 13] - Roman Society From Nero to Marcus Aurelius, by Dill. 14] - An ancient Egyptian god of the lower world and judge of the dead - Encyclopedia of Religions, Vol.2, p.76. 15] - Ibid. 16] - Prescott's Mexico, Vol. 3.

In the following Catholic Chronicle we will look intently at the next direct result of transubstantiation in official Catholic systematic theology: "The Sacrifice of the Mass".

The Sacrifice of the Mass-- Jesus Dies Again

In Chronicle I, we thoroughly examined the doctrine of transubstantiation its history, practice, and real meaning. But we have waited for this second article to answer the question: Why? Why must there be present in the Mass the literal body and blood of Jesus? What purpose does it serve?

The answer is found in these startling words: "The sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice of the cross, for there is the same priest, the same victim, and the same offering." ("The Roman Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass" by Bartholomew F. Brewer, Ph.D.)

And in the words of Pope Pius IV...

"I profess likewise that in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory (conciliatory, to soothe the anger of, to win or regain the goodwill of, to appease, placate or make friendly, to reconcile - Webster's New World Dictionary and Harper's Bible Dictionary.) sacrifice for the living and the dead." (From the fifth article of the creed of Pope Pius IV.)

That is the incredible truth! The Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches that in every Mass, in every church, throughout the world (estimated at up to 200,000 Masses a day) that Jesus Christ is being offered up again, physically, as a sacrifice for sin (benefiting not only those alive, but the dead as well!) ("It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" Heb. 9:27.) Every Roman Mass is a re-creation of Jesus' death for the sins of the world. Not a symbolic re-creation! But a literal, actual offering of the flesh and blood of the Lord to make daily atonement for all the sins that have been daily committed since Jesus was crucified almost 2,000 years ago ("The Catholic Home Instruction Book", #3, P. 90.).

That's why the elements must become physically Jesus' body and blood, so that they can be once again offered for sin:

"The Holy Eucharist is the perpetual continuation of this act of sacrifice and surrender of our Lord. When the Lord's Supper is celebrated, Christ again presents Himself in His act of total surrender to the Father in death." ("The Spirit of Jesus" pp.89-90, Imprimatur: John Joseph Cardinal Carberry, Archbishop of St. Louis.)

"He offers Himself continually to the Father, in the same eternal act of offering that began on the cross and will never cease." ("Sons of God in Christ" Book 4, P. 117.)

"The Mass is identical to Calvary it is a sacrifice for sin it must be perpetuated to take away sin." (For Them Also, pp.289-299.)

The catechism of the Council of Trent required all pastors to explain that not only did the elements of the Mass contain flesh, bones and nerves as a part of Christ, "But also a WHOLE CHRIST". (Encyclopedia of Religions, Vol. 2, p.77.) Thus it is referred to as "the sacrifice of the Mass" and as "a renewal of the sacrifice of the cross"! ("A Catholic Word List" p. 45.)

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT ON "THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS" As we shared in Chronicle I, the Council of Trent was called to clarify and standardize Catholic doctrine in response to the challenges of the Reformation. The canons on this subject (passed in Session XXII. Cap II.) are as follows:

"If any one shall say, that in the Mass there is not offered to God a true and proper sacrifice, or that what is offered is nothing else than Christ given to be eaten, let him be anathema." (Anathema - The strongest denunciation of a person that can be made in the ancient Greek (the original language of the New Testament). Literal meaning: "devoted to death". A thing or person accursed or damned. -- Webster's New World Dictionary and Harper's Bible Dictionary.) "If any one shall say that in these words, 'This do in remembrance of Me', Christ did not make the apostles priests, or did not ordain that they themselves and other priests should offer His body and blood, let him be anathema." "If any one shall say that the sacrifice of the Mass is only of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice performed on the cross, but not propitiatory; or that it is of benefit only to the person who takes it, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be accursed." "If any one shall say that a blasphemy is ascribed to the most holy sacrifice of Christ performed on the cross by the sacrifice of the Mass let him be accursed." BUT IS THIS THE BELIEF OF ROME TODAY? If any be in doubt as to the modern Roman position, we shall quote the recent (1963-65) Second Vatican Council:

"At the Last Supper. . . our Saviour instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of His body and blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross. . . " p. 154, The Documents of Vatican II, Walter M. Abbott, S.J.

The catechism books teach that the reason the Mass is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary is because the victim in each case was Jesus Christ. ("The New Baltimore Catechism" #3, Question 931.) In fact, they refer to the bread of the Eucharist as the "host", which is the Latin word hostia which literally means "victim" (Webster's New World Dictionary.)

BUT WHY "THE SACRIFICE" OF THE MASS? We will now quote the Church's own contemporary literature to fully answer this question (taken from the book, This Is The Catholic Church, published by the Catholic Information Service, Knights of Columbus, Imprimatur: (sanction or approval. Specifically, permission to print or publish a book or article containing nothing contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church - Webster's New World Dictionary.) Most Reverend John F. Whealon, Archbishop of Hartford:

"Sacrifice is the very essence of religion. And it is only through sacrifice that union with the Creator can be perfectly acquired. It was through sacrifice that Christ Himself was able to achieve this for man. It is only through the perpetuation of that sacrifice that this union may be maintained.

"What makes the Mass the most exalted of all sacrifices is the nature of the victim, Christ Himself. For the Mass is the continuation of Christ's sacrifice which He offered through His life and death. Jesus then, is the priest, the offerer of the sacrifice. But Christ was not only the priest of this sacrifice (of the cross), He was also the victim, the very object itself of this sacrifice.

"The Mass is thus the same as the sacrifice of the cross. No matter how many times it is offered, nor in how many places at one time, it is the same sacrifice of Christ. Christ is forever offering Himself in the Mass." (pp. 20-24.)

BUT JESUS SAID "IT IS FINISHED!" Every true believer loves the sound of these words: "It is finished!" (John 19:30). For it is the wonderful exclamation that the Lord's suffering was finally over. He had fulfilled His mission! Jesus had lived a life of sorrow, bearing the burden of a world gone mad. He had been rejected by everyone, even His closest friends. He had lived a perfect life before men and God, and His reward on earth was to be laughed at, spat upon, beaten beyond recognition, and finally nailed to a cross. But He had submitted willingly, because it was the will of His Father to offer Him as the satisfaction of the penalty for all the sin in the world past, present and future!

But here, in the words of a Roman Catholic priest, is the "true meaning" of the words "it is finished!" "These words do not declare that His sacrifice was finished, but that He had finished His former, normal, earthly life and was now fixed in the state of a victim...He then began His everlasting career as the perpetual sacrifice of the new law." ("The Sacrifice of Christ" by Fr. Richard W. Grace.) Hence, according to Rome, Jesus must be forever dying for sin, "perpetually".

Have you ever wondered why in every Catholic Church they still have Jesus up on the cross? Every crucifix with Jesus portrayed as nailed to it, tells the whole Catholic story Jesus is still dying for the sins of the world! But that's a lie! We need only look to the Scriptures to see the truth.

BACK TO THE BOOK The epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the "once for all" sacrifice of Christ on the cross, not a daily sacrifice on altars. The Bible repeatedly affirms in the clearest and most positive terms that Christ's sacrifice on Calvary was complete in that one offering. And that it was never to be repeated is set forth explicitly in Hebrews, chapters 7, 9 and 10:

"Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: For this He did once, when He offered up Himself" (7:27). "... by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us" (9:12). "Nor yet that He should offer Himself often. . . but now once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. . . so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation" (9:25-28). ". . . we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this man, after He had offered one sacrifice for the sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God. . .for by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (10:10-14).

Notice that throughout these verses occurs the statement "once for all" which shows how perfect, complete and final Jesus' sacrifice was! His work on the cross constituted one historic event which need never be repeated and which in fact cannot be repeated. As Paul says, "Christ, being raised from the dead dieth no more" (Romans 6:9). Any pretense of a continuous offering for sin is worse than vain, it is blasphemy and true fulfillment of the Scripture, "Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame" (Heb. 6:6).

JESUS THE ONLY HIGH PRIEST Jesus not only became the perfect sacrifice for sin, but after being accepted by God as having totally fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant, He became "the mediator of a better covenant" (Heb. 8:6). That means that Jesus is the high priest of every true believer! "There is one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ" (I Tim. 2:5).

The Bible teaches that the priesthood of Jesus Christ is unique "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" (Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 7:17.) "... because He abides forever, (He) holds His priesthood permanently" (which means that it cannot be transferred to another!) (Heb. 7:17, 24).

But Roman Catholicism teaches that the apostles were ordained by Jesus Himself (at the Last Supper) to perpetuate the coming sacrifice He would make on the cross. And that this ordination has been handed down through the centuries to the current generation of priests. Therefore, Rome teaches that her priests actually operate and discharge the priesthood of Jesus Christ, and that they are called "other Christs" (alter Christus, in Latin.)

This explains the great adulation and honor heaped upon the Roman priest. The French Catholic Saint J.B.M. Vianney said that "Where there is no priest there is no sacrifice, and where there is no sacrifice there is no religion . . . without the priest the death and passion of our Lord would be of no avail to us. . . see the power of the priest! By one word from his lips, he changes a piece of bread into a God! A greater feat than the creation of a world." He also said, "If I were to meet a priest and an angel, I would salute the priest before saluting the angel. The angel is a friend of God, but the priest holds the place of God. . . next to God Himself, the priest is everything!" What humiliation for Jesus Christ, the One who has been given a name "above all other names!"

BUT ISN'T ROME CHANGING? Today, many are expressing hope that Rome is turning toward scriptural christianity. They point to the many reforms of Vatican II (i.e., Such as Masses performed in the common language rather than exclusively in Latin, the relaxation of taboos such as eating meat on Friday, etc.) and also to the ever-widening charismatic renewal. True, these things appear to be a positive sign of change, and many are thrilled by them; but most fail to realize that these changes are only superficial. For Rome could never reject the sacrifice of the Mass just streamline it enough to keep the truth of its meaning hidden. Pope John XXIII made it clear that His Church is bound "to all the teachings of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the act of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council..." (The Documents of Vatican II, Abbott, S.J.)

It is clear that the whole of Roman teaching and belief is founded on this premise of the continual sacrifice of Christ for sin:

"It should be easy to see why the Mass holds such an important place in the Church's life. The Mass is the very essence of the Church. Within it the Church's life, and the Church's very existence is centered. If there were no mass, there could be no Catholic Church. The Mass is our act of worship, an act which we know to be really worthy of God, because it is the sacrifice of God's own Son.

"What the sacrifices of the old law were unable to accomplish what no other form of human worship can accomplish^×the Mass performs: Perfect atonement is made for sin.

"The souls of men yet unborn, together with those now living and those who have come into existence since Christ's sacrifice, all have need of the salvation which Christ has won for us. It is through the Mass as well as through the other sacraments that the effects of Christ's salvation are applied to the souls of men." ("This is the Catholic Church", pp. 24-25.)

It is made thoroughly clear that Rome will forever put its faith in the Mass for the eternal forgiveness of sins. To remove this belief from her system of theology, would be like knocking out the pillars of a great edifice the whole building would come tumbling down!

PAUL'S EXTREME WARNING As I sat stunned, reading all the "Let them be accursed"-threats of the Council of Trent, I could not help but think how their curses would only fall back on their own heads for the words of our brother Paul call out across the centuries:

"But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed!" (Gal. 1:8).

Not only does Paul warn that an authentic angel from heaven should not be heeded while preaching a "different doctrine", but he gives the ultimate warning" . . . even though we"! Paul strictly warned the Galatians, not even to listen to him^×the chief apostle and master of true doctrine^×if he should reverse himself on any of the fundamental teachings of the gospel. How much more then, should we reject the appalling traditions and practices of a system that is not only unbiblical, but is actually steeped in mysticism, bordering dangerously on the occult!

CONCLUSION: THE DEFINITION OF A "CULT" Now I am sure, many of you who have been reading this, might have been wondering if (and when) I would use this word. Today, the word "cult" is thrown around without much thought. People seem much too eager to use it to describe any individual or group that doesn't exactly agree with them. And I do not, and will not use the word lightly. But as far as I can see from the Bible, a person is only in danger of being grouped with "false brethren" by tampering with three very basic issues of biblical truth. (These are greatly condensed for this example.)

Who Jesus is Son of God, God the Son, Creator of the Universe. What He came to do to die once for all, for the sins of mankind, then raise from the dead as the eternal high priest of all true believers. How a person directly benefits from Christ's death for sin he is accounted as righteous through a total faith and rest in the finished work of Christ, and becomes the possessor of God's free gift eternal life (salvation). The Roman Catholic Church has been considered a true christian faith, mainly because it is generally known that their theology is quite orthodox on point #1. But as we have pointed out in these two chronicles, they are perilously shaky on the atonement Christ's substitutionary death for sinners #2. But if there is any doubt left at all, as to whether or not the Roman Church is authentically and biblically Christian, there will be a complete and thorough study of the Roman view on how one obtains salvation in our third installment of "The Catholic Chronicles".

FOOTNOTES 1]- The Roman Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass, by Bartholomew F. Brewer, Ph.D. 2]- Propitiatory - conciliatory, to soothe the anger of, to win or regain the goodwill of, to appease, placate or make friendly, to reconcile - Webster's New World Dictionary and Harper's Bible Dictionary. 3]- "It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment"(Heb.9:27). 4]- The Catholic Home Instruction Book #3, p.90. 5]- the Spirit of Jesus pp.89-90, Imprimatur: John Joseph CardinalCarberry, Archbishop of St.Louis. 6]- Sons of God in Christ Book 4, p.117. 7]- For Them Also, pp.289-299. 8]- Encyclopedia of Religions, Vol.2, p.77. 9]- "A Catholic Word List" p.45. 10]- Anathema - The strongest denunciaiton of a person that can be made in the ancient Greek (the original language of the New Testament). Literal meaning: "devoted to death." A thing or person accursed or damned - Webster's New World Dictionary and Harper's Bible Dictionary. 11]- "The New Baltimore Catechism" #3, Question 931. 12]- Webster's New World Dictionary. 13]- Imprimatur - Sanction or approval. Specifically, permission to print or publish a book or article containing nothing contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church - Webster's New World Dictionary. 14]- pp.20-24 15]- The Sacrifice of Christ by Richard W.Grace. 16] In Latin. 17]- i.e., Such as Masses performed in the common language rather than exclusively in Latin, the relaxation of taboos such as eating meat on Friday, etc. 18]- The Documents of Vatican II, Abbot,S.J. 20]- This Is The Catholic Church pp.24-25. 21]- These are greatly condensed for this example.

Salvation According to Rome

". . . the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Rom. 6:23)

How blessed it is to know Jesus! His love, His mercy, His righteousness, His forgiveness! He has promised to "cast all our sins into the depths of the sea" (Mic. 7:19) and to separate us from our sins "as far as the east is from the west!" (Ps. 103:12).

This is the good news! (That's the literal meaning of the word "gospel" good news!) That is what the true church of our God has the privilege of proclaiming ... "liberty to the captives"! (Lk. 4:18).

The reason I begin this article on the Roman Catholic view of salvation with such rejoicing in my Saviour, is because I have just finished reading a mountain of official (Roman) church literature on the subject, and I can honestly say, I have never had such joy in my heart of hearts about the finished work of Christ. As I scoured each page and read of penance, confession, venial and mortal sins, indulgences, purgatory, etc., I then had the infinite pleasure of searching the Scriptures to see what they had to say on these fundamental Catholic doctrines.

Oh what relief my soul found in the Scriptures! What holy joy! What clarity of light I saw, as the simple brilliance of God's mercy shown into my mind. If there is anything more beautiful than God's love and patience with man, it has never been revealed to mortals!

All this to say that I am bogged down with the information I have accumulated, and I will probably have to cover it all in this, Chronicle III, briefly touching on each subject, while always coming back to the main question: "According to Rome, how can a man or woman be saved from the consequences of his sinful nature and actions, and how can they gain assurance that they are in a right standing before God?"

If the future permits, I will come back in another installment and cover some of these subjects (particularly, purgatory and indulgences) in far greater depth and detail. It is our desire to see people find the true salvation that Jesus died for therefore, we must deal with that great (and most important) subject wholly, before taking the time to supply other necessary (and most revealing) subject matter.

THE CATHOLIC TEACHING ON SIN Before we can understand what Catholics are taught about salvation, we must first see what they are taught they need to be saved from. In Matt. 1, the angel of the Lord speaks to Joseph in a dream about his betrothed, Mary, saying "she will bear a Son. and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins" (vs. 21).

Today, many evangelicals toss around the term "saved" without much thought. "When did you get saved?" someone might ask. It's almost like a title, or a badge that a person wears to prove that he's become part of the club the "saved" club. Others are under the impression that when a person talks of being "saved", they are talking about being saved from many different things sickness, death, the devil, hell, etc. But when the angel of the Lord used that precious word to prophesy that Jesus would fulfill all the predictions of the prophets, he made very clear what Jesus was coming to save His people from...their sins!

In official Roman Catholic theology, this too is the main thing that people are taught they need to be saved from their sins. But the only thing that Catholic and evangelical teachings have in common on the subject of sin...is the spelling! For when a Catholic talks about his "sins", you must find out first if he is talking about "mortal" sins, or "venial" sins. And then you must ask him "how do you get rid of them?" The answer given will most likely confound a non-Catholic. For words like "faith", "repentance", even "Jesus" will usually be missing in the answer. Instead, a whole new list of other words will have to be learned, defined, and understood before the evangelical can fully grasp how a Catholic is taught his sins (and the penalty due them) can be canceled out.

MORTAL AND VENIAL SINS The first of these unfamiliar words are the names of the two groups Rome has separated all sinsinto. Now if you're a Catholic, you might be wondering why I'm making such a big deal for the dividing of sins into two distinct categories (each with their own set of consequences and remedies) has been part of Catholic doctrine for a long, long time.

According to Rome's definition, mortal sin is described as "any great offense against the law of God" and is so named because "it is deadly, killing the soul and subjecting it to eternal punishment". Venial sins, on the other hand, are "small and pardonable offenses against God, and our neighbor". Unlike mortal sins, venial sins are not thought to damn a soul to hell, but with the committing of each venial sin, a person increases his need for a longer stay in the purifying fires of a place called "purgatory". (Look that word up in your Bible dictionary you'll find it right next to "venial"! )

Now, there is no agreement among the priests as to which sins are mortal and which are venial, but they all proceed on the assumption that such a distinction does exist. The method of classification is purely arbitrary. What is venial according to one may be mortal according to another.

According to Rome, the pope is infallible in matters of faith and doctrine. He should then be able to settle this important matter by accurately cataloging those sins which are mortal as distinguished from those which are venial. However, there are some definites in the "mortal" category: blatantly breaking one of the ten commandments, practically all sexual offenses (whether in word, thought or deed) and a long list of transgressions which have changed throughout the centuries.

For instance, until Vatican II (a church council that met between 1963-1965) it was a mortal sin to attend a Protestant church, to own or read a Protestant Bible, or to eat meat on Friday! Oh, and it's still a mortal sin to "miss Mass on Sunday morning ("Sunday obligation" can also be fulfilled by attending a Saturday evening Mass) without a good excuse" (which means that considerably more than half of the claimed Roman Catholic membership throughout the world is constantly in mortal sin!) Venial sins include things like thinking bad thoughts, having wrong motives, losing your temper, etc. things that do not necessarily "lead into actual sin" but still, nevertheless, are sins that need to be eradicated in some way.

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY? The Bible makes no distinction between mortal and venial sins. There is in fact, no such thing as a venial sin. ALL SIN IS MORTAL! It is true that some sins are worse than others, but it is also true that all sins if not forgiven bring death to the soul. The Bible simply says: "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23). And Ezekiel says: "The soul that sinneth,. it shall die" (18:4).

James says that "whosoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all" (2:10). He meant, not that the person who commits one sin is guilty of all other kinds of sin, but that even one sin unatoned for, shuts a person completely out of heaven and subjects him to punishment, just as surely as one misstep by the mountain climber plunges him to destruction in the canyon below.

In the light of these biblical statements, the distinction between mortal and venial sins is shown to be completely absurd. In fact, the very act of classifying sins into "greater and lesser" is immoral in itself. We know how quick human nature is to grasp at any excuse for sin. Rome seems to be saying "these sins are really bad! But those? Well . . . you can get away with a few of them and not really suffer too much". Speaking of "getting away" with something, let's get right down to how Rome teaches you can "get rid of" your sins.

CONFESSION The Catholic system starts to get real complicated when we begin to look at the ways one can eraseboth their mortal and venial sins. "Two kinds of punishment are due to mortal sin: eternal (in hell forever), and temporal (in purgatory). Eternal punishment is canceled by either baptism (which is only allowed once in a person's life--and if a person were to die immediately after baptism, Rome says he will go "straight to heaven". Otherwise, the only other conditions by which a Catholic may be assured he will go directly to heaven immediately upon death, is to die a "saint" -- a completely perfect and sanctified person, or to die a martyr's death. All others must do some time in purgatory.) or confession to a priest.'"

The Baltimore Catechism defines confession as follows: "Confession is the telling of our sins to an authorized priest for the purpose of attaining forgiveness." The important words here are "authorized priest". And to be genuine, a confession must be heard, judged, and followed by obedience to the authorized priest as he assigns a penance, such as good works, prayers, fastings, abstinence from certain pleasures, etc. A penance may be defined as "a punishment undergone in token of repentance for sin, as assigned by the priest" usually a very light penalty.

The New York Catechism says, "I must tell my sins to the priest so that he will give me absolution (release from punishment; acquittal; remission of sins declared officially by a priest--Webster's Dictionary.) A person who knowingly keeps back a mortal sin in confession commits a dreadful sacrilege, and he must repeat his confession."

THE PRIEST'S ROLE Canon law 888 says: "The priest has to remember that in hearing confession he is a judge." And the book, Instructions for Non-Catholics says: "A priest does not have to ask God to forgive your sins. The priest himself has the power to do so in Christ's name. Your sins are forgiven by the priest the same as if you knelt before Jesus Christ and told them to Christ Himself. "(p. 93).

"The priest forgives the guilt of mortal sins which saves the penitent from going to hell, but he cannot remit the penalty due for those sins, and so the penitent must atone for them by performance of good works which he prescribes. The penitent may be, and usually is, interrogated by the priest so that he or she may make a full and proper confession. Stress is placed on the fact that any sin not confessed is not forgiven, any mortal sin not confessed in detail is not forgiven, and that the omission of even one sin (mortal) may invalidate the whole confession. Every loyal Roman Catholic is required under pain of mortal sin to go to confession at least once a year. But even after a penitent has received pardon, a large, but unknown amount of punishment remains to be suffered in purgatory." (The doctrine of purgatory rests on the assumption that while God forgives sin, His justice nevertheless demands that the sinner must suffer the full punishment due to him for his sin before he will be allowed to enter heaven.)

Technically, venial sins need not be confessed since they are comparatively light and can be canceled by good works, prayers, extreme unction (one of the seven sacraments also know as "anointing of the sick" or "the last rites", and administered when a person is near death.) etc., but the terms are quite elastic and permit considerable leeway on the part of the priest. It is generally advised that it is safer to confess supposed venial sins also since the priest alone is able to judge accurately which are mortal and which are venial. The Baltimore Catechism says: "When we have committed no mortal sins since our last confession, we should confess our venial sins or some sin told in a previous confession for which we are again sorry, in order that the priest may give us absolution" (p. 329). What chance has a poor sinner against such a system as that?

As an example, a minister friend of mine who was brought up in the Catholic Church, tells the story of how his older brother went to confession every single week and confessed the same sin to the same priest and was given the same penance in order to receive absolution. This went on week after week, year after year. One day, while on a trip away from home, he decided that he would not break his pattern of going to weekly confession, so he went to another Catholic Church in the city he was visiting. He went into the confession box and confessed the same sin to a different priest. He began with "forgive me Father for I have sinned", and then began confessing the sin once again, but this time he was shocked when the priest said: "But my son, that's not a sin!" My friend's brother got up, and hurried out the door, and from that day on he has never stepped foot in any church again.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

We search in vain in the Bible for any word supporting the doctrine of "auricular confession" (the official title for confession to an authorized priest in a confession box. It is called "auricular" because it is spoken secretly, into the ear of the priest.) It is equally impossible to find any authorization or general practice of it during the first 1,000 years of the Christian era. Not a word is found in the writings of the early church fathers about confessing sins to a priest or to anyone except God alone. Auricular confession is not mentioned once in the writings of Augustine, Origen, Nestorius, Tertullian, Jerome, Chrysostem, or Athanasius all of these and many others apparently lived and died without ever thinking of going to confession. No one other than God was thought to be worthy to hear confessions or to grant forgiveness.

Confession was first introduced into the church on a voluntary basis in the fifth century by the authority of Leo the Great. But it was not until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 under Pope Innocent III that private auricular confession was made compulsory and all Roman Catholic people were required to confess and to seek absolution from a priest at least once a year. If they did not obey this command, they were pronounced guilty of mortal sin and damned for eternity to hell. ("R.C." p. 199.)

CAN A PRIEST FORGIVE SINS?

The Scriptures teach that "only God can forgive sins" (Mark 2:7). "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt. 9:6). Dr. Zachello tells of his experience as a priest in the confessional before leaving the Roman Church in these words: "Where my doubts were really troubling me was inside the confessional box. People coming to me, kneeling down in front of me, confessing their sins to me. And I, with the sign of the cross, was promising that I had the power to forgive their sins. I, a sinner, a man, was taking God's place. It was God's laws they were breaking, not mine. To God, therefore, they must make confession; and to God alone they must pray for forgiveness."("R.C." p. 203).

In fact, the only word in the Bible about confessing sins to anyone other than God, is found in James: "Confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, so that you may be healed" (5:16). It is obvious that the Lord meant what He says in Revelation, chapter 1, that "He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father" (vs. 6), and Peter calls the church "a chosen race, a royal priesthood" (I Pet. 2:9). Believe it or not, the only mention of New Testament believers being priests is used in a context where all true believers are included, not just a select few. That is why James could say that we should confess our sins "to one another".

Catholics love to quote the verse in John 20:23 to prove that priests do have the power to "forgive and retain" sins. "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them: if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained." The powers of forgiving and retaining sins, were given to the apostles as proclaimers of the Word of God, not as priests. As we have just pointed out, there are no Christian "priests" in New Testament teaching and doctrine. Pastors, yes. Deacons, yes. Apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, yes. Priests, no!

Jesus was telling His followers that by preaching the gospel, they were being given the power to declare that a person's sins were forgiven them by God! And if an individual, or group did not receive them and the forgiveness they offered in the name of Jesus, then they were instructed to "shake the dust off their feet" as a protest against them, and warn them that it would be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for them (Matt. 10:14-15). In other words, if a person rejected the apostles' preaching of the gospel, they had the right to tell that person that his sins were not forgiven, because they had rejected God's only provision for atonement of sins. "The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me" (Luke 10:16). This power to forgive and retain sins, contrary to Rome's teaching, belongs to everyone who preaches the true gospel of salvation.

PENANCE

In the Roman system, penance is one of the seven sacraments. (The seven sacraments are: Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Holy Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction.) The Baltimore Catechism defines penance as "the sacrament by which sins committed after baptism are forgiven through the absolution of the priest" (p. 300). Another catechism published in New York says, "the priest gives penance to help me to make up for the temporal punishment I must suffer for my sins. The penance given to me by the priest does not always make full satisfaction for my sins. I should therefore do other acts of penance . . . and try to gain indulgences." (Indulgences are remissions of so many days or months or years of punishment in purgatory--a subject which we will cover in depth in a future chronicle.) And in Instructions for Non-Catholics, we read: "After confession some temporal punishment due to sin generally remains. You should therefore perform other acts of penance also so that you may make up for these punishments, and avoid a long stay in purgatory." (p. 95).

PENANCE AS A SYSTEM OF WORKS

Here indeed is salvation by works. For penance, as the catechism says, involves confession of one's sins to a priest and the doing of good works as the only way by which sins committed after baptism can be forgiven. The Church of Rome thus demands acts of penance before She grants forgiveness, inferring that the sacrifice of Christ was not sufficient to atone fully for sin and that it must be supplemented to some extent by these good works.

But what God demands is not acts of penance but repentance, which means turning from sin.

"Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him: for he will abundantly pardon" (Isa. 55: 7).

The easy way in which the Church of Rome deals with sin is seen in this doctrine of penance. The penitent receives pardon on comparatively easy terms. He is assigned some task to perform, usually not too hard, sometimes merely the recital of a given number of "Hail Mary's". The result is that he has no qualms about resuming his evil course. It shocked Martin Luther when he read the Greek New Testament edited by Erasmus, that Jesus did not say "do penance" as had been translated by the Roman Church, but "repent".

PENANCE VERSUS REPENTANCE

Penance is a wholly different thing from gospel repentance. Penance is an outward act. Repentance is of the heart. Penance is imposed by a Roman priest. Repentance is the work of the Holy Spirit. What God desires in the sinner is not a punishment of oneself for sins, but a change of heart, a real forsaking of sin, shown by a new life of obedience to God's commands.

In short, penance is a counterfeit repentance. It is the work of man on his body; true repentance is the work of God in the soul. The divine Word commands, "Rend your heart and not your garments" (Joel 2:13). Penance is "rending the garments" an outward form without inward reality.

While Romanism does teach that Christ died for our sins, it also teaches that His sacrifice alone was not sufficient, and that our sufferings must be added to make it effective. In accordance with this, many have tried to earn salvation by fastings, rituals, flagellations and good works of various kinds. But those who attempt such a course always find that it is impossible to do enough to earn salvation.

Dr. C.D. Cole says, "Romanism is a complicated system of salvation by works. It offers salvation on the installment plan, then sees to it that the poor sinner is always behind in his payments, so that when he dies there is a large unpaid balance, and he must continue payments by sufferings in purgatory, or until the debt is paid by the prayer, alms, and sufferings of his living relatives and friends. The whole system and plan calls for merit and money from the cradle to the grave and even beyond. Surely the wisdom that drew such a plan of salvation is not from above." ("R.C." pps. 257-258.)

THE BIBLICAL TEACHING ON GOOD WORKS

Good works, of course, are pleasing to God and they have an important and necessary place in the life of the Christian. They naturally follow if one has true faith, and they are performed out of love and gratitude to God for the great salvation that He has bestowed. Good works, in other words, are not the cause and basis of salvation, but rather the fruits and proof of salvation. "Not by works done in righteousness which we did ourselves, but according to His mercy He saved us through the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit" ( Titus 3:5). The born-again Christian produces good works as naturally as the grapevine produces grapes. They are a part of his very nature. He performs them not to get saved, but because he is saved.

SALVATION BY GRACE

Grace, just because it is grace, is not given on the basis of proceeding merits. By no stretch of the imagination can a man's good works in this life be considered a just equivalent for the blessings of eternal life. But all men because of pride, naturally feel that they should earn their salvation, and a system which makes some provision in that regard readily appeals to them. But Paul lays the ax to such reasoning when he says: "If a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law" (Gal. 3:21). Time and again the Scriptures repeat that salvation is of grace, as if anticipating the difficulty that men would have in accepting the fact that they would not be able to earn it.

The Council of Trent, in its opposition to the reformer's doctrine of justification by faith, and in defense of its doctrine of penance, declared: "Whosoever shall affirm that men are justified solely by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ... let him be accursed" (Council of Trent, section 6.) And the Catholic Almanac says, "Penance is necessary for salvation...and was instituted by Christ for the forgiveness of sins". (pps. 269, 559.)

The modern church teachings completely concur: "Many things are necessary for salvation. All these things work together faith, baptism, the Eucharist, the doing of good works, and others as well. Redemption is one thing, salvation is quite another. There is nothing lacking on Christ's part; there is much to be done on ours." ("The Apostles Creed" published by the Knights of Columbus, pps 18-19.) Also, in a booklet published in 1967, under the sub-heading, "We Must Atone Too", it says that "even though the satisfaction of Christ was complete and universal, nevertheless all adult Christians are obliged to imitate their suffering Master and make personal satisfaction for their sins by good works. ("You Shall Rise Again" published by the Knights of Columbus, p. 3.) But the apostle Paul in his masterpiece on justification by faith says, "Having now been justified by His blood we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him" (Rom. 5:9). (See also: Eph. 2:8-10, Rom. 1:17, 3:21, 22, 28, 5:1, 18-19, 11:6, John 3:36, Gal. 2:21, 3:11.)

"And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him as righteousness. Now to the one who works, the reward is not reckoned as grace, but as debt. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Rom.4:3-5).

What a significant coincidence it is that this doctrine of justification by faith is given such prominence in the epistle to the Romans, since Rome later became the seat of the papacy! It seems to be written there as if intended as a strong and permanent protest against the errors of the Roman Church.

ASSURANCE OF SALVATION

The first consequence of the doctrine of penance (as well as the doctrines of purgatory and indulgences) is that the Roman Catholic, though baptized and confirmed, can never have that assurance of his salvation and that sense of spiritual security which is such a blessing to the true Christian. In proportion as he is spiritually sensitive, the person who holds to a works religion knows that he has not suffered as much as his sins deserve, and that he can never do as much as he should in order to be worthy of salvation.

A dying Roman Catholic, after he has done all that he can do and after the last rites have been given to him, is told that he still must go to purgatory. There he will suffer unknown torture, with no assurance as to how long it will continue, but with the assurance that if his relatives pray for his soul, and pay with sufficient generosity to have candles lit and have special masses said for him, that his sufferings will be shortened somewhat.

Oh what a contrast with all of that, is the death of the true believer who has the assurance that he goes straight to heaven into the immediate presence of Christ! (Phil. 1:23). What a marvelous blessing is the true faith of the Christian, both in life and especially at the time of death!

The Council of Trent even pronounced a curse upon anyone who presumed to say that he had assurance of salvation, or that the whole punishment for sin is forgiven along with that sin ("R.C." p. 267.) Such assurance is pronounced a delusion and a result of sinful pride. Rome keeps her subjects in constant fear and insecurity. Even at death, after extreme unction has been administered and after thousands of rosary prayers have been said "for the repose of the soul", the priest still cannot give assurance of salvation. The person is never "good enough" but must serve in purgatory prison to be purified of venial sins before he can be admitted to the celestial city. No one can be truly happy or truly at peace. And particularly in spiritual matters, a state of doubt and uncertainty continues for one's whole life, and right into the grave.

But God wants us to be saved, and according to the Bible the Holy Spirit can give us the assurance that we have salvation when we have a true, intimate relationship with the Son of God (I John 5:9-12). But in Romanism, one must work hard for it and must pay dearly for it, and after he has done all that the priest has prescribed, he still cannot know whether he has it or not. And through it all, there stands the anathema of the Council of Trent against all who affirm the certainty of their salvation. Hence, there cannot truly be found anywhere a Roman Catholic, consistent to what his church teaches, who enjoys the true assurance of eternal life.

CONCLUSION…….

It is obvious by even this brief glimpse into the doctrines of mortal and venial sins, confession, penance, and purgatory, that the Roman Catholic Church has constructed one of the most unbiblical doctrinal systems that has ever been considered "Christian". The fear, anguish, and religious bondage that such a system of "reward and punishment" creates, has tormented millionsof lives for centuries, and continues to prey on those who are ignorant of the biblical way of salvation.

To merely call such a system "a cult", would be to throw it into the vast category of religions and quasi-religions that are currently making the rounds of our college campuses and city streets, snatching up many-an-unsuspecting youth. No, the Roman Church is not a cult. It's an empire! With its own ruler, its own laws, and its own subjects! The empire has no borders, it encompasses the globe with its eye on every person who does not vow allegiance. It calls the members of other faiths "separated brethren" (The term used by Vatican II to describe the members of Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant churches.) and has as its goal the eventual bringing together of everyone under its flag.

I know that many will not be convinced or moved by this article (or any of the others) to make such a conclusion. They are impressed by what they've heard about recent stirrings among the Catholics in the "charismatic renewal". Many evangelicals (especially charismatics) have been thrilled by the reports of Catholics speaking in tongues, dancing in the Spirit, having nights of joy and praise, even attending "charismatic masses".

Mouths that used to speak out boldly against the Church of Rome have been quieted by the times. It no longer is in vogue to speak of the pope as "the antichrist" (Although the following people unhesitatingly did: Martin Luther, John Bunyan, John Huss, John Wycliffe, John Calvin, William Tyndale, John Knox, Thomas Bacon, John Wesley, Samuel Cooper, John Cotton, and Jonathan Edwards.) or the Catholic Church as the "whore of Babylon". Now Protestants unwittingly believe that "our differences are not so great". Ah, that is just what She wants us to think!

I've never completely understood why God led me to write these articles. But it becomes more clear with each day of study, and each page of research. Never has something so black and wicked, gotten away with appearing so holy and mysteriously beautiful . . . for so long!

We would disagree if by "faith" you mean simple intellectual assent to the truths revealed to us by God.

Neither Roman Catholics, nor Protestants believe in faith as mere intellectual assent. The demons believe this and shudder says James. But Rome does not believe in salvation by faith alone as described by Paul in Romans. Earlier someone cited the Catholic Catechism as maintaining baptism as involved in justification. The Bible clearly teaches the contrary. No works (penance, the sacraments, etc.) can save you. They play absolutely no part in salvation. The Bible is clear that we may know we have eternal life (1 John 5).

earlier someone cited the Catholic Catechism as maintaining baptism as involved in justification. The Bible clearly teaches the contrary.

Catholics believe in salvation by grace alone. The Church condemned Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism long, long ago. You might want to look up the history of it in the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia. I don't know where you're getting this information.

"Go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." "Unless you are born again of water and the Spirit..."

Baptism is the normative means of justification. The Church also teaches that one can be saved through a "baptism of desire," and that those who are 'invincibly ignorant' of Christ can be saved by an implicit faith in Christ. That is, those who do not know Christ explicity may be saved if they follow what truth has been revealed to them. Nevertheless, all those who are saved are saved by Christ's redemptive death on the cross.

However, again, the normative and surer means of salvation is baptism into Christ's Church and frequent reception of the sacraments.

For a Catholic, faith means more than faith in Christ as Lord and Savior, it means faith in all the truths that God has revealed to us through His Son and His Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth."

Catholics believe in salvation by grace alone...Baptism is the normative means of justification...the normative and surer means of salvation is baptism into Christ's Church and frequent reception of the sacraments.

The above statements are inconsistent with each other and with the gospel. If Salvation is by grace alone (which it is), then baptism is not a means to salvation. Otherwise grace is not alone but accompanied by works like baptism and "frequent reception of the sacraments".

As I pointed out earlier, Paul distinguished between baptism and the gospel that saves (1 Cor. 1, 15).

As I've stated correctly, Rome does not teach salvation by grace alone through faith alone. The Council of Trent is clear about this, and goes so far as to pronounce "anathema" to anyone who says that one is justified by grace alone through faith alone. But the Bible teaches that Justification is by grace alone through faith alone.

For a Catholic, faith means more than faith in Christ as Lord and Savior, it means faith in all the truths that God has revealed to us through His Son and His Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth."

For the Christian, faith is biblically defined, and the Bible is the sole, supreme authority, and all traditions of men must be subject to it. "Let God be true and every man a liar".

The road of history is paved with many religious religions, groups and cults that have claimed some type of authority equal to the scriptures: for the Jehovah's Witnesses it is the Governing Body and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. For the Mormons it is Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and succeeding "prophets". For the Seventh Day Adventists it is Ellen G. White.

All of these group claim an authority that is, to be blunt, bogus. Every "authority" should be tested by scripture as Paul indicated.

The scriptures teach that grace that saves comes by faith in Jesus Christ. The scripture texts are so numerous that I recommend checking each reference to "faith" in a Bible concordance, but here are a few:

Acts 16:29-31, "The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' They replied, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you an your household.'"

John 6:28-29, "Then they asked him, 'What must we do to do the works God requires?' Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.'"

Romans 3:21-22, "But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to wich the law and the prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

By the way, the works we read about in James 2 refer to works we perform because we already are Christians. They are not works that we do to become Christians.

A sheep goes "Baaah, Baaah" not to become a sheep, but because he already is a sheep. If a sheep goes "Woof, woof", it's not a sheep at all but it is a dog. Thus Peter tells us that a dog returns to its vomit.

James 2:14 is your key verse, "What good is it my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?"

"Faith without works is dead"--in other words it is not really a Biblical faith at all.

The above statements are inconsistent with each other and with the gospel. If Salvation is by grace alone (which it is), then baptism is not a means to salvation. Otherwise grace is not alone but accompanied by works like baptism and "frequent reception of the sacraments".

I guess what I'm trying to say is that grace is always primary in conversion. But that doesn't make Baptism unneccesary as a means of receiving grace. Baptism is the normative way of receiving sanctifying grace, God's life within us.

For example, the desire for conversion is prompted by grace, so the desire to receive Baptism is prompted by grace. (Catholics call this kind of grace 'actual grace.') The grace imparted in Baptism is different from actual grace. Baptism is the means for receiving initial sanctifying grace (or 'justification'). 'Sanctifying grace' is God's life within us. In Baptism, we receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. (Since we believe in the gratuitousness of salvific grace, infant Baptism doesn't represent a problem.)

For Catholics, the sacraments offer the normal means for receiving sanctifying grace, for increasing God's life within us.

The important difference between our views, I think, is that Catholics see God's life within us waxing and waning. We can say "no" to God's grace by sinning. The more we sin, the more we lose sanctifying grace or God's life within us. We can lose it altogether if we sin grievously. However, God always prompts us to return to him through 'actual grace.' For example, the desire to receive the sacrament of Reconciliaiton would be an actual grace. Then God's life will return to the penitent through the sacrament of Reconciliation.

the Bible is the sole, supreme authority, and all traditions of men must be subject to it.

Where's that in the Bible?

The important difference between our views, I think, is that Catholics see God's life within us waxing and waning. We can say "no" to God's grace by sinning. The more we sin, the more we lose sanctifying grace or God's life within us. We can lose it altogether if we sin grievously. However, God always prompts us to return to him through 'actual grace.' For example, the desire to receive the sacrament of Reconciliaiton would be an actual grace. Then God's life will return to the penitent through the sacrament of Reconciliation.

I definitely believe in sanctification, but Protestants believe sanctification is distintively different than justification whereas Catholics tend to "blend" the two together.

I stress that the Bible has to be our guide, and the bible seems pretty clear on the issue. Although, in the interest of full disclosure, I have known some catholic women who've tempted me to be more open minded to catholicism, lol! I stress I was tempted but I did not give in :o)

Passage that occurred to me while reading your exchange.

Peace be with you.

tame: the Bible is the sole, supreme authority, and all traditions of men must be subject to it.

aquinasfan:Where's that in the Bible?

That would take an hour for me to write out the verses. Begin with Jesus quotation of the OT and their authority, then go to Paul's words on the authority of scripture. In light of that, where does the Bible teach that any other source of info outside the Bible (besides God himself, of course) would be the supreme authority?

I have to rush off pretty quick to be somewhere, but I will further address the authority of scripture question in depth later. I guess if any so-called tradition does not need to be subjected to the authority of scripture, then Jehovah's Wtnesses and Mormons are home free.

Beautiful words from Francis!

In THIS Jesus we see the power in suffering, the grace in enduring, the mercy in sacrifice, the strength in submission.

Beautiful words! Great review! Thanks!

Bttt

In light of that, where does the Bible teach that any other source of info outside the Bible (besides God himself, of course) would be the supreme authority?

THE CHURCH

First, Christ establishes His one Church:

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

His Church is called "the pillar and foundation of truth."

1 Timothy 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Christ tells us to take our disputes "to the church" (not Scripture):

Matthew 18
15"If your brother sins against you,[2] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.
16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'[3]
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Notice what's implicit in this statement. If we are to take our disputes "to the church," then the church must be visible and united. Also, this conforms to 1 Timothy 3:15. This command makes sense if Christ's Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth."

TRADITION

Scripture refers to bad traditions, traditions of men, and good traditions, traditions passed down by the Apostles. Notice that Jesus recognizes the teaching authority of "Moses' seat" in the following passage:

1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Jesus could just as easily be referring to many Catholic bishops today. But notice also that Jesus is recognizing Oral Tradition. Moses' seat is not mentioned in the Old Testament, yet Jesus commands obedience to its authority.

The following verses mention the validity of Sacred Tradition:

1 Corinthians 11:2
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings,[ 11:2 Or traditions] just as I passed them on to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings[ 2:15 Or traditions] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Logically, the Bible depends on the sacred teaching authority of the Church. After Jesus' death there was no New Testament. Followers of Christ had to depend upon Apostolic teaching authority and the Sacred Oral Tradition for proper doctrine. Eventually, Oral Tradition was written down and preserved in some cases as Written Tradition (or Scripture). Finally, the Church had to decide which books, proposed as Sacred Scripture were in fact divinely inspired. Many books were disputed, and the canon of Sacred Scripture wasn't finally settled until several Church councils around the year 400 A.D.

If Church authority cannot be trusted, then the canon of Scripture cannot be trusted. Ironically, Luther removed seven books from the Old Testament around the year 1500. Where in the Bible was he authorized to do that?

definitely believe in sanctification, but Protestants believe sanctification is distintively different than justification whereas Catholics tend to "blend" the two together.

True.

I stress that the Bible has to be our guide, and the bible seems pretty clear on the issue. Although, in the interest of full disclosure, I have known some catholic women who've tempted me to be more open minded to catholicism, lol! I stress I was tempted but I did not give in :o)

8-) At the very least, we understand each other better.

Thanks for the website, I just went to it and bookmarked it. I haven't seen the movie yet, but hope to see it with our family this week.

My response to posts #109 and #115:

tame: The Bible is the sole, supreme Authority

Aquinasfan: Where's that found in the Bible?

2 Timothy 3:15-17, "and how from infancy you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. All scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

In anticipation of certain rebuttals offered by Catholics regarding this passage, let me point out that I agree with James White's comments:

"Some have argued that this fact makes this passage irrelevant to any discussion of sola scriptura, since it speaks only to the Old Testament, and no one would wish to say that the Old Testament is wholly adequate and the New Testament is superfluous or unnecessary. However, such an objection misses the point, as the thrust of the passage is the origin and resultant nature of Scripture and it's abilities, not the extent of the Scriptures (i.e., to the cannon)." [from James White's book, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY, page 63]

So, Paul's words are applicable to all scripture (both Old and New Testaments), regarding the origin and nature of scripture.

Matthew 22:29-31, "Jesus replied, 'You are in error because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God...But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.'"

Jesus not only based his argument on Scripture, but also required others to be subservient and accountable to the same scriptures. not only did Jesus demonstrate the present authority of scriptures long ago written, but Jesus called scripture God's word. This is never said about the church.

Matthew 15: 1-9, "Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 'Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!' Jesus replied, 'And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might have otherwise received from me is a gift devoted to God, 'he is not to honor his father with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"

The corban rule had divine authority based on tradition for the Jews. Jesus deomonstrated that God's word was the authority to which traditions and teachings must be subservient. Based on the above text, I feel sorry for those who mistakenly elevate their traditions above the word of God. Jesus had some terribly devastating words for them.

tame: in light of that, where does the Bible teach that any other source of info outside the Bible (besides God himself, of course) would be the supreme authority?

Aquinasfan: First, Christ establishes His one Church: Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

The definition of the "rock" Jesus spoke of is Peter's confession that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the Living God." (Matthew 16:16).

His Church is called "the pillar and foundation of truth." 1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The church is the pillar that supports, holds up, or exalts the truth, and not the arbiter of truth. See above verses for Jesus' view on the supremacy of scripture.

Christ tells us to take our disputes "to the church" (not Scripture): Matthew 18 15"If your brother sins against you,[2] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'[3] 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Notice what's implicit in this statement. If we are to take our disputes "to the church," then the church must be visible and united. Also, this conforms to 1 Timothy 3:15. This command makes sense if Christ's Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth."

Of course, but the issue is not about whether God uses the Church, but whether anything takes authority over (or even equal to) the word of God. The clear answer from Jesus own words is no! In fact, when disputes are brought before the Church, the church uses the scriptures as a guide.

TRADITION ...Jesus is recognizing Oral Tradition.

Jesus could recognize something you or I say here today so long as it does not conflict with scripture. Scripture is the authority. Jesus said so.

Moses' seat is not mentioned in the Old Testament, yet Jesus commands obedience to its authority.

Jesus could command obedience to my local Pastor so long as the Pastor is in accordance with the Bible. BTW, how do you define "the seat of Moses". Did not Moses write scripture? Did not Paul write scripture?

The following verses mention the validity of Sacred Tradition: 1 Corinthians 11:2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings,[ 11:2 Or traditions] just as I passed them on to you. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings[ 2:15 Or traditions] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

It is erroneous to assume that the written teaching is a different futuristic message than the oral teaching and, in fact, begs the question. I believe James White is correct in this matter (and it's pretty ovious that I don't agree with everything James White says). Please forgive me for quoting him at such length, but I believe it would be useful for clarification. He wrote:

"The first thing we note is that this is a command to stand firm and hold fast to a single body of traditions already delivered to the believers. There is nothing future about this passage at all. Does Paul say to stand firm and hold fast to traditions that will be delivered? Does he say to hold on to interpretations and understandings that have not yet developed? No, this oral teaching which he refers to has already been delivered to the entire Church, not just to the episcopate, not just to the bishops, but to everyone in the Church at Thessalonica. This single body of traditions was taught in one of two ways. First, orally, when Paul was personally with the Thessalonians, and then by epistle, the first letter of Paul to the Thessalonians. Now, what does the term 'orally' refer to? We first note that the context of the passage is the Gospel. The verses that immediately precede verse 15 speak of the Gospel and it's work among the Thessalonians. The traditions that Paul speaks of are not traditions Mary or Papal Infallibility. Instead, the traditions Paul refers to have to do with a single topic, one that is close to his heart. He is encouraging these believers to stand firm--in what? In oral traditions about subjects not found in the New Testament? No, he is exhorting them to stand firm in the Gospel. Note what Paul said to them in 1 Thessalonians concerning what he orally preached to them: 'For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs it's work in you who believe.'" [THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY, pages 96-97. Some emphasis are mine, other emphasis are the author's.]

Note also that Paul tells believers to "stand firm" in the faith in 1 Cor. 16:13. So, you see then that Paul's words in contexthave absolutely nothing to do with Roman Catholic doctrine or authority.

Logically, the Bible depends on the sacred teaching authority of the Church.

Wrong. As the scriptures I've cited make clear, any authority the Church has depends on the word of God--the Bible. By the way, the Church did not "determine" which books belong in the Bible any more than the Church "determined" the trinity. Rather, the Church discovered the books that are canonical by the very nature of the books themselves! (just as the church discovered the trinity by way of the authority of the Bible--the word of God that Jesus talked so much about)

After Jesus' death there was no New Testament. Followers of Christ had to depend upon Apostolic teaching authority and the Sacred Oral Tradition for proper doctrine. Eventually, Oral Tradition was written down and preserved in some cases as Written Tradition (or Scripture). Finally, the Church had to decide which books, proposed as Sacred Scripture were in fact divinely inspired. Many books were disputed, and the canon of Sacred Scripture wasn't finally settled until several Church councils around the year 400 A.D.

See the comments above.

If Church authority cannot be trusted, then the canon of Scripture cannot be trusted.

Wrong. the reverse is actually the case: If the canon of scripture cannot be trusted, then neither can the church. See above comments.

Ironically, Luther removed seven books from the Old Testament around the year 1500. Where in the Bible was he authorized to do that?

With all due respect, I could not care less what Luther thought in this regard (although he has taught some good stuff :o) Luther is not my authority, the word of God and Jesus is my authority.

Here are some questions for you: Why aren't the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons claims to extra Biblical authority not also valid for the reasons you give? If you answer that they do not have succession and then you turn to the scriptures to prove it (Matthew 16, etc.) then aren't you using the Bible as the Supreme arbiter?

And they would simply turn to passages that teach a great apostacy, and based on their extra-Biblical authority they would argue that your interpretations are incorrect because they, after all, have the true interpretations based on a true authority. All of this is circular reasoning without merit.

Please research further at www.aomin.org, and you will find some very helpful audio debates between James White and Roman catholic apologists free of charge! Apparently one of the apologists James debated, Patrick Madrid, is a freeper.

in veritas, tame.

Tame,

I'll address the first half of your argument now, and the rest later. You're logical. I like that.

2 Timothy 3:15-17, "and how from infancy you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. All scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

This passage means what it says. "All scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness..." True. Scripture is useful for all of this. But this passage does not rule out other useful sources. "...so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." The 'man of God' is referring to presbyters or priests, specifically.

Regardless, this passage does not justify Luther's doctrine of Scripture alone

In anticipation of certain rebuttals offered by Catholics regarding this passage, let me point out that I agree with James White's comments:

Correct. This is Newman's argument.

"Some have argued that this fact makes this passage irrelevant to any discussion of sola scriptura, since it speaks only to the Old Testament, and no one would wish to say that the Old Testament is wholly adequate and the New Testament is superfluous or unnecessary. However, such an objection misses the point, as the thrust of the passage is the origin and resultant nature of Scripture and it's abilities, not the extent of the Scriptures (i.e., to the cannon)." [from James White's book, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY, page 63]

So, Paul's words are applicable to all scripture (both Old and New Testaments), regarding the origin and nature of scripture.

I don't accept this argument. But let me accept it for the sake of argument. This still begs the question of what books constitute Scripture. Catholics have one canon, Protestants another. Does the Bible tell us which canon is correct? How can we know without an extra-Scriptural authority?

Matthew 22:29-31, "Jesus replied, 'You are in error because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God...But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.'"

Jesus not only based his argument on Scripture, but also required others to be subservient and accountable to the same scriptures. not only did Jesus demonstrate the present authority of scriptures long ago written, but Jesus called scripture God's word. This is never said about the church.

Jesus is basing His argument on the Old Testament, not the New Testament. Jesus establishes His Church in Scripture. Where does He establish the New Testament? The Great Commission is to go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not to write down His teachings. It's only after the Apostles realize that the parousia may not come within their lifetimes that they decide to record Jesus' life and teachings in writing.

The corban rule had divine authority based on tradition for the Jews. Jesus deomonstrated that God's word was the authority to which traditions and teachings must be subservient. Based on the above text, I feel sorry for those who mistakenly elevate their traditions above the word of God. Jesus had some terribly devastating words for them.

Traditions like Luther's non-Biblical doctrine of "the Bible alone." Yet the Bible itself upholds Apostolic tradition and teaching. Regardless, the Bible emerged from Oral Tradition. The Bible is recorded Oral Tradition. By rejecting Oral Tradition, you reject the Bible.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." Jesus is the Word of God. You seem to be reducing Jesus to Scripture alone.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings[ 2:15 Or traditions] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

The definition of the "rock" Jesus spoke of is Peter's confession that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the Living God." (Matthew 16:16).

Jesus changes Simon's name to "Rock" and says "on this rock I will build my Church." God changed other people's names in Scripture, usually for very important reasons.

His Church is called "the pillar and foundation of truth." 1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The church is the pillar that supports, holds up, or exalts the truth, and not the arbiter of truth. See above verses for Jesus' view on the supremacy of scripture.

And how do we know that the books of the New Testament are the Word of God? Because the Church, wrote, preserved and canonized them! You can't have one without the other.

Moreover, if Scripture is supreme, why aren't we commanded to take our disputes to Scripture? Perhaps it's because Scripture can be misused, leading to our destruction, as Scripture says.

Of course, but the issue is not about whether God uses the Church, but whether anything takes authority over (or even equal to) the word of God. The clear answer from Jesus own words is no! In fact, when disputes are brought before the Church, the church uses the scriptures as a guide.

But who's authoritatively interpreting Scripture? The Church!

"Apparently one of the apologists James debated, Patrick Madrid, is a freeper. "

I did not know that. I have read at least one of his books. Any idea what his screen-name is?

"in veritas"

Searching for the truth: a noble enterprise; in fact, the reason for our life on earth?

I saw your post this am, haven't had enough coffee yet to digest all of it.

Aquinasfan is in a better position to debate the specifics than I am. My reasoning is at a more general level.

1. Truth exists. I know you agree.
2. How do you know what is true and what isn't when there are so many denominations and even individuals claiming to have the accurate reading of the Scriptures? (Maybe you have answered this; if so I did not catch it.)
3. People have a great capacity for rationalization and believing what they really want to believe, and looking for "confirmation". People do not like to be wrong intellectually; people do not want to think of what they are doing as sinful; therefore they "read" the Scriptures to "find" that they are completely right. (E.G. the homosexual-movement's "reading" of Scripture).
4. In light of this, there needs to be humility and submission to the truth, regardless of what I want to think. Humans can make mistakes. That is why I trust in the authority of the Church, in succession from Peter. If the Pope can be considered wrong (in faith and morals) according to those who do not believe in the authority of the Church, how can anyone be sure he is right?!?

Have a good day!