Posted on 07/09/2003 9:05:32 PM PDT by AnalogReigns
Documentary was shown on various PBS stations this week... (you know PBS--will be on again, surely--got to get something out of those tax dollars spent). It's worth taping...
Very good portrayal in my opinion...but downplayed his theology, mainly highlighting the social consequences of what Luther discovered in the Bible. Understandable when telling about such an important historic figure in just 2 hours.
Personally, I think, but for Luther's courage, there would have been no eventual United States of America...and we'd live in a very different world...
Here's the speil from PBS's site:
Martin Luther (#101)
"Driven to Defiance/The Reluctant Revolutionary"
Driven to Defiance - Martin Luther is born into a world dominated by the Catholic Church. For the keenly spiritual Luther, the Church's promise of salvation is irresistible. Caught in a thunderstorm and terrified by the possibility of imminent death, he vows to become a monk. But after entering the monastery, Luther becomes increasingly doubtful that the Church can actually offer him salvation. His views crystallize further when he travels to Rome and finds the capital of Catholicism swamped in corruption. Wracked by despair, Luther finds release in the pages of the Bible, discovering that it is not the Church, but his own individual faith that will guarantee his salvation. With this revelation he turns on the Church. In his famous 95 Theses he attacks its practice of selling Indulgences, putting himself on an irreversible path to conflict with the most powerful institution of the day. The Reluctant Revolutionary - The Catholic Church uses all of its might to try and silence Luther, including accusations of heresy and excommunication. Protected by his local ruler, Frederick the Wise, Luther continues to write radical critiques of the Church. In the process, he develops a new system of faith that places the freedom of the individual believer above the rituals of the Church. Aided by the newly invented printing press, his ideas spread rapidly. He is called before the German Imperial Parliament in the city of Worms and told he must recant. Risking torture and execution, Luther refuses, proclaiming his inalienable right to believe what he wishes. His stand becomes a legend that inspires revolution across Europe, overturning the thousand-year-old hegemony of the Church. But as the reformation expands into a movement for social freedom, Luther finds himself overwhelmed by the pace of change and is left vainly protesting that his followers should be concerning themselves with God.
Hey! That would be me! Okay, well more than a few years ago, but I appreciate your post. And I know for a fact the pastor of your church and other pastors he is acountable with will tell from the pulpit to check what they say against the Word of God (the Bible) for accuracy.
Exactly what I said before, thanks for finally seeing it the Catholic way. The bread became the substantial form of Christ's body as soon as He said: "this is my body"; at which time Christ instituted His doctrine of His Real Presence in the bread and wine that He blessed, (consecrated).
As I have already proved this doctrine through the well documented historical fact of Roman persecution of early Christians for "cannibalism", (their belief they were truly eating the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist), and through the even better documented writings of the earliest Christian bishops and Saints on the subject, I shall not return to documented secular history and well recorded Christian tradition again. Such irrefutable evidence has always been overlooked and swept under the rug of denial by Luther's legion of Protestants, Fundamentalists and other heretics, you are no exception. In this regard, it is time to shake the dust off my sandals and leave you to your own devices, (which, by the way, is where your "faith" lies, in yourself. True faith lies in the belief of something outside of your rational thought).
On the contrary, the Bible is loaded with verses that reveal the consecrated bread and wine of the Eucharist do indeed become for us the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
"(1). The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Corintians 10: 15-16)
(2). "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." (John 6: 51).
(3). "At this time, the Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you"; (John 6: 52-52)
(4). "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him". (John 6:55-56).
(5). "Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body". And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying,"Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Mathew 26: 26-28)
"For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lords death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself". (1 Corinthians 11: 26-29)
Now, you must ask yourself, how can a man sin greviously by profaning the body and blood of Jesus Christ if the consecrated bread and wine are merely "symbolic" of His body and blood? Nowhere in any of Paul's discourses, or Christ's words, do we see the Eucharist reduced to a mere symbol. On the contrary, It is repeatedly referred to as the "body and blood" of Jesus, "the bread of life", "the blood of the Convenant", and It is reverently approached as the most sanctified Holy of Holies by Paul as you just read, (above).
Indeed, so holy is the Eucharist that you must approach and recieve It only after examining your conscience, and receive It "worthily", or else you literally profane it. (1 Corinthians 11:29).
The Popes never claimed to save anyone, they only bring the message of Salvation and keep it pure and safe from error. If not for the Catholic Church assembling and maintaining the integrity of the Bible through the centuries, you would have no Bible to read. As Jesus said to Peter, "I have prayed for you, that your faith will never fail-- strengthen they brethren"; (Luke 22:32) so the faith of the Catholic Church will never fail, and will continue to teach true Christian doctrine through the successors of Peter, the Bishops of Rome, the Popes.
Thankfully, because of the abuses their forefathers suffered in Europe, Americas founders began the United States as a nation giving religious freedom and allowing the right to keep and bear arms. I am glad that you and I both have the freedom to worship as we choose. In a few years we'll meet the real Holy Father and the real Pontifex Maximus, the only mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus, in heaven. At least those who are trusting in Him, and not a church, a man, or their own supposed good works will. I pray that all who read these threads will be ready when that time comes.
Of course this is true; and God uses the church He founded on Peter, (Mathew 16:18), to accomplish the task.
Purgatory is where those already saved reside, until they are purged from any minor sin they died with.
The existence of purgatory was universally taught by all the Fathers of the Church. The words of Our Lord, taught in parable form, "You shall not come out from it until you have paid the last penny" are very clear. (Matt. 5:25-26).
There are serious sins that can condemn us to Hell, and lesser ones that do not, as St. John the Evangelist teaches us: "He that knows his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death.---and there is a sin unto death." (1 John, 5:16-17).
Yet, all sin, even minor sin we die with, must be punished, for "nothing unclean can enter (heaven)", (Revelation 21:27).
Jesus reveals that sins against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven in this world, "or in the next"; implying that some sins can be forgiven in the next world: "And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this world or in the next.". (Mathew 12:32)
Paul also shows his belief in purgatory when, in his second letter to Timothy, he prays for the deceased Onesiphorus. "May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day" (2 Tim. 1:18).
"If any mans work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire". (I Corinthians 3:15)
"For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." (2 Maccabees 12: 44-45)
NOTE: The two books of Maccabees, called the "Apocrypha" by Protestants, but held as canonical Scripture by the Catholic Church since 400 A.D., can be used to prove the doctrine of Purgatory even though Protestants and Fundamentalists reject it as inspired Scripture. This is so because all mainstream Christian denominations and Scripture scholars do accept these books as accurate historical accounts of Old Testament Jewish faith. Thus, they are included in most Protestant Bibles as "Apocrypha" because they are regognized for their excellent historical value, even though rejected as inspired verses. Hence, we know from the ancient historical accounts of 2 Maccabees that the Old Testament Jews did believe in Purgatory, or a place of rest between Heaven and earth where prayers can be effective to their salvation.
pax Christi
Heb.9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
There is no passing from the place of fiery torment to heaven or vice versa:
Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Our works will be made manifest at the time of judgement. But that judgement will determine our rewards, not our salvation. Our salvation is determined in this life:
John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Rom.5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.
Christ took our sin on Him, paid for it in full, and applied or imputed His righteousness to us. So that the believer is saved not based on his righteousness, but on Christ's righteousness alone. Romans chapter 3 tells us that there is "none righteous, no not one." And Isaiah tells us that "all of our righteousnesses are as filthy rags." [Isa.64:6] The only way a man is accounted righteous is by God graciously granting him Christ's righteousness. Then, that person who has been saved, and who has received the divine nature, displays in his life "good works" [see the book of James] that prove that he is truly a Christian.
Rom.4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin." When a believer dies, he goes immediately to be with the Lord: 2 Cor.5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
If a man dies as an unbeliever, he pays for his own sins in hell, and there is no other opportunity for him to be saved. If a man dies as a believer, His sins have been paid for by the substitutionary death of Christ, and the believer is secure for all of eternity. A man's character and destiny are irrevocably fixed at death:
Rev.22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
Convincing people that their loved ones are half-way between heaven and hell, and their prays and their money can get them out sooner, is one of the most effective scams in history. Another is paying the Catholic church to forgive your sins in advance for the right price [indulgences]. St. Peter's Basilica was built in large part due to such fund raising tactics. As the Roman Catholic fund raiser, Tetzel, in Luther's day, would tell his hearers, concerning their loved ones:
As soon as the coin in the coffer rings,
the soul from purgatory springs.
That's for sure. And Heaven is the eternal destiny for the souls in Purgatory being prepared for their glory.
It is easy to see why the negative theology of the Protestants, (protesters), required that they throw the canonical Book of Maccabees overboard into the sea. For it reveals in (2 Macc. 12:43-44)that the abolishing of the doctrine of Purgatory was clearly a heresy. Note that Protestant theology is a negative one, based on the denying of Catholic doctrines through the use of isolated quotes from the Bible. The Bible beautifully teaches us that even Satan can quote Scripture and make the verses seem to be what they are not. This is the age-old strategy from Gehenna that Satan employed against Jesus during the temptations in the wilderness, (Mathew 4, and Mark 1).
But notice that Jesus uncovered this tactic from the start when He told Satan that man lives by "every word of God", (Mathew 4:4). Jesus was not going to be fooled into considering isolated Bible verses.
The Bible itself is careful to tell us that the average person cannot easily understand the Scriptures and needs to be taught by a valid teaching authority. Will you self-intrepret the Bible anyway?
(1). "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God". (2 Peter 1:20)
(2). "So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures". (2 Peter 3:15-16).
(3). "And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot." So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "How can I, unless some one guides me?" (Acts 8: 27-31)
(4). Two believers, Cleopas and another were walking to Emmaus when they met Jesus. Though devout Jews who believed, they needed to have Scriputre interpreted for them. "And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself". (Luke 24:27).
Will you accept the interpretations of Luther, or of the pastors of your 25,000 different denominations and competing theologies above the interpretations and teachings of the early Church Fathers, Bishops and Saints? Tertulian, one of the very earliest Christian writers and theologians wrote about a place between Heaven and earth after death, where we should pray for them. Saint Augustine wrote about his belief in Purgatory, as did a great many of the early Church Fathers.
Matt. 5:25,18:34; Luke 12:58-59 - these verses allude to a temporary state of purgation called a "prison." There is no exit until we are perfect, and the last penny is paid.
Matt. 12:32 - Jesus clearly provides that there is forgiveness after death. Forgiveness is not necessary in heaven, and there is no forgiveness in hell. This proves that there is another state after death, and the Church for more than 2,000 years has called this state purgatory.
Luke 12:47-48 - when the Master comes (at the end of time), some will receive light or heavy beatings but will live. This state is not heaven or hell, because in heaven there are no beatings, and in hell we will will no longer live with the Master.
Luke 16:19-31 - in this story, we see that the dead rich man is suffering but still feels compassion for his brothers and wants to warn them of his place of suffering. But there is no suffering in heaven or compassion in hell. So where is the rich man? He is in purgatory.
1 Cor. 15:29-30 - Paul mentions people being baptized on behalf of the dead, to atone for their sins. These people cannot be in heaven because they are still with sin, but they also cannot be in hell because their sins can no longer be atoned for. They are in purgatory.
Phil. 2:10 - every knee bends to Jesus, in heaven, on earth, and "under the earth" which is the realm of the righteous dead, or purgatory.
2 Tim. 1:16-18 - Onesiphorus is dead but Paul asks for mercy on him. But there is no need for mercy in heaven, and there is no mercy given in hell. Where is Onesiphorus? He is in purgatory.
Heb. 12:14 - without holiness no one will see the Lord. We need final sanctification to attain true holiness before God, and this process occurs during our lives and, if not completed, in the state of purgatory.
Heb. 12:23 - the spirits of just men who died in godliness are "made" perfect. They do not necessarily arrive perfect. They are made perfect after their death. But those in heaven are already perfect, and those in hell can no longer be made perfect. These spirits were in purgatory.
1 Peter 3:19; 4:6 - Jesus preached to the spirits in the "prison." These are the righteous souls being purified for the beatific vision.
Rev. 21:4 - God shall wipe away their tears, and there will be no mourning or pain, but only after the coming of the new heaven and the passing away of the current heaven and earth. But there is no morning or pain in heaven, and God will not wipe away their tears in hell. These are the souls experiencing purgatory.
Rev. 21:27 - nothing unclean shall enter heaven. Even the propensity to sin is uncleanliness. It is amazing how many Protestants do not want to believe in purgatory. Purgatory exists because of the mercy of God. If there were no purgatory, this would also likely mean no salvation for most people. God is merciful indeed.
Gen. 50:10; Num. 20:29; Deut. 34:8 - here are some examples of ritual prayer and penitent mourning for the dead for specific periods of time. The Jewish understanding of these practices was that the prayers freed the souls from their painful state of purificatioin, and expedited their journey to God.
Baruch 3:4 - Baruch asks the Lord to hear the prayers of the dead of Israel. Prayers for the dead are unnecessary in heaven and unnecessary in hell. These dead are in purgatory.
Zech. 9:11 - God, through the blood of His covenant, will set those free from the waterless pit, a spiritual abode of suffering which the Church calls purgatory.
2 Macc. 12:43-45 - the prayers for the dead help free them from sin and help them to the reward of heaven. Those in heaven have no sin, and those in hell can no longer be freed from sin. They are in purgatory. Luther was particularly troubled with these verses because he rejected the age-old teaching of purgatory. As a result, he removed Maccabees from the canon of the Bible.
The very opposite is true. The Catholic Church did everything possible to keep the Bible in the common language out of the hands of the laity.
In the clearest language, Wyclif charged the priestly authorities of his time with withholding the Word of God from the laity, and denying it to them in the language the people could understand. And the fact remains that, from his day until the reign of Elizabeth, Catholic England did not produce any translations of the Bible, and the English Reformers were of the opinion that the Catholic hierarchy was irrevocably set against English versions.
William Tyndale had to flee from England to translate his New Testament. In 1526, Tyndale’s English New Testament began trickling into England. The Scriptures, now referred to as the "pirate edition," were printed smaller than conventional books. This made them easier to smuggle in bales of cotton and containers to England. As the "quiet" distribution of Tyndale’s New Testaments continued, it was inevitable that some would fall into the hands of the "enemy." Upon discovery of Tyndale’s work, officials began buying up as many of the English New Testaments as possible. William Tyndale was publicly denounced by the Catholic church. The confiscated Scriptures were then thrown into the fire. Within a decade, Tyndale’s New Testament was widely distributed throughout England. Although the translator’s vision of the ploughboy’s Bible had come to pass, persecution of those caught with this "illegal" book was severe. The prisons were overflowing, hundreds of New Testaments were burned, and believers were even publicly burned at the stake with Tyndale’s New Testament fastened around their necks. His translation of the Old Testament is believed to have been completed during his 18 months in prison. His final words, as he was to be burned at the stake, reveal the heart of God’s martyr, refusing to conform to man’s laws above God: "Lord, open the King of England’s eyes."
The German Bible of Luther was saluted with the greatest enthusiasm, and became the most powerful help to the Reformation. Duke George of Saxony, Duke William of Bavaria, and Archduke Ferdinand of Austria strictly prohibited the sale in their dominions, but could not stay the current. Hans Lufft at Wittenberg printed and sold in forty years (between 1534 and 1574) about a hundred thousand copies,—an enormous number for that age,—and these were read by millions. The number of copies from reprints is beyond estimate. Cochlaeus, the champion of Romanism, paid the translation the greatest compliment when he complained that "Luther’s New Testament was so much multiplied and spread by printers that even tailors and shoemakers, yea, even women and ignorant persons who had accepted this new Lutheran gospel, and could read a little German, studied it with the greatest avidity as the fountain of all truth. Some committed it to memory, and carried it about in their bosom. In a few months such people deemed themselves so learned that they were not ashamed to dispute about faith and the gospel not only with Catholic laymen, but even with priests and monks and doctors of divinity."
One group of Christians was martyred in the year 1519, in Coventry, England, in an area called Little Park. The law they had broken was teaching their children the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments in the English language. Only the Latin Scriptures were considered "holy." The Bible in any other language, including English, was believed "vulgar" and its use labeled heresy.
Papal rage at the Protestant Bible societies of the 19th century, who were translating, printing and distributing millions of Bibles all over the world in the local vernacular language, was voiced by Pope Pius VII in 1816, who declared them "fiendish institutions for the undermining of the foundation of religion." [Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge]
Only after the proliferation of Protestant translations into such common languages as English and German for their respective people, did the Roman Catholic Church finally decide to publish their own vernacular translations. But the Catholic versions had to have the offical doctrines of the RCC included as notes, and of course included the books of the Apocrypha.
If I have the time and the desire, I'll deal with some of the rest of your post later. Or maybe some other poster would like to jump in with a Protestant response.
(Mat 18:34 NKJV) "And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.
(Phil 2:10 NKJV) that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,
(2 Tim 1:16 NKJV) The Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain;(2 Tim 1:17 NKJV) but when he arrived in Rome, he sought me out very zealously and found me. (2 Tim 1:18 NKJV) The Lord grant to him that he may find mercy from the Lord in that Day; and you know very well how many ways he ministered to me at Ephesus.
(Heb 12:14 NKJV) Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord:
(Rev 21:4 KJV) And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
(Rev 21:27 NKJV) But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life.
(Gen 50:10 NKJV) Then they came to the threshing floor of Atad, which is beyond the Jordan, and they mourned there with a great and very solemn lamentation. He observed seven days of mourning for his father.
(Num 20:29 NKJV) Now when all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead, all the house of Israel mourned for Aaron thirty days.
(Deu 34:8 NKJV) And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days. So the days of weeping and mourning for Moses ended.
(Zec 9:11 NKJV) [God speaking to Israel] "As for you also, Because of the blood of your covenant, I will set your prisoners free from the waterless pit.
As for your references to the Apocryphal books of 2 Maccabees and Baruch, Jesus and the Disciples did not consider them canonical and neither do Protestants.
Your reference in Luke 16 to the rich man you claim proves that he is in purgatory, the Bible says "Hades," often translated "Hell." This passage nowhere calls it purgatory, but even if it were, verse 26 says that people cannot pass from heaven to this place of torment or from the place of torment to heaven. Yet the Catholic church teaches that people are constantly passing from torment to heaven, and passing sooner if you pray enough and pay enough.
In Matthew 18:34 Jesus taught a parable about two men in debt, one who showed forgiveness and one who didn't. And then taught that if Men did not forgive, a sure sign of an unconverted heart, they would not be forgiven. You even try to twist a verse like this into teaching purgatory.
I'm not going to take the time to point out all of the twisting of Scripture that you've done to attempt to make your case for purgatory. Could anyone go to the above Scriptures with an open mind and come up with the doctrine of purgatory, a halfway house between heaven and hell, where Christians go to burn for awhile because they are not perect. No wonder you depend on tradition and the Pope as much for doctrine as the Bible. You have to do so with such vacuous biblical support.
I'm not blaming you as much as those who have taught you such convoluted reasoning. They have the greater guilt.
In previous posts I have shown that the Bible teaches that once a person dies, he either goes to heaven or hell at that instant. No priest, or family or friend is going to pray you into heaven. People in the Bible did mourn for their deceased loved ones. But they never tried to pray them into heaven.
I can imagine why the doctrine of giving money to get one's loved ones out of "purgatory" sprang up. What a scam. Preying on the grief of mourning relatives and friends to raise funds for your cause. With the sale of indulgences and the purgatory ponzi scheme, it is no wonder that the pope lives in extravagant wealth beyond the wildest dreams of the common man, while Jesus and his Apostles lived in virtual poverty by comparison.
You try to say in Peter's Epistle that Jesus was preaching to people in purgatory. You also say you agree that when people die, their destiny is fixed, so if they are in purgatory, they will eventually make it to heaven. The passage in Peter's book says that "the spirits" to whom Jesus preached "were disobedient in the days of Noah." The people who were disobedient in Noah's day, ridiculed Noah and rejected his message to repent. And yet you say, these people are in purgatory, and by your own words will be in heaven. But the Bible says that these disobedient unbelievers were so wicked that:
(Gen 6:5 NKJV) Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
According to your own words then, these unbelievers, whose every intent and thought was only evil continually, these reprobates who were so wicked that God destroyed the whole human race except for Noah and his family, these people will eventually be, if they are not already, in heaven. If they are to be in heaven, who will be in hell? You say that they are "righteous souls being purified for their beatific vision," But the Bible says that they were consumed with evil and wickedness. Is this theology the reason pedophile priests are spirited away to other parishes and the parishioners are not told that they are child molesters? When I lived near Belleville, Illiinois a few years ago, 15 priests, according to the paper this was the total number of priests in that diocese, were discovered to be serial molesters of children and teenagers. Are they also "righteous souls" who need to be "purified" in purgatory, and then they can go to the same place as Jesus and His Apostles?
I pray that everyone who reads this thread will come to repentance of their sins, and trust in Christ alone, who died to pay for their sins, to be their Lord and Savior. And they must do it in this life. The rich man died and immediately found himself in the fires of hell. Lazarus died and immediately went to heaven. [Luke 16] Paul said 2 Corinthians 5 that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. When Christ returns for his followers, their will be no intermediate state between heaven and hell:
(1 Th 4:16 NKJV) For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. (1 Th 4:17 NKJV) Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. (1 Th 4:18 NKJV) Therefore comfort one another with these words.
The Bible gives comfort for believers who lose fellow believers, friends or family, to death, that they will immediately enter into heaven to be with the Lord. The Catholic church tells its faithful that believers must go and be tormented for an unknown period of time in the flames of purgatory before they eventually make it to heaven.
The Bible teaches that Christ paid for all of the sins of his elect on the cross, past, present and future. "It is finished," He cried just before his redemptive death. Indeed all of our sins were future when Christ paid for them on the cross. But the Catholic church teaches that "It is not finished." Christ paid part of the sin-debt, we through our works pay some more, then in purgatory we are tormented and pay still more, and then the loved ones who keep praying and paying pay some more of the sin-debt.
Their are only two religions in this world, a religion of works and merit, and the grace of God applied to sinners who put their complete trust in Christ and his atoning blood. There is the way of Abel, forgiveness by the shedding of blood, and their is the way of Cain, a bloodless religion of man making up his own rules and offering his own labor to God. My faith is in Christ alone to save me, not in my works, not in my church, not in my pastor, and not in the pope or Mary.
(2 Cor 5:21 KJV) For he hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
(Titus 3:3 KJV) For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.(Titus 3:4 KJV) But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, (Titus 3:5 KJV) Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
(Titus 3:6 KJV) Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
(Rom 4:1 KJV) What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? (Rom 4:2 KJV) For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. (Rom 4:3 KJV) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (Rom 4:4 KJV) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. (Rom 4:5 KJV) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Rom 4:6 KJV) Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, (Rom 4:7 KJV) Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. (Rom 4:8 KJV) Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
I am justified before God [declared righteous] by faith in Christ. And as James teaches, I am justified before men [declared or seen to be righteous] by my works. I am saved in order produce good works [Eph.2:10], but I am not saved by my works:
(Eph 2:8 KJV) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (Eph 2:9 KJV) Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Will somebody please tell this nitwit that the Douay Rhiems Catholic Bible in English was published before the King James "version".
The ignorance of these fundamentalists is shocking. Purgatory doesn't atone for sins, only Christ's Sacrifice does that. The Catholic teaching on Purgatory is that it is the temporal punishment still due for sins already forgiven. Why do these Protestants and fundies continue to set up false Catholic explanations of our doctrines and then proceed to attack the false explanation? Maybe because they are blinded by ingorance and hate? If you're going to attack Catholic doctrine you moron, at least know the doctrine you are attacking.
When I read theology like this several things come to mind.
(1). Where do you get your personal authority to interpret Scripture?
Without skirting the issue and throwing up your usual smoke and mirrors, can you show me the non-isolated Biblical verse and Scriptural overview that gives you such express authority? Furthermore, I'd like you to show me when during the first 1,500 years of Christianity that individual Christians such as yourself were going around interpreting Scripture on thier own authority.
By quoting Luther, Wycliff, and the Rennaisance era "reformers", (who themselves are not prophets, and all disliked each other and disagreed vehemently with each others teachings, you are most unimpressive in convincing me of your theological positions.
(2). The Church Fathers and earliest Christian writers, (those who were taught by the Apostles and their disciples, and passed on authentic Christian teachings as Jesus commanded, never spoke like you do. Is this perhaps why Protestant seminaries are so destititute and stingy when it comes to the teachings of the early Church Fathers?
(3). Protestants like Luther, Calvin, et al, who openly confessed their dislike or outright hatred for Church authority, and therefore broke with tradition and authority, rejected Papal authority merely to replace it with their own. Now they needed to find a new way to reinterpret Scripture and redefine the Church to justify their rebellion. Christian Churches were soon named after their human founders, such as the "Lutheran" church, the "Calvinist" church, and the Wesley brothers "method" of Christianity-the "Methodist" Church. etc. Bibles suddenly became named after human kings, (King James). Protestant sects splintered into more Protestant sects, until today where we have over 25,000 Protestant denominations and sects on the books.
(4). Jesus Christ warned us of what happens to a house divided, but the "reformers" responded to this admonition by dividing His Church into a Luciferian horror chamber containing 25,000 sects and denominations with one billion individuals running around spewing untold different theologies.
(5). Answering my Scriptural quotes which support the positions of the Catholic Church and the Church Fathers with your own quotes that appear to support your personal intrepretations is the most unimpressive and one-dimensional way to debate a particular issue of theology. It actually reveals your own propensity for exerting your self will, as Luther did. I say this because I dare not interpret Scripture for myself, but defer to the ancient and classical Christian interpretations of the 2,000 year old Catholic Church, (which itself defers to the early and perrennial interpretations of the Fathers, the Saints, the Church Councils, and classical Christian tradition).
If you don't want to be called an idiot, (I should have just called you a scandal maker), then stop making intentionally false and scandelous statements such as the Catholic Church didn't have vernacular translations of the Bible until recent times. By the year 500 A.D. the Scriptures had already been translated into 500 different languages. The common Christian did not possess these Bibles for three very good reasons:
(a). each Bible had to be meticulously hand printed, sewn and bound by a monk, making them scant and expensive. Just one single Bible could take months to produce.
(b). The early Church was not a "Bible only" Church of splintered self-interpreters, but was a unified teaching Church. (Go therefore and teach ye al nations..."). One learned man with a Bible could teach the many. Keeping in mind that for the first 400 years of the Christian Church there was no Bible under the cover of one book, this is an easy principle to comprehend.
(c). Most common men could not read anyway, as living off the land was more important then than education.
Even so, remember that Catholic means "universal", from the Greek "katholicos". Jesus asked for a worldwide, universal Church - "go and teach all nations all things whatsoever I have taught you". This universal Church had a universal language to help keep it unified, that language was, and is, LATIN. Nearly every single Western European language came from Latin. The Church maintained the integrity and purity of its Official sacred writings and teachings in the dead language of Latin so that it could never be altered, or misintrepreted, or reinvented by apostates and heretics.
Furthermore, learning the Scriptures and their true interpretations and their deeper meaning was an endeavor undertaken only by the scholarly type of man, for obvious reasons. So that he could learn and pass on this knowledge either as a priest, a monk, a deacon, or a teacher. And LATIN was the scholarly language of Western man since the early centuries after Christ, right up until the 19th Century. In fact, lawyers and doctors and most scholars throughout the centuries had to be proficient in Latin, and Latin was the language that was the "keeper of facts" in all scholarly Western endeavors, not just religion. This is why even today there are thousands of legal, medical and scientific terms that are still in the Latin.
The Transmission of the Bible to English, (a partial Bible timeline).
1st Century AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make Up The 27 Books of the New Testament.
390 AD: Saint Jerome's Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books
500 AD: Scriptures have been Translated into Over 500 Languages.
995 AD: Anglo-Saxon (Early Roots of English Language) Translations of The New Testament Produced.
1455 AD: Gutenberg Invents the Printing Press; Books May Now be mass-Produced Instead of Individually Hand-Written. The First Book Ever Printed is Gutenberg's Bible in Latin.
1516 AD: Erasmus Produces a Greek/Latin Parallel New Testament.
1609 AD: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheimes New Testament (of 1582) Making the First Complete English Catholic Bible; Translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books).
1611 AD: The King James Bible Printed; Originally with All 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.
And what is the root word of "Protestant"? PROTEST = revolt. I always found it peculiar how the theology of the Protestant Churches was essentially a negative one. That is, it teaches what isn't as much as it teaches what is. The more you study Protestant theology the more clearly this is revealed.
The Protestant "church" is indeed founded on a revolt against the Pope and historical/ classical Christian doctrines. Luther not only assailed the Pope with volumes of profanity and hateful words, he also established a new, parallel Church that dropped some of the Sacraments, stripped the Sacrificial act of Christ from the liturgy, abolished Transubstantiation and replaced it with his own doctrine of 'Consubstantiation', and explained his new theology primarily by attacking traditional Catholic doctrines. This is a practice that exists to this day. A truly sad example of this abomination is how Protestant ministers will preach the virtue of Ruth and Judith from their pulpits, and then go out of their way to preach how Jesus Christ's mother was a sinner; (as though this will somehow please Jesus?).
Though the Catholic Church had some real internal reforming to do regarding the abuses of doctrine by some of the Popes and bishops, including the funding of new cathedrals by collecting money to "spring" souls from Purgatory; the basic teachings and doctrines none-the-less remained pure, rooted in Scripture, classical teachings and dogma, and tradition. While Luther was assailing the abuses of Indulgences by cursing the Pope and founding his own church, many Catholic bishops in France were already speaking out against these same abuses and refused to take part in them. In other words, they chose to "withstand Peter to his face", (as Paul did to Peter in Acts), but with the dignity of his Divinely appointed office in mind, and by correcting the abuses from within Christ's Church, and not by blowing smoke out of their ears and founding a new church based on negativity and hatred for lawful Church government. 2 Peter 2:1</font clearly warns the Christ's faithful about Protestantism
I Dearly Beloved Christians:--When Our Divine Savior sent His Apostles and His Disciples throughout the whole universe to preach the Gospel to every creature, He laid down the conditions of salvation thus: "He that believeth and is Baptized," said the Son of the Living God, "shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned." (Mark 16:16).
Here, then, Our Blessed Lord laid down the two conditions of salvation: Faith and Baptism. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned -- or is damned. Hence, then, two conditions of salvation: Faith and Baptism. I will speak this evening on the condition of Faith.
We must have Faith in order to be saved, and we must have Divine Faith, not human faith. Human faith will not save a man, but only Divine Faith. What is Divine Faith? It is to believe, upon the authority of God, all the Truths that God has revealed; that is Divine Faith. To believe all that God has taught upon the authority of God, and to believe without doubting, without hesitating; for the moment you commence to doubt or hesitate; that moment you commence to distrust the authority of God, and, therefore, insult God by doubting His Word. Divine Faith, therefore, is to believe without doubting, without hesitating.
Human faith is when we believe a thing upon the authority of men -- on human authority. That is human Faith. But Divine Faith is to believe without hesitating, whatsoever God has revealed upon the authority of God, upon the Word of God. Therefore, my dear people, it is not a matter of indifference what religion a man professes, providing he be a good man.
You hear it said nowadays in this Nineteenth Century of little faith that it matters not what religion a man professes, providing he be a good man. That is heresy, my dear people, and I will prove it to you to be such. If it be a matter of indifference what a man believes, providing he be a good man, why then it is useless for God to make any revelation whatever. If a man is at liberty to reject what God revealeth, what use for Christ to send out His Apostles and disciples to teach all nations, if those nations are at liberty to believe or reject the teachings of the Apostles or disciples? You see at once that this would be insulting God.
If God reveals a thing or teaches a thing, He means to be believed. He wants to be believed whenever He teaches or reveals a thing. Man is bound to believe whatsoever God has revealed, for, my dear people, we are bound to worship God, both with our reason and intellect, as well as with our heart and will. God is master of the whole man. He claims his will, his heart, his reason, and his intellect. Where is the man in his reason, no matter what denomination, church, or religion he belongs to, that will deny that we are bound to believe what God has taught? I am sure there is not a Christian who will deny that we are bound to believe whatsoever God has revealed. Therefore, it is not a matter of indifference what religion a man professes. He must profess that true religion if he would be saved.
But what is the true religion? To believe all that God has taught. I am sure that even my Protestant friends will admit this is right; for, if they do not, I would say they are no Christians at all.
"But what is the true Faith?"
"The true Faith," say Protestant friends, "is to believe in the Lord Jesus." ~ Agreed, Christians believe in that. Tell me what you mean by believing in the Lord Jesus?
"Why you must believe that he is the Son of the Living God." Agreed again. Thanks be to God, we can agree on something.
We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God, that He is God. To this we all agree, excepting the Unitarians and Socinians, but we will leave them alone tonight. If Christ be God, then we must believe all He teaches. Is this not so, my dearly beloved Protestant brethren and sisters? And that's the right Faith, isn't it ?
"Well, yes," says my Protestant friend "I guess that is the right Faith. To believe that Jesus is the Son of the Living God we must believe all that Christ has taught."
We Catholics say the same, and here we agree again. Christ, then, we must believe, We must believe all that Christ has taught-that God has revealed-and, without that Faith there is no salvation; without that Faith there is no hope of Heaven; without that Faith there is eternal damnation! We have the words of Christ for it: "He that believeth not shall be condemned," says Christ.
II
But if Christ, my dearly beloved people, commands me under pain of eternal damnation to believe all that He has taught, He must give me the means to know what He has taught.
If, therefore, Christ commands me upon pain of eternal damnation, He is bound to give me the means of knowing what He has taught. And the means Christ gives us of knowing this must have been at all times within the reach of all people.
Secondly, the means that God gives us to know what He has taught must be a means adapted to the capacities of all intellects- even the dullest. For even those of the dullest of understandings have a right to salvation, and consequently they have a right to the means whereby they shall learn the truths that God has taught, that they may believe them and be saved.
The means that God gives us to know what he has taught must be an infallible means. For if it be a means that can lead us astray , it can be no means at all. It must be an infallible means, so that if a man makes use of that means, he will infallibly, without fear of mistake or error, be brought to a knowledge of all the truths that God has taught.
I don't think there can be anyone present here-I care not what he is, a Christian or an unbeliever-who can object to my premises. And these premises are the groundwork of my discourse and of all my reasoning, and therefore, I want you to bear them in mind. I will repeat them, for on these premises rests all the strength of my discourse and reasoning.
If God commands me under pain of eternal damnation to believe all that He has taught, He is bound to give me the means to know what He has taught. And the means that God gives me must have been at all times within the reach of all people- must be adapted to the capacities of all intellects, must be an infallible means to us, so that if a man makes use of it he will be brought to a knowledge of all the truths that God has taught.
III
Has God given us such means? "Yes," say my Protestant friends, "He has." And so says the Catholic: God has given us such a means. What is the means God has given us whereby we shall learn the Truth that God has revealed? "The Bible," says my Protestant friends, "the Bible, the whole of the Bible, and nothing but the Bible." But we Catholics say, "No; not the Bible and its private interpretation, but the Church of the Living God."
I will prove the facts, and I defy all my separated brethren -- and all the preachers into the bargain -- to disprove what I will say tonight. I say, then, it is not the private interpretation of the Bible that has been appointed by God to be the teacher of man, but the Church of the living God.
For, my dear people, if God has intended that man should learn His (God's) religion from a book -- the Bible -- surely God would have given that book to man; Christ would have given that book to man. Did He do it? He did not. Christ sent His Apostles throughout the whole universe and said: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."
Christ did not say, "Sit down and write Bibles and scatter them over the earth, and let every man read his Bible and judge for himself." If Christ had said that, there would never have been a Christianity on the earth at all, but a Babylon and confusion instead, and never one Church, the union of one body. Hence, Christ never said to His Apostles, "Go and write Bibles and distribute them, and let everyone judge for himself." That injunction was reserved for the Sixteenth Century, and we have seen the result of it. Ever since the Sixteenth Century there have been springing up religion upon religion, and churches upon churches, all fighting and quarreling with one another. And all because of private interpretation of the Bible. Christ sent His Apostles with the authority to teach all nations, and never gave them any command of writing the Bible. And the Apostles went forth and preached everywhere, and planted the Church of God throughout the earth, but never thought of writing.
The first word written was by St. Matthew (a Catholic), and he wrote for the benefit of a few individuals. He wrote the Gospel about seven years after Christ left this earth, so that the Church of God, established by Christ, existed seven years before a line was written of the New Testament. St. Mark (also a Catholic) wrote about ten years after Christ left this earth; St. Luke (another Catholic) about twenty-five years, and St. John (still another Catholic) about sixty-three years after Christ had established the Church of God. St. John wrote the last portion of the Bible -- the Book of the Apocalypse (or Revelation as the Protestants call it) -- about sixty-five years after Christ had left this earth and the Church of God had been established. The Catholic religion had existed sixty-five years before the Bible was completed, before it was written.
Now, I ask you, my dearly beloved separated brethren, were these Christian people, who lived during the period between the establishment of the Church of Jesus and the finishing of the Bible, were they really Christians, good Christians, enlightened Christians? Did they know the religion of Jesus? Where is the man that will dare to say that those who lived from the time that Christ went up to Heaven to the time that the Bible was completed were not Christians? It is admitted on all sides, by all denominations, that they were the very best of Christians, the first fruit of the Blood of Jesus Christ.
But how did they know what they had to do to save their souls? Was it from the Bible that they learned it? No, because the Bible had yet to be written. And would our Divine Savior have left His Church for sixty-five years without a teacher of man? Most assuredly not.
Were the Apostles Christians, I ask you, my dear Protestant friends? You say, "Yes, sir; they were the very founders of Christianity." Now, my dear friends, none of the Apostles ever read the Bible; not one of them except, perhaps, Saint John. For all of them had died martyrs for the Faith of Jesus Christ and never saw the cover of a Bible. Every one of them died martyrs and heroes for the Church of Jesus before the Bible was completed
How, then, did those Christians that lived in the first sixty-five years after Christ ascended --- how did they know what they had to do to save their souls? They knew it precisely the same way that you know it, my dear Catholic friends. You know it from the teaching of the Church of God, and so did the primitive Christians know it.
IV
Not only sixty-five years did Christ leave the Church He had established without a Bible, but over three hundred years. The Church of God was established and went on spreading itself over the whole globe without a Bible for more than three hundred years. In all that time the people did not know what constituted the Bible.
In the days of the Apostles there were many false gospels. There was the Gospel of Simon, the Gospel of Nicodemus, of Mary, of Barnabas, and the Gospel of the infancy of Jesus. All of these gospels were spread among the people, and the people did not know which of these were inspired and which were false and spurious. Even the learned themselves were disputing whether preference should be given to the Gospel of Simon or that of Matthew -- to the Gospel of Nicodemus or the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Mary or that of Luke, the Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus or the Gospel of St. John the Evangelist.
And so it was in regard to the epistles: Many spurious epistles were written, and the people were at a loss for over three hundred years to know which was false or spurious, or which inspired. And, therefore, they did not know what constituted the books of the Bible.
It was not until the Fourth Century that the Pope of Rome, the Head of the Church, the successor of Saint Peter, assembled together the Bishops of the world in a council. And there in that council it was decided that the Bible, as we Catholics now have it, is the Word of God, and that the Gospels of Simon, Nicodemus, Mary, the Infancy of Jesus, and Barnabas, and all those other epistles were spurious or, at least, un-authentic; at least, that there was no evidence of their inspiration, and that the Gospels of Saints Luke, Matthew, Mark and John, and the Book of the Apocalypse (Revelation), were inspired by the Holy Ghost. Up to that time the whole world for three hundred years did not know what the Bible was (Note: The Catholics at that time did know about the Old Testament, but there was no New Testament in existence. DB); hence, they could not take the Bible for their guide, for they did not know what constituted the Bible. Would our Divine Savior, if He intended man to learn his religion from a book, have left the Christian world for three hundred years without that book? Most assuredly not.
V
Not only for three hundred years was the world left without the Bible, but for one thousand four hundred years the Christian world was left without the Sacred Book.
Before the art of printing was invented, Bibles were rare things; Bibles were costly things. Now, you must all be aware, if you have read history at all, that the art of printing was invented only a little more than four hundred years ago (Note: Four hundred years as of this writing; late 19th Century) -- about the middle of the Fifteenth Century -- and about one hundred years before there was a single Protestant in the world.
As I have said, before printing was invented books were rare and costly things. Historians tell us that in the Eleventh Century -- eight hundred years ago -- Bibles were so rare and costly that it took a fortune, a considerable fortune, to buy oneself a copy of the Bible! Before the art of printing, everything had to be done with the pen upon parchment or sheepskin. It was, therefore, a tedious and slow operation -- a costly operation.
Now, in order to arrive at the probably cost of a Bible at that time, let us suppose that a man should work ten years to make a copy of the Bible and earn a dollar a day. Well, then, the cost of that Bible would be nearly $3,650! Now, let us suppose that a man should work at the copying of the Bible for twenty years, as historians say it would have taken him that long, not having the conveniences and improvements to aid him that we have now. Then, at a dollar a day, for twenty years, the cost of a Bible would be nearly $8,000.
Suppose I came and said to you, "My dear people, save your soul, for if you lose your soul all is lost." You would ask, "What are we to do to save your souls?" The Protestant preacher would say to you, "You must get a Bible; you can get one at such-and-such a shop." You would ask the cost, and be told it was $8,000. You would exclaim: "The Lord save us! And can we not go to Heaven without that book?" The answer would be: "No, you must have the Bible and read it." You murmur at the price, but are asked, "is not your soul worth $8,000?" Yes, of course it is, but you say you do not have the money, and if you cannot get a Bible, and our salvation depends upon it, evidently you would have to remain outside the Kingdom of Heaven. This would be a hopeless condition, indeed.
For fourteen hundred years the world was left without a Bible --- not one in ten thousand, not one in twenty thousand, before the art of printing was invented, had the Bible. And would our Divine Lord have left the world without that book if it was necessary to man's salvation? Most assuredly not.
VI
But let us suppose for a moment that all had Bibles, that Bibles were written from the beginning, and that every man, woman, and child had a copy. What good would that book be to people who did not know how to read it? It is a blind thing to such persons.
Even now one-half the inhabitants of the earth cannot read. Moreover, as the Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew, it would be necessary to know these languages in order to be able to read it.
But it is said that we have a translation now in French, English, and other languages of the day. Yes, but are you sure you have a faithful translation? If not, you have not the Word of God. If you have a false translation, it is the work of man. How shall you ascertain that? How shall you find out if you have a faithful translation from the Greek and Hebrew?
"I do not know Greek or Hebrew," says my separated friend; "for my translation I must depend upon the opinion of the learned."
Well, then, dear friends, suppose the learned should be divided in their opinions, and some of them should say it is good, and some false? Then your faith is gone; you must commence doubting and hesitating, because you do not know if the translation is good.
Now with regard to the Protestant translation of the Bible, allow me to tell you that the most learned among Protestants tell you that your translation -- the King James edition -- is a very faulty translation and is full of errors. Your own learned divines, preachers, and bishops have written whole volumes to point out all the errors that are there in the King James translation, and Protestants of various denominations acknowledge it.
Some years ago, when I lived in St. Louis, there was held in that city a convention of ministers. All denominations were invited, the object being to arrange for a new translation of the Bible, and give it to the world. The proceedings of the convention were published daily in the Missouri Republican. A very learned Presbyterian, I think it was, stood up, and, urging the necessity of giving a new translation of the Bible, said that in the present Protestant translation of the Bible there were no less than thirty thousand errors.
And you say, my dear Protestant friends, that the Bible is your guide and teacher. What a teacher, with thirty thousand errors! The Lord save us from such a teacher! one error is bad enough, but thirty thousand is a little too much.
Another preacher stood up in the convention --- I think he was a Baptist --- and, urging the necessity of giving a new translation of the Bible, said for thirty years past the world was without the word of God, for the Bible we have is not the Word of God at all.
Here are your own preachers for you. You all read the newspapers, no doubt, my friends, and must know what happened in England a few years ago. A petition was sent to parliament for an allowance of a few thousand pounds sterling for the purpose of getting up a new translation of the Bible. And that movement was headed and carried on by Protestant bishops and clergymen.
VII
But, my dear people, how can you be sure of your faith? You say the Bible is your guide, but you do not know if you have it. Let us suppose for a moment that all should have a Bible. Should all read it and have a faithful translation, even then it cannot be the guide of man, because the private interpretation of the Bible is not infallible, but, on the contrary, most fallible. it is the source and fountain of all kinds of errors and heresies, and all kinds of blasphemous doctrines. Do not be shocked, my dear friends; just be calm and listen to my arguments.
There are now throughout the world three hundred and fifty different denominations2 or churches, and all of them say the Bible is their guide and teacher. And we'll suppose they are all sincere. Are all of them true churches? This is an impossibility. Truth is one as God is one, and there can be no contradiction. Every man in his senses sees that every one of them cannot be true, for they differ and contradict one another, and cannot, therefore, be all true. The Protestants say the man that reads the Bible right and prayerfully has Truth, and they all say that they read it right.
Let us suppose that here is an Episcopalian minister. He is (just for the sake of argument) a sincere, an honest, a well-meaning and prayerful man. He reads his Bible in a prayerful spirit, and from the Word of the Bible, he says it is clear that there must be bishops. For without bishops there can be no priests, without priests no Sacraments, and without Sacraments no Church. The Presbyterian is a sincere and well meaning man. He reads the Bible also, and deduces that there should be no bishops, but only presbyters. "Here is the Bible," says the Episcopalian; and "here is the Bible to give you a lie," says the Presbyterian. Yet both of them are prayerful and well-meaning men.
Then the Baptist comes in. He is (again for the sake of argument) a well-meaning, honest man, and prayerful also. "Well," says the Baptist, "have you ever been baptized?" "I was," says the Episcopalian, "when I was a baby."
"And so was I," says the Presbyterian, "when I was a baby." "But," says the Baptist, "you are going to Hell as sure as you live."
Next comes the Unitarian, (presumably) well-meaning, honest, and sincere. "Well," says the Unitarian, "allow me to tell you that you are a pack of idolaters. You worship a man for a God who is no God at all." And he gives several texts from the Bible to prove it, while the others are stopping their ears that they may not hear the blasphemies of the Unitarian. And they all contend that they have the true meaning of the Bible.
Next comes the Methodist, and he says, "My friends, have you got any religion at all?" "Of course we have," they say. "Did you ever feel religion," says the Methodist, "the Spirit of God moving within you?" "Nonsense," says the Presbyterian, "we are guided by our reason and judgment." "Well," says the Methodist, "if you have never felt religion, you never had it, and will go to Hell for eternity."
The Universalist next comes in, and hears them threatening one another with eternal hellfire. "Why," says he, "you are a strange set of people. Do you not understand the Word of God? There is no Hell at all. That idea is good enough to scare old women and children," and he proves it from the Bible.
Now comes in the Quaker. He urges them not to quarrel, and advises that they do not baptize at all. He is the sincerest of men (not really, but for argument's sake), and gives the Bible for his faith.
Another comes in and says: "Baptize the men and let the women alone. For the Bible says, 'unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.' So," says he, "the women are all right, but baptize the men."
Next comes in the Shaker, and says he: "You are a presumptuous people. Do you not know that the Bible tells you that you must work out your salvation in fear and trembling, and you do not tremble at all. By brethren, if you want to go to heaven shake, brother, shake!"
VIII
I have brought together seven or eight denominations, differing one from another, or understanding the Bible in different ways, illustrative of the fruits of private interpretation. What, then, if I brought together the three hundred and fifty different denominations, all taking the Bible for their guide and teaching, and all differing from one another? Are they all right? One says there is a Hell, and another says there is no Hell. Are both right? One says Christ is God; another says He is not. One says they are unessential. One says Baptism is requisite, and another says it is not. Are both true? This is an impossibility, my dear friends; all cannot be true.
Who, then, is true? He that has the true meaning of the Bible, you say. But the Bible does not tell us who that is -- the Bible never settles the quarrel. It is not the teacher.
The Bible, my dear people, is a good book. We Catholics allow that the Bible is the Word of God, the language of inspiration, and every Catholic is exhorted to read the Bible. But good as it is, the Bible, my dear friends, does not explain itself. It is a good book, the Word of God, the language of inspiration. Your understanding of the Bible is not inspired -- for surely you do not pretend to be inspired!
Now, then, what is the teaching of the Church on the subject? The Catholic Church says the Bible is the Word of God, and that God has appointed an authority to give us the true meaning.
It is with the Bible as it is with the Constitution of the United States. When Washington and his associates established the Constitution and the Supreme law of the United States, they did not say to the people of the States: "Let every man read the Constitution and make a government unto himself; let every man make his own explanation of the Constitution." If Washington had done that, there never would have been a United States. The people would all have been divided among themselves, and the country would have been cut up into a thousand different divisions or governments.
What did Washington do? He gave the people the Constitution and the Supreme Law, and appointed his Supreme Court and Supreme Judge of the Constitution. And these are to give the true explanation of the Constitution to all the citizens of America --- all without exception, from the President to the beggar. All are bound to go by the decisions of the Supreme Court, and it is this and this alone that can keep the people together and preserve the union of the United States. The moment the people take the interpretation of the Constitution into their own hands, that moment there is an end of union.
And so it is in every government --- so it is here and everywhere. There is a Constitution, a Supreme Court or Law, a Supreme Judge of that Constitution, and that Supreme Court is to give us the meaning of the Constitution and the Law.
In every well-ruled country there must be such a thing as this -- a Supreme Law, Supreme Court, Supreme Judge, that all the people abide by. There is in every country a Supreme Law, Supreme Court, Supreme Judge; and all are bound by decisions, and without that no government could stand. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Even among the Indian tribes such a condition of affairs exists. How are they kept together? By their chief, who is their dictator.
So our Divine Savior also has established His Supreme Court -- His Supreme Judge -- to give us the true meaning of the Scriptures, and to give us the true revelation and doctrines of the Word of Jesus. The Son of the Living God has pledged His Word that this Supreme Court is infallible, and, therefore, the true Catholic never doubts.
"I believe," says the Catholic, "because the Church teaches me so. I believe the Church because God has commanded me to believe her. He said: 'Hear the Church, and he that does not hear the Church let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican.' 'He that heareth you heareth Me,' said Christ, 'and he that despiseth you despiseth Me.'"
Therefore, the Catholic believes because God has spoken, and upon the authority of God.
But our Protestant friends say, "We believe in the Bible." Very well; how do you understand the Bible? "Well," says the Protestant, "to the best of my opinion and judgment this is the meaning of the text." He is not sure of it, but to the best of his opinion and judgment. This, my friends, is only the testimony of a man -- it is only human faith, not Divine Faith.
It is Divine Faith alone by which we give honor and glory to God, by which we adore His infinite wisdom and veracity, and that adoration and worship is necessary for salvation. I have now proved to you that the private interpretation of the Scripture cannot be the guide or teacher of man. In another lecture I shall prove that the Catholic Church is the only true Church of God, and that there is no other: outside of which there is no salvation.
Home
I take it then that you are a fundamentalist, a new-age form of "Christianity" that was born in the 20th century. But I remind you that for 1,500 years before the Protestant revolt Christianity had as it human head the Bishop of Rome. God would not ascend into Heaven and leave His world-wide Church without structure, government, and leadership. As Heaven itself is a monarchy, (the "Kingdom", as Christ called it), with an heirarchical structure as we see with the "elders in Heaven", (Revelation), and the ascending powers of the various groupings of angels, (Seraphim, Cherubim, Dominations, Virtures, Arch Angels, etc). Jesus also tells us there will be some greater than others in Heaven, (He told the Apostles that those who serve others are greater in the Kingdom of heaven, etc. Christ designed all things to be ordered, including His Church, which needs a visible human head and an heirarchical government.
You cannot get around this fact when you read the Book of Acts and see a Council in Jerusalem, you read about Bishops, presbyters, meaning priest). We also read about Deacons, Church elders. We see Paul traveling hundreds of miles to attend the coucil in Jerusalem. We see debate over doctrine, and we see Peter "speaking and silencing the whole crowd". And we see the people bringing all their belongings to the Church leadership for general disbursal in Acts. Peter was the first to confess that Jesus was the Son of God, and Jesus told him he was inspired by God, (Mathew 16:). Again and again we see Peter being given the leadership, as with the Keys to the Kingdom, (Mathew 16), Peter alone being given the vision that all men are saved, (Acts 10:34), Peter being allowed by Jesus to walk on water, Peter being instructed by Jesus, "Feed my lambs, feed my flock", the Apostles being referred to as "Peter and the eleven", Peter being allowed by the swifter John to enter the empty Tomb first, always it was Peter.
Clement, (mentioned by Paul in Scripture), was the fourth Bishop of Rome. His own epistles, still extant, reveal that he give pastoral advice and leadership to the various Churches in the First Century who were falling away from traditional doctrine, and who had their own Bishops. Only a "bishop of bishops" could have sent such correctional letters to provinces that already had their own bishops. This is precisely why it is a deadly error to be a "bible only" Christian. The Bible is truly inspired by God, but it by no means contains the whole of Christianity. The Bible itself tells us that, (John 20:30 and John 21:25).
"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."
As for your continual attacks against "Mary, the mother of Jesus", it might just be advisable to stop attacking her purity. She was, after all, the human arc of our Saviour. Do you really believe it pleases Jesus in any way when His own mother is spoken of as a sinner? Do you imagine Him smiling when you say such things? Mary was not the only woman born without sin in the Bible. Eve was the first to have this distinction. And as Eve said "yes" to Satan and brought sin into the world, Mary said "yes" to the angel and brought Salvation into the world. The Bible that you profess to know and love says that "all generations shall call me, (Mary), blessed", (Luke 1:48). I call her blessed, you call her a sinner. Elizabeth exclaimed whe she saw Mary: "BLESSED are you among women,-Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me"? (Luke 1:42-3).
And let's not forget that Mary was indeed sinless. For the Son of God could not be born of anything impure. Mary was the only person in the Scripture, (that you profess to know and trust), who declared that she was saved before Jesus the Saviour was even born. My spirit rejoices in God my savior" <(Luke 1:47). Mary was already saved by God before the Saviour was born, died and was resurrected. That is, before Redemption, Mary was saved. This is because Mary was born without that stain of sin, and remained pure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.