Testimony of a Former Irish Priest

Born Irish, in a family of eight, my early childhood was fulfilled and happy. My father was a colonel in the Irish Army until he retired when I was about nine. As a family, we loved to play, sing, and act, all within a military camp in Dublin.

We were a typical Irish Roman Catholic family. My father sometimes knelt down to pray at his bedside in a solemn manner. My mother would talk to Jesus while sewing, washing dishes, or even smoking a cigarette. Most evenings we would kneel in the living room to say the Rosary together. No one ever missed Mass on Sundays unless he was seriously ill. By the time I was about five or six years of age, Jesus Christ was a very real person to me, but so also were Mary and the saints. I can identify easily with others in traditional Catholic nations in Europe and with Hispanics and Filipinos who put Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and other saints all in one boiling pot of faith.

The catechism was drilled into me at the Jesuit School of Belvedere, where I had all my elementary and secondary education. Like every boy who studies under the Jesuits, I could recite before the age of ten five reasons why God existed and why the Pope was head of the only true Church. Getting souls out of Purgatory was a serious matter. The often quoted words, "It is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins," were memorized even though we did not know what these words meant. We were told that the Pope as head of the Church was the most important man on earth. What he said was law, and the Jesuits were his right-hand men. Even though the Mass was in Latin, I tried to attend daily because I was intrigued by the deep sense of mystery which surrounded it. We were told it was the most important way to please God. Praying to saints was encouraged, and we had patron saints for most aspects of life. I did not make a practise of that, with one exception: St. Anthony, the patron of lost objects, since I seemed to lose so many things.

When I was fourteen years old, I sensed a call to be a missionary. This call, however, did not affect the way in which I conducted my life at that time. Age sixteen to eighteen were the most fulfilled and enjoyable years a youth could have. During this time, I did quite well both academically and athletically.

I often had to drive my mother to the hospital for treatments. While waiting for her, I found quoted in a book these verses from Mark 10:29-30, "And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life." Not having any idea of the true salvation message, I decided that I truly did have a call to be a missionary.

Trying To Earn Salvation I left my family and friends in 1956 to join the Dominican Order. I spent eight years studying what it is to be a monk, the traditions of the Church, philosophy, the theology of Thomas Aquinas, and some of the Bible from a Catholic standpoint. Whatever personal faith I had was institutionalized and ritualized in the Dominican religious system. Obedience to the law, both Church and Dominican, was put before me as the means of sanctification. I often spoke to Ambrose Duffy, our Master of Students, about the law being the means of becoming holy. In addition to becoming "holy," I wanted also to be sure of eternal salvation. I memorized part of the teaching of Pope Pius XII in which he said, "...the salvation of many depends on the prayers and sacrifices of the mystical body of Christ offered for this intention." This idea of gaining salvation through suffering and prayer is also the basic message of Fatima and Lourdes, and I sought to win my own salvation as well as the salvation of others by such suffering and prayer.

In the Dominican monastery in Tallaght, Dublin, I performed many difficult feats to win souls, such as taking cold showers in the middle of winter and beating my back with a small steel chain. The Master of Students knew what I was doing, his own austere life being part of the inspiration that I had received from the Pope's words. With rigor and determination, I studied, prayed, did penance, tried to keep the Ten Commandments and the multitude of Dominican rules and traditions.

Then in 1963 at the age of twenty-five I was ordained a Roman Catholic priest and went on to finish my course of studies of Thomas Aquinas at The Angelicum University in Rome. But there I had difficulty with both the outward pomp and the inner emptiness. Over the years I had formed, from pictures and books, pictures in my mind of the Holy See and the Holy City. Could this be the same city? At the Angelicum University I was also shocked that hundreds of others who poured into our morning classes seemed quite disinterested in theology. I noticed Time and Newsweek magazines being read during classes. Those who were interested in what was being taught seemed only to be looking for either degrees or positions within the Catholic Church in their homelands.

One day I went for a walk in the Colosseum so that my feet might tread the ground where the blood of so many Christians had been poured out. I walked to the arena in the Forum. I tried to picture in my mind those men and women who knew Christ so well that they were joyfully willing to be burned at the stake or devoured alive by beasts because of His overpowering love. The joy of this experience was marred, however, for as I went back in the bus I was insulted by jeering youths shouting words meaning "scum or garbage." I sensed their motivation for such insults was not because I stood for Christ as the early Christians did but because they saw in me the Roman Catholic system. Quickly, I put this contrast out of my mind, yet what I had been taught about the present glories of Rome now seemed very irrelevant and empty.

One night soon after that, I prayed for two hours in front of the main altar in the church of San Clemente. Remembering my earlier youthful call to be a missionary and the hundredfold promise of Mark 10:29-30, I decided not to take the theological degree that had been my ambition since beginning study of the theology of Thomas Aquinas. This was a major decision, but after long prayer I was sure I had decided correctly.

The priest who was to direct my thesis did not want to accept my decision. In order to make the degree easier, he offered me a thesis written several years earlier. He said I could useit as my own if only I would do the oral defense. This turned my stomach. It was similar to what I had seen a few weeks earlier in a city park: elegant prostitutes parading themselves in their black leather boots. What he was offering was equally sinful. I held to my decision, finishing at the University at the ordinary academic level, without the degree.

On returning from Rome, I received official word that I had been assigned to do a three year course at Cork University. I prayed earnestly about my missionary call. To my surprise, I received orders in late August 1964 to go to Trinidad, West Indies, as a missionary.

On October 1, 1964, I arrived in Trinidad, and for seven years I was a successful priest, in Roman Catholic terms, doing all my duties and getting many people to come to Mass. By 1972 I had become quite involved in the Catholic Charismatic Movement. Then, at a prayer meeting on March 16th of that year, I thanked the Lord that I was such a good priest and requested that if it were His will, He humble me that I might be even better. Later that same evening I had a freak accident, splitting the back of my head and hurting my spine in many places. Without thus coming close to death, I doubt that I would ever have gotten out of my self- satisfied state. Rote, set prayer showed its emptiness as I cried out to God in my pain.

In the suffering that I went through in the weeks after the accident, I began to find some comfort in direct personal prayer. I stopped saying the Breviary (the Roman Catholic Church's official prayer for clergy) and the Rosary and began to pray using parts of the Bible itself. This was a very slow process. I did not know my way through the Bible and the little I had learned over the years had taught me more to distrust it rather than to trust it. My training in philosophy and in the theology of Thomas Aquinas left me helpless, so that coming into the Bible now to find the Lord was like going into a huge dark woods without a map.

When assigned to a new parish later that year, I found that I was to work side-by-side with a Dominican priest who had been a brother to me over the years. For more than two years we were to work together, fully seeking God as best we knew in the parish of Pointe-a-Pierre. We read, studied, prayed, and put into practise what we had been taught in Church teaching. We built up communities in Gasparillo, Claxton Bay, and Marabella, just to mention the main villages. In a Catholic religious sense we were very successful. Many people attended Mass. The Catechism was taught in many schools, including government schools. I continued my personal search into the Bible, but it did not much affect the work we were doing; rather it showed me how little I really knew about the Lord and His Word. It was at this time that Philippians 3:10 became the cry of my heart, "That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection...."

About this time the Catholic Charismatic movement was growing, and we introduced it into most of our villages. Because of this movement, some Canadian Christians came to Trinidad to share with us. I learned much from their messages, especially about praying for healing. The whole impact of what they said was very experience-oriented but was truly a blessing, insofar, as it got me deeply into the Bible as an authority source. I began to compare scripture with scripture and even to quote chapter and verse! One of the texts the Canadians used was Isaiah 53:5, "...and with his stripes we are healed." Yet in studying Isaiah 53, I discovered that the Bible deals with the problem of sin by means of substitution. Christ died in my place. It was wrong for me to try to expidite or try to cooperate in paying the price of my sin.

"If by grace, it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace.." Romans 11:6. "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:6).

One particular sin of mine was getting annoyed with people, sometimes even angry. Although I asked forgiveness for my sins, I still did not realize that I was a sinner by the nature which we all inherit from Adam. The scriptural truth is, "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10), and "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). The Catholic Church, however, had taught me that the depravity of man, which is called "original sin," had been washed away by my infant baptism. I still held this belief in my head, but in my heart I knew that my depraved nature had not yet been conquered by Christ.

"That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection..." (Philippians 3:10) continued to be the cry of my heart. I knew that it could be only through His power that I could live the Christian life. I posted this text on the dashboard of my car and in other places. It became the plea that motivated me, and the Lord who is Faithful began to answer.

First, I discovered that God's Word in the Bible is absolute and without error. I had been taught that the Word is relative and that its truthfulness in many areas was to be questioned. Now I began to understand that the Bible could, in fact, be trusted. With the aid of Strong's Concordance, I began to study the Bible to see what it says about itself. I discovered that the Bible teaches clearly that it is from God and is absolute in what it says. It is true in its history, in the promises God has made, in its prophecies, in the moral commands it gives, and in how to live the Christian life. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (II Timothy 3:16-17).

This discovery was made while visiting in Vancouver, B.C., and in Seattle. When I was asked to talk to the prayer group in St. Stephen's Catholic Church, I took as my subject the absolute authority of God's Word. It was the first time that I had understood such a truth or talked about it. I returned to Vancouver, B.C. and in a large parish Church, before about 400 people, I preached the same message. Bible in hand, I proclaimed that "the absolute and final authority in all matters of faith and morals is the Bible, God's own Word."

Three days later, the archbishop of Vancouver, B.C., James Carney, called me to his office. I was then officially silenced and forbidden to preach in his archdiocese. I was told that my punishment would have been more severe, were it not for the letter of recommendation I had received from my own archbishop, Anthony Pantin. Soon afterwards I returned to Trinidad.

While I was still parish priest of Point-a-Pierre, Ambrose Duffy, the man who had so strictly taught me while he was Student Master, was asked to assist me. The tide had turned. After some initial difficulties, we became close friends. I shared with him what I was discovering. He listened and commented with great interest and wanted to find out what was motivating me. I saw in him a channel to my Dominican brothers and even to those in the Archbishop's house.

When he died suddenly of a heart attack, I was stricken with grief. In my mind, I had seen Ambrose as the one who could make sense out of the Church-Bible dilemma with which I so struggled. I had hoped that he would have been able to explain to me and then to my Dominican brothers the truths with which I wrestled. I preached at his funeral and my despair was very deep.

I continued to pray Philippians 3:10, "That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection...." But to learn more about Him, I had first to learn about myself as a sinner. I saw from the Bible (I Timothy 2:5) that the role I was playing as a priestly mediator -- exactly what the Catholic Church teaches but exactly opposite to what the Bible teaches -- was wrong. I really enjoyed being looked up to by the people and, in a certain sense, being idolized by them. I rationalized my sin by saying that after all, if this is what the biggest Church in the world teaches, who am I to question it? Still, I struggled with the conflict within. I began to see the worship of Mary, the saints, and the priests for the sin that it is. But while I was willing to renounce Mary and the saints as mediators, I could not renounce the priesthood, for in that I had invested my whole life.

Mary, the saints, and the priesthood were just a small part of the huge struggle with which I was working. Who was Lord of my life, Jesus Christ in His Word or the Roman Church? This ultimate question raged inside me especially during my last six years as parish priest of Sangre Grande (1979-1985). That the Catholic Church was supreme in all matters of faith and morals had been dyed into my brain since I was a child. It looked impossible ever to change.

Rome was not only supreme but always called "Holy Mother." How could I ever go against "Holy Mother," all the more so since I had an official part in dispensing her sacraments and keeping people faithful to her? In 1981, I actually rededicated myself to serving the Roman Catholic Church while attending a parish renewal seminar in New Orleans. Yet when I returned to Trinidad and again became involved in real life problems, I began to return to the authority of God's Word. Finally the tension became like a tug-of-war inside me. Sometimes I looked to the Roman Church as being absolute, sometimes to the authority of the Bible as being final. My stomach suffered much during those years; my emotions were being torn. I ought to have known the simple truth that one cannot serve two masters. My working position was to place the absolute authority of the Word of God under the supreme authority of the Roman Church.

This contradiction was symbolized in what I did with the four statues in the Sangre Grande Church. I removed and broke the statues of St. Francis and St. Martin because the second commandment of God's Law declares in Exodus 20:4, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image...." But when some of the people objected to my removal of the statues of the Sacred Heart and of Mary, I left them standing because the higher authority, i.e., the Roman Catholic Church, said in its law Canon 1188: "The practise of displaying sacred images in the churches for the veneration of the faithful is to remain in force."

I did not see that what I was trying to do was to make God's Word subject to man's word. My Own Fault While I had learned earlier that God's Word is absolute, I still went through this agony of trying to maintain the Roman Catholic Church as holding more authority than God's Word, even in issues where the Church of Rome was saying the exact opposite to what was in the Bible.

How could this be? First of all, it was my own fault. If I had accepted the authority of the Bible as supreme, I would have been convicted by God's Word to give up my priestly role as mediator, but that was too precious to me. Second, no one ever questioned what I did as a priest.

Christians from overseas came to Mass, saw our sacred oils, holy water, medals, statues, vestments, rituals, and never said a word! The marvelous style, symbolism, music, and artistic taste of the Roman Church was all very captivating. Incense not only smells pungent, but to the mind it spells mystery.

One day, a woman challenged me (the only Christian ever to challenge me in all my 22 years as a priest), "You Roman Catholics have a form of godliness, but you deny its power." Those words bothered me for some time because the lights, banners, folk music, guitars, and drums were dear to me. Probably no priest on the whole island of Trinidad had as colorful robes, banners, and vestments as I had. Clearly I did not apply what was before my eyes.

In October 1985, God's grace was greater than the lie that I was trying to live. I went to Barbados to pray over the compromise that I was forcing myself to live. I felt truly trapped. The Word of God is absolute indeed. I ought to obey it alone; yet to the very same God I had vowed obedience to the supreme authority of the Catholic Church. In Barbados I read a book in which was explained the Biblical meaning of Church as "the fellowship of believers." In the New Testament there is no hint of a hierarchy; "Clergy" lording it over the "laity" is unknown. Rather, it is as the Lord Himself declared "...one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren" (Matthew 23:8).

Now to see and to understand the meaning of church as "fellowship" left me free to let go of the Roman Catholic Church as supreme authority and depend on Jesus Christ as Lord. It began to dawn on me that in Biblical terms, the Bishops I knew in the Catholic Church were not Biblical believers. They were for the most part pious men taken up with devotion to Mary and the Rosary and loyal to Rome, but not one had any idea of the finished work of salvation, that Christ's work is done, that salvation is personal and complete. They all preached penance for sin, human suffering, religious deeds, "the way of man" rather than the Gospel of grace. But by God's grace I saw that it was not through the Roman Church nor by any kind of works that one is saved, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

I left the Roman Catholic Church when I saw that life in Jesus Christ was not possible while remaining true to Roman Catholic doctrine. In leaving Trinidad in November 1985, I only reached neighboring Barbados. Staying with an elderly couple, I prayed to the Lord for a suit and necessary money to reach Canada, for I had only tropical clothing and a few hundred dollars to my name. Both prayers were answered without making my needs known to anyone except the Lord.

From a tropical temperature of 90 degrees, I landed in snow and ice in Canada. After one month in Vancouver, I came to the United States of America. I now trusted that He would take care of my many needs, since I was beginning life anew at 48 years of age, practically penniless, without an alien resident card, without a driver's license, without a recommendation of any kind, having only the Lord and His Word.

I spent six months with a Christian couple on a farm in Washington State. I explained to my hosts that I had left the Roman Catholic Church and that I had accepted Jesus Christ and His Word in the Bible as all-sufficient. I had done this, I said, "absolutely, finally, definitively, and resolutely." Yet far from being impressed by these four adverbs, they wanted to know if there was any bitterness or hurt inside me. In prayer and in great compassion, they ministered to me, for they themselves had made the transition and knew how easily one can become embittered. Four days after I arrived in their home, by God's grace I began to see in repentance the fruit of salvation. This meant being able not only to ask the Lord's pardon for my many years of compromising but also to accept His healing where I had been so deeply hurt. Finally, at age 48, on the authority of God's Word alone, by grace alone, I accepted Christ's substitutionary death on the Cross alone. To Him alone be the glory.

Having been refurbished both physically and spiritually by this Christian couple together with their family, I was provided a wife by the Lord, Lynn, born-again in faith, lovely in manner, intelligent in mind. Together we set out for Atlanta, Georgia, where we both got jobs.

In September 1988, we left Atlanta to go as missionaries to Asia. It was a year of deep fruitfulness in the Lord that once I would never have thought was possible. Men and women came to know the authority of the Bible and the power of Christ's death and resurrection. I was amazed at how easy it is for the Lord's grace to be effective when only the Bible is used to present Jesus Christ. This contrasted with the cobwebs of church tradition that had so clouded my 21 years in missionary garments in Trinidad, 21 years without the real message.

To explain the abundant life of which Jesus spoke and which I now enjoy, no better words could be used than those of Romans 8:1-2: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." It is not just that I have been freed from the Roman Catholic system, but that I have become a new creature in Christ. It is by the grace of God, and nothing but His grace, that I have gone from dead works into new life.

Back in 1972, when some Christians had taught me about the Lord healing our bodies, how much more helpful it would have been had they explained to me on what authority our sinful nature is made right with God. The Bible clearly shows that Jesus substituted for us on the cross. I cannot express it better than Isaiah 53:5: "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." (This means that Christ took on himself what I ought to suffer for my sins. Before the Father, I trust in Jesus as my substitute.)

That was written 750 years before the crucifixion of our Lord. A short time after the sacrifice of the cross, the Bible states in I Peter 2:24: "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed."

Because we inherited our sin nature from Adam, we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. How can we stand before a Holy God -- except in Christ -- and acknowledge that He died where we ought to have died? God gives us the faith to be born again, making it possible for us to acknowledge Christ as our substitute. It was Christ who paid the price for our sins: sinless, yet He was crucified. This is the true Gospel message. Is faith enough? Yes, born-again faith is enough. That faith, born of God, will result in good works including repentance: "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10).

In repenting, we put aside, through God's strength, our former way of life and our former sins. It does not mean that we cannot sin again, but it does mean that our position before God has changed. We are called children of God, for so indeed we are. If we do sin, it is a relationship problem with the Father which can be resolved, not a problem of losing our position as a child of God in Christ, for this position is irrevocable. In Hebrews 10:10, the Bible says it so wonderfully: "...we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

The finished work of Christ Jesus on the Cross is sufficient and complete. As you trust solely in this finished work, a new life which is born of the Spirit will be yours -- you will be born again.

My present task: the good work that the Lord has prepared for me to do is as an evangelist situated in the Pacific Northwest of the U.S.A. What Paul said about his fellow Jews I say about my dearly loved Catholic brothers: my heart's desire and prayer to God for Catholics is that they may be saved. I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based in God's Word but in their church tradition. If you understand the devotion and agony that some of our brothers and sisters in the Philippines and South America have put into their religion, you may understand my heart's cry: "Lord, give us a compassion to understand the pain and torment of the search our brothers and sisters have made to please You. In understanding pain inside the Catholic hearts, we will have the desire to show them the Good News of Christ's finished work on the Cross."

My testimony shows how difficult it was for me as a Catholic to give up Church tradition, but when the Lord demands it in His Word, we must do it. The "form of godliness" that the Roman Catholic Church has makes it most difficult for a Catholic to see where the real problem lies. Everyone must determine by what authority we know truth. Rome claims that it is only by her own authority that truth is known. In her own words, Cannon 212, Section 1, "The Christian faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound by Christian obedience to follow what the sacred pastors, as representatives of Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or determine as leaders of the Church." (Vatican Council II based, Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John-Paul II, 1983).

Yet according to the Bible, it is God's Word itself which is the authority by which truth is known. It was man-made traditions which caused the Reformers to demand "the Bible only, faith only, grace only, in Christ only, and to God only be the glory."

I share these truths with you now so that you can know God's way of salvation. Our basic fault as Catholics is that we believe that somehow we can of ourselves respond to the help God gives us to be right in His sight. This presupposition that many of us have carried for years is aptly defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) #2021, "Grace is the help God gives us to respond to our vocation of becoming his adopted sons...."

With that mindset, we were unknowingly holding to a teaching that the Bible continually condemns. Such a definition of grace is man's careful fabrication, for the Bible consistently declares that the believer's right standing with God is "without works" (Romans 4:6), "without the deeds of the Law" (Romans 3:28), "not of works" (Ephesians 2:9), "It is the gift of God," (Ephesians 2:8). To attempt to make the believer's response part of his salvation and to look upon grace as "a help" is to flatly deny Biblical truth,

"...if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace..." (Romans 11:6). The simple Biblical message is that "the gift of righteousness" in Christ Jesus is a gift, resting on His all-sufficient sacrifice on the cross, "For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:17).

So it is as Christ Jesus Himself said, He died in place of the believer, the One for many (Mark 10:45), His life a ransom for many. As He declared, ...this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28). This is also what Peter proclaimed, "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God..." (I Peter 3:18).

Paul's preaching is summarized at the end of II Corinthians 5:21, "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.." (II Cor. 5:21).

This fact, dear reader, is presented clearly to you in the Bible. Acceptance of it is now commanded by God, "...Repent ye, and believe the gospel" (Mark 1:15).

The most difficult repentance for us dyed-in-the-wool Catholics is changing our mind from thoughts of "meriting," "earning," "being good enough," simply to accepting with empty hands the gift of righteousness in Christ Jesus. To refuse to accept what God commands is the same sin as that of the religious Jews of Paul's time, "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." (Romans 10:3)

A native of Ireland he returned there in 1996 on an evangelistic tour. He now lives in Portland Oregon U.S.A. He teaches a workshop at Multnomah Bible College on "Catholicism in the Light of Biblical Truth." His greatest joy is door-to-door witnessing . He has produced three series of radio broadcasts. A fourth series is about to begin in the Philippines on D.W.T.I. and D.V. R .O. radio stations. He is co-editor of this book and founder of the ministry named "Berean Beacon."

What's implicit in your theory is that this splintering is a greater evil than one corrupt organization. So you need to begin by proving how the corrupt Romanist organization is a greater good than smaller gospel believing organizations.

Actually, it is your responsibility to prove that the Catholic Church IS corrupt.

Have there been corrupt members of the Church? Certainly, there have even been corrupt popes. However, corruption is a natural result of man's sinful nature. This DOES NOT make the Church itself corrupt.

Then you need to take into account that despite the fact that these churches emphasize different gifts they proclaim the same gospel.

Really? Calvinism and Arminianism are proclaiming the same gospel?

So for most of these churches they are one in the apostolic gospel and it's the Romanist church that separates itself from the apostolic gospel.

How has the Catholic Church "separated" itself from the Apostolic Gospel? When PRECISELY did this happen? What was the PRECISE event that marked the separation?

So if sola scriptura is so destructive why is it that these diverse organizations agree on the gospel but Romanism which denies sola scriptura teaches another gospel?

Your question is predicated on two assumptions which YOU must firt prove valid.

See that word "certain"? That word has a different meaning than "all". So Peter is saying "some" of Paul's writings are difficult. That would be different than saying "all" of Paul's writings are difficult. Even Peter acknowledges that the simplicity of the gospel is the work of Christ when he tells the church to take account of that fact even if "some" of Paul's writings are difficult.

First of all, I never said that ALL of Saint Paul's writings were difficult, but let's look a little further at what you wrote in post 1369:

Not all things in the Bible are clear and need interpretation but what is necessary for salvation is clear without needing an interpreter.

So, since you seem to acknowledge that at least "some" of Saint Paul's work is difficult to understand and since you claim that, "what is necessary for salvation is clear without needing an interpreter," please tell us which specific portions of Saint Paul's epistles are difficult, but "unnecessary" for salvation (please give specific chapters and verses). How PRECISELY is a person to know that these are unnecessary for salvation if they don't actually understand them? What if a person THINKS they understand these sections and it causes them to reach improper conclusions that endanger their salvation?

Ah, no. I wrote it. I know exactly what "it's" refers to. If you look to the previous sentence you can find what "it's" refers to. Here's a hint: The same word is used twice thus all or nothing refers to two kinds of uses of that word.

I don't know if you cut and pasted what you originally wrote in post 1369 or not, but the word it's is very clear. Here's another look:

My goodness. I'm not sure I can simplify this any further. Not all things in the Bible are clear and need interpretation but what is necessary for salvation is clear without needing an interpreter. It's not all or nothing.

My original question was to ask which parts we can omit which is a fairly typical response to someone saying "it's not all or nothing."

Yet the early church still copied those letters and passed them around in their own language until the Romanist Church began prohibiting it. Hmmm.

Really? Which languages were these, please be as specific as possible? Saint Jerome translated the Vulgate in the late 4th Century because Latin had become the lingua franca of western Europe. There was never any prohibition against having them in the original Greek or Hebrew. Do you have a single shred of evidence that a complete and accurate translation of the New Testament existed in any language other than Greek, Latin, Coptic or Syriac, and a few other Eastern or Oriental languages (or POSSIBLY Hebrew or Aramaic) prior to the late Middle Ages? Do you have any evidence that the Coptic Church STOPPED producing Coptic translations or that the other Eastern Church stopped theirs?

All of these conspiracy theories that the Church somehow suppressed translation of the Bible are quite fascinating, but they lack any historical proof and require the person believing them to stipulate to things that are false. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of Europeans were illiterate well into the 16th century. The fact remains that Latin was the lingua franca of western Europe in varying degrees until the 18th or 19th century. The fact remains that as soon as languages like English, French and German had actually developed to the point that proper translation was possible, the Bible was translated.

From Wikipedia:

Christian responses

The Binding of Isaac is mentioned in the New Testament Book of Hebrews among many acts of faith recorded in the Old Testament:
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,” concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense. (Hebrews 11:17–19, NKJV)

The Author of Hebrews here considers Abraham’s faith in God to be of such a magnitude that he felt reassured that if God would allow him to perform the task which he’d requested, God would be able to resurrect the slain Isaac, in order that his prophecy (Genesis 21:12) might be fulfilled. Such faith in God’s word and in his promise lead this particular Old Testament passage to be regarded by many Christians as an incredibly significant (and exemplary) one.

Early Christian preaching sometimes simply received Jewish interpretations of the binding of Isaac without elaborating on them. For example Hippolytus of Rome says in his Commentary on the Song of Songs, “The blessed Isaac became desirous of the anointing and he wished to sacrifice himself for the sake of the world” (On the Song 2:15).[4] Since other Christians from the period saw Isaac as a type of the “Word of God” who prefigured Christ (Origen, Homilies on Genesis 11–13), it is easy to see how early Christian interpreters might have made sense of this Jewish tradition. The majority of Christian Biblical commentators hold this whole episode to be an archetype of the way that God works; this event is seen as prefiguring God’s plan to have his own Son, Jesus, die on the cross as a substitute for humanity, much like the ram God provided for Abraham. And Abraham’s willingness to give up his own son Isaac is seen, in this view, as foreshadowing the willingness of God the Father to sacrifice his Son; also contrasted is Isaac’s submission in the whole ordeal with Christ’s, the two choosing to lay down their own lives in order for the will of God to be accomplished, as no struggle is mentioned in the Genesis account. Indeed, both stories portray the participants carrying the wood for their own sacrifice up a mountain.

There has been speculation within Christianity whether the Binding occurred upon the Temple Mount or upon Calvary, the hill upon which Christ was crucified, which is in the vicinity. Genesis 22:2 states that it occurred “in the region of Moriah” and not necessarily upon the Temple Mount, specifically. Some Christians view Abraham’s statement in 22:14, “On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided,” as a prophecy that upon this spot God would provide the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ.

An alternate interpretation contains the proposition that Calvary was on a section of Mount Moriah, the temple mount, which has subsequently been divided from the main part for the purpose of defending Jerusalem. Following this and the unproven indication that the mountain of Isaac’s Sacrifice is the Temple Mount. As such the crucifixion would occur on the same mountain. Again this supports the prophetic nature of Genesis 22:14 and also Isaiah’s the New Testament writer’s Hebrews 10:5 comment “You did not desire sacrifice, but a body you prepared for me.” This is a strong reference to Abrahams sacrifice (which is a foreshadowing of Israel’s long awaited Messiah providing a permanent sacrifice and redemption first mentioned in Genesis 3:14-15) and alludes to Isaiah’s words in Isaiah 11:1-15. (15:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

You know how to play a Dominican! How can I decline to share knowledge, even if it’s trivial?

I suppose a ‘yard’ is a reference to some kind of measuring stick as ‘beam’ (you know, that thing in my eye) is among the many meanings of that VERY interesting word. (’Y’s are interesting — I used not to understand how much they are until I heard my learning-to-speak daughter pronounce ‘yeast’ a ‘gheest’ - and so I saw how something we do with the front middle of our tongue could be related to glottal consonants as well as to the labial ‘w’.)

An ell is a unit of measure, (related to el-bow - where ‘el’ appears to mean arm, so the ‘bow’ is where it bends) about a yard in length. Having a limey mother who reared me on English books, I first heard “give an inch and he’ll take a yard,” as “give an inch and he’ll take an ‘ell’.” So, about an arm’s length, indeed a yard.

One can imagine that after watching a small person and a large person measuring, say, yarn in arm’s lengths, somebody said “We need a standard. I know let’s get this ‘yard’ here, it’s about an arm’s length, and use that!”

In my senility, exacerbated as it is by side effects to the poisons the doctors ask me to take, I slip into the language of my childhood.

Because you talk about having faith in Christ alone. Then you talk about the easiest way to heaven being the Eucharist. Then you speak of working hard and trying your best. And you talk about the importance of daily mass, praying, recitation of bible verses, etc. You are all over the board on "there is nothing I can do but wait and hope I'm lucky enough, but here is what I do to please God." It's pretty much not a simple answer you give. It depends on the post as to what you do at any one time. So no, it is NOT a foolish question at all.
My apologies, and did I really say "lucky"? Here's an example of "working hard":

When passing by a stranger in the street, make eye contact, smile, and greet them. If they do not respond, or respond with a scowl, one can add them to their Rosary intentions. Done humbly, this is a great work for Christ.

Here is what I believe in: Nicene Creed.

In regard to the reception of the daily Eucharist, hurdles of all sizes can be cleared when the True Body of Jesus [the Eucharist] resides within you. As Mother Teresa of Calcutta said [and it's a paraphrase], "It's not without great reason that I am a Catholic ... I couldn't get by one single day with the work that I do without first receiving my Jesus." If you're interested in learning about the Catholic Church, Mother Teresa, herself, suggested the writings of Fr. John A. Hardon.

(Thanks for asking. I took the last dose of the norvasc on Tue. My doc says I should start recovering in a couple of days. So, I slept a WEE bit better last night, but not as better as I need. Head full of cotton wool today. God is teaching me to trust Him. I am not learning. He is teaching me how much I need Him. THAT I'm learning.

I think I am not quite getting your post as it relates to mine. I will say it is hard for me to 'feel my way into' someone's being 'born again' and subsequently turning away from God.

But, on the other hand, I was writing elsewhere of a guy I baptized 20 years ago. His tearful conversion seemed real enough and his joy in the Love of God was moving.

And then he fell (jumped?) off the wagon, got back on crack, and attempted to rape someone. So he's doing serious time now, deservedly so.

MUST I think the conversion was not real? Kierkegaard would say that if you ever stopped loving, then you never loved, and that seems reasonable to me. May I consider this a dreadful backsliding and hope and pray for a deeper conversion?

But, academically speaking and leaving my feelings aside, may I not consider that perhaps, where he is and how he has destroyed the 'life' he'd built, he might give himself to despair and anger and never turn back?

That is, is it impossible for some in the desert between Egypt and the Land of Promise to say, "I quit. Let me die here."

SVITW and I both have spoken of Ephesians, and it was thinking of Ephesians that I posed my question about "car or highway?"

It's a false dilemma, of course. The car gets you there, but it gets you there along the highway. So God prepares good works for us to walk in them, as Paul says.

I THINK I'm trying to say that, since God lays out the route, provides the car, enables - second by second - me to drive it, and makes me want to go to New York (or wherever) and the all of that, In the most important sense, I have no claim on Him at all. (and as I say, whenever a good work happens in my vicinity, I am the most astonished one of all. I KNOW ->I<- didn't do that!)

YET, as a kind of secondary cause, I do all those things which God enables me to do in the car God gave me, and I have a reasonable expectation of ending up in New York, as a result of actions done by Him through me. So in a secondary way there is something which, by an analogy, is sort of like 'merit' and thereofre sort of like a 'claim'.

And so, back to the birthday card, as Father it is my joy to THANK my kid for all the work I did so that she could get me a card.

As to OSAS in my life, I don't think about it much. I think about Jesus (and, of course "God, the universe, and everything" -- thinking is what I do) But I do so with, what, focus or confidence (all gifts, I hasten to add) so that I am taking no thought for the morrow but rather thinking NOW about living in IHS, praising Him, proclaiming Him, blah blah.

I'm not saying that's good or bad, I'm just saying it's where I am. When I have bad drug reactions I can easily say I would rather be away from the body and with the Lord, and I guess some could say that is presumptuous of me. But then I go to confession and to the sacraments and whatnot, not to earn salvation but because to do so is my joy AND seems to me, at least, like some of the good works He has prepared for me to walk in.

DISCLAIMER: Anything stupid or wrong in the above is NOT MY FAULT! it's the drugs and the fatigue. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.)

Thanks bunches for you clarification! You said "if I'm lucky" in reference to suffering with Christ, or something like that. Hopefully that's enough info to help you remember what you were referring to! So now we have a starting point, the Nicene Creed. Along with the daily Eucharist and the Rosary as a great work for Christ. If ever you see I've misunderstood your posts, please let me know and I will try my best to correct it to your satisfaction before I answer you with my position.
These are my actual words that *you* referred to:It's a lifetime of listening, praying, fasting, listening some more, reading, worshiping, doing good works, etc., and if you're "lucky," one of the "chosen ones," suffering with Christ on His Cross.
You might want to quote accurately, or not at all in the future. And with the intelligent (not referring to myself; I spread faith through suffering and prayer) daily Mass variety Catholics that patiently post on Free Republic dodging bulls*it after lie, I would think you'd be able to compile what has been posted by same. They all speak similarly, because they are all part of the same Church, which has doctrines and dogmas that they follow. Irritating Catholics, or attacking their faith, the faith Christ Himself initiated, will not likely bring you great favor with the Creator of same. Could you be stretching His patience? Now, go take that lemon out of your mouth ...

I’m confused. Is this about Eastern Orthodox and “Roman” Catholics? Or Orthodox Christians and Catholics? Or all three?

From Catholic Answers:

“Ecumenical Prospects

While Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are separate for the moment, what unites us is still far greater than what divides us, and there are abundant reasons for optimism regarding reconciliation in the future. Over the last several decades, there has been a marked lessening of tensions and overcoming of long-standing hostilities.

In 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople lifted mutual excommunications dating from the eleventh century, and in 1995, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople concelebrated the Eucharist together. John Paul II, the first Slavic pope, has made the reconciliation of Eastern and Western Christendom a special theme of his pontificate, and he has released a large number of documents and addresses honoring the contributions of Eastern Christendom and seeking to promote unity between Catholics and Orthodox.

It is again becoming possible to envision a time when the two communions will be united and, by the power of the Holy Spirit, fulfill their duty in bringing about Christ’s solemn desire and command “that they may be one” (John 17:11). “

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.