One Hundred Fifty Reasons I'm Catholic

Good post. One has to wonder what all those missionaries were doing since Pentecost. The Great Commission was a directive from Jesus Christ to go out and preach the Gospel to all nations. I have to say serving in Arab Muslim countries over the past 11 years there may not be missionaries screaming on the street corners often but you cannot go two blocks without an internet tea house and every roof has a satellite dish. The Gospel is reaching the four corners of the earth.

I agree. One of the ideas floated around about getting to God is that it's like a wheel. The hub is God/god consciousness/whatever and the spokes on the wheel are ALL the different ways/paths man gets there. The intent, of course, is that there IS no ONE way, ALL ways - as long as one is sincere and good - will lead to God. Kind of like that coexist bumper sticker. The "enlightened" ones are those who get this, you see. So, it doesn't matter what we believe, how we believe, WHO we believe in, as long as we are good people and mean well, we will eventually get there - it may take multiple lifetimes, but eventually we will attain the goal.

Now, can you think up a more insipid, wicked, deceptive philosophy than this one? One guess who came up with this "wonderful" idea? Satan...yep, that's right, the devil, who else? What is sad is how many people actually believe this and it is sounding more and more like Catholicism is going down that path, as well. The gospel NEVER changes. Those who claim to follow the Christian faith as it was from the start should be very wary of those who lean towards ecumenicalism. It will negate the gospel and Satan will be delighted!

You posted two lines from a very long discourse of Luther. I provided the remainder of the discourse which gives the context.

Luke 18:9-14 KJV

And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

“He has a great story.”

Never heard of ‘em, and probably, after this thread, I’ll never hear of him again.

“He’s a prolific writer and a better apologist for the Catholic faith I have not heard.”

Considering the level of what passes for apologetics by FRomans, this does not say anything.

>>>Jesus said He would establish the Church and He did. The Church is His Body, His Bride. The gospel and Church always go together. There is no way to separate them. <<<

That is correct. This is his Bride, the Church:

"Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God," (Rev 21:9-10)

This is the location:

"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant . . . " (Heb 12:22-24)

This is the temple:

"And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it." (Rev 21:22)

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." (Eph 2:19-22)

"And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." (2 Cor 6:16)

Philip

>>>Wherever you found the Apostles - those who spread the gospel - you found the Church. The same is true of the sacraments. They are part and parcel of the Church’s life and authority. So, open Romans and look at 6:1-14. See baptism? See Paul? That’s a sacrament of the Church (from Christ) for the forgiveness of sins, and an Apostle (sent by Christ and the Church) teaching Christians (members of the Church). Did that not occur to you?<<<

Paul was referring to baptism by the Holy Spirit. That is not a sacrament. It is a gift from God. There is also this:

"Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it." (Col 2:12-15)

So, why do men teach ordinances? Were they not nailed to the cross? And why this obsession with repentance and penance?

"Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit." (Heb 6:1-6)

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (Heb 6:1-6)

Hebrews clearly states you only get one chance at repentance. If you fall away after receiving the Holy Ghost, there is no renewal by repentance.

How does the Catholic Church reconcile this passage:

"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." (Heb 10:16-18)

Philip

So you’re claiming that Luther’s Bible included the deuterocanonicals in the Old Testament in the proper place which would show he believed they were canonical? Really?

Moving the goalposts? Luther DID include the Apocryphal books in his German translation of the Bible and he placed them in a separate section just as, hold your hat...JEROME did. Just as the Jewish theologians did who translated the Bible into Greek (the Septuagint). Jerome prefaced these books by saying in his commentary on Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus:

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church."

And he states in his preface to the books of Samuel and Kings:

"This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a "helmeted" introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon."

In his preface to the Daniel he states:

"I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon; because, however, they are to be found everywhere, we have formed them into an appendix, prefixing to them an obelus, and thus making an end of them, so as not to seem to the uninformed to have cut off a large portion of the volume." From http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/10/did-jerome-change-his-mind-on-apocrypha.html

As for what Luther thought or did not think about canonical books, he came to terms with their divine inspiration as he studied them further. A good idea for those who presume that God would ever contradict Himself.

I have a question for you. Why do you bring up Luther so much? Is he like some kind of talisman that is supposed to shut up all the "Protestants" in the thread? How many times must we explain that Luther isn't the Pope of Protestantism - he was far from the only reformer? We see him as a fallible man that sincerely loved the Lord and that love compelled him to try to effect change in the church he also loved. I believe even your magesterium has been making moves to resolve the issues over Martin Luther (see http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article2099032.ece) Any plans to stash that dogeared card?

Matthew 23:13-29 KJV

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.

Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

Believing a messiah is coming is NOT the same as having faith in Jesus. Are you sure you don’t believe in “invincible ignorance”? It almost sounds like you do as you want to apply it to these people from OT times.

I don't. Paul explained it in Romans 4

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

“Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.

Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

“Protestants, however, are - by-and-large - grossly ignorant about history. They also rarely know much about scripture. These things are shown here by Protestants every day.”

Truly? Maybe these Protestants knew something about history since they could smell tyranny an ocean away. Or Maybe grossly ignorant Protestants somehow “Forrest Gumped” their way to founding this country, which most humbly gave the glory to God.

Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of “The Declaration of Independence” were orthodox, deeply committed, Christians? The other three all believed in the Bible as the divine truth, the God of scripture, and His personal intervention. It is the same Congress that formed the American Bible Society, immediately after creating the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of Scripture for the people of this nation. Part of our commitment should be to raise Old Glory across the nation’s flagpoles and be grateful we live in a nation committed to these ideals.

From errantskeptics.org

Samuel Adams

“A general dissolution of Principles and Manners will more surely overthrow the Liberties of America than the whole Force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader . . . If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security.” Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, ed., Harry Alonzo Cushing (G. P. Putman’s Sons, 1908), Vol. 4, p. 124.

“I ... recommend my Soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.” Will of Samuel Adams

“We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient.” “He reigns in Heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let his kingdom come.” Samuel Adams

“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words.” Samuel Adams

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. Samuel Adams

Fisher Ames

“Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples, captivating and noble. In no book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant; and by teaching all the same book, they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as wellas of faith.” Fisher Ames: Author of the First Amendment

Alexander Hamilton

“For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.” Alexander Hamilton

“I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.”. Alexander Hamilton

Much more here:

http://errantskeptics.org/Quotes_Founding-Fathers.htm

LOL, look at what I found on another thread! Scott Hahn believes in a ‘female’ holy Spirit and other stupid stuff.

“Ferrara covers Hahn’s female Holy Spirit, but he also discusses Hahn’s weird view of Original Sin (something lightly touched upon in O’Neill’s June 2004 NOR article). Says Ferrara: “Hahn speculates that the serpent in the Garden was actually a dragon or other monster with which Adam should have engaged in mortal combat to protect himself and his bride…. Hahn thus suggests that the original sin was not disobedience to a divine command under temptation, but rather a refusal to sacrifice his life under a death threat: [Says Hahn] ‘Knowing the serpent’s power, Adam was unwilling to lay down his own life — for the sake of his love of God, or to save the life of his beloved. That refusal to sacrifice was Adam’s original sin.’” The internal quote is from Hahn’s First Comes Love, page 70. Hahn’s next line is this: “He [Adam] committed it [the original sin] even before he had tasted the fruit, even before Eve had tasted the fruit.”

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/note.jsp?did=0105-notes-hahn

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

The same Gospels but not the same Gospel.

“Your premise is invalid, since it is self-contradictory. The idea that the only valid Christian doctrines must be contained in Scripture, isn’t found in Scripture. It is a novelty invented by Luther.”

Who mentioned Luther. If you cannot substantiate your Christian doctrine on Holy Scriptures then your position is untenable and as reliable as that of the Pharisees’ mixture of written Law and man-made oral laws, which Jesus rebuked. As we see Paul instruct Timothy:

2 Timothy 3:14-17 KJV

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 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, throughly furnished unto all good works.

You use EWTN, I quote Paul. Luther is not in the equation at all. So attribute the invalid premise to Paul if you dare.

Paul stated he was commissioned to preach the Gospel not to baptize. So where is it stated the Gospel includes sacraments?

1 Corinthians 15 defines the Gospel.

>>>If you cannot substantiate your Christian doctrine on Holy Scriptures then your position is untenable and as reliable as that of the Pharisees’ mixture of written Law and man-made oral laws, which Jesus rebuked. As we see Paul instruct Timothy:. . .<<<

Amen. This is another:

". . . though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal 1:8-12)

Jesus was more blunt:

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48)

Philip

I don't pray to saints. They pray for us.

Well, that is a remarkable statement for a Catholic. No asking Mary for help? No praying the rosary?

I know they "made it" because they were either martyred for Christ or verified miracles have occurred through their intercession.

So then we do know who made it??? They talk to us from the other side through miracles??? This really gets spookier by the moment. I hope you're thinking about what you are saying.

They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions

While I appreciate the current Catholic Church's efforts in making Catholics believe this through their "tracks", this is not what the scriptures teaches nor is it what the early fathers believed. Please note a few of their quotes:

•Ignatius: "His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments; and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to be justified (Epistle to Philadelphians). Note: "muniments" are title deeds, documents giving evidence of legal ownership of something.

•Polycarp: "I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ (Epistle of Philippians).

•Justin Martyr: "No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer...are sins purged, but by faith, through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account (Dialogue with Trypho). "God gave his own Son the ransom for us...for what, save his righteousness, could cover our sins. In whom was it possible that we, transgressors and ungodly as we were, could be justified, save in the Son of God alone? ...O unexpected benefit, that the transgression of many should be hidden in one righteous Person and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors" (Letter to Diognetus).

•Ireneus: "Through the obedience of one man who first was born from the Virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation."

•Cyprian: "If Abraham believed in God and it was imputed to him for righteousness, then each one, who believes in God and lives by faith, is found to be a righteous person."

•Athanasius: "Not by these (i.e. human efforts) but by faith, a man is justified as was Abraham."

•Basil: "This is the true and perfect glorying in God, when a man is not lifted up on account of his own righteousness, but has known himself to be wanting in true righteousness and to be justified by faith alone in Christ."

•Ambrose: "Without the works of the law, to an ungodly man, that is to say, a Gentile, believing in Christ, his "faith is imputed for righteousness" as also it was to Abraham."

What the "new" Catholic Church is teaching is the heresy Socinianism, denying the Atonement. Please note part of a discussion on Socinianism compared to what is being said by the Catholic Church.

Socinians favor

the theory that Christ bore the sins of His people on the cross only in the sense that His sacrifice served to incite us to abandon our sins.

In other words, Socinians believe Christ came not to save His people from their sins, but to make them savable, and the rest is up to them.

If you don't believe me in saying the Catholic Church is teaching the Socinian heresy, please note what Catholic On-Line states:

The great doctrine thus laid down in the beginning was further unfolded and brought out into clearer light by the work of the Fathers and theologians. And it may be noted that in this instance the development is chiefly due to Catholic speculation on the mystery, and not, as in the case of other doctrines, to controversy with heretics. ...

But it was not till St. Anselm and Abelard had met it with unanswerable arguments that its power was finally broken. It makes a belated appearance in the pages of Peter Lombard . ...

His example, and drew all things to Himself; it was by this [sic: His example] that He wrought our Atonement and Reconciliation with God, "making peace through the blood of His Cross".

In other word, Christ only showed us the way. This is why the Catholic Church now believes Muslims can go to heaven simply by living a good life and following the beatitudes. Because Christ showed us the way. This is nothing more than Pelagian as well as Socinianism heresy.

To sum up, for 1,200 years the Church accepted the atonement. This is documented not only in the writings of the early fathers but also in the Nicene Creed and many other writings of the Church. But then, all of a sudden it became clear as to what was REALLY being talked about. Hey, Christ didn't have to die for our sins but He just redeemed mankind from their sins. The rest is up to them.

This is nothing more than Socinianism and a denial of Christ's atonement for our sin. This was laid down by the fathers, embedded in Creeds, and changed twelve centuries later as admitted by the Church. And, it should be noted, the Catholics are rather nervous because they try to defend themselves against this charge in their write up. But you can't change a leopard's spots.

This is a damnable (literally) lie.

LOL!!! Ah...the great and scholarly works of the Catholic Church handed down by the fathers from ages past. NOT! :O)

Weird beliefs like that could explain a lot.