The Reformation is over. Catholics 0, Protestants 1

triablogue ^ | April 13, 2015 | Jerry Walls

[RnMomof7]

I'm going to transcribe an article that Jerry Walls wrote when he was a grad student at Notre Dame:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am nearing the end of three very happy (with a brief interlude) years as a graduate student in the philosophy department at Notre Dame. The philosophy department is quite lively and stimulating and I have learned a great deal about my discipline.

Along the way, I have also acquired an education of another sort–namely in the ways of the Roman Catholic Church. My education in this regard has been informal and piecemeal, to be sure. My insights have been gathered from diverse sources: from lectures, from letters to the Observer, from articles in the conservative magazine Fidelity, from interaction with undergraduates I have taught. But most of all, I have learned from numerous conversations with students and faculty in the philosophy and theology departments, many of which have involved a friend who is a former Roman Catholic seminarian. While my informal education in these matters hardly qualifies me to speak as an authority, Roman Catholics may find interesting how one Protestant in their midst has come to perceive them. I can communicate my perceptions most clearly, I think, by briefly describing three types of Catholics I have encountered. 

First, I have met a fair number of conservative Catholics. Those who belong to this group like to characterize themselves as thoroughly Catholic. They stress the teaching authority of the Church and are quick to defend the official Catholic position on all points. For such persons, papal encyclicals are not to be debated; they are to be accepted and obeyed. Many conservative Catholics, I suspect, hold their views out of a sense of loyalty to their upbringing. Others, however, defend their views with learning, intelligence, and at times, intensity.

At the other end of the spectrum of course, are the liberal Catholics. These persons are openly skeptical not only about distinctively Roman doctrines such as papal infallibility, but also about basic Christian doctrine as embodied in the ecumenical creeds. It is not clear in what sense such persons would even be called Christians. Nevertheless, if asked their religious preference, on a college application say, they would identify themselves as Catholics. I have no idea how many Catholics are liberals of this stripe, but I have met only a few here at Notre Dame.

It is the third type of Catholic, I am inclined to think, which represents the majority. Certainly most of the Catholics I have met are of this type. I call this group "functional protestants."

Many Catholics, no doubt, will find this designation offensive, so let me hasten to explain what I mean by it. One of the fundamental lines of difference between Catholics and Protestants, going back to the Reformation, concerns the issue of doctrinal authority. The traditional Roman Catholic view, as I understand it, is that its official teachings are guaranteed to be infallible, particularly when the pope or an ecumenical council exercises "extraordinary magisterium" when making doctrinal or moral pronouncements. Protestants have traditionally rejected this claim in favor of the view that Scripture alone is infallible in matters doctrinal and moral. This was the conviction MartinLuther came to hold after he arrived at the conclusion that both popes and church councils have erred. After this, his excommunication was all but inevitable.

When I say most Catholics are functional Protestants I simply mean that most Catholics do not accept the authority claims of their Church. In actual belief and practice, they are much closer to the Protestant view.

This is apparent from the fact that many Catholics do not accept explicitly defined dogmas of their Church. For example, I have talked with several Catholics who are doubtful, at best, about the Marian dogmas, even though these have the status of infallible doctrine in their church. Such Catholics have often made it clear to me that they believe the basic Christian doctrine as defined in the creeds. But they frankly admit that they think their Church has taken some wrong turns in her recent history. Where this is the case, they do not feel compelled to follow. As one of my functional Protestant friends put it: "I am a Roman Catholic, but I am more concerned about being Catholic than about being Roman."

That many Catholics are functionally Protestant is also evident in their attitude toward the distinctive moral teachings of their Church. The obvious example here is the Roman Catholic teaching that all forms of "artificial" birth control are immoral. The official view was reaffirmed explicitly by Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae, and has been reiterated again and again by Pope John Paul II. Nevertheless, as the article on Humanae Vitae in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion noted, "the papal ban is simply being ignored," and "a concrete authority crisis has thus emerged."

I attended the recent debate on abortion between Fr. James Burtchaell and Daniel Maguire. It is interesting to me that Fr. Burtchaell who eloquently defended the conservative view on abortion, admitted to a questioner that he rejects his Church's teaching on birth control. I could not help but wonder: is Fr. Burtchaell, Catholic statesman though he is, also among the functional Protestants?

This raises, of course, the deeper issue here: to what extent can a member of the Roman Catholic Church disagree with the official teachings of his Church and still be a faithful Catholic? Can one reject the teaching of a papal encyclical while remaining a faithful Catholic? If so, can he also reject a doctrine which the pope has declared infallible?

I have put these questions to several Catholics. Conservative have assured me that the answer to both the latter questions is no. Others insist the answer is yes.

This brings me to a final point concerning functional Protestants: they do consider themselves faithful Catholics. I have  often pointed out in conversation with such Catholics that their views differ little from mine. Why then remain Catholic I ask. In response, these Catholics make it clear to me that they love their Church and intend to remain loyal to it. More than one has compared the Church to his family. One's family makes mistakes, but one does not therefore choose to join another family.

I am not sure what to make of this response. It is not clear to me that one can line up behind Luther in holding that the Popes and councils have erred in their doctrinal and moral pronouncements, and still be a faithful Catholic.  But on the other hand, things have changed since the 16C. It is no longer the case that a Catholic will be excommunicated for holding what Luther held. Perhaps this is just another sign that the Reformation is–despite the pope's best efforts–finally taking hold within the Roman Church. 

Jerry Walls, "Reformational Theology found in Catholicism," The Observer, Thursday, April 23, 1978, p8.

[ealgeone]

I’m good with that.

[WVKayaker]

It is notable that whining is a common trait of the Roman cult. When confronted with Scriptural refutations of their most off-the-wall beliefs, they must resort to pleading about hate and never seem to find any cogent responses.

I am thankful that we have brothers and sisters in Christ, who care enough about our Roman Catholic FRiends to confront them with the Truth of Scripture. Silly and carnal superstitions cannot provide any pathway to God. Seeking some goddess to provide a link to the Throne will never get above the ceilings. Eating bread and whine (deliberate) is their idea to gain salvation.

Sorry, there is no other name under Heaven by which we must be saved!!! Jesus is the Reason! Jesus it the way. Jesus is the Truth. Jesus is the life.

Empty gilt halls provide pride and fancily-gowned men give them warm fuzzies, but Jesus is not the one that they have at the top! They want to show him as a baby in His mother's arms, or leave Him on the Cross.

But, thanks be to God, He promises us eternal life with Him. Praise God, from Whom ALL blessings flow!

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

“Blessed Mary Ever Virgin!”

You doth protest too much! And not by ‘legitimate’ references. See to your own ‘virginity’...from Sin. To deal with that, it requires a very personal relationship with God’s Son, Jesus, the Christ. None of that has to do with Mary, it all has to do with you and God, the Son, Jesus. And no earthly mediator can do that for you. It is very personal!

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Natural family planning accepts the possibility of human life. Sticking a piece of rubber (or a pill) into the process most explicitly does not.

Furthermore, the Church considers NFP sinful, just as artificial contraception, if it is abused -- i.e., if there is no valid reason to delay having children, but the couple continues to purposely avoid pregnancy.

[virgil]

If you’re not Catholic, then why is Catholic doctrine an “issue” to you to begin with? Maybe Catholics don’t see their beliefs as “issues” to be debated. This is their religious beliefs, it’s not their politics. I could attack your beliefs, and make you an atheist, but that would be murder.

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

"It is notable that whining is a common trait of the Roman cult. When confronted with Scriptural refutations of their most off-the-wall beliefs, they must resort to pleading about hate and never seem to find any cogent responses."

A common meme you people love to bleat, over and over, regardless of it's falsehood. There was somebody who said something about the "big lie"...

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

*its

[LurkingSince'98]

It is my belief and that of the Catholic Church first recorded in about the firet century AD that Mary was Ever Virgin.

Again it is my belief and my faith, just what are you going to do anout it?

Do you honestly think that I am going to change my belief in Mary by a few words you toss together.

You give yourself entirely too much credit.

For the Greater Glory of God

[LurkingSince'98]

I’m sure you know by now why I never respond to you but I just had to give you a little reminder.

What you just posted was one of the most unscriptural things I have read.

I would like to hear the explanation from another of your protestant brethern who can explain how you can twist the moral imperative of both the Old and New Testaments to gather on the Lords Day.

Just staying home is a grevious derelection of your moral requirement to render unto God what is God’s - the time you owe Him in proper not erzatz worship.

When you proclaim the obviously unscriptural pronouncements and not one of your brethren stands to rebuke you it is a sad.

I will not trouble you again with any responses.

AMDG

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

The Word of God and Jesus Christ, offered as a sacrifice for the Sins of many, does not teach ‘Maryology’. And yes, we do know that the ‘new’ pope is a ‘Marionist’.

Rom 3:23 “For all have sinned and do need the glory of God.” (Douay-Reims Translation)

This does not exclude Mary.

[LurkingSince'98]

says you.

about a billion and a quarter Catholics think otherwise.

For the Greater Glory of God

[LurkingSince'98]

Hail Mary, Conceived Without Sin
By: Tim Staples

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

Romans 3:23 says, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” First John 1:8 adds, “If any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him.” These texts could not be clearer for millions of Protestants: “How could anyone believe Mary was free from all sin in light of these Scripture passages? What’s more, Mary herself said, ‘My soul rejoices in God my savior’ in Luke 1:47. She clearly understood herself to be a sinner if she admits to needing a savior.”

The Catholic Answer

Not a few Protestants are surprised to discover the Catholic Church actually agrees that Mary was “saved.” Indeed, Mary needed a savior! However, Mary was “saved” from sin in a most sublime manner. She was given the grace to be “saved” completely from sin so that she never committed even the slightest transgression. Protestants tend to emphasize God’s “salvation” almost exclusively to the forgiveness of sins actually committed. However, Sacred Scripture indicates that salvation can also refer to man being protected from sinning before the fact:

Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever. (Jude 24-25)

Six hundred years ago, the great Franciscan theologian Duns Scotus explained that falling into sin could be likened to a man approaching unaware a deep ditch. If he falls into the ditch, he needs someone to lower a rope and save him. But if someone were to warn him of the danger ahead, preventing the man from falling into the ditch at all, he would be saved from falling in the first place. Likewise, Mary was saved from sin by receiving the grace to be preserved from it. But she was still saved.

All Have Sinned Except . . .

But what about “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23) and “if any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him” (1 John 1:8)? Wouldn’t “all” and “any man” include Mary? On the surface, this sounds reasonable. But this way of thinking carried to its logical conclusion would list Jesus Christ in the company of sinners as well. No faithful Christian would dare say that. Yet no Christian can deny the plain texts of Scripture declaring Christ’s full humanity either. Thus, to take 1 John 1:8 in a strict, literal sense would apply “any man” to Jesus as well.

The truth is Jesus Christ was an exception to Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8. And the Bible tells us he was in Hebrews 4:15: “Christ was tempted in all points even as we are and yet he was without sin.” The question now is: Are there any other exceptions to this rule? Yes—millions of them.

Both Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:9 deal with personal rather than original sin. (Romans 5 deals with original sin.) And there are two exceptions to that general biblical norm as well. But for now, we will simply deal with Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8. First John 1:8 obviously refers to personal sin because in the very next verse, John tells us, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins . . .” We do not confess original sin; we confess personal sins.

The context of Romans 3:23 makes clear that it too refers to personal sin:

None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave. They use their tongues to deceive. The venom of.asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. (Rom. 3:10-14)

Original sin is not something we do; it is something we’ve inherited. Romans chapter three deals with personal sin because it speaks of sins committed by the sinner. With this in mind, consider this: Has a baby in the womb or a child of two ever committed a personal sin? No. To sin a person has to know the act he is about to perform is sinful while freely engaging his will in carrying it out. Without the proper faculties to enable them to sin, children before the age of accountability and anyone who does not have the use of his intellect and will cannot sin. So, there are and have been millions of exceptions to Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8.

Still, how do we know Mary is an exception to the norm of “all have sinned?” And more specifically, is there biblical support for this claim? Yes, there is much biblical support.

The Name Says it All

And [the angel Gabriel] came to [Mary] and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.” (Luke 1:28-30)

Many Protestants will insist this text to be little more than a common greeting of the Archangel Gabriel to Mary. “What does this have to do with Mary being without sin?” Yet, the truth is, according to Mary herself, this was no common greeting. The text reveals Mary to have been “greatly troubled at the saying and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be” (Luke 1:29, emphasis added). What was it about this greeting that was so uncommon for Mary to react this way? We can consider at least two key.aspects.

First, according to biblical scholars (as well as Pope John Paul II), the angel did more than simply greet Mary. The angel actually communicated a new name or title to her. (cf. Redemptoris Mater, 8, 9). In Greek, the greeting was kaire, kekaritomene, or “Hail, full of grace.” Generally speaking, when one greeted another with kaire, a name or title would be found in the immediate context. “Hail, king of the Jews” in John 19:3 and “Claudias Lysias, to his Excellency the governor Felix, greeting” (Acts 23:26) are two biblical examples of this. The fact that the angel replaces Mary’s name in the greeting with “full of grace” was anything but common. This would be analogous to me speaking to one of our tech guys at Catholic Answers and saying, “Hello, he who fixes computers.” In Hebrew culture, names and name changes tell us something permanent about the character and calling of the one named. Just recall the name changes of Abram to Abraham (from “father” to “father of the multitudes”) in Genesis 17:5, Saray to Sarah (”my princess” to “princess”), in Genesis 17:15 and Jacob to Israel (”supplanter” to “he who prevails with God”) in Genesis 32:28.

In each case, the names reveal something permanent about the one named. Abraham and Sarah transition from being a “father” and “princess” of one family to being “father” and “princess” or “mother” of the entire people of God (see Rom. 4:1-18; Is. 51:1-2). They become patriarch and matriarch of God’s people forever. Jacob/Israel becomes the patriarch whose name, “he who prevails with God,” continues forever in the Church, which is called “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). The People of God will forever “prevail with God” in the image of the patriarch Jacob.

What’s in a name? According to Scripture, quite a lot.

St. Luke uses the perfect passive participle, kekaritomene, as his “name” for Mary. This word literally means “she who has been graced” in a completed sense. This verbal adjective, “graced,” is not just describing a simple past action. Greek has another tense for that. The perfect tense is used to indicate that an action has been completed in the past resulting in a present state of being. “Full of grace” is Mary’s name. So what does it tell us about Mary? Well, the average Christian is not completed in grace and in a permanent sense (see Phil. 3:8-12). But according to the angel, Mary is. You and I sin, not because of grace, but because of a lack of grace, or a lack of our cooperation with grace, in our lives. This greeting of the angel is one clue into the unique character and calling of the Mother of God. Only Mary is given the name “full of grace” and in the perfect tense, indicating that this permanent state of Mary was completed.

Ark of the (New) Covenant

The Old Testament Ark of the Covenant was a true icon of the sacred. Because it contained the presence of God symbolized by three types of the coming Messiah—the manna, the Ten Commandments, and Aaron’s rod—it had to be pure and untouched by sinful man (see 2 Sam. 6:1-9 and Ex. 25:10ff; Num. 4:15).

In the New Testament, the new Ark is not an inanimate object, but a person: the Blessed Mother. How much more pure would the new Ark be when we consider the old ark was a mere “shadow” in relation to it (see Heb. 10:1)? This image of Mary as the Ark of the Covenant is an indicator that Mary would fittingly be free from all contagion of sin to be a worthy vessel to bear God in her womb. And most importantly, just as the Old Covenant Ark was pristine from the moment it was constructed with explicit divine instructions in Exodus 25, so would Mary be pure from the moment of her conception. God, in a sense, prepared his own dwelling place in both the Old and New Testaments.

The Ark of the Covenant contained three “types” of Jesus inside: manna, Aaron’s rod, and the Ten Commandments. In Hebrew, commandment (dabar) can be translated “word.” Compare: Mary carried the fulfillment of all these types in her body. Jesus is the “true [manna] from heaven” (John 6:32), the true “High Priest” (Heb. 3:1), and “the word made flesh” (John 1:14).
The glory cloud (Hebrew Anan) was representative of the Holy Spirit, and it “overshadowed” the Ark when Moses consecrated it in Ex. 40:32-33. The Greek word for “overshadow” found in the Septuagint is a form of episkiasei. Compare: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). The Greek word for “overshadow” is episkiasei.
David “leapt and danced” before the Ark when it was being carried into Jerusalem in procession in 2 Sam. 6:14-16. Compare: As soon as Elizabeth heard the sound of Mary’s salutation, John the Baptist “leaped for joy” in her womb (cf. Luke 1:41-44).
After a manifestation of the power of God working through the Ark, David exclaims, “How can the Ark of the Lord come unto me?” Compare: After the revelation to Elizabeth about the true calling of Mary, who was carrying God in her womb, Elizabeth exclaims, “Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43)
The Ark of the Lord “remained in the house of Obededom . . . three months” in 2 Sam. 6:11. Compare: “Mary remained with [Elizabeth] for about three months” (Luke 1:56).

The New Eve

It is important for us to recall that New Covenant fulfillments are always more glorious and more perfect than their Old Testament types, which are “but a shadow of the good things to come” in the New Covenant (Heb. 10:1). With this in mind, let us consider the revelation of Mary as the “New Eve.” After the fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, God promised the advent of another “woman” in Genesis 3:15, or a “New Eve” who would oppose Lucifer, and whose “seed” would crush his head. This “woman” and “her seed” would reverse the curse, so to speak, that the original “man” and “woman” had brought upon humanity through their disobedience.

It is most significant here to note “Adam” and “Eve” are revealed simply as “the man” and “the woman” before the woman’s name was changed to “Eve” (Hebrew, “mother of the living”) after the fall (see Gen. 2:21ff). When we then look at the New Covenant, Jesus is explicitly referred to as the “last Adam,” or the “New Adam” in 1 Cor. 15:45. And Jesus himself indicates that Mary is the prophetic “woman” or “New Eve” of Genesis 3:15 when he refers to his mother as “woman” in John 2:4 and 19:26. Moreover, St. John refers to Mary as “woman” eight times in Revelation 12. As the first Eve brought death to all of her children through disobedience and heeding the words of the ancient serpent, the devil, the “New Eve” of Revelation 12 brings life and salvation to all of her children through her obedience. The same “serpent” who deceived the original woman of Genesis is revealed, in Revelation 12, to fail in his attempt to overcome this new woman. The New Eve overcomes the serpent and as a result, “The serpent is angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God, and bear testimony to Jesus” (Rev. 12:17).

If Mary is the New Eve and New Testament fulfillments are always more glorious than their Old Testament antecedents, it would be unthinkable for Mary to be conceived in sin. If she were, she would be inferior to Eve who was created in a perfect state, free from all sin.

Tim Staples is Director of Apologetics and Evangelization here at Catholic Answers, but he was not always Catholic. Tim was raised a Southern Baptist....

Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam

[Mark17]

Excellent thoughts bro. You win the post of the day award.

[Springfield Reformer]

On the question of House Church giving, there are, at minimum, two different things under consideration here and they seem to be getting conflated:

1. There are people, Protestant and Catholic alike, who are technically affiliated with an ecclesiastical body, but who do not physically attend.  For these, there are further breakdowns.  Are they not attending because they are really unchurched?  Or is there a disability involved?  Very often those who would like to attend but can't still give according to their usual principle for giving.

2. There are people who hold full services in homes.  This is as old as the New Testament itself.  These give according to their established principles for giving. The rule of giving for some such fellowships is tithe-plus-overage, and for some it is strictly need-based, rejecting the tithe as an Old Covenant rule.  This does not mean they give less, and in fact it can mean they give more, than ten percent.  But the ten percent was a theocratic tax, given to support the sophisticated ecclesiastical structure of the Temple and priesthood, which was not replicated in the New Covenant, nor is the tithe reiterated as a requirement of New Covenant practice. As the house church has no major property expenses, all such funds can go to support full time ministry and other needs, or the minsters can be employed in "tent-making" and unpaid by the assembly, as with Paul, to further redirect money to real needs. local or global, as opposed to those operational costs that are created by a burdensome ecclesiastical infrastructure.

As for the question of whether attendance at a home or other building is necessary, it all depends on what is meant by necessary.  Necessary to what purpose?  Salvation?  No, because salvation is secured by one thing, the death and resurrection of Christ, and our faith in Him.  

However, there is often a point of confusion between Evangelicals and Catholics that pops up right here.  When we say "not necessary to salvation," there is this recurring presumption that we evangelicals would treat the lack of requirement as an excuse not to do something. I think this is because the Roman model pictures all our actions as contributing to salvation, whereas the evangelical sees our actions as responsive to salvation, i.e., our actions confirm our salvation but do not contribute to it, because it is a finished work in Christ.

So right or wrong, based on what I've seen on this forum, it seems to be hard for our RC friends to accept that we would actually want to do something we didn't technically have to do to get or stay saved.  Our incentive is purely love of Christ and the family relations of His body.  The RC incentive is avoidance of doom.  When we say we don't need to do something, to the purpose of avoiding doom, they do not appear to understand we would still do it anyway, because it is life and love and all that is good to us, that we would do it anyway, because it has become natural for us to do it.

So it is with the life of the local assembly.  It is natural for Christians to love and be with other Christians.  It is beneficial too, and we are under a New Covenant obligation to not forsake the assembling of ourselves together:

And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.
(Hebrews 10:24-25)

Note however the point of the assembly is not to secure salvation, but to stir up one another to love and good works. It's true he then warns them against giving up and reverting to their old ways.  But such dire warnings are a normal part of the work of the Shepherd's staff, that blocks the sheep from error. And at the end he is confident they have the sort of faith that will endure the test of patience:

But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.
(Hebrews 10:39)

So what then of those who permanently disassociate themselves from the lives of other believers?  John accounts for this:

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
(1 John 2:19)

Harsh, John.  But true. The body of Christ is an organic being.  It has a living unity through the shared experience of the indwelling Holy Spirit.  No true believer is so remote they cannot be reached by God's Spirit.  And God will not give His faithful commands with which they cannot comply, as that would impugn the rationality and goodness of God.  So then every believer will always be able to find the fellowship of love to which they are driven, both by love and by requirement.  Yet not a requirement of salvation, because that work is already done in Christ.

Peace,

SR

[Springfield Reformer]

Thought-provoking. God is good. :)

Peace,

SR

[metmom]

If it’s unscriptural, post the Scripture to show where I’m wrong.

Show me where the command to attend church is. Or even that we are to gather on Sunday for church or that we’re sinning if we don’t.

And I’ll point you to Romans 14.

Pinging the others so they can weigh in and answer the question.

[knarf]

I understand now why ... and HOW ... muslims hate women and treat them so badly

No where in scripture or in any writings I’ve ever come across is there a reverence for the chastity of one girl by a group of men that had charge of her for a number of years.

Yet, by your belief in solo scriptura ... this Protoevangelium of James .. (to the rejection of the canon) do you base a damnable doctrine.

You cite all these Catholic apologists as proof of “a truth”, yet reject the clear teachings in The Bible otherwise.

I’d hate women too, if my enemy (The Christian) had his entire reason for living based on an entity that was placed on earth for man’s pleasure and not to be exalted above allah.

[Iscool]

Show me where the command to attend church is. Or even that we are to gather on Sunday for church or that we’re sinning if we don’t

The bible encourages us to meet together and fellowship but there is certainly no biblical law that says we must...

Unsaved Catholics don't get it at all...Regardless of how many biblical ways it is presented to them...

O.T. Jews met at the synagogue since that is where the Mercy seat was located...That's where God came to be available to his people...

Catholics have adopted this practice by claiming you must meet at a Catholic church because that's where Jesus is (in the cracker)...

We born again Christians have Jesus within us so we are 'in the presence' of Jesus no matter where we are at...

We don't need a building...We don't need a cracker and we don't need a Catholic priest to turn the cracker into Jesus...

Luk 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

The kingdom does NOT come with observation...Any more questions???

Where two or more Christians meet, we have a church service going on...

[Iscool]

You cite all these Catholic apologists as proof of “a truth”, yet reject the clear teachings in The Bible otherwise.

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

HUH?????????

1Sa 2:22 Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

Mary was a temple prostitute??? I don't think so...

So we are to believe that Mary was dedicated to the Temple...Known by thousands of people...

And Mary was raised in the Temple as a forever virgin...Basically a modern 'nun'...But then she shows up pregnant...

She then has God's kid and finds an old, decrepit husband who will care for her (which seems to be unprecedented in the O.T.)...And yet she still lives at the temple where she has no need of some old man to care for her...

I would say you just can't make this stuff up, but then somebody goes ahead and does it...