DeoOmnisGloria.com

> "However Martin Luther altered the Bible (most protestants don’t realize this)."

Most Protestants know about this, but since we don't base our faith on the personal holiness or infallibility of Martin Luther, we're no more shaken by it than Catholics are by knowing that the Donation of Constantine or the Isadoran Decretals were forged, or that Pope Sixtus tried to publish an errant translation of Scripture, or that the Vulgate was so full of errors that later Catholic scholars like Ronald Knox found the King James Version a better guide in some respects.

> "He removed nine books from the Bible"

Nine books which many other Catholics at the time, such as Cardinal Cajetan, and numerous Church Fathers, also agreed were not inspired Scripture.

> "and added a word (bonus points to any protestant who can point out the addition)."

Luther added "alone" after "saved by grace" in Romans 3:28. If the addition of one word in a translation is a stumbling block that prevents you from accepting the evangelical gospel, by all means take it out. Luther did not alter St Paul's overall meaning -- compare Romans 4:5 ("However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness") -- any more than a translator would by rendering 1 Timothy 2:5 as "There is ONLY one God and ONLY one Mediator between God and men ...", since the context makes this clear.

There are more serious mistranslations than this on the Catholic side. Hebrews 9:12 says that Christ "entered" into God's sanctuary. The Greek word is in the past tense, indicating a single completed action. However, in his 1995 book Crossing the Threshold of Hope (pg 139), Pope John Paul II changed this to "Christ constantly enters into God's sanctuary" (and semi-sources this by saying "c/f Hebrews 9:12") in order to support the Catholic view of the Mass.

Posted by: Russell Taize at November 7, 2003 12:14 AM

Russell, Russell why do you persecute me? (paraphrased from Acts 9:4). True to Protestant form you take text out of context...

St. Paul is not saying to any extent whatsoever that faith working through love (or faith and good works) is not necessary. Keep reading my friend. St. Paul is ellaborating on the beauty and truth of faith as that intial step, that faith procedes the ability to do anything good (Romans 4:9-12). St. Paul's epistle, unfortunately for the Protestant belief, that it is by faith alone that men are saved, doesn't end there. St. Paul continues: "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:1-4). Then later he says again: "What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness" (Romans 6:15-18). Here is the sticker for Protestants...St. Paul clearly states that the obedience of faith is necessary. St. Paul makes this point again in Galatians 5:13-26.

Even stronger still is St. James: "Therefore put away all filthiness and rank growth of wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror, for he observes himself and goes away and at once forgets what he is like. But he who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be blessed in his doing" (James 1:21-25).

I can provide more if you need it...much more. By the way, my personal opinion of Luther is that he was a former Catholic priest who couldn't handle his own sinfulness so he decide to throw off all the Catholic beliefs that kept him from being able to live the life he desired. Look at the results...Christianity has never been more divided than now (20,000 Protestant denominations and counting). It reminds me of the word of Gamaliel: "...if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them" (Acts 5:38). The Catholic Church still stands united in faith ... Protestantism is rapidly falling into ruin...again 20,000 denominations and counting.

Your attempt to attack, or call into question, the Pope's knowledge and interpretation of Sacred Scripture is found even more wanting. Keep in mind Crossing the Threshold of Hope was translated from Italian by Jerry and Martha McPhee, so I will check with a theologian I know in Rome, Italy to see if this is just an error on the part of translation. But back to the point you appear to be trying to make here. The perpetuality of Christ's Sacrifice. This belief is supported by this verse itself as well as by other verses throughout Sacred Scripture.

First, is the comparison between Christ and the sacrifical offering. Christ is the fulfillment of both the law and the prophets. Numbers 9:1-10 describe the ritual of the sacrifical offering. It clearly states in verse 10 that it will be a perpetual statute. Jesus not coming to abolish the law but rather to fulfill it, becomes the sacrifical lamb...even more significant since in Exodus 12 we discover that it is the sacrificing and the eating of the lamb that causes the angel of death to pass over the Israelites. St. John the Baptist stated clearly in John 1:36, "Behold the Lamb of God!" The Old Testament prophets likewise make comparison between the Messiah and a sacrifical lamb. This also helps us to understand more clearly John 6. Jesus is the bread of life and we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. In Exodus, death only passed the Israelites over if they ate the lamb, not lamb cookies or something that merely symbolized the lamb. Jesus is the Paschal Lamb offered up for us and we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood in order to have eternal life (John 6:53-58). That is ultimately the point the Holy Father is making, Christ offers Himself to humanity through the Church. The book of Revelations likewise supports this. St. John, in his depiction of the eschatological vision proclaims: "And between the throne and the four creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain...Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honour and glory and blessing" (Rev. 5:6,12). Christ appears in Heaven as the Lamb that had been slain, thus perpetuating the eternal sacrifice, fulfilling the Scriptures and his own words in John's Gospel.

So what is your point? What are you trying to say about Pope John Paul II? That he has no understanding of Sacred Scripture or that he tries to manipulate it to fit his designs... I think you have him confused with another person who also was a priest at one time...his name is Martin Luther.

Posted by: Joe at November 7, 2003 06:55 AM

Good Morning gentlemen (and all)!
I just want you all three to know how much I am enjoying your theological debates, this is all very informative and inspirational. I am nowhere near as brilliant in my knowledge as the three of you but I want to share some thought on a couple of topics, mainly to Russell.

I was born and raised in the Baptist church. My father was born and raised baptist as was his father. Growing up I didn't understand most other religions, but I took pride in my baptist heritage.
I was very active in my church, attending sunday school every sunday, involved in Acteens and the youth group... etc. I recall many times in church and in sunday school the discussion of the catholic faith and these "extra" books in the bible. I was taught that they were additions.
As an adult exploring the Catholic faith, I learned for myself just what you wrote, that these books were removed... not added. It is no comfort to me at all that they were removed because they weren't considered "inspiring". I strongly disagree and find these said books very inspiring.
For a while, it was very difficult for me to accept that protestantism just took these books away. Why would they have? Because of such topics discussed such as purgatory; to keep these books included would make a mockery of the protestant belief. I believe that I wasn't taught the truth about the Catholic church as a young adult because my pastor and sunday school teachers feared I would convert if I knew!

Purgatory was a major factor in my initial decision to convert. Growning up, I was fortunate to be in social groups with people from all types of religious backgrounds. I remember agonizing over the fact that my jewish friends would burn in hell because they did not accept Jesus as their Lord and personal savior. (What I was taught in the Baptist church). I could not believe that the God of love and all creation would condemn those people who lived their life on Earth with such moral discipline and faith. That they would burn in hell simply because I wasn't able to get through to them or because their faith was an extension of their parent's and grandparent's and great grandparent's and so on. I could not accept that when their souls departed this Earth, with the vision of Heaven was ever clear, that these faithful God fearing, God loving children would not be given grace by God and the opportunity to cleanse their souls of the ignorant and misguided sins of their heart.

Jesus died on the cross for us, why would He be so quick to send us to the depths of hell?

I don't think good works alone will get me to heaven. I don't believe that once I have made a decision to follow God, I am "safe" no matter what I do in life. The belief "once saved, always saved" doesn't even make sense to me. Of course we must strive daily to serve God and please Him. Of course our battle is never won. Life is full of trials and we make ourselves worthy to spend eternity with Him through our actions in the midst of those trials.

I believe that a faithful heart that serves one God, the maker of Heaven and Earth, will bring me closer to Him. And that at the time of my departure from this Earth, God will love me enough to show me the error of my ways and give me the opportunity to suffer what I should in order to be deserving of the kingdom of Heaven.
This is my simple minded oppinion of Purgatory.

I pray to live my days on Earth serving God in all that I do. I pray that I will be filled with His grace and follow His teachings in ALL that I do. I pray that when I die, I'll be face to face with my creator as quickly as possible. But if I have fallen in grace before that time comes, if I have stumbled, I pray that God will allow me to suffer my just penance to be totally pure before I am face to face with Him. My heart rejoices because I know He loves me that much! Praise Jesus! Amen.

Posted by: Krista at November 7, 2003 08:24 AM

Russell,
You stated, "we don't base our faith on the personal holiness or infallibility of Martin Luther" above. But you do trust him enough to allow him to alter the Bible? Martin Luther couldn't stand the book of James and wanted to remove it as well - does that mean we should stop reading James?

Ultimately protestants place their faith in the Bible and "the Bible alone," so it would seem to me very important that the Bible is correct. How do you know the right books even make up the Bible? It wasn't pulled together until around 300 A.D. (in your previous post you suggested this was too long from Christ's time).

Luther was an amateur theologian who simply wanted the freedom to sin in peace, without having to worry about paying for those sins or confessing them. He found a way to do this by creating a new religion (founded on himself, rather than on the 'rock' of St. Peter) that didn't condemn sin and allowed virtually everyone into heaven. To do this, he had to find a way to remove Maccabees from the Scriptures. In addition, he made Romans at odds with James ("faith without works is dead"). There is no possible way to justify this. How can you then, condemn Mormans who added their own book to scripture? You cannot.

And remember my earlier post. 1 Timoty 3:15 clearly states that the Church (the Catholic Church was the only Church then), not the Bible is the "pillar and foundation of Truth." Martin Luther didn't just stand up to the Church, he stood up to the Holy Spirit (who leads the Church so that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it) and said "NO, I will not be obedient to God." Then he changed the Word of God to suit his needs. There's no excuse for this.

Jay

Posted by: Jay at November 7, 2003 08:24 AM

I wouldn't say that everything the Chuch does (teaches) is biblical, but that they are not anti-biblical. We will not find the Assumption in the bible, but since we treat apostolic tradition on the same level as the Bible -since they both come from the Holy Spirit through the Apostles.

Posted by: Jeff Miller at November 7, 2003 10:34 PM

Jeff,

The dogma of the bodily Assumption of Mary does receive support from Sacred Scripture. When considering the overall presence of both Jesus and Mary throughout both the Old and New Testament we find several verses that point to the Assumption of Mary.

Genesis 3:15 states: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed..." This is a very rich verse. First, no theologian would argue that this verse is not a foreshadowing of Christ and His victory over sin and death. So the "woman" referred to here, by natural necessity must be Mary. There is a setting apart, "I will put enmity between you and the woman" (Gen 3:15), battlelines are drawn. It is Christ who conquers but Mary shares in the victory in a unique way. Through her Immaculate Conception, Mary shares in Christ's victory over sin (Luke 1:28). So by natural order, Mary likewise shares in Christ's victory over death through her bodily Assumption.

Second, Revelation 12:1 speaks of a woman appearing in the heavens "clothed with the sun with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." The Church has always maintained that this verse make a threefold reference to the ancient people of Israel, the Church, and the Blessed Virgin Mary. One does not take away from the significance of the other. The passage must be referring to Mary since she truly, historically gave birth to Jesus Christ. The physical features indicate the presence of the body in a future tense, and we do not read anywhere else in the book of Revelation that this is lost at any point.

Many of the Early Church Fathers also believed this to be true. In 590 A.D., St. Gregory of Tours goes into great detail describing the Assumption, as does St. John Damascene in 749 A.D. From the seventh century on, many Church Fathers wrote on this dogma of our Faith. Thus, as you stated providing the support of Sacred Tradition.
Yet again, within the context of Sacred Scripture we can see proofs for it there as well.

Joe

Posted by: Joe at November 8, 2003 11:08 PM

> But you do trust him enough to allow him to alter the Bible? Martin Luther couldn't stand the book of James and wanted to remove it as well - does that mean we should stop reading James?

Jay, you'll notice that Protestants did not take James out of the Bible -- nor, contrary to some Catholic rhetoric, are we afraid of that particular Epistle. (Indeed, James supports the Protestant view. He states that anyone who breaks one part of the Law is as guilty as anyone who breaks it all -- and then adds that we all stumble in many ways. In other words, don't think that you can earn or merit your salvation by your works. We are still unworthy servants.)

Do you see the contradiction in, first, accusing Protestants of blindly following Luther because (like Cardinal Cajetan) we reject the Apocrypha, and then accusing us of inconsistency because we DON'T follow Luther by rejecting James (and Revelation and Esther)?

Incidentally, Luther still included all these books, PLUS the Apocrypha, in his German Bible -- he didn't "censor" them out.

Posted by: Russell Taize at November 9, 2003 07:28 PM

Jeff's fraternal correction is an important one.

While it does not appear self-evident to me from the verses cited, I'll leave it to the Scripture scholars to debate the biblical proofs for the Blessed Virgin's assumption, my point is simply that it is not necessary to prove the Assumption from Scripture for it to be valid. It is sufficent that Holy Mother Church teaches it infallibly.

Christ gave His keys to a Church--not a Book, however, sacred and inerrant. The One True Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ does not need to point to a verse in the Holy Bible, including the unabridged Douay-Rheims, to justify this or any other dogma, it infallibly teaches through the authority given Her by Her divine Founder.

Thus, I say with St. Francis, "I do not believe in the Church because the Gospel teaches me to, but in the Gospel because the Church teaches me to."

Earl
A Catholic convert from Protestantism

Posted by: Earl E. Appleby, Jr. at November 9, 2003 08:19 PM

Russell,
Martin Luther may not have removed them, but he did decide they were not a part of scripture. In effect, he decided that he had both the right to change scripture so that it suited his needs. Ultimately you place your trust in Luther if you agree that his version of the Bible is the one you'll use. At this point, a protestant would have to search pretty hard to find a Bible including the "Apocrypha" (a word denoting that these books aren't valid).

Ultimately, the Bible is a collection of books. To believe the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, you have to trust in some outside entity who collected the books (did they include all of the inspired books and none of the uninspired books?). The question is, Russell, who should you put your faith in? The Church established by Christ (and on this Rock I will build my Church) or the man who protested against the Church and threw out books that didn't agree with his point of view? Do you choose to be obedient to God or to Luther? It's an important decision.

By the way, I'm writing a post on Sola Scriptura that's almost done - I'll look forward to your comments.

Jay

Posted by: Jay at November 10, 2003 10:33 PM

Earl - point taken on the biblical proofs for the Assumption and, more importantly, the point that it is the Church that supports the Gospel first, and then the Gospel supports the Church. Again, a point both Jay and I have made before: No Church, No Bible.

My point was simply that the Church does use Sacred Scripture to suppport her dogmas, as indicated by the Scriptural references above (they are both cited in the dogmatic documentation supporting the teaching of the Assumption).

Russell - The difference between Cardinal Cajetan and Martin Luther is that Luther separated himself from the Church, Cajetan remained faithful to the Catholic Faith. In fact, it was Pope Julius II who sent Cardinal Cajetan to Germany to lead Luther back to the Catholic Church. After multiple attempts to lead Luther back to the Catholic Church, Cajetan returned to Rome and was assigned to his hometown of Gaeta, Italy where he continued to write and teaching in accordance with the Catholic Faith. He is noted as one of the greatest commentators on St. Thomas' Summa Theologica.

Now I have a question for you...why do you keep making reference to Cardinal Cajetan as if he supported your view point? He remained faithful to the Catholic Church, insisting throughout his writings that the Church was founded by Christ.

Please take note that while in Germany, attempting to lead Luther back to the Truth, he didn't turn against the Church and follow Luther into heresy. No, quite to the contrary, he remained faithful and is today recognized as a great Thomatic theologican. I really don't see how he supports your cause or Protestantism in any way, shape, or form.

Joe

Posted by: Joe at November 11, 2003 01:07 PM

"The answer is obviously yes - everything the Catholic Church does is Biblical, after all Catholics wrote and created the Bible."

This statement makes no sense.

1. Weren't the early folks through whom God wrote the NT simply followers of Christ?
2. What is the distinction between wrote and created? Does this leave any role for God to play in the matter?
3. Everything the Catholic church has done has been biblically supported? C'mon.

Posted by: Huh? at November 13, 2003 05:59 PM

Huh?,
I've often heard the argument that there was no Church in the beginning, just a loosely knit group of "followers of Christ." Unfortunately, the Bible clearly does not support this viewpoint (and there is a lot of scripture to back this up). I'll just look at two points.

First, take a look at Matthew 16:18. Clearly Jesus intends to build a Church (he's quite clear), even if you try to say that "Peter" and "Rock" are different (which they aren't), you can't argue that Jesus intended to found a Church - I guess you could try and say he meant 1,500 years later, but that isn't really logical.

Second, simply read the book of Acts. It is very clear in Acts that (a) there is a Church and (b) Peter is the head of it. At the beginning of Acts 1:17 they replace the "office" of Judas Iscariot. Hmm. If they replaced Judas' seat, why wouldn't they replace everyone else's (Judas was the traitor, after all)? We know they did replace everyone else's and you can trace the 120 of that time (Acts 1:15) directly to the College of Cardinals of the Catholic Church. Second, notice through Acts that Peter is clearly the leader. He speaks first, is always referred to first, etc. If he is with other apostles, he performs the miracle - and he went first and preached to the Gentiles, before Saul/Paul was allowed to. My favorite is Acts 15:6-11: everyone debates whether the Gentiles must be circumcised until Paul stands up and makes the decision. You can't read Acts without realizing that Peter is the head of the Church at that time (Acts repeatedly refers to "the church"). Period.

As to your next point, God did have a role: he founded his Church to write the scripture. Did Jesus ever say "I will leave you the scripture to guide you"? No, he left us the Church to guide us. The sheer number of Protestant denomonations is in sharp contrast to Christ's prayer "that [we] will be one" and shows the problem of allowing just anyone to interpret scripture. The Church is led by the Holy Spirit and kept free from error, unlike individual humans who can find the oddest interpretations of a scriptural passage.

To you last point, members of the Catholic church wrote the Bible. Trust me, virtually every part of the Catholic faith is represented in scripture. I challenge you to explain a part of Catholicism that isn't scriptural - I'll write a blog entry on it. You'll find that it's impossible find one.

Remember, the Bible instructs us to trust in the Church (the pillar and foundation of Truth).

Jay

Posted by: Jay at November 13, 2003 08:27 PM

I think a certain word needs to be clarified. In Jay's article everything the Church "does" is biblical - the "does" I would change to "teaches" on matters of faith and morals. The members of the Catholic Church, however, are human and some leaders have hurt the mystical body through their sins (really all of us have). Nevertheless, the Church was founded by Christ and given the Holy Spirit to guide her, so in regards to what the Catholic Church teaches regarding truths of our faith and morals (dogmas and doctrines) they are beautifully created from Church Tradition, the Bible, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Posted by: Maria at November 16, 2003 09:37 PM

Maria,
I would disagree. You can't equate the actions of a member of the Church to the Church's actions. "What the Church does," does not refer to what some members of the Church do. I would define "What the Church does" as: declaring saints, offering confession, defining dogma, etc. at a macro level. Everything the Church as a whole does is Biblical, which is a big issue that protestants do not understand.

I just want to make sure no one thinks Maria is suggesting that the Church teaches Biblically and does otherwise.

Jay

Posted by: Jay at November 17, 2003 10:48 AM

While it is wonderful to read all the augements,we must remember that the original topic is about "purgatory". Apparently, there are two sides of the coin according how one interprets the scriptures.I have the feeling that both sides have made their decisions based on the teaching of their church.This is faith not reasoning.
As a person equipped only with common sense, I felt neither side have convincing arguements to substanciate or deny the existing of "purgatory".
May I asked you a practical question?
While Christian believes the only way to heaven is through baptism,what will happened to those people who never hear about Jesus Christ?
Would purgatory be a hospice for them to go heaven? Otherwise, how can we claim that God loves all human being. Joseph

Posted by: Joseph Yang at November 17, 2003 11:31 PM

I was reading your site, and I noticed that you posted the following to support purgatory
"otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people being baptized on their behalf?"

If you read ALL of 1 Corinthians, you will notice a theme. The theme being that Paul went to the church of Corinth in peace, but to give proper instructions. For example in 1:11Cor1 Paul "My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed that there are quarrels among you.1:12 What I mean is this: One of you says "I follow Paul" another, "I follow Apollos" another "I follow Cephas" still another "I follow Christ." Then in 1:13 He asks...Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius. Lets pause here...Paul is saying that there is only one person to follow...and that is Jesus Christ. He is thankful that he only baptized Crispus and Gaius because he wouldn't want anyone claiming to be baptized in his name. Obviously Paul feels strongly about baptism ONLY in the name of Jesus. So now we go to chapter 15:9-15:29 in summary, feel free to read on your own. Paul discusses the resurrection. In short he is saying that if you do not believe that there is no such thing as resurrecting the dead, then you are also saying that God doesn't raise the dead which subsequently means that Jesus wasn't raised from the dead which ultimately means that your trust in Christ is futile(Paul was addressing the Corinthians) Paul goes on to say that indeed Christ has risen. Cor1 15:21 For since death(sin) came through a man(Adam), the resurrection of the dead(us...remember sin=death..and we were born into sin) comes also through a man (Jesus)
15:22-28 talks about everything will be put under Christ's foot. 15:29 Now if there is no resurrection,(no Jesus being raised to conquer our sins)what will those do who are baptized for the dead( Paul pointing out some type of practice among the Corinths)If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? The Corinths were being corrected...they were not following the ways of God. Paul is merely saying if you don't believe in the resurrection, why are you being baptized for the dead if it they can't be resurrected?
This was a rhetorical question to support the idea of resurrection. It does not say that you can pray for the dead, be baptized for the dead and it hints nothing of purgatory. Once again refer back to chapter 1 where Paul rebukes those who say that they are baptized in Apollos' name or even Pauls name. Paul did not say "Why do we being baptized for the dead" nor is he saying "Why am I being baptized for the dead" He said why are people being baptized for the dead" Paul shows no support for this notion. If you read all of first Corinthians, you will find Paul pointing out the mistakes of the Corinthians. To sum it up, Paul rebukes people who claim to be baptized in any name other than Jesus. He points out the non belief in the resurrection and follows it up by asking if you don't believe in it, why practice it?(again, thats a rebuke) Lastly, Paul recognized the importance and uniqueness of Christ, through Christ and Christ alone are WE resurrected from the dead(out of sin and spiritually). No one can be saved through anyone else other than Christ or baptized in no other name than Christ. So if that is true, than how can someone, who is DEAD not only spiritually but also physically, find salvation for a living person like you or I? Its not possible. AS for live after death, Hebrews 9:27 Just as man is destined to die once and after that to face judgement, 9:28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who waiting for him.(Us the believers) God Bless

Marc

Posted by: Marc at November 24, 2003 08:24 PM

Sorry everybody that it's been so long since my last post...I've been swamped at work and at home...the holiday rush you know : )

Marc - you state a lot here and I am not sure that I entirely agree with you in reference to the contextual meaning of 1 Corinthians 3 or 15, but I do want to ask the question as to what exactly you are getting at? Are you trying to use this as an argument against the doctrine of Purgatory or simply attempting to show that a verse might be quoted out of context? The one thing you fail to explain are St. Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 3:15. St. Augustine wrote in reference to this verse: "Some will be saved through a purifying fire; for a long or short period depending on the extent to which they were attached to things which do not endure" (Enchiridion, I, chapter 68).

Also, in reference 1 Corinthians 15:29, I don't think you can say with certainty that St. Paul is not making reference to a strange custom practiced by the Christians in Corinth. He clearly states: "...what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?" In the simplest context, he states that this likewise attests to the Christian belief in the resurrection of the dead. You can't say that this comment is strictly a rhetorical question, that is a personally imposed limitation to the potential meaning of this verse.

In truth, we find references to purgatory in the Gospels as well. Jesus, in telling the various parables, makes reference to debts that must be paid off. In Luke 12:59, "I tell you, you will not get out till you have paid the very last penny." This can also be found in Matthew's Gospel (5:26) Christ is showing that a debt can be eventually be paid off resulting in the freeing of oneself.

The Church Fathers supported the doctrine of Purgatory as well. In addition to St. Augustine (referenced above), St. Basil the Great in 370 A.D. spoke of it in his Homilies on the Psalms (on Psalm 7, no. 2), St. Gregory of Nyssa, in his Sermon on the Dead (382 A.D.) wrote on it (Jaeger, Vol.9, pp. 55-56), multiple others.

The truth of the matter is that the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory has existed much longer than Protestant teaching that Purgatory doesn't exist. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes by G.K. Chesterton, "If there were no God, there would be no atheists." This reasoning can be applied here. If Purgatory, or at the very least the teaching of Purgatory, did not exist, there would be no protesting its existence. Historically, we know that it was rejected initially by Luther and other early Protestant revolters. Prior to that only a few schismatic groups even thought to deny the reality of Purgatory. Christianity has believed in Purgatory for over 2000 years.

The root of the problem for Protestants with Purgatory is what it metaphysically means. Ultimately, it shatters the Protestant belief of salvation. For the Protestant believes that salvation comes by accepting Christ as one's personal Savior (of course I have yet to find this mandate being given by Christ or any of the apostles anywhere in the New Testament), meaning that aside from this accepting act, works - good deeds or sins - do not make the slightest difference in regards to one's salvation. Being "born again" means that salvation has occurred, once and for all. Purgatory only makes sense if a cleansing is required, not just a declaration to be cleaned. Metaphysically, to say that a thing is clean when in reality it isn't is impossible. Protestants, doctrinally, insist that grace covers the flith of the human soul, yet that defeats the very work of the Holy Spirit. For we are not to be whitewashed tombs(Matt 23:27-28) but rather God's temple, and a dwelling place for the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16). Karl Keating in "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" wrote: "A man who has not bathed in a month is not cleansed merely by putting on clean clothes; clean clothes will not remove the dirt. Likewise, 'covering' a soul will not purify it, its dirty state is merely hidden from view. Catholic theology takes literally the notion that 'nothing unclean shall enter heaven'. From this it is inferred that a dirty soul, even if 'covered', remains a dirty soul and is not fit for heaven. It needs to be cleansed or purged of its dirtiness. The purging comes in purgatory" (pg. 195).

It makes sense. Jesus wants to be "personally" involved in our lives. His Grace is proactive and penetrating, not an excuse to justify whatever lifestyle one chooses to lead. Jesus is demanding...read the Gospels. He offers us His Grace as a free gift, but we must believe and act upon it. We must live the faith. Purgatory is God's mercy! Thank God for Purgatory. For most of us it will be part of the journey we take on that high and narrow path to heaven. May we all find that path so that we might one day be together with our Lord Jesus in our heavenly home. Amen.

Joe

Posted by: Joe at November 26, 2003 11:33 PM

Once again, you cannot take the scripture out of context. Look for yourself to see who Jesus was talking to in Luke 15:29. My only reference is the Bible and being that it is so, it is my belief that Christ died for our sins and our salvation. To have life everlasting, not a chance at purgatory then life everlasting. If you accept the Lord as your savior, salvation is yours, life everlasting is yours for the Bible tells me so. Lastly the notion of purgatory suggests that God has deemed us not totally clean to enter into His kingdom. IF that is so that means he is judging us on our sin. If that is so that means he remembers the sins we commit. He remembers our lawless lifestyle. So to be clean enough to get into heaven we must go through purgatory according the Catholic doctrine. But God forgives and forgets...the slate wiped clean...meaning he does NOT recognize you for whatever transgressions you may have committed. Am I making this up...no...I refer you to Hebrews10:15-18
The Holy Spirit states in 10:17 "Their sins and lawless acts, I will remember no more." 10:18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any SACRIFICE for sin.

Posted by: Marc at November 27, 2003 06:12 AM

Marc,
Going back to Corinthians 15:29, I would disagree with your analysis. In Corinthians Paul covers a wide range of subjects, so it's difficult to make this a throw-away passage based just on an overall generalization.

To be more specific, the word "baptized" in that phrase actually is used to represent afflictions, suffering, and penances. Jesus uses the words this way in Luke 12:50 and Mark 10:38-39. So what Paul is saying is: Why do we take on intentional suffering on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people suffering on their behalf? Paul follows this verse by discussing his own 'suffering'; the danger every hour and death every day. He does not say "Do not suffer/baptize for the dead."

This verse says nothing of people being baptized in the name of the dead, which you seem to be suggesting. Paul is clearly discussing common practice - he feels it's unnecessary to expound upon this (the Jews had a custom of praying for the dead, it wasn't unusual). And the living are the ones suffering for the dead - you are correct in stating the dead cannot find salvation for us, but we can do penance and pray for those in purgatory, not to those in hell.

To be clear, the Bible supports the notion of Purgatory. All Christians believed in Purgatory until Martin Luther came along and tried to reinvent (and rewrite) the Bible. Paul is always quick to condemn practices that are incorrect and yet he doesn't here. In fact, he assumes we are praying and suffering for the dead.

Jay

Posted by: Jay at November 27, 2003 08:06 AM

Marc,
First, where does the Bible say "Just accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior and you have guaranteed salvation"? If it were that simple, wouldn't Paul, Peter, or one of the other writers simply state it in one verse? Instead you have to have the "Roman Road," which is a convoluted method of selecting only specific verses to get a point across - that could be done to rationalize anything!

I think we could take any verse and find some excuse for it not to say what it plainly says. If you don't accept our reasoning for Luke 12:59, then what was Jesus saying? The only logical application is to our lives and death - can you think of another?

In another post a mentioned a lot of Scripture that clearly suggests that salvation is not a permanent, one-time thing that can never be lost. Personally, I think this is the most destructive tenets of protestanism: I have several family members who feel they were saved, so they can do anything they want now. I understand you would say, "They were not really saved," but this does nothing for their soul (they would argue that they were saved beyond any doubt.

Another point to consider, if your interpretation of a verse is clearly contradictory to another verse in the Bible, is the other verse wrong or your interpretation wrong? James clearly teaches that faith without works is "dead," but protestants continually assert that works are meaningless. How can this be?

Jay

Posted by: Jay at November 27, 2003 08:20 AM

Joseph Yang,
I think the Scripture writers assumed you understand purgatory, so they felt no need to explain the practice. The Bible never intended to be 100% complete, much to the chagrin of some. In fact, the Bible suggests that we should trust the Church as the foundation of Truth - and Jesus said that the people were not ready for everything He had to teach, but the Holy Spirit would bring it later.

In terms of salvation for those who never hear of Jesus, the Church teaches that they will be judged on what they do know. They can go to heaven without knowing Jesus, provided that they abide by natural law (which can be perceived from nature). So a good man can go to heaven if through no fault of his own he never learns the Truth. But it's key that this was not a problem of his own devising.

Jay

Posted by: Jay at November 27, 2003 08:46 AM

Jay,
On what bases can the statement be jusitifief that" Man can go to heaven through no fault of his own"?
Bible? Vatican council? Pope's decree?
Joseph

Posted by: Joseph Yang at November 27, 2003 12:13 PM

Jay and Joe

Back to 1Cor15:29.
Paul throughout 1Cor Paul is giving instructions on how to live in the will of God. The Church of Corinth were doing somethings wrong...or else why would God send Paul there to give proper instructions. In 15:12 of 1 Cor, Paul asks "..how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?If there is no resurrection of the dead then Christ has not been raised" In 15:29 he says Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?
Its like saying, if some of you don't believe in the power of God, why do you call on Him when you need Him?
Second to answer your question as to what reference in the Bible talks about accepting God as your savior allows one to get into Heaven. Look at John 1:12-13, Acts 2:21, and John 12:44-50 to start off. And review Hebrews 9:26-28..and the read Hebrews 10:15-18. Does this mean that all one has to do is accept Christ as savior and continue to keep sinning? Of course not...being a Christian is a way of life. But no man is with out sin, so says the Bible and that means NO MAN, NO WOMAN is without sin. Through Christ we can repent and be forgiven. His blood cleanses us, washes and purifies us, not purgatory.

Posted by: Marc at November 27, 2003 01:37 PM

Marc,

You are correct salvation is a lifelong process that we must pay strict attention to...BUT, that is not the teaching of most Protestant denominations. The fundamental belief of most Protestants is that one is saved by simply accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. That becomes the point or moment of salvation. Catholics view salvation as a path or a journey. Christ calls us, baptism is the gateway onto that path, but it remain a path and we can lose our way. Therefore, as St. Paul and St. Peter both proclaim in their epistles we must strive forward, staying focus on the goal; eternal life with Jesus Christ.

Second, earlier you stated that all you have is the Bible to rely on and we are trying to help you see that this is not so. If this is the only pillar for Christians to base ALL beliefs on then what in the world did Christians do for the first 300+ years of Christianity before the Bible, as you and I know it today, came into existence?

Third, where in the Bible are we told that the Bible is the only source of truth that we as Christians have? It doesn't. You should read Jay's article on Sola Scriptura, it might help you to understand why the Church is so necessary.

Joseph - The source of the teaching on "salvation outside the Church" is the Catholic Church, led by the Holy Spirit. Whether an individual, "who through no fault of his/her own has not heard the Gospel" believes in it is really irrelevant in that it is an explanation of reality and if they haven't heard of Christ then they wouldn't have heard about this teaching. To anyone reading this post, this scenario does not apply because you have heard...God sent His only Son to save us from our sins and to open up to us the path to eternal life, the Catholic Church, through which all grace is poured out onto this world by Christ. Again, Baptism is the gateway or "rebirth" as Jesus states in John's Gospel. The Sacraments (including Baptism) are the means that Christ left us to receive His Grace and to grow in virtue.

Yet, it isn't too much to ask of any human being to attempt to lead a good life in accordance with natural law. A virtuous life lived, even without ever knowing Christ, deserves the just reward of eternal life, but it is crucial to understand that it must be because this person never had the opportunity to know Jesus and His will for their life. All the more reason for Catholics to proclaim the Truth of the Gospel in areas of the world that have yet to be evangelized.

Joe

Posted by: Joe at November 27, 2003 09:23 PM

Timothy 3:16 says That all scriptures...meaning the Bible...are inspired by God. When the New Testament addresses the scripture you will find reference to Moses or Abraham. Example James 2:20-24. There is reference to the scripture. It refers a scripture in the Old Testament. In that scripture you will find that it says faith without deeds is useless. Abraham had faith in God, and what he did showed. Just like I can have faith in God that he can get me into any residency I want, but if I don't apply to those residencies...what good is my faith. If I never give God a chance to operate in my life, I can have faith...but it will never show...therefore, faith without works is dead. Sorry for the sidetrack. ANyways, my point is that when Jesus made reference to the laws of God, he would use Old Scripture. When Jesus was being tempted by Satan, Jesus would refer to the scripture. He told Satan it is written that man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of GOD(Mt4:4). In the Old testament, Moses in Dt8:3 said the same thing. Christ is referring to scriptures. Ps91:11 is referred to by Jesus in Mt4:6. Consistently, Christ referred back to written scripture and never another source. In Jn 1:1-in the beginning was the Word(Christ), and the Word was with GOd and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Jesus claims in JN14:6 I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me. Jesus is the Word, Jesus is God and the only scriptures that Jesus referred to are in the Bible. Not the Koran, not Catechisms, not Apocrypha's...the Bible and only the Bible. As far as Protestants believing that all you have to do is claim Jesus as savior and continue a sinful life, that is false. I'll say this...some Christians including Catholics may think that as long as they get saved and/or confess their sins that they can go on living a sinful life. But the Bible...clearly states the folly in this thought process. Lastly, Joe...our God is ever loving and ever merciful...but 1 Corinthians...Paul asks the people "did the word originate in you?" Obviously it didn't, God made a way so that word reached them. So I believe before the Lord comes back and what a joyous day it will be, that all in the world will have heard the Word and have either accepted or rejected the Word. God Bless

Marc

Posted by: Marc at November 27, 2003 10:54 PM

Marc,

Thank you for posting this comment because you have proven my point. In all their references to the "Scriptures" Jesus, St. Paul, and all the apostles are referencing the Torah and the writings of the prophets(the collected writings of the Old Testament), so why do we have the New Testament and who decided that the books of the New Testament should be included with the books of the Torah and the writings of the prophets? Let me state once more what you seem to be missing...

FOR THE FIRST 393 YEARS OF CHRISTIANITY THEY DID NOT HAVE THE BIBLE AS YOU AND I HAVE IT TODAY!

Different areas of the world had certain letters or epistles written by the various apostles and disciples of Jesus. Most of these weren't even written before 60 A.D. So what did the apostles and early disciples use to determine what they believed? Just the Torah and writing of the prophets? No, they used the "oral teaching" they had received from Jesus Christ and then what they were led to do by the Holy Spirit. Thank God for this because it was the Holy Spirit that eventually led the Catholic Church in 393 A.D. to finalize the collection of books, both from the Torah, writings of the prophets and from the apostles and disciples of Jesus that make up the Bible that we have today. The very book you attempt to use to disprove Catholicism was given to you by the Catholic Church. So why would the Catholic Church compile the Bible if it was a complete contradiction to all the Church proclaims? The answer is that it doesn't.

Also, the idea that we are to simply follow a book solely is not biblical. Christ proclaimed that he had come to fulfill the covenant made to the Jews (Matt 5:17-18 - "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.") That covenant had the writings of Torah and the prophets as a guide but it was not the sole source of guidance. God gave them kings, prophets, and other leaders to teach them, guide them, and interpret the Scriptures for the people of the covenant. None of the prophets said I've come to write a book that will be a guide for you, they proclaimed the truths of God because God had annointed them. So to in the Catholic Church, the Bible is one of the pillars of Truth and teaching, but it is not the only source, because God never intended it to be. That is why it took 300+ years for the Bible, as we know it, to be fully assembled.

How can you keep ignoring this? It is historically a fact. Go to any public library and do your homework. The Jesus' fulfillment of the Old Testament is found in the Catholic Church. It is through the Church that Baptism is given, it is through the Church that we receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (John 6), it is through the Church that the true priesthood is maintained. Protestants wouldn't even have the Bible if it had not been so cherished and protected by the Church down through the ages.

Does all this mean the Catholic Church doesn't venerate and follow the teachings of Sacred Scripture? No. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following:
"'And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting font of spiritual life.' Hence 'access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful.'
'Therefore, the 'study of the sacred page' should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics, and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture.'
The Church 'forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful...to learn 'the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. 'Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ (quoting St. Jerome)'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, pg. 37). Strong words from a Church that most Protestants content doesn't value or understand the Bible.

Read through this site, read a few Catholic commentaries on Sacred Scripture (I highly recommend Dr. Scott Hahn's works) and then tell me that Catholics do not have love and deep understanding of the Bible.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at November 28, 2003 07:45 AM

If anything does not come in to agreement with Gods Word, then it is not of God. If it contradicts God's Word, then it is not of God.
God's Word says there IS ONLY ONE MEDIATOR and that is Christ. So why do Catholics ask Mary to intervene on their behalf to Christ? God said do not bow down before images or any other idols, for He is a jealous God. Why give honor to "saints?" Christ said he died for our sins so that we may have salvation and life everlasting...but there is a belief that his blood didn't get the job done completely thus necessitating a need for purgatory. Why bow down to the pope? A man tried to bow down to Peter and Peter told that man to stop. Why, because Peter knew he himself was just a man with faults. Yet these are items that the Catechisms proclaim yet have no validity in the Bible. Quite the contrary it goes against God's Word. Everything Christ made reference to was written. For he said...IT IS WRITTEN. It may not have been compiled in one book called the Bible. Neither was Greek Mythology, but Christ never made references to the beliefs of more than one God. He never called God Zeus, but yet these stories were around BC. Why didn't he make reference to them? Because it was false and was not the WORD of God. The laws of the Pharisee were written....Christ disagreed with the Pharisees. Why didn't He follow the laws of the Pharisees? It was not of God. Everything that Christ referred to...is now found in the Bible. Christ makes no reference to call on MAry. That part is found outside the Bible. GOd says no MAN is without SIN. Yet Mary is a virgin and without sin. Sounds like a contradiction. If God says it, it must be true...but if another contradicts that point...you are calling God a liar. IN Luke 23:29 a criminal asked Jesus to remember Him when Jesus goes into Heaven. This is repentance believe it or not. To this Christ replied...I tell you the TRUTH, today you will be with me in paradise." I will look at both sides of the statement. One can conclude that a day with God is like 1000 years for us. So still during that time you can fit purgatory in there and God still is not made out to be a liar. On the other hand you can view that scripture as totally disregarding purgatory. No reference to purgatory there. But....if Christ says you will be with me...that means he won't leave your side. God never leaves us. So, if CHrist were to go to Heaven and the criminal to a purgatory, CHrist would have left Him. To make a point that Christ can be anywhere at all times is true. But would Christ stay in a purgatory with the criminal? Would he? If purgatory is a place where only the totally not holy people go, that means Christ would not be there for he was totally holy. You can read Luke 16:19-31. Jesus tells a story of a rich man and a poor beggar. The beggar goes to Heaven...while the rich man goes to Hell. The rich man was in torment while the beggar was comforted where he was at. Unless purgatory is comfortable, that lead me to believe that this beggar was in Heaven. The rich man asks Abraham to send Lazurus( who is in Heaven) to come help be comforted in Hell. LK16:22 shows that the beggar went to heaven and the rich man to hell. No mention of a stop gap. The angels which are heavenly did not make a stop and drop him off somewhere. So the whole point of this....all the truth is in the Bible. I ask that you show me scripture where it shows clearly where God mentions a purgatory, praying to Mary, bowing down to images and calling on other mediators for intercession. And you know what....the Episcopalian church allowing a gay marriage and a gay priest is wrong! It would be just as bad if that church allowed curses to be said in the pulpit, or allowed a man who is a known adulterer to preach. To God, a sin is a sin, but the blood of Christ cleanses all sin. That is why he died. SO we may not suffer...and purgatory sounds like a suffering. Once again, going against God's Word and purpose of Christ. Anyways, how would one get purified in purgatory, just sit in a fire? If it contradicts the Bible it ain't from GOd.
God Bless
Marc

Posted by: Marc at November 28, 2003 09:46 AM

Marc,

Reality check...so where in Scripture does it say all that you have just said...where in Scripture does it say:
"If it contradicts the Bible it ain't from God?"
The fact is that it doesn't.

Also you are biblically incorrect about this statement:
"The laws of the Pharisee were written....Christ disagreed with the Pharisees. Why didn't He follow the laws of the Pharisees? It was not of God."
Read Matthew 23:2-3 - "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you."

You have just attempted to emphatically state something completely unbiblical. As to your other comments we have written multiple articles supporting the intercession of Mary, the saints, purgatory and other Catholic doctrines both biblically and historically. I'm not going to restate all of those here. You are attempting to find one thing and use it to disprove doctrines that in the total context are biblically supported because Christ gave the Church the mandate and authority to teach.

Also, we aren't Episcopalians and are in complete agreement with you that gay marriages are morally, biblically, and naturally wrong. All the more reason for the necessity of the Catholic Church, the only church that hasn't altered her teaching for 2000 years. Gay marriage has always been rejected by the Catholic Church.

Sola Scriptura is the basis for all of your arguements and we have shown that that basis is not solid or biblical. So deals with that issue first...show us in the Bible where it clearly states that the Bible is the only source of Truth. Until then all of your arguments are null and void.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at November 28, 2003 10:13 AM

Marc,
A couple of thoughts on bowing, prayer, and worship.

First, do you ask friends to pray for you? Sure, right? It's only natural to have a friend pray for you in situations (the Bible suggests it). So why would we not want the Mother of God, Mary, and the other saints (already in heaven) praying for us? When we "pray" to Mary or the Saints it is simply a conversation. A request for them to pray for us. The Hail Mary prayer (which is pretty much taken word for word from the Bible) ends with "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us now and at the time of our death". This is why we pray to the saints, so that we can request them to pray for us.

In terms of bowing: the Japanese bow to friends, family, everyone as a sign of respect. Is this worship? No. They can differentiate between a bow of respect and a bow to worship just as Catholics can. When we bow to pray in front of (not to) a statue, we are showing reverence to the saint depicted in the statue and asking for their prayers. We are not worshipping them - note the Catechism specifically condemns any type of worship not oriented toward God.

As a protestant, your highest form of worship is prayer, which creates this perception that prayer=worship. As a Catholic, we worship only through the Mass. A Mass would never be held where we venerate the body and blood of Mary or any other saint - at Mass we specifically worship Christ. This is an important point: protestants removed the Eucharist, the key to worship, from spiritual life and elevated prayer to replace it. Prayer is simply the way you communicate with God or with a Saint. Don't get too excited over it!

Jay

Posted by: Jay at November 28, 2003 10:26 AM

To Jay and Joe,
My question about the salvation outside the church is relate the basic promesis that God loves all human being and not relate to those who live in the christian society.
It seems that you are both catholic. The Church's standing on this issue must have some bases. What I would like to know is based on what is the statement"man can go to heaven through no fault of his own."
Conversely, if one became christian by where he lives and vocation. The purgatory would be needed for those who received less grace. Otherwise how can they be saved. Joseph Yang

Posted by: joseph yang at November 28, 2003 11:26 AM

Christ instructed us how to pray. Our father who art in heaven....you know the rest. That prayer is in the Bible. The Hail Mary prayer is not...I repeat NOT in the Bible. Nor are there any instructions to pray that way. Indeed Mary was truly favored. SHe was carrying the Lord Jesus Christ. The angel told her that she was highly favored(full of grace). Now when Elizabeth saw Mary, the baby in Elizabeth's womb jumped. For that child recognized in spirit who was in Mary's womb. Elizabeth too also picked through the Holy SPirit what was in Mary's womb. Out of excitement she exclaims "Blessed are you among women and blessed is the child you bear!" First of as you can check for yourself, there is no continuation of the Hail MAry prayer after this. Never mentioned in the BIBLE is for Mary to pray for us sinners. So how is the Hail Mary prayer is extrapalated from scripture? Second, she was blessed among women...not mankind.
Reverence in the Merriam Websters dictionary is defined as honor or respect towards, or adoring awed respect. The Bible says honor thy brother. Honor thy mother...but to bow down to anything IS A STRICT NO NO according the God himself.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:4,5). Clearly stated God says you shall not bow down to any images that have any likeness to anything in HEAVEN. That includes statues of Christ, Pictures of CHrist, Images of Mary, and Images of Saints.
I pray with my friends for the Bible says that when 2 or more come into agreement in His name, that His Spirit is in the midst. But that is in reference to believers here on Earth. Now you can ask Mary and Saints to pray for you if you like. But it is not necessary to do so. There is but one mediator who can do it all, and that is Christ Jesus. I can tell you that I would not bow down to the pope...he is just a man. He his a good holy man, but so was Peter. ANd Peter rebuked a man for bowing down to him. An Angel also rebuked someone for bowing down to himself as well. Every point that I have made, I always refer to the scripture. I ask that you show me scripture that clearly supports the beliefs of saints, Mary being a virgin and Mary to be prayed to and purgatory. I have pulled out scripture and have not put a twist on it. It is plain as the eye can see. Show me scripture(the Bible) that shows otherwise.
God Bless

Marc

Posted by: Marc at November 28, 2003 11:44 AM

Marc,

First, the entire first half of the Hail Mary is nothing but Scripture (Luke 1).

Second, Mary as a faithful Christian would pray for all sinners, since her Son came to save sinners. Praying for sinners is a biblical command and referenced in multiple places throughout the Old and New Testament. Therefore, asking Mary to pray for us is not unbiblical. Show me one verse in the Bible that states we are not to ask those who have gone before us to pray for us. There is no separation, in the spiritual sense, between the Church in heaven and the Church on earth. We all make up the body of Christ, as St. Paul taught when he spoke of us standing in the presence of the great host of heavenly witnesses (Hebrews 12:-2) and in all his narratives on the Body of Christ.

Third, statues in the Catholic tradition date back to the earliest years of Christianity. Visit the catacombs in Rome (I have) they had statues even then.

Fourth, having statues is not the same as the graven images referred to in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament they worshipped the Golden Calf as stated in the book of Exodus. Catholics do not worship any statue, not even those of Jesus, rather they serve as a reminder of Jesus, or Mary, or a particular saint. As do the pictures of loved ones that most people have in their homes. When Catholics go to Church we want to remember all those who have gone before us and honor them. We DO NOT worship them.

Fifth, in reference to this "bowing down" that you keep mentioning, you use it as if to mean worship. Catholics in showing reverence to the Pope or Bishops are following Scripture:
"Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you" (Hebrews 13:17). There are multiple Scripture passages to support this as well 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 specifically, but also the entire context of the epistles from the apostles are teaching and admonishing the people of God. It is their duty and vocation, just as today it is the Pope's and the Bishops' duty to protect and defend this great gift that has been passed down faithfully, generation to generation. Few Protestant denominations can claim this. What the founders of Protestantism initially proclaimed is hardly followed to the letter today.

So again, back to the issue that all Protestants need to address...where in the Bible does it state that the Bible is the sole source of Truth? Where does it say that Scripture is the sole source for weighing what is true and what isn't? Try to stop jumping all over the place and answer this one question! Everything else pends on that....

Your brother in Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at November 28, 2003 01:01 PM

Hebrews 12:2 Talks about us fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hadn of the throne of God.
I fail to see why you mention this scripture to validate the necessity to pray to the dead.
As for where in the scripture it says that the Bible is the only source. Follow closely...
1. Jn1...In the beginning was the Word. The Word is Christ. Christ is the living Word. We all know Christ is the the only way...THE ONLY WAY back to God...the truth the the way the life...right? There is only one MEDIATOR for us. Only one. That mediator is Christ. Christ is the living Word. So if Christ taught it, then it is of God. If Christ did not teach it...guess what...HE DID NOT TEACH IT. Everything that is done at my church, you can find in the Bible.
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Revelation 22:18-19 KJV
Revelations was written before any Catholic doctrine. Christ establishes the fact that a book was written. What book is he talking about? The Bible of course. How can you deny this. Catechisms is a revision or addition to scripture from what you are telling me. Which you claim is inspired by God. I just showed you a few scripture which clearly shows the Bible as the only source for God's word. Jesus gives specific instructions NOT to add or takeaway to the scriptures.
Also Catechisms do contradict the WOrd of God, thereby expounding the belief of many Christians that the Catechisms is not of God. Here is an example

Catholic Catechism, par. 966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.' [LG 59; cf. Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus (1950): DS 3903; cf. Revelation 19:16.] The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians: In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.[Byzantine Liturgy, Troparion, Feast of the Dormition, August 15th.]

Romans 3:22-23 ... There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Romans 3:10-12 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."
See the contradiction...God says no one is without sin...catechisms says Mary is without sin. Jesus is King of Kings and is the one and only mediator, Catechisms say that Christ made her Queen over everything. Through Christ we are saved, He is our only savior, our only mediator...but Catechisms say that through Mary's prayer's we will be saved. Do you see the obvious or do you turn your eye away from it?
As for Protestants not believing in works and just faith alone...
"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 KJV
When one says you are saved by grace through faith and not by works, that means you are not good enough to be near God, but because Jesus died for you and because of your faith in Him, you are saved. No matter how good you may think you do, no matter what....it is a gift from God via His Son Jesus Christ, that we are saved, that we have salvation. Protestants do not interpret this as "free to do whatever." Rather it is simply recognition of God's mercy. God says Himself that by alone that we are saved. So if God says it, why is this not true? I am not worthy of another favor from God. I am a man who full of faults...but because I love Him so much and trust in Him...I am saved and will life everlasting in His presence.
I have shown you where it says the Bible is the only authority and source for scripture..I have shown you the fallacy of adding on to it. I have shown you contradictions of the Catechisms to the Bible. You can ignore these facts if you want, but if God said it, he meant it.
God Bless

Marc

Posted by: Marc at November 28, 2003 07:57 PM

I have a question...why would a person need a savior??

Posted by: Mavis at November 28, 2003 08:45 PM

I will answer you Joe, but I would like to make a general observation. First, I find it ironic that you Catholics point the finger at us Protestants suggesting we are foolish to place our faith in the authority of the Bible alone (a book that according to some, has only had a supposedy 500 year history), while as catholics you seem to very easily accept without question the authority of 'The Church' and the Papacy, when even your own theologians accept that the teachings of the Catholic Church have been abusively inconsistent thruought its history.

Ok Joe, well lets not argue about the divinity of Mary right now. However, your argument is not consistent elsewhere. Throught the bible (OT) the people were commanded NOT to have any graven image (eg no statue or ediface that represented a God, ancestor or whatever.) That is one of the ideas of the word "monothiesm." There was to be "no graven image" --no statue, idol or anything to represent a deceased relative, a god or a diety or whatever. If you like I can show you all the verses that point to this. Moreover, you suggest that we all have pictures of deceased loved ones etc. Yes we do, but only for the sake of a memory, nothing more. Second, you defend the concept of "bowing down" with scriptures that most certainly do no mention or include our need or our obligation to (fall down in reverence) (bow down) to our leaders. Those verses you quoted speak of our responsibility to give respect and submission to leadership. There is a difference between respecting someone and bowing down to them! Here your argument is weak too.

And again, the concept of apostolic succession (which you do not mention but you do imply) is again a strange statement in your context, but we will explore that another time.

Well, of course Protestants accept that there is truth in nature and in scientific discoveries etc, so the bible isnt the "entire" source of truth, its just that the bible is the place where absolutes are meastured and defined. So the bible is the "measuring stick" for truth, historically, objectively and subjectively, so to speak :) And yes, the bible quotes itself on this. Here are a few verses: Psalms 12:6, Psalms 119:89, Proverbs 30:5-6, Matthew 5:18.

Cheers all,

and God Bless you Richly

-Simon

Posted by: Simon at November 28, 2003 09:13 PM

Marc, Marc, Marc,
You've got to be kidding me. Do you really believe that your argument supports sola scriptura?

First, do you believe everything Jesus said and did was in the Bible? (Maybe you should read the Sola Scriptura article we keep talking about - read this one, too). Take a look at John 21:25. So we don't even have everything Jesus said and did. And you totally ignored the many verses which note that we should also obey oral traditions (2 Thes 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2). Oh, and please explain how 1 Tim 3:15 fits into this.

Now for the one verse of Scripture you quoted against the many we have: THE BIBLE WASN'T EVEN PUT TOGETHER AT THAT TIME. Do you think John simply knew that the Bible would include the specific book it includes now? Some of the books weren't even written at the time it was written. John was writing one book, not the whole Bible. And by the way, if you don't understand the Mass, you can't possibly understand Revelation - it was written to follow along the Mass, which is why protestant have so much trouble with the book. John was specifically saying "don't add any words to my book." By the way, if we assume he meant the whole Bible, then we must condemn Martin Luther, who removed books and added words!

By the way, that Scripture does not say that the Bible is all you need - that oral tradition is irrelvant or even unnecessary. It just asks that you not change the context of Revelation!

Try again, Marc, as you promised to prove that Scripture is all we need.

On your other comments (which are still meaningless until you prove the Bible teaches the doctrine of Sola Scriptura):

• The Catechism doesn't teach anything non-Scriptural. Read the Revelation 12:1-6. To me, the most interesting thing about Mary is that Luther and Calvin both showed her much, much more veneration than modern protestants (Luther adhered to the Immaculate Conception).
  
• Mary still required a savior, the only difference is the Mary received everything we are able to receive first. I'll have to explain this in a future post.
  
• Again, can the prayers of others help you? If you believe that, then how can you possibly believe that the prayers of the person who gave birth to and raised your Savior can't help more? Let's be rational for a minute . . .
  
• Here's a good way to explain the faith/works issue: as Catholics, we believe that Faith (which does save us alone) is not saving Faith without good works to prove it out. Sanctification is not a legal declaration, but a process by which we actually become holy. But, clearly, Faith without works is dead - if your church doesn't teach that, they are outside of the Bible
  

By the way, I still want your proof that the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura.

Jay

Posted by: Jay at November 28, 2003 11:29 PM

Simon,
We accept that authority of Christ, who renamed Simon "Rock (Peter)" and said "and on this Rock (Peter) I will build My Church and the powers of death shall not prevail against it." If there's something I can trust, it's that when God says His Church will stand, I can take his word for it. There's also some other good verses, like 1 Timothy 3:15 that all the protestants on this site keep ignoring.

In terms of the 'graven image': where does the Bible say we can have "no graven image"? I would love to see those verses. The only one I know of says we can't worship a graven image. And in the Old Testament (where this commandment is) there are multiple commands given by God or the prophets to make graven images after the commandment, such as with the Ark of the Covenant. This is a terribly misunderstood verse by protestants; the key is you can't worship (which we don't) not that you can't make. Just as an aside: every Christmas protestants put statues of Mary, Joseph, Jesus and others under their Christmas trees.

The reason we have statues is exactly the reason you have pictures: to remind us of the saints and what they stood for. In other cultures people bow down all the time, only Americans have trouble with this. By the way, the Catholic Church doesn't teach that you are required to ask the saints or Mary for prayers in order to get to heaven. But we do teach that the prayers of those already in heaven are better than those of sinners still on earth. Call us crazy.

Apostolic succession is absolutely Biblical: read Acts. At the start of Acts they find someone to fill the seat of Judas the traitor. Am I to believe they would fill Judas' seat at his death but not Peter's or John's? Give me a break. By the way an interesting tidbit about Acts: Peter is always mentioned first and always does everything first, before the other apostles. I wonder why?

Now for your scripture references:

Psalms 12:6 and 119:89 never suggests that the promises/word of the Lord are written in the Bible or especially only written in the Bible.

Proverbs 30:5-6. Same as above. But note, the only person who has added to the Bible is Martin Luther - your fearless leader.

Matthew 5:18. I have no idea why you are quoting this verse, unless you believe only "the Law" (first 5 books of the Bible) are sacred? Marc's verse, though woefully unadequate, was better.

Jay

Posted by: Jay at November 28, 2003 11:46 PM

First off let me say, I enjoy these discussions and do so lovingly to my Catholic brethren.
Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of God is FLAWLESS; he is a shield to those who tke refuge in him. DO NOT ADD TO HIS WORDS OR HE WILL REBUKE YOU AND PROVE YOU A LIAR. Again the last chapter in the last book of the Bible reiterates the same thing. If there was not a book put together....what book was Jesus referring to in Revelations? What was being referred to Proverbs 30:5-6? Was it not God's Word? Was not the Bible put together before Catechisms? The Catholic church used to only have the Bible to rely on. The Bible was the then as it is now. Yet the Catholic church started adding to God's Word via the catechism's. Directly in violation of Gods instruction. More so, you are focusing to much on an actual book...I am talking about God's Word, that is His teachings through Christ. Example If God says thou shalt not commit adultery...you cannot delete that from His Word nor can you contradict it. You are looking for a collaboration of books....but the WORD was Jesus...and His teachings were established throughout the Bible.
I tell you in love that God says that man shall not live of off bread alone...but by the Word of God. This is just one of many parts of scripture that show the authority of Gods Word. Yes, we follow our Churches, but they are built on the ROCK...that Rock being Christ...and Christ is the Word. Focus on the teachings of God and His instructions to us. Lets look at this way...lets say the Catholic church put the Bible together...they put it together before they made the Catechism's or any other doctrine. So if they added anything...they still were in violation of God's Word on not to add anything to God's Word.
So answer me this...
God said all are with sin...
Mary recognized Christ as her savior. A savior saves...saves us from sin. Christ died for our sins. Mary recognized that she was with sin...Lk 1:45 says My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior. She acknowledges that Christ is her Savior.
So God says no one is with out sin....Mary calls Christ her Savior...Christ being our savior saves us from sin. This is all in Gods Word....put together before catechisms or any other doctrine. Yet Catechisms contradicts what is in Gods word, by saying Mary was without sin. This is just one of the many flaws with your argument Jay. Also...what does Revelation 12:1-6 do for your argument, it was a recount of Mary being pregnant w/ Christ. I already have pointed out the flaws in your argument. I ask that instead of asking me to prove something, maybe you can teach me something. Show me how my argument for contradiction between Catechisms and the Bible is wrong. I have quoted scripture and even catechisms...and have shown you direct contradictions. You have yet to refer to scripture which validates your points. All you can come up with is that "the Bible doesn't say refer only to the Bible" Yet I still show you scripture that says otherwise. If you quote a scripture...for my benefit show how it correlates to your points.
God Bless
Marc

Posted by: Marc at November 29, 2003 12:39 AM

Marc,
We're enjoying them as well.

First, you're trying to take two verses and apply them to the whole book, while ignoring all of the other verse we've quoted. The Bible is a collection of books. Each of those verses applies to the book that they are written within, clearly. But, if they apply to the whole Bible then there would be a lot of contradiction; we've quoted numerous verses that suggest you have to listen to the spoken word as well as the written. Jesus wasn't speaking in Revelation; John was writing - he was clearly referring to revelations. Before Christ, many Jews only accepted the Torah (the Law) as "from God," which the Psalms and Proverbs isn't part of.

Here's an example of how protestants themselves rely on tradition as well as scripture: where does the Bible say we should change "the Lord's Day" from Saturday to Sunday? Even in Acts the apostles go to the temple on Saturday. This is only handed down through Tradition - the equal complement to the Bible.

Remember also: the Catechism is not equivalent to the Bible. It is simply a great exposition of what the Church teaches and does. It's a wonderful reference, but not considered Divine by any means.

You say that your church is built on the Rock of Christ, but Christ said that His Church is built on St. Peter - the "Rock." How is there any other way to understand Matthew 16:18? There's not - Jesus was being very, very clear in that verse. Protestants have to pervert His words and meaning to ignore what He is obviously saying.

Just to clarify Marc, you have not proven Sola Scriptura at all. Nothing you have quoted supports sola scriptura as you believe it. As part of your argument, you may want to address the many verses that clearly teach sola scriptura.

The discussion on Mary is big, we'll write a post on it soon, but here's where it begins. Read Luke 1:28:

And he [the angel] came to her and said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with You!"

What we know is that grace is present only insofar as we are without sin. Sin removes grace from our lives. So, for us to be "full of grace," we must be completely without sin. Note also that the angel uses this as Mary's name - almost renaming her. This is not done anywhere else in Scripture. Mary is the new "Ark of the Covenant" holding the "Word of God." There are numerous parallels between Mary's descriptions in the New Testament and the Ark of the Old Testament (another future article). This is important because of the 'holiness' of the ark. It was always present in the Holy-of-holies in the temple and could not be touched by non-Priests. These are simply points that suggest the holiness of Mary. Mary did require a savior, she was simply given sanctifying grace before she was born (original sin is the absence of sanctifying grace), just as we have the opportunity through baptism to receive sanctifying grace later - Note: why doesn't the Bible discuss Mary's baptism? She was still redeemed by her Savior, just earlier (He gave His mother a special favor, basically).

You constantly refer to the verse that "All have sinned," but is your interpretation correct? You are suggesting that this signifies every individual person has sinned, but has a newborn infant that dies sinned? Is a child born retarded capable of sin? Paul is referring to Greeks and Jews and saying something very controversial; he's suggesting that Jews also have sinned. Remember, our understanding of one verse must comply with our understanding of all the other verses - this is key.

I'm still waiting for a realistic argument supporting sola scriptura. You have yet to show that sola scriptura is Biblical - I know it's tough, but keep trying.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at November 29, 2003 09:40 AM

Once again, read the entire Scripture and see the truth.
Mt 16:13....."who do people say th Son of Man is?"16:14 They replied, "Some say john the Baptist;others say Elijah: and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
16:15 "But what about you?", he asked. "who do you say I am?"
16:16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Brief observation...Peter recognized Christ for who truly was at this point. Recognition of who Christ was and the power in His name was the Rock.
16:17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man but by my Father in heaven.16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heavenand whatever you loose on earht will be loosed in heaven.
(Those keys are prayer.) 16:20 Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ. Jesus was addressing not only Peter, but all His disciples. But that point may not be good enough for you. So lets look at what Peter himself has to say about it.
1Peter 2:1 Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind.2:2 Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation,2:3now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.2:4 As you come to him, the living Stone (notice the capital "S", and how Peter didn't refer to himself as the stone) rejected by men, but chosen by God and precious to him 2:5 you also, like living stones(notice the lower case "s") are being built into a spiritual house to be holy priesthood offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
2:6 For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."
Peter HIMSELF refers to Jesus as the Stone.
Now lets rationalize for a minute. Peter was a sinner. Peter was flawed...why would Jesus build his foundation on a flawed being? Jesus on occasions even rebuked Peter. Peter was a mortal man, weak by nature due to his flesh. Jesus said he would build his church on a ROCK...a rock is sturdy,strong,unshakeable and immovable. Peter would get weak in his faith at times. As evidenced by him denying Jesus...not once, not twice, BUT THREE times. Reading the scripture, knowing who Peter was, and seeing what Peter said himself...obviously the Rock is Christ.
As for Mary being full of grace, of course she was, she was humble. She even recognizes herself as being humble. And God says he gives grace to the humble. Pr3:34. So your statement of having to be without sin in order to be full of grace is completely false....so says the Lord in Pr 3:34. Stephen was also a man full of God's grace and power. Acts 6:8. Paul in 1Cor 15:10 Talks about being filled with God's grace. In 2 Cor 12 Paul talks about not boasting and being humble about being shown great revelations. He even makes a point that he could have boasted what was revealed to him, but would not because he didn't want that much credit. He even talks of a thorn in his flesh(Satan), tormenting him to become boastful. He asked the Lord to take it away. 2Cor12:9 But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. The grace of God was in Paul because God gives grace to the humble.
So Mary didn't make her own grace, no one can, she was given grace by God. If you are humble, you are filled with the grace of God. It says so in the Bible. The ultimate reference point for scriptural truth.
God Bless
Marc.

Posted by: Marc at November 29, 2003 04:47 PM

I'm back....been out of town since yesterday afternoon. I see that not much has changed:

Marc - you still have not answered my question...
Where in the Bible does it state that the Bible is the sole authority on matters of faith?

The verses you reference do not state in any way, shape, or form that Sacred Scripture is the SOLE SOURCE OF TRUTH. So let's recap the scriptural verses that directly contradict the Protestant teaching of Sola Scriptura:

1) 2 Thessalonians 2:15 - "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." Please take note that Paul clearly states that the traditions that must upheld are handed down both by the written word and by word of mouth.

2) 1 Timothy 3:15 - "...if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." Again, please take note that Paul clearly states that the pillar and bulwark of the truth is the church.

These are clear enough and in word for word detail support our position, stating exactly what we have stated to you. I will challenge you with the same argument you have used on me in the past...if Christ wanted us to adher strictly to Sacred Scripture why did He just say so? Why didn't He say I leave you the Bible and it shall be the source of all truth for you now and for generations to come? If you would like an even more detailed biblical analysis of the complete falsehood in this Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura please read Jay's article on it or the one I've posted entitled: A Letter from a Convert. I find it ironic that none of you have attempted to comment on those posts...but then again as David Currie (the author of the letter I quote in my post) clearly points out...there is no answer from Protestants to this challenge and therefore renders their very pillar false.

But I guess you'd rather not face the reality and consequences of this, so you've decided that it is now time to argue against the primacy of Peter. I will be posting an article tomorrow covering this very topic, but I will tell you this...you are biblically mistaken. Peter's primacy can be seen throughout the New Testament, also I will show you the Old Testament meaning of the keys that all the Jews of Jesus' day would have understood...but that will have to wait for tomorrow, I have to answer some of Simon's objections first.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at November 30, 2003 12:15 AM

Simon,

Welcome,eager young mind. I do enjoy this, it has become a powerful tool of evangelization for us, hundreds of visitors are checking in at Deo Omnis Gloria everyday. I will promise you this, we will do all we can to answer your questions and refute any false comments made. So without any further delay let us begin...

1) Allow me to start with a quote from your post:
"Ok Joe well lets not argue about the divinity of Mary right now." I would prefer you refrain from such comments, considering that there is not one sentence on this entire blog that claims that Mary is divine. Catholics only consider the Blessed Trinity to be divine...period. I have show in several of my articles on the Blessed Virgin Mary that all generations owe her respect, honor, and devotion as our Matriarch in faith. It was her "Yes" that gave all of us the essential opportunity to receive the grace of God, since she is the one who bore Him in her womb and brought him into this world in Bethlehem. Healthy discussion I enjoy, blatantly false statements like this I refuse to tolerate.

2) Graven Images - so what do the statues of former Presidents, soldiers, political figures, sports heroes, etc. stand for? Just as a memorial? Or do they in any way serve a means for honoring those individuals for some accomplishment? Just think about it from a purely functional purpose. Is the statue of Lincoln in Washington D.C. an abomination in the eyes of God? We all remember Abraham Lincoln since we have learned of him since our youth in American history, yet this country deemed it worthwhile to build a memorial for him, to honor all that he did for our great country. But now let us look to the Bible itself:
a) Exodus 37:7-9 (please note that it was in Exodus 20:4 that we find the commandment, "You shall not make for yourself a graven image..") - This passage depicts the construction of the ark of the covenant (a venerated material object, throughout the Old Testament); it is actually mentioned twice: here and in Exodus 25:18-22 - "And he made two cherubim of hammered gold; on the two ends of the mercy seat he made them, one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece with the mercy seat he made the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, with their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat were the faces of the cherubim." So if God meant that absolutely "no images" were allowed then Moses and the entire people of Israel just completely disobeyed God's law in constructing the very ark that would hold the Ten Commandments!
b) 1 Kings 6:23-36 (this verse is taken from the account of the construction of the Temple by Solomon) - In the inner sanctuary he made two cherubim of olivewood, each ten cubits high (23)...And he overlaid the cherubim with gold (28)...He carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubim and palm trees and open flowers, in the inner and outer rooms (29)" Again, now we find Solomon, who build the grandest Temple in Jewish history have images of angels built and carved...and I mean all over the Temple! So we find both Moses and Solomon apparently building the ark (the carrying case of the Ten Commandments) and the Temple (the holy of holies of Yahweh and the place of worship for the people of Israel) full of images of angels!

Apparently the Jews didn't think they were breaking God's law when doing this...in fact in both instances God was well pleased with their work and blessed them. So who is misinterpreting Sacred Scripture here? The Jews? Or Protestants, who insist that there are to be no carved images? Scripture answers this question clearly.

3)Bowing is a historical custom of reverence and respect used throughout history in multiple countries. Throughout history we find reference to people bowing before kings and rulers. I guarantee Henry VIII made all of his subjects bow to him (the founder of the Anglican Church). Contrary to popular belief, there is no doctrine within the Catholic faith that states that Catholics must bow to the Pope or any other man for that matter. Buy a Catechism of the Catholic Church and prove me wrong if you think I speak falsely here.

Jay dealt with your comment on apostolic succession and your apparent verses supporting Sola Scriptura. As I told Marc, none of these emphatically state that the Bible is the sole source of truth. So keep digging... :)

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at November 30, 2003 01:15 AM

Joe
Here is the proof you wanted, but first I ask a question. Was not the Bible put together first before the catechisms? Of course it was. The church determined what books were inspired by God. In the very book that the church put together, it says do not add or takeaway from the words of God. Do not change teachings, do not leave out teachings from God. So even the church felt that the Bible that was put together was the Word of God. Not part of it...but all of it. I want you to explain this.
Second, the reason I point out Peter is because you keep reciting 1 Tim 3:15. Your argument has been that the Church is built on Peter. You equate Peter to the first pope. So anything Peter would have said, or any pope for that matter must be true. For the pope heads the catholic church, he must be the pillar of truth. But I have shown you that Peter in fact was not the Rock, even by his own admission. The Rock is Jesus. The Church is built on Jesus. That is how the Church is the pillar of truth. Jesus is the Word. His teachings are what the Church is supposed to preach. Jesus IS THE WORD. Jesus said that HE IS THE TRUTH, THE WAY and LIFE. You can't ignore the very first point I asked you to explain. But more importantly God said do not add to his word or takeaway from his word. Who is the word? Jesus. Now if the pope declared that adultery is now unforgiveable....would that be true? The pope heads the catholic church, but would that be true? Obviously not...the ultimate reference point is Jesus and his teachings. That is what the church is built on. I also point out that Mary was not sinless simply because...the Bible says...God says...that no man is without sin. But Catechisms say that Mary was without sin. Did GOd change His mind and make her a virgin? Or is the Catechism contradicting what God said? Why do I bring up this point, simply because it goes against God's word. You ask me to tell you why didn't Jesus just say the Bible is the only source of scriptual truth, but Jesus did say that. He said He is the TRUTH THE WAY AND THE LIGHT. IN addition instructions by God not to add to HIS WORD. Remember the WORD BECAME FLESH. SO do not add to what Jesus taught. Did Jesus teach to ask MAry to pray for you? He said to John to treat Mary like His mother. Jesus gave Mary honor....he had to...it is a commandment. But he never said "pray to Mary so that she may pray to me so that I may for you" The Lord said, there is but ONE MEDIATOR. Not 2 middle men....but one. So the reason I bring up Peter and Mary is to point out the flaws in the catholic doctrine. It isn't scriptual. 1Tim 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.
You may beleive that to be Protestants. But I point it out because to hypocritical is to go against what the Lord taught, yet say you follow it.
If you believe the Bible is God's word, why do, claim or believe anything but the Bible. If it contradicts the Bible...can it be true?

God Bless
Marc

Posted by: Marc at November 30, 2003 11:34 AM

Marc,

I will persevere out of love for you and the good of your soul, but you are really running around in circles here. I will try here to break down your argument point by point, since you just keep jumping from one thing to another...

1)The function of a catechism is to clearly and concisely compile the fundamental doctrines and beliefs of the Catholic Church. Throughout the centuries Councils have been called (starting in Acts, chapter 15) that define for the followers of Christ some specific matter of faith. Some of these early councils defined such important doctrines as the Trinity (a term never used in the Bible, nor a doctrine clearly spelled out in any one area), the relationship of the two natures of Christ (human nature and divine nature, another doctrine held to be true by most Christians yet not clearly specifically defined in the Bible). As early as the year 70 A.D. we find the Didache, which was a compilation of the teachings of the Apostles and was the first known Catechism of the Catholic Church. The word Didache is Greek and means The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. So to matter-of-factly answer your question...yes catechisms did exist before the Bible (as a compiled book...not as individual gospels and/or epistles). You can find this by doing a little research at your public library or in the writing of the Church Fathers, a collection of writings from Christians between the year 60 A.D. and going forward. Ironically, their complete edition is published by a Protestant publisher, I forget the name but Jay knows it so maybe he'll post it.

2) I want to address the context of Romans 3 that you keep referencing:
"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..." (Rom 3:10-12)
First, Paul is quoting the Old Testament, to show his "Jewish" readers (who he is addressing in this epistle, reference Romanss 3:9 - Are we Jews better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks are under the power of sin), that his point can be known to them even in the Old Testament. So let us go back to that chapter in the Old Testament to see what exactly Paul is attempting to say by drawing on this verse.
The two Psalms that are being referenced are Psalm 14 and Psalm 53.
Psalm 14 - "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. They have all gone, astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no not one." Here you need to take note Marc..."Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the Lord? There they shall be in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous. You would confound the plans of the poor but the Lord is his refuge." So is God dwelling with nobody when he refers to the "generation of the righteous"? Note that after stating "there are none that does good" the author of the Psalms goes on to state "do they have no knowledge of God, all the evildoers eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the Lord?" In this context it becomes clear that the author of the Psalms is making a generalization of all "evildoers" distinguishing them from the Lord's "people" the "generation of the righteous". The same occurs in Psalm 53.

So what point is Paul trying to make by quoting this verse from the Psalms? Basically this, that all who do evil, and remain in evil are an abomination in the eyes of God, thus proving the Catholic doctrine that it is faith working in charity, not faith alone that leads to salvation. The remainder of Romans 3 supports this for Paul continues on and concludes the chapter by definitely stating "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law" (Rom 3:31). Interestingly enough Romans 4 starts with a reference to Abraham and his faith. The reference Paul makes - "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Rom 4:3) is actually a quote from Genesis 15:6. Let us look what is happening there.
This verse is well after Abraham's faith had been revealed, for prior to this he had left his homeland (12:4) in obedience to God and in faith, and after his initial covenant with the Lord, in which he was given the Promised Land (Gen 13:14-18). His faith is later tested in Genesis 22 when he is asked to sacrifice Isaac. Understand that Abraham's faith is depicted as a journey that required obedience, that is why James gives special emphasis to this when he wrote, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and scripture was fulfilled which says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness'; and he was called the friend of God." (James 2:21-23).
Sorry to get off track there but the point is that I believe you misuse Paul's point in Romans 3. What you are trying to make Paul say isn't supported by the very verse Paul is quoting when one actually goes back and looks at the Psalms they come from.

3) In reference to the Church's teaching on Mary (and saints, purgatory, etc for that matter) again I think you refuse the simple truth of Scripture itself. It all pends on the argument of Sola Scriptura...is the Bible the sole source of Truth. I agree that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. I also know that Jesus said that we had to eat His flesh and drink His blood if we wanted eternal life (John 6), but most Protestants completely ignore this. If Jesus did found a Church, which we know that He did (Mt 16) not to mention the multiple references to it throughout the New Testament, then He will work through that Church. It is the channel that HE has chosen, not men... Can't you get that?! Second, you ignore all the writings of the Christians of the earliest centuries after Christ. How can you just proceed to blow off all that was written by the Christians who came before us?!

Finally, if I decide that the Bible is saying something different than what you are saying, who decides whose interpretation is right? What qualifies proper interpretation? Your ideas of "the Bible is all I need to determine what is true" is in reality just a form of Relativism. For what might be true to you doesn't have to be true to me. If I decide that