"Ten Areas of Deadly Deception Among Catholics" Part II

This is the second in a series responding to a ridiculous anti-Catholic tract found online. I am trying to keep these responses to a sensible length, thus the series. Like I said in  part I, the anonymous author of this EOMin posting repeats many of the tired, old nonsense that has been disproved so, so many times.  He doesn't always argue his points with Scripture.

The two points already covered in Part I, were:

[1.] Roman Catholics are dangerously taught that they were born again at infant baptism.

I pointed out the Scriptural evidence which implies infant baptism (Col 2:11,12; Acts 2:39; Acts 16:15; 16:33; I Cor 1:16) and the Scriptural support for the Sacrament of Baptism (Acts 2:38; Matt: 28:19-20) and being "born again" by Baptism (John 3:6-8). And if Scripture were not enough, I did quote from Early Fathers of the Church, such as Origen, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory of Nazianz, St. Augustine, etc.

[2.] Roman Catholic dangerously think they receive Christ when they partake of the communion wafer.

Of course, we believe we receive Christ. More importantly we believe Christ receives us into His mystical body. We believe Our Lord Jesus's own words in John chapter 6, though Protestants are like the disciples who could not bring themselves to believe His words and left Him.

So, on to the next point:

 [3.] Roman Catholics wrongly think their church system was founded by Jesus on Peter the first pope.

The Catholic Church may be seen by some Protestants as a "church system", in my opinion, because many, if not most, Protestants sects and individual churches have no authority, no unity, and no set of beliefs in common. The Catholic Church holds the same beliefs, worship in the same way, and have a unity of beliefs that make it one Church. Jesus prayed to the Father that they would be one; one church, one faith, one family of God.

Roman Catholics, in fact, rightly believe their Church was founded by Jesus Christ on Peter the first pope. Protestants say that Scripture is the rule of their faith; I would say Catholics are actually the Bible believers. Let's look at a couple of Scripture passages that say that Jesus did indeed found His Church on Peter:

John 1: 42 Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter)

[Note on verse 42:] Cephas: in Aramaic = the Rock; cf. Mt 16:18. Neither the Greek equivalent Petros nor, with one isolated exception, Cephas is attested as a personal name before Christian times.

Jesus Christ gave Simon a new name. He called him Cephas. This is the Aramaic word for rock. He named him "The Rock." He was Simon "the Rock" Bar Jonah (son of John). Similar(though not quite the same) to Dwayne Johnson using The Rock as his wrestling name. From the time Jesus gave Simon that name, he was called "The Rock" or Rocky--in Greek Petros (because the word for rock, petra, was feminine, the ending was changed to a masculine one. This change of endings was quite common in the Greek language. However, there is only one other instance of a man using the Petros for a name in ancient literature.) But, since there is only one word for rock in Aramaic, the language Jesus Christ spoke, the significance of this becomes clear:

Matthew 16: 17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter [Cephas], and upon this rock [cephas] I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

From: Catholicbridge.com

 [Notes for verse 18 which help explain this passage:]  the Aramaic word kēpā’ meaning rock and transliterated into Greek as Kēphas is the name by which Peter is called in the Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:4; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) except in Gal 2:7–8 (“Peter”). It is translated as Petros (“Peter”) in Jn 1:42. The presumed original Aramaic of Jesus’ statement would have been, in English, “You are the Rock (Kēpā’) and upon this rock (kēpā’) I will build my church.” The Greek text probably means the same, for the difference in gender between the masculine noun petros, the disciple’s new name, and the feminine noun petra (rock) may be due simply to the unsuitability of using a feminine noun as the proper name of a male. Although the two words were generally used with slightly different nuances, they were also used interchangeably with the same meaning, “rock.” Church: this word (Greek ekklēsia) occurs in the gospels only here and in Mt 18:17 (twice). There are several possibilities for an Aramaic original. Jesus’ church means the community that he will gather and that, like a building, will have Peter as its solid foundation. That function of Peter consists in his being witness to Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living God. The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it: the netherworld (Greek Hadēs, the abode of the dead) is conceived of as a walled city whose gates will not close in upon the church of Jesus, i.e., it will not be overcome by the power of death.

For the Catholic Church this is pretty straightforward. Jesus "built" His Church on "The Rock" (Peter or Cephas in Aramaic). He gave The Rock the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and gave The Rock the power to forgive or not forgive--which also would be binding in heaven. We simply take Our Lord Jesus Christ at His word.

The belief that Peter was The Rock and that He was the chosen (by Jesus Christ Himself) representative and leader of the Church was believed from the beginning. Some important early mentions of Peter as such:

St. Ambrose:

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

 "[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

 "Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Origen, Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

 On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

 "I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Jerome, Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

 These and many more quotes along the same lines are found here.

I want to address just a couple of things he said in support of his argument.

The superiority the Roman Catholic Church claims for itself comes from this fallacious concept, which has led people into increasing error especially as Catholicism has drifted further and further into darkness over the centuries.

This statement does not stand up to actual Church history. It seems to me the author believes his audience will see this as an obvious given; it is not. I have spent some time above pointing out the biblical and traditional support for the Church being built on Peter and his authority. The Catholic Church believes that Christ said the words, as proved by Scripture, that make clear His wish that we be one, that we follow Peter, that we obey him. The Catholic Church established the form of Christianity we see today after the persecutions final stopped at the beginning of the fourth century. In Eusebius' History of the Church, we can even read about the magnificent Cathedral built at the time of Constantine as a tribute to the one true God and His Church.

The Catholic Church gathered, preserved, and published (painstakingly copied) the Scriptures all Christians enjoy today. The Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, studied, debated, prayed over, and decided on the beliefs of the faith. What the Catholic Church has today is the same Church it was 1700 years ago. The only differences are superficial ones. Some traditions have changed over the years (ie, celibacy, priestly dress, monastic garb, etc.), but doctrines have not. Some have had to be pronounced or written down as dogma when challenged within or without the Church (ie, the Immaculate Conception--which has always been believed but had to be outlined because of how far away from this doctrine Protestants had gone; More on Mary in the next post).

What the author sees as "superiority" is actually authority. The Church does indeed speak with authority because she was given that authority by Jesus Christ and ensured by the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would lead us to "all truth" and guide us to the "end of the age."  What keeps the author of this opinion tract in the truth? How does he know that his form of Christianity is right and the church down the street that disagrees with him on basic tenets of faith is not the ones who are right? I would ask him to think about this: Is there one truth or many truths? This is what "superiority" the Catholic Church has--the Fullness of Truth. We know exactly where the authority of the Church comes from: our Founder, Savior, and the supreme Head of the Church, Jesus Christ.

The anonymous author goes on to say:

Most Catholics are not aware of the doctrines that were added over the centuries or that certain popes denounced as heretics by other popes. The whole idea of a papacy itself is unscriptural.

1) Catholics are or should be aware of all Catholic doctrine. We treat people as adults in our Church and expect them to pray and study. If they attend Mass regularly, they will hear the majority of Scripture read throughout the Sunday three year cycle. If they go to week day Masses, they will hear nearly 100% of Scripture in Church. Homilies (sermons) usually have to do with doctrinal teachings applied to life. If the average (Mass attending) Catholic is paying attention, then he/she will know the important doctrines/dogmas of the Church.
2) To think that "Most Catholics" are ignorant of Catholic doctrine, would be overstating the case. Doctrinal development is a fact. Doctrines have been developed, not added over time. The difference is that development means that the words were fleshed out; the meaning of the Scripture and Apostolic support of all doctrines have been fleshed out; doctrines have been put down in words that have meaning for the Christian faithful.
3) Catholics who have studied history freely admit that all popes are human and therefore not perfect. Even Pope Saint John Paul II went to confession every day. We know there have been some men who were appointed as pope that should not have been the leader of His Church. However, if one studies Church history objectively, one can see that not one of these "heretical" or "bad" popes changed, added, or practiced new, innovative, or heretical doctrines. Not one of them changed the Church's teachings--not one.
4) I have provided plenty of Scriptural support of the papacy above. Just because something is not spelled out, in English, for someone so tightly wound to find fault, does not make the papacy "unscriptural." There is plenty of support for the papacy in Scripture if one opens their eyes and mind.

He goes on:

After Jesus spoke Mt. 16:18, Peter was not recognized as the chief Apostle among the Twelve. Mk 8:29 is the parallel account to Mt. 16:18. Less than one full chapter later, the disciples were arguing which of them was the greatest (Mk 9:24). Hence, they didn't understand Peter to be the chief. See also Acts 15 where Peter did not preside over the Jerusalem church council.

 1) Peter's name used more often than all apostles names combined: 191 times--162 times as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next with 48 mentions with Peter there about 50% of the time. It has been reckoned that all the other disciples combined are mentioned 130 times.

2) Peter's name is first in lists of the Apostles. See Matt. 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13. Matthew calls him the first in his Gospel (10:2). He is listed as the first among the "inner circle". See Matthew 17:1; 26:37, 40; Mark 5:37; 14:37).

3) Peter is also named first in just about every passage where he is mention with another person. See Galatians 1:18-19; 2:7-8). 

4) Peter spoke up and was recognized as the leader of the group of Christ's followers brought before the Jewish community leaders. See Acts 4:1-13, especially verse 8: "Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, answered them,..." Peter was recognized as leader in Acts 2:37-38.

5) Peter was the first to: Enter the empty tomb (Luke 24:12; John 20:6); lead the apostles in fishing (John 21:2-3:11), call for a replacement to Judas (Acts 1:22); to speak after Pentecost (making him the first Christian to preach the Gospel; Acts 2:14-36), work a miracle (Acts 3:6-12); pronounce an anathema (Acts 5:2-11); raise the dead (Acts 9:40); receive the Gentiles (Acts 10:9-48); to be delivered by an angel (The whole Church praying for him; Acts 12:1-17); refute heresy (Acts 8:14-24); use the genuine gift of tongues (Acts 2:14-21); be a missionary (Acts 9:32-38, 43--Paul began his official missionary journeys in Acts 13:2); right an epistle from Rome (I Peter 5:13);

6) Paul went to see Peter in Jerusalem for 15 days before he set out on his missionary ministry (Gal 1:18) and received his commission from Peter, James, and John (Gal. 2:9).

7) As for the Council of Jerusalem, one see by reading Acts 15 that James was the bishop of Jerusalem. James, therefore, was the host of the Council. However, it was Peter's revelation that they were discussing (Acts 10:9-16) and that they acted upon (Acts 10: 44-49). Peter iterated the decision of the council and spoke first of the decision of the Council. James only reiterated  and agreed with what Peter said, and, as host, wrapped up (gave closure to) the council (Acts 15:19-21).

In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present Peter with such prominence in the Bible without some meaning and import for later Christian history--in particular, Church government. The papacy is the plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this.  (Dave Armstrong, The Pre-Eminence of St. Peter: 50 New Testament Proofs--I also used this site to help with the Scriptures above).

Mr. Armstrong's article also contains many, many more instances of the preeminence of Peter, the uniqueness of the stories surrounding Peter, and Peter's firsts in Scripture. If the author wants to argue the lack of Scripture in favor of Peter's papacy, he falls short. There is so much Scripture in support of Peter as leader, as miracle worker, as missionary, that is becomes a little ridiculous to say that Peter was not the head of the Church Christ founded. The preponderance of evidence is in favor of Saint Peter.

Simply put, yes, Jesus founded His Church on Peter, The Rock. And, yes, it was believed by the Apostles, and the church from the beginning, as Scripture and the surviving Church writings show.

Further reading: The Papacy by ACTS, Did Jesus Really Make Peter Pope? by Fr. William Saunders on the EWTN Website,  Scott Hahn on the Papacy,  The Early Church Fathers I Never Saw by Marcus Grodi,  Was Peter the Rock? The "little rock, big rock" theory  and The Pope on CatholicBridge.com

Next up, the EOMin tract author's misinterpretations of Mary and her role in the plan of Salvation.

[4.] Catholics think Mary is their life, sweetness and hope and proclaim her as such when they recited the rosary, which they say is the epitome of the whole gospel.

[5.] Catholics think if they die wearing the brown scapular they will not suffer the fires of hell.
[6.] Catholics think the sacraments are a means of them receiving grace needed for salvation.
[7.] Catholics confess their sins to a priest instead of to God.
[8.] Catholics who read and believe the Fatima Visions are dangerously thinking that Mary is our refuge and the way that will lead them to God.
[9.] Many Catholics are just hoping to enter Purgatory and there get purged of their sins to afterwards go to Heaven.
[10.] Catholics have been lethally misinformed about how to show their love for the Lord Jesus.  

"Ten Areas of Deadly Deception Among Catholics" Part I

One would think that anti-Catholic "Christian" groups would tire of the same old arguments. They repeat the same old nonsense so many times that they've convinced themselves they are right. They're not. Not only does an anti-Catholic polemic by EOMin not argue against the Catholic Faith (they argue their own false ideas of Catholicism), but they do not even argue properly with Scripture. That is the thing about the Catholic Faith, Scripture is studied and believed as a whole, not in snippets. The fact that these Christians feel they must constantly call out fellow Christians means that Satan is getting a stronghold in the body of Christ. It is sad and insane, but it goes on and on with the same tired arguments. Below are the unnamed author's 10 "Deadly Deceptions" (italics used in case the color cannot be seen) and my answers (while I will cite other sources, this is my writing):

He starts his article with "If you are acquainted with the teachings of the Roman Catholicism..." but makes it quite clear he is very little acquainted with the teachings of the Catholic Church. 

On with the "deadly deceptions" which are the "most dangerous false doctrines believed by millions of Catholics":

[1] Roman Catholics are dangerously taught that they were born again at infant baptism.

First of all, fundamentalist, Calvinist, evangelical, whatever-label, Christians use words differently than Catholics.  This is the first "fundamental" difference between Catholics and other Christians.

The expression "born again" is no exception. The unnamed author says, "The truth is, one gets Biblically born again only when he turns away from his sins and places his faith in the Lord Jesus to the point of dedication and commitment." Ironically, he gives no Biblical references for his claim.

When asked by Nicodemus about what He meant by being born again, Jesus said,

"Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.  What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I told you, 'You must be born from above.' The wind blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."  (John 3:6-8, NAB)

Jesus says that we must have two births. This is what the Church teaches.  We are born of our mothers (born of flesh), then we are born into His Church (born of water and Spirit).  Peter said,

Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38, NAB)

It is quite easy to see that the early Church believed that baptism was how you received the Holy Spirit--the Spiritual birth.  This is what Jesus taught and what His apostles taught, that baptism was being "born again". Jesus said:

"As the Father has sent Me, so I send you."

And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, 

"Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."  (John 20:21b-22, NAB)

And He sent them out with a command:

"All power in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.  And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." (Matthew 28:19-20, NAB)

Baptism and spiritual rebirth are one and the same. It was obviously important enough for Christ to command His disciples to baptize everyone they made disciples of Christ.  But, Christ also felt it important to include children as His followers:

Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. (Matthew 19:14, NAB)

If the kingdom of heaven belongs to children, we need to include them in our Church family.  Paul, the hero of the Protestant, is the one who said that baptism replaced circumcision. Who was circumcised? 8 day old babies and converts to Judaism. Paul said:

"In Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with Him in baptism, through faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead."  (Colossians 2: 11,12, NAB)

Peter said:

"For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call." (Acts 2:39)

 And, the Church baptized whole families:

 "After [Lydia] and her household had been baptized, she offered us an invitation." (Acts 16:15)

"...then [the jailor] and all his family were baptized at once. (Act 16:33)

(I baptized the household of Stephanos also...) (I Corinthians 1:16)

Admittedly, none of these passages specifically says that they baptized babies, but these passages certainly don't say that they only baptized "Bible believing adults" either. These passages say that they baptized whole families; that would mean children of all ages as well as adults.

However, not only is infant baptized implied in the Acts of the Apostles, but the evidence that the early church practiced infant baptism is overtly evident in the writings of the early church.

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

 “Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Origen, Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Origen, Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).

“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Gregory of Nazianz, Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

“‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (ibid., 40:28)

“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (John Chrysostom, Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (Augustine, Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

“By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (Augustine, Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

And what does one do with this passage of the Bible when one doesn't believe that baptism has anything to do with salvation?  When only faith saves one? I posit that these do not have faith at all.

 "...while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.  This prefigured baptism, which saves you now.  It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,..." (I Peter 3:21)

It baffles me how many times I can see so-called Bible believing Christians ignore what is written in the Bible. When Scripture disagrees with their predetermined paradigm, they simply ignore it or skim over passages that don't support their conclusions.  When someone actually does address this passage in Peter's letter they try to explain it away. They say that Peter didn't actually mean saved; he didn't actually mean baptism saves you, despite the fact that Peter clearly states that "baptism saves you now."  Obviously, it is important; Christ was baptized. Noah and his family were actually saved by/through the flood.

The Church teaches what Christ and the Apostles preached and has done so for almost two thousand years.  The Catholic (universal) Church has bestowed baptism on anyone who became a follower of Christ and baptized infants in anticipation of that child growing up in the Faith and becoming a follower on their own (this is called Confirmation).

 [2] Roman Catholics dangerously think they receive Christ when they partake of the communion wafer.

This is another of the statements that is hard for me to understand coming from someone claiming to be a Christian.  Christ made clear reference to the Eucharist and His Body. The machinations that Protestants go through to deny the direct words of Jesus strike me as very odd indeed.

Let us start with John chapter six, where Christ's teaching on this matter are the most clear, and the passage that Protestants try to explain away the most. Just how many times does Jesus tell us that we must eat His flesh?

26Jesus answered them and said, “Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled. 27Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life,^* which the Son of Man will give you... 

32So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.^o 33For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

34^p So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.” 35^* Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.^q 36But I told you that although you have seen [me], you do not believe.^r 37Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, 38because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.^s 39And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it [on] the last day.^t 40For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him [on] the last day.”^u

47Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;^z 50this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”^a

53Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54Whoever eats^* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.^b 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” 

Just how many times can the Catholic Church, a Catholic author, or an individual Catholic explain that we, Catholic Christians, believe Jesus' words? That is the only answer we should have to give, whenever "partak[ing] of the communion wafer" is seen as something like a sin.  We believe what Jesus said. He said if we participate in the eating of His flesh we have life; if we don't it means death. It really is as simple as that.

The Sacrament of the Eucharist is no deception. It is the Catholic Church following Christ to His life in us and He promised us in John chapter six and many other chapters of the Gospels.

I would also like to address a couple of false statements under this "deception" made by the anonymous author of this diatribe:

"This false and deadly concept is the result of the bogus idea that the communion elements (bread and wine) have been transubstantiated by the priest into the literal body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ."

First of all, this is not a "bogus idea". It was the belief of all Christians until the 16th century when certain men in the Church decided they knew better than Christ or the 1500 years of Christian writers, philosophers, theologians, and teachers.  Second, the priest does not transubstantiate the bread and wine. He calls on the Holy Spirit to do so, and then stands in Jesus Christ's stead and says exactly what Christ did, "This is My Body...This is My Blood." We take Jesus Christ at His Word.

"No one receives Christ in his mouth, then swallows him to be digested."

Every time I've heard this idiocy from a Protestant, it has made me laugh. Of course, we do not "digest" Christ. Just the opposite happens. When we consumed the consecrated Host, we become part of the mystical Body of Christ. He abides in us and we abide in Him (John 6:40).  It is a holy union with Life Itself.

   “This saying is hard, and who can hear it?” (Jn. 6:61).

Coming up: 


3) Roman Catholics wrongly think their church system was founded by Jesus on Peter the first pope.
4) Catholics think Mary is their life, sweetness and hope and proclaim her as such when they recite the rosary, which they say is the epitome of the whole gospel.
5) Catholics think if they die wearing the brown scapular they will not suffer the fires of hell.
6) Catholics think the sacraments are a means of them receiving grace needed for salvation.
7) Catholics confess their sins to a priest instead of to God.
8) Catholics who read and believe the Fatima Visions are dangerously thinking that Mary is our refuge and the way that will lead them to God. 

9) Many Catholics are just hoping to enter Purgatory and there get purged of their sins to afterwards go to Heaven.
10) Catholics have been lethally misinformed about how to show their love for the Lord Jesus.

Judge Not?

When we hear someone say, "Judge not, lest ye be judged," it is often in the context of a Christian pointing out sin or the sinful acts of others and someone coming to the defense of the "others" and/or the other person him/herself.  To "discern" good from evil is not the type of "judgment" which Jesus condemns in Matt. 7:1.  We are not called (yet) to judge persons (see 1 Cor. 6:2-3) but we are most definitely called to "discern" good from evil - and to warn our brethren when they are in sin, a near occasion of sin or living in such a way which may lead others to sin.  In fact, for us to turn our backs or say nothing when we witness the sin in others is not a form of love for them - for if they were to remain unrepentant in that sin and/or lifestyle then what we would really be implying is that we're OK with their condemnation; that we're OK with never seeing them again in all eternity because they chose a lifestyle here in this temporal condition which will have eternal consequences.  

I don't know about you, but I would rather be somewhat blunt with such a friend and/or family member than just try to "get along" in "comfort" in this life.  If somehow the Holy Spirit moves in their heart and brings them around, well James 5:19-20 speaks loud and clearly on this matter!   "My brethren, if any of you err from the truth, and one convert him: he must know that he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins."  Not all sins are "Deadly Sins" but when we are aware of someone who is either in such a sin or is living in a near occasion of sin, we cannot remain silent.  Ask yourself, HOW can you "convert" one if you're not discerning and HONEST with your friend/family member and point out their sin to them?  Who would "convert" if everyone around them are "making happy" and never talking about the 600 pound gorilla in the room? We HAVE to be discerning between that which is moral and immoral. 

Does this mean we condemn our friend or family member who is living in sin?  NO!  We still love them in all Christian charity.  They are still our friend/family member - but they have to know that we're not approving of such a lifestyle - and can never be approving of such.  They should know you're concerned and praying for them and their conversion - but you don't have to beat them over the head with it.  As our motto in the ACTS Family of Forums goes, "But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.  But with modesty and fear, having a good conscience: that whereas they speak evil of you, they may be ashamed who falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." 1 Peter 3:15-16.  In other words, always be prepared to give an answer, but do so in charity so that you do so in good conscience.  

I have been asked by a friend of mine to look into several articles regarding homosexual marriage.  Anyone who knows me must know that I will take the Catholic position on this matter - but I will look at these articles and will respond here in future postings.  As I said above, I do not judge homosexual persons - but I cannot possibly give my blessing to homosexual acts, but again - more on that in upcoming postings. 

Here are some excellent Scripture verses on judging compiled at Catholic Bible 101:

Leviticus 19:15:  "You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.

Proverbs 31:9: Open your mouth, judge righteously; maintain the rights of the poor and needy.
Matthew 7:2: For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.
Luke 6:37: "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;
(**NOTE—Here we see the link between judging and condemning)
Matthew 18:15: "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
(**NOTE – Here is a prime case of Jesus telling us all to admonish the sinner).
Luke 7:40-43:  And Jesus answering said to him, "Simon, I have something to say to you." And he answered, "What is it, Teacher?"  "A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty.  When they could not pay, he forgave them both. Now which of them will love him more?"  Simon answered, "The one, I suppose, to whom he forgave more." And he said to him, "You have judged rightly."
(**NOTE – Here we see the use of the term “judged” in the context of judging someone’s actions, rather than personal condemnation).
Luke 12:57: "And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?
(**NOTE – Once again, we see the use of the term “judge” in the context of judging actions, not condemning people and passing judgment).
John 7:24: Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."

(**NOTE – Here Jesus commands us to judge people’s actions and deeds with “right judgment”.)
Acts 4:19: But Peter and John answered them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge;
(**NOTE – Another case of judging people’s actions, rather than the person).
1 Corinthians 2:15: The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.
1 Corinthians 6:2-3: Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases?   Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!
(**Note – No wonder satan hates Christians so much – we will be judging him one day!)
Hebrews 10:30: For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people."
(**NOTE – Here we see that the Lord judges people. That in no way precludes us from judging whether or not people’s actions are sinful or not.)
James 4:12: There is one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you that you judge your neighbor?
(**NOTE – James says that we should not judge our neighbor.  Once again, this does not stop us from judging whether or not our neighbor’s actions (killing his wife, stealing money, etc.) is sinful. Note how this differs from James 5:20 above, where James talks about bringing a sinner back from the error of his ways (sinfulness)).

If you like this article, please share with your friends!   

. 

What Is The Unforgivable Sin?

Scripture tells us there IS a sin which cannot be forgiven:

31 Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven.32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.  (Matthew 12:31-32)

28 Amen I say to you, that all sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and the blasphemies wherewith they shall blaspheme:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin. (Mark 3:28-29)

The answer would be "final impenitence," that is - an obstinate refusal to seek forgiveness of mortal sin which one knows and recognizes as mortal sin.  This is blaspheme for it is a direct denial of the healing power of the Holy Ghost.  To knowingly not seek such reconciliation is a sin against the Holy Ghost and to do so with such finality that one does not seek this up to and through death makes it unforgivable.  

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains it this way:

CCC 1864 "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin." There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

St. Thomas Aquinas offers several arguments in the Summa Theologica, but it seems summed up in the conclusion the CCC (above) makes:

According to the various interpretations of the sin against the Holy Ghost, there are various ways in which it may be said that it cannot be forgiven. For if by the sin against the Holy Ghost we understand final impenitence, it is said to be unpardonable, since in no way is it pardoned: because the mortal sin wherein a man perseveres until death will not be forgiven in the life to come, since it was not remitted by repentance in this life. 

Final impenitence - the refusal to seek forgiveness of ones sins.

St. Augustine says:  

"(Enchiridion lxxxiii) that 'he who dies in a state of obstinacy is guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost,' and (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi) that 'impenitence is a sin against the Holy Ghost,' and (De Serm. Dom. in Monte xxii), that 'to resist fraternal goodness with the brands of envy is to sin against the Holy Ghost,' and in his book De unico Baptismo (De Bap. contra Donat. vi, 35) he says that 'a man who spurns the truth, is either envious of his brethren to whom the truth is revealed, or ungrateful to God, by Whose inspiration the Church is taught,' and therefore, seemingly, sins against the Holy Ghost" (ST 2b:14:2, Sed Contra)."  (Qtd. on:  http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/UNFORGIV.HTM - an article by James Akin).

Again, final impenitence is concluded to be the sin against the Holy Ghost for which there is no forgiveness.  It is a final and unforgivable sin because to not seek reconciliation for mortal sin in this life means it is not forgiven in this life - and if not forgiven in this life, it will not be forgiven in the next.  I could get longer winded about this - but I believe the answer is summarized above.  The cited articles above go into longer arguments and defenses if one is interested in further reading - and I would encourage further reading if one still has questions.

Mortal Sin

[Note:  This blog is directed to those who believe themselves to be good Catholics]

 

We learned in last week’s leaflet that Jesus instituted a Church with authority (Mat 18:15-18).  Now are we free to ignore this Church, preferring our own particular ideas, our own preferences?  In a strict sense we are free to do as we wish BUT for those of us who are Christians, we are most free when we follow God. 

As Christians we are to follow God as Jesus taught us.  We put our trust in His message and teachings.  As a famous 20^th century philosopher once said: “To trust Him means, of course, trying to do all that He says.  There would be no sense in saying you trusted a person if you would not take his advice.”  (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)

Jesus advised us to listen to His Church when He told us to bring our disagreements to it in Mat 18.  Specifically, He told the apostles to tell it to the Church and if they will not listen to the Church then we are to treat them as though they are lost.  Jesus said: “tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

And so we see that Jesus’ advice in determining the truth is to go to His Church.  On matters of faith and morals we also know that whatever the Church proclaims to be true is infallibly known to be true since Jesus said that whatever the Church binds on earth will be bound in heaven.  Since nothing untrue can be bound in heaven means that whatever the Church binds on earth must also be true.

Now, if you are aware of a Church teaching defined as true and binding but reject it anyway then you are freely going against the advice of Jesus as well as rejecting the authority of His Church.  If all these conditions are met, that is first, that you are aware of the binding authority of His Church and secondly freely reject it, which is a very grave matter, then you are rejecting the rightful authority given to His Church by God Himself.   You are perpetrating a mortal sin.

Are you aware that the Church Jesus founded teaches in the necessity of keeping the Sabbath day Holy by going to Mass on Sunday?  If you are aware of this and freely neglect to go without good reason then you are committing a mortal sin.

Are you aware that the Church Jesus founded teaches on the grave matter of artificial contraception usage to be against the moral law?  If you are aware of this teaching of the Church and yet freely use artificial contraception anyway then you are committing a mortal sin.

Are you aware that the Church Jesus founded teaches that human life is sacred and to be protected?  If you were aware of this and also aware of the extreme abortion views of one political candidate while the only other candidate opposing him clearly had a better life-affirming stand but voted for the one with the extreme abortion proponent anyway then you committed a mortal sin.

Please, examine your conscience before receiving our Lord in the Eucharist.  Are you guilty of mortal sin?  If you are then I urge you to go to confession before receiving the Eucharist since you would be “guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor 1:27)

 

God Bless
Nathan

 

Missed past week’s leaflets?  Questions?  Comments?  Come visit our Blog at www.parishofthepreciousblood.blogspot.com

Mortal Sin, Venial Sin and Scripture

In a recent discussion between Ken T. and myself, the subject of mortal v. venial sins came up.  The original post/response was on a different topic so rather than continue to diverge that topic, I have started a new article to deal directly with what he’s asserted.

Ken wrote: all sin leads to death. all sins are mortal sins.

Romans 6:23

Most may already know that verse, but let’s quote it for clarity:

For the wages of sin is death. But the grace of God, life everlasting, in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom. 6:23 DRB)

This does not specify - whereas 1 John 5:15-17 does:

15 And we know that he heareth us whatsoever we ask: we know that we have the petitions which we request of him.

16 He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask.

17 All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.

Clearly there are at least TWO TYPES OF SIN HERE!  One which is “unto death” and another which is “not to death.”  Just because Scripture is not specific about types of sin in one place, that does not mean where it IS specific in another place that the latter is wrong.  No, Ken is wrong here - not all sins are mortal sins, as verse 17 makes clear, “all iniquity is sin.  AND there is a sin unto death (mortal).”  

I would also add, Romans 6 is more about sin in general and along with the concept that we ALL have sin due to our First Parents (Original Sin) and the wages of that Original Sin is death, we ALL die (though there has been at least a couple exceptions to that rule in Enoch and Elijah).  So what Ken has done is take a general statement and attempted to contrast that with the more specific example I have provided him with.

Ken continues:  James 1:13-14 – when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

Let’s look at the text itself again, and we’ll use the NASB:

13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.

14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.

Well, Ken appears to be off a verse here, as 15 says what he said:

15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

There’s no delineation here - but where there IS delineation, we cannot ignore it!  Plus what is being described here would also fit the definition of a mortal sin!  The conception of lust itself is not sin, but it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death - for a sin to be a mortal sin it must be a grave matter, one must know ahead of time it is a sin and then go forward or accomplish it with that full knowledge.  THAT IS a “sin which is unto death!”

True believers, when they sin, will repent and confess sooner or later.

“True believers” fall into sin all the time.  Those who do commit a “sin which is unto death” (mortal), and do NOT repent prior to death (say an untimely accident or heart attack) will likely perish in everlasting torment (I cannot say what God in His Mercy might do, and/or if at the moment of death that person was contrite and given a chance to repent, etc., only God can make that final judgment on a soul).  

I believe this “True believers” statement is along the lines of “once saved, always saved” (OSAS), which is also a false teaching, but is not the topic of this article, so I will refrain from further comment at this time.

so I John 5:15-17 has to mean "commiting a sin that does not lead to physical death"

Like I Corinthians 11 – those that were judged and God killed.

Well, 1 Corinthians 11 is talking about those who are “among you” and yet are in “schism” and/or “heresy.”  It is among THOSE who are “infirm” or “weak” and/or “sleep,” for they are dead to Christ, even though (being among you) testify that they are “true believers,” but they have followed a lie and believe in a lie and thus will face the Judgment.

I Cor. 5 – Paul says he delivered him over for the destruction of his flesh that his spirit may be saved in the day of Christ Jesus.

(God's judgment in killing the person - as in His judgment on Saul in I Samuel. It is not clear to me whether or not Saul was a true believer.

Those are good examples of what John means, “a sin unto death”.

Well, 1 Cor. 5 deals with St. Paul warning them against intermingling with those who claim to be fellow Christians, yet they are participating in sexual immorality (specifically mentioning one whose sin is worse than even the pagans would endure - one who sleeps with his father’s wife), that we are to shun them, we are not to associate with them - not even eat with them.  

As for Saul, in 1 Samuel - he most certainly was a “true believer” - but he lacked faith.  He did not trust in God’s Divine Providence in regard to his kingdom.  

So, whereas in the case of the one who sleeps with his father’s wife, that’s definitely a mortal sin.  Saul visiting a medium - well, that was expressly forbidden by God’s Law - so that too would be a mortal sin.  Yes, these are good examples of sins which are unto death, though in either case - the sinner could repent and be forgiven of their sin.

Christ saves completely. Hebrews 10:10-14

Let us look at this passage too:

10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

Yes, the Sacrifice of Christ was once for all!  Catholics do not dispute this at all!  Catholics also see God as not limited by our linear sense of time for God just is, period.  God sees ALL time in the present.  He sees the past, the present and the future all at once because He is outside our man-made concept of time.  This is why we see each act of God as an act which exists in eternity.  The Mass, therefore, is not a new and/or repeated sacrifice - but “taps into” that eternal Sacrifice of the Cross, which redeems the world.  This passage is also referring to the Old Testament sacrifices, not the once-for-all-time Sacrifice of Christ.

the believer who sins, confesses and repents constantly; walking in the light.

This statement appears to come from out of nowhere, but we would agree here!  And since ALL believers sin - ALL believers should make use of the means by which Jesus provided His Church for the forgiveness of sins - namely through His bishops (or those whom they have so empowered/given faculties).  Jesus, speaking to His First Bishops - the Apostles, and to them only (they were alone with Him at the time) told them that whatsoever sins THEY forgive are forgiven - and sins they do NOT forgive are NOT forgiven (John 20:23).  By-passing this authority is contrary to Scripture - and thus Protestantism is fundamentally devoid of forgiveness of sins.  Now certainly God could, and I mean COULD as in POSSIBLY, not hold those who in their ignorance, which is through no fault of their own, culpable for this avoidance of this Sacrament.  Those who are reading this and/or articles like this one, in my humble opinion, would no longer be able to claim such ignorance.

there is no venial and mortal sin distinction in Scripture. (in the RCC sense) That was a later historical development was wrong and unbiblical.

We have already proven this statement to be false, so I won’t repeat myself here.

some sins are worse in their consequence and affects, of course. Real murder is worse than hatred and anger, but hatred and anger are the roots of murder, and make us guilty, but the consequences are not as bad.

What consequences could you possibly be referring to?  If you are consistent in your belief, there are NO consequences for the believer who repents!  For one who does NOT repent, the consequence is eternal damnation!

Back to the point...  Scripture tells us there are two types of sin, one which is unto death and the other is not, therefore the concept of mortal and venial sins is not a later historical development nor is it not biblical.  Since the Catholic concept is scripturally based the only way it could be “wrong” is if Scripture is wrong.  I posit that it is Ken who is wrong, not Scripture and not the Catholic Church on this matter.

In the spirit of the Holy Family (JMJ),
Scott<<<

PS- I was able to repost this article because I had it in Google Docs - but the comments got zapped when Blogger reset back to a time prior to the original posting of the article.