Ten Areas of Deception of Catholics Part IV

I have now dealt with five of the "Ten Areas of Deception" in my previous three posts: Part I, dealt with the first 2 "deceptions", Part II dealt with the third "deception, followed by Part III dealt with some of the anonymous Protestant's problems with Mary and a couple of Marian sacramentals: the Rosary and the Brown Scapular.

*****************Part IV Begins here:
On to the next statements.
Next the anonymous author of the tract said:

[6] Catholics think the sacraments are a means of them receiving grace needed for salvation.

I would just like to preface my statements under this so-called "deception", that I do not believe any of his statements are indeed deceptions. However, Catholics do think the Sacraments are a means of receiving grace. Why? Because every single one of the Sacraments was instituted by Jesus Christ to give grace.

1) BAPTISM
This Sacrament was instituted by Christ and is necessary to be "born again" in "water and the spirit."

Then Jesus approached and said to them, “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 28:18-20)

He said to them, “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:15, 16)

Jesus answered, “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." (John 3:5, 6)

The Catholic believes that the commands of Jesus are "the standard of Christian conduct." (Notes for Matt. 28:20) Jesus commanded the apostles to Baptize with His power. He gave them the power and the command to baptize. All Christians should take that seriously.

St. Peter took this commandment very seriously:

Peter [said] to them, “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. 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: 38,39)

Baptism was an important command of Our Lord Jesus to all Christians. It was instituted in the Church at the very beginning.

"She and her household had been baptized" (Acts 16:15)

"Then he and all his family were baptized at once." (Acts 16:33)

"Crispus, the synagogue official, came to believe in the Lord along with his entire household, and many of the Corinthians who heard believed and were baptized." (Acts 18:8)

Whole households/families were baptized. This was to make them Christians; the entire family, men, women, children, were baptized as Jesus had commanded.

"For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit." (I Cor. 12:13)

We were meant to be one in this baptism; it was both saving and unifying.

"Who had once been disobedient 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, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him." (I Peter 3:20-22)

Baptism saves. Those who actually study scripture, let alone Christian history will understand that. What else can be said about it? Why do some who call themselves Christians deny its value in the plan of salvation? If you are not baptized according to Jesus Christ's word, are you "saved?" In my opinion, you would be hard pressed to say "yes" if you believe in Scripture.

2) CONFIRMATION
This Sacrament completes Baptism with a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit and strengthens the Christian for their mission. This happened at Pentecost; the Holy Spirit came down on the apostles  and, by the way, they went out and eventually baptized about 3,000 people that day. 

"And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you." (John 14:16, 17)

Jesus promised the Holy Spirit. It was a gift of the Spirit from the Father and the Son (or through the Son as the Orthodox would put it).  And, the apostles received the Holy Spirit 10 days after the Ascension of Jesus Christ.

And they were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim. (Acts 2:3)

The early Christians received charismatic gifts or signs that the Holy Spirit was present. For instance, the apostles spoke in tongues--the languages of the people waiting to hear them speak. The laying on of hands was the passing on of the Holy Spirit by the apostles, which is the Sacrament of Confirmation.

"Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit." (Acts 8:17)

"And when Paul laid [his] hands on them, the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied." (Acts 19: 6)

This laying on of hands is how the Holy Spirit was given to each successive generations of Christians. Today, the bishop lays his hands on the Confirmation candidates and they receive the renewing and strengthening of the Holy Spirit as promised us by Jesus Christ Himself.

3) EUCHARIST
What more is there to say about the Eucharist; Christ said it all. We, Catholics, believe what He said. It has been explained over and over and over by Catholic apologists since the beginning of the Church.

It is obvious to us that this Sacrament was instituted by Christ. The earliest account of the Sacrament in the Church is from the first letter of Paul to the Church at Corinth (I Corinthians) which scholars believe was written before the Gospel account.

"For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night He was handed over, took bread, and, after He had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is My body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself."

(I Cor. 11:23-29)

Here we see how much St. Paul believes in the truth of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. If one does not discern the body and blood of the Lord, one brings judgment on oneself. How could a symbol bring judgment on anyone? There is no equivocation on this in Paul's account of the Eucharist and how it was passed down to him, and how he was passed it down to the church in Corinth.

But beyond St. Paul's account of the Tradition of passing down the Eucharist and its form, we see how Christ instituted this Himself, in His own words, witnessed by St. Matthew, one of His chosen.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to His disciples said, “Take and eat; this is My body.” Then He took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is My blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.” (Matthew 26:26-29)

This is a straight forward command by Jesus (which "should be the standard of Christian conduct") "This is My Body" He did not say "This is a symbol of My body." He said, "This IS My Body." For Catholics, it is just that simple--He said it; we believe it. He also said the wine was "My blood of the covenant..." He did not say it was a symbol of His blood; He said it WAS His blood. For Catholics, it is just that simple--He said it; we believe it. (Yes, I repeated that on purpose.)

We also believe that John chapter six tells us how He explained the what the Eucharist would mean to His apostles before the Last Supper; what it means to us now.

So 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. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.” 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. But I told you that although you have seen [me], you do not believe. Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me and 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. For 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.”

The Jews murmured about Him because He said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know His father and mother? Then how can He say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

 Jesus answered and said to them, “Stop murmuring among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day. It is written in the prophets: 'They shall all by taught by God.' Everyone who listens to My Father and learns from Him comes to Me. Not that anyone has seen the Father except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the Bread of Life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from Heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I 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."

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [His] flesh to eat?”

Jesus 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. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood remains in me and I in him. Just 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.  This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” (John 6:32-58)

Here the true Bible-believers, Catholics, believe Jesus and take Him at His word. See how many times He says EAT and DRINK, which one must do to have life. We take His explanation of Himself, the Bread from Heaven, at His word.

Then many of His disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it? (John 6:60)

If the disciples (not the 12 apostles) thought that He was speaking symbolically, why would they have a problem with it? It is obvious to those who have an open mind and heart that they were having a hard time accepting what He said because they took His words literally. In ancient times, telling the people to eat His flesh symbolically, would be the equivalent of someone saying "Bite me" today. It would have been an insult and the disciples could not imagine He was insulting them; He must therefore, have meant it literally.

The passage goes on:

Since Jesus knew that His disciples were murmuring about this, He said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?  It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” (John 6:61-65)

He asked them, as many Catholics asked Protestants, "Does this shock you?" What would be shocking if He was speaking symbolically? It would be insulting, as I stated previously, but it would not be shocking. Some Protestants like to explain it away by stating that Jesus said that the flesh is of no avail. Do Protestants really believe JESUS'S FLESH is of no avail? Then why in the world would one believe that Jesus was the savior of the world? If HIS FLESH is of no avail then what was the point of His dying on the cross? There would be no point. When He says flesh is of no avail, He is talking about the world versus the spirit. The words that he spoke which are "spirit and life" are His words that HE is the Bread from Heaven, that if we do not EAT His Flesh (bread) and DRINK His blood (wine) we cannot have LIFE. We believe Him.

We believe Jesus Christ at His word and believe, upon penalty of judgment, that He gave us His Flesh and His blood to consume; It is that which gives us eternal life. And, yes, the old accusation of cannibalism is a very old one. The early church had been accused of killing babies and eating them at their ceremonies. Not only was it not true then, it is not true today. And, no, the Body and Blood of Christ do not go through our digestive system to be excreted--one of the nastiest accusations a Protestant said on CDF once. Just as some nutrients are absorbed in the mouth before going to the stomach, so the Presence and Spirit of Jesus Christ becomes part of our souls before we even swallow the bread and wine. We don't excrete Christ; we become one with Him in Spirit and Truth.

The last statement under this "deception" says,

Such false teaching has also placed the Catholic in the mind set of thinking he must remain in the Catholic system to go to Penance and get communion (Holy Eucharist), which they also think should be worshiped as God.

i) It is not false teaching; it is Christ's teaching.
ii) The Catholic Church is not a "system"; it is the Body of Christ.
iii) I will touch on Penance next.
iv) Think about this: IF one believes that the Real Presence of Jesus is in the Bread, and IF one believes that means that it has transubstantiated (changed substance) into Jesus' real Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, why wouldn't one worship Jesus in the flesh? It only makes common sense. We worship Christ in the Flesh--not a piece of bread; as it is no longer bread but Jesus.

4) PENANCE

"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.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." (Matthew 16:19)

Jesus gave the power to forgive sins to His apostles. In the above verse, He is speaking to St. Peter. He gave St. Peter the authority to forgive or not forgive.  What is forgiven on Earth is forgiven in Heaven.

In a different incidence after the Resurrection, Jesus Christ gave this power to all the apostles:

[Jesus] said to them again, “Peace be with you. 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: 21-23)

Here He gave an even more clear command. The apostles were sent out by Him as the Father had sent Him. He breathed the Holy Spirit on them and gave them a clear statement that they were to have the power to forgive sins. It is as clear as a blue sky.

And for the information of the Protestant, the priest is a physical representative of Jesus Christ in the confessional. There is nothing more comforting the actually hearing the words, "You are forgiven." It is relieving to hear it out loud. The Lord gave us five senses, hearing being one of them, and they enhance our spiritual experience in the church.

5) ANOINTING OF THE SICK

Christ and late His apostles healed the sick. Christ even brought people back from the dead.

People brought to Him all those who were sick and begged Him that they might touch only the tassel on His cloak, and as many as touched it were healed. (Matthew 14:35b-36)

"They drove out many demons, and they anointed with oil many who were sick and cured them. (Mark 6:13)


The tradition of anointing the sick is clear in this passage:

"Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint [him] with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven." (James 5:14-15)

The Catechism explains this Tradition very well:

1511 The Church believes and confesses that among the seven sacraments there is one especially intended to strengthen those who are being tried by illness, the Anointing of the Sick:

This sacred anointing of the sick was instituted by Christ our Lord as a true and proper sacrament of the New Testament. It is alluded to indeed by Mark, but is recommended to the faithful and promulgated by James the apostle and brother of the Lord.¹²⁵  125 Council Of Trent (1551): DS 1695; cf. Mk 6:13; Jas 5:14-15.125 Council Of Trent (1551): DS 1695; cf. Mk 6:13; Jas 5:14-15.

1512 From ancient times in the liturgical traditions of both East and West, we have testimonies to the practice of anointings of the sick with blessed oil. Over the centuries the Anointing of the Sick was conferred more and more exclusively on those at the point of death. Because of this it received the name "Extreme Unction." Notwithstanding this evolution the liturgy has never failed to beg the Lord that the sick person may recover his health if it would be conducive to his salvation.¹²⁶  126 Cf. Council Of Trent (1551): DS 1696.

1513 The Apostolic Constitution Sacram unctionem infirmorum,¹²⁷ following upon the Second Vatican Council,¹²⁸ established that henceforth, in the Roman Rite, the following be observed: 127 Paul VI, apostolic constitution, Sacram unctionem infirmorum, November 30, 1972.
128 Cf. SC 73.

The sacrament of Anointing of the Sick is given to those who are seriously ill by anointing them on the forehead and hands with duly blessed oil - pressed from olives or from other plants - saying, only once: "Through this holy anointing may the Lord in his love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit. May the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up."¹²⁹  129 Cf. CIC, Can. 847 § 1.123 Jas 5:14-15.

It may help healing or it may prepare the sick for death, note that sins are forgiven in this Sacrament. St. James outlines the healing Sacrament clearly. Again, Catholics take this Scriptural Tradition literally. Asking the Lord for healing certainly is not a "deception".

6) HOLY ORDERS

The threefold division of sacred ministers (bishops, priests and deacons)  prefigured in the Old Law (high priest, priests, Levites) is clearly revealed in Scripture. Yet, most so-called "bible-believing" Protestant churches do not have them. (Rev. Donovan, EWTN contributor)

The Sacrament was pre-figured in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the Church.

So the Twelve called together the community of the disciples and said, “It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to serve at table. Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task, whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism. They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them. (Acts 6:3-6)

Here we see the twelve in a dilemma; they were too busy and needed men to help them. So they chose seven men to help with "serv[ing] at table", in other words the Eucharist, and laid hands on them and prayed over them. Those chosen became priests anointed by the bishops (apostles).

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off. (Acts 13:2-3)

Here is another incident of the laying on of hands and sending. Here Barnabas and Saul are made priests to help in the work at Antioch.

And, the tradition of celibate priests came from the fact that they gave their whole lives to Christ and His Kingdom. It is also implicit in Scripture:

 [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”                  (Matt. 19:10-12)

Here are other Scriptures describing the qualifications of the bishops (and priests) and deacons, and the use of this gift of the laying on of hands: 1 Tim. 3:1; 1 Tim. 3:8-9; 1 Tim. 4:14; 1 Tim. 4:16; 1 Tim. 5:17-19; 1 Tim. 5:22.

7) MATRIMONY

 Marriage is, as St. Paul states, a mystery (mysterion).  The Latin word used to translate mysterion is "sacramentum". The sacraments are mysteries (as Eastern Christians still call them), for  one thing is visible and something else is known by faith. By faith, matrimony is a sign of Christ and the Church, as well as a special calling. Mt. 19:10-11; Eph. 5:31-32.

 “For this reason a man shall leave [his] father and [his] mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church. In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband. (Eph. 5:31-33;  Paul is quoting Jesus as testified to  in Matt. 19:5 and Mark 10:7,8)

http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/19http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/19
These definitions and Scripture lists are from an EWTN article written by Rev. Colin Donovan called Sacraments in Scripture.

The anonymous author also said,

Because Catholics have been taught this way, they are trusting in the sacraments for salvation instead of the Lord Jesus as the Bible declares. 

On the contrary, we don't "trust in the sacraments for salvation instead of the Lord Jesus Christ." Each and every one of the Sacraments was instituted by Christ and attested to in the Scriptures. In obedience to our Lord, we depend on Him for our salvation. One of the things I don't understand about supposed "Bible-believing Christians" is that they don't actually obey Christ's commands in the Bible, ie, "Go into all nations...baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." In "trusting" in the Sacraments we are trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ. (Ironically, the author does not cite a lick of Scripture in his condemnation of Catholicism here.) The dependence on the Sacraments is not a "deception"; his is a false premise.

[7] Catholics confess their sins to a priest instead of to God.

Indeed Catholics do not confess their sins to a priest instead of to God. Confession in the Sacrament is confessing to God. This, again, is a false premise.  He (the anonymous author) said,

 "We can go directly to God, without a priest or Mary and get forgiven, if we go in repentance, sincerity and humility" (Luke 18:13,14)

This statement, to me, would seem to be the opposite of humility. Yes, we can "go directly to God" but we can also use the means of Confession He instituted. (See discussion above on the Sacraments).

And, I am not sure what he is trying to emphasize by citing the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. All who come to the Sacrament of Confession come in humility. One who is not humble and sincerely sorry is not, I suspect, going to go any where near the confessional, anyway.

I would counter his statement with these:

If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.        (James 5:15b,16)

Paul believes he was given the "ministry of reconciliation".

And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. (2 Cor. 5:18,19)

Whomever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ.  2 Cor 2:10

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which he charged with the "ministry of reconciliation."⁴² The apostle is sent out "on behalf of Christ" with "God making his appeal" through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to God."⁴³  42 2 Cor 5:18. 43 2 Cor 5:20. CCC 1442

Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance: "All mortal sins of which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed against the last two precepts of the Decalogue; for these sins sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly."⁵⁴ 54 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1680 (ND 1626); cf. Ex 20:17; Mt 5:28.

When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness for remission through the mediation of the priest, "for if the sick person is too ashamed to show his wound to the doctor, the medicine cannot heal what it does not know."⁵⁵  55 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1680 (ND 1626); cf. St. Jerome, In Eccl. 10,11:PL 23:1096.  CCC 1456

Yes, we can go directly to God, but we can also go to the priest. He stands in the place of Jesus in the Sacraments, especially confession. Jesus is saying, "Your sins are forgiven you." It is powerful to hear those words.

Next,

[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.

Taking White to Task

In an "All Roman" edition of James White's Dividing Line program, as you can probably guess, White makes a number of faux pas comments.

1) White starts with making note of the controversy between Pope Francis and Donald Trump.  In this case it wasn't really a faux pas, as he actually stood up for the fact that Pope Francis was mistranslated (you can see my response to that incident here).  Look for the context, etc. "but that's not The Donald's way."  Then White criticizes Pope Francis for the statement about borders.  Has not White just done what he accused "The Donald" of doing?  Go back to what Pope Francis actually said AND his clarifications on the matter. However, White does go back to defending the pope's ability to make a statement about an individual person's faith...  reminding the listeners that it's really the responsibility for a religious leader to make such judgments.

2)  "Super Confessors - with super powers - where if you walk through certain doors - your sins will be forgiven."


Over 1100 priests were hand-picked to forgive sins normally reserved to being forgiven by the pope himself.  Let me start by quoting White:

So obviously medieval, so obviously unbiblical, I mean no one is going to honestly look at the New Testament and say, 'yah, that's what the Apostles were doing, the Apostles were, you know, opening doors and saying if you walk through this door you'll get forgiveness of sins.  And yah, that sacramental stuff, it developed over time, and you know, it's like Cardinal Newman said, the acorn to the tree and... and this is why Rome has to deny sola scriptura, of course, because if you limit yourself to what is theopneustos (God breathed) then you're never going to come up with this silly stuff.  You're not going to have super confessors, well first of all you're not going to have priests to begin with, ah, you're going to have one High Priest, Jesus, and everybody in the Body of Christ is a priest in one sense, I mean, there's no such thing as a sacramental priesthood (as) in Roman Catholicism.

Let's pause here as White himself pauses at a "squirrel" moment of someone posting a picture of Pope Francis, looking sternly, with the caption of "I'm watching you, James" (posted on Twitter).
a) What's this comment about gaining forgiveness of sins by walking through certain doors?  First off, we must correct White's misunderstanding (again) of Catholic teaching and tradition.  The "Holy Doors" (which traditionally were just four doors on four of Rome's basilicas) have been extended to include all the cathedrals in the world.  What is sought by those passing through them is not forgiveness of sins, but an indulgence.  Big difference here!  An indulgence is NOT the forgiving of a sin!  Indulgences relieve all or some of the temporal punishments which may remain after a sin is already forgiven.  There is no indulgence for a sin not yet forgiven.  That being said, if Matthew 16:18-19 be true, then St. Peter (and those who were "sent out" as his successors, more on that in a bit) has the authority not only to bind on Earth, which also binds in Heaven, but to loose on Earth which also looses in Heaven.  That which he looses is infallibly loosed - as an erroneous (or fallible) loosing cannot be loosed in Heaven.  Thus, when a pope decrees the temporal punishments are loosed (an indulgence) it MUST be so and has scriptural foundation.  White is simply wrong here (again) and misrepresents Catholicism (again) on this matter.
b) No such thing as a sacramental priesthood?  Let us remind the reader, and especially White, the definition of a a sacrament.  A sacrament is an outward sign, instituted by Christ, to give/gain grace (grace = God's life in us).  So, with that in mind let us look at the sacramental initiation of the priesthood as it relates to the forgiveness of sins (we could also mention the sacramental initiation of the Eucharist, but this topic is on forgiveness, so let's stick with that example.  The "outward sign" is the actual forgiving of the sins.  Forgiving of sins is a means of grace.  In John 20:21-23, Jesus breathes upon them, The 12, and says to them:

²¹ Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” ²² And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. ²³ If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (NIV)

So, this 1) sending and 2) receiving the Holy Spirit and 3) authority to forgive sins - was "instituted by Christ."  So, this "priesthood" (we also call Holy Orders) most definitely fits the definition of a sacrament - and quite clearly contains the authority to forgive sins.  Keep in mind, as He (Jesus) was sent out, He was sending them out - therefore they too, necessarily, needed to send others out with that same authority with which they were sent out.  White is simply wrong, again, in saying this is "unbiblical."

Back to the program...

3) "You didn't have venial v. mortal sins."  Really?  Again, White is wrong because this is clearly a scriptural teaching in 1 John 5:16-17 - 

¹⁶ If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. ¹⁷ All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

So there is a sin which leads to death (aka: mortal) and a sin which does not lead to death (aka: venial).  It cannot be more clear that White is again wrong in his statement on this.  

4) "What has this to do with Christianity?  Absolutely, positively, nothing at all.  It's as far removed from the Christian faith as can be.  See, once you abandon the standard which Jesus gave us, to test human traditions by what is written in Scripture, once you're convinced that doesn't work."  Really?  Even though the "Christian Scriptures" precisely teach that which White precisely rejects?  I have already demonstrated the scriptural foundation of these traditions.   The objective reader can surely see who is not presenting Christianity here!

5) Minutes 10-12 - Apostolic succession - too many vague, uncited allegations to answer to at this time, but virtually all, if not all, have been answering in the past.

6) I want to thank a Roman Catholic apologist.  Scott Eric Alt published an article on February 9, 2016, stating we (Catholic apologists) need to stop saying there are 33,000 denominations.  Alt goes on to say, "there are not, not even close to, 33,000 denominations.  Well, OK, but White represents this as if no other Catholic apologist has said this, to him or elsewhere, in the past.  This, again, is simply not true!  In 2011 I responded to White's attack on the Vortex - dispelling the myth of the 33,000.  In 2010 I presented the actual source of the 33,000 number - from Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001.  That 2010 article was actually a reposting of an article I had posted in 2007 on the Locutus Webboard (that webboard was taken down due to security issues it posed on our web server, fortunately, I had snagged the article before it was taken down).  I will repost the pertinent facts from the 2007 article:

Mega-bloc.......... | Denominations in 1995.. | Countries

Roman Catholic...| 239 ...............................| 234 (dividing it out, that's a statistical "1")

Orthodox............| 764 ..................................|133  (statistical = 6)

Protestant ..........| 8848 ...............................| 231  (statistical = 38)

Anglicans ...........| 168 .................................| 162 (statistical = 1)

Marginal ............| 1488 ................................| 215 (statistical = 7)

Independent ......| 21,582 ............................| 220 (statistical = 98)

Total .................| 33,089 ..............................| 237  (statistical = 140)

(David A. Barrett, World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001, p 12)
(The "statistical" statements in parentheses were added by me, and I used Barrett's math.)

So, that's where the "33,000" figure came from.  It INCLUDES Catholics in the numbering of Christians, but using the editor's own math, Catholicism is a statistical "1" whereas Protestants are "38" groups, then add in the "98" independents then the Anglicans and Marginal and you can see the dividing of the Body of Christ - which is contrary to His Will.  That's 144 "denominattions" yet it is His Will is that we are to be One, just as He and the Father are One - and we WERE One, for over 1000 years when Orthodoxy split with Catholicism, and it would be another 500 years later that Protestantism would be born and further splits would be made from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Who else has corrected White on this faux pas? 

2004:  Dave Armstrong (in this Dave refers to a response he and Al Kresta wrote back in 2000, but that link is no longer valid:  https://web.archive.org/web/20041128195553/http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_08_29_socrates58_archive.html#109434258447719839

2005: We had a similar discussion in CDF (Catholic Debate Forum) with no relation to White and Co.   https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/catholicdebateforum/conversations/messages/6378 (you have to follow the thread, but Barrett's "facts" come in too). (Yahoo Groups no longer exist).

2007:  Phil Vaz http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm (no longer exists)

White's original article, in 2007, to which my article was a response:  http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2007/08/22/the-33000-denominations-myth/ 

2007: Steve Ray responds to White's article:  http://www.catholic-convert.com/blog/2007/08/27/look-for-yourself-how-many-denominations/

2007: Scott Windsor responds to White on Locutus Webboard and while that link is no longer available, that same article was posted here in 2010:   http://quilocutus.blogspot.com/2012/08/white-lies.html  Here (in 2007), I reference that (again, no longer available) article from Locutus:  https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/catholicdebateforum/conversations/messages/19192

2011:  Scott Windsor responds:  http://quilocutus.blogspot.com/2011/12/white-on-vortex.html

2014:  Benjamin Baxter: http://www.catholiclane.com/the-bad-evangelist-club-33000-denominations/

2016:  Scott Eric Alt:  http://www.ncregister.com/blog/scottericalt/we-need-to-stop-saying-that-there-are-33000-protestant-denominations

2016:  Dave Armstrong, recalling his 2004 response to White on the subject:  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/2/33000-denominations-thankful-james-white.html

Well, there are others, but this list should suffice to say that White has been shown, by several other Catholic apologists that a) the 33,000 number is not a lie; and b) many times before Alt's article from earlier this year. The bottom line is Barrett's numbers "denominate" by country, which is not the way most, if any, of us look at denominations.  Barrett says there are 239 Catholic "denominations" - but counts 234 countries - I'm not sure where he gets the other 5, but dividing it out - that's 1 denomination.  Protestants, on the other hand, are up to 144 - and ANY number greater than ONE is outside of God's Will for His Church - for HE desires that we be ONE, just as He and the Father are One (John 17:21).

7) Infallibility?  Well, he (like John Bugay) misrepresents or at best ridicules papal infallibility at a level indicating he really doesn't "get it" and since I just wrote a whole article on that (click here) I'll not repeat myself again just now.

8) Caller "Luke," whom he claims Catholic apologists are aggressively pursuing, calls in and basically takes up the rest of the show.  Well, THIS Catholic apologist is not actively pursuing Luke so I will not belabor those points here and now.  If Luke wishes to have a discussion with me, public or private, he can contact me.  Here's my email:  bigscott@a2z.org

If you would like to listen to or watch the Dividing Line webcast, in its entirety, on Youtube:

Priestly Celibacy

I've often wondered why priests weren't allowed to get married. I mean wouldn’t they have a much better idea of what we parents have to go through with our spouses and kids? But after a little research I've found that I was quite mistaken. You see, the Catholic Church doesn't forbid anyone from marrying. The Church simply chooses those who have already made a vow of chastity.

You see, everyone is free to decide whether or not to take a vow of celibacy. The Catholic Church of the Roman Rite, this congregation is member of this rite, chooses whom to lay hands on for priestly ordination. This practice is a tradition that could change since this practice is not a divinely ordained practice. It is simply a small‘t’ tradition that began from very early on in Christian history.

Personally, it would surprise me greatly if the Church did change its practice of only ordaining men who have previously made a vow of celibacy. It would surprise me because both Paul and Jesus encouraged the celibate life for those who were called to it. Jesus said:" For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.’ (Matt 19:12)

Paul himself recommends celibacy for those who can live this kind of life since their priorities will be divided. Isn’t it better to have a priest that is able to pick up and go wherever, and whenever, he may be needed, including foxholes, without the worry of being absent from their wives and kids? Paul put it this way in his letter to the Corinthians: “I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord.”

Here’s a somewhat lengthy excerpt from catholic.com on the goodness of celibacy in the priesthood.

Most Catholics marry, and all Catholics are taught to venerate marriage as a holy institution—a sacrament, an action of God upon our souls; one of the holiest things we encounter in this life.

In fact, it is precisely the holiness of marriage that makes celibacy precious; for only what is good and holy in itself can be given up for God as a sacrifice. Just as fasting presupposes the goodness of food, celibacy presupposes the goodness of marriage. To despise celibacy, therefore, is to undermine marriage itself—as the early Fathers pointed out.

Celibacy is also a life-affirming institution. In the Old Testament, where celibacy was almost unknown, the childless were often despised by others and themselves; only through children, it was felt, did one acquire value. By renouncing marriage, the celibate affirms the intrinsic value of each human life in itself, regardless of offspring.

Finally, celibacy is an eschatological sign to the Church, a living-out in the present of the universal celibacy of heaven: "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Matt. 22:30).

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/celibacy-and-the-priesthood

God Bless
Nathan

Showing the Sacraments From Scripture

As requested:
Showing the Sacraments from Scripture:

1) Baptism
John 1:12; 3:14-16; Eph. 2:8-9; Romans 3:19-26; 4; 10:9-13.

2) Confession
John 20:23
* 2 Cor 5:18-19 "...gave us the ministry of reconciliation..."
* 2 Cor 2:10-11 "What I have forgiven... in the presence of Christ..." Paul has forgiven people's sins in the name of Christ.
* 1 John 1:19 "If we confess our sins..."
* James 5:14-16 "...Let him call for the elders of the church... he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another..."
* 2 Chronicles 26:1, Uzziah was chastised for performing priestly functions because he wasn't a priest. He got leprosy and died.
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/priests_forgive_sins_call_no_man_father.htm

---------------------------------
The Bible teaches that the confessing of sins is a usual requisite for obtaining forgiveness.

Numbers 5, 6-7: Speak unto the children of Israel. When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit . . . Then they shall confess their sin which they have done, etc.

Proverbs 28, 13: He that covereth his sins shall not prosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.

II Samuel 12, 13: After David confessed his sins to the prophet Nathan he was given assurance of pardon.

Luke 23, 43: When the thief on the cross confessed, our Lord promised him paradise.

I John 1, 9: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness, etc.

Matt. 3, 5-6: Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan. And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Acts 19, 18: And many that believed came (to the Apostles), and confessed, and shewed their deeds.
http://olrl.org/apologetics/cathprot.shtml
-------------------------------

3) Eucharist
John 6:54; 1 Corinthians 11:23-29
The Bible teaches that when making his last will and testament Christ gave to us his own Body and Blood.

Mark 14, 22-24: And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: This is my body. 23. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks. he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
http://olrl.org/apologetics/cathprot.shtml

4) Confirmation
2 Tim 1:6, the effect of the Apostles' imposition of
hands is "the grace of God."


5) Holy Matrimony
The Bible teaches that lawful marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power.

Matt. 19, 6: Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
http://olrl.org/apologetics/cathprot.shtml


6) Holy Orders
The Bible teaches that Christ has ambassadors or agents (his bishops and priests) who represent Him in this world.

2 Cor. 5-20: Now then we are ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

I Cor. 4, l: Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.

John 20, 21: Then said Jesus to them again. Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you .
http://olrl.org/apologetics/cathprot.shtml


7) Extreme Unction
James 5, 14-16: Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders (i. e., priests) of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
http://olrl.org/apologetics/cathprot.shtml

Showing the use of relics from Scripture:
The Bible teaches that it is proper and beneficial to venerate the relics of sacred personages or things.

2 King, 2, 8-14: The mantle of Elijah.

Exodus 7, 10: The rod of Aaron.

Matt 9, 20-21: Also Matt. 14-36: The hem of our Lord's garment.

Acts 19, 12: So that from his body were brought unto the sick, handkerchiefs. or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirit went out of them.

Acts 5, 15-16: Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.
http://olrl.org/apologetics/cathprot.shtml