|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
KJV Bible Disproves Catholicism
Nicholas writes:
Plus keep in mind, the Lord would not write a book for His children that they couldn't understand. That way the worldly preachers and teachers won't be able to baffle the younger babes in Christ with puffed up confusing theological explanations to these Scriptures. I feel it's important that all God's children
get in the habit of TRUSTING ONLY IN GOD'S WORD AS THE FINAL AUTHORITY
and never take mine or any man's opinion as the final say when it comes
to God's Word. Jesus taught using the
(Scripture passages given by Nicholas are in italics below.) Andrew responds:
Citations from Protestant King James Version
Bible.
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY Psalm 118:8: "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man." The first problem here is that this is an Old Testament quote against an institution of the New Testament. Second, the language itself is conditional, "better", is not itself exclusive. Why is this? It is because there were godly men in the Old Testament. Third, the use of this verse sidesteps the fact that the ancient Jews had prophets who were literally the mouthpieces of God. If this was the case among the first people called by God then why not among his new people of faith, the Church? This leads to the fourth dilemma here, the Pope is not just any man. If the Catholic claims are correct, then a special charism has been given him and the rest of the Magisterium. This quote is no assault on papal infallibility whatsoever. Romans 3:10: "As it is written, There is none righteous, no not one." This quote is even more non-topical. This verse signifies that we are all sinners. No one is self-justified. Papal infallibility has nothing to do with his personal holiness or sinfulness. The Pope is thought by Catholics to be infallible, not impeccable. If you are going to be an anti-Catholic, then at least be an intelligent one. PETER THE FIRST POPE Matthew 8:14-15: "And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever. And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them." Luke 4:38: "And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's house. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her." Matthew 4:18: "And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter and Andrew his brother . . ." Matthew 16:18: "And I [Jesus] say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Yes, Simon and Peter are the same person, every first year child in bible-school knows that. And yes, this apostle was a married man-- so what? This has nothing whatsoever to do with papal infallibility. Indeed, with the last quote you practically prove it for the Catholics. Is this a joke? Catholics admit that he and many other bishops and priests were married. There is something fishy here. MARRIAGE FORBIDDEN 1 Timothy 3:2: "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach." Your material gets worse. We are going from the erroneous to the just plain ridiculous. Not limiting yourself to the topic of clerical marriage, you approach this matter as if ALL marriage is forbidden to Catholics. There are millions upon millions of Catholics who prove by their bonds witnessed by a priest that it is otherwise. If you are going to make any appreciable damage to Catholic claims, you will have to be more precise in your wording. What you are probably trying to do is to show that mandatory celibacy of priests is in contradiction to the apostolic practice. You have already mentioned that Peter had been married. But, be careful here. If you deny that Peter was the first Pope then you cannot in turn say that this indicates that other Popes and clergy should be able to get married. Further, it has been contended that the citation from 1 Timothy regards a discipline of the Church and not a changeless doctrine. The biblical standard here is required of married deacons in the Western Rite and of married priests in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church. This brings up the interesting fact that along with Episcopal priests who have been ordained as Catholic clergy, there is a married ministry in the Catholic Church today. The testimony of St. Paul in preference for celibacy would easily counteract your statement to the contrary. I am afraid that this is another topic upon which you have failed. You must try harder. Of course, you will still fail. MANDATORY REPETITIVE PRAYER Matthew 6:7: "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." Okay, are we all being duped? I could do no
better myself as a faithful Catholic in using reverse psychology to fool
bible-believers into the Catholic Church. You are either the most incompetent
defender of Protestant Christianity to come around the bend or else you
are a very calculating defender of Catholicism. You seem to condemn the
repetition of prayers, but admit that you meditated on the Lord and all
the mysteries of the Rosary every day. The "vain repetitions" aside, you
are implying that as a bible-believer you no longer mediate on the mysteries
of salvation: Annunciation (Luke 1:38), Visitation
Are you poking fun at bible-believers, implying that there is no real depth to their prayer? MARY'S VIRGINITY & THE BROTHERS & SISTERS OF JESUS, part 1 Matthew 13:55-56: "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" Again, look at how you express yourself! You state that it is Catholic doctrine that Jesus had no brothers and sisters. And yet, a smart Catholic could throw back in your face that the Church says no such thing because they might have been Joseph's children from a former bond or adopted children from a deceased relative. While Catholics prefer to consider these "brothers and sisters" to be cousins, you unnecessarily open yourself up to such retaliation. The matter that you get right in your introductory statement is that Catholics believe Mary was a virgin her whole life. You are right that Jesus probably took up
the carpenter's trade, but Joseph was his foster father, and not his father
as you assert in your explanation. The father of Jesus is the holy and
almighty Father, God himself. You must know this and yet you make such
a basic mistake. What gives? Are you so fervent against Mary's virginity
that you would deny it in regard to Jesus, too? You also tell us that the
bible verse you quote confirms that Jesus performed miracles in the midst
of the townspeople during the hidden years. This notion of yours is totally
ungrounded in Scripture. You are adding to the revealed Word of God!
You have denied that Jesus was virginally conceived by the Holy Spirit, even Catholics do not do that! MARY'S VIRGINITY & THE BROTHERS & SISTERS OF JESUS, part 2 Matthew 12:46-50: "While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? and he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said behold my mother and my brethren!" Matthew 19:29: "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life." You say that many Catholic teachers claim that Jesus only called believers his "brethren" and never used the term for blood relatives, like cousins and stepbrothers and stepsisters. As a student of such questions, I cannot find one Catholic authority that teaches what you assert. Admittedly, they do not believe they are children of Mary, but that is another concern. You are showing yourself to be a complete embarrassment to the evangelical community. Further, regarding the first text, Jesus is not invalidating the bond of blood, he is simply acknowledging that there is another bond just as important or even more so. His listeners are just as worthy of his time and instruction as his immediate family. Your comparison of Christ's brethren to the contemporary phrase "brothers in crime" is offensive to our Lord and to the family of God. It is strange that a negative expose of Catholicism should be so weak. MARY'S VIRGINITY & THE BROTHERS & SISTERS OF JESUS, part 3 Acts 1:13-14: "And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." As mentioned before, these "brethren" of Jesus are still not directly signified as children of Mary. Indeed, it seems the text itself strains to make this distinction: " . . . and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." If such was undeniably the case, it would have to read something like " . . . and Jesus' mother, Mary, with her other children." But, it does not say this. The text is mute upon the parentage of these brethren. It has also been speculated, for that is all either of us is doing here, that these brethren also consisted of various disciples outside the ring of the apostles. Note that James is termed a brother to the Lord and yet he is mentioned simply with the other apostles. Be warned in mentioning this text, that the inclusion Mary and the brethren in the upper room with the apostles lends weight to the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 11:27-28. In other words, that which seems to be a rebuke against Mary is actually an elevation of her as Christ's first disciple who literally allowed the Word to come to fruition in her. Your scholarship could easily be mocked. MARY'S VIRGINITY & THE BROTHERS & SISTERS OF JESUS, part 4 John 7:1-5: "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For [there is] no man [that] doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him." This is your favorite verse on the subject? You think it bluntly speaks of siblings? While there seems to be a distinction here between disciples and brethren, such is not always maintained in the biblical witness. No where in this citation is there a clear delineation of these brethren. Semitic usage would grant such familial language to blood children, nephews, nieces, cousins, half-brothers and half-sisters. See evidence for this in Genesis 14:16; 29:15 and Leviticus 10:4. The Hebrews would not only use this word for those in the family of faith but also for other relatives (cousins). You are judging the word "brethren" as it might be used in the current age of the nuclear family. Rather, what Jesus knew was obviously an extended blood family where people of the same tribe were related. Indeed, given the genealogy traced through Joseph, most certainly he would have married a maiden who was herself of the royal line of David. We must grant, no matter how much we would prefer not to do so, that still there is no definite link to these brethren as children of Mary. All we really know is that they are probably kin to Christ. These brethren or relatives are not pictured as true disciples until after the resurrection (Acts 1:14). You really should look up Mark 6:3-6. Jesus is called the "son of Mary" as opposed to the usual custom of calling a man the son of his father. This reflects something you neglected early in this series of challenges on this topic, God is the true Father of Jesus. This is all very nice, but you have still to prove anything conclusively. MARY'S VIRGINITY & THE BROTHERS & SISTERS OF JESUS, part 5 Galatians 1:19: "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." Ah, there may be a problem here in making a definite identification. A Catholic apologist could return a volley of damaging Scripture to your thesis. Mark 15:40 informs us that James the younger and Joses (Joseph) were the sons of another Mary who was related to the Virgin Mary. Thus, it would seem that at least some of the Lord's brethren, as Catholic authorities say, were indeed cousins to Christ. Your mention of Matthew 13:55 that also lists James as a brother to Jesus only compounds the problem and practically gives the debate to the Catholics. MARY'S VIRGINITY & THE BROTHERS & SISTERS OF JESUS, part 6 Matthew 1:25: "And he knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus." Oh please, are you serious? If you are legitimate in your endeavor to disprove Catholicism, then I would urge you to study some good hermeneutical texts that discuss colloquial sayings among the Hebrews. You ask if Jesus is not one of many then why would the bible use the term "firstborn"? Honestly, neither this term nor the other verses you have quoted say much of anything "conclusively" about the Catholic teaching of Mary's perpetual virginity. The data just is not there. This is how one Catholic apologist approached this text: "There is no conflict, just a problem with language and translation. The wording, 'not till,' does not mean that her virginity ended at that point or some time after. It merely stresses again that Jesus was specially conceived by divine intervention. As a sacred vessel for the presence of God, Joseph would do nothing to defile her. After the birth of Christ, and knowing full well the identity of his foster Son, Joseph and Mary lived a virginal marriage. The language here shares some similarity with Genesis 8:7: 'The raven went forth from the ark and did not return TILL the waters dried up.' The raven did not return at all. As with the virginity of Mary, it was a perpetual status. The same expression is used in 1 Kings 15:30. As for the phrase 'firstborn,' it was applied to the FIRST BORN of every Jewish woman, regardless of whether other children followed. A case in point is Joshua 17:1." I cite this explanation as a case in point whereby a crafty Catholic can work around your arguments. You will have to tighten them up if you are to have any real success. As for the avoidance of carnal advances being unbiblical, there are instances to the contrary. In any case, what if the decision for a virginal marriage was mutual? Jewish priests would often abstain from sexual relations during their time of duty. Objects used in worship and consecrated to God were taken out of normal use as sacred. Catholics would probably argue that just as the Ark of the Covenant could only fittingly carry the tablets of the covenant, then the womb of Mary that carried Christ would be similarly revered. It is here that I must pause. Your statement that Mary's giving birth would exclude her from continuing as a virgin would probably be offensive to many women, even those in evangelical ranks. Are you interpreting virginity in an exclusively physical manner? Are you saying that giving birth alone violates virginity? Are you insinuating that Jesus is the offspring of Mary and Joseph, with no miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit? Would you deny that with repentance and conversion, a woman who has had sexual relations might discover a spiritual virginity? There are many things upon which you are unclear. Again, I must ask, do you believe in the virgin birth? Saying that Mary may have had other children is one thing, but you go so far as to say that not having them would constitute a divine punishment upon her for having God's Son. This reasoning is ridiculous. No matter whether she had other children or not, Mary would have experienced absolute fulfillment in giving birth to the Messiah, the Son of God, the living and all powerful Word incarnate. Agreement with your statement would be to assume that Jesus was somehow deficient in his divinity and glory. Such is not the case. Are you a spy for the Catholic Church, or are you an unbeliever just trying to make true Christians fight among themselves and sound silly? PURGATORY OR LIMBO Luke 16:26: "And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence." My brain hurts when it tries to follow your train of thought. You might as well just tell everyone who visits your site to head over to the Catholic Church. Goodness! First of all, purgatory and limbo are entirely different things within Catholic teaching. Unlike purgatory, limbo was a "theological construct" by Scholastic theologians to side-step the opinion of Augustine and others that unbaptized children went to hell. According to the Medieval scenario, unbaptized children who died prior to the age of reason could not go to heaven and yet, having not committed any personal sin, were not worthy of hell, either. Limbo was devised as a possible abode for them where their natural ends (to be happy) would be satisfied, but they would forever be deprived of the beatific vision of heaven (their supernatural ends). It was the accepted theory in Catholic circles for many years, but, and here we must be honest, it was never official Catholic doctrine. It does not appear in the new universal catechism. Purgatory, on the other hand, is Catholic doctrine. This is the place and/or state of purgation for believers who are destined for heaven and yet, still must offer a temporal punishment for sin. Often imaged as a hospital, the fire of God's loving mercy is thought to cleanse them from their tendency to sin, and from the remnant damage of venial sin. Your bible quotation says nothing about the matter at all. Instead of arguing from Scripture that there is only a heaven and hell; you instead emphasize the "gulf" between them. The Catholics might argue that this "gulf" itself is precisely the third thing they are talking about. After all, the souls according to them are not passing from heaven to hell (as the rich man implores) or even from hell to heaven, but from earth to heaven. Imaged as a hospital, they would contend that as the soul approaches God and heaven, it is necessarily perfected and healed. You inadvertently made the case for the Catholics. By the way, you say that those in heaven can neither visit nor see those in hell. If this is the case, then how can the rich man see Lazarus and Abraham (Luke 16:23)? Does not Abraham respond to him? Please read the entire context before using Scripture as a proof text. Otherwise, you will give the Holy Spirit a bad reputation! STATUES Exodus 20:4: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Isaiah 42:8: "I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." Acts 17:29: "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." Oh my goodness! You mess up your anti-Catholic argument with your running commentary. Please note that unlike the old catechetical books for children, the new universal catechism includes the complete biblical rendition of the commandments-- including the business about graven images. Although, you must know that they contend as long as it is symbolic, such things are okay. They have some pretty tough arguments. Anyway, your criticism on this count may be somewhat outdated. One told me that a strict interpretation would even outlaw the pictures of my family in my wallet. What you say next terrifies me. What kind of bible-believer are you? You say that you are offended by statues in Catholic churches that present a dead Christ on the cross and a helpless Jesus in the embrace of Mary. I do not care how animated the other statues may seem to be-- what you say here is offensive. The friends you would make because of your opposition to idolatry, you forfeit in making an affront to the incarnation of our Lord. Both the nativity and the cross signify the depth of God's love for us and precisely how vulnerable Jesus would make himself on our behalf. God joined the human family to save us. He would do this by dying for our sins on the cross. Are you any Christian at all? It is not just Catholicism you attack, but you assault Christianity itself. Jesus shed his blood for sinners. He died that we might live. You view a cross and see only a passive and dead man; I look at the cross and see the sign of Christ's victory over sin and death! INFANT BAPTISM Acts 8:36-38: "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." You make a lot out of the subtraction to verse 36 and the deletion of verse 37, saying that it was because Catholics opposed a required belief and faith profession prior to baptism. However, there are some Catholic bibles that contain the verses and others place them in footnotes. The actual reason for the differences is that the better texts of antiquity omit the material. Catholic sources contend that it was the Roman Catholic Church of the West itself that added the verse for easier use in baptismal preparation and ritual. It is clear from either version that the eunuch hears the Word and believes. Why else would he say, "what doth hinder me to be baptized?" You suggest a conspiracy where there may only be a serious difference of opinion. Your Scripture citation here has nothing to do with a baby unable to reason and actively believe. Catholics hold that parents and the Church can offer this belief on the child's behalf. You put up nothing to challenge this assertion. Why? CONFIRMATION & THE HOLY SPIRIT Acts 2:38: "Then Peter said unto them, repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." I am trying hard to follow you. You are asking rhetorically, I think, how can one receive the Holy Spirit at confirmation if baptism was improperly given during infancy and there has been no repentance and act of faith? Of course, having witnessed Confirmation ceremonies, there is a profession of faith and a renunciation of Satan. If I understand correctly, confirmation completes Catholic baptism. Adults received into the Catholic faith are usually baptized and confirmed at the same time. They see confirmation as a "more full sharing" in the Holy Spirit and his gifts. While Eastern rites confirm babies, it would seem that the Western practice of delaying confirmation until the person can speak for him- or herself is a recognition of the very need for personal involvement in this process. As in your other observations, warning lights come on again. After criticizing the Catholic practice, as I would expect you to do, you make the admission that YOU do not remember YOUR baptism or any repentance prior to it. No doubt, you mean that you were baptized as a child. Were you baptized again? CONFESSION TO A PRIEST 1 John 2:1-2: "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Yes, Jesus became our substitute and assumed our punishment for sin. He forgave us and washed us clean in the blood from the cross. Yes, Jesus, himself, reconciles us to the Father. All this so far is fine and good, but it says little about this subject at hand. Catholics would generally agree with what you say as well. Mark 2:7: "Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?" This better fits the subject of confession; however, you must be alert that Catholics will respond quickly with Scriptures of their own, especially John 20:22-23: "Jesus breathed on the apostles and said: 'Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them and those you shall retain, they are retained.'" They will ask you, how can Jesus say this if he was not going to give men something of his power of reconciliation? Remember, they are quoting Jesus directly; you are quoting Jewish scribes who denied even Jesus' authority to absolve from sin. Nicholas desperately needs more depth to his answers. THE MASS & THE SACRIFICE OF CALVARY Hebrews 7:27: "Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this He did once, when he offered up Himself." John 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, it is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." Hebrews 10:11-12: "And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God." Catholic apologists will have a quick response for you. They will contend, and their new universal catechism substantiates this, that the sacrifice of Christ is indeed a finished work that was sufficient for the salvation of all mankind. Their daily offering of the Mass is considered a re-presentation (sacramentally) in time and space of the one-time death and sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. They see this as a concession from our Lord to those who could not be present at Calvary two thousand years ago. They see the singular oblation of Jesus like a river that flows through human history. Protestants see it as an historical event that touches us in its effective fruits, but not as something to which we can actually be present. Be careful here, Catholic apologists will be quick to show patristic evidence of the Eucharist in the early Church. Protestants can argue that such collaboration is outside the bible; however, the fact that it genuinely exists does show that the Lord's Supper in some form was reenacted regularly from the very beginning. Rather than trying to argue the historical record, they dismiss it altogether. Catholics good at arguing from tradition would have a field day with you. MARY AS THE BRIGHT & MORNING STAR Revelation 22:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." Marian worship is one thing, but where does it say in Catholic doctrine that Mary is "the bright and morning star"? The fact that you say it forces you to wonder if any priest reads the bible at all must mean that you encountered a priest who told you it was doctrine. The only place I can find something similar is in the Litany of the Blessed Mother. There, among her many titles, she is called, "Morning Star". However, I do not think that Catholics give it any official doctrinal content. It is mostly a term of endearment. I recall that sailors used Mary's star as a point of navigation to help the return to their homeports. But again, such a matter was one of custom and sentiment, and probably takes nothing away from the larger title given Jesus as "the bright and morning star". As for the matter of Jesus coming from the line of David; we will thus have to grant that Mary was of the Davidic tribe. That is unless the ancestry of Joseph is sufficient for you and you deny the virgin birth. I hope not. WHY CATHOLICS ADDED BOOKS TO THE BIBLE Galatians 1:9: "As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." You ask a question, but do not really answer it. Why did Catholics add books to the bible when the original manuscripts did not contain them? Within this question, you add that neither Jesus nor his disciples ever quoted from them. Your polemics are so poor I could almost believe that you are a Catholic using reverse psychology to seduce Christians back into the Catholic Church. If you have any learning at all, then you must know that the Apocrypha, what Catholics call the Deuterocanonical Books, were indeed included in many of the ancient manuscripts, particular those used by the Hellenic Jews dispersed throughout the Roman empire. Your statements here fall right into the clutches of Catholic apologists. This is how one Catholic proponent would answer
your queries: "After fifteen hundred years, Luther SUBTRACTED books from
the bible. He says they show no degree of inspiration and that they teach
false doctrine-- in other words, things offensive to the Protestant reformers
and their modern-day offspring in the world today. He says that Christians
did not accept these "Catholic" books in biblical times (he must mean apostolic)
and yet there is ample evidence that they did. Indeed, the Greek canon
containing the disputed books was implemented whenever Jesus quoted the
Old Testament in the Gospels. He tells us that Palestinian Jews during
the time of Christ had already determined the Old Testament canon. This
is historically misleading because it dismisses the legacy of the many
Jews of the Diaspora. The Pharisees of Palestine set up four arbitrary
criteria for the biblical canon: (1) They had to be in harmony with the
Torah or Law as interpreted at that time; (2) That had to be written prior
to Ezra; (3) They had to be in Hebrew; and (4) They had to originate in
Palestine. This immediately eliminated Judith (Aramaic); Wisdom, 2 Maccabees
(Greek), Tobit, parts of Daniel and Esther (Aramaic and outside Palestine),
Baruch (outside Palestine), and Sirach and 1 Maccabees (written after Ezra).
All Jews did NOT generally accept this canon until a
You see the trouble? Even the simplest Catholic response makes you look foolish and the entire evangelical bible-believing community, to be opposed to the truth and Jesus. Add to this your quote, and it would seem that they are the ones accursed. Oh, and by the way, the Eastern Orthodox churches (almost 300 million believers) also accept the larger canon, but with several further additions, notably Third and Fourth Maccabees. Many Episcopal bibles are also including the books as valuable. If we are to be credible, then we must be accurate. Catholics are not the only ones with the additional books. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH & SALVATION Acts 4:10,12: "Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." You tell us that page 346 of [the documents] of Vatican II it is stated that "Christ's Catholic Church alone . . . is the all embracing means of salvation." Since there are various editions of the documents, your reference would have been more help if you gave the document name and paragraph number. That is how educated people cite such annotated materials. You ask why is this written? Actually, if you read all the Vatican II material, it classifies the necessity of the Church for salvation under a term of subsistence. In other words, they are saying that everything needed and ordained by God for our salvation is found in the Catholic Church. Jesus is acknowledged as the invisible head of the Church. The Church, herself, is deemed the visible body of Christ. You then jump to an optional sacramental scapular, quoting the words written on the back of one you discovered: "If the wearer of this scapular shall die, he or she shall be saved from the eternal flames of hell." Again, you ask, why is this printed? As I understand it, such a thing is not meant to be a superstitious talisman, but rather a visible and/or tangible sign of faith in God. Without faith, the scapular is deemed worthless. Then you jump to a third matter and ask why Catholic doctrine calls Mary "Co-Redeemer" or "Co-Savior". Actually, as much as I hate to say it, you wrong the Catholics here. They do not call Mary a "Co-Savior". I have never seen such a title in print anywhere. Where did you get it? There was false news about a year ago that Mary might be declared the "Co-Redemptrix" but that did not materialize. In any case, it is different from the title you claim is given her. However, while it is not defined doctrine, such a teaching, I am told, would not subtract from the unique mediation of Christ as Redeemer and Savior. Some Catholic authorities hold that Mary participated at the foot of the cross in the saving offering of Jesus; however, such has to be understood in only a secondary and dependent way. Protestants would have some problems with that, and yet it is a far cry from what you are implying. Are you making erroneous and convoluted statements in the hope of agitating Catholics? Or, are you simply mimicking fundamentalist views to have them ridiculed by others? I cannot figure you. PRAYER TO DEAD SAINTS John 14:6: "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Okay, but remember that Catholics will say
that all prayer has God as its proper object. They will say that asking
the dead to pray for you is no different from asking the living. The issue
is more complex than a quick verse and one line can handle. If things cannot
be done right, sometimes it is best that they not be done at all. I suspect
that your ministry fails on these grounds. There is an old saying:
"God spare us from well-intentioned fools!" Please, do not take my criticism
too hard. I know you love Jesus and read his Holy Word. However, I suspect
that sometimes you ascribe to the Holy Spirit that which is only your own
stumbling intrusion into his message for us. You cannot reveal the "facts"
to Roman Catholics if you yourself fail to get them right.
|