THE PAGANIZATION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH UNDER CONSTANTINE

The Historic Facts:

Is it true that Constantine was a pagan and used his influence to corrupt the Catholic Church?

Raise Up A Child...

Constantine was raised with Christian beliefs by his mother St. Helena although he delayed his baptism until he was on his deathbed. It seems clear that he had enough faith to seek salvation in Christ, knowing that he was facing eternity and his soul was in the balance

Your Young Men Will See Visions...

After seeing a vision in which he was told that he would conquer under the sign of the Christian cross, he adopted it as his standard and his entire army carried it into battle against the pagan general Maxentius and he won control of the empire in 312 AD.

Freedom At Last...

The following year Constantine signed the Edict of Milan (sometimes known as the Edict of Tolerance) that officially ended the persecution of the Church. It's hard to understand how anyone can believe that Constantine, (who died a Christian despite his delay) would have paganized the early Catholic Church.

Julian Doesn't Keep The Faith.

Forty-eight years later, in 361 AD, the emperor Julian the Apostate launched a persecution of the Church in an attempt to bring back paganism. Why would that have been necessary if Constantine had already corrupted the Catholic Church?

History Tells All

Some careful research and study of the first 300 years of Christianity will reveal that Catholic doctrines such as the Eucharist, Apostolic authority, and the pope as the successor of Peter were believed from the very beginning of Christianity and certainly were not the result of any pagan influence under Constantine.

In Fact

Christianity has been called Catholic in Acts 9:31 (Greek: "ekklesia katholos") and at least from 107AD when Ignatius, the Bishop of the Church in Antioch, used it in one of his letters to another church which indicates that by that time the original Christian Church was already well known as the Catholic Church in order to distinguish Christ's Church from heretical groups. Keep in mind that that same church in Antioch was where we were all first called Christians as recorded in Acts 11:26. (The Faith of the Early Fathers, William A. Jurgens, Collegeville, Minn.; Liturgical Press, 1970. p.25, #65)

Get The Facts: Make Your Own Decision

Bible Cheat Sheet

THE CHURCH
Mt 16:18-19 - upon this rock I will build my Church 
Mt 18:17 - if he refuses to listen even to the Church... 
Mt 28:18-20 - go baptize and teach all nations 
Mk 16:15-16 - go to whole world and proclaim gospel 
Lk 10:16 - whoever hears you, hears me; rejects you, rejects me. 
Jn 14:16, 26 - Holy Spirit with you always, teach/remind you of everything 
Jn 16:13 - Spirit of truth will guide you to all truth. 
1Tim 3:15 - Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. 

The Church is the body of Christ 
Col 1:18 - He is the head of the body, the church. 
1 Cor 12:20-27 - you are Christ's body, individually parts of it. 
Eph 5:30 - we are members of His body. 
Rom 12:4-5 - though many, we are one body in Christ 
1 Cor 6:15 - Don't you know your bodies are members of Christ? 

The Church must be one 
Jn 10:16 - there will be one fold and one shepherd. 
Eph 4:3-6 - one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father 
Rom 16:17 - I urge that there be no divisions among you 
1Cor 1:10 - I urge that there be no divisions among you 
Phil 2:2 - be of same mind, united in heart thinking one thing 
Rom 15:5 - God grant you to think in harmony with one another 
Jn 17:17-23 - I pray that they may be one, as we are one 
Jn 17:23 - that they may be brought to perfection as one 
1Cor 12:13 - in one spirit we are baptized into one body 
Rom 12:5 - we, though many, are one body in Christ 
Eph 4:4 - one body, one Spirit, called to be one hope 
Col 3:15 - the peace into which you were called in one body 
Mt 16:18-19 - upon this rock I will build my Church (singular)
Mt 18:17 - tell it to THE Church; if he refuses to listen even to THE Church... (must be visible)

Apostolic Church 
Jn 15:16 - Jesus chose special men to be his Apostles 
Jn 20:21 - Jesus gave the Apostles his own mission 
Lk 22:29-3 - Jesus gave them a kingdom 
Mt 16:18 - Jesus built Church on Peter, the rock 
Jn 10:16 - one shepherd to shepherd Christ's sheep 
Lk 22:32, Jn 21:17 - Peter appointed to be chief shepherd 
Eph 4:11 - church leaders are hierarchical 
1Tim 3:1, 8; 5:17 - identifies roles of bishops, priests, deacons 
Tit 1:5 - commission for bishops to ordain priests 

Authoritative Church 
Mt 28:18-20 - Jesus delegates all power to Apostles 
Jn 20:23 - power to forgive sin 
1Cor 11:23-24 - power to offer sacrifice (Eucharist) 
Lk 10:16 - power to speak with Christ's voice 
Mt 18:18 - power to legislate 
Mt 18:17 - power to discipline 

Infallible Church 
Jn 16:13 - guided by Holy Spirit into all truth 
Jn 14:26 - Holy Spirit to teach & remind them of everything 
Lk 10:16 - speak with Christ's own voice 
1Tim 3:15 - Church called "pillar and foundation of truth" 
1Jn 2:27 - anointing of Holy Spirit remains in you 
Acts 15:28 - Apostles speak with voice of Holy Spirit 
Mt 28:20 - I am with you 

Perpetual Church 
Is 9:6-7 - of Christ's government there will be no end 
Dan 2:44 - God's kingdom shall stand forever 
Dan 7:14 - His kingdom shall not be destroyed
Eph 3:21 - to him be glory in the church to all generations for ever and ever. 
Lk 1:32, 33 - no end to Christ's kingdom 
Mt 7:24 - Jesus is like a wise man who built his house on a rock 
Mt 13:24-30 - let wheat & weeds grow together until harvest 
Mt 16:18 - gates of hell will never prevail against Christ's church 
Jn 14:16 - Holy Spirit will be with you always 
Mt 28:19-20 - I am with you all days

PAPACY & APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION
Primacy of Peter 
Mt 16:18 - upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church 
Mt 16:19 - give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind & loose 
Lk 22:32 - Peter's faith will strengthen his brethren 
Jn 21:17 - given Christ's flock as chief shepherd 
Mk 16:7 - angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter 
Lk 24:34 - risen Jesus first appeared to Peter 
Acts 1:13-26 - headed meeting which elected Matthias 
Acts 2:14 - led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost 
Acts 2:41 - received first converts 
Acts 3:6-7 - performed first miracle after Pentecost 
Acts 5:1-11 - inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira 
Acts 8:21 - excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus 
Acts 10:44-46 - received revelation to admit Gentiles into Church 
Acts 15:7 - led first council in Jerusalem 
Acts 15:19 - pronounces first dogmatic decision 
Gal 1:18 - after conversion, Paul visits chief Apostle 
*Gal 2:11-14 - I opposed Cephas to his face for his hypocrisy 
Peter's name always heads list of Apostles: Mt 10:14; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13 
"Peter and his companions" Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7 
Spoke for Apostles - Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45; 12:41; Jn 6:69 
Peter's name occurs 195 times, more than all the rest put together 

Apostolic Succession 
2 Chr 19:11 - high priest is over you in everything of Lord's 
Mal 2:7 - seek instruction from priest, he is God's messenger 
Eph 2:20 - Church built upon foundation of apostles & prophets 
Eph 4:11 - God gave some as apostles, others as prophets... 
1 Cor 12:28-29 - God designated in church: apostles, ... 
Acts 1:20 - let another take his office 
Acts 1:25-26 - Matthias takes Judas' apostolic ministry 
1 Tim 3:1, 8; 5:17 - qualifications for: bishops, priests, & deacons 
1Tim 4:14 - gift conferred with the laying on of hands 
1Tim 5:22 - do not lay hands too readily on anyone 
Acts 14:23 - they appointed presbyters in each church 
2Tim 2:2 - what you heard from me entrust to faithful teachers 
Titus 1:5 - appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed

SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
Bible Alone or Bible Plus Tradition? 
1Cor 11:2 - hold fast to traditions I handed on to you 
2Thess 2:15 - hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter 
2Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition 
Jn 21:25 - not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture 
Mk 13:31 - heaven & earth shall pass away, but my word won't 
Acts 20:35 - Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in gospels 
2Tim 1:13 - follow my sound words; guard the truth 
2Tim2:2 - what you heard entrust to faithful men 
2Pet 1:20 - no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation 
2Pet 3:15-16 - Paul's letters can be difficult to grasp & interpret 
1Pet 1:25 - God's eternal word = word preached to you 
Rom 10:17 - faith come from what is heard 
1Cor 15:1-2 - being saved if you hold fast to the word I preached 
Mk 16:15 - go to the whole world, proclaim gospel to every creature 
Mt 23:2-3 - chair of Moses; observe whatever they tell you 

Tradition Condemned? 
*Mt 15:3 - break commandment of God for your tradition 
*Mk 7:9 - set aside God's commandment to uphold tradition 
*Col 2:8 - seductive philosophy according to human tradition 
1Cor 11:2 - commends them for following Apostolic tradition 
2Thess 2:15 - commands them to keep traditions 
2Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition 

Deuterocanonicals
Heb 11:35 - 'Women received their dead by resurrection.  Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life' refers only to 2Macc 7


SALVATION, FAITH AND WORKS
Faith Alone or Faith plus Works? 
Jam 2:24 - a man is justified by works and not by faith alone 
Jam 2:26 - faith without works is dead 
Gal 5:6 - only thing that counts is faith working in love 
1 Cor 13:2 - faith without love is nothing 
Jn 14:15 - if you love me, keep my commandments 
Mt 19:16-17 - if you wish to enter into life, keep commandments 
1Tim 5:8 he who doesn't provide for family worse than unbeliever.

Have You Been Saved? 

Past Event (I have been saved) 
Rom 8:24 - for in hope we were saved 
Eph 2:5, 8 - by grace you have been saved through faith 
2Tim 1:9 - He saved us, called us according to his grace 
Tit 3:5 - He saved us through bath of rebirth, renewal by Holy Spirit 

Present Process (I am being saved) 
Phil 2:12 - work out your salvation with fear and trembling 
1Pet 1:9 - as you attain the goal of your faith, salvation 

Future Event (I will be saved) 
Mt 10:22 - he who endures to the end will be saved 
Mt 24:1 - he who perseveres to the end will be saved 
Mk 8:35 - whoever loses his life for my sake will save it 
Acts 15:11 - we shall be saved through the grace of Jesus 
Rom 5:9-10 - since we are justified, we shall be saved 
Rom 13:11 - salvation is nearer now than first believed 
Cor 3:15 - he shall be saved, but only as through fire 
1Cor 5:5 - deliver man to Satan so his spirit may be saved 
Heb 9:28 - Jesus will appear second time, to bring salvation 

Good Works 
Mt 7:21 - not Lord, Lord but he who does the will of father 
Mt 19:16-17 - to have life, keep my commandments 
Jn 14:21 - he who keeps my commandments loves me 
Rom 2:2-8 - eternal life by perseverance in good works 
Gal 5:4-6 - nothing counts but faith working through love 
Eph 2:8-10 - we are created in Christ Jesus for good works 
Phil 2:12-13 - work out salvation with fear and trembling 
Jam 2:14-24 - a man is justified by works & not faith alone 

Judged According to Deeds 
Rom 2:2-8 - eternal life by perseverance in good works 
2Cor 5:10 - recompense accord to what did in body 
2Cor 11:15 - their end will correspond to their deeds 
1Pet 1:17 - God judges impartially according to one's works 
Rev 20:12-13 - dead judged according to their deeds 
Col 3:24-25 - will receive due payment for whatever you do 

Assurance of Salvation? 
Mt 7:21 - not everyone saying "Lord, Lord" will inherit 
Mt 24:13 - those who persevere to the end will be saved 
Rom 11:22 - remain in his kindness or you will be cut off 
Phil 2:12 - work out your salvation in fear and trembling 
1Cor 9:27 - drive body for fear of being disqualified 
1Cor 10:11-12 - those thinking they are secure may fall 
Gal 5:4 - separated from Christ, you've fallen from grace 
2Tim 2:11-13 - must hold out to the end to reign with Christ 
Hb 6:4-6 - describes sharers in Holy Spirit who then fall away 
Heb 10:26-27 - if sin after receiving truth, judgment remains 

Regenerative Baptism 
Jn 3:5, 22 - born of water & Spirit; Apostles begin baptizing 
Tit 3:5 - saved us through bath of rebirth & renewal by Holy Spirit 
Acts 2:37-38 - repent, be baptized, receive gift of Holy Spirit 
Acts 22:16 - get selves baptized and sins washed away 
1Cor 6:11 - you were washed, sanctified, justified 
Rom 6:4 - baptized into death; live in newness of life 
1Pet 3:21 - baptism...now saves you 
Heb 10:22 - heart sprinkled, bodies washed in pure water 
(also see The Sacraments)

Health and Wealth Gospel 
Mk 10:28 - no "take cross and follow me" = not worthy of me 
Rom 8:16-17 - heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him 
Rom 8:18 - present suffering nothing compared w/future glory 
Phil 1:28-29 - granted to believe, also to suffer for him 
Col 1:24 - filling up what is lacking in Christ sufferings 
Heb 12:5-7 - whom God loves, he disciplines as sons 
Heb 12:11 discipline seems painful, but brings righteousness 
1Pet 1:6 - for a while you must suffer various trials 
1Pet 2:19-21 - suffering = grace; Jesus suffered as our example 

BLESSED VIRGIN MARY
Mary 
Lk 1:28, 30 - angel: "full of grace, found favor with God 
Lk 1:42 - Elizabeth: "most blessed among women" 
Lk 1:48 - Mary: "all generations will call me blessed" 

Mother of God 
Lk 1:43 - Elizabeth calls her "mother of my Lord" = God 
Mt 1:23 - virgin bear a son, Emmanuel = "God is with us" 
Lk 1:35 - child born will be called holy, the Son of God 
Gal 4:4 - God sent his Son, born of a woman 

The Assumption 
Gn 5:24 (Hb 11:5) - Enoch taken to heaven without dying 
2Kg 2:11 - Elijah assumed into heaven in fiery chariot 
Mt 27:52 - many saints who had fallen asleep were raised 
1Thess 4:17 - caught up to meet the Lord in the air 
1Cor 15:52 - we shall be instantly changed at the last trumpet 
Rom 6:23 - for the wages of sin is death 
Rev 11:19-21 - ark in heaven = woman clothed in sun 
Ps 132:8 - Arise, O Lord & go to thy resting place, thou & the ark of thy might. 

The Immaculate Conception 
Lk 1:28 - hail full of grace[highly favored] Lord is with you 
Lk 1:30 - you have found favor with God 
Lk 1:37 - for with God nothing shall be impossible 
Gn 3:15 - complete enmity between woman & Satan, sin 
Ex 25:11-21 - ark made of purest gold for God's word 
*Rom 3:23 - all have sinned & are deprived of God's glory 
*Lk 1:47 - my spirit rejoices in God my Savior 

Perpetual Virginity 
Lk 1:34 - how can this be, since I do not know man 
Lk 2:41-51 - age 12, Jesus evidently only son of Mary 
Mk 6:3 - "the son of Mary" not "a son of Mary" 
*Mt 13:55-56 - brothers James, Joseph, Simon & Jude 
Mt 27:56 - Mary the mother of James & Joseph also 
Jn 19:25 - Mary the wife of Clopas 
Jn 19:26 - entrusted Mary to John, not a younger sibling 
Jn 7:3-4 - brothers advise like elders: "go to Judea, manifest self"
unthinkable for younger siblings (see next verse)
Mk 3:21 - set out to seize him, "he is out of his mind" 
*Mt 1:25 - Joseph knew her not until she bore first-born 
Mt 28:20 - I am with you always, UNTIL the end of the age 
1Tim 4:13 - UNTIL I arrive, attend to reading, teaching... 
1Cor 15:25 - he must reign UNTIL has enemies underfoot 
Lk 1:80 - John in desert UNTIL day of his manifestation 
Ex 13:2; Nb 3:12 - consecrate first -born that opens womb 
Ex 34:20 - first-born among your sons you shall redeem

THE PRIESTHOOD
Call No Man Father 
Acts 7:2 - St. Stephen calls Jewish leaders "fathers" 
Acts 21:40, 22:1 - St. Paul calls Jerusalem Jews "fathers" 
Rom 4:16-17 - Abraham called the father of us all" 
1Cor 4:14-15 - I became your father in Christ through gospel 
1Tim 1:2 - my true child in our common faith 
Heb 12:7-9 - we have earthly fathers to discipline us 
Lk 14:26 - if anyone comes to me without hating his father... 
1Thess 2:11 - we treated you as a father treats his children 
Philem 10 - whose father I became in my imprisonment 
1Jn 2:13, 14 - I write to you, fathers, because you know him 

Celibacy 
*1Tim 4:1-3 - forbidding marriage is a doctrine of demons 
*1Tim 3:2 - bishop must be married only once 
Eph 5:21-33 - marriage is good: holy symbol of Christ & church 
Mt 19:12 - celibacy praised by Jesus, who was chaste 
Jer 16:1-4 - Jeremiah told not to take wife & have children 
1Cor 7:8 - St. Paul was celibate 
1Cor 7:32-35 - celibacy recommended for full-time ministers 
2Tim 2:3-4 - no soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits 
1Tim 5:9-12 - pledge of celibacy taken by older widows 

(also see Apostolic Succession and the sacrament of Holy Orders)

PURGATORY, HELL, & SIN
Purgatory 
Mt 5:48 - be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect 
Heb 12:14 - strive for that holiness without which cannot see God 
Jam 3:2 - we all fall short in many respects 
Rev 21:27 - nothing unclean shall enter heaven 
Jam 1:14-15 - when sin reaches maturity gives birth to death 
2Sam 12:13-14 - David, though forgiven, still punished for his sin 
Mt 5:26 - you will not be released until paid last penny 
Mt 12:32 - sin against Holy Spirit unforgiven in this age or next 
Mt 12:36 - account for every idle word on judgment day 
2Macc 12:44-46 - atoned for dead to free them from sin 
1Cor 3:15 - suffer loss, but saved as through fire 
1Pet 3:18-20; 4:6 - Jesus preached to spirits in prison 
2Tim 1:16-18 - Paul prays for dead friend Onesiphorus 
1Cor 15:29-30 - Paul mentions people baptizing for the dead 

Hell 
Is 33:11, 14 - who of us can live with the everlasting flames 
Mt 25:41 - depart, you accursed, into the eternal fire 
Mt 25:46 - these will go off to eternal punishment 
Lk 3:16-17 - the chaff will burn in unquenchable fire 
2Thess 1:6-9 - these will pay the penalty of eternal ruin 

Original Sin 
Gn 2:16-17 - the day you eat of that tree, you shall die 
Gn 3:11-19 - God's punishment for eating of the tree 
Rom 5:12-19 - many became sinners through one man's sin 
1Cor 15:21-23 - by a man came death; in Adam all die 
Eph 2:1-3 - we all once lived in the passions of our flesh

THE SACRAMENTS
Infant Baptism 
Jn 3:5; Mk 16:16 - baptism required for entering heaven 
1Cor 15:21-22 - in Adam all die, in Christ all made alive 
Mk 10:14 - let children come; to such belongs the kingdom 
Lk 18:15 - people were bringing even infants to him... 
Col 2:11-12 - baptism has replaced circumcision 
Jos 24:15 - as for me and my house, we will serve Lord 
Mt 8:5ff. - daughter healed because of centurion's faith 
Mt 15:21ff. - daughter healed because of Canaanite woman's faith 
Lk 7:1ff. - just say the word, and let my servant be healed 
Acts 16:31 - believe in Lord Jesus you & house will be saved 
Acts 16:15 - she was baptized, with all her household 
Acts 16:33 - he and all his family were baptized at once 
1Cor 1:16 - I baptized the household of Stephanas 

Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist 
Jn 6:35-71 - Eucharist promised 
Mt 26:26ff (Mk 14:22ff., Lk 22:17ff.) - Eucharist instituted 
1Cor 10:16 - Eucharist = participation in Christ's body & blood 
1 Cor 11:23-29 - receiving unworthily his body & blood 
Ex 12:8, 46 - Paschal lamb had to be eaten 
Jn 1:29 - Jesus called "Lamb of God" 
1 Cor 5:7 - Jesus called "paschal lamb who has been sacrificed 
Jn 4:31-34; Mt 16:5-12 - Jesus talking symbolically about food 
1Cor 2:14-3:4 - explains what "the flesh" means in Jn 6:63 
Ps 14:4; Is 9:18-20; Is 49:26; Mic 3:3; 2Sm 23:15-17; Rv 17:6, 16 -
to symbolically eat & drink one's body & blood = assault 

Confirmation 
Acts 19:5-6 - Paul imposed hands on baptized, received Holy Spirit 
Acts 8:14-17 - laid hands upon them, they received Holy Spirit 
2Cor 1:21-22 - put seal on us and given Holy Spirit in our hearts 
Eph 1:13 - you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit 
Heb 6:2 - instruction about baptism & laying on of hands 

Confession 
Mt 9:2-8 Son of Man has authority to forgive sins 
Jn 20:23 - whose sins you forgive/retain are forgiven/retained 
Jn 20:22 - breathed on them, "receive Holy Spirit" [recall Gn 2:7] 
2Cor 5:17-20 - given us the ministry of reconciliation 
Jam 5:13-15 - confess your sins to one another 
Mt 18:18 - whatever you bind & loose on earth, so it is in heaven 

Anointing the Sick 
Mk 6:12-13 - anointed with oil many sick, cured them 
Jam 5:14-15 - presbyters pray over sick, anoint, sins forgiven 

Holy Orders 
Acts 20:28 - Holy Sprit appointed you overseers, to tend Church 
Lk 22:19 - do this in memory of me 
Jn 20:22 - As Father sent me, I send you...receive Holy Spirit 
Acts 6:6 - the apostles prayed and laid hands on them 
Acts 13:3 - they laid hands on them & sent them off 
Acts 14:22 - they appointed presbyters in each church 
1Tim 4:14 - gift received through laying on of hands of presbyterate 
2Tim 1:6 - gift of God you have through imposition of hands 
Tit 1:5 - appoint presbyters in every town as I directed you 
(also see The Priesthood)

Matrimony 
Mt 19:5-6 - leave father & mother, join wife, 2 become 1 flesh 
Mk 10:7-12 - what God joined together, no man separate 
Eph 5:22-32 - union of man & wife image of Christ & Church 
Heb 13:4 - let marriage be honored among all

SOCIAL TEACHINGS
Divorce and Remarriage 
Mal 2:14-16 - for I hate divorce, says the Lord 
Mt 5:32-33 - to divorce or marry divorced wife is adultery 
Mt 19:4-6, 9 - to divorce wife and remarry = adultery 
Lk 16:18 - to divorce & remarry or marry divorced = adultery 
Rom 7:2-3 - wife consorts = adulteress if living, but not if dead 
1Cor 7:10-11 - if wife separated, stay single or reconcile 

Contraception 
Gn 38:9-10 God killed Onan for spilling seed [see next]
Dt 25:5-10 - penalty for defying Levirate law: not death  
Gn 1:27-28 (Gn 9:1, 35:11) - be fruitful and multiply 
Ps 127:3-5 - children gift from God, blessed is a full quiver 
1Chr 25:5 - God gave 14 sons & 3 daughters to exalt him 
1Chr 26:4-5 - God indeed blessed Obededom with 8 sons 
Hos 9:10-17 - Israel is punished with childlessness 
Ex 23:25-26 - blessings promised: no miscarrying, barrenness 
Lv 21:17-20 - crushed testicles is called a defect & blemish 
Dt 23:1 - no one castrated shall enter the assembly 
Dt 25:11-12 - punishment for potential damage to genitals 
Rom 1:25-27 - natural function of women = childbearing 
1Tim 2:11-15 - women saved through the bearing of children 
Acts 5:1-11 - Ananias/Saphira slain - withholding part of gift 
Gal 6:7 - God is not mocked-accepting pleasure, denying fruit 
Mt 21:19, Mk 11:14 - Jesus cursed fruitless fig tree 
Gal 5:20, Rv 9:21, 21:8 - Greek pharmakeia = abortifacient potions 
1Cor 6:19-20 - body temple of the Holy Spirit, glorify God with body 

Homosexuality 
Gn 1:27 - complementarity of sexes reflects God's inner unity 
Gn 2:21-24 - transmission of life through total self-donation - one flesh
Gn 19 - original sin deteriorates to Sodom's sin, destroyed 
Lv18:22 - called abomination, cut off from people (v.29) 
Lv 20:13 - both shall be put to death for abominable deed 
Rom 1:27 - called unnatural, shameful, and a perversity 
1Cor 6:9 - active homosexuals won't inherit kingdom of God 
1Tim 1:9-10 - those who engage in such acts called sinners 

Drinking Wine 
Gn 27:25 - Isaac brought Jacob wine, and he drank 
Dt 14:23-26 - spend money on sheep, wine, & strong drink 
Prov 20:1 - wine is a mocker, unwise to be led astray by it 
Eccl 9:7 - drink your wine with merry heart - God approves 
Is 25:6 - God will provide feast of rich foods & choice wines 
Is 5:11 - woe to those who rise early & run after strong drink 
Is 5:22 - woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine 
Luke 7:33-34 - son of man eats & drinks: behold glutton & drunk 
Jn 2:2-10 - miracle at Cana: water turned into good wine 
Eph 5:18 - do not get drunk with wine, that is debauchery 
1Tim 5:23 - drink a little wine for the sake of your stomach

SAINTS, RELICS, AND STATUES
Communion of Saints 
Eph 1:22-23 - he is head of the Church, which is His body 
Eph 5:21-32 - Christ is the head of the Church, Savior of the body 
Col 1:18, 24 - He is head of the body, the Church 
1Cor 12:12-27 - if I suffer, all suffer; if I am honored, all rejoice 
Rom 12:5 - we are one body in Christ, individual parts of one another 
Eph 4:4 - one body, one Spirit, called to one hope 
Col 3:15 - you were called in one body 
Rom 8:35-39 - death cannot separate us from Christ 
Rom 12:10 - love one another with mutual affection 
1Thess 5:11 - encourage, build up one another 
Gal 6:2 - bear one another's burdens 
Gal 6:10 - let us do good to all, especially those in family of faith 

Intercessory Prayer of Saints 
Rom 15:30 - join me by your prayers to God on my behalf 
Col 4:3, 1Thess 5:25 - pray for us 
2Thess 1:11 - we always pray for you 
2Thess 3:1 - finally, brothers, pray for us 
Eph 6:18-19 - making supplication for all the saints & for me 
Tob 12:12 - angel presents Tobit & Sarah's prayer to God
Ps 148 - David calls upon angels
Zech 1:12 - angel intercedes for Jerusalem 
Mk 12:25, Mt 22:30 - men in heaven are as the angels
Rev 5:8 - those in heaven offer prayers of the holy ones to God 
*Saints dead, prayer is necromancy (Dt 18:10-11) 
Mk 12:26-27 - he is God of the living, not of the dead 
Mk 9:4 - Jesus seen conversing with Elijah & Moses
Lk 9:31 - Elijah & Moses aware of earthly events 
Rev 6:9-11 - martyrs under altar want earthly vindication 
Heb 12:1 - we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses 
Lk 16:19-30 - departed rich man intercedes for brothers 
Rev 20:4 - saw the souls of those who had been beheaded 
Wis 3:1-6 - the souls of the just are in the hand of God 
2Macc 15:7-16 - the departed Onias & Jeremiah pray for the Jews 
Jas 5:16 Prayers of righteous man
1 Cor. 13:12 - I shall understand fully
1 John 4: 20-21 - whoever loves God must love his brother
1 Cor 12:21 - parts of Christ's Body cannot say to other parts, "I do not need you".

*1Tim 2:5 - "One mediator between God and man" 
1Tim 2:1-7 - offer prayers, petitions for all men 
1Pet 2:5 - be a holy priesthood to offer sacrifices through Christ 
Mk 10:18 - only God is good 
Mt 25:23 - well done my good and faithful servant 
Jn 10:11-16 - I am good shepherd; one flock I shepherd 
Jn 21:15-16 - feed my lambs, tend my sheep 
Eph 4:11 - He gave some as apostles…others as pastors 
Heb 3:1, 7:24, 9:12-13 - Jesus eternal high priest; one sacrifice 
Rev 1:6, 5:10 - He made us a kingdom of priests for God 
 

Veneration of Saints 
Jos 5:14 - Joshua fell prostrate in worship before angel 
Dan 8:17 - Daniel fell prostrate in terror before Gabriel 
Tob 12:16 - Tobiah & Tobit fall to ground before Raphael 
Mt 18:10 - angels in heaven always behold face of God (we venerate 
angels because of their great dignity, which comes form their union with God. 
Saints also are united with God) 
1Jn 3:2 - we shall be like him, we shall see him as he is 
1Thess 1:5-8 - you become an example to all the believers 
Heb 13:7 - remember leaders, consider/imitate their faith & life 

Relics 
2Kgs 13:20-21 - contact with Elisha's bones restored life 
Acts 5:15-116 - cures performed through Peter's shadow 
Acts 19:11-12 - cures through face cloths that touched Paul 

Statues 
*Ex 20:4-5 - do not make and worship any graven images 
Ex 25:18-19 - make two cherubim of beaten gold 
Num 21:8-9 - Moses made bronze serpent & put on pole 
1Kgs 6:23-29 - temple had engraved cherubim, trees, flowers 
1Kgs 7:25-45 - temple had bronze oxen, lions, pomegranates

(also see The Blessed Virgin Mary)

MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS

Scandals in the Church 
Jer 32:32-35 - OT leaders & priests offered child sacrifices 
2 Kgs 23:7 - OT cult prostitutes in the temple of the Lord 
Jn 4:22 - in spite of their infidelity, salvation is from Jews 
Mk 14:43-46 - Judas betrayed Jesus 
Mk 14:66-72 Peter denied him 
Jn 20:24-25 Thomas refused to believe his resurrection 
Mk 14:50 - they all left him and fled in garden of Gethsemane 
Rom 3:3-4 - will their infidelity nullify fidelity of God? No! 
2 Tim 2 :13 - if we are unfaithful, God remains faithful 
Mt 13:24-30 - Parable of the weeds among the wheat 
Mt 13:47-48 - parable of net that collects good and bad 

Fasting 
*1Tim 4:3 - condemns anti-flesh heretics
Mk 7:19 - Christ declared all food clean 
1Tim 4:4-5 - everything created by God is good 
Dan 10:3 - Daniel refused to eat choice foods for 3 weeks 
Mt 9:15 - Christ's followers will fast once he is gone 
Mt 6:16-18 - Jesus gave regulations concerning how to fast 

Divinity of Jesus 
Jn 1:1 - the Word was God 
Jn 1:14-15 - glory of Father's only Son, full of grace and truth 
Jn 8:19 - if you knew me, you would know my Father 
Jn 8:58-59 - I assure you, before Abraham was, I AM 
Jn 10:30-33 - the Father and I are one (see Ex 3:14, 20:7; Lev 19:12, 24:14-16) 
Jn 10:38 - the Father is in me and I am in the Father 
Jn 12:45 - whosoever sees me sees the one who sent me 
Jn 14:8-12 - whoever had seen has seen the Father 
Jn 20:28 - Jesus accepts Thomas's "my Lord and my God" 
Col 2:9 - in him dwells whole fullness of deity bodily 
Acts 20:28 - church of God he acquired with his blood 
Eph 1:7 - in him we have redemption by his blood 
1Jn 1:7 - blood of his Son Jesus cleanses from all sin 
Tit 2:13 - glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ 

Time of Second Coming Unknown 
Mt 24:44 - be prepared, Jesus coming at unexpected hour 
Mt 25:13 - stay awake, you know neither the day nor hour 
Mk 13:35-37 - watch, unknown when lord of house coming 
Lk 12:46 - master will come like a thief in night 
1thess 5:2-3 - day of Lord will come like a thief in night 
2Pet 3:9-10 - day of lord will come like a thief 
Rev 3:3 - if not watchful, will come like a thief 
Mt 24:36 - no one but Father alone knows day and hour 

Holy Spirit a Person, Not a Force 
Jn 14:26 - "he will teach you all things" 
Acts 8:29 - "and the Spirit said to Philip, 'Go up..." 
Acts 13:2 - "Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for me...'" 
Rom 8:27 - "Spirit intercedes for the saints..." 
1Cor 2:11 - no one understands the thoughts of God, but Spirit 
1Cor 12:11 - Spirit apportions to each as he wills 
Eph 4:30 - "do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God" 

Repetitious Prayer 
*Mt 6:7 - do not babble like pagans with their many words 
1Kgs 18:25-29 - example of vain repetition: call Baal for hours 
Mt 26:44 - Jesus prayed a third time, saying the same thing again 
Lk 18:13 - collector kept beating breast & praying: be merciful 
Rev 4:8 - repeat day & night, "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord" 
1Thess 5:17 - pray without ceasing
Ps 136 (26X 'his steadfast love endures forever')
Mt 6:9-13 Our Father 

Refuting the fundamental modern error of Sola Scriptura.

I was going to add my own refutation to this modern fundamental error and new wind of doctrines of men, but I have discovered that it has already been dealt with by many others and so there is little purpose except to make the information available to you all here.

The following links do that very well. Please enjoy.

Recommended Reading:
Proving Inspiration
Scripture and Tradition
What's Your Authority?
Scriptural Reference Guide
A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura by Dave Armstrong
Catholic Questions: Apologetics Backward by Mary Beth Kremski

What Exactly Do You Mean by Sola Scriptura? by Jimmy Akin
Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura by Steve Ray
Ten Thousand Chickens for One Thousand Bibles by James Akin
Where Does the Authority Lie? by Kenneth J. Howell

According to Scripture by Tim Staples
Sola Scriptura is Unscriptural
The Complex Relationship between Scripture and Tradition by Jimmy Akin
Logic and Protestantism's Shaky Foundations by Brian W. Harrison, O.S.
Going Beyond by Patrick Madrid

Refuting: "Is a Catholic Christian an Oxymoron?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Catholic at CAF I'm sure I'm not the first Catholic to have come across this horribly inaccurate and misleading tract by "evangelist" Mike Gendron. (see it here: http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/ro...m/RC1299W2.htm ) I'm in the process of debunking it myself, and I'd love some help. I think in particular the part about the anathemas and merit might be tricky ones that I could use more experienced apologists' aid. Also, does anyone know if an apologist has already done this? Thanks, and God bless,

Ankerberg is just another a-C and Gendron makes his living off his a-C propaganda. I refuted one of his articles on my blog and will be happy to help dismantle this one as well. He's really not very good.

Quote:

Others, who know the official teachings of the Catholic Church contradict the essentials of the Gospel, would say "yes." We propose that a Catholic Christian is indeed an oxymoron for two reasons: 1) we are what we believe, and 2) it is impossible for anyone to believe two opposing views simultaneously. I recognize that there may be some Christians attending the Catholic Church but if they have believed the Gospel they are no longer Catholics. Let us consider some of the contradictory beliefs between Catholics and Christians.

This is just his typical rhetorical jive talk.

Since Catholics do not hold two different positions..he's inferring something that is untrue. It's called making a specious argument and it's dishonest of any professing believer to use it.

Quote:

Authority A Christian believes Scripture has authority over church. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16). By setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience (2 Cor. 4:2). A Catholic believes the Church has authority over Scriptures. The manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church, which exercises the divinely conferred commission, and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God (CCC, para. 119).

Here, he's correct about what we believe, but he is wrong as to what Christians believe. Firstly, that position is unique to only some of the professing communities, and even then there is much disagreement as to what they mean by the terms they use. Sola Scriptura means different things to different people that one encounters. Jimmy Akin has a great short article on this here.

Furthermore, as has been show many times, the first passage that eh cites does not support the scripture as sole and final authority, it concerns the inspiration of the scriptures and their usefulness in many areas, but that is all, as any objective reader will see. His second passage is circular reasoning and a prime example of why we should reject SS. In construing it with this passage he has made every individual with a Bible in hand an authority unto themselves, which why SS is so pernicious. This allows for (and has resulted in) the cascading myriad of errant teachings that are prevalent with nearly all the modern post reformation step children today. An excellent example of its bad fruit.

Quote:

Justification A Christian is justified once by faith because justification is a permanent declaration by God (Romans 8:30). However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness (Romans 4:5). A Catholic is justified repeatedly by sacraments and works because he loses the grace of justification each time a mortal sin is committed. The sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification (1446).

Here he actually misrepresents the Catholic teaching very badly. This ties into the error of OSAS/Eternal Security of the Believer and actually flies in the face of very specific New Testament teaching like Matthew 7:22 and Luke 13:24 (see context in all references please).

Quote:

Regeneration A Christian believes he is regenerated at baptism of the Spirit. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body (1 Cor. 12:13). God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth (2 Thes. 2:13). A Catholic believes baptism of water imparts divine life, the water of Baptism truly signifies our birth into the divine life (694).

Here again he is in serious error. I have a couple of blog articles that probably deal with this as well as is needed. Here are the links. Who REALLY Preaches "A Different Gospel" and Baptism~ Necessary or Not?.

Here again, Gendron's error is in fundamental Christian doctrine, and not in what the Church teaches, which is one reason that Catholics and n-Cs disagree on these matters to begin with.

Quote:

Salvation A Christian is saved by God’s unmerited grace. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:8-9). A Catholic is saved by meriting the graces needed for salvation. We can merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for the attainment of eternal life (2010).

Here I'll take his statements apart separately because there are so many errors. In checking I find that the best refutation of this is found in the context of the very CCC reference that he cites. Here it is. As is typical of Gendron, he uses a reference and makes allegations that taken at a cursory glance might deceive his readers This is why it is important to check every source.

Quote:

A Christian is saved for good works. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do (Eph. 2:10). A Catholic is saved by good works. The sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation (1129).

Here again he oversimplifies his attack in a specious way. Most of us have had this argument with various n-Cs/a-Cs and know it as the "Catholics save themselves by their works" bit. We also know that that is definitely not what we believe nor what the Church has ever taught, though Gendron would like to deceive his readers into believing it. As with every such misstatement it is wrapped around a kernel of truth, the problem for Gendron is that here again, his problem is not with Catholicism but with the fundamental teachings of the New Testament that the Christian Church has always taught. I think John Martignoni's excellent MP3 Bible study on Sola Fide is the best response to this. Here's the link. Sola Fide - Salvation By Faith Alone? and his notes are here.

Quote:

A Christian is saved for all eternity. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance. (Eph. 1:13-14). A Catholic is saved until a mortal sin is committed. Those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell (1035).

Here again the problem is not with Catholic teaching but fundamental New Testament Christian teachings that the modern post reformation step children like Gendron have departed from. Once more, I will turn to another of John Martignoni's fine MP3 Bible studies in which he refutes this serious error. Once Saved, Always Saved?, and again, his notes are here.

Quote:

A Christian believes salvation is offered to those outside the church. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making His appeal through us (2 Cor. 5:20). A Catholic believes salvation is offered through the Church. Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation. Anyone refusing to enter it or remain in it cannot be saved (846).

This one again is one that most of us who do any apologetics have dealt with many times, and of course Gendron speciously cites the CCC and fails to offer context. Instead, he should have been honest and cited CCC 830 - 848 which my link here will correctly explain.

Quote:

A Christian is purified by the blood of Jesus. The blood of Jesus...purifies us from all sin (1 John 1:7). A Catholic is purified by the fires of Purgatory. They undergo purification in Purgatory, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven (1030-31).

Here again, he's speciously misrepresenting Catholic teaching so as to intentionally deceive his reader. Most knowledgeable and faithful will recognize this as the complete lie that it really is, and that the church has not ever, does not now, and will not ever, teach something like this. There are a couple of sources that i will use to refute him here. One is the following article from my blog. Biblical and Jewish Traditional Beliefs About Purgatory and the following from CA's own library. Purgatory

The Roots of Purgatory (Fathers*)

Quote:

Saints and Priests A Christian becomes a saint when the Spirit baptizes him into the body of Christ. And He gave some...for the equipping of the saints...the body of Christ (Eph. 4:11-12). A Catholic becomes a saint only if the Pope canonizes them. This occurs when he solemnly proclaims that they practiced a heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God’s grace (828).

Here again he totally misleads his readers as to what we believe. He chooses to ignore the preceding context of the Catechism, but in refuting him on this I certainly won't.
II. THE CHURCH IS HOLY

Quote:

A Christian is a priest. But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God (1 Peter 2:9). A Catholic needs a priest. Catholic priests are said to be apostolic successors and guarantee that Christ is acting in the sacraments to dispense divine life (1120-1131).

He grossly misinterprets all of this, (Hey, beginning to see a pattern here my friends? ) He can only make this specious case of his by deflecting his readers from the context of his citations, (one wonders if any bother to check them) he should have included CCC 1119 which says, "1119 Forming "as it were, one mystical person" with Christ the head, the Church acts in the sacraments as "an organically structured priestly community."36 Through Baptism and Confirmation the priestly people is enabled to celebrate the liturgy, while those of the faithful "who have received Holy Orders, are appointed to nourish the Church with the word and grace of God in the name of Christ."37" and 1132, which reads (and refutes his allegation) "1119 Forming "as it were, one mystical person" with Christ the head, the Church acts in the sacraments as "an organically structured priestly community."36 Through Baptism and Confirmation the priestly people is enabled to celebrate the liturgy, while those of the faithful "who have received Holy Orders, are appointed to nourish the Church with the word and grace of God in the name of Christ."37"

Quote:

The Lord’s Supper A Christian believes the Lord’s Supper is a memorial. Do this in remembrance of me (1 Cor. 11:24-25). A Catholic believes the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice. The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice...the same Christ who offered Himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner (1367). A Christian receives Jesus once, spiritually, in the heart. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God (John 1:12). God... put his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee (2 Cor. 1:22). A Catholic believes he receives Jesus physically, frequently, in the stomach. The body, blood...soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ...is truly, really and substantially contained in the Eucharist (1374-78).

Here again...he shows that his problem is not with just the Catholic Church but with the New Testament as well as the clear writings of the early church on the Eucharist. I deal with this in the very first article on my blog.
The Eucharist IS Scriptural. Simply stated, Gendron is dead wrong about both what Christians have believed for 2,000 years as well as his opposition to it.

Quote:

Condemnation A Christian is condemned by the Roman Catholic Church. Over 100 anathemas have been pronounced against Christians by the Roman Catholic Councils of Trent and Vatican II. These condemnations are still in effect today and can only be lifted if a Christian returns in submission to the authority of the pope.

Again, with the specious arguments. The Christian Church has leveled anathemas against every heresy to come down the pike in all of its 2,000 year history beginning in the New Testament and they were right to do so. The Church has done righteously in condemning the heresies that Gendron preaches and has displayed here in this tract. He was supposedly a Catholic prior to entering into his new career as an anti-Catholic evangelist who now sells himself as an expert on our most holy faith and gets paid for doing so. That's a real shame IMO. I think the New Testament speaks about this kind of person somewhere...

Quote:

A Catholic is condemned by the Word of God. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day (John 12:48). If we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! (Gal. 1:8; cf. Context of verses 6-9).

Yet what did Our Lord tell His apostles? Luke 10: [16] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." , and I've already shown in a post above who Galatians 1:8 actually applies to.

Quote:

These thirteen teachings and traditions of Roman Catholicism demonstrate that a Catholic Christian is indeed an oxymoron. They also affirm how manmade traditions nullify the Word of God (Mark 7:7-13).

But as you have just seen, is Gendron telling the truth about either Christian doctrine or the Catholic Church?

Quote:

There are many Evangelicals and Roman Catholics who are unaware of how diametrically opposed Catholic dogmas are to the Word of God.

No...in fact there are many people who are not aware of the fact that they are being deceived into terrible error by men like Mike Gendron and John Ankerberg who put forth erroneous teachings of men and label them as Christian doctrine.

Look again at the refutation of this online tract of Gendron's. Has he told the truth? Has he misrepresented the Catholic Church's teachings? Has he asserted as Christian doctrines things which the Bible and the Catholic Church do not teach or agree with and that the Church has labeled as heresies?

Quote:

The truth must be told. Catholics who presume they are Christians must be lovingly confronted with the truth.

Yeah.. right...

The rest is just polemics. I think he's done enough damage to his position.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
Blackie

Scriptures About Penance

Quote:

Originally Posted by a Non-Catholic pennitent and pennace are 2 entirely different things you'll find no support for pennance...

Here's 100 references or so where the Bible speaks of sackcloth, most of them are in direct relation to penance, which is a demonstration of sorrow for sin. A physical way in which people have shown their contrition for sin.

Being penitent and penance are inexorably linked in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. This is also what was meant when the people in the Gospels were told to bring forth fruit worthy of repentance. Penitence is the like a second step that follows repentance, and penance is a scriptural aspect of that.

Did the Catholic Church Keep the Bible From Being Translated Into the Vernacular Languages?

Quote:From a non-Catholic

Why was the Catholic Church so desperate to keep the Bible out of the language of the common man.

This is wishful thinking at best and specious propaganda at worst. The allegation is historical bunkum.

Better have a look at this chapter from Where We Got the Bible on the vernacular translations before Wycliff.
"Before Gutenberg printed the first Bible around 1455 (A Catholic version in Latin with 73 books) there were already popular translations of the Bible and the Gospels in English, Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemiam, and Hungarian."

"There were nine editions of the Bible in German by the time Martin Luther was born in 1493 and twenty-seven editions in German before Luther published his own in 1520.

Before the first Protestant Bible was printed, more than 600 editions of the Catholic Bible had been printed in Europe, of which 198 were in the languages of the people."

(Where We Got the Bible, pages 69,74,& 75)

The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

According to the Word of God...

If Jesus had been the eldest among children then the others would have been responsible for taking care of their mother. This was not true of step children, who would not have had that responsibility.

If, as some ancient sources say, Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children by his previous wife, then this passage makes perfect sense.

Why then was one of the last things that Our Lord did from the cross the act of assigning his mother to the care of a non-family member?

If He had blood siblings instead of step siblings (who were not responsible for their step mother), why would he have done that?

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

Furthermore, it was scandalous in Jewish society for a younger sibling to rebuke or mock the eldest, yet this is what we see happened in the New Testament. However, if His step brethren were older than He then this might occur. Look at Jacob's sons and Jesse's sons in dealing with Joseph and David.

Also, it was virtually criminal for a younger sibling to mock or rebuke the first born son, and yet the word of God shows that this happened to Our Lord This would only be possible if they were the older step siblings by another mother.

With historical documents that suggest that Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children, your assertions fails.
'Brethren of the Lord'
Mary: Ever Virgin (Fathers)
If Mary had other children, then where were they the day their eldest brother Christ was Crucified? Their mother was there and Jesus' best friend John? If she had other kids they would've been there too and they would've been responsible for taking care of Mary. Instead, from the cross and with almost his last breath Jesus gives her to St. John. Something that he wouldn't have done under Jewish customs back then IF HE HAD SIBLINGS.
The New Testament clearly indicates that they were his cousins...the children of Mary's cousin Mary (John 19:25-27).
"25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.

See! Even his mom's cousin was there...where are these supposed siblings of his? Nowhere...that's where, because they simply did not exist.

Even all three of the "pillars of the reformation" wrote in support of it.
My thanks to San Juan Catholic Seminars for publishing this in their Beginning Apologetics # 5 booklet.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary:

Martin Luther: “ It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin… Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” ( Works of Luther, Vol. 11, pages 319-320; Vol. 6, page 510.)

John Calvin: “ There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company… And beside this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25. Published in 1562.)

Ulrich Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” ( Zwingli Opera, Vol. 1, page 424.)

More info:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

Other ECF quotes about the Blessed Virgin:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

Other info about Catholic teaching about Mary
http://www.catholic.com/library/Imma..._and_Assum.asp

My Reformation Theory

I have a theory...and that's all it is mind you, that one reason so many modern post reformation n-Cs reject the sacraments like the Eucharist, Confession, etc is because early on, the reformers realized that once the renegade priests who left the church with them had all died off, they would be left without anyone who could even remotely claim to validly celebrate and administer these sacraments and since most of their laity came from the Catholic faith they would soon recognize the deficiency because their clergy no longer maintained any semblance of apostolic succession and could not consecrate the Eucharist or absolve sins in confession, and that might well cripple the infant reformation faith communities. In order to handle that these leaders began to construct the errant interpretations that we see today that deny the sacraments. It's the only logical tactic that will keep people who knew and loved the Eucharist and the solace of Confession from turning back to the Catholic faith to have them validly available.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
(The peace of the Lord be always with you all.)
Blackie

Who REALLY Preaches "A Different Gospel"?

It is my own opinion that the majority of non-Catholic salvation messages actually present a different and deficient gospel than that of the New Testament, the early church and the Catholic Church for the last 2,000 years.

I believe that the essential "way of salvation" verses that are used in a great many non-Catholic evangelistic messages been have ripped from the pages of the Word of God and bandied about in the last 500 years to further a different and oversimplified deficient Gospel that anyone who sits down and reads the New Testament for themselves without some non-Catholic preacher breathing down their neck every Sunday and Wednesday will soon discover is not the same Gospel of salvation.

I have read the Word of God many times and that is why I am a Catholic. The salvation message of the Catholic Church is in line with the teachings of the New Testament, and I believe that the salvation message of the majority of non-Catholics is some different gospel, condemned by St. Paul and leads to something that I have dubbed "Christianity Lite".

This is the result of much internet discussion with a variety of non-Catholics which spawned the following post here on Apocalypsis. How Is A Catholic Saved?

Read your New Testament from cover to cover and see what the teachings are concerning salvation and then compare the various non-Catholic "ways" and "plans" of salvation with what you have read and see if the Holy Spirit does not show you the deficiencies and differences between the two.

They stop far short of what the New Testament Gospel is while the teachings of the Catholic Church are in fact right in line with it.

I would suggest that the context of the New Testament does not teach the Reformed doctrine and that (as I have stated before) their's is a different and deficient gospel.

If no works are involved in our salvation, then how do you explain the Gospel message preached on the day of Pentecost (under the influence of the fullness of the Holy Spirit no less!) in Acts 2:37-38.
[37] Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"
[38] And 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 shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

How do you explain the message delivered to St. Paul himself (especially since you assert that it is his teachings that convince you of the reformed position) in Acts 22:16
[16] And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

Obviously, from the message there, baptism is key to salvation and does indeed wash away and forgive sins. The reformed teachings contradict this in spite of the plain sense of the scriptures.

If our works have no merit with regard to our salvation, why then does Our Lord plainly tell us that we will be judged and either welcomed into the Kingdom of God or cast into hell based upon them in Matthew 25: 31-46
[31] "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
[32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,
[33] and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.
[34] Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
[35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
[36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
[37] Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
[38] And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?
[39] And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'
[40] And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
[41] Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
[42] for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
[43] I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
[44] Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?'
[45] Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'
[46] And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

The Gospel today is (and should be!) the same as that preached by the apostles in the New Testament. (See Acts 2:37-38 and 22:16 as well as John 3:5) If what is preached is not the same then that (IMO) would qualify as "a different gospel".

I, like many many Catholics, have heard and seen allegations that ours is a different gospel, but having read the Word of God carefully and prayerfully many times over many years, and comparing the messages of those who make those allegations to the salvation message of the Catholic Church alongside the New Testament, I have found that just the opposite is true.

If, as I suspect, you have read the New Testament all the way through, (more than likely many times over) you can understand what I mean when I say that the Gospel of salvation is actually the topic throughout and I submit that it is the Gospel that is preached by the Catholic Church that accurately aligns with that and not the one of the reformers or their modern step children.

Galatians 1:[8] But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
[9] As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
Blackie

The Origins of Halloween

The Origins of Halloween

The All American Holiday (From the tract by Grotto Press)

The Date.

Pope Gregory III (d 741) moved All saints Day from May 13th to November 1st to coincide with the dedication of a new cathedral. Of course the evening vigil was celebrated on October 31st hence All Hallows Eve or Hallowe'en.

The Dead

In 997 St. Odillo of Cluny, S. France, added a feast of All Souls. (faithful departed in heaven and purgatory) However, the Irish wondered about those in hell. They thought that the damned might cause trouble if they weren't remembered. So, at least in Ireland, ALL the dead were remembered even though "All Damned Day" was never allowed in the church calendar.

The Costumes

In the 14th and 15th centuries the French started "The Dance Macabre" which was an artistic reminder of their own mortality at a time when the Bubonic Plague was sweeping their country. (Europe lost half her population.) To do this dance, held on All Soul's day, November 2nd, they dressed up in ghoulish costumes. In North America in the 1700s, the French and Irish settlers began to intermarry thus the two costumes were blended.

Trick or Treat

During the 1500s through the 1700s in Protestant England, Catholics were persecuted and many martyred. (It was a capitol offense for a priest to say Mass.)

One of their attempted uprisings against their oppressors backfired when Guy Fawkes, the man guarding the gunpowder, meant to blow up King James I, was captured and hanged.

So November 5th became a great celebration for the Protestants in England (to this day). During that period, bands of revelers would visit Catholics in the dead of night, dressed up in masks, demanding beer and cakes for their celebration. Thus "trick or treat".

Witches and Jack-O-Lanterns

In the late 1800s the greeting card industry tried introducing "The Halloween Card" and since Halloween was already creepy, why not add witches? Also in the 1800s, ill-informed folklorists thought that Halloween was druidic and pagan in origin. Since pagans had used lamps made of turnips (not pumpkins) in their harvest festival, these were added too.

Conclusion

So enjoy being an American, have fun at Halloween but remember its origins; it was a time to remember saints and loved ones, faithful souls who died. Obviously as Christians we stand against witchcraft ("There shall not be found among you any one who...practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD ." Deuteronomy 18:10-12) but we can still have wholesome fun and yet teach our children the real meaning of Halloween.

Catholic Confession

In my opinion the passages are clear as in this case.

John 20:21-23 is so important.
"21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."

My thinking is that if our Lord had not intended to make the Sacrament of Reconciliation a means of grace unto salvation, then why in the world would He have made this statement and given both this power and command to the presbyters of His church?

James 5:16 & 1st John 1:9 also offer us more insight into this doctrine.

James 5: 14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the 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 man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him. 16 Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.

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

All these passages expressly speak of confession of sins and so I have to ask, then just how will those outside the Catholic Church explain the obvious link between these passages.

Here is a further outline for study on this sacrament courtesy of John Martignoni and his Bible Christian Society

Quote:

Confession A. Confess your sins to men ~ Leviticus 5:5-6 (“All scripture…”: 2 Tim 3:16) (Law is a shadow: Hebrews 10:1) ~ 1 John 1:9 ~ James 5:16 B. Can men forgive sins? ~ Only God has the power to forgive sins but He exercises this power through men. ~ Mark 2:7 ~ Matthew 9:1-8 When the crowds saw it, they were afraid , and the glorified God, who had given such authority to men. - Matthew 9:8

To me, the scriptures are clear, and I can't help but praise and thank God for His wisdom and mercy that (knowing the weaknesses of mankind) equipped His church with the means to help His children overcome our weaknesses and sins.

How Is A Catholic Saved?

Repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38 & 22:16 and John 3:1-21) and then following Christ, (John 14:15, Matthew 10:38, 16:24, & 25:31-46, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23 and Revelation 3:5) which is a lifelong journey and not the oversimplified "plan of salvation" as presented by some non-Catholic communities.

Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.

Quote:

Originally Asserted by a Non-Catholic: Any church arrogant enough to claim infallibility is elevating it's self above God and is blasphemy! There are other "churches" that claim to be infallible, how shall I know which one is lying and which one is telling the truth? I will answer this for you, by reading the bible for myself and letting the Holy Ghost interpret it for me as He does. BTW any church claiming infallability is a false church.

A rant without any support from the Word of God.

And yet Christ Himself promised that assurance of infallibility to His church when He said. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.Matthew 16.

So then you claim this infallibility for yourself? That is precisely what this statement does, while denying what Our Lord promised to His church and actually attempting to usurp that authority and promise of assurance for yourself. I wouldn't do that. So then you are telling us that you are never wrong? Yet I have already proved you wrong several times in this discussion alone.

By this statement you have logically condemned yourself.

Quote:

Originally Asserted by non-Catholic 2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

I love this verse! I don't suppose that you've noticed here that St. Paul does not say to St. Timothy. "Study the Bible", or "Study the scriptures", and so based on what this verse says (and the context nowhere changes this...) then sacred Tradition is included in what Paul is telling Timothy to study. In this he would be following the apostles.

Example: (I asked you to look all this up and apparently you dismissed my request, so now I'm going to show you why that was so important.)

Look at these verses from the letter of St. Jude, the next to last book in the New Testament. (You do accept Jude as inspired canon of scripture, right?)

Jude Chapter 1:9: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."

Where is that found in the Old Testament? Please show me chapter and verse.

Jude Chapter 1:14: It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, 15: to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

Where is that in the Old Testament please? Again, I need chapter and verse?

Jude Chapter 1:9: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."....Jude Chapter 1:14: It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, 15: to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

2nd Timothy Chapter 3:8: As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;

The first 1st is quoting The Assumption of Moses. Not the Old Testament, yet the apostle Jude quotes it as a fact of belief.

The 2nd is quoting The Book of Enoch. Not the Old Testament, yet the apostle Jude quotes it as a fact of belief.

The 3rd is quoting the Book of Jannes and Jambres and not the Old Testament. (Go ahead and look...their names are nowhere found in the OT!), yet here again...St. Paul refers to something as fact that is not stated in the inspired canon. So then... he is clearly telling Timothy to study both scripture and traditional sources, since that is clearly shown here as apostolic practice.

So much for the idea that the apostles taught Sola Scriptura.

Quote:

Originally Asserted by non-Catholic You see it all the time. People don't agree on everything, even within any church, including your catholic church. At the same time, if you go to the same source of truth (the bible) and study it though the Holy Spirit, you can understand no matter who you are.

If this were actually true then all faithful believers would hold the exact same doctrines and beliefs...but that is not so among n-Cs, though with in the Catholic Church one single authority is acknowledged and there is indeed one authoritative and knowledgeable source of doctrinal interpretation.

Your comments that some Catholics might dissent or disagree does not indict that infallible authority in faith and morals but instead indicts the consciences of those who dissent or oppose those teachings.

The Case For Infant Baptism

I noticed in someone's forum profile that they asserted that only adults are baptized in the Bible.

The imperative is the fact that Jewish babies were circumcised on the 8th day by the command of God and since Paul & Peter both compare baptism to circumcision, that we see the type and example. The fact that the parents had the child circumcised as an entrance into their faith and professed their faith on behalf of the child while accepting the responsibility of seeing that they were raised in their faith, carries over into Christianity. It's as scriptural as "Train up a child in the way that he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it." The more relevant passages are those that show that entire households were baptized, which implies that people of all ages were included. If God commanded that babies be brought into the faith in the OT, why would that logical and family oriented practice cease with the coming of the Messiah? ALL Christianity is about family...that's about as NT as it gets.

If you think that one has to make a profession of faith to enter the Kingdom of God, but then don't believe that baptism is crucial for salvation, there is something scripturally wrong with your belief...yet the NT is almost adamant about that.

I do not believe that "only adults are baptized in the Bible" is accurate, and here is a good article that explains why.

Quote:

Infant Baptism (LINK) Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a "born again" experience—that is, after one has "accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior." At the instant of acceptance, when he is "born again," the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after "being saved," goes to heaven anyway. As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to "accept Jesus" in order to reach heaven. Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons. Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Some apparently feel that the early church did not baptize infants, but that can be disproved by reading the historical citations if the following article. Early Teachings of Infant Baptism (Fathers *) and from the very early account of the martyrdom of Polycarp (a disciple and friend of St. John as well as bishop of the Church in Smyrna) in which Polycarp plainly says the following when the proconsul tries to get him to deny Christ because of his old age. He shows that he was infant baptized.

Quote:

CHAPTER 9 (LINK) 9:1 But to Polycarp, as he entered the arena, there came a voice from heaven, saying, Be strong, and play the man, O Polycarp. And the speaker no man saw; but the voice those of our people who were present heard. And when he was brought in there was a great tumult, when men heard that Polycarp was apprehended. 9:2 Then, when he had been brought in, the proconsul asked him if he was Polycarp. And when he confessed, he would have persuaded him to deny, saying, Have respect unto thine age, and other things like these, as is their custom to say: Swear by the fortunes of Caesar; Repent; Say, Away with the Atheists. But Polycarp, when he had looked with a grave face at all the multitude of lawless heathen in the arena, having beckoned unto them with his hand, sighed, and looking up unto heaven, said, Away with the Atheists! 9:3 And when the proconsul pressed him, and said, Swear, and I will release thee, revile Christ; Polycarp said, Eighty and six years have I served him, and in nothing hath he wronged me; and how, then, can I blaspheme my King, who saved me?

Response to Hard Questions to Ask Good Catholics (By Mike Gendron)

Mike Gendron is a professional anti-Catholic preacher.
Understand that he now makes his living with this propaganda.
Look at the list of stuff he comes off with.

Where do you go to find the truth about life's most critical issues?

Answer: In the pillar and ground of the truth according to the New Testament. The Catholic Church.

1st Timothy 3:15: if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Did you know there is only one way to be saved?
Answer: Of course!

Acts 2 37: Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"
38: And 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 shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39: For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." and Acts 22:16: And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

Did you know those who distort the Gospel are condemned?
Answer: Certainly! But in "carefully studying to show ourselves approved unto God", we do not find the modern post reformation churches preaching the same gospel as the New Testament.

Galatians 1:6: I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel --
7: not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8: But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
9: As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

Did you know that Jesus put an end to the ordained priesthood?
Answer: Really? Then why does St. Paul make statements like, "24: Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church," (Colossians 1) and why then does the disciple of St. John, Ignatius of Antioch write the following?

Quote:

CHAP. VIII.--LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP. (LINK) See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution(17) of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered] either See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.(2) even as where Christ is, there does all the heavenly host stand by, waiting upon Him as the Chief Captain of the Lord's might, and the Governor of every intelligent nature. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize, or to offer, or to present sacrifice, or to celebrate a love-feast.(1) But that which seems good to him, is also well-pleasing to God, that everything ye do may be secure and valid.

Do you really believe Catholic priests have the power to call the Lord Jesus down from heaven every day?

Answer: Yes indeed. By the authority and command of Our Lord Jesus Christ both at the last supper and in John 6 the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ is made present.

In fact, St. Paul speaks of his own teaching concerning this is 1st Corinthians 10 & 11.

1st Corinthians 10:15: I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say.
16: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
17: Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. and 11:23: For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
24: and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
25: 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."
26: For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27: Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
28: Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29: For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
30: That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

Why do Catholic priests continue to offer Jesus as a sacrificial victim when He said "It is finished" (John 19:30)?

Answer:By the very command of Christ Himself. See the passages on the Eucharist above. Does not the sacrifice of Christ transcend time and space in all directions in order to apply to those all the way back to creation and forward until the end of time?

The fact is that here you have misrepresented the Catholic teaching in that the Eucharist is not a re-sacrifice, but a re-presentation of that sacrifice. The New Testament is clear that every time we celebrate the Eucharist the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ is made present again.

What better way to confront a sinful world with the sacrifice of Christ. The Eucharist is not only scripturally sound, but more so than "altar calls" and "a sinner's prayer", or "accepting Christ as your personal Lord and savior", none of which are in the Word of God.

Did you know Jesus has already obtained redemption for believers?

Answer: Of course! Here you misrepresent Catholic belief and show that you either

1. Don't understand Catholic teaching.
2. or, deliberately intend to indict Catholic belief by misrepresentation.

It's impossible to tell which. The fact is that his quotes are out of context and that any honest person who took the time to read all the Catechism has to say on this would see the inaccuracy of his remarks. (Also at this point, an honest person, might very well begin to question Gendron as a good source.)

Why do you call Jesus the Savior when you have to save yourself?

Answer: Produce an authentic Catholic teaching to this effect. You can't...because there is no such thing.

There are, however, passages like Matthew 25:31-46, which teach the critical importance of a believer's good works at his judgment.

31: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
32: Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,
33: and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.
34: Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
35: for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
36: I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
37: Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
38: And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?
39: And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'
40: And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
41: Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
42: for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43: I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
44: Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?'
45: Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'
46: And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Why do you believe a place caller Purgatory can purify your sins?

Answer: Because it's in the Word of God.

Biblical and Jewish Traditional Beliefs About Purgatory

Why do you pray to Mary?

Answer: Because she is the first believer and demonstrated a ministry of intercession with her Son even from the very beginning of His public ministry in John 2. Because we believe in the Communion of Saints, a scriptural teaching in the New Testament. and here is a link to an MP3 Bible study on this topic.

Why aren't these Catholic traditions found in the 1st century Church?
Answer: * Priests offering sacrifices for sins
See Ignatius of Antioch's letter quoted above.
* Indulgences remitting sin's punishment
John 20:21-23, and Matthew 16:18 and 18:18
* Church leaders forbidden to marry
Well, gee. What did the Lord Himself say? Answering this allegation.
* Infallible men
Matthew 16:18 and 28:19-20. 1st Timothy 3:15

Did you Know that whenever you believe a doctrine, you must also for sake that which opposes it?

Answer: Indeed! And I'm quite alright with that.

Which Jesus will you trust?

Answer: The real one. The one who founded a church to carry on His mission and ministry on Earth, but nowhere commissioned any writings to replace the sole authority that He Himself exercises through His Church by the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

From the very moment that you embrace the belief that the Bible is the sole authority for all Christian belief and practice you have already erred into "another gospel", and all further teachings based upon that fundamental error are then subject to error because of that basis. This Sola Scriptura is not a Biblical doctrine at all so then the question turns back on it's author.

Answer: "Which Jesus will you trust?"

The Deuterocanonical Books of the Catholic Bible

From my friend Wolseley:
And while we're on the subject of "extra-canonical books", here's a good question, posed to me by many Protestants: "If the books of the Apocrypha are supposed to be canonical, then why didn't Jesus ever quote from them?"

And the answer is, He did...and so did the Apostles:

Matthew 6:12, 14-15---"Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors; if you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your heavenly father forgive your transgressions."
Sirach 28:2---"Forgive your neighbor's injustice; then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven."

Luke 1:17 (describing John the Baptist)---"He will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of fathers towards children and the disobediant to the understanding of the righteous, to prepare a people fit for the Lord."
Sirach 48:10---"You are destined, it is written, in time to come, to put an end to wrath before the day of the Lord, to turn back the hearts of fathers towards their sons, and to re-establish the tribes of Jacob."

Luke 1:28, 1:42---"And coming to her, he said, 'Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you!'.....Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."
Judith 13:18---"Then Uzziah said to her: 'Blessed are you, daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women of the earth; and blessed be the Lord God, the Creator of heaven and earth.

Luke 1:52---"He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones, but lifted up the lowly."
Sirach 10:14---"The thrones of the arrogant God overturns, and establishes the lowly in their stead."

Luke 12:19-20---"I shall say to myself, 'Now as for you, you have so many good things stored up for many years, rest, eat, drink, be merry!' But God said to him, 'You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?'"
Sirach 11:19---"When he says: 'I have found rest, now I will feast on my possessions,' he does not know how long it will be till he dies and leaves them to others."

Luke 18:22---"When Jesus heard this, he said to him, 'There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.'"
Sirach 29:11---"Dispose of your treasure as the Most High commands, for that will profit you more than the gold."

John 3:12---"If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?"
Wisdom 9:16---"Scarce do we guess the things on earth, and what is within our grasp we find with difficulty; but when things are in heaven, who can search them out?"

John 5:18---"For this reason the Jews tried all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but he also called God his own Father, making himself equal to God."
Wisdom 2:16---"He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father."

John 10:29---"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can take them out of the Father's hand."
Wisdom 3:1---"But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and no torment shall touch them."

Paul and James allude to them as well:

Romans 2:11---"There is no partiality with God."
Sirach 35:12---"For he is a God of justice, who knows no favorites."

Romans 9:21---"Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose andanother fo an ignoble one?"
Wisdom 15:7---"For truly the potter, laboriously working the soft earth, molds for our service each several article: both the vessels that serve for clean purposes, and their opposites, all alike; as to what shall be the use of each vessel of eiother class, the worker in clay is the judge."

Romans 11:24---"For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor?"
Wisdom 9:13---"For what man knows God's counsel, or who can conceive what the Lord intends?"

1 Thessalonians 2:16---"(The enemies of Christ persecute us), trying to prevent us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved, thus constantly filling up the measure of their sins. But the wrath of God has finally begun to come upon them."
2 Maccabees 6:14---"Thus, in dealing with other nations, the Lord patiently waits until they reach the full measure of their sins before he punishes them; but with us he has decided to deal differently"

James 1:13---"No one experiencing temptation should say, 'I am being tempted by God'; for God is not subject to temptation to evil, and he himself tempts no one."
Sirach 15:11-12---"Say not: 'It was God's doing that I fell away'; for what he hates he does not do. Say not: 'It was he who set me astray'; for he has no need of wicked man."

James 5:2-3---"Your wealth has rotted away, your clothes have become moth-eaten, your gold and silver hav corroded, and that corrosion will be a testimony against you; it will devour your flesh like a fire."
Judith 16:17---'The Lord Almighty will requite them; in the day of judgement he will punish them: he will send fire and worms into their flesh, and they shall burn and suffer forever."

Now, of course, you may say that these don't sound like exact quotes, and you'd be right; but there are thousands of allusions in the New Testament from the Old, both Deuterocanon and not, which are not exact quotes. Romans 11:34, for example, also has an allusion to Job 15:8, but ironically the allusion to Wisdom 9:13 is closer in actual wording to it than Job is. And, of course, if you want to get into loose allusions, we could expand the above list to ten times the size it is. Then there are also the cases of outright error in some New Testament quotes, such as Matthew 27:9, in which Matthew quotes "the prophet Jeremiah", when the allusion is actually found nowhere in Jeremiah but rather in Zecheriah 11:12-13.

There is also the case of some Old Testament books not being quoted by Jesus in the New Testament: He didn't quote from Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, or the Song of Solomon. And yet they are still considered to be canonical Scripture even though He did not reference them.

From my friend Randy Carson:

New Testament References to Deuterocanonical Books

Matthew 6:14-15
14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Sirach 28:2
Forgive your neighbor's injustice; then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven.

+++

Luke 6:31
31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Tobit 4:15
Do to no one what you yourself dislike. Do not drink wine till you become drunk, nor let drunkenness accompany you on your way.

+++

Matthew 27:41-43
41 In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 42 "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.' "

Wisdom 2:15-18
15 Because his life is not like other men's, and different are his ways. 16 He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father. 17 Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. 18 For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. 19 With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him." 21 These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them, 22 And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls' reward.

+++

Luke 14:13
13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind,

Tobit 4:7
"Give alms from your possessions. Do not turn your face away from any of the poor, and God's face will not be turned away from you.

+++

John 10:22
22 Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter,

1 Maccabees 4:59
Then Judas and his brothers and the entire congregation of Israel decreed that the days of the dedication of the altar should be observed with joy and gladness on the anniversary every year for eight days, from the twenty-fifth day of the month Chislev.

+++

Romans 9:20
20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "

Wisdom 12:12
12 For who can say to you, "What have you done?" or who can oppose your decree? Or when peoples perish, who can challenge you, their maker; or who can come into your presence as vindicator of unjust men?

Romans 9:21
21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Wisdom 15:7
For truly the potter, laboriously working the soft earth, molds for our service each several article: Both the vessels that serve for clean purposes and their opposites, all alike; As to what shall be the use of each vessel of either class the worker in clay is the judge.

+++

Romans 9:22
22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

Wisdom 12:20
20 For these were enemies of your servants, doomed to death; yet, while you punished them with such solicitude and pleading, granting time and opportunity to abandon wickedness,

+++

Romans 11:34
34 "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?"

Wisdom 9:13
For what man knows God's counsel, or who can conceive what our LORD intends?

+++

2 Corinthians 9:7
7 Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Sirach 35:9
Give to the Most High as he has given to you, generously, according to your means.

+++

Hebrews 1:3
3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Wisdom 7:26
For she is the refulgence of eternal light, the spotless mirror of the power of God, the image of his goodness.

+++

Hebrews 11:35
35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection.

2 Maccabees 7:7
Do not be afraid of this executioner, but be worthy of your brothers and accept death, so that in the time of mercy I may receive you again with them."

Tradition? No way!

I love those who come along and make statements like this. As if tradition has no place in Christianity. Which is simply not true.

Here's a really good example. Jude 9: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."

Find this for me in the Old Testament.

Also, Jude 14: It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads,
15: to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

Find this for me in the Old Testament.

Remember that this is an apostle writing this and we know that this is inspired by the Holy Spirit. If what he is quoting is from God then where is it in the Old Testament?

If it's from a source other than the Old Testament, then what does the fact that the apostle quoted it into scripture tell you about that source?

Verse 9 is from The Assumption of Moses.
Verses 14 & 15 are from The Book of Enoch.

Both are traditional Jewish writings.

Tradition is bad? Better tell St. Jude.

Ask your average n-C where they can get the names of the two guys who resisted Moses in the Old Testament. St. Paul names them in 2nd Timothy 3:8. "Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith."

Just where exactly did the Jewish scholar St. Paul get those names from to include in his Holy Spirit inspired epistle? They're not named in the canonical books of the OT.

Looks to me like another apostle used Jewish traditional non-canonical sources to teach.
From another Protestant commentator, Matthew Henry:

Quote:

In one sense we must all be ever learning, that is, growing in knowledge, following on to know the Lord, pressing forward; but these were skeptics, giddy and unstable, who were forward to imbibe every new notion, under pretense of advancement in knowledge, but never came to a right understanding of the truth as it is in Jesus. 3. He foretells the certain stop that should be put to their progress (2Ti_3:8, 2Ti_3:9), comparing them to the Egyptian magicians who withstood Moses, and who are here named, Jannes and Jambres; though the names are not to be met with in the story of the Old Testament, yet they are found in some old Jewish writers.

In fact,
Just having a set list of what books are canonical for scripture is a tradition in itself.

Do Catholics Read the Bible?

How often do you read your Bible?
Daily.		238	47.50%
More than 4 times a week.		170	33.93%
Before I attend Mass.		47	9.38%
I have my own personal Bible (Specify version)		172	34.33%
I sometimes carry a Bible to church.		46	9.18%
I own several Bibles. (List please)		236	47.11%
I am a convert or revert to the Catholic Faith		139	27.74%
I am a "cradle Catholic".		151	30.14%
I am "the other" kind of Catholic		8	1.60%
I really need to read the Bible more		121	24.15%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 501.

The Posts that discuss this poll can be found at Catholic Answers Forums.

The Intercession & Communion of Saints

Have you noticed Hebrews 12:1? And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses over our head, laying aside every weight and sin which surrounds us, let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us:

Now I have never seen the "witnesses" (Fans) of any race that just sat stoically by, have you? How much more so would the saints in heaven intercede for us in our own races knowing of the eternal consequences of it?
Now if the New Testament says that we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses as we run our race for the Lord, just what do we think those folks are doing? Ever been to race? No one sits there stoically, do they?

To me this passage makes it pretty clear that the faithful departed are not only aware of what we do (This of course by the will and power of God!), but they are actively interceding for us the way that race fans do.

I find it even harder to grasp how any soul that has won through so far as heaven or purgatory (knowing the struggles and spiritual warfare that all the "church militant" endures) would not be busily interceding for those of us running our race that has such eternal consequences. That just doesn't sound like any of the faithful believers that I have ever heard of.

These witnesses can see the race.

Ever been to a race? The witnesses (generally known as fans!) do not just sit there stoically, now do they? Indeed not! They intercede (sometimes called "cheering"...) and loudly for their respective people.

How much more would the saints in heaven intercede (Oh look! Evidence for the intercession of Saints!) for those of us still running our races, especially since that race has such eternal consequences?

Here's a link to a great Bible study on the Communion of Saints. Here's the basic notes.
Well worth it.

As to the charge of necromancy:
It's not necromancy, you need to understand the Communion of Saints.

If our dead brothers and sisters are not aware of us then why does Hebrews 12:1 say that we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses in our race for the Kingdomof God?

Romans 8:38: For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
39: nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

To non-Catholics who might disagree:
So you never ask anyone else to pray for you?

When you "got saved", did anyone else pray along with and for you? By your thinking that was wrong since all you needed was to pray for yourself.

Yet what does the Word of God say? I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men: (1st Timothy 2:1)

The saints pray in Heaven:
Revelation 5:8 And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints:

Revelation 8:3 And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God. 4 And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel.

Iconoclasm: Or: Catholics Worship Graven Images NOT

View Poll Results: Allegation of Catholic Idolatry
I agree: Catholics worship Mary, the saints and statues		6	3.85%
That is completely wrong and here's why.		150	96.15%
Voters: 156.

Okay let's try this again...

Welcome!
A graven image according to the context of the 1st commandment is anything that a person would construct in order to give it the worship that is due only to God. Now, that said, it could also include anything that we choose to make more important than God in our lives, such as money, career, or power. The Catechism of the Catholic Church gets into it more here: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/comm1.html#GRAVEN so you can peruse that at your convenience.

Islam forbids the display of ANY images (It's called Iconoclasm, this forbidding) and the iconoclastic heresies that have arisen in Christianity were the result of Islamic influence in about the 800's. you can find that history here at New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07620a.htm

Read the graven image part of the first commandment here:
Exodus 20:1-5

"1 And the Lord spoke all these words: 2 I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me:"

It is clear that the prohibition is not iconoclastic as you preach, but based upon the intent of the one making and using the image. Since NO CATHOLIC EVER kneels down before any image to worship it we are not idolators at all. We are not stupid enough to confuse a mass of rock, plaster, metal, or any other created thing with the almighty and ever living God of the Universe

New Advent entry on Iconoclasm. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07620a.htm


From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

IV. "YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF A GRAVEN IMAGE . . ."



2129 The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure...."[66] It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. "He is the all," but at the same time "he is greater than all his works."[67] He is "the author of beauty."[68]

2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.[69]

2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images. 2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it."[70] The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:
Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.[71]

If the making of images is wrong as the Moslems and these misgiuded iconoclasts say then how do they account for God COMMANDING the making of images to adorn the top of the Ark of the Covenant and the brass serpent that Moses lifted up to save the Israelites that had sinned and which in fact is mentioned in the NT as a type of the lifting up of Christ for our sins? The temple of Solomon is described as having been adorned with all manner of images yet God was pleased to be present there and did not condemn them for it.

The "Boettner List": Fact or Fiction?

By: Wolseley

Anyone is free to reproduce the following material in any form, as long as the author is given full credit for the material reproduced.

"ROMANISM" REVISITED: A FACTUAL AND HISTORICAL REFUTATION OF THE THE "BOETTNER LIST"

(Copyright 2003 by Wayne A. Ariss; all rights reserved.)

In the years since the Internet became a worldwide communications tool, many types of "bulletin board" have become popular. These are a type of forum where a topic is introduced, and others may "post" replies to the topic by typing their thoughts into the bulletin board's online system, and clicking on the "reply to topic" button on their computer screen. Their reply will then appear below the previous post, often with highlighted quotations from preceding posts, and the discussion will progress, sometimes with dozens of people joining in.

Some of these bulletin boards, naturally, are Christian discussion boards, where Christians and others can discuss topics such as theology, eschatology, doctrine, current events, and so on, from various Christian perspectives. Inevitably, the old dichotomies between Catholics and Protestants will make their appearance in these discussions, and the doctrinal positions from both sides will be endlessly debated. On boards of a generic Christian nature, or on boards that are of a primarily Protestant makeup, Catholics and Catholic doctrine will often take quite a pounding from non-Catholics---but I can attest from personal experience that the major differences have little to do with what Catholics actually teach and believe, but misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and old canards which sometimes go all the way back to the 16th century.

Having spent years now discussing topics on these Internet bulletin boards, I have seen various claims and charges leveled at the Catholic Church, sometimes over and over again. One of the most common sources for this material consists of a familiar "laundry list" of charges against Catholicism, which I have seen posted literally dozens of times---either in part or in whole---usually verbatim, and tossed out as "proof" of the errors of Catholicism. Although the author of this list is not often identified, anyone familiar with the material will immediately recognize it as the work of one of the 20th century's premier anti-Catholic screedists, Loraine Boettner.

Boettner was born in Missouri in 1901, and graduated with a Master's degree in Theology from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1929. He held a variety of teaching positions around the country, and was an eminent and well-respected Reformed theologian; he died in 1990. Boettner wrote several books, including The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Studies in Theology, The Millennium, Immortality, and A Harmony of the Gospels. Unfortunately, what he seems to be the most remembered for was his 1962 book Roman Catholicism, published by the Reformed and Presbyterian Publishing Company of Philipsburg, New Jersey.

On pages 7, 8, and 9 of Roman Catholicism, Boettner included a "list" of claims against the Catholic Church---the very same "list" that is repeatedly posted, verbatim, on the Internet by those who disagree with Catholicism and who wish to point out its "errors". Subtitled "Some Roman Catholic Heresies and Inventions, and the dates of their adoption over a period of 1650 years", the grouping contains 44 items running from 300 AD to 1950 AD, with the addition of one item from 1965 in subsequent printings. Thus we have the source of the infamous "Boettner List", as it is sometimes known.

For each item, Boettner first spells out the "heresy" or "invention" he claims the Church concocted, which is then followed by the date when it supposedly appeared. My purpose in this treatise is to refute each one of the items on Boettner's list, both by correcting Boettner when he misrepresents the material in his item, and by providing primary source documents---or of materials which quote the primary source documents---that give the actual date of the practice in question, and thereby illustrating that the practices Boettner condemns actually existed in the Church much earlier than he claims. They were not "invented" at very late dates---indeed, many of them existed from the Patristic Era, or at least much earlier than Boettner would have us believe.

This is not meant to be an all-encompassing treatise, nor is it meant to be a deep scholarly endeavor. It is merely meant to highlight the wild inaccuracies in Boettner's chronology, and let the reader decide for him or herself whether a man who manages to miss the mark so many times has any credibility in other areas as well. I do not present this as a condemnation of Boettner, or of his Reformed theological works or viewpoints; I am concerned with Roman Catholicism alone, and the claims which he makes against the Catholic Church which he provides early on in the book. Whatever the merits of his other works may be, I hope to show that in Roman Catholicism, Boettner truly has little to say with any factual credibility.

I have employed a variety of sources, making heavy use of the old Catholic Encyclopedia; but not all of my sources are Catholic, and all of the works I have used contain further cites from other works in which the material may be found. It remains only for the reader to locate the references I have provided to corroborate my sources and to do his own research to prove, or attempt to disprove, my findings.

1. Prayers for the dead, began about....300 AD.

The first Scriptural mention of prayers for the dead occurs in the Deuterocanonical book of 2 Maccabees, chapter 12, verses 39 through 46, in which Judas Maccabeus and his men pray for their fallen comrades, that God may forgive the sins of the dead men. 2 Maccabees was written sometime after 124 BC [1], which makes Boettner's date more than 400 years off.

Examples of Christians offering supplication for the dead are found in grave scripts such as the Epitaph of Abercius, the Bishop of Hierapolis, written in 180 AD. On this grave marker, Abercius asks all who may read his marker to pray for him [2].

Other examples can be found in the works of the Christian apologist Tertullian, who lived approximately from 155 AD to 250 AD. In his work The Crown (211 AD), Tertullian mentions Christians offering sacrifices for the dead on the anniversary of their deaths [3], and makes a similar reference in his work Monogamy (213 AD), where he mentions widows offering prayers and sacrifices for their deceased husbands [4].

In even the very latest of these two examples, Boettner is still nearly a hundred years off.

[1] Introduction notes to the book of 2 Maccabees, New American Bible. New York: Catholic Book Publishing Company, 1969; pg 546.

[2] William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1970, pg 78.

[3] Jurgens, pg 151.

[4] Jurgens, pg 158.

2. Making the sign of the cross....300.

Again we go back to Tertullian's The Crown of 211 AD: "In all the occupations of our daily lives, we furrow our foreheads with the Sign" [5]. This makes Boettner's date 89 years off.

[5] Jurgens, pg 151.

3. Wax candles, about....320.

The extant Roman record of the execution of Cyprian of Carthage (Acta Proconsularia) indicates that his funeral included the use of candles and torches; this occurred in September of 258, more than 60 years before Boettner's date [6].

[6] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, "Candles". New York: Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1907; pg 246.

Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, "Cyprian of Carthage", pg 588.

Patrick Hamell, Handbook of Patrology. New York: Alba House, 1968; pg 75.

4. Veneration of angels and saints, and use of images....375.

The veneration (or respect) paid to angels can be found in the First Apology of Justin Martyr (148 AD). In Chapter VI, he states that "the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him...we worship and adore" [7].

Likewise, Athenagoras of Athens wrote in Chapter X of the Supplication For the Christians (c.177 AD): "Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confined to these points [the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit]; but we recognize also a multitude of angels and ministers" [8]. It will be noted in both these examples that Boettner is off by approximately 200 years.

The earliest reference to veneration of the saints can be found in The Martyrdom of Polycarp, a document dating from around 155 AD: "Christ we adore, because He is the Son of God. To the martyrs, on the other hand, we offer the love which is due to disciples and ministers of the Lord, on account of their unsurpassable devotion to their King and Lord" [9]. This again makes Boettner's date 200 years off.

Insofar as images go, both Exodus 25:18 and Numbers 21:8 mention images being constructed at God's command. Boettner apparently gets his date of 375 AD from Basil the Great, who writes in his treatise The Holy Spirit from that same year that honor paid to an image is honor paid to God Himself [10]. Basil appears to be merely offering a definition of the use of images, however, since images go as far back as the late 2nd century; archaeological discoveries have revealed paintings on the walls of Roman catacombs depicting Christ, the saints, and scenes from Scripture, which gradually developed into frescoes, then mosaics, and finally bas-relief and statues [11]. Eusebius, who lived from 263 to 340 AD, described a statue he had personally seen, depicting Christ healing the woman of Caesarea Philippi (History of the Church, VII, xviii; 300-325 AD). All of these examples place Boettner anywhere from 50 to 200 years off the mark.

[7] http://www.ccel.org/fathers/2/

[8] ibid.

[9] Maxwell Staniforth, Early Christian Writings. New York: Penguin Books, 1968; pg 131.

Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1960; pp 318-319.

[10] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers. Volume 2, pg 18.

[11] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, "Catacombs", pp 422-424.

Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, "Images", pp 665-668.

5. The Mass, as a daily celebration....394.

The Mass, in the earliest years of the Church, appears to have been celebrated on Sunday only, but it was gradually extended to a daily celebration by the time of Augustine (d.430 AD). This, however, was by no means universal, being confined to specific geographical areas until the end of the 500's AD. In some places, priests began to celebrate multiple daily Masses, until Pope Alexander II (d.1073) decreed that priests should content themselves with one or at the most two Masses, one being a requiem Mass, and then only if necessary [12]. What remains unclear is why Boettner felt this to be something sinister, to be labeled a heresy or an invention.

[12] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 2; "Bination", pp 568-569.

6. Beginning of the exaltation of Mary, the term "Mother of God" first applied to her by the Council of Ephesus....431.

The Third Ecumenical Council, held at Ephesus in 431 AD, did indeed declare that Mary was the Mother of God. However, Mary bore this title long before Ephesus; Ignatius of Antioch states in his Epistle to the Ephesians (110 AD): "For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God's plan" [13]. Irenaeus of Lyons writes in Against Heresies (180-199 AD), "The Virgin Mary...being obedient to His word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" [14]. Finally Ephraim the Syrian (d.373 AD) composed a hymn with the words "This Virgin became a Mother while preserving her virginity....and the handmaid and work of His wisdom became the Mother of God" [15]. In these three examples, Boettner is off by 321 years, 232 years, and 58 years, respectively.

[13] Jurgens, Vol. 1. pg 18.

[14] ibid., pg 101.

[15] ibid., pg 312.

7. Priests began to dress differently than laymen....500.

Boettner here is half right. In the 6th century the manner of dress between clergy and laity was different; however, it wasn't the clergy that changed and began dressing differently, it was the laity.

In the early years of the Church, clergy dressed no differently from the people around them, and indeed, priests were chastised for dressing in any manner that brought attention to themselves (letter of Pope Celestine to the bishops of Gaul, 428 AD; Council of Gangra, 340 AD). This seems to have remained the case up until the 500's AD.

By then, the Western Roman Empire had collapsed, and the influx of northern Germanic tribesmen that came into Italy had begun to mix with the native Roman population. The clergy retained the common manner of dress that Romans had always worn---the long tunic and a toga or cloak; the laypeople, however, began to quickly adopt the style of dress of the Germans, being a short tunic, breeches, and a mantle.

A local council in Portugal in 572 and another in Germany in 742 mention clerical attire, but only insofar that clerics should be seemly attired and decently covered. The first actual indication of specific clerical dress comes in 875 AD, when Pope John VIII instructs the Archbishops of York and Canterbury to make sure that their clergy was wearing specific ecclesiastical attire. Universal enactments regarding clerical attire came in 1215, 1589, 1624, and finally 1725, when Pope Benedict XIII decreed that a cleric wearing lay garments was an infraction of the most serious order [16]. Boettner is thus off by a margin of 375 years in the earliest example.

[16] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4; "Costume, Clerical". pp 419-420.

8. Extreme Unction....526.

Extreme Unction (or the Anointing of the Sick) is mentioned in the Epistle of James, 5:13-15, written sometime between 60 and 100 AD. In light of this fact, how Boettner came up with the idea that the Catholic Church "invented" it in 526 AD is a total mystery.

9. The doctrine of Purgatory, established by Gregory I....593.

The concept of sins being remitted after death is found in the Deuterocanonical book of 2 Maccabees, 12:38-46, which was probably written about 124 BC. This in itself makes Boettner more than 700 years off the mark, but the Catholic concept of Purgatory still pre-dates Boettner's claim by hundreds of years; for further examples, see #1 of this list under "Prayers for the dead".

10. Latin language, used in prayer and worship, imposed by Gregory I....600.

Latin was, of course, the language of the ruling culture in Western Europe at the time of Christianity's inception, being the Roman Empire. As early as 180 AD, the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs mentions that the Gospels and Epistles of Paul had been translated into Latin, and pagan Romans such as Arnobius dismissed such translations as being of a trivial, common, and vulgar form of Latin [17].

The de facto "official" language of the Church appears to have been Greek up until the 3rd century, when official Papal documents began appearing in Latin. This was probably due to the overwhelming majority of Christians being located in the eastern, or Greek-speaking, half of the Empire. Paul, for example, in the 16th chapter of Romans, greets more than twenty people by name, and only six of the names are Latin, the remainder being Greek. However, Latin began to slowly gain more usage, especially in the Roman provinces of Africa, and moving northward. By the 4th century, Jerome had translated the Scriptures into Latin, and the liturgy was being celebrated almost exclusively in Latin in the western parts of the Empire [18].

Although there is no exact date when Latin took precedence in the western Church, virtually all authorities agree that it was during the period from the early 3rd to late 4th centuries. That, along with the lack of evidence of a definitive decree from Gregory I stipulating the use of Latin in his liturgical reforms after 590, places Boettner in a chronological error of several hundred years.

[17] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9; "Latin, Ecclesiastical", pg 20.

[18] Peter Stravinskas, Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia; "Latin". Huntington, IN: OSV Publishing, Inc., 1991, pp 575-576.

11. Prayers directed to Mary, dead saints and angels, about....600.

The most complete ancient prayer which was addressed to Mary asked for her intercession in times of difficulty and danger; entitled Sub Tuum Praesidium, or "Under Your Protection", it dates from approximately 250 AD, making Boettner's date approximately 350 years off [19]. Besides this, Marian devotions flourished after the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, nearly 200 years before Boettner's date [20].

For prayers directed to saints and angels, see Number 4 above.

[19] Mark Miravalle, Introduction to Mary. Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Co., 1993, pg 27.

[20] ibid., pg 28.

12. Title of Pope, or universal bishop, given to Boniface III by emperor Phocas....607.

Boettner apparently wishes to give the impression that the office of Pope was invented by the Byzantine Emperor Phocas in 607, and conferred upon Boniface. The actual facts are not so simplistic.

To begin with, the title of the Bishop of Rome---Pontifex Maximus---is a term meaning "bridge-builder", which the Popes inherited from governmental functionaries of the pagan Romans. "Pope" is merely a derivation of a Latin word meaning "father"; and use of that term for various clerics is also found in both the Orthodox and Coptic churches.

Tertullian, writing in his treatise Modesty (written in 220 AD), cites a quote from "a pontiff---sovereign, of course---that is, a bishop of bishops" [21]. This places use and understanding of the term 387 years before Boettner's claim. Two other instances of the term in the definition of a patriarch are found applied to the Bishop of Carthage in 250 AD [22], and to the Bishop of Alexandria in 320 AD [23]. However, the Bishop of Rome was always held to be Head of the entire Church, (as attested to by Ignatius, Hermas, Dionysius, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and others).

Shortly before Boniface III was elected, a dispute had arisen about the way that Cyriacus, the Patriarch of Constantinople, was using the term "ecumenical patriarch"; the manner in which Cyriacus was employing the title seemed to minimize the proper office of the Pope as universal head of the Church.

Once Boniface had been elected Pope, Emperor Phocas issued a decree---aimed directly at Cyriacus---which stipulated that the See of Rome was the head see of all the churches, and that the title "Universal Bishop" belonged only to the Bishop of Rome [24]. There was imperial precedent for this action, since Emperor Justinian (527-565 AD) had issued a similar acknowledgment some eighty years before [25].

The wrangling over jurisdiction between Rome and Constantinople would continue for another 400 years, and would eventually contribute to the final East-West schism in 1054 AD; but the examples provided here more than dispose of Boettner's claim that the title of Pope was "invented" by the Byzantine Emperor in 607 AD.

[21] Jurgens, Vol. 1, pg 159.

[22] ibid., pg 227.

[23] ibid., pg 277.

[24] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 2; "Boniface III". pg 600.

J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pg 68.

[25] ibid.

13. Kissing the pope's foot, began with pope Constantine....709.

This is a practice which was absorbed from the Roman emperors; Roman court officials kissed the Emperor's foot as a sign of respect for the head of the Empire. In like manner, kissing the foot of the Pope is a sign of respect for the head of the Christian Church, not the man himself---or, as Pope Innocent III described it, it is an act of "reverence due to the Supreme Pontiff as the Vicar of Him Whose feet were kissed by the woman who was a sinner".

Boettner is incorrect to say that the practice began with Pope Constantine, since there is at least one earlier extant example of Emperor Justin kissing the foot of Pope John I (523-526 AD) some 180 years before [26].

[26] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8; "Kiss", pg 665.

14. Temporal power of the popes, conferred by Pepin, king of the Franks....750.

During the years 741 through 747, the Frankish kingdoms that had been the domain of Charles Martel were in a state of rapid change and upheaval. By 750, Pepin the Short was in a position to take charge of the kingdom and establish stability. However, having been educated by Christian monks, and being well acquainted with St. Boniface, Pepin sought advice from Pope Zacharias as to whether he should take charge of the kingdom or not.

Pope Zacharias replied that since Pepin held de facto power over the Franks, it was better, indeed, that he should take charge of the kingdom. This confirmation disposed of the last Merovingian claimant to the throne (Childeric III), and Pepin was crowned king and anointed as such (by Boniface, acting as the Pope's representative) the next year as Soissons [27].

In light of this examination of Frankish history, it can be seen that Boettner essentially has his facts reversed: Pepin didn't confer temporal power on the Pope; rather, the Pope confirmed the temporal power of Pepin.

[27] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 11; "Pepin the Short", pp 662-663.

Kelly, pg 90.

15. Worship of the cross, images and relics, authorized in....786.

Boettner appears to get this date from the 2nd Council of Nicaea, even though he is off by one year (the council actually took place in 787). The council stipulated that the Cross should receive an "adoration of honor" [28}. However, the veneration of the Cross is mentioned as far back as 380 AD, in documents such as the Peregrinatio Etheriae, making Boettner's claim 400 years off the mark [29].

Veneration of the relics of saints is mentioned much earlier than Boettner's claim; The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, written in 155 AD, mentions that the bones of Polycarp, "more precious than costly gems and finer than gold", were carefully gathered up after his execution, and put "in a suitable place" [30].

For more on veneration of images, see Number 4 above.

[28] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4; "Cross", pg 524.

[29] ibid., pg 530.

[30] Jurgens, Vol. 1, pg 31.

16. Holy water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by a priest....850.

The Apostolic Constitutions, a document dating back to the 5th century, attributes the use of holy water to the Apostle St. Matthew; likewise, two more ancient documents called the Pontifical of Serapion of Thmuis and the Testamentum Domini contain liturgical formulas for the blessing of both oil and water at Mass.

The Council of Constantinople in 691 AD makes mention of the blessing of holy water at each church at the beginning of each lunar month. In any event, Boettner is off by anywhere from 400 to 159 years, depending on the source cited [31].

[31] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 7; "Holy Water", pp 432-433.

17. Worship of St. Joseph....890.

All Catholic saints are "worshiped", of course, but only in the sense of dulia, or veneration, and not latria, the actual worship given only to God. In the case of St. Joseph, he was venerated by the Copts as early as the start of the 300's AD; and an oratory was dedicated to him in a basilica erected by St. Helena around the same general time [32]. The apocryphal work The History of Joseph was widespread in the East from the 4th to the 7th centuries, although his cult was not widespread in the West until the 15th century, when his feast was introduced into the Roman calendar in 1479 [33].

In either event, Boettner has missed the mark by a margin of approximately 600 years in both directions.

[32] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, "Joseph"; pg 505.

[33] John J. Delaney, Dictionary of Saints. New York: Doubleday, 1980, pg 330.

18. College of Cardinals established....927.

At the Council of Rome, held in 499 AD, Pope Symmachus divided the City into various parochial units, each under the control of a priest known as a cardinale. Pope John VIII published a constitution between 873 and 882 which specifically mentions these cardinal priests, or presbyteri cardinales [34]. The office gradually developed into what we now have, meaning the body of higher clerics who meet to elect the next Pontiff upon the death of the reigning Pope; the actual term collegium comes into general use after 1150 AD [35]. The College of Cardinals was never so much an establishment as it was a development; but in any case, Boettner has again erred by anywhere from 200 to 500 years in either direction.

[34] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, "Cardinal", pg 333.

[35] ibid., pg 340.

Baptism of bells, instituted by pope John XIII....965.

The phrase "baptism" of bells has been in use for hundreds of years, but it was a "pop" usage, which was never instituted by the Church. The actual practice involved the blessing of the bell and application of holy water, the same way that the Church blesses any object which is devoted to the service of God, i.e., an altar, a church, sacred vessels, vestments, vehicles, etc. In no way is the blessing of a bell (or any other object) the same thing as the Sacrament of Baptism, in which a new child of Christ is washed clean of original sin.

The blessing of bells is mentioned in documents dating at least as far back as Egbert, Archbishop of York, in the mid-700's AD; thus we see that Boettner is about 200 years off [36].

[36] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, "Bells", pp 420-421.

20. Canonization of dead saints, first by pope John XV....995.

Since veneration of Christian martyrs is mentioned by Eusebius, Augustine, Cyprian, and Cyril of Alexandria (see also Number 4 above), not to mention the religious celebration of the day of St. Polycarp's martyrdom (155 AD), the veneration of saints has been around since the earliest days of the Church. Usually the bishop of a specific diocese would promulgate the veneration of a local martyr; when this veneration was confirmed by the Pope, it then became universal [37].

The specific instance mentioned by Boettner here, however, was the canonization of St. Ulrich, the Bishop of Augsburg (890-973). Pope John XV announced the canonization---much in the same way that any local bishop might---at a synod held at the Lateran Palace on 31 January 993, and also published the same in a bull to the German and French bishops dated 3 February [38].

This is the first time that a Pope solemnly canonized a saint, so Boettner is half right; however, it is not the first instance of a saint being recognized as officially canonized, as we have seen, although this is clearly what Boettner meant to imply. The striking part is that even when Boettner is partially correct, he still can't seem to get his dates right, since he states this event took place in 995, when it was actually 993, making him two years off the mark.

[37] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, "Beatification and Canonization", pp 364-365.

[38] ibid., Vol. 8, "John XV", pg 428.

21. Fasting on Fridays and during Lent....998.

Fasting on Fridays is mentioned as far back as the Didache (140 AD) [39], thus rendering Boettner more than 800 years off the mark. As for the Lenten fast, Athanasius, writing in his Festal Letters of 331 AD, stated that the faithful should fast for 40 days during Lent [40]. This makes Boettner 667 years off the mark. Canon 69 of the Apostolic Canons, which pre-date 341 AD, admonishes bishops, clergy, and laity to fast during Lent; Canon 56 of the Trullan Synod of 692 AD contains similar regulations [41]. Here Boettner is anywhere from 657 years to 306 years off.

[39] Maxwell Staniforth (trans.), Early Christian Writings. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1968, pg 194.

[40] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, "Lent", pg 152.

[41] ibid., Vol. 5, "Fast", pg 791.

22. The Mass, developed gradually as a sacrifice, attendance made obligatory in the 11th century.

The Didache, written somewhere around 140 AD, mentions that Christians should assemble on the Lord's Day for the Eucharist, but that they should confess their sins beforehand, so that their "sacrifice may be a pure one" [42]; this sacrificial language is echoed layer by both Ignatius and Irenaeus. Thus, Boettner's "gradual development" occurred, rather precipitously, within 50 years of the death of the Apostle John, and not over a course of ten centuries as he implies.

As for obligatory attendance at Mass, the Council of Elvira in 300 AD decreed temporary excommunication as a corrective measure for anyone who missed Mass three weeks in a row [43], 700 years before Boettner's date.

[42] Staniforth, Early Christian Writings, pg 197.

[43] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 14, "Sunday", pg 335.

23. Celibacy of the priesthood, decreed by pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand)....1079.

Celibacy, of course, is mentioned as an ideal by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7, although not as a mandatory injunction. Several early Fathers, including Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, and Epiphanius appear to have viewed the practice favorably as well; but it was the local Council of Elvira in Spain (295-302 AD) where celibacy was first imposed on bishops, priests, and deacons. The practice was held as the ideal for clergy, but was adopted---or imposed---piecemeal in various locations until it was decreed Church-wide for all clergy by the 1st Lateran Council in 1123 [44]. Boettner is thus off by 700 years in the first instance and 40 years in the second.

In the case of Gregory VII, he did indeed seek to strengthen the practice of clerical celibacy, but it was in two Lenten synods in 1074 and 1075, not in 1079 as Boettner asserts [45]. The second of these synods forbade married priests from saying Mass and laypeople from attending Masses celebrated by married priests [46]. Boettner is thus still off the mark by a margin of four to five years.

[44] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, "Celibacy", pp 483-486.

[45] Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, pg 155.

[46] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, pg 486.

24. The Rosary, mechanical praying with beads, invented by Peter the Hermit....1090.

The Rosary had a long and slow development, going back to knots tied in cords and holes drilled in pieces of wood, both dating from the 300's AD. The current prayer, and system of a crucifix and 59 beads, appears to be the result of the devotion as it was practiced in the 12th century; in this state of evolution, it was popularized by St. Dominic Guzman (1170-1221) and later by Alan de Rupe, around 1470 [47].

Peter the Hermit was one of the popular promoters of the 1st Crusade. Along with Walter the Penniless, he helped organize volunteers for the Crusade in 1096, and died in 1115, but there is no body of evidence indicating that he "invented" the Rosary devotion as it is presently known [48].

[47] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, "Rosary", pp 184-186.

Matthew Bunson, Encyclopedia of Catholic History. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 1995; "Rosary", pg 733.

25. The Inquisition, instituted by the Council of Verona....1184.

Although there were both ecclesiastical and secular investigative bodies and tribunals which dealt with various heresies throughout the first 1200 years of Christian history [49], the actual first Papal Inquisition was established by Gregory IX in 1233 to investigate the Waldensian and Albigensian heresies; this was under the auspices of the Pope, as distinguished from episcopal bodies under the control of diocesan bishops [50].

Boettner is off by nearly 50 years for the establishment of the Papal Inquisition, and he is likewise inaccurate in calling the convocation at Verona in 1184 a "council"; more properly, it was a synod, and while severe measures were pronounced against the Cathari, Waldensians, and Arnoldists, the synod was a cooperative measure between Pope Lucius III and Emperor Frederick I, rather than an established Inquisition of later years [51].

[49] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, "Inquisition", pp 26-30.

[50] Stravinskas, OSV's Catholic Encyclopedia, "Inquisition", pg 512.

Kelly, Dictionary of Popes, pg 190.

[51] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, "Lucius III", pg 412.

26. Sale of Indulgences....1190.

Indulgences, or the remission (through the ministry of the Church) of temporal punishment due for forgiven sins, was bestowed upon the Apostles by Christ in John 20:23, and was thereafter mentioned by Tertullian (Ad Martyres, c.200 AD), St. Cyprian (Letter to His Clergy, 250 AD), and St. Basil (Letter to Amphilochius), 374 AD), as well as the Councils of Ancyra (314 AD), Laodicea (320 AD), Nicaea (325 AD), and Arles (320 AD) [52]. The abuse of indulgences has popped up from time to time throughout Church history, and has been condemned by the Church. The English Council of Clovesho in 747 AD sternly rebuked those who tried to hire penitents to perform austerities for them by means of proxy, with the indulgence thus gained supposedly going to the client of the penitent [53].

Boettner neglects to specify where he gets his date of 1190, which he apparently pulls out of the air at random; even later in his own book (pages 262-267) he blithely skips over this specific date. He is, however, in the general ballpark---the 12th century was about the time that indulgence "sales" gained popularity. Pope Urban II granted a plenary indulgence to all participants of the 1st Crusade (1095), and after this, "sales" came into prominence, the monies thus gained being used for such projects as building churches, roads, and bridges, care for the poor and the ill, or education of the young. William of Auvergne, the Bishop of Paris (1228-1249) justified these actions as acts of Christian charity [54].

[52] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, "Indulgences", pg 785.

[53] ibid., pg 786.

[54] H.R. Loyn, editor, The Middle Ages: A Concise Encyclopedia. London: Thames and Hudson, Ltd., 1989; pg 1

27. Transubstantiation, proclaimed by pope Innocent III....1215.

As a concept, transubstantiation can be traced back at least to Tertullian, who states "He took bread, offered it to His disciples and made it into His body by saying, 'This is My body'" (Against Marcion 212 AD); likewise Cyril of Jerusalem says "Once at Cana in Galilee by a mere nod He changed water into wine; should it now be incredible that He changes wine into blood?" (Catechetical Lectures [Mystagogic], 350 AD) [55].

As a term, transubstantiation was first used by the theologians Magister Roland about 1150, Stephen of Tournai about 1160, and Peter Comestor about 1170 [56]; this terminology was then used by the 1st Lateran Council in 1215, which is apparently where Boettner got his date from. As can be seen, however, Boettner is off by anywhere from 865 to 1003 years in the first instance, and anywhere from 45 to 65 years in the second.

[55] Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pp 381-382.

[56] ibid., pg 379.

28. Auricular confession of sins to a priest instead of to God, instituted by pope Innocent III, in Lateran Council....1215.

Cyprian of Carthage, in The Lapsed (251 AD) speaks of penitents "making confession of their crime", and of "having their conscience purged in the ceremony and at the hand of the priest" [57]. Likewise, Ambrose, in Penance (387-390 AD) writes "Christ granted [the power of penance] to the Apostles and from the Apostles it has been transmitted to the office of priests" [58]. From this, it can be seen that Innocent III certainly did not "institute" the practice of auricular confession to a priest; in fact, it existed 964 years before Boettner's claim.

[57] Jurgens, Vol. 1, pg 218.

[58] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vil. 11, "Penance", pg 620.

29. Adoration of the wafer (Host), decreed by pope Honorius III....1220.

The implication here, of course, is that Catholics worship a piece of bread. Catholics do not worship bread, they worship Jesus Christ, Whose flesh and blood the bread has beome. The fact that Christians considered the bread and wine to be transformed into the flesh and blood of Christ can be found as far back as Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote in his Epistle to the Romans (110 AD), "I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ...and for drink I desire His Blood" [59].

As for the practice of perpetual adoration of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, the first recorded instance took place in 1226, although the practice did not become widespread until the 15th century [60]. From these examples it seems that Boettner erred more than 1000 years one way and about 200 years the other way.

[59] Jurgens, Vol. 1, pg 22.

[60] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, "Adoration", pg 153.

30. Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden books by the Council of Valencia....1229.

The Index of Forbidden Books was a gradual development. The first general listing of proscribed books was under Pope Paul III in 1542. The Inquisition had an expanded list by 1559, which was intended to be world-wide, and was also the first list to bear the title "Index". The "Index Tridentinus" was issued by the Council of Trent in 1564, and in 1571, Pope Pius V established a specific Congregation of the Index, which remained in effect until 1917 [61]. Since the earliest date for the formation of the Index is 1542, it would be rather difficult to place the Bible (or any other book, for that matter) on it in 1229, which is more than 300 years before the Index existed. This is Boettner's first blunder.

The 1962 edition of Boettner's tome opines that this proscription of the Bible took place at the Council of Valencia; however, as Karl Keating points out, there has never been a Catholic church council held in Valencia, Spain---neither local, regional, nor ecumenical. This is Boettner's second blunder [62]. Keating likewise explains that even if there had been a council in Valencia, it couldn't have been held in 1229, since in 1229, Valencia was under the control of the Muslims, who were extremely unlikely to allow a Christian church council to be held in their territory; a quick check of any encyclopedia or historical atlas will bear this out [63]. This is Boettner's third blunder, and as may be seen, his chronology has completely missed the mark along with both his history and his geography.

[61] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, "Censorship of Books", pg 521.

Stravinskas, OSV's Catholic Encyclopedia, "Index of Forbidden Books", pg 507.

[62] Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988; pg 45.

[63] The Columbia-Viking Desk Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, "Valencia". New York: Viking Press, 1953; pg 1310.

Hammond Illustrated Family Atlas, Vol. 2; Map, "Europe, c.1200 AD". Glen Cove, NY: Bobley Publishing Corporation, 1969; pg H-15.

31. The Scapular, invented by Simon Stock, and English monk....1251.

Boettner finally has something right. The brown scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel is, according to pious tradition, based on a vision had by Simon Stock in Cambridge, England, on July 16, 1251. In the vision, the Virgin Mary gave Simon a scapular, with the explanation that it was a "badge of her confraternity" [64].

Scapulars have always been associated with "third orders", in which lay people affiliate themselves with one religious order or another, pledging themselves to live good Christian lives; so what Boettner found so awful about this remains a mystery.

However, Simon Stock's vision falls into the category of "private revelation", which means that even when approved by the Church, it is not a required belief of any Catholic by any means, remaining entirely the option of the individual believer. The so-called "scapular promise" given to Simon Stock is likewise nothing more than private revelation, and is certainly not a doctrine, much less a dogma, of the Church.

[64] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, "Scapular", pg 511.

32. Cup forbidden to the people at communion by Council of Constance....1414.

Instances of Holy Communion under the auspices of bread alone can be found as far back as the Council of Laodicea in the 4th century and the 2nd Council of Trullo in the 7th, both of which specified Communion under the species of bread alone during all fast days in Lent; this makes Boettner about 1000 years off in the earliest example [65]. After this, the gradual removal of the Sacred Blood from laypeople was introduced, apparently for a variety of reasons; one of them was the Church's desire to reinforce the Church's authority against heretics and the Reformers, who rejected the idea that Communion could be received under only one species. This idea they enforced on their own, apart from the authority of the Church [66]. Another reason was to prevent spillage of the Sacred Blood, and another was to abolish the practice of self-communication by means of intinction [67].

Constance did indeed impose restricting the Sacred Blood from laymen (not in 1414 as Boettner asserts, but a year later in 1415, at the 13th session of the council), but this was a reiteration of previous rulings, including the councils above, the monastic rule of Columbanus (in which the Blood was restricted from novices), and the Council of Lambeth in 1281. It was by no means a new, novel introduction [68].

[65] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, "Communion", pg 177.

[66] ibid., pg 175.

[67] ibid., pg 178.

[68] ibid., pp 177-178.

33. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma by the Council of Florence....1439.

As was mentioned in #1 and #9 of this list, the concept of Purgatory pre-dates the Catholic Church, and the doctrine has been around since the 2nd century; the assembled bishops at Florence merely defined the existing doctrine; they did not invent it.

34. The doctrine of the seven sacraments affirmed....1439.

Seven sacraments are mentioned by Peter Lombard (who died in 1164) in the fourth Book of Sentences; seven are likewise numbered by Otto of Bamberg in 1139; the Council of London in 1237; and the Council of Lyons in 1274, all of which pre-date Florence [69]. Boettner is thus off by 300 years in his claim of when the seven sacraments were affirmed.

[69] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, "Sacraments", pp 299-300.

35. The Ave Maria (part of the last half was completed 50 years later and approved by pope Sixtus V at the end of the 16th century)....1508.

If Boettner is asserting that the "Hail Mary" prayer was invented in 1508, that is nonsense, since the first part of the Hail Mary is found in Scripture; Luke 1:28 finds Gabriel saluting Mary with "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you", followed by Luke 1:42, in which Elizabeth continues, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb". The prayer remained thus until the 15th century, when the words "Jesus Christ, amen" came into common usage.

The prayer as we now know it first appears in the "Calendar of Shepherds", which was published in France in 1493; a book written by Girolamo Savonarola in 1495 also contains the entire prayer as we know it, minus the word "us" [70]. Thus, Boettner is off by 15 years for the "first half" of his chronology for the end of the prayer, and by 65 years for the "second half".

[70] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, "Hail Mary", pp 111-112.

36. Jesuit order founded by Loyola....1534.

Ignatius Loyola did indeed found the Society of Jesus in 1534, although the Society did not receive Papal approbation until 1540. Why Boettner seems to feel that the Jesuit Order (as opposed to the Benedictines, Dominicans, Passionists, Franciscans, etc., whom he never mentions) is a "heresy" or an "invention" is puzzling, especially in light of the fact that his own Calvinist denomination did not exist prior to 1536.

37. Tradition declared of equal authority with the Bible by the Council of Trent....1545.

None other than the Apostle Paul warned about the importance of Tradition, or the oral teachings of the Apostles (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 3:6); and he equated Tradition with written Scripture (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Trent re-confirmed the authority and equality of Apostolic Tradition with Scripture in the face of the Reformation, which denied the inspiration and authority of Tradition---along with every doctrine it contained which the Reformers disagreed with. The view of the early Christians, however, is borne out in texts such as these:

"What if the Apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (Irenaeus of Lyons; Against Heresies, 3,4,1; 180 AD) [71].

"The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition." (Origen; Fundamental Doctrines, 1, Preface, 2; 220 AD) [72].

"Of the dogmas and kerygmas preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force." (Basil the Great; The Holy Spirit, 27,66; 375 AD) [73].

"It is needful also to make use of Tradition; for not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture. The holy Apostles handed down some things in the Scriptures, other things in Tradition." (Epiphanius of Salamis; Against All Heresies, 61,6; 374 AD) [74].

These examples could be multiplied, but these few more than suffice to render Boettner's idea that Trent "added" Tradition to the Church's Deposit totally null; he again off by 1,365 years in the case of Irenaeus, and 1,171 years in the case of Epiphanius.

[71] Jurgens, Vol. 1, pg 91.

[72] ibid., pg 190.

[73] Jurgens, Vol. 2, pp 18-19.

[74] ibid., pg 73.

38. Apocryphal books added to the Bible by the Council of Trent....1546.

Canon 36 from the Council of Hippo (October 8, 393) lists the following Old Testament books:

"Sunt autem canonicae Scripturae: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronominum, Iesu Nave (Joshua), Iudicum (Judges), Ruth, Regnorum libri quator (1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings), Paralipomenon libri duo (1 & 2 Chronicles), Iob, Psalterium Davidicum, Salomonis libri quinque (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach), Duodecim libri prophetarum (the twelve minor prophets---Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi). Esaias, Ieremias (comprising the books of Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Baruch), Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Iudith, Hester, Hesdrae libri duo (Ezra and Nehemiah), Machabaeorum libri duo" [75].

(Bolding mine for emphasis of the disputed books.)

Likewise, Augustine in Christian Instruction (2,8,13; 397 AD), lists the following:

"The whole canon of the Scriptures...is contained in these books: the five of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; and one book of Jesus Nave (Joshua), one of Judges; one little book is called Ruth...the the four of Kingdoms (1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings); and the two of Paralipomenon (1 & 2 Chronicles)...Job and Tobias and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees; and the two of Esdras (Ezra and Nehemiah)...the Psalms of David...Proverbs, Canticle of Canticles, and Ecclesiastes...Wisdom...Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)...the individual books of the twelve (minor) prophets...Isaias, Jeremias (including both Lamentations and Baruch), Daniel, and Ezechiel. With these forty-four books the authority of the Old Testament is concluded" [76].

(Bolding mine for emphasis of the disputed books.)

Again, these examples could be multiplied by examining the texts of the Decree of Damasus (382 AD), the 3rd and 4th Councils of Carthage (397 AD and 418 AD), and the Council of Florence in 1441 AD. Since the extant texts of these documents include the seven Deuterocanonical books within their lists of canonical Scriptures, it remains a mystery as to how the Council of Trent could have added them to the Bible (1,164 years later, in the earliest example) as Boettner claims.

[75] Mario Romero, Unabridged Christianity. Goleta, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 1999; pg 16.

[76] Jurgens, Vol. 3, pg 53.

39. Creed of pope Pius IV imposed as the official creed....1560.

There are three creeds used in the Catholic Church: the Apostle's Creed, dating at least as far back as Tertullian; the Nicene Creed, formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD; and the Athanasian Creed, dating from the 4th century. The "Creed of Pius IV" however, was not a creed, but a profession of adherence to Catholic doctrine that all ecclesiastical office holders had to swear allegiance to. Contained in Pius' bull Injunctum nobis, issued November 13, 1565 (not 1560 as Boettner erroneously claims), it contained a long list of doctrines, such as belief in seven sacraments, purgatory, the sacrifice of the Mass, obedience to the Roman Pontiff, acceptance of the Holy Scriptures, and so on, that any candidate for an office in the Church had to proclaim his belief in and adherence to [77]. As such, Boettner's implication that Pius IV "invented a new creed" is baseless.

[77] Bunson, Encyclopedia of Catholic History, "Pius IV, Creed of", pp 667-668.

40. Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, proclaimed by pope Pius IX....1854.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary (meaning the doctrine that she was conceived free from stain of original sin) goes back at least to St. Ephraim of Nisbis, who wrote in 370 AD that Mary was "immune from all stain...no spot...nor any taint" could be found in her [78]. Various other Patristic Fathers also described Mary in like terms---St. Ambrose said she was "free from all stain of sin"; Severus of Antioch said she was "pure from all taint"; Sophronius of Jerusalem called her "pre-purified"; Andrew of Crete called her the "pure and Immaculate Virgin"; and Theognastes of Constantinople said she was "conceived by a sanctifying action" [79].

Pius IX officially defined this existing doctrine and declared it to be a dogma in his bull Ineffabilis Deus in 1854 [80]---but as with many things Boettner misinterprets, Pius did not invent the Immaculate Conception; it existed as a concept more than 1400 years before 1854.

[78] Mark Miravalle, Introduction to Mary. Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 1993; pg 40.

[79] ibid., pg 40.

[80] ibid., pg 41.

41. Syllabus of Errors, proclaimed by pope Pius IX, and ratified by the Vatican Council; condemned freedom of religion, conscience, speech, press, and scientific discoveries which are disapproved by the Roman Church; asserted the pope's temporal authority over all civil rulers....1864.

The Syllabus of Pius IX ignited a firestorm when it was issued in 1864---condemned by Germany's Bismarck and Italy's Victor Emmanuel, forbidden to be published in Russia and France. Many saw it as the Pope's declaration of war against the modern state [81].

However, Pius' document is merely a list of viewpoints which, insofar as Catholic teaching is concerned, are erroneous. Among them are the contention that there is no God (#1); that the existance of Jesus Christ is a myth (#7); that all religions are equally legitimate (#16); that the Church has no right to possess property (#26); that bishops may not publish letters to their congregations without the permission of the state (#28); that the state may intrude on the governance of the Church, up to and including the specification of how the sacraments may be administered (#44); that the Church has no right to establish schools; that even seminaries must be subject to the state (#46 and 47); and that the state has the right not only to appoint and depose bishops, but to prevent them from communicating with the Vatican (#49 and 51) [82].

A careful reading of the Syllabus does not reveal a condemnation of freedom of religion or conscience, but rather an assertion that Catholics have the right to freedom of religion and conscience free from interference by the secular state. There appears to be little or no mention of freedom of speech or press, outside of condemning the viewpoint that the state has the right to interfere in the communication of individual Catholics, both lay and clerical, with the Holy See. There is likewise no specific condemnation by the Pope concerning scientific discoveries, as Boettner asserts; but rather a refutation of the wholesale idea that the Church "impedes the true progress of science" (#12). Further, far from asserting the Pope's rights over temporal rulers, the Syllabus repeatedly asserts the right of the Pope to be free from the interference of the secular state in matters pertaining to the governance of the Church.

In short, Boettner created a monster of his own imagination in what he perceives the Syllabus to contain, while conveniently ignoring the stipulations upheld by Pius IX that call for the protection of not only the individual rights of Catholics, but of all Christians---the same rights which would prove to be especially important in the century which followed the issuance of the Syllabus---a century which saw the flourishing of atheism, Communism, Nazism, and secular humanism.

[81] Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 14; "Syllabus", pg 368.

42. Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council....1870.

The concept of Papal infallibility has been around for a long time. The letter of Pope Clement I to the church in Corinth in approximately 80 AD issues instructions to that church, and Clement makes it clear that he is to be obeyed [83]; likewise, Irenaeus in Against Heresies (180 AD) states that all churches must conform to the church of Rome and be in agreement with it [84]. Augustine, in Against the Pelagians (420 AD) quotes a letter from Pope Innocent I, and declares, "Rome's reply has come; the matter is closed" [85].

As a last example, Peter Chrysologus, the Archbishop of Ravenna, wrote to Eutyches in 449 AD, "We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the Most Blessed Pope of the City of Rome; for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try causes on the faith without the consent of the Bishop of the City of Rome" [86]. These examples more than suffice to show that the 1st Vatican Council merely defined the doctrine of Papal infallibility; as a concept it pre-dated the council by nearly 1800 years, and was not "invented" in 1870, despite what Boettner tries to imply.

[83] Jurgens, Vol. 1, pg 12.

[84] ibid., pg 90.

[85] ibid., Vol. 3, pg 142.

[86] ibid., pg 268.

43. Public schools condemned by pope Pius XI....1930.

Boettner is apparently referring to a document issued by the Catechetical Office of the Holy See on January 12, 1935 (not 1930, as he stipulates), entitled "Provido Sane Consilio: On Better Care for Catechetical Teaching". The document nowhere condemns public schools, but merely insists on the right of Catholic students in public schools to receive proper catchetical instruction from the Church, as a safeguard against academic instruction hostile to the Catholic Faith.

For example, #12 of the document states that "in some nations, the very right of the Church to direct the Christian education of children is called into question or even denied by reason of political policy"; #15 states that this interference is exacerbated by "the fact that ravening wolves have come into the world, not sparing the flock; likewise, pseudo-teachers given to atheism and the new paganism have made their appearance, giving expression to clever falsehoods and sheer nonsense by writings and by other means cunningly attempting to destroy the Catholic belief in God, in Jesus Christ, and in the divine work of the Church" [87].

Clearly the purpose of the Pope, as evidenced by the issuance of this instructional letter, is not the condemnation of public schools, but a concern that Catholic students, whatever their educational disposition, are allowed access to proper religious instruction under the legitimate supervision of the Church---a right that was being denied even then in countries like Nazi Germany. Boettner has not only misinterpreted the purpose of the letter, but he is also off by five years concerning the date of its issuance.

[87] http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CATTEACH.HTM.

44. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascention into heaven shortly after her death), proclaimed by pope Pius XII.....1950.

As with the cases of the Immaculate Conception and Papal infallibility, Boettner tries to give the impression that the Assumption of Mary is something that the Vatican "invented" in recent years. While the Assumption was admittedly a gradual development within the belief of the Church, the fact is that the concept pre-dates its definition by better than 1300 years.

The first explicit reference to this doctrine is from Gregory of Tours (d.593), who states in his letter Libri miraculorum that Mary's body was borne to heaven after her death; other references come from Germain of Constantinople, Andrew of Crete, and John Damascene, who mentions in his Second Homily on the Dormition of Mary (c.745 AD) that three days after Mary's death, her coffin was opened, to reveal empty grave wrappings, but no trace of her body [88]. Although all of these references date from the 8th century, liturgical feasts in honor of the Assumption began to appear in Christian churches in Syria and Egypt during the 6th century; in Gaul in the 7th century; in Rome by the 8th century; and were universally celebrated by the whole of East and West by the 13th century [89].

[88] Romero, pg 282.

[89] Miravalle, pp 52-53.

45. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church, by pope Paul VI.....1965.

This was an addendum to Boettner's original book, as the first publication date for Roman Catholicism was 1962; however, Boettner remains off in his dates, since the proclamation of Mary as Mother of the Church was issued by Pope Paul VI not in 1965, but on November 21, 1964: "Therefore, for the glory of the Blessed Virgin and our consolation, we declare most holy Mary Mother of the Church, that is of the whole Christian people" [90].

As with most of the other items in Boettner's list, the subject of Mary's title as Mother of the Church in neither anything new nor terribly controversial; the earliest reference to Mary as "Virgin Mother of the Church" can be found in a work by Berengaud of Treves (d.1125) in which he says "By the Woman (Revelation 12:1), we may understand Blessed Mary, for she is Mother of the Church for having engendered the one who is head of the Church" [91]. Rupert of Deutz (d.1135) in his Canticum Canticorum refers to Mary as the "Mother of Churches"; and Denis the Carthusian (d.1471) refers to Mary as "Mother of the whole Church" [92].

Further references to Mary under this title can be found in the writings of St. Antoninus of Florence, St. Lawrence, St. Peter Canasius, Matthias Scheeben, and St. John Bosco. As can be clearly seen, Mary was being referred to as "Mother of the Church" 840 years before Boettner's implication that Pope Paul VI "invented" the title.

[90] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition. Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference/Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997; pg 251.

[91] Leon Suprenant, Jr., "Mary, Mother of the Church". Catholics United For the Faith, http://www.cuf.org/member/motherofthechurch.pdf.

[92] ibid.

The forty-five "heresies and inventions" that Loraine Boettner lists at the beginning of Roman Catholicism did, indeed, develop over the course of Church history; but as we have seen, none of them are "heretical"; and neither were they "invented" at some point in time---and Boettner is a dismal failure at pinning down the correct dates of the development of these doctrines. As I stated at the beginning, I will leave it up to the individual reader to decide for themselves whether a man who is so grossly erroneous in the fixing of simple historical dates (leaving aside all of his other errors) can be trusted to to be correct in instructing his readers whether a Catholic doctrine is a heresy, and invention, or not.

Perhaps Karl Keating put it best in his assessment of Boettner's magnum opus: "No effort is made to give sources for his charges, and little effort is made to say what the significance of the 'inventions' might be. That task is left to innuendo. What Boettner implies is that any belief or practice not found in the pages of the New Testament in plain words must be spurious and must have been instituted for some nefarious purpose" [93].

I believe that Boettner himself had a "nefarious purpose" in creating the infamous "list" on pages 7, 8, and 9 of his book: to discredit, malign, and denigrate the Catholic Church, at all costs---even if he had to prefabricate the charges against her. The sad thing is that so many good and sincere Christians, Protestant and Catholic alike, have been taken in by his falsehoods. With God's kindness and grace, perhaps those who read this paper of mine will be helped to see that the only "inventions" to be found in Boettner's book are the ones he concocted and wrote down himself.

[93] Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, pg 47.

Someone Has Lied to You About Our Pope Pius XII

Quote:

PIUS XII AND YAD VASHEM by Sister Margherita Marchione, Ph.D. Sister Margherita Marchione is the author of several books on Pope Pius XII, the latest being Crusade of Charity: Pius XII And POW's 1939-1945. Below the portrait of Pope Pius XII in the Israeli Holocaust Memorial, Yad Vashem, there is a statement which is contrary to the truth and is unjust. It must be repudiated. I contacted the director of Yad Vashem and asked him to consider the efforts of the Pope who helped save hundreds of thousands of Jews and other victims of the Nazis. But will Yad Vashem at least correct the errors beneath his photo?

LINK

Quote:

Pius XII and the Jews RABBI DAVID G. DALIN Even before Pius XII died in 1958, the charge that his papacy had been friendly to the Nazis was circulating in Europe, a piece of standard Communist agitprop against the West. It sank for a few years under the flood of tributes, from Jews and gentiles alike, that followed the pope's death, only to bubble up again with the 1963 debut of The Deputy, a play by a left-wing German writer (and former member of the Hitler Youth) named Rolf Hochhuth. The Deputy was fictional and highly polemical, claiming that Pius XII's concern for Vatican finances left him indifferent to the destruction of European Jewry. But Hochhuth's seven-hour play nonetheless received considerable notice, sparking a controversy that lasted through the 1960s. And now, more than thirty years later, that controversy has suddenly broken out again, for reasons not immediately clear.

LINK

Quote:

JEWISH HISTORIAN PRAISES PIUS XII'S WARTIME CONDUCT Michael Tagliacozzo Works at a Center for Holocaust Studies VATICAN CITY, OCT. 25, 2000 (ZENIT.org).- The closed-door meeting of the Judeo-Christian Historical Commission, which has been meeting in Rome since Monday 23, ends today. The commission was established last October by Cardinal Edward I. Cassidy, president of the Committee for Religious Relations with Jews, to examine the 11 volumes of archives documents relating to the Holy See's activities during the Second World War. In recent years Pius XII and the Holy See have been accused of not doing enough to save Jews persecuted by the Nazis. To shed light on the Pope's role in this part of the war, ZENIT interviewed Jewish historian Michael Tagliacozzo, responsible for the Beth Lohame Haghettaot (Center of Studies on the Shoah and Resistance) in Italy. Beth Lohame Haghettaot in western Galilee in Israel is one of the world's largest museums and centers of documentation on the Holocaust. * Tagliacozzo: I know that many criticize Pope Pacelli. I have a folder on my table in Israel entitled 'Calumnies Against Pius XII,' but my judgment cannot but be positive. Pope Pacelli was the only one who intervened to impede the deportation of Jews on Oct. 16, 1943, and he did very much to hide and save thousands of us. It was no small matter that he ordered the opening of cloistered convents. Without him, many of our own would not be alive.

LINK

Quote:

A Righteous Gentile: Pope Pius XII and the Jews About The Author Rabbi David G. Dalin, a widely-published scholar of American Judaism and the history of Christian-Jewish Relations, is the author or co-author of five books, including Religion and State in the American Jewish Experience, published by the University of Notre Dame Press in 1997 and, most recently, The President of the United States and the Jews. His article, "Pius XII and the Jews," was published in the February 26, 2001 issue of the Weekly Standard, and was reprinted in the August-September issue of Inside the Vatican, published in Rome. Rabbi Dalin is a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of the journal First Things, and a member of the Board of Governors of Sacred Heart University's Center for Christian Jewish understanding. He is now writing a new book, tentatively entitled: Two Popes and the Jews: Pius XII and John Paul II. In recent years, Eugenio Pacelli, who became Pope Pius XII in 1939, has been the subject of considerable public criticism, and even vilification, for his alleged failure to speak out against Hitler during the Holocaust. Pope Pius' alleged "silence," in the face of the worst Nazi atrocities, has led some of his harshest critics to accuse him of being a Nazi sympathizer or an anti-Semite. In 1999, the British journalist John Cornwell created an international sensation with the publication of his best-selling attack on Pius XII, vilifying Eugenio Pacelli as "Hitler's Pope."

LINK

Quote:

PIUS XII AND THE JEWISH HOLOCAUST Since 1963, when Rolf Hochhuth's play THE DEPUTY indicted Pius XII for complicity in the Nazi genocide, it has been a commonplace of editorial writers that the Vatican was a silent, and therefore guilty, bystander to the murder of six million Jews. But an examination of the facts puts to rout all the charges which are made against the pope by certain parties, none of whom are serious historians. The following are the main points to consider: --Before he became Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Pacelli drafted the papal encyclical, MIT BRENNEDNDER SORGE, in which Pius XI denounced Nazi paganism and racism; the document was smuggled into Germany in March, 1937 and read from all Catholic pulpits, which infuriated the Nazis;

LINK

You want more? I got 'em! If they "misinformed" you about this, then what else have they done so on and why?
"Nazi" Pope helped Jews flee holocaust
You Be the Judge (This Rock:January 2001)
Historical Dishonesty
A Pius Legend (This Rock: November 2006)
The Framing of Pius XII
HOW PIUS XII PROTECTED JEWS (This Rock: February 1997)

Pope Benedict XVI

Early Life
Communio and Later Works
Ratzinger, the Jews and Israel
Election as Pope
Controversy
Acts As Pope
Visit to German Synagogue
Blackie

My Testimony

Hi,

I would like to offer you my own personal testimony so you can see where I’m comin’ from and WHY I returned to Catholicism.

I am a cradle Catholic and a “revert” to the faith after being gone for about 34 years. I had left the Church at about age 17 because I was on drugs and then “got saved” at a Campus Life Bible study that was run by a very cool minister. I had always gone to church but never really taken it seriously or read the Bible, even though it was in the house and other members of my family read it. The lack was not in the church (I see that now) but within me. I began to read the Bible for the first time in my life…(the epistle of St. James) and it really hit home. I have always believed in God, but I saw that that was not enough. I did alright for a couple of years, got married and we moved here to Florida, where I stayed out of establishment churches because I figured they were all messed up and did my thing as a “Jesus freak”, witnessing on the streets and handing out Christian underground papers and tracts, and “witnessing” to anyone who would listen.

Eventually I and my little family joined a Baptist church because the preacher convinced me that we believed the same things and he liked my no fear witnessing. That was fine until I admitted that I figured that the gifts of the Holy Spirit did not end with the death of the last apostle. That ended my path to being a Baptist minister so we joined a local Assembly of God where we stayed for many years in spite of some really unscriptural and uncharitable things they did. I became a deacon there, but finally we left after they pulled some really lame stuff and blew me off when I pointed out that what they were doing was unscriptural. My letter telling them why we were leaving was 10 pages long.

I intended to find another church, but we never did and so we remained out of any church for many years.

About 7 years ago I hit a real crisis and decided to turn back to the Lord. I found that Jesus meant every word of the parable of the prodigal son. I began to read the Bible again and got a New American Bible which is about like the NIV except this one has all the books (which I liked even though at the time I was still a Protestant). This particular edition was fairly big, with a bright green paperback cover that said “The Catholic Bible” in big orange letters. I went diddy-bopping into a meeting one day with that in hand and wasn’t in there a hot minute when some guy jumped my case.

“Are you Catholic?’ he asked me. “Well…yeah”, says I, (since technically I was). “You Catholics worship Mary.” “Say what?” I responded. “You Catholics worship Mary. You pray to her.” “Look, I know I been outta the church for a long time, and we do pray to her but we DON'T worship her and no Catholic that knows his ear from his elbow would ever even SAY such a crazy thing. We worship God alone. End of story, Dude.”

He persisted so severely that I finally told him that I’d get some books, check it out and get back to him with what I found out, and that if he was right then I would never enter a Catholic Church ever again.

I found a great book by a priest named Father Oscar Lukefahr of Catholic Home Study Service (The Catholic Home Study Service ) and read it carefully and prayerfully. I was happy to find that not only were the Catholics right and that they do not worship anyone but Almighty God, but that their doctrines about Mary are soundly based upon the Bible and that the early Christians believed the very same things. Even the three pillars of the Reformation ( Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli) believed the same things about Mary that Catholics do today. In the end I went back to church and met another Catholic guy, who like myself was returning to the faith as well. We studied and talked and found ourselves having to dig up real answers for people we knew who didn’t like the Catholic Church.

I continued to study Catholic teaching and discovered that a great deal of what I had been taught about the Bible and Christianity was wrong. I found that non-Catholics ignore and “read around” Bible passages that support Catholic teaching and that they completely ignore the history of Christianity prior to the 1500s. Now I know what I believe and why and I will never change, though I promise every non-Catholic that I dialog with that if they can prove that the Catholics are wrong that I’ll be in their church with them every Sunday from now on. No one even comes close…

Now I participate at Mass as often as I can, pray the Rosary and the Divine Mercy Chaplet almost every day, abstain from meat on most Fridays (just out of devotion to God), and of course read and study my Bible, as well as other Catholic writings. I am Catholic because I know and believe with all my heart and soul that the Catholic Church IS the New Testament church and I believe that the Eucharist is everything that the church teaches it is, the same as the early church did…all the way back to the last supper and the 6th chapter of the Gospel of St. John. I believe it’s really the body and blood of our risen Lord because St. Paul said that if you take communion while living in sin that you become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and that wouldn’t be possible if His body and blood weren’t really present in the form of bread and wine…just like the last supper. It is the most powerful miracle in all of Christianity, and I love it.

My Christian life is stronger than ever before, my prayer life is powerful, and I have great answers to my prayers like never before. I have always been a soul winner and that has not changed at all. God has used me to win some people that I sure couldn’t have won on my own. Some were very anti-Catholic and now are very MUCH Catholic and very happy and forthright about their faith. It’s really very humbling…I feel like a raggedy (unworthy) Styrofoam cup at a feast, filled with the very finest wine.

So… God Love ya, That’s it. I’m nothing special. There are thousands of people like me who are returning to the faith each week and many more who are finding their way into it as well. It’s been here for over 2,000 years…it won’t die off or go away, and the very gates of hell have not prevailed (and will not prevail) against it. Jesus promised and He has kept that promise in spite of the human failings of individual members of His one true church.

This is the real thing. The fullness of truth, and the most beautiful Christianity you can possibly imagine. Nothing outside the Catholic Church even comes close. I cry tears of humble joy during the consecration at Mass because I am so wrapped up in worship of my risen Lord and Savior. I don’t care who notices or what they might think. I’m more concerned with making sure that Jesus hears me when I say, “My Lord and my God.”

Someone asked me recently, “How did you realize the RCC was the true church?” My answer is what follows:

Study man study. I challenged everything I heard about the Catholic faith and all that turned out to be rubbish. I went looking into Catholic teaching to see if what I was hearing was true and found it all to be untrue and not only that but I found that there is more than ample reason to follow the Catholic faith than any of the other churches.

I didn't go out to prove or disprove anything, I just went in search of the facts and the facts led me to realize that the Catholic faith is the original, New Testament, "full Gospel" church that Christ founded. Every other church has a man as it's founder, no matter what they may claim, and every single one of them has at least one doctrinal divergence from what the New Testament teaches as well as what the early church believed and practiced.

I feel that I was misled and deceived by well intentioned people with Bibles.

I was one of the most no fear "witnesses" you could ever encounter. I was never rude, but I ain't scared of the devil himself nor any of his minions.

Now I apply all those "witnessing" skills and the other gifts that God has blessed me with to share my Catholic faith with anyone who will listen, and to counter the propaganda of anti-Catholics who seek to deceive my Catholic brothers and sisters into leaving the faith for their "Christianity Lite".

If you've debated or discussed with me for any length of time around here you already know that I won't insult you, but I'll rip rhetoric and propaganda apart without mercy.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

Blackie

The Rapture?

Quote:

Do Catholics believe in "the rapture"?

"Rapture" is often known as an "Ecstasy" in Catholic discussion and refers to visions and such that some very holy saints have experienced. I think one example would be St. Padre Pio and another would be St. Francis of Assisi.

However, if you mean the second coming teaching that a great many (not all) n-Cs believe and the "Left Behind" series of books and movies propagates as fact...no we do not.

That whole teaching has only been around from around 1825 and was concocted by a Church of Ireland preacher named John Nelson Darby. It wasn't even held by many n-Cs until it was included in the notes of C. I. Scofield's reference Bible.

Quote:

The Scofield Reference Bible is a widely circulated annotated study Bible edited and annotated by the American Bible student Cyrus I. Scofield. Published by Oxford University Press and containing the traditional King James Version text, it first appeared in 1909 and was revised by the author in 1917. (From Wikipedia)

Prior to that the teaching was virtually unknown and the only supposedly Catholic to even talk about it was a known heretic from about the 3rd or 4th century (I think).

One of the very best Bible studies on this is offered on a FREE MP3 download from John Martignoni called The Rapture and the Bible and his study notes are here.
It is very much worth your time. If someone is trying to tell you you should believe this, then you might want to download that and then burn them a CD and give it to them. Be sure to listen to it yourself first of course...

Simple answer: No, Catholics do not believe in the rapture because (in spite of all the hype to the contrary) it is not actually taught in the Bible, and it was never believed by the early church...or the rest of the church during it's 2,000 year history.

That would make it a new wind of doctrine and a teaching of men.
Neither is something that Christians are supposed to get into.

A Favorite Quote

“Few people in America hate the Catholic religion,
but there are many who hate
what they mistakenly believe is the Catholic religion
—and if what they hate really were the Catholic religion,
Catholics would hate it too.”
Bishop Fulton Sheen

Reasons Why I Believe in The Blessed Virgin Mary's Assumption

Do you believe in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary? Poll Results:
Yes: The Church teaches it, and it makes sense		243	92.75%
No, No way, if it's not spelled out in the bible then...		9	3.44%
Not sure: Let's talk about this.		10	3.82%

To me, the Assumption is easy to believe in. If you check the OT you see that it happened back then too. Enoch, Moses, and Elijah were all taken up by God because of who they were in His plan and their faithfulness to Him and though the NT gives us nothing to go on on this event, there are non-canonical early church writings that do suggest that our Lord took the Blessed Virgin as well. This makes perfect sense to me for several reasons.

1. Mary was Jesus mother and He surely loves her just as any of us love our own and would do everything He can to display that love.

2. Jesus would no doubt protect his mother from the terrible persecutions that followed. You will notice that there is no record of Mary's death or where she went after the day of Pentecost, though we do know that she went home to live with St. John after Our Lord's death right? We know that St. John was the last of the apostles to die and that at one point he was miraculously saved by God when being boiled in oil for his faith...yet he never mentions Mary in his letters but there's just no way that he wouldn't have known her fate...that just doesn't make any sense.

I think that the NT is so silent about the Blessed Virgin because they all agreed to protect her. Can you imagine the PR blitz that would've occurred if the Jews or Romans could have found and tortured and killed the mother of this Jesus? Whew!

3. Since God did some really amazing things with the early church, like snatching St. Stephen away to Azotus after he baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts, it seems logical to me that God did some amazing things for the woman who said yes to bearing His only Son. My friends, Mary is probably the 2nd most unique soul in all of history, behind Jesus Himself. No one else was ever called "Full of grace" like that, and I believe that that "fullness of grace" meant she was way more than what a lot of folks think she was. No...she's not God! But I think she had to be about THE holiest person imaginable. Can ya imagine living every day of your life with the real live son of the living God as your kid? WOW! Now THAT's "walkin' with Jesus!" :D

So...the Assumption is really pretty easy for me and that is why.

(I cite no scripture because the pertinent passages should be fairly easy for anyone to find if interested.)

There are extrabiblical and non-canonical , but traditional sources about this belief.
Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about it all:

THE FACT OF THE ASSUMPTION

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.

Link

History is not all in the Bible...not even close. Nor is mathematics, science, or all literature! No; God might not let us know in the canon... but there is a great deal of stuff that He didn't see fit to include in the canon. Is there a miraculous principle of God doing things like this? Of course there is! The Holy Spirit snatched Philip away to Azotus after he baptized the eunuch...is that the only time that happened? No one can say...not even preachers and teachers. Are there stories of such things happening after the NT was closed? Yep. Lots of them...or does your particular version of Christianity disbelieve in miracles? If so I'd say that is really a shame.

I think that the whole fallacy of what you try to tell us is summed up in the closing line of the statement:

Quote:

Always go back to the Bible for your answers.

That is a drastic oversimplification of Christianity and it simply defies all God-given good sense and logic since history tells us a very great many things about what the early church believed and why things developed the way they did.

I have a problem with those who always say that Mary could not have been assumed into heaven when there are so many things that God has done in the NT (Acts in particular) that are precedent setting. There are a lot of things that God has done that are beyond my simple comprehension, yet that does not make me doubt the things that He did for her. I mean if people are willing to believe in tongues and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit, then why not this as well? The fact that God has assumed OT faithful such as Moses & Elijah makes me wonder why He wouldn't do the same for someone as holy and special as His own grace filled mother. That just seems like a serious case of doubt to me.

A non Catholic friend said:

Quote:

I've been thinking about this, & doing a little research (& a lot of toiling with my brain!!) I finally came up with what I had been trying to remember. In Matthew 16:28, Jesus says:"There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom"(KJV)...OK, this is explained away by a lot of people, but this--plus the reference in Revelation--It seems to me that He is saying that there is somebody--a real actual human person-- that is known to/in the company of the apostles, who is not going to die, but be taken to Heaven without dying. And, as someone has all ready pointed out, the person with the empty tomb--in fact, the missing tomb--is Mary. So combine that with the fact that this is not something that just occurred to someone one morning--It has been believed throughout history, I find that it is a pretty sure thing that, yes, Mary was assumed into Heaven. Besides, why not??

That just blew me away! That is entirely possible, and as with so many things that I have discovered from the Scriptures it makes serious sense. I can think of quite a few reasons for Mary's assumption...and very few counters. It really doesn't hurt us either way though.

The fact that there are extra canonical sources that tell these things makes it all the more clear. There is ample precedent in scripture and when a thinking person considers all this one can see that it follows logic and the sense of the Word of God. It therefore does not surprise me that the Church proclaims it infallibly.

God is perfect and His works are the source of all wisdom and truth, therefore they are also logical. If there is error...it will be in our capacity to understand, not His works or will.

My contention is that this is still within the character that God has revealed to us in His word and the Assumption is not inconsistent with that nature since God did the same thing with OT people who were not His mother.

Here's the link to Munificentissimus Deus so everyone can read it for themselves.
MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS Since you bring up this document, I decided to have a look at it for myself, and found this:

"21. Thus St. John Damascene, an outstanding herald of this traditional truth, spoke out with powerful eloquence when he compared the bodily Assumption of the loving Mother of God with her other prerogatives and privileges. "It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped in the act of giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father. It was fitting that God's Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God."[17]

22. These words of St. John Damascene agree perfectly with what others have taught on this same subject. Statements no less clear and accurate are to be found in sermons delivered by Fathers of an earlier time or of the same period, particularly on the occasion of this feast. And so, to cite some other examples, St. Germanus of Constantinople considered the fact that the body of Mary, the virgin Mother of God, was incorrupt and had been taken up into heaven to be in keeping, not only with her divine motherhood, but also with the special holiness of her virginal body. "You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life."[18] And another very ancient writer asserts: "As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him."[19]"

Baptism~ Necessary or Not?

Many things that n-C churches tell me are not "core" beliefs I find to be Biblically stated otherwise.

Baptism just for an example. Many of the modern post-reformation step children have relegated this to some sort peripheral nicety that we "should" do but it's not necessary for one's salvation. Yet I find an awful lot of New Testament scripture that indicates otherwise.

Examples:

Matthew 28:19: 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,
20: teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Mark 16:15: And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
16: He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned

Acts 2:38: And 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 shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39: For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."
40: And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation."
41: So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Romans 6:3: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4: We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5: For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

1st Peter 3:21: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

There are others, but I just want to get a scriptural basis for this discussion laid.

Being Catholic I offer statements from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

Quote:

537 Through Baptism the Christian is sacramentally assimilated to Jesus, who in his own baptism anticipates his death and resurrection. The Christian must enter into this mystery of humble self-abasement and repentance, go down into the water with Jesus in order to rise with him, be reborn of water and the Spirit so as to become the Father's beloved son in the Son and "walk in newness of life":

Quote:

Let us be buried with Christ by Baptism to rise with him; let us go down with him to be raised with him; and let us rise with him to be glorified with him. Everything that happened to Christ lets us know that, after the bath of water, the Holy Spirit swoops down upon us from high heaven and that, adopted by the Father's voice, we become sons of God.

And,

Quote:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Is Baptism a "core teaching" and neccesary for salvation?

Quote:

Matthew 28:19: 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, 20: teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Why would Our Lord command us to make disciples and baptize them and teach them to observe he commanded us if it wasn't necessary?

Quote:

Mark 16:15: And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 16: He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned

He who believes and is baptized...

Quote:

Acts 2:38: And 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 shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39: For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." 40: And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." 41: So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Verse 38 plainly says that they must repent "and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins". Verse 39 then extends it to all future believers. Verse 41 shows that the crowd responded in obedience, so apparently they took that baptism very seriously...as required. The apostles certainly did.

Remember also,

Quote:

Acts 22:16: And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

Quote:

Romans 6:3: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4: We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5: For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

This in no way indicates a symbolism, but is an expression of a spiritual reality. Whatever happened to "God says it, I believe it, That settles it"?

Quote:

Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Why include it here among the essentials of salvation?

Quote:

1st Peter 3:21: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Peter, the speaker in the Acts 2 passage above, outright says that baptism saves you...

If one takes the Bible literally I have to continue to wonder how this sacrament can be so marginalized.
Blackie

Well, Now It's On!

There are those who feel that the Catholic Church is somehow wrong in its teachings.

This Blog is here to store my various refutations of their propaganda.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with the Catholic Church, but as John Martignoni says, "Disagree with what we really believe."
Blackie

My Catholic Tract

Thank You…

Thank you so much for your concern for my soul. I deeply appreciate it, however with all due respect and all charity, the fact is that in spite of your misunderstanding, we Catholics are Christians, and part of the same Christianity that the early Apostles practiced. Our faith is the same one that began with Our Lord Jesus Christ and has endured for 2,000 years.

We Catholics believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God; that God is a Trinity that consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that we are saved by a personal relationship with the risen Lord Jesus Christ. We are “born again” and we do our best to live out that relationship by producing fruit worthy of repentance. None of us are perfect; we’re still all too human , but we confess our sins to God in obedience to the scriptures and make a moment-by-moment effort to be the best Christians that we can.

There are differences between us…They are the result of a division that occurred about 500 years ago called the Reformation. Prior to that we were all Catholics, a name which is Greek for universal and was used for all Christian churches and can be verified by the letter of Ignatius, the Bishop of the church of Antioch that he wrote to the church at Smyrna in about 107 AD. (Remember Antioch, the church in Acts 11:26 where we were first called Christians to begin with?) This name stuck in order to differentiate between the church of Christ and other heretical groups such as the Gnostics.

The difference between us is simple and fundamental. The core of the differences are the Protestant doctrines called “Sola Scriptura” (meaning Scripture Alone) and “Sola Fide” (Faith Alone). The first has to do with the verifiable fact that the early Christians relied on verbal tradition until the 4th century when the Council of Carthage settled the matter of the canon of the Bible with the 73 books that consist of the 46 books of the Alexandrian text of the Old Testament (also known as the Septuagint,) which was in Greek (not Hebrew) and the 27 books of the New Testament. As a result, the Apostles encouraged the early church to hold fast to the traditions that had been taught to them either by word or letter. Keep in mind that the last verse of Saint John’s Gospel says that not all that Jesus said and did is written down and that the entire world could not contain all the books if they were. Sacred Tradition helps us properly interpret the Word of God. It is not the “traditions of men” that Jesus condemned, since it in no way sets aside the laws of God, but along with the Bible confirms what they mean and helps to guide us into right doctrine.

2nd Thessalonians 2 :14 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”

2nd Thessalonians 3 :6 “And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.”

The other is the doctrine that we are saved by “faith alone” and that our works have no merit before God. The fact is that a breakaway priest named Martin Luther developed both doctrines on his own authority, ignoring the fact that no one in the 1500 years of Christian history had believed any such things. In fact Luther had the audacity to add the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 in his German translation of the Bible so that it said that we are saved by faith alone, knowing full well that the Greek text does not say that at all. In fact, the only place where the words “faith” and “alone” are used together is in James 2:24 where it says, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” He also removed 7 books from the canon of the Old Testament and 4 from the New, including Jude, 2nd Peter, James, and Revelation. Most of the confusion between Catholics and other Christian churches is “trickle-down effect” of these doctrines.

This is just a brief overview, but rest assured that if you are willing to do some research into authentic Catholic writings like the Catechism of the Catholic Church you will find that there are very good reasons for what we believe and practice. You can also check out authentic Catholic teachings online at Catholic.com and Vatican.va (The official Vatican Website!). For the truth about the Catholic faith, ask us, we have nothing that we want to hide. We do not attempt to proselytize people though we will readily dialog with anyone and try to answer any questions they may have concerning Catholicism. Our focus is on insuring that everyone hears the Gospel. The rest is up to the Holy Spirit.

The harvest is indeed plentiful, so let’s be about Our Father’s business.

"I Find No Sacraments In the Bible" he said.

Quote:

I've read through the bible many times, and find no sacraments.

That's kinda odd since I have read it through many times myself and I find the following Sacraments in the following passages.

Baptism: John 3:3,5, & 22-23, 2nd Kings 5:14, Ezekiel 36:25, Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 16:15 & 33, 22:16, )Ananias tells Paul, "arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins," even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul's acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required.). Romans 6:3, 1st Corinthians 1:16, 6:11, and 15:29

Reconciliation (Confession):Leviticus. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 (even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others.). Matthew 3:6,18:18, 9:6 & 8, Mark 2:7, John 20:21-23, Acts 19:18, 2nd Corinthians 5:18-19, James 5:16, 1st John 1:9-10.

The Eucharist: Foreshadowed extensively! John 6:31-70, Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:17-20, Luke 24:30-35, 1st Corinthians 10:16-17, 1st Corinthians 11:23-30.

Confirmation: Acts 8:15-18, 19:5-6, Hebrews 6:2,

Matrimony: Genesis 2:20-24, Matthew 19:5-6, Mark 10:8, Ephesians 5:22-32, Hebrews 13:4

Holy Orders: Genesis 14:18, Exodus 19:22, Psalm 110:4, Malachi 2:7, John 20:21, Acts 9:17, 13:3, 14:23, 20:28, Ephesisns 4:11, 1st THessalonians 5:12, 1st Timothy 4:14, 1st Timothy 1:6, Titus 1:5, Hebrews 5:1 & 7:17.

The Sacrament of the Sick: Matthew 10:8, Mark 6:13 & 18, James 5:14-16.

I don't know why you didn't see it when it's been in the Word of God and believed by the church for 2,000 years.

Biblical and Jewish Traditional Beliefs About Purgatory

Thanks to StillSmallVoice and Yaacov for their help with this.

There is ample evidence that the Bible implicitly teaches a Purgatory.

Begin with Matthew 12:32, which says, "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." Does this not imply that some sins can be forgiven in the age to come? Now think this through...There is no sin to forgive in heaven, right? Sin is not forgiven in hell because it's too late and permanent. So...Implicit "purgatory"

1st Corinthians 3:15 which says, "If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." Again this cannot refer to heaven or hell for the same reasons as above. This is essentially the definition of Purgatory.

1st Peter 3:18-20 which says, "Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, 19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: 20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water."

and 1st Peter 4:6 which says, "For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to the dead: that they might be judged indeed according to men, in the flesh; but may live according to God, in the Spirit" Note that it was a prison for disobedient spirits and yet they were saved when Jesus preached to them.

Where is that prison? We are not told in scripture, yet this does indeed indicate that there are other "places" besides just Heaven and Hell, does it not? Believing that there is only Heaven and Hell is in fact, not scriptural.

2nd Maccabees 12:44-46 which says, "44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) 45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. 46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. "
The same reasons apply here as to the first passages I gave you...

Note also that St. Paul says that the early church believed this in 1st Corinthians 15:29 which says, "Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? why are they then baptized for them? " He does not condemn this practice though it seems to have fallen out of practice...

The Jews also believe this and still do today (as if the passage from 2nd Maccabees doesn't clearly show this). I offer info from my good friend Stillsmallvoice who is an Orthodox Jew who lives in Israel:

Quote:

"Hi all! Our prayer, the Mourner's Kaddish, is for the benefit of the soul of the deceased & is believed to ease the spiritual status of the deceased's soul as it goes through whatever trials & tribulations it may be subject to. Yes, we do believe in something akin to the Roman Catholic notion of Purgatory & thus saying the Mourner's Kaddish would be similar to the Roman Catholic idea of praying for the souls in Purgatory. Look at http://www.ou.org/yerushalayim/kadish.htm#Meaning . The text there is the (5 clause) Mourner’s Kaddish in Hebrew, transliterated English & English (you can also listen to it in RealAudio). As I understand it, a soul that has sinned in this world has to pay for its actions/inactions in the next world. We do not automatically & necessarily divide souls into the entirely righteous who will therefore enjoy enternal bliss and the entirely evil who will therefore suffer eternal damnation. The degrees in between are infinite & we believe that God rewards/punishes each soul according to its good/not good actions. As I said, the recitation of the Kaddish prayer is believed to benefit the soul of the deceased as it goes through whatever trials and tribulations it has to endure in the next world. In addition to the aforementioned Kaddish prayer (which is usually said by a son for a departed parent for 11 months after the day of burial, but which can also be said for 30 days for a spouse, child or sibling, particularly if none of these have children to say the Kaddish; the Kaddish is also recited on the anniversary of the burial), there are the Yizkor (literally: "He will remember") and E-l Maleh Rahamim (literally: "God Full of Mercy") prayers (see http://www.ou.org/yerushalayim/yizkor/) which are recited 4 times a year on Yom Kippur, the last day of Passover, Shavuot and Shemini Atzeret (see http://www.jewfaq.org/toc.htm for links to all of these holydays). I submit the following excerpt (from http://www.jewfaq.org/death.htm): In addition to the Kaddish. it is believed that the recitation of the Yizkor and E-l Maleh Rahamim prayers are beneficial to the soul of the departed. On the anniversary of the burial, it is common to study some chapter of the Talmud or the Tanakh (what we call what Christians call the "Old Testament"), read a selection of Psalms, give to charity, etc. in honor/memory of the departed. This is also believed to be beneficial."

I had already discovered this in talking to a devout Orthodox Jewish buddy of mine and Stillsmallvoice was kind enough to help out with all this info as well.

In spite of allegations to the contrary, the concept of Purgatory is indeed quite scriptural.
Blackie

Priestly celibacy is unBiblical. NOT!

This was in response to something that a guy posted over at Catholic Answers Forums.

How do you figure unBiblical?
Matthew 19:10-12
"10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. "

Ist Corinthians 7:6-9
"6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt."

Revelation 14:1-5

1: Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads.
2: And I heard a voice from heaven like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder; the voice I heard was like the sound of harpers playing on their harps,
3: and they sing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been redeemed from the earth.
4: It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste; it is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these have been redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb,
5: and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are spotless.

...And just what's unhistorical about obeying the very words of Christ and the apostle Paul, from the very Bible that YOU say is the sole source of all we are supposed to believe. You don't know what you're talking about...

Now to your so called evidence:

I will display each of these passages and deal with them in turn...

1st Corinthians 9:5 "5 Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"

Paul certainly had the right...but he, in obedience to the very words of Christ chose not to. We know that he was unmarried and this just simply points up the fact that at least one apostle (that we know of for sure) chose and lived a celibate life. This really cuts both ways, but does not help your case anymore than it helps mine. I feel that it shows a case FOR celibacy as much as it shows that some of the apostles and early Bishops were married... this certainly DOES support my case that there are valid scriptural reasons for celibate clergy regardless of the change that the deformers brought about in the 1500's because some of them couldn't hack it... This only means that one should be very sure of his calling before making such a vow.

1st Timothy 3:2-12(dropped verse 1 as self evident)
"2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, 3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. 5 But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

6 Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8 Deacons in like manner chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre: 9 Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime.

11 The women in like manner chaste, (Nuns?) not slanderers, but sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children, and their own houses."

So what we see here is that St. Paul says that those who seek the office of bishop must be squared away in many things. This shows the sanctity of marriage and the importance of a good report with the non-believers...this still does NOT negate Christ's own call to celibacy in the passages I gave you earlier...Nor St.Paul's own statement to that effect that I also cited.

If Jesus and Paul BOTH hadn't made these statements, then we'd have nothing to discuss...but your flat refusal to even acknowledge that my cited passages exist and that they are indeed scriptural mandates and guidelines (at least) is just "cherry picking". I have no questions about marriage and that some of the apostles were married...we have some married priests today and that is fine...

Titus 1:6 "6 If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly"
Same as above...

1st Timothy 4:1-3 "1 Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, 3 Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

I would just answer with this note that is in my Bible that covers what I was gonna say better than I could have.

3 "Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats"... He speaks of the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Eneratites, the Manicheans, and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage, and the use of all kind of meat; because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle. Whereas the church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament; and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever in proper times and seasons; though she does not judge all kind of diet proper for days of fasting and penance."

So, the admonition about heretics that forbid to marry is directed at the heretics of that day they really have nothing to do with those who willingly take a vow of celibacy for the sake of their service of God.

My only point gentlemen, is that it is not (as alleged) "unBiblical" as I hope is apparent from my posts.
Blackie

The Eucharist IS Scriptural

I offer as evidence the following passages of Scripture:

John 6:31-70

"31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. 34 They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. 35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.

36 But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out. 38 Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day. 40 And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day.

41 The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. 67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. 68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? 69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 70 And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. "

Matthew 26:26-28

"26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. 27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. "

Mark 14:22-24

"22 And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. 23 And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many."

Luke 22:17-20

"17 And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and said: Take, and divide it among you: 18 For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come. 19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. 20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you."

Luke 24:30-35

"30 And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them.

31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him: and he vanished out of their sight. 32 And they said one to the other: Was not our heart burning within us, whilst he spoke in this way, and opened to us the scriptures? 33 And rising up, the same hour, they went back to Jerusalem: and they found the eleven gathered together, and those that were staying with them, 34 Saying: The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
35 And they told what things were done in the way; and how they knew him in the breaking of the bread. "

1st Corinthians 10:16-17

"16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread."

1st Corinthians 11:23-30

"23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. "

If there is no real presence in the Eucharist, then how can St.Paul warn us not to take it unworthily lest we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? That "spiritualization" makes complete nonsense not only of the 6th chapter of John, but of 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 "16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread."

Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE? Now if I make a symbol of a person and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol. I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the person, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question...of course not! Why? BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he?
There is the the whole case for why the Eucharist really is the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ...body and blood, soul and divinity.

Catholics! You have the greatest miracle of all at every Mass that you participate in. BE THERE!
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

In addition to these passages of the New Testament I would also like to add this very clear quote from St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a close friend and disciple of St. John the evangelist , the bishop of Antioch and a martyr for the faith.

CHAP. VII.--LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
LINK
Blackie