Postscripts From The Catholic Spitfire Grill

(Internet search brought you here? This post can be read on my new blog which conveniently does not randomly cut off the right hand side of the text.)

Today’s gospel reading for the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul reminded me of this entry and I thought I would re-post it. I just love it when suddenly a scripture passage comes alive for me and this is one that really has since I became Catholic.
Quote:

(Internet search brought you here? This post can be read at my new blog here and the good news is that my new blog does not randomly cut off the right side of the text.)

Join me in praying the Chaplet of Unity for healing in Our Lord’s Church?

Using the Rosary, Recite on the large bead before each of the five decades:

L: God our Heavenly Father, through Your Son Jesus, our Victim-High Priest, True Prophet, and Sovereign King,

R: Pour forth the power of Your Holy Spirit upon us and open our hearts. In your Great Mercy, through the Motherly Mediation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, our Queen, forgive our sinfulness, heal our brokenness, and renew our hearts in the faith, and peace, and love, and joy of Your Kingdom, that we may be one in You.

Recite on the ten small beads of each of the five decades:

L: In Your Great Mercy,

R: Forgive our sinfulness, heal our brokenness, and renew our hearts that we may be one in You.

Conclude in unison:

Hear, O Israel! The Lord Our God is One God!

Oh Jesus, King of All Nations, may Your reign be recognized on Earth!

Mary, Our Mother and Mediatrix of All Grace, pray and intercede for us your children!

Saint Micheal, great prince and guardian of your people, come with the holy angels and saints and protect us!

Well Eastern Orthodox Christians for starters.

No. They are not. They don’t even pretend that they are in communing with Jesus in the same way and most Protestants I know go out of their way to say that the communion is only symbolic. In Catholic theology the Sacrament of Holy Communion is intimately connected with the Catholic Church’s teaching on marriage. It is not at all hyperbole to draw the parallel between the intimate communion enabled by the Real Presence of Jesus in Holy Communion and the act of marital intimacy. Many of the Church’s teaching regarding marriage, including the RCC’s rather unpopular and persistent notion that marital intimacy must be a total self-giving, life-giving embrace….ie….no artificial contraception. It’s also why Catholics are prohibited from receiving communion outside of the Catholic Church and why we do not knowingly allow those who are not IN communion with the Catholic Church to receive Holy Communion. Spiritual adultery anyone? Yes. It’s that serious.

OK. Seriously. After reading quite a bit on this board (www.revivalschool.com) you SERIOUSLY want to argue that you are unified with Catholics? That we are unified with the same Head? Merciful heaven! I am probably already on y’alls prayer lists for getting me “saved.” You don’t get it both ways. Either the Catholic Church is right in which case you are definitely not in communion and you need to be checking out your local RCIA classes (classes for those converting to the RCC) or you think that Catholics are apostates on the “road to hell” as I have read multiple times on these forums.

Sorry. But you are mixing up your early church problems here. 1 Corinthians 11:18-29 is speaking of the Eucharistic meal and those partaking unworthily and NOT of the other meal offered after worship.

How is it possible that you believe that partaking of a symbol unworthily makes you guilty of the Body of Our Lord? If I tear up your picture, I might be guilty of disrespect but certainly NOT guilty of your body. As for Judas, it isn’t just a Catholic interpretation of the gospels that our Lord instituted the Eucharist AFTER Judas left the room.

Yes. They were churches under the authority of the bishop. Elders (presbyters) were appointed to assist the bishop in governing ONE church that happened to meet in different places.

Agreed. And yes, I think you are playing a semantics game.

WE?….excuse me but just WHERE does it say that individual believers are to execute judgment on on Our Lord’s Church? If you examine the writings of the early church fathers and the history of the early church, you can see the context of the warnings of those “wolves in sheep’s clothing”…it is those who teach without the authority of the Church. Or those who continued to preach heresy after they were disciplined by their local bishops. The mere presence of the writings of the ECF’s is stark testimony to the fact that the early church was indeed highly organized and the bishops held the teaching authority. They [the early bishops] wrote letters to churches in far flung places as if they expected that they had authority over these congregations and guess what? They DID! It is for the bishops to determine who are the wolves in sheep’s clothing and NOT for the lay people. In fact, it was the bishops who continually had to remind the faithful that they were to remain faithful to the teachings of the bishops and NOT make their own judgments about the many heretics running around.

which of course begs for the question…..What did they do BEFORE the Bible was written? And who was it that decided what was and was not Sacred Scripture? And how is it that so many people who accept without question the judgment of the men who were so full of the Holy Spirit that they were able to discern what was and was not supposed to be in canon…then reject what those men believed it to be say. They men who set the canon of Sacred Scripture were NOT sola scriptura. They were not sola fide. They believed in purgatory. They believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Another really good verse in Timothy is this one…..

Just because something is hard to do, doesn’t mean it is impossible. The hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church….and the Eastern Orthodox Church….was established in Sacred Scripture and by the testimony of the lives of the Apostles and their successors. Martin Luther was not the only voice in the Catholic Church at that time, or before him, or after him for that matter, that quietly, persistently and fruitfully worked for reform. And reform when it does come from within the structure of the church bears much positive fruit. The Reformation was a blood bath and there were gross sinners on all sides. As many as 100,000 peasants were killed in Germany. By contrast the Spanish Inquisition  which killed perhaps as many as 10,000 in 350 years was a walk in the park! Not that I am condoning either btw!

In some respects they were submitted to each other. Servants of each other, but I am sorry there was a whole lot of “domineering” going on in the early church and some of it is even recorded in Sacred Scripture. The entire book of Galatians for example….talk about your dressing down!

Well I would say that if anointing came from man then it wouldn’t count would it? And this whole apostolic succession thing would go up in smoke. But the anointing is something that comes from God working though us his servants. Just like Saul was anointed king and STAYED anointed king even when God anointed David as his successor. David understood that he was not the one to execute judgment on God’s anointed and that was for God himself to so. God might have used Samuel to bring the message that judgment was coming but Saul never ceased to be God’s anointed king until he DIED.

Just because he didn’t get along with Peter doesn’t mean that Peter didn’t anoint him. In fact, God worked through Peter to inflict the first ecclesiastical punishment (Acts 5:1-11); excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:21); received the revelation (Acts 10:44-46) allowing gentiles into the Church without circumcision and imposed that over the vociferous objections (Acts 15:19) of many (thus the entire book of Galatians)…yeah, he had a hypocrisy problem which led to Paul giving him a stern talking to but that doesn’t put Paul in charge.

Yes. Through Peter. At times, God may raise up others with special charisms to correct and to chasten those in the chair of Peter….such as St. Catherine of Siena….but God gave to Peter and his successors a special gift. I believe that God can work through sinful men who appear unworthy…..and I am grateful. It gives me hope after all.

By what authority?

Studied papal history have you? You might be surprised at the number of miracles attributed to Popes throughout history. You could start here.  Beyond that if you are looking for miracles, look at the lives of the Catholic Saints! I know many miracles that happen in Catholic churches….even my little parish. By the priests, and the old ladies, and the children. Even so the absence of flashy miracles or reports of such is hardly a matter of disqualification for the papacy. God gives the charism for healing and miracles to those He wills and it’s pretty clear that not every one of us has it. It’s one of the reasons we need each other.

And speaking of miracles, where is the miraculous confirmation of Protestant doctrines such as symbolic Holy Communion?  Take a look at Eucharistic miracles here. 

The following appeared on Keeping The Home on April 7, 2008. The author of Keeping the Home does not allow rebuttals in her comments section as is her right. It’s her blog after all. Nevertheless, I would like to provide a Catholic perspective (although certainly not authoritative) to her remarks. I have also discovered that sometimes her posts do not stay posted forever so I am copying and pasting most of her post for future reference and context for my perspective.

This post was written with love. Those who have ears to hear (or in this case, eyes to see) will notice I am not attacking anyone or anything. I’m just writing out some observations. If you consider what I’ve written to be “hateful,” consider that it’s because you hate it.

Those of us with eyes to see, can also observe a noted lack of determination to seek out alternative interpretations. To what extent does the scriptural admonishment to not bear false witness, impose upon us a desire to see the best in each other? If we hear someone accused of something terrible, should we not seek to see if they are in fact, guilty? Should we not at least attempt to seek out exculpatory information? I don’t know the answer to that. Just asking a question and “writing out some observations.”

I recently finished reading the Bible again. Every time through, I’m just shocked when I read Revelation chapter 17. Who/what could that chapter be discussing?

The Whore of Babylon sits over a city. That city sits atop 7 hills, and is under a strong religious influence. There is only one city that fits this description, and that is Rome.

Really? Is that all about the location of this city that is included in Revelation 17? First, I see no mention of a “strong religious influence” but I am perfectly willing to spot Keeping the Home on that. Perhaps there is some phrase or something in Revelation 17 that I missed that implies a ”strong religious influence.” If Rome is the city of the Whore of Babylon, then how does Revelation 17:1 that says the prostitute “sits on many waters” fit the city of Rome? I have never heard Rome described as a city of many waters. Additionally, the hills described in verse 9, we are told in verse 10 are not hills but kings! And five of them have fallen? If this is so clearly about the city of Rome, then in what way does the seven kings come into play and the idea that five of them have fallen? What is a Catholic interpretation of this passage?

Hunt argues that the Whore “is a city built on seven hills,” which he identifies as the seven hills of ancient Rome. This argument is based on Revelation 17:9, which states that the woman sits on seven mountains.

The Greek word in this passage is horos. Of the sixty-five occurrences of this word in the New Testament, only three are rendered “hill” by the King James Version. The remaining sixty-two are translated as “mountain” or “mount.” Modern Bibles have similar ratios. If the passage states that the Whore sits on “seven mountains,” it could refer to anything. Mountains are common biblical symbols, often symbolizing whole kingdoms (cf. Ps. 68:15; Dan. 2:35; Amos 4:1, 6:1; Obad. 8–21). The Whore’s seven mountains might be seven kingdoms she reigns over, or seven kingdoms with which she has something in common.

The number seven may be symbolic also, for it often represents completeness in the Bible. If so, the seven mountains might signify that the Whore reigns over all earth’s kingdoms.

Even if we accept that the word horos should be translated literally as “hill” in this passage, it still does not narrow us down to Rome. Other cities are known for having been built on seven hills as well.

Even if we grant that the reference is to Rome, which Rome are we talking about—pagan Rome or Christian Rome? As we will see, ancient, pagan Rome fits all of Hunt’s criteria as well, or better, than Rome during the Christian centuries.

Now bring in the distinction between Rome and Vatican City—the city where the Catholic Church is headquartered—and Hunt’s claim becomes less plausible. Vatican City is not built on seven hills, but only one: Vatican Hill, which is not one of the seven upon which ancient Rome was built. Those hills are on the east side of the Tiber river; Vatican Hill is on the west.

Keeping the Home continues….

We also read of the Whore (the religious system) being drunk on the blood of saints (the Bible tells us that another word for Christian is saint). Certainly many Christians have been killed from Muslims, but more so from the Roman Catholic Church. For example, Pope Innocent killed 70,000 Christians in one day, - that is more than all of the Caesars of Rome put together.

During the Inquisition and burnings, Christians were killed because they refused to convert to Roman Catholicism. This is not Christian or Christ like. Christ said that after you’ve told someone the Gospel message, if they don’t accept it, you are to just shake the dust off of your feet and move on. To see an example of historical religious killings, by Roman Catholics killing Christians, watch the movie Elizabeth (the first one is the best).

There is no question about it, killing in the name of religion is abhorrent. Despite grossly inflated numbers to the contrary, academic scholarship suggests that the Inquisition killed about 12 people a year. 12 people per year too many in my opinion. However, I do think it is important to note that killing in the name of religion was prevalent in society at large around the time of the Reformation and this behavior was not confined to Catholics (just click on my sidebar for examples of Protestant toleration in England). It should be noted that the pilgrims who came to the what would become the United States were not fleeing Catholic persecution, it was PROTESTANT persecution that drove them from the Old World. (Note: Pope Innocent killed 70,000 Christians in one day? Source please?) Keeping the Home continues…..

Also, why the name “Whore of Babylon?” The historical city of Babylon does not sit atop seven hills, so that is obviously not what Revelation 17 is talking about. The key is in the terms “Mystery Babylon,” and “WHORE of Babylon.”

First off, a spiritual whore is one who has forsaken God for false gods. A devious spiritual whore will try to look like she is true to her spiritual husband (God), while trying to hide that she’s playing the whore with other religions.

Now - MYSTERY Babylon…

There are ancient Mystery Babylon cults. These cults tend to have the below in common:

1. They worship a mother and child. For example: Isis and Horus.

2. They will mix in other pagan practices, and refine their mystery religion into a melting pot of sorts.

3. Many teachings of such a cult are esoteric. You’ll only be told a little here, and a little there, until you are far enough in the religion to learn more.

Roman Catholics themselves admit in many of their revered writings that their church has purposely mixed in some pagan practices with their religion, in order to “help the pagans more easily convert to Catholicism.”

Is this why the pope wears a Dagon fish hat? [RNW's note: I have deleted the Dagon fish hat images. If you want,  you can Google for them, they are easy to find.]

Note the mitre on the head of this drawing of the goddess Cybele and the striking similarity to the fish head of Dagon. Cybele was worshipped in Rome and was also called the “Magna Mater”, or the great queen mother goddess, which evolved into Catholic Mariology. The priesthood of Cybele was composed of castrated males, which parallels the celibate priesthood of Catholicism. The basilica of Saint Peter’s, according to some, stands upon the former site of Cybele’s main temple in Rome. The ruins of another temple to Cybele / Magna Mater can still be seen today in Rome on Palatine hill. - Quoted from Dagon, Cybele, and Catholicism

Well many of her accusations are so very general in nature that it would take a book to go look up the specifics on the anti-catholic websites out there and refute them one by one. But I just LOVE Dagon the Fish God and he’ll do for a specific example of a typical accusation made against the Catholic Church and the reality of a reasonable look at the evidence. Take the Long Way Home, took the time to look into the Dagon the Fish God parallels. Please take the time to read all of her post, I will quote her conclusion below:

Sooooo. Essentially, what I learned was, nobody (at least nobody in the historical world) knows much about Dagon. Historians can’t even decide what he was the god of, much less how he was depicted. Depending on which city you lived in, you probably worshiped him differently. His religion died out in the BC years for the most part, although it’s possible there were a few hangers on as late as 402 AD. But the mitre doesn’t appear until the mid 10^th century. And then there’s the problem that the mitre itself has gone through many stages, most of which don’t look anything like the representation that the anti Catholics claim to be identical to the fish head of Dagon’s priests. And then there is the fact that an entire sect of Catholicism (the Eastern Rite Catholics) don’t wear the Western style mitre to this day. So to believe what the anti Catholics have to say you have to believe that Western Christians resurrected a long dead religion (one that they themselves helped to stamp out the last vestiges of) sometime in the 15^th century (that’s when the mitre most closely resembles the one today). This would be after the Protestant Reformation, by the way. Who would believe this???

Let’s also examine the celibacy “dig” shall we? [I put it in bold up above.] First, Roman Catholic priests do not physically castrate themselves. They voluntarily choose to sacrifice that aspect of their lives for the kingdom. It has scriptural foundation in Matthew 19:12 “For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Unlike the priests of Dagon, who supposedly were castrated by men, Catholic priests follow the words of Our Lord himself and renounce marriage for the kingdom of heaven. We see this reinforced in Revelation 14:4 where we see those who have consecrated their virginity to the Lamb pictured in the worship of heaven. Keeping the Home continues….

Moving on… We know that whatever this false religious system is, it must be a type of counterfeit of true Christianity, else, there’d be no reason for the Bible to say the following:

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. -Revelation 18:4

Therefore, there are some truly saved Christians within this Whore of Babylon religion. How could there be any real Christians within a pagan religion? It can only work, if those Christians think that that pagan religious system is actually a Christian one.

Is the Roman Catholic Religion a Christian one? Let’s find out right now… CHRISTian, means to be Christ-like,- or to follow Christ’s teachings. Jesus Himself said:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. -John 14:6

Therefore, a real Christian knows that they can get to heaven ONLY via Jesus, and no other way. Christians believe and know this. Does the Roman Catholic religion agree with this biblical Christian doctrine, taught by Jesus?

The official Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation is that the grace of God is infused into a baby at baptism — making him/her justified before God.1 This justification can be lost through sin and must be regained by repeated participation in the many sacraments found in the Roman Catholic Church. These sacraments increase the measure of grace in the person by which he or she is enabled to do good works, which are in turn rewarded with the joy of heaven: “We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere ‘to the end’ and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ,” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1821). “Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification,” (CCC, par. 2010). - quoted from Are Roman Catholics Christian?

You want to know one of my pet peeves? It doesn’t matter if you don’t want to know, this is my blog and I am going to tell you. One of my biggest pet peeves is quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) out of context. It isn’t hard to discover what the CCC says. It’s on-line and free for anyone to read. You can read it on the Vatican website and there is a searchable copy here. I encourage everyone who wants to know what the Catholic Church teaches to READ it AND the footnotes. So what is paragraph 1821 all about anyway? I’ll give you a hint…it’s not about salvation. It comes from the section of the CCC that deals with Theological Virtues. Theological virtues (faith, hope, and love) are virtues that men have NONE of without God. They are gifts from God. Paragraph 1821 read IN FULL as follows and I will include the text of the footnoted scriptures:

1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will.⁹² In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere “to the end”⁹³ and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for “all men to be saved.”⁹⁴ She longs to be united with Christ, her Bridegroom, in the glory of heaven:

Hope, O my soul, hope. You know neither the day nor the hour. Watch carefully, for everything passes quickly, even though your impatience makes doubtful what is certain, and turns a very short time into a long one. Dream that the more you struggle, the more you prove the love that you bear your God, and the more you will rejoice one day with your Beloved, in a happiness and rapture that can never end.⁹⁵

92 Romans 8:28-30 “We know that all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose. For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined he also called; and those he called he also justified; and those he justified he also glorified.”

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.”

93 Matthew 10:22 You will be hated by all because of my name, but whoever endures to the end will be saved.

Council of Trent: DS 1541 So also as regards the gift of perseverance [can. 16] of which it is written: He that “shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved” [Matt. 10:22; 24:13] (which gift cannot be obtained from anyone except from Him, “who is able to make him, who stands, stand” [Rom. 14:4], that he may stand perseveringly, and to raise him, who falls), let no one promise himself anything as certain with absolute certitude, although all ought to place and repose a very firm hope in God’s help. For God, unless men be wanting in His grace, as He has begun a good work, so will He perfect it, “working to will and to accomplish” [Phil. 2:13; can. 22]. * Nevertheless, let those “who think themselves to stand, take heed lest they fall” [1 Cor. 10:12], and “with fear and trembling work out their salvation” [Phil. 2:12] in labors, in watchings, in almsdeeds, in prayers and oblations, in fastings and chastity [cf. 2 Cor. 6:3 ff.]. For they ought to fear, knowing that they are born again “unto the hope of glory” [cf. 1 Rom. Pet. 1:3], and not as yet unto glory in the combat that yet remains with the flesh, with the world, with the devil, in which they cannot be victors, unless with God’s grace they obey the Apostle saying: “We are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die. But if by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live” [Rom. 8:12 ff.].

94 1 Timothy 2:4 who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.

95 St. Teresa of Avila

Now call me crazy but I don’t see any idea in paragraph 1821 that doesn’t come straight from Sacred Scripture. Yes, there are footnotes to the Council of Trent (also practically straight from Sacred Scripture) and St. Teresa of Avila but the main ideas expressed are those straight from Sacred Scripture. You see Catholics believe that Sacred Scripture is a unity and that ALL of it is true. If Jesus said that we must “endure to the end” then Catholics believe that. We must remain true to our belief in Jesus and ACT on that belief.
 

Well then. Is paragraph 2010 about salvation? Well it’s closer to a discussion about salvation than theological virtues. It’s in a section of the CCC which is about Grace and Justification and in my opinion NOTHING in the section about merit (where paragraph 2010 resides) is complete without also noting paragraph 2007 which says “With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.“ Let’s be very clear here. The Catholic Church teaches that we have received EVERYTHING from God. We have NO merit on our own. Any merit that we have is solely because we have allowed God to work in us. There is NO earning Salvation in the Catholic Church. Period. Let’s look at ALL of paragraph 2010 now and add 2011 because it talks about what the Catholic Church teaches about the source of Grace:

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.
 

2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.

After earth’s exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone. . . . In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.⁶³

Hmmm. The Catholic Church teaches that God is the source of all sanctifying grace and that if we have ANY merit before God then, Jesus is the source of that merit. What the Catholic Church teaches is not that we can earn our salvation but rather that we must allow God to work through us. She teaches that if we do not allow God to work through us, our faith is like the faith of demons and has not changed us. (See all of the book of James) Does that sound at ALL like the point that was being made in Are Roman Catholics Christians?

Jesus says that we are saved through Him only, but the Roman Catholic Church says that there are works/deeds that must be done as well. The Bible disagrees:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. -Ephesians 2:8-9

That is established. We are not saved by works. Jesus said in John 14:6 that we are saved through HIM only.

Over and over I hear Ephesians 2:8-9 quoted to me as if the thought stopped right there. In fact, verse 9 does not complete the paragraph. Verse 10 does. And although I memorized Ephesian 2:8-9 as a Protestant and quoted it to my share of Catholics in my day. My children have memorized a little bit more….because more Sacred Scripture is always better than less don’t you know?. Ephesians 2:8-9 AND 10 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast. For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them.”

The Catholic Church teaches ALL of Ephesians. That we are saved by the work of Christ, and then He works through us. We have no merit. But we better darn well do something with the Grace that Christ gives us or we become like the Dead Sea, with living water flowing in but dead because nothing flows out. Keeping the Home continues….

How does it work? Jesus again tells us, in His own Words:

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. -John 3:14-18

We are saved by accepting Jesus’ death on the cross to pay the price for OUR sins. Jesus paid for our sins, so that we are washed clean through His perfect, spilt blood. If one accepts this free gift, then they are saved:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. -Romans 10:9-11

Confessing Jesus is politically incorrect, and so is speaking the truth.

If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. -Luke 9:26

Guess what? The Catholic Church teaches ALL of that but you are right that it rejects sola fide. It rejects sola fide because it isn’t what Jesus taught and it isn’t scriptural.  Scripture is very clear that salvation is about faithful obedience. (And if what follows seems very familiar…that is because a lot of it is from my previous post here) It is still unmerited. It is still unearned. It is offered freely by Our Lord even though there is nothing we can ever do to deserve it or earn it. It still requires obedience. Whether you “believe” it does or not.  Can ‘faith alone’ be a reasonable response to our Lord? Must we not even love Him? Why then, isn’t faith the greatest of all spiritual virtues? (1 Corinthians 13: 13 says the greatest virtue is love.) First let’s look at the words of Our Lord Himself in the gospels.

Matthew 7:21 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

Matthew 19:16-17 Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?”He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

John 14:21 Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him.”

Yes. Jesus also said in John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.” but we can’t pick and choose which parts of Jesus’ words we are going to believe. Jesus spoke the Truth not contradiction and that means (according to his words) both believing AND doing are necessary. If believing is all that is necessary to accept God’s gift of Salvation why are the examples of faith that are held up to us in the New Testament always really examples of faithful obedience and not ‘faith alone’? In Hebrews chapter 11 some of the great examples of Old Testament faith are enumerated. Go read the chapter; I’ll wait. There sure are an awful lot of ’saved by faith’s BECAUSE they did something’s’ in there. Can you split apart the faith and obedience in those examples? Does God? Were they REALLY saved by “faith alone”? Let’s pick two. Noah and Abraham. Remember these are the examples that the Holy Spirit inspired author is using to teach us about salvation in the New Covenant. Just because these show up in the Old Testament does not mean that they are irrelevant.

Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, warned about what was not yet seen, with reverence built an ark for the salvation of his household. Through this he condemned the world and inherited the righteousness that comes through faith.

Would Noah have been saved if He had only believed God would save him? What if he hadn’t built the ark? Did building the ark, “earn” his salvation? Or was it the means by which God exercised His Grace in Noah’s life? Was Noah’s salvation a free gift?…darn tootin’ it was. God didn’t have to give him that grace. Noah didn’t earn it. He received it through faithful obedience. Now how about Abraham?

Hebrews 11:8-12 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance; he went out, not knowing where he was to go. By faith he sojourned in the promised land as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs of the same promise; for he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and maker is God. By faith he received power to generate, even though he was past the normal age–and Sarah herself was sterile–for he thought that the one who had made the promise was trustworthy. So it was that there came forth from one man, himself as good as dead, descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sands on the seashore.

Would Abraham have received his blessing? His inheritence? If he had not obeyed? This is what the messenger of God had to say to him:

Genesis 22:12 (this is the Angel from the Lord speaking)…Do not do the least thing to him. I know now how devoted you are to God, since you did not withhold from me your own beloved son.”….

Faith or obedience? Or faith and obedience?

Genesis 22:16b-17a I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you acted as you did in not withholding from me your beloved son, I will bless you abundantly

Abraham is held up as an examples of saving faith and the the Lord declares to him “Because you acted as you did” Did Abraham earn anything? Or were his actions the means by which God’s Grace worked in his life and through Abraham to all of us? The Lord reiterates this in a message to Isaac:

Genesis 26:4-5 I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and give them all these lands, and in your descendants all the nations of the earth shall find blessing–this because Abraham obeyed me, keeping my mandate (my commandments, my ordinances, and my instructions).”

Because Abraham believed? No. Because Abraham obeyed. He wouldn’t have obeyed without belief but would his belief have meant anything without obedience? To separate faith and obedience is a false dichotomy. This is confirmed in James 2 which is the only place in the Bible where the words ‘faith’ and ’alone’ occur together and it isn’t to talk about live-giving faith but dead faith.

James 2:17 So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

Sacred Scripture tells us that ‘faith alone’ is ‘dead faith.’ Any time someone says by “‘faith alone’ you are saved,” try substituting what Sacred Scripture says about ‘faith alone’ and see if it makes sense. (For by grace are you saved through “dead faith”….) Better still try Martin Luther’s “translation” of Romans 3:28 with commentary from James 2:17 in [ ]  ”Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith alone [dead faith], apart from the deeds of the law.” Back to that passage you quoted earlier…Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast.” EXACTLY my point. I am glad you brought that up. Faith is never ever set up in opposition to obedience in Sacred Scripture. The cautions we see in Sacred Scripture have everything to do about acting like we deserve God’s Grace because of who we are or what we do. We aren’t supposed to BOAST. Noah obeyed. Abraham obeyed. Enoch obeyed. Rahab obeyed. Did any of them boast? Did any of them hold themselves up as a great example and start telling God what He should and shouldn’t do? Did any of them parade around telling others how great they were and how sinful the surrounding peons were? Anyone want to compare them to the Pharisees with the uncircumcised hearts? In fact, Ephesians 2:8-9 is an incomplete thought. Here is the whole thought:

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast. For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them.

When you complete the thought expressed in Ephesians 2:8-9 with verse 10. Suddenly we are right back to what I told the potential convert at the beginning of this post. Salvation is about living a life of faithful obedience to Our Lord. The Roman Catholic Church teaches the fullness of salvation as it is expressed in Sacred Scripture (hat tip to Karl Keating) 

I am a devout Catholic and I believe all of these things listed below from Sacred Scripture are part of receiving the salvation made available to me by Jesus Christ. Those who claim that faith alone is what saves you must ignore the rest of what is recorded in Sacred Scripture.

By Believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By Repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By Baptism (John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5; Mark 16:16)

By the work of the Spirit (John 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Luke 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the Truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By Works (Rom 2:6, 7; James 2:21, 24-25)

By Grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By His blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By His righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By His cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)

There is only one place in Sacred Scripture where the term “Faith alone” occurs and that is in James 2:24 “See how a person is justified by works and NOT faith alone.”

[Here I need my patient reader to image that this paragraph is flush <------that way. I have tried a gazillion times to format it that way and Blog.com keeps not doing it. I've wasted enough time and an arrow will just have to suffice.]  This is long enough and I will let Keeping the Home have the last word. I would only suggest that if what I have written above has suggested to you that perhaps those who claim with certainty that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon have either done their homework and are bearing false witness or have not done their homework and there is more to the story than is being presented….then may I suggest this link for follow up if you would like to hear more of what the Catholic Church says in response to this sort of “scholarship”? Keeping the Home continues below.

Coming back to my point… This is another reason why Roman Catholicism sounds like it’s the Whore of Babylon. What other religion out there is VERY big, has a foothold in most nations, proclaims itself to be Christian, yet teaches doctrines at enmity with the Bible, and has real Christians within it, that need to “come out of her?” I only know of one religion that fits the bill, and that is Roman Catholicism.

Let’s see what others have to say about the Whore of Babylon:

This description of Babylon the Great Harlot, Seated on the Seven-Headed Ten-Horned Beast, while it may have ultimate reference to a situation yet to appear, Exactly fits Papal Rome. Nothing else in World History does fit. The desire for Worldly Power began to manifest itself in the Church, on a broad scale, in the 4th century, when the Roman Empire ceased its Persecutions, and made Christianity its State religion. The spirit of Imperial Rome passed into the Church. The Church gradually developed itself into the pattern of the Empire it had conquered. Rome fell. But Rome came to life again, as a World-Power, in the Name of the Church. The Popes of Rome were the heirs and successors of the Caesars of Rome. The vatican is where the Palace of the Caesars was. The Popes have claimed all the authority the Caesars claimed, and more. The Papal Palace, throughout the centuries, has been among the most luxurious in all the world. Popes have lived in Pomp and Splendor unsurpassed by earthly kings. In no place on earth is there more ostentatious pageantry and show of magnificence than the coronation of a Pope. The City of Rome, first Pagan, then Papal, has been the Dominating Power of the World for Two Thousand Years, 200 B.C. to A.D. 1800. “Full of names of Blasphemy: (17:3). Popes claim to hold on earth the place of God, to have Supreme authority over the Human Conscience, to Forgive Sin, to grant Indulgences, and that Obedience to Them is necessary to Salvation. How could anything be more Blasphemous? “Scarlet” (17:3,4), color of the Beast and the Harlot, and also of the Dragon (12:3), is the Color of the Papacy. The Papal Throne is Scarlet. It is borne by twelve men clad in Scarlet. The Cardinals’ hats and robes are Scarlet. Originally the Devil’s color (12:3), it has now become the Color of Atheistic Communism: they are commonly spoken as of Reds, Red Army, Red Territory, the Red Square in Moscow, the Devil again marshalling his hosts from Without. “Filthiness of her Fornication” (17:4). Appalling Immoralities of Popes of the Middle Ages are well known. “Drunk with the Blood of Martyrs” (17:6). The Horrors of the Inquisition, ordered and maintained by the Popes, over a period of 500 years, in which unnumbered millions were Tortured and Burned, constitute the MOST BRUTAL, BEASTLY and DEVELISH PICTURE in all history. It is not pleasant to write these things. It is inconceivable that any Ecclesiastical Organization, in its mania for Power, could have distorted and desecrated and corrupted, for its own exaltation, the beautiful and holy religion of Jesus, as the Papacy has done. But Facts are Facts. And History is History. And, most amazing of all, it seems exactly pre-figured in Revelation. No wonder John’s vision made him sick at heart (10:10). -Quoted from Halley’s Bible Handbook

17:4-6. The elegant clothing and jewelry of the Woman show her wealth and attractiveness, but her activities are filthy and abominable to God. Her mystery name is BABYLON THE GREAT. Ancient Babylon is a type or prefigurement of this future Babylon. The harlot will do what literal Babylon did in the past: (1) oppress God’s people, and (2) propagate a false religious system. Much of the world’s idolatry can be traced back to historical Babylon (cf. Gen. 11:1-9), including the mother-child cult of Semiranis-Tammus (cd. Jer. 44:16-19; Ezek. 8:9,14), which entered other cultures as Ashtaroth-Baal, Aphrodite-Eros, Venus-Cupid, and even Madonna-Child. As the fountainhead of idolatry, Babylon the harlot is MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABINATIONS OF THE EARTH. The harlot has killed many of God’s saints and Christian martyrs throughout the ages, and will do so again during the Tribulation period. 17:9. The seven heads of the Beast represent seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. The city of Rome was known throughout the ancient world as a city built on seven hills or mountains. John notes that the wise mind will make the proper identification. The woman apparently represents idolatrous, anti-God civilization, centered at Rome but with worldwide influence (cf. v. 15). The identification of the seven heads as Rome shows that the Beast will have his major base of operations at Rome also… -Quoted from the notes in The King James Study Bible

(18:2) Babylon, “confusion,” is repeatedly used by the prophets in a symbolic sense. Two “Babylons” are to be distinguished in the Revelation: ecclesiastical Babylon, which is apostate Christendom, headed up under the Papacy; and political Babylon, which is the Beast’s confederated empire, the last form of Gentile world-dominion. Ecclesiastical Babylon is “the great whore…” - Quoted from the notes in The Old Scofield Study Bible

I could quote and cite many more sources, if time would allow. Read also the notes on Revelation chapter 17 in the Geneva Bible. Fascinating stuff. [End of Keeping the Home’s remarks}

Let’s say you have a disagreement with HappyBaptistChristian [a hopefully made up name that is not intended to reflect on Baptists at ALL] or another Christian that is outside of your denomination and you’ve gone through verses 15 and 16 not been able to resolve your difficulty. Now you are supposed to “tell the church”.

What good is Matthew 18 in the face of “invisible unity” or “unity on essentials”? If Jesus intended for us to be divided into thousands of denominations, why did He set out a dispute resolution process for Christians that only works if we are visibily ONE CHURCH?

Tomorrow begins the Octave of Christian Unity, a week (January 18-January 25) of prayer set aside each year for the faithful to pray and work for Christian unity. The biblical text for this year’s observation is:

But we appeal to you, brothers and sisters… Be at peace among yourselves. And we urge you, beloved to admonish the idlers, encourage the faint-hearted, help the weak, be patient with all of them. See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all. Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.
1 Thessalonians 5: 12a, 13b-18

Spread the word, and pray hard. If you teach CCE, RCIA, lead a Bible study, or something along those lines, you might be interested in the resources for this coming week on the Vatican website here.

I happen to like the chaplet of unity as a prayer for this week. I am also happy to send my scriptural rosary (or really meditations using a rosary) on church unity to anyone who would like them. Just send a request to redneckwomandesigns at Yahoo dot com. 

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me. John 17:20-23
 

Why? I don’t mean that question to sound snarky. Let me explain my perspective. The first time my children do a task they get lots of instruction. The second time less so. The third time even less and so forth. At some point in the learning process, I get to hit the high points and move on to better things. At some point, I get to assume that we have verbs nailed and we can move onto other more complex grammatical structures. Does that mean verbs aren’t important? NO! It means, that I have already said it and demonstrated it so many times that I am going to assume that if they don’t know that part they can brush up and move onto the rest. If someone were to look at written instructions I leave for my children regarding their grammar and didn’t take into account previous instruction on verbs, one might assume that I didn’t believe that verbs were important anymore.

That’s the pattern as I see it. Apostolic succession fits the tessellation/fractal of scripture and that is further supported by early church history and the writings of the early church fathers. If the equation needed to be altered, then that would have needed clear and detailed instructions. There aren’t clear scriptures spelling it out because they aren’t necessary. Spiritual succession with a named leader and then proceeding from him is what would be expected given the pattern of all previous scripture. The burden of proof therefore, must rest on the contrary assumption.