Vatican II and The New Evangelization World Wide Take Over
“Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues; for her sins are piled up to heaven” Revelation 18:4
Author: Anthony Esteves
As a young adult living in Brooklyn New York I was depending on getting to Heaven on false hopes. Although my commitment to my beloved Roman Catholic Church had weakened during my late twenties, the attitude “I was born a Catholic, I’ll die a Catholic” was woven into the fabric of my mind.
As I think back on those days, I recognize that I was a young man in bondage. Certainly, I was in bondage to sin, as is everyone who is not born again. But there was another bondage that also gripped me: the bondage of Roman Catholic tradition, with its sacraments, liturgies, rituals, and sacramentals. Not only were such things unbiblical-they were works of the flesh and devices of demons. In my own life, as well as throughout the history of the Church of Rome, they were soul-gripping superstitions advanced under the guise of spirituality.
I trusted in relics of dead so-called Saints; holy water; making the sign of the cross; votive candles; baptism for salvation (infant or otherwise); a “transubstantiated” piece of bread alleged to be Christ; apparitions of Mary; a scapular; a “miraculous medal”; statues and images of Jesus, Mary, and the saints; endless Rosaries, Novenas, the Stations of the Cross; abstaining from meat on Friday; Lenten abstinences; the Last Rites to get me into Purgatory and indulgences to get me out of Purgatory; Mass cards; graces dispensed from Mary; the confessional, with absolution of my sins by a priest; penance and personal suffering to purify me of my sin; worshiping a piece of bread at the Eucharistic Holy Hour; the Holy Father as the Vicar of Christ on earth, etc. Therein lays a bondage that few evangelicals understand.
Many brush these things aside as non-essentials of the Christian faith or minor theological aberrations unique to Catholicism. Not true. They are essential to the gospel that Rome declares-a gospel of meritorious works that the Bible condemns (see Galatians, Romans, and Ephesians) as a rejection of the completed substitutionary atonement of Christ our Savior. Catholicism’s Tradition, which is declared to be equal in authority to Scripture, is made up of those things that are necessary for, or supportive of, a Catholic’s entrance into heaven.
According to the Word of God, anything that is added to Christ’s finished work on the cross is a denial of the gospel: that Christ paid the full penalty for the sins of humanity.
The Roman Catholic Church, which claims infallibility in its Councils and theological teachings, clearly and emphatically denies the biblical gospel.
The Council of Trent declares:
6th Session, Canon 9: If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification…let him be anathema.
6th Session, Canon 12: If anyone shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone by which we are justified: let him be anathema.
6th Session, Canon 30: If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.
7th Session, Canon 4: If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law [canons and decrees of the Church] are not necessary for salvation but…without them…men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification…let him be anathema.
“Anathema,” in these decrees (which are still in force), damns to hell anyone who rejects the Roman Catholic Church’s false gospel of works.
Starting with the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, where only superficial changes were made because infallible dogmas cannot be changed! Rome launched an ecumenical program aimed at seducing Protestants worldwide and, specifically, evangelicals in the United States. The goal was and is to bring all of Christendom under the rule of the Roman Catholic Church with the pope as its spiritual head. Predictable progress has been made in Europe and the U.S. among liberal denominations that have long abandoned the Scriptures. Astonishing, however, is the success the scheme has had among American evangelicals.
Billy Graham was the first and most notable evangelical to support Catholicism’s ecumenical efforts. Others followed, including Bill Bright, Pat Robertson, J. I. Packer, Timothy George, Robert Schuller, Hank Hanegraaff, Benny Hinn, and Jack Van Impe. Evangelicals and Catholics Together, under the leadership of Chuck Colson and Catholic priest Richard John Neuhaus, declared Catholics and evangelicals to be “brothers and sisters in Christ” and exhorted them to work together in spreading the gospel. Obviously, and conveniently, that gospel was never defined.
Although the acceptance of things Roman Catholic among evangelicals grew steadily over the years after Vatican II, it increased exponentially with the popularity of ultra-conservative Catholic Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. His dramatization of one of Catholicism’s most sacred rituals, The Stations of the Cross, so captured the hearts of evangelicals that their eagerness to purchase mass quantities of tickets accounted for the movie’s great financial success.
Following that achievement, Inside the Vatican made this insightful observation: “For evangelicals, the film has given them a glimpse inside the Catholic soul, even the traditional Catholic soul. Many evangelicals, reflecting on what they saw in the movie, say they are beginning to ‘get’ the whole Catholic thing: Lent…the ashes on the forehead…no meat on Friday…the sorrowful mysteries…the Stations of the Cross…the emphasis on the Eucharist…the devotion to Mary…the enormous crucifix hanging above every Catholic altar. They may not be rushing out to buy rosaries, necessarily, but some of the things no longer seem so strange, so alien.”
What evangelicals also “got,” which their leaders enthusiastically endorsed as “biblically accurate,” were numerous scenes based upon the imagination of an 18th-century Catholic mystic, the portrayal of Mary as co-redemptrix in the salvation of mankind, and a very Catholic gospel that has Christ atoning for sin by suffering the unrelenting physical tortures of the Roman soldiers.
The Passion of the Christ had a stunning effect on evangelical youth and youth pastors. Not only did “[Catholic] things no longer seem so strange, so alien,” but they were showing up in the youth ministries of evangelical churches. The Stations of the Cross ritual became popular, although it needed to be downsized from 14 stations to 11, eliminating some stations that were too foreign to Scripture such as Saint Veronica capturing the image of Christ’s bloodied face on her veil. Prayer altars were erected, featuring icons illuminated by candles and fragranced by burning incense, and prayer labyrinths were painted on large tarps placed in church basements or cut into church lawns. For young evangelicals too often raised on empty, repetitive worship choruses little different from secular music, and religious instruction leaning heavily upon entertainment to keep them interested, the Catholic and Orthodox liturgies seemed far more spiritual.
This all became “spiritual” fodder for the Emerging Church Movement (ECM), much of it a reaction against the consumer-oriented marketing approach to church growth popularized by Robert Schuller, Bill Hybels, and Rick Warren. Many ECM leaders, most of whom have evangelical backgrounds, saw Catholic ritual and mysticism as a necessary spiritual ingredient that was lost for evangelicals at the Reformation. Sola Scriptura was a major rallying cry of the Reformers against the abuses stemming from Roman Catholic tradition; the Bible as one’s only authority practically shut down the influence of the Catholic mystics known as the Desert Fathers.
Yet Catholic mysticism has returned with a vengeance. Its occult techniques can be found nearly everywhere, from Youth Specialties to Richard Foster’s Renovare Organization to Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Life. “Many Christian leaders started searching for a new approach under the banner of ‘spiritual formation.’ This new search has led many of them back to Catholic contemplative practices and medieval monastic disciplines,” Brian McLaren writes approvingly.
Tony Jones, co-editor of An Emergent Manifesto of Hope has written a manifesto of mysticism for emerging churches titled “The Sacred Way: Spiritual Practices for Everyday Life.” Jones’s acknowledgement of those who supported his effort reads as a Who’s Who of emergent leaders, not to mention the Catholic priests he thanks and the ancient Orthodox and Catholic mystics he quotes. What then is this mysticism they are promoting?
Catholic mysticism is thoroughly subjective and experiential. Like its parent, Eastern mysticism, it claims that God can neither be known nor understood through human reason but only experienced subjectively through various techniques. It is the antithesis of what the Bible teaches: “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord” (Isaiah 1:18); “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding” (Proverbs 4:7); “According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him” (2 Peter 1:3).
Furthermore, the goal of mysticism is union with God, the merging of one’s soul into God. This is an impossibility that reveals mysticism’s pantheistic and panentheistic roots, that God is everything and is in everything. No. God is infinite and transcendent, absolutely separate from His finite creation.
The Sacred Way endorses numerous mystical techniques that are gaining acceptance among evangelicals today. An awareness and understanding of them is therefore critical for discernment. Centering Prayer utilizes a single word (“love” or “God”) upon which one focuses to clear the mind of all other thoughts. The belief is that the so-called pray-er will hear directly from God in his silence before Him. Tony Campolo declares, “In my case intimacy with Christ has developed gradually over the years, primarily through what Catholic mystics call ‘centering prayer.’ Each morning, as soon as I wake up, I take time-sometimes as much as a half hour-to center myself on Jesus. I say his name over and over again to drive back the 101 things that begin to clutter up my mind the minute I open my eyes. Jesus is my mantra, as some would say.”
The Jesus Prayer has the pray-er repeat a sentence such as “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me” continuously, hundreds-even thousands-of times. The repetition supposedly fixates one’s mind upon Jesus. Yet it blatantly rejects His command not to use vain repetition in prayer as the heathen do (Matthew 6:7). Moreover, its constant repetitions turn prayer as a form of communication with Jesus into an act of nonsense.
Lectio Divina, meaning “sacred reading,” is a technique that is far removed from normal reading and studying of the Bible. Its methodology aims at going beyond the objective meaning of the words and the straightforward instructions to that which transcends normal awareness. Jones writes, “As you attend to those deeper meanings, begin to meditate on the feelings and emotions conjured up in your inner self.” He then summarizes this mystical contemplative technique: “True contemplation moves beyond words and intellect and into that ‘thin space’ where time and eternity almost touch. It’s in moments like these that some of the greatest Catholic saints in the history of the Catholic church have had a ‘mystical union’ with Christ.” It’s clear from God’s Word that the spirit with which they had a “mystical union” in their contemplative altered state of consciousness was not Jesus.
Ignatian Examen is an occult visualization technique taught by Ignatius Loyola, who founded the Jesuits in the 16th century. His exercise teaches one to visualize oneself in the presence of Jesus and then interact with Him during his earthly events, “at the Last Supper and the Garden of Gethsemane, at the foot of the cross, and laying Jesus’ body in the tomb.” This has one added content to Scripture from his imagination and opens a person to demonic manipulation (2 Corinthians 11:4; Galatians 1:8).
Prayer Labyrinths are concentric paths created by the Catholic Church in the 13th century to experience in one’s imagination Christ’s Via Dolorosa, or “walk of sorrows,” when He carried His cross to Calvary’s hill. Rather than subject themselves to the dangers of a pilgrimage to Jerusalem during Holy Week, Roman Catholics in Europe could gain the same indulgences (to shorten their time in Purgatory) by walking labyrinths at certain cathedrals while prayerfully meditating upon Christ’s crucifixion. Likewise, observing the “sacred” ritual of the Stations of the Cross became a substitute for a pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
As a former Catholic, it’s hard for me to fathom the evangelical church buying into the religious occultism of Roman Catholicism. It makes no sense. Visit any country where that religion is taken seriously. What becomes obvious is a people who are in the bondage of superstition. On the other hand, I shouldn’t be surprised. Apostasy is growing rapidly; the religion of the Antichrist is taking shape, and mysticism, whether it’s the Catholic variety, the Sufism of Islam, Yoga and the Gurus of Eastern Mysticism, the Shamanism of Native Religions, or otherwise, is a common yet powerful magnet that draws all religions together.
We need to be watchmen on the wall and pray as we see this evil invading the church, warning especially should our Lord delay His return-our next generation of believers… they are the targets of the mystical seduction of this coming world religion.
Deborah, thank you for posting this powerful article. The website of the author is excellent.
very good read
from article: “Therein lays a bondage that few evangelicals understand.”
this says it all – and to think the roman catholic is the undertone in all the New Movements plan and do…. I’m SO grateful the LORD God brought me out of “her and her children…”
for interest sake: anathema = a formal ecclesiastical curse accompanied by excommunication
I curse thee Sir Cursealot and banish thee to the outer quarters of the vatican dungeons where ye shall curse while we test ye strengh on the rack. During this time we shall offer thee meditative practices which will help reduce the pain.
However the guy wont have a clue as to what he was told because they would have told him in Latin (sung by gregorian monks)
EGO vomica thee Sir Cursealot quod expello thee ut externus castra aestiva of vatican carcer qua ye vadum vomica dum nos expertus ye vires in torqueo. Per is vicis nos vadum dedi thee theoricus meditor quod mos succurro redigo poena.
Pieter
Ah but wait…tis gets better…I found the most super dooper article on the net on this lot. I am posting it, but I’m a bit lazy today so my ‘click click, copy paste skills’ are on a go slow.
This article will tie in just faaaannnntastically with the conference coming up in CT in April with Billy Graham and Rick ‘Top 10 contender for the Anti-Christ position’ Warren.
nice google translation! but seriously, the world’s religions are all going back to following RC-everything. can’t wait for your next article!
C
Don’t dis google.
“If you don’t eat My Body and drink My Blood, you have NO LIFE in you.” John: 6
“For My Body is FOOD INDEED and My Flesh is DRINK INDEED.” John: 6
“I am the BREAD OF LIFE. He who eats MY FLESH will have eternal life”. John: 6
“This is a hard saying! Who can accept it?” And they left Him and stopped following Him.”
You people have rejected Jesus’ command to eat His Body and drink His Blood–you declare with his followers who abandoned Him: “This is a hard saying. Who can accept it?” If Jesus was speaking symbolically (and the disciples knew very well He was speaking literally, which is why they couldn’t stand to hear what He just told them: to actually EAT His flesh), I repeat: If Jesus was speaking symbolically, why did He not call them back to explain the symbolism? Because He spoke emphatically, using “Amen I say to you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you will have NO life in you.” OH, YEAH! They knew EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANT! And they didn’t believe
Only the apostles, led by Peter, stayed: “Will you also leave Me?”. “Lord, to whom shall we go. You have the words of eternal life.”
My heart breaks that so many millions of “Christians” to this day refuse to believe in our Lord’s very explicit, very clear words about eating His Body and Blood. Why else did St. Paul say, in 1Corinthians:
“Whosoever, 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.” Let a man examine himself, and then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks WITHOUT RECOGNIZING THE BODY EATS AD DRINKS JUDGMENT UPON HIMSELF.”
Pretty darn clear, isn’t it? There was absolutely NO DOUBT in the early Church that when Christians gathered at table, that they were partaking in the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ!
Praise be to Christ the King! Praise to his Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, present in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar! Please, all you folks reading this: study these passages. Nothing is clearer than Jesus’ discourse on the Eucharist! Did He not say just before He died, the words of His last will and testament: “Eat this, all of you : THIS IS MY BODY…drink from this, all of you: THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT. IT WILL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS”. Where’s the symbolism in that statement? It is totally obvious that once again Jesus was speaking LITERALLY!
Believe in the words of Jesus, so you can have eternal life! Believe in His Body and Blood! In His Sacrament you will be saved!
Linda
So you are Roman Catholic. That explains alot. We don’t reject Jesus Christ nor communion. Go and read the article properly.
Linda,
What most people learn about the last supper, is that Jesus INSTITUTED a sacrament; the Eucharist to Catholics, and Communion to Protestants. I know that there are quite startling differences in both, but for the moment, let’s look at what EXACTLY Jesus was doing and saying on that Passover night.
That’s right, I said PASSOVER, which is what we all tend to overlook when it comes to any discussion about the last supper. Jesus and His disciples were celebrating a typical Passover meal, complete with lamb, bitter herbs, unleavened bread, wine, the whole deal. So when Jesus took the bread and broke it, it was the unleavened bread that was broken and shared among the disciples. Leaven being always a ‘type’ for sin, this signifies again that Jesus was without sin. Paul writes in 1 Cor. 11:25 that: “…He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” Paul writes “THE CUP”. Which cup? There’s a definite article used to denote a PARTICULAR cup, namely the one which comes at that point in the Passover meal, after the bread is broken, which is the third of four cups of wine that are drunk as the meal progresses. It is called the cup of redemption. It was called that from the very first Passover in Egypt! (Pretty cool huh?)
Okay, so, we have Jesus saying ; “…as oft as ye drink it,”. What’s He saying here? Whenever you drink THIS cup, no longer remember the Lord’s deliverance from the angel of death in Egypt; remember ME!
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the bread or the wine undergo some magical alchemy and become the ACTUAL flesh and blood of the Lord. In fact there is no need for it, because Jesus’ cry on the cross; “It is finished!”, means the Law has been fulfilled. The price has been paid, once for all! There is no longer any need of any kind of sacrifice, because ALL has been accomplished in Him.
LInda, there is a website called Berean Beaon. It is the website of a former Catholic Priest called Richard Bennett. I know you may be shocked at the idea of a ‘former’ Priest, but if you go to the site, you can read or hear his testimony, of how he was nearly killed in an accident and while in hospital, he began to read the Bible from the bedside cabinet and came to know Jesus as his Lord and Saviour.
Here is a URL for one of the articles from the site, which addresses the issue of transubstantiation, among other doctrines:-
I hope you will read it with a humble heart, that wants to know the truth as given to us by God in His Word and that the Holy Spirit will lead into all truth as Jesus said he would.
The Lord bless you and keep you, the Lord make His face to shine upon you and give you His peace,
Alan.
Disgusting! A perversion of the Council of Trent, you have left out the other canons which makes everything make sense.Here are ALL the cannons:
ON JUSTIFICATION
CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.
CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.
[Page 45] CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.
CANON VI.-If any one saith, that it is not in man’s power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be anathema.
CANON VII.-If any one saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; or that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins: let him be anathema.
CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that the fear of hell,-whereby, by grieving for our sins, we flee unto the mercy of God, or refrain from sinning,-is a sin, or makes sinners worse; let him be anathema.
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.
[Page 46] CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.
CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.
CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that it is necessary for every one, for the obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain, and without any wavering arising from his own infirmity and disposition, that his sins are forgiven him; let him be anathema.
CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.
CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.
CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.
CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.
CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.
[Page 47] CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.
CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.
CANON XXI.-If any one saith, that Christ Jesus was given of God to men, as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey; let him be anathema.
CANON XXII.-If any one saith, that the justified, either is able to persevere, without the special help of God, in the justice received; or that, with that help, he is not able; let him be anathema.
CANON XXIII.-lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.
CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
CANON XXV.-If any one saith, that, in every good work, the just sins venially at least, or-which is more intolerable still-mortally, and consequently deserves eternal punishments; and that for this cause only he is not damned, that God does not impute those works unto damnation; let him be anathema.
CANON XXVI.-If any one saith, that the just ought not, for their good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God, through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if so be that they persevere to the end in well [Page 48] doing and in keeping the divine commandments; let him be anathema.
CANON XXVII.-If any one saith, that there is no mortal sin but that of infidelity; or, that grace once received is not lost by any other sin, however grievous and enormous, save by that of infidelity ; let him be anathema.
CANON XXVIII.-If any one saith, that, grace being lost through sin, faith also is always lost with it; or, that the faith which remains, though it be not a lively faith, is not a true faith; or, that he, who has faith without charity, is not a Chris taught; let him be anathema.
CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taugh; let him be anathema.
CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.
CANON XXXI.-If any one saith, that the justified sins when he performs good works with a view to an eternal recompense; let him be anathema.
CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose [Page 49] living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.
CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.
Read the WHOLE thing before you comment…
Pax tecum!
Jonno
Jonno
You are Catholic ?
What is disgusting? are you smelling something bad? lol lol 🙂
Are you here to cause division? If so cheers! and have a wonderfull day and don’t bother coming back please.You have had made a couple of comments on this blog and made your point now I would say? Move along now please………..
I’m repeating a quote from article:
Anathemas Proclaimed by the Catholic Church
The Catholic Church Teaches Salvation by Works
Unity without Truth or Christ
The Bible states in 1 Corinthians 12:13 “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”
The further one gets away from the unity God has made in the Spirit Eph.4 the more they seek to implement their own. Some think by laying down differences they can achieve spiritual unity and peace.
Rome says “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, (Ignatius Press, 1994) Para. 841 Hereafter Catechism 5. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, No. 56, Nostra Aetate, Austin P. Flannery, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdsmans Publishing Co., 1975 & 1984) Vol. I., pp. 739-740. Hereafter Vatican II.)
How can this be so when one of the tenets of the Muslim faith is that God has no Son. Can it be that the Catholic Church may one day dispense with Christ the Son of God to make unity?
Here is a recent photo of the Popes reverence for the Koran as he bowed and kissed it. (the other figure is Patriarch Raphael I of Iraq )
Here is a news story on this that validates it is indeed the Koran. “It is known that Pope John Paul II has often voiced a desire to make a pilgrimage in the footsteps of Abraham, the common father of Jews, Christians and Muslims. For the Pope, Abraham is a figure which helps the unity of believers to overcome political divisions. On May 14th I was received by the Pope, together with a delegation composed of the Shiite imam of Khadum mosque and the Sunni
President of the council of administration of the Iraqi Islamic Bank. There was also a representative of the Iraqi ministry of religion. I
prove the Pope’s love for the whole of humanity in a country which is mainly Muslim. At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book the Koran presented to him by the delegation and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam. A papal visit would be welcomed by both the people and by the authorities. After the audience I immediately sent a recommendation to the Iraqi government to make the official step of inviting the Pope to Iraq.
This should alarm anyone who claims the name of Christ. We can now see how the ecumenical movement (ECT signers) are headed in a unity unprecedented in history. Muslims deny the deity of Jesus Christ. They believe that He was just a good man, a prophet and teacher. They do not believe that He is the son of God, the Messiah, nor do they believe there is a Tri-unity in God. They believe Mohammed is greater than Jesus (though some take the position of equal without any verification). They deny his death as well as his resurrection. This does not mean we do not respect peoples beliefs and their freedom to choose, however we need to be aware of the differences and what is happening today. We are not to let this influence us away from the faith given to us by the Apostles.
Read on here http://www.letusreason.org/RC18.htm
Jonno, first, “Jeez” sounds a lot like “Jesus” and it doesn’t take any imagination to get the connection.
Sorry if I came across harsh, but the Lord was harsh in His words about the religious leaders who were keeping people in bondage and that is exactly what Roman Catholicism does.Gave tiy ever read Foxes Book of Martyrs? Men have been burned alive simply because they would not renouce Roman doctrine.
I have in my possession a “Catechism of the Catholic Church”. I don’t have to be a history buff to know what the Roman Catholic church teaches. Have you ever actually read it?
I don’t even know where to start. Perhaps I could start by asking you to please explain what the Gospel of Christ is and how does one gain salvation and eternal life. I mean free and clear with no purgatory. Is it possible in your belief system?
Let’s start there. If you would please reply we can go from there. I don’t mean to be disrespectful, and I dislike the belief system, not those who follow it. I hope we can reason together.
May peace be with you as well.
@Burning lamp
Sure thing, I love convos. do you email? Or use facebook?
Jonno, first, “Jeez” sounds a lot like “Jesus” and it doesn’t take any imagination to get the connection.
– The word “yes”, “yay” and “ye” sounds very much the same in my home language (afrikaans)as Jesus. I do however feel that you have reminded me of an important matter, that is, not to make use of unnecessary words that may scandalize another.
Sorry if I came across harsh, but the Lord was harsh in His words about the religious leaders who were keeping people in bondage and that is exactly what Roman Catholicism does.Gave tiy ever read Foxes Book of Martyrs? Men have been burned alive simply because they would not renouce Roman doctrine.
– I read it, yes, it was an interesting read. After some research on the book (google is all you need these days, lol) I found the credulity of this work lacking somewhat. The English Protestant martyrs have my sympathy, but so do the English Catholic martyrs. This sad story of murder in the name of religion is a two way street, Protestants and Catholics are to blame. I wish the road had never been paved! May God have mercy!
I have in my possession a “Catechism of the Catholic Church”. I don’t have to be a history buff to know what the Roman Catholic church teaches. Have you ever actually read it?
– I have read it, yes. I’m surprised that after reading it you don’t appreciate the teachings that come from it. Like the infallibility of scripture, dogma of the trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Atonement pretty much the things we have in common.
I don’t even know where to start. Perhaps I could start by asking you to please explain what the Gospel of Christ is and how does one gain salvation and eternal life. I mean free and clear with no purgatory. Is it possible in your belief system?
– The Gospel of Christ need no explanation between you and I. Since you have read the Catechism, you know exactly what I believe on the point, and since I was an evangelical, I know what you believe also. You would be shocked that we have allot in common. This is just needless banter. Perhaps a nuts and bolts approach would be a better option? And of course, purgatory is avoidable.
Let’s start there. If you would please reply we can go from there. I don’t mean to be disrespectful, and I dislike the belief system, not those who follow it. I hope we can reason together.
– I know and understand your position. We have that in common. I don’t like protestant teaching as much as you don’t like catholic teaching, but you bear the image of God, therefore worthy of love and due respect.
May peace be with you as well.
– And with your spirit!
Many do not hate the Catholic Church because of what she actually is, rather for what she is mistakenly perceived to be.
[Edit: Just to be clear. Jonathan Frederick Lee Ching please confirm that you are Jonno? Admin.]
Jonno or Jonathan F.L.,
I am glad that we have established a mutual respect. Even if we do not come into agreement, we come away knowing we maintained decorum and a discussion void of personal attacks.
I prefer to discuss in a public forum so everyone can benefit and even participate if they so choose.
You are correct – the Roman Church and evangelicals have some areas in common. They are like two concentric circles that overlap to a certain extent. But the differences far outweigh the commalities.
The greatest error in any belief system is the mixture of truth and error. That is borne out whenever leaven is allowed to enter in and taint the truth.
You say you were an evangelical. That term is thrown around loosely these days and I am sorry if you were somehow disappointed or mistreated or had a bad experience of some kind. I am not here to defend the evangelical community. Much of what I see there these days brings more shame to God than glory. Please understand I am not about bashing Catholics who are precious souls for whom Christ died. What I try to do is
contend for the faith as instructed in Jude 1:3.
The bottom line is the Gospel and the means of salvation. Where one spends eternity is the most important issue any of us will ever deal with in our life. So let’s start there. You say since I have the Catechism that I know what you believe. But it has been my experience that Catholics often don’t know what they believe except what they have been told and it is not based on Scripture, but on man-made rules and traditions.
The Bible is clear that salvation comes through a personal decision and acknowledgment of one’s own sin and the need for a Savior and repentance. That requires a maturity of mind and ability to make a decision. No one can make that decision for anyone else. Each of us will answer before the Lord individually and give an account.
Catholic doctrine says:
Baptism, Infant (1250) The Church and the parents would deny a child the grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.
The Bible says:
But as many as received Him to them He gave the right to become chldren of God, to those who believe in His name John 1:12 This requires belief on the part of the individual. A baby cannot believe and is not held accountable until such time that he/she are of an age to make a decision.
The Catholic church teaches that the waters – sacrament of baptism free from sin and regenerate (save) the individual. (1213)
There is no physical act we can do to save ourselves or anyone else for that matter. The Bible says:
In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,Ephesians 1:13 NKJV
The order is to hear the truth and then believe. We are sealed by the Holy Spirit, not by the waters of baptism.
Grace and peace!
Ok. So which issue would you prefer to tackle 1st? I’m a very simple person and to be honest multi-tasking aint one of my strong points.LOL! You have raised the following points
1. The admixture of Truth and error within particular belief systems
2. Jude 1:3 which in itself is a profound verse which would in itself could be a fruitful topic of conversation.
3. Sotierology: Catholicism vs Evangelicalism
4. Scripture and Tradition in context: Protestant vs Catholic ideologies
5. Infant Baptism
a) Symbol vs Sacrament
b) Covenant and fulfillment
c) Regeneration
6. The meaning of a Sacrament: A work vs a channel of grace
7. The Holy Spirit’s role in salvation
LOL! 7! I didn’t mean for that to happen!
There are seven separate topics in this one seemingly easy question/statement. Where shall we begin?
I thought I had laid it out pretty simply. One topic – don’t understand why you produce a whole laundry list. I said:
The Bible is clear that salvation comes through a personal decision and acknowledgment of one’s own sin and the need for a Savior and repentance. That requires a maturity of mind and ability to make a decision. No one can make that decision for anyone else. Each of us will answer before the Lord individually and give an account.
Catholic doctrine says:
Baptism, Infant (1250) The Church and the parents would deny a child the grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.
The Bible says:
But as many as received Him to them He gave the right to become chldren of God, to those who believe in His name John 1:12 This requires belief on the part of the individual. A baby cannot believe and is not held accountable until such time that he/she are of an age to make a decision.
The Catholic church teaches that the waters – sacrament of baptism free from sin and regenerate (save) the individual. (1213)
There is no physical act we can do to save ourselves or anyone else for that matter. The Bible says:
The salvation of an individual is basic. That is a good place to start. I am in favor of keeping it simple.
The Bible says salvation is a decision on the part of the individual – Catholic dogma says otherwise.
This conversation reminds me of a Mormon friend’s discourse. He had share his faith community’s (notice I did not use the word church, since is another religion altogether) beliefs and we got talking on various points in particular the Holy Trinity (obviously) and the properties of God. Where he could not answer he resorted to his “testimony” and started repeating the same things over and over again.Let us in advance agree not to do that sort of thing.
The reason why I made up the list is to show you that this question is multifaceted. It is not a simple question and each point is relevant to this post. Since you have not addressed my question, I shall begin by addressing point no 1:
The admixture of truth in various religious systems. How do we know what is true? Two opposing statements cannot both be true, therefore either one may baptize an infant or not.
First and foremost it is universally agreed among Christians that the Truth of Christ is revelation. The Christian faith is a gift that man receives. God reaches out to man, and not the other way around.
In non-Christian beliefs it is man who tries and justifies himself and reaches out to God for salvation. It is the sad story of a finite being trying in vain to merit an eternal satisfication trying to satiny the perfectly Just (and perfectly Merciful I may add) infinitely superior and perfect Being.
It is also universally accepted that the incarnation is the only way that this debt could be paid. God himself (by virtue of the hypostatic union) in Jesus Christ fulfills the Law perfectly and merits by his death on the Cross infinite treasure (due to his infinite dignity), the payment of Adam’s sin and the sin of each man, woman and child no matter race, colour or creed.
Now. During the ministry of Christ on earth before his final hours institutes his church. There are many verses regarding this point, but these shall suffice.He promises:
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (KJV)
Joh 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
1.The Gift of the Holy Spirit and through His ministry:
2.Infallibility (i.e Truth)
3.Power
4.Permanence
5.Revelation
if we take these promises seriously then we can address the next question (skipping 2) the question of sotierology or the method of salvation.
As an Evangelical I was taught that all I had to do to be saved is to say the sinners prayer. It was a personal decision.This process included:
1. Knowing by inspiration by the Holy Spirit that I had sinned and need God in my life.
2. Ask Christ to come into my heart and
3. live a new life.
In this way the righteousness of Christ would be imputed and I would be freed from judgement, since “all works however good are as filthy rags before God”.That was it as far as I was concerned at that time. Baptism wasn’t a necessity at that church.
Before we carry on, is this how you see the salvation process?
Boy can we say bunnytrails?
I simplified the topic and you complicated it, bringing in the issue of Peter being the rock, etc.
It doesn’t matter what you or I believe. It isn’t about comparing our beliefs. It is what the Bible says and it is very clear on the basics.
Now shall we get back to the topic I put on the table?
The Bible is clear that salvation comes through a personal decision and acknowledgment of one’s own sin and the need for a Savior and repentance. That requires a maturity of mind and ability to make a decision. No one can make that decision for anyone else. Each of us will answer before the Lord individually and give an account.
Catholic doctrine says:
Baptism, Infant (1250) The Church and the parents would deny a child the grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.
The Bible says:
But as many as received Him to them He gave the right to become chldren of God, to those who believe in His name John 1:12 This requires belief on the part of the individual. A baby cannot believe and is not held accountable until such time that he/she are of an age to make a decision.
Catholic doctrine says that the parents can determine the salvation of their baby. If this not in direct opposition to what the Bible says?
Or are you saying that the Bible is not the ultimate authority but the revelation of church leaders to add to Bible doctrine? Interesting you mention Mormonism. That is exactly what they do.
LOL! I’m working up to trying to make my position very clear, and also trying to find out your exact position on this subject. Bunnytrails ( I love bunnies BTW) is not the issue. When one forms a dialog one needs to understand the state of mind of the person you are in dialog with, his/her beliefs and then compare. I don’t even know if you are male or female…do you see my problem? Are you an American? We are not making instant coffee, we are talking theology, truth and by extension the eternal well being of immortal souls.
I did not even go near petrine primacy, which you were expecting, but put forward a position, which you have chosen to disregard. Which I suppose is fair enough.
I will revert to my old form of answering since dialog seems a bad method. I will copy and paste your post and comment below each point. Righteo!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Boy can we say bunnytrails?
– Yes. I can. "Bunnnytrails" LOL! That is my nickname from now on! ;-p
I simplified the topic and you complicated it, bringing in the issue of Peter being the rock, etc.
– Actually I was pointing out that Truth is truth, a gift of the Holy Spirit, that the church which was founded by Christ in that particular verse would be Spirit lead (infallible), permanent, have authority or power and be gifted with revelation. Relax!
It doesn’t matter what you or I believe. It isn’t about comparing our beliefs. It is what the Bible says and it is very clear on the basics.
– It is as you say. It is not what you or I believe, but what the scriptures say. Amen! If the holy scripture was as clear on the basics as you say, then why are there so many different opinions on the Truth? Even within the protestant communities the bare-bone basics are disputed and we both know that they all believe in Sola Scriptura, yet come to as many conclusions as there are denominations.
Now shall we get back to the topic I put on the table?
– LOL! I was trying to lay the foundation for the question. Before we can speak about salvation we must agree on what sin is and how it affects us. But let us leave that for now as it will resurface later i suspect.
The Bible is clear that salvation comes through a personal decision and acknowledgment of one’s own sin and the need for a Savior and repentance. That requires a maturity of mind and ability to make a decision. No one can make that decision for anyone else. Each of us will answer before the Lord individually and give an account.
– First of all, how many cases of children of the age of reason are recorded of having gone through this process?
– Was this phenomenon not regarded as a movement in the Jewish religion which got out of hand and therefore making it possible that only adults had at that particular time (the infancy of the new way) the ability to become disciples?
– Where in the Holy Scriptures does it say that baptism may not be administered to infants, since circumcision (which all respected theologians, even protestant ones see as a figure to be fulfilled by baptism) was administered for the child to be placed under the covenant of the Law.
– The unanimous testimony of the early church
St Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of St John the Apostle.
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189])
or Hippolytis a disciple of Irenaeus (who was a disciple of of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, who was a disciple of Jesus)
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Catholic doctrine says:
Baptism, Infant (1250) The Church and the parents would deny a child the grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.
– Baptism, its history and purpose is well explained from paragraph 1214. If you are a serious apologist or inquirer, you would have read that.
The Bible says:
But as many as received Him to them He gave the right to become chldren of God, to those who believe in His name John 1:12 This requires belief on the part of the individual. A baby cannot believe and is not held accountable until such time that he/she are of an age to make a decision.
– Here is the problem I have with the Protestant faith in all its forms: Cafeteria syndrome.One may pick and choose what verses to believe and what verses to cast off.
What about the following passages:
– Luk 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
Luk 18:16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
– Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
– Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
– 1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
– Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
– Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
– 1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Catholic doctrine says that the parents can determine the salvation of their baby. If this not in direct opposition to what the Bible says?
– Does it really say that? Read it carefully "deny a child the priceless GRACE". Salvation is a free gift. It is an irreproachable neglect to defer Baptism, yet remember that God also works outside the NORMATIVE and ESTABLISHED means if need be.
Or are you saying that the Bible is not the ultimate authority but the revelation of church leaders to add to Bible doctrine? Interesting you mention Mormonism. That is exactly what they do.
– This is a silly thing to say. You need to read the Encyclical Dei Verbum to see our stance on Holy Scripture. Also the Catechism which you have should explain that at paragraph 74. We do not say either/or, we say both/and. Scripture and tradition work hand in hand. There is a difference to sacred Tradition and traditions of men.
– 2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
– Don't try and make out Tradition to be something bad. Because it isn't.
Was this a better post? Let me know!
Peace!
Jonno
Jonathan Frederick Lee Ching
Bunnytrails lol that was funny I had to smile at you and Burning Lamp here. But I must agree Bunnies are kinda cute lol lol.
I found this interesting article sorry it is a bit long, But it does make some good reading and understanding.
“Should Catholic tradition have equal or greater authority than the Bible?”
Answer: Should church traditions be accepted as equally authoritative as Scripture? Or, should church traditions be followed only if they are in full agreement with Scripture? The answer to these questions play a large role in determining what you believe and how you live as a Christian. It is our contention that Scripture alone is the only authoritative and infallible source for Christian doctrine and practice. Traditions are only valid if they are built on the firm foundation of Scripture, and in full agreement with the entirety of Scripture. Following are seven biblical reasons supporting the teaching that the Bible should be accepted as the authority for faith and practice:
(1) It is Scripture that is said to be God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), and it is Scripture that has the repeated, “Thus saith the LORD…” In other words, it is the written Word that is repeatedly treated as God’s Word. Never is it said of any church tradition that it, too, is God-breathed and infallible.
(2) It is to Scripture that Jesus and the apostles appeal time after time in support or defense of their actions and teachings (Matthew 12:3,5; 19:4; 22:31; Mark 12:10). There are over 60 verses in which you find “it is written…” used by Jesus and the apostles to support their teachings.
(3) It is to the Scriptures that the church is commended in order to combat the error that was bound to come (Acts 20:32). Likewise, it was the written word that was seen in the Old Testament as the source of truth upon which to base one’s life (Joshua 1:8; Deuteronomy 17:18-19; Psalm 1; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; etc.). Jesus said that one of the reasons that the Sadducees were in error concerning the resurrection is that they did not know the Scriptures (Mark 12:24).
(4) Infallibility is never stated as the possession of those who would become church leaders in succession of the apostles. In both the Old and New Testaments, it is seen that duly appointed religious leaders could cause the people of God to err (1 Samuel 2:27-36; Matthew 15:14; 23:1-7; John 7:48; Acts 20:30; Galatians 2:11-16). Both Testaments exhort people to study the Scriptures to determine what is true and what is false (Psalm 19; 119; Isaiah 8:20; 2 Timothy 2:15; 3:16-17). While Jesus taught respect toward religious leaders (Matthew 23:3), an admonition which the apostles followed, we have the apostles’ example of breaking from the authority of their religious leaders when it was in opposition to what Jesus had commanded (Acts 4:19).
(5) Jesus equates the Scriptures with God’s word (John 10:35). In contrast, when it comes to the religious traditions, He condemns some traditions because they contradict the written word (Mark 7:1-13). Never does Jesus use religious tradition to support His actions or teachings. Before the writing of the New Testament, the Old Testament was the only inspired Scripture. However, there were literally hundreds of Jewish “traditions” recorded in the Talmud (a collection of commentary compiled by Jewish rabbis). Jesus and the apostles had both the Old Testament, and the Jewish tradition. Nowhere in Scripture does Jesus or any of the apostles appeal to the Jewish traditions. In contrast, Jesus and the apostles quote from, or allude to the Old Testament hundreds of time. The Pharisees accused Jesus and the apostles of “breaking the traditions” (Matthew 15:2). Jesus responded with a rebuke, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?” (Matthew 15:3). The manner in which Jesus and the apostles distinguished between the Scriptures and traditions they possessed is an example for the church. Jesus specifically rebukes treating the “commandments of men” as doctrines (Matthew 15:9).
(6) It is Scripture that has the promise that it will never fail, that it will all be fulfilled. Again, never is this promise given to the traditions of the church (Psalm 119:89,152; Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 5:18; Luke 21:33).
(7) It is the Scriptures that are the instrument of the Holy Spirit and His means for conquering Satan and changing lives (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).
“And that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:15-17). “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20).
According to 2 Timothy 3:15-17, it is Scripture that is able to give one knowledge of salvation, it is God-breathed, and it is what we need to be thoroughly equipped for every good work. To be “thoroughly” equipped, means that it has all that we need. Scripture contains the information from God that is all we need for salvation and to live a life of good works. According to Isaiah 8:20, it is the “law and testimony” (terms used to refer to Scripture, see Psalm 119), that is the standard by which to measure truth.
“Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:10-11). Here the Jewish people of the town of Berea were commended for testing the teachings they were hearing from Paul by the Scriptures. They did not just accept Paul’s words as authoritative. They examined Paul’s words, compared them with Scripture, and found them to be true.
In Acts 20:27-32, Paul acknowledges publicly that “wolves” and false teachers would arise from “among yourselves” (within the church). What did he commend them to? To “God and the word of His grace.” He does not commend them to the “church leaders” (they were the church leaders), nor to the traditions of the church, nor to a particular overseeing elder. Rather, Paul pointed them to the word of God.
In summary, while there is no one verse that states that the Bible alone is our authority, the Bible over and over again gives the examples and the admonitions of turning to the written Word as one’s source of authority. When it comes to examining the origin of a prophet’s or religious leader’s teaching, it is Scripture that is appealed to as the standard.
The Roman Catholic Church uses a number of biblical passages to support their use of tradition as of equal weight with Scripture. Here are the most commonly used of these passages, along with a brief explanation:
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). “But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us” (2 Thessalonians 3:6). These passages relate to the traditions the Thessalonians had received from Paul himself, whether oral or written. They do not relate to traditions handed down, but to teachings that they themselves had received either from the mouth of Paul or from his pen. Paul is not giving his blessing on all tradition, but rather only on the traditions he had passed on to the Thessalonians. This is in contrast to the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, which have been handed down from the fourth century and later, not from the mouth or pen of one of the apostles.
“These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:14-15). The phrase “pillar and ground of truth” does not indicate that the church is the creator of truth, or that it can originate tradition to supplement Scripture. The church being the “pillar and ground of the truth” simply means that the church is the proclaimer and defender of the truth. The New Testament praises churches for proclaiming the truth, “for from you the word of the Lord has been spread abroad” (1 Thessalonians 1:8). The New Testament commends early Christians for defending the truth, “partakers with me…in the defense and confirmation of the gospel” (Philippians 1:7). There is not a single verse in all of Scriptures which indicates that the church has the authority to develop new truth, or to decree new truth as being from the mouth of God.
“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you” (John 14:26). This was a promise given to the apostles alone. The Holy Spirit would help the apostles to remember everything that Jesus had said to them. Nowhere does this Scripture state that there would be an apostolic line of successors, and that the promise would also be for them.
“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:18-19). These verses are used by the Roman Catholic Church to support their teaching that Peter was the first pope, and that the church was built upon Him. But when taken in context with what takes place in the Book of Acts, you find that Peter was the one who opened up the gospel to the world in the sense that it was he who first preached the gospel of Christ on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). It was he who first preached the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10). So, the binding and loosing was done through the preaching of the gospel, not through any Roman Catholic tradition.
While it is clearly evident that Scripture argues for its own authority, Scripture nowhere argues for “authoritative tradition equal with Scripture.” In fact, the New Testament has more to say against traditions that it does in favor of tradition.
The Roman Catholic Church argues that Scripture was given to men by the Church and therefore the Church has equal or greater authority to it. However, even among the Roman Catholic Church’s writings (from the First Vatican Council), you will find the acknowledgment that the Church councils that determined which books were to be considered the Word of God did nothing but recognize what the Holy Spirit had already made evident. That is, the Church did not “give” Scriptures to men, but simply “recognized” what God, through the Holy Spirit, had already given. As A. A. Hodge states, when a peasant recognizes a prince and is able to call him by name, it does not give him the right to rule over the kingdom. In like fashion, a church council recognizing which books were God-breathed and possessed the traits of a God-inspired book, it does not give the church council equal authority with those books.
In summary, one cannot find a single passage that states that “the written Word alone, and not tradition also, is our sole authority for faith and practice.” At the same time, what must also be admitted is that repeatedly, the Old Testament writers, Jesus, and the apostles, turn to the Scriptures as their measuring stick, and commend the same to any and all that would follow them.
Recommended Resource: The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God by James McCarthy.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-tradition.html
I really want to compliment you and Burning Lamp on your good dialogue you have going here. If I have come across rude in any way on my previous comments to you I do sincerely apologize very humbly to you.
Take care Jonathan aka Bunnytrails lol lol (I just had to say that and smile again.) But you said we may call you Bunnytrails as a nick name. 🙂
Well, shall we say this is to BT from BL and keep things simple? lol
ElMarie, thanks for chiming in with those good words on the supremacy of Scripture. BT, I would respectfully ask that you peruse what she has shared.
Before I proceed, El Marie can you please tell this dunderhead – yours truly – how to put into a block portions of a post to which one wishes to comment? It would sure make his and my responses much more readable. Once I get that mastered I will resume the discussion. It seems I recall Debs telling someone how to do this at some point but I don’t remember – I do well to remember what I had at my last meal! lol
?blockquote$Paste the text that you want to quote here. ?/blockquote$
Replace the ? symbol with the bracket above the comma [on my keyboard], the mathematical symbol for “smaller than”.
Replace the $ symbol with the bracket above the fullstop [on my keyboard], the mathematical symbol for “bigger than”.
I had to use other symbols to make it not work. When you exchange the symbols, it will display like this:
Amanda
Thank you for yelping BL out 🙂 El cranko here was still trying to figure out how to yelp BL and you yelped out Baie dankies 🙂
Burning Lamp let us know if you don’t come right please 🙂
Burning Lamp
You can go here for more yelps on the blockquotes and more. 🙂
I must learn too!!! Other boards usually has this function built in so…um…ja…lol (blush)
BTW. I am going through it point by point, interesting read so far, thanks!