DATE: 06 Feb 2009, 10:31 am / MOOD: Other

Catholic Apologetics Guide 101

Scriptural Reference for Catholic Apologetics

by Adadzie, Godwin Delali
This is a little book for those seeking a right understanding of Apologetics in the context of Catholicism. It is written in a simple and friendly manner. It is an attempt to look at some Catholic positions in a Biblical perspective. It is hoped that this book should appeal to the Catholic as well as to the non-Catholic readers. It is not written in a "scholarly" way, but as a plain "theological" statement with the hope of carrying conviction.

This book does not pretend to be exhaustive. The field which it covers is too vast to admit of minute analysis. A good number of Catholics leave the Church every year due to poor understanding of the Faith and also the efforts of anti-Catholic groups and churches. Realizing that misrepresentation and misunderstanding are the chief sources of error; this book serves as a quick guide to remove some of these errors.
Download book here or here

And You Will Know The Truth

How to Explain and Defend The Catholic Faith

by Sebastian R. Fama
Quite often those who object to Catholicism will do so on scriptural grounds. They claim the teachings of the Church are opposed to the teachings of the Bible. However, Scripture read in context fully supports Catholic teaching. The primary goal of this book is to present the biblical case for Catholicism. The writings of the Early Church Fathers are also referred. This is to show that those who were taught by the Apostles believed and interpreted the Scriptures in the same way that the Catholic Church does today.
Download book here or here

Ecce Fides

Pillar of Truth

by Fr. John J. Pasquini
Anywhere from twenty to eighty percent of Protestant and pseudo-Christian denominations are made up of former Catholics. And sadly, there are too many practicing Catholics who do not believe in the Church’s infallibility in the areas of faith and morals.

This book is intended to combat this dangerous trend. Ecce Fides is a book intended to reaffirm Catholics in their faith and in the infallibility of their Church. It is intended to bring back home those who have fallen away from their faith, to convince searching Christians of a home in the Catholic Church, and to convert in a gentle manner Protestants and Pseudo-Christians to the fullness of Christianity as found in the Catholic Church.

Ecce Fides is a work dedicated to defending Catholic beliefs through reason, Scripture, and the life of the Holy Spirit.
In the first three hundred years of Christianity, one million Catholics lost their lives as martyrs. Come join the faith that was built on Christ and the blood of his martyrs.
Download book here or here


View Entry | Leave A Comment

DATE: 10 Dec 2008, 1:30 pm / MOOD: Other

Let us cease the silence and blow the trumpet to warn our dearest ones against immodest fashion. For we are reminded by Scripture as the Lord speaks in the days of old:

“If I say to the wicked, O wicked man, you shall surely die, and you do no speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.” (Ezekiel 33:8)

After the fall of mankind, we inherited a weakened will, a darkened intellect and a disordered appetite from our parents Adam and Eve. As a consequence of these facts, our emotions were disordered, leading to our fallen moral standards.

“Then the eyes of both [Adam and Eve] were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.” (Genesis 3:7)

From this point of history onwards, immodest fashion aroused. The fig leaves aprons that our parents made would have covered them incompletely. They would have been dressed immodestly, causing immoral temptations. God was not pleased with their aprons. Hence, He made new garments for them that would cover them completely and decently.

“And the LORD God made for Adam and his wife garments of skins, and clothed them.” (Genesis 3:21)

Here, we read that God “clothed them”, this is a clear demonstration of His will to have us dress (clothe) modestly, according to His perfect standards, to avoid lust and immorality.

Again, God gives another instruction about the mode of dressing for His people.

“You shall make for them linen breeches to cover their flesh; from the loins to the thighs they shall reach.” (Leviticus 28:42)

It is very clear that God wants our flesh to be covered so that temptations will be reduced and sin avoided. It is also written that:

“A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.” (Deuteronomy 22:5)

We may argue that Christians are not bound by the Mosaic Laws (cf. Romans 3:28), that is true, however, the morality behind them are still applicable. (e.g. The Decalogue or 10 Commandments) Another argument might be raised on the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ concerning clothing.
“Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?” (Matthew 6:25ff)
The context of this passage if well understood, teaches us not to overemphasize the importance of clothing. It does not in anyway promote “Christianity is about the heart, not the appearance”, that many people chant daily as slogan, to justify immodest dressing and other immoral behaviours. Scripture has demonstrated that clothing can be very positive and sacred. It goes on to show that it can beautify the wearer and glorify God as well.

“And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty.” (Exodus 28:2)

We should remember that clothing reveals hidden attributes about the wearer. It is a powerful means of conveying messages about oneself. What are men saying when they dress shabbily?  Are they saying they are irresponsible? Now to our dearest women, what are they communicating when they dress in skin-tights, mini-skirts, low cut jeans and bikinis? What about those who pierce and tattoo their navels and other private parts? What about those who artificially inflate their breasts, buttocks and lips medically? Women must always remember that men are very visual beings, and their body language usually dictates how men should treat them. If women dress with dignity and carry themselves with elegance, most men will approach them with respect and honour. On the other hand, If women dress immodestly (short skirts, tight jeans, etc), men will often view them as sexual objects to be played with. Scripture tells us that:

“You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are your near kinswomen; it is wickedness.” (Leviticus 18:17)

When women dress immodestly by revealing their legs, stomachs, breasts and other priceless precious private parts, they are actually uncovering their own nakedness and leading many people to serious sin.  Anytime women consciously choose to dress without discretion, they spoil their true beauty.

“Like a gold ring in a swine’s snout is a beautiful woman without discretion.” (Proverbs 11:22)

In Scripture, nakedness has been shown to signify shame.

“Take the millstones and grind meal, put off your veil, strip off your robe, uncover your legs, pass through the rivers. Your nakedness shall be uncovered, and your shame shall be seen.” (Isaiah 47:2-3)

However, in modern society, some women view nakedness as a symbol of pride and authority. The Apostles tells us “never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother” (Romans 14:13, 21; cf. 1 John 2:10) It is said that the olden days prostitutes dressed more decently than many women today. This is very unfortunate.  Anytime women choose to dress like prostitutes, they cause psychological problems for men who encounter them. Men stumble a lot when they see such women, and such stumbling block can hinder the eternal fate of them. Women are aware that when they dress immodestly, they drive men to view their bodies for immoral purposes. They usually say “use what you have to get what you want”, that is nonsense. When stable men approach them, they usually reply “I am aware”. These corrupt mentalities should be rebuked.

“To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted.” (Titus 2:15)

It is wrong for women to use the sexual characteristics of their bodies to control men both psychologically and emotionally. Scripture warn us about loose women and their manipulation of men into grave sin.

“For the lips of a loose woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil; but in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps follow the path to Sheol.” (Proverbs 5:3)

Whenever women dress immodestly, they wage war on the souls of men. St. Peter reminds us that:

“Beloved, I beseech you as aliens and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh that wage war against your soul.” (1 Peter 2:11)

Our Lord Jesus also says “everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28)
Men have the responsibility to give in their disordered passions to Jesus Christ. They should resolve not to look lustfully upon women, and always remember what is written in Scripture concerning this issue.

“I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I look upon a virgin?” (Job 31:1)

Also, women have the responsibility to correct their defective mode of dressing which allures men. They can help men to give up their lustful behaviours by dressing decently.

Finally brethrens, let us pray for grace to be able to help one another in tackling this serious moral issue. For we are not our own, our bodies solely belong to God our Creator.

“Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

“For we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world.” (1Timothy 6:7)

Let us choose to glorify God in the way we dress and carry ourselves from now onwards.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me.
Adadzie, Godwin Delali (GADEL)
Sts. Peter and Paul Catechism Ministry
2nd September, 2008.

View Entry | Leave A Comment

DATE: 10 Dec 2008, 1:26 pm / MOOD: Other

Let us “search the scriptures” (cf. John 5:39) and let our mind be enlightened from the search. Truly, God alone by His glorious nature deserves all worship. For He is the Master of all things as scripture says, “for all things are thy servants” (Psalm 119:91 ff)

It is impossible to make an image of God, who is a pure Spirit, invisible, having neither form nor limit.        
“No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” (John 1:18) Also, God said “you cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live.” (Exodus 33:20)

According to scriptures, when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, to receive the law, the ungrateful people of Israel rose against Aaron. They  said

“Up, make us gods, who shall go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.” (Exodus 32:1 ff)

The making of graven images and the worshipping of these images as a god is precisely what God forbids. Let us find out what scripture says concerning this issue.

“Therefore take good heed to yourselves. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air.” (Deuteronomy 4:15-17)

Further, the Ten Commandments make it crystal clear that, the making of graven images as a god is totally forbidden.

“You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I  the LORD your God am a jealous God…” (Deuteronomy 5:7-9, cf. Exodus 20:3-5, Leviticus 19:4)

We have seen from the context of the above scripture passage that the creature should not be worshipped instead of the Creator. Let us now see passages in the scriptures where the Living God commands the making of images. The first instance is the making of the Ark of the Covenant. Here, God said to Moses,

“And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat.” (Exodus 25:18)

Again, God commands the making of bronze serpent.

“And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” So, Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole…” (Numbers 21:8-9)

Do we see how God can use images to reveal His glory and bless people, if and only if it is not worshipped as a god? Concerning the bronze serpent, the unfaithful people of Israel began to worship it as a god. This incurred God’s wrath, and King Hezekiah destroyed it.

“He removed the high places, and broke the pillars, and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had burned incense to it; it was called Nehushtan.” (2 Kings 18:4)

Finally, God revealed Himself visually to all humans in the person of Jesus Christ.

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.” (John 1:14)

Jesus Himself said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9 ff)
And St. Paul adds, “He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.” (Colossians 1:15)

Now that God has been clothed in flesh, we can make an image of Him. We can now worship the God of matter, who became matter for our sake.
Our Lord Jesus said “that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him.” (John 5:23)
He who does not honour the image does not honour the original.

Many of us love to sing during worship. Some of us sing with our hands in the air, others kneel while singing the music. We sometimes even shed tears during adoration. Could we say we are worshipping the music? Certainly not, rather we are worshipping through music. The music serves as a channel for expressing an inner feeling to honour and worship God.
Similarly, images can serve as a channel for expressing an inner feeling to honour and worship God. Can we see how our Lord Jesus Christ can be honoured and worshipped through music, as well as images, without being idolatry?

Okay, what about the Saints? Well, let us see what scripture tells us. It is written “Honour your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:12, Leviticus 19:3, Deuteronomy 5:16, Matthew 15:4, Mark 7:10, Ephesians 6:2), this commandment was fulfilled perfectly by our Lord Jesus Christ. He honoured His heavenly Father and His earthly mother. We are told to be imitators of Christ. (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:1, Ephesians 5:1) If our Lord did honour His mother Mary perfectly, then what stops us from doing so?  Mary herself prophesied saying, “For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed” (Luke 1:48) why? Because He who is Mighty has done great things for her. (cf. Luke 1:49) Great things such as being the blessed one who is full of grace (cf. Luke 1:28, 42), the mother of the Word incarnate. (cf. John 1:14)

Also, Jesus tells His disciples “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16, cf. Matthew 10:40, Mark 9:37) Mary and the Saints who have endured unto the end, and have won the crown of life are perpetually in God’s friendship there in heaven. (cf. Matthew 24:13, 2 Timothy 4:8, James 1:12, 1 Peter 5:4, Revelation 2:10) We know that God is not the God of the dead but of the living. (cf. Mark 12:26-27), for to Him all are alive. This was clearly demonstrated at the transfiguration where Moses and Elijah appeared. (cf. Matthew 17:1-8, Mark 9:2-9, Luke 9:28-36)
Again, the bodily resurrection of the Saints during the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ speaks volume. (cf. Matthew 27:52)

Is it right to bow before images and statues of the Saints? In answering this question, we must first distinguish between adoration due to God alone and honour due to the Saints. By adoration we mean the acknowledgement of God as God, Creator and King.
Abraham saw the image of God, not His nature, for no man has ever seen God, and he fell down and worship His image. (cf. Genesis 18:2) This is the worship due to God alone.
However, St. John mistakenly adored an angel, a creature of God as God and he was immediately corrected by the angel.

“Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” …” (Revelation 19:10)

Now let us see examples in scriptures that angels are honoured, but not worshipped as God.
Joshua bowed down and honoured an angel of God, but committed no sin in doing so.

“ … And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and worshipped, and said to him, “What does my lord bid his servant?”” (Joshua 5:14)

We should note that, Joshua saw an image of the angel, not the actual form of this angel since angels are bodiless beings. He worshipped (honoured) the angel not as God, but as God’s ministering spirit. Here, we see that it was acceptable in the scriptures.
Also, Lot the nephew of Abraham bowed down before two angels of the Lord, but he was not worshipping them as a god.

“The two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed himself with his face to the earth.” (Genesis 19:1)

Were Joshua and Lot worshipping those angels as a god? Certainly not, they were rather honouring them as God’s ministering angels. Now to some instances where people of God bowed to other men, not as a god.

Firstly, David, the servant of the LORD, bowed down and did obeisance before king Saul, but he was not sinning against God’s commandment.

“Afterward David also arose, and went out of the cave, and called after Saul, “My lord the king!” And when Saul looked behind him, David bowed with his face to the earth and did obeisance.” (1 Samuel 24:8)

Furthermore, Ruth bowed down to the ground before Boaz in gratitude, but she was not worshipping him.

“Then she fell on her face, bowing to the ground, and said to him, “Why have I found favour in your eyes, that you should take notice of me, when I am a foreigner?”” (Ruth 2:10)

And again, the Shunammite woman bowed down before the prophet Elisha after he had raised her child from the dead, but she was not committing idolatry.

“She came and fell at his feet, bowing to the ground; then she took up her son and went out.” (2 Kings 4:37)

Bathsheba was blameless when she bowed down in honour of king David, while he was on his deathbed.

“Bathsheba bowed and did obeisance to the king, and the king said, “What do you desire?” (1 Kings 1:16)

Again, the prophet Nathan was likewise not committing idolatry when he also bowed down to king David at his deathbed.

“And when he came in before the king, he bowed before the king, with his face to the ground.” (1 Kings 1: 23 ff)

And finally, when Jacob and Esau had their dramatic reconciliation, we read that:

“He himself went on before them, bowing himself to the ground seven times, until he came near his brother.” (Genesis 33:3)

Can any of us accuse Jacob of idolatry? Certainly not. What stop us from making images of God’s friends? What stop us from honouring images of God’s friends, not as gods? Neither Joshua nor Lot worshipped the angels they saw as gods. Neither do we worship the images as God, but through the image, we show our worship to God, because we honour His friends (our role models), and do them reverence.

Brethren, let us remember that anything can become an idol if it takes the unique place of God. For some people it may be gods, for others it may be money, power, fame, pleasure, work, celebrities. Let us remind ourselves about the words of our Lord Jesus Christ as He says, “You cannot serve God and mammon.”   (Matthew 6:24 ff)

At your service LORD.
Adadzie, Godwin Delali (GADEL)
Sts. Peter and Paul Catechism Ministry
27th August, 2008.

View Entry | Leave A Comment

DATE: 10 Dec 2008, 1:24 pm / MOOD: Other

Question:

Can you please clarify what the Scriptural (i.e. Catholic) meaning is of the following terms: paradise, sheol, hades, gehenna, tartaros, the pit, Abraham's bosom, the prison, paradise?

Answer:

The general Hebrew term for the abode of the dead was "sheol." It had both good neighborhoods and bad neighborhoods. "Hades" was the Greek name for this place.

The term "paradise" was used by the pre-Christian Jews to refer to the abode of the righteous dead where they awaited the resurrection. It was also known as the "bosom of Abraham".

The unrighteous dead, were believed by these same Jews to go to a place of torment/purgation that they called "Gehenna" after a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem where there were spontaneous combustion fires burning all the time. (It was also known as "the pit," and "the prison.") It was really unclear whether the Rabbis considered "gehenna" to be a permanent or temporary state. Jesus affirmed that it was both. Hence our distinction between Hell and Purgatory. Some Rabbis believed that at the general resurrection, the unrighteous who had not been purified would be annihilated.

Tartaros was the term for Hell in Greek mythology wherer the Titans were improsoned by the Olympian gods.

Generally, Catholic theology has identified Sheol with Hell. The good folk and the bad folk who were being purged were in Limbo (i.e., the limbus or edge of Hell). The bad folk who were damned were in Hell proper.

The parable of Lazarus and the Rich man was a story about Limbo. The rich man was being purged in preparation for the resurrection. He was not in Hell proper.

When Jesus "descended into Hell" (Apostle's Creed & 1Pet 3:19ff) he went to set free all of the righteous dead of the OT and those who were being purged. This was known as the "Harrowing of Hell." The truly damned stayed where they were.

Art Sippo
Catholic Apologist
December 21, 2001

View Entry | Leave A Comment

DATE: 10 Dec 2008, 1:18 pm / MOOD: Other

Purgatory is not a popular topic in Protestant circles.  Along with the topic of purgatory, the idea of suffering in general is perplexing for most Protestants, especially in the Health and Wealth gospel crowd .  Suffering is to be avoided at all costs and is looked upon as a curse from God if received.  Just ask your local Protestant to explain to you the whole concept of suffering in our own lives and in the world and then sit back and try not to grimace.

First of all, let's read what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about Purgatory:
 

"All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned" (CCC 1030-1).

Any discussion of Purgatory naturally must also deal with the topic of human suffering. Does suffering have a purpose in my life?  Can my suffering benefit me or the souls of others?  Try this approach next time the topic arises with a Protestant friend:

1)  Ask your friend if he agrees that suffering is allowed in a Christian's life to conform that person closer to the image of Christ.

 Demand a simple "yes" or "no" answer.  Once you reach an agreement, move to #2.

2)  Ask your friend if this suffering or process of conforment in the Christian's life is needed for salvation.

Once again, this question deserves a simple "yes" or "no" answer.   Of course, Protestants will always deny that anything except faith alone is needed for salvation so they will answer your question with a resounding "no".

3) Here is where you have them trapped.

If suffering is NOT needed for our salvation, then according to Protestants, God allows us to suffer for the sole reason that he is a cruel and sadistic God who likes to see us in pain.  Since this CANNOT be the case, then God must allow us to suffer because suffering is necessary for our salvation.

4) Now that you've proved that suffering is needed for our salvation, let's find out more precisely why:

1 Pet 2:21 "To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps."

Since we are to imitate Christ, and since Christ suffered and died for the sins of the world and for our salvation, then that means that if I imitate Christ and accept my sufferings, uniting them with Christ's and offering them up to God, then they can benefit my salvation and others as well.

5) You've just proved that our suffering is salvific for us and also for others as well.

6) Now you need to show your friend that the bible speaks of suffering as an ordeal by fire.

1 Pet 1:6-7  "In this you rejoice, although now for a little while you may have to suffer through various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold that is perishable even though tested by fire."

As you can see, suffering is spoken of as being tested by fire.

7) One final question needs to be addressed.  Can this purification happen after death?

First we must realize that nothing unclean can enter heaven.

Rev 21:27:  "...but nothing unclean will enter it, nor anyone who does abominable things or tells lies."

Therefore, if we die with venial sin or temporal punishment due to sins on our soul, we must still be purified.  Protestants like to claim that they are covered by Christ's righteousness and that alone is their ticket to heaven.   Are they really "clean" though? Martin Luther, one of their founding fathers, liked to refer to our justification as a "snow-covered dunghill".  We appeared righteous from the outside but on the inside, we were still corrupt.  Our justification was looked at in merely legal terms.  But does this agree with what the bible truly teaches?  Aren't we said to be a new creation not merely the old masquerading as the new?

2 Cor 5:17 "Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come."

 Luther's "snow-covered dunghill" is totally contradictory to what the bible teaches about justification.  In fact, Jesus explicitly condemns it.

Mt 23:25-27: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness."

Unless we die a martyr's death, it is safe to say that most of us won't die without some trace of self-love within us and therefore need to be "cleansed" after death if we are to enter heaven.  Is there biblical evidence to prove that this purification process occurs after death?  There sure is!  

Luke 16:19-31 "There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in Hades he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

We are told that the rich man is suffering in fire.   If the rich man were in hell, he would have no concern for the spiritual welfare of his brothers.  Love is nonexistent in hell.  It is obvious that he isn't in heaven though also.  Purgatory is the only other explanation.  It seems that he is being purified for some things said while alive (James 3:5-6).  It is interesting to note that Jesus raises a man named Lazarus from the dead in what appears to be the result of the intercession of  Abraham. Even though Protestants err by not accepting 2 Maccabees as inspired of God, it too should be presented as an historical proof that clearly shows existence of a purifying state after death and the accepted practice of praying for the souls of the dead by the Jews.  These souls obviously are in need of such prayers or the practice would have been pointless.  Both Luke 16 and 2 Macc 12 clearly show the teaching of the Communion of Saints and the Mystical Body of Christ..

2 Macc 12:42-46 "Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice.  In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin."

If you recall, suffering was said to be a "trial by fire".  Let's read more about what the bible has to say about this:

1 Cor 3 12-15: "Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

We are told that every man's work will be tested.  Notice that if a man still has traces of wood, hay or stubble (sins), he himself will still be saved but will have to first undergo suffering by fire.  This fire is the work of the Holy Spirit.  

The bible also tells us that every man must give an account of his life at the final judgment:

Matt 12:36-37 "But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."

Hebrews 4:13 "Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account."

1 Corinthians 4:4-5 "For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts."

If we are all to render an account of our lives before God after we die, we will be shown the good and the bad that we have done throughout our days on earth.  When we witness the times in our lives when we chose not to do God's will, we will feel remorse.  This remorse or suffering after death is Purgatory.

Nothing would be more appropiate than ending this discussion with St. Paul himself who came to know the immense value of redemptive suffering.

Colossians 1:24 "Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church."

Frank Jerry
The Catholic Legate
August 1, 2004

View Entry | Leave A Comment

DATE: 10 Dec 2008, 1:11 pm / MOOD: Other

PROPOSITION: Is Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) a reasonable method for understanding Christian orthodoxy? Let’s examine the facts:

FACT: There is nothing in Scripture teaching that "Scripture alone" is all-sufficient for the Christian Faith.

FACT: There is something in Scripture advocating reliance on both Scripture as well as oral Tradition (2 Thess 2:15, Phil 4:9, 1 Corinth 11:2, 2 Thess 3:6).

FACT: There is nothing in Scripture suggesting that a time will come when this dual expression of Christian truth (Scripture and oral Tradition) will come to an end.

FACT: There is also nothing in Scripture determining a Divinely-selected list of inspired books (i.e., the present New Testament canon).

FACT: There is also no statement within any of these New Testament books claiming that these books are Divinely-inspired. This becomes especially significant when one cites references to Divine revelation in the present New Testament books (e.g. Ephesians 3:3), since many of the Christian writings excluded from the New Testament canon also contain such references to Divine inspiration (e.g., The Apocalypse of Peter, the Protoevangelium of James, etc).

FACT: The present canon of the New Testament was not determined until the year 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage. ...And by a Church which clearly accepted both Scripture and oral Tradition as the rule of Faith.

FACT: Examples of this oral Tradition can be documented as early as A.D. 90 --a time when many of those who knew Christ (including the Apostle John) were still alive.

This documentation is to be found in 1 Clement to the Corinthians --a non-canonical epistle, which was considered to be Divinely-inspired by numerous Church fathers and many city-churches (esp. Corinth itself) until it was excluded from the New Testament in 397 A.D..

FACT: Three of these oral Traditions documented in 1 Clement are: 1. Peter and Paul’s ministries in Rome; 2. Apostolic succession; and 3. the Eucharist as a Sacrifice.

1. On Peter and Paul in Rome, 1 Clement 5:1 reads:

"Consider the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy, the greatest and most righteous pillars (Peter and Paul) were persecuted, and they persevered even to death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles: Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects."

2. On Apostolic succession, 1 Clement 42:1-4 reads:

"The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; and Jesus Christ was sent by God. Christ, therefore, is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both of these orderly arrangements, then, are by God’s will. Through countryside and city they preached; and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers."

1 Clement then continues this thought in 44:1-2, where it reads:

"Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry."

3. On the Eucharist as Sacrifice, 1 Clement 44:4 reads:

"Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the Divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate Sacrifices and services (the Eucharist), and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly (i.e., 1 Corinth 11: 17-34), but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons (the appointed presbyters) whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed times are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin (i.e., 1 Corinth 11: 27-30). For to the high priest (e.g. the bishop) his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests (e.g. the presbyters/priests) the proper place has been appointed, and on the Levites (e.g. the deacons) their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity. ......Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices."

FACT: The demonstration of "Eucharist as Sacrifice" this early (A.D. 90) not only puts Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinth 10:16-22 into perspective (as well as the other verses from 1 Corinth cited above), but also testifies to Paul’s use of the word "Tradition" in 1 Corinth 11:2 and 2 Thess 2:15. Using the Eucharist as an example, one cannot therefore say that "Tradition" in 2 Thess 2:15 merely refers to a "one-time deliverance of teaching" from Paul to the Corinthians, but is rather an on-going institution, exercised weekly in the Eucharistic celebration itself. This becomes especially striking when we realize that both St. Paul in 1 Corinthians and St. Clement here in 1 Clement are writing to the same city-church (within 35-40 years of each other); and that both these scriptures were read side-by-side by this church -- both being considered Divinely-inspired by the Corinthians for 300 years!

The continuation of such oral Tradition becomes even more striking once we realize that the author of 1 Clement, St. Clement of Rome, was an intimate associate of the Apostle Paul, as Paul himself testifies in Philippians 4:3, where this same Clement is called Paul’s "co-worker," who "struggled at my side in promoting the Gospel." The evidence that this is the same man is given to us by St. Irenaeus, writing about A.D.180; and as if it were common knowledge.

However, if there is still any doubt that these 3 oral Traditions found in 1 Clement (Peter & Paul in Rome; Apostolic Succession; and Eucharist as Sacrifice) were known to the entire Church, ... Let us consider the testimony of St. Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of the Apostle St. John), writing about ten years after Clement of Rome, and from the other side of the known world!

1. On Peter and Paul in Rome, Ignatius writes in his Epistle to the Romans 4:3 :

"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you. They were Apostles, and I am a mere convict."

2. On Apostolic succession, Ignatius’ Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2 reads:

"You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priests) as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

3. On the Eucharist as Sacrifice, we have Ignatius’ Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 6:2, 7:1 :

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. ....They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the same Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

Also, in his Epistle to the Philadelphians 3:2-4:1, which says:

"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one Cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons."

Therefore, FACT: These two men (Clement and Ignatius) -- who knew the Apostles -- taught from both Scripture and from a common oral Tradition: the Tradition referred to by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

FACT: It was also these men and the Church they shepherded -- which lived by both Scripture and Tradition -- who preserved the books of the New Testament we have today; preserving correct doctrine against the schismatics and heretics, who dreamed up all sorts of false doctrines about Jesus and His Church.

FACT: The bishops who selected the final and universal canon of the New Testament were the successors of these men; and held fast to the same body of Tradition which Clement and Ignatius protected in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries.

It therefore follows that we have a continuation of Christian Tradition: a Tradition which never included a doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone).

PROPOSITION: Was Scripture and Tradition the rule of faith for the ancient Jews?

FACT: Yes it was. Aside from the Old Testament Scriptures, the Jews also lived by a number of ancient oral traditions (many of which will eventually be recorded in the Jewish Talmud).

FACT: Jesus Himself lived by these oral traditions.

FACT: Not only did the Lord live by them, but He is also recorded defending one in Matthew 23.

Matthew 23: 1-3: "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all the things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example.’ "

FACT: The "chair of Moses" was Moses' teaching authority, according to ancient Jewish oral tradition.

For example, it is recorded in the Midrash Rabbah: "They made for him (Moses) a chair like that of the advocates, in which one sits and yet seems to be standing." (Exodus Rabbah 43:4)

Also, the Pesikta siRav Kahana 1:7 mentions the "chair of Moses," and the editors of the English edition comment:

"The particular place in the synagogue where the leaders used to sit was known metaphorically as the ‘chair of Moses’ or as the ‘Throne of the Torah,’ symbolizing the succession of teachers of Torah (from Moses) down through the ages."

FACT: While the "chair of Moses" is an element of ancient Jewish tradition -- apparently dating from the time of Moses himself -- it is recorded nowhere in the Old Testament Scriptures. Rather, it is strictly an oral Tradition.

FACT: Yet, while not being recorded in the Old Testament, Jesus Himself -- Who is (let us not forget) the Word of God -- bears testimony to its legitimacy.

Therefore, it must be admitted that the Word of God as we have it in the Old Testament is not merely a Scriptural record, but rather comes to us (at least in this one case) through both Scripture as well as a living oral Tradition. The idea that the Scribes and Pharisees (i.e., "the fathers of Israel") were the direct successors of Moses’ authority is stated nowhere in Old Testament Scripture; yet He Who is the Word of God tells us this based on oral Tradition.

QUESTION: Are there other cases of extra-OT Scriptural Traditions recorded in the NT?

FACT: Yes, there are. Among these are 1 Corinth 10:4 (in which the rock in the desert is said to "follow" the Children of Israel under Moses...something not recorded in Scripture, but found only in Jewish oral Tradition, even to this day) and Jude 9 and Jude 14 (in which the Apostle cites extra-Scriptural Traditions about Michael and Satan fighting over Moses' body, and conveys a prophecy from Enoch ...neither of which are found in the OT Scriptures). Also, in 2 Timothy 3:8, Paul directly names the two Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses before Pharaoh in Exodus 7:11-13. Yet, the Book of Exodus itself never names these two magicians, nor does any other book of OT Scripture. Rather, Paul is citing Jewish oral Tradition.

Therefore, if such examples exist, and if even Jesus Himself preached the Gospel in reference to both Scripture and Tradition, why should His Church be limited to Scripture alone? Is His Church guided less by the living Spirit of God than the Jewish people who preceded it?

PROPOSITION: Did the bishops of the early Church consider their teaching authority to be guided and protected by the Holy Spirit for the good of the Church?

FACT: Yes they did; and they had good reason to believe this, as evidenced by John 14:16-18 & 26 and 16:12-13:

[14:16] "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you always, [17] the Spirit of Truth, Whom the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows Him. But, you know Him because He remains with you and will be in you. [18]  I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. .... [26] The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name -- He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you ....[16:12] "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. [13] But, when He comes, the Spirit of Truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and I will declare to you things that are to come. "

Q: To whom is Jesus speaking here?

A: The Apostles.

Q: Just the Apostles, or to the entire Church as well?

A: To the entire Church as well, as evidenced in 14:16 (...to be with you always), 17 (He remains with you and will be in you), and John 17:20-21, which continues this Last Supper discourse:

"I pray not only for them (i.e., the Apostles), but also for those who will believe in me through their word (i.e., the whole Church), so that they may 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."

FACT: Therefore, Christ is promising that the Holy Spirit -- "the Spirit of Truth" -- will remain not only with the Apostles, but with the entire Church, a Church which will still need to be guided and comforted after the Apostles are gone.

FACT: Christ does not maintain that a written record is necessary to remind us of His teachings; but rather that the Holy Spirit (Who will "be with you always") will remind the Church of all that He taught (John 14:26).

FACT: Christ calls the Holy Spirit "the Spirit of Truth" (John 14:17, 16:13)

FACT: Christ goes on to say how this Spirit of Truth will "remain" with the Church and will "be in" the Church always, guiding it toward all truth.

FACT: 1 Timothy 3:15 calls the Church the "pillar and foundation of Truth." Yet, Scripture alone is never called this; nor is Scripture ever considered authoritative when apart from the Church, which is guided by this same Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21 & 2:1-3).

So, now we’ve come full circle. In Matthew 23, Jesus proclaims that the scribes and Pharisees have the authority to teach and guide because they are the successors of Moses for the Jewish people; and that the Jews should "do and observe all the things whatsoever they tell you."

One therefore must assume that this same authority was also possessed by those who held the "chair of Moses" before them -- the ones who decided which Old Testament books were Divinely-inspired, etc.

So, it therefore follows that if the Jewish leaders who "held the chair of Moses" -- leaders who didn’t even possess the Holy Spirit (as our bishops did and do) ...If these Jewish leaders were Divinely-guided to define a canon of the Old Testament in c. 200 B.C. (the Septuagint), how much more so could the Catholic Christian bishops at Carthage in 397 A.D. count on the Spirit of Truth!

So, the Christian Bible is a product of the Church, not the other way round! And Scripture itself testifies to this, the same Scripture which testifies that Christian truth comes to us in two ways: through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (2 Thess 2:15).

Now, obviously, this Christian truth (aka, the Gospel) cannot be added to or subtracted from ...but is confined to the Revelation we have from the Apostles. However, it is maintained, preserved, and continually defined and proclaimed correctly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Who will be with us always; and Who will prevent our appointed shepherds from leading the entire Church astray.

But, it is a mistake to view the Christian message as a simple written record preserved by human means and dependent on human intelligence. Rather, this Truth is something alive and dynamic, supported consistently and infallibly down through the ages upon its "pillar and foundation," the Church.

Mark Bonocore
The Catholic Legate
February 18, 2004


View Entry | Leave A Comment

DATE: 10 Dec 2008, 1:10 pm / MOOD: Other

Question:: Should it be a struggle for the average Catholic to have peace about where he/she will spend eternity? I mean, one could go to mass 50,000 times in a lifetime...and still theoretically go to hell.

Answer:

But by the same token, one could sin seriously everyday of one's life and repent on their deathbed at the last minute. The beauty of Catholic soteriology is that no one is placed in either category automatically because of some alleged external or mechanical action on God's part. Salvation is interpersonal: it is the encounter between the human person and God the Father in Christ through the Holy Spirit.

While it is THEORETICALLY possible for someone who has been pious all of their life to be lost at the last moment, how likely is that? One thing I have to agree with the 16th Century Reformers on is that we need to encourage our Catholic people to be more confident of their salvation and God's good will towards them. The problem with some Catholic spirituality is that after a whole life of piety, it makes it seem like a crap shoot as to our final destination.

Any adult Catholic who has practiced the faith, kept the laws of the Church, made regular use of the sacraments and who dies with the full benefit of the Church's rites is virtually guaranteed to go to Heaven. Such a person does not need to be perfect. After all, Jesus came to help sinners, not the righteous. When we deny ourselves of the confidence that the means of grace gives to us, we do ourselves a disservice and we fail to avail ourselves of the theological virtue of Hope.

The problem with the Reformers is that they had such a pessimistic view of human nature that they essentially despaired of being able to please God even in the state of grace. Their antidote to this was to presume on the grace of God and declared themselves saved without sufficient warrant. This is the real error of Protestantism: dialectically opposite sins against the virtue of Hope: despair and presumption.

I have thought that we Catholics need to explore the whole area of assurance more carefully on a pastoral basis and assist our faithful in understanding just where they stand before God.

Question:: Does predestination play any role in Catholic soteriology?

It certainly does. It is our belief that God knows everything that has happened, is happening and will happen. Not only that, he is responsible for ordaining what happens, both good and bad. The exact interface between God's will and our wills is an area of contention.

The 16th Century Reformers were strongly influenced by medieval nominalist philosophy and its tendency towards voluntarism. This tended to reduce man to a mere cipher and to make the will of God all powerful, even above and beyond the "mundane" concepts of good and evil.

The Catholic objection to this -- then as now -- is that man must be sufficiently autonomous from God to be morally responsible for human actions, but also sufficiently under God's control to be subject to the ordination of the Divine will. The temptation to make man FULLY autonomous (Pelagianism) or FULLY submissive (Hypercalvinism) is always there. Even some halfway compromises like Semi-pelagianism in which God and man each contribute a fractional part to the whole of salvation are not acceptable. Human actions are WHOLLY the responsibility of Man and WHOLLY under the control of God. How this works exactly is not entirely clear and is counted as a theological mystery. One can draw an analogy here to the teaching about the Incarnation that Jesus was both FULLY God and FULLY man.

So yes, your fate is fully in the hands of God who predestines your end definitively. But He does so without robbing you of free will. As St. Augustine put it, "We must pray as if everything depended on God and act as if everything depended on us."

Question:: Last question: If the Catholic church is indeed the "One True Church"....are those outside of it, especially in the reformed camp, just simply blind, brainwashed...or what? I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter.

A good question. I don't think that one answer can describe the state of every soul outside the Church. Our Lord and Savior has warned us not to judge others lest we ourselves be so judged. I think some are culpably outside the Church, some are innocent of wrong doing, and others suffer from various degrees of ambivalence. What we have to do is to pray for everyone and never fall into the trap of gloating over our own good fortune "lest [we] who would save others would [ourselves] stumble." We cannot save other people. They must act on their own behalf to obtain salvation. Our job is to provide good example to the unbeliever and to try to communicate the message of Christ in our lives. We also are enjoined to pray for them "unceasingly". Remember, in the end, God is generous beyond what we deserve and he will not give us what we deserve but what he wishes to give to us. I am optimistic and I look forward to being happily surprised with what he has planned for us all!

Art Sippo
The Catholic Legate

View Entry | Leave A Comment

DATE: 10 Dec 2008, 1:08 pm / MOOD: Other

Question:

I have an Evangelical friend who interprets Romans 10: 9-17 as meaning that unless one believes in Christ as saviour one cannot be saved; and that therefore the Church's teaching on Baptism by desire and the idea that pagans who are invincibly ignorant of the truth of the Faith and lead upright laws according to the natural law can be saved.

Answer:

A few things about this passage:

#1 Notice it says that "the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'" This takes us back to Genesis 4:26: "At that time men began to call on the name of the LORD" which occurred well BEFORE the covenant with Abraham.

#2 - St. Paul acknowledges the difficulty of excluding people from salvation who have not heard the gospel: "And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" This is the same question the Ethiopian Eunuch asked Philip: "Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him." (Acts 8:30-31)

Notice that the Ethopian was already a God-fearing Gentile. If Philip had not reached him (as countless missionaries in the past have not reached the outer edges of civilization), how can we say that such a person is definitely going to hell? That would make God a pretty horrible monster, in my opinion.

#3 - The whole intent of the passage is to affirm the hope of salvation in Christ against those who are positing a "works righteousness" as a means of salvation. Paul is trying to cut that thinking down by emphasizing the foremost necessity of faith vs. the pompous attitude that works (apart from faith and grace) can somehow gain us entry into heaven. It is absolutely crucial to put St. Paul's remarks in the context of the time he was writing. He is not addressing the pagan in Mongolia but the self-righteous Jew in Palestine.

#4 - In addition to Romans 2:12-16, I would also add the verse immediately preceding:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done." To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism. (Romans 2:6-11)

God rewards each person based on the good deeds done in this life. Jesus warns us of that time and time again and His parables are directed at that reality. A pagan, who, through invincible ignorance, does good according to his convictions has an implicit faith in God. If he were to reject the gospel, then that would be a different story since we would know his *motiviations* were not from "above" but rather from "below".

Another passage to consider would be:

"Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right." Acts 10:34-35

The whole idea that someone can be damned simply because they had not an opportunity to hear the words of the Gospel can hardly be reconciled with a merciful and loving God, but an arbitrary, cruel, and sadicious one.

Hope this helps,

John Pacheco
The Catholic Legate
April 17, 2002

View Entry | Leave A Comment

DATE: 10 Dec 2008, 1:06 pm / MOOD: Other

Question:

Why don't Catholics make the necessary distinction between sanctification and justification?

Answer:

Part A:

There is no clear-cut distinction between the two terms in the NT. Sometimes they are used synonymously. For example:

Act 20:32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

Act 26:18 To open their eyes, [and] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Rom 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

1Cr 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

2Ti 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, [and] prepared unto every good work.

Hbr 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified [are] all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

Hbr 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

Hbr 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all].

Hbr 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Hbr 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Hbr 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

1Cr 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

1Cr 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

In these various quotations, the terms sanctification and justification could be used interchangeably.

The alleged distinction is a dishonest attempt by prots to justify their systematic theology with a flase distinction.

My point is that it is not CLEAR that justificationa nd sanctification are distinct. The semantic field of the term 'sanctification' is is not separate from that of 'justification." For example St. Paul says:

2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to SALVATION through SANCTIFICATION of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

This is very similar to what he says in Romans:

Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now JUSTIFIED by his blood, we shall be SAVED from wrath through him.

In these examples, justification and sanctification are used virtually synonymously. It would therefore seem to me that making a hard and fast distinction between these two terms is not biblical.

That does not mean that they are always identical in meaning. The semanitc fields of these two concepts in the Bible overlap but not 100%.

My point (and the reason I am being very firm with Brent) is that the CLEAR distinction between justification and sanctification is from systematic theology not the Bible and is therefore artificial. You cannot legitimately retroject this distinction back into the NT without commiting the fallacy of eisegesis.

The proper BIBLICAL understanding of the terms recognizes the overlap and that you cannot legitimately separate what happens in our first steps with God from the rest of our Christian walk.

Art Sippo
Catholic Apologist
November 7, 2001

PART B:

They are "virtually interchangeable" as opposed to "always interchangeable" since, though similar, they are speaking about two different aspects of salvation that occur at the same time. "Justification" is usually used to give the reason we can be just before a holy God. In other words, it shows us the "justifiable" reason God can saves us, that is, because of Christ's atonement He can give grace to the human soul.

"Sanctification" is usually used to show the state of grace, that is, whenever you receive saving grace your are sanctified. You are in a state of grace, which if you died, would allow you to go to heaven.

But since in the Catholic faith both justification and sanctification occur simultaneously and continuously, and perform the same function, that is, to provide grace in the soul for salvation, then they are synonymous and virtually interchangeable, which is why the NT often interchanges them. The NT separates justification and sanctification usually when it is trying to focus on one of the two aspects I mentioned above, i.e., the reason for, as opposed to the state of, grace.

Robert Sungenis
Catholic Apologetics International
November 7, 2001

View Entry | Leave A Comment

DATE: 10 Dec 2008, 1:05 pm / MOOD: Other

Question:

A gentlemen who is an elder (not minister) in a fundamentalist church, claims he has the ability to look into someone's eyes and know if that person is "saved". I thought only Jesus knows who is saved. What bible verse(s) would address that issue. He used this statement in the context that Catholics are NOT saved.

Answer:

Here are some verses you can point out to him:

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." (Matthew 7:1-2)

"Jesus answered, 'Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.'" (John 8:14-16)

"Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand." (Romans 14:4)

"You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat." (Romans 14:10)

"I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself." (1 Cor 4:3)

"Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God." (1 Cor 4:5)

John Pacheco
The Catholic Legate
January 10, 2002

View Entry | Leave A Comment