NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC: We will begin by all being already there.

IC: Emperor Paisley stood up, and approached the podium. He put his fingers through his thin white hair and stared solidly into the eyes of every person there. "Today," he began strongly, "Is the day that I hope that your souls will be set free!" he paused to let this sink in. "Now you may feel confused at this. 'Why, my soul is already free!' you may say. For some of you, that may be, but for others, you may have been lead to believe a lie. Knowledge cometh by hearing, Faith cometh," he took a long pause, "through knowledge."

"I know some of you here are Professing Roman Catholics, some of you here are staunch Protestants. Some even are disillusioned with the whole idea of Christianity alltogether." he looked to see the reactions of the crowd, to see which people responded to each remark, "But I am going to tell you today friends, that during the next three days, my colleagues and I will RIP TO SHREDS the LIES and the EVIL that have been put out into the world with the name of truth upon them." he paused yet again allowing the echoes of his booming voice to bounce from wall to wall in the Magdeburg Free Presbyterian Church. "Now, over the next few days, we will discuss the authority of the Bible, the way to salvation, and the mechanics of grace. We shall also discuss at great length Church history and expose the lies of a decietful world and replace these falsehoods with the truth of the gospel. There's alot of people that say, 'The Bible says this, or the bible says that.' When they say that, check up on them. Make sure they know what they are saying, because nine times out of ten they don't! The truth is, the gospel of the Apostles, the Gospel recovered by Luther and Calvin is WORLDS AWAY from the liberal tripe that is being taught in the world's seminaries and apostate Churches today. I invite you all to stay, and hear what we have to say here. We shall have a debate afterwards with the opposition as well for fairness. Now, let us pray." he bowed his head.

"Heavely father, we beseech thee to shine your light into our souls. We are looking for you! We are knocking upon thy heavenly door. Fulfill thy promise, O Lord and open that door to us. Allow the next three days of this conference to bring out the truth, and expose the lies of apostacy for the the evil that it is. We pray to you, O Lord, to search each and every one of our hearts. We pray that you may find us worthy one day to enter into your Holy Kingdom, not by any works of our own, but by thy own divine grace and Mercy. In the name of the Father, the Son, and The Holy Ghost...Amen."

Dr. Paisley then sat down and Dr. Alan Cairns stood up to address the gathered personages.

"The passages we will be looking at today," Cairns began softly, "are Romans 1:16-17 and 3:10-31. Open up in your Authorized Versions of the New Testament with me to these verses. We only use the Authorized King James version of the Bible for reasons that shall not now, but within the next hour be gone into. There are pamphlets in the back of the Church should you desire to take one." He then began to read from the Holy Word of God with such passion and furvor, it was almost as if it was being spoken for the first time. (OOC: I will ask you to read all of these verses. Each verse is important.)

ROMANS 1:16-17
"[16] For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
[17] For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith."

ROMANS 3:10-31
[10] As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
[11] There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
[12] They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
[13] Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
[14] Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
[15] Their feet are swift to shed blood:
[16] Destruction and misery are in their ways:
[17] And the way of peace have they not known:
[18] There is no fear of God before their eyes.
[19] Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
[20] Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
[21] But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
[22] Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
[23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
[24] Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
[25] Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
[26] To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
[27] Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
[28] Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
[29] Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
[30] Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
[31] Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law."

Cairns then closed his book and said a short Prayer, "May God Bless the Reading and the hearing of his infallible word."

"The Just shall live by faith." he paused, reciting the words from the first passage. "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe" He paused again. "Now, what is all this 'faith' about?" he asked rhetorically, "This faith is the way that men are saved. This faith is the way that the souls of underserving men are plucked from the fires of Hell by God's Grace."

"It is the official teaching of the Church of Rome that one is saved by doing good things...good works. It is the belief that good works are the only means of salvation and that any infraction upon the law can cause a venial(small, insignificant) or mortal sin, a sin which they say damns the soul to Hell. Now, I am not saying that a Christian isn't supposed to do good works, but according to the scriptures we have just read, we can see this is not the means of salvation. Here is a direct quote, 'Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.' and yet another one, 'Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.' We can clearly see through these scriptures, and indeed the rest of the entire Epistles of Paul, that the law no longer binds men, but it is the law of faith."

"But what does this law of faith entail? Why is there a need for a new Covenant? This question is also answered by Paul in verses 10-12:

[10] As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
[11] There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
[12] They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Every man, due to the fall of Adam in the old testament, is now cursed. His sin has been passed on to all mankind. Men have been robbed of thier judgement, their will, their ability to do good outside of God, and their ability to be good outside of God. Every single human being, by the law, is wretched and evil in the sight of God, for according to the Old Testament, if one breaks one piece of the law, it is all broken, and no man can uphold the law in it's fullest. Therefore, every single man deserves Hell. This is clearly supported by the Old Testament and by the New Testament."

"This isn't a happy thought. It's not one that thrills me very much either. But it is the truth. There are alot of bitter truths out there in the world, and this is one of them. HOWEVER, there is also good news. God, through his grace, sent his son, Jesus Christ to die for our sins. In his blood was formed a new Covenant, a Covenant of faith, through which the wicked and unrighteous men, if they believed in the Lord Jesus Christ and loved him with all their hearts and minds could be saved from the certain damnation that awaited them. Without this Covenant of faith, we are all damned to hell. It is the way that Christ saved us. We will get more into the Mechanics of that saving grace at another point, that is the particulars of how it actually happened, but for now, we shall focus on the fact THAT it happened."

"Now would't you all agree this is good news? The law of works which damned us all to hell is now not applicable, but a law of faith, which men can maintain is now in effect. Wouldn't you say that the fact that you can now BE saved is good news? Why then, does Rome deny this good news and continue to preach that a man is saved through works? Infact, the Council of Trent nearly exactly quotes Paul in the previous passage....except it goes against him. It says that if anyone believes that a man is saved by faith without works...let him be accursed. LET HIM BE ACCURSED!" he yelled out.

"The Bible's teaching is plain on this subject. There is a covenant of faith by which men are saved. How can anyone deny that the Bible says, 'Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.'? Truth is, I don't know how they can, I know why they do, a subject which shall also be developed more later, but I can't understand how they can so misinterpret, and infact simply disregard the entire Epistle of Romans seemingly. It would be understandable if this was just one passage. Just one mention of faith. I could see how someone could miss it or see it as insignificant...but it is a THEME throughout the new testament. It IS the good news of Jesus Christ. Without salvation by faith...THERE IS NO GOOD NEWS! What changes without this salvation by faith then? Nothing. Man is still damned by his own evil works, and cannot be saved. There would be no change without this. There would have been no point to the death of Jesus Christ on the cross for our sins. The whole structure of Christianity would become invalid!"

"But thank God that there is a covenant of faith, and it is not by works which we are saved. Thank God that the death of Christ has set us free from the bondage of the Old Law and allowed us the ability to become free!"

"The Roman Church also teaches that you cannot be saved outside of the Church. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There is no way to the Father but by the Son! No where in the Bible is anything said to support the claims that the Church has on the souls of its people. It believes it has the power to damn people to hell at its own discretion, a power never given to it by Christ. Also, it says that there is no salvation outside the rituals and sacraments of the Church. However, it is also said that one can never be assured if they are being truly presented with a sacrament because Rome holds that if the Priest’s secret intentions are not right, then the sacrament is void, thus depriving the paritioner, as is claimed, of salvation. It seems a bit odd to me that the salvation of any soul should be captive to the secret intentions of some mere mortal man. There is no valid support for any of these claims within the Bible. However, Rome does have an excuse. They say that their doctrines are formed on the basis of Scripture Plus Tradition. That means whatever the Scripture says plus whatever has been done in the past, whatever a Pope says to be so, or whatever a Council says to be so. Scripture often contradicts this tradition, but this is considered acceptable by the Roman Church. There is no justification for any of this in the Bible. Infact, Jesus chides the Pharasees for doing the exact same thing, “teaching the doctrines of men for the word of God.”

Faith, as we have seen, is the ONLY way to salvation. It is the means of escape from the Old Covenant, but, some people shall ask, ‘Would then the law be void?’ Paul’s answer is, “God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Now some of you may find a contradiction in what has just been preached, and the passages before, and this passage. But let me assure you, there is no contradiction. What Paul is saying is that though the letter of the law no longer applies and is necessary for salvation, let men still try to do good works. But, doing the good works is not what saves you, no man on his own is justified in the sight of God, as demonstrated in the text. The only way to salvation is faith, and because you have faith, you will do good works. Faith is the way that God provided for our freedom, for the salvation of some from the doom justly deserved by all. It is freely by his grace alone that we are justified by faith. Let us give prayer and thanks. Worthy is the Lamb who was slain. And, Blessed be, he did it for you, and he did it for me.”

He paused a moment to let the message fully sink in.

"Now," he said, "I will take questions from anyone who has them since this is a relatively small personal group and if we have none, I shall then call Dr. Paisley to Lead us in Prayer and present the next message before adjourning for the night."

Is this open?

OOC: Hi Imitora, there will be a debate afterward, but if you want to start a separate thread for debate now, then I would be happy to join you there. You obviously have intelligence and it should prove stimulating.

OOC: I shall be there, but don't feel like posting quite yet.

Hello, I am the Prime Minister of Doctonia, and I am very excited by this. My country is full of people who love God, but they were raised with rituals and sacrament and their knowledge of scripture is limited. There are things we could be doing so much better I feel, if we understood scripture.

"The Just shall live by Faith?" Do you mean Faith alone can save us? Not our actions?

"Yes," Dr. Cairns replied. While Paul emphatically says that good actions are obviously good...it is our FAITH that saves us, not our actions." He paused, considering how to approach the subject. "Let us look at it this way. Because a baker is a baker...he will bake. If a person is truly saved (through faith obviously), then he will do good works. However, just because you may bake a loaf of bread everyonce and a while certainly doesn't make you a baker, just as doing good works doesn't make you saved. These good works are the RESULT of your regenerated state in Christ Jesus, not the reason for that state. Man alone is incapable of saving himself. That is why we need a Jesus. Through the law of works, man is trying through his own merits and own activities to enter the Kingdom. We are told from the first to the last page of this book," he held up the King James, "that Man cannot do that. That is why we NEED a Jesus. We need a Jesus because we can't do it ourselves."

Dr. Paisley then approached Cairns and whispered into his ear. Cairns's eyes were intent, absorbing every word. He then turned around to the gathered and said, "Dr. Paisley has just informed me of a change in schedule. We shall be having a debate now on the previous message, and after each message, there shall be a debate. The floor is open to anyone who wishes to raise objections or questions to what I have just preached."

How could any true servant of the holy trinity miss such a debate? Of course I shall attend this Conference, the devil couldn't keep me from it. In all seriousness though, I think this is an incredible opportunity to reaffirm the faith in thousands, perhaps millions of our followers. The Catholic Church of Agrigento is extremely excited to participate. Only by facing challenges can we truly strengthen our own convictions.
______________
Archbishop Alfonso Potenza
Leader of the Agrigentian Catholic Church

OOC: See, people. THAT is the spirit. Agrigento has it! Because you disagree with me is no reason to hate me. That, indeed is unChristian. See, Agrigento, I may disagree with you, but you are a good person, Just like I love SOOO many Catholics out there, yet disagree with them. I am trying to keep everything as civil as is possible on such a matter, so attention all: if you are going to make posts, make them polite. If you want to use strongly termed things, there are clean and polite ways of doing it, but I would suggest against it.

At this point, a young looking Hispanic man stood. "Father Domingo Escobare, Society of Jesus. You say that it is through faith alone that we are saved. While I will agree that faith is indeed a major part of our religion, and that the solid belief in the Lord God and his Only begotten Son Jesus Christ is nesacery for salvation, I must question your reasoning." He removed a leather bound Bible, and began to speak.

"He appointed twelve whom he called apostles, that they might be with him, and he might send them forth to preach and to have authority to drive out demons." Father Escobare paused, took a sip from a bottle of water next to him, and continued. "We see in this passage that Jesus sent out his apostles to do works in his name. Therefore, Jesus in a sense, comanded his apostles as desciples to do works. Now, follow that with 'Go, therefore, and make desciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." He closed the Bible, and held it across his chest.

"In examination of these lines, it can be seen that Jesus indeed did command man to do works in his name, and that these works, along with his Faith but not seperate of it, would secure man's entrance into heaven."

***Raises hand and then asks question***
Earlier in your speach you said "Men have been robbed of thier judgement, their will, their ability to do good outside of God, and their ability to be good outside of God." Meaning that no person can do any good outside of God. However, later you compare Christians and good works to a baker and said something like "just because you bake a loaf of bread every now and then does not make you a baker." Meaning that just because someone does something good does not make them a christian. Now obviously there is a contradiction here, or I might be misinterpreting it(ooc: it's pretty late here). Could you please either explain this contradiction or else clarify this for me.

"While it is often that we look to the book of Revelation to John with heavy hearts, and despair, it is through the unfamiliar and heavy symbolism that we can find true understanding. I would like us all to turn to Revelation 22, verse 10.

"Then he said to me, 'Do not seal up the prophetic words of this book, for the appointed time is near. Let the wicked still act wickedly and the filthy still be filthy. The righteous must still do right, and the holy still be holy.'

"The Rigtheous must do right in order to secure their place in heaven. I must apologize for being longwinded but the passage continues. Verse 14, 'Blessed are they who wash their robes so as to have the right to the tree of life and enter the city through its gates.'

"So it is written, as they say", said the Archbishop. His bones may have protested but not much could contain the vigor in this aging man of God.

***Raises hand and then asks question***
Earlier in your speach you said "Men have been robbed of thier judgement, their will, their ability to do good outside of God, and their ability to be good outside of God." Meaning that no person can do any good outside of God. However, later you compare Christians and good works to a baker and said something like "just because you bake a loaf of bread every now and then does not make you a baker." Meaning that just because someone does something good does not make them a christian. Now obviously there is a contradiction here, or I might be misinterpreting it(ooc: it's pretty late here). Could you please either explain this contradiction or else clarify this for me.

"Well to answer your question, it is their belief", he said looking toward Dr. Paisley and Dr. Alan Cairns, "that we do good solely because of Jesus, and that we are good Christians not because we do good, but because we are faithful enough that the lord acts through us. I am sure they can explain it better than I, but in its most basic form it is a matter of the Chicken before the Egg. They feel that Jesus comes before doing Good," he said, trying to simplify it for the man. "Sorry to speak it so plainly, no disrespect intended", once again he looked toward the distinguished Doctors.

"While it is often that we look to the book of Revelation to John with heavy hearts, and despair, it is through the unfamiliar and heavy symbolism that we can find true understanding. I would like us all to turn to Revelation 22, verse 10.

"Then he said to me, 'Do not seal up the prophetic words of this book, for the appointed time is near. Let the wicked still act wickedly and the filthy still be filthy. The righteous must still do right, and the holy still be holy.'

"The Rigtheous must do right in order to secure their place in heaven. I must apologize for being longwinded but the passage continues. Verse 14, 'Blessed are they who wash their robes so as to have the right to the tree of life and enter the city through its gates.'

"So it is written, as they say", said the Archbishop. His bones may have protested but not much could contain the vigor in this aging man of God.

OOC: Ya know, I have that page in my Bible open right now, about to use it as a counter....and then you have to go and use it...lol. Tag team, lol.

OOC: It is late here too, I will try to respond to everything said. I may edit my response later to add more, but for the moment, I will do what I can without using reference materials. If I skip commenting on what you said, let me know and I will comment.

"In response to the question raised," Cairns began, "there is no cotradiction, nor is the belief in any wise what our colleague from Agrigento expressed. Now, it has often been said that if one was to see the reasons behind our best actions, we would all be truly ashamed. There is no good work a man can do, without the taint of sin and evil. I use good works in the term that it is generally percieved to be good, not that it is entirely pure in motives. Sin has touched every part of a human's reasoning. You may console a grieving friend, but while you do it to help your friend, you also do it because it makes you feel good. There are so many reasons behind what we do that can be seen as sinful and wrong. Alot of these questions will be answered when we get into the mechanics of Grace, but I will do the best I can to answer this and not step on Dr. Paisley's material. Now, the only reason that we can do anything even percieved as good, is because of the work of God, evident in each and every one of us. You will recall I said, that man can do no good OURSIDE of where God has touched him. This remains true, and there is no contradiction. There is nothing in man that is deserving or good, but it is all in Christ Jesus. To HIM be all the power and glory."

"Now where is the person from Imitora?" Cairns glanced out over the crowd, finally spotting the delegate. "Thankyou for such an interesting argument. I shall do the best I can to address it." He said sincerely. "You will recall that I said Paul, at the end of that passage afirmed that good works were still...well...good so to speak. However, good works are not how one attains salvation. It is through faith. One will do good works, or let me rephrase, works that are percieved to be good, but it will not make them saved. Christ commanded his disciples to preach the Gospel to the world, that they might too have faith in him and be free from the law of works. He commanded that they attempt to instill the faith in every heart they touch so that they too could know the liberating effect of the Gospel. Paul clearly stated that the law of works no longer applies. It is in the passage I just recently read and the fact that he says it cannot be denied. He also says quite clearly, that justification is through faith alone. This is plain and cannot be denied without denying the words of the Inspired Apostle, and thereby voiding the entire principle of the religion. The Gospel does not contradict itself...ever. The only way to deny that this is not proper doctrine, is to deny the whole Bible alltogether."

OOC: Here's the reply to your first statement. Once I do that, then I will reread your second one and respond to that. Give me a second. I am only human you know, haha.

IC: "Now, to address the concernes of our friends in Agrigento." Cairns began. "It is certainly not with a heavy heart that I ever turn to the book of Revelations, for theirin is contained the promise of a new heavens and a new earth, the second coming of Christ, God's eternal Kingdom, and the punishment of the damned. This fills every bone in my body with joy for God will strike down his enemies and lift up the righteous. Indeed there is no more joyful thing. Now, Here is the passage as it appears in the King James," he picked up his Bible and began to read "And he saith unto me, Seal not the prophetic sayings of this book: for the time is at hand. He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be fithly still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still."
He closed the book and turned to address the gathered people, "What this passage is saying, to bring it down into modern english, is not to keep the Prophecy Christ gave to John a secret, because the time of his judgement would be quite soon. Those who are unjust, let them remain unjust (in other words they will remain unjust just as they were), those who are filthy, they will remain filthy, those who are righteous, they will still be righteous. Those who are holy, they will still be holy. This has nothing to do with any type of works commandment. God is merely saying that those who are filthy, righteous, holy, etc etc will remain so. Questions are sure to be raised about that, but it will be dealt with in the mechanics of Grace section, so I shall continue on my way with the argument at hand. Those who are righteous will be so by their faith. There is again, no contradiction in scripture. All that is being said is that those who are righteous will be righteous when the time comes and those who are filthy will be so when the time comes. It has nothing at all to do with a works based commandment. I will say it one last time. There is no contradiction in scripture, and there is no other meaning that can be found from what Paul was saying. And as there is no contradiction in scripture, scriptures cannot be drawn from other parts of the Bible to try to 'cancel out' these. As they do not contradict, they will not cancel anything out, nor could God's holy word ever be cancelled out. There is no other meaning that can be taken from this passage in Romans, and indeed the entire book of Romans. The next few chapters continue to elaborate this. If it is necessary, I will go over them as well, but I was concerned about losing people if I spoke too long. If it is necessary I shall though."

tag

"Well to answer your question, it is their belief", he said looking toward Dr. Paisley and Dr. Alan Cairns, "that we do good solely because of Jesus, and that we are good Christians not because we do good, but because we are faithful enough that the lord acts through us. I am sure they can explain it better than I, but in its most basic form it is a matter of the Chicken before the Egg. They feel that Jesus comes before doing Good," he said, trying to simplify it for the man. "Sorry to speak it so plainly, no disrespect intended", once again he looked toward the distinguished Doctors.

"Now, in response to this, you are nearly there, yet farther away than ever." Dr. Cairns began to address the topic, "You are correct that we do good solely because of God, and of Jesus, and that we are good Christians not because we do good, but because of our Faith. It is because of our Faith in Jesus Christ that we are encouraged and moved by the spirit to do good works. We do good works because we are faithful. Remember, because man is fallen, as I addressed previously, we can do nothing ourselves to save ourselves. The law of works is gone because men CANNOT save themselves. That is why we need Jesus, because we cannot save ourselves. It is quite unscriptural and erroneous to claim that man is holy enough to save himself from sin. If that were the case, there would be no need for Christ, and thus, the entire system would fall to shambles. Also, we do not put Jesus before doing good. Jesus is the reason for doing good. It is through our faith in Jesus Christ that we are saved, and it is because we are saved and have faith that we do good works. Doing good, as Paul said, is still what should be done, but that is not the means of salvation. It is absolutely impossible to deny the meaning of this text. Good works are good, but they DO NOT save you. It is God who saves you through his infinate Grace, and it is through faith in Christ only that one can be saved."

OOC: I will entertain more questions and challenges for a bit longer, then tommorrow, I will make the second message, or continue an exposition on Romans, and other scriptures relating to the previous message if it is necessary. If you didn't get said what you wanted to be said, then feel free to either debate it with me personally, or continue it at the large debate that will take place at the end. If I don't curtail it, the conference will just dig into debates and go nowhere. To all of those who say I am simply trying to avoid challenges, I say, that is why there is the continuation of the debate at the end, and or, my offer to debate it on a personal level.

"I completely agree with Reichskamphen on this issue," Archbishop Raphael Santi stated. "The only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ. Good works are to be done in Jesus' name to better society and try to get more people to see the light, but the works themselves will get you nowhere."

*Bishop Schlisser asks a question*

"Earlier in your talks, you stated, 'It is the official teaching of the Church of Rome that one is saved by doing good things...good works. It is the belief that good works are the only means of salvation...'

I am curious as to your source for this information. According to the teachings of the Catholic Church, salvation comes from faith, which cannot be separated from works. However, no one can be saved by works apart from faith. It is simply that without works there is no faith, as is found in 1st James.

I leave you with a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and graciously await your response.

'The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.' (CCC #1989) "

A spokesman for Jeruselem Catholic Church said "We are happy for this debate to happen in Reichskamphen, but we will not participating. We are sure fellow Catholic nations will show the word of God as it is and dispel many falsehoods pushed by Protestant revisionists. This debate is a healthy sign of contemplation of God's ambition for mankind, but we are not moving from our solid foundations of the Roman Catholic Church. God bless"

OOC: Im at work right now, so no time for a serious post. Just letting you know Im keeping up. Also, I have a question for all teh protestants present...Jesus started my Church, who staretd yours?

More ways to heaven...

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven
(Matthew 5:3)

[stands well back in case Paisley responds, covering ears]

OOC: Oh no, more digging. I have so much to do. I just stopped working. By the way, thanks Imitora for keeping up. Yes, Jesus started mine as well. But I want you to hold your shots on that until later because the supremacy of Peter will be addressed. I just had a lengthy discussion with Saint John in another thread on it. I am very much tired. I have to break out the documents on the Council of Trent for a quote now. I may not get to all or any of this tonight as it is hard for me to keep my eyes open. I know that I will likely not be able to preach another message tonight. I appologize, but I am shot tired. To briefly address the piece from the Beatitudes OOCly, on which I will either tonight or tommorrow make an IC response, remember, salvation is only through faith. There are outward signs of faith, but just because you display the outward signs doesn't mean you are faithful. A man on his own cannot save himself. It is that simple and that scriptural. Well, I am glad that I decided to change the format, this is much more interesting.

Forgive my humble intrusion. Can we truly say Christianity can be summed up and housed in a single church or a sentence or two? How dare one say, Jesus began my Church and then question who began the other. I come from a land where the Roman church rules, but we would never display such arrogance. We are devout, but know very little of scripture here, I will listen and reason with the mind the Father gave me. Catholic or not the scriptures are still the way of life and we should learn them.

OOC: Personal matters kept me from posting, but I will post tonight. Doctonia, you are quite right. Remind me to send you a tellegramme. There are some who get rather offended when their beliefs are challenged and come forward with teeth flashing. The point she made about Jesus starting her Church and all that, trust me, it will be addressed when we get to that area.

ooc: This is very interesting. Would it be possible for me to send a delegate to this meeting? If not, I'll just follow along.

Bishop Thomas Lannan stands, and addresses the speaker.

"We ARE saved b grace alone. On this you and the Catholic Church agree. No one, and I mean no one, can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification. All our merit ultimately derives from God, again, Doctor, you agree with the Catholic Church. Faith, as well as action are similar responses, albeit, with different outward forms possesing.

All denominations agree on one thing: GRACE ALONE SAVES! Even, and I know this will come as a shock to many of you, The Catholic Church. However, Catholics believe that if you good works, you don't truly have faith.

After all, even Satan believes in the Saving powers of Christ.

As was said, Scipture cannot contradict scripture. I would rather say "Truth cannot contradict truth."

For, just as Ephesians said it is faith that saves, not works, so scripture also says in

James 2:24 "You can see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone"

The idea that work ALONE leads to salvation is as wrong as the idea that faith alone leads to salvation. Brothers and sisters, grace produces two equal gifts in us. These gifts are faith and works. We must RESPOND to the grace God has given us. The writer of Ephesians, and the writer of James were trying to emphasize the importance of a different aspect of grace working in our lives to a group of people who didn't understand that particular aspect of grace! Neither Faith, nor even Work procedes the other. These two aspects, rather, compliment and reinforce each other.

In John 5:33-36
"You sent to john, and he has borne witness to the truth. Not that the testimony which I receive is fromman; but I say this that you may be saved. He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for awhile in his light. But the TESTIMONY WHICH I HAVE IS GREATER than that of John; for the WORKS which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these woks which I am doind, bear me witness that the father has sent me.

This passage tells us that we are supposed to act in the image of Jesus Christ. Jesus says that his works are greater tesimony than anything John says. If we are Christ's image, than our good works are not our own, they are God's works, merely working through us. Therefore to deny the usefullness of good works is to deny the testimony of God.

Bishop Lannan sits down and waits for a response.

*Bishop Schlisser applauds*

OOC: These are Dr. Cairns actual words.

Justification is recieved through faith without works. (Rom. 3:20-22; 4:1-8,24; 5:1 ; Gal. 3:5-12)
Some imagine that James contradicts this in James 2:18-26, notably in verse 24, "ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only."
There is no discrepency between Paul and James. There is a difference of emphasis in response to the particular form of opposition each apostle was combatting Paul was opposing the legalist who taught justification by works. James was opposing the antinomian whose profession of justifying faith was united to a life of blatant ungodliness. Paul teaches that we are justified by faith as the sole instrument of reception, excluding works or any mixture of faith and works. James teaches that the faith that justifies is never alone. It is a living faith and therefore will EXPRESS ITSELF [emphasis added] in good works. Good works are the EVIDENCE [emphasis added] of the reality of the justifying faith, not a substitute for it, preparation for it, or an addition to it. Buchannan in his Justification terms justification according to Paul "actual justification, and justification according to James as "declarative justification".

(OOC: My own words hereon out.)

Remember Paul said that we did not abandon the law but instead establish it? He made it clear that the law no longer applies as a means of salvation, BUT, he said that we should use it as a code of living. A dead faith that bears no fruits is no faith at all. James is addressing hippocrytes who believe they have faith when they actually do not. Real faith justifies.

There is alot of confusion between Justification and Sanctification as well. (OOC: Cairns) Justification is an act not a process. It is something that has taken place in the justified, not something that is constantly taking place.

It is an act of the free grace of God toward sinners who are personally guilty and deserving of his wrath (Rom. 3:25)

It is a forensic act. It describes a change in the legal standing of the justified person. It does not describe the inner moral change. (OOC:Me) The inner moral change is called sanctification. It is a process never completed in this lifetime but caused by faith, which saves and justifies.

(OOC: Cairns) Justification is a once and for all act which can never be reversed or repeated. (Heb 10:2 Rom 8:30)

It is equally complete in all the justified. It cannot be increased or decreased (Rom. 5:19; 1Cor 1:30). All Christians are not equally mature or holy. But all believers are equally "justified from all things" (Acts 13:39) they all have the same basis for their acceptance by God, the righteousness of Christ.

Now, to address Santification and Justification

(OOC: Cairns) Scripture marks the difference between Justification and sactification. Berkhof notes:

"1. Justification removes the guilt of sin and restores the sinner to all the fillial rights involved in his state as a child of God, including eternal inheritance. Sanctification removes the pollution of sin and renews the sinner ever increasingly in conformity with the image of God.

2. Justification takes place outside of the sinner in the tribunal of God, and does not change his inner life, though the sentence is brought home to him subjectively. Sanctification on the otherhand, takes place in the inner life of man and gradually affects his whole being.

3. Justification takes place once and for all. It is not repeated, neither is it a process; it is complete at once and for all time. There is no more or less in justification, man is either fully justified, or he is not justified at all. In distinction from it, sanctification is a continuous process, which is never completed in this life.

4. While meritorious cause of both lies in the merits of Christ, tere is a difference in the efficient cause. Speaking economically, God the Father declares the sinner righteous, and God the Holy Spirit Sanctifies him.

Luther's insight was accurate when he declared the biblical doctrine of justification to be articulus ecclesiae statis aut cadentis, the artical of faith that marks whether a church is standing or falling. Paul realized its immense importance to the entire gospel scheme and pronounced God's curse on anyone, even an angel from heaven, who preached any other gospel (Gal. 1:8,9) This is the gospel of which the Apostle is "not ashamed...for it is the power of God unto salvation for everyone that believeth" (Rom 1:16).

OOC: Vianny and Magnus, you appear to be leaning towards Jansenism. I will address alot of that soon. As well as what you mentioned from the Chatechism. I have just had some bad personal stuff happen to me and it has been a bit tough on me. Keep me in your prayers please.

OOC: Wow, you eaither are VERY dedicated, or have a LOT of time on your hands.

Or both.

No problem with either, though. ;)

*Bishop Schlisser responds at dinner that evening*

"Dr. Cains, you seem to be arguing that James does not say that works are required for salvation. However, it seems to me that the very verse you quoted, James 2:24 says that works are necessary for salvation when it says that 'by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.'

As both Bishop Lannan and myself have stated, it is not, nor has it ever been, the teaching of the Catholic Church that a person is saved by their works alone. As he has stated, it is only by the grace of God that we are saved.

However, God's supernatural grace produces both faith and works within us. According to James, it is not possible to have faith without having works, for if a person has faith, then by necessity they will also be doing the work of God.

You seem to think that Catholics claim that good works are a 'substitute, preparation or addition.' The claim of the Catholic Church is simply that works and faith are not two separate things, but rather part and parcel of the same reception of God's grace. It seems to me that you are simply quibbling on the arrangement of God's grace to make it appear that works have no part in salvation, where we are simply saying that works and faith are inseparable, and as such, both are required for salvation. If it's helpful, our basic argument, in propositions, are:

Faith is required for salvation.
Works are required for faith.
Therefore, works are required for salvation.

If both of those statements are true, then the conclusion MUST necessarily be true. You obviously agree with the first one, and it seems from the evidence in James, and what you have said, that you would agree with the second one. Therefore, you would agree with the conclusion.

Your agreeing with the conclusion would not in anyway force you to change your beliefs, or the basic beliefs of your brethren. Several years ago, there was an agreement signed between the Lutheran and Catholic Churches stating that there was no essential disagreement on the doctrine of salvation by faith.

All Bishop Lannan and myself are trying to show you is that Catholics and Protestants do actually have the same beliefs about salvation by faith, and simply use different semantics to describe it."

OOC - I'm not sure why you think that Pio and I are leaning toward Jansenism, as neither of us believe that you can earn your salvation in any way. Salvation is a free gift from God.

OOC: Good points, but allow me to respond. I always seem to get here too late to be able to function in any good capacity. I will respond tommorrow.

(OOC) Reichskamphen, I understand that we all have busy schedules to contend with, but it would be nice if in the future you would at least give us a little answer-and continue to say that you will expand on it when you have more time. I would greatly appreciate it, even if you don't go in depth. Thank you.

PM

OOC: I am so sorry, I have had some personal troubles that have been very consuming. My sincere appologies. Do you know where I can find a copy of the Council of Trent? I am looking and I cant find a complete one online?

The Roman Church believes that Justification and Sanctification are the same thing in general. So stated in session six of the Council. It also says that a persons justification may be decreased or increased or eliminated all together by works...something unsupported by scriptures. It essentially is like a talleyboard of venial and mortal sins...venial supposedly you dont even have to confess, you can just work them off by some good work. Mortal supposedly reverses the grace of justification and has to be confessed (also unsupported scripturally) to a priest (whose role is scripturally unsupported), and temporal pennance must be done (also not supported). It is said that the cause of grace and justification is your baptismal regeneration. Baptism was done in the time of Christ and in the early church when the person was an adult. It was an outward sign of an inward faith. The water and laying on of hands does nothing besides serve as a symbol. The beliefs on baptism became confused by several doctrinal errors saying that it reversed original sin...which it does not. Then, concerned for Babies, they began to Baptize babies...which is unscriptural. A person must first believe to be Baptized and the grace is not wrought by water, or anything involved with water. It is the Holy Spirit who through his grace justifies the person, and over time sanctifies him.

On the subject of Mortal and Venial sins. Not all sins are equally heinous...killing a baby is worse than stealing five cents. But all sin is Mortal. All sin damns the soul unless atoned for by the precious blood of Jesus. Justification cannot be increased by good works, decreased by sin, or otherwise tampered with. A person is either justified, or he is not.

Now, when a person is justified, a sign of his faith will be good works. But the works arent what saves him. A person who says he believes in Christ and his teachings and then goes out and murders 50 people obviously doesn't really believe. The works are an outward sign of the inward change of Sanctification (a process that occurs over time) But these works do not save the soul. A person cannot save themselves, as you said, yet this is just what the Roman doctrine teaches. If a person sins, they can reverse that.

The only way to reverse sin is through the atoning blood of Christ. Every sin is atoned for in this way and a sin one committs does not reverse the justification that they recieved, not at baptism, but at the first moment they truly believed in Christ Jesus.

Also, this sacrifice made by Christ was once and for all. It is not repeated and does not have to be repeated. Christ's death on the cross was sufficient for the salvation of his sheep.

The Church also has no role in being able to declare who goes to Hell and who does not. They have no authority. Autority and special powers were given to the apostles to found the Church...but they were not passed down. There is no throne of Saint Peter. Jesus Christ is the only head of the Church.

The reason I thought you were leaning towards Jansenism is you were expressing more of a reformed thought than some of your fellow Roman Catholics. Jansen agreed with the Protestants in the manner of Grace, but disagreed that there was no salvation outside of the Church.

Pope Pius IX said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the father but by me." an exact quotation of our Lord Jesus Christ, where he takes himself on to BE our Lord. He is a mortal, very fallible, man. He has no control over the salvation of anyone. He was the one who came up with Papal infallibility in the 1890s. Beforehand, the Chatechism said that it was a myth contrived by the Protestants, then he codified it and made it part of the Church Law, making every ex cathedra statement by a Pope as infallible as God himself supposedly. This leads to making many heretical and contradictory statements the infallible word of God. I say there is no infallible word of God but the Holy Bible as the Roman Councils, Curia, Popes, Archbishops, and the entire machinery of the Roman Church have contradicted eachother and frequently erred. Only the inspired, inerring, infallible word of God is the guide to salvation.

Also, that agreement you speak of was from the Liberal Lutherans who have strayed so far from the beliefs of their founder. They are nothing but white washed Papists. This was done in the sense of Ecumenism...for Church unity. I say no one can simply be united out of love. We must have a unity in scripture...in the teachings of God. Without that, we cannot remain a part of the Roman Church, and will refuse any compromise with it.

Works are the result of sanctification and sanctification through justification...but unforuntately, this isn't like math or science. The logic A plus B equals C therefore A minus C eqauls B or some of that nonsense wont apply.

This may not be the best example, but Ill try it out.

Lets say you are going to some ritzy video arcade. They say that you have to pay five dollars to get in the door and once you are in, you get 5 free tokens. Now, you pay the five dollars and you get the tokens...but were the tokens required to get in the door? No...you just got them because you got in. The five dollars is what was necessary...that five dollars is faith.

Remember, James is dealing with antinomians who believe that you can lead an ungodly life and be saved by Christ. Someone who has true faith, would not lead an ungodly life because of their faith. Faith is what saves us, works are a byproduct that demonstrate the effects of sanctification...and sanctification shows that there is justification. They come together, but they come in order...and one part is the part that gets you in the door of that arcade....it's faith.

OOC: I know you are looking forward to it, so Emperor Paisley will give the next Sermon tommorrow on the Mechanics of Grace.

Bishop Lannan addresses the people.

(ooc: Are you a literalist Kamphstadt?)

Brother, first of all, calling Catholicism the "Church of Rome", "Roman Church" etc. is misleading. In fact, even the term "Roman Catholicism" is incorrect in it's respect to the Catholic Church, even though it enjoys popular use.

Catholicism has 3 Major branches, Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. Roman Catholic refers ONLY to the first branch. By the very act of saying "Church of Rome" you are excluding a great number of Catholics including those of the Armenian, Byzantine, Albanian, Bielorussian, Bulgarian, Church of the Byzantines, Greek, Hungarian, Italo-Albanian, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovakian, Ukrainian, Maronite, Malankar, Pure Syrian, Chaldean, Malabar, Coptic and Ethiopian Rites. . A practice that is rude and unrealistic. Therefore, I respectfully ask you to refer to the Catholic Church as just that, rather than the "Church of Rome", as this is a misleading statement.


Furthermore, The doctrine of Papal Infalliabilty has always been a Catholic belief, there simply was no need to codify it early on as it was a commonly held belief. With the heresies popping up, the Church felt a need to codify it.


You cannot work off any sin, no matter if it is venial or mortal, although we don't have to confess venial sins because God forgives them in the Penitential Rite at mass. A mortal sin must be confessed. This is not because it "reverses the grace of justification", rather, this is because we have turned our back on God, by doing something so horrible that we have rejected him, and his Salvic Work. Calling it a "tally" is far off, as well. A good work can NEVER make up for a sin. Catholics do not believe that it can, so stop accusing us of it. I can accept you making a mistake in ignorance of our beliefs, but once we have stated them, you are perpetrating a lie in repeating it.

The Old Testement is full of "Types"--these are things that we can find in the Old Testament, that are fulfilled, and completed in the New Testament.

If we look to Is. 55:10-11

"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return not thither but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it."

The waters of baptism rained down upon the earth. These waters make the world fertile and fruitful, giving the seed of the Gospel to him who sows, and the Bread of life to him who eats, through the Word that goes forth from his mouth.

Gen. 1:1-2 says:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Sprit of God was moving over the face of the waters."

creation was baptised into existence; the wind of the Sprit moved over the waters, bringing forth living creatures, as do the waters of baptism.

Gen. 7:4

"For in seven days I will send rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights: and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from teh face of the ground."

The Ark was the baptism and salvation of Noah and his family. It also marked the start of a new creation, for they were given the same command as Adam and Eve; namely; "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth."

In order for the Jewish People to cross into the promised land they, too, had to go through a baptism. This baptism was in the Waters of the Red sea. Before Elijah was taken in to heaven, he had to cross the waters of the Jordan, again, a baptism prefigured.

Then in the New Testamentwe have the baptisms given by John the Baptist again, prefigures Catholic Baptism.

Mk 1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Lk. 3:3 and he went into all the region about the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins

Jn. 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Jn. 1:33 I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit"

this is significant because John did not recognize Salvation untill the descent of the Spirit. This descent of the Spirit was affected through baptism with water.

Jn. 2:1-11

"on the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples. When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine" And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come." His motehr said to the servants, "Do whater he tells you." Now six stone jars were standing there, for the Hewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to them, "fill the jars with water." And they filled them up to the brim. He said to them, "now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast." so they took it. When the steward of the feast tasted teh water now become wine,and did not know where it cae from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, "Every man serves teh good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now." This, the first of his sign, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

The purifying water held in the jars used for Jewish purifcation was called "baptismoi." The power of Christ is first revealed in this transformation He worked through water. This water is transformed by Christ into the "blood of the grape" (hebrew term for wine) at a wedding feast. In His first miracle, and in one incredibly compact act, Jesus tells us that we are cleansed and married into His Body through water transformed by His Blood, itself the sing, seal, and covenant made present at the Wedding Feast.

Jn. 2:23-25

"Now when he was in Jerusalem at teh Passover feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did; but Jesus did not trust himself to them, because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man."

[I] Here Jesus is saying that Faith in him is a start, but not completion. Nicodemus, a man who is of the type mentioned in the passage above came to Christ to tell Him of his belief. Here is what happened.

Jn. 3:1-3

Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him." Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born anew he cannot see the kingdom of God."

The context which this is set in makes it impossible to tell which one of the two meanings that Jesus wanted us to use. It could either be born again, or born anew. We simply can't tell in this instance.

Jn 3:4-6 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Nicodemus misunderstands Christ to mean a birth, in a physical sense. Jesus corrects him. He must be born of water and the Spirit. In verse six, The Christ repeats himself, re-emphasizing that water and spirit do not refer to birth from the womb, but to a spritual re-birth.

What I will never understand it how, when it is presented so clearly in the bible that Water is just as neccesary as the Spirit, how some can say, "It is merely symbolic. It means nothing."

Furthermore, baptism is neccesary for salvation. Just look at Mark.

Mk 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Salvation requires both Belief and baptism. They are both "requireds"

1 Pet 3:20-21 Who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from teh body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Baptism saves you NOW, it is salvation.

Eph. 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism

Without the regenerative cleansing of Baptism, we will not be the One Body with God.

Acts 10:44-48

While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Sprit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of teh Holy Sprit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared "Can any one forbid water for baptizng these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

Here we see Peter require baptism, even though the Holy Spirit had just been poured out on the crowd. It is so neccesary, that even after this great gift from God, he still has the people baptized.

As far as Infant baptism goes...

Since baptism is neccesary for salvation, infants must be baptized.

Mt 18:14 So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

Mt. 19:13-15

Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. "The disciples rebuked the people; but Jesus said, "let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" And he laid his hands on them and went away.

Just as circumcision was a neccesary covenant sign in the Old Testament (Gen 17:12-14) so is baptism in the New Testament. Circumcision had to take place onm teh eight day- the day which would become the day of our New Creation in Christ, Resurrection day. Baptism replaced circumcision as a sign of membership and entrance into the New Covenant.

Col 2:11-12

In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the cirucmcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in hwch you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

If circumcison was acceptable for infants, then baptism is also acceptable for infants. After all, why would the perfection of Jewish faith (Chrisitanity) cut off jewish children who were origninally not only permitted, but even required to enter into a covenant with God? Christ came not to restrict, but rather to expand and perfect the saving plan of God.

Acts 2:38-39

And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for teh forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.

Here we see that even the Children are called.


Acts 16:33 we see an entire household get baptised. A household would have most likely contained children.

Baptism is neccesary for salvation. Don't risk the spiritual life of your child by holding back this beutiful sacrament.

OOC: Kamphstadt is me. I am a literalist, yes. I am not accusing, simply stating facts. The infallibility was written like I said it was in the Chatechism, as a lie of the protestants, then in the 1890s it was reveresed. If you dont believe me, I will gather up all my sources, take an insane ammount of time, and present to you the annotated evidence that this is the doctrine of the Church. I was a Catholic for most of my life. I am very well versed in the doctrine of the Roman Church. I will not refer to it as the Catholic Church as it is not the catholic or universal Church. I will continue to refer to it in the way I was before. Let us not get upset. I will simply have to go back and quote you all the pieces from the church fathers etc etc about how what I am saying is true. Listen, I am not ignorant, nor am I lieing to you. Just give me a day to come back at that with fully annotated responses because I will have to do alot of digging to find my old chatechism too.

Now, do you want me to make my next message on the mechanics of grace, or do you want me to make it on the Mass?

From the 6th Session of the Council of Trent.i



CHAPTER X
THE INCREASE OF THE JUSTIFICATION RECEIVED
Having, therefore, been thus justified and made the friends and domestics of God,[49] advancing from virtue to virtue,[50] they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day,[51] that is, mortifying the members[52] of their flesh, and presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification,[53] they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith cooperating with good works, increase in that justice received through the grace of Christ and are further justified, as it is written: He that is just, let him be justified still;[54] and, Be not afraid to be justified even to death;[55] and again, Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?[56] This increase of justice holy Church asks for when she prays: "Give unto us, O Lord, an increase of faith, hope and charity."[57]

CHAPTER XV
BY EVERY MORTAL SIN GRACE IS LOST, BUT NOT FAITH
Against the subtle wits of some also, who by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent,[91] it must be maintained that the grace of justification once received is lost not only by infidelity, whereby also faith itself is lost, but also by every other mortal sin, though in this case faith is not lost; thus defending the teaching of the divine law which excludes from the kingdom of God not only unbelievers, but also the faithful [who are] fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liars with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners,[92] and all others who commit deadly sins, from which with the help of divine grace they can refrain, and on account of which they are cut off from the grace of Christ.



Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,[114] meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

It does say that the work of Justification is reversed, in otherwords lost, by mortal sin. Something unscriptural as when it says that those people would not gain entrance to heaven, those were people who would not be of faith in any case. They did not have true faith. The apostles said they would not gain entrance unless washed in the blood of the lamb. A far cry from the position of the Roman Church.

They say that Justification is increased by good works, decreased by bad works. My very loose metaphor of the talley is apt. They teach that Mortal sin turns back grace and if you die with a mortal sin on your conscience you go straight to Hell. But by good works, or by purchasing or otherwise obtaining a (also unscriptural) plenary indulgence, you may have that justification increased, have that mark on your talley put back.

And look at Cannon 9. This is almost an exact quotation of Paul, except they are saying, if you believe what Paul taught, you are damned to Hell...anathema. They would even curse an Apostle.

Now, this is a quote from page 112 of the 1854 Catechism by Keenan called the Controversial Catechism, but not because it was controversial. This Catechism had resounding approval in the Church.

Q: Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?

A: This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church.

Furthermore, I cite the Papal Bull Unigenitus given by Boniface the ninth I believe. This Bull said that not everyone was allowed to read the bible, only the clergy (a doctrine only recently changed). It also curtailed personal freedom. It was so detested that France nearly broke off and the Austrian Emperor forbade it in his lands. Seminaries accross Europe taught of it as an example where Popes err. England and the other areas pretty much detested it too. They obviously knew nothing of Papal infallibility. Plus, if this excathedra statement was infallible...then the Church today is in contradiction with it. It is also not a disciplinary matter, but a dogmatic one. And according to Church laws, Popes cannot bind their successors in matters of discipline, but may in dogma. So, this is contradictory. Many of the ex cathedra statements made contradict eachother.


I would address Baptismal regeneration here, but that is coming soon, so Ill address it all then.

I will try to gather a message now on the Imputation of Sin, and the Mechanics of Grace.

Another analogy for you, basing it off of your arcade one.

You write a letter to an arcade requesting a pass. This pass is the only way to get into the arcade. It is free -- all you have to do is ask for it. This pass is Faith. Faith allows you to enter Heaven, as the pass allows you entrance to the arcade.

Now once in, you may or may not have money. The way you earn the money is by working for a job or an allowance. This working is the "works" you do in the name of Christ. The more money you have, the better the games you can play.

BUT, no matter how much or little money you have, you still need the pass to get in.

As no one seems to be paying attention anymore, I will just call this off. Maybe I'll try again later, unless everyone mysteriously comes back, then we can continue now.

Entirely OOC, as its much harder to do a good job of remaining in character.

On mortal sin - it is the position of the Catholic Church, that human beings having complete free will, are able to choose to utterly reject God. This rejection is what is known as mortal sin. If an utter rejection of God does not result in a loss of salvation, then therefore it must not be possible to lose salvation, which would therefore mean that humans don't have the free will to choose to reject salvation. This would mean that humanity's free will isn't actually free, which causes all sorts of other problems.

I find it very strange that you keep managing to say that you take the Bible literally, except that you manage to dismiss the passage in James as not being literal, but only specifically addressing a certain group of people. How is it that you know that James did only address a specific group of people, and that Paul didn't? You keep accusing Catholics of believing that we earn our salvation, and all we're saying is basically the same thing as you're saying, that salvation comes through faith. All that we're saying is that there's no such thing as faith without works, which DOES mean that there's no such thing as salvation without works. You can't say that logic stops applying the moment it coms to faith, as that would mean that you're left with truth contradicting truth, and you'll never be able to reason to anything again.

Papal infallibility is another issue that is completely misunderstood by many. Papl infallibility is never a matter of personal infallibility, but a matter of the infallibility of the Church, when the Pope is acting as its head in matters of faith and morals.

Here's a history of the Papal Bull Unigenitus: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15128a.htm

As a note, a Papal bull is simply a an apostolic letter with a special seal (which is where the name bull comes from). This particular apostolic letter addressed the various heresies of Pasquier Quesnel. The problems with it in France and Austria were political problems dealing with issues such as the Gallican freedoms. As to whether or not this apostolic letter is infallible, or which parts of it would be, I'm not really sure. Here's the quote from the 1st Vatican Council on papal infallibility:

We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."

You state that many of the ex cathedra statements contradict each other. Perhaps you could give me a list of all of the ex cathedra statements, and then show me their contradictions.

OOC: I'm glad you asked. I can't give you a list of ALLLLL the ex cathedra statements, but I can give you a list of a bunch. I'm doing alot of work. Saint John, will you still be participating? If so, remind Pio and the others. If not, you and I can just have a separate debate.

I don't have time to post right now, but I'm glad you asked...and yes a Papal Bull is infallible. I was Catholic for a decent ammount of time and am very familiar with the dogmas of the Church. Can't say Im great at Cannon law, but who is. Infact, in the GP regional boards I made a post about infallibility. It is a bit long though, I may excise a couple of bits and post them here. Anyways, thanks for the question on Justification, I don't believe I am explaining myself well enough. I will endeavour to go back to the drawing boards and try to explain myself better. Plus, I am just showing you proof from the Catechism that it was not a widely held belief before 1870 when Pius IX made it so. Infact, it was pretty much limited to a few bishops in Italy. Not to say there werent others outside of Italy, but most of the seminaries even taught that the Pope wasn't infallible.

So in conclusion, give me a bit to reword my bit on Justification and maybe clarify what I mean, because I think this is one of the things that I know what I'm saying and the logic behind it, but I am just not expressing it as clearly as I could be.

I will post tonight come heck or high water.

OOC: Pio's in my region, I'll ask him.

Off to work, looking forward to your later post.

ooc: Sorry I've been lax here. I must have been busier with work than I thought. I thought I had just replied yesterday... Oh well. Since we seem to be the only ones here, is it alright if we drop our characters and discuss this as if RL? --If you would rather go with characters, I suppose we could do that as well. This post, however will all be ooc.

I again ask you to not refer to it as the Roman Church, The inaccuracy of this is quite misleading, and rude to those Catholics who are not of the Latin rite.. Even if you don't agree that the Church is Catholic, please call it that. After all McDonalds isn't Scottish, and I bet you are still willing to call it "McDonalds".

Early Church Fathers did indeed believe in infalliability.

St. Irenaueus said in Against the Heresies

"Suince therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from teh Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining tro the truth: so that every man, whoseover will, can draw from her the water of lie. For she is the entrance to lif; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertainin to the Church with teh utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some inportant question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary [in that case] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?


Tertullian:

"Well then: be it that all have erred; that the Apostle also was deceived in the testimony he gave favor of some; that the Holy Spirit had regrrd to no one of them so as to guide it inot truth, although for this sent by Christ, asked of the Father, that He might be the Teacher of truth; that He the Steward of God, the Deputy of Christ, neglected His office, suffering the Churches the while to understand differently, to believe differntly, that which He Himself preached by the Apostles--is it probable that so many Churchs, and so great should have gone astray into the same Faith?

St. Augustine:

"But should you meet with a person not yet believing the Gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the Authority of the Catholic Church."

More specifically, early Christians believed in Papal Infaliability:


Tertulian
"But if Peter was reproved because, after having lived wit hteh Gentiles, he separated himself from their company out of respect for persons, surely this was a fault in his conversation, not in his preaching."

St. Leo the Great

"The Lord has suffered us to sustain no harm in the person of our brethren, but has corroborated by the irrevocable assent of the whole brotherhood what He had already laid down through our ministy: to show that, what had been first formulated by the foremost See of Christendom, and then received by the judgment of the whole Christian world, had truly proceeded from Himself: that in this, too, the members may be at one with the Head.

A Papal Bull--in and of itself--is not infalliable. A papal bull could be infalliable but only with these conditions being met. 1. He have the intention of teaching ex cathedra. 2. he speak as shepherd and teacher of all the faithful with the full weight of his apostolic authority, and not merely as a private theologian or even merely for the people of Rome or some particular segment of the Church of God.

This is not an ex-cathedra statement because it is meant for the Churches of France, not the Whole Flock. Furthermore, there is no question whether a pope is speaking with Extraordinay Infalliability-- just look at the wording used in the defining of the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception:

The Definition

Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."[29]

Hence, if anyone shall dare--which God forbid!--to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

--- Pretty clear, don't you think?---

I re-emphasize that not every papal bull, encyclical, letter, or speech is infalliable.

Also, "Anathema" doesn't mean "damn". When the church says someone is in anathema they are saying that that person's beliefs are not in union with the Catholic Churches. When it says " (Lat.) Anathema sit," or as it is translated into english "Let them be in Anathema" it is saying "Let it be known that they do not follow the Church's Teachings, and are excommunicated.

Futhermore, excommunication is not damning either. It simply means that you are no longer in communion with the Catholic Church.

With Prayers,
Pio Magnus

OOC we can drop characters

Well, I have alot to reply to you. Some interesting points you brought up. But I will address them tonight. I've been lax too. No worries. Tonight, tonight.

Alright, now we're back on track.

Since it's just us few, I don't think we have to worry about replying right away. I've subscribed to this thread (there is an area in the "additional options" area when you are posting), so if I don't get on as fast as I should, I will get an email after someone has posted... I would recommend that everyone who intends to read this board do the same as it appears we all have busy schedules.

This will be especially true for me after the 25th of this month as I start school then, and will probably have less time to reply, but I will still do my best.

If anyone here wants to email me directly t-gram my nation and I will send you my email. I just ask that you use Christian Charity and don't give my email address to anyone, or sign me up for anything.

I await your response.

Pio Magnus

I'm not subscribed to this thread, but I've got it bookmarked, and check it a couple times a day. If people would like my email addy, I'll do the same as Pio - if you telegram me, I'll give it to you.

Ok. Good thoughts. Give me two minutes and I will post something.

There are footnotes in the text itself. Look for the *, +, and ++ in the text and when you see one of those symbols below, it is a footnote, but read it.
This is an article by the Reverend Paisley. Alot of people don't like him, but divorce yourself from your dislike of him and just read whats on the paper.



The Infallibility of the Pope

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Ian R. K. Paisley

I shall prove that this claimed infallibility is against Scripture, reason, and history.

The argument is old; yet, not useless now, as it may prevent the introduction among Protestants of some pseudo-infallibility, if not of the Popish infallibility itself.

This infallibility is a Romish point of faith. *

It rests on the same general ground that we have already found the Pope’s supremacy placed on; namely, his being St. Peter’s successor.

Now, was Saint Peter infallible? If not, his successor, as such, cannot pretend to infallibility. "Yes, Saint Peter was infallible." Why? "Because Christ promised him infallibility." When? "When he said,-Peter, Satan will tempt you, but I pray my Heavenly Father that your faith may be preserved. Consequently Peter, in matters of faith, was immutable, and therefore infallible." But, Peter was not immutable, for he really fell, and thrice denied his Devine Master; being at that moment a real unbeliever. You say, "only externally;" but is an even external unbeliever a proper authority for an infallible dictum? Peter was then an apostate; an unbeliever; therefore, not infallible. +

* It is defined as such where Popery is dominant. Here, and in other Protestant countries, the priest denies this before educated people; but in Italy I never heard from a priest the slightest doubt of the Pope’s infallibility; those who do not believe in it are called heretics, and are said to be found among Protestants only. It is a main and cardinal point of Romish Faith.

+ The early Christians were called by the Church apostates when they merely threw a few grains of incense on the fire of a false God;

Infallibility is sought to be proved by Christ’s having called Peter the rock, as the Romanists say. In a former Lecture I clearly showed that Peter was not the Rock. *

"But there are texts in which Christ twice promised to be with Peter to the end of time. Do not these make him infallible?" The texts are true texts, but by no means prove infallibility. Christ promised to be with his apostles (not Peter particularly) to the end of time. Christ promised to be with them, with his Church, present with them. Does that look like appointing a successor? +

Alas! for Peter’s infallibility! Poor Saint Peter was a very good man, in many instances only a man; as, when he deserted Christ in his passion, when he denied Him in his anguish, when he did not assist Him in Golgotha, when, lest he should scandalise the Jews, he abstained from the society of the Gentiles. To err is human; to be infallible is to be Divine.

But, for arguments’ sake, supposing the absurdity that Peter was infallible; still, is the Pope Peter’s successor? I have clearly shown that he is not. ++

for this external sign of apostasy, (perhaps without bad design, and with internal faith,) they were expelled from the Church. When Peter thrice denied Christ, the Jews, the Woman, and the soldiers, considered Christ what He was not; had Peter confessed his Divine Master, perhaps He would have suffered so much. Yes, even the apostle Peter was an apostate for the time.

* See Lecture II. First Course. The promise was given for the Church of Christ, not for the Church of Peter; in support of the Church, not a man. Saints Ambrose, Augustine, Hilary, and Eusebius, agree that Peter, not being the rock, is not infallible.

+ Does any one who is not about to absent himself appoint a vicar or a successor? a vicar to one who himself performs his office? a successor to one who is present and continues his functions? No; Christ Himself is always with His church.

++ The proof from the "monuments" is of the same kind as that for the Irish Wells of Saint John and Saint Coleman, whose mysterious appearances are seen every year; and for the tales about the Mamertine Prison, and the Santa Maria in via, where Peter baptised the soldiers who guarded him.

"Saint Peter was at Rome, because his chair is there!" By the same rule he must have been in another place, where he never could have been. A chair used by him (‘tis said) when he was bishop of Antioch, called the Antiochian chair, is at Venice; therefore, he was Bishop of Venice!

But let us suppose Saint Peter was infallible, and that the Pope is his successor, and therefore infallible; still, a great question remains,-is Pius IX. infallible? To be so, he must be a Pope; but, is Pius IX. a Pope? You wonder. But the matter really is, and always must be, one of very great doubt. To have a Pope you must have a bishop; to have a bishop, a priest; to have a priest, he must have received Christian baptism, for which, the baptising priest must have had the intention to give it. But no one can ever know he had; therefore, no one can be sure Pius IX. is a Pope. *

Pius IX. then, cannot claim infallibility, even as being certainly Pope. And even if certainly Pope, he is not the successor of Saint Peter; and even if Peter’s successor, he is not infallible. Neither history, reason, nor Scripture establishes Infallibility. Hear the emphatic word of David: "Each man is a liar." Not for any man, but for Himself alone, Christ made this assertion, "I am the way, the life and the truth;" therefore, the only Infallible is Christ.

But Rome has a convenient way of arguing. She knows

But Venice was built nearly four hundred and fifty years after he died. Could he have been at Venice, Bishop of Venice? The Venetians were once great merchants to the east; how easily they could bring this chair to Venice from Antioch, without the original owner ever having been there! Now, suppose that wherever is a chair of Saint Peter, there he must have been. But could either that at Venice or that at Rome have been his? No! The former is of Turkish construction, and has on it some sentences from the Koran; it may be a good Mohammedan, but it is a shockingly bad Christian chair. Mohammed wrote the Koran, therefore this chair must, be at the earliest, have been made in the seventh century; Saint Peter died in the first. Is this chair his? As to the Roman chair, Cardinal Wiseman, a great giant Goliath, met a little female David, Lady Morgan, who, using, instead of a sling, a book which she wrote, gave Cardinal Goliath Wiseman a great blow! In fact she proved that he made a very unlearned blunder. But, being a prince of the Roman Church, he has the privilege of confounding all things human and divine, without any imputation either upon his purity or his learning.

* Even if the baptiser intended, it is still doubtful, for the same reason, that he was a priest; and the same doubt besets us at every stage. Infallibility implies certainty; we have mere supposition.

what texts mean, because she is so infallible, and she is infallible because texts prove her so. *

Further she says, "If you interpret for yourself, then, in the great variety of interpretations, you stray into a labyrinth, and are lost. You must have a guide through the Bible, and I am that guide." Yes; I admit it; to read honestly and rightly, it is necessary to have a guide, and this guide is the Bible itself. The affair is a private one between the individual and his God; between the soul of the Christian and the Holy Ghost. +

An infallible Church! In the sense of the Saviour, a Church is any Christian congregation, large or small. He said, "where two or three of you are gathered together, I will be with you." This promise is to any few anywhere

* To be at once witness and Judge is very pleasant. The infallibility proves the infallibility! Ah! You must prove it, not by itself, nor by the Pope, nor by your Church, but by the Bible! "The Bible proves my infallibility, and my infallibility proves the Bible." "I am infallible because I am infallible." That won’t do; logicians call it "a vicious circle."

+ Supposing the Bible, through variety of interpretation, were not a guide, what simple, consistent, and easily consulted substitute does Rome offer? The Canon Law, the Bulls, the Bullarium, the Canons of the Councils, &c, &c. The Canon Law is in twenty folio volumes, the Bullarium in twenty-four, the Canons of the Councils in forty-five; in all ninety folio volumes! Which is more apt to vary, the Bible, the Word of the One and Immutable God, or ninety folio volumes, composed by thousands of different men, in as many different centuries? Something a little worse than the tower of Babel! Blind guides! by the time you have read them, you will be blind yourself and on the edge of a precipice. A multitude of physicians give the speediest passport to the other world, while one good and true physician heals: so this multitude of guides is the prime origin of the confusion which reigns among Roman Catholics.

According to Pius IV., Romanists receive the Bible in the sense of the Church, and the Church according to the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers. But I have repeatedly shown that they never consent on any doubtful point. They pay a tribute to the Bible, it was the Bible originated the Fathers, not the Fathers the Bible. Thus Basilius, Cyrillus and Agustine, (especially the two former,) said, "Do not receive our teachings as doctrines, but try them by the Holy Book and the Inspired Word; and if you find them according to that Word, receive them, as being so, but not as our doctrines" The majority of the Fathers recognise, not Peter, but Christ in the text of Matthew, "Thou art Peter and upon this Rock, &c." Sometimes the Church recognises the Councils as infallible, sometimes not.

congregated in his name. But does this promise give infallibility? No, he will be with them to aid, guide, and save them. This is not the Popish sense of a Church. According to Cardinal Bellarmino, and Father Perrone, both Jesuits, the Church is represented by the clergy and laity together. Generally speaking, the Councils were composed of clergy alone, the laity were excluded, especially in the latter ages. This is but half a Church; and the infallibility which Christ never promised to the whole, cannot be found with the half. Councils infallible! But even that was not enough. Bellarmino goes further: he says- "they are entitled to make new dogmas of faith, and cannot err, being God himself." No! Christ’s dogmas were enough! men cannot add to them.

Councils infallible! No! Not even when general, ecumenical. Some of these were composed of fifty persons, not all bishops even, but part abbots. On the other hand, some National Councils consisted of two hundred bishops. These two hundred, collected for the Church’s sake, (as at the Tridentine Council), are infallible, because an Ecumenical Council! What is the number necessary? Some say eighteen, some sixteen, some twelve! The French receive the Councils of Basle and Constance, the Italians reject them. Here is an embroilment-confusion. Where is our rule of faith, our infallibility? * Christ gave the Bible not to bodies, but to individuals, not to the Church, but to the Christians. To individuals, not to the Apostles as a body, He said, "search the Scriptures." Saint Paul said, not to

* Worse: some Councils taught heresies. Constantinople taught that those baptised by heretics, must be re-baptised; one of the Councils of Laodicea, that the soul of man is a corporeal being; both heresies! Nice condemned Arius, and Constantinople absolved him. Constantinople condemned Nice, Lateran condemned Basle. A council of Ephesus condemned Eutychus, and, nineteen years afterwards, a second Council of the same Ephesus absolved him. The Ecumenical Council of Constantinople declared the bread and wine images of Christ’s body in heaven; Lateran and Trent pronounced the fullest Transubstantiation. Constantinople and Basle asserted that councils are superior to the Pope; Lateran opposed the claim. Laodicea excluded the Apocrypha. Trent adopted them all!

a body, but to individuals, "try the spirit;" also, "all the Inspired Word is useful, to make the perfect man of God, and instructed in all works." If aught seem obscure, pray to God; and your guide will be not a Jesuit, a Liguorist, a Dominican, a Council, a Pope, but the Holy Ghost. Thus Infallibility is against Scripture and reason. In the last place, it is against history.

When is the Pope infallible? The most severe Romanists answer, when he speaks together with a Council.

But whether is it the Pope who sanctions the Council, or the Council the Pope? If either originate doctrine, and the other approve it, the part of one is useless, for the infallible can do all. "But, they are infallible together." Ay! But, unfortunately, some Councils condemn the doctrine of Popes; while, on the other hand, certain Popes anathematise many Councils! "But we have infallibility when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, namely, in a Bull." *

Let us see. Firstly, we must understand the Bull. Secondly, we must be certain that the Pope wrote it freely, uninfluenced by fear. Thirdly, we must know whether the Pope invoked the prayers of the whole church. Fourthly, we must be sure the Bull was inspired and suggested by all the bishops in the world. Fifthly, we must know that the Bull was received everywhere. Sixthly, we must be sure that not one among all the bishops refused to accept this Bull. Seventhly, we must be satisfied that the Bull touches on matters of faith or of custom.

When I find any one man in all the world who is reasonably satisfied on all these points, I will let him believe in as many Bulls as he pleased. +

* Bellarmino says, "a bull is certainly inspired by the Holy Ghost. If you try, you will find infallibility in all the Bulls."

+ To try a Bull by these seven points, suppose a good simple Yankee receives one. It is in Latin; he cannot read it; he gets another man to translate it; but is he sure the translation is correct? First difficulty! Then, he will find it very hard, tedious, and expensive to fulfil the remaining conditions. He must write or go to Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceanica, to know weather every bishop in the world gave his prayers to the Pope, whether the Bull was accepted or refused, whether it touched matter of faith or custom. It may be said, "general certainty will do." No! This is a matter of the soul’s safety, and certainly must be complete. How long will it take Jonathan

More; many Popes have been declared apostates and heretics. Marcellinus paid tribute to idols. Liberius denied the passion of Christ. John XXI. was condemned by the University of Paris for many errors. Vigilius, Honorius, John XXIII. were rightly accused as heretics.

The Council of Constance gave some Popes the same title. Infallible Popes! Infallible heretics! *

The Romanists have a great miracle-to get honey from vinegar. Their canon admits the Book of Wisdom, which says: "No bad soul shall ever enter the wisdom of God, and his wisdom shall never inhabit a body subject to sin." Therefore the wisdom of God, which is the infallibility of God, can never be given to Popes, for they are exceedingly subject to sin!

"The Popes are holy men," says Rome. Yes, antonomatically , they are styled "Your Holiness," as a King is spoken of as "His Majesty." Come with me to Rome, and enter the palace of the Vatican. You find guards, chamberlains, prelates, cardinals, surrounding the Pope, this man living in more than imperial state, yet humbly signing himself "the Servant of the Servants of God." A servant living amid the homage of a Court, like an emperor, has a little too much irony in it. On one of his fingers this man wears a ring worth eight thousand dollars, is called the fisherman’ ring-as the ring of poor Saint Peter, which probably cost two cents.

to get such certainty? But, suppose he has got it-out comes another Bull; (there are not less than three thousand of them.) He will want a long life!

* What is still more amusing is to see some of those infallibles fighting for infallibility with others of the infallibles like dog and cat. Gregory the Great says, he who assumes the title of the universal bishop, is Satan; and Gregory VII. says the bishop of Rome is universal. Leo IX. is for, and Gregory XIII. against infallibility. Pope Vigilius is against, and Innocent III. for Transubstantiation. Pius V. by a Bull, declared the breviary correct; Urbanus VIII. declared the breviary of Pius V. full of errors. Sextus V. pronounces the Bible published by him correct; Clement VIII. says the Bible of Sextus V. contains two thousand capital errors. Clement XIV.. by an infallible Bull suppressed the Jesuits as fatal to the church and society. Pius VII. by another infallible Bull, re-established the Jesuits as useful to the church and society. Infallible?

His Holiness! But not himself alone, all belonging to him, is holy. His palaces are called the very holy places; his gardens, the very holy gardens; his stables, carriages, horses, are all most holy. A stranger sees ten, twenty, or thirty horses in the street; he asks whose they are, and is told they "are the most holy horses." This is no exaggeration, no comedy to amuse you, but a common fact. Enter the most holy kitchen, and the most holy cook, (he has no other name in Rome,) will tell you "this is the most holy plum pudding." Is the Pope infallible because "the most holy father?" Then his roast beef must be also infallible, as being "the most holy roast beef." "My Father and I alone are holy," says Christ. Be not surprised if the term applied to sinful man is also debased to things the most vile.

To be always infallible, it is necessary to be always Holy; but to read the history of the Popes-a transcript of crimes the most horrible and revolting.* Oh! to learn what Popes

* Take only one epoch, from the ninth to the eleventh century; and consult only Roman Catholic writers, and those among the purest, Gilbert and Baronius; who state, that many Popes were apostates, and committed crimes degrading to human nature. Formosus became Pope by invading the Basilica of the Vatican where he erected an altar over the slaughtered bodies of the people. After a little, he was overcome, and dragged to death. His successor Stephen had his body taken from the sepulchre, dressed in pontifical robes-brought into conclave, and questioned about the crimes it committed when living. Receiving no answer, Stephen ordered three fingers of the right hand to be cut off, the corpse stripped naked, and cast into the Tiber. He then excommunicated all the followers of Formosus, and cancelled all his acts, so as to cover his memory with ignominy. A few months after, another Pope restored Formosus; a few days subsequently another condemned him and all his acts; and, finally, after seven or eight years, Pope John restored Formosus to all prerogatives and rights among Popes! After the death of Stephen and Boniface, Sergius III. was Pope-called by Baronius, Assassin-one of the worst of mankind. He was made Pope through the favour of Marozia and Theodora-the story of Messalina revived! Two sons of Sergius III., who succeeded him in the popedom, were the paramours, the one of his grandmother, the other of his mother. His son John, who killed his father, and was elected Pope in his seventh year, was called the Nero and Heliogabalus of the church. He committed such enormous licentiousness, that he gave rise to the story of Pope Joan, who was not a female but a male, with the most wicked female habits.

were and are, go to Italy where they are known-incestuous murderers, assassins; no better now than in former days.*

Here is our moral and practical conclusion. Americans, thank God that you are without Popes in your country! Try never to have Popes dominant among you! Keep your Bible-guard your Bible-read your Bible-fulfil the command of your Bible-under the guidance of the Holy Ghost be faithful to your Bible, and to it alone! If any one endeavor to introduce amongst you human authority instead of the authority of the Bible, even though he be in Protestant disguise, Americans distrust him! Americans, beware! it is Satan introducing the Pope and Popery into your country!

* Pope Gregory XVI. was a public drunkard, and publicly recognised as an adulterer. The present Pius IX. to speak benevolently of him, is a vile apostate from the Italian cause, a vile calumniator of his fellow-countrymen, and a vile leader of the cursed system of despotism now prevailing in Europe.

Also, on the matter of anathema, it means you are outside of the Church, and the Church says there is no salvation outside of the Roman Church (Pio, I don't know what else to call it because I am not calling it vatholic, something it is not, for the sake of sensitivity. You tell me something other than Catholic that I can call it that is true, and I will. The Church whose head is at Rome maybe?) and that every person must be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved. So if they say you are outside of the Church, that is just as good as damning you to hell according to their doctrine. I can give you many many citations of this if you dont believe me. Including times where it was confirmed and reconfirmed by other Popes.

As far as excommunication goes, that means you are not allowed to participate in the sacraments and rituals of the Church, outside of which there is no salvation...again have examples from Roman Dogma.

So...yea. I remember that was brought up, but I can't remember in relation to what.

We still haven't finished the faith and works argument yet. Now, our views are differant on the subject, not the same or even similar. That is an arguement that can be thrown aside. I will demonstrate that shortly. What I really want to do is post another bit of a good text I found.

Plus, those arguments that you made before only point to the teachings of the teachings of the Church as being infallible. Also an erroneous statement.

The Catholic Church is the name of the church you are discussing, so you should be kind enough to address it as such. If you disagree that it is catholic, then do so, but do not for the sake of your sensibilities debase the sensibilities of countless others by using incorrect and prejudiced terms. What do you call the Orthodox Church, since you likely deny its orthodoxy? Keep in mind as well that not all Orthodox are in the East, so Eastern Orthodox/Church is as much a misnomer as Roman Catholic/Church. Refusing to address someone or something by its proper name is rude and inconsiderate, as are words like Romish, Romanist, Popish, Popery, etc. If one cannot get one's points across in Christian charity, of what value are such points?

Concerning posting pre-written articles in a discussion as a response:

If the first poster goes through the trouble to present something, the second poster should acknowledge that by responding in kind. An article shifts the onus of first rebuttal onto the original poster and that violates standard protocol.

First, call it Catholic. You have expressed that you do not believe it is Catholic, but regardless, that is it's proper name, as can be found on legal documents the world over. MCI WorldCom may not actually allow everyone in the world to communicate, but you would still call it WorldCom. Even if you don't agree, show some respect for those of us who do believe it. I have to say, I am hardened against all of your arguments the second I see such bigotted phrases as "Popish, Popery, Romanish, etc. ect." If you are attempting to convert us, the worst way to do it is by insulting what we currently believe. Disprove us, then we will be easier swayed.

"The protestant, with bible in hand, is his own Pope."

How is it that you believe that the Holy Spirit gives you infaliability, but there is no possibility of the Pope having it? You're likely to say, "I'm not infalliable."
Well, you'ld be right. However, when you read the bible you believe that the Holy Spirit is giving you the correct translation without error. If this is the case, where the Holy Spirit comes to the Christian reading his bible to allow him to correctly interpret the bible, then there would only be one denomination, rather than the literally thousands of protestant denominations that we see today.

But why get into the personal infalliability that you claim for yourself? Why don't we take a step back.

Let's go back to your bible, that same bible that you so conveniantly have the ability to interpret without err.

You believe that the Catholic Church is made of human traditions that "Void the Word of God" (Matt. 15:6)

I say to you that your idea of Sola Scriptura is a human tradition that voids the word of God. Nowhere, anywhere is the idea of Sola Scriptura found inthe bible. This theological principle is NOT IN THE BIBLE! If you are a bible-only Christian, then your belief would have to be found in the bible. This is the flaw in the protestant theology. For, in order for this to be a workable proposition (Ie. I only accept those teachings I can find in the bible and will reject, outright, any teachings I can not find in the bible), it must, somewhere is scripture be expressed. What you have here is a self refuting proposition! The fact is, the notion of the bible being the sole rule of faith is NOWHERE in the bible. Not in one passage, not in an amalgalation of passages. It is not there implicitly, or explicitly. It is not in the Bible anywhere.

But would you like to know what IS in teh bible? The catholic beliefe in Sacred Traditon. The belief that we are to embrace those traditions that were passed down from God himself. In fact, the bible specifically forbids us to ignore these sacred traditions.

2 Thes. 2:15

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

1 Cor. 11:1-2

Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

In the above passages the word "tradition is used, from the same root word for tradition in Greek (paradosis). This same word (paradosis) is used in Mark 7:1-3 and Matthew 15:1-9. The difference is that in the former verses, "tradition" is good and even neccessary, and, by the way, is very clearly not written in the bible. While the later verses show an example of a tradition of human origin that conflicts with God's revelation and, therefore, must be abandoned.

Sola Scriptura is just such a doctrine. It voids the Word of God because it reduces (falsely, I might add) The Word of God to just what is written. St. Luke made it clear that the teachings of Christ and the apostles were transmitted to later generations of Christians both through the written word (New Testament) and also through oral teaching and preaching in the life of the Church.

Luke 1:1-4

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the begnning were eyewitnesses and minsters of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

The above passage shows us that those things that were accomplished were passed down from the begining, without being in writing. Otherwise Luke would not have had to write his orderly account.

Also, on the matter of anathema, it means you are outside of the Church, and the Church says there is no salvation outside of the Roman Church

o.o.c: as a NON catholic who has many catholic friends i'd like to say you need to read what the church says today - since vatican two ie:there is salvation outside the church *gasp*.

i.c: they think they hold the total copyright to truth. someone needs to tell these 'christians' they dont own the rights to it.

~Sultan Omar. A press-statement

Your assumption that all non-catholics and non-christians are damned to hell is also an erroneous belief.

Catholics DO believe that outside the Church there is not salvation, on that you are correct. But that belief must be correctly understood. Catholics don't understand this doctrine as against individuals, but rather as against heretical sects as far as they are sects. This does not mean that Ian Paisley is damned, it means that his church is not THE means of salvation. No Church set up against The Church which possess and communicates the fullness of the blessings brought to men by Christ can be a means of salvation. In so far as these churches are non-Catholic and anti-Catholic, they cannot give supernatural life.

But non-Catholic churches are not purely un-Catholic. These churches took with them, and keep with them a considerable portion of the Catholic treasure of faith and some means of grace, above all the Sacrament of Baptism. The Church has always upheld the validity of Baptism administered by heretics in the name of the Blessed Trinity. It is not the protestant elements in these churches that allow them to be a means of grace and salvation, rather, it is the Catholic elements that enables them to be a means of grace and salvation.

But the Church does not deny the ability of one to be saved if you are not a Christian, either. This includes the Muslims (Muhammedians), pagans, the Jews, and any number of non-christian religions. This is because the Catholic Church believes in two types of baptism. Sacramental Baptism, as well as Baptism of Desire.

Every Catholic Catechism speaks of the baptism of Desire as a substitute for Sacramental Baptism. Baptism of desire is an act of perfect contrition, combined with an ardent wish to know and do all that is required for salvation. A person who does not know the necessity of Baptism, but wishes to do all that is required for salvation is sad to have an implicit desire of Baptism. for "Every one the loveth is born of God" (1 John 4:7)

We believe that God does not refuse grace to anyone in good faith, to anyone who is outside the Church through invincible ignorance; but it is essential that he must be in good faith. Whoever, without his fault, is not a Catholic, but sincerely seeks the truth and keeps the commandments to the best of his knowledge does not indeed belong to thie visible body of the Church, but in spirit, as it were belongs to the soul of the Church, and therefore can be saved. He is not saved without the Church of Christ and against her, but through her. "For the grace of Christ never operated in an isolated manner in this or that person. It always works in and through the unity of His Body." There is no invisible Church beside teh visible one; there is only one true Church of Christ in which both what is visible and invisible are organically united.

(portions taken from the writings of Fr. John Laux, M.A.)

p.S. Reichstamphken, could you give us a first name, even a pseudonym to call you by? I would rather be able to refer to you as a person. Not to mention that the name of your nation is unbearably hard for me to spell :headbang:

I will be travelling and will be unable to check this thread for probably the next two days. Please pray for my safety as I travel.

Pio Magnus

Pio's covered just about everything I'd have to say in response. If people want to call me something, either Vianney, or just Everett (my real name) is fine.

The most difficult part of reading the article you posted is that I can feel the hate that is present within.

As far as salvation outside the Church, that doctrine is true, just somewhat different than what most people think. As Pio has explained, basically the belief is that the Church functions as a bastion of the Truth. Therefore, anyone who seeks truth is in fact seeking the Christ who is present in the Church. In this they find salvation that is within the Church regardless of whether they are actually Catholic, or even Christian.

As Catholics we do not believe that we have some exlusive claim on truth or salvation, but we do claim that all truths necessary for salvation are found within the Catholic Church.

I don't know if that clears anything up at all or not. As a side-note, the Catholic Church makes no judgments about who is going to hell or not.

Ok, I will respond to everything in due time. I've got alot of course work to do. Yes, I think we should all pray that Pio travels safely.

Now, as far as the article goes. He doesn't hate anyone. This much I know. I have spoken to personal friends of his and am in communication with them. What he hates is something that departs from the gospel.

The comment that the protestant with bible in his hand is his own pope was hyperbole, which he uses quite a bit. It doesn't mean we think ourselves infallable. That would be blasphemous. He means that the BIBLE is the source of knowledge and itself is infallable. I will respond when more time allows on Sola Scriptura as it is a Biblical concept. I will also respond to your verses and the matter of translation...but I am unsure whether or not we ought to address translation later or not, because that is a huge issue.

Now, what I need to emphasize here is that I hate no one, and I am sure you know that. The same can be said of Dr. Paisley. Also, the terms Popish and Romanist etc etc are not biggotry nor intended to be. It is just seeking to find another thing to call the church other than Catholic. What I ask you is just to read what he has to say, and respond to what is contained therein.

I also maintain that the stands of the See of Rome (They refer to the Vatican like that don't they? I will just use that to be non offensive and appologize If I have offended anyone.) have not changed substantially. Where they have changed, they introduce all sorts of contradictions.

Give me a bit and you will get a full response.

Oh, my name is Will.

"I also maintain that the stands of the See of Rome (They refer to the Vatican like that don't they? . . ."

Which term you use depends on what you are trying to express. If you mean specifically something declared by the Pope, then "the See of Rome" is a correct term although "the Pope" would be much more informative for people unaquainted with the Catholic Church (everyone knows about the Pope). If you mean instead something taught by the Church, then See of Rome would be incorrect. The Vatican and the See of Rome are not necessarily, or even often, equivalent.

I am Benedict.

Benedict, Will, and Vianney,

Thanks for the prayers, it worked, I survived my trip. I went down to a monastery for Assumption (Dormition) Mass, served by my Bishop.

I got a chance to meet some cloistered nuns. They live quite a different life than we do.

Alright, talk to you after the next post...

-PM

Ahh, nice. I went to Monte Cassino once, and Notre Dame...infact I took the ABC tour of Europe...Another Bloody Church. I've been to a good deal of the biggies. I even went to the Vatican, but at that point I WAS Catholic, so the Swiss guards didn't round me up and send me to the Holy Office XD.

I have a good post about Sola Scriptura worked up, Its just to find the time to actually write it out. I am a bit pressed. Also, I am going off to college soon. So that will take a nice chunk out of the time.

Posting soon

"He means that the BIBLE is the source of knowledge and itself is infallable. I will respond when more time allows on Sola Scriptura as it is a Biblical concept."

I am big on definitions. Many terms today are understood differently by different people so it often helps to come out and say what is meant by certain things. The "3-eyes" concerning authority:

Infallible - incapable of erring; this requires action
Inerrant - containing no error; this is a property
Impeccable - incapable of sin

The Bible is inerrant; all Christians agree with this. Catholics believe the Pope and the Church are infallible (under certain conditions). The Bible is only infallible in the technical sense that it is incapable of action and, therefore, incapable of the action of erring; the Bible is more properly called inerrant because that is a property. Catholics do not believe that the Pope is impeccable.

Also, there is a difference between the Scriptura doctrines:

Sola (with an A) Scriptura - the Bible is the final authority in matters of faith; the early Church Fathers, Councils, and Creeds are all considered valid for the Christian faith until and unless they contradict the Bible.

Solo (with an O) Scriptura - the Bible is the only authority in matters of faith; the early Church Fathers, Councils, and Creeds are completely unnecessary although they might be studied for history.

The Reformers believed in sola Scriptura; evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants tend to follow solo Scriptura. Catholics believe that Scripture and Sacred Tradition make up the deposit of the faith and that it (the depositum fidei) is infallibly interpreted through the Magisterium (teaching arm) of the Church.

-----

With these definitions in place, the main issue on authority comes down to the fourth eye: interpretation.

Catholics believe interpretation comes from the Holy Spirit through the Church. Protestants generally believe interpretation comes from the Holy Spirit to them personally.

Will,

There is no rush, this is a busy time of year for everyone. just post it when you have time.

-Pio

Ok then, what is the church's stance on being Jewish, are we condemned. We are a small nation, but does the church condemn or praise us?

Catechism of the Catholic Church

839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, "the first to hear the Word of God." The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ" (Romans 9:4-5), "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29).

That DEFINATELY deserves a comment when time allows.

But, for now, all I have time to say is this. There is an incident. Christians are being oppressed in Nazi Weaponized Virus. Murdered and unjustly imprisoned. I have issued a commonsensical ultimatum and offer to ship them to GP if they would like, but have nevertheless put my foot down on the issue and am throwing the weight of the Empire behind it. I am gathering a Catholic/Protestant/whoever will help coalition to stop the killing.

We have many and various doctrinal disagreements, but this is one thing we can agree on, we must stop the killing.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349318


Read my ultimatum, and please cast your support for it. Any military support you could give would be helpful as well. God Bless.

-Will

Nevermind, situation resolved. Thanks anyway though.

Just keeping the thread alive until Will has time to post.

-PM