JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AND THE SATANIC CHURCH....

What They Will Never Tell You...

Jehovah Witnesses like to say that the Catholic Church was founded by satan. Of course they never have produced any documented proof of this false charge, but yet they still they repeat it over and over again.
Once again they have failed to comprehend their own Bible and the history of the Catholic Church.

Let us look at Matthew 12:25-26:

And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand?"

Apparently the Watchtower Society has never heard of 'Exorcisms'. You see, it is very well documented fact that the Catholic Church has, for centuries, performed successful 'Exorcisms' to defend against demonic entities.

Since the Catholic Church has 'cast out Satan' in hundreds of well documented cases, how then could Satan cast out Satan?

Also, since the Catholic Church has stood for almost 2000 years, isn't that in itself a direct contradiction to what Jesus Christ said in Matthew 12:25-26?

How then can the Catholic Church be Satanic?

Written by Bob Stanley, July 1997
Updated January 17, 2002

IN DEFENSE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

"Put on the armor of GOD, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the Principalities and the Powers, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness on high. Therefore take up the armor of GOD, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and stand in all things perfect. Stand, therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of justice, and having your feet shod with the readiness of the Gospel of Peace, in all things taking up the shield of faith, with which you may be able to quench all the fiery darts of the most wicked one. And take unto you the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit, that is, the Word of GOD." (Ephesians 6:11-17)

We Catholics are under a continuous bombardment of negativism from many sources. How many times have you heard from the pulpit a Catholic priest deliberately attacking a non-Catholic Church? I do not recall one single case in which this has happened.

Yet others take great pleasure in attacking our Catholic Church, and they will do it from the pulpit. It amazes me how some non-Catholic sects seem to spend a significant percentage of their time in attacking our Church, instead of preaching to their own followers, of "love thy neighbor" as taught by the Word of GOD in Holy Scripture.

It is the duty of every Catholic to learn the faith and to defend it. Do not be afraid to speak out when your Church is being attacked by anyone.  When you defend the Church, you are defending its founder, Jesus Christ.

He will remember that when you meet Him face to face someday. He will also remember those who attacked His Church which is His body, with He Himself being the Head and Savior of it (Ephesians 1:22-23, 5:23, Colossians 1:18).

For those who defend Our Blessed Mother, Catholics, and the Catholic Church, from the non-stop barrage of slings and arrows, Holy Scripture has promised that you will certainly receive your reward:

" My brethren, if any of you err from the truth and one convert him: He must know that he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way shall save his soul from death and shall cover a multitude of sins." (James 5:19-20).

Updated by Bob Stanley, March 10, 2007

CONCERN: WHAT ABOUT THE SALVATION OF PROTESTANTS AND NON - CATHOLICS?

By David Bennett

While some Christian denominations take a narrow and limited view of the salvation of non-members, the Catholic Church recognizes the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics, and even non-Christians. The Catholic Church recognizes that God works in many ways through many diverse channels, including in ways that might surprise us. For example, God used the Persian king Cyrus to free the Jews from captivity, allowing them to return back to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple. In Isaiah 54, the prophet records the Lord's message about Cyrus:

Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and ungird the loins of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed...Thus says the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker: "Will you question me about my children, or command me concerning the work of my hands? I made the earth, and created man upon it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host. I have aroused him in righteousness, and I will make straight all his ways; he shall build my city and set my exiles free, not for price or reward," says the Lord of hosts (Isaiah 45:1, 11-12, RSV-CE).

God used a pagan for his purposes, even if Cyrus was unaware that he was doing the will of the god of the Hebrews. Thus, God can use even those without explicit knowledge of Him for His divine purposes.

Before I begin to address specific Catholic Teaching on non-Catholics, I need to address the issue of invincible ignorance, because the salvation of non-Catholics is strongly tied to the concept. Ignorance is invincible if a person is not able to remove the ignorance by applying reasonable diligence. Thus invincible ignorance is ignorance that is, essentially, out of the individual's control, because the individual still remains ignorant after having made a good effort to rectify the lack of knowledge.

The Church teaches that if a person remains in ignorance even after due diligence, he is not morally culpable for his actions. Lacking the desire to apply reasonable diligence in seeking answers to moral and theological questions and problems is not invincible ignorance, but rather vincible ignorance. Ignorance is vincible if a person is ignorant, but is able to remove the ignorance by applying reasonable diligence. Vincible ignorance diminishes moral culpability, but does not remove it.

First, let us begin with the salvation of non-Catholic Christians. The Catholic Church recognizes the possibility of salvation in non-Catholic churches. The Churches with which Catholics have the most in common are the Orthodox Churches. Catholic Teaching on the matter is:

Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church (Dominus Iesus, 17).

Thus Orthodox Churches, having valid Apostolic Succession, have valid sacraments. Because of this, the Orthodox Churches are a means of salvation. Orthodox Christians may even commune in Catholic Churches with certain qualifications. However, Orthodox Churches do not usually allow their members to commune in Catholic parishes, so this practice is rare.

While the Catholic Church does not grant the title "true particular Church" to Protestant denominations, it recognizes the possibility of salvation for Protestants, and the good work that Protestants do for the Lord. The Catholic Catechism says:

"...many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity." (CCC 819)

Also from the Catechism:

Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."(CCC 1271)

You may ask, "but don't Catholics consider Protestants heretics?" In a sense, the answer is yes. Most Protestants are, from a Catholic perspective, material heretics, meaning objectively, yes Protestants hold to many incorrect beliefs. In fairness, most Protestants would say the same thing about Catholics, because Protestants also recognize that they share fundamental disagreements with Catholics.

However, are most Protestants formal heretics? A formal heretic rejects Catholic teaching absolutely, with full deliberation and full knowledge of this rejection. Most Protestants probably do not hold their beliefs as a rejection of Catholic Teaching, willfully rejecting Catholic Teaching with full knowledge. Some Protestants do seem to believe what they do as a willful rejection of Catholic Teaching.

However, these Protestants who specifically reject Catholic Teaching may do so because of mitigating factors, e.g. ignorance of actual Catholic Teaching, false prejudice, an anti-Catholic upbringing, scandalous behavior of Catholic relatives, etc, and not because they willfully and fully reject Catholic Teaching. Because of the nuanced Catholic view of Protestants described above, many Catholics have ceased using the term "heretic" to refer to Protestants, and prefer using the term "separated brethren," because while Protestants are our brothers and sisters through baptism, they are separated from the Church for a variety of reasons, including holding beliefs contrary to Catholic Teaching.

The Catholic Church recognizes the possibility of the salvation of non-Christians as well, although without baptism, the Church is more hesitant to speak of their salvation. Even though Jesus is the only Way, the only Truth, and the only Life, the Church recognizes:

...other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men (Nostra Aetate 2).

Also, the Church teaches:

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator...Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel (Lumen Gentium I:16).

Saint Justin Martyr (AD 150) expressed similar views, and contended that those who lived in accord with True Reason (Logos) were Christians, even if they did not have explicit knowledge of Christ. Conversely, those who acted against True Reason, even without knowing about Christ, were hostile to Christ (Logos):

We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus...and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious. So that even they who lived before Christ, and lived without reason, were wicked and hostile to Christ, and slew those who lived reasonably (First Apology 46).

Yet, the Catholic Church also warns that we must not embrace pluralism, indifferentism, or religious relativism, i.e. when all religions are viewed as equally valid paths to salvation. All salvation is through Jesus Christ, even that of non-Christians. The Catholic Church still affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which is the ancient Christian Teaching that outside of the Church nobody can be saved.

This Teaching is Catholic dogma, and is attested in the writings of many Church Fathers, including Ignatius of Antioch (AD 105), Cyprian of Carthage (AD 250), and Origen of Alexandria (AD 220). So, if the Catholic Church holds to the ancient standard of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, how can those non-Christians who seem to be outside the Church be saved? Catholic Teaching is that those non-Catholics who are saved, are somehow inside the Church, albeit imperfectly. According to Dominus Iesus,

Indeed, some prayers and rituals of the other religions may assume a role of preparation for the Gospel, in that they are occasions or pedagogical helps in which the human heart is prompted to be open to the action of God. One cannot attribute to these, however, a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy, which is proper to the Christian sacraments. Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:20-21), constitute an obstacle to salvation (21).

For instance, Buddhism in-and-of-itself does not have the power to provide salvation. However, a Buddhist may be saved by Christ under certain circumstances.

One question that usually follows this discussion is, "so is the Church saying that we don't have to evangelize anymore?" No. Just because non-Catholics may have a spark of the Truth that is enough for them to attain eternal life, this does not mean we are to avoid sharing the fullness of faith with them. As mentioned above, the Church has consistently taught that the sure way to salvation is to be within the ark, the Church. The surest way to do this is to be in full communion with the Church. Perhaps a spark is the bare minimum, but a fire is much better, so we must still evangelize those who do not yet have the fullest communion possible with the Lord and the Church he established.

The position stated in this article is called inclusivism. This is the belief that while non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians may be saved, this salvation is through Jesus Christ alone, mediated through his Church. This is the current Teaching of the Catholic Church. There are other positions on the salvation of non-Catholics. One is exclusivism, the belief that one must be within the visible confines of the Catholic Church to be saved. This interprets extra ecclesiam nulla salus in a narrow manner. This view was held by a few Church Fathers, although the majority of Church Fathers seem to have held that it is possible for those who are not members of the visible Church to be saved (e.g. Saint Justin, referenced above).

In the mid 20th century, Catholic priest Fr. Leonard Feeney promoted an extreme view of the exclusivist position, and the Church eventually excommunicated him for his refusal to admit his error and submit to Church Teaching. In addition to exclusivism, another extreme position on the salvation of non-Catholics is pluralism, the view that all religions are equally valid paths to God, and just as the Christian path saves the Christian, other paths save persons of other religions. Pluralism is a form of universalism, the belief that all people will achieve salvation. The Church rejects pluralism, and Dominus Iesus was specifically written to refute this belief, which has become increasingly popular among some Catholics. Pluralism contradicts the dogmatic Teaching of the Church that Christ is the sole mediator and way of salvation.

Even though the salvation of non-Catholics has been addressed frequently since Vatican II (in our current era of increased dialogue and ecumenism), the issue is not new. Pope Pius IX addressed the issue, and the extreme positions, in 1863:

Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore 7).

The Catholic position on salvation may seem highly nuanced, or even confusing, but it holds two very important realities in tension: God's loving mercy and God's revealed Truth. Overall, the Catholic position on the salvation of non-Catholics recognizes that God is merciful and gracious to those who sincerely seek Him, but this grace and mercy are balanced with his revealed Truth. While we pray and hope for the salvation of all people, the Church recognizes that Hell exists for those who willfully reject God, and those who choose to be separated from God may, sadly, get their wish in the afterlife. However, those who are saved receive salvation only on account of God's grace through Jesus Christ, who alone is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Note: The recently released Catholic document, Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church, essentially re-affirms the inclusivist position outlined in this article, succinctly stated in Dominus Iesus. For my comments on this new document, see The News That Isn't on the Per Christum blog.

A similar article to this, "Do You Think Protestants and Modernists Are Lost?" originally appeared on the Ancient-Future.Net site with the same address, "prots.html." However, this article is essentially new.

Last updated 08-14-2008

LOVE

Brothers and sisters:

Strive eagerly for the greatest spiritual gifts.

But I shall show you a still more excellent way.

If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.

And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, love is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.

It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

LOVE NEVER FAILS.

If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing.

For we know partially and we prophesy partially, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.

When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things.

At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face.

At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.

So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

1 Corithians 12:31-13:13

SUDDENLY!

Miracle of the Sun

Is The Way In Which GOD Works...

The ways of GOD are sudden and without warning. A miracle happens. A vision or a locution is bestowed upon someone. A loved one is taken. GOD does not normally give prior notice of what he is about to do.

One noticeable exception to this general rule was the great 'Miracle of the Sun' at Fatima on October 13, 1917.

It was revealed ahead of time by GOD through the Blessed Virgin Mary. Some people live their entire lives without serving GOD in any way and seem to think that on their death bed they will repent and make their peace with Him.

We must all be prepared to go at anytime. Look what happened to Princess Diana, Princess Grace, John F. Kennedy, and many others who were taken without warning.

Were they all prepared and in GOD'S grace and ready to go?

If we are going on a trip in this life, do we not prepare for it a long time in advance?

Why then do so many not prepare for their final eternal trip, the only trip that really matters?

CATHOLICS DON'T WORSHIP MARY

By Darrenn Jackson

Each mystery of rosary is entirely biblical except for the last two mysteries: Mary's Assumption into heaven and her Coronation - or so I previously thought. Here I will show how the Bible actually teaches both, one directly and the other indirectly. All Scripture passages are from the New American Bible.

The Assumption

The Assumption of Mary is a consequence of her Immaculate Conception. Since it's kind of awkward to have the Assumption without the Immaculate Conception, I will thus proceed to briefly show some of the biblical basis for the Immaculate Conception. It should be noted, however that what proceeds is not an in-depth look into, nor a complete defense of, neither the Assumption nor the Immaculate Conception.

What the Catholic Church means by the Immaculate Conception is that Mary, while conceived the ordinary way, was preserved from the stain of original sin by a special grace of God in anticipation of the death of Jesus Christ. Or simply, Mary had to be free of original so she could be the Mother of God and that the grace that preserved her from original sin was from the death of Jesus Christ (but in heaven, where there is no time but one Present.

Jesus is always "The Lamb that seemed to have been slain" described in Revelation 5:6). Mary is a great example of what the Bible means by saying that each one of us is a "vessel" (Romans 9:20-21 and 2 Timothy 2:20-21). These verses also show that God exercises his Lordship over us when he "molds" us, showing that God can indeed intervene on someone's behalf with a special act of grace like in the Immaculate Conception. Is not Mary then the vessel that nurtured and gave birth to Jesus? The question is whether or not Mary had to be pure.

Deuteronomy 23 is a chapter that shows that under the Old Covenant, (which would be in effect until the moment of Christ's death) that in order for a person to enter the synagogue, that person must have the stain of generational sin removed. Even if that person lives a perfectly holy life, that person couldn't enter the synagogue. Would not the same rules apply to Our Lord who, after he ascended into heaven immediately sat down at the right hand of the Father? Let me remind you that nothing unclean shall ever enter into heaven (Revelation 21:27).

How could he do that if He was the first offspring of a mother who was stained with original sin? We know that Jesus' baptism isn't the answer since his baptism was to let all of Israel know that he indeed was the Messiah and to be equipped for His ministry by the Holy Spirit (Christ, of course would be in no need of being baptized for the remission of sins) . John the Baptist in fact knew that he was free from original sin for he said, "I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?" (Matthew 3:14).

Would it not be reasonable, then to conclude that by necessity Mary had to be free from the stain of all sin so that Jesus could be? In other words, would it not make sense to keep a container of food clean so it wouldn't contaminate the food stored in it? Jesus' humanity came from Mary, and we know that Jesus' humanity is perfect.

Secondly, 2 Corinthians 6:14 asks us, "For what partnership do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness?" If indeed Mary was conceived in the state of original sin, then it would be difficult to imagine what kind of "fellowship" her relationship with her Son would be.

Now, Mary, being an important instrument in the salvific work of Christ, and being entirely free from sin, would be assumed into heaven because 1) Nothing of course, couldn't enter into heaven that isn't totally clean of sin (Revelation 21:27). Thus, she was entirely ready to enter heaven 2) It is fitting that Mary, like other instruments of God's will would be eventually placed in the holiest place.

For example, the ark of the commandments (which had the Ten Commandments in them) were placed in the Dwelling, were they not (Exodus 40:3)? If you are familiar with your Old Testament you may recall the budding of Aaron's rod (Numbers 17:23) which was a figure of the blessed Virgin conceiving and giving birth to her Son Jesus. What did they do with that rod? They put that too in the Dwelling before the commandments (Numbers 17:25-26). The placing of Aaron's rod in the tabernacle of testimony is a figure of the Assumption. The "Dwelling" is a figure of God's very dwelling, heaven.

The Coronation

Simply put, the Coronation refers to when Mary received from Jesus her Son the crown of Queen of Heaven and of earth because of the vital role she played in the redemption of humanity. This mystery invites us to follow her example by imitating her virtues so we, like her may be with Christ in heaven forever. This took place after the Assumption (discussed later). The biblical witness for the Coronation comes from Psalm 45.

This Psalm is a song for a royal wedding. It also can be telling another story: that of the Coronation. Hebrews 1:8-9 applies Psalm 45:7-8 to Christ. Thus we conclude that this verse can be also interpreted in a spiritual sense. Verse 10 is an allusion to the Coronation, "Daughters of kings are your lovely wives; a princess arrayed in Ophir's gold comes to stand at your right hand." The picture may come in more clearly when we consider the next verse: "Listen, my daughter, and understand; pay me careful heed. Forget your people and your father's house," First, "the princess" is obviously referring to Mary when she "comes" to receive the crown of Queen of Heaven and of earth.

I know what you're about to say: "Mary is a queen and not a princess," and you are right. Let me quote the study note for verse 11 (from the New American Bible), "the bride should no longer consider herself a daughter of her father's house, but the wife of a king-the queen." "Father's house" is referring to the Jewish synagogue, of which she was chosen to be the "princess" (i.e. the Mother of the Messiah).

The psalmist is telling the story of the Coronation of the Queen of heaven and of earth! "At your right hand" (verse 10) then makes sense because who in heaven (other than the Father and Holy Spirit) would be closer to Jesus than His mother! Let me clear something up, note that Mary is standing by her Son, not sitting on a throne.

Catholics don't worship Mary, they venerate or honor her (following the biblical example of the angel Gabriel in Luke 1:28). "...arrayed in Ophir's gold " refers to her being blessed by God with a special grace that preserved her uncorrupted from the stain of original sin (is it just a coincidence that gold is the only element that doesn't rust?) and kept her from sinning during her entire life (discussed under the Assumption).

It should be noted that this interpretation doesn't extend to every verse, it is more of an allusion. If you still don't buy this at all, then I ask you, Why then should an ordinary wedding song be included as part of God's inspired, and infallible Word? The whole Psalm is of course, speaking prophetically.

CATHOLIC SOTERIOLOGY VERSUS SEMI - CALVINISM

Church of St. Peter in Antioch

Introduction

Soteriology is the theology of salvation. Jimmy Akin's theology, in general, is quite good, but his article at EWTN entitled 'A TIPTOE THROUGH TULIP', comparing Calvinist and Catholic soteriology, contains serious doctrinal errors.

Here is Akin's article:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TULIP.htm
Here is an article on Calvinism:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03198a.htm

Akin's article was written in 1993. I hope that, in the intervening years, Akin may have changed his views on this topic. But this commentary will consider the article as it stands. I am unaware of any more recent statements by Akin correcting any of the views that he expressed in that article.

Akin's article reviews and comments on the Calvinist formula for salvation (TULIP):

Total depravity,
Unconditional election,
Limited atonement,
Irresistible grace,
Perseverance of the saints.

This set of ideas has been substantially rejected by the Council of Trent and by the teaching of the Magisterium since that time. But Akin insists that a Catholic may accept each of these ideas, with only limited modification. All five Calvinist doctrines on salvation are explained by Akin in such a manner that Calvinist doctrine and Catholic doctrine are merged. His resulting position on soteriology is part Calvinist, and part Catholic, and fundamentally incompatible with sound Catholic teaching on grace and salvation.

Why is Akin's theology on other topics generally reliable, but on this topic so thoroughly erroneous? Jimmy Akin is a convert to Catholicism from Calvinism. All converts to Catholicism from Protestantism, or from other religions, must struggle with the differences between their former beliefs and their new beliefs. The incorrect ideas of the old faith must be eradicated, if they are entirely incorrect, or transformed, if they are partially correct, so that the truths of the Roman Catholic Faith always prevail. Sometimes traces of old and incorrect beliefs are carried forward and persist within the convert to Catholicism. Other times the convert, so as to avoid past errors, takes an idea too far in the opposite direction.

Akin's version of Catholic soteriology is severely distorted by a partial continuation of these five Calvinist errors on salvation. In covering the five Calvinist ideas called TULIP, he should have refuted each of these errors, and explained in its place the correct Catholic teaching. But instead, his article is an apologia for a modified Calvinist view. He describes each idea in Calvinism, not so as to refute false doctrine, but so as to modify each idea to make it seem acceptable to Catholics. His view of Calvinist soteriology is colored by his current Catholic faith. Worse still, his view of Catholic soteriology is distorted by his Calvinist past. Akin presents a modified version of Calvinist doctrine on soteriology, which is fundamentally contrary to, and essentially incompatible with, Catholic teaching. And yet he claims that this semi-Calvinist soteriology is acceptable belief for Roman Catholics.

Akin's description of Catholic soteriology contains serious doctrinal errors, and he is teaching these errors to Catholics as if these were correct beliefs. When I began reading the article, I expected Akin to refute each of the Calvinist ideas represented by the letters in the term TULIP. I was startled to find, throughout the article, that Akin was proposing that each idea, with some modification, should be accepted by Catholics. In the end, he openly states that Calvinists do not have to refute their understanding of salvation to become Catholic:

Akin: "In view of this, we might propose a Thomist version of TULIP: T=total inability (to please God without special grace); U=unconditional election; L=limited intent (for the atonement's efficacy); I=intrinsically efficacious grace (for salvation); P=perseverance of the elect (until the end of life). There are other ways to construct a Thomist version of TULIP, of course, but the fact there is even one way demonstrates that a Calvinist would not have to repudiate his understanding of predestination and grace to become Catholic. He simply would have to do greater justice to the teaching of Scripture and would have to refine his understanding of perseverance."

The Council of Trent saw a need to strongly condemn and to thoroughly correct, numerous Protestant errors on grace and salvation, including the Calvinist view. But Akin sees only a need for refinement and limited modification of the Calvinist view on this same topic.

He also repeatedly misuses the name and work of Saint Thomas Aquinas to suggest that he is presenting a view of soteriology which should be acceptable to Catholics. His description of St. Thomas' view is inaccurate. And the writings of any particular Saint are not necessarily the same as the teaching of the Magisterium. Even so, Akin's soteriology is not Thomistic or even Catholic, as he claims, but Calvinistic. He is teaching Calvinist errors under the name of Catholicism.

DO CATHOLICS BELIEVE WE CAN EARN SALVATION?

Dry water and cold fire! Do Catholics believe we can earn Salvation?
In a word, no!

In fact, those who claim we do think that are making a wholly disingenuous argument based on false dilemma.

That false dilemma is that salvation is either by faith alone or by works alone.

Let's start with that with which all Protestants and Catholics agree.

1) Man is fallen.

2) Man cannot save himself.

3) Man needs a Saviour.

4) Jesus is the only one qualified for the job.

Some Fundamentalists act as if Catholics don't understand who Salvation comes from. Ironic, since they also condemn us for the fact that we supposedly spend too much time commemorating the Crucifixion - the defining act making salvation available to us. True, the Resurrection completes it and codifies it but the Resurrection is of little value to us without the Crucifixion.

Nevertheless, all Christians agree that the availability of Salvation is manifested, to the world, through the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus. The price has been paid and the money put in the bank account. We call this part of the process Redemption.

Redemption is available to every person on earth. That is, there are sufficient funds in the bank to cover the salvation of every person.

Hebrews 9:12 he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.

Yet,Catholics agree with the Apostles Paul & Peter that we must, in fact, fill up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ

Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,

1Peter 4:13 But rejoice to the extent that you share in the sufferings of Christ, so that when his glory is revealed you may also rejoice exultantly.

Are Paul and Peter suggesting insufficiency in the Sanctifying power of Christ's blood? Not at all. What they are saying is that it is not enough that Christ died for us, if we do not have faith enough to benefit from it by joining in His sacrifice.

When fundamentalists claim that Catholics believe in a weak Jesus whose blood is insufficient to forgive every sin, they are simply whistling past the grave yard. In fact, that is actually a pretty ridiculous argument. For, if I believed that Christ is not strong enough to save me, by what means could I possibly believe that I could do it?

Yet, there are actually people who have the audacity to suggest that we Catholics think we can out save Jesus because His sacrifice just wasn't good enough. Um. We don't. The sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice to save every single man, woman and child on earth is affirmed by our assent to the doctrine of Redemption. The argument; we believe in a weak Jesus, is a red herring created by clever liars to detract from what is the real question at hand.

The question of what Jesus is able to do is one on which all Christians can agree. Jesus can do anything with only two exceptions;

1) Sin
2) Contradict Himself, the Father or the Spirit.

The question of Salvation boils down to three essential other questions

1) What is Jesus required to do for us beyond that which He has already done?
2) What is Jesus willing to do for us beyond that which He has already done?
3) What, as a consequence, would be required of us?

The answer to the first question is emphatic. Jesus owes me nothing. If I lived a hundred thousand lifetimes, each a hundred thousand years long, I could not even hope to repay him for what he has already done for me. The very suggestion that I could, then, pay my way in to heaven is too absurd to even discuss. All the gold of all the world of all time wouldn't suffice as a down payment on the reparations of the wounds of even 1 mortal sin I have committed in my life. However, my indebtedness only amplifies the imperitive that I give Him all I can.

On question #2, Jesus has made clear to us that He is willing to make provision for sufficient funds, from the bank of redemption, to be made available to pay off our debt. This is where the first disagreement arises. Catholics would agree with all Protestants that this debt payment is not earned from us or deserved by us. We are totally dependent on the debt payer who earned the wages himself and is under no obligation to make them available to us.

The money that is used to settle this debt is called Grace. In fact, Catholics call this particular type of Grace - Sanctifying Grace because that's what it does.

Acts 15:11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they

Romans 3:24 They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus,

Romans 5:2 through whom we have gained access (by faith) to this grace in which we stand, and we boast in hope of the glory of God.

Romans 5:17 For if, by the transgression of one person, death came to reign through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of justification come to reign in life through the one person Jesus Christ.

Where we divert is that some protestants (Calvinists in particular), believe that the debt payer, rather than providing for the payment of our debt, assumes all our debts (past, present and future) as His own! This is the heretical doctrine of Salvation by imputation. Like any other false, man-made doctrine, Salvation by imputation is not without clever arguments supporting it based on Scriptures twisted and turned just the right way. Just so, it fails to withstand serious muster, as do all heresies.

Following imputation theology through to its logical end shows that it is completely untenable in a number of respects. Let's examine one.

Imputation theology fails to deal with sin. Thus, it makes it Biblically heretical. All the way back to Cain, God tells us of the struggle against sin.

Genesis 4:7

7 2 If you do well, you can hold up your head; but if not, sin is a demon lurking at the door: his urge is toward you, yet you can be his master."

All throughout the Scriptures, in both the Old and New Testament, Sin is shown in terms of an obstacle you must overcome. God will help you. He will forgive your sin and help you to grow stronger against it, if you are willing to try, but He will not paint over your sin and pretend it isn't there. He will not fail to punish you if you do not fight your sin.

Philippians 2:12 So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

Matthew 10:38 and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.

Luke 3:9 Even now the ax lies at the root of the trees. Therefore every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire."

Matthew 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Galatians 6

6:7 Make no mistake: God is not mocked, for a person will reap only what he sows, 6:8 because the one who sows for his flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but the one who sows for the spirit will reap eternal life from the spirit. 6:9 Let us not grow tired of doing good, for in due time we shall reap our harvest, if we do not give up.

James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

Imputation theology mocks God's justice by putting God in a position of no longer punishing your sins or forgiving them. He simply pretends they are not there.

1 Thessalonians 4:6 and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you.

Three things must be made crystal clear.
1) Sin cannot stand. God will not abide sin. Every single sin must be forgiven or punished.
2) Forgiveness of sin is impossible without sincere repentance. Repentance means to turn away. You cannot be forgiven of your sins unless you forsake them!
3) To sin, with the expectation that your sins will be forgiven or-worse yet - that they have already have been forgiven, is to only add the sin of presumption to your previous sins.

As the Apostle Paul admonishes us; be not deceived. God is not mocked.

So, imputation, as a theory is wrong and this creates the great quandary that is very much the division between many branches of Protestantism and the one faith of Catholicism. It is set up by false dilemmas that are at the very heart of question #3

What does the free gift of Salvation require of us?
Many Protestants contend that it requires nothing of us for two reasons;
1) It cannot be a free gift if anything is required in return.
2) There cannot be anything required of us because the debt is too large and we cannot pay it.

Therefore, God must pay it in full for us or it cannot be paid.

Let's tackle the first one.

Romans 4

1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." a

4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness b. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works c: 7 "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

a This is a perfect example of how context provides the answer. I actually like it when fundamentalists cite this scripture because it ends up proving the Catholic case! What does it mean "Abraham believed God?" Does it mean he jumped up and said "I believe, I believe?" Does it mean he danced in the aisles and sang songs about how much faith he had? No, it means that Abraham trusted in God even when it did not seem to make earthy sense to do so.

The fundamentalists contention, that all Abraham had to do was state his belief, only works to persuade those who are completely ignorant of Scripture. We can see, plainly, from scripture that just the opposite is true. Abraham was saved because of His faith but that faith could only be manifested - proven- by his works. His works saved him.

James 2

2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. 2:23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God." 2:24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Is James refuting Paul? No! James is explaining Paul's position. Whereas Redemption is that money in the bank that Jesus deposited to pay the debt, Justification is the point at which the person's debt is paid in full. That is, the person has become justified before God.

b Imputation fundamentalists insist that man can never become justified before God. They insist that Jesus covers our unrighteousness with His righteousness the way a blood stain is covered by a coat of paint. In essence, the consequence of their theology is that your sin still exists but you get into heaven by hiding behind Jesus so God cannot see it.

Yet, in the very verse cited, we are told that man can be justified.

"man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked"

There are more examples:

Luke 18:14 I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

Acts 13:39 in him every believer is justified.

Romans 2:13 For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified.

Romans 5:9 How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath.

James 2:25 And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?

Before we can debate how a man is justified, we must, at a minimum, believe that he is. Imputation theology is finished. It is simply unworkable as an explanation of salvation. Any honest rendering of scripture contends that man - himself - undergoes a change from spiritual death to life, justifying him in the site of God. In other words, mans sin is not simply covered, it is removed.

Romans 6:4

We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Ephesians 2:1

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins,

Ephesians 2:5

made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions - it is by grace you have been saved.

Colossians 2:13

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,

Many Protestants correctly reject the doctrine of imputation and accept that God's Grace does in fact wash away our sins and make us holy enough to be justified. This actual cleansing of the soul and removal of sin is what is called Sanctification.

Redemption provides the money, Sanctification is the payment(s) and Justification is the result. All of it comes from the beneficence of a Holy and indescribably merciful God.

Yet, let's not forget that He is also a Just God and a Sovereign God. For man to be Justified, Justice must be satisfied. Justification literally means the satisfaction of Justice. Guilt or debt, is absent.

jus⋅ti⋅fy 
 /ˈdʒʌstəˌfaɪ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [juhs-tuh-fahy] Show IPA verb, -fied, -fy⋅ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right: The end does not always justify the means.
2. to defend or uphold as warranted or well - grounded: Don't try to justify his rudeness.
3. Theology. to declare innocent or guiltless; absolve; acquit.
4.Printing.
a. to make (a line of type) a desired length by spacing the words and letters, esp. so that full lines in a column have even margins both on the left and on the right.
b. to level and square (a strike).

Protestants who reject imputationalism and Catholics, agree that man is redeemed by Christ's sacrifice, Sanctified by His Grace and Justified by that Sanctification. Further, we agree that this occurs only because of faith and neither by the merit of man nor by the works of the law. The only things in question are how the process takes place and what man must do for it to happen.

People of good will have been confused on this question for 500 years because the disobedience of Luther and the other reformers sowed that confusion. The reformers argued that Redemption, Sanctification and Justification all occur at once and they provide Scripture that the uninformed could misinterpret to support that contention.

Romans 3:24

and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Romans 8:30

And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Many Protestants who are not imputationalists, nevertheless, reject the idea that man is able to do anything to contribute to his own salvation. They cite, for example, the same words of Paul from above.

b 4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness c 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

In reading this, it would be easy to misunderstand Paul as saying that our Justification before God has nothing to do with works- that it was by faith alone. Easy that is, if James did not directly contradict that notion.

James 2

8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom,

13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?

15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food.

16 If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?

17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. 20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?

21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. 24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

Is James contradicting Paul? No! He is explaining the very same doctrine that Paul taught. There are two sides to it and Paul emphasized the first, while James emphasized the second.

1) Those who carried out the works of the Mosaic Law (John 1:17), without faith, cannot be saved. The works of the law, under the Old Covenant were nothing less than a symbolic participation in Christ's redemptive work. When people practiced the law, for its own sake, they were condemned. Not one person can be saved by the law.

Paul is exhorting us that Jesus is the one who saves even those who were saved through the Mosaic Law because they were not saved by the Mosaic Law. In fact, not one single person was saved BY the Mosaic Law. All were saved by Jesus.

Acts 13:39 Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.

Salvation passed from and through Jesus, through the Mosaic Law, to the believer. The Mosaic Law was but a conduit through time by which Old Testament believers could participate in New Testament salvation. When Jesus arrived, that conduit was no longer needed and the veil in the temple was torn in two, shortly before the temple itself was razed by the Romans.

2) James, on the other hand, is giving us the other side of the equation. The Law of Moses is one thing; the Law of God is another! Do not presume that the law of God will ever pass away.

Matthew 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

The same Scriptures that tell us that works without faith are dead telling us that faith without works is dead. The same scriptures that tell us that faith operates apart from works, tell us that faith is completed through works. You must demonstrate both or you, in fact, have neither.

We are not under the (Mosaic) Law, we are under grace. Grace cleanses us, strengthens us, waters us and enables us to bring forth good fruit. Earning salvation? Don't be silly. Our works don't earn us salvation any more than the works of the Mosaic Law earned Salvation.

Nevertheless, works are required for salvation. For the God who said "Thou shalt not kill" etc...,'' meant it.

So, then; the question from some fundamentalists becomes "how much work?" "What work?" As if we can quantify it. If one attempts to quantify the work, they focus on the work for its own sake and error just as the Pharisees did.

Ours is to do what we are told to do and leave the results to God. The results are not what save but the exercise of faith practiced. The exercise of works is not a contradiction of faith but the very manifestation of faith. Some protestants contend that good works are a by product of faith. Separating works from faith is like separating the water from the wet or the heat from the fire. You can have wet without water but you cannot have water without wet. You can have heat without fire but you cannot have fire without heat. Salvation is by faith. We do what we are told to prove we have faith.

You can say you have faith all you want but if your soul is dry and cold, your words don't mean much.

DEEPER TRUTH

DEFENDERS OF THE CHURCH

On the darkest nights, the stars shine the brightest... Fr. John Corapi

The Catholic Church is the Church which Jesus Christ founded in Matthew 16:18.

It is the only Church that can make that claim.

From the first day of founding, the Church has been under constant attack from within and from without, yet it has endured for almost 2000 years and has grown to over one billion Catholics. The reasons for this phenomenal growth can be found in Holy Scripture.

Jesus Christ said in Matthew 16:18, "...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

In Matthew 28:20, Jesus promised to be with His Church 'all days', that means every day in every century with no gaps.

The reason that the Church has endured and prospered so long is that Jesus promised it would,

"even unto the consummation of the world."

History has shown us that when the Bride of Christ is under serious attack, GOD does one of three things.

1. He raises a Saint to defend her:
This is historical fact. Read about St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Teresa of Avila and hundreds of others who 'just happened to be there' when they were needed most.

2. He sends the Blessed Virgin Mary to warn us of impending danger:
Read about Guadalupe, Lourdes, Fatima, Akita, and many other sites where she appeared. Read her messages.

3. He manifests a miracle:
The greatest of these in recent times was the miracle of the sun which occurred on October 13, 1917 at Fatima Portugal.  This happening was witnessed by over seventy thousand people and is well documented both within and external to the Church.

The same is as true today as it has been in the past. The Church is under great stress today and look at what has been happening?

The Blessed Virgin Mary has appeared in many countries all over the world,

Mexico, Japan, Belgium, Portugal, France, Kenya, Egypt, and others.

It appears that her apparitions are on the increase in our time, so that must mean the urgency is on the increase also.

It seems the time is now for GOD to raise a Saint to come to the aid of His Church.

Now who do you suppose it will be?

I know who I expect that it might be......go here and see for yourself.

GEOCENTRISM

The Geocentric Bible

Scripture
Geocentrism is the view that the earth is the center of the universe, and that the universe (sun, moon, stars, planets) revolves around the earth. Most geocentrists also believe that the earth stands still, and does not rotate on its axis. Geocentrism is in contrast to heliocentrism, which is the view that the earth rotates on its axis and, along with the other planets, revolves around the sun.

While it is permissible for Christians to hold the heliocentric view, heliocentrism can only be advanced as a theory, not a certainty (because neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism can be scientifically proven definitively). In fact, three Popes (Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII) have officially declared that heliocentrism is opposed to Sacred Scripture, and condemned the notion that heliocentrism was a truth to be believed with certainty.

Instead, the Scriptures, the Apostolic Tradition and teachings of the Church support a geocentric cosmology vis-à-vis a heliocentric one. Nota Bene: I am a faithful Catholic, not a scientist. I am obedient to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. When presented with a question of faith (such as how God created the universe), I look to the Scriptures, the Tradition and the teachings of the Catholic Church for the answer. I do not rely upon modern scientists who have been unable to prove heliocentrism and disprove geocentrism, especially those who deny the inerrancy of Scripture and generally abhor the Catholic faith.

I. The Earth Does Not Move
When interpreted literally, the Scriptures teach us that the earth does not move. Should we interpret the Scriptures literally? The Catholic Church, having adopted the rule of St. Augustine, teaches “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.” Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, No. 15, 1893. This was affirmed by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, No. 36, 1950.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 116, also says: “The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."

In other words, we are to interpret the Scriptures literally unless there is a compelling reason to interpret them otherwise. This is why the Church interprets literally, for example, Matt. 16:18 (Peter is the rock); Matt. 19:9 (remarriage after divorce is adultery); Matt. 26:26-28 (“this is my body”); John 6:51-58 (“eat my flesh”; “drink my blood”); John 3:5 (born of water means baptism); John 20:23 (“whose sins you forgive are forgiven”); 1 Peter 3:21 (“baptism saves you”); and James 5:14-15 (“anoint the sick with oil to save them and forgive their sins”).

We must also remember that the Scriptures were dictated to the sacred writers by the Holy Ghost. Thus, we take God’s Word for what it says, for He is the author of Scripture. There does not seem to be a compelling reason to depart from the literal and obvious sense of the following Scriptures which teach, both implicitly and explicitly, that the earth does not move.

Certainly, a literal interpretation is not untenable, nor does necessity require an alternative interpretation (because science has not disproved the geocentric theory; in fact, science also provides more evidence for geocentrism):

1 Sam. 2:8 – “For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world.”

2 Sam. 22:16; Psalm 18:15 – “Then the channels of the sea were seen, the foundations of the world were laid bare...” (Describing the earth as having “foundations” is consistent with an earth that is fixed and established and does not move, as many Scriptures reveal).

1 Chron. 16:30 – “yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.” This and many other passages say very plainly that the earth does not move.

Job 26:7 – “He stretches out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon nothing.”

Job 38:4; cf. Job 9:6 – “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?”

Psalm 8:29 – “...when he marked out the foundations of the earth.”

Psalm 93:1 – “Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.”

Psalm 96:10 – “Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved.”

Psalm 102:25 – “Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands.”

Psalm 104:5 – “Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.”

Psalm 119:90 – “thou has established the earth, and it stands firm.”

Isaiah 24:18 – “…for the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble.”

Isaiah 48:13 – “My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens...”

Isaiah 66:1 – “Thus says the Lord: ‘Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool.”

When the Scriptures say the world is “established” (in Hebrew, “kun”), it indicates that the establishment is ongoing. See, for example, 1 Chron. 22:10, Judges 16:26,29 and Ezra 3:3 where “kun” is used to explain an ongoing lack of motion.

The only time Scripture says the earth will “move” (in Hebrew, “mot” - see “mot” in Job 41:23; Psalm 125:1; 140:10; and Isa. 41:7) is in the context of the end of the world, where God will come in judgment (e.g. Psalm 76:8). This coincides with the apocalyptic literature of, inter alia, Matt. 24:29-30 and 2 Peter 3:10-13, but never suggests actual motion.

Gen. 1:1-5; 14-19 - God created the earth on the first day, and the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day. God created them to “give light upon the earth.” The heavenly bodies were therefore created for the earth, to adorn it, and to mark its seasons. The earth is God’s focal point. This ordering is another indicator that the earth is the center of the universe. How could the sun be the center, if it wasn’t created until the fourth day?

This also raises the question: How did the earth have “evening and morning” on days one to three, before the sun was created on day four? Scripture reveals this is because the universe has light that is independent of the sun and stars. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas hypothesized that God created the sun and stars on day four from this effusive light that He created on day one (just like God created man on day six from the dirt He created on day one). This effusive light is what brought about the “evening and morning” periods of days one through three.

Job 38:18-20,24 – in these verses, although Job knows the sun gives light, God asks Job “where is the way to the dwelling of light” and “where is the way the light is divided?” Job cannot answer God’s questions. Why can’t he, if Job knows that the sun gives light? God is referring to the light He created without any dimensional source. For example, Psalm 74:16 says “You have prepared the light and the sun,” which distinguishes the two sources of light. Ecclesiastes 12:1-2 also says “Remember your Creator…before the sun and the light, and the moon and the stars are darkened.” The sacred writer distinguishes between “the sun” and “the light,” and also indicates that there are four separate sources of light.

Gen. 1:1; 2:1,4; Psalm 113:6; Jer. 10:11; 32:17; 51:48; Joel 3:16; Hag. 2:6,21; Jud. 13:18; cf. Psalm 102:25; Isaiah 24:18; 48:13 – here are some examples where God distinguishes “between the heavens and the earth.” The earth is unique and distinguishable from the rest of the heavens.

Gen. 14:19,22; Ex. 20:11; 31:17; Deut. 4:26; 30:19; 31:28; 2 Sam. 18:9; 2 Kings 19:15; 2 Chron. 2:2; Ez. 5:11; Psalms 69:34; 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3; 146:6; Isaiah 37:16; Jer. 23:24; 33:25; 4 Ez. 2:14; 6:38; Tob. 7:18; 1 Macc. 2:37; Jud. 7:28; 9:12; Matt. 5:18; 11:25; 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 10:21; 16:17; 21:33; Acts 17:24; Rev. 14:7; cf. Matt. 28:18; Eph. 4:8-10; Phil. 2:10; Col. 1:16 – more examples where God distinguishes between “heaven and earth.” The Scriptures clearly teach that the earth is unique among the rest of the universe.

John 17:24 – Jesus says “...behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world.” Jesus’ language also suggests a world that has a firm, unmovable foundation.

SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION

Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.

Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith" — as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end.

For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."

But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: "Scripture alone"), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31).

The other is this: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory).

Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.

Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ.

After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.

Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation."

Newman’s argument

He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."

Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 3:14–15).

Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it — Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Timothy 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19).

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Romans 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word"to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Peter 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached" — that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Timothy 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

What is Tradition?

In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Ephesians 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Ephesians 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

Handing on the faith

Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Corinthians 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Corinthians 11:2).

The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).

This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thessalonians 4:2).

Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.

"Commandments of men"

Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Look closely at what Jesus said.

He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Exodus 20:12).

Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matthew 23:2–3).

What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.

The indefectible Church

The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human — by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church.

Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the "canon of Tradition" by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matthew 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).