Wednesday, December 23, 2009
I will be debating John Salza on the authority of Vatican II's teaching on religious liberty. The debate will be recorded and available in MP3 format shortly thereafter. John Salza is a published author and runs his own website on the net. Salza is a good friend of mine and I hope the debate can be fruitful.
If anyone is interested in this debate, you may contact me
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Earlier I got a phone call from Father Mitch, notifying me that Logos had come out with a software for the iPhone. I downloaded it immediately. I have got to say, it's AWESOME!
Here is a screenshot of what my iPhone Desktop looks like now
Here are a few screenshots of the actual application itself as I use it on my iPhone
As you can tell, the Library it offers, the presentation of the Biblical Greek text, and the layout are fantastic. I can only expect this application to get better.
From what I have heard, I will be able to sync my COMPLETE Church Fathers Catholic edition to my iPhone as well. That is simply amazing. To be able to read the Bible or the Church Fathers whenever I feel like it is simply awesome.
Get the software if you have an iPhone. If you don't, get an iPhone and get the software!
Here is a screenshot of the actual page--log on to your Logos account and check it out
For more information, check out the official site here
Logos Bible iPhone site
Friday, October 30, 2009
It's great to be actively posting again!
I just recently finished debating the Marian Dogmas. I am very pleased that there is a Catholic that has finally debated AOMIN (a blogger for them at least) on all the Marian Dogmas. The last person to do that was Gerry Matatics and he is no longer a Catholic. I hope these debates can stand for many years to come and help strengthen the faith of Catholics that have questions on Mary and her role in salvation history.
I will be posting the links to all the debates quite soon and commentary on them as well.
It's interesting how history favors Catholicism more than you can imagine. In debating these dogmas we have seen just how far from Biblical and Historical Christianity that Reformed Protestantism really is. It's such a shame.
Below are some images that I made myself in regards to evidence in Luke on Mary being the MOTHER OF OUR GOD.
I haven't blogged or posted new videos lately because I have been incredibly busy. Traveling and doing talks and debating takes up WAY more time than I could have EVER expected. I do a lot of talks in Mexico---where the faith needs a very strong defense more than ever.
Below I will post the MP3 link to my DEBATE I had against AOMIN's turretinfan on MARY:MOTHER OF GOD as well as a follow up response to the Lucan passage that is discussed.
For those that couldn't tell how "clueless" tfan was during the debate, maybe the images and the Youtube video I did on this topic can held shed some light on it!
Above we are examining the usage of KURIOS, the Greek for LORD in Luke 1. We can see that EACH TIME it is used it is in reference to GOD!
BELOW we see verse 43..a CLEAR affirmation of the DEITY of Christ. Let's recall that Elizabeth was INSPIRED by the HOLY SPIRIT when she declared that MARY was the MOTHER OF HER LORD--her GOD! In keeping in tune with Luke's terminology, it's ILLOGICAL to claim that Mary was being called anything other than the mother of GOD.
Here is the video I did on this very important chapter of Luke's Gospel account
A detailed examination of Luke 1 and Mary as MOTHER of GOD!
And here is the MP3 of the debate
MARY:MOTHER OF GOD? between turretinfan and myself!
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Mr. Swan has an interesting commentary on Athanasius and various other things dealing with the Reformation and Catholicism. Below we will provide Mr. Swan's comments in italics and bold underlining. We will also respond to a portion of Mr. White's article.
It's sometimes argued the Reformers didn't have the right to call for the reform of the Roman church. How could a small minority challenge the authority of the established majority? Of course, there are many nuances and rabbit trails to meander down when one gets into this discussion- like did the reformers have miracles to prove their reform efforts? or who left who: did the reformers leave, or were they expelled? I'd like to bypass those topics for a bit, and apply what I'll dub, the rule of consistency.
Had the Reformers actually CALLED for the Reform of the Church and not adopted new theological doctrines never known to Christianity before then it would have been quite fine. But what we have from Luther to Calvin to Zwingli is a transformation of what Christianity was always about to what many have appropriately dubbed the DEFORMATION of Christianity. The outrage of the Reformation is not because of a "minority" challenging the larger group of Christians. Rather, the outrage stems from the fact that Christianity evolved in a different way. We would eventually see the rise of the man made tradition of Sola Scriptura. The teaching of sola fide as taught by the reformers, something completely alien to not only the Bible but the Early Church. Mr. Swan would have you believe that the Reformers "had the right to call for the reform of the Roman church."
But he fails to explain that the reformers so strongly opposed each other as well that you can't truly lump the Reformers together in a single aspect of their desired "reform".
Let's assume that the Reformers were wrong to go against the established church. The majority position was the Roman position at the time of the Reformation. What then do we do with Athanasius? I recently re-read Dr. White's article, What Really Happened at Nicea? The section most pertinent to this is about half way down entitled, "The Aftermath." Dr. White explains:
Again Mr. Swan is confused as to why the radical Reformation was out of line. This confusion, then, allows the Protestant mindset to compare Athanasius to that of the Reformation. The real winner is in the fact that Athanasius held to so many core teachings of the Catholic faith that the Protestant Reformers themselves would later abandon and speak strongly against!
We will move onwards to examine Mr. White's article that Mr. Swan has presented for us.
Modern Christians often have the impression that ancient councils held absolute sway, and when they made "the decision," the controversy ended. This is not true. Though Nicea is seen as one of the greatest of the councils, it had to fight hard for acceptance. The basis of its final victory was not the power of politics, nor the endorsement of established religion. There was one reason the Nicene definition prevailed: its fidelity to the testimony of the Scriptures.
To claim that the reason Nicaea eventually prevailed was because of the testimony of the Scriptures is straining it a tad bit. Of course, no Christian would argue that the Scriptures don't speak to the full truth of the deity of Christ. But most individuals who are actually familiar with Nicaea and the events that surrounded it and it's aftermath are well aware of the victory of the EXTRA BIBLICAL term HOMOOUSIOS. Of course, the reality that Christ was of the same substance of the Father can surely be found within the Sacred Scriptures, but is also well entrenched within the teaching of the Church from it's very inception. In fact, as Mr. White will later admit, Nicaea did not even touch upon the topic of the Canon. Therefore, the Nicene position prevailed because of it's "fidelity to the testimony of the Scriptures" and the constant teaching of the Fathers of the Church in safeguarding the Sacred Tradition that is so much a part of our faith.
During the six decades between the Council of Nicea and the Council of Constantinople in 381, Arianism experienced many victories. There were periods where Arian bishops constituted the majority of the visible ecclesiastical hierarchy. Primarily through the force of political power, Arian sympathizers soon took to undoing the condemnation of Arius and his theology. Eusebius of Nicomedia and others attempted to overturn Nicea, and for a number of decades it looked as if they might succeed. Constantine adopted a compromising position under the influence of various sources, including Eusebius of Caesarea and a politically worded "confession" from Arius. Constantine put little stock in the definition of Nicea itself: he was a politician to the last. Upon his death, his second son Constantius ruled in the East, and he gave great aid and comfort to Arianism. United by their rejection of the homoousion, semi-Arians and Arians worked to unseat a common enemy, almost always proceeding with political power on their side.
Under Constantius, council after council met in this location or that. So furious was the activity that one commentator wrote of the time, "The highways were covered with galloping bishops." Most importantly, regional councils meeting at Ariminum, Seleucia, and Sirmium presented Arian and semi-Arian creeds, and many leaders were coerced into subscribing to them. Even Liberius, bishop of Rome, having been banished from his see (position as bishop) and longing to return, was persuaded to give in and compromise on the matter.
During the course of the decades following Nicea, Athanasius, who had become bishop of Alexandria shortly after the council, was removed from his see five times, once by force of 5,000 soldiers coming in the front door while he escaped out the back! Hosius, now nearly 100 years old, was likewise forced by imperial threats to compromise and give place to Arian ideas. At the end of the sixth decade of the century, it looked as if Nicea would be defeated. Jerome would later describe this moment in history as the time when "the whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian."
Yet, in the midst of this darkness, a lone voice remained strong. Arguing from Scripture, fearlessly reproaching error, writing from refuge in the desert, along the Nile, or in the crowded suburbs around Alexandria, Athanasius continued the fight. His unwillingness to give place- even when banished by the Emperor, disfellowshipped by the established church, and condemned by local councils and bishops alike- gave rise to the phrase, Athanasius contra mundum: "Athanasius against the world." Convinced that Scripture is "sufficient above all things," Athanasius acted as a true "Protestant" in his day. Athanasius protested against the consensus opinion of the established church, and did so because he was compelled by scriptural authority. Athanasius would have understood, on some of those long, lonely days of exile, what Wycliffe meant a thousand years later: "If we had a hundred popes, and if all the friars were cardinals, to the law of the gospel we should bow, more than all this multitude."
Movements that depend on political favor (rather than God's truth) eventually die, and this was true of Arianism. As soon as it looked as if the Arians had consolidated their hold on the Empire, they turned to internal fighting and quite literally destroyed each other. They had no one like a faithful Athanasius, and it was not long before the tide turned against them. By A.D. 381, the Council of Constantinople could meet and reaffirm, without hesitancy, the Nicene faith, complete with the homoousious clause. The full deity of Christ was affirmed, not because Nicea had said so, but because God had revealed it to be so. Nicea's authority rested upon the solid foundation of Scripture. A century after Nicea, we find the great bishop of Hippo, Augustine, writing to Maximin, an Arian, and saying: "I must not press the authority of Nicea against you, nor you that of Ariminum against me; I do not acknowledge the one, as you do not the other; but let us come to ground that is common to both- the testimony of the Holy Scriptures."
After Mr. White's article concludes, Mr. Swan comments:
I often wonder about those who attack the Reformers for standing against the majority, and how they explain Athanasius.
Athanasius was an Early Father who stood for the truth of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Athanasius, like Ireneaus, Martyr, Tertullian, and others...was a heresy hunter that stood for the truth of the Catholic faith. There is a huge difference in Athanasius and the Reformers who squabbled even amongst each other! Athanasius stood against what he perceived was a deviation from the TRUE faith. The testimony of the Scripture and the Early Fathers backed him up 100 percent!
Can we say the same of SOLA FIDE?
Where are these teachings in the Early Church? Where are these teachings in the Bible?
The Reformers did their best to act JUST like the Arians did. Would Athanasius have been proud of the Reformers changing the teachings of the Church that he so STRONGLY HELD TO--->
The Corporeal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
The Intercession of the Saints
Veneration of Mary, and so much more could be brought up!
If anyone gives it a close look, they can see the Reformers for being SIMILAR to the Arians in the time of Athanasius. The Reformers were not similar in the sense of denying the DEITY OF CHRIST. But in the sense of going against the Scriptures and going against the testimony of the Fathers of the faith...the Reformers stand side by side with the Arians in deviating from eternal truths of the faith.
If we were to have witnessed Athanasius up close, would it appear that he was standing against the church?
Athanasius stood up against those that attempted to deviate from the faith of the CHURCH that Jesus Christ left us. Athanasius NEVER once stood up against the eternal truth of the Catholic faith that Christ left us.
By what authority did he do so? Did he have miracles to back up his "mission"? Did he have "ordinary" or "extraordinary" authority to stand against the majority? On what basis, during the time period in which he lived, could one have judged him to be a true or false reformer?
Athanasius had the same authority ALL of us have in today's day and age in the faith. He had the obligation, as a shepherd of the flock of Christ, to stand up for the Catholic faith and to defend it's teachings! It would have been easy to have judged him as a false reformer. Athanasius, was in fact, AGAINST REFORM in the Church! This is the very subject Mr. Swan mistakes in his article. ATHANASIUS was against the eternal truth of the WORD OF GOD being reformed by the Arians. Athanasius wanted the one truth FAITH preserved in it's entirety, and the honor and truth of CHRIST to be kept intact! He was hardly a reformer in the sense that Mr. White or Mr. Swan would like you to believe.
People rebel against authority all the time, be they Catholic or Protestant. The real question: is their rebellion supported by the infallible source of truth, the Sacred Scriptures? Consider my Protestant friends, the recent Harold Camping debate shows, particularly Day 2. The logic and exegesis of the Bible used by Mr. Camping was outrageous: it was pure gnosticism. We don't have to appeal to an infallible church or council to deem Mr. Camping heretical. The Bible itself, if allowed to be read like any document should be read, shows that Mr. Camping is in dire error.
That brings us to the utter failure of Protestantism. The beaten like a dead horse argument of
How does Mr. Swan know what the "Sacred" Scriptures are? Does the Bible itself notify him of the books that are to be in his Canon? Or is Mr. Swan relying on some OUTSIDE authority to define just what his traditional canon will be? Mr. Camping's teachings, we are told, are "pure gnosticism."
The one little detail that Mr. Swan fails to realize himself, is that at least GNOSTICISM predates the man made traditions of SOLA FIDE and SOLA SCRIPTURA. That's when you've got to really examine yourself. Mr. Swan doesn't need an infallible Church or Council to deem what his authority should be. It's the traditions of the Reformers for him. But which Reformers?
Mr. Swan goes on, examining a portion of a Catholic apologist's blog then commenting by saying
The Lord Jesus clearly held these men responsible for knowing and understanding the Scriptures. Were the Sadducees supposed to respond, "How could we? We did not have an infallible interpreter of the Bible!"
The problem herein lies in the fact that the Reformers, even if they wanted to deny any sort of hierarchy in the Church, they could have viewed the testimony of the Fathers and Councils and Church History as a whole. What would later come from the Reformation and beyond is simply a distortion of Christianity.
Mr. Swan further states
Take the sacraments for example. During the early centuries the church did not limit the number of sacraments to seven. There were more, or less. Some lists had less than seven, others had as many as thirty. It wasn't until the mid-13th century that the number was finally set at seven. How does one decide how many there are? From the Bible.
In the early centuries of the Christian Church the number surely is NOT limited to seven. There is a clear reason for this. Whereas we find the number at times shorter or at times inflated, a careful examination shows that the word Sacrament amongst the Fathers did NOT always mean what it means today. The terminology in usage of the time at times simply meant certain aspects of the Christian faith as well as other things, as many historians have noted. The fact that be pointed out, though, is that the early Church always recognized the grace that flowed from what were later officially set into 7 Sacraments. So it wasn't a later development. The reality of the 7 sacraments and the grace conveyed from them was ALWAYS taught in the Early Church. It was clear, though, that the term had a wide range of usage in the Early Church.
As to the insistence that the Reformers simply stated, "I'm right" "without consulting traditions or authorities" - this is simply historically untrue, say for someone like John Calvin. He had a decent grasp of church history. In Luther's case, he stated, "the sum of my argument is that whereas the words of men, and the use of the centuries, can be tolerated and endorsed, provided they do not conflict with the sacred Scriptures, nevertheless they do not make articles of faith, nor any necessary observances." This is a far cry from "History meant nothing anymore."
So Calvin had a DECENT grasp of Church history. We wonder how Mr. White, Swan's AOMIN boss would feel about such a comment. Mr. White is a Calvinist and we could only imagine him cringing at the thought that the creator of his religion was only DECENT in Church history. Of course, we wouldn't contend such a comment. Calvin was confused as to the issues of the Biblical canon as well as completely out in left field when it came to the Ignatian epistles, dismissing them all as trash.
If there is another infallible rule of faith besides the Scriptures that could've helped out Athanasius, where was it?
Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture. (Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia 6)
Athanasius comments on “BUT IF A COUNCIL BE NEEDED..”
Why would a council be needed when Scripture is SUFFICIENT above all things? Mr. Swan, like others at the AOMIN camp, seems to be confused on Athanasius and his theology.
Why did Athanasius have to struggle for his life against the church majority?
Mr. Swan's comments seem a tad bit misleading. He phrases such in order to try and harmonize the Reformation with Christianity's great battles for the faith. Unfortunately the difference is quite startling. Athanasius struggled against those that were trying to usurp the orthodox faith. The Reformation attempted to do exactly what the Arians were doing in principle. That is, USURP the orthodox Christian faith.
Why did he have to argue his position from Scripture? Why couldn't he have argued from some other infallible authority?
Athanasius never CONFINED himself SOLELY to Scripture. And as I pointed out to Mr. White before, the Arians were twisting and distorting the Biblical text beyond belief. It's logical that Athanasius would argue from the Scriptures against individuals DISTORTING the Sacred text of GOD. But still..we find Protestantism attempting their very best to adopt a few of the Fathers to help support their positions. It's unfortunate that the early Church was Catholic and didn't have an ounce of Protestantism running through it's veins.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
PDF analysis contains a detailed look at the Original Biblical Greek, and various translations as well!
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.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema. (see Denziger §1839).
— Vatican Council, Sess. IV , Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Let's examine 1 Peter 3:21 below in the relevant Greek
CLICK the IMAGE below that I have provided so you can see the whole text of the verse in the original Greek!
Our word of examination is
GOD BLESS you!
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Are Priests successors of Apostles?
Absolutely. The Catholic faith is the only faith that can trace itself back to the time of the Apostles. Whereas the Greek word for priest is not used for the Apostles, we have priestly functions attached to their ministry work constantly. Furthermore, the Greek term for elder/presbyter, has priestly functions tied in with it throughout many passages in the New Testament. A particular passage of interest for us is Acts 1:20-26
We will examine the NASB rendering.
20"For it is written in the book of Psalms,
'(D)LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE,
AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT';
'(E)LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.'
21"Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that (F)the Lord Jesus went in and out among us--
22(G)beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He (H)was taken up from us--one of these must become a (I)witness with us of His resurrection."
23So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and (J)Matthias.
24And they (K)prayed and said, "You, Lord, (L)who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen
25to occupy (M)this ministry and (N)apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place."
26And they (O)drew lots for them, and the lot fell to (P)Matthias; and he was added to (Q)the eleven apostles.
The Biblical Greek word for OFFICE is very important to our examination.
We find the word Episkopeyn from EPISKOPEE.
What Luke is focusing on, is the fact that the office will be occupied by another, continuing the succession. In this case, the prayer to GOD helps guide them in choose Matthias to fill the vacancy that Judas had left.
The prayer begins with the all important su. ku,rie
The band of Apostles knew that GOD had promised to not leave them. GOD had promised to remain with them forever. Therefore it was not inconceivable to call upon the LORD for this guidance in choosing a successor.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Note:Nowhere at all am I promoting the idea that Limbo is NOT a possibility. Rather I am affirming that Limbo has never been Catholic dogma and we CAN and SHOULD have hope that babies that die without baptism can enter into the bosom of our merciful GOD and SAVIOR Jesus Christ!
Sedevacantism and LIMBO examined
For those that are not familiar with the MHFM, they are two Sedevacantist brothers that attempt to refute Catholicism and promote their brand of Sedevacantism when they can. What makes them unique is that they go to great lengths to try and refute anything the Pope comes out with and label it as a "manifest heresy". The MHFM lack any knowledge in the Biblical Languages and are not familiar with the languages that any of the Papal Encyclicals were originally written in. So, in other words, they add their own personal twist to the ENGLISH translations of various Biblical and Papal pieces.
The MHFM will not engage in a debate unless they handpick their opponent. Their only significant contribution to the Sedevacantist community is this silly compendium here. It contains loads of images that are presented to you as well as many articles to make you believe that the Vatican II church, as they call it, is riddled with heresy and demonism.
We can't be any more surprised, when we read their musings on Limbo, to find that this group have lost quite a few followers.
In this short examination, we will be examining the claims that the MHFM(we will refer to them as the Monastery from now on) makes and see if any of them hold water.
By now many of you have heard that, on Friday April 20, Benedict XVI approved the release of a new document on limbo. According to news reports, this document teaches that limbo (the highest part of Hell where those who die in original sin only go) doesn't exist. It concludes, therefore, that unbaptized infants go to Heaven. This document had been in the works for a long time; Benedict XVI officially approved its release on Friday. The implications of this blatantly heretical document are very significant, as I will discuss.
Limbo has never been an official part of Catholic dogma. Furthermore, to claim that Limbo is the highest part of Hell where one who still has the vestiges of original sin gets confined to, is also quite erroneous. None of this has ever been official Catholic dogma. EVER.
Now that Benedict XVI has publicly denied original sin and the necessity of Baptism, for them to maintain that this man is a Catholic, and not a public heretic, shows that they are public heretics who have completely severed themselves from the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. There is absolutely no excuse for them anymore when they assert that this man, who has just denied original sin, is not a public heretic.
Benedict nowhere denies original sin or the necessity of Baptism. The Monastery have no right to claim that a certain individual is a heretic based on their private interpretation on certain words that the individual has said. For instance, take these words from Benedict XVI, in his book 'IN THE BEGINNING..'
Benedict, then Ratzinger, says
"For this state of affairs theology has found the certainly mistakable and imprecise word 'original sin.'"
It is from this sentence that the Monastery has come to the Conclusion that the Holy Father denies the doctrine of Original Sin. The fact that the Pope finds the wording "original sin" to need further clarification for those in the field of Theology, nowhere is a denial of the reality of ORIGINAL sin.
Furthermore, quite recently in a GENERAL AUDIENCE, the Pope spoke on the clear Scriptural teaching on ORIGINAL SIN. He talked on the Sacred teaching that St. Paul presented us in his Epistle fo the Romans.
We can see that Benedict clearly believes in Original Sin. He says that those that would wish to eradicate such a doctrine then render the Redemption of Jesus and our Savior himself as void of a purpose.
Someone that says such things surely doesn't deny the doctrine of Original Sin.
It is baseless, silly theological musings like this that actually impress certain individuals. There are numerous people that are educated in matters of Theology, that upon reading a mere paragraph from the Monastery, are filled with laughter. But there are others that take their teachings quite seriously. For this, we must be clear and ready for a defense of our faith at all times.
In further commenting on Limbo, the Monastery quote the Council of Florence
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…” (Denz. 712)
It would be fine to just quote the Council, but they also insist that "The Catholic Church teaches that aborted children and infants who die without baptism descend immediately into Hell, but that they do not suffer the fires of Hell. They go to a place in Hell called the limbo of the children. The most specific definition of the Church proving that there is no possible way for an infant to be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism is the following one from Pope Eugene IV."
As the Catholic Encyclopedia from 1910 explains :
"Thus the Council of Florence, however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the prevailing Catholic notion of the children's limbo, while from the standpoint of reason, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus pointed out long ago, no harsher view can be reconciled with a worthy concept of God's justice and other attributes.""
We must be clear. Florence is right in saying that because of danger of dying, babies should NOT have baptism delayed. But the Monastery is incorrect in claiming that any of these councils are defining Limbo dogmatically or claiming that there is no hope of salvation whatsoever for the souls of these children.
We must be clear in examining the following Council statements
The Council of Florence:
"But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains." (Denzinger 693)
The Second Council of Lyons:
“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished however with disparate punishments.” (Denzinger 464)
If an individual were to interpret the statements of these Councils in a literalist fashion we'd come to the conclusion that the souls of these infants are sent straight to HELL as is the plain reading of these statements. As the Church teaches to this day, there is HOPE that those that have departed this life without baptism may indeed be saved and come into the presence of GOD. Furthermore, the Council of Florence never declares whether those that depart in Original Sin ever see the Vision of GOD. It tells us that
But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.
A clear difference in those that die in MORTAL sin and those in ORIGINAL SIN.
Once again, the description is that of HELL, not LIMBO. We can interpret this as another form of HELL, such as a HELLISH TORMENT, or a torment of some kind. Regardless, since the Church has never DOGMATICALLY defined LIMBO, we can have faith that unbaptized infants DO have an opportunity to enter into the bosom of GOD.
This language is in accord with what the Council of Florence explains. It also teaches differing levels of heaven depending on the merits of the individual.
Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.
The Council of Florence is also accused of being contradicted by Vatican II since Florence tells us that Pagans, Jews, etc. cannot be saved if they do not enter the Catholic Church.
Florence's language is clearly abused over and over. Florence is referring to those that are fully aware of the Catholic faith as the faith that GOD left us. In such an instance, one truly is in mortal sin and cannot enter eternal salvation.
Florence is clear when it says that
Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.
Notice the CLEAR terminology.
"ALL WHO GLORY IN THE NAME OF CHRISTIAN.."
Those that are Christian should not practice rituals of a faith opposed to the faith that Jesus, our GOD, left us.
More statements that are similar to this are made by the Monastery.
What we can usually find are quotes such as these:
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)
Again, nothing dogmatically affirming the existence of Limbo, rather REAFFIRMING the Catholic teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation.
The Monastery continue
Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic… But those who defend this for them without rebirth seem to me to want to quash Baptism itself, when they preach that infants already have what is believed to be conferred on them only through Baptism.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)
According to Papal teaching, Benedict XVI and his theological panel are “quite idiotic.” It’s accurate to say that Benedict XVI’s latest heresy obliterates original sin. If infants go to Heaven without Baptism, that means that all people are born in the state of grace. Therefore, there is no necessity to baptize infants, although the Vatican II sect still encourages it just as Protestant sects do. Like other Protestant sects, the Vatican II sect now considers Baptism to be a nice initiation rite which marks entrance into a community, but it’s neither necessary nor efficacious.
A clear reading of every single thing that is posted by the Monastery shows a deep shift in logic when compared to that of a rational thinker.
Due to the Monastery's personal interpretation of what THEY think Benedict believes, they say that he teaches that ALL people are BORN
in the state of grace. This flies in the face of Benedict's recent speech on how he believes that the doctrine of Original Sin is absolutely necessary to believe in the message of Jesus. But the Monastery are interested in shock Apologetics and cutting and pasting quotes and then injecting their own novel interpretation into them. The Monastery will have you believe that the current church is NOT the Church that Jesus Christ left us, and that the see of Peter is so empty it's as cold as ice from it's length of vacancy!
Remember, the Church is not saying now, nor has it EVER SAID, that BAPTISM IS NOT NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. Baptism IS necessary for salvation. The Church is merely stating that not all hope is lost for those that die without baptism. GOD is a GOD of LOVE and mercy, and we must also apply logic to our faith.
What will you believe? Will you choose to believe Jesus and his promise that he would not leave us orphans, and that the Spirit of Truth would remain with us till the very end? I believe Jesus 100 percent!
DOWNLOAD THE PDF HERE!
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Who is Cardinal Cajetan?
In a nutshell(a REALLY tiny nutshell)
He's a Catholic cardinal that Protestants bring forth to try and prove that the Deuterocanon was not widely accepted by the Catholic Church till the Council of Trent. They point to his rejection of the Deuterocanon in support of the Protestant Canon.
Do Cardinal Cajetan and his views on the Canon support Protestantism?
Before we examine the 8 Important points, let's read a snippet of what Cajetan says on this topic below
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”
Now moving on to the 8 important points
Examining Cardinal Cajetan we read(sometimes our points on Cajetan will be DIRECT quotes from his commentary above!)
That the DEUTEROCANON are counted as APOCRYPHAL by ST. JEROME.
That is point number ONE
1.(the Deuterocanon)are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha
Point number two is that
2. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical.
So that leads to point number 3
Which according to Cajetan is that
3. The Deuterocanonical Books are deemed as CANONICAL by the SACRED COUNCILS of the Church. Meaning, the Councils of the Church that decided upon Sacred Scripture viewed these books as inspired by the Holy Spirit and as the WORD OF GOD. What is also clear is that the DOCTORS of the Church also viewed the Deuterocanon as CANONICAL.
Point number 4 is basically re-affirming what Cajetan says, but noting it carefully.
4. The Early Church, in the Doctors and the Councils viewed the Deuterocanon as SCRIPTURE and as part of the Canon of the Bible.
Moving on to point number 5. We must see the incredible level of authority that Cajetan has placed Jerome on. Jerome, for Cajetan, is the final word, and final statement on this issue, even though the Early Doctors and Councils viewed these books as Scripture, as Sacred Scripture.
So point number 5 is
5. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.
A clear examination is due. Cajetan serves as a great witness to the Catholic canon of Scripture because he sides with Jerome, who rejected the Deuterocanon for reasons that not even most PROTESTANTS would list as the reason to reject the Canon today. Not only does he side with Jerome, but he places Jerome above the early Sacred Councils and Doctors of the Church. Such a statement, if not ignorant, is at least stubborn.
6.(the Deuterocanon)are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith.
Point number 6 is important because here Cajetan reaffirms his loyalty to Jerome on this issue. The Deuterocanon, for Cajetan are NOT canonical. That is, they are NOT to be a rule in dealing with matters within the Catholic faith.
This brings us to point number 7, which immediately follows what Cajetan said previously.
Cajetan now says
7. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose.
Previously Cajetan has said that these books were NOT canonical, yet now says they MAY BE CALLED CANONICAL because they can serve to edify the faithful. Therefore, Cajetan doesn't mind if they are called CANONICAL if we realize that they are good as helping out a Christian. He previously said they can't CONFIRM matters of faith, and now says they can help the practicing Christian.
Some have suggested Cajetan is using the term Canonical differently. Since no evidence has presented as such, nor has Cajetan ever said such, we will simply dismiss such a statement. In fact, we will remain neutral as to how he uses the term CANONICAL. It is simply not of importance for us in this issue at hand.
This moves us on to our Conclusion and to point number 8
8. Cajetan, no matter how he uses the term Canonical, let's us know that the EARLY CHURCH, the Early Christians, and the Early Councils viewed these books as SACRED SCRIPTURE and part of the Canon of Scripture. He then goes AGAINST the Early Church and the Early Councils and instead sides with Jerome.
We must remember, Cardinal Cajetan was NOT an Early Father, yet was a very intelligent and learned individual. He RECOGNIZES the Early Church's affirmation of the Deuterocanon as Scripture, but his insistence on following Jerome as his final word leads to his odd statements on the Canon.
In conclusion, Cajetan not only serves as a fantastic witness to the Catholic faith, but it is almost sad to see a Protestant bring him into the conversation to try and prove their point. It would be akin to a Catholic quoting an early Protestant that would say, "The Early Councils and the Early Doctors never believed in sola fide but Jerome does, so they must be subject to the correction of Jerome on this issue!"
We can only hope that this extremely weak argument is finally put to rest
DOWNLOAD THE PDF here!
Monday, July 13, 2009
Will be loads of fun! Turretinfan and I are currently debating all of the Marian Dogmas.
So far we've covered two debates. "Does the NT teach Veneration of Mary?" and "Mary: Mother of GOD?"
Below I will provide the link to the first debate. The second debate is still in the editing process.
For anyone that would wish to obtain a PDF collection of my notes for both debates, you can email me, or simply request it here.
There are quite a few things I didn't get to in each of the debates, and you might find something interesting in the notes.
Does the NEW TESTAMENT teach VENERATION of MARY? MP3 debate
Click that link(not right click), then you can download it from RAPIDSHARE.
GOD BLESS you!
Latria and Dulia: the Catholic response
For those interested in hearing what is probably the ONLY existing debate on this topic, you can click the link below to download the debate between myself and Turretinfan on this topic.
The Latria/Dulia Debate MP3
GOD BLESS all!
Here are the first two videos I made dealing with Israel Knohl and his claims.
Gabriel's Revelation: a Catholic Response
My second response to Knohl and a challenge
Since Israel Knohl's company finds it necessary to send me videos Israel does, and encourages me to search for someone "other" than Knohl to debate with, I suggest Mr. Knohl himself come out and defend his assertions.
Below is my latest video dealing with this.
I will have a full book review on Israel's new book out quite soon!
Friday, July 10, 2009
Luke 5:33 And they said to him, "The disciples of John fast often and offer prayers, and the disciples of the Pharisees do the same; but yours eat and drink."
This is the plural from PHARASAIOS
Pronounced FAR UH SIGH AHs
The Pharisees were the Jewish group that Jesus and Paul frequently spoke out against, as well as the explicit teachings of the Scriptures, due to the hypocritical ways of some from their flock.