Catholicism - Eucharist

Communion/Eucharist/Mass

In the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, Rome tells us that there is a miracle of mass.  This is also referred to as transubstantiation.  This involves a substance being moved, or carried across.

Rome borrowed this concept from Greek philosopher Aristotle.  He distinguished the substance or accidens of an object.  According to him, the substance is the essence of the object and the accidens is the external, perceivable qualities.

If I look at a guitar, I cannot see the essence of it because the molecules and atoms are too small for the naked eye.  I can see the type of woods, the strings, the pearl inlays, etc.

In the eucharist there is bread and wine.  According to Rome, at the prayer of consecration, the substance of the elements is supernaturally transformed into the literal flesh and blood of Yeshua.  This is the miracle of mass.

The bread still looks, feels, smells, and tastes like bread but it is no longer bread.  The substance/essence of it has been miraculously changed to the literal flesh of Yeshua.  Same with the wine changed into His blood.

This is why catholics genuflect, or kneel when they enter the church and sit in the pews.  They do this because on the altar of every Roman catholic church is a holy vessel called the tabernacle.  People kneel, and genuflect in veneration and adoration, because this tabernacle contains the consecrated host - the literal body of Christ.  Catholics are convinced that the real body of Yeshua is literally in the tabernacle box.

The celebration of mass is described in their catechism as "the Holy Sacrifice".  So, when the priest breaks the bread isn't he tearing the body of Yeshua again?  Well?  Isn't he?  Scripture tells us that Christ was sacrificed ONCE for all and that He currently sitting at the right hand of the Father.  He's not pieced out into tiny catholic boxes all over the world.

[Heb 7:26-27 LSB]  For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; [27]  who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

[Heb 10:11-14 LSB]  And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; [12]  but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, [13]  waiting from that time UNTIL HIS ENEMIES ARE PUT AS A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. [14]  For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

In all seriousness... if you were someone reading these blogs on catholicism, who never had any foreknowledge of catholicism, wouldn't you run away from all of this nonsense?  Doesn't it sound like some whacky cult you would hear about in the news?!  

This is what happens when you mix Aristotle's pagan Greek philosophy with Christian doctrine.  This isn't the only example of pagan Greek philosophy deeply embedded into worldviews... especially western theology.  Greek philosophy surrounds us in religion and government alike.  It's everywhere!

Anyway, Rome gets around the passages above by claiming it is somehow a bloodless sacrifice, and that it presents the one sacrifice of Christ.  Nevermind that they expect you to drink His actual blood.  Bloodless?  And if it presents His one sacrifice doesn't that make the whole thing a symbol of His death and resurrection similar to what the Protestants state?  

[Heb 9:11-12 LSB]  But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, [12]  and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy places ONCE FOR ALL, having obtained eternal redemption.

Rome rejects God's Word and insists that redemption remains to be accomplished by the church's liturgy.  Yeshua, on the other hand, said:

[Joh 19:30 LSB]  ...“It is finished!” ...

The Code of Canon Law, Canon 904, says:

"Remembering that the work of redemption is continually accomplished in the mystery of the Eucharistic sacrifice, priests are to celebrate frequently; indeed daily celebration is strongly recommended..."

The Lord's Supper is a memorial... not a sacrifice.  He gave His flesh at the cross after the Lord's Supper.  Did Yeshua give His disciples the "eucharist", His own flesh and blood while He was sitting there, or did He give them bread and wine?  He said "do this in remembrance of Me", not "continually sacrifice my body daily in multiple locations all over the world".

[Luk 22:19 LSB]  And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.”

[1Co 11:26-28 LSB]  For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes. 

[27]  Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. [28]  But a man must test himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

Catholicism's mass fits Paul's description of an unworthy manner. 

Catholicism - Purgatory

Purgatory

If a person dies in mortal sin, he goes to hell.

If the person dies with any sin, with any imperfection or blemish on his soul, he cannot be admitted into heaven but must first go through the purging fires of purgatory, where his impurities are cleansed away until such time as righteousness is truly inherent in him.  Failure to accept the doctrine of purgatory brings automatic excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church.

One might spend five minutes in purgatory and another may be there five thousand years.  It all depends on how many merits one has when they arrive in purgatory.  

Rome decided that it had authority to award merits to those who lacked merits in order to shorten their time in purgatory.  These merits come from what they refer to as supererogation.

These are works that are more meritorious than God requires.  These works are performed by the saints, and the excess merits go into the treasury of merits.  This is like a "merit bank" that Rome can make withdrawals from when it sees fit.  This allows them to give an indulgence to a needy person in purgatory.

Protestants also have a treasury of merit... it goes by a different name though - Yeshua.  It is an infinite source and is inexhaustible.

Indulgences

An indulgence is a transfer of merit.  You cannot receive a transfer of merit except by imputation.  According to Rome, one needs enough "merits" in order to be accepted into Heaven.  Not enough merits?  You go to purgatory until you have enough merits.

Early in the 16th century, pope Leo X offered indulgences to those giving alms towards rebuilding St. Peter's Basilica.  He made it clear to state that the church was not selling indulgences as a fundraiser.  They claimed this almsgiving was part of their works of satisfaction.  In other words, nobody was to give alms for any reason apart from a broken and contrite heart because their sin.  So, even though it's related to their penance, they still receive special indulgences for doing so.

Of course, it didn't take long for someone to begin selling indulgences.  A German Dominican priest did just that.

In Spain the annual papal Bull of the Crusade had to be purchased by everyone of seven years and older at least once each year. No one could be buried without the current bull in the coffin. Upon purchase of the bull, the pope immediately granted indulgences and absolution from all sins except heresy and the vow of chastity.

All of this called attention to the entire scam from Rome and it mushroomed into a large controversy for Rome.

Recognizing this, Rome's "official" stance is that nobody can pay to have their loved ones relieved of purgatory.  Growing up, I personally knew those who did exactly that - they paid the church for purgatorial relief of their loved ones.  So Rome can make any statement they want, or call it whatever they want, but money was being exchanged for this purpose not that long ago.

Vatican II declares:

“The Church. commands that the usage of indulgences . . . should be kept . . . and it condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them . . . [for] the task of winning salvation.”

While these sales for salvation may not currently be as widespread in the United States it is still occurring in Roman catholic countries.

Rome cannot dispense so easily with the gross deceit that they milked the faithful of their money and robbed them of salvation in the process. The sale of salvation had deceived millions for centuries by the time of the Reformation. Were there any refunds given by the Church?  Of course not.

Invincible ignorance can also earn one indulgences.  Invincible ignorance is a type of ignorance that cannot be overcome which in turn provides an excuse.

Paul tells us that men are without excuse:

[Rom 1:20 LSB]  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, both His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

When one stands before God on Judgment day you won't be able to plead ignorance.  You may plead ignorance but it will be vincible ignorance which will render it inexcusable.

Rome did this for Protestants that grew up in Protestant communities and had never been exposed to the teaching and truth of Roman catholicism. Meaning, they might have become Roman catholic if only they had heard about it. Since they were not exposed to Rome's "truth" they could be awarded indulgence through invincible ignorance. If you were one of those who knew about catholicism's truths, and turned your nose up at it, you could not be awarded - you have no hope of salvation.

According to Rome, anyone outside of the Roman catholic church was also outside the Body of Christ.  Vatican II somewhat changed this hard line stance from heretics to separated brethren.  (How kind of them!)

Here is Vatican II’s further explanation of this doctrine: "The doctrine of purgatory clearly demonstrates that even when the guilt of sin has been taken away, punishment for it or the consequences of it may remain to be expiated or cleansed. . . . [I]n purgatory the souls of those who died in the charity of God and truly repentant but who had not made satisfaction with adequate penance for their sins and omissions are cleansed after death with punishments designed to purge away their debt." What is adequate penance? No one knows. Rome has never defined it. Where does the Bible say that punishment purges from sin? It doesn’t.
Yes - all of this is still being dictated today.  All you have to do is look up Rome's statements on purgatory and indulgences in their 1995 catechism and Vatican II.

What does Scripture Say?

The above is so outlandish and ridiculous that I can't hardly even believe that man can come up with such evilness. Rome stands in direct conflict with Scripture.

If Christ’s one sacrifice has already perfected and sanctified believers "for all time", there is no remaining purification or temporal punishment needed after death. The work is finished and complete.

[Heb 9:11-12 LSB]  But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, [12]  and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy places once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. [Heb 10:10 LSB]  By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. [Heb 10:14 LSB]  For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

[Heb 10:18 LSB]  Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

Forgiveness and cleansing are total and immediate upon faith and confession — there is no partial forgiveness or lingering debt of temporal punishment.

[1Jn 1:6-9 LSB]  If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not do the truth; [7]  but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Yeshua His Son cleanses us from ALL sin. [8]  If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. [9]  If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness.

[Col 2:13-14 LSB]  And you being dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive with Him, having graciously forgiven us all our transgressions. [14]  Having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us which was hostile to us, He also has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

There is NO condemnation for those who are in Christ. If believers are justified and at peace with God, there is no remaining punishment or purification required after death.

[Rom 5:1 LSB]  Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

[Rom 8:1 LSB]  Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

There is no scriptural basis for temporal punishment after forgiveness, a "purgatorial fire", or the church’s authority to grant indulgences to reduce it. Christ’s one sacrifice fully paid for all sin — guilt and punishment — leaving no remaining debt to be satisfied. Believers are fully forgiven, cleansed, and perfected in Christ at the moment of faith. 

Catholicism - Mariology

Mary - Mariology

The Roman catholic view of Mary, mother of Yeshua, has been an area of conflict even within the Roman catholic church.  Most of Rome's definitions for Mary didn't come around until 1854 and then again 1950.  However, she's been a preoccupation with Rome for much longer.

Manifestations of the "Mary cultus" are easy to find within the catholic church... schools and churches named after her, paintings, apparitions, music (Ave Maria and Hail Mary for example), shrines, etc..  At the Vatican itself is a huge fresco of the Madonna, highly exalted, with Yeshua and the Father seated on either side of her.

I mentioned in another post that it was Pius IX who promulgated the doctrine of the immaculate conception.  Celebrations in her honor are held regularly within the church.  Make no mistake, she is a major figure in the faith of Roman catholicism.

"Hail Mary, full of grace" is echoed repeatedly as an aspect of Rome's veneration for Mary.  The "hail Mary" is at the heart of the rosary.  It's traditional wording is as follows:

"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.  Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death, Amen."

The first part of the above is taken from a combination of two passages:

[Luk 1:28 LSB]  And coming in, he said to her [Mary], “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

[Luk 1:42 LSB]  And she [Elizabeth] cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you [Mary] among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!

There's no argument from me on the first part.  However, "Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death" presents a major problem for me.

All Christians are set apart and holy in the same sense that Mary is holy.  This does not indicate that we are to worship another human though.  

What about "mother of God"?  She is Yeshua's earthly mother.

The council of Ephesus gave her the Greek title of Theotokos which literally means "God-bearer" or "the one who gives birth to God". Taken less literally it is usually rendered as "mother of God".

At Ephesus it meant exactly what I stated... she gave birth to Yeshua in His human form/nature with no attributes of deity attached to it.  She was simply the mother of the One who was God incarnate.  The one who gives birth to the One who is God.  As long as we stick to the original intent and proper definitions, as I just outlined, we're still ok, right?

What about the next part "pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death"?  Here, I have problem attributing intercessory work for Mary.  There is ONE Mediator between God and man and that is Yeshua. 

[1Ti 2:5 LSB]  For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Yeshua,

[Rom 8:26 LSB]  And in the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness, for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;

Let's go back to Pius IX who promulgated the doctrine of the immaculate conception.  Most would think this has to do with the conception of Yeshua, right?  Wrong.

The doctrine of the immaculate conception is dealing with Mary's own conception.  It is the belief that Mary was not "infected" with original sin at her conception so she lived a sinless life.

Theoretically, according to this belief, Mary had no need for a Redeemer and she, herself, could have been our champion of redemption to some degree.  Mary is known within the catholic church our "Co-Redemptrix" as in - she participated in the redemptive process.  This hasn't been "officially sanctioned" in Rome, but it is a wide held belief within their church.

We already know that Mary didn't believe this of herself:

[Luk 1:46-47 LSB]  And Mary said: “My soul magnifies the Lord, [47]  And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.

She knew that she was a sinner in need of a Savior.

[Rom 3:23 LSB]  for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Mary offered the purification sacrifice required for women after childbirth (Leviticus 12:6–8). This was a sin offering.

[Luk 2:22-24 LSB]  And when the days for their cleansing according to the Law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord [23]  (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “EVERY firstborn MALE THAT OPENS THE WOMB SHALL BE CALLED HOLY TO THE LORD”), [24]  and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, “A PAIR OF TURTLEDOVES OR TWO YOUNG PIGEONS.”

So where did this belief come from?  More below, but first:

Thomas Aquinas, Rome's supreme theologian, brought this passage (above) to Rome's attention sparking embarrassment on their part.  How did Rome respond?

First, Rome noted that Thomas was speaking before the doctrine had been officially defined.  They claimed that Thomas was not infallible and if he had seen how they had defined this doctrine, he would have surely agreed with them on the basis of a fide implicitum - implicit faith in whatever the church declares.

Then they suggested that Thomas may have been wrong.  Roman exegetes pointed out that Savior doesn't always mean one who saves from sin.  Their claim is that salvation can be understood in a much broader sense, that a person can be saved from other things, as an experience of benefits from the hands of God.  Indeed, Mary did receive benefits from God - He blessed her with blessings no other human has received in giving birth to Yeshua.

In 1943, Pius XII declared:
"Venerable Brethren, may the Virgin Mother of God hear the prayers of Our paternal heart — which are yours also — and obtain for all a true love of the Church, she whose sinless soul was filled with the divine spirit of Jesus Christ above all other created souls, who “in the name of the whole human race” gave her consent “for a spiritual marriage between the Son of God and human nature.”

May she, then, the most holy Mother of all the members of Christ, to whose Immaculate Heart We have trustfully consecrated all mankind, and who now reigns in heaven with her Son, her body and soul refulgent with heavenly glory — may she never cease to beg from Him that copious streams of grace may flow from its exalted Head into all the members of the Mystical Body."

This is the key passage in which Pius XII strongly encourages devotion and veneration to Mary’s Immaculate Heart as a means of obtaining graces for the church. It gets even worse: “It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father together with the holocaust of His blood, for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by that unhappy fall; and thus she, who was the Mother of our Head according to the flesh, became by a new title of motherhood the spiritual Mother of all His members.”

Rome may play this off as a bad choice of words but it's pretty clear what Pius XII was declaring.  Not only was it Mary who approved of Yeshua's sacrifice but she was also mother of the catholic church.  I thought Yeshua alone was the head of the Church? 

Mary is also the second Eve, paralleling the comparison of Yeshua to Adam.

[Rom 5:18-19 LSB]  So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. [19]  For as through the one man’s [Adam] disobedience the many were appointed sinners, even so through the obedience of the One [Yeshua] the many will be appointed righteous.

So, just as through one woman came sin, so through another - the second Eve - came redemption.  That's what Pius XII is saying. 

Pius XII added:

"She it was through who her powerful prayers obtained that the Spirit of our Divine Redeemer, already given on the cross, should be bestowed, accompanied by miraculous gifts, on the newly founded Church at Pentecost."

Do I really need to ask Who was responsible for outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost?  It wasn't Mary's powerful prayers.

In 1950, Pius XII defined the doctrine of the bodily assumption of Mary into Heaven.  She was taken to Heaven bodily and participates fully in the resurrection of the body that we are all looking forward to.  In 1954 he instituted the feast "Queenship of Mary" establishing Mary as the queen of Heaven ruling alongside her son, Yeshua.

There is no Biblical basis for the assumption of Mary.  There is no verse in Scripture that says Mary was assumed bodily into heaven. Scripture records assumptions for Enoch (Genesis 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11), but never for Mary.  Such a major event would almost certainly have been recorded, especially since the assumption is considered a dogma necessary for salvation in Catholic teaching.

Pius XII's statements just go on and on praising Mary's contribution as Co-Redemptrix.   He also compares her to the woman of Revelation 12.  If you've read my eschatology posts we know who the woman of Revelation 12 is... it's not Mary.  He also draws parallels with Abraham as the father of our faith - Mary being the mother of our faith.  

Not to mention Mary's fiat - her command to allow redemption.  I can't cut and paste them all here in this post.  The point is that Rome elevates Mary to the supernatural unnecessarily.  This is a short, but clear, portrait of Roman catholic veneration of Mary to an un-Scriptural level. 

In contemporary catholicism there are two Mariological parties the maximalists and the minimalists. The disagreements between the two had a significant bearing on Vatican II. John XXIII didn't want to define doctrine so this issue was kind of swept under the rug.

The basic disagreement was found in that the maximalists wanted explicit emphasis on Mary's cooperation, via her fiat (command) and the offering of her Son, as absolutely necessary for redemption making her Co-Redemptrix. Without her fiat, there would be no redemption.

The minimalists did not want to view her as Co-Redemptrix but rather the supreme ecclesiastical model of Christian faith.  Of which, I have no problem with at all.  She IS a supreme model of faith in my book!  That's as far as I'll go with the catholic minimalists though.  They still believe in her immaculate conception, bodily assumption, and coronation.  They're still out of line Scripturally.

The real question is:  Has the catholic church created an idol out of Mary?  To worship any human, other than Yeshua, is idolatry.  Officially, Rome does not "sanction" any worship of Mary.  Rome insists that Mary is given dulia, not latria.  This is definition between worship and service that they came up with during the Reformation to justify bowing down and praying in front of statues.  Mary is given dulia - she is venerated, but not worshipped.

I'm pretty sure that I know plenty of catholics that worship Mary regardless of the loopholes created at the vatican.  They believe they're doing exactly what the church calls them to do.  Where do they still get these ideas?  Scroll through the catechism and look at the statements made concerning Mary.

Yeshua, Himself, corrected excessive focus on Mary:

[Luk 11:27-28 LSB]  Now it happened that while Yeshua was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” [28]  But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.”

Mary was a highly favored and blessed woman (Luke 1:28, 42), but she was still a sinner who needed a Savior. Scripture presents her as an example of faith and obedience, not as a co-redeemer, mediator, or object of veneration. All honor, mediation, and intercession belong to Christ alone.

Catholicism - Imputation

Imputation

When Paul explains the doctrine of justification, he cites the example of the patriarch Abraham.  He writes:

"For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness’" (Rom. 4:3, citing Gen. 15:6). 

In other words, Abraham had faith, and therefore God justified him.  Abraham was still a sinner.  The rest of the history of the life of Abraham reveals that he did not always obey God.  Nevertheless, God counted him righteous because he believed in the promise God had made to him.

This is an example of imputation, which involves transferring something legally to someone’s account, to reckon something to be there. So, Paul speaks of God counting Abraham as righteous or reckoning him as righteous, even though, in and of himself, Abraham was not yet righteous. He did not have righteousness inhering in him.

[Rom 4:5-6 LSB]  But to the one who does not work, but believes upon Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, [6]  just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

The Roman Catholic idea is that grace is infused into the soul of a person at baptism, making the person inherently righteous, so that God therefore judges him to be righteous.

Luther’s famous Latin formula simul justus et peccator. Simul is the word from which we get the English simultaneous; it means "at the same time". Justus is the Latin word for "just" or "righteous".  Et simply means "and".  Peccator means "sinner".  So, with this formula— "at the same time just and sinner" - Luther was saying that in our justification, we are at the same time righteous and sinful.

In and of ourselves, under God’s scrutiny, we still have sin. But by God’s imputation of the righteousness of Yeshua Christ to our accounts, we are considered just.

Will I be judged according to MY righteousness?  Or, will I be judged according to Yeshua's righteousness imputed onto me?  Yeah... thankfully, the latter!

[2Co 5:21 LSB]  He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

The good news is simply this: I can be reconciled to God. I can be justified, not on the basis of what I do, but on the basis of what has been accomplished for me by Christ.  Our sin is imputed to Yeshua and His righteousness is imputed to us.

[Rom 5:18-19 LSB]  So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. [19]  For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were appointed sinners, even so through the obedience of the One [Yeshua] the many will be appointed righteous.

Rome teaches that a sinner can receive indulgences through the transfer of merit from the treasury of merit, but this transfer cannot be accomplished except by imputation.

Justification is a legal declaration, not an internal process:

[Rom 4:5-6 LSB]  But to the one who does not work, but believes upon Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
It's not something attainable through any action of your own, it is a free gift:
[1Co 1:30 LSB]  But by His doing you are in Christ Yeshua, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 

[Php 3:8-11 LSB]  More than that, I count all things to be loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Yeshua my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ [9]  and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own which is from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God upon faith, [10]  that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, [11]  in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. 

Catholicism - Scriptural Authority

Scripture and Authority

Sola Scriptura is one thing I stand on firmly.  Meaning, Scripture is the sole  authority on all issues. <-- emphasis on the period.

[2Ti 3:16 LSB]  All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, [17]  so that the man of God may be equipped, having been thoroughly equipped for EVERY good work.

Trent affirmed that the truth of God is contained both in the written documents that make up the canon and in the unwritten traditions. This raises the issue of the dual-source theory of revelation. Are there two sources of revelation—Scripture and tradition—or is there only one source—Scripture?

Scripture is the final judge and standard:

[Isa 8:20 LSB]  To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.

I believe the truth of God can be found in a sermon or in a lecture, but not that it finds its origin there. So, the truth of God is found in Scripture and in tradition, but that tradition is not a source of revelation.  In other words, tradition must be examined in light of Scripture - never vice versa, and tradition should never solely dictate doctrinal beliefs apart from the Truth found in Scripture.

In response to the Protestant claim of private interpretation, Rome declared at the Fourth Session of Trent:

 “Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, [the council] decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,—wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,—whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,—hath held and doth hold.”

Which leads me to one of my favorite passages in all of Scripture:

[Act 17:11 LSB]  Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

Jesus and the Apostles constantly appealed to Scripture as the final authority.  Jesus repeatedly said:
"It is written…" (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10 — during the temptation)

"Have you not read…?" (Matthew 12:3, 5; 19:4; 21:16, 42)

"The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35)

Paul, Peter, and the other apostles constantly quoted Scripture to prove their teaching and never appealed to an unwritten tradition as equal in authority. We're also instructed to not add to or subtract from the Word of God: [Deu 4:2 LSB]  “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I am commanding you. [Pro 30:5-6 LSB]  EVERY word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. [6]  DO NOT ADD to His words Lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar. [Rev 22:18-19 LSB]  I bear witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book. [19]  And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

This is where Catholics are doomed before they even get started.  In other words, "WE - the Catholic church will tell you what the Scriptures mean.  Don't even bother reading it on your own - you will obviously screw it up!".  Have you ever wondered why all the Latin in their services?  Who speaks Latin these days?!  It's not for you to know...

Human traditions can nullify the Word of God:

[Matthew 15:3, 6, 9] (Jesus rebuking the Pharisees) “Why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?… So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God… in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”

This is one of the strongest warnings in the Bible against elevating tradition to the level of Scripture. 

Catholicism - Papal Infallibility

Infallibility of the Pope

Kings and emperors often claimed to be gods, but their luster faded as they fought among themselves and their subjects began to demand more freedom. What was needed was an infallible representation of deity on earth to whom the civil rulers could look to settle their disputes.  The popes gleefully began to fill that need, and by the thirteenth century they had established themselves as the supreme authority all across Europe.

On July 18, 1870, as part of the ecumenical council known as Vatican I, the Roman catholic church formally defined the doctrine of papal infallibility. It was declared to be de fide ("of the faith"), that is, an official doctrine of the church, the denial of which would constitute heresy.  The idea of papal authority was already tacitly assumed within the church prior to this.

The office of "pope" perhaps began with Clement, bishop of Rome, and his first letter to the Corinthians.  Peter and Paul both preached in Rome and Clement was the fourth such bishop, following Peter, Linus, and Anacletus.  Over the years, Rome became the center of ruling on disagreements within the Church (I'm not referring to the catholic church).

As time passed, the popes began to assert a claim of universal jurisdiction over all the churches. This claim was especially resented in the eastern areas of the empire.  Finally, in 1054, a group of papal representatives traveled to Constantinople to insist that Michael Cerularius, the patriarch of Constantinople, recognize the church in Rome as the mother church.  He refused, sparking the Great Schism, the division of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, a breach that has never been healed.

In June 1846, Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti was elected as Pope Pius IX, beginning the longest papacy ever, thirty-two years.  Pius is the one who really first pushed his power to the limit.  He declared the immaculate conception of Mary (the teaching that Mary had no original sin) and declared it a de fide doctrine.

In Vatican I the council asserted that Peter’s primacy has been passed on in a perpetual succession, and this belief is essential:

"If anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema".

They claim infallibility because of Peter, yet don't acknowledge Peter's own fallibility!  He made serious errors and was corrected publicly:

[Gal 2:11-14 LSB]  But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I [Paul] opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. [12]  For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles, but when they came, he began to shrink back and separate himself, fearing the party of the circumcision. [13]  And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. [14]  But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before everyone, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

Peter was also corrected by Yeshua:

[Mat 16:22-23 LSB]  And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.” [23]  But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.”

Peter was never promised infallibility and was obviously just like us!  All Apostles were fallible... none are infallible but our Heavenly Father and Yeshua.

[1Co 3:21 LSB]  So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you,

[Mat 23:8-10 LSB]  “But do not be called Rabbi [or "pope" or "bishop" or "cardinal"]; for ONE is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. [9]  “And do not call anyone on earth your father; for ONE is your Father, He who is in heaven. [10]  “Do not be called instructors; for ONE is your Instructor, THAT IS, Christ.

This papal authority is not merely teaching authority, it is a governmental authority. Thus, the pope has jurisdiction over the discipline and government of the whole church. This is what Roman Catholics call the primacy of jurisdiction.

Papal infallibility is restricted to those utterances of the pope on faith or morals that are given ex cathedra, that is, when he is giving a decision on behalf of the whole church.  This infallibility comes through the Divine assistance promised to the pope in Peter.  In other words, he can be infallible when speaking on matters of faith and morals through divine assistance.

Vatican II came along and not only reaffirmed papal infallibility but also added the bishops as authoritative as the apostles of Yeshua were.  These bishops receive a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon them, and they passed on this spiritual gift to their helpers by the imposition of hands, and it has been transmitted down to us in Episcopal consecration.  The council proclaimed:

"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held."

Vatican I referred to the pope as the head of the body of Christ or the head of the church.  But if Christ is the Head of the church, how can the pope be the head of the church—is not the pope usurping the position that is given to Christ alone? This is why Vatican II spoke of the pope as the shepherd of the flock or the vicar of Christ, or Christ’s head on earth.

Is the pope infallible?  If someone feels the need to discuss further I have a list of "infallible" decrees that a pope has made over the centuries and am able to show you just how "infallible" they really are.  The papal office and all of it's lieutenants are nothing more than modern day Pharisees and Sadducees:

[Mat 23:33 LSB]  “You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?

The only infallibility to ever exist in the form of Man is - Yeshua.  He alone is the Head of His Church.  We should receive His Word alone - the Holy Scriptures - as the ONLY infallible communication apart from His Holy Spirit - Yeshua is our parakletos.

[1Jn 2:1 LSB]  My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate [parakletos] with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 

Catholicism - Canon of Scripture

Canon of Scripture

Deuterocanonical books represent a portion of the apocryphal books of the intertestamental period, the centuries between the close of the Old Testament canon and the opening of the New Testament canon.

The historical evidence is overwhelming that the Jewish canon did not include these intertestamental books.

If ten books were placed in front of you and you were directed to separate the books into two piles, fallible and infallible, you would likely not get it exactly right.  Why?  Because we are fallible.  If we were infallible, we would get it right every time.

None of us are infallible but Yeshua.

However, Rome claims infallibility for its historical selection and collection of the books of Scripture.  Which of course, is impossible.  Rome is no more infallible than any of us.  So, the historical question of whether the Jewish canon contained certain books is ultimately irrelevant to Rome.

Yeshua and the New Testament writers quoted the Old Testament hundreds of times.  They quoted from every section of the Hebrew canon (Law, Prophets, and Writings).  However, not once did Yeshua, Paul, Peter, James, or any New Testament writer quote from Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, or 1–2 Maccabees as authoritative Scripture.  This silence is significant, especially since they quoted from the Hebrew canon extensively.

[Luk 24:44 LSB]  Now He [Yeshua] said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that ALL THINGS which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

Yeshua speaks of the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. This spans from the first book (Genesis) to the last book (2 Chronicles) in the Hebrew order — again showing He recognized the Hebrew canon, which excludes the Deuterocanonical books.
[Mat 23:35 LSB]  so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
The Jewish people (to whom the Old Testament was given — Romans 3:2) never accepted the Deuterocanonical books as inspired Scripture.  The Jewish canon was fixed well before the time of Christ and did not include these books.  Even Jerome (the translator of the Latin Vulgate) strongly argued against including the Apocrypha as canonical Scripture.
The catholic church does not have the authority to add books to the canon that were never recognized by the Jewish people or quoted by Jesus and the apostles. The canon is determined by the inherent inspiration of the books themselves, not by later church councils.

Catholicism - Sacraments & Penance

Justification through Sacraments

The grace that is received through infusion (mentioned in the baptism section) is by no means immutable. When Roman Catholics speak of their sacramental theology, they use quantitative terms with respect to grace, saying that there can be an increase or a diminution of it.

Grace only comes by faith.  Salvation is a free gift that only comes by faith alone:

[Eph 2:8-9 LSB]  For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; [9]  not of works, so that no one may boast.

In other words, a baptized person can lose some of his infused grace. In fact, it may be lost entirely, removing the person from a state of justification and putting him or her under the threat of damnation.

This loss of saving grace takes place when the person commits a particular type of sin—a mortal sin.

Roman Catholic theology distinguishes venial sins and mortal sins, with mortal sins being more egregious.  Mortal sin is so named because it is serious enough to cause the death of the justifying grace that was infused to a person at baptism.

Scripturally, ALL sin is mortal sin in that the penalty is death.

[Rom 6:23 LSB]  For the wages of sin is death, but the gracious gift of God is eternal life in Christ Yeshua our Lord.

This has remained a constant since the first sin of Adam and Eve.

[Gen 2:17b LSB]  ... for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

[Eze 18:4b LSB]  ... The soul who sins will die.

This means that even the smallest sin is an act of rebellion against God’s sovereign rule and therefore deserving of death.  While every sin is mortal in the sense that it deserves death, no sin is mortal in the sense that it destroys the saving grace that a Christian receives upon his or her justification.

[Psa 130:3 LSB]  If You Yah, should keep iniquities, O Adonai, who could stand?

If we have to stand before God and face His perfect justice and perfect judgment of our performance, none of us would be able to pass His review.  This is the pressing question of justification - how can an unjust person ever be justified in the presence of a righteous and holy God?

Catholicism has a way to correct mortal sins.  Justification can be restored via a sacrament.

Sacraments

The sacrament of penance, which the Roman Catholic Church in the sixteenth century defined as "a second plank" of justification for those who have made shipwreck of their souls, that is, those who have committed mortal sins and lost the grace of justification.

Adding penance turns Grace into works:

[Rom 11:6 LSB]  But if it is by grace, it is no longer of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

Justification cannot be lost for those who truly follow Yeshua:

[Eph 1:13 LSB]  In Him, you also, after listening to the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

[Heb 10:10-11 LSB]  By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Yeshua Christ ONCE for all. [11]  And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;

[Heb 10:14 LSB]  For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

There's a danger in trusting of rituals instead of Christ:

[Gal 5:2-5 LSB]  Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. [3]  And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. [4]  You have been severed from Christ, you who are being justified by law; you have fallen from grace! [5]  For we through the Spirit, by faith, are eagerly waiting for the hope of righteousness.

Confession, of course, was followed by priestly absolution, whereby the priest would say to the penitent person, "Te absolvo", or, "I absolve you".

If you're trusting in a priest to forgive your sin, or even believing that he has authority to do so, you're in trouble:

[Mar 2:5-7 LSB]  And Yeshua seeing their faith *said to the paralytic, “Child, your sins are forgiven.” [6]  But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, [7]  “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?”

Nowhere in the New Testament are believers commanded to confess their sins privately to a priest or ordained minister in order to receive forgiveness.

Instead, we are repeatedly told to confess sins directly to God:

[1Jn 1:9 LSB]  If we confess our sins, He [Yahweh] is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

[Psa 32:5 LSB]  I acknowledged my sin to You [Yahweh], and my iniquity I did not cover up; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to Yahweh;” and You [Yahweh] forgave the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

[Psa 51:4 LSB]  Against You, You only [Yahweh], I have sinned and done what is evil in Your sight, So that You are justified when You speak And pure when You judge.

Confession of sin to others is not necessarily a bad thing.  It's a great way to be held accountable and to request prayer from others:

[Jas 5:16 LSB]  Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed [G2390 - ἰάομαι]. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.

James doesn't say "so that you may be absolved of your sin".  What does this verse mean then?  Go back to verse 13 and read through the context.

It's the Te absolvo that I have a problem with.  NO MAN has the ability to forgive sin no matter how many robes, rosaries, crowns, or titles they wear.

There is only one Mediator between God and man.  You don't need a pope or a priest:

[1Ti 2:5 LSB]  For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Yeshua,

We ARE priests!  Not catholic priests, but ROYAL priests!

[1Pe 2:9 LSB]  But you are A CHOSEN FAMILY, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

[Rev 1:6 LSB]  and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the might forever and ever. Amen.

[Rev 5:10 LSB]  “And You made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they will reign upon the earth.”

We have direct access to the Throne through Yeshua:

[Heb 4:16 LSB]  Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

[Heb 10:19-22 LSB]  Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Yeshua, [20]  by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, [21]  and since we have a great priest over the house of God, [22]  let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Believers are invited to come directly to God through Christ’s blood — not through a priestly system of confession and absolution.
Which brings us to the next step in the sacrament of penance. In order to be restored to a state of grace, the repentant sinner has to perform works of satisfaction.

Rome says that justification requires faith plus works, grace plus merit, Christ plus inherent righteousness.

Scripture says that adding all of the above undermines the Gospel:

[Gal 2:20-21 LSB]  “I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. And the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. [21]  “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”

Rome teaches that works of satisfaction produce merit, but it makes a sharp distinction between kinds of merit. Condign merit is so meritorious it demands a reward. God would be unjust if He did not reward works that were condignly meritorious.

However, the merit that is acquired through works of satisfaction in the sacrament of penance do not rise to the level of condign merit; these works produce congruous merit. This is real merit, but it is dependent on previous grace.  Is anyone as confused as I am by this point?  I don't remember reading about ANY of this in Scripture... do you?

So, long story short (too late?), if a person goes through the sacrament of penance, and does the works of satisfaction prescribed by the priest, it is congruous (or fitting) for God to restore that person to a state of justification.

Mankind should never be taught that any work they do can add in any way to the satisfaction for our sin that was accomplished by Christ ALONE.  Nevertheless, Rome continues to teach that works are involved in justification.

Yeshua's sacrifice was complete and sufficient:

[Heb 9:12 LSB]  and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy places once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

[Heb 10:18 LSB]  Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

If Christ’s one sacrifice perfectly and eternally paid for sin, then no additional works of satisfaction are needed from us. Adding them implies Christ’s work was incomplete. Salvation and forgiveness are free gifts which can come from Yahweh through Yeshua. Nobody can earn either by any type of work. [Rom 4:4-5 LSB]  Now to the one who works, his wage is not counted according to grace, but according to what is due. [5]  But to the one who does not work, but believes upon Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 

Catholicism - Baptism

Baptism

Roman Catholic theologians applied Aristotle’s thinking on causes to the doctrine of justification, they identified the instrumental cause of justification—the tool by which a person is brought into a state of grace—as the sacrament of baptism.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - mixing pagan Greek philosophy with Christian doctrine is a recipe for disaster!  
Scripture tells us in John 3:16, 18, 36

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned…” Salvation is repeatedly, all throughout Scripture, tied to believing, not to the act of baptism. Paul separates baptism from the Gospel:

[1Co 1:17 LSB]  For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to proclaim the gospel, not in wisdom of word, so that the cross of Christ will not be made empty.

If a person is baptized, that person is automatically placed in a state of grace or in the state of justification according to Rome. The Roman Catholic Church is quick to say it does not like to use the word automatic, because there has to be a certain predisposition in the recipient of baptism; at the very least, he or she must have no hostility toward the reception of the sacrament in order for it to function.

Obviously, my first question is:  How can a baby, getting sprinkled with water, have any predisposition at all?  Most of the time, it pisses them off - is this considered hostility?

In any case, Rome has a high view of the efficacy of baptism to bring a person into a state of grace. This is because, in the sacrament of baptism, grace is said to be infused or poured into the soul.

What does Peter tell us?  He tells us that baptism is a symbol, not a cause:

[1Pe 3:21 LSB]  Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal of a good conscience to God—through the resurrection of Yeshua Christ,

Peter is writing to suffering Christians, encouraging them to endure persecution. He compares their situation to Noah’s day: Noah and his family were saved through water (the flood) while the world was judged. Peter says baptism is the New Testament “corresponding figure” (Greek: antitupon, "antitype") to the flood. Baptism does not save by the physical act, "removal of dirt", but as a symbol of faith and a good conscience toward God. Peter is not saying water baptism itself saves anyone. He immediately qualifies it. Peter explicitly denies that baptism saves by the physical act of washing, "not the removal of dirt from the flesh". It is not the water that saves. It means a sincere, inward commitment or appeal to God from a good conscience. Baptism is the outward sign of an inward reality: a heart that trusts in Christ and seeks cleansing from God. The saving power comes through Christ’s resurrection, not the water. Baptism is effective only because Jesus rose from the dead, conquering sin and death. Romans 6:3–4 and Colossians 2:12 are also interpreted as symbolic of spiritual union with Christ’s death and resurrection, not as the cause of regeneration.

[Rom 6:3-4 LSB]  Or do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Yeshua were baptized into His death? [4]  Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. [Col 2:12 LSB]  having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. Protestants believe that a person is justified when the righteousness of Christ is imputed or credited to his account. We also believe that our sins were imputed to Christ on the cross, that is, they were placed in His account, and He paid for them.  Protestants also believe that baptism is symbolic and unnecessary for salvation. So Protestants see a double imputation. But Rome believes in infusion, which is the view that the righteousness of Christ is actually put into the believer, so that the person is actually righteous. The righteousness of Christ is not simply credited to the person’s account; it actually becomes the person’s possession.  

Scripture, explicitly tells us that the Biblical Gospel, the Truth, that the moment a person possesses saving faith, he is transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light, his sins are taken away, he is declared to be just on the basis of the righteousness of Christ, and he is adopted into the family of God.

Catholicism - Doctrine of Justification

Doctrine of Justification

Part of the disagreement over justification stems from the meaning of the word justification itself.

The English word justification is derived from the Latin term justificare, which literally means "to make righteous".  The early Latin fathers, who studied the Scriptures by means of the Vulgate (the 4th century Latin translation of the Bible by Jerome) rather than the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) and the Greek New Testament, developed their doctrine of justification based on their understanding of the legal system of the Roman Empire.

I don't think we need an "understanding of the legal system" as Paul spelled it out pretty clearly:

[Rom 5:1 LSB]  Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Yeshua Christ,

In time, the doctrine of justification came to address the question of how an unrighteous person, a fallen sinner, can be made righteous. In the development of the doctrine of justification in Rome, the idea emerged that justification occurs after sanctification. That is, in order to be declared just, we first must be sanctified to the point that we exhibit a righteousness that is acceptable to God.

What does Scripture tell us?

[Rom 3:9-12 LSB]  What then? Are we better? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; [10]  as it is written, “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; [11]  THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; [12]  ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME WORTHLESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.”

[Rom 3:28 LSB]  For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Abraham was justified by faith before works:

[Rom 4:1-3 LSB]  What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? [2]  For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about—but not before God! [3]  For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS COUNTED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”

[Rom 4:5 LSB]  But to the one who does not work, but believes upon Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

[Rom 11:6 LSB]  But if it is by grace, it is no longer of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

[Gal 2:16 LSB]  nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Yeshua Christ, even we have believed in Christ Yeshua, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

[Gal 3:10-11 LSB]  For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse, for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO DO THEM.” [11]  Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident, for “THE RIGHTEOUS SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”

[Eph 2:8-9 LSB]  For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; [9]  not of works, so that no one may boast.

[Tit 3:5 LSB]  He saved us, not by works which we did in righteousness, but according to His mercy, through the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

[Isa 64:6 LSB]  For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, carry us away.

The Greek meaning of the concept of justification, which was the Greek word dikaioo, which means "to declare righteous" rather than "to make righteous".  So, in Protestantism, justification was understood to come before the process of sanctification.

From the Roman perspective, justification is a function of the sacerdotal operations of the church; that is, justification takes place primarily through the use of the sacraments, beginning with the sacrament of baptism.

Rome says that the sacrament of baptism, among others, functions ex opere operato, which literally means "through the working of the work".

Catholicism - Introduction

Part 1

Introduction

I'm posting a series on Catholicism.  Having been surrounded by catholicism while growing up, I feel the need for discussion on this for the sake of my family.  The purpose of these posts is not to bash catholics, but to pose the question:

Does Catholicism preach a different Gospel?

The vast majority of people who call themselves "Protestants" have little knowledge of what they are "protesting". 

If you ask them, "Why are you Protestant rather than Roman Catholic?" they will say, "Well, I don’t believe I need to confess my sins to a priest", or, "I don’t believe the pope is infallible", or, "I don’t believe in the bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven", or something of that sort.

All of the above are valid concerns and will be addressed.

The main "protest" should be the question of how a sinner finds salvation in Christ.

Luther asserted that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is the article upon which the church stands or falls.  Where did he get this idea?  Scripture.

If the Reformation articulation of the biblical doctrine of justification was correct (and I believe that it was), to anathematize it was to anathematize the Gospel.  If any communion claims to be Christian but denies or condemns an essential truth of Christianity, at that point that organization shows itself to be apostate and no longer a true or valid church.

There can be no unity unless one side surrenders, because the two positions are completely incompatible.  Someone is right and someone is wrong, and the one who has significantly distorted the New Testament Gospel deserves condemnation.

[Gal 1:8 LSB]  But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to the gospel we have proclaimed to you, let him be accursed!

One only needs to look to the thief on the cross next to Yeshua to see how one is reconciled.  Was the thief baptized?  Did he understand justification, sanctification, sacraments, etc.?  No - it was faith in Yeshua alone!

[Act 16:31 LSB]  And they said, “Believe in the Lord Yeshua, and you will be saved, you and your house.”

Israel

One tiny nation yet the center of the world. Why is that?  

I’ll try to give the nutshell overview… I’ve spent literally 30 years (off and on) studying eschatology (study of end-time events).  There’s no way I can give the full story in one note.

If you believe in the prophecy found in the Bible, we’re just getting started.  Seriously… you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

The reason Israel is always at the center of world headlines is because they are God’s chosen people. This goes all the way back to Adam & Eve in the book of Genesis.

It is here that we find the first prophecy of the coming Messiah.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between you [Satan] and the woman [Eve], and between your seed and her seed; He [Yeshua] shall bruise you [Satan] on the head, And you [Satan] shall bruise Him [Yeshua] on the heel.”

The English translation doesn’t quite do the original Hebrew justice.  The implication is that Christ will crush his skull - putting an end to Satan’s centuries old task.

According to Scripture there are basically only two family trees that matter.  The “seed” of Satan and the “seed” of God.  Scripture often refers to these two lines as the children of Satan and the children of God.

The “seed” spoken of in the passage above is referring to Yeshua.  The Christ was born through Jewish lineage.  This is why you see the long list of lineages in the Bible… most people go “ugh! I ain’t reading all of this!” and just skip over those passages.

All of these recorded lineages show us that Yeshua was born according to the prophecies.  From Abraham, Isaac, Jacob on down to king David, etc., Yeshua was born from this Jewish lineage.

When Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, and God gave him the ten commandments - this was basically a marriage certificate between the children of Israel and God.  When they ignored their marriage vows, they were punished - continuing down to this day.  

One of those punishments included God blinding them to their Messiah.  This is why they rejected Yeshua the first time and crucified Him.  When He returns the second time, God has promised to lift their blindness.  They will look upon, and recognize, the One they pierced and mourn.  They will finally recognize their Messiah for Who He is.

Before that happens (the return of Yeshua) there were several prophecies that needed to be fulfilled.  Just to name a few - Israelites would need to begin returning to the land that God has promised them.  This was realized in 1948.  In 1967 Jerusalem was back under their control.  Both Biblical prophecies.

With the rise of Islam on a global level, we’re also seeing more Biblical prophecy fulfilled.  Yes - Islam!  There’s a coming Islamic Caliphate and the Antichrist will be leading this motley crew.  This also has a long history - going back to Cain and Abel,  Isaac versus Ishmael, Jacob versus Esau, etc.  It’s what the Bible refers to as the “olam ebah”, or the ancient hatred.

The specific prophecy we’re watching for now is the beginning of sacrifices in Jerusalem again.  Once this starts, which could be much sooner than most realize, the Antichrist (seed of Satan) will put an end to the sacrifices and thrash Israel.  This is a very specific end-time prophecy that stems from the Book of Daniel.  It’s referring to Daniel’s 70th week.

The point is, once we see this occur, what Daniel referred to as the abomination of desolation, we’ll know that there is only a short time left.  This is the act that signals the beginning of the “Great Tribulation” - the final half of Daniel’s 70th week.  A lot of Christians don’t realize that the great tribulation is NOT God’s wrath - according to Revelation 12:12, it is Satan’s wrath.  The first half is referred to as the “beginning of birth pangs”.

This also signals one of the most often spoken prophecies… the Day of the Lord.  Or, God’s wrath upon the unrepentant world.  When God’s wrath begins, Satan’s wrath is over. 

What happens then?  Yeshua returns to earth and sets up His Kingdom, ruling and reigning from Mount Zion.  Jerusalem will literally be the capital of the world and re-united with their Messiah.

Everything that we’re seeing in the headlines now is leading up to what is spoken of in Daniel.  Not only Daniel, but several other Old Testament prophets, New Testament writers, and of course - the Book of Revelation.

Lot to absorb?  Yeah… I know.  I’ve got a ka-jillion blogs which fill in all the blanks above.  The point is this - Israel is the apple of Yahweh’s eye.  He’s not done with them yet.  They will continue to be the center of world conflict until Yeshua puts an end to it Himself.

Believe me, this is only the nutshell version.