Unstoppable Force Meets Immovable Object

immov1Secularism is an unstoppable force that has met the Church, an immovable object. Which will win?

Like many of you, my thoughts have been with Pope Benedict. I watched today as he left the Vatican and flew to Castel Gandolfo. Like many of you, I have a great filial love for him. We have been blessed by his pontificate. And I place no stock in the media innuendos and rumor-mongering concerning his retirement.

He prayed; God showed him that it was time to retire; he obeyed.

The Church has thus far held out against the rising tide of secularism: moral relativism, the liberal agenda regarding same-sex “marriage,” female clergy, and all the rest. But surely she cannot hold out much longer? It feels to most people that there is an ineluctability to the secular storm that has successfully swept the West and much of the rest of the world.

It wouldn’t take much. Just one pope getting in there and changing one dogma. The Church has old men and something called “Tradition,” but so what? The Anglicans appeared for centuries to have that too, and look at them now. Folding faster than a bad hand of cards. Human tradition isn’t strong enough to stop the progress toward Utopia that secularism is promising to bring the world. Neither are old men. Because they die, and younger men take their place, eventually men formed to understand how good secularism is for people, how true it is.

Yet the Catholic Church says No to divorce, No to contraception, No to same-sex acts, etc. She says No to these because of course she says Yes to life-long marriage, Yes to life-giving love, Yes to fruitful union and gift of self. Ridiculous anachronisms, says the secular world. Laughably archaic and even viciously hateful.

All it takes is one pope to get in there and reverse dogma. Not hard to do, as all Protestant denominations have fallen in one way or another. If Catholicism is false, as secularism knows it must be, then it will fall, too. If it is only human, as it must be, it will cave.

The stage is set. The battle lines drawn. A new opportunity opens before us with the retirement of Pope Benedict. A new pope will be elected. And while he may be “conservative” like Benedict, it is only a matter of time, secularism knows, before one will be an “enlightened” man, a man like President Obama for instance.

As Willy Wonka says, “the suspense is terrible; I hope it’ll last.

But, the Immovable Object has not moved yet. Been about 2,000 years. When I was a Protestant, and anti-Catholic, I recall hearing the ridiculous doctrines about the Church not erring on faith and morals. I started looking into it, reading the anti-Catholic websites about this or that pope over the centuries.

But each case where the pope or Church had allegedly taught heresy as truth, was flimsy, weak. I knew there had to be an airtight, obvious example of the Church reversing dogma, or the pope officially teaching heresy, somewhere in history. Not just a pope or bishop privately holding some heterodox belief, but the Church proclaiming it with her full authority.

Alas, I never found it. And I was disposed to believe any credible example that I could find. I wanted to find such a case. Yet I didn’t. And the more I looked into them, the more I realized that the Catholic claims held up, even though I didn’t believe in the Catholic Church’s teachings. This was a question of self-consistency, not whether or not I believed in the Marian dogmas or not.

The Church’s self-consistency alone did not move me to Catholicism. But it disturbed me enough to keep looking. I smelled blood in the water, and just needed to find the dead animal to declare that the game was up on Catholicism. I looked and looked, read and read, talked to all my Evangelical friends, and came up with…nothing. It was then that I began to seriously consider that the Catholic Church might be what she claimed to be.

So I say, bring on the battle again. The Immovable Object cannot move. The unstoppable force is really stoppable. Christ dealt it a mortal wound long ago, and it is bleeding out the last drops in our era. Christ’s Church will soldier on past this current fight and take on the next challenger that comes.

It turns out that the astonishing, yet simple reality is that “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Thanks be to God for His Church, and for Pope Benedict and the next Holy Father!

Share
This entry was posted in Catholic Life. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Unstoppable Force Meets Immovable Object

  1. Martina says:

    Great reflection! The battle lines *have* been drawn and now is the time for the faithful to be vocal as the media wrongly speculates on the next pope being “open to change” or, as one news station questioned {roughly paraphrased} while interviewing a cardinal, how do you {the cardinal elect} pick a new pope…complete face palm since they casually left off the part about it being the will of the Holy Spirit and not some action on the part of fallible men. And *this* is precisely why we need more faithful and loud voices in the media. The secular world is only concerned with this because it’s a world event, history. They will have no use for it once the next pope is revealed to us. It will be business as usual for them.

  2. Pope *Emeritus* B16 you mean. ;-)

    Great post Devin. Love the rock in river pic. The search you describe for the inevitable instance of a big reversal on a doctrine is what really “wowed” me on my way accross the Tiber. Theological, philosophical, and reasoned arguments are great, but when you look at the historical anomally which is the Catholic Church, in her very existence, and her holding to a single doctrine, it make the spine tingle how weird it is.

  3. Stefanie says:

    I really enjoyed reading this post, Devin. I am so tired of hearing some “Catholics” talk about wanting a more “liberal” Pope. If that’s what they want, why aren’t they converting to Protestant faiths in droves?

    • Devin Rose says:

      Stefanie,

      It is much more fun and worthwhile-seeming for people to stay in the Catholic Church and “protest” than just join a Protestant church that agrees with their (erroneous) beliefs. Otherwise you just become another Protestant and no one cares that you are yelling for women’s ordination. :)

  4. Bob says:

    Devin,
    There is no papacy i.e. supreme leader of the entire church in Scripture (except the Lord Jesus). There is such position in the NT church mentioned in Scripture for a pope. In fact there is no such evidence for it in the 1st century either. So if you are looking for evidence where your church has erred in its claims this is a good place to start.

    • De Maria says:

      Your churches caved in years ago Bob. You don’t even understand what is being discussed. You embrace divorce and remarriage, a sin which Jesus called adultery.

      You embrace the sin of contraception. You wanted to defend its Biblical nature in another discussion.

      Now, the Protestant denominations are one by one, caving in to the secular culture. But the Catholic Church never will. Because Christ is still at the helm, directing His Vicar and His Magisterium by the grace of the Holy Spirit and united in God the Father.

      You have no idea what you are talking about.

  5. Martina says:

    Bob,

    You’d be surprised at how MUCH Sacred Scripture points to Peter being the first pope, the first authority among the Apostles.

    If there was no need for the papacy, explain why Christ would have singled out Peter vs. the other Apostles. Explain why Peter was the one to act with authority in many instances laced through Scripture and explain why his name is used a total of 191 times in Scripture vs. the 138 times of all the other Apostles COMBINED.

    Lastly, explain what the point would be in trying to dismiss the authority given to the seat of Peter. What is ultimately the point you are trying to make? That we are all our own little mini popes? That without central authority given to the Church by Christ and guarded by the Magesterium and guided by the Holy Spirit that we can all remain in unity with Christ because we are all filled with the Spirit? If that’s the case, explain the countless divisions among mainstream Christianity apart from the Catholic Church. Dear brother in Christ, maybe *those* questions ought to be a starting point for *you*. :)

    • Bob says:

      Hi Martina,
      It is true that Peter’s name is mentioned a lot in the NT. However, he was not the only leader in the church. James for example in Acts 15 makes the decision for the first council of the church. Also, none of the other apostles in their writings ever refer to Peter as the supreme leader of the entire church. None ever defer to him as having some special place of honor. We also know from the 2 letters he wrote that he never refers to himself as the supreme leader of the church. Lastly, there is no such position as pope i.e. supreme leader mentioned in the structure of the church such as in Eph 2:20.

      The church for centuries did not have one supreme leader i.e. pope and it flourished without it. We know this just be studying the church in 1st century where we find no evidence of a papacy. Take the claim that Linus was the next pope after Peter. The problem is that there is no evidence that he was the supreme leader of the entire church. There is no letter from him commanding the entire church nor is there any evidence that other churches looked at him as the supreme leader of the church. What this tells us is that there was no papacy then.

      I don’t see much unity among RC’s. There is church teachings and what we find in many cases are RC’s ignoring these teachings on a broad range of issues such as abortion and homosexuality.

      • Martina says:

        Bob,

        I think you are mistaken. I’ll refer you to this blog post – I’ve heard the argument about St. James, but this post will go into greater explanation than I have time to offer. I wish you the best in your quest to learn about Church history. :)

        http://electingthepope.net/question/who-was-the-first-pope/

      • De Maria says:

        Hi Martina,
        It is true that Peter’s name is mentioned a lot in the NT.

        It might have been to subtle for you. Perhaps you didn’t notice that he is always listed first.

        However, he was not the only leader in the church. James for example in Acts 15 makes the decision for the first council of the church.

        St. James followed the course which St. Peter set:
        Acts 15:
        7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
        8 And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us;
        9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
        10 Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
        11 But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also.
        12 And all the multitude held their peace;

        Also, none of the other apostles in their writings ever refer to Peter as the supreme leader of the entire church.

        Yours is an argument from silence. Essentially admitting you have no evidence. However, we have the evidence of what the Scriptures say. And in Scripture, he is nearly always referred to as Peter, meaning Rock, a name given Him by Christ to symbolize that He is walking in His stead.

        None ever defer to him as having some special place of honor.

        Another argument from silence. But we note that he said:
        Acts 15:7
        And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

        And only St. Peter receives the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven:
        Matthew 16:19
        Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
        19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

        We also know from the 2 letters he wrote that he never refers to himself as the supreme leader of the church.

        More arguing from silence. But this time you also show your true colors. You are in the world and your eyes expect to see what you would see in the world. But Christians do not Lord it over one another. St. Peter was appointed the servant of the servants of God. As such he is the humblest of men. He has written precisely as we expect a man of God.

        Lastly, there is no such position as pope i.e. supreme leader mentioned in the structure of the church such as in Eph 2:20.

        There’s more to Scripture than Eph 2:20. We also have Jesus appointing St. Peter as Shepherd over His Flock:

        John 21:15-17
        Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
        15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
        16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
        17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

        The church for centuries did not have one supreme leader i.e. pope and it flourished without it.

        The Church always had a Pope, St. Peter was the first.

        We know this just be studying the church in 1st century where we find no evidence of a papacy.

        You reject all the evidence presented to you, which is a different thing all together.

        Take the claim that Linus was the next pope after Peter. The problem is that there is no evidence that he was the supreme leader of the entire church. There is no letter from him commanding the entire church nor is there any evidence that other churches looked at him as the supreme leader of the church. What this tells us is that there was no papacy then.

        Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It has been 2000 years since the time of Linus and many documents have been lost. However, the memory of the Church still remembers him as one of our first popes.

        I don’t see much unity among RC’s.

        What do you see in the Protestant churches? That will tell me whether you are sane or not. If you see unity in the Protestant churches but not unity in the Catholic Church, then I will know that you are not in touch with reality.

        There is church teachings and what we find in many cases are RC’s ignoring these teachings on a broad range of issues such as abortion and homosexuality.

        The sins of Catholics are not because of the Church but in spite of it. However, the subject of this article is partly about the unity and perseverance in righteousness of the Catholic Church. And partly about the lack of such perseverence in righteousness in your denominations. All of which have caved in one way or another to secular society and its anti-Christian lifestyle.

  6. We Lutherans believe that “the Rock” is the confession of faith in Jesus Christ.

    Christ is the Solid Rock.

    __

    Jesus said, “When the Son of Man returns to earth with His holy angels, will He find faith?”

    Will there even be any? I’m sure there will be plenty of self-focused religion. There has always been lots of that. But faith in the finished work of Christ on the Cross for sinners? That is a whole nuther matter.

    • Bob says:

      Steve,
      The RC would have to say you are wrong. You both can’t be right.

      • De Maria says:

        Which goes to show that you don’t understand the Word of God.

        Protestants don’t seem to understand the idea of “metaphor”. To say that Christ is the Rock or that Simon is the Rock or that Simon’s confession is the Rock is not to expect to see them buried under the Church.

        They are metaphors. The Church uses metaphors which make sense.

        In one sense, it is true that Christ built the Church upon the Rock of Peter’s confession.

        In one sense it is also true Christ built the Church upon the Rock of Peter.

        In another sense, it is true that our personal faith is built upon the foundation of Christ.

        All these metaphors are true. The Church accepts them all and that is why the Church teaches the fullness of truth.

        • Bob says:

          If Peter is the rock that the church is supposedly built on then why is there not a hint of it in any of the letters? Why is it that none of the apostles call Peter the rock?

          • De Maria says:

            Because its in Scripture. Matt 16:18

            • Bob says:

              Again, where do the apostles call Peter the rock on which the church is built? Matt 16
              :18 is not about a Jesus building His church on Peter the man but on His profession of faith in Christ as the Son of God.

              This is why I’m asking you to show from the letters of the apostles where they refer to Peter as the rock on which church is built. Where does Peter say he is the rock on which the church is built on? After all, if anyone knew what this means it would be him and he says nothing about it.

              • De Maria says:

                Bob says:
                March 3, 2013 at 11:57 am
                Again, where do the apostles call Peter the rock on which the church is built?

                Matt 16:18

                is not about a Jesus building His church on Peter the man but on His profession of faith in Christ as the Son of God.

                How does that help you? Whether it is on his profession or on his person, it remains a metaphor.

                If it is on his profession of faith, it is because he is expressing his faithfulness and God wants us all to imitate Peter in this regard.

                If it is on Peter it is because he is expressing his faith in God and God wants us to imitate Peter in this regard.

                How does it help you to say it is his faith and not Peter? How do you even separate Peter from his faith? It is Peter who spoke the words, is it not?

                This is why I’m asking you to show from the letters of the apostles where they refer to Peter as the rock on which church is built.

                Before Jesus named him Peter, his name was Simon. But Peter is the name Jesus gave him signifying that Simon is the Rock upon whom He has built His Church. Everytime they call him Peter, the Apostles are showing that they accept the word of Jesus Christ.

                Where does Peter say he is the rock on which the church is built on?

                It is enough for me that Jesus said it. It is typical of the lack of faith which is prevalent in the Protestant community, that the word of Jesus Christ is not enough to convince them of truth.

                After all, if anyone knew what this means it would be him and he says nothing about it.

                He assumes that Christians have learned the Word of God and have believed it. He assumes that Christians believe what Jesus Christ has said about him.

                Why is the word of Jesus Christ not enough for you? He says the bread is His flesh. You deny it.

                He says Peter is the Rock. You deny it.

                He says that you must keep the Ten Commandments. You deny it.

                Is there any part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ which you accept?

  7. You are right, Bob.

    But we believe in the power of the gospel to create and sustain faith…wherever it announced.

    There are Christians and unbelievers in all churches where the gospel for the forgiveness of sins is declared for sinners. Christ knows His Church. And it is not limited to Rome.

    • De Maria says:

      We never claimed it was limited to Rome. However, we do claim that the Protestant religions teach a great deal of unbiblical error. And it remains the job of Christ’s Church to attempt to correct those errors where ever they are encountered:
      2 Timothy 4:2
      Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
      2 Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine.

      • Really?

        Then why won’t you open up your communion railings to us, if we are brothers and sisters in Christ, also?

        Our communion rails are open to you…and ALL baptized Christians who believe that the Lord is truly present in the meal.

        • And we don’t believe that your doctrine (works plus grace plus a Pope) is all that hot. And we believe it is unbiblical.

          • De Maria says:

            Martin,

            for some reason, my other response wound up down at the bottom.

            You said,
            Steve Martin says:
            March 2, 2013 at 11:50 pm
            And we don’t believe that your doctrine (works plus grace plus a Pope) is all that hot. And we believe it is unbiblical.

            I’ve never heard of that doctrine. But, I guarantee you are referring to a Catholic Doctrine, it is in Scripture either explicitly or implied.

            I can’t say the same for all the doctrines of the Protestants though. Any Protestant doctrine which conflicts with Catholic Doctrine, will also conflict with the Bible.

  8. Augustine says:

    Excellent post! Apropos: http://bit.ly/WtxR6d :-D

    May the Lord continue to bless the Church with shepherds after His very heart.

    PS: will these hyperlinks work: and :-D

  9. Fernando says:

    Awesome! You have just touched upon the indefectiblity of the Catholic Church which will always remain, for hearts open to the truth, a great motive for credibility. With Christ as her foundation, She will remain immovable. St. Augustine has said it before, “The Church will totter when her foundation totters. But how shall Christ totter? … “

  10. Bob says:

    Remember: you are the one making the claim that Peter was head of the entire church. This means you bear the burden of proof to show the facts for this claim. Even you have admitted there is an absence of evidence.

    You can’t even demonstrate that Linus was the head of the entire church because there is no evidence for. There is nothing there to support this claim.

    • De Maria says:

      Bob says:
      March 3, 2013 at 12:44 am
      Remember: you are the one making the claim that Peter was head of the entire church. This means you bear the burden of proof to show the facts for this claim.

      You have no idea what “burden of proof” means. Let me explain. When we ask you to show us Sola Scriptura from Scripture, because YOU claim it is in Scripture, you say it is we who must to it. Apparently, it becomes our burden to disprove Sola. Even though it is you claiming it.

      Now, you want to disprove the authority of the Pope in the early Church, but you claim it is our burden to prove something which has been true for over 2000 years.

      In both cases, you are the one trying to introduce the new doctrine. In both cases you are the one trying to convince us that the errors of the Protestants are true.

      The burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders.

      Even you have admitted there is an absence of evidence.

      On the contrary, there is evidence everywhere. But you deny it and reject it. That is your personal problem Bob. We trust the Church. You distrust everything but your own understanding.

      You can’t even demonstrate that Linus was the head of the entire church because there is no evidence for. There is nothing there to support this claim.

      Linus is described as Pope in the witness of history. Why do we need more? We are satisfied. You are not. It is not our job to satisfy you.

      • Bob says:

        I do bear the burden of proof for my claims such as Sola Scriptura. I have demonstrated to you what it is point by point and you have never refuted it. For example, do you deny that the Scripture is inerrant and inspired by God? Do you deny that it alone is inspired-inerrant? All you need to do is to demonstrate that another source is inspired-inerrant in the church. Your tradition are not. So what else can there be?

        You bear the proof for the claims of your church such as indulgences, Mary’s immaculate conception and being without sin. You have tried to use the Scripture in a way that is wrong by trying to make it mean something when it does not. Stating that “Hail favored” one in regards to Mary means she is without sin is one example how you warp the Scripture to support your doctrine when the meaning of the word has nothing to do with sin or conception.

        Linus was not the supreme leader of the entire church in the first century. There is no evidence anyone or any church looked at him like this nor did he make such a claim about himself that he was the supreme leader of the entire church. What you are doing is reading your doctrines back into history so it can support its claim there has always been a papacy. The problem is that the facts of history don’t support it in the first century.

        Now I know you are not satisfied with this and must believe it despite there is no evidence for it.

        • De Maria says:

          Bob says:
          March 3, 2013 at 11:45 am
          I do bear the burden of proof for my claims such as Sola Scriptura. I have demonstrated to you what it is point by point and you have never refuted it.

          All your efforts to prove it have been refuted.

          You claimed that Sola Scripture is the “sole rule of faith for Christians”. We asked you to provide the Scripture which says that. You never produced it.

          And in rebuttal, we provided several Scriptures which say that:
          1. The Church is a rule of faith:
          Matthew 18:17
          Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
          17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

          Priests are rulers in the faith:
          Hebrews 13:7
          Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
          7 Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation,

          And that Sacred Tradition is a rule of faith:
          2 Thessalonians 2:14
          Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

          For example, do you deny that the Scripture is inerrant and inspired by God?

          It has already been shown you that the Scripture says:
          2 Peter 1:19-21
          Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
          19 And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
          20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
          21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

          Therefore, the same Church which wrote the Scriptures without error, first taught the Traditions without error.

          Do you deny that it alone is inspired-inerrant?

          Do you deny that Scripture says that men were inspired by the Holy Ghost to write the Scriptures?

          All you need to do is to demonstrate that another source is inspired-inerrant in the church.

          It has been demonstrated to you over and over.

          Your tradition are not.

          The Sacred Traditions of the Catholic Church are without error because the Holy Ghost inspired Holy men to speak them.

          So what else can there be?

          Sacred Tradition, the Word of God which is the basis of the New Testament.

          You bear the proof for the claims of your church such as indulgences, Mary’s immaculate conception and being without sin.

          On the contrary, you are the one trying to persuade us they are not true. I have provided all the evidence from the Church which I deem necessary to persuade me that they are true.

          You are a Protestant on a Catholic website trying to persuade Catholics not to follow the Catholic Church. Therefore, YOU bear the burden of proof.

          You have tried to use the Scripture in a way that is wrong

          First of all, you have no authority to tell me how to use the Scriptures. Are you my priest? Are you the Pope? I gather the answer to both of those questions is, “no.” Therefore, you are just sharing your opinions. Opinions which carry no weight with me.

          You have tried to use the Scripture in a way that is wrong by trying to make it mean something when it does not.

          On the contrary, you and every Protestant use the Scriptures in the way you describe. You and every Protestant ties to say that Scripture is saying something which it is clearly not saying. A blatant example is Sola Fide. Scripture says:
          James 2:24
          Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

          Stating that “Hail favored” one in regards to Mary means she is without sin is one example how you warp the Scripture to support your doctrine when the meaning of the word has nothing to do with sin or conception.

          It has to do with her being “ever full of grace”. And where one is full of grace, there is no sin.

          Linus was not the supreme leader of the entire church in the first century.

          That is simply your unsupported opinion. I don’t trust your opinions. I trust the opinion of the Church and the Early Church Fathers.

          There is no evidence anyone or any church looked at him like this nor did he make such a claim about himself that he was the supreme leader of the entire church.

          The key words there are, “there is no evidence.” That is true. Yours is an argument from silence.

          But ours is the argument from the testimony of the Church from the earliest times.

          What you are doing is reading your doctrines back into history so it can support its claim there has always been a papacy. The problem is that the facts of history don’t support it in the first century.

          The Papacy was established by Christ and is recorded in the Scriptures. History merely supports this facts.

          Now I know you are not satisfied with this and must believe it despite there is no evidence for it.

          And I know that you will twist Scripture, Tradition and History to try to persuade people to leave the Kingdom of God and come to the errors passed down by your tradition of men. But by the grace of God, He will sustain us in the truth.

  11. De Maria says:


    Steve Martin says:
    March 2, 2013 at 11:48 pm
    Really?

    Really.

    Then why won’t you open up your communion railings to us, if we are brothers and sisters in Christ, also?

    For your own good, have you not read in Scripture?
    1 Corinthians 11:29
    For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

    Consubstantiation is not transubstantiation. Your belief is marred with error. If we allowed you to eat of the Bread of Life, you would heap condemnation on yourself.

    Our communion rails are open to you…

    Not interested. Your communion is not a partaking of the Divine Nature.

    and ALL baptized Christians who believe that the Lord is truly present in the meal.

    The Lord is present in the Catholic Eucharist. Lutherans do not have a valid communion because they don’t have valid orders.

    However, we do consider you fellow Christians. That is why there is a council going on to bring the Lutheran faith back in the fold.

    • DeMaria,

      The Catholic Church claims to know how Christ is present in the Supper. How? It is found nowhere in Holy Scripture (just how). Maybe a bit of Gnosticism?

      In any event, it doesn’t matter how. It only matters that He is.

      On this, we are correct. We don’t have so much pride that we are willing to exclude others from the meal that Christ instituted for sinners. And we don’t have so much pride that we believe that we are the only TRUE game in town.

      I do think that Rome will have to answer for that, one Day.

      • De Maria says:

        DeMaria,

        The Catholic Church claims to know how Christ is present in the Supper. How?

        By the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Have you not read in Scripture:
        John 6:52
        If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

        It is found nowhere in Holy Scripture (just how). Maybe a bit of Gnosticism?

        It is found frequently in Scripture, but you deny it.

        Matthew 26:26
        And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.

        Mark 14:22
        And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body.

        Luke 22:19
        And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.

        1 Corinthians 10:16
        The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord ?

        Jesus did not say, take and eat, my body is mingled with this bread. Jesus said that the bread which He gives is His flesh for the life of the world.

        In any event, it doesn’t matter how. It only matters that He is.

        Exactly. Not that He is mingled with.

        On this, we are correct. We don’t have so much pride that we are willing to exclude others from the meal that Christ instituted for sinners. And we don’t have so much pride that we believe that we are the only TRUE game in town.

        That is not pride. That is humility. The Catholic Church has the humility to obey the Word of God.

        I do think that Rome will have to answer for that, one Day.

        Yes. She will be exalted as the Bride of Christ and the City of God, on that Holy Day. On that same day, many Protesstants will be receiving the reward for their efforts or lack thereof, the fruits of faith alone.

        And many others will be receiving the reward for their efforts to spread man made doctrine. The fruits of Sola Scriptura.

        And many more will be receiving the reward of spreading their doctrine of disobedience to God’s Holy Church. The fruits of the Protestant Reformation.

        • It never says how. It just says that it is.

          If only I belonged to the right ‘club’…then maybe I’d have a chance.

          Our Lord is no respecter of church clubs. But of the obedience of faith.

          No church holds a monopoly on that.

          • De Maria says:

            Steve Martin says:
            March 3, 2013 at 3:52 pm
            It never says how. It just says that it is.

            Exactly. It says that it is His Body.

            If only I belonged to the right ‘club’…then maybe I’d have a chance.

            Our Lord is no respecter of church clubs. But of the obedience of faith.

            No church holds a monopoly on that.

            You keep accusing the Church of teaching something that it doesn’t teach:
            “Outside the Church there is no salvation”

            846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

            Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
            847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

            Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
            848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”338

            The Catholic Church is in complete agreement with Scripture. But Protestants have twisted the gospel beyond recognition:

            Revelation 22:13-15
            King James Version (KJV)
            13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

            14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

            15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

            Scripture interprets Scripture:
            Romans 2:1-13
            King James Version (KJV)
            1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

            2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

            3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

            4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

            5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

            6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

            7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

            8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

            9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

            10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

            11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

            12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

            13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

            See also Matt 25:31-46

  12. Bob says:

    If we want to know what Jesus meant about the church and how it was to be structured the best place to look is in the letters. If Peter was the rock in which the church was to be built on then we need to see what the other apostles said about it also. What we find is that none of the other apostles ever claim that the church is built on Peter the man. None ever refer to him as the supreme leader of the church nor does he himself.
    What this shows is that the NT church did not understand Christ’s words in Matt 16:18 as the church being built on Peter the man. Rather they understood as Eph 2:20- having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,…

    • De Maria says:

      Bob says:
      March 3, 2013 at 1:17 pm
      If we want to know what Jesus meant about the church and how it was to be structured the best place to look is in the letters…..

      Bob? Who elected you our instructor? We follow the Teaching of Jesus Christ and the structure of the Church begins in the Gospels.

      Jesus Christ appointed St. Peter the Rock and since you reject Jesus’ word, there is nothing left for us but to reject yours.

      • Bob says:

        Christ gave to the church pastor-teachers to teach the Scriptures.
        You may think you follow the teachings of Christ but your church has doctrines that deny the teachings of Scripture. No papacy in the Scripture, no celibate leadership, no priest forgiving someone of a sin, no prayers to Mary, no immaculate conception, no indulgences, no treasury of merit, no praying to dead to saints, no penance, no office of priest in the NT church, no infant baptism. Need I go on?

        • De Maria says:

          Bob says:
          March 6, 2013 at 9:56 pm
          Christ gave to the church pastor-teachers to teach the Scriptures.

          Which is Catholic Teaching. We call it Magisterium. Whereas, Protestants teach that anyone who picks up Scripture can start making doctrine. THAT is the fruit of Sola Scriptura.

          You may think you follow the teachings of Christ

          I know I follow the Teachings of Christ and after many talks with you, I know that you don’t. You follow traditions of men.

          but your church has doctrines that deny the teachings of Scripture.

          Your religion contradicts the Teachings of Christ in Scripture.

          No papacy in the Scripture,

          Jesus established one Pastor over His flock. We call him, the Pope:
          John 21:15-17
          King James Version (KJV)
          15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

          no celibate leadership,

          Jesus Christ is our model of celibate leadership:
          1 Corinthians 11:1
          Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

          no priest forgiving someone of a sin,

          It is one of Christ’s commands:
          John 20:23
          Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

          2 Corinthians 5:18
          And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

          no prayers to Mary,

          Jesus Christ was her little boy. Therefore, if He asked her for life’s necessities, what makes you too good to do the same?

          no immaculate conception,

          Mary is called “Kecharitomene” in Scripture. Meaning that she is always full of grace. And where one is full of grace, there is no sin.

          no indulgences,

          Luke 11:41
          But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.

          no treasury of merit,
          Matthew 19:21
          Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

          no praying to dead to saints,
          Luke 16:24
          And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

          no penance,

          Acts 26:20
          But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

          1 Peter 4:1
          Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin

          no office of priest in the NT church,

          1 Timothy 4:14
          Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

          no infant baptism.

          Matthew 19:14
          King James Version (KJV)
          14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

          Acts 16:15
          And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

          Need I go on?

          Now, show me Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, contraception, divorce and remarriage, homosexual clergy and bishops approved in Scripture.

  13. Bob says:

    Repentance and penance are not the same things. Repentance in the Bible, the word repent means “to change one’s mind.” Penance on the other hand involves doing something about a sin. Its given by a priest. Correct?

    • De Maria says:

      Bob says:
      March 7, 2013 at 11:09 pm
      Repentance and penance are not the same things. Repentance in the Bible, the word repent means “to change one’s mind.” Penance on the other hand involves doing something about a sin. Its given by a priest. Correct?

      Wrong. Penances are works meet for repentance.

      pen·ance
      /?pen?ns/
      Noun
      Voluntary self-punishment inflicted as an outward expression of repentance for having done wrong.
      A Christian sacrament in which a member of the Church confesses sins to a priest and is given absolution.
      Synonyms
      penitence – repentance – atonement – expiation

      If a man breaks your window, his penance would be to fix it or to pay you for it. In the Sacrament of Confession, the Priest assigns certain acts to prove one’s repentance just as it is required by Scripture:
      Acts 26:20
      But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.