FrontPage Magazine
Five-hundred years ago today, on October 31, 1517, a Catholic monk named Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of a German church, thereby launching what would come to be known as the Protestant Reformation. Whatever else can be said of him, Luther unwittingly initiated something else that is often overlooked. As European historian Franco Cardini explains it, “The Reformation produced one logical if unexpected result: a definite boost to the positive evaluation of Islam, and therefore to the birth and development of an often conventional and mannered pro-Islamic stance” in the West.
Thus, although Luther maintained the traditional Christian view of Islam—denouncing the Koran as a “cursed, shameful, desperate” book filled with “dreadful abominations”—he condemned the concept of crusading, which had been essential for the survival of some European Christians, such as those of Spain: since its conquest by Islam in the eighth century, the Iberian Peninsula had faced wave after wave of Islamic incursions emanating from North Africa (especially at the hands of the Almoravids and the Almohads, whose jihadi zeal and barbarous means far surpassed anything ISIS can come up with).
Nor was Luther merely against crusading “over there” (e.g., to liberate the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, etc.). In 1517, the same year that he nailed his theses, history’s greatest jihadi empire—that of the Ottoman Turks—absorbed the vast domains of the Mameluke sultanate in the Middle East and North Africa and, having already conquered much of the Balkans, prepared to renew the jihad into the heart of Europe. Against this, Luther originally preached passivity—going so far as to say that, although the Muslim sultan “rages most intensely by murdering Christians in the body … he, after all, does nothing by this but fill heaven with saints.” When the Turks marched to and besieged the walls of Vienna in 1529, rebellious Lutheran soldiers were heard to cry out that the “Unbaptized Turk” (meaning the sultan) was preferable to the “Baptized Turk.”
By portraying the Catholic pope as more of an “Antichrist” figure than Europe’s hitherto traditional Antichrist figure, the Turkish sultan—an office held by Muslim leaders who had been responsible for the slaughter and enslavement of hundreds of thousands of Christians in the name of jihad—men such as Luther and John Calvin, who held that Islamic prophet Muhammad and the Pope were “the two horns of Antichrist,” ushered in a sort of relativism that prevails to this day in the West; one which instinctively cites (often distorted) episodes from Catholic history to relativize and minimize ongoing Muslim atrocities.
To be sure, the Catholic Church responded with its own invective “and frequently tried to discredit Protestant doctrine by likening it to Islam—Muhammad was an early Protestant and the Protestants were latter day Saracens,” explains Bernard Lewis. Cardini elaborates:
The Reformation generated more vehement and coherent arguments between Christians, the ultimate effect of which was to favour the Muslims. It became customary amongst Catholics and Protestants for each to censure the “vices” of the other’s religion and to emphasize that the infidel [Muslims] exemplified the corresponding “virtue,” which naturally would have been much better suited to the Christians…. In fact the arguments between Catholics and Protestants frequently led to a competition as to which of the two could hurt the adversary more by heaping praise upon the infidel.
All the while, Muslims sat back and laughed—to the exasperation of sensible men such as the Renaissance humanist, Erasmus: “While we have been endlessly fighting among ourselves,” argued the Dutchman, “the Turks have vastly extended their empire or, rather, their reign of terror.” Incidentally, of “Luther’s contention that those who make war on the Turks rebel against God, who is punishing our sins [Catholicism] through them [the Muslims],” Erasmus countered that “if it is not lawful to resist the Turks, because God is punishing the sins of his people through them, it is no more lawful to call in a doctor during illness, because God also sends diseases to purge his people of their sins.”
Be that as it may, what began with Luther was bequeathed to subsequent Protestant leaders. This was only natural; as the early Protestants and Muslims had the same common enemy—Catholic Christendom, particularly in the guise of the Holy Roman Empire—the principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” came into sharp play. By 1535, “It was one of the bitterest truths,” writes historian Roger Crowley, “that the Catholic King [Charles V] would spend more time, money, and energy fighting the French and the Protestants than he ever devoted to the war with [Sultan] Suleiman.” (Little wonder many Islamic conquests of European territory occurred under the “Magnificent One’s” reign.) Similarly, Queen Elizabeth I of England formed an alliance with the Muslim Barbary pirates—who eventually enslaved some 1.3 million Europeans, including not a few from Ireland and Iceland—against Catholic Spain, prompting that nation’s papal nuncio to lament that “there is no evil that is not devised by that woman, who, it is perfectly plain, succored Mulocco [Abd al-Malek] with arms, and especially with artillery.”
In 1683, when the Turks came again for Vienna—enslaving and eventually slaughtering some 30,000 Christians in the process—their chief non-Muslim allies were two Protestant counts: the Lutheran Hungarian, Imre Thokoly, and the Calvinist Transylvanian, Prince Apafi. In fact, the Muslim pretext for marching onto Vienna was to provide military aid to Thokoly, who was then in rebellion against the Austrian Empire. Telling fellow Muslim commanders that “they ought to take advantage of the disorders of the Christians by the siege of the place [Vienna], the conquest of which would assure that of all Hungary, and open ‘em a passage to the greatest victories,” Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa mobilized arguably the largest Muslim army ever to invade Europe. Before setting off to the relief of Vienna, and cognizant of Thokoly’s mischievous role, the Polish king, John Sobieski, wrote to the former “that if he burnt one straw in the territories of his allies, or in his own, he would go and burn him and all his family in his house.”
That the Protestant Reformation unwittingly benefited Islam should not be interpreted as an attack on the Reformation or a defense of Catholicism. Nor does it say anything about the theological merits, or truths, of either. (I am, for the record, neither Protestant nor Catholic, and don’t have a horse in the race, as it were.) Rather, the point here is that the actions of fallible men, of both religious persuasions, had unforeseen consequences. And, if the historic rifts within Christendom—beginning at Chalcedon in 451, when Orthodox (not Catholic or Protestant) Christians were at each other’s throats—always worked to Islam’s advantage, it should come as no surprise that the greatest of all sunderings also had the greatest impact on Christendom.
In short, “The Reformation produced one logical if unexpected result: a definite boost to the positive evaluation of Islam, and therefore to the birth and development of an often conventional and mannered pro-Islamic stance.” This “mannered” and “pro-Islamic stance” continues to haunt the West to this day. After all, it’s not for nothing that naïve and favorable views of Islam—to say nothing of passive responses to Muslim aggression and a paralytic, all-consuming fear of being seen as “crusading” against Islam—are especially ingrained in and compromise the security of historically Protestant nations, including the U.K., Scandinavia, Germany, Australia, and the U.S.
Of course, that these views have less to do with anything intrinsic to Protestant theology and more to do with a number of historic forces that have culminated into a sort of uncritical or mindless tolerance for anything and everything in the West—including unabashed Islamic terrorism—is evident in one ironic fact: today it is the Catholic pope—a role traditionally filled by Islam’s greatest and most vociferous opponents—who exhibits an unparalleled determination to empower Muslims and whitewash the image of Islam.
TOTALLY agree. Even today Christians squabbling among each other can cause the Savages to conquer & rule over us !!!!! Unjustified Hatred caused the destruction of Second Temple! so the Jews say. We can resume “who will be the Greatest in the Kingdom” Later, after & if we survive This war. I feel as long as we hate our brother, —Darkness is in us & G-d looks AWAY!!!! We have NO protection !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually IMO Luther was blinded by his contempt for the RC church and his total ignorance of actual history which would have shown him the constant threat that was islam. While I have only contempt for the Vatican and its self professed role (and especially so after the Cathars) WRT Christianity IMO Luther did more damage than good and if anyone thinks that Germany was better off being protestant then look at some of Durer’s work and see for yourself as it made NO difference to the small folk: the common man. The Christian religion as espoused by almost all churches(organized religions) is a prostituted version of that espoused by JoN. BUT then his pacifism would have allowed the whole world to become muslim so perhaps we should learn from the Conquistadors NOT the churches or JoN until we have won and then only the latter.
Great article. What a sad irony that in their obsessive jealousy and hatred for each other, Christians have become blind to the wolves in sheep’s clothing who have come to rape, murder, plunder, and steal.
beginning at Chalcedon in 451, when Orthodox (not Catholic or Protestant)
I think this needs correction.
Before the Great Schism and of 1054.
The east and west were united .in other words they were Catholic.
The Council is numbered as the fourth ecumenical council by the Catholic Church.
The rest of your article is good.
The protestant west need to understand why the Catholic Church called for the crusades.
Chalcedon, 451: a reference to the schism that occurred with the so-called “Oriental Orthodox” churches (e.g., Alexandria, Antioch, etc).
I am a Protestant. I love Protestantism and am grateful for Luther and others like him for restoring the gospel. I understand the RCC crusades and believe that they were both justified and necessary. The condemnation of the Crusades is not a Protestant phenomenon currently. Neither is the tolerance and the enabling of the political and demographic jihad. Islamizstion is being facilitated across the political, religious, and national spectrum. There is no bigger facilitator of Islamizstion than the Catholic Church today. Read Mr. Ibrahim’ s article again. You obviously don’t get it.
Restoring what gospel?there is only one truth.
Not 30,000 denominations”opinions”.
With out a central authority there is chaos, pretty much like the Muslims and there quran.
We had true reformers in the Church and you see their lives and they were holy men and women.
Luther was a blasphemous man and did not even spared the bible he inserted words and removed 7 books and part of Isaiah.his excuse was to rely on the authority of the jews at the council of jamnia in 70 a.d .They had lost the authority, JESUS transferred it to his Church. But mostly because they proofed Catholic teaching say like praying for the dead.
Let me quote some thing from this man your proud of.
Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: “Whatever has he been doing with her?” Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.(D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe [Hermann Bohlau Verlag, 1893], vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 – May 1, 1532, p. 33)
The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.” (‘The Facts About Luther, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 202.)
“The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness.” (Ibid.)
“Of very little worth is the Book of Baruch, whoever the worthy Baruch might be.” (Ibid.)
“…the epistle of St. James is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical.” (‘Preface to the New Testament,’ ed. Dillenberger, p. 19.)
“If nonsense is spoken anywhere, this is the very place. I pass over the fact that many have maintained, with much probability, that this epistle was not written by the apostle James, and is not worthy of the spirit of the apostle.” (‘Pagan Servitude of the Church,’ ed. Dillenberger, p. 352.)
Reading these words of Luther, it’s hard to imagine that he is the same man who so often claimed that he looked upon the Bible “as if God Himself spoke therein.” How could he have claimed to believe in the inspired Word of God as the ultimate authority on religious matters if he placed himself in judgment of Scripture? In doing so, he quite clearly set himself up as judge over God himself.
There is NO salvation outside the Holy Catholic Church,just as there is no salvation outside Jesus Christ the Church is his body.
It has a human element that in the past sixty years have come out with out shame .and the diabolical disorientation can now be seen but her traditional teachings are true and its what I hold.
I did not address the theology of traditionalist Catholicism in my post. But, since you dredged it up I will. You, are no different that Luther, Calvin or any Protestant. That’s because YOU know better than the Pope and the Roman hierarchy. YOU, know better than Vatican 2, The Magesterium, the Bishops and (using your theology) the Seat of Peter, the Rock. The Roman Church is now conciliatory toward Luther AND PROTESTANTISM, emphasizing the common points and COMPLETELY rejecting your theology and your pre Vatican 2 language. Pope Francis and the Roman Church rejects the language of condemnation and the exclusivity YOU communicate. MAY I CALL YOU LUTHER? YOU ARE SUCH A POWERFUL REFORMER! The gospel is very simple: “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” As to your second point, “…the protestant west need(s) to understand why the Catholic Church called for the crusades.” The Roman Church is now the biggest promoter and facilitator of the political and demographic jihad against the West. Ironically, the Roman Pope, hierarchy and the masses of Roman Catholics need to learn about the necessity and justification of the Crusades more than the Protestants do, especially the virulently pro Palestinianist Orthodox of Ramallah and Bethlehem. YOU OWN THAT AS A CATHOLIC! Does the “protestant west” include Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Italy, France, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Egypt, Greece, Albania, etc., all of which at one time was under one form of Catholic rule and now is either socialist or facilitating Islam? Conversely, Evangelical Protestants are the most anti-Islamic group in the entire Western World, along with being the most ardently Pro-Life and the biggest opponents of the Islamist Barack Hussein Obama for whom Roman Catholics voted for to the tune of 60% in 2008. The greatest anti-Islamist politician of any note in the U.S. is none other THAN THE PROTESTANT DONALD TRUMP. SOLA FIDE!
Regarding your post citing James’ text on works. I AM A TRINITARIAN AND HATE UNITARIANISM AND ARIANISM. Honestly, have you ever read the New Testament Epistles? I read them daily. How many times does Paul have to write “NOT BY WORKS” for you to stop butchering James’ text? HOW MANY TIMES DOES JESUS HAVE TO SAY “BELIEVE.” Even the Roman Church now teaches that salvation is “NOT BY WORKS.” They do still assert that salvation is not by faith alone, but IT IS NOT BY WORKS.
READ THE FOLLOWING:
Romans 1:16: I am not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes…
Romans 3:28: For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
Romans 3:30: since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.
Romans 3:22: even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Romans 3: 24: 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.
Romans 4:3: For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS
ROMANS 4:5: But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
Romans 4:6-9: 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7 “BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN,
AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.
8 “BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.”
9 Is this blessing then on [d]the circumcised, or on [e]the uncircumcised also? For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS
ROMANS 4:13-14: 13 For the promise to Abraham or to his [l]descendants that he would be heir of the world was not [m]through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are [n]of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified;
Romans 4:16: 16 For this reason it is [o]by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the [p]descendants
Romans 5:1: Therefore, having been justified by faith, [a]we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ
ROMANS 6:23: 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 8:1: Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Romans 8:29-30: 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
Romans 9:30-32: What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is [t]by faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it [u]by faith, but as though it were [v]by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 just as it is written,
“BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE [w]DISAPPOINTED.”
Romans 10:3-4: For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the [a]end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Romans10:9-11: [e]that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, [f]resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, [g]resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE [h]DISAPPOINTED.”
ROMANS 11:5-6: 5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s [c]gracious choice. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer [d]on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.
John 1:12: 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name
John 3:16: 16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His [e]only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
John 3:17: For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 He who believes in Him is not judged;
John 3:36: 36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life
John 5:24: 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life
John 6:28: Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”
John 6:35: 35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36
John 6:40: For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
John 6:47: 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
John 7:37-39: 37 Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “[g]If anyone is thirsty, [h]let him come to Me and drink. 38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From [i]his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’” 39 But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
John 11:25-26: 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?
Protestants choose the books of the Bible at will. They have broken with a tradition of 1500 years. The Catholic Church has followed the instructions of the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church. The Lord told the Apostles to preach the Gospel. Luther enthroned the free will of the individual, leading to rampant secularization.
Funny…the Roman Pope and the entire Roman hierarchy are the most aggressive Islamists in the world, so why don’t you follow them. No, instead you know better.
When you say such idiotic things as that, you undermine…no, you destroy your own credibility.
I agree this pope and recent popes have foolishly believed they can enter into dialogue with Islam. You and I know better, and we know dialogue is a mainstay of liberalism.
But that foolishness of the popes hardly makes them and the bishops “the most aggressive Islamists in the world.”
You’d do better by thinking first before commenting.
Islamists are those who believe that Islam is an acceptable source of civility and governance. They promote the integration of Islam and the immigration of Muslims into the West. The Roman Church led by this Pope and his Bishop’s are not only aggressively promoting Islam and the immigration of Muslims, they condemn those in the West who oppose their Islamism. Given the fact that the Pope and the Roman hierarchy have a worldwide organization, that is, the Roman Church, and a voice that is heard immediately and followed as a matter of faith, it is absolutely accurate to say he and the Roman Church are among the world’s most aggressive Islamists. Catholic Charities is facilitating the immigration of Muslims and the Pope is leading the narrative. Mr. Ibrahim stated what is tantamount to the same in this article and in others.
Bergoglio is ideologically a “progressive” politician. And religiously promotes syncretism in the name of a “religious dialogue”, by which simply renounces to preach the Gospel.
He is questioned even by some Catholic cardinals (for example Raymond Burke) because they accuse him of changing the doctrine.
For all that he does not act like a Catholic Pope.
The fact is he is the Pope. You must take ownership of him, Vatican 2 and the Roman Churches’ assertion that Darwinism is fact and that anthropomorphic Climate Change is fact. Besides the fact, that the Roman Church has anathematized the preaching of the gospel since Trent.
Dear,
the fact is that St. Thomas of Aquinas spoke the following of Muhammad (thirteenth century), Contra Genitles, 1:
[4] “On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, The point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be. seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly.”
The fact is that Catholics in the first place fought vigorously against Muslim invaders for centuries.
The fact is that precisely heresies and divisions among Christians favored the Islamic invasion. This was the case in Egypt and Syria in the first centuries of Islamic expansion.
In the fifteenth century, at the Council of Florence, shortly before the fall of Constantinople, the unification of the Byzantines took place through the decree “Decretum Unionis” (Laetentur Coeli), accepted by Isidore of Kiev, the Emperor Constantine and Maxims Byzantine theologians. But the unification was rejected by the Byzantine clergy in Constantinople and repudiated the papal delegate. They said: “We prefer the turban of the sultan, before the papal miter.” That’s how it went.
The fact is that it was precisely the Holy League that fought against the Turks at Lepanto in 1571, and defeated them.
The fact is that the Polish Catholic king, Sobieski, rejected the Turks in Vienna a century later.
The fact is that the Catholics and Orthodox of the Balkans forced the Turks to retreat until the First World War.
In this whole struggle there were no Protestants, dear friend.
Yes, the fact is that Bergoglio was elected Pope, but he does not act as Pope either. It betrays the Catholic legacy of centuries. In a more concealed way this is happening after the Second Vatican Council.
I think it is the Great Apostasy of which Saint Paul speaks, but the Church is indefectible, and Catholics will always remain who will not renounce faith and tradition.
You can disavow this Pope and the current Catholic leadership all you want. Jesus said that the standard you use against others will be used against you. You condemn faithful Christians like me for thinking for ourselves and being faithful to the Scriptures, yet you do the exact same thing. Your traditionalist Catholicism, like pre-transubstantiation is a thing of the past, just like the admirable and justified Catholic Crusades against the Muslims. Now, the Roman Catholic church is a syncretist , Dawinist, Palestinianist, Islamist, Climate Change fradulent, homosexualist, progressive entity that still opposes the gospel. And, in 841 of the Catechism your leadership asserts that “together with us (Catholics) they (Muslims) worship God.”. You are separate from the teaching of the RCC as much as any Protestant.
Simply read James James’s answer 13 days ago.
Protestants do not defend the Gospel, they destroy it. I have nothing more to say.
By the way, before the Second World War there was only 10% of Jews in Israel.
Protestants defend and preach the gospel when they preach Christ alone, grace alone and faith alone. The land of Israel belongs to the Jews based on God’s righteousness and no one else’s. You are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of God’s election and the wrong side of the gospel. The Jews were completely removed from Israel after the Bar Kochba rebellion of 130 AD. The fact that they were removed by their enemies means NOTHING to the Messiah.
Here is what Peter preached in Acts 10:43
“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” (BELIEVES)
Here is what Paul preached in Acts 13:39
“…and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.” (BELIEVES)
Yes, I know the teaching of Protestants, contrary to Christianity. That is why Luther did not admit the epistle of James. What he does not like, he rejects. What a love and respect for the Scripture!
You are a Zionist. The New Israel is the Church, not the Jewish people who prepared the ground for the arrival of Messiah. The Reign of Jesus Christ is spiritual.
Israel is a strong ally of Saudi Arabia. (Saudi Arabia has stores for three million refugees. However, these are aimed at Europe. Is not that fact striking?) Do you know how many refugees Israel has received from Syria? 90. Not 90,000, but only 90.
Is not it significant that ISIL has never attacked Israel?
Also…learn English… PROTESTANT is a proper noun.
No, not in some catholic circles. I daresay that lowercase was intentional. I do it sometimes, like I did above.
It’s great to see a Reformer like you. Your traditionalist, pre Vatican 2 Catholicism violates both the spirit and letter of Vatican 2 and the current conciliatory language and posture of Pope Francis and the Bishops. But I get it. YOU KNOW BETTER YOURSELF. JUST LIKE LUTHER!
this makes a lot of sense
Great article. As usual Raymond brings an interesting and different angle to things.
It is funny that Catholic Church had came up with the sale of
indulgences as a mean to finance the crusades. While Luther was
protesting the sale of indulgences and the crusades, the Holy League was
fighting the Turks at Lepanto. However “when Sultan Suleiman the
Magnificent and his armies began to invade Austria, Luther changed his
mind about the need to fight, but he stuck to his condemnation of the
Crusades.” Go figure!
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/print2005/tmadden_crusades_print.html
Great analysis! Thanks to Raymond Ibrahim!
There is nothing in the Bible that says nations cannot defend themselves. And a good offense on foreign soil is the best defense. But lets get one thing clear. it is not conservative Christians that are giving Islamic terrorists support. It is the liberal left that defends Islamists the most and the present pope is socialist left leaning liberal. Lets get one more thing straight. The Nazi Socialist Workers Party, yes that is their actual full name, is left wing socialist. They actually represent it well. They are not right wing fascists as the lefties want to portray them. The left does believe in guns as long as it is in their own armed forces hands. Venezuela is not socialism gone wrong because it was actually done right and by the book.
yes, I re
ad it. And no, I disagree with you. Catholicism definitely as they promote these interfaith prayers etc as do some Protestant Churches (Like some in Sweden, some Anglicans, etc) but the Orthodox Church acted as a bulwark against Islam for centuries via the Byzantine/Greek empire and is very much aware of the issue. Most Evangelical Churches are also very aware of the undermining effect of cosying up to Islam and will not promote ‘appeasement’.
Otherwise, your list of countries shows that you are not clear in what you are trying to tell me. Cuba is Communist, France and its ‘laicité’ is a lost cause, Lebanon is over 50% Moslem and Egypt 90%…
All of the nation’s I listed and many more were at one time Catholic. With the exception of Egypt, all were dominated by Roman Catholicism. So apply the same standard you used to condemn the ” PROTESTANT West” (e.g. the emergence of atheism) to Catholicism. Cuba, a solidly Roman Catholic nation adopted communism. The Copts allowed a small force of Muslims to invade them either collaborating with the Muslim army or maintaining neutrality due to their own corruption and the hatred of being ruled by the Byzantines. Secularism dominates all Roman Catholic nation’s like Spain, Portugal and Italy. So, isolating Protestants like you did is merely anti-Protestant b.s. And, Roman Catholics voted for Obama in the 2008 election to the tune of 60 percent; Evangelicals 30 percent. The Roman Church affirms Darwinism. Protestant Evangelicals are Creationists or IDs.
you are going off tangent; all I mentioned is that in the greater scheme of things, Protestant countries are more liberal in their thinking e.g. ‘stupid’ woman priest in Stockholm suggesting the removal of crosses from a Church in order not to offend Moslems. Mixing in irrelevant countries, in this context, like Egypt or Cuba or Venezuela is pointless.
My point is Protestant nations and Protestants are NOT more liberal than Catholicism or Catholics. Vile progressive liberalism has infected all. And, American Protestant Evangelicals are the most conservative people in the world.
but that was not my point 😉
A little late, but liberalism first entered Christianity NOT through the Catholic Church but through Protestant churches. World Council of Churches is a great example, as is what’s left of the so-called mainline Protestant churches who have been bleeding membership to the evangelical churches.
Meanwhile, as a result of Vatican II, liberalism became ascendant in the Catholic Church, and a great battle is about to be waged there for the soul of that church.
During the time since Vatican II, Evangelicals have been consistently more conservative than the Catholic Church. However, there had been a great shift away from the progressive march forward under Popes Paul II and Benedict XVI. Now we are seeing an attempt by the left to complete what had been arrested by the last two popes.
I wish your view of American Protestant Evangelicals was accurate, but evangelical churches are no longer so monolithically conservative as they were just 10 years ago. So-called Christian liberals have been targeting that movement with great success, and the fracturing has begun with some evangelical churches falling for the liberal line.
We saw the same process of disintegration and drift from the Gospel begin among the mainline Protestant churches at the 1930 Lambert Conference, in which the Anglican World-wide Communion legitimized contraception. By 1960 the only Christian Churches not to deviate from what was once held by ALL of Christendom had devolved to only the Catholic & Orthodox Churches continuing to prohibit contraception as contrary to the plan of the Creator.
Classic liberalism is indeed a product of Protestantism. Post modern nihilistic liberalism cannot be attributed to Protestantism anymore than to Catholicism.
The division of Christians into thousands of denominations severely damages Christian unity – making attacks on Christian nations easier: both attacks of philosophy and attacks of a military nature. Martin Luther called himself Pope Luther. Luther hated Catholicism because he did not follow it even when he was Catholic. Luther was plagued by guilt – not because of the Catholic Church – but because he killed his friend in a dual. That is why Luther entered the monastery – according to his own writing – to escape prosecution and prison for murder. Luther even cursed God Almighty. We should all study the life of Luther, then we would better understand the Father of Protestantism…and the consequences of the Protestant division.
What a bunch of b.s. The Reformation was a movement that existed in the Roman Church long before Luther was born and from a variety of individuals, groups and nations. Furthermore, the vast majority of contemporary Protestants have no connection to Luther in any way, conscious or unconscious. Israeli Jews who believe in Jesus adopt a faith similar to Protestantism because they use the Bible as the rule for faith and not the Roman hierarchy. Get a clue.
And your source from within the Catholic Church for all this is… what, exactly?
I don’t cite sources unless I’m in court.
So you must want all Christians to follow the Pope and the Roman hierarchy in supporting the unlimited immigration of Muslims into the West, in the acceptance of Islam as a source of civility and governance. Not to mention 841. of the Roman Catechism which states “together we ( Catholics) with them (Muslims) worship God.”
The division of Christians into thousands of denominations severely damages Christian unity – making attacks on Christian nations easier: both attacks of philosophy and attacks of a military nature. Martin Luther called himself Pope Luther. Luther hated Catholicism because he did not follow it even when he was Catholic. Luther was plagued by guilt – not because of the Catholic Church – but because he killed his friend in a dual. That is why Luther entered the monastery – according to his own writing – to escape prosecution and prison for murder. Luther even cursed God Almighty. We should all study the life of Luther, then we would better understand the Father of Protestantism…and the consequences of the Protestant division.
What a bunch of b.s. The Reformation was a movement that existed in the Roman Church long before Luther was born and from a variety of individuals, groups and nations. Furthermore, the vast majority of contemporary Protestants have no connection to Luther in any way, conscious or unconscious. Israeli Jews who believe in Jesus adopt a faith similar to Protestantism because they use the Bible as the rule for faith and not the Roman hierarchy. Get a clue.
So you must want all Christians to follow the Pope and the Roman hierarchy in supporting the unlimited immigration of Muslims into the West, in the acceptance of Islam as a source of civility and governance. Not to mention 841. of the Roman Catechism which states “together we ( Catholics) with them (Muslims) worship God.”
Your sola fide has been defeated by the Apostle James 2:
19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?
Your two legged stool is left with one.
How do you think the Church evangelize the pagans, by reading them the bible?
They did What our blessed Lord commanded them to do, they preached ,did miracles, healed the sick.
By holding the traditional teachings does not mean that I reject the Pope or Vatican ll.
Let me remind you that in the past sixty years their has been a diabolical disorientation.
And you seem to be confused about Papal infallibility. Not even amoris laetitia is binding on Catholics I thank God papal infallibility was defined before the caos we have now.
It was protestants who allowed artificial birth control and opened the door to abortion and also divorce and remarriage.
You trying to undo what protestants caused.
.if 60% of Catholics voted for Obama what does that have to do with me, I voted for Trump all my parish voted for Trump. I don’t even support the USCCB MANY are politicians.
And most heretics and schematics were priests and bishops.
Your doing what Luther did threw out the baby with the bath water.
I don’t use artificial birth control married to one wife have six kids I pray at the abortion clinics I know Catholics that have been doing it since the 70s protestants just got onboard,
True reformation comes from within from holy men and women and are saints.
Is almost like if I’m talking with an arian that is trying to justify arianism.
The simple answer is that we are saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8), and not by works. However, one has to remember that it is not enough to simply say “I believe”, and then do nothing. The bible says, “Not everyone who says Lord, Lord, will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but rather he who does the will of my Father” (Matthew 7:21) Therefore, it must be assumed that works are indeed a necessary component of one’s faith. Too many people think that faith means giving God lip service only (“This generation honors me with their lips, while their heart is far from me”, Matthew 15:18), rather than actually doing good deeds for others. Another thing to remember is that the Jews of Paul’s day had many observances of the law that they had to keep, like not eating pork, ritual hand-washing, not eating meat with blood in it, etc. Paul may have been referring to these ritualistic works when he used the term “dead works” (Hebrews 9:14). In fact, in Romans 3:20, Paul says, “Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him. For by the law is the knowledge of sin”, a very clear distinction between works of the law and doing good deeds as a result of your faith.
During the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther took it upon himself to change the understanding of the Bible around to fit his own particular theology. Not only did he throw out seven complete books of the Old Testament and parts of two other books, he also implied that Christians are saved by faith alone, because of Romans 3:28, which states “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law”, rather than the way it was taught for over 1100 years. He even inserted the word “alone” into Romans 3:28 when he translated it. One has to wonder about the wisdom of changing the interpretation of the divinely inspired Word of God to fit your own theology, especially after 11 centuries. The only time you actually do see the words faith and alone together in a sentence is in James 2:24, where James says, “See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”. (James 2:24)
Why is this important? In the story about Judgment Day, (Matthew 25:31-46) where Jesus separates the sheep from the goats, the only questions that Jesus asks the multitude concern works:
1. Did you feed the hungry?
2. Did you clothe the naked?
3. Did you give a drink to the thirsty, etc.
If they answered “no” to these works in Matthew 25, then Jesus said that they were going to hell. Nowhere does Jesus ask, “Did you accept me as your personal Lord and Savior?” So, you can infer from all of this that just confessing with your lips that Jesus is your personal Lord and Savior is NOT ENOUGH (deathbed conversions are a different standard), although it is a great start on your salvation journey!! The Book of James, in the Bible, says that your faith must be justified by works (James 2:24), which is much different from what Paul says in Galatians 2:16 about “We may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law (In the former, James refers to faith being justified by works; In the latter, Paul says that we are justified by faith. So, once you have the faith and are justified by it, then your faith in turn must then be justified by works).”
Just as it’s not enough to tell your wife that you love her, and never do anything for her, it’s also true of your faith relationship with Jesus. Faith and performing good works for your fellow man go together like body and soul. You simply aren’t alive unless both body and soul are united (James 2:26). It’s the same for being alive in Christ – You need faith in Christ first, and then good works (not works of the law) to justify that faith. Neither one on its own will get you into Heaven (once again, deathbed conversions are a different standard), but both in tandem have a symbiotic relationship that results in eternal salvation and heaven. Remember, when all is said and done, we are nothing more that servants of God (Romans 6:22). Any servant has a LOT of work to do.
Btw believe is a verb.
The Church teaches that after believing it’s both and .
It was Luther and his sons who DIVORCED the TWO.
DON’T LEAN ON YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING .
Heretics will not inherit the kingdom of God.
How many times does the Apostle Paul say ” not by works.” The context of the Scripture is clear. “Works of the Law” are the very best men can do in obedience and service to God and His commandments. Jesus didn’t tell Mary at the tomb of Lazarus, “go do some good works and you will see the glory of God.” He presented faith in Him alone as the criteria and asked her, ” do you believe this?”
The Church does not tell pagans to do good works”of mercy” she tells the christians of faith that believe in JESUS.
St. Paul was addressing the jews who wanted to continue the works of the law to be saved.
St.james is addressing the christians that believe in JESUS. DON’T be a sectarian embrace the full gospel.
If you want to think like you are the thief on the crss or as if you’re on a death bed you would be right.
If you are married to your 2rd or 3rd wife you’re living in adultery an have to mend your life if you’re a Christian.
Your actually choosing st Paul over st. James.
The only way to live a holy life in obedience and purity is by faith in Jesus Christ and Him crucified plus nothing else. You are nullifying the gospel and are exactly in the same position the Galatian Church and the Church in Antioch was. James in a contradiction in language but not in under lying truth from Paul. Are you saying that Moses in Genesis 15 or Paul in Romans 4 were incorrect that Abraham was justified ( Greek: “dikaioo,” ” to be declared righteous”) by faith alone in simply hearing and believing the gospel. This occurred decades before Issac was even born. I prayerfully read the Scriptures daily and could cite HUNDREDS of verses that state emphatically that righteousness is by faith alone. Read Romans 5. The righteousness that is by grace through faith is “MUCH MORE” than the power of sin and death. Read Romans 7. YOU are the spiritual adulterer for substituting your own WORKS in the place of Christ’s. Read the promise of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31 and in Hebrews. People live obedient, holy, loving, Christ-like lives by grace ( “Charis:” God’s unmerited, unearned, undeserved favor based on Christ ALONE). Read the prophecy. It is all based on the CERTAINTY of forgiveness of sin.
St. Paul had already made very clear in Romans 2:6-7 that good works are necessary for eternal life, at least in one sense:
For [God] will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life…
One of the problems in Rome St. Paul was dealing with was a very prominent heresy known to us today as the “Judaizer” heresy. Those attached to this sect taught belief in Christ and obedience to the New Covenant was not enough to be saved. One had to keep the Law of Moses, especially circumcision, in order to merit heaven.
The problem with this teaching, of course, is, among other things, according to Hebrews 7:11-12, the old law has passed away in Christ:
Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further needtwould there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchiz’edek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.
According to this text, the law of Moses had passed away with the advent of Christ. Moreover, according to St. Paul, Christians are under the new law, or “the law of Christ,” not the old.
To those outside the law I became as one outside the law — not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ — that I might win those outside the law (I Cor. 9:21).
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2).
what was happening in the early church with these “Judaizers” in Acts 15:1-2:
But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
Notice the emphasis on “circumcision” and the law of Moses?
Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” The “Judaizers” were attempting to be justified apart from Christ. St. Paul’s main emphasis is that we can only perform salvific acts in Christ! If we are not “in Christ”, even our outwardly “righteous deeds” will never and can never merit eternal life.
Romans 6:3-4) obedience to Christ (that means good works!) leads us to justification while sin (that means bad works!) will lead us to death:
Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death (Gr.—eis thanaton, “unto death”), or of obedience, which leads to righteousness (Gr.—eis dikaiosunen—unto justification).
Notice: St. Paul makes it very clear. Obedience leads to justification and eternal life while sin leads to eternal death (see also Romans 6:23). Thus, St. Paul’s emphasis is not just on works, but works done in and through the power of Christ. In Romans 8:1-14, St. Paul tells us in no uncertain terms that we must be in Christ and continuing to live our lives in Christ in order to do works that please God.
Galatians 5:19-21 and 6:7-9. There is no way we can get “justification by faith alone” that excludes works as necessary for justification in any and every sense if we read these texts carefully. St. Paul makes clear that if Christians allow themselves to be dominated by their “flesh,” or lower nature, they will not make it to heaven.
Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God… (6:7) Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption (eternal death); but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.
Here St. Paul teaches that through good works, or continuing to “sow to the Spirit,” we will be rewarded with eternal life, but only if we persevere.
Works in Ephesians 2:8-9:
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God – not because of works, lest any man should boast.
Once again, context is going to be key. In verses 4-6 St. Paul had just said:
But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ… and raised us up with him…
Here St. Paul is talking about the initial grace of salvation or justification by which we Christians were raised from death unto life. The Catholic Church teaches in agreement with Scripture that this initial grace of salvation is entirely and absolutely unmerited.
My heavens, the Catholic Church baptizes babies! What more could she do to demonstrate this truth! What kind of works could a newborn baby have done to merit anything?
However, once that baby grows up and reaches the age of accountability, he must begin to “work out [his] own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in [him], both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12-13). Or, as St. Paul says in Ephesians 2:10—the very next verse after Eph. 2:8-9:
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
St. Paul is in no way eliminating works in any sense, to be necessary for salvation; he is simply pointing out what the Catholic Church has taught for 2,000 years: there is nothing anyone can do before they enter into Christ that can justify them. But once a person enters into Christ… it’s a whole new ballgame (see Phil. 4:13; Rom. 2:6-7; Gal. 6:7-9, etc.).
In the final analysis, I believe the text that is about as plain as any text could be concerning works and justification is James 2:24—that is, it is about as plain as can be in telling us both that “faith alone” is insufficient for our justification, and that “works” are indeed necessary. Are we justified by faith? Certainly! By faith alone? No way! It’s both faith and works, according to Scripture.
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Jesus says it similarly. Are we saved by faith in Jesus? Certainly! John 11:25:
I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live.
Are we saved by faith alone? No way! As we saw before, in Matthew 19:16-19, Jesus himself said to a rich young man who had asked him what he needed to do to have eternal life:
… If you would enter life, keep the commandments… You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother,
and pay close attention to this last one ,You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
“The beatitudes”
Or, how about Matthew 12:36-37? Here, Jesus says:
I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.
That sounds like there is more to this justification thing than faith alone.
And how many times was Abraham JUSTIFIED?
You have typically demonstrated your ignorance of the Scriptures by citing Romans 2:6-7 as a text that asserts that Salvation is by faith plus works. In this text, Paul is not asserting that a person can be justified by works. He is making a logical argument against Jews or anyone else who believes that by affiliation with Israel, Judaism, or with the People of God, or by a ritual that they are righteous. This is evident from the context and from the entire teaching of the Scripture, especially Paul. Paul writes the following in Romans 3:19-20:
“Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are [h]under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.”
Romans 3:27-30:
“Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.”
Romans 4:1-3
“What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
Romans 4:4-6
“Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works…”
Please note, Romans 3:5. This is precisely where you stumble:
“But to the one WHO DOES NOT WORK but BELIEVES IN HIM WHO JUSTIFIES THE UNGODLY his faith is credited as righteousness…”
You believe that God justifies the just. (Jesus: “I have NOT COME FOR THE JUST, BUT FOR THE UNJUST) You are no different than the Pharisee who thanked God that he was righteous while condemning the believing and repentant Publican,
But the following demonstrates the consequences of your error:
Romans 9:30-32: What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written,
“Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense,
And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”
And this too is the consequence of your error:
Galatians 5:4-5: “You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.”
Never think that Paul was merely or narrowly addressing the ritual of circumcision here. When Paul cites circumcision it is understood that the entire Law of God, especially obedience to the Commandments is understood:
Galatians 5:3: “And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.”
I READ THE SCRIPTURES DAILY AND PRAYERFULLY. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU READ ROMANS IN ITS ENTIRETY IN YOUR LIFE?????? I READ IT 3-5 TIMES PER MONTH.
I GOTTA ADDRESS THIS ERROR YOU ARE PROMULGATING:
YOU WROTE:
“Are we saved by faith alone? No way! As we saw before, in Matthew 19:16-19, Jesus himself said to a rich young man who had asked him what he needed to do to have eternal life:
… If you would enter life, keep the commandments… You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother,
and pay close attention to this last one ,You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
“The beatitudes” ”
Let’s look at this text:
Jesus is being obtuse with the Rich Young Ruler. He is being indirect and is using the Law as it is supposed to be used: NOT as a means of righteousness but “as a tutor to lead us to faith in Christ.”
Rich Ruler: “Good Master, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
Jesus: “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God.” (It is obvious Jesus is not being direct with this guy, (Jesus knows Jesus is God and Jesus knows Jesus is good) (but understands fully the guy’s self righteousness).
Jesus: “You know the commandments.” And, then Jesus cites them.
Rich Ruler: “I have don them my entire life.”
Now here you must pause. There is no way Jesus believed for one second that obedience to the commandments would yield eternal life. And, there is no way Jesus for one second believes that this guy is obedient to God’s Law unto eternal life. Jesus taught the following:
“Non of you (Jews) follow the Law.”
“Even if you have done everything your Father commands you are still unworthy servants…”
“If you, AS EVIL AS YOU ARE know how to give gifts to your children…”
James: “If you violate one point of the Law you have violated the entire Law…”
Paul refers to the Commandments in 2 Corinthians 3 as: “The ministry of DEATH” and “the ministry of CONDEMNATION.” That’s because, the Commandments cannot make anyone righteous and, “everyone who is under the Law is under a curse, for ‘cursed is everyone who does not continue in EVERYTHING that is written in the Book of the Law.”
Jesus is ministering the Commandments to destroy the guy’s self righteousness.
Jesus: “One more thing is needed. Go sell everything you have, give it to the poor and come follow Me.” (This is the gravity of the task for anyone (INCLUDING YOU AND ME) who thinks that righteousness is apart from grace through faith as a free gift.).
The disciples were perplexed. “Who can be saved?”
Jesus: “With men (i.e. “the ‘righteousness of works”) it is impossible, but with God (i.e. “the righteousness of imputed righteousness through faith”) it is possible.
Jesus could not teach about the cross and His deity because any time it was even mentioned, NO ONE UNDERSTOOD (THIS INCLUDES HIS MOTHER, JOSEPH, HIS BROTHERS AND SISTERS, HIS DISCIPLES AND PETER).
Can we agree on that St. PAUL TO THE ROMANS was about the jewdaizers. Who wanted to continue to keep the old law.
Or do I have to re- posting my previous comment.
St. Paul had already made very clear in Romans 2:6-7 that good works are necessary for eternal life, at least in one sense:
For [God] will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life…
One of the problems in Rome St. Paul was dealing with was a very prominent heresy known to us today as the “Judaizer” heresy. Those attached to this sect taught belief in Christ and obedience to the New Covenant was not enough to be saved. One had to keep the Law of Moses, especially circumcision, in order to merit heaven.
Do I also need to post again the council of trent .
The Church has naver taught that one is saved on work alone or faith alone ,faith alone on occasions of deathbed conversion or martyrdom yes.
If you read scripture every day thats good . But scripture says, don’t lean on your own UNDERSTANDING.
Follow the constant teaching of the Church that dont change.
OBEDIENCE to JESUS is that you obey his commandments.
Example years ago when I first got married I wasn’t a good Catholic I thought that I can never abstain from sex for pleasureand stop using birth control, but with Gods grace I did . And that can be applied to any good that you do for the Glory of God.
I didn’t do it to be saved I did it because I was saved and to show my gratitude to my Savior.
Let me reply to a few of your points. First:
1. You wrote: “Can we agree on that St. PAUL TO THE ROMANS was about the jewdaizers. Who wanted to continue to keep the old law.”
a. No. Romans was likely written to counter the anti-Jewish sentiment in the Roman Church since Claudius had expelled the Jews from Rome (Acts 18). However, Galatians is definitely addressing the Judaizers in the Church. The fact that Judaism and the Law is at the heart of both epistles and indeed most of Paul’s epistles does not change the fact that salvation is NOT BY WORKS. And, Paul’s statements in Romans 2 are NOT affirmations that salvation can be achieved by works. He is making an argument against the very notion that you can be saved by works (any kind of human effort or merit, not just intent on being obedient to God’s Law) ir that religious affiliation or ritual is in any way meritorious.
Note Romans 3:21-22 & 19-20 (VERSE 20 COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS YOUR EXPLANATION OF ROMANS 2; THAT;S BECAUSE PAUL NEVER SUGGESTS THAT PEOPLE CAN BE JUSTIFIED, IN PART OR COMPLETELY BY WORKS; THO SUGGEST THAT IS TO NULLIFY THE GOSPEL).
21 But now apart [k]from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those [l]who BELIEVE…
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are [h]under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works [i]of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for [j]through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are [h]under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works [i]of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for [j]through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
St. PAUL is talking about the works of the LAW ” old testament LAW”
Btw I am not circumcised.
Romans 2:6 PAUL looks ahead of the last Day, when the life of every person is unrolled before God, and every thought( 1 Corinthians 4:5) ,word,(mat12:36)and deed(2 Corinthians 5:10) is weighed in the balance of divine justice.God will determine his verdict on the basis of human works is a teaching that originates in the old testament(ps62:12;prov24:12) it was later confirmed by JESUS(mt 16:27) and reiterated by the Apostles(2Corinthians 5:10;1peter 1:17)
Paul here is stressing that both jew and gentiles will be held to the same standard of judgement(ccc 682)
TRY READING THE ENTIRE TEXT YOURSELF. I BEG YOU. YOU ARE INTELLIGENT. You display your complete ignorance of the text and of Romans. Like I said: YOU CHERRY PICK THE SCRIPTURES AND NEVER READ THEM. I READ THIS TEXT(i.e. Romans) A MINIMUM OF 3 TIMES PER MONTH.
The “works of the Law” are not mere ritual, or ceremonial or Temple practices. The ENTIRE text of Romans identifies “the works of the Law” or “the Law” as obedience to the 10 Commandments. Jesus TAUGHT THE LAW in the Sermon on the Mount. The Law represents, according to Paul, the very best a human can do in obedience to God, holiness and service to God and man.
Please read the text:
1. Romans 3:20: “because by the works [i]of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for [j]through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.”
“THROUGH THE LAW COMES THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN” (THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMANDMENTS IS TO TEACH US ABOUT OUR SINFULNESS)
2. Romans 3:19: “19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are [h]under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;”
THE LAW SPEAKS TO “ALL THE WORLD” NOT JUST TO JEWS AND NOT JUST TO THOSE WHO ARE CIRCUMCISED.
3. Romans 2:12-16: “For all who have sinned [f]without the Law will also perish [g]without the Law, and all who have sinned [h]under the Law will be judged [i]by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers [j]of the Law who are [k]just before God, but the doers [l]of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have [m]the Law do [n]instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having [o]the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.”
Are you really trying to tell me that the Law does not represent the Commandments, the morality of God in our hearts since we are made in His image and the very best man has to offer? This text demonstrates that “the Law” is not mere ritual and is not, in this context, merely applied to Jews or Judaism.
Romans 2:17-24: 17 But if you bear the name “Jew” and rely [p]upon the Law and boast in God, 18 and know His will and [q]approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law, 19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 a [r]corrector of the foolish, a teacher of [s]the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth, 21 you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who [t]preach that one shall not steal, do you steal? 22 You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast [u]in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? 24 For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” just as it is written.
THIS TEXT COMPLETELY DESTROYS YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT. PAUL EMPHATICALLY IDENTIFIES “THE LAW” WITH THE TEN COMMANDMENTS AND WITH MORAL BEHAVIOR, GODLY BEHAVIOR FROM JEWS AND GENTILES. AND, SOMETHING YOU SHOULD ALWAYS UNDERSTAND:
CIRCUMCISION IS ALWAYS TIED TO THE NECESSITY OF OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMANDMENTS AND MORAL, GODLY BEHAVIOR, ACCORDING TO PAUL.
Now here is how the RIGHTEOUS OF GOD is manifested:
1. First, the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IS NOT MANIFESTED BY THE COMMANDMENTS:
Romans 3:20: “20 because by the works [i]of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for [j]through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.”
2 Corinthians 3: 6-12: 6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
“7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came [c]with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. 10 For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. 11 For if that which fades away was [d]with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.
12 Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, 13 and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away.”
THE COMMANDMENTS ARE CONTRASTED WITH THE SPIRIT (I.E. THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF FAITH). PAUL CALLS THE COMMANDMENTS “THE MINISTRY OF DEATH” AND THE “MINISTRY OF CONDEMNATION.” THEY DO NOT DELIVER FROM SIN. ONLY CHRIST AND HIS BROKEN BODY AND SHED BLOOD ON CALVARY DELIVERS FORM SIN. AND THE DELIVERANCE IS COMPLETE!
2.The Righteousness of God is manifested by JESUS CHRIST “TO ALL THOSE WHO BELIEVE:” “BY FAITH AND NOT BY WORKS…”
Romans 3:21-25: “But now apart [k]from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those [l]who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all [m]have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a [n]propitiation [o]in His blood through faith.”
“FOR ALL THOSE WHO BELIEVE…”
Romans 9:30-32: 30 ” What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is [t]by faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it [u]by faith, but as though it were [v]by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 just as it is written,
“Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense,
And he who believes in Him will not be [w]disappointed.””
“…BUT ISRAEL, PURSUING A LAW OF RIGHTEOUSNESS DID NOT ARRIVE AT THAT LAW. WHY? BECAUSE THEY DID NOT PURSUE IT BY FAITH, BUT AS THOUGH IT WAS BY WORKS….”
Romans 10:3-11: 3 “For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the [a]end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is [b]based on law shall live [c]by that righteousness. 6 But the righteousness [d]based on faith speaks as follows: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), 7 or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).” 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 [e]that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, [f]resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, [g]resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be [h]disappointed.” ”
Romans 10:4: “FOR CHRIST IS THE END OF THE LAW FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS FOR EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES.”
Be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect.
The rich ruler needed to give up one more thing. Money .and yes the rich man had to keep the law of moses by his own merits.
And in the new testament we have to strive for perfection to be holy because now we can do it for we have God’s Grace to help us .notice not by our own merits so no one can boast.
And the saints taught the few that are saved.
When our Lord asks the rich man why do you call me good.
It is as when he asked Peter.
To see if the Father had revealed something to the rich man.
Like he did to Peter.
Also, you shouldn’t be disobedient to the Church and call me, a Protestant, a “heretic.” According to Pope Francis, Vatican 2, and the Bishops we are ” separated brethren.” You sound a lot like a “separatist” traditionalist or a Jehovah’s Witness.
Those who fought against Muslims were mainly Catholics. Spain was the only country from which they managed to get rid of, after the invasion of seven centuries.
As for “Pope Francis,” this man does not teach the Catholic faith (I am a Catholic), and I do not believe he is the Pope. Rather, it acts like a Protestant. In fact, he has spoken well of Luther on several occasions.
Yes, he has.
billobillo ought to like this pope.
I don’t like this Pope. He is an Islamist.
This Pope is also a Climate Change interventionist and an evolutionist, positions affirmed by the RCC and positions that I believe are errant, with Darwinism, being a denial of the faith.
It’s great to know that you know better than the Pope. And you know better than the hierarchy and the Euchumenical Council Vatican 2. I guess when Jesus referred to Peter as the Rock, He was, of course, in need of your approval. You have the admirable ( in my book) position of thinking for yourself just like Luther.
Have you seen the stamp issued by the Vatican on the occasion of the fifth centenary of Luther’s “reform”? They have replaced the Virgin Mary and St. John, with Luther and his follower, Melanchthon.
No, I am not like Luther, about whom I say he is a heretic, as the Church always said. On the other hand, Francisco does not speak like that. And that’s why I say what I say.
You are EXACTLY like Luther. On the one hand, you demand that everyone is obedient to the Roman Church. The Roman Church is the Pope, the Bishops and the language of the Councils. On the other hand, when you PERSONALLY do not agree with the dictates of the Pope and the Bishops, YOU know better. So, I assume that, around 1,000 A.D. when the Roman Church FINALLY, AFTER A MILLENNIUM decided that Transubstantiation was the truth, those who disagreed based on the past position of the Church FOR 1,000 YEARS could, like you, condemn the Pope and the Bishops and go their own way, just like Luther. So, now, the Vatican 2, with the very same authority of Christ Himself by your theology, commands you to respect Protestants as SEPARATED BRETHREN and NOT as heretics, YOU KNOW BETTER. I guess you also disagree with 841 of the Roman Catechism (as I do and as Luther did), that Catholics, “together with (Muslims) worship God.” I say Muslims DO NOT WORSHIP GOD (so Luther also condemned Islam). Because in 1 John the Apostle writes that: “Whoever does not have the Son does not have the Father.” Or do you, as a good Catholic should, submit to the Pope, Bishops and the Magesterium and adopt their syncretism and “together we (Catholics) with them (Muslims) worship God.”
Dear, you know very little about the Catholic religion.
1) When the Church, with the Pope in front, proclaims a dogma, that does not mean that from that moment begins to believe in what he says by that dogma, but with that dogma the Church condemn some serious error or heresies.
For example, at the Council of Ephesus in the fifth century, the Church dogmatically defines that the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God, but that does not mean that the christians did not believe it before. The Scripture already says it and the Apostles and Tradition have preached it.
2) The same happens with the transubstantiation and the dogmas of the Holy Trinity, etc.
3) A pope can never contradict Catholic doctrine. If the person sitting in the Holy See contradicts Catholic doctrine, he does not act like a Catholic Pope, and can be deposed as a heretic. I hope that happens with Bergoglio.
4) But the problem did indeed begin at the Second Vatican Council, among other things with the conciliar declaration “Nostra Aetate”. This declaration contains statements that contradict Catholic doctrine, and is what has given rise to so much false ecumenism and has encouraged the many members of the Catholic hierarchy to welcome the implantation of so many mosques in Europe.
5) Paul VI himself gave Turkey the flag that led the Christian fleet in the battle at Lepanto, 1571, when the fleet of the Catholic countries defeated the Ottoman fleet. John Paul II kissed the Koran in 1999, and promoted so many “ecumenical” actions that betrayed the Catholic faith. We have to love everyone, but not be stupid. We have to differentiate between the person and the ideology.
Finally, you have this:
Pro-life Anglican theologian asks: Is the Pope Catholic?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-anglican-theologian-pope-francis-faith-is-different-rome-has-been
Catholics (both RC variety and Eastern Christians) did fight more against Muslim conquest than Protestants but this probably just because of geographic vulnerability.
Hmm, crusades were essential to the survival of some Christian countries? Seems like a crusade was essential to the destruction of one Christian culture–the Albigensians of Southern France.
Nothing you wrote in any way hides the fact that by your own Catholic standards you are self willed and rebellious, no different, from your perspective than any Protestant. Your own condemnation of Vatican 2 speaks volumes of your rebellion. Again, YOU KNOW BETTER than the Pope(s), Bishops and Magisterium. You can spin it any way you want, the fact is YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. You are your own Pope.
Nothing you wrote in any way hides the fact that by your own Catholic standards you are self willed and rebellious, no different, from your perspective than any Protestant. Your own condemnation of Vatican 2 speaks volumes of your rebellion. Again, YOU KNOW BETTER than the Pope(s), Bishops and Magisterium. You can spin it any way you want, the fact is YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. You are your own Pope.
The Church teaches that it’s God’s grace from beginning to end which justifies, sanctifies, and saves us. As Paul explains in Philippians 2:13, “God is the one, who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work.”
The Council of Trent harmonizes the necessity of grace and works: “If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or by the teaching of the Law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema” (Session 6; can. 1).
The Council fathers continued by saying, “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema” (Session 6: can. 9).
By the way, “let him be anathema” means “let him be excommunicated,”
So, far from teaching a doctrine of “works righteousness” (that would be Pelagianism, which was condemned at the Council of Carthage in A.D. 418), the Catholic Church teaches the true, biblical doctrine of justification.
Abraham’s been justified once in Genesis 15 and again in Genesis 17.
Genesis 17
Take note that Abram’s justification did not end there. Abram’s name hasn’t even been changed, yet.
Ten more years have elapsed and God finally gave him the promised son from his loins. Although Abraham was 99 years old and Sarah was 90.
Genesis 22:11 But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, “Abraham, Abraham!” “Here I am,” he answered. 12 “Do not lay your hand on the boy,” said the angel. “Do not do the least thing to him. For now I know that you fear God, since you did not withhold from me your son, your only one.”
St. James says that this is the point at which Abraham was justified, because he was willing to give up his son in obedience to God:
James 2:20 Do you want proof, you IGNORAMUS, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.” 24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
And that’s how Abraham was justified. It was a very long and arduous process which took a lifetime. Not a one time proclamation of faith alone. In fact, it is not recorded anywhere that Abraham said, “I accept God as my Lord and Saviour”. He simply acted in accordance with that sentiment. As St. James so aptly put it:
One Apostle wrote this: “The anger of man does not work the righteousness of God.” Jesus said, “Even if you say to your brother ‘you idiot’ you are guilty of hell fire.” There was no reason for you to abuse me verbally by calling me a defamatory name. That can be construed, by your standard, as a mortal sin, as it is akin to murder.
I don’t care what you say or what the Roman Church says or what Trent says. You and they are wrong. Justification is a once for all act of God and it continues throughout a person’s life. God doesn’t justify a person and then that person needs to be justified again and again.
You are nullifying grace. You are perverting the gospel. You are preaching “another gospel” and you don’t know Christ if you believe that works are necessary for justification.
You like the Church Fathers? How about this Church Father :PETER. Here is what Peter preached in Acts 10:42-43
42 And He ordered us to [af]preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. 43 Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who BELIEVES in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”
What is the condition Peter states as necessary for the “forgiveness of sins?”
Is there anything else that Peter says is required? THE ANSWER IS NO. HE SAYS NOTHING ELSE.
How about Paul in Acts 13? This is PRIMITIVE APOSTOLIC CHRISTIANITY BEFORE ANY ERROR: ACTS 13:38-39:
“38 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through [p]Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, 39 and [q]through Him everyone who BELIEVES is justified from all things, from which you could not be justified [u]through the Law of Moses.”
What is the condition PAUL states as necessary for being “justified?”
Is there anything else that Peter says is required? THE ANSWER IS NO. HE SAYS NOTHING ELSE.
does this sound like accepting JESUS as Lord and saviour a one time event.no they had to persevere. Act 2 :
Your from the ones saved always saved group.
Or part Calvinists of predestination.
And if you want some church father quotes I have them. Because they are Catholic.
what you teach is a 16th century invention.
But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.
40 And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation.
41 They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.
42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43 And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all.
44 And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common.
45 Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need.
46 And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart;
47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved.
You create straw men. The Biblical term is BELIEVE and FAITH. Those who believe persevere. Those who believe are delivered from sin. Those who believe love the Church. Those who believe practice love and holiness. You are exactly like the Galatian Church members who preached and believed “another gospel.” You share the same fate.
And, it is precisely the false gospel of faith and works being necessary for salvation that leads to antinomianism. The gospel you preach is BAD NEWS. There is no deliverance from sin, no joy, NO ASSURANCE OF SALVATION, no real holiness, and no confidence if works have the slightest part in your sin being forgiven. Thankfully, the Bible is crystal clear that Sola Fide is the real gospel.
Your sola fide is another gospel it is nowhere found in the Bible it is contrary to the Apostle James, NOT BY FAITH ALONE.
As I said it before BELIEVE is a VERB is something that you DO and we are bound to time so it is something we must do daily, and not a one time event.
Because we are not angels.
GOD is not going to judge you by the time and date you accepted JESUS as your Lord and savior.
Your pulling that gospel out of thin air .no Christian has ever preached that prior to the 16th century.
(One example of hundreds): Romans 5:1: “Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God.” (THERE IS NO OTHER MEANS OF JUSTIFICATION OTHER THAN FAITH. AND PAUL SAYS OVER AND OVER IT IS NOT BY WORKS).
The Roman Church is one big error:
1. Not one mention of a priesthood in the NT. NOT ONE.
2. You venerate Mary and call her “Mediatrix” and “Most Holy”; ONLY CHRIST IS THE MEDIATOR AND ONLY GOD IS HOLY.
3. All the Apostles preached Faith Alone as the means of salvation.
4. Jesus preached faith alone as the means of salvation.
5. God is not a piece of bread and is not a cup of wine.
6. Your church is filled with drunken priests, homosexual priests and immorality at the highest level just like when Luther visited Rome as an Augustinian monk.
7. Why did Pope Benedict resign? Because the corruption and immorality is so deep and so pervasive he had to go.
8. The Roman Church affirms the most horrible and destructive ideology in the history of the world: Darwinism.
9. Faith is DEFINED in Hebrews 11:1; And throughout the entire NT is is juxtaposed with works.
10. Baptizing infants is completely contrary to the Bible.
I DO NOT BELIEVE FOR ONE SECOND THAT YOU HAVE EVER READ THE ENTIRE BIBLE OR READ IT WITH REGULARITY. I HAVE NEVER MET A CATHOLIC WHO ACTUALLY READS THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE.
Let’s not get off track here.
One at a time.
I can answer you every single question and some I already have I have said it before the saints preached about the few that are saved.
And that the road to hell is paved with the skulls of priests and bishops.
All the scandals in the Church I know them probably better than you.
And I have read the Bible from cover to cover and my Bible is thicker than yours.
And I read it often it’s why I’m a devout Catholic.
But I read it in line of tradition ,so when someone come along preaching some new gospel I immediately know its not what the Church and the Apostles the early church fathers have taught ,I have 3 volumes of their writings.
I would believe we are saved by believing in Christ( John 3:16.
By repentance acts 2:38
By baptism John 3:5 1Peter 3:21
By the work of the spirit John 3:5 2 Corinthians 3:6
By declaring with our mouth lk 12:8 rom 10:9
By coming to the knowledge of Truth 1 Timothy 2:4 heb 10:26
By works Romans 2:6 james 2:24
By Grace acts 15:11 eph2:8
By his blood romans 5:9 Hebrews 9:22
By his righteousness Romans 5:17;2 peter 1:1
By his cross eph 2:16 col 2:14
Before I believe in faith ALONE wich is a doctrine of men.it is nowhere in scripture or tradition.
You pervert the gospel. Romans 2:6 does not teach salvation by works. Jesus, and the Apostles taught that we are saved by faith in Christ and no one or nothing else.
Are you a greater scripture scholar than st. Jerome and the Saints or know more than the Church.
Cyril of Jerusalem
“The root of every good work is the hope of the resurrection, for the expectation of a reward nerves the soul to good work. Every laborer is prepared to endure the toils if he looks forward to the reward of these toils” (Catechetical Lectures 18:1 [A.D. 350]).
Jerome
“It is our task, according to our different virtues, to prepare for ourselves different rewards. . . . If we were all going to be equal in heaven it would be useless for us to humble ourselves here in order to have a greater place there. . . . Why should virgins persevere? Why should widows toil? Why should married women be content? Let us all sin, and after we repent we shall be the same as the apostles are!” (Against Jovinian 2:32 [A.D. 393]).
Augustine
“We are commanded to live righteously, and the reward is set before us of our meriting to live happily in eternity. But who is able to live righteously and do good works unless he has been justified by faith?” (Various Questions to Simplician 1:2:21 [A.D. 396]).
“He bestowed forgiveness; the crown he will pay out. Of forgiveness he is the donor; of the crown, he is the debtor. Why debtor? Did he receive something? . . . The Lord made himself a debtor not by receiving something but by promising something. One does not say to him, ‘Pay for what you received,’ but ‘Pay what you promised’” (Explanations of the Psalms 83:16 [A.D. 405]).
“What merits of his own has the saved to boast of when, if he were dealt with according to his merits, he would be nothing if not damned? Have the just then no merits at all? Of course they do, for they are the just. But they had no merits by which they were made just” (Letters 194:3:6 [A.D. 412]).
“What merit, then, does a man have before grace, by which he might receive grace, when our every good merit is produced in us only by grace and when God, crowning our merits, crowns nothing else but his own gifts to us?” (ibid., 194:5:19).
Prosper of Aquitaine
“Indeed, a man who has been justified, that is, who from impious has been made pious, since he had no antecedent good merit, receives a gift, by which gift he may also acquire merit. Thus, what was begun in him by Christ’s grace can also be augmented by the industry of his free choice, but never in the absence of God’s help, without which no one is able either to progress or to continue in doing good” (Responses on Behalf of Augustine 6 [A.D. 431])
Ignatius of Antioch
“Be pleasing to him whose soldiers you are, and whose pay you receive. May none of you be found to be a deserter. Let your baptism be your armament, your faith your helmet, your love your spear, your endurance your full suit of armor. Let your works be as your deposited withholdings, so that you may receive the back-pay which has accrued to you” (Letter to Polycarp 6:2 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
“We have learned from the prophets and we hold it as true that punishments and chastisements and good rewards are distributed according to the merit of each man’s actions. Were this not the case, and were all things to happen according to the decree of fate, there would be nothing at all in our power. If fate decrees that this man is to be good and that one wicked, then neither is the former to be praised nor the latter to be blamed” (First Apology 43 [A.D. 151]).
Tatian the Syrian
“[T]he wicked man is justly punished, having become depraved of himself; and the just man is worthy of praise for his honest deeds, since it was in his free choice that he did not transgress the will of God” (Address to the Greeks 7 [A.D. 170]).
Athenagoras
“And we shall make no mistake in saying, that the [goal] of an intelligent life and rational judgment, is to be occupied uninterruptedly with those objects to which the natural reason is chiefly and primarily adapted, and to delight unceasingly in the contemplation of Him Who Is, and of his decrees, notwithstanding that the majority of men, because they are affected too passionately and too violently by things below, pass through life without attaining this object. For . . . the examination relates to individuals, and the reward or punishment of lives ill or well spent is proportioned to the merit of each” (The Resurrection of the Dead 25 [A.D. 178]).
Theophilus of Antioch
“He who gave the mouth for speech and formed the ears for hearing and made eyes for seeing will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works [Rom. 2:7], he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things, which neither eye has seen nor ear has heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man [1 Cor. 2:9]. For the unbelievers and the contemptuous and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity . . . there will be wrath and indignation [Rom. 2:8]” (To Autolycus 1:14 [A.D. 181]).
Irenaeus
“[Paul], an able wrestler, urges us on in the struggle for immortality, so that we may receive a crown and so that we may regard as a precious crown that which we acquire by our own struggle and which does not grow upon us spontaneously. . . . Those things which come to us spontaneously are not loved as much as those which are obtained by anxious care” (Against Heresies 4:37:7 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
“Again, we [Christians] affirm that a judgment has been ordained by God according to the merits of every man” (To the Nations 19 [A.D. 195]).
“In former times the Jews enjoyed much of God’s favor, when the fathers of their race were noted for their righteousness and faith. So it was that as a people they flourished greatly, and their kingdom attained to a lofty eminence; and so highly blessed were they, that for their instruction God spoke to them in special revelations, pointing out to them beforehand how they should merit his favor and avoid his displeasure” (Apology 21 [A.D. 197]).
“A good deed has God for its debtor [cf. Prov. 19:17], just as also an evil one; for a judge is the rewarder in every case [cf. Rom. 13:3–4]” (Repentance 2:11 [A.D. 203]).
Hippolytus
“Standing before [Christ’s] judgment, all of them, men, angels, and demons, crying out in one voice, shall say: ‘Just is your judgment,’ and the justice of that cry will be apparent in the recompense made to each. To those who have done well, everlasting enjoyment shall be given; while to lovers of evil shall be given eternal punishment” (Against the Greeks 3 [A.D. 212]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord denounces [Christian evildoers], and says, ‘Many shall say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name, and in your name have cast out devils, and in your name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you who work iniquity’ [Matt. 7:21–23]. There is need of righteousness, that one may deserve well of God the Judge; we must obey his precepts and warnings, that our merits may receive their reward” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 15, 1st ed. [A.D. 251]).
“[Y]ou who are a matron rich and wealthy, anoint not your eyes with the antimony of the devil, but with the collyrium of Christ, so that you may at last come to see God, when you have merited before God both by your works and by your manner of living” (Works and Almsgivings 14 [A.D. 253]).
Lactantius
“Let every one train himself to righteousness, mold himself to self-restraint, prepare himself for the contest, equip himself for virtue . . . [and] in his uprightness acknowledge the true and only God, may cast away pleasures, by the attractions of which the lofty soul is depressed to the earth, may hold fast innocence, may be of service to as many as possible, may gain for himself incorruptible treasures by good works, that he may be able, with God for his judge, to gain for the merits of his virtue either the crown of faith, or the reward of immortality” (Epitome of the Divine Institutes 73 [A.D. 317]).
Sechnall of Ireland
“Hear, all you who love God, the holy merits of Patrick the bishop, a man blessed in Christ; how, for his good deeds, he is likened unto the angels, and, for his perfect life, he is comparable to the apostles” (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 1 [A.D. 444]).
Council of Orange II
“[G]race is preceded by no merits. A reward is due to good works, if they are performed, but grace, which is not due, precedes [good works], that they may be done” (Canons on grace 19 [A.D. 529]).
Were those men heretics for teaching contrary to your gospel? No
Protestantism is a heresy and you’re leading people astray you take advantage of the ingorance of the laity and if you die in that state you will not be saved, you need to repent.
I see you are adept at copying and pasting, but know NOTHING of the righteousness of God.
1. First, we will be rewarded for our good works in Christ, but the works are the fruit of righteousness not the cause of righteousness.
2. YOU are the heretic not me. You defy the current Roman leadership, then condemn Saints, like me, who are obedient to the gospel. Who knows better, the Pope or you?
3. The curses that Paul pronounced on those who preach “another gospel” in Galatians 1 are on your head and those like you.
4. In Hebrews the text reminds us that those “who enter His (God’s) rest HAVE CEASED FROM THEIR OWN WORKS” as a means of righteousness. You preach this distortion of the gospel and are fooling yourself. You are DISOBEDIENT.
5. YOUR ROMAN CHURCH IS SO FLAWED A TWO YEAR OLD COULD SEE IT.
Also: You cannot escape the FACT that “the works of the Law” or good works” mean obedience to God’s Law, even the Beatitudes. Romans 2 does NOT suggest that a person can be justified by works. And your assertion that Paul is speaking of obedience to Jewish ceremonial Law is childish and fundamentally errant, flawed and probably dishonest. Romans 3 says ” By the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified in His sight…” Paul also writes in Romans: “IF IT BE BY WORKS IT IS NO LONGER GRACE…” You and your pathetic, heretical abomination of Catholicism nullify grace.
You still have failed to show me were the Church teaches that one is justified by works on the contrary I have quoted the council of trent here it is again,
If anyone says that man is justified before God by his own works (whether done through the teaching of human nature or the law) without the grace of God through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.
And I told you before thatour LORD JESUS summoned the ten into two Love God and neighbor for that fulfills the ten commandments.
If anyone says that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are neither commanded nor prohibited; or the Ten Commandments do not pertain to Christians, let him be anathema.
If anyone says that the man who is justified is not bound to observe the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe; as if the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life without the condition of observing the commandments, let him be anathema.
The commandments ARE GOOD WORKS.
and you failed to show me were in the Bible says all you need is faith alone.
I also quoted you this before
The Church teaches that it’s God’s grace from beginning to end which justifies, sanctifies, and saves us.
Tell me are you a baptized Catholic?
Did you leave the Church because someone lied to you, that the Catholic Church TEACHES one is saved by works, and you are telling me the same thing to justify your self for leaving the Church?
You were LIED to.
If you cant show me were the Church teaches that one is justified by works apart from first receiving Gods grace first.
Then you are deliberately lying.
And end of discussion.
Your Roman Catholic Church teaches the false gospel of faith plus works plus who knows what else equals justification. The Bible teaches that faith alone brings justification.
Grace is received, by faith. Grace is God’s unmerited, unearned, undeserved favor based on Christ alone.
Galatians 3: “2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of [b]the Law, or by [c]hearing with faith?”
” So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works [g]miracles among you, do it by the works of [h]the Law, or by [i]hearing with faith?”
It is by the “hearing with faith.” (There is no other condition required or mentioned. Faith stands alone).
Galatians 2: “5 “We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; 16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of [n]the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of [o]the Law; since by the works of [p]the Law no [q]flesh will be justified.”
Believing and nothing else brings justification.
Romans 5:1: “Therefore being JUSTIFIED BY FAITH WE HAVE PEACE WITH GOD.”
YOUR SACERDOTAL SYSTEM BRINGS ZERO GRACE BECAUSE IT IS NOT SANCTIONED BY GOD.
There is no priesthood
Jesus is not bread and wine
Jesus had brothers and sisters
There is no purgatory.
Mary is not a mediator
Mary died
Mary had sin
Mary was not forever virgin
The council of Trent has condemned the preaching of the real gospel.
Peter was not the head of the primitive church; James was.
Romans 2 does NOT teach that one can be justified by works. Your interpretation is PATHETIC and demonstrates you can only read commentaries.
I am a Christian and will be in heaven forever based on the grace of God through faith in Jesus. You are disobedient and deceived.
1 Corinthians 13:13 now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the GREATEST of these is love.
As your father Luther said ( sin and sin boldly for all you need is faith alone)
JESUS said different.
Matthew 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.
That does not sound like faith ALONE.
Keeon picking and choosing verses that is why your a sectarian.
Luther was expressing the confidence he had in the atonement. A confidence that is taught by the words of Jesus Himself, over and over. And, Jesus words you have quoted are an assertion of His divinity and His Messiah ship and the preference He has for His people. You will be condemned by those words because, by promoting the false gospel as you do and cursing the true gospel as you and the errant Council of Trent does, you have done nothing but persecuted and harm God’s people. There is no other necessary ingredient other than faith for salvation. “Abraham believed the LORD and it was CREDITED to him as righteousness.”. Abraham is the type used by Paul to teach the righteousness by FAITH ALONE. Jesus said, “He who believes has eternal life.” You are adding a requirement to the words of Jesus.
And, you are COMPLETELY disobedient to the Roman Church YOURSELF and are no different in kind than to Luther or Calvin. You said in one post, elevating YOURSELF above the authority of the Roman Church: “It all started to go bad with Vatican 2.”. Really? So Santiago knows better than a Church Council. Now your VILE Roman Church embraces Islam, embraces Darwinism, embraces Climate Change fraud and still preaches the false gospel of faith plus works plus whatever else.
Also…repentance DOES NOT SAVE…Christ saves by grace through faith. Judas repented, confessed his sin and did an act of contrition and still was lost. There are two possible responses to Christ: faith and good works. Paul says over and over that the salvation is through faith and not by works. The Apostles and Jesus taught the exact same thing. You obviously do not pay any attention to the truth since I demonstrated clearly through the text of Scripture that “works of the Law” are not mere observance of Jewish rituals but are the very best humans can do in obedience to God, like obedience to the Sermon On the Mount, which is nothing less than the Law of God. Yet you persisted in the childish and dishonest narrative that the “works of the Law” are merely Jewish ceremonial practices like circumcision isolated from the commandments.
This is your quote ,We are not saved by water baptism.
You contradict the Apostle Peter,1Peter 3:21Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also:
And your faith ALONE contradicts the Apostle James.
Now a heretic is going to teach me what the Church teaches ,you truly are ignorant.
Let me tell you a secret Vatican council ll was NOT an infallible council.
The only infallible thing it taught was only when it proclaimed and affirmed the past councils.
NO NEW DOGMA OR DOCTRINE.
Your a joke.
Peter says “Baptism now saves you, NOT THE WASHING OF FILTH FROM THE FLESH, but the answer from God for a good conscience.” So it is not “THE WORKING OF THE WORK” but the result of faith in Christ. Why would Paul write, ” God did NOT send me to baptize but to preach the gospel”. Cornelius and his house received the Holy Spirit by passively listening to Peter preach ” everyone who BELIEVES receives the forgiveness of all their sin”. They were baptised in water after they received the Holy Spirit by hearing the gospel and believing. Thanks for calling me a name in your anger again. God bless you. I forgive, not in order to merit forgiveness, but because ALL my sibs are forgiven (Colosians 2:13). You, however, oppose the gospel.
Congratulations you finally put the two together (believe and baptism)
Cornelius and his house relieved and where Baptized.
And no I don’t get angry if I ever do it is righteous anger.
The Church is the bride of Christ.
And of course I don’t like it when it is moked.
And I know you’ll say it is the protestant believers in Christ but that would be spiritual adultery, JESUS fouded one Church, one body one faith one bride.
Btw you insulted me first.
It is God who places us in the Body through the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. We receive the Holy Spirit when we hear (or read) the gospel and believe it (Ephesians 1:13). The gospel is summarized by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. Water baptism has no efficacy and is NOT the means of initial and continued justification. Paul labors in Romans 1 through 5 on this point. Abraham was justified by hearing the gospel and believing it. There was no ritual involved and no work involved. And, you are really at odds with the Roman Church just as much as ant Protestant. You, with your theology that elevates the Church way too far own everything said and done by your priests and Bishop’s.
Also. I did not insult you first. You are a typical bully Catholic. I know them very, very well. Kinda like the spiritual Taliban. You have a lot of nerve living in a nation that through Protestantism gave you the Constitution and Bill of Rights, yet calling us heretics and not giving us any respect. The same spirit that drove the Inquisition and Bloody Mary.
Here is the other side of the story.
A Catholic colony was settled in Maryland by Cecil Calvert in 1634. A church and school were built as Catholic settlers arrived, accompanied by Jesuit priests. They permitted religious freedom to others and, as a result, Protestants obtained control of the colony. The English Church was then established and Catholics were denied their right to vote. The religious freedom of Catholics in Maryland was then restricted until after the Revolutionary War.
The French Huguenots then appeared and raided Spanish Catholic Indian settlements. Missionaries and the faithful were put to death with extreme cruelty. The British, who had been colonizing in the north, also began to destroy Spanish gains.
Governor Moore of South Carolina in 1704 directed a raid of the Apalachee Mission, valuable for food supplies. Franciscan missionaries were put to death; 1,400 Indians were taken into slavery by the English governor and 800 Catholic Indians were killed.
Weakened, the Spanish signed the Treaty of Paris with England in 1763m ceding Florida to the British. The Catholic faith in Florida was then even more suppressed. At the end of the American Revolution, however, the United States government returned Florida to Spanish control. In 1821 Florida was purchased as part of the United States.
in 1598 Don Juan de Onate led an expedition to establish a colony in New Mexico. It consisted of 400 soldiers, 10 missionaries, 83 supply wagons and carts, and 7,000 head of stock. Onate went as far as Wichita, Kansas, and California. Onate’s expeditions to New Mexico became an economic drain and the victory of New Spain assigned Pedro de Peralta to build a new capital and to colonize. This was done. He named a site, Royal City of the Holy Faith of St. Francis, known today as Sante Fe (Holy Faith). Santa Fe was founded in 1609 and became the headquarters for future missions in New Mexico. By 1625 there were forty-three missions and 34, 000 Christian Indians.
Fr. Kino’s mission of San Xavier del Bac, not far from what is Tucson, Arizona, is now a national monument, while still the parish church for the Pima Indians. It is the finest example of Spanish Renaissance architecture in the United States.
Fr. Kino traveled thousands of miles on horse, ever anxious to convert souls. Some of this trails became roads, and he kept journals of his extensive travels. His papers were preserved in the Huntington Library in San Marino, California. While Fr. Kino won the faith of the Pima Indians for Jesus Christ, he was always sad that he did not succeed in converting the Apache Indians.
Fr. Kino died on March 15, 1711, in poverty, as he had lived. He is venerated as a great American pioneer
Catholics were only about 1 percent of the population of the colonies but they made great contributions.
Some Catholics rose to high positions, such as Commodore John Barry, who became Father of the American Navy. Many Catholics enlisted in the Continental army and the navy and a regiment of Catholic Indians came down from Maine. Catholic generals even came from Europe to help the War for Independence.
The abuse of the Indians by the white man mars the pages of American history, as does the abuse of black people as slaves. While the new American civilization was in many ways an enemy to the Indians’ nomadic manner of life, the Church befriended the Indian tribes from the very beginning. Many historical accounts could be given of “Blackrobes” helping the Indians, and significant examples are the following.
The Cheyenne were sent to reservations chosen by the white conquerors. Massacres took place. Wherever the Cheyenne went, priests were there to administer to their spiritual needs and seek justice for them. These included the Jesuits, the Edmundites, and the Capuchins.
The Navajos, who roamed the Southwest, were a talented tribe who learned the Spanish language as they were Christianized by the first Spanish missionaries ; Franciscans first preached to them. Fr. Bernard Haile O.F.M. made the first alphabet for the Navajo. His dictionary and anthropological works are still chief sources for knowledge about these people. The government tried unsuccessfully to remove these people to reservations in Oklahoma.
In Indiana, the Potawatomi Indians were under pressure of the government to be removed to Kansas. When Chief Menominee refused, the Indiana governor ordered them removed by force. The attack came on a Sunday morning, while the Indians, converted to Catholicism, were at Mass.
In South and North Dakota the Benedictines have labored long for the Indian people, as have other missionaries . The Benedictines still labor in the Dakotas, from their chief monastery, Blue Cloud Abbey, at Marvin, South Dakota.
In 1824 the Jesuits opened a school for Indian boys at Florissant, Missouri, while the Ladies of the Sacred Heart opened a school for Indian girls there. Later the Vincentian fathers took charge of the Indian missions on the Mississippi River.
In 1842, in New Orleans, Bishop Blanc founded the Sisters of the Holy Family to take care of black people, especially orphans and the aged.
In 1866 the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore met, with the bishops urging priests “as far as they can to consecrate their thoughts, their time and themselves, wholly and entirely if possible, to the service of the colored people.”
A large congregation of Negro Catholics formed St. Francis Xavier’s Church in Baltimore, when in 1871 four young priests who had studied for the missions in England were put in charge. This marked the beginning of St. Joseph’s Society for Colored Catholics â the Josephite Fathers. As the society grew, missions for black people spread throughout the South.
Mother Catherine Drexel founded a new order of nuns in 1889. They called themselves the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament and devoted themselves to spreading the Catholic faith to the blacks and Indians of the United States.
To the present day there are Catholic missions among the colored people and the Indians. The Commission for Catholic Missions reported in the 1970s that missions are located in twenty-five states: 157 in the Southwest, 63 in the Northwest, 60 in the Dakotas, 45 in Alaska, 36 in the Great Lakes area, and 40 in other states.
The idea that one could not be a good American and a good Catholic at the same time was introduced to this country from Europe. Unscrupulous politicians used it to their advantage in appealing to hatred of the Catholic Church.
In 1837 an organization was formed, Native Americans, that apparently forgot that the Indian people are the natives. This organization developed into the Know Nothing Party, and when a papal representative came to the United States in 1853, he was mobbed by its members in Cincinnati.
Persecution of Catholics resulted all over the country, and Catholic churches were destroyed. A Jesuit priest was tarred and feathered in Bangor, Maine. Riots broke out in cities like Louisville and St. Louis, and blood was shed. A movement was on to keep Catholics from holding public office and having the right to vote.
And have some respect for the Protestants, like the militia at Lexington, or George Washington, Nathan Hale, Paul Revere, Sam Adams, the Father of the American Revolution, and my own father on Okinawa on day 3.
Some Catholic signers not well known.
John Carroll was an intimate of Washington. He wrote a prayer at the time of Washington’s inauguration asking God’s blessing on the president, Congress, and government of the United States a prayer still very much in use today. Out of gratitude for John Carroll’s support during the war, Washington gave a modified version of the seal of the United States to the institution that is now Georgetown University, and that seal is still in use.
Despite their enormous contributions to the American founding, the three Carrolls somehow fell below the radar screen of recognition as full-fledged founding fathers. Perhaps that was because they were Catholics in a country and a culture that for many years was overwhelmingly Protestant
Several of those lesser-known men who played key roles in the creation of the United States of America were Catholics. Chief among them were three members of the Carroll family of Maryland: Charles Carroll, the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence; his cousin Daniel Carroll; and Daniel Carroll’s brother John Carroll, who became America’s first Catholic bishop.
Charles Carroll of Carrollton (1737-1832) was the most illustrious and best-known of the Carrolls. He was the only signer whose property Carrollton was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Carrollton was the 10,000-acre estate in Frederick County, Maryland, that Charles Carroll’s father had given him on his return to America from his education in Europe.
At the time he signed the Declaration, it was against the law for a Catholic to hold public office or to vote. Although Maryland was founded by and for Catholics in 1634, in 1649 and, later, in 1689 after the Glorious Revolution placed severe restrictions on Catholics in England, the laws were changed in Maryland, and Catholicism was repressed.
Catholics could no longer hold office, exercise the franchise, educate their children in their faith, or worship in public. With the Declaration of Independence, all this bias and restriction ended. Charles Carroll first became known in colonial politics through his defense of freedom of conscience and his belief that the power to govern derived from the consent of the governed. He was a staunch supporter of Washington, and when the war was going badly at Valley Forge, he was instrumental in persuading the Revolution’s Board of War not to replace Washington with General Horatio Gates. Carroll supported the war with his own private funds; he was widely regarded as the wealthiest of all the colonists, with the most to lose were the fight for independence to fail. Carroll was greatly acclaimed in later life, and he outlived all the other signers of the Declaration.
Daniel Carroll of Rock Creek (1730-1796) was a member of the Continental Congress (1781-1783), and a signer of the Articles of Confederation. He was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and one of only two Catholic signers of the United States Constitution. (The other Catholic signer was Thomas Fitzsimons of Pennsylvania.) At the Constitutional Convention, Daniel Carroll played an essential role in formulating the limitation of the powers of the federal government. He was the author of the presumption enshrined in the Constitution that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government were reserved to the states or to the people.
Daniel Carroll later became a member of the first United States Congress (1789-1791). He was also a member of the first Senate of Maryland, where he served up to the time of his death. He was appointed by Washington as one of the first three commissioners of the new federal city that is now known as the District of Columbia. In today’s terminology, he would have been considered the mayor of Washington, D.C.
John Carroll (1735-1815), Daniel Carroll’s younger brother, was educated in Europe, joined the Jesuit order, and was ordained a priest. He founded a private school for boys and named it after the town where it was located, Georgetown, a port on the Potomac River that later became part of Washington, D.C. He went on to be elected by all the Catholic priests in America to become America’s first Catholic bishop. He later became archbishop of Baltimore. In any procession of American bishops, the archbishop of Baltimore always goes last in recognition of its role as America’s oldest diocese. In 1789, John Carroll founded the college in Georgetown that later became known as Georgetown University.
During a period when the Revolutionary War was going badly, Washington asked John Carroll to join a mission to Canada to seek the support of the French for the colonies. Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase, and Charles Carroll of Carrollton were the others on the four-man mission. While it failed, it established a relationship with the French, much influenced by the Catholic faith they held in common with the Carrolls. It bore fruit years later at Yorktown, where the largely Catholic-financed French fleet cut off supplies to British general Charles Cornwallis, and Washington was able to force Cornwallis to surrender and bring the war to an end.
And the snti Catholics are alive and well today, if you go to a religion class in a public school they teach of other religions positively but when it comes to Catholicism they teach all the bad stuff the sins committed by Catholics.
They attack the persons and not their position.
Like if I had something to do with what happened 400 years ago.
We are here discussing positions not aan attack on you personally.
But the position you hold and your soul is at stake.
You are following the errors of Protestantism.
And by saying that I don’t mean that protestants are bad persons I work with many of them.
We are friends but when it comes to religion they accuse me of the same thing you did.
And also
During World War I, although Catholics at that time were about 17 percent of the population, it is estimated that between 25 and 35 percent of the army and about 50 percent of the navy were Catholic. This is attributed to the fact that our Catholic schools have always taught patriotism. During this war, Catholic priests became outstanding as chaplains, the best known being Fr. Francis P. Duffy of the famous Fighting Sixty-Ninth.
One of every four members of the armed forces was Catholic in World War II. Again, at least half of the navy was Catholic, as was a high percentage of the Marine Corps. Many Catholics received the Congressional Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest decoration for heroic service beyond the call of duty.
In various wars of the United States, the loyalty and contributions of Catholics have been obvious. Catholics again showed their loyalty in the Korean and Vietnam wars. The manner in which the Vietnam War was fought proved very controversial, although its anti-communism aim was worthy.
Patriotism, which is love of one’s country, was taught by Christ, who said we should give our country its due. St. Paul wrote that we should be obedient to just authority. Patriotism is related to justice and an ally of charity, which requires us to love our fellow countrymen. The Church, however, does not teach blind patriotism or excessive and inordinate affection for one’s country, to the detriment of the rights of other nations. This is nationalism, which is opposed to the unity of the human race. In modern times, nazism, fascism, and communism are disguised and extreme forms of nationalism.
It is true that there have been many cases of great patriotism and heroism among non-Catholic chaplains, but it’s a fact that only four chaplains have received the nation’s highest decoration, presented in the name of Congress for “conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the normal call of duty.” All four were Catholics.
We are not saved by water baptism. We are saved by the baptism of the Holy Spirit by “the hearing with faith” (Galatians 2, Ephesians 1:13). Read Acts 10. Peter preached the gospel of faith alone to Cornelius and his house. Read the text. “Everyone who BELIEVES receives the forgiveness of sins.” What other condition did Peter say? No other condition. Faith ALONE. The Holy Spirit fell on these Gentiles and they were baptised with water after conversion and AFTER they believed the gospel. The Roman Church in no way resembles the primitive church.
More on baptism.
Further, our Lord once said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16).
Jesus said in John 3:5, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Being born of the water and the Spirit is an explanation of what he says in verse 3, “Unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
he was referring to the promise in Ezekiel 36:25–26: “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you.”
Notice that Ezekiel 36:25–26 says that God gives the sprinkled person “a new heart” and “a new spirit.” Isn’t this the same as what Jesus says when he speaks of being born again of the water and the Spirit? Furthermore, when Ezekiel says that the person will be cleansed from all impurities and idols, isn’t this the same kind of cleansing that Ananias told Paul when he said, “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his [the Lord’s] name” (Acts 22:16
If it is only a symbol as protestants claim then what Ananias said to Paul makes no sense, “be baptized and wash away your sins.”
There seems to be unanimous agreement among the Church Fathers on this matter. They all believed that baptism was more than a symbol. They said that it brought about the forgiveness of sin as implied in Ananias’s statement to Paul. Further, they often quoted Titus 3:5 in connection with baptism, “He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit.”
Paul connects that renewal with the washing of regeneration. Why would he talk about “washing” unless he was referring to the only washing that Christians were familiar with, that is, baptism.
For example, Proclus, one of the Eastern Fathers said, “God bestows salvation through baptism, offering baptism as a common grace for all.” This is echoed by Hippolytus who said, “If we become divine after rebirth in baptism through water and the Holy Spirit, we shall also be co-heirs with Christ after the resurrection of the dead.” It was the common faith of all Christians that baptism is a life-giving sacrament.
The truth does not change over time.
You have seal for the LORD but is mis-placed.
The washing of regeneration is the baptism of the Holy Spirit: ” John baptised with water, but you will be baptised with the Holy Spirit.” You should not baptise infants or anyone else who does not have faith. Again, why did Paul say “God did not send me to baptise, but to preach the gospel. Baptism, like communion or anything else is subsequent to faith in Christ and Him crucified. Regeneration comes from hearing the gospel and believing, not from baptism. Paul tells us in Ephesians 1:13 and Galatians 3 that we receive the Holy Spirit through ” the hearing with faith.” Catholicism does not give anyone a chance to receive the Holy Spirit because you do not teach that “Christ died for your sins…all of them…and you can be assured of your salvation
The gospel message came to it’s fullness with the revelation to Paul and the conversion of Cornelius and his house. Peter’s preaching in Acts 2 is much different than his preaching to Cornelius in Acts 10. Jesus did not elaborate on the cross in the Gospel accounts. When he even mentioned it, NOBODY understood and even Peter tried to dissuade Him. Also, the “washing” Jesus speaks of is not water baptism, but is the “washing of water of the word” and “you are already clean from the word I have spoken.”
In Acts, (I’m writing from memory, not with the Scripture in front of me), someone believed and he asked if he could be baptised. The evangelist said, “Yes, if you truly believe.” I find the faith of most Roman Catholics weak, shallow, without any concern or seriousness, not interested in preaching the gospel, completely clueless regarding the Scripture, and superficial. You are not like that, but most of your brethren are. You have not convinced me of anything. You need to believe the gospel that faith in Christ and Him crucified is necessary and sufficient for salvation. You are very sincere and I sense a very nice guy, and my heart goes out to you as a friend, but not a brother in Christ.
The circumcision of the heart (rom 2:28-29)is performed at baptism,the sacrament of spiritual rebirth (colo 2:12.
The Israelites were marked with the covenant sign of circumcision,but their rebellion over the centuries proved that their hearts remained uncircumcised( jer 9:25-26 Moses realized that this was to continue until GOD CIRCUMCISED the heart himself(Deut 30:6) paul interprets this vision of moses in sacramental terms,insisting that Christ accomplished in baptism what circumcision only signified in ancient Israel.
It is the moment when God cut away from our hearts the fleshly desire that keeps us from loving and obey him as we should.
PAUL LAYS a biblical foundation for infant baptism,inasmuch as circumcision was administered to new born babies( gen 17:9-14) Tradition bears this out ,as st. Cyprian recaunts that a council held in north Africa in the third century declared that Christians need not delay the baptism of infants until eight day.
Behind this assertion lies the assumption that the early Christians saw in baptism what the Israelites saw in circumcision, the sacrament of initiation into Gods covenant people, open to adults and infants alike.
Now on assurance of salvation, do you mean that you no longer need HOPE ?
Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31–46). One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of enmity and rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell.
For many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals it makes no difference—as far as salvation is concerned—how you live or end your life. You can heed the altar call at church, announce that you’ve accepted Jesus as your personal Savior, and, so long as you really believe it, you’re set. From that point on there is nothing you can do, no sin you can commit, no matter how heinous, that will forfeit your salvation. You can’t undo your salvation, even if you wanted to.
Does this sound too good to be true? Yes, but nevertheless, it is something many Protestants claim. Take a look at what Wilson Ewin, the author of a booklet called There is Therefore Now No Condemnation, says. He writes that “the person who places his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and his blood shed at Calvary is eternally secure. He can never lose his salvation. No personal breaking of God’s or man’s laws or commandments can nullify that status.”
“To deny the assurance of salvation would be to deny Christ’s perfect redemption,” argues Ewin, and this is something he can say only because he confuses the redemption that Christ accomplished for us objectively with our individual appropriation of that redemption. The truth is that in one sense we are all redeemed by Christ’s death on the cross—Christians, Jews, Muslims, even animists in the darkest forests (1 Tim. 2:6, 4:10, 1 John 2:2)—but our individual appropriation of what Christ provided is contingent on our response.
Certainly, Christ did die on the cross once for all and has entered into the holy place in heaven to appear before God on our behalf. Christ has abundantly provided for our salvation, but that does not mean that there is no process by which this is applied to us as individuals. Obviously, there is, or we would have been saved and justified from all eternity, with no need to repent or have faith or anything else. We would have been born “saved,” with no need to be born again. Since we were not, since it is necessary for those who hear the gospel to repent and embrace it, there is a time at which we come to be reconciled to God. And if so, then we, like Adam and Eve, can become unreconciled with God and, like the prodigal son, need to come back and be reconciled again with God, after having left his family.
Regarding the issue of whether Christians have an “absolute” assurance of salvation, regardless of their actions, consider this warning Paul gave: “See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off” (Rom. 11:22; Heb. 10:26–29, 2 Pet. 2:20–21).
Sometimes Fundamentalists portray Catholics as if they must every moment be in terror of losing their salvation since Catholics recognize that it is possible to lose salvation through mortal sin. Fundamentalists then hold out the idea that, rather than living every moment in terror, they can have a calm, assured knowledge that they will, in fact, be saved, and that nothing will ever be able to change this fact.
But this portrayal is in error. Catholics do not live lives of mortal terror concerning salvation. True, salvation can be lost through mortal sin, but such sins are by nature grave ones, and not the kind that a person living the Christian life is going to slip into committing on the spur of the moment, without deliberate thought and consent. Neither does the Catholic Church teach that one cannot have an assurance of salvation. This is true both of present and future salvation.
One can be confident of one’s present salvation. This is one of the chief reasons why God gave us the sacraments—to provide visible assurances that he is invisibly providing us with his grace. And one can be confident that one has not thrown away that grace by simply examining one’s life and seeing whether one has committed mortal sin. Indeed, the tests that John sets forth in his first epistle to help us know whether we are abiding in grace are, in essence, tests of whether we are dwelling in grave sin. For example, “By this it may be seen who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother” (1 John 3:10), “If any one says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen” (1 John 4:20), “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3).
Likewise, by looking at the course of one’s life in grace and the resolution of one’s heart to keep following God, one can also have an assurance of future salvation. It is this Paul speaks of when he writes to the Philippians and says, “And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). This is not a promise for all Christians, or even necessarily all in the church at Philippi, but it is a confidence that the Philippian Christians in general would make it. The basis of this is their spiritual performance to date, and Paul feels a need to explain to them that there is a basis for his confidence in them. Thus he says, immediately, “It is right for me to feel thus about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel” (1:7). The fact that the Philippians performed spiritually by assisting Paul in his imprisonment and ministry showed that their hearts were with God and that it could be expected that they, at least in general, would persevere and remain with God.
There are many saintly men and women who have long lived the Christian life and whose characters are marked with profound spiritual joy and peace. Such individuals can look forward with confidence to their reception in heaven.
Such an individual was Paul, writing at the end of his life, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day” (2 Tim. 4:7-8). But earlier in life, even Paul did not claim an infallible assurance, either of his present justification or of his remaining in grace in the future. Concerning his present state, he wrote, “I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified. It is the Lord who judges me” (1 Cor. 4:4). Concerning his remaining life, Paul was frank in admitting that even he could fall away: “I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified” (1 Cor. 9:27). Of course, for a spiritual giant such as Paul, it would be quite unexpected and out of character for him to fall from God’s grace. Nevertheless, he points out that, however much confidence in his own salvation he may be warranted in feeling, even he cannot be infallibly sure either of his own present state or of his future course.
The same is true of us. We can, if our lives display a pattern of perseverance and spiritual fruit, have not only a confidence in our present state of grace but also of our future perseverance with God. Yet we cannot have an infallible certitude of our own salvation, as many Protestants will admit. There is the possibility of self-deception ( Matt. 7:22-23). As Jeremiah expressed it, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it? (Jer. 17:9). There is also the possibility of falling from grace through mortal sin, and even of falling away from the faith entirely, for as Jesus told us, there are those who “believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away” (Luke 8:13). It is in the light of these warnings and admonitions that we must understand Scripture’s positive statements concerning our ability to know and have confidence in our salvation. Assurance we may have; infallible certitude we may not.
For example, Philippians 2:12 says, “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” This is not the language of self-confident assurance. Our salvation is something that remains to be worked out
You write too much.
1. “The circumcision of the heart (rom 2:28-29)is performed at baptism,the sacrament of spiritual rebirth (colo 2:12.)”
NO. The context of Romans 3-5 is hearing the gospel and believing. Paul uses a specific, precise example of Abraham in from Genesis 15 and states that this example applies to us in Christ. No ritual is mentioned other than circumcision which Abraham received AFTER HE BELIEVED. This is what Abraham believed that got him justified by Jehovah:
2 For if Abraham was justified [b]by works, he has something to boast about, but not [c]before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 BUT TO THE ONE WHO DOES NOT WORK BUT BELIEVES IN GOD WHO JUSTIFIES THE UNGODLY HIS FAITH IS CREDITED AS RIGHTEOUSNESS 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven,
And whose sins have been covered.
8 “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.”
Circumcision of the heart has nothing to do with baptism.
There is not one example of baptism of infants in the NT. Baptism follows believing the gospel. Justification is by “the hearing with faith.” Baptized infants are not justified.
“Now on assurance of salvation, do you mean that you no longer need HOPE ?”
HOPE PROCEEDS FROM FAITH. HOPE “NEVER DISAPPOINTS BECAUSE THE LOVE OF GOD HAS BEEN SHED FORTH IN OUR HEARTS.” AGAIN, HOPE IS THE ESSENCE OF DIVINE ASSURANCE BASED ON CHRIST’S WORK.
you wrote:
“For many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals it makes no difference—as far as salvation is concerned—how you live or end your life. You can heed the altar call at church, announce that you’ve accepted Jesus as your personal Savior, and, so long as you really believe it, you’re set. From that point on there is nothing you can do, no sin you can commit, no matter how heinous, that will forfeit your salvation. You can’t undo your salvation, even if you wanted to.”
This is so simplistic, slanderous and errant I need not answer it. The need to persevere is taught by all Fundamentalists and Evangelicals.
You wrote: “Assurance we may have; infallible certitude we may not.” Correct. No Protestant teaches infallible certainty. We do believe, that Christ alone is sufficient. and we receive all his blessings by grace through faith ALONE.
YOU HAVE WROTE NOTHING TO PERSUADE ME TO ABANDON MY FAITH IN CHRIST AND THE GOSPEL AND JOIN CATHOLICISM. THAT WOULD BE A VERY SAD DAY FOR ME INDEED! BECAUSE I WOULD BE, IN MY MIND, UNFAITHFUL TO THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL.
As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).”
And concerning the shallow faith of other Catholics I know it very well , and I was one of them maybe even worse.
When I encounter them I tell them but they are not willing to change,
I don’t follow their example.
I also find inspiration in the lives of the Saints.
Do protestants have a saint like saint Francis Xavier or saint Ignatius of Loyola?
So this baptism of the Holy spirit you talk about in Protestantism started in late 1800s early 1900s
Some how the Pentecostals must have read the encyclical of pope Le XIII ON THE HOLY SPIRIT here is a small quote.
Divinum Illud Munus
On the Holy Spirit Divinum
Pope Leo XIII – May 9, 1897
Our soul is deeply moved to dedicate to the Holy Ghost, who is the life-giving Love, all the work We have done during Our pontificate, that He may bring it to maturity and fruitfulness. In order the better and more fully to carry out this Our intention, We have resolved to address you at the approaching sacred season of Pentecost concerning the indwelling and miraculous power of the Holy Ghost; and the extent and efficiency of His action, both in the whole body of the Church and in the individual souls of its members, through the glorious abundance of His divine graces. We earnestly desire that, as a result, faith may be aroused in your minds concerning the mystery of the adorable Trinity, and especially that piety may increase and be inflamed towards the Holy Ghost, to whom especially all of us owe the grace of following the paths of truth and virtue; for, as St. Basil said, “Who denieth that the dispensations concerning man, which have been made by the great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ, according to the goodness of God, have been fulfilled through the grace of the Spirit?” (Of the Holy Ghost, c. xvi., v. 39).
For over 300 years their was NO missionary seal in Protestantism.
While the Catholic missionaries where evangelizing china , japan , india.
This is fairly new in Protestantism.
And they usually go on missionary trips to Catholic contries to people that already believe in JESUS . And sow confusion. Example in Mexico 1940s Pentecostals uniterians and Trinitarian ,Jehovah’s witness, evangelicals , Mormons,and many other Christian denominations opinions. Have come to”missionary” in a land where 90 % of the inhabitants believe in JESUS. They like to fish in a fish tank.
LIKE our Lord says MY PEOPLE PARISH FOR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE.
I now intertain you with the early Church fathers
Justin Martyr
“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]” (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).
Tertullian
“Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism—which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and.asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes—by taking them away from the water!” (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).
“Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” (ibid., 12).
“We have, indeed, a second [baptismal] font which is one with the former [water baptism]: namely, that of blood, of which the Lord says: ‘I am to be baptized with a baptism’ [Luke 12:50], when he had already been baptized. He had come through water and blood, as John wrote [1 John 5:6], so that he might be baptized with water and glorified with blood. . . . This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost” (ibid., 16).
Hippolytus
“[P]erhaps someone will ask, ‘What does it conduce unto piety to be baptized?’ In the first place, that you may do what has seemed good to God; in the next place, being born again by water unto God so that you change your first birth, which was from concupiscence, and are able to attain salvation, which would otherwise be impossible. For thus the [prophet] has sworn to us: ‘Amen, I say to you, unless you are born again with living water, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Therefore, fly to the water, for this alone can extinguish the fire. He who will not come to the water still carries around with him the spirit of insanity for the sake of which he will not come to the living water for his own salvation” (Homilies11:26 [A.D. 217]).
Origen
“It is not possible to receive forgiveness of sins without baptism” (Exhortation to the Martyrs 30 [A.D. 235]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“[T]he baptism of public witness and of blood cannot profit a heretic unto salvation, because there is no salvation outside the Church.” (Letters 72[73]:21 [A.D. 253]).
“[Catechumens who suffer martyrdom] are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism. Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord said that he had another baptism with which he himself was to be baptized [Luke 12:50]” (ibid., 72[73]:22).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who even without water will receive the kingdom.
. . . For the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism, saying, ‘Can you drink the cup which I drink and be baptized with the baptism with which I am to be baptized [Mark 10:38]?’ Indeed, the martyrs too confess, by being made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men [1 Cor. 4:9]” (Catechetical Lectures 3:10 [A.D. 350]).
Gregory Nazianz
“[Besides the baptisms associated with Moses, John, and Jesus] I know also a fourth baptism, that by martyrdom and blood, by which also Christ himself was baptized. This one is far more august than the others, since it cannot be defiled by later sins” (Oration on the Holy Lights 39:17 [A.D. 381]).
Pope Siricius
“It would tend to the ruin of our souls if, from our refusal of the saving font of baptism to those who seek it, any of them should depart this life and lose the kingdom and eternal life” (Letter to Himerius 3 [A.D. 385]).
John Chrysostom
“Do not be surprised that I call martyrdom a baptism, for here too the Spirit comes in great haste and there is the taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul, and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so too those being martyred are washed in their own blood” (Panegyric on St. Lucian 2 [A.D. 387]).
Ambrose of Milan
“But I hear you lamenting because he [the Emperor Valentinian] had not received the sacraments of baptism. Tell me, what else could we have, except the will to it, the asking for it? He too had just now this desire, and after he came into Italy it was begun, and a short time ago he signified that he wished to be baptized by me. Did he, then, not have the grace which he desired? Did he not have what he eagerly sought? Certainly, because he sought it, he received it. What else does it mean: ‘Whatever just man shall be overtaken by death, his soul shall be at rest [Wis. 4:7]’?” (Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian [A.D. 392]).
Augustine
“There are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptism, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance; yet God does not forgive sins except to the baptized” (Sermons to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15 [A.D. 395]).
“I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person. . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44–48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13–19]” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:21:28 [A.D. 400]).
“That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief, to whom, although not baptized, it was said, ‘Today you shall be with me in paradise’ [Luke 23:43]. Considering this over and over again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart [i.e., baptism of desire] if, perhaps, because of the circumstances of the time, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism” (ibid., 4:22:29).
“When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body. . . . All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark [by baptism of desire]” (ibid., 5:28:39).
“[According to] apostolic tradition . . . the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal. This is the witness of Scripture too” (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:24:34 [A.D. 412]).
“Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ—it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he that said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], made an exception for them in that other statement in which he says no less generally, ‘Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven’ [Matt. 10:32]” (The City of God 13:7 [A.D. 419]).
Pope Leo I
“And because of the transgression of the first man, the whole stock of the human race was tainted; no one can be set free from the state of the old Adam save through Christ’s sacrament of baptism, in which there are no distinctions between the reborn, as the apostle [Paul] says, ‘For as many of you as were baptized in Christ did put on Christ; there is neither Jew nor Greek . . . ‘ [Gal. 3:27–28]” (Letters 15:10[11] [A.D. 445]).
Fulgentius of Ruspe
“From that time at which our Savior said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal” (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).
And second your church was made by some mans interpretation and those interpretations are up in the thousands , who to BELIEVE its a recipe for enarchy.
The Catholic Church was started by JESUS Christ God himself with a promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And that church compiled the bible.
And it guarded the faith so MUCH that when someone spoke or denyed one article of faith they were excommunicated.
Today in Protestantism doctrine is irrelevant with out a central authority one just goes to a denomination that suits them.
Some I know that recite the apostles creed , some believe that JESUS is present in the Eucharist.
But as most of them say well that’s not that important, what important is that we all believe in JESUS.
As when I prove them that Mary had no other sons,
That she is sinless .
That the bible alone is unbiblical.
What is the one obstacles the most difficult just one that is stopping you from being part of the Church established by JESUS the Catholic Church.
Just one
Jesus did not establish the Roman Church. The Roman Church does not resemble the original Church.
Jesus was Sola Scriptura. The interpretations and traditions of Judaism, similar to Catholicism, adding to the Scriptures were in conflict with Jesus.
The Bible states Jesus had brothers and sisters and names his brothers. The Bible states that Joseph did not have sex with Mary UNTIL after Jesus was born. The current Cult of Mary is blasphemous as she is elevated to a status that only belongs to God.
Transubstantiation is an Aristotilian idea as is much of your theology.
There is one head of the Church: Christ, not the Pope.
No offense, but the level of knowledge and the moral status of the majority of Catholics that I know, is nothing special, to say the least.
Take the Parish that served my neighborhood.
1. Drunken, chain smoking priests
2. Gay priests
3. Adults and kids who who NOTHING of the Bible and lived just like an unbeliever
4. I never met a Catholic who did not take the Lord’s Name in vain…
5. A friend invited my wife and I to mass a few years ago. The priest joked about getting tipsy from wine and the Knights of Columbus were going to Vegas he announced.
The irony is, and Paul deals with this. When you look to your works as even a slight part of justification and you do not look at Christ alone, by faith alone , you become open to the power of sin. This is why so many Christians have fallen away. “Sin shall not have mastery over you because you are not under law but under grace.”
And Paul states, “if it be by works it is no longer grace.”
Paul is talking about works before grace NOT AFTER.
EVERY BODY KNOWS that grace is un marited its simple why do you try to confuse that.
James talks about works after grace.
And every thing else you said about the Catholics and priests is true but not all are like that you probably whent to a novus ordo mass.the Church was infiltrated by fremasons, communist and homosexuals. St. Pius X warned us of this after Vatican council ll every thing went down hill.
And I said only one thing I can’t possibly answer all questions at ones. I’m busy most of the time.
Grace has NOTHING to do with works. Grace is unmerited favor APART FROM WORKS. PERIOD. ” Not by works WE HAVE DONE IN RIGHTEOUSNESS” Paul writes in Titus.
Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.
This is a protestant article who is searching for the truth.
Why Christians Should Take The Lord’s Supper Every Sunday
Jason Cheney
10/27/16 – Worship
The very first Christians did not have Christmas to celebrate. And there is no indication they celebrated Easter, either.
They had the Lord’s Supper. Some churches call it Communion, or the Eucharist, or the Breaking of Bread. Whatever it is called today, this memorial of bread and wine was a centerpiece of the lives of our early brethren. And it should be a weekly part of our worship today.
Now I understand many believe that would be too much. More than one person has told me that weekly observance would cheapen the value of this beautifully graphic feast for them. But notice that the first disciples looked at it differently.
Our first brethren devoted themselves to the Breaking of Bread from the very beginning (Acts 2:42). Just as they dedicated themselves to the Words of the Apostles, fellowship with their spiritual family and praying to their God, they committed to this simple meal.
They would even organize special meetings around the Lord’s supper. Twice the scriptures point this out. Once, Paul traveled to Troas to encourage the disciples there. Though he arrived Monday, he waited six days until their Sunday Bread-Breaking meeting (Acts 20:6-7). Notice that their gathering was specifically for the Breaking of Bread. Though they heard preaching and likely prayed together, they really met for the Supper.
The Corinthians were another group of saints whose meetings were designed around the Lord’s Supper, although they were rebuked for profaning it (1 Corinthians 11:20-22). In correcting them, Paul encourages them to gather for this supper, wait for one another and eat it together (1 Corinthians 11:33).
Finally, ancient writers, historians and Bible scholars also confirm a weekly observance of the Lord’s supper by our early brethren:
Observance of the Lord’s Supper on Sunday reflects the general practice of both the first-century churches as well as post-first-century churches. For example, the Didache, written shortly after the close of the first century, speaks of Christians coming together each Lord’s day and breaking bread (9:1-12; 14:1). Justin Martyr wrote in his First Apology (ch. 67), circa A.D. 152, of Christians meeting on Sunday and partaking of the communion (ch. 67). Milligan observed: “That the primitive Christians were wont to celebrate the Lord’s Supper on every first day of the week is evident…. During the first two centuries the practice of weekly communion was universal, and it was continued in the Greek church till the seventh century” (1975, p. 440). Johnson summarized the post-first century data:
[T]he early church writers from Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, to Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Cyprian, all with one consent, declare that the church observed the first day of the week. They are equally agreed that the Lord’s Supper was observed weekly, on the first day of the week (1891, 1:505, emp. added) (http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1254).
So what do you think? Since our first brethren, who were taught by the apostles, devoted themselves to this meal and centered their meetings around it every Sunday, shouldn’t we do the same? Perhaps there are other things we can do to avoid making it stale besides limiting this Communion with Christ to just a few times a year.
The sad thing is to a protestant it will get stale because there is a difference in believes .
The real presence.
I long for Sunday when I become a living tabernacle when I receive my LORD and saviour Jesus on my knees in the form of bread and unites him self to me. Nothing else is as important as that.
Let me assure you of something. I am not searching for the truth, because I know the truth. The truth is Jesus and the truth is Sola Fide. And, I believe that the Roman Church has strayed far from the truth. As far as the Lord’s Supper is concerned, there is no contradiction in Protestantism. Once my pastor wept as we were preparing for the Lord’s Supper. Wept with gratitude and confessed being a sinner. How many priests have you seen do that. My wife and I take communion daily at home. We believe that we receive the Lord through communion BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH AND NOT BY THE WORKING OF THE WORK. Furthermore, the entire concept of a priesthood is completely errant. It is inconceivable that this priesthood would be omitted from the NT Epistles, especially since Paul lists all of the offices of the church. Now it has turned into the abomination of a “bloodless sacrifice” with this extremely complex ritual as if they themselves are in the heavenly Tabernacle. Hebrews states Christ died “once for all.”
And, the Catholic Church I attended last that I cited is NOT an abberation. It is typical
Have you ever read Titus To Titus my beloved son, according to the common faith, grace and peace from God the Father, and from Christ Jesus our Savior.
5 For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:
6 If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly.
7 For a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God: not proud, not subject to anger, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre:
Are you going to add your own interpretation here.
Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).
Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).
In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)
Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos (“servant” or “minister”; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.
Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a “fellow elder,” [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.
the terms “bishop,” “priest,” and “deacon” were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.
As the following quotations illustrate, the early Church Fathers recognized all three offices and regarded them as essential to the Church’s structure. Especially significant are the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who traveled from his home city to Rome, where he was executed around A.D. 110. On the way he wrote letters to the churches he passed. Each of these churches possessed the same threefold ministry. Without this threefold ministry, Ignatius said, a group cannot be called a church.
Ignatius of Antioch
“Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]).
“Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest” (ibid., 6:1).
“Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit” (ibid., 13:1–2).
“Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire” (Letter to the Trallians 2:1–3 [A.D. 110]).
“In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him” (ibid., 3:1–2).
“He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clear conscience” (ibid., 7:2).
“I cried out while I was in your midst, I spoke with a loud voice, the voice of God: ‘Give heed to the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons.’ Some suspect me of saying this because I had previous knowledge of the division certain persons had caused; but he for whom I am in chains is my witness that I had no knowledge of this from any man. It was the Spirit who kept preaching these words, ‘Do nothing without the bishop, keep your body as the temple of God, love unity, flee from divisions, be imitators of Jesus Christ, as he was imitator of the Father’” (Letter to the Philadelphians 7:1–2 [A.D. 110]).
Hippolytus
“When a deacon is to be ordained, he is chosen after the fashion of those things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: he is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop’s command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful. . . .
“On a presbyter, however, let the presbyters impose their hands because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. Even so, the presbyter has only the power to receive [the Spirit], and not the power to give [the Spirit]. That is why a presbyter does not ordain the clergy; for at the ordaining of a presbyter, he but seals while the bishop ordains.
“Over a deacon, then, let the bishop speak thus: ‘O God, who have created all things and have set them in order through your Word; Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom you sent to minister to your will and to make clear to us your desires, grant the Holy Spirit of grace and care and diligence to this your servant, whom you have chosen to serve the Church and to offer in your holy places the gifts which are offered to you by your chosen high priests, so that he may serve with a pure heart and without blame, and that, ever giving praise to you, he may be accounted by your good will as worthy of this high office: through your Son Jesus Christ, through whom be glory and honor to you, to the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit, in your holy Church, both now and through the ages of ages. Amen’” (The Apostolic Tradition 9 [A.D. 215]).
I would not set foot on a novus ordo parish.
The parish I go to is nothing like a novus ordo.
Most women hhave an average of eight to twelve kids some are nuns others religious brothers .the parish even when it is full no one is gossiping you walk in and it’s silence its primiated with reverence every one dressed properly no one in skirt or tank tops or sandals.
There are two camps in the Church modernist and traditional.
I cried myself many times ,my mom always cries .
My PRIEST left family friends every thing for the Mass he serves Mass every day with reverence.
Btw he was a Presbyterian pastor for about 20 years.
And wherever I go an vacation I look for an FSSP PARISH who only celebrate the Latin Mass.
JESUS promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church not the Church in America or Canada or africa or in Israel or south Korea but there will always be a remnant that holds the true faith.
The widespread spiritual deadness of Catholics is due to the lack of the Holy Spirit. Paul wrote, that “the gospel is the power of God into salvation FOR EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES, FROM FAITH TO FAITH, FOR THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH. By insisting that our salvation and/or our sanctification is by works in any way nullifies the gospel. So, they get baptised as infants, Confirmed at 12 (what a joke, not one of them is converted), and on it goes. The most important “SACRAMENT”
SACRAMENT of salvation is hearing and believing that CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS. Without that obedience of faith you have neither conversion, justification, imputed righteousness, the Holy Spirit within or salvation and deliverance from sin and death. And, to top it off, the Roman Church has cursed the gospel in Canon 6 of Trent.
That is a lie.
What it did was condem the ERRORS OF PROTESTANTISM.
the solas , wich btw are unbiblical.
You illustrate exactly the phenomenon that Ibrahim is trying to describe: concentrating on internal Christian theological disagreements rather than focusing on the threat that traditional Islamic doctrines on jihad, on dhimmitude and sharia pose to Christians of all varieties.
That’s exactly right, and one of the reasons Christopher Columbus went in search for new land ,
The Islamic invasion and on the other hand the protestant revolt .
It’s also about orthodoxy.
And survival of the one true Faith.
Columbus was worried about Muslims’ threat to Christendom yes but NOT the Protestants! Columbus sailed in 1492. The Reformation “began” in 1517 when Luther published the 95 Theses . Columbus was dead by then (in 1506)!
So again you illustrate my point. You falsely point the finger at Protestants and deflect from the far larger, long-term threat of Islam.
My mistake on the protestant reason.
They are both on going, just different of threats.
It’s somehow Gods providence that a few years later about 8-9 million Catholics left the Church to Protestantism,and about the same time in America 8-9 million indians were baptized.
There’s nothing wrong about all those Catholics becoming Protestant!! Protestantism is just a different form of Christianity so why are you against that? Moreover, Protestants have been FAR FAR FAR FAR….more tolerant and kind to Catholics than Muslims have. Wherever Muslims have gotten hold of the government, the local Catholic population has ultimately suffered and gone into decline: look at N Africa and the Levant and the Persian Gulf. Wherever Protestants have power or influence in governments, Catholic citizens have THRIVED! See North America and North Europe Catholics oover the last 150 years Catholics have done very well in those historically Protestant-dominated societies. This is NOT true of Muslim-ruled societies.
Moreover, when you have such a foolish “pope” in power as Bergoglio, it’s good to have another form of Christianity so Christians can find a (possibly temporary) refuge from the destructive policies of the current Church hierarchy, especially Bergoglio. With another form of Christianity, which unlike Islam, extends equal civil rights to Catholics, Christianity can be remain dynamic and competitive. If Catholics want those Latin American Protestants converts back, they need to get wiser theologians in the papal office than Bergoglio.
A different form of Christianity?
I’m against that for the sake of orthodoxy.
If you teach contrary to what the Church has always thought it would be another gospel and you known what scripture says about that. Protestantism is a heresy all heretics came out of the Catholic Church.
Protestants have been tolerant? Here in the U.S that was not always the case.
We do have a foolish Pope. And we resist him and don’t support him I’m with the dubia Cardinals and orthodox bishops that resist him.
We didn’t pick our pope.
LIBERALS love him and those who want change in the Church.
Our Lord Jesus established one CHURCH the others are man made .
Delusional.
In the US so-called “non-tolerant” Protestants have been GIRLS SCOUTS towards Catholics–compared to what Muslims have done to Catholics over the last 1400 years. The comparison is foolishly inappropriate, even unethical. That was Ibrahim’s general point, although he made the mistake of exaggeration. Christians wrongly exaggerate their differences and ignore the bigger threat they all face of Islam’s theological teaching on jihad and political supremacism.
(For that matter US Protestants’s socalled “non-tolerance” of Catholics is also positively benign compared to the way Catholics and Protestants were treating each other in the 16th century).
Protestantism is not a heresy. It’s just form of Christianity that rejected late traditions, like papal monarchy. The Orthodox also reject papal monarchy. Jesus did not found papal monarchy, and did not, therefore found the “Roman Catholic” church. All Christian churches that accept the basics of Christian belief about Jesus can claim to as much established by Jesus as any other. The bishop of Rome did not exist in Jesus’ day; papal monarchy is a doctrine that dates to the 11th century and itself is a product (in part) of Muslims’ conquest of the territory the 3 of the most important bishoprics/patriarchates of Christendom, which undermined their historic role in defining Christian doctrine and practice, leaving the Roman bishops free to claim more authority than he traditionally had held.
The Circumcisers (1st Century)
The Circumcision heresy may be summed up in the words of Acts 15:1: “But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’”
Many of the early Christians were Jews, who brought to the Christian faith many of their former practices. They recognized in Jesus the Messiah predicted by the prophets and the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Because circumcision had been required in the Old Testament for membership in God’s covenant, many thought it would also be required for membership in the New Covenant that Christ had come to inaugurate. They believed one must be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law to come to Christ. In other words, one had to become a Jew to become a Christian.
But God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become Christians without circumcision. The same teaching was vigorously defended by Paul in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians—to areas where the Circumcision heresy had spread.
Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)
“Matter is evil!” was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek philosophers. It stood against Catholic teaching, not only because it contradicts Genesis 1:31 (“And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good”) and other scriptures, but because it denies the Incarnation. If matter is evil, then Jesus Christ could not be true God and true man, for Christ is in no way evil. Thus many Gnostics denied the Incarnation, claiming that Christ only appeared to be a man, but that his humanity was an illusion. Some Gnostics, recognizing that the Old Testament taught that God created matter, claimed that the God of the Jews was an evil deity who was distinct from the New Testament God of Jesus Christ. They also proposed belief in many divine beings, known as “aeons,” who mediated between man and the ultimate, unreachable God. The lowest of these aeons, the one who had contact with men, was supposed to be Jesus Christ.
Montanism (Late 2nd Century)
Montanus began his career innocently enough through preaching a return to penance and fervor. His movement also emphasized the continuance of miraculous gifts, such as speaking in tongues and prophecy. However, he also claimed that his teachings were above those of the Church, and soon he began to teach Christ’s imminent return in his home town in Phrygia. There were also statements that Montanus himself either was, or at least specially spoke for, the Paraclete that Jesus had promised would come (in reality, the Holy Spirit).
Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century)
The Sabellianists taught that Jesus Christ and God the Father were not distinct persons, but two.aspects or offices of one person. According to them, the three persons of the Trinity exist only in God’s relation to man, not in objective reality.
Arianism (4th Century)
Arius taught that Christ was a creature made by God. By disguising his heresy using orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, he was able to sow great confusion in the Church. He was able to muster the support of many bishops, while others excommunicated him.
Arianism was solemnly condemned in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, which defined the divinity of Christ, and in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople, which defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit. These two councils gave us the Nicene creed, which Catholics recite at Mass every Sunday.
Pelagianism (5th Century)
Pelagius denied that we inherit original sin from Adam’s sin in the Garden and claimed that we become sinful only through the bad example of the sinful community into which we are born. Conversely, he denied that we inherit righteousness as a result of Christ’s death on the cross and said that we become personally righteous by instruction and imitation in the Christian community, following the example of Christ. Pelagius stated that man is born morally neutral and can achieve heaven under his own powers. According to him, God’s grace is not truly necessary, but merely makes easier an otherwise difficult task.
Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century)
After Augustine refuted the teachings of Pelagius, some tried a modified version of his system. This, too, ended in heresy by claiming that humans can reach out to God under their own power, without God’s grace; that once a person has entered a state of grace, one can retain it through one’s efforts, without further grace from God; and that natural human effort alone can give one some claim to receiving grace, though not strictly merit it.
Nestorianism (5th Century)
This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: “God-bearer” or, less literally, “Mother of God”). Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb, and proposed the alternative title Christotokos (“Christ-bearer” or “Mother of Christ”).
Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Nestorius’s theory would fracture Christ into two separate persons (one human and one divine, joined in a sort of loose unity), only one of whom was in her womb. The Church reacted in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, defining that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate (“in the flesh”).
There is some doubt whether Nestorius himself held the heresy his statements imply, and in this century, the Assyrian Church of the East, historically regarded as a Nestorian church, has signed a fully orthodox joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and rejects Nestorianism. It is now in the process of coming into full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church.
Monophysitism (5th Century)
Monophysitism originated as a reaction to Nestorianism. The Monophysites (led by a man named Eutyches) were horrified by Nestorius’s implication that Christ was two people with two different natures (human and divine). They went to the other extreme, claiming that Christ was one person with only one nature (a fusion of human and divine elements). They are thus known as Monophysites because of their claim that Christ had only one nature (Greek: mono = one; physis = nature).
Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Monophysitism was as bad as Nestorianism because it denied Christ’s full humanity and full divinity. If Christ did not have a fully human nature, then he would not be fully human, and if he did not have a fully divine nature then he was not fully divine.
Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries)
This heresy arose when a group of people known as iconoclasts (literally, “icon smashers”) appeared, who claimed that it was sinful to make pictures and statues of Christ and the saints, despite the fact that in the Bible, God had commanded the making of religious statues (Ex. 25:18–20; 1 Chr. 28:18–19), including symbolic representations of Christ (cf. Num. 21:8–9 with John 3:14).
Catharism (11th Century)
Catharism was a complicated mix of non-Christian religions reworked with Christian terminology. The Cathars had many different sects; they had in common a teaching that the world was created by an evil deity (so matter was evil) and we must worship the good deity instead.
The Albigensians formed one of the largest Cathar sects. They taught that the spirit was created by God, and was good, while the body was created by an evil god, and the spirit must be freed from the body. Having children was one of the greatest evils, since it entailed imprisoning another “spirit” in flesh. Logically, marriage was forbidden, though fornication was permitted. Tremendous fasts and severe mortifications of all kinds were practiced, and their leaders went about in voluntary poverty.
Protestantism (16th Century)
Protestant groups display a wide variety of different doctrines. However, virtually all claim to believe in the teachings of sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”—the idea that we must use only the Bible when forming our theology) and sola fide (“by faith alone”— the idea that we are justified by faith only).
The great diversity of Protestant doctrines stems from the doctrine of private judgment, which denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself. This idea is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20, where we are told the first rule of Bible interpretation: “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” A significant feature of this heresy is the attempt to pit the Church “against” the Bible, denying that the magisterium has any infallible authority to teach and interpret Scripture.
The doctrine of private judgment has resulted in an enormous number of different denominations. According to The Christian Sourcebook, there are approximately 20-30,000 denominations, with 270 new ones being formed each year. Virtually all of these are Protestant.
Jansenism (17th Century)
Jansenius, bishop of Ypres, France, initiated this heresy with a paper he wrote on Augustine, which redefined the doctrine of grace. Among other doctrines, his followers denied that Christ died for all men, but claimed that he died only for those who will be finally saved (the elect). This and other Jansenist errors were officially condemned by Pope Innocent X in 1653.
Heresies have been with us from the Church’s beginning. They even have been started by Church leaders, who were then corrected by councils and popes. Fortunately, we have Christ’s promise that heresies will never prevail against the Church, for he told Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). The Church is truly, in Paul’s words, “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
Please don’t cut and paste that long-winded stuff about “heresies” (which I already know). All of that is irrelevant except what you claim about Protestantism, which unlike those “heresies,” is a still influential form of Christianity that is going to be around for a long time still, and has been far less of a threat to R. Catholics than Muslims for the last 200+ years, a crucial point that Ibrahim was trying to make and that you keep ignoring to harp on your anti-Protestant screed.
And 2 Peter 1:20 certainly does not mean that the RC Church has the authority to interpret “scripture” as neither the RC Church nor the “magisterium” existed at the time that it was written. You mistranslate the passage and grossly misrepresent the context. It literally says “prophecy does not become scripture of one’s own interpretation; for prophecy never came by the will of humans but when humans, carried by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God.” It’s clear you can’t read Greek well or at all; your misunderstanding show why there was a need for a Reformation,:because too many ignored scripture’s context and could not understand the original language. There is no reference to church in that passage or indeed in 2 Peter, let alone one as specific the RC Church, which did not exist at the time. The letter goes on to condemn false prophets who are called this because the deny Christ–which is not true of Protestants–and are “licentious/greedy” something that is no more true of Protestants than any other group of Christians (all churches have those kind of sinners). It was written at such an early date (late first/early second century) that there still were charismatic self-styled “prophets” who attracted a Christian following (the Didache was written in a similar social setting), the churches (note plural) were decentralized and their “hierarch” had nothing like authority they would eventually build up i.e. they were nothing like the RC church.
The Church is the community of believers that include ALL Christians who subscribe to the basics of faith (like Jesus is the Son of God) The RC is not now nor never has been the ONLY Christian Church, and did not exist before the eleventh century as there was no papal monarchy before that time. That you would compare other Christians, like Protestants, who believe in the basics of Christian faith, to “the gates of hell” is a perfect illustration Ibrahim’s point: that Christians have erred sorely wasted far too much of the last 1400 years nitpicking about their differences and ignoring the much bigger threat Islam poses to ALL Christian churches, including the RC church.
I’m not even arguing on comparing islam and Protestantism.
What I do know is that Protestantism perverted the truth especially when it comes to the Church.
For you to say that before the 11th century the Catholic Church did not exist it is almost blasphemous.
Read the early church fathers, btw they are Catholic.
Clement of Alexandria
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).
Tertullian
“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
The Letter of Clement to James
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
Origen
“[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).
“[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14).
“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]” (ibid., 17:27).
Ephraim the Syrian
“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
Ambrose of Milan
“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
Jerome
“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
“Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord” (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).
Pope Innocent I
“In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).
Augustine
“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).
“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
Council of Ephesus
“Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (ibid., session 3).
Pope Leo I
“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it” (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445).
“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery” (ibid., 10:2–3).
“Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head” (ibid., 14:11).
I’ve probably read more church fathers than you ever will read as I am a medieval historian . No, the churches of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian (who became a “heretical” Montanist), Ephraim the Syrian (also venerated by Monophysists though the theological controversy was not contemporary to him) etc. were certainly NOT Roman Catholic, although scholars often term them “catholic” to distinguish them from those churches that subscribed to various theologies and practices (“heresies”) that were eventually excluded for various reasons. Among other reasons they were not Roman Catholic was that they neither had papal monarchy nor subscribed to the idea of papal monarchy.
Ohh please a protestant is going to lecture me on Islam.
Just a few years back protestants woul deny that the Catholic Church was NOT THE church our Lord Jesus established because of the crusades that killed millions of innocent people. Waoooow.
They say anything to deny the Church.
Now you come to realize that a crusade is needed to stop the aggressors.
Actually, plenty of both Catholics and Protestants have been vilifying the so-called Crusades in a simplistic way for some time. And plenty of plenty of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, atheists, etc. have recognized that medieval and early modern Christians had to stop or and least contain the various Islamic conquests–including the ones that inspired the so-called Crusades–and are not so judgmental .
Stop making ad hominem arguments “a protestant is going to lecture me….” It does not matter whether it’s a Protestant, Catholic or atheist who advocates for rationality and honesty on the contemporary threat of Islamism and the historical threat of traditional Islam. What is important is what someone SAYS not whether one belongs to what you think is the right club. Many Protestants even from some time ago (read John Quincy Adams) have written far more rationality about these issues than Jorge Bergoglio and other recent “popes” have.
Thank you so much, Raymond, for a wonderful summary. It was so interesting to read this. I would like to add something that we are taught in Greek schools. The reason why Constantinople and the East Roman empire fell to the Ottoman Turks was because the Romans in the East were reluctant to ask their Western counterparts for help, especially after the events of the 4th Crusade. There was the perception that being under Muslim rule would be better than being under Roman-Catholic rule. The Ottoman Turks REALLY did benefit from the century-old hostility between the Western and the Eastern Church, however, knowing what we know now, they were wrong in the East. The crimes perpetrated by the invading Turks were much, much worse to what people had experienced from Roman-Catholics. And another point to note, the 4th Crusade was not organised by the Roman-Catholic church. This has been a very big misconception in the East. And still the Pope has apologised in an attempt to bring the 2 churches closer until they are unified again.
While Ibrahim has some good points to make his title is NOT accurate “Pro-Islamic West was BORN 500 Years Ago Today” and it is NOT true that Luther “initiated” the phenomenon of romanticizing or relativizing Islamic rulers and/or counciling passivity towards Islamic conquerors. Even the Cardini quote does not claim that Luther “initiated” what he describes. In fact Cardini’s word “boost” indicates that this sort of ‘Islamophilism’ already existed and that is true. Protestants did NOT invent the phenomenon that Ibrahim is trying to describe. In fact SOME Eastern Christians, including SOME Coptic leaders, long before had whitewashed the treatment of Christians under Islamic rule claiming, on the basis of dubious evidence, that Muslim rulers treated non-Chaledonian Christians better than the Byzantines did. Read Robert Hoyland (Seeing Islam as Others Saw It and In God’s Path: The Arab Conquests…): he points out that some later, i.e. 9th century Monophysite Christian clerical writers started this trope, but it is not an idea expressed at the time by Eastern Christians conquered by Muslims from the Eastern Empire AT THE TIME OF THE CONQUEST. Read John of Nikiu, who actually experienced both Roman rule in Egypt AND Muslim conquest and rule. He never claims Muslim rulers were better than Roman rulers though he critcized both (for different sins). Contrast John of Nikiu’s treatment of early Muslim rule in Egypt with the treatment by the later writer (not someone who experienced the conquest firsthand) in the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria; it’s significantly more critical, likening Muslim rule to Pharoah’s harsh yoke. Also, in the 15th century SOME Greek Christians argued that they would be better treated by Muslim rulers than by Roman Catholics, which was used to argue against the proposed unification with Rome. Read chronicler Doukas: he describes some anti-unionist Greek Christians who argued better the “turban than the papal tiara” (including Grand Duke Notaras) and he points out how mistaken they were.(The Ottomans killed Notaras’ son in front of his eyes (to prevent a worse fate) at least according to Doukas, which Catholic rulers would not have done). Also Ibrahim notes some very minor, weak Protestant princes allying with the Ottomans, but ignores the MUCH more important FRENCH alliance with the Ottomans to weaken the Hapsburgs. From the same period Catholic Jean Bodin tried to deny the cruelty of Ottoman conquest and rule against the Eastern Europeans who experienced both by arguing Muslims were tolerant of Christians. (Bodin did this to defend absolutist type rule, not Islam per se). And the more general phenomenon romanticizing non-Western polities to condemn Western ones was also engaged in by Montaigne (see “Cannabals”) and even some Catholics in the New World (Las Casas , Peter Angelus Martyr etc.) in the same period that some Protestants were doing so.
One can say that some Protestants have contributed to a history of whitewashing the treatment of Christians by Muslim rulers by Christians and Westerners and counciling indifference towards Muslim aggression but they did NOT invent it, nor were they the first to promote it.
Blaming *anyone* for *anything* is a coward’s position. Did Luther invite Islam into Europe? Hell no! Did the conflict between ideologies (protestant v catholic) take the focus away from jihad? Possibly. But in forming a brighter center (Lutheranism) it makes it that much more difficult for a darker force (Islam) to overcome. So one might actually say Luther helped *prevent* jihad by opening the minds of the public to God’s Truth. (Jihad is a closed-minded, utterly false ideology.)