Ineffable Creator . . .
You are proclaimed
the true font of light and wisdom,
and the primal origin
raised high beyond all things.
Pour forth a ray of Your brightness
into the darkened places of my mind;
disperse from my soul
the twofold darkness
into which I was born:
sin and ignorance.
You make eloquent the tongues of infants.
Refine my speech
and pour forth upon my lips
the goodness of Your blessing.
Grant to me
keenness of mind,
capacity to remember,
skill in learning,
subtlety to interpret,
and eloquence in speech.
May You
guide the beginning of my work,
direct its progress,
and bring it to completion.
You Who are true God and true Man,
Who live and reign, world without end.
Amen.

By the way, has anyone seen the Catholic vs. Protestant simpsons episode? It is hilarious though I find the ending a bit annoying:  http://www.iwatchsimpsonsonline.com/s16e21-father-son-and-holy-guest-star/

My favorite part is the vision of Catholic vs. Protestant heaven. I cant wait for the Pinatas in heaven. ^_^

When I went to Italy a couple years ago, I had a chance to visit Assisi, the hometown of St. Francis of Assisi. In the bookstore of the church, I happened to find small Simple Prayer card of St. Francis that cost only10 cents per piece. When I read this prayer I realized that it had deep meaning. So I began to incorporate his prayer in my morning prayer. Especially I liked the last part of his simple prayer, which reads, “For it is in giving—that we receive. It is in pardoning—that we are pardoned. It is in dying—that we are born to eternal life”

I do however, find it interesting that we have seen a significant increase in the use of protestant hymms at Mass. Some of them I like while there are others I am not crazy about like “God is stirring up the waters.” I just cant seem to get into that hymm. =)  However, hearing Seek Ye First as chant is hauntingly beautiful. I am trying to get Protestants to play more Catholic hymms like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBH-Eh9Bjjg This hymm always chokes me up.

“I am the resurrection and the life;    whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live,  
and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.”

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”  

God Bless You  

That’s perhaps why St. Augustine said, “The church is a whore but she’s my mother.”

Rather than make this a Protestant/Catholic doctrinal divide, I think that in some common ways, we Protestants “sin” like Catholics.
* We Protestants elevate our church leaders, as the pope is/was elevated.
* We implicitely add our works, methods of ministry, practices and traditions to our faith, as Catholic practices and traditions were added to their faith, which I believe is still genuine in terms of the essentials of the faith.
* Some discourage theological study and knowledge, as the Catholic church in the past has martyred those who wanted to translate the Bible from Latin into the local vernacular. (Darren had mentioned how an older Christian said to him, “”Theology is divisive.”)
* We think/regard some sins as worse than others depending on our culture (for instance,  actual adultery is worse than just lust and pornography), just as Catholics have traditionally divided sins into venial sins and mortal sins.
* Both Protestants and Catholics can easily become like self-righteous Pharisees. Falling into deadly self-righteousnesss might be the hardest sin for all Christians to sincerely repent of.

I’m sure that creative people may add to the list above as to how both Protestants and Catholics sin even as we try to genuinely  serve God.

Surely, it is far better for us to repent of our own sins, rather than pick on the sins of others. Yet, our common default might be to see the speck of sawdust in our brother’s eye, while failing to notice the plank in our own eye that is bashing others right and left.

Just to be very clear though, the soteriological and christological implications of this discussion are profound!   J.C. Ryle said, “The Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, if persued to its legitimate consequences, obscures every leading doctrine of the Gospel, and damages and interferes with the whole system of Christ’s truth.” It spoils the blessed doctrine of Christ’s finished work on the cross because it is a repeated and repeated sacrifice of his body! It exalts sinful men (priests) into mediators between God and man! It overthrows the entire doctrine of Christ’s human nature…

There is also NO Biblical evidence whatsoever of any “Treasury of Merit” from which the church can dole out to people for “Venial” sins or otherwise. Pure fantasy.
There was only one person in the history of the world who was ever sinless and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. Not his mother! To say that she was sinless is unscriptural because “all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.” Not to mention the whole CO-Redemptrix theology which also has zero basis in scripture. As a matter of fact, I seem to remember Jesus saying that those who do the will of God are his mother and sister and brother…
Finally, it is also against the teaching of God’s Word to infer that anyone is able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven without having faith in Jesus. (Now I know someone will say, what about babies  or mentally handicapped people etc.  I will say that outside of what the Bible says, we are not qualified to make that kind of determination! But the Bible clearly talks about the fate of unbelievers!)  Notice what the Catholic  catachism says though, “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” Lest someone be carried away by Gerardo’s argument, there is NO mention there of Muslims who have never heard of Jesus or the Gospel, even though, I think there is even an argument that could be made that ignorance of the Gospel is no excuse! Unbelieving people are not only damned for rejecting Jesus but for their other sins as well! Also, Gerardo, I am shocked that you would say that you dont know if unbelieving Jews are saved! The Bible says if someone does not have faith in Jesus Christ they are not saved. 1John 5:12 “He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.” And Jesus also says, “He who does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” Who does Jesus say that to? The Jewish pharisee Nicodemus!

The Lord be with you David.
 

1) Just to be very clear, Do you believe that Jesus Christ is literally, physically present in the Eucharist or not?

2) Do you believe that Christians who are very good, like the “saints” have extra merit that goes into a treasury of Merit to be dispensed by bishops  in the church or not?

3) Do you believe that Mary was sinless or not?

4) Do you believe that Muslims who reject Jesus Christ as Lord, God, and Savior, and who reject his death on the cross and  resurrection  (in otherwords all Muslims, otherwise they would  cease to be  Muslim!)  will still go to heaven or not?

Lets not engage in semantic gymnastics here, a simple yes or no to these questions would go a long way toward understanding.

AGGGHH!!!!!!!!! This is precisely why Joe wrote the article. =)
Did you read the article at all David? It calls for people to properly understand each others perspective and not make false accusations. As I said before, if you are going to judge the Catholic Church, then please, please!!!!!! do it right! Don’t distort the Catholic Churches teaching to satisfy what YOU would like it to say. Allow me respond to each one of your distortions in turn:

YOU SAID: ***You realize what that is saying right? Literally that the bread, the carbohydrate becomes a protein! ***

It is interesting to note that the early Romans accused Christians of this very thing, as do modern day anti-Catholics because they too do not understand what the Eucharist really is.

According to the Church, in the valid consecration of bread and wine the substance changes and bread and wine are no longer present on the altar, but the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are sacramentally present.

The accidents (physical appearances and attributes) of bread and wine remain, that is, the aspects discernable by the human senses do not actually change.

Notice that the term is ***TransSUBSTANTIATION*** Emphasis is placed on substance. According to substance theory, a substance is distinct from its properties (touch, taste, smell). Meaning that Catholics teach that Christ is really present in a sacramental substantive form and not a physical form. Hence, Christ is not present in the Eucharist in a fleshy way. He is present in a real, substantial, sacramental way.
Its is because Christ is present in a real, substantial, and sacramental way that we are able to consume the whole Christ, without diminishing Him (we diminish meat when we eat it, by taking a bite) or becoming canibals.

David, if I was too use your same logic, then I could claim that Jesus is not really God because if was to take a skin sample of Jesus, while he walked the earth, and conduct scientific investigations on his skin sample of Jesus, there would probably be nothing out of the ordinary from any other human being. And yet, we know Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. Physical properties do not always reveal what is real. They hide the substance behind it.

You might not believe that Christ is present in a substantive way and maybe you have good reason for denying it, but please, don’t distort what Catholics teach.

Everything else you said about the Eucharist (e.g., it being the center of worship, etc) is right on and I praise God for giving us himself in such a wonderful way. Thank you for representing it so well David.

YOU SAID ABOUT INDULGENCES: ***That VERY good Christians have EXTRA MERIT that goes into a treasury of merit to be applied by a priest etc. to whomever they wish!****

First off, your right that the Catholic Churches still offers indulgences. I am glad they do. I even brought up this point in the other thread on purgatory. But again, your misrepresent the Catholic Churches teaching. Read the quotes you cited. It says, “obtain remission of TEMPORAL punishment.” David, I devoted atleast 3 paragraphs explaining what temporal punishment is on the purgatory website thread. Do you realize that the term temporal comes form the word temporary? That is, indulgences cannot pay for our Eternal reward/punishment which Christ earned for us/saved us from. Temporal punishment is just what we must go through to reform our inclination to sin and pay for the stain it left on us.

Again, if your son broke your neighbors window, you as his father might pay your neighbor for the window and hence “pay the full price of his sin.” But that doesn’t mean that your son is totally off the hook, or that he wouldn’t and can go on doing the things he did before like breaking windows without punishment. He must be reformed (i.e., sanctified) or else he will continue in his way. So one thing many good parents do is send their sons to mow their neighbors yard as a form of punishment and to reform his heart. Does that mean you have not paid the full price of his sin? Ofcourse not! You have paid it but you believe there is something meritorious in not just justifying your son but in also sanctifying him. You asked for biblical support for this, go to the purgatory thread. I provide a TON! Also this whole conversation brings up a ton of questions about once saved always saved etc.. which is a bit off topic.

You Said: **** she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God’s grace…” Is Mary a sinless Co-redeemer with Christ??? Is that part of the Gospel?? ***

Very well. David, why do you study the bible with students or share the gospel with others? Is it so that others may taste redemption and place their dependence on God for their salvation? If so, then wouldn’t you say that you are *serving* the ministry of God’s redemption?

To be fair, the title co-redemptrix is a currently debated idea within the Catholic Church. Part of the reason the Church is hesitant about defining it infallibly is precisely because they worry that people like you will distort its meaning and make it sound like something it is not and hence, hinder ecumenical discourse among protestants. The concept of Co-remtrix refers to an indirect (and or unequal) but important participation by the blessed Virgin Mary in redemption. We are all co-redemtrix’es to some extant but her role was very unique (Genesis 3:14-15; Luke 2:33-35). I think most people would agree that she played an important and unique role which no other man or women has ever played by saying let it be done unto me according to your word. The term co-redemptrix does not mean that she is on par with Jesus and salvation was done 50% by him and 50% by her. That is NOT what the teaching is. It is just an honor that is given to her. I know you and most protestants don’t think so much honor should be given but that is different from trying to make people think that the Church teaches she is at the same level as Jesus.

YOU SAID ****The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims… the plan of salvation includes Muslims?!? ****

I must admit, I don’t blame for misunderstanding this teaching. Many Catholics themselves misunderstand it. You are touching on a much, much bigger question here (Can someone be saved outside of hearing the gospel) which I think is too complicated to discuss here. I will say this though, don’t take a single quote out of the context, read the passage in it’s context, read the entire section of the Catechism, including paragraph 846, read the entirety of Sacred Scripture !! For example, we are told that Jesus Christ is the only way (John 3:16-18; John 6:28-29;John 6:47; John 9:35; Galatians 2:20) but we are also told that God judges people by different standards depending on how much of the gospel has been revealed to them( John 9:39-41; Romans 2:12-16; Matthew 5:43-46, Matthew 25:31-46, Luke 12:47-48

Hence, the Catholic Church teaches that Muslims *can* be saved but not if they have been made aware of the gospel and knowingly and willfully reject it. If they do, then they are placing themselves in grave danger as are you or any other Christian that rejects the gospel.

Let me put it differently. David, would you say the Jews before Jesus time were saved? What about modern Jews, are they saved? It depends right? It is not fair to say, well, Jews reject that Jesus is the messiah who is coming and hence they are not saved. This is overly simplistic view since we do not know how much of the gospel they have received. Many Jews could have been told everything they know about Jesus from an anti-christian rabbi.

In the same way, mulims, who reject Jesus is God but affirm that he is a great prophet, can also be saved if they are invinsibly ignorant of the truth. In fact, one could make an argument that muslims who have a clouded bible are more likely to be saved than Jews who have the Torah and should know very clearly that Jesus is the messiah. But I would never make such a ridicules argument because the Jews are God’s chosen people. In fact, if you look at the original source from where you got your quote you will see that it says that the Jewish people come very close to God, for they are more closely related to the Church than any other non-Christian religion.
My point is this, ALL people who will be saved are saved through the Catholic Church because it is the body of Christ. This includes protestants, jews, and muslims. This does not mean they need to have heard of the gospel because there is a difference between having Jesus and knowing Jesus. He speaks to all people who have never heard the gospel and are hence, are morally culpable for responding to the law that is written in their hearts.
In any case, I think the topic of whether non-christians will be saved would make an excellent website thread topic. I encourage someone to write it.
n conclusion, I think your post gives a clear example of what this article was hoping to show. If you will judge another Church, please do not misrepresent their views to suit your own purposes. Properly present their view and then show concretely and systematicly why their view is wrong. Based on your post, I think it is fair to attack the Church for honoring Mary above other human beings, that the Church teaches that Jesus is really present in the communion host and that the Church teaches that non Christians who have never heard the gospel, *can* be saved. If some don’t agree with either of these positions, so be it! I think Joe’s article is simply meant to say, take the time to properly understand what you don’t agree with before you reject it or call it anti-biblical. In fact, Joe himself says he gravely disagree’s with many of the Catholic Churches positions and considers them anti-biblical.
David, I commend you for citing primary Catholic Church sources instead of citing obscure documents or pastor so and so’s sermon on the Catholic Church. You give great witness to the Church that Jesus Christ founded, even if it is done in an attempt to discredit it.
David, I must say you sure know how to rile me up. =)
God Bless You!
 

I think you and my mother are right but I think your comparing apples to oranges. Let me explain. When you look at an  evangelical  ministry, you are generally talking about people who have been born again (ie discovered a new found relationship with Jesus). Whereas, when you look at a Catholic parish, you are talking about people who are devout, and those who are not.  

So if you ask me, it is like comparing 480/500 devout evangelicals in a particular Church against 50/500 in a general Catholic parish. I think a more fair comparison would be to compare general parish members against those from say a lutheran/methodist church which has a mixture of devout and non devout. What do you think? Am I being fair in this  assessment?  

Even without devout Catholic and protestants, it is also hard to sometimes compared “commitment” to Christ. Catholics are typically very private in their prayer life. In fact, I just attended Latin mass last sunday for the first time. I was surprised that the many of the priests prayers were done very silently because they were between him and God. Also, if you visit an eastern orthodox Church, they usually consecrate the hos in the back of the alter where no one can see the profound mystery. Interesting experience.

I actually personally love Padre Pio. He is like the Saint Francis of the 20th century. But it is true that there are many who simply want to make money off him or a small minority who practically want to see him as a new messiah. But these abuses should not color the truth of the matter. In fact, we read in Corinthians that Paul himself was seen as a god by people who recognized the strong power that God was working in him. But ofcourse we know that just because SOME people create these abuses, does not mean Saint Pauls teaching is false, or that he was not in fact a great man. Because he was. These abuses  should be looked upon from the perspective of what the Catholic Church officially teaches and not what it’s members do. In fact, part of the reason the Church authorities initially persecuted Padre Pio was because they are always very suspicious of people who draw large amount of people or who claim they experience the stigmata. I loved your last quote.

You identified many of the stereotypes I and many of my catholic bretheren commonly encounter.  
*Catholics worship Mary
*Catholics teach a false gospel
*Catholics dont have a personal relationship with God

I always wondered where did these lies come from?  In fact, I once thought about writing an article for UBFriends titled: “How to properly attack the Catholic Church” where I wanted to show how attacking Catholics as teaching that salvation is by works alone, mary is God etc.. is futile since the Church doesnt actually teach this!

I mean, if people want to attack the Church, they might rightly say..you give too much honor to Mary, you falsely believe that you can loose your salvation if you have not love, you rely on the Pope’s interpretation for moral questions isntead of the bible alone, you use status for aiding your prayer life even though you shouldnt, you shouldnt ask the saints to pray to God since they cannot hear you anymore.  

These are good attacks on the Church because trully capture what Catholics beleive! Whether Catholics SHOULD in fact give Mary too much honor to Mary, rely on the Popes interpretation instead of the Bible alone, etc.. is a different question which I hope we can avoid on this post. My point is simply that if you will judge the Church, then we should least judge rightly and in a spirit of charity.

“But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15).”

I was once shocked when I heard that the koran taught that Christians do not worship one God since they think Christians believe that God is the Father, the Son and Mary. I thought to myself, how can I possibly believe the koran is true if it cant even properly attack the Christian teaching. If the Koran said, “look.. this is the bad fruit of Christians.. they practically think Mary is God along with the Father, Son and Holy spirit” then I might understand. But not if it claims Christians teach something they dont! How can protestant teachers expect their students to trust in their particular denominations interpretation of scripture if some of them falsely attack another denomination and their student finds out that it is a false understanding of what they teach.

In fact, that is what drove me further into the Catholic church in the first place. When I first experienced a strong conversion in my life, I saw myself as simply being Christian (not protestat, not Catholic). But when I heard people like my mom (who was a babtist at the time) and Jehovas witnesses claim that the Catholics worshiped status, I was shocked! But all I had to do was ask a devout Catholic and found that the stereotype was incorrect. From there, I found myself more convinced by almost every issue of dispute between Catholics and Protestants. So what I am saying is, if you strongly disagree with the Church, then atleast be prepared to properly present the Church’s teachings and then systematicly show why they are wrong.  

Joe, I really liked that you identified some positions that Catholics do in fact hold but you charitably disagree with.  

*Catholics blindly follow the Pope: Although I slightly disagree with the word “blindly”, I think it is true that as Catholics, we believe the Pope is Christ  ambassador  to the world through apostolic succession and by holding the chair of Peter, has the power to sow in heaven what is sown on earth. If someone disagree’s with that, then so be it. But it is important to properly understand what the Church teaches. The Pope CANNOT teach anything that is contradiction to the Bible or the infallible teachings of the Church. One might protest, “but clearly the teaching on so and so is in contradiction to the bible.” I would respond that all a non Catholic can say is: 1) The teaching on so and so is in contradiction to how my denomination fallibly INTERPRETS the bible. By fallibly, I do not mean wrong, I mean it is not protected from potential error. 2) They are teaching something false which is in line with their false interpretation of the Bible (according to my fallible interpretation).  

Both of these seem valid as they both capture the context from which one is making the statements and the context from which the Church teaches certain things.  

I laughed when I read your quote by John Stott. I find it incredible when a pastor says.. the Pope teaches X as an infallible teaching. Where does it say in the bible that X is correct. Clearly he is wrong and is the anti-christ.” If you ask them, do you believe that what your saying is true? Could you be wrong in that teacher? Or is that merely your fallible interpretation of the Bible? Most find it hard to admit that there interpretations are made through a fallible process so they object that I know this to be true because “I feel a burning in my bossom” or, the “Holy Spirit is telling me.” If this is the case, then they are practically teaching the truth of Papal Infallibility but relegating that ability to themselves and other pastors who also agree with their interpretation of the bible.  I really like John Stott’s book the Cross of Christ. It presents a very even handed view of how RC’s see some of the issues (even though he disagree’s with them).  

*Catholics dont have a personal relationship with God* This is a very interesting assertion because I think it really challenges even other protestant faith traditions. I once had from a Catholic friend that her evangelical buddy tried to argue that she was not really a Christian because she was never, “born again.” My Catholic friend was confused by what she meant by the term “born again” since she has had very limited encounters with evangelicals and she thought it simply meant that you are  baptized so a to be born from the spirit. And since my Catholic friend has always been devout ever since she could remember, she could not wrap her mind around the idea that she has to have a conversion process sometime during her adult life. Since she felt that she has always had a close and personal relationship with Jesus. She did not agree nor disagree with her evangelical friend, she was just confused by what she meant. And I think this is true of many protestants who have grown up in good Christian homes and led very devout lives. What does, “being born again” after they have been babtized mean if you have always loved Christ. Maybe you have not loved him as much as he deserves, or have failed him many times, but the point is, some people just never have this conversion experience because they have always been devoted to the good news.  

Again, I really liked this article Joe. I hope Christians of all backgrounds can turn towards fair and even handed sources when trying to understand views that differ from their own.