Come Home to the Church Debate, part 2

I am fairly certain that I made some attempt to contact Mrs. Hooper years ago. I had hoped that she would one day respond and my patience has been rewarded. Here is something of the debate. Please note that Mrs. Hooper's comments are in RED.

Seeking believers of like mind had nothing to do with "my views," but rather finding Christians faithful to God's word and believing what it says.

"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." -1 Cor. 1:10

Sorry, I am convinced you were taken in. Almost every hackneyed argument you use against the Church has been used before, from the 19th century American Know-Nothings to the contemporary fundamentalists. Now you see yourself as an apostle against Catholic Christianity. The unity that Paul preaches is only found in the Church. We are not even sure that Paul ever read a written Gospel. By the time John's Gospel was composed, Paul was already dead. He is the great missionary of the Church. Spreading the living Word and often allowing others to baptize the members of new Christian communities. Inspired in a particular way by God, Paul might be reckoned as somewhat unique, and yet even he admits to having passed on what he received-- no doubt from the "catholic" Christian community at Antioch. The Church has a hierarchy and structure (1 Corinthians 14:27-31).

This is all tragic. While God may look upon the faith and devotion of our Protestant brothers and sisters with some favor, the situation is probably quite different for one who has "personally" rejected the Catholic Church.

"For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." -Rom. 8:38,39

Perfectly right, but the verses imply that the believer would remain faithful and resolute in his or her commitment. You broke from God's covenant community, the Catholic Church. Note also that Paul will next lament that his Jewish people have largely rejected the new covent of Jesus. God has established a new people, the Church.

If you had been serious, and not cowardly, you would have sought out a Catholic priest or another "knowledgeable Catholic" with whom you could have honestly explored your questions. Instead, you dismissed Catholic teaching out-of-hand, disrespected the teachers of faith, and brought shame upon yourself in the eyes of almighty God.

"Why should I believe in something that profits nothing?" Yes, and this is precisely the question I ask you for believing in the watered-down faith you now possess. Next, you write, "Where it concerns the Lord's body, we never hear John 6:63 read before communion, "It is the spirit that quikeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing." Dear Mrs. Hooper, I am surprised at you. Do you not know that this is a LIE? The ritual for Catholic worship is a stable affair; however, the readings are variable and come prior to communion. The Lectionary for Mass lists John 6:60-69 as falling on Sunday, the Twenty-First Week of the Year (B). Jesus is defending the truth about his statements regarding the Eucharist, not the opposite as you contend.

The whole system of the "Eucharist" created by the Roman Catholic church is bogus. You think you can say magic words that will turn a piece of wafer and some booze into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Catholic church has deceived many poor souls. To actually think they can eat God!

Like the Scripture says,

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

You jump upon the Eucharist but leave unanswered your assertion that you never heard John 6:63. All that you reveal here is that you do not undestand it. Even your quotation, often used against the Eucharist in Protestant bible study groups when a Catholic is discovered, does not apply. Here is a case in point of biblical ignorance. The expression Jesus uses was a familiar phrase in his day. It was a colloquial hebraic hyperbole. You probably do not even know what that means and at this point I am tiring at trying to educate you. Jesus has not suddenly developed amnesia after talking at length about the Eucharist; neither is he reversing himself when the many Jews murmurred and left his company because they found what he said offensive-- much like yourself when you compare it to boozing. The expression above is in reference to their faith, or lack of it. We can only believe if we have been moved by the Spirit to do so. The men of flesh cannot accept it. We believe that Jesus gives us his body and blood to feed us because HE SAYS SO. His words are of the "spirit" and can be reckoned as true. The association of the word "spirit" is not a spiritualization or repudiation of the real presence that Jesus stresses again and again.

He allows some to walk away from his fellowship rather than to alter this truth. Are you implying that Jesus is himself a liar or an amnesiac who now discounts all that he has just said? Ridiculous!

What is ridiculous is how the Roman Catholic church wrest the scriptures unto its own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).

Not all the authorities who teach this are Catholic. It is reliable biblical scholarship. You are the one who falls under the verdict of 2 Peter 3:16, when speaking about some of Paul's teachings, Peter writes: "There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."

The Hebrew saying, "It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless," wonderfully touches the heart of this "sacramental" mystery. He affirms that his words are true, that they are "spirit and life."

Again, you fail to focus what He said about the flesh. "the flesh profiteth nothing:" His words are spirit, and they are life. You do not get life by eating Jesus's physical body. "the flesh profiteth nothing."

First off, again the qualification is in regard to their disbelief, not the teaching of the real presence that Jesus taught. Second, while you claimed to be an informed Catholic, the Church does not teach a cannibalistic understanding of this text. The physicalism is understood as a sacramental presence. The Eucharist, just as at the Last Supper, is changed but the accidents (appearances) remain the same.

That body is gone, He has a glorified body which I will have some day.

What do you think the Eucharist really is? It is the risen Christ. After the ascension, Jesus sends his Spirit to guide us in truth and to empower the sacraments. Jesus does not abandon us. He feeds us with his very self. The worldly man eats earthly food. The spiritual man eats heavenly food.

"And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." -Rom. 8:23

"Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." -Phil. 3:21

This is another subject entirely. Christ is not reduced or altered by the Eucharist. His risen glorified body is not subject to the same laws that bind us. He appeared to the two men on the road to Emmaus in the "breaking of the bread" (a codeword in the early Church for the Eucharist). He suddenly appears in the upper room. He appears to his friends along the shore. Jesus is as we hope to become. We believe, as Catholics, in the resurrection of the dead. We will not remain ghosts and neither will we be reduced to worm food. We will not be assumed into the ranks of angels. Men and women will be given new bodies, akin to Christ's. But, as I said, this is another matter.

To think a mere sinner like yourself who claims he can reproduce Jesus' physical body and blood in every Mass out of a wafer and booze. How many times does Jesus have to be reproduced in a "unbloody manner" so you can drink His blood? And what about His body?

Christ at the Last Supper did not say that this bread is a symbol for his body and this cup is a stand-in for his blood. He said THIS-- MY BODY; THIS-- THE CUP OF MY BLOOD. And he says, DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. This remembrance is understood by the ancients as an "anamnesis" or living memory. That which is remembered is made present. Our Lord has not orphaned us.

I believe that Christ offers himself through his priests at our Catholic altars-- extending his paschal mystery through every time and place so that we might all participate and be there. That is the rationale for repetition. Like breathing, it never gets old and I would sure like to keep doing it. St. Paul talked about how humbling it was to be used by God. Every good priest also recognizes that he is nothing apart from the Lord. Yes, I am a sinner; but, I am a sinner who trusts in the power of God and his saving word, even when it is hard to understand. The man of flesh looks at the Mass and calls it foolishness. At the consummation of all things and the second coming, the earthly Mass will cease and the children of God will worship at the heavenly liturgy forever. What we celebrate now behind sacred signs, we will see face to face.

If it's the actual body of Jesus, what part of the body do you eat? The finger? The eyeball? The ear? The nose? The little toe?

You sought to be a religious sister? My little second graders would challenge you at this point for not knowing your Catholic religion. Here is PROOF POSITIVE that you never understood the Catholic faith from the very beginning. Even now, you can parrot anti-Catholic nonsense and quote without understanding from Catholic books-- and yet you claimed to be in full possession of the facts. No, you rebelled against something you did not understand and then you had your faith re-taught to you by people who did not understand it themselves.

Let me just share a bit of "baby" religion with you. I will make it easy:

DO WE RECEIVE THE DEAD CHRIST OR THE LIVING CHRIST IN HOLY COMMUNION?

We receive the living Christ, active on our behalf, risen and glorified, sitting at the right hand of the Father, redeemer and Lord.

IF WE RECEIVE THE BODY OF JESUS AND NOT THE CUP, DID WE FAIL TO RECEIVE HIS BLOOD?

No, the Church teaches what is called "concommitance". All this means is that no matter whether you receive from the consecrated host and/or from the cup, you still receive the complete Jesus.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY COMPLETE JESUS?

Receiving the Lord is not like carving up the parts of a Thanksgiving Turkey. Rather, ever particle of the sacred host (with the appearances of unleaven bread) and every drop of the cup (with the appearances of wine) is the total and complete Jesus-- body, soul, humanity and divinity.

This is one of the most basic teachings that Catholics believe. If you did not know this, and apparently still do not, then you were not much of a Catholic at any time. I know this sounds harsh, but what else can I think? It is one thing to reject Catholic teaching-- it is another to repudiate what you do not know, at least not well.

You fail to appreciate Hebrew forms of speech, albeit, translated through the Greek language. No doubt you will cast dispersions upon intelligent interpretation of the Scriptures, preferring fundamentalist revisions. The same Gospel pericope emerges in the liturgy during the week, on Saturday, the Third Week of Easter. You cite Genesis 9:4 and Leviticus 17:14 against Jesus, showing clearly that you are like the murmuring Jews. They could not accept the "real presence" of the Eucharist and so they abandoned Jesus. You left the Lord and his sacrament which comes to us through the Apostolic community of the Catholic Church. Jesus asked you, "Do you want to leave me too?" And you said, YES.

GOD is the one who COMMANDED the following:

"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." (Genesis 9:4)

"For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off." (Leviticus 17:14)

"Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh. Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water. Thou shalt not eat it; that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD." (Deuteronomy 12: 23-25)

Notice that in avoidance of the truths that Jesus uttered you race back to the Old Testament and the old law's view of blood, which our Lord abbrogated.

These laws are commanded by God. God gave the Law. Who is Jesus? (John 1:1)
This issue about not eating blood is reiterated in the New Testament.

"But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. " (Acts 15:20)

"That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." (Acts 15:29)

We are also told that in Jesus all foods are made clean. All Christians were admonished to avoid the food used in false pagan worship. The preference was given to the new worship, the Christian agape meal and Eucharist. Remember also that these references to strangled animals and to blood are important to the early Jewish Christians, who required their members to keep the Hebrew dietary laws. The Gentiles would fail to do this.

Sir, though you appreciate the Hebrew forms of speech, albeit, translated through the Greek language, you fail to understand the simple English.

I think I understand English quite well, and your refusal to face facts. If you want Scripture verses, meditate upon these:

John 6:27 - "Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give you; for on him has God the Father set his seal."

John 6:33 - "For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the World."

John 6:34 - "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst."

John 6:41 - "The Jews then murmurred at him, because he said, 'I am the bread which came down from heaven.'"

John 6:47-51 - "Truly, truly, I say to you,he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 'I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats [very graphic word, actually meaning to grind with one's teeth] of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.'"

John 6:52-58 - "The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.'"

John 6:60-66 - "Many of his disciples when they heard it, said, 'This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?' But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, 'Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe.' For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. And he said, 'That is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father. After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him."

[Note that given the full context, the the Hebrew saying about spirit and life refers to the truthfulness of his words and that only the man of the spirit can receive it. The man of flesh finds the Eucharistic teaching to be offensive and walks away. The reason some of the Jews leave him is because Jesus means what he says about eating his body and drinking his blood-- it sounded crazy to them and definitely a violation of the Levitical law to which you seem to subscribe. If Jesus only meant fake blood or symbolic blood, they would not have left him. All becomes clear to the apostles later with the Last Supper and Calvary.

1 Corinthians 10:15-16,21 - "I speak as to sensible men; judge yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we bleak, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? ... You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons."

The early Eucharist was joined to a regular (agape) meal. It became difficult to maintain the mixed structure, for reasons evident in Paul's letter to the Corinthians. At one point we hear the criticism that some became "drunk on the Lord", literally imbibing too much of the precious blood. After chastising their division, selfishness, and abuse of the meal he writes:

1 Corinthians 11:23-30 - [Here is the Eucharistic tradition given to St. Paul and the regulations about worthiness are still in effect to this very day.] "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. [Note that a covenant requires a real sacrifice and real blood. Otherwise, in Jewish and Christian thinking, it makes no sense. The renewal must also be real and not empty symbolism.] Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died."

As for bible translations, even the KJV is not safeguarded from error or from distortion due to the changing meaning of words and the distance between our culture and that of the ancient Hebrews.

It does not matter to me if you think the Scriptures are not safeguarded from error. I just thank God my final authority rests with no man, his opinions, nor his education.

Actually, it does not matter whether you think so or not. Your ideas represent a particular school of fundamentalism and as I said before, every bible translation is a degree of interpretation-- some more accurate and/or literal than others.

Regarding salvation, I suspect that the KJV was the one with the agenda. Modern translations, except when they are caught up in the inclusive language nonsense, try to retain verb tenses and agreement with subjects and objects. Accepting this particular bible as entirely authoritative means that you have placed the bible of the Anglican Church and of Protestant kings and queens over that of the successors of St. Peter and the bishops. Interestingly enough, this same church which offered this translation now admits that there were thousands of mistakes made in the original texts.

You mouth off nonsense with no evidence.

Check for yourself how many revisions and corrections that the Anglican Church has made to their King James Version bible. I did not make this up.

What, did you think Baptists translated this bible?

Never said they did.

Nevertheless, you treat the Word of God like it fell from the sky ready-made. This just is not the case.

No, not by a long-shot. Indeed, some of the attacks you make against the Catholic Church would also apply to the English Church of the Reformation. How do you rationalize this away? Why do you allow "Englishitis" to close your heart, mind, and soul to the truth. Only a counterfeit spirit would steal you from Christ's Church.

I wonder if Adam and Eve cried out, "Free at last!" when they ate of the forbidden fruit? The serpent tempted them with their own pride and that their "eyes [would be] opened." But, they were fooling themselves. Now more than ever they would "walk in darkness" and not with their loving Creator. Are you really free now?

"If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. -Joh 8:36

Yes, if you are really free and are following the Son, such would be the case. I leave your judgment entirely up to God but from my perspective I would warn you, given your obstinancy, "Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

Again and again, you know verses and some truths, but you bend over backwards to deny the full truth of the Catholic Church. I can admit to the presence of saints in Protestant communities and there is much we share regarding values and our love of God's Word. All you will give your Catholic brothers and sisters is serpent venom.

You ask the question, "How many times do we need to be saved?" I suspect you confuse salvation with the Catholic understanding of redemption. Once baptized, always baptized. We have been bought at a great price and are called to a faith in Christ actualize by charity. The truth is not that Christ abandons us, but rather through sin we forget him. How many times have you forgotten Christ? How many of the commandments have you broken, and continue to break? Do you love your God and allow this love to overflow in a marvelous divine love of others?

Ask yourself the same question. I am a sinner saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8,9), but that doesn't mean I walk a sinless life (1 John 1:10). Nobody does. I will say though, I do not need to turn to the man made Roman Catholic sacraments to obtain forgiveness. I have a wonderful Saviour whom I can go to when I fail to do what is right.

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. -1 John 1:9

There is no competition or contradiction in turning to Christ and to the sacraments. Christ perpetuates his ministry of reconciliation in the Church and her ministers. Nothing about this finds its origin in human beings. Jesus instituted the Church and her sacraments. We do not simply affirm forgiveness already given. Jesus is always ready to admister it fresh in the Church. Yes, we are all sinners. But, we can know perfection in grace and growth in genuine holiness.

I cannot speak for whether or not Jesus will condemn you for your attack against his Church and the divine mysteries. If the rejection of the Eucharist brings judgment, then you have brought it upon yourself. "You took your chances" and left the Catholic Church. You were fearful of Purgatory and missed the meaning of God's vast mercy.

I reject the idea of the "Catholic Eucharist." The fear tactics of the Roman Catholic system will no longer work on me. I need not fear the Roman Catholic Church nor Mr. Karol Wojtyla (aka Pope)

Nor am I fearful of a fabricated invention by the Roman Catholic church called "Purgatory." No such place exists in the Bible.

The Bible says in Romans 6:23, "the wages of sin is death," not a limited time spent in purgatory.

Yes, YOU reject the Eucharist-- you have said so from your own mouth. This may no longer matter to you, but those of us who know it is JESUS, risen and active in our midst, feel sorry for you. You have nothing to fear from the Church or our dear Pope who has sacrificed so much for the Gospel of Life.

Purgation is substantiated well enough in the bible, but why should you have been afraid of it anyway. It is a sign of God's mercy, more than his justice. Those who have rejected God in serious sin will suffer eternal death. But those who pass through the purifying fire of God's love have made it, they will be counted among the saints of heaven forever.

They are souls on their way to heaven. What moves us toward heaven is not suffering as such; it is the purification of our hearts. Faith in Jesus is saving. And yet, how often have our hearts yearned for things forbidden us or we have not loved God as we should have. The flame of God's love rids us of those things which have no share in divine glory and mold us more perfectly into the image of God's Son. As Catholics, we realize that a believer might reject Christ and his Church, it is in this sense that the road to salvation is not smooth. However, as the funeral rites remind us, we live "in the sure and certain hope" of our salvation.

I don't need "funeral rites" to make certain my salvation or hope for salvation. My salvation is not in the funeral rites of the Roman Catholic church. My sure hope of salvation is in the Lord Jesus Christ who died and rose for me.

"The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" (Ps. 27:1)

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

You bend over backwards to be contrary. Again, the Church has no qualms with these Scriptures. As for the funeral rites, they console grieving families and offer prayer for loved ones that we hope to see again in the Lord.

The Roman Catholic Church preserved and collected the books that make up the bible.

A big lie.

No, a historical fact, the only Christian Church that existed in the earliest days of the new dispensation was the Church which today we call Catholic. The Orthodox churches of the East, given that they were united with us at that time, can also trace their roots to the days of the apostles. The Baptists, no matter how good and holy, cannot. No amount of historical revisionism can make it otherwise. St. Jerome translated the Scriptures for the Church into Latin. English was not even a language back then. The Church would argue and in counsel (under the Spirit's guidance) determine the canon. The Council of Hippo offered a list to the Church. Previously, New Testament writings were scattered and some books and letters claimed by certain communities, were rejected for inclusion-- like the Shepherd of Hermes, the Didache, the First Epistle of Clement, The Gospel of Peter, etc.

The New Testament is the result of divinely inspired books and letters by her members. She preaches God's Word and the prayers of the Mass all have biblical parallels. Nevertheless, you state that the Church is the enemy of the bible and that she disavows any historical significance to the book of Genesis. Crazy! The Church definitively teaches that God is the Creator and that he made our first parents who fell from grace by an act of disobedience. Sin and death entered the world. But not all was lost, we were promised a Redeemer. Once more, you are inaccurate. Further, you cite Mark 10:5-8 to stress the literalism of Genesis 2 and 3 while missing the point of the text,

No, you missed the point of what I said. It has nothing to do with what is being taught for I believe what the Bible says. I said the Roman church does not believe that "...CHAPTERS 1-3 OF GENESIS IS REAL HISTORY."

You do not really read well do you? I will repeat myself: The Church definitively teaches that God is the Creator and that he made our first parents who fell from grace by an act of disobedience. Sin and death entered the world. But not all was lost, we were promised a Redeemer.

Now, I proved that by quoting Jesus who considers GENESIS AS STRICT, STRAIGHT HISTORY. "And Jesus answered them, For the hardness of your heart he (Moses) wrote you this precept. But FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION GOD MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE" (Mark 10:5-6).

I will say it again: The Church definitively teaches that God is the Creator and that he made our first parents who fell from grace by an act of disobedience. Sin and death entered the world. But not all was lost, we were promised a Redeemer.

What I say is true and will quote from your own NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA where it states, "The Bible as a literary work had traditions that included myth" (Vol. 10, page 184). "Some of the miracles recorded in Holy Scripture may be fictional and include imaginative literary exaggerations. The episode of Noe and the Ark is imaginative literary creation" (Vol. 9, page 887). The Gospels are not biographies of Jesus and still less scientific history" (Vol. 12, page 403).

First off, the New Catholic Encyclopedia is by certain American churchmen and you would do better to go to official Church documents and to the universal catechism for Catholic truths. The bible contains many forms of literature. In theology, the word "myth" does not mean the same as in secular mythology or fairytales. The theological construct of a myth may possess overriding truth. The parable stories of Jesus would be a case in point. The Hebrews make a play on words against the Babylonian deities in their retelling of the flood story and Noah. Fr. McKenzie, a wonderful exegete who passed away a few years ago, noted that the story relates to a pre-history event, wherein the known world (particularly the Mediteranean basin) is flooded. Saying that the Gospels are not strict biographies is true, they vary in certain details and order as theological constructs. However, the Church insisted in her condemnation of the Modernist heresies, that the Gospels can be trusted to give us the life and message of Jesus Christ. You neither know how to read Scripture and nor how to understand simple articles about Catholic faith. If it were not for the fact that simple-minded people might be swayed by your material, I would probably just leave your rant alone.

Looking at your nottaions from the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, it is evident that your fundamentalism comes into play.

Furthermore, excerpts from NEW JEROME BIBLE COMMENTARY (this has the Imprimatur of Lawrence Cardinal Shehan. Augustin Cardinal Bea is the author of the commentary's forward).

1. The Bible contains fiction.

The bible gives us salvation history, no matter what liteary devices are used.

2. Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible. These books came from the J-E-D and P sources centuries after Moses died.

Study of language, repetitions with varing themes, and differing source material proves that there were various redactors. This does not utterly negate the role of Moses.

3. The Bible does not predict the coming of the Messiah Jesus Christ.

This must be a misreading because the Church and the current Pope insist that Jesus is the long promised Messiah.

4. Joshua's account of the destruction of Jericho is fiction.

This is the theory of some exegetes, but not Catholic teaching. The trouble is the lack of archeological evidence. I have been to Jericho twice and the Franciscan priests there assume that the biblical story is quite legitimate.

5. Isaiah did not write Chapters 40-66 of the Book of Isaiah.

Actually, there is a Deutero-Isaiah and maybe even a third one given the length of time detailed and the shifts in the narrative. However, this does not effect the prophetic importance of the book.

6. Isaiah did not predict the coming of Jesus Christ, that he would be born of a virgin , and suffer and die for the sins of all men.

Again, I think this is a serious missreading of the text. Give full pagination and I will decipher where you went wrong.

7. The Old Testament does not teach any resurrection from the dead. St. Jerome was wrong when he said Job 19:26 referred to Jesus and the resurrection.

It all depends where in the Old Testament you read. Certainly the later Jews believed in the resurrection of the dead. You are not reading carefully. The earliest Jews saw divine blessing in property and progeny. Later Jews, particular in light of the story of Job, speak a great deal more about life after death-- justice for those who suffered and /or were oppressed in this life. St. Jerome is a doctor of the Catholic Church who compiled a bible for the Pope. The Church does not denounce his scholarship or his wonderful insights as one of the early Latin fathers.

8. The Sixth century B.C. prophet Daniel did not write the Book of Daniel.

The most important thing to remember is that GOD is the author of the whole bible!

9. The Book of Daniel contains errors and fiction.

What errors and fiction and where does it say this in the commentary?

10. Psalm 16:10 does not refer to the resurrection of Christ.

Where does it say this? The psalm reads, "For thou dost not give me up to Sheol, or let thy godly one see the Pit." It continues, "Thou dost show me the path of life; in thy presence there is fulness of joy, in thy right hand are pleasures for evermore." Certainly this text speaks about life and deliverance from the grave!

11. The Books of Ruth, Jonah and Esther are fiction.

What fiction and where does it say this in the commentary? They are important historical books.

12. The Book of Matthew contains fiction.

Again, what fiction and where does it say this in the commentary?

13. The Ascension of Christ may not be historical.

Nonsense, you definitely are misreading the commentary. The Ascension is a dogma of catholic faith and is a feast celebrated every year at Mass in the Church calendar.

14. Three thousand were not converted at Pentecost.

Again, nonsense! No one can say that thousands were not converted by God's Spirit.

15. Paul did not write Colossians, Ephesians, I and II Timothy and Titus.

There is a different style and shift in theology in these writings, but they are still called Pauline writings. Exegetes are divided on this and the Catholic Church does not deny the authorship of Paul. As I said before, it is also God's holy Word!

16. The Bible is not the inspired and inerrant Word of God.

Wrong, you are not talking to some poor fool who does not know CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. Check out the universal catechism. Why did you stop quoting it? I suspect because it made your fake strawman Catholicism collapse. The bible does not intend to teach all scientific truth. However, it is God's inspired and thus infallible Word. It faithfully transmits salvation truth. This does not mean that everything has the same value for the Christian. The New Testament is particularly important. The freedom that comes with Christ means that we are no longer under the yoke of the law as detailed in parts of the Old Testament.

17. Genesis is not historical.

I will say it again: The Church definitively teaches that God is the Creator and that he made our first parents who fell from grace by an act of disobedience. Sin and death entered the world. But not all was lost, we were promised a Redeemer.

There are particularly challenges to Genesis, like the two separate creation stories (first and second chapter) however, the Church draws much of her doctrine about original sin from the primordial rebellion. No, your reading of the commentary must not be a careful one.

18. Man and the universe gradually evolved from some primary substance.

Some authorities propose the theory of evolution, however, it is not an element of Catholic doctrine.

19. Christian doctrine gradually evolved. The Biblical view of God changed.

If you read the bible it is clear that the understanding of God grew. However, the same God that called Abraham is the God we worship today. Over time the Jews came to understand that all other gods were false, and that theirs was the only true God. As for Christian doctrine, revelation ends with the death of the apostle John. However, our lived faith and theological reflection allows us to understand these doctrines in an ever deepening way.

20. The Bible contains mythology.

As I said before, mythological elements does not necessarily detract from historical and truth value.

21. The Biblical story of Noah's flood is a myth.

I mentioned this already. An event from prehistory, it was composed to affirm that they had not been abandoned by God and to poke fun (through a play on words) with the Babylonian mythology (Gilgamesh Epic).

22. Man does not know who the historical Jesus really was.

This is reflective of a questionable theology practiced by some Catholics and progressive mainline Protestants where a distinction is made between the Christ of faith (kerygma) and the Jesus of history. However, in attempts to get to the so-called historical Jesus, they strip him of prophesy and miraculous elements. The assertion that we cannot know the real and historical Jesus through the Gospels was condemned by Pope Pius X in the Syllabus of Errors. Thus, the Catholic position is that WE CAN KNOW THE HISTORICAL JESUS.

23. The Gospels are not true history.

No, as noted in the point immediately before this one, the Church has insisted upon the historical and reliable nature of the Gospels. The Modernists were expelled and excommunicated from the Catholic Church for claiming otherwise.
24. Jesus was not all knowing.

You must know better than this. It is Catholic doctrine that God is all-knowing [see the universal catechism CCC 215, 216 & 217], all-loving, all-good, omnipresent and everliving. Nothing exists apart from God.

25. Jesus did not co-exist with the Father from all eternity.

This must be a lie, too. Every Sunday at Mass, Catholics proclaim in the Nicene Creed, "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being [sonsubstantial] with the Father." Jesus is the eternal Son. We take the Gospel of John seriously. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God! Why do you insist that the Catholic Church officially teaches things she does not teach?

26. Christianity is not the one and only divinely revealed faith.

The fact that we claim the Hebrew Scriptures is evidence that we acknowledge that God called to himself the Hebrew people. Jesus and the first apostles were Jews. When believers speak of the catholic Church as the true Church, they are in fact saying that Christianity is the most full expression of divine revelation. The saving name is JESUS CHRIST. The Jewish Messiah is the Savior of the world. The Church does not minimize the essential value of Christianity, although we do seek to live in peace with those who do not share our faith.

27. Christ did not die on the cross to appease the wrath of God.

Every statement makes you out a bigger fool than I thought possible. The whole economy of salvation behind catholic doctrine and the sacraments is dependent upon the truth that Jesus Christ died on the cross once-and-for-all to appease the wrath or indignity caused by our rebellion and sin. Jesus is our sin offering. As we say at every Mass, Jesus is "The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." He pays the debt that we owed but could not pay. His redemptive passion and death brings us liberation from the bondage to the devil, death and sin. He offered himself on our behalf.

I rest my case.

You can rest all you want, you have no case. This long list was nothing but half-truths and outright lies. Whatever the source of these statements, and I am pretty sure we are getting a great deal of distortion in this regard, you must not falsify what Catholics really believe in order to make your case against the Church. Disagree about legitimate matters of difference. But anything further, is definitely from the evil one.

... a prohibition against divorce, that virtually all Protestant churches ignore or explain away. Despite your claim to full authority over the bible, you write: "Jesus also quotes Moses verbatim from Genesis 2:24" (Mark 10:7-8). This sentence is wrong any way you look at it. Jesus quotes from Genesis against the writ of divorce allowed by Moses. Moses himself does not appear or speak in Genesis 2:24!

Jesus quotes from Genesis against divorce and classifies any subsequent marriage as adultery. Is this preached by the Baptist church? No. Only the Catholic Church still officially teaches that marriage is until "death do us part." I can also use John 5:45-47 for my own purposes. If you believed in Jesus, you would have trusted in the Church he established and continues to protect by his Holy Spirit. But, you reinterpret the words of Christ and the prophets to your own ends.

You go on about nothing. My point is that the Roman Catholic church does not recognize Genesis 1-3 as real straight history.

[Is something missing here?] As I said before, you prove nothing and you protest too much about Genesis. If you cannot even portray catholicism accurately how can anyone trust your reasoning about anything else? Your witness is not reliable and easily refuted.

If you think that the Catholic Church has dismissed the book of Genesis and the doctrines contained there, then you have been very much misled. Original sin came into the world through the primordial rebellion

You can't get yourself to say "Adam and Eve?" Do you believe such a person as Adam and Eve existed?

Yes, most certainly our first parents existed.

and thus all need to have faith in Christ and to be washed clean in the waters of baptism.

Again, city water saves no one.

If water baptism saves, then Paul as well as Jesus was misinformed.

No, you are the one misinformed. Jesus makes baptism in an essential element of the mission of the Church.

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." (1 Cor. 1:17)

As the Scriptures noted and I said before, Paul saw himself as the great missionary, sowing the seeds of faith. While there is assuredly some hyperbole here, he makes mention of others baptizing for him. While circumcision was the rite of initiation for Jews, baptism would be the new rite for Christians, irrespective of whether we are male or female, free or slave, Jew or Gentile.

City water does not cleanse anyone from any kind of sin. It is the blood of Christ that cleanses one from sins.

Baptism allows us to enter into the saving mystery of Christ. We die with him so that we might rise with him.

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;" -Eph. 1:7

"But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." - Eph. 2:13

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:" -Col. 1:14

"Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." - Heb. 9:12

"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, -Heb. 10:19

There is no contradiction between these statements and the sacraments. It is arrogant to think that there is.

In passing, you mention the baptism of babies between 500 to 1997 AD. However, even the New Testament mentions that a whole household (including babies no doubt) might be baptized upon accepting Christ. The Church goes back directly to Jesus.

You added your own words here ("including babies no doubt"). There is not one instance of a baby accepting Christ. It is impossible for a baby to do so.

Read carefully, I stated that households accepted Christ. I am not surprised you reject this since your faith denies communal elements. When the head of the home accepted Christ, everyone else quickly followed. The early Church almost immediately began to baptize babies. Only later did it reflect upon the experience of what they were doing. It was and is expected that as the child grew that he would be formed in the Gospel embraced by the older members of the family.

The various texts you draw out against Catholic practices are indeed non-topical. You take passages out of context and give them new meanings. Please cease your assault, dare I say RAPE, of the Word of God!

All one has to do is read his Bible. Then it's just a matter of what the person will believe....the Bible or man?

Just because the Roman Catholic church chooses to use the Scriptures to further her heretical doctrine is no fault of mine.

I have read the bible and yet what I believe still coincides with Church teaching. No, what you are insisting upon is that we believe what you PERSONALLY believe and how the cronies you follow misuse God's Holy Word.

You attack the following:

• the intercessory role of the saints by quoting Job 15:15;
• the sinlessness of Mary by quoting Leviticus 12:8; Romans 3:23; Luke 1:47; and Luke 2:22,24;
• the honor showed Mary by quoting Luke 11:27-28;

The reference to Job discounting the saints is similar to chapter 4, verse 18: "Lo, he puts no trust in his servants, and with his angels he can find fault." All this is to emphasize the singular fidelity of Job who suffers, seemingly through no fault of his own. And yet, all fall short of the glory of God. Every living thing is dependent upon him. The holy ones, the saints and angels, cannot save us; however, they can pray for us and watch over us as special messengers of God. The verse cited against the saints really says nothing about their ability to pray for us.

It's amazing you do not back up your comments with Scripture. Why? Because nowhere in the Bible will you find where we are to pray to dead saints who in turn will pray for us. It is a tradition of man.

While I believe in the value of both sacred tradition and Scripture, I think I have used ample Scripture and have shown how you quote what you do not understand.

Jesus Himself never condoned such a practice. When the disciples asked Jesus to teach them to pray, He taught them to address their prayers to “Our Father which art in heaven,” not to saints.

Again, you fail to make distinctions. The Catholic Church teaches us that all prayer has as its proper object, Almighty God. As for the Lord's Prayer, it has a central place in Catholic personal prayer and corporate worship. Asking the saints to pray for and with us is a sign of our solidarity with them and a testimony that the promises of Jesus are true. Jesus offers us a share in his life and some in our number are already with him in the world to come. Since they are alive they pray that we will join their heavenly host.

This is not to mention that the Roman Catholic church does not know the true meaning of the word "saint." According to the Roman Catholic church, few people are declared a saint AFTER death, and this based on the good works of that person while alive.

Please, do not transpose your ignorance and biblical illiteracy upon the living Church. WE know perfectly well the many meanings of the word, "saint". Throughout the period of the early Church, the word was popularly used regarding the community of believers on earth who followed Jesus. Later, particularly after some betrayed our Lord (during the age of Roman persecution), the name started to be reserved for those who had proven their steadfast faith, particularly the martyrs. However, both uses are still legitimate and is used today in the Church as such. We are called in the Church to be saints for Christ. The formal declaration of sainthood is not what makes a person a saint. It is simply a declaration that we can safely look at that person's witness and faith as an example for us. It also means that we can rely upon their intercessory prayers.

The fact is, every person who has placed his trust in Jesus Christ for salvation is called a saint.

"To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." Romans 1:7

"Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;" Ephesians 3:8

"...Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints," Jude 1:14

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:" Ephesians 4:11-12

(See also Acts 9:13; 9:32; 9:41; 26:10; Romans 8:27; 12:13; 15:25; 15:26; 15:31; 16:2; 16:15; 1 Corinthians 6:1, 2 Corinthians 1:1, Ephesians 1:1, plus other numerous passages of New Testament references.)

Your quotes and citations are all well and good, but you are debating yourself. The Church does not narrowly define a saint in all instances as you say. Saints are not made in heaven, but by God's grace, here on earth. Every day I strive to be the saint that our Lord has called me to be.

I find the reference to Leviticus quite odd. Ritual atonement had to do with being put back into right relationship with God, not simply in terms of eternal salvation, but as a member of God's chosen people. There is nothing wrong with this in regard to Mary (Luke 2:22,24). She was a Jewish woman who followed the rituals and teachings of her faith. The ritual of purification becomes for her more of a presentation of the Christ-child as the long-awaited Messiah. If true justification comes through "faith in Jesus Christ" (Romans 3:23), then obviously this ritual of purification could not do what faith and baptism would in the new covenant of Christ. Indeed, the passage you cite, Luke 1:47 from her Magnificat helps to prove the Catholic stance. Note that she says, "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior." She does not say in Christ who "will be" my savior. Although the passion, death, and resurrection is still thirty plus years in the future, she ALREADY calls God her "savior." How can this be if she is still not saved? The Catholic Church teaches that just as we are touched by the saving activity of Christ by faith and the sacraments, particularly baptism, FORWARD in history; Mary is touched by the saving merit of her Son BACKWARD in time, at the very first moment of her life in the womb of St. Ann. This honor was granted her since according to divine providence, she had been chosen as the mother of the Savior. Further, since original sin is transmitted from one generation to the next, it was only fitting that Jesus not be touched by sin in the womb of Mary.

The fact is, the Roman Catholic church teaches that Mary was sinless from birth, and this is a lie.

"By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long." Pg. 138, #493

She was a Jewish woman, under the Jewish law. She was a sinner just like anyone else and needed a Saviour.

"And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." Luke 1:46-47

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" Romans 3:10

"They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Romans 3:12

"But the scripture hath concluded all under sin..." Galatians 3:22

The only one sinless was Jesus.

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 2 Corinthians 5:21

Look, it is your business if you want to disagree with us, but over and over again you cannot even present Catholic doctrines correctly. Here you say that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was sinless from "birth" and then you call it a lie. Well, it is a lie, because the Church does not teach this-- Mary is preserved from sin, NOT from birth but from CONCEPTION. I even wrote this in my prior response and you still got it wrong. It is not an honest mistake, it is a stupid mistake. I already cited Mary's acknowledgement of a Savior in the Magnificat and yet you quote it-- as if you did not read or did not UNDERSTAND what I wrote. All these texts mean is that Jesus, as God, was sinless and that, unlike Mary, did not require even an anticipatory absolution from the stain of sin. He is the all-holy one. The Catholic claim, as I have already detailed, is in harmony with Scripture and recognizes that the saving work of Jesus also applies to her.

The word "all" here (pas in Greek)does not always mean every single one. Paul says in Romans 11:26 that "all Israel will be saved" and yet we know many rejected Christ. Similar uses are found in Romans 15:14; 1 Corinthians 1:5; Romans 3:10-12; Psalm 14:2-3; Psalm 53:1-3; etc. Mary is sinless, as we see in Luke 1:28 where she is described as "favored one" or "full of grace".

The last bit dishonors your own motherhood. Some fundamentalists act as if they are embarassed that Jesus even had a mother.

Nay, rather it would seem the Roman Catholic church is embarrassed that Mary would have sexual intercourse with her own husband and have other children.

After Mary gave birth to her firstborn son (Jesus), the Bible clearly shows she had given birth to other children and the Bible names them! She also gave birth to girls.

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? Matthew 13:55

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him." Mark 6:3

"But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." Galatians 1:19

Again, you shame yourself by your incompetence. While brothers and sisters to Jesus are mentioned, our Lord did not live in the age of the nuclear family. A household would include all sorts of other relationships and cousins were frequently called brothers and sisters, too. Further, since tradition usually images Joseph as an older man, some have theorized that they might have been his children from a prior marriage. We do not know for sure. However, despite what you say, there is no evidence that these "brothers and sisters" were definitely children of Mary. Indeed, the fact that she is given to the apostle John at the cross is strong evidence that they were not her children. Otherwise, such an action would have been totally against Jewish convention. Where does the bible say she gave birth to them? No where! That is a lie you tell. Where does the bible say that she was their mother? No where! That is another lie you tell. Mary is called the mother of Jesus, but the others are never directly called her children. Note also that when Jesus is called the carpenter's son, the people are assuming that Joseph is his biological father. However, we know from Scripture that he was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. If his critics can get this wrong, it is no wonder that bigots can assume too much and get the rest wrong.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is somthing the Church has always taught. A careful reading makes it evident that James and Joses (Joseph) who are called "brothers of Jesus in the listings here were sons of another Mary (a common name), a disciple of Jesus. St. Matthew calls her simply "the other Mary" (Matthew 13:55; 28:1; cf. Matthew 27:56). There is no mix-up here. The original Hebrew expression could mean either cousins or brothers. The same could be said for the unnamed sisters.

Jesus loved her. Jesus obeyed the commandments and honored his parents, God first, then his foster father Joseph and his mother Mary. We imitate Jesus by loving and honoring her. Luke 11:27-28 is no rebuke of Mary. It has never been interpreted by believers as such until after the reformation. "While he was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to him, 'Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed,' He replied, 'Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.'" The woman in the crowd praised Mary because she was his biological mother. Jesus raises her honor even higher. Long before she had born him in her womb and nursed him at her breasts, she had, as the handmaid of the Lord, received him in her heart and soul. She received the Word of God and kept it, allowing it to come to fruition in her. She was the first disciple of her Son, bearing the Christ in her arms in Bethlehem and again at Calvary. Jesus expanded her motherhood; he did not repudiate it. According to the gift of grace, and living by faith, we are also to receive God's Word and to give it birth in a world still hungering for meaning and salvation. We are also called to be disciples.

No matter how hard you try to explain it away to fit the Roman Catholic doctrine, the Scriptures are clear.

"And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." -Luke 11:28,29

There are only two things clear in this whole exercise: first, your pervasive ignorance of both the Catholic faith and of God's living Word; and second, the depth to which you have been deceived and your own deception against holy Mother Church. You have a selective, piece-meal understanding of the bible that leads to distortion. What I said about Mary and this passage still holds. Mary is called blessed and full of grace by an angel from heaven. We hear from Mary's lips, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be done to me according to your word" (Luke 1:38). "My soul magnifies the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name" (Luke 1:46-49). Mary did not always understand. Her mother's heart suffered at the prospect of what her Son would have to endure. And yet, she remains God's handmaid, the woman of faith. Many Protestants ignore her altogether, except for a brief mention at Christmas time. And yet she says that all generations will call her blessed. It is in the Catholic Church that this prophesy comes true.

It is my prayer that you will reconsider. Talk to a holy and informed priest, and come home.

No thank you. I already know where my home is.

So be it.

Peace and blessings,

Fr. Joe Jenkins

You admit that you are depriving your children of the sacraments. God forgive you such a terrible thing. You will be quite surprised when you see your Savior, even without your modern imaginery Rapture.

"Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" -1 Cor. 15:51-55

"But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words." -1 Thess. 4:13-18

These verses are important and fuel our hope, but they substantiate the view of eschatology shared with so many mainline Protestant communities. We believe in the last things-- death, judgment, heaven and hell. We believe that evil doers are punished and that the just will be raised to eternal life. We believe in a particular judgment at death and the final judgment at the end of the world and the consummation of all things in Christ Jesus. There are common elements with the contemporary rapture claim here, but the latter makes literal certain elements like a great extraction of the just and an early reign of Jesus before the end. I remember reading that one critic thought this was surprising, given that the notion seems to have had its origins with two Spanish Jesuits. Catholicism remained with the traditional understanding instead. As I mentioned earlier in this second response, the Church teaches that we will share in Christ' life and that the resurrection entails the restoration of body and soul.

May you make peace with Christ and his holy Church. Do not allow the poor witness or novel teachings of those either inside or outside the Catholic Church to steal this great treasure from you. Jesus offered his life as a perfect oblation on the Cross for you. He shed his blood to save you from your sins and to grant you a share in eternal life. Now we can join ourselves to our Savior as one offering acceptable to the Father. This is a key meaning of the Mass. COME HOME, come home to JESUS and to his CHURCH.

No thank you. I know who I am in Christ. I do not need the Roman Catholic Church.

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." -Rom. 8:1

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may KNOW that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." -1 John 5:13

It may be the the residual elements of Christian faith to which you are still attached may come to your salvation-- I hope so. I have to wonder sometimes if there are not people too dumb to be damned. If that should be the case, then what little you know may still benefit you. The Scriptures you cite, like all that you quote, are also in Catholic bibles. You seem to think that they cinch your arguments but they do nothing of the kind. I could just as well quote them against you. I am in the mystical body of Christ, the Church-- evidently you are not and reject its authority. Your rejection of the real presence in the Eucharist shows us that you are more a man (or woman) of flesh than of the spirit. It is because of this you cannot penetrate the mystery that arises in "spirit and truth". Like the murmuring Jews you walk away. It is too hard to accept. He must not mean it. Nevertheless, you say you know him-- I hope that your bigotry will not make this claim counterfeit or your Jesus an imposter from the one who walked among us and now abides in his Church.

YES, Jesus is the ONE MEDIATOR! (1 Timothy 2:5). Love Jesus and obey God's commandments. YES, imitate Mary in hearing the Word of God and keeping it, allowing it to be fruitful in us! (Luke 11:28). YES, we are saved by GRACE ALONE, but not by faith alone! (Ephesians 2:8,9).

"For by grace are ye saved THROUGH FAITH; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Eph. 2:8,9

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. -Rom. 3:28

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: -Rom. 5:1

"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." -Rom. 5:9

"Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. " -Rom. 3:30

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. -Rom. 4:5

"And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." -1 Cor. 6:11

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. " -Gal. 2:16

Ephesians 2:8,9 - Yes, we are saved through grace alone, not through faith alone.

Romans 3:28 - Yes, we are not under the yoke of the Jewish law, for now we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ; and what is the definition of faith? It is a life of obedience to Christ and charity to others.

Romans 5:1 - Yes, Jesus reconciles sinners to God and bridges the distance caused by rebellion.

Romans 5:9 - Yes, Jesus is our redeemer, and in faith and in the sacramental life, we bathe ourselves in his saving blood. He dies that we might live.

Romans 3:30 - Yes, faith in the Lord and initiation into his Church bring salvation, to both the Gentile (uncircumcised) and to the Jew (circumcised). The Jewish Messiah is the savior of the World.

Romans 4:5 - Yes, we cannot save ourselves. Any work apart from Christ's meritorious activity has no power to justify us.

1 Corinthains 6:11 - Yes, washed in the waters of baptism, filled with sanctifying grace and abiding in faith with Jesus Christ, salvation has come. By water and the Spirit, a people are remade in Jesus Christ.

Galatians 2:16 - Yes, it is faith in Jesus and not the Jewish law that saves. However, this does not deny the value of our work or activity that is an element of our faith and that manifests it. If all that Jesus does has merit, then what the Lord does IN US also has merit. Note what the letter to the Galatians goes on to say: "For through the law I died to the law, that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ; yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me and given himself up for me" (Galatians 2:19-20).

Oh yes, and REMEMBER: "Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." -Gal. 1:8,9

Alas, you may be that man. But, I will pray for you all the same.

And yes, REMEMBER THIS TOO: "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? . . . So also faith itself, if it does not have works, is dead. . . . Indeed someone might say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. . . . See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. . . . For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead" (James 2:14,17-18,24,26).

Scripture texts taken from Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, 1965 & 1966.
Revised April 2, 1998.

"For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God." -Rom. 4:2

If the reader is interested in studying "...to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15)

It is interesting that fundamentalists who are almost always so literal, will despeartely do anything to get around James. He says what he says. The total negation of works is a mistake. But, as I said before, one must come with the other. Faith without works, or at least the without the intention of performing works, is a lie. Works without faith, is just a lot of empty activity without lasting purpose.

In the work of apologetics, you are a mighty poor workman. But of course, you were bound to fail because of your confusion about so many things.