Conversion to Catholicism

thessalonian,

You said, 'I hate to tell you this but the doctrine of purgatory is not based on the
decrees of a Pope. In saying this you only show your ignorance once again
of Catholicism. The making this doctrine explicit comes from Councils,
ratified by Popes.'

Thanks for the correction about doctrine coming through councils and then being ratified by the seated Pope.

So are you saying that none of the alleged doctrines like the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception-- never come originally from a pope, but through the Magisterium first and then the pope makes his ex cathedras. Or must there be a council first in order to make this new, add on theology official for the average church member to believe?

Dr. Berrian

 

1) Wow, you were almost humble for a second there. I'm sorry to see that it failed.

2) I know you're a Dr. You don't have to post it every time you write...or maybe you feel that is necessary?

 

I think among the best arguments found against your decision are in the book of Hebrews. I have recently been studying it in preparation for series of messages I will preach from Hebrews. In Hebrews we are warned against leaving the sufficiency in Christ for a return to dead works or old forms.

While Catholics are fond of saying that they are trusting Christ alone, a closer look at their system belies their statements. To be a Catholic is to depend on your works wrought in Christ to save you. Scripture uniformly condemns any causative connection between works and salvation, no matter where those works spring from. To be a Catholic is to turn from teh sufficiency in Christ and to add your own sufficiency to it. That is why there is a great emphasis on sacraments (things you must do) in order to be saved. Even the doctrine of purgatory is a turning from the sufficiency of Christ by teaching that Christ did not "once for all time put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." There is still something you have to do to pay for sin.

The book of Hebrews is a constant rebuke of the doctrine of Catholicism because of its very high and exalted Christology, a Christology that rejects all attempts to diminish the work of Christ through human effort or achievement, no matter the source of that human effort or achievement.

To become a Catholic is to fall away from the better hope in Christ; it is to fall away from the living God. I urge you not to give up your faith by going to a system that denies the sufficiency of Christ.

I am prepared for the Catholics here to dispute this. They have for years but have never managed to overcome the statements of their own church and the doctrine that has been taught for years. My encouragement to you is to continue in deep Bible study on what God says, not on what others say. Don't fall away and abandon your faith.

 

Pastor Larry,

I will pray for you and your willingness to misrepresent Catholic doctrine (unless you are willing to show how we pay for our sins in purgatory, which you just wrote). But since that will never happen, I guess I'll just need to keep praying.

 

Pastor Larry,

That was a well stated rebuke and I commend you for it. Dr. Berrian and Rbrent also brought to light very good reasons to not be drawn into esclusivistic self-sanctifying God chasing churches. I particularly like your thought:

In Hebrews we are warned against leaving the sufficiency in Christ for a return to dead works or old forms.

I've tried to say that in other ways, but it takes me 100 words to spit out what you said in 20.

Churchhopping is what I called it and I see no need to keep pursuing a better church when the church itself is not the goal. Christ is, and He is not hiding in some institution somewhere that requires our adherence to doctrines of man to seek Him out.

Singer

 

Doctor Ray:

I guess I'm supposed to feel intimidated here. Are you a doctor in all truth?

"Thanks for the correction about doctrine coming through councils and then being ratified by the seated Pope."

Your welcome. You seem to have this view that we're a bunch of zombies listening to radio free vatican for our next instructions. I actually am more free as a Catholic than you are as a Protestant because I am freed from my theological errors and free to not trust in my own understanding as proverbs 3:5 says. I know who the shepherds are today who were spoken of in Jer 3:15 that God has provided to give us KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING, regardless of whether or not we have a PHD or THD or whatever badge we pin on our chest that says that we know alot about something but not neccessarily truth as I know Mormons who have Doctorates.

"So are you saying that none of the alleged doctrines like the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception-- never come originally from a pope, but through the Magisterium first and then the pope makes his ex cathedras."

Those two in particular are ex cathedras but have nothing to do with your post. You spoke of purgatory. Further there are few ex-cathedra dogmas and many of them are backed up by the councils. Ludwig Ott's Dogma of Catholicism speaks of perhaps 20 papal decrees that were dogmatic in nature. And finally, that a dogma is declared such by the Pope does not mean he came up with it, only that he declared it dogma of the Church. For instance by the 6th centurty the feast of the Assumption was celebrated throughout the Church, east and west, with no dogmatic decrees by anyone. You cannot find anyone who started this belief and it is very likely that it traces back to the earliest times of the Church because of it's widespread belief long before it was dogmatized. This shows that the dogma was believed in the Church in a widespread fashion long before this time. Remeber there was not email, message boards, and Television to spread such dogmas like the health and wealth Gospel heretics have with TBN.

"Or must there be a council first in order to make this new, add on theology official for the average church member to believe?"

A council (in concert with the Pope as Peter ratified the decisions of the council of Jerusalem, Acts 15, also see Matt 18 where the Apostles as a group including Peter are told that they have binding and loosing authority) has full authority to declare dogma. A Pope on his own, when speaking ex cathedra on an issue of faith and morals, fully intending it to be binding on the whole Church also has this full authority (see Matt 16:18-19 where Peter singly is given the authority to bind and loose, WHATEVR YOU BIND IT SAYS SHALL BE BOUND IN HEAVEN, God cannot bind a lie). But once again they do not add theology but clarify what was already believed as the council of Nicea clarified the dogma of the trinity. No new dogma or doctrine is added. My example of the assumption shows that that doctrine, now dogma was long held in the Church way before it was declared dogma in 1960. It was not added but raised to the level of dogma.


Hope that helps.

Blessings

 

I'm thinking of Ralphie decoding his secret message on his Orphan Annie Secret Decoder Ring: S.A.V.E..Y.O.U.R.S.E.L.F..T.H.R.O.U.G.H..W.O.R.K.S..

(Although they might refer to it as Radio Chains Vatican...)

 

Anyone else notice?:

There's almost a satanic aire surrounding the input from those who are striving so hard to protect the documentaion of the unholy mother catholic church.

My Diagnostic Surveillance Center for the Exposing of God Chasers is on red alert !!!

 

Hi Pastor Larry,

You wrote, "I think among the best arguments found against your decision are in the book of Hebrews."

That's very interesting because I wholly disagree with your opinion. In fact, I would turn a non-Catholic to the Epistle to the Hebrews in order to lead them to Catholicism, and I'm not making a bold, yet false claim for the sake of diminishing the import of your previous post. I'm quite serious.

We spent one third of my Scripture, Liturgy, & Eschatology class deep in this Epistle, and it is now one of my favorites in the entire canon of Sacred Scripture.

What we received in that graduate course was a condensed version of this Bible study:

http://www.saintjoe.com/145422/p/prod_desc.pl?id=167

Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient time in my schedule to discuss the Epistle; I can only point you to what I have gnawed on in my graduate studies in the hope that you would seriously consider what a former Anti-Catholic Protestant seminary professor has to share with regard to this fascinating encouragement to stand fast in the Christian faith against the persecution of the Jewish Sanhedrin to embrace the Mosaic Covenant, which only puts one under a curse.

 

Oh my.

(Referring to Singer, not Carson).

 

Adam,

You wrote, "I want to add, Whatever you do, don't convert out of emotion or strong feelings. It's just a bad idea all around."

I also strongly suggest not to convert because your wife is a Catholic or because it will appease others.

You should become a Catholic because:

(1) There is a God.
(2) Jesus Christ is God.
(3) Jesus Christ has established the Catholic Church to give you the fullness of his truth and the fullness of his life so that you may fully participate in the life of the Blessed Trinity both now and in eternity.

In short, you should convert because it's true. And, the truth will not only set you free from sin, but it will elevate you to the divine life through prayer and sacrament.

 

Carson,

Would you be interested in surfing with us on the Great Sandhill Sea of Nebraska next summer? I'd even sell you some seafront property.

 

Would you be interested in surfing with us on the Great Sandhill Sea of Nebraska next summer? I'd even sell you some seafront property.

Singer, the music artist is George Strait, and it's oceanfront and Arizona

RTS, I have distributed hundreds of Mary Foundation tapes from Catholicity; they are excellent. I'm currently trying to get Dr. Scott Hahn to produce a tape on The Kingdom of God (a concise and loaded summary of Salvation History and how it logically culminates in the Catholic Church) through the Mary Foundation apostolate, but it's still on the drawing board.

 

No need to pray for me. I was right. Catholics believe that purgatory is the temporal punishment for their sins. Did you not know that? Allow me to quote from your faith:

web page

Quite clearly, your church's doctrine conceives of purgatory as a punishment for sin. So in fact, what I said was completely accurate. What you said is completely wrong.


The Bible teaches that in the true believer, there is no imperfect purification. That doesn't even make sense. We are viewed with the righteousness of Christ which is complete and total. That is why I reference the book of Hebrews as a direct contradiction to the RC soteriology. The two cannot stand without serious reinterpretations of one in light of the other.

You would do better to spend your "prayer time" studying hte word of God and comparing it with what your church teaches.

I don't mean to be rude, but we have been through this many times. I have repeatedly shown, using your own church's statements, that my comments are indeed accurate. In history, no one has disputed that comments such as mine have accurately represented your church's doctrine, and with good reason: They knew they didn't. There is a new kind of Catholicism which is intent on bending over backwards to a newly educated follower. As such, they must rearrange their doctrines to accommodate the new education. We, for our part, have always been the same. I would encourage you to study the actual issues and diligently compare the word of God to your doctrines. You will begin to see the differences.

It is sad that so many are still blinded when the word of God shines brightly. You konw, I reject a lot of ways that the RCC is bashed because they are inaccurate. There is enough wrong that we do not need to resort to those kinds of tactics. We simply need to spread the truth, to let the word of God do its work in those who believe.

 

Larry,

You seem to be missing my point, brother.

I agree with the quotations you cited. I do not agree with this statement by you, which is all I quoted and contested:

"There is still something you have to do to pay for sin."

WHO does the purifying in purgatory, according to Catholics? God or man, Larry?

Cause you say man, and I (and Catholicism) say God.

 

I think you missed the point. The very existence of purgatory, no matter who does the "purifying," means that Christ did not do it all on the cross. To assert the existence of purgatory is to admit that Christ did only part of it. Man is in purgatory to pay (be punished) for that part of his sins for which Christ did not fully pay. The NT knows nothing about a part of sin that Christ did not pay for for the believer. He became the sin, endured the cross, and Heb 1 tells us that he made a purification for sins and sat down at the right hand of his father. Therefore, since Christ made a purification for sins, the existence of purgatory teaches that Christ's purification was not good enough; we need something else.

The NT references the believer as pure and holy in the sight of God. There is no imperfections viewed in him. For one who believes in hte NT teaching about the believer in the sight of God, purgatory serves no purpose. The believer is already purified.

 

Pastor Larry,

You wrote, "The very existence of purgatory, no matter who does the "purifying," means that Christ did not do it all on the cross."

You are absolutely correct. Jesus didn't "do it all" on the Cross in the manner that you speak of. Christ didn't come as a penal substitute, but as a vicarious representative. Christ, rather, continues his work in us as the objective redemption he accomplished in time and space is applied to believers throughout the course of history.

The Christian life is a participation in the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ wherein we are conformed to the image of the only Son of God according to our share in his person and work.

This is where the foundation of Protestantism, Nominalistic philosophy, is shown at its bare core and exposes Protestantism for the heresy that it is.

You wrote, "The NT references the believer as pure and holy in the sight of God."

This legal fiction comes out of Nominalism, which is a decadent philosophy that finds freedom in the arbitrary choice of the will apart from the nature of created being. According to Nominalism, God could - in an instant - declare murder to be virtuous and religion to be vice, because he has the power to do so. And so, God can declare the sinner to be righteous even when the sinner isn't righteous, which is a sham.

Rather, God's will is in accord with being. The eternal law of God is ordered according to the nature of created being. God cannot declare murder to be virtuous because God created the world and that act of creation intrinsically necessitates that murder be an evil act. God's will cannot contradict who he is as the loving Creator of all that exists, and his Word is Truth.

Reformed Protestantism says that God sees the sinner as righteous, while, all the while, the sinner is still a sinner in his very nature. The whole declaration is a forensic piece of legal fiction.

In truth, Christ did not die to serve as a penal substitute but rather as a vicarious representative in a Hebrew covenantal framework. Christ serves as the go'el (Eng. redeemer) who is the redeeming kinsman. Christ's death vicariously satisfies for our transgressions against an infinite God (a price we could never pay), bearing the curse of the Old Covenant, so that we might become children of God, and then our suffering participates in that infinite act of love on the incarnate Son's behalf so that we might suffer in Christ.

Our becoming children of God is not an act alongside Jesus, but an incorporation into Jesus Christ, the vine. We call this becoming "members of the Body of Jesus Christ."

This is the constant teaching of Sacred Scripture:

"You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous" (1 John 3:5-7).

When we are punished - as Christians - it is the punishment a Father gives to a child, for we are in covenant relationship with our Father. A Father who does not punish his child is what the Bible calls a bad Father, and the son the Bible calls a "bastard". This is the teaching of Hebrews 12:8, which follows the listing of the suffering of the Old Testament saints in Hebrews 11

Because we are united with Christ, our suffering becomes redemptive. Christ continues his work in us. Due to the charity (that is, selfless love) that we are given by the Holy Spirit, our loving self-sacrifice benefits the Body of Jesus Christ.

This is how St. Paul is able to make the scandalous (that is, if you're a Protestant) claim:

"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church" (Colossians 1:24).

The souls in Purgatory suffer, but this suffering isn't mere pain; Purgatory is so misunderstood by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. The suffering of Purgatory is the suffering of love that replaces the selfish dross of sin. Every act of sin that we commit is an act of self-centeredness, and in Purgatory, the charity of God purifies the soul from particular sins committed after entrance into the family of God through the saving waters of Baptism.

 

First let me address the idea about calling men of God, Doctor. This fact of life is something that the entire church should celebrate rather than ridicule. No one has a problem when Dr. Bob Griffin repeatedly signs his name and title or when Carson refers to Dr. Scott Hahn with this title. We also speak of Pastor Larry because the church has recognized in him gifts and abilities that deserve this honor. This shows a high degree of excellence in study of theological ideas and since we are in the same Christian faith, we should express our thanks to the Lord that some have attained certain understandings of His church.

As far as Mormon Ph.D.'s or Th.D.'s one also has to respect their having attained their goal. Of course, we know they are of the non-Christian religion, and we should watchfully beware of their influence.

Those who have a problem with using these scholastic terms should take their spiritual pulse and they might find that the 'old Adamic nature' has risen again in their heart. In Protestant circles we call this jealousy.

Ed, you are remarkable in your apparent understanding of the Roman Catholic faith. Some may disagree with me. Some of us only try to relate what we believe and think about the teachings of this branch of the church. We do our best with what we have understood to be true. Usually, we are not too far off the beam.

If Peter were the first pope it would have been the reverent duty of the other apostles to honor him with this ecclesiastical title and honor. It is more than evident that in the Gospels, and in all of the epistles and in the Book of Revelation that no one sounded the clarion call to honor Peter in this way. Peter merely calls himself 'an apostle of Jesus Christ' not even 'the apostle of Jesus Christ.' [I Peter 1:1] In II Peter 1:1 the old fisherman calls himself, not the pope of the first council in Jerusalem but, 'a servant {doulos} and an apostle of Jesus Christ.'

I have a book called, "Ins and Outs of Romanism" copyright 1950, by Joseph Zacchello, D.D., "Christian Literature Depot" p. 115. Joseph is a Catholic convert.

Question: What does the Roman Catholic mean by temporal punishment due to sin?

Answer: Dr. Zacchello says, 'According to Roman teaching, two kinds of punishment are due to mortal sin: eternal {in Hell forever} and temporal (in Purgatory). Eternal punishment is cancelled by the sacraments of Baptism and Extreme Unction, or by an act of perfect contrition with promise of confession. Temporal punishment they teach is not cancelled by these sacraments, but by almsgiving, by paying a priest to say a Mass, etc., which reduce the temporal punishment for mortal sins that would have to be suffered in Purgatory.

My wife just lost her brother in death and people are paying for Mass cards/or Masses to be ministered for the deceased. According to Catholic teaching if he had committed a mortal sin or sins, and allegedly went to Purgatory-can he ever get out, or did he go directly to Hell?

Dr. Berrian