The Doctrine of the Means of Grace: Re: Re: The same, tired anti-Catholic stuff

» sicarri - Re: Re: The same, tired anti-Catholic stuff

In any dialogue with Catholics, one should use as a reference the "Catechism of the Catholic Church," Second Edition, published by Our Sunday Visitor Publishing (green-colored cover). This affords everyone involved the opportunity to acquire the exact same catechism which is in print, available and can be utilized for free on the internet. Using only one, officially appointed catechism also prevents any suspicion that can be raised by an author who chooses to vary between several catechisms.

You state you cited two sources that had Imprimaturs, yet your Endnotes indicate at least four catechisms (Note numbers 3, 8, 9, 11 and possibly 12). I am to assume then than at least two of the catechisms you used did not have an imprimatur.

Prayer is communication. Prayer is not a form of worship. Go to a Catholic religious service (called a “Mass”) or prayer meeting. There, you will hear Catholics say (pray), “Jesus, we worship you”; and to the saints they say, “St. Joseph, pray for us.” You will never hear a Catholic say that they worship a saint or angel, and it is shocking to see people insisting - or believing - such outdated lies.

I would like to request at least one retraction be made to this article:
“Rome, however, finds that the Gospel in visible form does not seem to be effective or powerful.”

This is an example of the attitude Catholics have to face when it should be common knowledge by now that Catholic beliefs are founded in Scripture.

Catholics try to follow what Jesus said - “So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:16).

Strangely, by following the Gospel, Catholics are accused of not finding the Gospel “effective or powerful.”

Other passages in the New Testament that refer to God’s appreciation for good works (Douay-Rheims 1899 edition - also available free for reference on the internet):

Matthew 27:10-11; John 10:30-33;Acts 9:34-37
Romans 2:4-9; Romans 13:1-3; 2 Corinthians 9:1-9
Ephesians 2:1-9; Philippians 1:5-6; Colossians 1:9-12.

Even if the author does not agree with the literal, Catholic explanation of these passages, he must agree that Catholics are acting according to their understanding of (and 2,000 years of experience with) Scripture, have a right to interpret it as such, and it is self-evidently incorrect to state, “Rome, however, finds that the Gospel in visible form does not seem to be effective or powerful.”

The errors of the Semipelagians were condemned in the year 432 by Pope Celestine I; in 529 by Pope Felix IV, in the Synod of Orange and the Synod of Valence, both of which Councils were confirmed by Pope Boniface II. These errors were: the beginning faith depends on man's free-will, while faith itself and its increase depend absolutely upon God; nature has a certain claim to grace; final perseverance is not a special gift of grace but depends upon mans own strength; some children die before baptism and others after, on account of the foreknowledge God possesses of the good or evil they would have done if they had lived; some are predestined to heaven, others to hell.

I have no way of knowing for sure if the “Basic Catechism” had Scripture quotations or not for the Catholic belief in Purgatory, because I don’t have a copy and couldn’t find it on the publishers web site. My 1951 Ripley edition of “This is the Faith” (as well as the official Catechism) have plenty of Scripture quotes and witnesses from the Early Church Fathers, but I see you’re using the 1960 edition of the Ripley book . . . I hope the author understands that I am not being difficult in requesting one central catechism be used. I’m simply showing why it is the common procedure I dialogue.

It is not my intention to refute every claim the author of “The Doctrine of the Means of Grace” has made against the Catholic Church. I only wish he would wake up to the 21st century - Lutherans generally don’t treat Catholics like this. The Scripture passages I have provided on the necessity of good works would cause ant man of good will to honestly sit down and consider the Catholic position on all its' points. I hope the author has this good will.

One last Correction: The Christian Faith is shrouded in mystery: If every part of Scripture was “comprehendable [sic] to the human mind,” we wouldn’t need Faith. Does the author pretend to understand the Trinity? How can he? The distinction used is based on philosophical definitions, the idea is only alluded to in Scripture, the term isn’t in Scripture, and a complete formulation of the doctrine isn’t found until the year 675 at the Council of Toledo.

God bless you all,
Sarah

-- posted by sicarri