The Official Catholic Thread
- Thread starter Galadriel
- Start date
kanozas
se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón
Exodus 28:1-8
Exodus 28Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
28 Take unto thee also Aaron thy brother with his sons, from among the children of Israel, that they may minister to me in the priest's office: Aaron, Nadab, and Abiu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.
2 And thou shalt make a holy vesture for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty.
3 And thou shalt speak to all the wise of heart, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, that they may make Aaron's vestments, in which he being consecrated may minister to me.
4 And these shall be the vestments that they shall make: A rational and an ephod, a tunick and a strait linen garment, a mitre and a girdle. They shall make the holy vestments for thy brother Aaron and his sons, that they may do the office of priesthood unto me.
5 And they shall take gold, and violet, and purple, and scarlet twice dyed, and fine linen.
6 And they shall make the ephod of gold, and violet, and purple, and scarlet twice dyed, and fine twisted linen, embroidered with divers colours.
7 It shall have the two edges joined in the top on both sides, that they may be closed together.
8 The very workmanship also and all the variety of the work shall be of gold, and violet, and purple, and scarlet twice dyed, and fine twisted linen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://catholicstraightanswers.com/...ng-of-the-vestments-the-priest-wears-at-mass/
What is the origin and meaning of the vestments the priest wears at Mass?
The liturgical vestments worn at Mass have evolved over time. Nevertheless, since the earliest days of the Church, liturgical vestments have been worn by priests for the celebration of the Mass. Even though priests of the Old Testament wore vestments in their liturgical rites, the “Christian” vestments are not really adaptations of them; rather, the vestments of the Christians developed from the dress of the Graeco-Roman world, including the religious culture. Nevertheless, the Old Testament idea of wearing a special kind of clothing in the performance of liturgical rites did influence the Church. St. Jerome asserted, “The Divine religion has one dress in the service of sacred things, another in ordinary intercourse and life.” After the legalization of Christianity in A.D. 313, the Church continued to refine “who wore what when and how” until about the year 800 when liturgical norms for vesting were basically standardized and would remain so until the renewal following the Second Vatican Council.
To date, for the celebration of Mass, a priest wears the amice, alb, cincture, stole, and chasuble. (With the promulgation of the new Roman Missal in 1969, the use of the maniple was suppressed.)
The amice is a piece of white linen, rectangular in shape, with two long cloth ribbons. The priest places it around his neck, covering the clerical collar, and then ties it by crisscrossing the ribbons in his front (to form a St. Andrew’s cross), bringing them around the back, around the waist and tying them in a bow. The practical purpose of the amice is to conceal the normal clerical clothing of a priest, and to absorb any perspiration from the head and neck. In the Graeco-Roman world, the amice was a head covering, oftentimes worn underneath the helmets of the Roman soldiers to absorb sweat, thereby preventing it from flowing into their eyes. The spiritual purpose is to remind the priest of St. Paul’s admonition: “Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit, the Word of God” (Ephesians 6:17). The former vesting prayer was “Place, O Lord, the helmet of salvation on my head to resist the attacks of the devil.”
The alb is a long, white garment, which flows from shoulders to ankles, and has long sleeves extending to the wrists. (The word alb means “white.”) The alb was a common outer garment worn in the Graeco-Roman world and would be similar to the soutane worn in the Middle East. However, those of authority wore albs of higher quality with some kind of embroidery or design. Some modern style albs have collars which preclude the necessity for an amice. The spiritual purpose reminds the priest of his baptism, when he was clothed in white to signify his freedom from sin, purity of new life, and Christian dignity. Moreover, the Book of Revelation describes the saints who stand around the altar of the Lamb in Heaven as “These are the ones who have survived the great period of trial; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (7:14). In the same way, the priest must offer the Mass with purity of body and soul, and with the dignity befitting Christ’s priesthood. The former vesting prayer was “Make me white, O Lord, and purify my heart so that being made white in the Blood of the Lamb, I may deserve an eternal reward.”
The cincture is a long, thick cord with tassels at the ends which secures the alb around the waist. It may be white or may be the same liturgical color as the other vestments. In the Graeco-Roman world, the cincture was like a belt. Spiritually, the cincture reminds the priest of the admonition of St. Peter: “So gird the loins of your understanding; live soberly; set all your hope on the gift to be conferred on you when Jesus Christ appears. As obedient sons, do not yield to the desires that once shaped you in you ignorance. Rather, become holy yourselves in every aspect of your conduct, after the likeness of the holy One who called you” (I Peter 1:13-15). The former vesting prayer was “Gird me, O Lord, with the cincture of purity and extinguish in my heart the fire of concupiscence so that, the virtue of continence and chastity always abiding in my heart, I may better serve Thee.”
The stole is a long cloth, about four inches wide and of the same color as the chasuble, that is worn around the neck like a scarf. It is secured at the waist with the cincture. Traditionally, the stole was crisscrossed on the chest of the priest to symbolize the cross. The stole too is of ancient origin. Rabbis wore prayer shawls with tassels as a sign of their authority. The crisscrossing of the stole also was symbolic of the crisscrossed belts the Roman soldiers wore: one belt, holding the sword at the waist, and the other belt, holding a pouch with provisions, like food and water. In this sense, the stole reminds the priest not only of his authority and dignity as a priest, but also of his duty to preach the Word the God with courage and conviction (“Indeed, God’s word is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword.” Hebrews 4:12) and to serve the needs of the faithful. The former vesting prayer was “Restore unto me, O Lord, the Stole of immortality which I lost through the sin of my first parents and, although unworthy to approach Thy sacred Mystery, may I nevertheless attain to joy eternal.”
Finally, the chasuble is the outer garment worn over the alb and stole. Over the centuries, various styles of chasubles have emerged. Derived from the Latin word casula meaning “house,” the chasuble in the Graeco-Roman world was like a cape that completely covered the body and protected the person from inclement weather. Spiritually, the chasuble reminds the priest of the charity of Christ: “Over all these virtues put on love, which binds the rest together and makes them perfect” (Colossians, 3:14). The former vesting prayer was “O Lord, Who hast said, ‘My yoke is sweet and My burden light,’ grant that I may so carry it as to merit Thy grace.”
In the Middle Ages, two popular interpretations of the meaning of the vestments arose. The most prevalent one interpreted the vestments as symbols of Jesus’ passion: the blindfold (the amice) and the garment (the alb) as He was mocked and beaten; the ropes and fetters (the cincture) which bound Him during the scourging; the cross (the stole) He carried; and the seamless garment (the chasuble) for which the soldiers rolled dice. The other popular interpretation focused on the vestments in their Roman military origins and viewed them as symbols of the priest as the soldier of Christ doing battle against sin and Satan.
In all, the vestments used at Mass have a two-fold purpose: “These should therefore symbolize the function of each ministry. But at the same time the vestments should also contributed to the beauty of the rite” (General Instruction on the Roman Missal, #335). Moreover, the vestments inspire the priest and all of the faithful to meditate on their rich symbolism.
Exodus 28Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
28 Take unto thee also Aaron thy brother with his sons, from among the children of Israel, that they may minister to me in the priest's office: Aaron, Nadab, and Abiu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.
2 And thou shalt make a holy vesture for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty.
3 And thou shalt speak to all the wise of heart, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, that they may make Aaron's vestments, in which he being consecrated may minister to me.
4 And these shall be the vestments that they shall make: A rational and an ephod, a tunick and a strait linen garment, a mitre and a girdle. They shall make the holy vestments for thy brother Aaron and his sons, that they may do the office of priesthood unto me.
5 And they shall take gold, and violet, and purple, and scarlet twice dyed, and fine linen.
6 And they shall make the ephod of gold, and violet, and purple, and scarlet twice dyed, and fine twisted linen, embroidered with divers colours.
7 It shall have the two edges joined in the top on both sides, that they may be closed together.
8 The very workmanship also and all the variety of the work shall be of gold, and violet, and purple, and scarlet twice dyed, and fine twisted linen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://catholicstraightanswers.com/...ng-of-the-vestments-the-priest-wears-at-mass/
What is the origin and meaning of the vestments the priest wears at Mass?
The liturgical vestments worn at Mass have evolved over time. Nevertheless, since the earliest days of the Church, liturgical vestments have been worn by priests for the celebration of the Mass. Even though priests of the Old Testament wore vestments in their liturgical rites, the “Christian” vestments are not really adaptations of them; rather, the vestments of the Christians developed from the dress of the Graeco-Roman world, including the religious culture. Nevertheless, the Old Testament idea of wearing a special kind of clothing in the performance of liturgical rites did influence the Church. St. Jerome asserted, “The Divine religion has one dress in the service of sacred things, another in ordinary intercourse and life.” After the legalization of Christianity in A.D. 313, the Church continued to refine “who wore what when and how” until about the year 800 when liturgical norms for vesting were basically standardized and would remain so until the renewal following the Second Vatican Council.
To date, for the celebration of Mass, a priest wears the amice, alb, cincture, stole, and chasuble. (With the promulgation of the new Roman Missal in 1969, the use of the maniple was suppressed.)
The amice is a piece of white linen, rectangular in shape, with two long cloth ribbons. The priest places it around his neck, covering the clerical collar, and then ties it by crisscrossing the ribbons in his front (to form a St. Andrew’s cross), bringing them around the back, around the waist and tying them in a bow. The practical purpose of the amice is to conceal the normal clerical clothing of a priest, and to absorb any perspiration from the head and neck. In the Graeco-Roman world, the amice was a head covering, oftentimes worn underneath the helmets of the Roman soldiers to absorb sweat, thereby preventing it from flowing into their eyes. The spiritual purpose is to remind the priest of St. Paul’s admonition: “Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit, the Word of God” (Ephesians 6:17). The former vesting prayer was “Place, O Lord, the helmet of salvation on my head to resist the attacks of the devil.”
The alb is a long, white garment, which flows from shoulders to ankles, and has long sleeves extending to the wrists. (The word alb means “white.”) The alb was a common outer garment worn in the Graeco-Roman world and would be similar to the soutane worn in the Middle East. However, those of authority wore albs of higher quality with some kind of embroidery or design. Some modern style albs have collars which preclude the necessity for an amice. The spiritual purpose reminds the priest of his baptism, when he was clothed in white to signify his freedom from sin, purity of new life, and Christian dignity. Moreover, the Book of Revelation describes the saints who stand around the altar of the Lamb in Heaven as “These are the ones who have survived the great period of trial; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (7:14). In the same way, the priest must offer the Mass with purity of body and soul, and with the dignity befitting Christ’s priesthood. The former vesting prayer was “Make me white, O Lord, and purify my heart so that being made white in the Blood of the Lamb, I may deserve an eternal reward.”
The cincture is a long, thick cord with tassels at the ends which secures the alb around the waist. It may be white or may be the same liturgical color as the other vestments. In the Graeco-Roman world, the cincture was like a belt. Spiritually, the cincture reminds the priest of the admonition of St. Peter: “So gird the loins of your understanding; live soberly; set all your hope on the gift to be conferred on you when Jesus Christ appears. As obedient sons, do not yield to the desires that once shaped you in you ignorance. Rather, become holy yourselves in every aspect of your conduct, after the likeness of the holy One who called you” (I Peter 1:13-15). The former vesting prayer was “Gird me, O Lord, with the cincture of purity and extinguish in my heart the fire of concupiscence so that, the virtue of continence and chastity always abiding in my heart, I may better serve Thee.”
The stole is a long cloth, about four inches wide and of the same color as the chasuble, that is worn around the neck like a scarf. It is secured at the waist with the cincture. Traditionally, the stole was crisscrossed on the chest of the priest to symbolize the cross. The stole too is of ancient origin. Rabbis wore prayer shawls with tassels as a sign of their authority. The crisscrossing of the stole also was symbolic of the crisscrossed belts the Roman soldiers wore: one belt, holding the sword at the waist, and the other belt, holding a pouch with provisions, like food and water. In this sense, the stole reminds the priest not only of his authority and dignity as a priest, but also of his duty to preach the Word the God with courage and conviction (“Indeed, God’s word is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword.” Hebrews 4:12) and to serve the needs of the faithful. The former vesting prayer was “Restore unto me, O Lord, the Stole of immortality which I lost through the sin of my first parents and, although unworthy to approach Thy sacred Mystery, may I nevertheless attain to joy eternal.”
Finally, the chasuble is the outer garment worn over the alb and stole. Over the centuries, various styles of chasubles have emerged. Derived from the Latin word casula meaning “house,” the chasuble in the Graeco-Roman world was like a cape that completely covered the body and protected the person from inclement weather. Spiritually, the chasuble reminds the priest of the charity of Christ: “Over all these virtues put on love, which binds the rest together and makes them perfect” (Colossians, 3:14). The former vesting prayer was “O Lord, Who hast said, ‘My yoke is sweet and My burden light,’ grant that I may so carry it as to merit Thy grace.”
In the Middle Ages, two popular interpretations of the meaning of the vestments arose. The most prevalent one interpreted the vestments as symbols of Jesus’ passion: the blindfold (the amice) and the garment (the alb) as He was mocked and beaten; the ropes and fetters (the cincture) which bound Him during the scourging; the cross (the stole) He carried; and the seamless garment (the chasuble) for which the soldiers rolled dice. The other popular interpretation focused on the vestments in their Roman military origins and viewed them as symbols of the priest as the soldier of Christ doing battle against sin and Satan.
In all, the vestments used at Mass have a two-fold purpose: “These should therefore symbolize the function of each ministry. But at the same time the vestments should also contributed to the beauty of the rite” (General Instruction on the Roman Missal, #335). Moreover, the vestments inspire the priest and all of the faithful to meditate on their rich symbolism.
Lucia
Well-Known Member
Mass Times for Travel by Mass Times Trust
https://appsto.re/us/3FilX.i
Nice app for finding Catholic Churches addressed phones and mass times anywhere in the world.
https://appsto.re/us/3FilX.i
Nice app for finding Catholic Churches addressed phones and mass times anywhere in the world.
Last edited:
kanozas
se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón
Lucia
Well-Known Member
Lucia
Well-Known Member
Doesn't John 3:16 clearly indicate that faith alone is necessary for salvation?
Full QuestionIn John 3:16 Jesus says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whomsoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." It's clear that Scripture rejects the Catholic view of salvation by faith plus works. It teaches salvation by faith alone. All you have to do is believe, period.
Answer
First of all, the Catholic view of salvation is not faith plus works, if by works you mean purely human efforts to win God's favor.
Catholics believe in salvation by grace alone, yet grace must not be resisted, either before justification (by remaining in unbelief) or after (by engaging in serious sin). Read carefully 1 Corinthians 6, Galatians 5, and Ephesians 5.
Second, the Bible nowhere uses the expressions "justification by faith alone" or "salvation by faith alone." The first was directly the invention of Luther; the second his by implication. Luther inserted "alone" into the German translation of Romans 3:28 to give credence to his new doctrine.
But your question deals with John 3:16. Yes, this passage does speak of the saving power of faith, but in no sense does it diminish the role of obedience to Christ in the process of getting to heaven.
In fact, it assumes it. Just as Fundamentalists overlook the rest of the chapter in connection with what being born of water and the Holy Spirit really means--they ignore the water part, which refers to baptism--they also overlook the context when interpreting Christ's words about obtaining eternal life in John 3:16.
In John 3:36 we are told, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him."
This expands on John 3:16. It is another way of saying what Paul says in Romans 6:23: "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Although we cannot earn God's unmerited favor by our good works, we can reject his love by our sins (that is, by our evil works) and thereby lose the eternal life he freely offers us in Christ.
http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...e-that-faith-alone-is-necessary-for-salvation
Full QuestionIn John 3:16 Jesus says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whomsoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." It's clear that Scripture rejects the Catholic view of salvation by faith plus works. It teaches salvation by faith alone. All you have to do is believe, period.
Answer
First of all, the Catholic view of salvation is not faith plus works, if by works you mean purely human efforts to win God's favor.
Catholics believe in salvation by grace alone, yet grace must not be resisted, either before justification (by remaining in unbelief) or after (by engaging in serious sin). Read carefully 1 Corinthians 6, Galatians 5, and Ephesians 5.
Second, the Bible nowhere uses the expressions "justification by faith alone" or "salvation by faith alone." The first was directly the invention of Luther; the second his by implication. Luther inserted "alone" into the German translation of Romans 3:28 to give credence to his new doctrine.
But your question deals with John 3:16. Yes, this passage does speak of the saving power of faith, but in no sense does it diminish the role of obedience to Christ in the process of getting to heaven.
In fact, it assumes it. Just as Fundamentalists overlook the rest of the chapter in connection with what being born of water and the Holy Spirit really means--they ignore the water part, which refers to baptism--they also overlook the context when interpreting Christ's words about obtaining eternal life in John 3:16.
In John 3:36 we are told, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him."
This expands on John 3:16. It is another way of saying what Paul says in Romans 6:23: "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Although we cannot earn God's unmerited favor by our good works, we can reject his love by our sins (that is, by our evil works) and thereby lose the eternal life he freely offers us in Christ.
http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...e-that-faith-alone-is-necessary-for-salvation
Lucia
Well-Known Member
How to Be Offensive (without Being Offensive)
By: John Martignon
In the realm of real-world apologetics, Catholics always seem to be on the defensive when it comes to talking about the Bible or religion in general. "Where is that in the Bible?" "Why do you confess your sins to a man rather than to God?" "Why do you believe you can work your way into heaven?" "Why do you believe the pope can’t commit a sin?" "Why do you baptize babies?" We always are correcting false notions and answering questions. Well, we need to start asking the questions—we need to take the offensive instead of always being on the defensive.
Of course, you don’t want to do it in a way that will offend someone or scare him away from further discussion. Most non-Catholic Christians are not prepared to deal with a Catholic who can answer their questions. When they do come across one, they generally retreat and wait for an easier target, or they get offended by what you have to say and refuse to discuss the matter any more. Sometimes that cannot be avoided. After all, truth is offensive to many people—look at what happened to Truth himself.
So, how can you be offensive (aw-fensive) without being offensive (uh-fensive)? Simple: Let the other person evangelize you.
Whenever someone starts coming at me with questions about the Catholic faith or attacks against it, I try to use his zeal to evangelize me to evangelize him. I’ll say something like this: "Scripture tells me that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. I believe that. I want to know the truth, because to know the truth is to know Jesus Christ! You’re telling me that the Catholic Church is not giving me the truth. Well, I’m open to hearing what you have to say, because I’m searching for truth—and if the Catholic Church doesn’t have it, then I want to know that."
Now, you can stop there, but I usually go further: "If you can prove to me that the Catholic Church is wrong on any single one of its doctrines, I will renounce my faith and be fellowshiping and worshiping side-by-side with you this Sunday in your church." And I mean that when I say it. Even if someone can confuse or befuddle or aggravate you or twist your arguments, he can never prove the Church wrong. Remember, there is nothing in the Bible contrary to the Catholic faith, and there is nothing in the Catholic faith contrary to the Bible.
What have you accomplished by saying this? (1) You probably have him salivating at the opportunity to "save" a Catholic from the darkness of "Romanism." In other words, you’ve almost guaranteed that he will engage you in dialogue. (2) You have elevated him to the role of teacher and lowered yourself to the role of student. And what does a good student do? He asks questions. (3) You have let him know that you are willing to hear him out and that you’re giving him the benefit of the doubt, so to speak.
You’ve also changed the dynamics of the dialogue. It is no longer you versus him, Catholic versus Baptist or Evangelical or anything else. You’ve turned it to a discussion of "What is the truth?" This is what the discussion should be about. Of course, you know where the truth leads: to the Catholic Church. But you’re going to let him find that out on his own—with a little guidance from you and a lot of work from the Holy Spirit.
The Socratic element of this strategy can’t be emphasized enough. Ask questions. Be the good student. Answer questions with questions (like Jesus did—"Is it lawful to pay taxes?" he was asked. "Whose head is on the coin?" he answered).
Here’s a typical example: "Why do you Catholics believe in confessing your sins to a priest, a mere man, instead of straight to God?" The Catholic response: "Well, I’m sure you know the Bible better than I do, so tell me—does it say somewhere in the Bible that we shouldn’t confess our sins to a man? That we should confess our sins to God alone?" Let him show you the direct scriptural prohibition against a particular Catholic teaching. He won’t be able to do it—not when Scripture is interpreted in context.
As your knowledge of Scripture increases, you could add something like, "Well, if we’re not supposed to confess our sins to men, I’m a little confused. Maybe you can explain this to me. Doesn’t James 5:16 tell us that we are to confess are sins to men? And, in Matthew 9:8, why does God give the authority on earth to forgive sins to men if we are supposed to confess our sins to God alone?" Read Matthew 9:8 to him and ask, "What does that mean?"
As another example, you could say, "The Catholic Church teaches that both faith and works play a role in our salvation. But I think you believe in salvation by faith alone, right? Where in the Bible does it say that we are saved by faith alone?" He will likely take you to John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life," or Romans 3:28, "For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law" (Paul was speaking of the law of Moses, and specifically circumcision).
The key here is to read what Scripture he offers and compare it with what he said he believes. In this case, they don’t match. What he said he believed is that we are saved by faith "alone." What it says in the Bible speaks of belief in Christ or "faith." Catholics believe we are saved by faith, and our understanding of faith means that we believe Jesus is God, and, therefore, we trust what he says and we do as he asks, which demonstrates our love for him. That’s biblical (Matt. 5:48; 19:16–17; John 14:21; Gal. 5:5–6). But nowhere does the Bible say that we are saved by faith "alone."
Any non-Catholic doctrine that your opponent is trying to justify from Scripture cannot be justified from Scripture—not when Scripture is interpreted in context. Pay close attention to what he says and what the Bible says. I guarantee that the two will not match.
This is why it is necessary to have it ingrained in you that there is nothing in the Bible that is contrary to the Catholic faith. When you ask questions, you will get hit with Bible verse after Bible verse. Whenever someone puts a Bible verse in front of you that "proves" that the Catholic Church is wrong, slam your hand down on that Bible and say, "Amen! As a Catholic, I believe 100 percent of the Bible. But I do not necessarily agree with your personal, fallible interpretation of that passage."
No matter what passage he puts in front of you to "prove" that the Catholic Church is wrong, you can rest assured that either the passage doesn’t actually say what he is trying to make it say or he is taking the passage out of context. When you get to your second or third question on the same topic, I can almost guarantee that his responses will start to contradict themselves. But always keep in mind the "ignorant Catholic" technique. If you get turned around or confused, if you feel like you’ve gotten in over your head, say, "You know, that’s a good point. I don’t know the answer to that. I’ll have to think about it and pray about it and get back to you." Then go do your research and get back to him.
By asking questions of your "teacher," you are in fact the one doing the evangelizing. Protestant theology, where it differs from Catholic theology, is razor-thin. There is no depth to it, and it does not hold up well under scrutiny. The problem is that many folks just accept it at the surface and never try to plumb its depths. That’s what you should be attempting to do through your questions: getting this person to examine exactly what it is he believes and why. As with anything, it takes practice; but this is something that all Catholics can be and should be doing.
This questioning technique is also useful in taking the first step when wanting to engage people in a discussion. Let’s say you have a family member who has left the faith and become a member of a nondenominational church. You’ve wanted to start a discussion with him, but you’re not sure how. Tell him you’ve been thinking a lot lately about truth, and you were just wondering about why different Christian faiths believe different things. Would he mind if you asked him a question or two about his church?
People generally love to tell you about their church. Then, when given the green light, you could ask, for example, why does he believe in salvation by faith alone? Exactly what does that mean? Where did that teaching come from? Remember, you’re the ignorant Catholic, searching for truth. And remember, not only is the Bible on the Catholic’s side, but so is logic. Use it.
John Martignoni is founder and president of the Bible Christian Society, an apostolate dedicated to explaining and defending the Scriptural foundations of the Catholic faith. He presents talks around the country and hosts EWTN’s Open Line program every Monday at...
http://www.catholic.com/profiles/john-martignoni
Source
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-to-be-offensive-without-being-offensive
By: John Martignon
In the realm of real-world apologetics, Catholics always seem to be on the defensive when it comes to talking about the Bible or religion in general. "Where is that in the Bible?" "Why do you confess your sins to a man rather than to God?" "Why do you believe you can work your way into heaven?" "Why do you believe the pope can’t commit a sin?" "Why do you baptize babies?" We always are correcting false notions and answering questions. Well, we need to start asking the questions—we need to take the offensive instead of always being on the defensive.
Of course, you don’t want to do it in a way that will offend someone or scare him away from further discussion. Most non-Catholic Christians are not prepared to deal with a Catholic who can answer their questions. When they do come across one, they generally retreat and wait for an easier target, or they get offended by what you have to say and refuse to discuss the matter any more. Sometimes that cannot be avoided. After all, truth is offensive to many people—look at what happened to Truth himself.
So, how can you be offensive (aw-fensive) without being offensive (uh-fensive)? Simple: Let the other person evangelize you.
Whenever someone starts coming at me with questions about the Catholic faith or attacks against it, I try to use his zeal to evangelize me to evangelize him. I’ll say something like this: "Scripture tells me that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. I believe that. I want to know the truth, because to know the truth is to know Jesus Christ! You’re telling me that the Catholic Church is not giving me the truth. Well, I’m open to hearing what you have to say, because I’m searching for truth—and if the Catholic Church doesn’t have it, then I want to know that."
Now, you can stop there, but I usually go further: "If you can prove to me that the Catholic Church is wrong on any single one of its doctrines, I will renounce my faith and be fellowshiping and worshiping side-by-side with you this Sunday in your church." And I mean that when I say it. Even if someone can confuse or befuddle or aggravate you or twist your arguments, he can never prove the Church wrong. Remember, there is nothing in the Bible contrary to the Catholic faith, and there is nothing in the Catholic faith contrary to the Bible.
What have you accomplished by saying this? (1) You probably have him salivating at the opportunity to "save" a Catholic from the darkness of "Romanism." In other words, you’ve almost guaranteed that he will engage you in dialogue. (2) You have elevated him to the role of teacher and lowered yourself to the role of student. And what does a good student do? He asks questions. (3) You have let him know that you are willing to hear him out and that you’re giving him the benefit of the doubt, so to speak.
You’ve also changed the dynamics of the dialogue. It is no longer you versus him, Catholic versus Baptist or Evangelical or anything else. You’ve turned it to a discussion of "What is the truth?" This is what the discussion should be about. Of course, you know where the truth leads: to the Catholic Church. But you’re going to let him find that out on his own—with a little guidance from you and a lot of work from the Holy Spirit.
The Socratic element of this strategy can’t be emphasized enough. Ask questions. Be the good student. Answer questions with questions (like Jesus did—"Is it lawful to pay taxes?" he was asked. "Whose head is on the coin?" he answered).
Here’s a typical example: "Why do you Catholics believe in confessing your sins to a priest, a mere man, instead of straight to God?" The Catholic response: "Well, I’m sure you know the Bible better than I do, so tell me—does it say somewhere in the Bible that we shouldn’t confess our sins to a man? That we should confess our sins to God alone?" Let him show you the direct scriptural prohibition against a particular Catholic teaching. He won’t be able to do it—not when Scripture is interpreted in context.
As your knowledge of Scripture increases, you could add something like, "Well, if we’re not supposed to confess our sins to men, I’m a little confused. Maybe you can explain this to me. Doesn’t James 5:16 tell us that we are to confess are sins to men? And, in Matthew 9:8, why does God give the authority on earth to forgive sins to men if we are supposed to confess our sins to God alone?" Read Matthew 9:8 to him and ask, "What does that mean?"
As another example, you could say, "The Catholic Church teaches that both faith and works play a role in our salvation. But I think you believe in salvation by faith alone, right? Where in the Bible does it say that we are saved by faith alone?" He will likely take you to John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life," or Romans 3:28, "For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law" (Paul was speaking of the law of Moses, and specifically circumcision).
The key here is to read what Scripture he offers and compare it with what he said he believes. In this case, they don’t match. What he said he believed is that we are saved by faith "alone." What it says in the Bible speaks of belief in Christ or "faith." Catholics believe we are saved by faith, and our understanding of faith means that we believe Jesus is God, and, therefore, we trust what he says and we do as he asks, which demonstrates our love for him. That’s biblical (Matt. 5:48; 19:16–17; John 14:21; Gal. 5:5–6). But nowhere does the Bible say that we are saved by faith "alone."
Any non-Catholic doctrine that your opponent is trying to justify from Scripture cannot be justified from Scripture—not when Scripture is interpreted in context. Pay close attention to what he says and what the Bible says. I guarantee that the two will not match.
This is why it is necessary to have it ingrained in you that there is nothing in the Bible that is contrary to the Catholic faith. When you ask questions, you will get hit with Bible verse after Bible verse. Whenever someone puts a Bible verse in front of you that "proves" that the Catholic Church is wrong, slam your hand down on that Bible and say, "Amen! As a Catholic, I believe 100 percent of the Bible. But I do not necessarily agree with your personal, fallible interpretation of that passage."
No matter what passage he puts in front of you to "prove" that the Catholic Church is wrong, you can rest assured that either the passage doesn’t actually say what he is trying to make it say or he is taking the passage out of context. When you get to your second or third question on the same topic, I can almost guarantee that his responses will start to contradict themselves. But always keep in mind the "ignorant Catholic" technique. If you get turned around or confused, if you feel like you’ve gotten in over your head, say, "You know, that’s a good point. I don’t know the answer to that. I’ll have to think about it and pray about it and get back to you." Then go do your research and get back to him.
By asking questions of your "teacher," you are in fact the one doing the evangelizing. Protestant theology, where it differs from Catholic theology, is razor-thin. There is no depth to it, and it does not hold up well under scrutiny. The problem is that many folks just accept it at the surface and never try to plumb its depths. That’s what you should be attempting to do through your questions: getting this person to examine exactly what it is he believes and why. As with anything, it takes practice; but this is something that all Catholics can be and should be doing.
This questioning technique is also useful in taking the first step when wanting to engage people in a discussion. Let’s say you have a family member who has left the faith and become a member of a nondenominational church. You’ve wanted to start a discussion with him, but you’re not sure how. Tell him you’ve been thinking a lot lately about truth, and you were just wondering about why different Christian faiths believe different things. Would he mind if you asked him a question or two about his church?
People generally love to tell you about their church. Then, when given the green light, you could ask, for example, why does he believe in salvation by faith alone? Exactly what does that mean? Where did that teaching come from? Remember, you’re the ignorant Catholic, searching for truth. And remember, not only is the Bible on the Catholic’s side, but so is logic. Use it.
John Martignoni is founder and president of the Bible Christian Society, an apostolate dedicated to explaining and defending the Scriptural foundations of the Catholic faith. He presents talks around the country and hosts EWTN’s Open Line program every Monday at...
http://www.catholic.com/profiles/john-martignoni
Source
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-to-be-offensive-without-being-offensive
Last edited:
Lucia
Well-Known Member
To Explain Infant Baptism You Must Explain Original Sin
By: John Martignoni
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/to-explain-infant-baptism-you-must-explain-original-sin
"Can you give me a Bible verse on infant baptism?" I often hear this from Catholics who want to explain the Church’s teaching on the subject to non-Catholics.
Well, no and yes. No, because there is no Bible verse that says, "Baptize infants" (just as there is no Bible verse that says, "Do not baptize infants"). But, yes, I can give you a Bible verse on infant baptism if you understand that the Church’s teaching on this subject flows from the Church’s teachings on original sin and the sacrament of baptism.
In this article, I will focus on explaining, from the Bible, the Church’s teaching on original sin to help us understand the Church’s teachings on baptism. Most non-Catholics don’t care about what the pope says or what the Catechism says or what Vatican II says. They want to know: "Where is that in the Bible?"
The doctrine of original sin is that "in" Adam all have sinned. This parallels the doctrine of justification that "in" Christ all are righteous. Many Catholics do not fully understand or appreciate the importance of this parallel and how it weaves through much of Catholic teaching.
We can begin to understand this parallel—namely, through the first Adam all have died and through the second Adam (Christ) all have life—by looking at Romans 5. Verse 12 says that "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin." And look at the evidence throughout verses 15–19: "Many died through one man’s trespass. . . . For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation. . . . Because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man. . . . Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men. . . . By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners."
Look at verse 16: "For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation." Who did it bring condemnation for? Adam only? No—verse 18 says, "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men" (emphasis added). This is stated even more clearly by the King James rendering the same verse: "Therefore, as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation."
These passages are all about the Church’s doctrine of original sin. Because of Adam’s sin, all men were made subject to sin and death. That is Scripture’s teaching on the doctrine of original sin.
This sin of Adam’s was not your ordinary sin. This was a sin that affected all mankind forever. This sin changed the course of human history. It did not just affect Adam personally; it also affected his human nature—which means it affected our nature, since we inherited it from him. Adam and Eve were created with immortal bodies. They knew no suffering, they knew no disease, they knew no death. Before the fall, their bodies would not have been subject to cancer or to Alzheimer’s disease or heart attacks or muscular dystrophy or sickle cell anemia or any one of a host of other diseases. But ours are.
Adam was tested by God not just as Adam but as the representative of the whole human race, since we are all the seed of Adam. Just as David and Goliath met on the battlefield as champions of their respective armies, Adam was our champion. If your champion lost in battle to the other army’s champion, then you lost the battle—even though you never unsheathed your sword and were never bloodied in battle. David slew the Philistines’ champion and the Philistines took off running (cf. 1 Sam. 17:51). In the battle against the evil one, Adam lost. As a result, we also lost.
Some folks have a problem with the concept that we, Adam’s posterity, should have to pay a price for a sin we didn’t commit. They do not understand how the Church is using the term original sin. As the Catechism says, "original sin is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’—a state and not an act" (CCC 404).
Adam’s sin changed everything—for him and for us. There was a fundamental change in man’s relationship with God. God no longer walked the earth with man. What’s more, Satan was now ruler of the world. There was a fundamental change in the relationship of man to nature and a fundamental change in nature itself (cf. Rom. 8:19–22). A fundamental change in the relationship between man and woman. A fundamental change in relationships among all men, since sin and death had entered the world. A fundamental change in the nature of man himself. It’s all right there in the Bible. And it is the Church’s teaching on the doctrine of original sin.
But for each of those verses in Romans 5 about how Adam’s disobedience affected us, there is a parallel verse describing how Jesus’ obedience affected us. This parallel is paramount. One man’s disobedience leads to death for all; one man’s obedience leads to life for all. We see this parallel in 1 Corinthians 15:21–22: "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."
Let’s expand for a minute on this concept of being "in" Adam. The writer of Hebrews says something interesting in referring to when Abraham and Melchizedek met in Genesis 14: "Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham. For he was still in the loins of his ancestor [Abraham] when Melchizedek met him [Abraham]" (Heb. 7:9–10).
Levi wasn’t born for another seventy years or so after this incident of Abraham paying a tithe to Melchizedek, yet the Bible says that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek. How is that possible? Because Levi was in Abraham—in his loins, according to the Bible.
This is the same concept we are talking about with original sin and being in Adam and with salvation and being in Christ.
We are born with a fallen nature, a nature that is separated from God as a result of Adam’s sin. We have to be born again to become joined to God, to be in Christ, to become a member of the body of Christ, to be saved. We are born of Adam’s body into condemnation. We are born of Christ’s body unto salvation.
Finally, we reach the part where this ties into infant baptism. In the Gospel of John, Jesus says, "Unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). In verse 5 he repeats himself: "Unless one is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
In other words, being born again is the same thing as being born of water and the Spirit, and it is a necessary condition for entering the kingdom of God. Jesus is saying that a man must be born of water and the Spirit—in other words, he must be baptized. The Bible tells us that you cannot enter the kingdom of God if you are not baptized.
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6). Remember that: The Bible says that which is born of the flesh is flesh. Not only that, but "it is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail" (John 6:63).
Now, when a child is born, it is born into the flesh. But the Bible tells us that the flesh is of no avail because of the consequences of original sin. That’s why Jesus says we have to be born again. The first birth is birth of the flesh, but we need something more in order to have life.
What is that something more? The Bible tells us: Everyone must be born of the Spirit in order to have eternal life; it is the Spirit that gives life, not the flesh. And how do we receive the Spirit? The Bible tells us that we receive the Spirit by being born again—by being born of water and the Spirit—by being baptized. We find this in Ezekiel 36:25–27, John 3:3–5, Acts 2:38, and elsewhere. When we are baptized we put on Christ (cf. Gal. 3:27). We are buried with him in baptism (Rom. 6:4). We become members of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). We receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). We become a new creation in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).
To sum up these last few paragraphs: Adam is the representative of the flesh. Christ is the representative of the Spirit. When we are born physically, born into the flesh, we are in Adam. When we are baptized—when we are born again, when we are born of the Spirit—we are in Christ. Infants need to be baptized, just like anyone else, so that they can be "in Christ," so that they can put on Christ, so that they can become children of God, so that they can become members of the body of Christ, so that they can be granted eternal life.
One other Scripture passage that I like to use when discussing original sin is found in Ephesians 2:3: "Among these we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." We see here another very clear reflection of Catholic teaching in the Bible. Ephesians 2:3 is, in a nutshell, the Catholic teaching on original sin: We were by nature children of wrath. That’s what the Catholic Church teaches.
So can I give you a Bible verse on infant baptism? Yes, if you remember two things:
1. We are by nature children of wrath. Original sin is real. It is not something the Catholic Church invented. We are born of the flesh, not of the Spirit. We are not born in a state of holiness. We are born in a state of original sin.
2. Through baptism we are "born again" and made new creatures in Christ; through baptism our sins are forgiven. Through baptism we become members of the body of Christ, which is the Church. Through baptism we receive the Holy Spirit; through baptism we are saved. Baptism is necessary for salvation.
The washing away of original sin is a good and necessary thing. The joining of the infant to the body of Christ, the Church, is a good and necessary thing. The infant receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a good and necessary thing. The infant receiving the free gift of God’s salvation is a good and necessary thing.
It’s that simple. As Catholics, we want all these things for our children, not just for adults. Why would anyone want to deny infants and children the incredible gifts received through baptism? As the Bible tells us, the promise is to you and your children (cf. Acts 2:39). When you explain infant baptism in the context of original sin and sacramental baptism—of being born into a state of original sin and being born again into a state of grace—you make a very powerful argument on behalf of the Church’s teachings in this area. And you do it straight from the Bible.
John Martignoni is founder and president of the Bible Christian Society, an apostolate dedicated to explaining and defending the Scriptural foundations of the Catholic faith. He presents talks around the country and hosts EWTN’s Open Line program every Monday at...
And host of Blue Collar Apologetics on EWTN
By: John Martignoni
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/to-explain-infant-baptism-you-must-explain-original-sin
"Can you give me a Bible verse on infant baptism?" I often hear this from Catholics who want to explain the Church’s teaching on the subject to non-Catholics.
Well, no and yes. No, because there is no Bible verse that says, "Baptize infants" (just as there is no Bible verse that says, "Do not baptize infants"). But, yes, I can give you a Bible verse on infant baptism if you understand that the Church’s teaching on this subject flows from the Church’s teachings on original sin and the sacrament of baptism.
In this article, I will focus on explaining, from the Bible, the Church’s teaching on original sin to help us understand the Church’s teachings on baptism. Most non-Catholics don’t care about what the pope says or what the Catechism says or what Vatican II says. They want to know: "Where is that in the Bible?"
The doctrine of original sin is that "in" Adam all have sinned. This parallels the doctrine of justification that "in" Christ all are righteous. Many Catholics do not fully understand or appreciate the importance of this parallel and how it weaves through much of Catholic teaching.
We can begin to understand this parallel—namely, through the first Adam all have died and through the second Adam (Christ) all have life—by looking at Romans 5. Verse 12 says that "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin." And look at the evidence throughout verses 15–19: "Many died through one man’s trespass. . . . For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation. . . . Because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man. . . . Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men. . . . By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners."
Look at verse 16: "For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation." Who did it bring condemnation for? Adam only? No—verse 18 says, "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men" (emphasis added). This is stated even more clearly by the King James rendering the same verse: "Therefore, as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation."
These passages are all about the Church’s doctrine of original sin. Because of Adam’s sin, all men were made subject to sin and death. That is Scripture’s teaching on the doctrine of original sin.
This sin of Adam’s was not your ordinary sin. This was a sin that affected all mankind forever. This sin changed the course of human history. It did not just affect Adam personally; it also affected his human nature—which means it affected our nature, since we inherited it from him. Adam and Eve were created with immortal bodies. They knew no suffering, they knew no disease, they knew no death. Before the fall, their bodies would not have been subject to cancer or to Alzheimer’s disease or heart attacks or muscular dystrophy or sickle cell anemia or any one of a host of other diseases. But ours are.
Adam was tested by God not just as Adam but as the representative of the whole human race, since we are all the seed of Adam. Just as David and Goliath met on the battlefield as champions of their respective armies, Adam was our champion. If your champion lost in battle to the other army’s champion, then you lost the battle—even though you never unsheathed your sword and were never bloodied in battle. David slew the Philistines’ champion and the Philistines took off running (cf. 1 Sam. 17:51). In the battle against the evil one, Adam lost. As a result, we also lost.
Some folks have a problem with the concept that we, Adam’s posterity, should have to pay a price for a sin we didn’t commit. They do not understand how the Church is using the term original sin. As the Catechism says, "original sin is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’—a state and not an act" (CCC 404).
Adam’s sin changed everything—for him and for us. There was a fundamental change in man’s relationship with God. God no longer walked the earth with man. What’s more, Satan was now ruler of the world. There was a fundamental change in the relationship of man to nature and a fundamental change in nature itself (cf. Rom. 8:19–22). A fundamental change in the relationship between man and woman. A fundamental change in relationships among all men, since sin and death had entered the world. A fundamental change in the nature of man himself. It’s all right there in the Bible. And it is the Church’s teaching on the doctrine of original sin.
But for each of those verses in Romans 5 about how Adam’s disobedience affected us, there is a parallel verse describing how Jesus’ obedience affected us. This parallel is paramount. One man’s disobedience leads to death for all; one man’s obedience leads to life for all. We see this parallel in 1 Corinthians 15:21–22: "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."
Let’s expand for a minute on this concept of being "in" Adam. The writer of Hebrews says something interesting in referring to when Abraham and Melchizedek met in Genesis 14: "Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham. For he was still in the loins of his ancestor [Abraham] when Melchizedek met him [Abraham]" (Heb. 7:9–10).
Levi wasn’t born for another seventy years or so after this incident of Abraham paying a tithe to Melchizedek, yet the Bible says that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek. How is that possible? Because Levi was in Abraham—in his loins, according to the Bible.
This is the same concept we are talking about with original sin and being in Adam and with salvation and being in Christ.
We are born with a fallen nature, a nature that is separated from God as a result of Adam’s sin. We have to be born again to become joined to God, to be in Christ, to become a member of the body of Christ, to be saved. We are born of Adam’s body into condemnation. We are born of Christ’s body unto salvation.
Finally, we reach the part where this ties into infant baptism. In the Gospel of John, Jesus says, "Unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). In verse 5 he repeats himself: "Unless one is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
In other words, being born again is the same thing as being born of water and the Spirit, and it is a necessary condition for entering the kingdom of God. Jesus is saying that a man must be born of water and the Spirit—in other words, he must be baptized. The Bible tells us that you cannot enter the kingdom of God if you are not baptized.
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6). Remember that: The Bible says that which is born of the flesh is flesh. Not only that, but "it is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail" (John 6:63).
Now, when a child is born, it is born into the flesh. But the Bible tells us that the flesh is of no avail because of the consequences of original sin. That’s why Jesus says we have to be born again. The first birth is birth of the flesh, but we need something more in order to have life.
What is that something more? The Bible tells us: Everyone must be born of the Spirit in order to have eternal life; it is the Spirit that gives life, not the flesh. And how do we receive the Spirit? The Bible tells us that we receive the Spirit by being born again—by being born of water and the Spirit—by being baptized. We find this in Ezekiel 36:25–27, John 3:3–5, Acts 2:38, and elsewhere. When we are baptized we put on Christ (cf. Gal. 3:27). We are buried with him in baptism (Rom. 6:4). We become members of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). We receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). We become a new creation in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).
To sum up these last few paragraphs: Adam is the representative of the flesh. Christ is the representative of the Spirit. When we are born physically, born into the flesh, we are in Adam. When we are baptized—when we are born again, when we are born of the Spirit—we are in Christ. Infants need to be baptized, just like anyone else, so that they can be "in Christ," so that they can put on Christ, so that they can become children of God, so that they can become members of the body of Christ, so that they can be granted eternal life.
One other Scripture passage that I like to use when discussing original sin is found in Ephesians 2:3: "Among these we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." We see here another very clear reflection of Catholic teaching in the Bible. Ephesians 2:3 is, in a nutshell, the Catholic teaching on original sin: We were by nature children of wrath. That’s what the Catholic Church teaches.
So can I give you a Bible verse on infant baptism? Yes, if you remember two things:
1. We are by nature children of wrath. Original sin is real. It is not something the Catholic Church invented. We are born of the flesh, not of the Spirit. We are not born in a state of holiness. We are born in a state of original sin.
2. Through baptism we are "born again" and made new creatures in Christ; through baptism our sins are forgiven. Through baptism we become members of the body of Christ, which is the Church. Through baptism we receive the Holy Spirit; through baptism we are saved. Baptism is necessary for salvation.
The washing away of original sin is a good and necessary thing. The joining of the infant to the body of Christ, the Church, is a good and necessary thing. The infant receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a good and necessary thing. The infant receiving the free gift of God’s salvation is a good and necessary thing.
It’s that simple. As Catholics, we want all these things for our children, not just for adults. Why would anyone want to deny infants and children the incredible gifts received through baptism? As the Bible tells us, the promise is to you and your children (cf. Acts 2:39). When you explain infant baptism in the context of original sin and sacramental baptism—of being born into a state of original sin and being born again into a state of grace—you make a very powerful argument on behalf of the Church’s teachings in this area. And you do it straight from the Bible.
John Martignoni is founder and president of the Bible Christian Society, an apostolate dedicated to explaining and defending the Scriptural foundations of the Catholic faith. He presents talks around the country and hosts EWTN’s Open Line program every Monday at...
And host of Blue Collar Apologetics on EWTN
Lucia
Well-Known Member
kanozas
se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón
Lucia
Well-Known Member
I'm going to order his John Martgnonis dvd Blue Collar Apologetics and the Protestants dilemma by Devin Rose. For the kind of shenanigans going on in the Christian random thoughts thread
http://www.amazon.com/The-Protestants-Dilemma-Reformations-Consequences/dp/1938983610
and eventually order books of Tim Staples Devin Rose and Trent Horn Scott Hahn and Fr Mitch Pacwa
They are usually in catholic answers live sometimes and Devin Rose has his own podcast.
kanozas
se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón
I just got a new phone and it comes with a pre-installed "kindle" ...wondering if it's available like that? I have never used Kindle before but I see lots of things for Pope Francis in the PLaystore. I have some prayers downloaded on my phone but if I could only download what I want to, I'd need to buy a few hundred bucks of microSD lol!I'm going to order his John Martgnonis dvd Blue Collar Apologetics and the Protestants dilemma by Devin Rose. For the kind of shenanigans going on in the Christian random thoughts thread
http://www.amazon.com/The-Protestants-Dilemma-Reformations-Consequences/dp/1938983610
and eventually order books of Tim Staples Devin Rose and Trent Horn Scott Hahn and Fr Mitch Pacwa
They are usually in catholic answers live sometimes and Devin Rose has his own podcast.
kanozas
se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón
Circumcision, which is 7,000 years old, some 3,500 year or so older than Hebrewisms. Was it invalidated because HaShem used it with the people Israel? No. Virgin and Child...prefigured in very ancient times. Is Mary the Mother of Jesus, a virgin or was she not a virgin? Did she not carry Jesus? Egyptian g-ds? What about Krishna, who preceded Jesus by centuries. Jesus' life practically mirrors his. Was Jesus real? You truly have to think about it. Why would G-d allow all these prefigured histories, stories, practices? When Jesus came, He told us that He is the Way...the One, the true Way. In all religions, there are elements of truth but the Judeo-Christian faith is THE truth and the completion.
Lucia
Well-Known Member
Kindle is great I just prefer real books but I have a couple things on kindle for quick reference. I wouldn't by an entire book collection on there it's a waste 1 major computer crash and you loose it all.
You can save it on your desktop or laptop too just choose what downloads and stores on the desktop and choose what stays on your phone. I know iTunes works that way android store items check and see I'm sure they have the similar set up. I have tons more podcasts and audio books on my computer than my phone I just have a portion on my phone to listen too when I'm out and about then I switch it out for more so I don't overload my phone memory.
ETA they have it I just checked.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/kindle/kcp/tos.html
Last edited:
Lucia
Well-Known Member
More resources on this website besides if you know which authors to look up on Amazon you can get multiple books at a discount sometimes.
Tim Staples
http://shop.catholic.com/defending-...jections-to-catholicism.html?___store=default
Tim Staples
http://shop.catholic.com/defending-...jections-to-catholicism.html?___store=default
kanozas
se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón
Kindle in addition to "real books" lol. I have a library at home. It would be nice to read something edifying or informative when I'm out and about. Beats games when I have a little down time and become bored during breaks. Thanks for the link!
Lucia
Well-Known Member
Lucia
Well-Known Member
Belle Du Jour
Well-Known Member
I often wonder why Protestants who bash the Catholic church are silent about the Eastern churches. Then I realize they probably don't realize that those churches exist and that those churches (for all intents and purposes) look pretty identical to the RCC. Are the Eastern churches and their patriarchs (aka popes) also the "whore of Babylon?" Again, it becomes very obvious that these statements come down to lack of knowledge about the actual history of Christianity.
Belle Du Jour
Well-Known Member
Also food for thought: if the original Christian church was not catholic, why are the remains of the apostles buried in churches that TODAY would be identified as catholic?? Hmmmm....
Belle Du Jour
Well-Known Member
One more thought: if one goes to the Holy Land today, the Christian churches that exist on the holiest places are Catholic or Orthodox. Period. You won't find a Methodist church or a 7th Day Adventist church or a Non-denominational church where the angel announced to Mary that she was to be the mother of the Lord or at the place of Golgotha or the sepulcher. The history lesson is very obvious: if the churches present today retain the legacy and connection to these holy sites, then by default the earliest churches were catholic.
kanozas
se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ted-cruz-donald-trump-spar-over-transgender-bathroom-law/
Anybody catholic have an article on one of our own addressing this stupid issue of "transgender" bathrooms? It's not just the possibility that someone could harass a girl in the bathroom, I just don't want to go to bathroom with a man, as a woman. Period. No further discussion lol. Why can't they see that?
Anybody catholic have an article on one of our own addressing this stupid issue of "transgender" bathrooms? It's not just the possibility that someone could harass a girl in the bathroom, I just don't want to go to bathroom with a man, as a woman. Period. No further discussion lol. Why can't they see that?
Lucia
Well-Known Member
That's the only thing Ted has said as of late that I agree with. ^^
I haven't seen one yet but if I do I will post it.
Now I just think it's not a good idea at all simply because little girls and women should not have to see a strange mans package at all. Most transgenders don't get the final surgery right away so what are we going to have urinals in the women's bathrooms and them dropping trou to accommodate what is less than 1% of the total 2% LGBT community compared to the rest of the US? I for one don't want to see it, seriously? Have they lost all notion of common sense? Yes they have. I heard that sin dulls the senses and intelligence this situation makes me think it's true.
Seriously there also the obvious implications of changing the laws like any smart pervert or rapist off the street could then walk into the women's bathroom and lay in wait for his victims. There's no way to discern who's an OK man in the women's bathroom and a pervert. its just asking for tragedy.
Last edited:
Lucia
Well-Known Member
YW on the first page first post I have other Catholic links you migh want to check out the books and references thread there's tons of material in that thread to get you started.
kanozas
se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón
No kidding, smh. Scary. What about the rest of us women? Nothing? SMH. What is it that WE want over the wants of 1 billionth of the population lol?
Lucia
Well-Known Member
Repost with info and text
Chaplet St Michael
The Chaplet of St. Michael is a wonderful way to honor this great Archangel along with the other nine Choirs of Angels. What do we mean by Choirs? It seems that God has created various orders of Angels. Sacred Scripture distinguishes nine such groupings: Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominations, Powers, Virtues, Principalities, Archangels and Angels (Isa. 6:2; Gen. 3:24; Col. 1:16; Eph. 1:21; Rom. 8:38). There may be more groupings but these are the only ones that have been revealed to us. The Seraphim is believed to be the highest Choir, the most intimately united to God, while the Angelic Choir is the lowest.
The history of this Chaplet goes back to a devout Servant of God, Antonia d'Astonac, who had a vision of St. Michael. He told Antonia to honor him by nine salutations to the nine Choirs of Angels. St. Michael promised that whoever would practice this devotion in his honor would have, when approaching Holy Communion, an escort of nine angels chosen from each of the nine Choirs. In addition, for those who would recite the Chaplet daily, he promised his continual assistance and that of all the holy angels during life.
The Chaplet of St. Michael
O God, come to my assistance. O Lord, make haste to help me. Glory be to the Father, etc.
[Say one Our Father and three Hail Marys after each of the following nine salutations in honor of the nine Choirs of Angels]
1. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir o Seraphim may the Lord make us worthy to burn with the fire o perfect charity.
Amen.
2. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir o Cherubim may the Lord grant us the grace to leave the ways of sin and run in the paths of Christian perfection.
Amen.
3. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir o Thrones may the Lord infuse into our hearts a true and sincer spirit of humility.
Amen.
4. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir o Dominations may the Lord give us grace to govern our senses and overcome any unruly passions.
Amen.
5. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Virtues may the Lord preserve us from evil and falling into temptation. Amen.
6. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir o Powers may the Lord protect our souls against the snares an temptations of the devil.
Amen.
7. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Principalities may God fill our souls with a true spirit of obedience. Amen.
8. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir o Archangels may the Lord give us perseverance in faith and in all good works in order that we may attain the glory of Heaven.
Amen.
9. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir o Angels may the Lord grant us to be protected by them in this mortal life and conducted in the life to come to Heaven.
Amen.
Say one Our Father in honor of each of the following leading Angels: St. Michael, St. Gabriel, St. Raphael and our Guardian Angel.
Concluding prayers:
O glorious prince St. Michael, chief and commander of the heavenly hosts, guardian of souls, vanquisher of rebel spirits, servant in the house of the Divine King and our admirable conductor, you who shine with excellence and superhuman virtue deliver us from all evil, who turn to you with confidence and enable us by your gracious protection to serve God more and more faithfully every day.
Pray for us, O glorious St. Michael, Prince of the Church of Jesus Christ, that we may be made worthy of His promises.
Almighty and Everlasting God, Who, by a prodigy of goodness and a merciful desire for the salvation of all men, has appointed the most glorious Archangel St. Michael Prince of Your Church, make us worthy, we ask You, to be delivered from all our enemies, that none of them may harass us at the hour of death, but that we may be conducted by him into Your Presence.This we ask through the merits of
Jesus Christ Our Lord.
Amen.
Chaplet St Michael
The Chaplet of St. Michael is a wonderful way to honor this great Archangel along with the other nine Choirs of Angels. What do we mean by Choirs? It seems that God has created various orders of Angels. Sacred Scripture distinguishes nine such groupings: Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominations, Powers, Virtues, Principalities, Archangels and Angels (Isa. 6:2; Gen. 3:24; Col. 1:16; Eph. 1:21; Rom. 8:38). There may be more groupings but these are the only ones that have been revealed to us. The Seraphim is believed to be the highest Choir, the most intimately united to God, while the Angelic Choir is the lowest.
The history of this Chaplet goes back to a devout Servant of God, Antonia d'Astonac, who had a vision of St. Michael. He told Antonia to honor him by nine salutations to the nine Choirs of Angels. St. Michael promised that whoever would practice this devotion in his honor would have, when approaching Holy Communion, an escort of nine angels chosen from each of the nine Choirs. In addition, for those who would recite the Chaplet daily, he promised his continual assistance and that of all the holy angels during life.
The Chaplet of St. Michael
O God, come to my assistance. O Lord, make haste to help me. Glory be to the Father, etc.
[Say one Our Father and three Hail Marys after each of the following nine salutations in honor of the nine Choirs of Angels]
1. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir o Seraphim may the Lord make us worthy to burn with the fire o perfect charity.
Amen.
2. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir o Cherubim may the Lord grant us the grace to leave the ways of sin and run in the paths of Christian perfection.
Amen.
3. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir o Thrones may the Lord infuse into our hearts a true and sincer spirit of humility.
Amen.
4. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir o Dominations may the Lord give us grace to govern our senses and overcome any unruly passions.
Amen.
5. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Virtues may the Lord preserve us from evil and falling into temptation. Amen.
6. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir o Powers may the Lord protect our souls against the snares an temptations of the devil.
Amen.
7. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Principalities may God fill our souls with a true spirit of obedience. Amen.
8. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir o Archangels may the Lord give us perseverance in faith and in all good works in order that we may attain the glory of Heaven.
Amen.
9. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir o Angels may the Lord grant us to be protected by them in this mortal life and conducted in the life to come to Heaven.
Amen.
Say one Our Father in honor of each of the following leading Angels: St. Michael, St. Gabriel, St. Raphael and our Guardian Angel.
Concluding prayers:
O glorious prince St. Michael, chief and commander of the heavenly hosts, guardian of souls, vanquisher of rebel spirits, servant in the house of the Divine King and our admirable conductor, you who shine with excellence and superhuman virtue deliver us from all evil, who turn to you with confidence and enable us by your gracious protection to serve God more and more faithfully every day.
Pray for us, O glorious St. Michael, Prince of the Church of Jesus Christ, that we may be made worthy of His promises.
Almighty and Everlasting God, Who, by a prodigy of goodness and a merciful desire for the salvation of all men, has appointed the most glorious Archangel St. Michael Prince of Your Church, make us worthy, we ask You, to be delivered from all our enemies, that none of them may harass us at the hour of death, but that we may be conducted by him into Your Presence.This we ask through the merits of
Jesus Christ Our Lord.
Amen.
