Subject: Please quote the Catechism when knocking the Roman Catholic church
Please quote the Catechism when knocking the Roman Catholic church
On http://www.thechristianexpositor.org/page98.html there are many claims regarding Catholicism, none of which refer to statements listed in the Catechism. I am sure you could find many real examples in the Cetechism of the Catholic Church of differences between Catholicism and other Christians.
Here is an example: From the Cetechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition:
"1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament."
This shows that even though the catholic church believes sacraments are required, they also recognize that grace happens with the explicit desire to receive Jesus and repentance for sins, and love of God. It is not the works that ultimately save a person, but faith.
TCE replies: 22nd June 2009
TCE: Thank you for taking the time to contact us with your concerns.
We presume that you did not read the pages following page 98?
We have quoted from Vatican II - which does not overturn Vatican I or the teachings of Trent - and we would be grateful if you can point out to us where Rome has clearly stated that 'the Catechism' overturns the previous errors and contradictions of these councils?
Perhaps you would also care to address the many other salient points that emanate from these contradictions?
If you cannot answer these questions perhaps you would care to contact Roman authorities with these questions and supply us with answers - while also explaining the clear failure of 'Papal infallibility'?
It should be apparent to any careful reader that accusing us of 'knocking the Roman Catholic church' is something that can only be levelled at us if it could be proven that the facts we have presented are incorrect.
We rely solely on the Bible (which does not include the Apocryphal books or Papal interpretations) and the facts of history to prove our case and have never been shown good reason to correct any of our pages.
If you can supply clear evidence that we are wrong over any of these matters we will address the issue.
Finally, please note that you would also need to consider the nature of your final sentence - 'even though the catholic church believes sacraments are required, they also recognize that grace happens with the explicit desire to receive Jesus and repentance for sins, and love of God. It is not the works that ultimately save a person, but faith'.
Since this same 'Catechism' states:
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." 63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
then it seems that Rome is stating here a belief in 'Universal salvation,' but has claimed for centuries that there is no salvation outside of Rome!?
Could God be just in demanding 'sacraments' as part of the path to eternal life from those who are 'able' through knowledge, while those who remain ignorant are freely saved - or does He actually save men only through free grace?
Again, had you read our page 100 - and the associated quotes, such as:
'Christ said, 'It is finished' on the cross (John 19:30), but Trent (p. 46) anathematizes (curses!) all who dare to claim that they are justified by grace alone and no debts of sin remain for those who are in Christ Jesus. Trent insists that 'no one can know' with the certainty of faith '…that he has obtained the grace of God' (p. 35) '…or that he is among the number whom God has chosen' (p. 38) and declared that anyone who claims to be certain of his salvation is anathematised (cursed!) (p. 43-45)'
you may have asked how Rome can say one thing in the 'Catechism' while it cursed and killed thousands through the centuries for daring to say what you now seem to want to believe in - but have revealed to be still the Papal error by adding 'ultimately'!
Let God be true and every man proven to be a liar (Romans 3v4) for He tells us clearly (Ephesians 2v8-10):
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God - 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
As we have explained in many other replies, particularly to Mormons
(e.g. http://www.thechristianexpositor.org/page209.html ) and Roman Catholics (now archived on earlier pages - starting here), if we are 'saved by grace' and 'created in Christ Jesus for good works' then it is clearly 'not because of works, lest any man should boast'! To try and say that 'It is not the works that ultimately save a person' is merely to agree with the false riders that Rome puts upon men and to show that you do not understand grace.
Even a small child understands that you cannot pay for a gift - yet men insult God by trying to add their filthy good works (Isaiah 64v6) to His inestimable gift (Romans 6:23):
'For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.'
(1 John 5:13) 'These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.'
Scripture is emphatic - when you accept Christ unconditionally you instantly receive eternal life and know it - just as the 'thief on the cross' did (Luke 23v43) and arrived safely that day in Paradise with no baptism, no church membership, no good works, no purgatory - and no final sacrament - to help him get there! (that demanding 'baptism if possible' is not the gospel has been discussed at
also see one of our many discussions concerning the 'thief on the cross' at
Rome misinterprets grace and presents a thoroughly confused works system which the Catechism cannot undo or explain.
We hope and pray that you will carry out some serious study and find the truth that leads to eternal life.
In Christ Jesus
'luvinlife4' replies: July 22, 2009 7:55 PM
Sorry I did not respond sooner. Soon after I sent my last reply my email box got inundated with SPAM and I had not cleaned it up and extracted your message until now.
I am not an expert in the Catechism. Nor am I an expert in Roman Catholic church history. I am a baptised member of a non-denominational Bible-believing Christian Church. I simply wanted to know first hand what is the current teaching of the Catholic Church so I could form my own opinions. You ask a lot of question I can't answer. You beat on my personal use of the word "ultimately" as if I were an expert in semantics and philosophy. I am not.
I do want to point out one thing and leave it to you to interpret it:
The Catechism says [my emphasis added]:
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."
TCE replies: 25th July 2009
thank you for getting back to us.
We do regret that the tone of our reply gave you the wrong impression, but would add that the subject title you used implied to us that you were defending the Roman Catholic Church.
Many Catholics think that the Catechism has transformed their church while, as we pointed out in our reply, the truth is that they use the same kinds of 'spin' that politicians employ today (i.e. they lie!). The Catechism 818 you quote is just such a lie.
The nearest analogy - because the same demonic influence is behind it - is the Mormon Church. Their missionaries come to your door feigning to use the KJV of the Bible, then begin to refer to the Book of Mormon. What they do not tell you until you are a baptized member is that they do not actually believe the teaching of either of the 'manuals' they have used up to then to be absolute. 'Further continuing revelation' has given them an entirely different godhead etc. through the 'Doctrine and Covenants', 'Book of Abraham', and the occasional input of their 'modern prophet' (e.g. overturning of the ban on black members holding the priesthood, polygamy, etc.). When we point out the ridiculous contradictions they accuse us of 'not having the knowledge to understand these things'! This is the obvious 'Emperor's New Clothes' scam - only the small boy, who did not know what he was supposed to accept in order not to look 'less than wise', had the open mind to shout: 'The Emperor is naked'!
Did you note that the new, ex-Nazi, pope is re-introducing 'indulgences'?! The news has been welcomed by the brain-washed of the Papal Church who, surely, cannot be blind to the contradiction of the 'infallible' popes' flip-flop over yet another doctrine?! They finally forgave Galileo for being right, have accepted the Satanic 'evolution hypothesis', and now give back the fast-track out of a non-existent purgatory for those rich enough to pay for the privilege! What kind of a 'god' is this they follow - Satan!
If you really want a huge input of devastating information about Rome we strongly recommend that you read Dave Hunt's: 'A Woman Rides the Beast' (available from http://www.thebereancall.org/node/4879 ). There are some ignorant people in the church (e.g. Hank Hanegraff) who have claimed that Hunt's research is faulty. Have a look at the historians quoted in the book and then ask why, if Hanegraff et al were right, they have not printed a careful refutation of his work (as they are instructed to do in Scripture - ref. our pages http://www.thechristianexpositor.org/page33.html (Section 72). The truth is that many 'Christians', particularly in the USA, put two men up on a pedestal, Billy Graham and Walter Martin. Gifted men, but not always very discerning. Graham's 'fellowshipping with unbelievers (Rome!)' began in the early 1950's and tainted a very large part of his ministry. Martin was similarly influenced and reticent about criticizing Rome (he did the same with the Seventh-Day Adventists, a cult that Graham allowed to participate in his worldwide 'crusades'!). Hanegraff 'inherited' Martin's ministry and is thus tainted with the same illogical, un-Biblical bias (he has also shown severe un-Biblical foolishness in going to court against his brothers in Christ using the ministries' money!). One simple thing that fools many who begin to look at Rome: they 'believe in the Trinity' - so they must be alright. What is the truth? They claim to believe in the Triunity of God but they have added Mary in all but name and get hundreds of thousands of requests from their members every year asking that she be recognized as the goddess that she clearly is (look at Mary as 'Mediatrix with little baby Jesus on her knee)! Go to Jesus through Mary is their utterly un-Scriptural creed. Even if their Catechism was for real they have too many clearly heretical and vile doctrines (which led to their rampant anti-Semitism and attacks on Bible-believing Christians for centuries) to ever be accepted by genuine Christians. Hunt exposes all of this and, consequently, is attacked by the many who have also been deceived.
We hope this helps and are thrilled to hear your own background which is very uplifting to hear (most of our mail is of the 'how dare you attack my beliefs' variety!).
God's best to you in Christ Jesus
No response from 'luvinlife4'!