So...Before you were Catholic you were?

A friend of mine asked me this question in an email...

Nathan, I know you are busy, but I am curious. I left the Catholic Church, you willingly joined it. [I noticed] your profile speaks to 2006 and birth control, right? OK, you set out to prove them wrong on that and wound up heavily INTO Catholicism. Can I ask you where you were BEFORE? were you raised Catholic? something else? what did you believe in 2005? I am extremely curious about BEFORE.

My mother was born and raised Catholic and I was born and raised Catholic too. However, my mother was one of the ubber traditionalists who were very against Vatican II. I want to be clear I'm very grateful for my mother and she instilled in me from a very young age about the importance of God. However, my mom did not allow me to attend faith formation at church and I illicity received the Sacrament of Reconciliation and the Sacrament of the Eucharist. I remember being very young and asking questions about faith and mom would always answer, "because the church says so." That answer always left me very unsatisfied but your a kid and you believe your parents. Then when I'd ask something like why I couldn't go to CCD with the other kids she'd say, "because Satan has infiltrated the church." So we believe all these things because the church says so, but we don't believe anything the church says because Satan took over the church? Can you see how confused I was?

Mom taught me other things like all non-Catholics who get married outside the Catholic Church go to hell. The church doesn't teach that.

So in short, I was raised Catholic but was never taught what the church actually taught. I was taught what other people thought the Catholic Church teaches. Big difference.

When I became an adult I really didn't know much about my faith. I was 19 years old and I remember struggling why people believed their sins were forgiven because a person died on a cross. A lot of people died. Why did Christ dieing matter and other people who died didn't.

Bottom line: a lot of confusion.

So I rightfully rejected the Catholic Church that I grew up in. I basically thought Christianity was somewhat a huge hoax because every Christian said they were right and everyone else was wrong. Yet every Christian said this. So I thought at the time, no one must really have the truth in Christianity.

But I knew there was a God and I knew that he was not the author of confusion. At one time I rejected Scripture all together because I thought that it was too easily able to be influenced by Satan. Wow! It's amazing how different my thinking used to be.

So my wife and I got married in Las Vegas and I was really scared about what my mom told me about getting married in outside the Catholic Church and going to hell. So my wife and I had our marriage convalidated in the church mostly out of my own fear of hell and what my mother told me as a young boy. Of course, the idiocy here is that I never attempted to use that fear to learn whether or not what I was taught was true!

My brother, Brian, became a part of a group called The Way International and he was very adamant about his own faith. His witness led me to reject much of what the Catholic Church teaches about the Pope, etc, and his witness also led me back to believe that the Scriptures (the 66 books of the non-Catholic bible, not the 73 books of the Catholic bible, but that wouldn't happen until years later) really were inspired of God.

So to make a long story short, before I was Catholic I'd say I was sort of the leader of my own church. Whatever I thought was true was what I believed.

Two things really hit me around this time which caused me to seriously consider what was truth.

1) I worked in a job where I had to learn a lot about Islam. I was very intrigued by Islam and wondered to myself, how do I know that Islam is not true? How do I know that God doesn't want everyone to be a Muslim?

2) My wife gave birth to our first daughter in 2005. I had this thought (no actual visions or voices or bells and whistles, just me in my own thoughts) of me standing before God after I die and Him saying to me, why didn't you teach your daughter about me. And all I could respond with was, "because I was playing the Playstation." (I played a lot of Madden back in the day) Well it was one thing to screw up my whole life and suffer in hell for eternity, now I had this precious little girl who was going to look to me to help her know what was truth and what was error. I didn't want to be responsible for leading her right into hell. This was my child! I wanted far better for her than I wanted for myself.

So around this time, my wife and I accepted Christianity after I rejected Islam, but we were still pretty nominal. I would skip church to watch football, etc. And we certainly didn't pray every day or even once in while.

Well, not knowing where else to go, my wife entered RCIA at the local Catholic Church. Two things kept me somewhat close to Catholicism:

1) History. I knew that if there was a church founded by Christ it would claim to have been founded by Christ. A church with a name like Church of America, probably wasn't the church founded by Christ.

2) The Eucharist. I have always thought that the Eucharist was true. Not sure why, even the idea of what looks like bread is actually God and why people would ever believe that has always captivated me.

But in this RCIA class the teacher said that Mary, Jesus' mother, was born without the stain of original sin AND committed no personal sin in her entire life. Now I was very unfamiliar with the Scriptures at this time, but even I knew that Scripture said, all have sinned. When I challenged the RCIA teacher she basically said this wasn't the place to get into such issues.

I thought to myself, not the place? We are in classes to learn what the Catholic Church teaches and this is not the right place to discuss a teaching of the church?! I was so angry. In my mind, here was another example of ignorant Catholics making stuff up which was blatantly contrary to the Scriptures and hiding behind this idea of, "the church says so," for their seemingly faulty reasoning.

I stewed for almost two months on this. I couldn't let it go I got so angry every time I thought about it. Finally I said to myself, how can anyone be so stupid as to believe something like that? So I sat down and starting doing some research on it. What I learned blew me away.

Not only did I learn that the Catholic Church had an answer, it was a strong, biblical answer. So I reached out to my non-Catholic friends asking them for sources on why this doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception was not true. The answers they gave me were weak and didn't really address the question. And when I gave them what I learned about what the Church taught their rebuttals were even weaker. I was shocked. I became thoroughly convinced, from the Scriptures themselves, that Mary was truly conceived without the stain of original sin and never committed any sin in her personal life. This led me to draw two major questions:

1) If the Catholic Church had such a strong biblical reason for their beliefs, how come this RCIA teacher wouldn't share it with us. (I'm sure she had no idea where this was found in Scripture)

2) How come I had been Catholic 'my whole life' and I never heard this before?

I remember thinking, I'll be darned, the Catholic Church actually got something right for a change. I mean even a broken clock is right twice a day, right? It was as if the Catholic Church had just gotten lucky or something.

Now we were still a long way from full communion with the church at Rome at this point, but this was the first time I accepted a real Catholic teaching.

And this has led me to believe that most people, especially many Catholics, really have no idea what the Catholic Church actually teaches. If they did they wouldn't reject it.

I rightfully rejected what I thought the Catholic Church was. Now I fully accept what the Catholic Church actually is, the authority on earth which preaches Christ and Him crucified to me and to all people in all times and in all places and makes the salvation of the whole world possible through the Sacraments which Christ Himself established through the shedding of His precious blood.

I am Catholic because of Jesus Christ alone. I believe the Scriptures teach that this is what Christ established and this is what He wants of His children.

Penitential Days and Feast Days and Solemnities...When Can I Eat Meat?

There is a lot of confusion among active, practicing Catholics as to whether or not they can eat meat on Fridays in Lent during Feast Days and Solemnities. I've even heard that some Catholics in Lent continue Lenten observances on Sundays. So what does the church ask of the faithful in these matters? Let's find out.

First we need to establish what we are talking about here. In the church calendar there are different 'days' which are celebrated and observed. Much like the secular calendar has days of celebration such as Independence Day, there are also days of remembrance and mourning such as Memorial Day.

In the Church calendar there are Penitential Days, , Feast Days, and Solemnities. Solemnities are the highest days of the church year. These days are our "greatest celebrations." Common sense tells us, as the church is loaded with common sense, that we can't both be penitential and have our greatest celebrations (solemnities) at the same time.

The Code of Canon Law, the written legal system which governs faithful, provides the direction that Catholics need regarding these issues.

Canon 1250 provides for us what days are considered Penitential:

The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.

All Solemnities are Feast days, but not all Feast days are Solemnities. The Days which are Solemnities are provided in Canon 1246.1:

Sunday, on which by apostolic tradition the paschal mystery is celebrated, must be observed in the universal Church as the primordial holy day of obligation. The following days must also be observed: the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Epiphany, the Ascension, the Body and Blood of Christ, Holy Mary the Mother of God, her Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, Saint Joseph, Saint Peter and Saint Paul the Apostles, and All Saints.

Therefore, when a Solemnity lands on the same day as a Penitential day, there the requirements of a regular Penitential day are removed. And in case there was any confusion Canon 1251 takes the cake:

Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

This is precisely why the regular Lenten observations, as Penitential Days, are removed on Sundays, since every Sunday is a Solemnity!

So rejoice always in the Lord! Especially on those Solemnities on Fridays in Lent and every Sunday!

Another Example of Fallible, Infallible People

In Colorado a Catholic school denied enrollment to a child who is being raised by two lesbian parents. Not surprisingly this story made it on TV show "The View" where Joy Behar and Elizabeth Hasselbeck both proclaimed that Jesus would not have approved of the school's decision.

Neither Joy nor Elizabeth would claim to be infallible in faith and morals, but they sure act like they are. Yet another example where Hollywood celebrities worship tolerance and promote non-judgmental attitudes, unless of course, you happen to disagree with them.

Thankfully for Christians and for Jesus Christ, His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church does. Repeatedly.

Response to "It's Time Roman Catholics Asked Some Serious Questions - 11) Once for All

http://www.biblebc.com/Roman%20Catholicism/Serious_Questions.htm

11) WHY does the Roman Catholic church teach that Jesus Christ is continually sacrificed today, when the scripture says the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary only once for all eternity?

(In the text I wrote to this person I took a lot of information from this article. I will just share the article itself here.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9006chap.asp

Response to "It's Time Roman Catholics Asked Some Serious Questions - 10) Obey Jesus

http://www.biblebc.com/Roman%20Catholicism/Serious_Questions.htm

10) Why go to a church that claims to be following Jesus, but is not interested in obeying His WORDS?

I agree...

Mt 16:13-19 "You are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my church." (Jesus when He instituted the Papacy on Peter quotes directly from Isaiah 22:15-25...Read it!)

Jn 20:23 "Whose sins you retain are retained."

Lk 10:16 "He who hears you hears me. He who rejects you rejects me."

Jn 6:53 "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in you"

Jn 3:5 "Unless you are born of water and the Spirit you cannot enter the Kingdom of God."

Response to "It's Time Roman Catholics Asked Some Serious Questions - 9) Call No Man Father

http://www.biblebc.com/Roman%20Catholicism/Serious_Questions.htm

9) WHY does the Roman Catholic Church require people to call a religious man “Father” when Jesus commanded us to call NO RELIGIOUS MAN “FATHER!”

Note again how the author says something in the text says that the text doesn't actually say. The text says, call no man father, but the author would have us believe that the text says call no RELIGIOUS man father. That's not what the text says does it?

What the author is trying to do is avoid the problem of calling earthly men who were responsible for our conception father. His sleight of hand is not so easily accepted by the careful reader.

But again the author has a serious problem for if this is really a commandment of Jesus, then Jesus must have been a sinner or confused by his own teaching because:

Mt 3:9 - Jesus calls Abraham "father"

Also...

Acts 7:2 - Stephen the first martyr calls the Jewish leaders fathers. Apparently the author would have us believe that Stephen's last act before he gave his own life in witness for Christ was to disobey Christ by calling these men fathers?
Rom 4:26-27 - Paul calls Abraham the father of us all
1 Cor 4:14-15 - Paul refers to himself that he became their father through the Gospel
1 Jn 2:13, 14 - John writes...I write to you , fathers, because you know him

A few more examples, not necessarily as explicit:
1 Tim 1:2
Tit 1:4
Heb 12:7-9
Lk 14:26
1 Thes 2:11
Philem 10

Response to "It's Time Roman Catholics Asked Some Serious Questions - 8) Celibate Priesthood

http://www.biblebc.com/Roman%20Catholicism/Serious_Questions.htm

8) WHY does the Roman Catholic Church require its ministers to be unmarried, and called “priests” when the Bible says they are to be married, and simply calls them pastors, teachers, and bishops?

This is a question worth asking according to the author. Interesting because the Catholic Church teaches that the celibacy requirement of those who receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which includes Deacons, Priests, and Bishops, is not a teaching of God. It is a tradition of men, but this tradition of men does not nullify the Word of God, but rather upholds it.

Mt 19:12 - Jesus celebrates celibacy and was Himself celibate... See More
Jer 16:1-4 - Jeremiah told not to take a wife and children
1 Cor 7:8 - Paul was celibate
1 Cor 7:32-35 Paul recommends celibacy to devote oneself entirely to God
1 Tim 5:9-12 pledge of celibacy taken by older widows

But let's get to the heart of the author's question.

Let's say I want to be a bishop. So I go to Paul and he says, sorry dude, you have to be the husband of one wife. So even though I want to follow the Lord completely, I have to be married first. So even though I don't want to get married I choose to do so because I want to be a bishop and serve God.

So I find a wife and I go back to Paul and say, "I got married I want to be a bishop now." And Paul says, "sorry you don't have any children (this emphasis was made by the author on the website)." So I go back to my wife and try to have children but I find out that she is not able to have children.

So I go back to Paul and tell him, we can't have kids, and Paul says, "sorry, even though I think you'd make a great bishop unless you are married and have kids, you can't become a bishop." Really? Is that what the author would have us believe.

So now all I wanted to do was serve the God as a bishop and I was forced to marry a woman I didn't want to even marry and I still can't become a bishop because she is not able to have children. But I had no way of knowing that she couldn't have children before we were married and I can't get divorced and marry someone else because Jesus teaches against that too.

Do you see how ludicrous this thinking actually is when you reason it out to it's logical conclusions.

What Paul is saying to Timothy is that if you are going to be a bishop you cannot be married to more than one wife. Why? Because that goes against Christian teaching. And if you do have children and want to be a bishop, it must be demonstrated that your children are well behaved and not reckless and disobedient. For how can a man attempt to bring order and discipline to an entire church if he can't even do so with his children at home?

However, in 23 of the 24 Rites of the Catholic Church, priests can be married. And even in the Roman or Latin Rite of the Church, there are a few exceptions of married priests, most of which are converts who came from the Anglican Church.

Catholics are free to disagree with this church discipline. This custom is not apart of the Deposit of Faith (Faith and Morals) and therefore, unlike the male only Priesthood, the Church can dispense with this custom whenever she chooses.

On a total side note if you read just about 10 verses later in 1 Tim 3:15 it states that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The bible never says that the bible is the pillar and foundation of the truth but it does say that the church is.

Response to "It's Time Roman Catholics Asked Some Serious Questions - 7) Sola Fide

http://www.biblebc.com/Roman%20Catholicism/Serious_Questions.htm

7) WHY does the Roman Catholic church say salvation comes through good works, when the Bible says salvation is a free gift from God, by faith alone, apart from good works?

The Catholic Church does not teach that salvation comes through good works. Again, the Catholic faith is mischaracterized. Whether this is intentional or not is not something that we can readily discern, but it does seem to be a prevailing theme through most of these websites.

Notice the sleight of hand on the part of the author. The author says that the Bible says salvation is a free gift of God by faith alone, but then gives a Scripture passage (Eph 2:8-9) which says, "for by grace you have been saved through faith." Note that the Scripture passage doesn't actually say faith alone. The author is attempting to convince you that the bible is saying something it doesn't actually say.

Many would suggest that Eph 2:8-9 is greatly misunderstood. When the author is claiming that we have been saved by grace through faith (exactly what the Catholic Church teaches) and this faith is not of works, what the Scripture is telling us is that faith does not come from works. When the scripture here speaks of "it is not of works" it is not speaking about salvation but rather of faith.

If I were to say that I have a ball and a car which is blue; what is blue? Is it the ball or the car. It is the car since the descriptor (blue) is nearest the word car. Now it is true that the ball may be blue too, but the text doesn't tell us.

So what does this Scripture teach? Not only is Salvation a free gift of God, but the faith that is necessary for salvation is also a free gift of God. We can't "do works" to get this faith which is necessary for salvation. If it was, then we wouldn't need Christ to be saved.

If I could "do stuff" and that would give me the faith necessary for salvation, then I wouldn't need Christ in order to be saved. After all, all I would need is to do the stuff apart from God which grants me the faith I need to be saved.

This is very important for Christians as we should remain humble for even those who have great faith cannot boast of their works which gave them that faith for that very great faith that they have is itself a free gift of God.

Imagine a world with a bunch of Christians preaching, "You don't need Jesus to be saved, just do these things and you'll get a saving faith!"

Scripture never teaches that we are saved or justified by faith alone, but Scripture does teach in James 2:24 that we are justified by works and not by faith alone. Why do non-Catholics not believe the bible when it clearly teaches that we are not saved by faith alone?

And if faith alone is all that is necessary for salvation, and salvation is the greatest gift we could ever possibly receive than why does Paul teach that Love is greater than faith?

Response to "It's Time Roman Catholics Asked Some Serious Questions - 6) Once Saved Always Saved?

http://www.biblebc.com/Roman%20Catholicism/Serious_Questions.htm

6) WHY does the Roman Catholic church teach that no one can be certain of salvation, when the Bible teaches that salvation is assured in Jesus Christ?

The bible teaches that we absolute assurance of our salvation?

Mt 7:21 - Not everyone who says Lord, Lord will be inherit... See More
Rom 11:22 - remain in his kindness or you will cut off
1 Cor 9:27 - drive body for fear of being disqualified
1 Cor 10:11-12 - those think they are secure, may fall
Gal 5:4 - Separated from Christ, you've fallen from grace

Note the last verse, it speaks to those who are separated from Christ. This refers to those people who were previously in Christ, now they are separated from Christ. We separate wheat from the chaffe because at one time they were connected. We separate milk from cream because at one time they were connected.

We should make a distinction here. God will always remain faithful to His promises for He cannot deny Himself. However, we can lose our salvation if we do not remain faithful to Him. So we do have absolute assurance that God will remain faithful, but we do not have absolute assurance that we will remain faithful.

If we willingly separate ourselves from Christ and His Body, then we endanger losing our salvation.

Response to "It's Time Roman Catholics Asked Some Serious Questions - 5) Two Mediators?

http://www.biblebc.com/Roman%20Catholicism/Serious_Questions.htm

5) WHY does the Roman Catholic church teach that Mary mediates between men and God when the Bible teaches that Jesus alone is the mediator between God and men?

The Catholic Church does teach that Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and men. However, Catholics believe that they can ask other Christians to pray for them. So one Catholic on earth may ask another Catholic on earth to pray for them and they do not believe that Christ is angered or jealous that they are asking other people to pray for them instead of going to Him alone with their prayer.

But as the Church is the Body of Christ, and the Body of Christ consists of all Christians both on earth and in Heaven, Catholics believe that they can also ask the Christians in Heaven to pray for them as well.

It is precisely because of Christ being the one mediator that we can ask other Christians in Heaven and on earth to pray for us. And they will. Even Mary.

Response to "It's Time Roman Catholics Asked Some Serious Questions - 4) Traditions of Men

http://www.biblebc.com/Roman%20Catholicism/Serious_Questions.htm

4) WHY does the Bible condemn the traditions of men, when the Roman Catholic church places them on an equal footing with the Word of God?

Mk 7:9 does not condemn all tradition, just that tradition which nullifies the Word of God. The particular tradition being condemned here is the Korban Rule. This rule suggested that people could deposit their money to the temple and therefore, they would be relieved of their responsibilities to take care of their older parents because "they had no money with which to support them."

This nullifies the Word of God in that the fourth commandment is to honor your father and mother. ... See More

Tradition itself, is never condemned by the bible and is held up as something to be longed for and defended.

1 Cor 11:2 - Hold fast to the traditions I handed on to you
2 Thes 2:15 - hold fast to traditions, whether by word of mouth or by epistle
2 Thes 3:6 - Shun those not according to tradition

Now there is time for clarification.

There are traditions (small 't') of men which do not come from God, such as organs or Gregorian chant during worship. These are not considered on equal footing to the Bible.

There are however, oral teachings of Jesus and the Holy Spirit which are entrusted to the church. And these teachings, having their origin from God, have the same reverence and authority as the Sacred Scriptures. This is called Sacred Tradition (capital 'T') One example of these teachings is the Canon of Sacred Scripture itself. The Sacred Texts do not tell us what books do and what books do not belong in the Bible and therefore, we need an extra-biblical authority to tell us what Scripture is. Fortunately God gave His church that authority and gave that same church the Sacred Tradition in order to do so.

Response to "It's Time Roman Catholics Asked Some Serious Questions - 3) Repetitious Prayer

http://www.biblebc.com/Roman%20Catholicism/Serious_Questions.htm

3) WHY does the Bible condemn repetitious prayers, when the Roman Catholic church encourages them?

The bible condemns repetitious prayer? Really?

1 - The Our Father, is it acceptable for Christians to pray this prayer more than once?... See More

2 - Jesus himself used repetitious prayer in Mt 26:44, "Jesus prayed a third time, saying the same thing again."

3 - The collector in Lk 18:13 kept beating his breast and praying: be merciful

4 - Rev 4:8, they repeat day and night, "Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord."

5 - Psalm 136, each line ends with, "God's love endures forever."

If repetitious prayer is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

However, the author does make a good point. Prayer is about practicing the presence of God. Sometimes repetitious prayer is the best way to do this. Sometimes spontaneous prayer is the best way to do this.

Response to "It's Time Roman Catholics Asked Some Serious Questions - 2) Why is my church so opposed to the Bible?

http://www.biblebc.com/Roman%20Catholicism/Serious_Questions.htm

2) Why is my church so opposed to the Bible?

The Catholic Church is not opposed to the Bible. The Bible was written by Catholics. There is nothing in the Bible which is opposed to anything in the Catholic faith and there is nothing in the Catholic faith which is opposed to anything in the Bible.

Response to "It's Time Roman Catholics Asked Some Serious Questions - The Missing Commandment

I was shown this website by a friend of mine and as I responded to the questions as follows.

WHY has the Roman Catholic church removed the second commandment, which deals with idolatry, from the Ten Commandments in its catechisms?

The Catholic Church has used the version of the 10 Commandments found in Deut 5 as opposed to Exodus 20. It would be wise for us to remember that the Catholic Church was reading and studying the Scriptures long before there were chapters and verses inserted into the text for the simplicity of reference.

What should be noted is at the time of the reformation Luther used the "Catholic" 10 commandments version. It wasn't until Calvin that the practice of listed the commandments differently was used to attack the Catholic practice of having statues to remind them of Holy things.

The question which should be posed by the author is not whether or not there is a missing commandment, but whether or not the Catholic Church actually teaches that it is acceptable to make idols for ourselves or to worship anything other than God alone.

In this regard, the church does not teach either of those two things. Nor does God, for if it is unacceptable to make statues or any graven images, then why does God have written in His Holy Scripture:

Ex 25:18-19 - God commands to make two cherubim of beaten gold.
Num 21:8-9 - Moses makes a bronze serpent and put on pole
1 Kgs 6:23-29 - temple had engraved cherubim, trees, and flowers
1 Kgs 7:25-45 - temple had bronze oxen, lions, pomegranates.

Catholics who have statues or other Holy reminders do not worship those Holy reminders themselves. They are only used to help Catholics keep their minds and hearts on God alone.

When I was in the Army and was stationed overseas, I had pictures of my family. I didn't believe that the pictures were substitutes for my family, but they helped me to focus my mind on those at home whom I missed and loved. A statue of Mary or Jesus isn't worshiped in place of God, but is used in prayer to help us to focus ourselves on God and of Heaven. Now many people who do disagree with this practice of kneeling before statues or images of Heavenly things also kneel beside their beds before they say morning or evening prayer. Does this mean that they are worshiping their bed? Surely not, and nor do Catholic when they use statues or icons to assist in their prayer.

Google Why Catholicism is Wrong

Here is a message I received from someone on Facebook who has blocked me:

Google.com/search for "why catholicism is wrong." Since you aren't cracking open the KJV and researching for yourself, maybe former devout catholic testimonies may soften your heart.

So I did...and answered the following questions...

Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon", does this not prove that Rome had no direct input or initiative in determining the canon.

Rome doesn't need direct input in everything. It only needs to confirm the brethren that a particular teaching is or is not true. In this case, Rome confirmed the brethren that this doctrine was true.

Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.

The Canon of Scripture. The bible is Silent about it, and we got it from oral Apostolic Tradition.

If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which "apostolic tradition" is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?

If Barack Obama, myself, and Jay Leno, all claim to be President of the United States, does this prove that there is no President of the United States? There is a President of the United States and it doesn't matter how many people claim to be the President, Barack Obama is still the president.

And Catholics are permitted to engage in private interpretation all the time. What we are not permitted to do is interpret the bible in such a manner that it contradicts the teaching of Jesus Christ.

Why are we not "allowed" to do this? Because when we interpret the bible in such a manner that it goes against the teaching of Jesus Christ, then what we believe is not Jesus Christ (Truth), but rather error.

The Church is like railroad tracks and our lives are the train. As long as our biblical interpretations are within the railroad tracks, then we are free to ride the train of our lives toward our eternal destination; salvation. But as a train cannot move forward if it is not within the railroad tracks, so to we cannot move toward our goal of true knowledge of the true God, if we go outside the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Some say that the "railroad tracks" restrict the freedom of the "train." This is not so. For as the train cannot move forward unless it has the tracks to guide it's movement, so to we cannot know that we remain in truth unless we remain on the tracks. And within the tracks we have total freedom.

Freedom does not mean being able to do whatever you want. That is license. The train, without the tracks, loses all freedom since it cannot even move unless it is already on the tracks. All it can do is wait in perpetual stasis waiting for the rains and winds of time to eventually cause it to cease to exist. The train is no more free without the railroad tracks to guide it then we are without the church to guide us. As Phillip and the Ethiopian Eunuch say in Acts 8:27 "Do you understand what you are reading?" "How can I unless someone guides me?"

Not This Again

The next site I stumbled on was a fantastic diddy about how a non-Catholic is being treated like a second class citizen by his or her Catholic friends because they are "attempting to read the bible for themselves."

Are you serious? As a wonderful Pastor brother in Christ of mine loves to say, "Really? Really?"

And of course, this new found reading of the bible demonstrates that Catholics have taken out parts of the bible which God says that we should not make any graven images or statues (Ex 20:4-5).

God must have been confused when He gave this commandment since it also says in His Word,

Ex 25:18-19 Make two cherubim of beaten gold

Num 21:8-9 Moses makes a bronze serpent and puts it on a pole

1Kings 6:23-29 the temple had engraved cherubim, trees, and flowers

1Kings 7:25-45 the temple had bronze oxen, lions, and pomegranates.

Looks like more people ignorant of Catholic Teaching.

He Left the Catholic Church (And Obviously Knows Very Little About What the Catholic Church Actually Teaches)

The last site I checked out was written by a non-Catholic who left the Church and became a Pastor. I'll give this guy some credit at least he was willing to quote Scripture and attempted to use Catholic Church resources to demonstrate the Catholic position and why he believes it teaches error. Unlike the first two sources, this person seems to me to be a genuine seeker of truth. (Note if I had said that this person was a genuine seeker of Jesus Christ, thus implying that the first two persons were not, people would say, "how dare you say that these other persons don't seek Jesus Christ," but if you say that they aren't genuine seekers of truth people don't get nearly as upset. Yet Jesus Christ and the truth are the same thing!)

He provides reasons why he left the church...

The First Reason I Left Is Because The Catholics Do Not Have The Right Attitude Toward The Truth.

We shouldn't belong to any church based on the holiness and sinlessness of it's individual members. Even if every Catholic on the planet was a horrific unrepentant sinner, that wouldn't make the teachings of the Catholic Church untrue.

Much in the same way that the sinfulness of any person doesn't make what they believe true or untrue. All people don't live up to the teachings or guides of their own religions, faith traditions, or philosophies. Why? Because as humans we are all insane. Christians refer to it as sin and we know sin is not good for us, yet we do it anyway. There is no explanation save for our own insanity.

But the author here implies that Catholics somehow run and hide when their erroneous teachings are exposed to the light of truth! Let's face it, it is the Catholic Church who is open to having ecumenical dialogue among all faiths and faith traditions.

I have had conversations with folks where I've simply asked questions and been told that, "we don't talk about Jesus," or "it's all the same God anyway," or "I'm not debating with you that's what I believe."

However, the author makes a great point. There are plenty of ignorant Catholics in the world, after all, this guy was one! I'll say it again, there is nothing more dangerous on planet earth than an ignorant Catholic. As Catholics we need to do more to change this. Hopefully we are.

The Next Reason I Left Is Because The Bible Only Is The All Sufficient Guide To Salvation, But The Catholic Church Teaches That It Is Not.

Nowhere in the bible does it say that the bible is the "All Sufficient Guide" to salvation, therefore, to believe that it is, is to add something to the bible. In other words, those Christians who claim to believe in the Bible Alone as the sole authority for Christians need to accept a source outside of Scripture for this belief, since this belief is not found in Scripture! It's the irony of ironies. Catholics are accused of believing things that are not in the bible, but the fundamental belief of most non-Catholics, that the bible is the sole rule of faith for Christians, is not in the bible either!

The author claims it is in the bible and that 2 Tim 3:15-17 demonstrates this understanding. This idea misses the mark for no fewer than three reasons.

1. Paul references the Scriptures that Timothy has known since infancy. What would those Scriptures be? The Old Testament! If anything, this verse suggests that the Old Testament Scriptures are the sole rule of faith for Christians. No Christian would accept that.
   
2. No where in this passage does it say that Scripture alone is all that is required. Instead it says that...
3. All Scripture is profitable. Certainly every Catholic believes that Scripture is profitable. But something being profitable is not the same thing as sufficient. Water may be profitable for my survival as a human, but it isn't sufficient. If I don't eat, I'm still going die no matter how profitable for me the water is.

And why isn't the Bible sufficient? Because the New Testament wasn't even written for years and years after Christs death. The first book of the New Testament that was written was 1 Thessalonians and it wasn't written until at least AD 47! That means that there was well over a decade where there were New Testament Christians, but there was not a written New Testament.

We can have the church without the bible, but we can't have the bible without the church.

The Third Reason I Left Is Because Christ Did Not Make His Church Infallible As The Catholic Church Teaches.

Can you separate Christ's head from His body? The author would have us believe that we can decapitate Christ. We have Christ's head (authority), but His head is separate from His body (church). It is through the body of Christ on the cross that we even have salvation.

The author claims that the authority of Israel was a King, which is true, but again, he fails to connect the authority of the King's Prime Minister when the King is not in Jerusalem. Is 22:15-25. Christ is the King, but in His absence, while we await His second coming, we have a Prime Minister.

Which is to say nothing about the apostles speaking for Christ (Lk 10:16), authorized to retain sins (Jn 20:23), to arbitrate (Mt 18:15-17), and that Peter can bind on earth and have it be bound in Heaven (Mt 16:13-19), or that the church and not the bible is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15).

The author argues that Christ has all the authority to which the Catholic Church responds with a resounding....duh! The question is not an either or does Christ or the Church have authority, but rather, does Christ share his authority with the church?

When I leave my children with a babysitter, the babysitter has the same authority over my children as I have, because I share all of my authority with the babysitter. If upon my return, I find that my children have disobeyed the babysitter, I don't say, "oh well, they didn't disobey me, they only disobeyed the babysitter, who cares!" Absolutely not. Since I gave my authority to the babysitter, being disobedient to the babysitter is exactly the same as being disobedient to me. My kids don't say to the babysitter, "Dad has all the authority, you have none so screw off!" My kids say, "we better listen to the babysitter or else Dad isn't going to be very happy with us."

So it is with Christ and the church. The church doesn't speak instead of Christ, the church speaks for Christ. Just like He established it to do.

As for this guy...another person who was ignorant of Catholic Teaching who left the Catholic Church. Does anyone else see any similarities here?

A Letter To A Friend Who Disagrees With Me About Christ

[Enter Friend's Name],

Like you, I want the deepest most intimate relationship with Jesus Christ possible. If He is truth, than that relationship, if it is going to be the deepest possible, must be completely based on that which is true.

Remember when we first met (on Facebook...lol), my questions centered entirely around one concept. We disagree about who Christ is, so how do we know which one of us believes error about him? How do I know it is not me, and how do you know it is not you? This is how I engaged you, as a question of how do we know that what we believe about Jesus is true. This is the fundamental question that I have never even seen you attempt to answer. That gives me great concern for you. I'm not in the business of determining who goes to Heaven and who does not, but I am in the business of attempting to help people deepen their relationship with Christ. By not being willing to even address those questions, I'm concerned that you are not able to enter the deepest most intimate relationship with Christ possible.

It was you, who, I sincerely believe out of love for my soul of which I'm very grateful, challenged me on my Catholic faith with your interpretations of such verses as 1 Tim chapter 4. You told me that this verse sounded a lot like Paul was talking about Catholics who had departed from the faith. I took your questions and comments very seriously, I read those verses and did a lot of research on them and responded to you with the intent to help bridge understanding between us. I hope you were just as diligent when I shared with you things like Mt 16:13-19 and Is 22:15-25. I can't know this because you never shared it with me.

Now in this conversation I've been told that I worship Mary and not God which I don't. I've been told that I've never heard God speak, but you and [another person] have. (How could anyone ever know that?) I've been told that I don't say prayers to God from the heart, but only repeat memorized things as if it is impossible for me to have a relationship with God because I'm Catholic. I've been told I'm more interested in pleasing men than I am about pleasing God. (As if Catholics have to make a choice of either being Catholic or loving Christ.) I don't intend to sound like I am a victim here, but I won't lie, it got a bit old, I know intent can get very tricky in texts, but the two of you sounded very arrogant time and time again.

That's when I decided to take a different approach in our conversation. If that drove you to anger or I hurt you I apologize. My approach became to be more direct and no longer take the "how do we know" approach.

And I believe you when you say that you feel like I'm attempting to torture you, not because it is true, but because that is your perception. I never intended to give you that impression. I apologize and I am asking for your forgiveness. But I did want to challenge you in order that you may question things that, contrary to what you say, simply aren't in the bible as you claim it they are, namely, what books belong in the bible, and where in the bible it says that the bible is the sole authority for Christians. Your beliefs in this regard, simply aren't in the bible like you claim them to be. If they are, give me the verse and I'll completely recant my Catholic faith because if it was in the bible, then the Catholic faith would be a lie. But the Catholic Faith is not a lie and the bible doesn't include those two things.

You and I believe that Jesus Christ is Truth and so everything that is true comes from Him who is Truth. If the Bible says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth as it does in 1 Tim 3:15, then the bible, no matter how much we want it to be, is NOT the sole authority for Christians.

Christians all have the 27 books of the New Testament, but some say that homosexuality is not a sin, and some say abortion is a matter of personal choice, and some say that if you are failing financially it's because you don't have enough faith in God, and some say that if you don't more than 10% of your salary to their ministry then God won't even listen to your prayers. Many Christians have had the bible as their sole authority for over 400 years and it has led to as many interpretations as there are readers. The problem with modern day Christianity is not that there is a Pope, but rather, that there are thousands, if not millions of Popes.

And I want all of them to know Jesus Christ, meaning I want them to know truth. Why? Just as I had to get to know my wife when we were dating to have a deep intimate relationship with her, we can only have such a deep relationship with Christ if we know Him.

So it is with any relationship, but especially so with Christ. The more we know Him, the more we love Him. But when we believe things about him which are not true, then it creates a natural chasm whose natural consequence for us is to not love Him as deeply as we could had we not believed those things about Him which are untrue.

There is not one page in all of Scripture that says that God doesn't want us to know truth. He wants us to know Himself who is truth itself! Why? Because He wants us to have a relationship with Him. But that relationship cannot enter into its deepest level of intimacy if even some of what we believe about him is a lie.

And [enter friend's name], we are brothers in the same family of Christ. If we won't help challenge each other to have a deeper relationship with our Lord, who will?

All My Love and My Continued Prayers,

Nathan