The Communion of the Saints


JOE: The excuse that “praying to”Mary is the same as asking her to pray for us is weak and false. No where in the whole Bible has anyone Ever, Ever prayed to people passed on. In fact it is prohibited to speak to spirit as per leviticus. Besides this, Jesus is the intercessor. Jesus is God so the excuse of askin someone “closer” to God than us is blown right out of the water! You are not God and therefore cannot say for a fact who is in heaven so praying to anyone but the Father, son or holy spirit is IDOLATRY! Jesus tells you plainly to repent or else he will remove your candlestick. Worshipping the Queen of Heaven is ancient babylonian paganism and addressed in Jeremiah. May all you catholics repent of this wickedness, please!!!

BFHU: Dear Joe, I find it amusing that you think that:

 “praying to Mary is the same as asking her to pray for us is weak and false.

But, it happens to be the truth. You, of course, are free to reject the truth about our Catholic Faith but you should be honest that you just reject it and not that it is weak and false. How can it be “weak” if it is true and how do you prove it is false? You also say,

No where in the whole Bible has anyone Ever, Ever prayed to people passed on.

OK, but why does this matter? The Trinity is not defined or mentioned anywhere in the Bible either. Neither is the Incarnation of Jesus, therefore Jehovah’s Witnesses see themselves as perfectly Biblical. But, of even more significance is the fact that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not found anywhere in the Bible either. It is a new doctrine, invented by Martin Luther a mere 500 years ago.

You are correct that contacting the dead for OCCULT reasons, seeking hidden knowledge, is forbidden as DIVINIATION. But asking for intercessory prayer is not forbidden anywhere in the Bible. Neither is it forbidden to ask our brothers and sisters to pray for us who are alive in Heaven or on Earth. And asking for prayer does not equal divination. Protestants jump to the erroneous conclusion that “Praying to the Saints” equals divination without ever exploring what we actually mean by it. They assume it MUST be DIVINATION, and we all know what happens when we assume…..

Also, I am afraid that you are mistaken when you say that Jesus is the intercessor, if you mean, only He can intercede on our behalf because that is not found anywhere in the Bible either. Because Protestants only “pray” to God it seems to them that asking for our brothers and sisters in Heaven to intercede for us (for short pray for us), gets confused in their minds with idolatry. But asking for intercessory prayer is not idolatry anymore than it is Divination. We are exhorted to:

James 5:16 …pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.

It doesn’t say, pray for one another until death do you part. Have you ever asked anyone else to pray for you? Was that idolatry? Are prayer chains some form of idolatry?

In order for a person to be declared to be in Heaven and a Saint, a supernatural miracle must occur as a direct result of someone asking the “would be saint” to pray for them after they have died….the miracle has to occur after the would-be Saint is dead. These miracles are then, thoroughly investigated by scientists, medical doctors, theologians, etc and finally by the Pope. The Catholic Church does not want to look foolish by declaring something to be a miracle that was faked. This miracle is taken to prove God’s power through the prayers of the Saint. The Saint prays but God acts.

We do not believe the Saints are closer to God than Jesus but closer than many(most) of us still here in this life.

We do not worship the Queen of Heaven. That would be idolatry and heretical. We merely honor her as the Mother of Our LORD and the Queen Mother of Heaven.

Common Protestant Misunderstandings.

 St Peter's

Pastor Karsten:  Sorry, Catholicview, you are wrong believing there is no change Roman doctrine concerning sacraments. The Roman Church changed a lot about the sacraments and itnroduce new ones. Around the year 1000 they started to withhold the wine from believers AGAINST Christ’s explicit words: «Drink from it, all of you;” (Mt 26:27) or according to Luke: Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, «Take this and divide it among yourselves;

BFHU: This is not a change in DOCTRINE. It is a change in practice. Similar to the former practice of eating fish on Friday/ no meat, in union with the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. That was not a Doctrine either. I am not sure when the Blood of Christ tended to be reserved to the priest, but it was not to save money, as you assert below, but to prevent desecration of the Blood of Christ. And technically Jesus did not give His Body and Blood to EVERYONE  but only to the future Priests and Bishops of His One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. I do not believe that the Catholic Church ever had a doctrine  that all the faithful MUST receive BOTH the Host and the Cup. And,  that they then changed for a while, only allowing the Host to the faithful, and then changed again to allow reception under both species, by everyone.. If you think so please prove your assertion with ancient authoritative documents.

images-4 Pastor Karsten: They also introduced celibacy for priests around that time, because the priests’ wives became a strong influence “undermining” the mind-control of the hierarchy. To increase their power they just forced many good people (priests and their partners) into “out of Wedlock” relationships and they still reap the consequences because the priesthood became a magnet for pedophiles and homosexuals. Even the first pope (Peter) was married (Jesus healed his mother in law). Then the Roman church made the priesthood a elective sacrament.

BFHU: It is true that Peter was married. However, we don’t know if he was still married at the time of his apostleship and later or if his wife seems to have already died. There is historical evidence that the apostles were celibate from the beginning. Even St. Paul exhorts  that all can serve Our Lord better if unmarried. And, it is just much more practical for a busy priest to be unmarried in order to fulfill his duties. Protestant pastors have a very difficult row-to- hoe attending to the flock and his family.

But you will be happy to know that Celibacy is also not a Doctrine. It too is a discipline/practice of the the Church. And this discipline can be changed in the future and allowances made to it. Therefore, we happen to have married priests. In the Eastern Roman Rites married men can become priests. But priests cannot get married after ordination. And probably like the Eastern Orthodox Churches, who also with married priests, the married priests cannot be considered for the office of bishop. So, we have both celibate and married priests. Contrary to the common Protestant accusation no one has ever been forced to become a celibate priest or forbidden to marry. Anyone who wishes to marry certainly may. And marriage is also a sacament. But if a young man feels called to the priesthood, in general, in the Roman Rite he must be willing to give up marriage.

All priests are to be chaste/celibate. They are not to enter the priesthood and keep a sexual partner of any sex or age on the side. This happens because we are all sinners. If only priests committed these sins, you might have a point, but marriage does not cure rapists, pedophiles, adulterers, or homosexuals. If the Church attracts these, it is because the Church is known to be forgiving and merciful and loving. They are not attracted to the Church because the Church approves of these sins, but in hope of overcoming them. Unfortunately they often fail to control their passions. 

 Pastor Karsten: This could have been the end of the Christian church if it was a human institution, but Christ promised to protect it and in his good time he called reformers to bring the church back on track.

BFHU: You are certainly correct that the Church Christ established on Peter would have long since disappeared into the mists of time, if He had not protected it as he said he would, so that even the Gates of Hell would not prevail against her. To Luther and the others it looked like they were just trying to get the Church back on track. There were abuses then and there always will be some b/c men sin. Even Churchmen. However, the reformers did a great disservice to Christ. They did not reform the Church, they shattered it into 30,000+ denominations diametrically opposed to Christ’s desire that we all be one.Jn17. However, the Church founded by Jesus is the Catholic Chruch, still going strong and with doctrine and sacraments in perfect alignment with Sacred Scripture. BTW, the Catholic Church was beginning her own reformation even as Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses on the door.

 Pastor Karsten:We should praise God for his wisdom daily and thank him for Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Huss, Bucer, Calvin, Bonhoeffer, Drevermann (former Roman Catholic Priest and Professor in Paderborn, excommunicated) and the many true believers who listen to God’s Word more than to human tradition and selfelected “authorities”.

BFHU: We need to listen to God’s word in union with the Catholic Church. The problem with Sola Scriptura, born of the Protest-ant Reformation, is that everyone thinks they can infallibly interpret scripture. This breeds pride and arrogance to the point that the more strong-willed break away and start their own “churches”, further splintering Christ, in direct opposition to Christ’s desire for unity but also nullifying the scriptures that say:

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

i Peter 1: 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God

 Pastor Karsten: Indeed, the Roman church changed doctrine again and again, that is what councils where held for. There is a hole that the new pope will actually pick up on that tradition and reform some of the worst heresies within the Roman Church.

BFHU: You are very mistaken. So far you have only given us changes to practices and disciplines; which are perfectly legitimate. We have changed NO DOCTRINE since the birth of Christianity. But I understand the confusion; b/c in Protestantism there are not uniform practices. That is left totally up to each church/ individual. All Protestants have are doctrines (which are different in various denominations) so I understand why you have not discerned the differences in the Catholic Church between doctrine (Unchanging) and disciplines (changeable)

The councils, contrary to Protestant misunderstandings, were NOT held to create changes in doctrine or make up new ones or get rid of old ones. Councils were held to determine precisely and then teach, what was TRUTH and what was ERROR. Most of the early councils dealt with the nature of Jesus. There was much confusion owing to the difficulty of understanding the Trinity, pagan influences, and appearances. The councils hammered out the nature of the Trinity and that Jesus was true God and true Man in a hypostatic union. That is why the concept of the Holy Trinity is absent in Scripture. So technically, believers in Sola Scriptura should reject the Doctrine of the Trinity. It was taught and the Apostles knew what was true but over time and distance, confusion seeped in. So when councils pronounced a teaching, It was never New Teaching. It was always old teaching but clarified teaching to counteract misunderstandings.

To help you understand this I will give a modern explanation. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman ONLY. However the Catholic Church does not have a Dogma on this, promulgated by a Church Council b/c everyone knew and accepted this. There was no confusion. However, today, in the Western cultures, marriage is being redefined and confusion and rebellion are rampant even among Christians. Therefore, at some point in time the Catholic Church may have to have a council to once-and-for-all define marriage as only between a man and a woman. This will be a new dogma but NOT A NEW TEACHING. The teaching has always and everywhere been believed. But for the sake of clarity this Dogma may eventually need to be proclaimed.

Why Not Pray Straight to God?


Bongani: Why should I ask any man to talk for me to GOD when I have the Mediator my LORD JESUS CHRIST ‘?

BFHU: You are right we can just pray straight to God. But we, Catholics,  ask the Saints to pray for us b/c it works! God is so secure He has this habit of NOT doing things directly but giving His children the blessed opportunity to be His helpers and carry out His plans when He could certainly have just done it all by Himself if He was worried about some lowly man or woman getting noticed.

Who built the Ark? God could have made it much more quickly, but no…
Who led the Israelites out of Egypt? Could God have done that all by Himself?

When God sent serpents to bite the Israelites for their disobedience, at what did they look to be saved? Why didn’t He just have them look to Him?

Who had to expel the Cannanites out of the Promised Land? Couldn’t God have done that all by Himself?

When Israel was disobedient who did God use to punish them by letting them get conquered?

Who reconquered the land of Israel when Israel repented after they kept getting conquered b/c of disobedience, during Judges? Couldn’t God have done it all by Himself?

When God finally got fed up with them and punished Israel and Judah with exile, did He do that all by Himself? Or did he use warriors from another country? Why did He do it that way?

And then when they had been exiled long enough how did God get them back to the Promised Land? Did He use someone to help out with that? Why?

Then He sends His son,  God-Man to accomplish Salvation. The GREATEST GIFT TO MANKIND EVER! And then who did He leave in charge of that?

Who did He trust to bring the Gospel to the World? Couldn’t He have found some way to do all that all by Himself?

And then who did God trust to compile what we know of today as The Bible? Why didn’t Jesus write that all up? Or at least the New Testament?

Believe me, Catholics are not stupid. We pray to Saints b/c it seems to work better. I am not saying Protestant don’t get their prayers answered. They do. But, compared to my prayers as a Protestant and as a Catholic praying to the Saints….it just works. Not 100% of the time do I get what I want, of course. But why is that? Why oh why does the Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth entrust sinful men with ANYTHING? Is He crazy or what?

……or maybe the Catholics are on to something…….



We KNOW that Satan is the Father of Lies…

John 8:44

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

I have long held to the concept gleaned, I think from C.S. Lewis, that Satan IS very subtle when he tempts us. For instance, he does NOT say,

“Jane, why don’t you steal that candy bar.” or…

“John, you need a car, look here is one with the door unlocked. Just hotwire it and you will have a car.” or…

“Harry, look at that hot chick, you are special…too special to have sex with just one woman for life. She’ll never  know….”

What we “hear” in our head when we are tempted by the Devil is more like these thoughts implanted in our mind:

I don’t have the money right now but I really want a candy bar…no one is looking.”

I need a car. Here is one with the door unlocked….no one is looking.”

“She is hot! I’ve got some time and I deserve it because I am not like most men. I need more than just one woman for life. Variety is the spice of life after all. Mary will never know.”

I have bolded the “I’s” not to point out the egocentricity, although there is that too; but to point out the brilliant observation of C.S. Lewis, that Satan deceives us into thinking that “I” want, so that our guard is down. We are then convinced that the desire comes from within and not from a demon, and we are then much, much, much more open to the idea, the temptation,  whatever it is.

This is good to know. To always be on guard for the lies and temptations of the Devil, even when they seem to be my own desires.

I have recently been recording and watching crime shows on TV. Not the various TV series but the real ones based on real events like, Who the Bleep did I Marry, Mystery on ID,  Unusual Suspects, etc. Of course, they are troubling but I love to find out how the police caught the perpetrator. Solving the mystery is always interesting to me. Sometimes there is a motive that one can understand but many times it seems to be just gratuitous murder, for no reason, except the person was driven to murder….diabolical for sure. And, no matter what the motive, murder is always diabolical.

He was a murderer from the beginning…

No doubt some people get away with murder. Sometimes, they don’t catch the murderer. I hate those. But, a common scenario is a husband, who is having an affair but doesn’t want to divorce his wife and pay alimony, so he kills her. But then he gets caught and goes to prison for life and the children are orphaned and he has ruined his own life, killed the life of the mother of his children, ruined the lives of his children, and scarred both sets of grandparents and all the siblings. So much sorrow and damage to so many people and all to the glee of Our Enemy.

I wonder how a person could be so stupid. Didn’t they at least think about what might happen if they got caught?

Then, last Friday, while I was at Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, I was reading a book,

The Healing of Families by Fr. Yozefu-B. Ssemakula

It is about Satan’s foothold in the lives of families. But I found this statement of Fr. Yozefu profound:

And at the root of any evil is a lie that the person believes, in order to get to the place for doing evil.

This is one reason we are exhorted not to dwell on any fantasy of sin or temptation of any kind but to pray and reject the evil thought immediately. This prevents Satan from getting a foothold and leading us to the conviction that life would be so much better if I just do ….(fill in the blank)

If you want to fill in the blank with anything that is a sin, you can be sure that Our Enemy is leading you to believe a lie…leading you into temptation.


JOAN: Here are a few Scriptures that Contradict the Catholic Church

BFHU:  You have merely been taught that these scriptures contradict the Catholic Church’s teaching. But we completely accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God. In fact, the Catholic Church compiled and canonized it. It is a Catholic Book.

Our doctrine preceded the canon of the Bible however. So the NT was derived from the teachings of the apostles. Catholic doctrine came first and was not derived from the Scriptures the way Protestants derive their beliefs only from Scripture.

The Bible was not officially canonized for 400 years after Jesus. The pilgrims landed here 400 years ago. That is a long time. And yet, the Catholic Church spread the Christian Faith far and wide without the New Testament. And even the OT was too expensive for everyman to own one. Besides most people could not read. 20% of the world population still cannot read. So, the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura never would have been invented until after the invention of the Printing Press. And still, what is a person who can’t read supposed to do? God to Hell? Or go to a Catholic Church where Scripture is read to the faithful. Conversation: Sola Scriptura vs Illiteracy Rates

The Catholic Faith and teachings do not contradict Scripture anywhere. I was a Sola Scriptura Protestant until 15 years ago –>Why I became Catholic

However, Catholic Doctrine does contradict Protestant interpretations of Scripture in several places. But that is not the same thing as contradicting scripture itself. These interpretations are Protestant Traditions not Apostolic Traditions. But let’s go through your Scriptures. ( to see Joan’s complete comment in context–>Joan Barton March 17, 2014)

Joan: Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth & the Life. No man comes to the Father but by me. John 14:6 For there is one God & one mediator between God & men, the man Jesus Christ I Tim 2:5

BFHU: Since Jesus is both God and man He is the One mediator between God and men.–>One Mediator

Joan: And when Jesus came to Peter’s home, He saw his (Peter’s) mother-in-law

BFHU: Celibacy ( I am guessing that is why the passage on Peter’s mother-in-law) is not a dogma of the Catholic Church. It is a discipline. In fact we have married priests in the Catholic Church precisely because it is a discipline that can be changed and exceptions made. There is historical evidence that the Apostles were celibate from the beginning and that Peter’s wife had probably died leaving him only with a mother-in-law. But even if his wife was mentioned in Scripture proving she was still alive it would not change things. Celibacy allows a man and a woman to have an undivided heart for serving Christ in line with St. Paul in

I Cor 7:38 he who refrains from marriage will do better

–>History of Clerical Celibacy

imagesJoan: The Catholic Doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

But she remained a virgin until her Son was born; & Joseph named Him Jesus. Matt 1:25 

…and knew her not until she had brought her 1st born son: & he called His name Jesus. Matt 1:25 K.J. Version In the old testament the term ” and he knew her” meant that he had sexual intercourse.

and He (Jesus) taught them in their synagogue & they were astonished. They said, Whence has this man’s wisdom, & the mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother called Mary? His brothers James, Jo-ses,& Simon & Judas; and his sisters, are they not all with us?” Matt 13:54-56

I have recently learned that some are trying to twist the scriptures to say that Joseph was married before he married Mary, or that his brothers & sisters were actually cousins.
The Bible doesn’t even hint at such; it clearly calls them brothers & sisters.
Some thoughts about that: I it was so important that Mary be so pure & immaculate of a virgin, why was she not worthy to have an immaculate husband instead of a well used one? Could they not find an immaculate husband for such a pure one?
It is unbelievable that during all the years between Jesus birth & death that absolutely not even a hint of her getting a husband that came with a built in family. When they went to pay their taxes would not some of those children go with them, or at least mention where they were & why none did.

BFHU:  We do not “twist the Scriptures” to say Joseph was married before or that the ‘brothers and sisters” were cousins. These are historical/cultural/entymological evidence against the literal interpretation of brothers and sisters to mean siblings and only siblings. Please see–>

A Tradition of Men: Jesus had Siblings. Mary is NOT a Perpetual Virgin.

What we find in the Gospels is what was deemed pertinent to Salvation. It is historical but not exhaustive because Sola Scriptura had not been invented yet and Jesus left a teaching Church. He did not leave the NT or even exhort the necessity of writing the NT. We know from St. John that much of what Jesus did was left unwritten for Oral Tradition to teach verbally.

John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Therefore, we do not have all the detailed information in the NT regarding Mary and Joseph’s marital arrangement. Joseph was assigned as a protector of Mary and was not immaculate. Mary’s freedom from all sin was a special grace of God and a fitting place for God the Son to dwell for 9 mos.
Full of Grace

Peter & the KeysJoan: Jesus built His Church on the rock of Peter’s faith.

BFHU: This is a common Protestant interpretation of Mt 16 in order to dispute that Jesus built His Church on Peter. The attempt is to assert that the Church is built not on Peter and the Apostles but on Peter’s confession. Note that you have not quoted a scripture to prove this assertion because there is none. It is merely a Protestant tradition. Please see—>

Petros/Petra vs. Rocky/Rockelle


Joan: The next is baptism. Every baptism in the Bible was by immersion in water. It says that it symbolized being, along with your sins crucified with Christ. Coming up from the water symbolizes resurrecting, & being born again with Jesus. Every one baptized in the Bible chose to be & was receiving Jesus as their savior. And they received at least one gift of the Holy Spirit which was their guide from then on.

BFHU: The Bible nowhere commands that Baptism be by full immersion. And how do you  prove that all the baptisms in the Bible were by immersion?

Jesus LA cathedral–>How Was Baptism Administered in First Century?

I have given you many things to read because a one sentence question cannot be answered with one sentence. I hope you are genuinely seeking to at least understand the Catholic Church even if you never agree with the Catholic Church. I appreciate your interest.


holy Family

Joan: When tradition is contrary to the scriptures I choose the scriptures.

BFHU: We both choose Scripture. Whether you realize it or not, you are, in addition to choosing Scripture, choosing your interpretation or an interpretation of Scripture you have been taught. I am choosing the interpretation that has been held for 2000 years. It is also the interpretation of the Catholic Church which was founded by Jesus Christ Himself, upon Peter and the Apostles. Our Apostolic Teaching (or SACRED TRADITION) is not contrary to Scripture at any point.

Joan:2 different scriptures say that Mary & Joseph did not have sexual relations until after the baby was born.

BFHU:There is no scripture that says Mary was a virgin until AFTER the baby was born. You have just broken the rule about not adding to Scripture. The way you interpret this is not wrong but there is Biblical precedence for interpreting until as follows:

Your interpretation of the UNTIL in:

And knew her not until she had brought forth her son and He called His name Jesus.’

to mean that Joseph and Mary had children after Jesus was born; would then mean we  HAVE to interpret the following verses like this:

As to Michal daughter of Saul, she had no child until the day of her death.2 Samuel 6:23

Interpretation: Using your hermenutic this would have to mean that Michal DID HAVE A CHILD AFTER HER DEATH.

In His days shall shine forth righteousness and an abundance of peace, until the moon be taken away. Psalm 71:7

Interpretation: At the end of the world, the moon will be taken away and righteousness and peace will no longer shine forth.

For He must reign, until He has put all enemies under his feet. I Corinthians 15:25

Interpretation: Once Christ has defeated His enemies, He will no longer reign supreme.

Lo, I am with you always, even until the end of the world. Matthew 28:20

Interpretation: God is with us always, but at the end of the world He will no longer be with us.

I am sure you would agree that the Catholic way of interpreting until would be more appropriate in all of the above verses. And based on historical evidence the Catholic interpretation of until in Matthew 1:25 is also more appropriate.

Joan:Jesus called Mary woman because she is the mother of Jesus & not of God. He is both God & man but He always called his mother “woman.”

Jesus is God as you say. But, He is also fully man. Mary gave birth to Jesus. She did not give birth only to a human person. Jesus was God/Man; fully both at the same time. Since Jesus was God Mary is the mother of God. Not because she created God or preexisted Jesus but b/c she was His mother.

Jesus addresses Mary as woman, not our of disrespect since that would be a sin against honoring father and mother, but because he was highlighting her role as the Second Eve. Whereas the 1st Eve sinned the 2nd Eve (Mary) was sinless.

Joan:I will have to seek the source but it is said that Jesus asked His disciple to take care of Mary because the brothers were not yet believers. I have never bothered to look that up.

That is a very common Protestant INTERPRETATION in a futile attempt to rebut the Catholic contention that Jesus disrespected his siblings by giving His mother to St. John; but you will not find that explanation anywhere in Scripture.

Joan:A previous marriage & children is mighty big news. It is incredible that it wouldn’t even be hinted at.

The Catholic Church is not dogmatic that Joseph had other children. This explanation is the earliest commentary on the brothers of Jesus. But in the 4th century St. Jerome pointed out that the word brother could denote a sibling or other close relationship. As it still does today in English. We use “brothers and sister” all the time and do not mean literal siblings.

Joan:Also if Mary was so sacred that she could not have other children of her own it doesn’t make sense to me that she would be given a husband that did.

Mary could have chosen to have children. But, Mary took a vow of virginity. Joseph was betrothed to her as a brother/husband to be her protector. Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit who conceived in her Jesus. If you were Joseph would you enter in to the place where God the Holy Spirit entered? Where God the Son dwelt for 9 months?

Joan:There is a scripture that says to not be unequally yoked. It sure makes sense if having other children would pollute her the to have a polluted husband is what she got. It doesn’t compute.

Yes, Joseph was not sinless. But he was a godly man. Mary was a Godly woman and both were devout Jews.But, I have never heard the admonition “not to be unequally yoked” to refer to the level of sinfulness. If every husband and wife had to be equal in sin and holiness there wouldn’t be too many marriages. Beside how would this even be determined?

Sola Scriptura: A Tradition of Men 5

Peter & the KeysCharles Allen: All things must be tested to God’s word which is truth then we must ask if these oral teachings were tested to God’s word. So does the catechism of the CC church test these oral traditions to scripture ? If they were not tested by scripture then how are we to be sure of their validity ie that they were not merely man’s invention.
Sola scripture just means that things must be tested to scripture as the only reliable source of truth – it was not an invention of Luther’s but always existed.

BFHU:  Where has Sola Scriptura always existed? It did not exist until Martin Luther invented it. Did you know that because of his adherence to Sola Scriptura Luther had the audacity  to delete 7 books from the NT that conflicted with his doctrines.

For instance, he taught that we are saved by faith alone. Sola Fide. But, in James we find these words;

James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Well, Martin Luther did not like that so he just took it out of his translation of the Bible into German along with other books of canonized Scripture. I think it was 7 OT and 7 NT. He took them out b/c his doctrine of sola scriptura conflicted with his doctrine of  sola fide.

He also added the word alone to Eph 2:8 in an outrageous attempt to bolster his doctrine of Sola Fide.

“saved through faith alone.” Here is what it actually says:

Ephesians 2:8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—

Yes, Charles, nothing the Catholic Church teaches contradicts or conflicts with Scripture. Catholic teachings do, however, conflict with Protestant interpretations of Scripture.

Because Protestants tend to think, as you do, that they can infallibly interpret scripture*, (see note below) then, when the Catholic Church teaches something they don’t agree with because they have a different interpretation, they assert that Catholic teachings conflict with Scripture. But that is not correct. Catholic teachings merely conflict with various INTERPRETATIONS of Scripture. That is not the same thing as actually conflicting with Scripture. And, not only that, Catholic interpretations are 2000 years old. Protestant interpretations only go back 500 years.

But where in Scripture does it say anything close to”

“all things must be tested to God’s word which is truth”?

Scripture does say:

I Thess. 5:20 do not despise prophesying, 21 but test everything;hold fast what is good, 22 abstain from every form of evil.

St. Paul clearly says not to despise prophesying, that would certainly be ORAL not written. But to test it. He NOWHERE SAYS TO TEST IT BY GOD’S WORD, SCRIPTURE OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT.

The Catholic Church does test everything by both the oral and the written Teachings of the Apostles.

Once again, Charles, you are adding to Scripture what just is not there. Therefore, you are now making up traditions of men.


*NOTE:  By the way, I am not making a false accusation agains Charles. In a comment on another post:

Let us take note that in answer to my question:

Do you think you can infallibly interpret scripture?

Charles said,



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 307 other followers