The Catholic Bishops: When It’s Time to Call the Police

By John Zmirak Published on August 17, 2018

In case you’ve been in a coma … you might want to go back under. At least if you’re Catholic. Because the awful news just keeps rolling in. 

The latest is the news out of Pennsylvania, where the Attorney General did what his colleagues should have started doing in 2002. He launched a criminal investigation into sex abuse among local clergy. They turned up some 300 abusive priests and more than 1,000 victims, over several decades. As Sohrab Ahmari has written, some of the crimes seem lifted straight from the pages of the Marquis de Sade.

More crucially, his grand jury demanded and got thousands of pages of internal church documents. They revealed the response of almost every bishop involved. It boiled down to the following:

  1. Avoid publicity. Keep the victims quiet, and away from the public authorities. If need be, run out the clock on the statute of limitations, so predators beat the rap. While NOT implicated in cover-ups (bravo!), Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput did twist the arms of local Catholic politicians to keep that statute of limitations short. The Guardian reported that he attacked one lawmaker by name in that Catholic’s own parish bulletin, to shame him into compliance.
  2. Treat the offending priests as sick, not sinful. Move them around and keep their crimes a secret from parishioners and police. Send them for brief stays at pro-gay psychological spas (“treatment centers”), then send them back into parishes and schools. When one of them impregnates a teenage girl and arranges for her abortion, send him a sympathetic note — as if his pet toucan bird had died. Then assign him to another parish. (This last gem of Christian witness came from the loudly conservative, pro-Latin Mass Bishop James Timlin, one of the worst cover-up artists.)
  3. Do whatever it takes to keep the secret. One of the worst was Cardinal Wuerl — the current Cardinal Archbishop of our nation’s capital, then the bishop of Pittsburgh — paying a permanent income to a priest addicted to kiddie porn.

One Down, Forty-Nine More States to Go

In other words, little changed in Pennsylvania after the storm of 2002. Makes you wonder about the other 49 states, doesn’t it? Especially since it emerged that many leading prelates either provably knew (Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston) or had to know (Vatican Cardinal Kevin Farrell) about the sex abuse committed by the last Archbishop of Washington, Cardinal “Uncle Ted” McCarrick. That included molesting a boy he had baptized as an infant. Both Wuerl and McCarrick served as sponsors of Cardinal Farrell, Cardinal Blaise Cupich of Chicago, and Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark — all left-leaning acolytes of Pope Francis. (Indeed, Francis appointed Wuerl as one of the lead voices in picking U.S. bishops.) Count on them to vote in the next conclave for a pope made in his image.

In turn, Pope Francis’ own record on dealing with sex abuse (for instance in Chile) isn’t pretty. Neither is the record of “vice-pope” Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga of Honduras. The auxiliary bishop he handpicked had to resign after sexually abusing seminarians, and dozens of other seminarians have come forth to complain that their school is dominated by a homosexual network. Maradiaga has taken no action to fix it.

And what can we say about Pope Francis’ biggest booster before his election as pope, Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Belgium? As I wrote here in 2015:

Danneels … presided over one of the worst priestly sex abuse scandals in Europe, whose cover-up was so extensive that it led to Belgian police searching a bishop’s palace and even opening a bishop’s grave to search for evidence.

The Spectator (U.K.) cites transcripts of a meeting where Danneels was caught on tape urging the victim to stay silent about [his] abuse, after which he “suggested that the victim should seek forgiveness — and accused the man of attempted blackmail when he demanded that Danneels should tell Pope Benedict XVI about the abuse.”

Danneels was in disgrace after these scandals. But Pope Francis rehabilitated him in the most public way, inviting him from retirement to address all the bishops of the world at the Vatican Family Synod.

Will an Uprising of Laymen Make a Difference?

What’s a Catholic to do at a time like this? I’ve suggested financial boycotts.

But that won’t be enough. As the fearless Church Militant has documented, some 40% of the bishops’ revenue doesn’t even come from the Catholic faithful. It’s taxpayer money, funneled through federal contracts with non-profits such as Catholic Charities and Catholic Relief Services. Most of that cash comes via services to immigrants and refugees.

Michael Brendan Dougherty at National Review wrote a powerful essay, where he pointed out that if the church won’t police itself, Caesar will step in and take over.

The Attorneys General of the other 49 states in the Union must launch similar, searching investigations of the church. Don’t worry anymore about losing “the Catholic vote.” On the contrary, you’d be doing us a favor and we’ll remember it at the polls.

I saw that happen first hand in New Hampshire. Its then-bishop John McCormack conspired in the Boston sex abuse cover-up, before reaping his reward — a diocese of his own. The state district attorney considered prosecuting McCormack. The bishop bought him off by striking a deal: the AG’s office would review and approve every appointment of every priest in the state. So a secular state where abortion was legal was the ultimate authority over the Church. And we Catholics were glad of that! McCormack enjoyed his bishop’s palace, issued loud statements in defense of leftist, pro-choice labor unions, and sold off parish after parish to pay his settlements. I’ll never forget driving up to a beautiful Gothic building, put up by Polish immigrants pooling their pennies. I was hoping to go to confession. The church had been turned into condos.

Giving Caesar His Due

It is long past time for Caesar to use his blunt instruments to fix this. The bishops can’t. (Though they’ve announced yet another commission to address it.) Too many of them are likely implicated. The Vatican won’t. Too many of its allies would fall like dominoes. Expect more hand-wringing statements in public — and frenzied butt-covering in private.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

Time now for every citizen to demand that justice be done. If the bishops don’t act decisively to solve this problem, then something like the following should happen, if possible. (I’m no lawyer.)

  • The Attorneys General of the other 49 states in the Union should launch similar, searching investigations. Don’t worry anymore about losing “the Catholic vote.” On the contrary, you’d be doing us a favor and we’ll remember it at the polls.
  • The U.S. Justice Department should weigh the evidence turned up by such probes to see if RICO charges would fit the bishops who conspired to keep abusers’ crimes secret.
  • Voters should ask their representatives in Congress to redirect federal contracts away from Catholic non-profits connected with bishops, thus depriving them of hush money. (Catholics, remember that all such money gets used for exclusively secular purposes, by law. So the explosion of federal funding has almost completely secularized once-Catholic ministries.) Take away that mess of pottage.
  • Voters should insist on enforcing our borders and building a Wall. American bishops for too long have told U.S. Catholics that “immigrants are the church’s future.” By that they mean that they’ve given up on those of us who are already here. They know that 40% of native-born Catholics leave the church. And they know they can replace us with Catholic immigrants from lands with better bishops. Cut off this human subsidy and force them to face the truth.

More on My Podcast

I have much more to say about the sex abuse crisis and our response in my interview with Stream columnist Jason Jones for his new podcast. Be sure to subscribe. It’s fantastic every week.

For my part, I’m not sure these measures will improve the bishops’ behavior much. For that to happen, at least one bishop complicit in protecting sex abusers needs to go to prison. And for a good long time. Instead of a cozy retirement in a palace with a pension and Cadillac health care, as McCarrick and his ilk all now enjoy.

But for that, we need the help of Caesar. Let us render to him, finally, what is Caesar’s.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Paul

    Govt vetting new priests, have these people read the Constitution?

  • Patmos

    From the NY Post link:

    “Wuerl and his colleagues have treated the report as a PR headache rather
    than a moral and spiritual wake-up call. They have acted like corporate
    reputation managers rather than successors to the Apostles.”

    I made note of this when commenting recently on another article here, about how so many American Protestant churches have already made this mistake. In 1st Corinthians The Apostle Paul makes mention of his operating with The Holy Ghost and power, rather than with the enticing words of man’s wisdom. It’s a good measuring stick to use when sizing up the body of Christ, and unfortunately it also reveals a rather bleak picture when you see how few measure up. What to do, but to operate with The Holy Ghost and with power.

    • Roderick Halvorsen

      Your post struck me that I don’t know of many secular corporations that, facing such hideous accusations, would not make sweeping changes resulting in the dismissal of those involved.

      • Patmos

        Secular corporations don’t have near the leeway that a church has. The point being though is that churches are adopting corporate structures and strategies. This has been well documented here in the US, with denominations abandoning scripture and The Holy Spirit for public relations type polling and empty feel good messages.

  • Hmmm…

    It is more essential than ever that believers and churches operate directly with God, develop in prayer and hearing from him. God commands we put him first, which includes churches doing the same. Sadly, the “divine right” and endowment and succession errors are in the way of that. Things are presumed on institutions and automatic proper execution and God is not sought or, more critically, listened for.

    • DJR

      The problem is that Christ established only one church, with one faith, and the earthly part of that church is visible and ruled by bishops. Read the New Testament. There is no such thing as an “invisible church,” which is an unbiblical oral tradition concocted by Protestants.

      • Hmmm…

        So, your religion won’t let you go to God direct and hear from him?

        • DJR

          The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ. By being a member of Christ’s Body, I do go directly to God. We also have the Blessed Sacrament, which is God Himself.

          There is a Catholic parish about 2.5 miles away from my home. I can go there directly and be in the physical presence of Christ in less than 10 minutes. If that’s not direct, I don’t know what would be.

          I have never heard the voice of God. One can “hear” Him in Sacred Scripture, but Sacred Scripture was not given directly by God either. It was written through intermediaries.

          Bishops are a requirement of Christ’s true church. The apostles were the first bishops; the New Testament states so unequivocally. In order to be part of the true church, one must be part of the church that the apostles are part of.

          That church is the Catholic Church.

          • Hmmm…

            This is reasoning apart from God’s word. Much of it mirrors the Old Covenant tabernacle where God’s spirit dwelt. He has moved into men and women’s hearts who will receive him according to his word. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit when he left and directed the upper room gathering of apostles, teachers, disciples and the rest of the believers to wait there until the Holy Spirit came upon them. This was taught to the early church, later church and is still true today. The tabernacle model has been superseded by Jesus becoming the sacrifice for all me and indwelling those who receive him.

            John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

            John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

            Revelation 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

            Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

          • DJR

            “This is reasoning apart from God’s word.”

            Actually, it is what “God’s word” teaches. You just happen to believe Protestant oral tradition as opposed to God’s word.

            Malachi 1:11: “For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

            That is an OT prophecy about a NT event. It can’t be about an OT event because a) the Gentiles were heathen, b) the OT Gentile sacrifices were offered to devils (1 Corinthians 10:20), c) after the building of the temple, there was only one place on the planet that God allowed sacrifice from His people: the Jewish temple.

            The word for “incense” here connotes “sacrifice.”

            How does your organization fulfill this OT prophecy that “from the rising of the sun to the going down,” in every place “incense” would be offered by Gentiles?

            That prophecy has either been fulfilled in the NT, or it is a lie.

          • Roderick Halvorsen

            DJR: Right on.

            I was just reading St Irenaeus on this very topic {the worldwide sacrifice} today.


            Get ahold of a copy of Jurgens 3-volume set of The Early Church Fathers. Keep your Bible handy {the one with an Old Testament that includes all the books just as Jesus, the Apostles and the Fathers used, not the later truncated version so common today.}

            Work slowly and you’ll get it.

            Unless you just don’t want to.

          • DJR

            “Get ahold of a copy of Jurgens 3-volume set of The Early Church Fathers.”

            I’ve had that set for so long that I cannot remember when I bought it.

          • Chip Crawford

            Say, when you develop a personality, be sure to let us know.

            i wouldn’t be crowing about the church fathers these days, bud.
            It will take a lot of incense to blow off the stink of this latest unraveling.

            You’ve got your nerve coming on here with your pride and contempt for wholesome input. But I can see how it would sound like “the wrong view” to one from your aberrant environment.

          • DJR

            I was merely responding to what one of the other posters said, which was a false assertion, in his response to the author of this article (who also happens to be a Catholic).

            The fact that there are evil Catholic priests and bishops means is irrelevant to whether the Catholic Church is the one and only true Church.

            The Church has weathered the Arian heresy, evil popes, evil bishops, evil priests, evil nuns, evil laity, evil rulers, et cetera. She will weather this current storm as well.

            In fact, it is high time that these things came to the fore. God will purge His Church, and afterwards She will be a beacon of truth for mankind once again.

            Christ commanded us to speak the truth. Protestantism is error, heresy, and unbiblical. That’s the truth, and there’s nothing “prideful” or “contemptuous” about saying it.

          • Chip Crawford

            No, it’s just more fruit from the poisonous tree. Why should anyone take your word for anything you disseminate? God is a knowable person. It is the bottom, middle and top line whether or not you do.

          • DJR

            I haven’t asked anyone to take my word for anything. If people refuse to take Our Lord’s words, recorded in Sacred Scripture, for something, it’s doubtful that they would take mine.

            The Bible does not support Protestantism.

            “God is a knowable person.”

            You realize that, to a Christian, that statement is heresy, don’t you? God is three Persons; He is not one person.

          • Chip Crawford

            Your reasoning is silly. The pride of your heart has deceived you. You must be born again.

          • DJR

            How many persons are there in God?

          • Patmos

            “Work slowly and you’ll get it.”

            Jesus did a face palm at you for this.

            I thank you father, for keeping these things hidden from the wise and prudent, and revealing them to babes.

          • DJR

            At the very basis of your belief system is a massive contradiction. You believe that the Bible contains 66 books, yet you also maintain that the Bible is the sole rule of faith.

            But the idea that the Bible contains 66 books is the most unbiblical thing imaginable. Nowhere does the Bible teach it, which begs the question.

            How did God reveal to you that the Bible is comprised of 66 books?

            Book, chapter, and verse. And Bible only, please.

          • Roderick Halvorsen

            One other thing as well.

            The Mal 1:11 text is a passage that “doesn’t belong in the Old Testament”.

            For the OT Jews, the Temple was the ONLY place where sacrifice was allowed. A worldwide sacrifice involving Gentiles was unthinkable.


            That prophesy is now being fulfilled in the daily sacrifice of the Mass presented on Catholic altars all over the world.

          • DJR

            And the early Church recognized that that passage was fulfilled in their day.

            Didache XIV:

            1. On the Day of the Lord come together, break bread and hold Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions that your offering may be pure;

            2. But let none who has a quarrel with his fellow join in your meeting until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not defiled.

            3. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord, “In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great king,” saith the Lord, “and my name is wonderful among the heathen.”

          • Patmos

            Good grief, get over yourself. People like you are the reason the Catholic Church is a cold dead church filled with pedophiles. What an absolute disgrace.

          • DJR

            The Catholic Church is filled with pedophiles. Of this, there is no doubt.

            But the fact that there are many evil people in the Church has no bearing on whether its teaching is true, no more than the fact that the ancient Israelites, time and time again, were unfaithful and rotten to the core.

            They were still the chosen people of the OT, and the Catholic Church is still the one and only true Church, founded by Christ Himself. It will endure the present trial, just as She has endured all the past trials.

            The Catholic Church isn’t dead by any means. Where does that idea come from?

          • Hmmm…

            So you ignore the clear words of the New Testament in my post, and launch a smoke screen deferral away from them. May Jesus become your only claim to salvation.

          • DJR

            I don’t ignore the clear words of the NT in your post. I believe every last one of them.

            What I do not believe is your personal, private interpretation of those clear words.

            Your view is wrong.

            You didn’t answer the question: How does your organization fulfill the prophecy of Malachi found at Malachi 1:11?

          • Hmmm…

            Hebrews 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
            What you are missing is that Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets. The literal transfer is moot in light of the finished work of Calvary.

          • DJR

            1. “The finished work of Calvary”? Where did you get the idea that Christ’s work was finished on Calvary?

            2. Malachi’s prophecy is that incense/sacrifice would be offered daily, and the early Church confirmed this.

            How does your organization fulfill that prophecy?

          • Hmmm…

            Jesus said “It is finished.” That is redemption, which is what Calvary was about.

            Where did the early church confirm the literal offering of incense? Reference please.

            My organization walks in the spirit and by the spirit and rightly divides the word of truth.

            Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the
            power of God.
            This is a response to the carnally minded, wishing to transfer natural things, types and shadows, as you do, into the New Covenant and to Heaven, in their case.

            My church is fulfilled in Jesus, who is the fulfillment for those who believe the truth.

          • DJR

            “Jesus said. ‘It is finished.’ That is redemption, which is what Calvary was about.”

            And when Christ said, “It is finished,” nowhere does the Bible state what He meant by the word “it.”

            To say “it” is finished is a reference to His passion, which was finished.

            His work finished? No. Impossible.

            Are you denying that the resurrection was part of Christ’s work?

            If Christ’s work was finished on the cross, then the resurrection was not part of His work.

            “And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.” 1 Corinthians 15:14

          • DJR

            “Where did the early church confirm the literal offering of incense? Reference please.

            Are you suggesting that the Bible is not supposed to be taken literally? Then why do you quote from any of it?

            That question was answered prior.

            The Didache is either a first or second century Christian work. You can find a direct reference to the passage in Malachi referenced in the Didache, chapter 14.

            1. On the Lord’s Day of the Lord come together, break bread and hold Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions that your offering may be pure;

            2. But let none who has a quarrel with his fellow join in your meeting until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not defiled.

            3. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord, “In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great king,” saith the Lord, “and my name is wonderful among the heathen.”

            Protestants do not “offer sacrifice”; Catholics do (as well as the Orthodox and other eastern groups).

            Your organization does not rightly divide the word of truth; it is heretical, goes back only to the 16th century at the earliest, and is not part of the church founded by Christ.

            The early Christians referred to themselves as “the Catholic Church” within a mere 8 decades of Christ’s ascension.

            Saint Ignatius of Antioch, in his letter to the people of Smyrna: “Wheresoever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

            The early Church was the Catholic Church.

          • Patmos

            “Where did you get the idea that Christ’s work was finished on Calvary?”

            Lol, did you really just ask this? Paul wasn’t lying when he said Christ is no effect to you whosoever are justified by law. Question is, who hath bewitched you?

          • DJR

            What’s the answer to the question?

          • Chip Crawford

            typical Pharisaical preoccupation – incense … Do you tithe your mint and cumin as well?

          • DJR

            Use of incense is referred to in both the Old and New Testament. If it’s a “pharisaical preoccupation,” then you’d have to take that up with Our Lord. He’s the one who receives it.

          • Chip Crawford

            You run to form – majoring in minors. Sorry about your fetish.
            Are you born again? Is there a time when you asked Jesus to be your lord and savior? Romans and John have some instruction on that. You “know it all,” but do you know him? I don’t see how anyone who actually does can talk all this claptrap. Eternity is a long time. Enter the after life with Jesus as your defense, please, as your substitute, not all this folderol you’re hung up on.

          • DJR

            How many books does the Bible have?

            Once you submit your answer, please show where in the Bible you derived that knowledge. Book, chapter, and verse, and Bible only, please.

            What you don’t seem to understand is that Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine, and the belief systems that are based on that are likewise false.

          • Chip Crawford

            Put a sock in it, bub. Until you get serious about obeying God’s word to receive Jesus as your lord and savior and be born again, you will remain in the dark.

          • DJR

            One cannot be Protestant and “obey God’s word.”

            There’s huge sections of the Bible which are ignored by a Protestant, as they do not jibe with his oral tradition, not to mention that whole books have been discarded.

            The Bible does not consist of only 66 books, nor is Sola Scriptura a biblical doctrine. Those are lies that Protestants have been fed.

            Once you understand that Sola Scriptura is false, you can begin to understand how to “obey God’s word.”

          • Chip Crawford

            Oh yeah, those books you all threw in to support some of your folderol.

            “Once you understand that Sola Scriptura is false, you can begin to understand how to “obey God’s word.” That contradicts itself. I know you are confused, but this is blatant.

            You still need to be born again to see God. You’re ducking that.

            Mish mash bunch of gobbledegook. Your deal is a knockoff of some OT and NT ordinances and a bunch of moldy old books full of prideful assertions and men making it up as they go along. What a cobbled together mess. But your grandma taught it and you all bought it. Mystical smoke and mirrors, with a lot of help of the devil.

            I’ll not waste my time and cast pearls before swine. May your souls be saved in the day of judgment. When you get ever get hungry for God, or in more trouble than you can BS out of, call on God from your heart, and he will guide you out of Babylon into his way, truth and life.

          • DJR

            “Oh yeah, those books you all threw in…
            How did God reveal the canon of Sacred Scripture? Book, chapter, and verse, and Bible only, please.

          • Chip Crawford

            Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

          • DJR

            The reader can see that there is no answer to the question of how God revealed to him that the Bible consists of 66 books.
            Why does he not do so? Because it is not possible for him to answer it and remain true to the doctrine he professes. And the reason it is not possible is because his doctrine is false, i.e., Sola Scriptura. If that particular doctrine were true, he would easily be able to answer the question.

            1 Peter 3:15: “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man who asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.”

          • Kathy

            If you are referring to the Apocrypha, the reason they were removed is 1) The Hebrew writers of the books never accepted them into their canon and put them in a different catagory from the recognized Hebrew Scriptures. 2) Jesus and the apostles never quoted from any of those books as they did numerous times from the OT 3) There are contradictions concerning recognized apostolic books and teachings. I will admit there is controversy regarding Malachi as my study Bible does not refute what you say.

          • DJR

            But that begs several questions and raises several problems.

            1) What authority do “the Hebrew writers” have to determine what is the canon? Where in the Bible is their authority listed, and who are they? When was their canon established?

            2) The Greek Septuagint was the Bible of the early Church. The apostles quoted from it for 80% of their OT quotes. Thus, they recognized the Septuagint as having authority. The Septuagint contains the Deuterocanonical books.

            3) Neither Christ nor the apostles ever quoted from Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Jonah, or Zephaniah. Those books are considered canonical by Protestants, so the fact that the Deuterocanonical books were not quoted from by the apostles or Christ is irrelevant as to whether they are canonical. If that were a relevant issue, Protestants would have to throw the above 10 books out of their canon.
            4) Saint Jude quoted from a noncanonical book, and Saint James quotes something which he refers to as “scripture” which is found nowhere else in Sacred Scripture.
            5) Saint Paul references two of his epistles which are found nowhere in Sacred Scripture.
            6) The Deuterocanonical books do not contradict any apostolic books or teachings. They do, however, contradict specifically Protestant beliefs, which is the true reason Protestants reject those books.
            There’s absolutely nothing in the Book of Judith that a Protestant would object to, but they still do. The reason it is objected to is due to the fact that that book is part of the Deuterocanonicals.
            But, all that aside, the underlying question never gets answered: How did God reveal the canon of the Bible?
            If Sola Scriptura were true, there is only one possibility: the Bible.
            But the canon is nowhere listed in the Bible; therefore, one must go outside the Bible to find it.
            But once one does that, he/she contradicts the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

          • Kathy

            Seems the Hebrews were the writers of the entire OT scriptures, including the Apocryphal books. The authors themselves of those books did not accept them into their canon. I did not say anything about the NT. As far as I know, our bibles are the same concerning that. There were no NT books excluded from our bibles.

          • DJR

            “The authors themselves of those books did not accept them into their canon.”
            The Greek speaking Jews translated the Septuagint. They included the Deuterocanonical books because they considered the Deuterocanonical books inspired.
            That said, the problem with your position remains.
            By whose authority did any Jew, Greek speaking or Hebrew speaking, establish a canon?
            What part of the Bible does a person look at in order to test whether that canon is correct?
            In other words, the basic question is: How did God reveal the canon?
            There are only two possibilities: 1) through Scripture or 2) not through Scripture.
            If the answer is 1, please show where I can find that.
            If the answer is 2, your doctrine falls, as such a thing would contradict Sola Scriptura.

          • Kathy

            I explained why the books were removed and am not going to continue debating that. Reading a book titled “The Attributes of God” and would like to share an excerpt from the chapter on the grace of God:

            Divine grace is the sovereign and saving favor of God exercised in the bestowment of blessings upon those who have no merit in them and for which no compensation is demanded from them. The fullest exposition of the amazing grace of God is to be found in the epistles of the apostle Paul. In them, “grace” stands in direct opposition to works and worthiness, of whatever kind or degree. Romans 11:6, “And if by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. It it be of works, then is it no more grace, otherwise work is no more work” Eph. 2:8-9, “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is a gift of God: not of works, lest no man should boast”

            I have not found the RCC to be fond of these particular verses…that is truly a disservice to their flock.

          • DJR

            Your explanation of why the books were removed holds no water.

            Why do you adhere to a manmade oral tradition in that respect? You should care only about what God thinks of the canon.

            Where did God tell you that the Bible is comprised of 66 books and which books those are?

            Book, chapter, and verse, and Bible only, please.

            Do you not understand that your belief that the Bible is comprised of only 66 books is unbiblical per se, and to hold that unbiblical belief is a violation of your doctrine of Sola Scriptura?

            The verses you cited (how did you determine them to be scripture?) are most certainly held in the highest esteem by the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church adheres to them completely.

            You do not understand the Bible, that’s all. Because you adhere to manmade Protestant oral tradition, which causes you to ignore huge sections of the Bible due to the fact that those portions contradict your oral tradition.

            The Bible is thoroughly Catholic.

          • Hmmm…

            Where is the word “Catholic” in the Bible? Oh, your special “books?”

          • DJR

            It’s in the same place that your belief in a 66 book canon is.

          • Hmmm…

            so you are busted – hypocrite
            Actually it’s not on our account, as we trust God entirely more than you do since you do not actually know him. And we actually follow and implement those verses, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, not cherry picking and equally crediting some guy’s thesis as if it meant the same. If you do not believe divine inspiration of the Bible and cannot trust God whom you do not know personally to guide you, then you are at a disadvantage. But those with lesser light should not judge those with greater. And the NT is the greater light from the OT, btw. If you claim that you do know the Lord, provide date, time and brief transcript of the proceedings that ushered you in. thank you If you don’t, you can.

          • DJR

            “Busted”? Why? Because the word “catholic” isn’t in the Bible? Who says it has to be? Where do you find the word “Trinity” in the Bible?
            What strange ideas.
            What you have just admitted above is that your opinion that the Bible is comprised of only 66 books is unbiblical per se, being found nowhere in the Bible. And if your view were correct, that belief would have to be found there.
            Catholics, on the other hand, don’t need to find all their beliefs in the Bible and readily admit that all their beliefs are not in the Bible.
            That’s because we don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, which is a manmade oral tradition of man which, itself, is not found in the Bible.

          • Hmmm…

            I don’t believe in sola scriptura. I believe in God. I am sorry that you don’t or enough to commit your life to him. Doing your own thing. Your extras have been responsibly culled out as someone above carefully explained to you. God takes care of his own. Why do you think you don’t need to obey the word that exists?. When countless numbers have prayed the prayer of salvation based on the bible admonitions in Romans and John and elsewhere, the greatest miracle of all happened. Anyone can say yes I believe all this, but so do the devils believe the word and tremble. Believers do the word and have its results. They live by it. We also live by what the Holy Spirit tells us personally, which will not contradict God’s word. You’ve got centuries of believers operating mightily in this fashion against your petty demagoguery. I hope you actually do meet Jesus. You will love him as he loves you.

          • DJR

            You have yet to explain how God revealed to mankind “the word that exists” and what that “word” is comprised of.

            If you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, then where/how did God reveal to us which books are inspired?

            And why is that information not found in the Bible?

            I don’t believe the Holy Spirit speaks to you personally. If He did, He would tell you which portion of the Bible you can find the answers to such simple questions to test whether your opinions are correct.

            Your opinions are not from the Holy Spirity; they are from Protestant oral tradition, which is manmade.

            The teaching of Jesus Christ is that the Bible is comprised of 73 books. A person who rejects that truth, rejects Jesus Christ, Who is Truth Itself.

          • Hmmm…

            you remind me of the atheists who come on here. You talk just like them, all the clueless stuff, the lack of spirituality, the deferral and scatter shots

          • DJR

            That’s funny, because you remind me of those same atheists. You talk just like them, too: the complete dodges when asked to demonstrate the validity of your views, then turning on the questioner and calling names, et cetera.

            You have been asked repeatedly how God revealed the canon of Sacred Scripture, and you have never answered that. Why?

            We both know the answer.

            You cannot answer it because the idea that the Bible is only the 66 books you recognize as inspired is not something that God has revealed in the Bible, and thus you have no method to know whether that particular belief (66 books) is true.

            You say you trust God for that information, but the problem is that that information didn’t come to you from God. It came to you from men.

            You’re not putting your trust in God; you’re putting your trust in men.

            The idea that the Bible is comprised of 66 books is an “oral tradition” that you accept as true, and you have no way to test whether that oral tradition is correct.

          • Hmmm…

            Wrong again – you are clueless about faith, walking only by sight
            Repent and act on the Gospel. God loves you

          • Hmmm…

            God speaks to the born again man in his spirit, not an audible voice, but a knowing, that still small voice. The Bible does not tell one where to go to college, whom to marry, whether or not to take a job offer or which to choose in many decisions. But the Holy Spirit can be a helper in even the smallest details of life. The Holy Spirit was sent to guide, lead, comfort, come along side. He confirms with peace. This comprises a large part of a believer’s life in Christ, this guide inside. Please don’t mock this. The Holy Spirit is God. Jesus condescended to men of low estate and died for the ungodly. That includes all of us. Salvation extends to everything that pertains to life and Godliness. Besides that, he is very good company. If my Bible is incomplete or there is more, God will show me or supplement otherwise, but it will be him doing so. He may lead to men who know, but nothing that comes will contradict the word. I think you’re sneezing at a gnat here … Gesundheit!

          • DJR

            “God speaks to the born again man in his spirit…”

            Your views are circular.

            If I were to ask how a man is born again, you would point to something in the Bible.

            But then if I were to ask you, “Well, how do you know that what you’re pointing out is actually inspired and belongs in the Bible,” you would state that you have to be been born again to understand that.

            The idea that the Holy Ghost personally instructs every believer what to believe can be easily discredited by just two words: infant baptism.

            There are, and have been, tens of millions of Protestants who believe that the Holy Ghost tells them in their spirit that infant baptism is biblical.

            And there are, and have been, tens of millions of Protestants who say the exact opposite.

            The Holy Ghost does not tell you anything about the canon. Those are merely your ideas, not His. Your ideas regarding how many books are in the Bible are the result of your Protestant upbringing, and nothing else.

            A person who is incapable of stepping outside his/her Protestant box and looking at the belief system the way that others can plainly see it, will not be capable of discerning the obvious errors that he/she espouses.

            The Holy Ghost does not tell you that the Bible contains 66 books; your Protestantism tells you that.

          • Hmmm…

            Acts 19:36 Seeing then that these things cannot be spoken against, ye ought to be quiet, and to do
            nothing rashly.

          • DJR

            What does the Holy Ghost tell you about infant baptism?

          • Hmmm…


          • DJR

            I thought you said the Holy Ghost enlightens a believer. Are you saying you don’t know whether infant baptism is biblical?

          • Hmmm…

            yes; no

          • DJR

            Well, is infant baptism biblical?

          • Hmmm…

            Repent and be baptized. An infant cannot repent. Biblical accounts show that people who had received the Lord were exhorted to follow up and be baptized – believer’s baptism. An infant cannot do that. There are accounts of infant dedications, not baptisms.

          • DJR

            So, I assume you believe then that infants who die before the age of reason are damned?

            They cannot repent, they cannot accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, and they are incapable of having faith, which, according to your belief system, is the only thing that can save them.

            Thus, the hundreds of millions of aborted children, down through the ages, are damned.

            The millions and millions of miscarried children are damned.

            The millions upon millions of infants, down through the ages, who died before they could use their reason are damned.

            God has damned possibly billions of babies, according to your belief.

          • Hmmm…

            No; they are below the age of accountability. Sin is a violation of light. Infants cannot do that. God is love, not a legalist as the Pharisees. As for those older, God knows what they know.

            Psalms 31:18 Let the lying lips be put to silence; which speak grievous things proudly and
            contemptuously against the righteous.

          • DJR

            Would that include infants of Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus?

            So, how are they saved? By what? Faith?

            If infants are not saved by faith (which is impossible), then there must be something else that saves them.

            According to your doctrine, what is that “something else”?

            You realize, don’t you that, if what you state is true, that your doctrine of salvation by faith alone is false?

            According to you, an infant cannot be a Christian. So, what you’re basically saying is that billions of people have never had to accept Christ in order to be saved.

            Your ideas pose even bigger problems.

            If a Hindu infant can be saved, and it’s impossible to lose one’s salvation, that means, if the baby survives infancy and is “saved” while an infant, he/she can remain a Hindu and still be saved.
            OR it means that infants, once they grow up, can “lose their salvation.”

            What does the Holy Ghost tell you about these things?

          • Hmmm…

            God is love and there is no unrighteousness or injustice in him. When one trusts there life with him, his reality is known along with his goodness. He is a Father who can be trusted with the heaviest and most complicated of matters. He weighed out the span of mountains and balance of oceans by a drop in his hand. This is the spirit running one’s life who is his. Like small children, we can ask things that we need to grow more to be able to understand. Believers who know their God can freely leave matters with him along with many things that are not answered now. With every word, you sadly reveal you do not know this God of love. He is the savior, not the damner. He is not looking for ways to keep people out of his salvation, but ways to get them in. If you want to know the truth and do God’s will, you will know what you need to know. God is my Father, the best. When one meets him, so many of those “issues” no longer matter. You know a God who can fill you with such a wonderful, amazing presence that it answers so many of these things by his very goodness.

          • Hmmm…

            God is a faith God. He requires belief in what he says. One must step out on his word. One must rest in him as well. One of the most oft given commands by Jesus is “fear not.” He said let not your heart be troubled. God’s ways are higher than ours, not out of reach, but he calls us to come up and begin to learn those higher ways and live by them. One grows. Jesus left the Pharisees to their own devices once they made certain they were only interested in disproving him, his word. I’ll follow the Master. May your soul be saved in the day of judgment.

          • DJR

            You’ve trapped yourself into a contradiction. As a result, you completely ignore the question and don’t answer it.

            You’re saying that the Bible does not answer how a person is
            saved? Really?

            You’re saying that the Bible, in several passages, does not
            state that we are saved through faith?

            Either salvation is through faith alone, in which case infants
            who die cannot be saved, or your doctrine of salvation by faith alone is heresy.

            You can’t have it both ways.

            If you say such infants can be saved, I again ask: By what?

            Do you see how your doctrine is false?
            The Catholic Church knows the answer to your dilemma.

          • Hmmm…

            Says one who does not know by life experience the nature of God. The CC makes up whatever it needs to cya. I’ll stay with the God who must be believed and trusted, other than “proven” with lies and fabrications, rather than a failed religious sect whose legacy is perversion supported by a “lavender Mafia.” Sorry for you.

          • DJR

            We’re not talking about the Catholic Church and its many perverts in the priesthood; my question is directed at what the Bible teaches regarding salvation.

            Okay, so I don’t know “by life experience the nature of God.” Then it’s incumbent on you to teach me.
            But before I let you teach me, I want to test whether your ideas are correct.

            So, I ask again.

            If infants who die young can be saved, what saves them?

            If infants who die without Christ can be saved, who saves them?

            I’m merely asking simple questions. If you’re going to “stay with God,” fine. What does He say about those things?

            Are you denying that the Bible teaches that salvation is through faith alone? If you are, your doctrine falls into a heap.

          • Hmmm…

            “God is love (1 John 4:8) and desires that all be saved (1 Timothy 2:4).
            God is love and His concern for children is evident in Matthew 18:14
            where Jesus says, ‘Your Father in heaven is not willing that any of
            these little ones should be lost.'”
            Salvation is by faith and not earned by works. It is an act of grace. Those unable to exercise faith are not held accountable for it, but receive grace for where they are. You have to have something to base faith on in order to be able to exercise it.

            Jesus paid the price for all, past, his present and future. The way of access varies based on the accountability level of the individual. I rely on God to be just.

            Your denying faith and lacking in revelation hinder your comprehension in these matters. Don’t blame your deficiencies on us. You are carnally minded and that’s a bar to your understanding. Plus you are playing games here.

            Your wretched jerry-rigged, made expedient belief system fails at the most elementary level because it operates apart from God, his ways and his word. You don’t even try to follow your 70ish books,

          • DJR

            “Salvation is by faith and not earned by works. It is an act of grace. Those unable to exercise faith are not held accountable for it, but receive grace for where they are. You have to have something to base faith on in order to be able to exercise it.”

            Finally an answer. Thanks. Your answer tells me several things.

            1. You reject the Protestant doctrine of “salvation by faith alone.” That’s good.

            2. You also reject “once saved always saved.” That’s good as well.

            Does your above statement extend to non-Christians who are above the age of reason?

            Is it necessary for them to accept Christ as one’s Lord and Savior to be saved?

            If a non-Christian cannot understand faith, can he/she be saved?

          • DJR

            Of course, the fallacy inherent in your position on this issue can be demonstrated with one question:

            At what point in their lives are infants “saved”?

            Your position contradicts the Protestant doctrine of “salvation by faith alone.”

            If infants can be saved, what saves them? And when?

          • Kathy

            The explanation as to why the books were removed is not my opinion. The reasons were cited my different sources, all saying essentially the same thing. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant. Those are the ONLY books we ignore.

            Even though others on here claimed otherwise, I do believe in Sola Scriptura. The clearest meaning of the term is “not as much an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines (of which there is an abundance of in the RCC). The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed – the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Scripture is true, authoratative and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.” I refer to 2 Tim 3:15-17 and Psalm 19:7-10 as well.

            It truly amazes me that you and other Catholics say that we Protestants rely on tradition when you are the ones who esteem tradition so highly! You claim to believe in “Christ Alone” (another poster wrote that) and the “Grace Alone” verses I cited. Your church has added so many extras to those “alones” that it is blatantly obvious you do not truly believe in either. I was there at one time for many years..I am not ignorant of your teachings.

          • DJR

            “The explanation as to why the books were removed is not my opinion.”
            Well, then whose opinion is it? That’s number 1.
            Number 2, why do you follow that person’s, or those persons’, opinions on the matter? The only opinion regarding the canon you should be concerned about is God’s opinion.
            And where do I find that?
            Of course Catholics value tradition so highly, and we freely admit it. That’s why we believe in a 73 book canon.
            The problem with your view is that your opinion that the Bible contains 66 books is also an oral opinion, not found in Sacred Scripture, which makes it unbiblical.
            So, you believe in an unbiblical belief (that the Bible contains 66 books) at the same time you tell me that I have to reject all unbiblical beliefs.
            An absurdity.
            You attempt to define Sola Scriptura with “the clearest meaning of the term.” Where did you get that “clearest meaning”?
            That, too, is nothing more than someone’s opinion of “the clearest meaning” of that doctrine.
            If I’m going to believe in Sola Scriptura, I’m not interested in some mere man’s opinions on these matters. Only God’s opinion counts.
            Where do I find God’s opinion of the canon?
            Where do I find God’s definition of the meaning of Sola Scriptura?

          • Kathy

            Well, it certainly seems you rely on other men’s opinions all the time…the church fathers, your pope, the bishops. Just one of many examples: Where in Scripture do you find that Mary was assumed into heaven? It was a decree by Pope Pius XII in 1950.

          • DJR

            I thought you stated above that you were at one time a Catholic and that you understand why Catholics believe what they believe.

            Of course Catholics rely on other men’s opinions all the time; that’s part and parcel of being Catholic.

            I would correct your statement. It does not merely “seem” that Catholics rely on other men’s opinions. It’s a certainty that we do so.

            And the reason we do so is that we don’t believe in Sola Scriptura. That’s why we can believe in a 73 book canon without contradicting our beliefs.

            The same cannot be said of Protestants. If a Protestant believes
            that the Bible contains 66 books, then that belief must be found within the Bible itself, or else the belief contradicts the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
            Why do you not believe in infant baptism? Because, in your opinion, you don’t find it in the Bible. Why don’t you believe in purgatory? Because you don’t find it in the Bible. Why don’t you believe in indulgences? Because you don’t find it in the Bible.

            However, that puts you in a pickle because you believe that the Bible is
            comprised of 66 books without any way of pointing out to anyone where God gave you that belief.

            It’s a belief that isn’t even hinted at in Sacred Scripture, and yet you adhere to that belief.

            The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is not in Sacred Scripture. The question is: Why do you think it has to be there in order for it to be true?

            It’s an oral tradition that goes back to the time of the apostles. The Bible
            contains at least 2 other “assumptions,” so there cannot be any
            biblical basis to object to the idea of someone being “assumed” into

            Pope Pius XII did not “decree”the Assumption; he merely “defined” it. It’s a belief that was always held.

            It’s easily proven that people believed in the Assumption long before Pope Pius defined it. I’ll give the proof:

            The Eastern Orthodox, who began to split from the Catholic Church in the 800s and finally did so in 1054, also believe in the Assumption (in the East, as we who belong to Byzantine parishes, call it the Dormition. Different word, same thing.)

            Thus, it can be demonstrated that a non-Catholic group has believed in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin for at least a millenium, and 500 years before Martin Luther was even born.


            One of the most famous Orthodox cathedrals in the world (non-Catholic), begun in the 15th century, is called “Dormition (Assumption)

            The Orthodox had not been Catholic for nearly 500 years by that point, and one of their cathedrals is called “Assumption Cathedral.”

            1054 AD is almost 900 years prior to Pope Pius’ “decree.”

          • Kathy

            I attended with my Catholic husband and raised our sons there. I had way too many misgivings all those years to convert. After much research, my doubts were confirmed for me. No one in my immediate family is Catholic anymore.

            If the Jewish authors of those 7 books never accepted them into their canon and put them in a separate catagory from the recognized Hebrew Scriptures, that is a legitimate reason for removing books. They wrote them and should know! Should never have been added in the first place. ( The Messianic Jews do not include those books in their Bibles, and I trust them way more than the RCC)

            I could write a book on what I’ve learned, but will stick with what’s really important right now. Hmmm and Chip are right, I can relate to them concerning the Holy Spirit living within me. Jesus said in John 3 that we must be born again to enter His Kingdom. Had no idea what that meant until I experienced it 6 years ago,

            so understand why you cannot relate. That is what happened to the apostles at Pentecost and Paul on the road to Damascus. No tongues of fire or being blinded, but it was unmistakable.

            The “assumption” doctrine is minor compared to other teachings that are deceiving concerning crucial matters of faith and salvation.

          • DJR

            “If the Jewish authors of those 7 books never accepted them into their canon and put them in a separate catagory from the recognized Hebrew Scriptures, that is a legitimate reason for removing books.”

            That’s not a correct statement.

            The Greek speaking Jews translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek and produced the Septuagint hundreds of years before Christ was born. They accepted those books as canonical; that’s why they translated them.

            It wasn’t until after Christ’s ascension that the Jews rejected the Septuagint, along with the entire New Testament.

            But the Septuagint was the Bible of the early church.

            The post Christ Jews were wrong on the New Testament; what in the world gives you the idea that they were right regarding the Old Testament?

            Catholics give no weight to their opinions on the matter; they have no authority to do what they did.

            Was that removal somehow ordered by God? How did He do this?

            Regarding the canon, the only opinion you should care about is God’s opinion.

            And where do you find that?

            Lots of Protestants claim to have experiences that they attribute to God. The problem is that they all contradict one another in points of doctrine while at the same time claiming that God is telling them what to believe.

            God is not the author of confusion, and Protestantism is utter confusion.

            Private interpretation, something condemned in Sacred Scripture itself, is the cause.

          • Kathy

            You really have no idea, sorry to say. You are essentially calling Jesus a liar, along with the apostle’s and Paul’s transformations recorded in Scripture. So, you claim either that could not have happened or will never happen to anyone else again. You are sorely mistaken. “Men will choose religion over a relationship
            with Christ” If that is your choice, so be it.

          • DJR

            I’m not calling Christ a liar. Catholics just don’t believe that an experience that entrenches a person further in heresy comes from the Holy Ghost. Rather, it comes from the other spirit.

            Protestantism is heresy.

            In another part of the thread, Hmmm stated that infants who die before the age of reason are not damned.

            When I asked Hmmm, “Well, since infants are incapable of faith in Christ, and faith alone saves a person, what are they saved by”?

            Rambling non-answer. No Scripture. In fact, Hmmm stated that we don’t know these things.

            Really? Doesn’t Scripture tell us the only way a person can be saved?

            In other words, millions of aborted babies, miscarriages, and infants who die as babies, including Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Shinto, Rastafarians, et cetera, are saved even though they never accepted Christ and even though they never had faith.

            Your belief system, like that of Hmmm, is comprised of serious contradictions.

          • Kathy

            The thief on the cross was never baptized with water, his heart was transformed by the Holy Spirit, the new birth Jesus talked about. Lovely that your church has told grieving parents of deceased infants who were not baptized that their babies are doomed, putting them in even more agony. Nice…

            You are still ignoring John 3 and the transformation of the apostles and Paul. Was Paul’s experience exactly the same as the apostles? Not by a long shot.
            Does that disqualify them?

            You can say all you want, it doesn’t really mean a thing to those of us who know better.

          • DJR

            Saint Dismas, the good thief, died before Pentecost Sunday, which is the birthday of the church. Therefore, baptism was not a requirement. It became a requirement on Pentecost Sunday.

            Not sure what you mean by John 3.

            Do you deny that the Bible teaches salvation through faith?

            If salvation is through faith alone, which is what you believe, how are infants who die without faith saved?

            If they don’t have faith, what saves them?

            If they don’t have Christ, who saves them?

            And where in the Bible is such a belief? Book, chapter, verse?

            The Protestant belief system is loaded with contradictions.

            Either infants who die without faith are saved OR salvation is not through faith alone.

            It’s not possible for you to have it both ways.

            Which one is it?

          • Kathy

            No need to waste time elaborating on what Hmmm has posted the last few times…I can’t add anything to it. Perhaps you will one day let go of your Pharisee-like religiosity ( Christ chastised them consistently) and come to your Savior personally. You don’t need to run the 2.5 miles to your church building to do that. You are severely limiting Him and His presence.

          • DJR

            Translation: “I can’t answer the question without contradicting my doctrine, so I’ll just keep repeating how much the Catholic Church is ‘Pharisee-like.'”


            It is always the same. When Protestants get cornered, using their own doctrine, they deflect and attack instead of reasonably answering questions to test their doctrine.

            Why is this so? Answer: Their specifically Protestant beliefs are erroneous.

          • Kathy

            I began with legitimate reasons for the Apocrypha not being included in our bibles. You continued to argue. I attended a Messianic synagogue for a year and trust the FIRST believers, the Jewish ones, as ALL of the apostles were, much more so than the RCC, which falsely claims they are the first and one true church. No need to argue that either, I know the truth…you will never convince me otherwise.

            If someone else is posting something similar to what you would say, would you bother to keep repeating it? Baptism by the Spirit, as in John 3, is salvation. The apostles at Pentecost received that. Paul received that in a totally different manner. You claimed that different experiences proves that the new birth csn’t be legit, as if they all must be exactly the same.

            Water baptism is for professing believers and is not a requirement for salvation, it is a public profession of faith. True faith proceeds only from being born of the Spirit. God saves whom He will. Over the years, I have come to believe in election considering the abundance of Scripture referencing that, both testaments.

          • Chip Crawford

            Bless you for your devotion and diligence. I’ve come to consider that at this point he’s just a scoffer. There has been enough real seed sown should he ever become good ground. Prayers for the Holy Spirit to continue to draw him, who can do both the convicting and the convincing. We can’t do that. What I see at this point: Proverbs 22:10 Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease.

          • Kathy

            I have agreed with much of what you said, but don’t like to “gang up” on people. However, when similar conversations concerning the same topic are going on, I will refer to others I tend to agree with, at least for the most part. Just so you know, I welcome correction since you have been at this longer than I have. 🙂

          • Chip Crawford

            The above was just my take I shared with you. Diminishing returns it seems. Not as soft as you are, but that has its place. I respect your heart and strong walk.

          • DJR

            “I began with legitimate reasons for the Apocrypha not being included in our bibles.”

            We both know the true reason why you and your fellow Protestants reject those books. It is because those books blatantly contradict your doctrine.

            That’s the true reason.

            No, you don’t trust “the FIRST believers.” What you trust is Protestants and their Protestant oral tradition. Messianic Jews of the 21st century are not “the FIRST believers”; they are merely modern day Protestants with Jewish lineage.

            The topic of infant baptism demonstrates the error of your belief system, based on Sola Scriptura and private interpretation of the Bible.

            Millions of Protestants contradict one another on that point.

          • Kathy

            Are you willing to access a website that very clearly explains the reasons for our differences? It explains both the RCC belief and the orthodox Biblical Christian belief regarding many topics, with an abundance of Scriptural references.

            It does a much more thorough job than I could possibly do or have time or room for here. It is something I discovered only about 6 months ago. I learned a lot from it, but it was an affirmation of what I already learned and believed before that as well. It answers the questions regarding infant baptism and the Apocrypha, among many other questions.

          • DJR

            I’ll certainly take a look at the website, but I’m already completely familiar with all the arguments. I’ve been reading about such things, often, for nearly 40 years.

            Unless a person is able to step outside the box of his/her own opinions, that person will never see what is obvious to all those outside that box.

            Example: You reference “the orthodox biblical Christian belief.”

            Question: Well, orthodox according to whom?

            You don’t believe in infant baptism because you don’t believe that to be an orthodox practice. Understood.

            But millions… no, tens of millions… of other Protestants insist that infant baptism is most assuredly an orthodox practice.

            Thus, they, i.e., other Protestants, do not consider your views “orthodox” in that regard.

            So, how in the world could, say, a Muslim figure out whose position is correct? You say you are; they insist that they are.

            It ends up in a complete mishmash of millions of competing voices, with everyone making it up as they go along.

            God is not the author of confusion. That’s why He left us a church, and one only, that has the authority to teach in His name.

            And, yes, that is true even when many of the teachers turn out to be wicked, which is certainly obvious in our day.

          • Kathy

            Right, we do not have a human authority, Scripture is our authority. How do we know? As I cited previously, 2 Tim 15-17 “the Holy Scriptures are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”.

            The clergy does not have exclusive claim on being a “servant of God”, there are many that actually appear to be servants of Satan in all sects and denominations, as you know.

            We trust in the Spirit to reveal the meaning of God’s Word as in 1 Corinthians 2, especially 10-13 “God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one

            comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. And we impart this in words not taught

            human wisdom but by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit”.

            So, what I believe is not my opinions…I am inside the “box” of what is revealed in God’s Word…. that is what is meant by “orthodox”. Not a good idea to step out of that and rely solely on the supposed privileged clergy that claim exclusive rights to interpretation and wisdom. How would we know they are right if we are not able to discern for ourselves? Our pastors even tell us to compare what they say to Scripture. Paul was addressing all believers in Corinth, not just clergy. (It doesn’t matter to me what other Protestants think if they are doing anything unbiblical, such as ordaining female pastors)

            gotquestions (dot) org. Just type your question in the box.

          • Kathy

            Got messed up somehow…too many paragraphs.

          • DJR

            “Right, we do not have a human authority, Scripture is our authority.”

            But you continually stop and refuse to ask the hard questions.

            If “scripture” is your authority, how did you get the idea of what constitutes “scripture”?

            “So, what I believe is not my opinions…I am inside the ‘box’ of what is revealed in God’s Word….”

            Where is the canon of the Bible “revealed in God’s word” so that you can figure out what books are inspired and what books are not?

            You quoted from 2 Timothy. What part of the Bible tells you that that is canonical?

            I hope you don’t give credence to that website. It took me less than a minute to find errors.

            Under the section: “How do we know that the Bible is the Word of God, and not the Apocrypha, the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, etc?”, I found this statement:

            “Finally, Jesus, who quoted from every section of Old Testament Scripture, never once quoted from the apocrypha.”

            Where did Christ quote from Esther?

          • Kathy

            If you prefer to trust everything your church teaches, even doctrine that is nowhere seen in Scripture or is completely contrary to it, so be it. You know Jesus not quoting from all of the OT books is not the only reason the Apocrypha was excluded…it is just one of at least 4. He not the apostles quoted anything from those b

          • Kathy

            Messed up again. He nor the apostles quoted anything from any of those books whatsoever. The main objection is the authors did not believe they should be included. BTW, the site says the RCC added them to their canon in response to the Reformation, not that we removed them.

          • DJR

            The fact that Christ did not quote from the Deuterocanonicals is not a reason… at all… to reject it. If that were a valid reason to reject those books, then you would have to reject all the other books that were not quoted from.

            Catholic doctrine is not contrary to any part of Sacred Scripture. It is contrary to your private interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

            You don’t think you believe things that are not found in Sacred Scripture?

            66 book canon is found… where, exactly?

            You don’t trust the church, yet you trust yourself. Who told you that your views are correct?
            Are your views correct on every point of doctrine? How do you know this?
            Why do you use a “study” Bible? Are you insecure in your views?
            Why do you use a website to ask questions (a website that clearly even you acknowledge gives false answers)?

            Do you believe this statement: “Finally, Jesus, who quoted from every section of Old Testament Scripture, never once quoted from the apocrypha”?
            Why must Protestants tell falsehoods to support their positions?

          • Kathy

            If you actually wrote one of those books yourself and denied it belonged in sacred Scripture, insisting it belonged in another category, yet some other “authority” decided that it does, would you think “Well, I guess they know better than I about my own work?” Just common sense.

            “Even a cursory reading of the NT will reveal that the RCC does not have it’s origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the NT, there is no mention of a papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the IC, perpetual virginity of Mary (many verses speak of other children, mainly sons) her assumption or co-redemtrix status), petition of saints in heaven for prayers, apostolic succession, ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism. confession of sins to a priest, purgatory, indulgences or equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. Therefore, the origin of the RCC is not the teachings of Jesus or His apostles as recorded in the NT.

            No, Jesus did not quote from all of the books in the OT, but neither did He or the apostles reference any of the above. (no need to refer to Peter – I know what you believe and what we believe ) I actually believed the Catholics that we “removed the Apocrypha” until I read that it was actually added to Scripture in response to the Reformation.

          • DJR

            “If you actually wrote one of those books yourself and denied it belonged in sacred Scripture, insisting it belonged in another category, yet some other “authority” decided that it does, would you think “Well, I guess they know better than I about my own work?” Just common sense.”

            Wait, that’s nonsense.

            The Jews who do not accept those books are not the same Jews who wrote them.

            The Greek speaking Jews considered those books canonical. That’s why they translated them and included them in the Septuagint.

            After Christ, the Hebrew speaking Jews rejected the ENTIRE Septuagint because the early church was using that as its Bible.

            The fact that both groups were Jews is absolutely meaningless.

            The group of Jews who rejected the Deuterocanonical books also rejected the New Testament in toto.

            Do you agree with them on that?

            “I actually believed the Catholics that we ‘removed the Apocrypha’ until I read that it was actually added to Scripture in response to the Reformation.”

            Oh, nothing could be further from the truth. You’re reading things from people who are misleading you.

            Even the gotquestions website admits this. If you don’t believe me, go on there and read it.

            The Council of Trent in the 16th century did indeed reaffirm the canon, but the canon was in place HUNDREDS of years prior.

            The Council of Florence, which took place prior to the Reformation, 1438-45, included the Deuterocanonical books in the canon.

            From the Council of Carthage, which took place IN AD 397, OVER A THOUSAND YEARS before the Protestant Reformation:

            Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)

            That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.

            Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

            But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

            Joshua the Son of Nun.
            The Judges.
            The Kings, iv. books.
            The Chronicles, ij. books.
            The Psalter.

            The Twelve Books of the Prophets.


            The New Testament. (It goes on to list the NT books.)

            Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

            In case you’re wondering who “Boniface” was, he was the Bishop of Rome (i.e., the pope) at the time.

            The above list, which includes the Deuterocanonical books, was written 1120 YEARS BEFORE Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Wittenberg church.

            The “Apocrypha” can be found right in the middle of the original King James Bible (1611), with the statement that those books were not used as doctrine BUT WERE USEFUL TO READ. They were later removed by the Puritans after the English civil war that set Protestant against Protestant.

            The Catholic Church has used the same canon of the Bible since the Council of Carthage in AD 397.

            Many of the things you claim are not in the Bible, are indeed in the Bible. The Protestant interpretion is merely incorrect. Some of them are, admittedly, not in the Bible (like the Protestant belief of a 66 book canon), but the Catholic does not believe in Sola Scriptura. Thus, not all Christian beliefs are found in the Bible.
            If all Christian beliefs have to be found in the Bible, you’re on extremely shaky grounds. The canon is nowhere in the Bible.

          • Kathy

            I read it on my phone, but your latest post has disappeared. Had to take a break anyway from the Apocrypha drip, drip, drip. Felt like I was being waterboarded with it. Did you see the question “What are the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books” and the corresponding websites referenced? No longer going to debate that…it is a futile exercise.

            You admit that not all RCC doctrine is biblical. Some doctrine obviously contradicts Scripture. I am familiar with both the unbiblical and the contradictory doctrine. Other than the 66 book canon that you cite is an unbiblcal Protestant doctrine, are there others that you can point to?

          • DJR

            In the last post, I wasn’t debating anything. I was just showing you that the idea that the Catholic Church added the Deuterocanonical books after the Reformation is not true.

            The canon was mentioned at the Council of Rome in AD 382, at the Council of Carthage in AD 397, at the Council of Florence in 1442. It was merely reaffirmed at the Council of Trent after the Reformation because the Catholics who broke away from the Church were disputing parts of the Bible (the DT books in addition to the 4 New Testament books that Luther discarded).

            The Catholic canon of the Bible has been the same since the year AD 382, and it has always included the Deuterocanonical books.

            I don’t admit that any Catholic doctrine is unbiblical. What Catholics admit is that not all our doctrine is specifically spelled out in Sacred Scripture. There are Catholic doctrines and practices that you agree with that are not found in the Bible.

            I will list them out in another post. Trying to keep it short. Don’t know what happened to the other posts; they disappeared.

          • Chip Crawford

            Why do you go on exposing your inner man to the death coming from this?
            Proverbs 4:23 Guard thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.

            Is the Lord really leading you to continue this given the handling you are getting? He just arbitrarily knocks everything down you put up. Again, it is harmful to the inner man to go on being exposed to the wrong spirit involved. This may be a time to actually “let go and let God.” Maybe stand back and let the Holy Spirit deal. If he can’t handle it …

            Proverbs 14:7 Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge. Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

          • Kathy

            I did say I welcomed your “correction” didn’t I? haha If the concern is that he will adversely influence and lead me to question what I have come to believe, that is not the case at all. Even though I’ve found some aspects of the RCC to be appealing, they are superficial and irrelevant compared to what is most important…the truth in God’s Word alone. I’ve learned too much over too many years there to see them as much more than aesthetically attractive with many personable people, including relatives and friends. Thanks!

          • Chip Crawford

            It was a concern, having experienced a spiritual death drain from the ongoing legalistic contact. You are clearly too good a Berean and lover of the Lord as well to be influenced. Again, it’s the spiritual drain that can occur at a point where their denunciation and indoctrination is projected. God bless.

          • Kathy

            Considering my “newbie” status compared to yourself, I understand your concern. I certainly appreciate that…thank you!

            Not a totally new concept to me, but a missionary to Muslims spoke in a class at church earlier. So much of what she was saying about the Muslim’s practices reminded me of the RCC…it was eye-opening and troubling at the same time. Yet just another confirmation to me that ANYTHING outside of God’s Word in the Bible is highly questionable and not to be trusted.

          • Chip Crawford

            I don’t consider you a “newbie,” but that you are gifted and led in different ways. I don’t study like you do the historical part that contributes to areas of apologetics. It’s being led and going with your grace, which everyone has for something. Not correcting at all, but bluntly speaking up at times … for better or worse, but it does come out of genuine concern that keeps coming up. I wish you hadn’t decided you found “election” in the word, along the line of speaking up. There are scriptures that seem to say that, but the Bible doesn’t really teach that. It contradicts so much about God’s revealed M.O. from start to finish. We have to decide things for ourselves. However, like with a mathematical problem, if a wrong number, element is introduced, everything after that will be wrong. Just my frank input. You are free to do the same. I’ll not mention it again.

          • Kathy

            I don’t mind at all. As a matter of fact, I regretted writing that because there is so much confusion about it. I tend to side with it because of my own experience and so much mention of predestination, chosen, calling and election in Scripture. Just one of many examples: Think of Israel being chosen by God….they did not “decide for God”. There is no mention of anyone “accepting” Jesus, praying the “sinner’s prayer”, etc. Don’t know how to explain my relative indifference to God and only 6 years ago pretty quickly becoming enamored with Him.

            Only thing I remember questioning is your mentioning continually seeking the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. I thought He lived in us all the time since our new birth. Sometimes we sense it and sometimes not. Is sensing the presence what you are seeking? Thanks for the encouragement and

          • Chip Crawford

            The scripture speaks of coming to the Lord with the Holy Spirit drawing him. That is why we pray for people. We don’t understand it all and have more to learn, but that is my understanding of how that works. Usually there is someone praying for a person, whether they know it or not or even prayer for their demographic. That may be a stretch, but it is the Holy Spirit’s ministry to draw a person and they respond at some point, make connection with a believer, and so forth.

            I believe and received the second filling, That is generally sought and must be after the new birth. That empowerment makes a tremendous difference in power and awareness of the word, strength in living the overcoming life. Praying in the Holy Spirit builds one up and helps with intercession or prayer concerning things we do not know how to pray for. Jesus told the disciples, all of whom had received him as their Messiah, to wait in the upper room until the Holy Spirit came on them. Those who received the infilling some time after receiving Jesus and his spirit, of course, will tell you that an unmistakable anointing came on their life for strength and power. It is what God intends for our personal life and witness and service, that empowerment. I believe that is what is meant for one example by Priscilla and Aquilla showing Appolos the way more perfectly. The life of the spirit must be maintained with prayer, spirit food from the Word of God and corporate worship and fellowship.

          • Kathy

            Yes, the Holy Spirit must draw a person and agree, we don’t understand everything. I will say I can’t think of one person that would have been praying for me at the time…I knew no born again Christians whatsoever. Most I knew were like me, thinking that they are a decent person, committed no “mortal” sin, went to church most weeks…I am “good to go”. If we needed someone praying for us, couldn’t we give that person credit for us coming to Christ? They helped the Spirit along?

            Absolutely on the last sentence of your comment, but can’t relate to seeking a second filling unless you mean asking for help, strength, comfort, etc. from the Holy Spirit. I believe He is always with and indwelling us. Unlike with some others posting here, I think our difference of belief is minor and not detrimental to either of us. What do you think?

          • Chip Crawford

            My mother followed an empty religion, but prayed the only way she knew how, and God honored that, because she was reaching for him from her heart. She later made Jesus her lord when she learned the word concerning it. People often pray for demographics like I mentioned, your city, someone knowing an aunt, working with your dad, praying for your family, but I’m not wedded to that. The Holy Spirit manages to draw every person, but not every person yields to him. Some take a long time to respond. If the early church needed to receive the power of the Holy Spirit, so much more does the latter church. The chapters on the gifts of the spirit, glossolalia must seem strange to have been put in there for just the early Christians. It does not say that. The NT was written by tongue talkers to tongue talkers. It means everything when you know not how you should pray, to have the Holy Spirit give you utterance and know you are praying the will of God. A flash in the pan? Tell that to millions who participate daily, enjoy interpretation as they wait in their personal time and receive empowerment from time spent building themselves up in this manner. Jude Dennis and Rita Bennett had the gift of explaining so much of this in their books written in the 1970’s. Charismatic ministries have good teaching materials available for examination.

          • Kathy

            Guess what I was trying to say is that know one I knew personally would have been praying for my salvation because they figured I was already saved for the reasons I stated in my last post. They are “lukewarm” as I was. I understand what you are saying about demographics, though.

            Pentecost was the receiving the power of the Holy Spirit, as you said. We’ve had our personal Pentecost, you might say. I know He’s with me whether I can feel His presence or not. (It was overwhelming for at while at first… not something I sought after) I consider my church and myself to be orthodox Biblical Christian, not at all solemn except during Communion, but relatively laid back compared to what I know of Charismatic and Pentecostal churches. I am fine with that since I can’t relate to their practices, and I don’t think it’s necessary that I do. I think you will agree that as long as our beliefs and practices are aligned with Scripture, how we worship is a matter of preference and our personalities.

            Who knows, I may change down the road…I thought “born again” was a strange concept. haha

            Thanks again for your encouragement, Chip. You keep on relaying the truth to those that need to hear it. I always welcome your “corrections”. (Oh, I don’t study much history like you thought, I had to look up the Apocrypha because Catholics bring that up a lot.)

          • Chip Crawford

            The Lord has me in a denominational church now. The infilling enhances daily walk, seeing into scripture – it’s an anointing for life, not a worship style. Nothing to be afraid of, what most are looking for, a completeness. Some wild things are out of order; I dislike that intensely; that’s flesh. Never been a part of a church like that. You are reading over it in your scriptures. It’s there and it’s for you, everyone, essential for this time. Spending time praying in the spirit harmonizes with God’s spirit and enhances hearing from him. the ability to do that comes with the baptism or infilling of the Holy Spirit, which you can ask for in prayer, but often someone lays hands on you to receive. However, one can pray and receive directly from the Lord.

          • Kathy

            Considering some of your comments, I assumed you were a Charismatic or similar. Always turned off as well by those wild things you mentioned. I am good with hearing the “still, small voice” and my “heart burning within me”. Too each his own, I guess.

            Just one more question: Kevin Quillan is a concern to me. Says he is a “Christian Universalist” (never heard of such a thing) and eternal punishment does not exist, only a short-term one for unbelievers, depending on their offenses. I agree with some other things he’s written, and not sure about others. This one may get him in real trouble. Any thoughts?

          • Chip Crawford

            Both issues, any issue to me comes up to: What does the word say about it? Ask God if something is real, for you and what he thinks. Feelings and observations are out in the natural world and don’t have a strong foundation. I see to go to God on it directly, trying to do that more and quicker when things come up. Involve him with everything. Universalism is error, likely well meaning by its adherents, but not its source – the devil like all subtle or other errors. Learned about it about six months ago, but forget the specifics, but it is a current variation of error people need to see light on.

          • Kathy

            He certainly appears to be a very serious Christ follower and has a good heart that is getting in the way of the truth. It IS very disturbing to think of eternal punishment, so I understand his search for an “alternative” to that, any word or verse in Scripture that may appear to affirm his wish that it’s not so. I think it’s foolish and dangerous to very possibly be deceiving others into a false belief. If we are wrong, no harm done, if he is, there is plenty of harm done. Thanks for your input!

          • Chip Crawford

            I had replied to your previous post, but don’t know where it went or if I got interrupted. It was just that making these matters a point of validation with the word and asking the Lord if this is real or right for you. Feelings and impressions can be misleading and cause one to forfeit a good experience on one hand or involve with one that doesn’t turn out so well on the other. God will confirm these matters. I’ve heard of more Universalism lately and it is one of those shades that well meaning people can misstep into. Of course, we are always well advised to keep learning the word and ask the Lord to open up matters of question. Then follow leadings so he can, perhaps through a teacher or coming across material, finding agreement in the word or just a concordance search and study. We can trust God to work it out when we ask him. How good we have it. I am thankful as well.

          • Kathy

            I saw your post, but noticed I replied to myself instead. Sorry! I’ve never referenced a concordance, and haven’t heard anyone that does promote the concept of universalism. My ESV study Bible refutes that notion as well. That’s my question…Even if we don’t know for certain, isn’t it better to refrain from confidently promoting a temporary punishment and just stick with a separation from God in hell, no matter how long it may be? The story of the rich man Lazarus in Luke 16 seems like an eternal concept to me.

          • Chip Crawford

            Right, exactly, they are big on smoke screens. You know, the incense routine and all.

          • DJR

            The Catholic Church fulfills the prophecy of Malachi. Your organization does not.

          • Chip Crawford

            Check it out folks: This is where these folks are … An incense scripture. What about the gifts of the spirit, 1 Cor. 14, Galatians fruit, Ephesians armor, the love chapter in 1 Cor. 13, developing in how spiritual things work, a working knowledge of the word which is the real Church’s part, the epistles and more, all of which you are woefully ignorant and grossly untaught. You see, all of the word is for the Church, but not all of the word is about the church. You fail to rightly divide, but that is only a slight failing of that bilious fodder you are fed. That is by design, my friend. The “church Fathers” who made shipwreck early on began to form this reasonable facsimile of religious exercises reverting to just such types and shadows as you are preoccupied with. Exactly as planned. They got you. Out in the weeds instead of walking in the spirit, praying and hearing the heart of God each and every day. Sucker! Locate your actual heart, cry to God from it, and he will come and save you!

          • DJR

            For anyone reading this, note that the Old Testament contains certain prophecies that, in order to be true, must be fulfilled in the New Testament.

            One of those prophecies is that there will always be a sacrificing priesthood (it’s promised in the OT) and several others state that there will be a daily Gentile sacrifice which involves incense and altars.

            The Gentile sacrifice was never fulfilled in the OT, as the Gentiles did not worship the true God, and the only place on earth that sacrifice was permitted by God, after the building of the temple, was in Jerusalem by Jewish priests.

            The Jewish priesthood has passed out of existence and is not capable of being revived, so where is this sacrificing priesthood that God promised would always exist?

            What the above person is basically stating is that those Old Testament prophecies are false and have failed.

            His belief system does not fulfill any of those prophecies, so a person has to choose:

            1. Either Sacred Scripture errs…

            2. … or the above poster’s beliefs are in error.

            Number 2 is the correct statement.

          • Chip Crawford

            These are pertinent part. There is more. Hebrews sets forth the original purpose for the sacrifices and how Jesus became the sacrifice, making it no longer needful to perform such on altars. Jesus is the end of the law, the fulfillment of the ordinance for sins, having carried them away for us. Believe it or don’t. If you don’t, then you are choosing your church’s position of substituting itself for God.

            Hebrews 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
            9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
            10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
            11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
            12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
            13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
            14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
            15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
            . . .
            10:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
            1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
            2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
            3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
            4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
            5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
            6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
            7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
            8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
            9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
            10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
            11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
            12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
            13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
            14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
            15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
            16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
            17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
            18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
            19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
            20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
            21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
            22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
            23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;

          • DJR

            I believe every portion of the text you quoted.

            Nothing in those passages negates the fact that Christians have a daily sacrifice that is offered in every place, from the rising of the sun to its setting, where incense is used.

            The daily sacrifice and the sacrifice of Calvary are one and the same thing. Thus, when you say Jesus is the end of the law, that is true.

            But it’s Jesus that becomes present at the daily sacrifice. He stated: “This IS My Body” as recorded in Sacred Scripture in three places. And Saint Paul refers to “the bread” as “the body of the Lord.”

            You don’t believe either of those things. Catholics do.

            We (Christians) have an altar. That’s what Hebrews states. You omitted that part. Altars are for sacrifice. Eating is done from that altar. People who remain committed to Judaism are not permitted to partake.

            Those things are in Hebrews also.

            The Bible is thoroughly Catholic.

          • Chip Crawford

            Don’t tell me what I believe. You don’t know presumptively. I do not recall actual praise and worship rising to the Lord in the Catholic churches I have attended, except in Catholic Charismatics. Hebrews 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. You haven’t provided scriptures to support your assertions.

          • DJR

            Okay. Well, tell me what books are included in “scriptures,” and I’ll provide them.

            But when you give me the answer as to which books are included in the word “scriptures,” please let me know the part of the Bible you used in order to know that.

            I’ve asked numerous times. You have never provided it.

            66 book canon? Book, chapter, and verse, and Bible only, please.

          • Chip Crawford

            It is irrelevant like your ongoing communications. You major in minors and are only interested in discussing those. I’m not willing to invest any more time trying to get you relevant. You need God, reality, relationship. I agree to disagree with you and wish grace and blessing to your life.

          • DJR

            It is impossible to discuss “the Bible” without first knowing what “the Bible” consists of.

            You believe it consists of 66 books. Fine.

            My question is: How did God reveal that to you?

            Just show me what part of the Bible you rely on for that information so I can “be a Berean,” “search the scriptures,” and test whether what you’re stating is correct.

            Book, chapter, and verse, and Bible only, please.

            That’s all I’ve been asking. I’ve asked it about half a dozen times, and you have yet to answer that.

          • Chip Crawford

            Job 38:2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
            I’ve answered your stupid question; you just refuse to accept the answer, likely because you do not understand it. Find the answer above and stop pestering because you only have about two notes in your repertoire. Faith is in every bible and trusting God and how to get saved and things that mean something to God. If he bores you, don’t talk to me. He’s what it’s about and the rest is folly. Why do you pursue folly instead of the living God?

          • DJR

            “I’ve answered your stupid question.”

            That’s false. The question as to how God revealed which books are canonical has not been answered in this thread, and we both know why.

            You’re not able to answer that question because that information is not in the Bible.

            And if it’s not in the Bible, that means the idea that the Bible is comprised of 66 books is “a manmade tradition of men” which you have added to the Bible.

            And that contradicts the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

            Sola Scripture is a heresy. Those who believe in it are heretics.

            The Bible is thoroughly Catholic.

            Do you believe that God is a Trinity?

          • Chip Crawford

            Your warped legalistic mind pounds on a theme, unable to grasp the truth when it is presented to you. This drumbeat is repeated four or five times here. You are abusing your access to this site. Of course I believe in the Trinity, three persons in one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Do you believe Jesus when he said you must be born again? Do you believe and obey the call to believe in your heart and confess with your mouth Jesus as lord? There is nothing in life more important than that.

          • Chip Crawford

            You are trolling here, deferring from the subject of the article and the meltdown of your disgraceful association. A good tree does not bear rotten fruit. Physician, heal thyself.

            The Holy Spirit witnesses that my Bible is valid and not coming up short. Your imposing your obsession over proving from the bible that the bible has a certain number of books is foolhardy. The ignoring my answer and asserting that hype again is bullying. You learned that from your overbearing sect, and you are getting into spam territory here. I’ll flag your next post ignoring my answer. I’ve dismissed you; now go away. Proverbs 14:7 Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.

          • DJR

            “The ‘church Fathers’ who made shipwreck early on…”
            To anyone reading, there is the crux of the problem.
            The early Church Fathers “made shipwreck early on” even though some of them sat at the feet of the apostles and were taught directly by them.
            Then nearly 15 centuries later, the true understanding came along, and the irony is that it was Catholics such as Luther and Calvin who came up with such ideas.
            The reason it is contended that the early Church fathers “made shipwreck” early on is because the Protestant above realizes that the early Church fathers were Catholics who taught doctrines that the above person rejects.
            Ask yourself: Who is more likely to get things correct? The people who were taught by the apostles and those who lived immediately after the apostolic age, or people in the 21st century who follow the teachings of 16th century former Catholics?

          • Chip Crawford

            The people who respond to God, not those who left him to set up their own kingdom. God always has things correct. That’s why we stay with him. There is no seniority in the Kingdom of God. Again, your points are entirely short sighted. You miss the main event: God not men; you are in a ditch today along with your church from following the latter

          • Kevin Vail

            Right. I used to believe this too. Until I realized, where did I learn it….
            O… that’d be from the pulpit, books written by catholics and the catholic catechism….
            I wouldn’t trust a priest alone in a room for with my child for 10 minutes, why in the world would I believe a word he said?

          • DJR

            Our faith does not depend on bad priests. Judas was a bishop.
            Not every Catholic priest is bad. Padre Pio surely was not.

          • Chip Crawford

            Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. Matthew 12:33

          • Roderick Halvorsen

            You believe what he said if it is in agreement with the consistent teaching of the Church.

            Truth is, 2 millenia have passed now since the establishment of the Church.

            Basically there isn’t anything that goes on today that hasn’t gone on in the past, and with the advent of the internet, anything a man needs to know is at his fingertips. It is the job of the priest to reinforce this to new generations, and I guess it is our job to run him off if he does otherwise….

          • Patmos

            The Catholic Church has you spun every which way, as you’re clearly more concerned with Catholicism than with Christ. It’s sad, I see a lot of prideful Catholics like yourself, who completely miss it.

          • DJR

            But Christ and His Church are one. To love one is to love the other.

            Acts 9:4: “And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?”

            1 Corinthians 12:27: “Now you are the body of Christ, and members in particular.”
            There is absolutely nothing “prideful” about being Catholic, particularly at this moment in the Church’s history, with new scandals coming out daily. In fact, it’s rather humiliating. Catholics are oftentimes governed by obviously evil men.
            What is prideful is the refusal to submit to any authority other than one’s personal opinion. That is what a Protestant is taught to do. The Bible is subject to the Protestant’s opinions on what it means, and even of what it consists (a 66 book canon is merely an opinion, nothing more, and is nowhere found in Sacred Scripture).

          • Chip Crawford

            God told Saul that he took his persecution personally. The body of Christ has Jesus as the head. You’ve twisted up what is being said here, since your understanding is handicapped because you are not aware of the spiritual realm where God is and how spiritual things work. Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

            1Cor 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
            1Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
            Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
            Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

            Being unsaved, unregenerate puts you outside God’s realm of operation, but not outside of his call to humble yourself and come as a child in belief of his call to all: Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

          • DJR

            Repeatedly telling others that they are unsaved does little good for your position if you are unable to answer “the hard questions.”

            How in the world can you “witness” to, say, a Muslim when he asks you, “How did God reveal the canon of Sacred Scripture?”

            You cannot possibly answer that question properly while remaining true to your other doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

            Your belief system is in error; i.e., it contains heresy.

          • Chip Crawford

            Your stumbling block is that you are a legalist, like the Pharisees Jesus severely corrected. The sola scripture thing is your introduction asserting what you think I believe. You are missing the spirit, thus my pointing out the unsaved condition. You are working in the dark, without faith and trust in God because of a lack of relationship.

            Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe
            that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

            I take much on faith and leave many things to trust in God to tell me otherwise. Some study those things, but I am not led to do so. Rapture elements, pre, post and all that, I leave with the Lord.

            John 14:2 In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. I have the Holy Spirit in my life. I talk directly to God and hear from him continually. The HolySpirit was sent to guide me into all truth, and he is on the job 24/7. My job is to keep in tune with hearing him.

            I know the stuff that preoccupies you is of negative zero priority, but understand that you are lost and don’t know any better. I’m still not going to go along with it. It is for you to get with the program.

            My Heavenly Father takes care of those things. I am thankfully not on my own to figure them out. If something is not true, he lets me know, has and will continue to do so. I pity your isolation. But, you know what to do, so it’s on you.

          • DJR

            “I take much on faith and leave many things to trust in God to tell me otherwise.”

            The fact that you cannot, and refuse to, answer the question concerning your belief in a 66 book canon tells the reader all he needs to know.

            All I’m doing is applying your own criteria to your belief system, being a “Berean” and “searching the Scriptures” to test whether your belief system is true.

            When you went to test whether the Protestant belief in a 66 book Bible is correct, which scriptures did you search?

            Book, chapter, and verse, and Bible only, please.

          • Chip Crawford

            John 14:2 In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I
            would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. I have the Holy
            Spirit in my life. I talk directly to God and hear from him
            continually. The Holy Spirit was sent to guide me into all truth, and he
            is on the job 24/7. My job is to keep in tune with hearing him.

            if it were not so, I would have told you. …. and so he will. I do not witness to the extra books being canon and have no check in my spirit that my Bible is not complete. Indeed, it speaks to me with the Holy Spirit’s interpretation. The Bible is the only book where the author is present when it is read. However, not everyone has the Holy Spirit active in their reading.

            The fact that you do not acknowledge the Holy Spirit as a sure guide is that you do not know his workings in your own life. That’s on you. I never claimed sola scriptura or whatever that is. I rely on God’s spirit as well. He leads me to teachers in the Body, which is a gift to me Eph.4:11. It shows that you do not do so as prescribed as well. You have to be coaxed to provide scripture on what you assert, and skim over what I provide and obviously do not give it proving value, often dismissing it outright. The teacher’s message must agree with scripture for it to be valid.

            Stop playing the fool with this petty tirade of yours. It only shows your lack of comprehension of what God has provided to those who can read, comprehend what they read and have his help in knowing it on the inside. I know these things are over your head, but once again, that’s on you. You provide Bible only.

            The Bereans did not search the scripture to find out if their belief system were true. They searched them to find out if the things they were hearing from the disciples were true. I never wanted to test whether the 66 book Bible is correct. You are in the weeds again, deferring away from your lack of being able to make the main thing the main thing. You also don’t want to talk about the utter breakdown of your sect.

          • Kelly B

            Beautifully stated brother – thank you.

  • Luigi the Barber


  • James Miller

    Amen. Keep fighting the good fight, John. Jesus Christ, who is Truth, is the ultimate authority. He is exposing the truth and purifying His Church. Faithful disciples of Christ and unbelievers, listen-up to the words of your creator.
    “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.”
    ‭‭John‬ ‭3:19-21‬ ‭NIV‬‬

  • Roderick Halvorsen

    John says:

    “While NOT implicated in cover-ups (bravo!), Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput did twist the arms of local Catholic politicians to keep that statute of limitations short. The Guardian reported that he attacked one lawmaker by name in that Catholic’s own parish bulletin, to shame him into compliance.”


    If what you say here is true, then Chaput WAS indeed involved in cover-up.

    Most soldiers in an army are not Combat Arms. Support troops outnumber those at the point of the spear.

    The real question isn’t whether Chaput strictly-speaking “covered up” but rather; Did Chaput {or any of them} DEMAND JUSTICE? There are indeed times when heads should be demanded. Instead, what we see is varying forms of “standing by one’s team”.

    I have seen not one statement by a bishop that comes anywhere near to an expression of virtue, honor or decency in regards to these events. Not once have I ever heard or read of a bishop demanding JUSTICE.

    The paradigm for this collapse of moral integrity can be found in the document Gaudet Mater Ecclesiae paragraph 16. Here we see exactly where this culture of do-nothing originated and in this document we can literally see with our own eyes the cornerstone of the “Pervert Church” edifice. Upon this new model our prelature adopted what the writer of that document, Pope St John XXIII, said himself was a dramatic shift in practice for the Church. Anathemas and condemnations GONE. Only the “medicine of mercy” in the future. And that is exactly what we have had for near 60 years; mercy which has become FALSE mercy. For there can never be true mercy in the absence of justice.

    Our leadership must put righteousness, integrity and virtue before “family”. Until we see true warrior priests and prelates who are willing to be labelled “haters”, we will not see this problem corrected.

    “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” St Luke 14:26

    • Hmmm…

      Yes indeed

    • La Pucelle

      From the rubbles…meaning ALL of them have to go down. The DOJ has to step in and investigate if RICO LAWS APPLY.

      • standtall909

        Indeed, this atrocity puts a whole new meaning on the word ‘ugly’….Ugly and Brutal it’s going to be…..although necessary.

  • ArthurMcGowan

    The two most-frequently misspelled names in Catholic journalism: “Blase” and “Mahony.”

  • Tim H

    John, I love ya man, but c’mon Fox … Henhouse.
    This is where the libertarians are helpful. The government IS NEVER THE ANSWER!!

  • DominicSavio

    The Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (R.I.C.O.) must be applied to these cross-state reassignment coverups done to avoid discovery and prosecution.

  • Kevin Vail

    Good job sir. You are one of the few catholic commentators taking this seriously.
    I’m out of this sick twisted “church”, I could never trust a man in a collar again at this point. But I can appreciate those that stay, though I can not.

  • James Blazsik

    It is interesting that Bill Donahue at the Catholic League in a rebuttal states that this is a hoax. He says that in the past two years that only .005% of priests had credible accusations of abuse. He also said that instead of 300 priests there were actually half that number.
    He defines this uproar as hysterical.
    Whatever the actual facts this is still a tragedy. The hierarchy needs to be held accountable and cleaned out. There is a “gay” problem a that needs to be rectified
    This is Christ’s Body, we need to circle and help bring healing to the victims. Our Church needs holy bishops, priests and deacons to bring healing to the Church. This is the Church that Christ instituted: it must be saved. It is where we receive the Holy Eucharist.
    Or does the laity need to kick butt?

  • tz1

    Meanwhile Donohoe at the Catholic League tweeted and they released a pdf saying “it isn’t that bad because it was only indictments, not charges, and many priests were removed or are dead because it goes back to WW2”.

    Sometimes you just have to condemn evil first, and do any pointing out later after the Augean Stables are cleaned out.

  • lindenman

    I’ve said it before, but what we need is an Albert Speer, a highly-placed insider to say, “Okay, you win — I’m guilty — BUT SO ARE ALL THESE OTHER BUMS! Now let me tell you how…”

  • Chip Crawford

    This article picture reminds me of what I heard about the condition with fibroid tumors in the palm. They grow benignly, but eventually draw the fingers together, so you can only raise a couple like this. What I heard is that a priest or bishop or such had that condition, so his raised hand blessing became a two finger deal. He was then copied by others …

  • Marc

    I read this after our Twitter exchange last evening.

    Where there is sufficient evidence of crimes in civil law, the civil prosecutors ought to act, period. This is not ‘inviting Caesar to resolve the problems of the Church’, it is expecting the civil authorities to do their jobs. My impression is that RICO has been abused by prosecutors in not a few instances, and it seems to me that we ought not to encourage its use in the struggle against clerical abuse/episcopal malfeasance. I ‘like’ all sorts of rhetorical aspirations on Twitter but the fact is that I don’t want the civil power, as it is constituted in the US, to substitute the ecclesiastical. Granted, this limits today’s options given the unfortunate present regime at the Holy See: but pope succeeds pope, bishop succeeds bishop, and authentic conversions happen.

    The ‘income from government programs’ problem is distinct and ought to be dealt with outside the context of the abuse crisis, as ought the Conference support for opposition to immigration control, the proposed wall, and comprehensive reform.

    Having written those things, I understand that different people will make different practical, morally defensible choices in the political realm.

A Christian ‘Opposite’ Strategy for Making a Difference
Tom Gilson
More from The Stream
Connect with Us