Which Church?
Does it matter if you belong to any
one church?
The word "church" has a number of different meanings, which,
although related, are distinct in use. To avoid confusion, in this tract the
word shall mean a denomination: a group of people who hold a common religious
belief system and identify themselves as separate from other
"churches."
With this in mind, let us frame the key question: does it matter whether
the true Christian is a member of the right church?
This leads to two other questions:
1. Is
there a right (true) church?
2. Does
it matter if he belongs to any one church?
Let us examine the Protestant view. We understand that many people object to
the word "Protestant" as it is purely negative - meaning
"non-Catholic" - but no other term will serve. Protestants disagree
in many things, except that they are not Catholic. Although there are
some variations among the many Protestant cults, in general, a common view is
held. As with all Protestant views, it is essentially negative rather than
affirmative. The Protestant holds that a/the Church is not necessary:
·
as a means of receiving the grace of salvation;
·
as a means of understanding the Bible;
·
as an institution which teaches truth to men;
·
as a means of having sins forgiven;
·
as a means of determining who is a Christian;
·
as the way of coming close to Jesus;
·
as the means by which Jesus’ teachings are
preserved;
·
as the means by which
the Bible was produced, validated, etc. Nor, says the Protestant, is membership
in any particular church necessary for salvation.
If all of this - if any of this - is true, then the key
question now is: why did Jesus found a Church at all? If Jesus died for us so
we could be saved, and if this can be done without any particular
church, then Jesus founded a church for no reason.
Can any Christian really say that Jesus did something for no
reason? No! Jesus’ life and all His acts were done for a reason and with
an end in mind. And that end, as far as we men are concerned, is that we may
enter heaven to share eternal life and joy with Him. Therefore, He must have
founded a church as one of the means necessary for salvation. And the true
Christian Church must be the Roman Catholic Church.
In a short work such as this, the clear and irrefutable proofs of Roman
Catholicism cannot be detailed, but many products from ARM easily and
absolutely establish the validity of this claim. We suggest the tapes
"Roman Catholic Proofs I & II."
The Catholic (i.e. Christian) position is that membership in the Church is
NECESSARY for salvation, for outside the Church there is No salvation.
Jesus founded His Church to teach truth and bring grace to all men. No one
can reject her teachings and honestly claim that he accepts Jesus…can he? Ask yourself that question - but you already know
the answer.
But, someone might ask, could not any Church fail, become corrupt, teach
error, etc.? If this could happen, then Jesus failed. He promised that His
Church, founded on St. Peter (the Rock) would not fail. Did Jesus lie when He
told us this? No! Even without that fact, simply imagine what would have
happened if His Church failed. This would mean that a man could place his faith
in the
And by what other means can a man seek God’s truth? The
Bible? But that collection of books only came into existence as the
Bible because the Roman Catholic Church canonized (made official) the contents.
This is to say that the Bible’s very contents were selected by this Church. How
can one claim to accept the Bible and reject the God-inspired Authority which
determined it to be God’s Word? For those of you who
foolishly hold that the Catholic Church only came into existence c.325 A.D.,
note that the canonization of the Bible only occurred several decades later.
And what is a "church" which cannot tell man what he must believe
to be a true Christian? Such a "church" would either have no
knowledge of what is true and what is false, or it would hold that truth in
dogma is not important. Either way it could not be following the Jesus who called
Himself "the Truth" and who stated that everyone committed to the
truth hears his voice. This kind of "church" could only have no
important place for truth.
Now ask yourself again if it really matters which Church you are in.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why Don't Catholics Evangelize?
You have probably had a number
of people approach you to talk about religion, and some may have tried to
convert you, but almost certainly none of these was a Roman Catholic. So,
probably until now, no Catholic has ever invited you to become a Catholic.
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY THIS IS SO?
The Catholic Church teaches that it alone is THE true Church, and that—no
matter how much its enemies or disobedient children
try to weaken the dogma or authority - there is NO salvation separated from it.
Yet if YOU are a Catholic - even if you are a "good" one - the
chances are quite high that you have NEVER (or only VERY infrequently)
attempted the conversion of another. If you are a Protestant, etc. you may
wonder why your Catholic friends do not seem to care if you go to hell or not.
Don’t we?
Add to these facts the fact that the Catholic Church DOES hold that
evangelism is a primary task of all Christians. So still, the question arises:
why don’t Catholics make the effort? We all see some of the "fundy" Protestants at least go through the motions of
conversion attempts. Could it be that Catholics do not really have the same
commitment to their faith that the Protestants do?
This tract examines this issue and, I hope, will act as an inducement for
those Catholics who read it to take more seriously this obligation in the
future.
There are a number of reasons why Catholics do not evangelize.
FIRST: In Catholicism there is a radical distinction between the clergy and
the laity. As a result, far too many (most?) lay Catholics feel that the role
of missionary belongs properly to the priest, and not the lay person. This is a
common misconception.
SECOND: The Catholic Church, being the true Church of Jesus Christ, is
divided into bureaucratic subdivisions. Some of these do ONLY evangelism work. The average Catholic supports these groups
financially. This gives him the sense that he has done "something" to
meet his obligation. It is not enough, of course, but it does lessen to some
degree the sense of obligation.
THIRD: Catholicism, unlike the other religions (especially Protestantism)
consists of a set system of truths, morality, and worship. Conversion to
Catholicism ACTUALLY means a change from sin to virtue, reform, and truth. In
Protestantism when one changes "faiths" it means no more than where
one parks his car on Sunday. One can believe or not believe ANYTHING AT ALL
(including that God does not exist) in Protestantism and still be in "good
standing."
Catholicism, on the contrary, is different. Unlike brothels and
Protestantism, where the "customer" is always right, Catholicism is
committed to preserving God’s truth, and not merely satisfying people’s whims.
In our Church, truth MUST be totally accepted, whether YOU like it or not. Our
beliefs are not meaningless phrases which require no commitment, no reform, no truth.
Catholicism DEMANDS
(under the penalty of eternal damnation)
When faced with this uncompromising situation many Catholics become
intimidated by the task. This is all wrong, of course, because with God ALL
things are possible. They need to but rely on Him for help.
Related to this is the more difficult task which Catholics face, especially
when compared to Protestants. Unlike the non-Catholic who NEVER has to give an
answer which makes sense, the Catholic MUST give an answer which is sensible,
true, and defensible. The Protestant, for example, when
confronted with some "unpleasant fact about his belief system, can simply
tell the prospective convert that he can "disregard" this particular
facet. Everything is optional, and the convert can customize his own
belief system as he wishes and call it "Christianity." And according
to the Protestant dogma of "freedom of conscience," there is no
penalty for this. In fact, he is encouraged to do so! Such "Christianity"
is a man-made invention, and can be modified whenever it is to anyone’s
inclination.
Catholics have no such "advantage." We cannot simply reinforce
sinful prejudices and call/pronounce it "faith." We MUST tell man
that he "must deny his very self," and die to his old ways.
"Eternal truth" of Protestantism (and Rabbinic
"Judaism," and Mohammedanism, etc.) are like
So it is much easier to "sell" those other "religions"
than to call men to submission to the will of God and conformity to His plan.
Unfortunately – after and because of Original Sin – humans will ALWAYS prefer
what is easier rather than what is right.
Catholicism has something to explain, defend, and offer. To be a Catholic evangelist
requires an effort, and study, and knowledge. The Protestant can simply make
things up as he goes along.
My last point is so self-evident that you probably haven’t noticed it. The
very tract which YOU hold in your hand shows you that Catholics do in fact
evangelize. This tract is produced by ARM, the best and toughest Catholic
evangelistic organization in
So, if YOU are a Catholic, get in touch with us and we will supply the ARMs for your task. And if YOU are not (yet) a Catholic,
become one and meet the first necessary condition for salvation.
Simply look at the claims of our Church, and you will find: "that upon
first examination of the proofs of Catholicism, they are so self-evident that
the will compels assent to them."
JOIN UP!
Hell is a rotten way to spend
eternity.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why are there Different Bibles?
Most people are quite aware
that there are different "versions" (i.e. translations) of the Bible.
This is NOT my concern. The problem of VALID translation is a serious one, but
there is a far more basic issue. And this is: WHAT should be or should not be
in the Bible. In other words, why are there different Bibles with different contents. The Protestant "Bible" has had removed
from it several books which are (and always have been) in the Catholic Bible.
Logic tells us that BOTH versions CANNOT be the "real Bible." Either 1st Maccabees, etc.
ARE part of the Bible, or they are NOT. The issue is really this simple, and,
if one wishes to take the Bible seriously, the issue is quite important.
Here is why it is important: If the Catholic Church truly and faithfully
preserves the Word of God as contained in the Holy Scriptures, then IT IS, what
its members claim that it is: the ONE TRUE Church of Christ. If, however, the
Protestant version is the correct one, then the claim cannot be true. If this
second alternative is correct, it would NOT establish which Protestant cult is
"the" correct one, but it would establish that the Catholic Church is
NOT the true Church.
In order to examine the issue, let’s first examine the necessary nature of
ANY book - for although the Bible has many aspects, it is always a book. The
key question is WHO, or WHAT determined the contents of a book. Every book must
have an author (or authors), and a publisher. It must be written, and then
produced. If it is not produced (i.e. Published) then it remains only a
manuscript, NOT a book. The actual form of the final edition is determined by
the publisher and NOT by the author. For example, the final version of Tom
Sawyer may not have been exactly as Mark Twain wrote. It was what the
publisher agreed to publish as the book.
Of course, the author may not agree with this decision and seek another
publisher, or he may even publish it himself. But even then it is the publisher
(or the author as publisher) who ultimately decides what goes into the book.
This same principle holds true with the Bible. The Bible’s publisher is the
Church of Rome. No Protestant sect ever "produced" the Bible. They
simply accepted it from the Roman Church which passed it on to them. Then these
various sects removed whatever parts offended their opinions.
The fact that the Protestants could NOT have been the publishers of the
Bible (and therefore had no authority to abridge it), is easily proven. The
Protestant Revolt did not take place until c. 1517 A.D. Therefore, the Bible
MUST have been produced, preserved, etc. before any Protestant system came into
existence. Now if the Bible is a "good fruit," then according to
Jesus, it must have been produced by a "good tree" (Mt
This leads to an important related point. Pentecost (the "birth"
of the Church) took place c. 33 A.D. Martin Luther rebelled c. 1520. The
difference is about 1500 years. This leads to a dilemma for the Protestant.
EITHER Christianity existed in this intervening period OR it did not. If it did
NOT exist, then Jesus did not establish a Church which was to teach true
Christianity, but rather Luther or Calvin, etc. Then the Protestant follows
mere men in religious matters. But IF the true Church did exist, then it cannot
be any Protestant sect. It could have only been a different Church which
pre-existed the Protestant cults. And this is, of course, the Church of Rome.
Now if we hold that the Bible is a book written by inspired Christians, then
true Christians existed before the Protestant Revolt. But, more than this: it
means that Christianity existed BEFORE the Bible was written. The Bible was
written by members of the true Church (for this is one of the meanings of the
word "Christian"). Therefore, as it did not precede the existence of
the Church, and as the Church came into existence c. 33 A.D.
, then the Bible MUST have come into existence between this time and
1517. And as this is definitely in the time of recorded history, then there
should be historical records dealing with this.
Are there?
YES. The Bible, remember, is not really one "book," but rather a
collection of "books." If you wish, you could think of it as a
library. Any collection (or library) can come into existence ONLY when all its
parts are "collected" in one place AND some formal declaration is
made that the collection is not more than merely a group of things in one
place. All of the books of the Bible existed BEFORE they were collected into
one volume. Each was written by a man inspired by God.
But until the books were put together as ONE unit, the Bible (as the BIBLE)
did not properly exist. So the "birth" of the Bible occurred when it
was formalized as THE book of Christianity. This process is called
"canonization." And as all parts of the Bible existed before this
process took place, canonization simply meant what was in the Bible and what
was not in the Bible.
This happened at two ROMAN CATHOLIC Church councils
which took place around 400 A.D. in
In other words, God’s Church decided the contents of God’s book. And (unless
God didn’t care enough to get involved!) this decision MUST have been
infallibly correct.
So the ONLY true Bible MUST be the Catholic one
which was fixed forever by God’s Church over a thousand years before the
Protestants decided to abridge it.
Now you know not only which version of the Bible is correct, you also know
that if you reject the correct version you reject the authority of his church
to speak for HIM…and this means rejecting Jesus Himself (Jn
12:48; Lk 10:16).
And this is why this is an important issue. For if you are
not accepting the Catholic Bible, you are rejecting Jesus.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is Faith Enough?
(Note: in this tract, the subject matter will concern ONLY adults with
normal mental capacities)
If you are a Protestant then you have probably heard often that salvation
comes through grace which comes via faith alone - and NOT by works. And this
"faith" is presented NOT as a series, or systems, of beliefs in
specific doctrines, but rather as a "trusting confidence" in Jesus.
It is (so we are told) "expressed" as a personal relationship, and
NOT as a list of true statements concerning religious matters. It is called
"believing in Jesus...not a system."
This is, of course, total non-sense, and a position which NO real
Christian can adhere to...and this tract will (briefly) explain why.
FIRST, it is dishonest. Religious faith EXACTLY and PRECISELY means
holding some doctrines as true and rejecting others as false. Faith means
(among other things) drawing a clear distinction between what one holds to be
eternally true and forever false. "Trusting" Jesus
MUST mean - IF it is to mean anything at all - agreement with His truth...and
agreement with His Church, which - IF it be His Church - MUST teach His truth.
However, the Protestant does not hold this. According to him a
"believer" in sect A (who holds to "eternal assurance of
salvation") is EXACTLY as much a believer as the fellow in sect B (who
rejects this belief). At least, this "equality" exists in the Protestant
system. And according to the Protestant system, "trusting" Jesus
leads NOT to "one faith" (Eph 4:5), but rather to a house
"divided against itself."
Yet this is unavoidable in Protestantism.
SECOND, this "relationship faith," by rejecting distinction
between true and false doctrines, DESTROYS the value of truth. If truth is NOT
necessary for salvation, then it has no ultimate value. And this would, of
necessity, mean that Jesus loses His value, for He identified Himself as Truth
(Jn 14:6).
THIRD, this "trusting confidence" DESTROYS the value of Scripture.
According to the Protestant system, one can "believe in Jesus," and
yet DENY His Virgin Birth. Oh yes, the Bible clearly states this as a
FACT...but Jesus nowhere says it Himself. Therefore, one can "believe
in" Jesus without this. As the Protestant loves to say:
"Systems of beliefs only get in the way between God and man."
If one were actually silly enough to accept this Protestant
"principle" then one may "trust" Jesus while rejecting the
trustworthiness of the very same books which contain some of His teachings.
As this is a key point, I shall develop it a bit more.
IF Jesus does not require that His followers affirm some positions as true,
and reject others as false, THEN He could have never told His followers to
teach what He taught and commanded (Mt 28:20).
But He did precisely this! And if He meant it to be taken seriously (and He
did!) then a true Christian MUST be able (and willing) to determine which
doctrine, which action, which form of worship, is correct, and which is against
God's will.
And for this to be done, there MUST be more than
trust; there must also be facts, truth, understanding, and knowledge. After
all, Jesus told His followers that they would KNOW the truth (Jn
If this seems like a strong statement, consider the only alternative. As
noted above, Jesus told His followers to teach EVERYTHING to EVERYONE. To do
this, one must have a way of coming to a knowledge of
what this "everything" is. Otherwise one would be
"trusting" someone who asks the impossible and/or does not
know what he is talking about.
But of course, neither of these situations apply to
Jesus. He asks us to do what is possible, and He provided the means by which we
may come to a knowledge of truth (1 Tim 2:4). This
means (as He is no longer here teaching us the way He taught His disciples)
that His Church would continue that role as it is "the pillar and ground
of the truth" (1 Tim
Jesus required that we know and teach truth. If He is trustworthy, then He
would have provided us this Church to help us meet this requirement. Only then
could He truly be called "trustworthy."
What this means is that IF one were to accept the Protestant position of
"trusting Jesus" as the KEY element of Christianity, then the
absolute necessity of the one true Church becomes self-evident.
But as shown before, this one true Church CANNOT be
any of the Protestant sects. This is because they do not hold truth to be of
value (remember one can believe or reject whatever one wants to - and still be
a "good" Protestant). And because the Protestant rejects the value
and necessity of the true Church (remember one can be a member of any
"church" and still be saved - according to them) he is not being
consistent in "trusting Jesus."
No one can "trust" Jesus and not "trust" the very means
He established by which man would come to know truth and learn His teachings.
Yet, incredible as it seems this is EXACTLY what the Protestant does.
If you are a Protestant, I ask YOU this,"YOU
never really have been honest about believing (or examining) this bit of nonsense,
have you"? I sincerely ask YOU to think about it now. There is still hope,
and (as you are not dead yet) still time.
And if YOU are a Catholic, do consider increasing YOUR efforts to
Protestants, so that they will be "set free" from the lie, and come
to "know the truth," as Jesus said. We Catholics CANNOT say that we
are His followers, if we do not love our brothers enough to try to bring them
to the FAITH that truly saves.
And they won't learn it outside of the Church of Rome.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why Be Catholic?
WHY BE CATHOLIC? This tract asks a question which could easily require a
large book to answer...or could be answered in one brief sentence. I shall
attempt to answer the question by writing something in between, and do justice
to the question.
There are some characteristics which ALL (normal) humans share:
·
One of these is the desire to know - and the
willingness to seek to find out - IF there is a "meaning" to life.
·
Second characteristic is to know WHY there is
"undeserved" suffering in our lives.
This leads us to the first reason to be a Catholic: namely, to receive
answers to these questions.
Everyone of us knows that "beyond us
humans" there is "something else" - something which will
ultimately explain what life is really all about. This "something
else" is what most of us mean when we use the word "God." The
mere fact that we want to know about God is a "proof" for His
existence, and a "proof" that He has a plan and a design for us. But
this tract is NOT concerned with proving the existence of God. This desire for
knowledge is why men seek to join religious systems. It is the desire for
answers. But only one of the systems (the ONE established by God Himself) can
fulfill this desire in all of us. In every OTHER (than the Catholic) system
there are fatal flaws and self-contradictions. Every OTHER system is
"divided against itself" and cannot stand examination.
To illustrate this point with the Protestant system, I shall give an
example.
Many Protestants (say that they) believe that once they are "born
again," they are then guaranteed entry into heaven when they die - no
matter what they do or do not do. Therefore, logically, IF heaven is a good
place, and IF they really want to go there, THEN they should commit suicide to
get to heaven NOW. Why should they wait for the next bit of human unhappiness
to come along? They could "be at home" with Jesus and not worry about
the heating bill or their health.
The reason usually given in answer to this questions
the ethics of the system that says that suicide is a sin, and sin should be
avoided. But notice the necessary conclusion: the sin of suicide leads to an
immediate reward (heaven), while the righteous act of living leads to yet more
and more suffering. So heaven is the reward for sin, and suffering is the
reward of virtue! NO SANE person believes this. It is utterly opposed to the
very concepts of sin, virtue, and God. A system which has this as its basic
premise CANNOT satisfy the person when it comes to the real questions. To
answer these questions someone needs truth. And Catholicism has a consistent,
logical, TRUTHFUL theology which answers these troubling questions. But this is
only natural, as our theology was given by Jesus to the Apostles,
and from them to us.
Let me deal with issues of suffering. Suffering troubles all of us, as we
all suffer and see loved ones suffer. The Protestant NEVER explains the random
suffering, the type not caused directly by the person. He cannot. When this
issue arises he dodges and evades. This is the nature of Protestantism: it has
no answers to the questions of life.
In Catholicism, Purgatory and Indulgences (which ARE taught in the Bible)
explain how love can be expressed in such suffering, and how our pain can be
used for the benefit of others or for ourselves. We Catholics have the answer
why such suffering is advocated by the Bible, and how such suffering can
reconcile with God's love, justice, and mercy.
No OTHER system even tries.
To put it slightly differently, when it comes to THE important issues of
life, no other system has an answer. This would mean that some cruel
"god" of the Protestants. In Catholicism, not only are these desires
satisfied, but also the answer satisfies the brain and gives peace and comfort
to the heart. This is simply because the God who made YOU made YOU restless
until you rest in His knowledge of Him, until YOU approach Him in truth. In
other words, YOU must approach Him in the Church which He established to teach
these truths to you.
And this is the reason to become a Catholic.
But this is not all. Perhaps, equally important, you should be a Catholic in
order to have your sins forgiven. Sin caused guilt, and this needs remission,
if you are to regain peace. ONLY Catholicism's sacramental system offers the
way for you to know that your sins are removed. Such a system is the only one
taught by the Bible (Jn
Even without this Biblical support your own soul cries out for assurance of
forgiveness. All the other systems simply "wish away" the guilt of
sin, but no one is fooled by such silliness. YOU aren't, are you?
I'll briefly touch on another reason to be Catholic. This is to minimize the
effects of death. One of the worst effects of death is the separation of loved
ones. IF death separates people from doing good from
each other, then there is no solace for this sorrow and "god" is
cruel. However, the Communion of Saints (a truth taught by Jesus) assures us
that death does NOT stop the power of love. The love of Jesus destroyed death's
power. And Christian love ignores death also. The dead may yet help the living,
and the living may yet help the suffering dead.
How could it be any other way? Christianity utterly did away with the real
sorrow of death.
The BEST reason for YOU to be a Catholic, however, is to be SAVED. Because
when YOU are judged by God Himself, after your death, you will be able to give
a proper account for yourself IF AND ONLY IF you have learned what to say in
the Church which He established to teach you the correct answer. This is the
Catholic Church, of course!
So to find truth, to fully express love -- to get your sins forgiven, you
need to be a Catholic.
So, let me end by asking you -- if the question is appropriate -- WHY ARE
YOU NOT A CATHOLIC?
Feel free to call me with YOUR answer.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What is
the Real VALUE OF TRUTH?
Truth is a very interesting
thing, yet very few people actually consider what it is or what is its value. This tract shall explain to you why truth is
so important to a Christian.
Pilate asked Jesus: "What is truth?" Let me answer this question.
Truth is a quality or characteristic which is common to every valid
statement. To put it in different words: truth is that which makes something
(anything) real. And making something real means
causing it to exist and keeping it in existence. As this is a direct
activity of God, (it is HE who keeps things in existence), truth is important
IF one desires to learn about God. And what we can know about God must be true, otherwise we believe lies and/or deception. And if we
do this, then our relationship with God is not real, but false.
The conclusion is this: unless we can understand, recognize, and identify
truth, we can NOT be certain about what God is communicating to us.
IF man's salvation depends upon his meeting (or accepting) certain God
ordained conditions, then if these conditions are not known, then they can not
be accepted. If they are not accepted, then salvation can not be achieved.
Therefore, salvation is directly connected with truth.
It is an undeniable fact that men disagree about what is true and what is
not. Some truths may never be known this side of the grave. But such
truths are not of interest to us in this tract. Let me simply say the
obvious fact that some truths of God can be known by us. This is
as a direct result of revelation.
Jesus is quite clear on this. He tells us that we will know truth,
and that it will free us from sin (Jn
There is another characteristic of truth which should be examined. Truth
MUST be unchanging. Truth can NOT change its value anymore than God can go
against His own word or promise. As God is THE source of truth, once God
declares something to be true, it is settled forever. Therefore, truth
must be consistent, both with regard to itself and with other truths.
So far, this tract has been (I hope!) largely self-evident, and I doubt if
even a Protestant would disagree with it. But truth is more than a theoretical
value. The key issue is HOW does one determine the truth and HOW does one
adhere to it. There are many people who claim to be "Christians," but
who (formally) disagree on most issues. The very nature of truth compels us to
realize that they can NOT all be correct and "true." There is, for
example, no "acceptable" alternative position on abortion.
Yet Protestant groups state that these "differences" somehow
really do not matter. They hold that if "church" A holds dogma A as true, while "church" B holds it to be untrue,
both "churches" somehow still remain in the same "church."
Yet, Jesus said "a house divided against itself" can NOT stand. The
Protestant simply does not hold that truth is of any importance. To the
Protestant truth is not worth the risk of offending another person. So
everything becomes "true" depending upon the feelings and whims of
the individual, or what is most profitable at collection time. To the Protestant
it is not necessary to worship God in the unity of truth...despite Jesus'
words.
But they do not...because, to them, truth has no value.
But should all "Christians" agree? Sometimes men are misled,
aren't they? St. James tells us that wisdom (which means knowing truth) will be
given to ANYONE who asks for it with sincerity (James 1:5-7). And, as I
mentioned before, Jesus tells us that EVERYONE committed to truth will hear HIS
voice. So if anyone and everyone may learn truth, then there is no excuse for
failing to learn it. But still the Protestant states that it does not matter if
various people disagree on basic points of religious belief.
But the Bible itself teaches more on this subject. It is not mere human
opinion, nor the Bible, that will defend, preserve, and sustain the truth of
God for man. No, it is the Church (1Tim
The answer is simple: as truth is consistent, the true Church is the one
which does NOT change its doctrines and teachings. ONLY the Catholic Church has
this characteristic. As truth is essential for salvation, the true Church must
hold that the correct faith is necessary for salvation. The Catholic Church
alone holds this. As
There isn't any other choice - not for a Christian.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is No Man Really Infallible?
Whenever religious discussions
take place between Catholic and Protestants, the Protestant (when unable to
defend his system--which will always happen!) will invariably say: "Well,
no man is infallible." This phrase, which CAN NOT be true (as I shall
show) is merely a defensive reaction designed to prevent the Protestant from
honestly examining his own belief system. This tract will totally destroy this
falsehood. The truth will always destroy a lie...if a man will listen with
honest intentions.
So that there will be no confusion over this matter, allow me to define the
word. INFALLIBILITY means the ability to be free from error in certain
statements under certain conditions. The word is properly applied to humans,
although sometimes we hear of "infallible" statements or pronounce-ments. In this case even though the word describes the act,
it is understood that the character of infallibility is actually meant to apply
to the person (or persons) making the statement. So if this expression is used
at all it means that those words (in the statement) were made by an infallible
person.
Next, in order to avoid confusion, please understand that infallibility has
NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with sinlessness,
perfection, or personal virtue. An infallible person may sin exactly as the
rest of us do.
Let's now examine this most common expression. If one says: "No man is
infallible," one is making what is (at least in form) an infallible
statement. Anyone who says that no man is infallible MUST KNOW this to be a
fact, without possibility of error. This is to say...with complete certainty.
But if it is offered in this fashion, then the person making the statement is
presenting himself as being infallible. And this, of
course, destroys the basic statement.
Allow me to illustrate this point. I have had many conversations with
Protestants in which this silly statement has been offered. I simply ask:
"How would YOU know, unless YOU are infallible in YOUR judgments?" No
Protestant has been able to answer this question. If YOU are a Protestant, ask
yourself why YOU can't answer it (especially when the entire Protestant system
is based upon this idiotic premise). If you are a Catholic use this question to
expose the basic dishonesty of the Protestant system.
Now, sometimes the Protestant will offer that HIS view (that no man is...)
is only an opinion i.e., something which he FEELS. But then he cannot offer it
as a religious truth, for it is only a tradition and opinion of purely human
origin. Such things can NOT be offered as part of Christianity (Matt 15:6).
Ironically, Protestants often (dishonestly) attack Catholicism as being based
upon "human traditions." But, it necessarily follows that if no man
is infallible in a system (so that NO ONE can make error free judgments) then
all that is left is error prone human opinion.
And, of course, if Protestants offer this view ONLY as an opinion, then it
CAN NOT be part of Christian belief, for Jesus condemned this (Matt 15:8-9; Mk
7:7). So, if it is opinion, then it can't be part of Christian teaching. And if
it is offered as a fact, then it can't be true. And what is not true, can NOT
be part of true Christianity (but it is part of Protestantism).
Moreover, infallibility is ABSOLUTELY necessary in order for man to know
truth. ALL of us know (and know INFALLIBLY) that 2 + 2 = 4. ALL of us know
(INFALLIBLY) that Tuesday follows Monday. Truth is of such a nature that it can
be known ONLY when it can be stated WITHOUT possibility of error. Otherwise, it
is NOT "truth" at all, but only opinion or speculation. Truth is that
which is ALWAYS in conformity with reality and this means that it cannot be
other than what is. If you know a truth, then you KNOW it, and then you are
infallible.
When it comes to cashing our paychecks everyone (including Protestants!)
knows precisely, exactly, and infallibly how much currency one will get in
return. And if we all can know such things about money, which is actually an
impediment to salvation, how could God not give us the same ability when it
comes to religious truths? He cannot; He does give man this ability. And this
means that infallibility is possible for man.
It was Jesus Himself Who told us that His followers would speak with
precisely His authority and that rejection of the words of His followers is
precisely the same as the rejection of HIM (Lk
10:16). Now, if these words (spoken by true Christians) are not infallibly and
utterly correct, then the words and authority of Jesus does not reside in them
and Jesus is not telling the truth. These words (which HIS followers speak)
MUST be as free from error as HIS own. So, HIS true followers must not only be
infallible, but clearly claim the status.
And in case you haven't noticed, we Catholics do precisely this...while
Protestants deny not only the ability, but also deny the very teachings of
Jesus Himself.
Recall that Jesus promised that HIS followers would KNOW the truth (Jn
As I have shown, the phrase that gives this tract its title, the phrase that
Protestants love to repeat, is totally false. Any intelligent person can see
this. It is a self-contradiction and anything based upon it is utterly false.
And if one of the foundation stones of the "house divided against itself"
which is Protestantism. If you are a Protestant, think about it. If you are
not, thank God, and try to bring these people to a knowledge of truth so that
they may be saved...in the ONLY place where salvation is available for man - in
the Church of Rome, and in submission to Christ's vicar on earth, the Pope.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Did God Fail?
The question asked in the title of this tract is not a silly one. The
main reason that I ask it is that if you answer "no," then a very
important decision becomes mandatory for you. Of course, if you feel that God
failed, then you are an atheist (of one kind or another), and you will wind up
in hell unless you repent and change.
For those Christians (even for those who only SAY that they are
"Christians"), a key part of the message of Jesus deals with HIS
Church. Everyone agrees that Jesus DID found a Church (as verified by Mt
IF that Church was necessary for these functions (such as making decisions
correctly regarding Christian teachings), THEN this SAME Church MUST exist in
the SAME form with the SAME authority forever, because the same needs and
problems exist now as then.
Protestants, by definition, are those who hold that the Catholic Church
(which they freely admit existed before the time of their revolt) "went
wrong...some where," and needed "reform." It was the true
Christian Church once, but it became corrupted, and lost its power. Luther (so
the official "party-line" goes) reformed the Church and Protestantism
came about.
There is one thing wrong with this view... it is utter and complete nonsense.
If the Catholic Church "lost" its status as the one
"true" Church, then God would have instantly replaced it with a
"new improved" model. If God did not immediately do so, then there
would have been a time when there was no true Church of Jesus, and no place for
sincere Christians to refer sinners to, as we are commanded by to do by Jesus
Himself. Luther's "church development" took years (as his nerve and
courage frequently failed him, and he kept changing his "truth").
Either there was no justifiable reason for his rebellion or the replacement of
Catholicism had to be instantaneous. God could allow no other possibility to
occur. Therefore, Luther's action ( and all who follow
him) was not justified...unless, of course, God somehow failed.
Others hold that the Catholic Church NEVER was the one true
Rather He could only find cowards who failed to come out of their hiding
long enough to be recorded in the history books. In other words, while
Catholics have always behaved as real Christians should, the "real
Christians" behaved in a way that no Christian could recognize as
Christian.
This is so stupid that no intelligent or rational person could hold to it
after examining it for even a moment. Again, the ONLY way to adhere to this is
to hold that God failed in His efforts to keep His Church as a "city on
the hill" that all men could recognize.
What could have motivated these "secret Christians" to hide? If it
were danger, then they failed to be willing (as Catholics have been) to die for
their beliefs. If there were no danger, then there is no reason why there is no
record of them. But there are unbroken records of the history of the Catholic
Church form 33 A.D. to the present.
And if God failed, how could this Church (which He failed to keep true!) be
the one which gave the world the Bible?
Let me tell a story which will illustrate this problem and also show why
only the Catholic Church can be the true one.
All men who know of St. Francis of
And remember this: the Church that St. Francis sought to rebuild is exactly
the same one against which Luther rebelled, and exactly the same one that
Protestants today reject as false. It teaches the same truths on Purgatory,
Indulgences, Papal Infallibility, the use of statues, the priesthood, the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass, devotion to the Blessed Mother, Confession, etc.
If this Church failed, then not only did God fail, but all the good and holy
men and women who for centuries lived and died as Catholics, who sought God
with their hearts, souls, and minds -- these also failed because they trusted
the very words of Jesus. But this is the problem that the non-Catholic cannot
avoid: IF the Catholic Church failed THEN God failed. And a "god" who
failed is no God at all.
But this is the "god" which Protestants (and others) SAY that they
believe in.
It's a frightening thought, isn't it? But not so frightening...if one is a
Catholic. If you are a Catholic it is simply amazing to you what people will
hold to in order to avoid submitting to God's truth.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What's the Bible for.....Really?
It is one of the most amazing facts of all time that when dealing
with the Bible, one of the most important aspects is almost always ignored.
This is: what is the reason why the Bible exists? What is it for...really?
This is not a trivial question. Although the Bible is one of the most
revered, studied, and talked about books in the history of man, this question
is universally ignored by almost all. Yet it should be the FIRST question asked
and answered.
As a starting point, let me point out that ALL books have purposes. The
Bible was produced by men, although its ultimate author is God, for a reason.
The numerous Catholics who died in the 4th century rather than hand over the
"Scriptures," did so in the clear understanding that the Bible was a
thing of great value. That which has no purpose and goal can NOT have a value.
If anything (including any book) is designed for no end, then it is quite
literally USE-less.
I trust that IF we agree that the Bible is of value (as the Church of Rome
has always taught since the time of the Apostles) then it MUST, as with all
other books, have a purpose and a goal:
FIRST, let me point out what the Bible can NOT be intended for. It can NOT
be meant as a means of salvation. Jesus earns our salvation and not some book.
Nor can the words of the Bible be necessary for salvation. This can NOT be...if
we hold that the Bible records truth.
But as many (incredibly) foolish Protestants hold precisely this, namely
that the Bible is necessary for salvation, allow me to show why this CANNOT be
so.
The martyrdom of St. Stephen (ACTS
So, the Bible itself shows us that it is NOT the means of salvation for
mankind. But Catholics have died to preserve it. WHY? It can not be that the
Bible is a "blue-print" for living. The Bible tells us that many of
Christ's words were NOT recorded in it, and yet Christians are to live by every
word which comes from God. The Bible certainly does contain lots of great
insights, and profound truths, and inspirational words, and deep wisdom...but
all of these things can be obtained from other sources and it still does not
tell us what the Bible is for.
The Bible is intended for ONE primary purpose -- although it is useful for
many others. It is designed to point the way to the
Jesus tells His followers that they are ONE flock hearing only ONE Shepherd
(Jn 10:1ff). He solemnly states that His very flesh
must be eaten (Jn 6:52ff). He pronounced that His
followers would receive forgiveness of sins from the successors of the Apostles
(Jn 20:20ff). He said that His followers would speak
infallibly in His name and that to reject them would be to reject Himself (Lk
In other words, the Bible itself gives us the sure and certain signs that
distinguish the true Church which is united in only "one Faith, one
baptism, one Lord" (Eph 4:5).
If one can be saved following another "faith, or baptized into
"another church," or have another authority structure, then this
verse is meaningless and a fraud. But, as it is in the Bible, it must be of
inspired value to us (2Tim
And so must the other verses and passages which tell us what the true
Christian must do and must believe. The true Christian must not be allowed to
"pick and choose" what he wants to accept or reject. But this is
exactly what the Protestant does by insisting that ANY man can accept or reject
ANY thing based upon his own personal view of what he feels.
No, if the Bible has value, and it does, then it must teach what is true and
false, and why the Christian MUST accept what is true
and reject what is false. And as the Bible does not provide the means to
salvation the value of this truth must be that it points the way for man to
discover where and how he can be saved. And man can not be saved in any
"church" which rejects the truths of the Bible (as all non-Catholic
"churches" do). Nor can he be in truth if he attributes to the Bible
a role that it itself gives to the Church, namely being the bulwark and pillar
of truth (1Tim 3:15) meaning that it ( and not mere human opinion of what a
book means) is what supports and determines what is true or false, right or
wrong. And without this true sense of values, no one can live a good life, nor
know the true faith, nor follow Jesus... and without this no one can be saved.
So the Bible's true value is in this: that it shows the right way to find
truth, faith, and virtue.
Let me conclude with a simple analogy. If we need emergency medical care, we
are grateful for a sign that tells us where the hospital is, but unless we
enter the hospital itself and consult the doctor, our knowledge is useless.
Simply having knowledge of what is to be done is valueless if nothing is
done. The Bible is a sign indicating the way to find salvation.
The Bible is important, but only if used correctly. It shows any intelligent
person who seeks the truth which is the true Church. It shows you the road to
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So what if it's not in the Bible?
When discussions about
religion take place, a frequent question is: Where is THIS in the Bible? The
certain implication of this question is: one would not believe some things if
one cannot find them in the Bible...or at least, they are not as important as
those which are in the Bible.
And this is our subject here: "What about those things which are NOT in
the Bible?"
FIRST, let me make it clear that the Bible certainly DOES contain a lot of
truths, and EVERYTHING in it is in it for a reason. However, this is not our
topic.
SECOND, there are a great many things (and events) which are perfectly true
(and good) which are NOT in the Bible. Geometrical formulas, the use of anti-biotics, and the battles of the American Revolution are
nowhere in the pages of the Bible. Nor does the Bible tell a man to remember
his wife's birthday, but he should. It does not tell baseball players to
autograph baseballs for young boys, but they should.
THIRD, the Bible itself tells us that some of it is difficult to understand,
(2 Peter
THEREFORE, the first conclusion we MUST draw is that although the Bible
(rightly understood) is the word of God, there are good things which man should
do which are NOT in the Bible, and good acts (by definition) are in accord with
God's will for man.
There are, however some (so called) "Fundamentalists" who will
argue that ALL good things are implied by some passage in Scripture. Although
this is a completely non-defensible position, let us (simply to expose it)
evaluate it impartially. Such a position is based upon the assumption that one
can make "implications" based upon one's personal opinion of what the
Bible may "actually mean." But nowhere in the Bible does it
say: "thou shalt make implications to support
one's own opinions." Therefore, in order to find "implications",
and then base beliefs upon them, one must go beyond the Bible to do so. If one
does this, then one CANNOT then turn around and say that ONLY what is in the
Bible should be followed. To put it in other words: to base one's beliefs
"entirely" upon the Bible, one must immediately violate the
"principle" by going outside it to find justification for this very
position. These people go beyond the Bible to defend the position that no one
should go "beyond the Bible." Such silly hypocrisy cannot be
considered as serious by any rational person. And no intelligent person does.
BUT, on this there is another, and perhaps more important point. This is one
thing which the Bible itself tells us is NOT in the Bible. And this one thing
is VERY important to real Christians. And this thing is ALL of the teachings of
Jesus.
Jesus Himself told us that:
1. His followers must live by every word which God gives us (Mt 4:4).
2. His words would not pass away (Mk
Therefore, every real Christian MUST go "beyond the Bible" IF all
the words of Jesus are NOT in the Bible.
What does the Bible say on this subject?
When Jesus spent two days in the Samaritan village TEACHING, so that many
came to believe in Him, (Jn 4:40), NOT a single word
is recorded of what He said...but these words did NOT pass away. When Jesus
taught for HOURS on end - for so long that the crowd became hungry -- NOT a
word of what He said was recorded (Mk 6:34)...but we must live by them
nonetheless.
Either Jesus meant it when He promised His followers that they would know
truth (Jn
After all, if those words (the ones which the Bible
makes reference to but does NOT record) must have been of importance because
people came to believe in Him because of them. And therefore, if one takes
Jesus seriously, then one must hold that going "beyond the Bible," is
not only proper and necessary, but a vital sign of true Christianity. And
anyone who says otherwise cannot be taking the words of Jesus as having any
value at all.
Therefore, when something is NOT in the Bible, it may be something good, or
true, or nice. But some things not directly contained in the Bible are
guaranteed to be one thing: they are the ACTUAL TEACHINGS of Jesus Himself by
which His true followers MUST live.
If Jesus wanted His followers to live "by the Bible alone" (as
some Protestants say), He must have said this and it must have been recorded
somewhere in the Bible...BUT He never did. And if He said it and it's
not recorded, then (once again!) we have to go beyond the very Bible to defend
not going "beyond the Bible".
No matter what, no real Christian can ever hold that something extra-Biblical
is anti-Biblical. So, because something cannot be found
(to your satisfaction) somewhere in the Bible means nothing at all as to
whether it is truly from God or not.
Therefore, so that we will be able to know full truth (as promised in Jn
So the next time this topic comes up, point out that although something in
the Bible is certainly true, if it is NOT in there, it is not necessarily
false...not unless the Church of Rome says so.
So if you take seriously the Bible, understand that the Bible was NEVER
intended to be understood outside of union with
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All Roads Ministry
(845) 226 4172
http://www.allroadsministry.com/
These tracts formerly appeared at this web address:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/4793/arm/index.htm