JMM-R scribbled: I take it you believe in Sola Scriptura? It is impossible for one to understand the Holy Scriptures correctly without the Holy Ghost to guide them, this is one reason why Christ founded His Church in the first place (Matth 16: 15-19) to teach the Holy Scriptures (1 Tim. 3, 15) for the Holy Ghost is with the Roman Catholic Church (Acts 20, 28). There are Protestants who believe that Scriptures are easy to understand and that their private interpretations are correct, we know that this is a misconception (2 Peter 1, 20) and is due to the arrogances and selfish wants and desires of those who follow and believe that hokum. If Scriptures are clear to understand, why did Martin Luther and his imitators make new catechisms of Christian doctrine? Why do they fill the libraries with innumerable books of interpretations, explanations and commentaries? Above all, why have they any churches, where the Scriptures are explained, if the Scriptures are sufficient? And if there should be a church, why so many churches, of so many denominations, in every city and in every town? If there is a clear statement that in the Scriptures which all Christians should endeavor to put into execution, it is certainly the desire which Christ expressed in His prayer to the Eternal Father on the eve of His Passion and Death, “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17, 21). What else do such words mean than that all Christ's followers should first of all have the same faith?—“One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Eph. 4, 5).

JMM-R scribbled: Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture go hand in hand, if you knew your History you would understand that the Holy Scriptures are a Divine Tradition. The Book of Genesis was not even written until around 1500 AC. I will break it down for you, Divine Tradition is from God through man, and Dominical Tradition (which is also divine Tradition) is from Christ Directly. The Apostles Creed was an oral tradition, otherwise it would be in the Bible.

JMM-R scribbled: Did the early Christian Church worship on Sunday, the Lord's Day, or Saturday, the Jewish sabbath, as some sects like the Seventh Day Adventists contend? St. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles (20:7/DR) in the New Testament, writes: "And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow. And he continued his speech until midnight." St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate renders the phrase as "in una sabbati, which, as usual, closely parallels the Greek "en te mia ton sabbaton, literally "on (day) one of the week," that is, the Lord's Day, or Sunday. If St. Luke had wished to say "on the Sabbath [Saturday]," he would have said simply "en to sabbato." Moreover, St. Paul writes in his First Epistle to the Corinthians (16:2): "On the first day of the week, let every one of you put apart with himself, laying up what it shall well please him: that when I come, the collections be not then to be made." Finally, St. Justin, Martyr (ca. 100-165), who writes within a few decades of Sts. Luke and Paul, is an early witness to the practices of the Apostolic Church and confirms in his Apologia (I.67) that the Christians worshipped "on day called that of the Sun," that is, Sunday.

JMM-R scribbled: Boy I feel bad for you buddy, you seem very bias and seem very ignorant to Scriptures and History, I am not trying to offend you. Under your profile you say you are a Christian Counsellor, What denomination are you? At any rate if you knew the Scriptures you would understand that A) they are what is known as a Divine Tradition. B)The Roman Catholic Church Compiled it. C)It is incomplete (John 20, 30; 21,25). D)Catholic have an Apocrypha (i.e., Enoch, 1 Clement, etc.), and Pseudepigrapha which consists of 60 books. E)There are inspired books that have been lost over time, 30 to be exact. F)Apocrypha does not mean a book or writing is uninspired. When dealing with the word "Apocrypha" many Protestants insist that it can only mean "spurious and of doubtful authenticity or authorship" they insist that the term in it self discredits these books. "That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; In whom are HID all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Colossians 2:2-3), the Greek term used for hid in these verse is "apo'kry'phos" (in the Romanized Greek), so we see that St Paul was calling the wisdom and knowledge of God, and of the Father, and of Christ as "Apocrypha". And the list goes on. I personally don't care to comment, but these accusations are ridicules. Here is a site that you can look through http://www.scripturecatholic.com/ Heck you can even write to John Salza who is an Apologetic. He would be able to answer any question you have. You need to look through the Writings of the Fathers of the Church, a.k.a. the First Christians i.e., Irenaeus, Polycarp, etc.

JMM-R scribbled: This article has many errors, it seems that the author of it is either bias or is truly lacking knowledge in history and also the Holy Scriptures. What this person needs to do is to go back and research the Early Fathers and Doctors of the Church (i.e., teachings and writings Justin Martyr and Irenaeus) to understand the true teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. For one the Bible is hard to understand, there is a literal sense and many mystical senses behind each verse. The Bible is God's word and has the meaning of what Our Lord intended, not our assumption of what we think He meant. Praying for the Dead and Purgatory is located in II Maccabees 12:43-46, The Bible says of heaven, "Nothing unclean shall enter it" (Rev. 21:27).You see, God is perfect holiness (cf. Is. 6:3), and we’re supposed to have that same holiness: "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect" (Matt. 5:48). "As he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; since it is written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy’" (1 Pet. 1:15–16). Without perfect holiness, we cannot see God in heaven. Now, Dave, be honest: Do you have perfect love and perfect holiness? Turn to 1 Corinthians 3:15, where Paul says that on Judgment Day every man’s work will be tested and rewarded: "If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." Now, Dave, can this guy who is suffering loss be in heaven? Check out 1 Peter 3:18–20, where it says that Jesus after his Crucifixion "went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey." A little later in 1 Peter 4:6, it says, "For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead, that though judged in the flesh like men, they might live in the spirit like God." Now, tell me: Is this referring to hell? In 2 Timothy 1:16–18, Paul prays for his dead friend, Onesiphorus, which makes sense only if he can be helped by prayer. The early Church Fathers and Christians also endorsed praying for the dead. Some of the earliest Christian liturgies included prayers for the dead. Many ancient tombs were inscribed with requests to pray for the deceased. Now as for Maccabees, which is a Deutero-Canonical book, many Protestants like to protest that they consider all Deutero-Canonical books to be Apocryphal which means that they are uninspired. When dealing with the word "Apocrypha" many Protestants insist that it can only mean "spurious and of doubtful authenticity or authorship" they insist that the term in it self discredits these books. "That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; In whom are HID all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Colossians 2:2-3), the Greek

JMM-R scribbled: This article has many errors, it seems that the author of it is either bias or is truly lacking knowledge in history and also the Holy Scriptures. What this person needs to do is to go back and research that Early Fathers and Doctors of the Church (i.e., teachings and writings Justin Martyr and Irenaeus) to understand the true teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. For one the Bible is hard to understand, there is a literal sense and many mystical senses behind each verse. The Bible is God's word and has the meaning of what Our Lord intended, not our assumption of what we think He meant. Praying for the Dead and Purgatory is located in II Maccabees 12:43-46, The Bible says of heaven, "Nothing unclean shall enter it" (Rev. 21:27).You see, God is perfect holiness (cf. Is. 6:3), and we’re supposed to have that same holiness: "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect" (Matt. 5:48). "As he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; since it is written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy’" (1 Pet. 1:15–16). Without perfect holiness, we cannot see God in heaven. Now, Dave, be honest: Do you have perfect love and perfect holiness? Turn to 1 Corinthians 3:15, where Paul says that on Judgment Day every man’s work will be tested and rewarded: "If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." Now, Dave, can this guy who is suffering loss be in heaven? Check out 1 Peter 3:18–20, where it says that Jesus after his Crucifixion "went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey." A little later in 1 Peter 4:6, it says, "For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead, that though judged in the flesh like men, they might live in the spirit like God." Now, tell me: Is this referring to hell? In 2 Timothy 1:16–18, Paul prays for his dead friend, Onesiphorus, which makes sense only if he can be helped by prayer. The early Church Fathers and Christians also endorsed praying for the dead. Some of the earliest Christian liturgies included prayers for the dead. Many ancient tombs were inscribed with requests to pray for the deceased. Now as for Maccabees, which is a Deutero-Canonical book, many Protestants like to protest that they consider all Deutero-Canonical books to be Apocryphal which means that they are uninspired. When dealing with the word "Apocrypha" many Protestants insist that it can only mean "spurious and of doubtful authenticity or authorship" they insist that the term in it self discredits these books. "That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; In whom are HID all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Colossians 2:2-3), the Greek

JMM-R scribbled: term used for hid in these verse is "apo'kry'phos" (in the Romanized Greek), so we see that St Paul was calling the wisdom and knowledge of God, and of the Father, and of Christ as "Apocrypha". Statues, Images, etc., are not worshiped just FYI, at any rate, there are too many false accusations to dispute here for a comment, but if anyone were to believe anything coming from this article I feel bad for them for they are truly being mislead. It is a shame that there are so many out there who attack the Church that Our Lord Christ Founded. What is funny is that people who actually do decided to study unbias history, when it comes to religion, end up becoming Catholic. Another thing that you seem to fail to understand is that Catholic is not even a Religion, it is a Greek adjective ‘Καθολικóς / katholikos’ Which in turn means general; universal (in other words it is the title of Christian). Among other places, in the concluding verses of the Gospel of St. Matthew (28, 19-20), and St. Mark (16, 15-16): “Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned.”

JMM-R scribbled: Compare St. John, 10, 16: “And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” Of course the name “Catholic” was not given to the Church of Christ until after the time of the New Testament. It was commonly called merely “The Church” or “Holy Church. ” There was no need to distinguish. There was only one Church. St. Ignatius seems to have been the first to give the name “Catholic” to “The Church.” He did this in a letter he wrote about the year 110, and in the course of the next two centuries the name caught on, and came into general use. By that time there were a few heresies in vogue, like Arianism, and "Catholic" became a name to distinguish the true Church from error and schism. In the beginning the word “catholic” was simply an adjective meaning “universal.” Then it came to have the meaning of "one and only" and to be used as an appellative—a “proper name” for the Church. This appellative use did not become common until the fourth century. The Apostles Creed in the beginning had “I believe in the Holy Church.” The word “Catholic” was inserted in the fourth century. Some Protestants have now thrown this word “Catholic” out of the Creed and frankly substituted the word “Christian.” As for the word “Roman,” that is an Anglicanism—considered superfluous by all continental Europeans. It is like calling a man by his confirmation name, in addition to his baptismal and family names. The word “Roman Catholic” really came from the legislative enactments of Protestant England. They tried to pretend that there was another “Catholic” Church, namely, the “English Catholic.” Hence the name "Roman" was needed to distinguish the two. We still employ the consequences of their fiction.

JMM-R scribbled: term used for hid in these verse is "apo'kry'phos" (in the Romanized Greek), so we see that St Paul was calling the wisdom and knowledge of God, and of the Father, and of Christ as "Apocrypha". Statues, Images, etc., are not worshiped just FYI, at any rate, there are too many false accusations to dispute here for a comment, but if anyone were to believe anything coming from this article I feel bad for them for they are truly being mislead. It is a shame that there are so many out there who attack the Church that Our Lord Christ Founded. What is funny is that people who actually do decided to study unbias history, when it comes to religion, end up becoming Catholic. Another thing that you seem to fail to understand is that Catholic is not even a Religion, it is a Greek adjective ‘Καθολικóς / katholikos’ Which in turn means general; universal (in other words it is the title of Christian). Among other places, in the concluding verses of the Gospel of St. Matthew (28, 19-20), and St. Mark (16, 15-16): “Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned.” Compare St. John, 10, 16: “And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” Of course the name “Catholic” was not given to the Church of Christ until after the time of the New Testament. It was commonly called merely “The Church” or “Holy Church. ” There was no need to distinguish. There was only one Church. St. Ignatius seems to have been the first to give the name “Catholic” to “The Church.” He did this in a letter he wrote about the year 110, and in the course of the next two centuries the name caught on, and came into general use. By that time there were a few heresies in vogue, like Arianism, and "Catholic" became a name to distinguish the true Church from error and schism. In the beginning the word “catholic” was simply an adjective meaning “universal.” Then it came to have the meaning of "one and only" and to be used as an appellative—a “proper name” for the Church. This appellative use did not become common until the fourth century. The Apostles Creed in the beginning had “I believe in the Holy Church.” The word “Catholic” was inserted in the fourth century. Some Protestants have now thrown this word “Catholic” out of the Creed and frankly substituted the word “Christian.” As for the word “Roman,” that is an Anglicanism—considered superfluous by all continental Europeans. It is like calling a man by his confirmation name, in addition to his baptismal and family names. The word “Roman Catholic” really came from the legislative enactments of Protestant England. They tried to pretend that there was another “Catholic” Church, namely, the “English Catholic.” Hence the name "Roman" was needed to distinguish the two. We still employ the consequences of their fiction.