Jack Chick's View on Catholicism

[PeaceByJesus]

You are still missing my point. It is not Rome did or did not do anything. In that time, there WAS only ONE church, not Roman, not Alexandrian, not Antiochian, or from Jerusalem. Rather, there was ONE church, and it was that church that split (about 1054 A.D.) into Roman Catholic and Orthodox. The views of the "Reformers" did not exist..

Reformers" did not physically exist, and for about half of church history there was one basic church, though contrary to cultists, the only one true church is that universal body which the Lord purchased with His sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) for it alone only and always consists 100% of believers, whereas visible organic churches, however Scriptural, inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares.

There was always real believers in the visible church, as it held enough to basic salvific Truth that those simple souls of a broken heart and contrite spirit (cf. Ps. 34:18) could cast all their faith on the risen Lord Jesus, the Divine Son sent by the Father, and be born again, baptized and follow Him.

However, the progressive deformation of the Catholic church is clearly manifest, more so the Roman version, finally resulting in the imperfect Reformation. Which trajectory is nothing in the light of the history of the nation to whom was committed the oracles of God, and to whom belonged the promises, etc. and from whom Christ came, God blessed forever. (Rm. 3;2; 9:4,5)

Yet God always had a relative remnant, as is the case today amid the overall declension, and the judgments that must begin with the house of God.

I will grant you that there were some excesses in the One Christian Church, and they continued in the Roman Church--while Orthodox continued to fight heresies.

And the RCs reverse the order.

I am always willing to admit that there were errors in administration and in the use of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

The former at least can flow from doctrine. Obedience to the pope in one era could require exterminating all the heretics from the country, while in another it can mean seeing Climate Change as a dire threat.

But how many errors have the Reformers made in the past 600 years? More than all of the heresies of the East, or problems in the West

That is too broad a brush, but apart from the limited and primarily paper unity of institutionalized churches, evangelicals have been the most unified in basic beliefs, versus those Catholicism counts and treats as members, though under both Scripture being the supreme authority or the "one true Church" (take your pick) there is both unity and disunity (partly because the meaning of church teaching itself is a subject of interpretation). Yet while leadership can goes South, Scripture never does.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them. (Revelation 14:13)

Paul was willing to remain on earth since it was here that he could minister to the body. If he could so more from Heaven then he would have chosen that. (Philippians 1:23-25) And he taught that there was only one heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, the man Christ Jesus. (1Tim. 2:5)

However, if that does not exclude believers in glory praying for those on earth, then I am fine with that. The issue is, as explained before, that there is no Scriptural warrant for believing that we are to pray to them in Heaven, much less requiring this as a belief, despite approx 200 prayers in Scripture, and this being a most basic practice, and there always being plenty of created beings to pray to.

And despite the Spirit of Christ characteristically clearly exampling such basic practices, rather than leaving believers to extrapolated what is nowhere seen, based on a presumption of unseen abilities and activities that are contrary to what we do see. And who only instructs believers to address God in prayer to Heaven.

You can only wish there was even one example of a believer addressing someone else besides God in prayer to Heaven, instead of having to hold the untenable presumption that the Holy Spirit would not include even one among the approx. 200 inspired recorded prayers (while recording pagans making supplication to unseen heavenly beings), especially since this is a most basic Cath. practice that you imagine saints regularly engaged in, and should.

Been a Catholic over a decade now and read a lot about the history and traditions of the Church. Have yet to see anything other than strong suggestion by some Church leaders in the benefits of asking Saints to pray for us. Known are required to say a Hail Mary in public if they do not wish to. Some Priest sometimes give penance that includes specific prayers in confession, but that is a private matter.

BTW, Saying "pray to" Saints does not give justice to the proper view of the practice and highlights rather obvious (to even Catholics) abuses of the concept over those doing so properly.

Scriptural proof was given once already in this thread I believe and was likely denied by most Christians not practicing this. I'll repeat it in summary. Saint Paul is shown praying for mercy on someone already dead. In the accepted canon of the OT from the earliest times of Christianity, a leader of soldiers is shown praying for God's mercy on behalf of many of his fallen soldiers. Jesus showed us people dead, aware and making pleas on behalf of the living. Saint John saw people in Heaven offering prayers of the living up to God (pleading=petition=prayer on behalf of someone else). The Body of Believers is repeatedly told in Scripture to pray for one another. That body is shown including all the faithful, past (dead), present and future without giving any distinction in duties. On fact it is rather repeatedly emphasized as one whole Body. Prayer is so emphasized as an important work of that body on earth right now, especially prayer for other members of the body in need. What possible Scriptural reason could we give that need for praying for others still in obvious need (on earth) on the part of members of the same body who have already successfully ended the race. If anything those people in Heaven should make infinitely better prayer warriors than the rest of the members of the same Body still on earth.

The perfect Christian example, Jesus, is showing praying for other believers. In the body of believers there can be none of us living a more perfect example than Jesus (Scripture), and also none of us more perfectly than anyone said to be Heaven right now. We "can be as I am now" was said after Resurrection, but there is no reason to believe that would not apply to people said to be in Heaven already even though they lack bodies now. That those in Heaven are perfected in their faith is a matter of Scripture in that is said to be what happens to those bound for eternal happiness. If our level of perfecting our walk requires that we pray for one another, how could we claim from Scripture that someone said to be perfected in their faith (in Heaven now) would have no such obligation. Are we not one unified Body of believers and those in Heaven more perfectly so?

We pray and we all know people are praying every hour of every day round the clock 24/7/365 "Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven". Clearly from Scripture it is His Will those members of the Body still on earth pray for one another. So tell me again how could it not be so in Heaven?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

That is too broad a brush, but apart from the limited and primarily paper unity of institutionalized churches, evangelicals have been the most unified in basic beliefs, versus those Catholicism counts and treats as members, though under both Scripture being the supreme authority or the "one true Church" (take your pick) there is both unity and disunity (partly because the meaning of church teaching itself is a subject of interpretation). Yet while leadership can goes South, Scripture never does.

Interesting theory about evangelicals. Would that statement about unity include people like Lewis Smedes and Carl F.H. Henry

 

[Na Nach Oi!]

The Cathechism of the (Roman) Catholic Church says clearly in paragraph 430

"Jesus means in Hebrew: 'God saves.'

The CCC is wrong.

Jesus/Yeshua means "salvation", not "God saves".

Isaiah 12:3 [YLT] - "And ye have drawn waters with joy out of the fountains of salvation"

The Hebrew text says, "Ushavtem mayim b'sason mimainei hayeshua"

 

[Na Nach Oi!]

Until I read the Didache, I Clement, etc.,

The question is: why were those letters not canonized even in all major Christian sects (Protestant, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy)?

List of books in the Christian Bible, Roman Catholic Bible, Greek Orthodox Bible

 

[prodromos]

The CCC is wrong.

Jesus/Yeshua means "salvation", not "God saves".

Isaiah 12:3 [YLT] - "And ye have drawn waters with joy out of the fountains of salvation"

The Hebrew text says, "Ushavtem mayim b'sason mimainei hayeshua"

How many years have you studied Hebrew?

 

[redleghunter]

Mine simply is that Luther was no maverick in excluding the deuteros as Scripture proper, and neither did he exclude them from his translation, and which may be edifying, at least some, but that he and we have support for our distinction btwn the deuteros as Scripture proper from certain of the ancients who were esteemed RCs, not that we need such, or hold such in Cath esteem.

Good point and which was my point as well. The debate went straight into Trent.

 

[Jack Isaacks]

The focus of Catholicism is on obedience to the Pope and the Church and increasing the church's temporal political dominion.

BZZAT!

Wrong answer, but thank you for playing.

FWIW, in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, used by both Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics, just before Communion, we sing, "One is holy! One is Lord: Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. Amen."

I rest my case.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

 

[redleghunter]

You are still missing my point. It is not Rome did or did not do anything. In that time, there WAS only ONE church, not Roman, not Alexandrian, not Antiochian, or from Jerusalem. Rather, there was ONE church, and it was that church that split (about 1054 A.D.) into Roman Catholic and Orthodox. The views of the "Reformers" did not exist.

I will grant you that there were some excesses in the One Christian Church, and they continued in the Roman Church--while Orthodox continued to fight heresies. I am always willing to admit that there were errors in administration and in the use of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. But how many errors have the Reformers made in the past 600 years? More than all of the heresies of the East, or problems in the West.

What did the above have to do with the subject discussed on the OT canon?

 

[outlawState]

BZZAT!

Wrong answer, but thank you for playing.

FWIW, in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, used by both Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics, just before Communion, we sing, "One is holy! One is Lord: Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. Amen."

I rest my case.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I read from Wiki:

The Latin phrase extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means: "outside the Church there is no salvation". The 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church explained this as "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body.​

Whilst it may well have been the case that in the 3rd century AD, when this precept was first formulated, there were many heresies, few copies of scripture, and in point of fact, no true biblical teaching outside of an orthodox church, such limitations have been superseded somewhat, even by printing, and now the internet, which allows for a standard of education in Christian soteriology as good as anything, and perhaps much superior, to that which comes by a bumbling priest (I speak from experience).

However Rome is still seeking to enslave people to its sacraments, and its alone, pretending that it alone can dispense the grace necessary for salvation. Well in my book, "grace came by Jesus Christ." John 1;17.

So my point is, you may well acknowledge the son of God, (though I think you prefer the unbiblical "God the Son"), but you do not acknowledge that grace comes direct by him to me. You make out that the Church is necessary to dispense grace. Well I think that Christ set up a rather more infallible institution for dispensing his grace that was the Holy Spirit, and not the Pope.

​

 

[redleghunter]

Whilst it may well have been the case that in the 3rd century AD, when this precept was first formulated, there were many heresies, few copies of scripture, and in point of fact, no true biblical teaching outside of an orthodox church, such limitations have been superseded somewhat, even by printing, and now the internet, which allows for a standard of education in Christian soteriology as good as anything, and perhaps much superior, to that which comes by a bumbling priest (I speak from experience).

Actually the early Church was steeped in some debate refuting heretics on the very issue of soteriology.

One such council was the Council of Orange 529 AD.

The Council of Orange was an outgrowth of the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. This controversy had to do with degree to which a human being is responsible for his or her own salvation, and the role of the grace of God in bringing about salvation. The Pelagians held that human beings are born in a state of innocence, i.e., that there is no such thing as a sinful nature or original sin.

As a result of this view, they held that a state of sinless perfection was achievable in this life. The Council of Orange dealt with the Semi-Pelagian doctrine that the human race, though fallen and possessed of a sinful nature, is still "good" enough to able to lay hold of the grace of God through an act of unredeemed human will. The Council held to Augustine's view and repudiated Pelagius.


The Canons of the Council of Orange
(529 AD)


Excerpt of canons:


CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).


CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).


CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).


CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.


CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).


CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).


CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

CANON 9. Concerning the succor of God. It is a mark of divine favor when we are of a right purpose and keep our feet from hypocrisy and unrighteousness; for as often as we do good, God is at work in us and with us, in order that we may do so.

[...]

CANON 16. No man shall be honored by his seeming attainment, as though it were not a gift, or suppose that he has received it because a missive from without stated it in writing or in speech. For the Apostle speaks thus, "For if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal. 2:21); and "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men" (Eph. 4:8, quoting Ps. 68:18). It is from this source that any man has what he does; but whoever denies that he has it from this source either does not truly have it, or else "even what he has will be taken away" (Matt. 25:29).


CANON 17. Concerning Christian courage. The courage of the Gentiles is produced by simple greed, but the courage of Christians by the love of God which "has been poured into our hearts" not by freedom of will from our own side but "through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom. 5:5).


CANON 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.


CANON 19. That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy. Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state in which it was created, could be no means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safe- guard his salvation without the grace of God, which is a gift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost without the grace of God?

{redleghunter comment: I especially like the exegesis of John 15 in canon 24}

CANON 24. Concerning the branches of the vine. The branches on the vine do not give life to the vine, but receive life from it; thus the vine is related to its branches in such a way that it supplies them with what they need to live, and does not take this from them. Thus it is to the advantage of the disciples, not Christ, both to have Christ abiding in them and to abide in Christ. For if the vine is cut down another can shoot up from the live root; but one who is cut off from the vine cannot live without the root (John 15:5ff).


CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love God. It is wholly a gift of God to love God. He who loves, even though he is not loved, allowed himself to be loved. We are loved, even when we displease him, so that we might have means to please him. For the Spirit, whom we love with the Father and the Son, has poured into our hearts the love of the Father and the Son (Rom. 5:5).

Full document here:

Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org

 

[Philip_B]

The Latin phrase extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means: "outside the Church there is no salvation". The 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church explained this as "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body.

Whilst the phrase was part of the historic inheritance of faith from the Holy Fathers, I think that it is true to say that it rose to prominence and importance at the time of the 4th Lateran Council. I believe it was piggy backed into the debate riding on the crest of the filioque. The mistake that this can leave you open to is the mistake of thinking, The Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Son, and the Church is the Body of Christ (which we now see as those limited by their status in communion with the See of Peter), so no Church, no Holy Spirit, No Salvation. This is the kind of error that Patriarchs Photius and Michael Celarius I were ringing warning bells about.

Whilst I think Tillich is hard going for the average punter, he makes a strong case for God who is beyond existence, beyond what we can comprehend, take away the filters of tradition, culture, and preconception, the filter of your very existence, and there is God, not perhaps as you might have imagined God, but that is the problem with all these filters. John 1 of course makes this very point.

John 1:18
No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.​

We know God in the revelation of God, and most especially in the incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ our Saviour. What we don't know is all of God. We do not know all about God. You might have three doctorates in Theology, you may have spent the last six years in Bible Study or veneration before the Blessed Sacrament, and what you will really be is most deeply conscious of is how little you know, yet the little we do know is enough to sustain us an carry us forward. The word they love in the East, patrons of all good adjectives, is ineffable, which is to say that God cannot be described adequately, for God is beyond the story, and whilst in the story God is always beyond telling.

Is the God before the Church? Obviously yes, because that in itself is a tenet the faith of the Church.

Does Grace and Goodness exist in the world before Jesus? Clearly again Yes.

I am Australian, and the Church came to Australia accompanied by men in chains to proclaim the freedom of the Gospel. I am convinced that they did not bring God to Australia. I believe that the Holy Spirit whispered in the Gum Trees and whistled round the Ant Hills, and the first European Settlers, even if they did not recognise it at the time, encountered the oldest living continuous cultural tradition on the planet. I believe the Holy Spirit, great vessel of grace who brooded over the waters at creation is ineffably present and at work in all(?) creation. [please note that I am not embracing pantheism, but certainly going closer that some would care for to panentheism]

It does seem to me that Vatican II did take this doctrine espoused so firmly at the 4th Lateran Council and re-understood it, so that in everything Christ could be understood and seen, so that in anything of grace we could understand the Church. I get where they are going with this, and at the time of the 4th Lateran Council there intent was to build a wall and set boundaries and limits, where as Vatican II was clearly more about tearing down walls and building bridges.

The loss of the proper emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit in the West has I think at times blinded us to grace we ought to see. In our Liturgy we focus on the words of institution (and the are important) but can sometimes relegate other parts of our liturgy (including the acknowledgement of the active presence of God the Holy Spirit in our midst).

I would be happier to say 'Without God the is no hope of Salvation', or to expand our understanding of Church to include all people embraced of grace. The problem I have with the Jack Chick view of Catholicism, is firstly telling people what they believe and then tearing down what he thinks they believe is not all that helpful. I think we need to stop seeing each other as the enemy, and start trying to understand what the other person has to share that may help me on the journey, and maybe what I can share that might help them on the journey. If we do that a bit better we may even be seen by the world to have a message. Too often at the moment it seems to be 'we will know we are Christians by the way we rip each others arms off'. We should be more concerned about being Church.

 

[Jack Isaacks]

Well I think that Christ set up a rather more infallible institution for dispensing his grace that was the Holy Spirit, and not the Pope.

The Holy Spirit is Not an institution.

And in case you didn't notice, I'm ORTHODOX, not Catholic.

 

[Monk Brendan]

evangelicals have been the most unified in basic beliefs, versus those Catholicism counts and treats as members,

Quoting yourself is not proper research.

 

[Monk Brendan]

And the RCs reverse the order.

I was not preferring one to another. I admitted to the errors in the West, and that the East had problems too.

 

[Monk Brendan]

However Rome is still seeking to enslave people to its sacraments, and its alone, pretending that it alone can dispense the grace necessary for salvation.

And when were you put under the yoke of the Romans? The Catholic Churches, all 23 flavors of them, have never sought to enslave people to the Sacraments. Far from it, it has always been up to the people who desire the grace and healing that comes from the Sacraments who have had to get into the church, sometimes by a long catechumen period.

 

[outlawState]

And when were you put under the yoke of the Romans? The Catholic Churches, all 23 flavors of them, have never sought to enslave people to the Sacraments. Far from it, it has always been up to the people who desire the grace and healing that comes from the Sacraments who have had to get into the church, sometimes by a long catechumen period.

The Catholic church will not administer its sacraments to me, as it regards me as a heretic. Yet it insists that the Holy Spirit will only be bestowed through the sacraments. In this way it seeks to make out that those outside the Roman church do not receive the Holy Spirit. But what did Jesus say?

Matthew 18:20 “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

He said nothing about the name of the Romans, or of the Pope. He said "his name."

 

[Monk Brendan]

The Catholic church will not administer its sacraments to me, as it regards me as a heretic. Yet it insists that the Holy Spirit will only be bestowed through the sacraments. In this way it seeks to make out that those outside the Roman church do not have the Holy Spirit. But what did Jesus say?

So you're mad at the Catholic Church because it won't give you the Sacraments you so heartily denigrate? That's what it sounds like to me.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The Catholic church will not administer its sacraments to me, as it regards me as a heretic. Yet it insists that the Holy Spirit will only be bestowed through the sacraments. In this way it seeks to make out that those outside the Roman church do not receive the Holy Spirit. But what did Jesus say?

Matthew 18:20 “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

He said nothing about the name of the Romans, or of the Pope. He said "his name."

If any of this were true at all, in what sense could the Church accept most Protestant Baptisms (a Sacrament administered outside the Church)?
How could the Church say the thief on the cross was moved by the Spirit to the point of salvation from his resulting pure act of contrition?
How the Church have pagans, atheist, agnostics in Heaven (while not excluding some Catholics in Hell) if the Spirit was not working in those lives?

 

[outlawState]

If any of this were true at all, in what sense could the Church accept most Protestant Baptisms (a Sacrament administered outside the Church)?
How could the Church say the thief on the cross was moved by the Spirit to the point of salvation from his resulting pure act of contrition?
How the Church have pagans, atheist, agnostics in Heaven (while not excluding some Catholics in Hell) if the Spirit was not working in those lives?

I have no idea how at a theological level. What I suggest is that political expediency requires the Roman church to show equanimity and the impartialiy that it knows to be an attribute of God to those who have not heard the gospel, or are "born in another faith," but to those who reject the Roman Church knowning something of God, it displays aggression and hostility, by pretending that they cannot have the Holy Spirit by virtue of not partaking in its sacraments.

Incidentally there are still many Roman Catholics who remain scandalized by John Paul II's participation in an African pagan ceremony, and some would say, syncretism, so it may be the Roman church's favourable attitude to atheists and pagans and protestants is more one of lip service and political expediency rather than any genuine belief.

This is indeed the problem with Rome - how to separate politics and faith. It becomes ever more difficult, and now the Romans claim that Islam, which is a legacy of heretical monarchianism, is on a par with Christianity. The mind boggles. The bible knows nothing of it.