When Baptists attempt to maintain their descent from the time of the Apostles, they often will bring up a purported statement of Cardinal Hosius from the sixteenth century, which „proves“ so they think, that the Baptists have been around from the beginning, so they are the true Christian church. That this statement was supposedly made by Hosius, who was a papal legate at the Council of Trent, is sure to cause doubts as to its authenticity, except among those who would like to believe it`s genuineness. It is the purpose of this essay to show the evidence for the inauthenticity of this statement, and to show also what Cardinal Hosius really did have to say about anabaptists in his writings.

Born 5.May.1504 in Krakow, Poland, of German parents.
Died 5.August.1579 in Capranica (near Rome).
Cardinal from 1561. Bishop of Ermland from 1551 to 1579.
Legate for Vienna 1560; papal legate for Council of Trent 1561-1563; legate for Poland 1566.
Fought entry of Protestants into Poland. In 1564 he called the Jesuits into Poland for that purpose.
Wrote the „Confessio“, a famous catechism, in 1577
Complete works published Cologne 1584.

"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)" Quoted in the „Trail of Blood“ by J. Carroll.

The complete works of Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius were published in two volumes in 1584 in Cologne, under the title „Opera Omnia“. The complete title reads as follows:

D.STANISLAI HOSII, S R E CARDINALIS, MAIORIS POENITENTIARII; ET EPISCOPI VARMIENSIS

“Opera Omnia in Duos divisa tomos, quorum primus ab ipso auctore plurimus subinde in locis, integris & dimidijs paginis sic auctus & recognitus, ut novum opus fere censeri possit. Secundum autem totus novus, nuncque primus typis excusus.“

The purported statement is nowhere to be found in the letters of Cardinal Hosius

Cardinal Hosius meant by the term „Anabaptist“ a general term for any kind of re-baptizing sect. We see the proof of this in his assertion that the Donatists were Anabaptists. But we know, of course, that the Donatists had completely different beliefs from modern day Baptists (or even 16th century Anabaptists.). For example, they only believed in re-baptism for those Christians who had apostasized under persecution and later returned. Thy did not say infant baptism was wrong, they did not day baptism must be by immersion only, they did not say baptism was merely a symbol. So it is absolutely wrong for modern-day Baptists to suggest that Cardinal Hosius testifies to their existence at the time of Augustine!!!

a) The following is an extract from „Liber Primus De Haeresibus Nostri Temporis“ found in „Opera Omnia“ on page 432 of the Cologne, 1584 edition. It shows clearly how the Anabaptists of the time of Hosius could not agree among themselves, just as the anabaptist groups of Augustine’s time were also likewise hopelessly disunited.
(Note: original Latin will be shown in italics)

( Margin heading: Anabaptistae inter se dissecti)
"But this sect of Anabaptists is greatly divided. For they neither agree on the main doctrines among themselves .."( Est autem & haec Anabaptistarum secta valde dissecta: Neque enim doctrine capitibus inter se conveniunt. ) .It has also been in Augustines century, (fuit etiam Augustini seculo, & ficut aliae pleraeque omnes haereses) all heresies immediately from the beginning divided into many parts (sic & haec statim ab initio multas in partes fuit divisa).

b) Cardinal Hosius then goes on to list some of the anabaptist heretical groups of Augustine’s time. This is significant, because among other things it shows that Hosius regarded the Donatists as „anabaptists“ or re-baptizers. However, since we know exactly what the Donatists believed (and it certainly wasn’t what Baptists believe) we see that Hosius used the term „anabaptist“ as a generic term for sects which re-baptized. Here is his quote:
(Nam alij vocabantur Donatistae, alij Rogatistae, alij Maximianistae, Circenses alij, qui conversi tandem sunt a factione Donatistarum ( hoc enim nomen caeteris erat celebrius) ad Ecclesiae Catholicae societatem. )
(„For some are called Donatists, others Rogatists, other Maximinianists, othere Circenses, which at length are changed from the faction of the Donatists to the Catholic Church“)

“Muncerani, alij Orantes, alij Silentes, Somniantes, pueris similes, Synceri, Impeccabiles a Baptismo, Liberi, Binderliani, Sabbatarii, Maderanii, Hoffmannici, & post eos exorti Circumcisi: fortassis & Adamitae ad Anabaptistarum sectam pertinent. „

So it is clear from this that Hosius grouped all re-baptising sects together under the heading „Anabaptists“. This is very important to note, for it destroys conclusively any notion that the Baptists of today can trace their lineage back to the time of Augustine.

d) A quote from letter CLVII „Carolo Archiduci Austriae“ (from „Opera Omnia“, Liber Epistolarum)

„Nonne videmus a Lutheranismo ad Calvinismum, a Calvinismo ad Anabaptismum, ab Anabaptismo ad Trideismum, a Trideismi ad Atheism iam esse ventum? „
(„Do we not already see the wind to be from Lutheranism to Calvinism, from Calvinism to Anabaptism, from Anabaptism to Trideism, from Trideism to Atheism?“).

Proof again, if it were needed, that Cardinal Hosius certainly didn’t see the Anabaptists of his time being in any way descended from the groups at the time of Augustine.

e) Letter CL „Alberto Bavariae Duci“ (ibid.): in this letter we do have a reference to Anabaptists from 1,200 years earlier , („quos ante mille ducentos annes haeretisos“), however as we have seen, this refers to sects such as the Donatists, who did not reject infant baptism or baptism by sprinkling, they merely insisted that apostates should be „re-baptized“, hence their status as „ana-baptists“.

„Nam & alterius Principis edictum non ita pridem legi, qui vicem Anabaptistarum dolens, quos ante mille ducentos annes haeretisos, capitalique supplicio dignos esse pronunciatos legimus, vult, ut audiantur omnino, nec indicta causa pro condemnatis habeantur.“

f) Finally note the following reference. Again Hosius is goruping the Donatists as anabaptists:

Neque vero tantum Augustini seculo tales fuerunt: Ante quadringentos etia annos, quibus Bernardus vixit, fuerunt Anabaptistae non minus vitae prodigi, quam Donatistae.“
(„Not only in the time of Augustine were they as such. 400 years ago, during which Bernard lived, there have been anabaptists no less prodigious of life than the Donatists.“)
(Refs Augustus epist. 50 „Donatistae mortis oppetendae cupidi“; Bernardus. sermo 66 in cantic.)

Once again, there is absolutely no connection in Hosius' mind between the groups of the time of Augustine and those of the sixteenth century.

We have shown that (i) it is almost certain that Cardinal Hosius never made that remark which is attributed to him, for reasons given in section I above, and (ii) that Cardinal Hosius certainly did not regard the Anabaptists of his time as being in any way descended from the sects of the time of Augustine.

An understanding of the general nature of the term „anabaptist“ as simply meaning „re-baptizer“ will clarify why Hosius says they existed as early as Augustine`s time. Note that in contrast, the term „Catholic“ has always meant something quite specific, union with the See of Peter in the universal Church. For this reason, the Catholic Church of today CAN and DOES claim continuity from the time of the Apostles.

As a final comment, it is well to note that the Catholic Church has much more ancient testimony than anything the Baptists can come up with. Just read the Early Church Fathers on Baptism, the Eucharist, the Primacy of Peter etc. See for example www.catholic.com or www.newadvent.org
The Baptists cannot provide any kind of support of this kind for their position.

The following are some links to Catholic Encyclopedia articles relating to pre-reformation heretical sects. The casual reader will note that the teachings of these groups vary widely and can in no way be seen to be doctrinally consistent with modern-day Baptists!

"If the truth of religion were to be judged by the readiness and boldness of which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinion and persuasion of no sect can be truer and surer than that of the Anabaptist since there have been none for these twelve hundred years past, that have been more generally punished or that have more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone, and even offered themselves to the most cruel sorts of punishment than these people. (Cardinal Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, 112-113)." Baptist Magazine CVIII, 278. May, 1826)

Obviously, this is very different quote from the one quoted earlier. Yet they both have the same reference (Letters, Apud Opera, 112-113).

The list of contents for Cardinal Hosius‘ Complete Works (Colonia, 1584 edition) reads as follows:
Operum Tomi Primi
Catalogus

Confessio catholica fidei Christiana folio 1
Confutation Prolegomenon Brentij. 419
De expresso Dei verbo libellus 611
Dialogues de communione sub utraq. specie

De oppresso Dei verbo libellus 1
De Actis cum diversis Haereticis 61
Liber Epistelarum 145
Examen siue exiussio Confederationis Hareticorum 454
Altera exiussio eiusdem Confederationis 459
Orationes funebres duae, in Exequijs duorum Regum Poloniae Sigismundi primi & secundi recitatae 462.469
Eiusdem auctoris Testamentum ex manuscriptus adversarijs excerptum 483
Epistola Stanislai Rescij, de transitu Cardinalis Hosij 485
Eiusdem Ode lugubris 495.

See my profile page at the bottom for more on "what I believe." Many of the articles I've written are posted there.

These two sum up my own "story" if you are truly interested:

Complacency and Abortion - Dr. Brian J. Kopp, DPM

Complacency and Abortion

by Brian J. Kopp, DPM

I received a tremendous grace in 1991. I was a "Sunday Catholic" who never really rejected the faith but never really embraced it either. In my pursuit of a residency training program in my specialty, foot surgery, I began visiting a doctor in central Pennsylvania. He was the residency director of a program at a small rural hospital here. And like so many others in late twentieth century America, he was a fallen away Catholic who had found faith, hope, and solace in an independent bible believing church.

He was not afraid to witness to his born again Christianity. He challenged me and I very nearly lost my Catholic faith. I spent the summer of 1991 in agony, searching my soul and the Christian landscape for Christ’s church. In the midst of this spiritual turmoil, where I questioned everything I believed and thought to be true about Christianity, I had what that doctor would call a "born again" experience. After bible study one morning in his office in June of 1991, I walked out the back door in tears, convinced God was leading me to leave the faith of my youth, my friends and family. I made a heartfelt, sincere commitment to God: I told Him I would go wherever He wanted me to go, do whatever He wanted me to do, say whatever He wanted me to say, be whatever he wanted me to be.

He heard that prayer and showered me with His Grace. By early fall I had met many good Catholics who built me up in my faith and led me to the books and resources I needed to find the truth. A study of the writings of the early Christians and the history of scripture and its proper interpretation led me to the conviction that God wanted me right where I had been, in His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Along with this intense search for Christ’s true Church came the search for moral truth, especially in the area of marriage and sexuality. This lead to the realization that today’s Roman Catholic teachings on sexual morality were the same as those of the earliest Christian writers. For instance, all of Christianity unanimously taught that contraception was inherently immoral until 1930. It wasn’t until the Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops in 1930 that any Christian body taught that contraception could be morally licit, under certain circumstances. This came as a shock to my wife and I, who had been using the birth control pill since our marriage in August of 1990.

Although I had managed to maintain a strong pro-life outlook even as a "Sunday Catholic," I had never bothered asking why the Church maintained its teaching that contraception was inherently sinful. My wife, who was Lutheran at the time, had been taught that a prudent Christian couple contracepted until they could "afford" children. As a financially strapped third year student when we married, I fully agreed. By the end of that summer of 1991 I was beginning to have serious doubts.

In school I had access to many texts on physiology and pharmacology. It didn’t take long to discover that the oral "contraceptives" that we were using weren’t just contraceptive. Due to the progressively lower doses of hormones in birth control pills (to decrease the life-threatening side effects that had become all too apparent with the pill) release of an egg during the woman’s monthly cycle was known to occur in 2% to 10% of cycles with the most common birth control pills, and up to 20% to 50% of cycles with the mini pill, Norplant implants, and Depo-Provera shots.

When this "breakthrough ovulation" occurs, so can fertilization. But an egg that is released and subsequently fertilized almost always dies, because it cannot implant and grow on the thin, shriveled lining of the uterus that is formed under the influence of these so-called contraceptive birth control pills. Proof of this can be found in an article in Archives of Family Medicine (one of the Journals of the AMA), Vol. 9 No. 2, February 2000, called "Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent."

Imagine the horror of learning that our contraceptive could be killing our own newly formed babies! Despite confessing this grave sin to a priest who claimed that contraception was no longer sinful in the eyes of the church, my wife and I persevered in our newfound conviction that, at least from a pro-life position, contraception was terribly sinful. We purchased a book and video and taught ourselves Natural Family Planning.

In December of 1991 we made a pilgrimage to the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. Because our knowledge of the practice of Natural Family Planning was so limited, we conceived our first born son that evening. Of course there are no accidental babies in God’s Divine Plan, a fact we would come to learn and appreciate later as our knowledge of the practice and morality of Natural Family Planning grew.

My wife, Sue, was very responsive to my newfound knowledge of scripture, tradition, and Catholic morality, and was received into the Roman Catholic Church on the Easter Vigil of 1992.

I graduated from school and started my residency under the direction of the "born again" Christian doctor in central Pennsylvania that summer. (This was no small miracle itself. I had taken to praying the rosary every day in the fall of 1991, asking for Mary’s intercession so that I could return to my home region in central Pennsylvania. I put all my eggs in one basket, so to speak. While my classmates applied to literally dozens of residencies in the hopes of getting accepted into just one, I only applied to that central Pennsylvania program. Several years later I learned that I wasn’t the residency director’s first pick either.)

Michael Joseph was born in August 1992. We took NFP classes from a teaching couple in the area and successfully mastered it this time. As we embraced the Catholic faith more fully and came to a deeper understanding of marriage and sexuality, we decided to take courses to become Natural Family Planning instructors ourselves. Looking back, this may also have been an attempt to assuage our consciences and make reparation for our former contraceptive lifestyle. We began teaching several NFP courses per year. I was called upon to give a talk here and there on sexual morality and NFP to pre-Cana and confirmation classes.

We felt good about ourselves and the work we were doing for God, almost feeling self-righteous for our good deeds. This is our pro-life work, we told ourselves. We may not have been standing in front of an abortion mill praying, but we were educating people about the abortive nature of chemical contraceptives, about the fact that the unitive and the procreative aspects of the marital act cannot be separated. We were showing God’s people His will for limiting and spacing children, and what constitutes a grave moral reason for having recourse to NFP. We were striking at the root of the problem of abortion. As the Supreme Court admitted in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, "in some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraceptives.... people have organized intimate relationships....in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail." (Contraceptives will always fail. God is Life. He is the Creator. We are made in the image and likeness of God. In marriage we are co-creators with God. Fertility, that which leads to life, cannot be suppressed or eliminated any more than God, Who is Life, can be suppressed or eliminated.)

I prided myself that I was doing important work for God, pro-life work. But my commitment to this really was no more than a couple NFP classes and talks each year. I really had forgotten those innocent babies who should never be forgotten.

I had become complacent.

I did not realize it until 1997. I had returned to the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception on October 13, 1997, to attend the culmination of an international week of prayer and fasting to end abortion, under the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, on the eightieth anniversary of the miracle at Fatima. I sat there during the mass and listening to the various speakers, and I realized I had become complacent. I thought about those intervening years since I had last sat in that beautiful Basilica, and I cried. I thought of the evening our first born son was conceived in that city, and the magnificent gift of our three children, and the one we lost to miscarriage, and I cried. I thought of that commitment I made to God in June of 1991, seemingly so long before, and I cried. I listened to them speak of partial birth abortion, euthanasia, the newest, latest assaults on the innocent and defenseless, and I cried. I thought of all the many blessings my God had bestowed on me in my short life, and the biblical admonition that to those to whom much is given, much will be expected. I asked God to forgive me for my complacency.

Then I made a new commitment that night, similar to that one I made to God so many years ago. I prayed to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of my Lord and God, Jesus Christ. I promised that with her intercession I would renew my efforts to end this evil of abortion. I told her I would go wherever she wants me to go, do whatever she wants me to do, say whatever she wants me to say, be whatever she wants me to me. Through her intercession, by the Grace of the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, I would no longer be a complacent Catholic.

Daily, I need to recall my committment to this battle. The routine of everyday life, the demands of work, the bills we’re never quite able to keep up with, the childrens’ colds and homeschooling and dirty diapers, all these little distractions can cause us to forget, if only for a time, God’s forgotten ones. However, we cannot let ourselves slip into complacency. Along with our daily decision to follow Jesus must come our daily decision to pick up the Cross. Part of the Cross we bear is the knowledge of what is happening to God’s forgotten ones each minute of each day.

Abortion continues because of complacency, but God’s forgotten ones don’t have the luxury of being complacent. Neither do we. Today our complacency threatens the lives of those we do not know. Tomorrow it may threaten our own life or that of our loved ones. Most importantly, our embrace of the Cross today, and the pro-life battle that is part of it, is not optional, if we hope to attain Eternal Life.

My Conversion Story - Dr. Brian J. Kopp, DPM

My Conversion Story

(or, "The Rest of the Story," if you've read my article,
"Complacency and Abortion" on my sub page here.)

by Brian J. Kopp, DPM

Sometimes you just don't appreciate all you have and all that has been given to you. Sometimes it takes another to challenge your thoughts, beliefs and preconceived notions, in order to make you see that which has been sitting right under your nose all along. God sometimes uses others, and even their own errors and misconceptions, to wake us up to His presence and the Truth He has preserved for us in His Roman Catholic Church.

Throughout college, in all my pre-med courses, I was constantly taught the Darwinian dogma, that we are all the products of the blind forces of evolution, and that there was no purpose, rhyme nor reason to evolution. The orthodoxy that reigned then was that man was simply a physical being, the result of nothing more than chance. I ate it up. If they had offered a minor in evolution, I would have received it, for I took every evolution, anthropology, and archeology course my "liberal arts" college offered. I teetered precariously on the edge of the despairing atheism that is the home of those who embrace this philosophy, this hypothesis. At that time, I simply was not mature enough or well read enough to realize that this "objective scientific" position, of humanistic atheism, was neither scientific nor objective. The ego and rebellion of young adulthood is ripe for the stroking of the intellect that these errors of humanistic philosophy produce. "Man's mind is the highest power on Earth" and "Scientific knowledge is our God," could well have been the banner over the science building where I spent so many hours studying.

Many of my classmates did indeed imbibe these heady notions, and unfortunately, some never came down from the "high" that scientific pursuit engenders, until it was too late. When the promise of science fails to fulfill ones life and bring the happiness that the grasp of pure knowledge promises, an abyss of despair, depression and even suicide often awaits. I saw it in a friend who took the road of atheism and never looked back.

Twelve years of Catholic school, and the watered down, post Vatican II catechesis that accompanied it, had failed to prepare me for the trials and temptations of the world of college. I had given up the sacrament of Confession even during high school, and college saw my days full of study and my weekends full of debauchery. I'm glad my parents knew little of my time there. With my understanding now of the spiritual life, I realize and regret that my Lord saw all of it. Even then He was kind, merciful and loving of His lost sheep.

All through college I simply could not shake a recurrent nightmare. It always occurred immediately before awakening. I was sitting on a mountain or a large plain, enjoying nature, when missiles suddenly whistled overhead and mushroom clouds burst over the horizon. At that instant, in this recurring dream, I knew that at any moment I too would die in a nuclear annihilation. And every time, in my dream, I died weeping for Jesus to forgive my sins, but knowing that to die in them brought Eternal Damnation. Even as my intellect struggled with God's existence, my soul was crying out for Him. During those years my intellect won, and the struggling of my soul had to step aside to my intellect that countered, "Not now, Lord, someday when I'm older I'll investigate this religious stuff seriously." Maybe that in itself was a prayer or a promise. It surely was the grave sin of presumption, that I would live long enough to reform my life and live as if I believed. But apparently God heard that prayer, and was Faithful, and waited.

Throughout med school the dream persisted, but was not as intense. I became engaged at the end of college, and was married after my second year of med school. The rebellious years of young adulthood gave way to the hope of marriage and family, and my wife's Lutheran faith had never faltered, a challenge to my lukewarm, at best, Catholicism.

Then, in searching for a residency-training program in my specialty, foot surgery, I visited a doctor that shook my world and all my preconceived notions. During my first visit to his residency program, I was immediately made aware that he was a former Catholic, and a "born again" Christian. He was on fire with a love of Jesus and knowledge of scripture that I had never before encountered. He talked about his Savior with anyone who would listen, as well as some who didn't care to. He challenged me to defend my faith, a faith that, in his opinion, had failed him.

All my fears, embodied in the existential angst of that dream of nuclear annihilation, came flooding back to me. The thought of dying then, having never taken my faith seriously, having been shown by a recurring dream the damnation I could face, and recalling my unconfessed sins of many years, brought his challenge to the immediate present and the front of my intellect. I could not tell God to wait any longer. I could not suppress the commitment I knew I must make now, or risk never making again.

We were having Bible study in that doctor's office one Tuesday morning in June of 1991, when it all hit me. I walked out the back door of his office in tears, and right then, I did as the doctor recommended. I accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior. I told Him I would go wherever He wanted me to go, do whatever He wanted me to do, say whatever He wanted me to say, and be whatever He wanted me to be. I felt certain that at that moment He no longer wanted me to be a Catholic, in a church that withheld this vital message to its ignorant adherents, who likely would fail to achieve Heaven because they thought they would get there by works and attending mass, not by accepting Him as Savior.

But this also meant abandoning the Faith of my youth, my family, and my friends. My tears were just as much from relief at finally deciding to take Him seriously, as they were of thinking that this meant searching for a real Christian Church and breaking the news to all those I loved. But I truly intended to search. If anything, I wanted to know the Truth. If it had been withheld from me during 25 years of Catholicism, then my first mission was to find that Truth. I was not going to look for a popular church or a comfortable church, or just any "Bible believing" church. I wanted to find Truth.

The rest is not that ground shaking, really. Using both protestant and Catholic guides, I started reading the writings of early Christians, so that I could better judge the teachings of all the different "Bible believing" churches that I suddenly started noticing dotting the landscape. They all had their own beliefs about baptism, salvation ("once saved, always saved" versus the belief that salvation can be lost), works, sin, etc. Mostly it was not so much differences of opinion about the Bible, but differences in how to interpret scripture. Each church claimed personal interpretation of scripture under the individual guidance of the Holy Spirit. But there were so many opposing interpretations that I thought it best to see how the early Christians interpreted it. The writings of Catholics such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating solidified my rapidly growing conviction that all these "Bible believing" churches just weren't very biblical at all.

More importantly, I learned that I had not been taught a faith that misinterpreted scripture and added things to scripture. Frankly, I simply HAD NOT been taught much Catholicism at all. The watered down Catechesis I had received in a liberal Catholic parish, during the chaos of the post Vatican II crisis, was actually more mainstream protestant than authentically Catholic. Once I seriously started studying scripture, and the writings of early Christians, the "scales fell from my eyes," in a certain sense. It was abundantly clear that God wanted me right where I had been supposed to be all along, in His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. More than anything, it was my own laziness and failure to build on the skeleton of faith I had received as a youth that left me open to both the errors of humanistic atheism and "Bible" Christianity.

Finally, the most important thing I've found, after the initial necessity to make an adult decision to follow Christ and His Roman Catholic Church, is the necessity of rooting out personal sin that true conversion of the heart demands. After learning the basics of the Faith and apologetics, the greatest area of interest for me has been moral theology. Learning how to walk in the ways of the Lord, in a world immersed in vice and corruption, is the second great hurdle of the Christian life that is presented after that first hurdle of an adult commitment to Christ is passed.

This second great hurdle is also where I parted company from the "Bible Christians." Although they teach the basic necessity of conversion of the heart to Christ, it seems they have failed, to a degree, in being faithful in calling their members to conversion of their lives from sin. Much of this is due to a residual anti-Catholicism, left over from the Protestant Revolt, and the perverted notion that if one believes, sin is no longer an issue, for salvation cannot be lost by sin. Since only the Catholic Church maintains a strong cohesive teaching on life issues such as contraception, masturbation, chastity, divorce, abortion, and homosexuality, it seems these issues are sometimes disregarded as simply "Catholic" issues that are not very important to many "Bible Christians."

In this regard it is time for us to start reaching out to help convert those "Bible Christians" who once sought so eagerly to convert us. I owe much to a fearless fallen away Catholic "Bible Christian," and I will never forget that God used some of the errors of his biblical interpretation to point out to me True biblical interpretation, found only in its entirety in the Roman Catholic Church. Many of these brothers in Christ live in ignorance of lifestyles that are objectively mortally sinful, such as divorce and remarriage and contraception. But if these Bible Christians too are sincerely searching for the Truth, then the time is ripe for us to return the favors that, like the doctor in my conversion, they once granted to us. Its time to bring home the Lord's sheep.

var site="sm7newlerepos"

into eternal sure salvation

Scriptural says we must work out our salvation, in fear and trembling, not in assurance. That which is assured is no longer hoped for. But "faith, hope and love remain." If hope remains, there must be a chance of losing one's salvation, and in this scripture is quite clear: "Once saved always saved" is not scriptural:

Matt.7 [21] "Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. [22] On that day many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'

Matt.25 [11] Afterward the other maidens came also, saying, `Lord, lord, open to us.'

Luke.6 [46] "Why do you call me `Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?

1 Corinthians 9:27 but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

1 Corinthians 10:12 Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.

Galatians 5:1,4 . . . stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery . . . You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Philippians 3:11-14 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own . . . I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.

1 Timothy 5:15 For some have already strayed after Satan.

Hebrews 3:12-14 Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day . . . that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end.

Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God, and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy . . .

2 Peter 2:15,20-21 Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have followed the way of Balaam, . . . For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.

Also, in Revelations why do the messages given to the seven Churches almost always mention the fact that their "works" have been noted or seen and found adequate or lacking? On one occasion works was listed before faith. What does that mean?

Simple.

When Jesus Himself speaks of the final judgement, He does not say that we will be judged on "our personal relationship" with Him. That relationship is a given...He's speaking to His followers!

No, Jesus speaks of WORKS. That is why, in Revelation, they almost always mention the fact that their "works" have been noted or seen and found adequate or lacking?

See the words of Christ:

Matthew 25 31: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32: Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33: and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34: Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35: for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36: I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37: Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38: And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39: And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' 40: And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' 41: Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42: for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43: I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44: Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' 45: Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' 46: And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

In other words, as Jesus' COUSIN (NOT brother) points out so eloquently in the book of James, faith without works is dead. And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Please see "Catholic" from the Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent.org for entire entry, from which the following excerpt is taken.

The word Catholic (katholikos from katholou -- throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics, e.g., in Aristotle and Polybius, and was freely used by the earlier Christian writers in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense. Thus we meet such phrases as the "the catholic resurrection" (Justin Martyr), "the catholic goodness of God" (Tertullian), "the four catholic winds" (Irenaeus), where we should now speak of "the general resurrection", "the absolute or universal goodness of God", "the four principal winds", etc. The word seems in this usage to be opposed to merikos (partial) or idios (particular), and one familiar example of this conception still survives in the ancient phrase "Catholic Epistles" as applied to those of St. Peter, St. Jude, etc., which were so called as being addressed not to particular local communities, but to the Church at large.

The combination "the Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church." However, in view of the context, some difference of opinion prevails as to the precise connotation of the italicized word, and Kattenbusch, the Protestant professor of theology at Giessen, is prepared to interpret this earliest appearance of the phrase in the sense of mia mone, the "one and only" Church [Das apostolische Symbolum (1900), II, 922]. From this time forward the technical signification of the word Catholic meets us with increasing frequency both East and West, until by the beginning of the fourth century it seems to have almost entirely supplanted the primitive and more general meaning. The earlier examples have been collected by Caspari (Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols, etc., III, 149 sqq.). Many of them still admit the meaning "universal". The reference (c. 155) to "the bishop of the catholic church in Smyrna" (Letter on the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, xvi), a phrase which necessarily presupposes a more technical use of the word, is due, some critics think, to interpolation. On the other hand this sense undoubtedly occurs more than once in the Muratorian Fragment (c. 180), where, for example, it is said of certain heretical writings that they "cannot be received in the Catholic Church". A little later, Clement of Alexandria speaks very clearly. "We say", he declares, "that both in substance and in seeming, both in origin and in development, the primitive and Catholic Church is the only one, agreeing as it does in the unity of one faith" (Stromata, VII, xvii; P. G., IX, 552). From this and other passages which might be quoted, the technical use seems to have been clearly established by the beginning of the third century. In this sense of the word it implies sound doctrine as opposed to heresy, and unity of organization as opposed to schism (Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Part II, vol. I, 414 sqq. and 621 sqq.; II, 310-312). In fact Catholic soon became in many cases a mere appellative--the proper name, in other words, of the true Church founded by Christ, just as we now frequently speak of the Orthodox Church, when referring to the established religion of the Russian Empire, without adverting to the etymology of the title so used. It was probably in this sense that the Spaniard Pacian (Ep. i ad Sempron.) writes, about 370: "Christianus mihi nonem est, catholicus cognomen", and it is noteworthy that in various early Latin expositions of the Creed, notably that of Nicetas of Remesiana, which dates from about 375 (ed. Burn, 1905, p. lxx), the word Catholic in the Creed, though undoubtedly coupled at that date with the words Holy Church, suggests no special comment. Even in St. Cyprian (c. 252) it is difficult to determine how far he uses the word Catholic significantly, and how far as a mere name. The title, for instance, of his longest work is "On the Unity of the Catholic Church", and we frequently meet in his writings such phrases as catholica fides (Ep. xxv; ed. Hartel, II, 538); catholica unitas (Ep. xxv, p. 600); catholica regula (Ep. lxx, p. 767), etc. The one clear idea underlying all is orthodox as opposed to heretical, and Kattenbusch does not hesitate to admit that in Cyprian we first see how Catholic and Roman came eventually to be regarded as interchangeable terms. (Cf. Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, II, 149-168.) Moreover it should be noted that the word Catholica was sometimes used substantively as the equivalent of ecclesia Catholica. An example is to be found in the Muratorian Fragment, another seemingly in Tertullian (De Praescrip, xxx), and many more appear at a later date, particularly among African Writers.

Among the Greeks it was natural that while Catholic served as the distinctive description of the one Church, the etymological significance of the word was never quite lost sight of. Thus in the "Catechetical Discourses" of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 347) he insists on the one hand (sect. 26): "And if ever thou art sojourning in any city, inquire not simply where the Lord's house is--for the sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens, houses of the Lord--nor merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of the holy body the mother of us all." On the other hand when discussing the word Catholic, which already appears in his form of the baptismal creed, St. Cyril remarks: (sect. 23) "Now it [the Church] is called Catholic because it is throughout the world, from one end of the earth to the other." But we shall have occasion to quote this passage more at length later on.

There can be no doubt, however, that it was the struggle with the Donatists which first drew out the full theological significance of the epithet Catholic and passed it on to the schoolmen as an abiding possession. When the Donatists claimed to represent the one true Church of Christ, and formulated certain marks of the Church, which they professed to find in their own body, it could not fail to strike their orthodox opponents that the title Catholic, by which the Church of Christ was universally known, afforded a far surer test, and that this was wholly inapplicable to a sect which was confined to one small corner of the world. The Donatists, unlike all previous heretics, had not gone wrong upon any Christological question. It was their conception of Church discipline and organization which was faulty. Hence, in refuting them, a more or less definite theory of the Church and its marks was gradually evolved by St. Optatus (c. 370) and St. Augustine (c. 400). These doctors particularly insisted upon the note of Catholicity, and they pointed out that both the Old and the New Testament represented the Church as spread over all the earth. (See Turmel, "Histoire de la theologie positive, 1904, I, 162-166, with references there given.) Moreover, St. Augustine insists upon the consensus of Christians in the use of the name Catholic. "Whether they wish or no", he says, "heretics have to call the Catholic Church Catholic" ("De vera religione", xii). "Although all heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if any one ask where is the Catholic place of worship none of them would venture to point out his own conventicle" (Contra Epistolam quam vocant Fundamenti, iv). Of later exponents of this same thesis the most famous Vincent of Lerins (c. 434). His canon of Catholicity is "That which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all." "This", he adds, "is what is truly and properly Catholic" (Commonitorium, I, ii).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius: did he really make THAT statement?

Complacency and Abortion

My Conversion Story

(or, "The Rest of the Story," if you've read my article,"Complacency and Abortion" on my sub page here.)

(or, "The Rest of the Story," if you've read my article,
"Complacency and Abortion" on my sub page here.)