"A Humble Servant's Catholic Blog"

I recently read an article by Mr. John MacArthur about salvation (“The Vine and the Branches”)at the request of a friend. I’ve read several Christians’ explanations of salvation (Catholics as well as non-Catholics) that quote the Scriptures and conclude the opposite of MacArthur. A big question that comes to my mind is, “ who is right and how do we know? ” But before we get to that question, let’s explore Mr. MacArthur’s view. His article should be easy enough to find by the title I provided. He preaches a doctrine of “once saved always saved” and his article is primarily in regards to John 15:1-8. Among a couple good points he makes, I think there are places where he makes assumptions that aren’t supported by Scripture and he makes a couple contradictions. I like what he says about Christians being pruned to bear more fruit, and the fact that it can be a painful process, yet worthwhile. But, I don’t see how he concludes that fruitless branches were never “ truly attached ” branches.

In response to THIS post on how praying to Mary brings our focus to Christ, Steve responded with a series of off-topic questions and some claims. Since he jumped off topic right off the bat, I decided to make his reply a separate post and will respond to it point-by-point here. His words will be in italics , mine will be in bold . IS PRAYING TO DEAD PEOPLE A SIN? - This question is irrelevant to the topic, Steve [see link above to original post]. Catholics don’t pray to the dead, we pray to the living. Don’t you remember what Christ said when correcting the Scribes in Mk 12:26-27? He said "God is God of the LIVING, not of the dead". If you are trying to suggest that praying to saints is the same as praying to the dead, you are making the same mistake as the Scribes. Or perhaps you are purposefully trying to mislead the readers to believe something false about the Catholic Church? You aren’t trying to do that are you Steve? Is it a sin to pray to the Virgin Mary and ot

Regarding the Sacrament of Confirmation, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says , “ THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION 1285 Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the "sacraments of Christian initiation," whose unity must be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace [ cf. Roman Ritual, Rite of Confirmation (OC), Introduction 1 ]. For "by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed" [ LG 11; Cf. OC, Introduction 2 ]. I. Confirmation in the Economy of Salvation 1286 In the Old Testament the prophets announced that the Spirit of the Lord would rest on the hoped-for Messiah for his saving mission [ cf. I

[Matthew 5:1-12] It was the very end of a retreat for Christian men. Technically, the retreat was over and I was coming off a high I had not felt in years. God had showered me with so many blessings in this short weekend retreat and I thought, “ there can't possibly be any more for God to bless me with at this moment...I can't possibly be blessed any more than this .” I was wrong. God gave to me one last blessing before my wife and I, kids in tow, headed home that afternoon. And it is a blessing like I have never received before, and likely never will again. “ Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven .” On the retreat, I experienced what this type of spiritual poverty is. It isn't the poverty of having “zero spiritual life”...but one of emptiness, one of need. It is that poverty that says, “ I have nothing to offer except what God gives me, and I need God to fill me .” Experiencing this was wonderful. It helped me see the areas in my life wh

In Part 1 we discussed the literal vs. symbolic interpretation of John 6 in the Bread of Life Discourse. (Click "Part 1" to review if needed.) We left off explaining why a strictly symbolic intperpretation makes no sense. This brings us to the second question: WHY did the Jews understand Christ literally, and why should we also? The answer goes back to the beginning of the Pascal Lamb of the Passover and comes to full light as the Old Covenant is fulfilled in the New. There is a WONDERFUL book that goes into the details of this: Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist , by Brandt Pitre. I won’t pretend to be able to summarize 240 pages of his book here, so I recommend anyone who wants to delve into this topic to get a copy. I’ll just tap on some Scriptural background. Something often forgotten in the movie portrayals of the Passover events is a very critical fact: the lamb had to be EATEN. It was not sufficient to sacrifice the lamb and spread the blood on the door

" ...and drink His blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.” This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um. " (Jn 6:53-59, NRSV-CE). For those who prefer an older translation, compare that to the equally graphic text in the DR or KJV. To help give the picture of what the Jews heard, take a look at the ancient Greek translation of Christ’s words. The first 2 occurrences of “eat” here are translated to the root “phago”, which carries the same meaning as “eat” in English (verses 53 and 54). But thereafter, Christ uses a

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which explains the what, why, how, etc…of Catholic doctrines, says this about Baptizing infants: “Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul". Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.” (CCC 403) “Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flow

When I met the woman who would later become my wife, one of the things that impressed me was how well she knew her Faith.  In fact, she could (and did) tell me  more than a few things about it that I (as a "cradle-Catholic") had not known or understood.  Perhaps the difference between us was a "because I have to" or "my Mom is making me learn this" attitude on my part.  Whereas with her, she WANTED to know the Truth.  She wanted to open her heart to God and let Him guide her where HE wanted her.  That attitude was one I would not fully adopt until I was already an adult.  For your reading pleasure, here is my wife's conversion story, "Led Home by the Sign of His Cross":  I was raised in a Protestant home. My mom grew up in the Southern Baptist Church, and my dad didn't grow up in church, but was baptized as an adult, the same day I was baptized as a three-month old. We attended a Presbyterian (PCUSA) church, and it was there that I

In A Catholic Response to "The Scandal of NFP" I pointed out where Church Militant TV overstepped in trying to tell lay Catholics who use NFP just how "serious" their reasons need to be, misrepresented what NFP is, and implicitly linked NFP use with contraception, among other things.  I sent that article to CMTV for a response.  What I got was an email reply from the CMTV Executive Producer that did everything EXCEPT address my concerns.  I responded to that with a rebuttal and I have received the go-ahead from CMTV to post this in its entirety.     Because a few links (to sources that he wanted me to study) were not in my final response, nor was this article that I refer to as "anti-Catholic propaganda", I am providing a link HERE to a Catholic Answers Forum thread where these appear in their entirety on Page 2 of that thread.   The purpose of posting this is 2-fold:  1) to help people recognize logical fallacies in arguments, regardless of the topi