fdr, if you’re referring to my comment. I’m not Roman Catholic, I'm Orthodox. I was simply trying to use an example that Beck might understand.
 September 30, 2015 at 10:57am
Actually shows the opposite. They do not discriminate. ummmm, these people are lost.
[-1] September 29, 2015 at 11:29am
possibly heaven itself. Some suggest that the reference is to the womb and the loins, meaning the woman would become barren and her genitals would be disfigured and render future carnal relations impossible. Certainly the threat of such a curse would be a discouragement to the sin of adultery, though the Bible does not record the application of this in any particular case. Other ancient peoples had similar tests for such things, though none known which were identical. And in the case of the pagans, there would be the greater danger of a superstitious understanding of such tests than would be the case for the Israelites who viewed this in terms of the judgment of God.
September 29, 2015 at 11:28am
This text provides a means of determining the innocence or guilt of a woman accused of adultery by her husband, in the absence of evidence. In the absence of details regarding how the bitter waters actually caused the effects which were threatened, we should not assume that it was merely physical but rather something supernatural. Along these lines, the priests of the Old Testament and St. Peter as described in Acts sometimes cast stones or some other form of lots to discern the will of God. This allowed God to act in some supernatural manner to render a judgment in some matter, such as the replacement apostle for Judas or in this case the guilt or innocence of the accused. Scholars and translators debate the exact nature of the punishment for the guilty. Many suggest that the swelling of the body and falling away of the thigh mean that her womb would become barren and subject to miscarriage in the future; in other words, she would never have children again—a curse in the ancient world. Some even suggest that the miscarriage might apply to any child she may have conceived already in the adulterous relationship. We know of one case where God Himself decreed that the offspring of an adulterous affair would die after childbirth: the firstborn son of King David and Bathsheeba. While this might seem unjust to us vis-à-vis the child, remember that each individual is judged by the Lord upon death and we trust that an innocent infant enjoys some manner of blessing in eternity, quite
[-2] September 28, 2015 at 7:04pm
Lest, thank you for your concise writings. Everything you have presented is correct. Keep up the good work. But like you said, sometimes you have to shake the dust. Keep walking….
[-1] September 25, 2015 at 10:24am
LestWeForget….dude, you win the prize. Thank you for you correct comment.
 September 24, 2015 at 10:12am
It astounds the amount of non understanding of the Catholic faith. First, Revelation 5:8, John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of “golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers, ie not “dead”. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us. Second, Catholics adore (Latria) God and none other. To adore anyone else is sacrilegious. We give dulia to Mary and the Saints. Dulia is reverence or veneration. These are Latin. The good thing about Latin is that the words meanings never change, unlike the English language. The word Worship has changed meanings over time. In the middle ages, a Lord of a manor was called “your worship”. As far as those who believe the Saints are dead I refer you to Jesus in Luke 9:29-31 “And as [Jesus] was praying, the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white. And behold, two men talked with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem.” Moses was dead, wasn’t he?
 August 5, 2015 at 11:55am
LCDR, he did say to love one another for sure, but he said first to love the Lord your God with all your heart mind and soul. We do that by following his commandments. By following what he teaches. He was man who forgave sins and welcomed the sinner, but he said to sin no more. The Catholic Church is not about control. It about teaching Jesus’ teachings properly. To not allow some one to communion is following his teachings. From him (Mark 10: 11-12) and indirectly from him through Paul (1 Cor 11:27-32)
 August 5, 2015 at 11:31am
Thanks for the post. People always forget what Jesus said about this. Plus the understanding of the Eucharist an 1 Cor 11:27-32 is key
November 20, 2014 at 9:51am
Does any one know how to stop these adds? I can’t listen to the clip because there is mot stop button on these stupid adds
Employ better utilities like Spy-bot, and Steganos to remove cookies on the fly.
Turn the volume off until it clears up.
 May 26, 2014 at 8:26pm
Ding Ding Ding and Lest gets the prize. Thank you Lest for the truth…
[-2] May 26, 2014 at 12:28pm
WTH, the Pope said he was “known as a man of peace” basically giving him a challenge and the loons come out of the wood works about the Pope being the anti-Christ. If you read it through he also challenges him on allowing Christians (particularly Catholics )to worship freely. So he prayed at a wall, wow screams anti Christ to me, geez. This article is deceptive, read the actually text of the speech. Yes things are about to happen but not like evangelicals want to think. 100 years of Fatima is approaching, so get ready…
March 29, 2014 at 4:00pm
Are we justified or saved by faith, according to Jesus? Certainly! But by faith alone that would exclude works in every sense? No way. In John 11:25, we read: “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live.” That is faith. Yet, in Matthew 19:17-19, Jesus declared: “. . . If you would enter life, keep the commandments . . . You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, honor your father and mother, and, you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” That is works.
In Matthew 12:37, Jesus puts any thought of justification by faith alone to rest: “. . . for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
March 29, 2014 at 4:00pm
Context reveals that St. Paul was talking about the initial grace of salvation or justification by which we are raised from death unto life. The construction of the Greek text of Ephesians 2:8-9 makes clear that both grace and faith are entirely unmerited. Many Protestants are shocked to discover this is precisely what the Catholic Church teaches—and baptizes babies to prove it. How much more can the Church do to demonstrate this truth? What kind of works could a newborn baby have done to merit anything? However, once that baby grows up and reaches the age of accountability, he must begin to “work out [his] own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in [him], both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:12-13). Or, as Paul says in Ephesians 2:10: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
March 29, 2014 at 3:59pm
Ephesians 2:8-9 declares: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—not because of works, lest any man should boast.” This is another text commonly used to dismiss good works as necessary for salvation in the life of a Christian. However, once again, context is the key to understanding Paul. In verses 4-6, he says: “But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ . . . and raised us up with him . . .”
March 29, 2014 at 3:57pm
Moreover, in Romans 6:16, Paul tells us that after baptism, obedience to Christ leads us to justification while sin will lead us to death (see also Romans 6:23): “Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness” (Gk. eis dikaiosunen, unto justification).
Paul’s emphasis is not just on good works, but works done in and through the power of Christ. Thus, in Romans 8:1-14,Paul tells us in no uncertain terms that we must be in Christ in order to do works that please God.
March 29, 2014 at 3:53pm
only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised? We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.
Paul used the example of the “Judaizers” to teach the truth about the nature of justification and works. The works that justify us—as we saw in Romans 2:6-11 and James 2:24—are works done in Christ. Indeed, in Romans 2:4, before Paul even begins to talk about the works we must do to be saved, he says, “Knowest thou not, that the benignity of God leadeth thee to penance” (Douay-Rheims). It is only God’s goodness that leads us to repentance so that we can perform good works. How do we get “in Christ” according to Paul? Through baptism: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death . . .” (Rom 6:3-4). It is only after we are in Christ and trusting in the power of his grace at work within us that we have the power to remain in him: “Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God” (Rom 5:1-2).
March 29, 2014 at 3:51pm
prominent first-century heretical sect known today as the “Judaizers.” These heretics taught that belief in Christ and obedience to the New Covenant was not enough to be saved. A man also had to keep the Mosaic Law (which, according to Hebrews 7:11-12, has been superseded in Christ) and be circumcised in order to be saved (cf. Acts 15:1-2). Paul gave us one clue—among many—that he had this sect in mind when he wrote in Romans 2:28-29, “For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal . . . ” Paul told us in Colossians 2:11-12 that this true “circumcision of Christ” is baptism.
It is in this context that Paul says we are “justified by faith apart from works of law.” He did not in any sense say that works are unnecessary. He specified works of law because these were the works without which the Judaizers were claiming one “cannot be saved.”
Paul does not specifically say works of law in Romans 4:5, but if we read from Romans 3:28 to Romans 4:5 and beyond, the context makes it unmistakable: Paul was referring to circumcision in particular and the same “works of law” he was referring to in Romans 3:28. Romans 4:5-10 will suffice to make the point:
And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness . . . Is this blessing pronounced only up
March 29, 2014 at 3:45pm
James 2:24 is remarkably clear: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Yet millions of Christians teach the opposite: They claim that we are “justified by faith alone”—saying good works are unnecessary for Christians in the process of justification.
This misconception is rooted in the misinterpretation of a few key texts, such as Romans 3:28: “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.” Romans 4:5 is another: “And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.” On the surface, St. Paul seems to be saying works are not necessary for our justification or salvation in any sense, but that is not the case when we examine the context of these passages. Not only would this interpretation contradict the words of James 2, but it would also contradict Paul himself.
Work in Christ
Paul made very clear in Romans 2:6-8 that good works are necessary for attaining eternal life, at least for those capable of performing them: “For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.”
So what about the fact that Paul also said we are “justified by faith apart from works of law?” He was writing to a church in Rome struggling with a very promine
March 29, 2014 at 3:30pm
Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to “our father Abraham,” or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of “our father Isaac.” “I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
esus came not to abolish but to fulfill the Law of the Old Covenant (Mt 5:17). If in Matthew 23:9 he literally forbids us even to acknowledge our natural fathers as our fathers, how can we keep the fourth commandment (“honor your father and your mother”)? Taken literally, Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:9 contradict his claim in Matthew 5:17, but we know that the Son of God never contradicts himself.
Look again at the passage in which Jesus says we must call no one “father.” In contrast to the attitudes of the Pharisees and others, Jesus is specifying the qualities Christian leaders must exhibit (Mt 23:1-12). The Pharisees.aspired to being called “rabbi” (or “master” or “teacher”), leaders of schools of thought. Among the schools headed by teachers called “rabbi” there were divergences of belief, some of them in actual contradiction. A similar situation prevailed with regard to the term “father” (in Aramaic, abba, a title of honor). The title was given to well-known Jewish religious authorities of the past. As with “rabbi,” so with “father.” The term designated the progenitor of a particular, even