Apologetics for the Masses #214 - The Slick Gospel (cont'd)

Bible Christian Society

General Comments

Hey folks,

I hope all is well with you and your families.  Just wanted to let you know that I am in the process of putting together a 1-hr. per week radio show - something I've had on the drawing board for a couple of years now - and I hope to get it on the air here in Birmingham sometime in July.  So please keep that effort in your prayers.  If you're not in the Birmingham area, which most of you are not, never fear.  You will still be able to listen to it live on the internet.  I'm looking at a time slot of 11:00 AM - 12:00 PM (Central) on Thursdays, but I'll let you know all the details once I've finalized them.  My idea for the show is to have it cover topics related to apologetics and evangelization, of course, but to also cover general news within the Church - nationally and internationally - and to look at goings-on in the political and economic realms - through a Catholic lens - as well.  I want to have segments with guests, but not your typical guest list.  I want to have on folks who are opposed to the Catholic Church and what she stands for.  For example, I want to have on non-Catholic pastors who have problems with Mary, or with Infant Baptism, with Confession, the Pope, and so on.  Maybe have a Muslim on to talk about Islam and the clash between Islam and Christianity - maybe talk about Christian persecution in Muslim countries, and such. 

In other words, I want to tackle the questions and objections of those who have problems with the Church head on.  A live demonstration of apologetics, as it were.  Not for the purpose of generating fireworks, but for the purpose of reaching for the truth with the hope of building understanding between those with differing points of view...and to help all involved strive for truth. But, I also want to have guests on who can help the listeners better understand and deepen their Faith.  With the contacts that I am fortunate enough to have, I am hoping to get some of the top Catholic scholars, commentators, and so on to be guests on the program.  I want it to be serious, funny, informative.  I don't know if I can pull it off as I envision it, but I'm going to give it my best shot.  I even have a name for the show picked out: Balaam's Ride.  Oh, and it will be a call-in program and we'll take emails as well, which means you, too, could be on the show.  Again, though, please keep this effort in your prayers.


Sorry to leave this Matt Slick response hanging out there for the last few weeks, but things have been crazy busy at the Diocese, and then the Martignoni family took a vacation to the Great Smoky Mountains last week, where we had a close encounter of the black bear kind - we had one on the deck of our cabin for about 15 minutes.  Anyway, this week I'll be continuing the analysis of an anti-Catholic article, "The Gospel for Roman Catholics," on Matt Slick's CARM website, that I started in the last issue.  I'm going to pick up right where I left off.  If you want to get the full context before reading this issue, just go to the "Newsletter" page of our website: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter and click on Issue #213...it only takes a couple of minutes to read.

How To Be Added To or Removed From this List

If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter and put your email address in the box at the top of the page.  If you would like to be removed from this newsletter list, click on this link: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe and then enter the email address the newsletter comes to.  Either way, it will take you about 10 seconds.


Matt Slick: "The Gospel for Roman Catholics," (cont'd):

the Bible declares that we are justified before God by faith:

  • "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," (Rom. 3:28).
  • "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," (Rom. 4:3).
  • "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness," (Rom. 4:5).
  • "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1).
  • "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God," (Eph. 2:8).

However, in Roman Catholicism, justification by faith is denied.

My Comments

"However, in Roman Catholicism, justification by faith is denied."  Mr. Slick, if I can give you quotes, from the official teaching of the Catholic Church that contradict what you say here, would you retract your statement?  You see, what you are doing here is giving us the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as written and interpreted by Mr. Matt Slick.  Yet, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) - the one actually written by the Catholic Church - does not say what you seem to think it says.  What does the CCC actually say in regard to justification and faith?  Let's look and see:

#1987: "The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us 'the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ' [Rom 3:22] and through Baptism." 

#1991: "Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ." 

#1992: "Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ...Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith."

#1993: "Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom.  On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God." 

[Emphasis in the original]

The Catholic Church links faith to justification...it's all right there in black and white.  So, Mr. Slick, will you still claim that "justification by faith is denied" by the Catholic Church, or will you do the honorable thing and admit that you falsely asserted something about the Catholic Church?  I have given you 4 examples, and I could give many more, straight from the CCC - the official teaching of the Catholic Church - that make a direct connection between justification and faith in Christ.  Do you deny that these things are the official teaching of the Catholic Church?  Yes or no?

Now, I will agree with you 100% that, "The Bible declares that we are justified before God by faith," and, as a Catholic, I agree 100% with those Scripture verses you cited.  However, I don't think those Scripture verses mean what you think they mean.  You see, you interpret these verses as meaning justification by faith "alone."  Yet, not in a single one of those verses you cite, does the Bible say we are justified before God by faith "alone."  That word, "alone," doesn't appear in any Bible verse that you could cite in support of your position, does it?  If it does, please let me see that verse.  Furthermore, are you not aware that the Bible also says we justified before God by things other than...in addition to...faith?  Let's put some other quotes from the Bible side-by-side with those you have cited to get a fuller picture of the Word of God:

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," (Rom. 3:28).  "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."   (James 2:24) 

"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," (Rom. 4:3).   "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?"  (James 2:21)

"But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness," (Rom. 4:5).  "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified." (Romans 2:13).

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1).  "For He will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing [good works] seek for glory and honor and immortality, He will give eternal life."  (Romans 2:6-7)

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God," (Eph. 2:8).  "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Eph 2:10)

Let's focus on just one of those verses I added to yours: Romans 2:6-7.  Could you please explain what the Word of God means when it says that God will give "eternal life" to those who by "patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality?"  What exactly does that mean, Mr. Slick?  Is that an example of salvation by faith alone?


I respond to his assertion by quoting the CCC to show that he is absolutely wrong in what he says regarding Catholic teaching.  I just quote the CCC, challenge him to deny that is what it says, and leave it at that.  I give him quotes that directly contradict what he claims.  As much as possible, use the Church's words, or the Bible's words, and not your own.  At the same time I'm responding to his false assertion, I am also asking him questions about that assertion - asking him to back up what he is saying with a little proof.  He can make claims all day long about the Catholic Church, but can he back up his claims?  I can claim, for example, that Matt Slick denies the Trinity.  Does that make it so?  How can he prove to me that he doesn't deny the Trinity?  The only way he can do so is by pointing to something he's written, or said, that has him admitting to a Trinitarian belief.  Well, I'm showing him, using a magisterial document - the Catechism - that what he is saying isn't true.  But, I don't just stop there.  I ask him - dare him, really - to do the honorable thing and admit he is wrong, once he is confronted with the proof.  Will he?  Doubtful.

What Mr. Slick is doing here, like so many others before him, is focus on certain passages of Scripture that seem to support his theology, while blatantly ignoring the passages of Scripture that do not support his theology.  For him, it is either one way or the other.  Either faith or works.  For the Catholic, it is both - and...both faith and works (all by the grace of God), as the verses above show.  In his set of verses, the focus is on faith.  In the set of verses I put in there, the focus is on works.  You can't say, as he essentially tries to, that this verse of Scripture trumps that verse of Scripture.  You have to take them as an organic whole.  Your theology has to be such that it doesn't have one verse of Scripture contradicting another verse of Scripture.  Scripture has to complement Scripture, not contradict it.  So, in some places faith is emphasized, in other places works are emphasized.  Emphasizing one over the other, though, is not the same thing as excluding one from the other.  If it's faith it can't be works, says Mr. Slick.  That is a false dichotomy he is creating.  Scripture does not create this false dichotomy, Matt Slick's very fallible interpretation creates the false dichotomy between faith and works.

Matt Slick

"If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed," (Canon 12, Council of Trent).

Which are we to believe?  The Roman Catholic Church or God's word?  Furthermore, the RCC states that justification is received not by faith, but by baptism.   The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in paragraph, 1992, that "...justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith."   This means that faith is not the instrument of obtaining justification; instead, it is an ordinance performed by a priest in the Roman Catholic Church.

My Comments

Ah, yes...the ol' which do we believe, the Church or the Bible?  But, Mr. Slick, aren't you actually asking which are we to believe: Matt Slick's fallible interpretation of Catholic teaching, or Matt Slick's fallible interpretation of the Bible?  That's the real question here, isn't it?  This quote from the Council of Trent is about salvation by faith alone, not about salvation by faith.  You can see that is so when given a little context with Canon 9 below.

"Council of Trent; Decree Concerning Justification

Canon 9. 
If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

The Catholic Church, as I have shown, does indeed believe in justification by faith - as stated in the Catechism, and as stated in a few places in the Council of Trent, such as this one (passages you, for some reason, failed to mention in your article): 

"Council of Trent; Decree Concerning Justification


But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, (Rom 3:24; 5:1) these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6) and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification."  For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace. (Rom 11:6)."

What really bothers you, Mr. Slick, is that we Catholics do not accept your fallible interpretation of Scripture that salvation - or justification - is by faith alone, so what you are really doing here is trying to say that since we don't accept your fallible interpretation of the Bible, that means we don't believe justification is by faith.  That's not cricket, ol' boy - nor is it a very Christian thing to do. 

The Catholic Church believes in salvation through faith...justification by faith...as I have shown here and as anyone who takes the time to look into the matter in an honest and forthright manner can see.  So to say that the Catholic Church denies justification by faith, or that it believes justification is not received by and through faith, is simply not being as honest as one could be.

Now, regarding your comment on Baptism: "...the RCC states that justification is received not by faith, but by baptism."  First of all, I have just shown the first half of your statement about the Catholic Church and justification by faith to be incorrect.  Any statement to the contrary is either a statement made out of ignorance, or an intentional distortion of the truth.  Regarding the latter half of your statement, I would ask you this question: Can a person be justified if his sins are not forgiven?  I hope you will say, "No, a person cannot be justified if his sins are not forgiven."  Assuming that is your position (please let me know if it is not), then what does the Scripture tell us about one of the effects of Baptism?  Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins."  Acts 22:16, "And now, why do you wait?  Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins."  In other words, Scripture tells us that we receive the forgiveness of sins, justification, through Baptism. 

Also, does not Scripture state, very plainly, that we are saved through Baptism?  "He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit," (Titus 3:5).  "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you," (1 Ptr 3:21).  Baptism saves us, so sayeth the Bible.  I don't know how the Word of God could be any clearer than that, do you?  Do you disagree with the plain Word of God in this matter?  Apparently you do, because you attack the Catholic Church for simply saying what the Bible says.

Finally, I would point out that it seems, once again, you are selectively quoting Catholic teaching here.  You quote a single phrase from Paragraph 1992 of the Catechism, to "prove" that the Catholic Church teaches that "faith in not the instrument of obtaining justification;" yet, in Paragraph 1991 of that same Catechism, it states: "Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ [emphasis in the original]."  Did you not see that in your reading and study of the Catechism?  If you did, why did you not mention that in your article?  Why is Baptism called the "sacrament of faith" for Catholics if we believe faith has nothing to do with our justification? It is only through faith that we have access to the grace of God and justification, but it is through Baptism - which Jesus Himself instructed His Apostles to take to all nations - that God Himself communicates that grace upon us.  Without faith, there is no Baptism.  So to state that Catholics believe "justification is received not by faith," is simply not true and I ask that you correct your statements to the contrary.

I would like to leave you with another passage from the Council of Trent that I believe you must not have read, or simply chose to ignore, which gives a thorough explanation of Catholic belief regarding justification.  Would you be so kind as to share this with your readers on your website?  I doubt very seriously that you will (by the way, please note all the citations from the Word of God):

Decree Concerning Justification


"This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting. [Titus 3:7]

The causes of this justification are:
1) the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and life everlasting;

2) the efficient cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies [1 Cor 6:11] gratuitously, signing and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance [Eph 1:13];

3) the meritorious cause is His most beloved only begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, [Rom 5:10] for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, [Eph 2:4] merited for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father;

4) the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified finally;

5) the single formal cause is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just, that, namely, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, [Eph 4:23] and not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to everyone as He wills, [1 Cor 12:11] and according to each one's disposition and cooperation.

For though no one can be just except he to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet this takes place in that justification of the sinner, when by the merit of the most holy passion, the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Ghost in the hearts [Rom 5:5] of those who are justified and inheres in them; whence man through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives in that justification, together with the remission of sins, all these infused at the same time, namely, faith, hope and charity. 

For faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites man perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said that faith without works is dead [James 2:17, 20] and of no profit, and in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by charity. [Gal 5:6; 6:15]"


Okay, he's trying to back up his claims by providing something from some official Church teaching.  Very good.  But, there's a problem.  He is taking a passage from the Council of Trent out of context and interpreting it however he feels it needs to be interpreted to make it say what he wants it to say.  He interprets this passage to mean that the Catholic Church does not teach justification by faith, when what this passage is saying, as any truly objective reader can easily discern, is that the Church does not believe in justification by faith "alone."  What Mr. Slick is doing here, as many others do likewise, is trying to make you believe that the rejection of justification by faith alone, is equivalent to the rejection of justification by faith, period.  The two, however, are not the same and anyone who uses this deceptive tactic needs to be called out on it.

Now, I didn't have to go into all of this that I went into in order to respond to him, but I wanted all of you to see that when guys like Matt Slick quote from the Catechism, or from the Council of Trent, or any other magisterial document to back up their version of Catholic teaching, you can be 100% assured that they are quoting very selectively from that document, as seen here.  As you can see from the excerpts of Trent that I have cited, Mr. Slick has completely disregarded not just a sentence here or there that disproves his point, but large sections of the document.  It really is pathetic to see how much he has to ignore in order to make it seem like the Catholic Church teaches what he claims it teaches.  So, if you are ever dealing with someone like this, and they quote from the Catechism, or Trent, or Vatican II, or wherever to back up their point - to "prove" the Catholic Church is wrong or is in conflict with the Bible - don't let it throw you off.  Simply go to the citation they give (and make sure they give you a citation from a specific document), and read it in context.  I guarantee you that within the context it was written, it does not say what they are trying to make it say.  Basically, they do the same thing in quoting Catholic documents, that they do in quoting the Bible.

Matt Slick

Furthermore, baptism is only the initial grace along the road of justification.  The Roman Catholic is to then maintain his position before God by his efforts.

"No one can MERIT the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can MERIT for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods," (Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), par. 2027).

The problem here is that the RCC is teaching us to "merit for ourselves and for others all the graces need to attain eternal life."  You cannot merit grace.  Grace is unmerited favor.  Merit is, according to the CCC, par. 2006, "...the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment..." CCC 2006.  This means that merit is something owed.  By contrast, grace is something not owed.  Therefore, the RCC is teaching contrary to God's word regarding grace and justification.

My Comments

Mr. Slick...really?!  I have to say that I am not surprised that you would distort Catholic teaching, but I am surprised at how blatantly you have done so here.  First, in your quote of Paragraph 2006 of the CCC, why did you leave out the phrase at the beginning of that sentence: "The term 'merit' refers IN GENERAL to the recompense owed by a community or a society..." [emphasis mine]?  Why did you try to make it seem as if this was the definition of merit that the Church applied to the relationship between God and man, when the Church was simply stating the general defintion of the term?  And then, in the very next paragraph, #2007, it says: "With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man."  Yet, you worded your article in such a way as to make it seem that the Catholic Church teaches that God owes man for the things that man does, when in truth, you had to know that is not what the Church actually teaches.  I say you had to know that, because the words are right there immediately following the quote you cited.  One has to conclude that you did this to deliberately mislead people. The only other possible option would be that you only read part of one sentence in one paragraph in that entire section of the Catechism on "Merit," and drew your conclusion from that isolated fragment of a sentence.  Which, in and of itself, is shoddy methodology at best, and deliberate distortion at worst.

Let me practice the Matt Slick methodology: Matt Slick agrees with the Catholic Church in regard to Baptism being the initial step in the process of justification.  Here is a quote from an article on Mr. Slick's website entitled, The Gospel for Roman Catholics: "Furthermore, baptism is only the initial grace along the road of justiciation."  There you have it, Matt Slick agrees with the Catholic Church on this very essential point of salvation.

Mr. Slick, would you say that I misquoted you?  Or, would you say that I took your quote out of context?  If you say I did, then will you admit that you have done that very thing in regards to your quote from the Catechism concerning merit?  Let me give you a few other quotes from that same section of the Catechism that completely demolish your twisted rendering of Catholic teaching:

#2008, "The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace [emphasis in the original]...so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God...Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit."

#2009, "Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice [emphasis in the original].

The Church teaches, Mr. Slick, that God owes us nothing.  But, we can be said to merit before God because, as Christians, we are members of His Body, and it is Jesus Christ Himself working in us and through us (Phil 2:13) with the power of the Holy Spirit.  So, as one of the saints said, I believe it was St. Augustine, that when we merit, it is simply a matter of God crowning His own achievement. The Catholic Church never teaches, as you have written, that man's merit before God is something that God owes to us because of our good works done on our own.  Therefore, your statement that "the RCC is teaching contrary to God's word regarding grace and justification," is completely and totally without merit. Have you no shame?


Many times you can give someone the benefit of the doubt by assuming that they are simply ignorant, and are not being malicious, until they prove to you otherwise.  Here, the proof is pretty much in the pudding.  There is no way an intelligent human being, which I believe Mr. Slick to be, can do what Mr. Slick did here in his misrepresentation of Catholic teaching on merit, out of mere ignorance.  I just don't see how that is possible.  So, I am calling him on it.  Jesus called out the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23, so I am calling out Matthew Slick here.  I want him to let me know...I demand he let me know...why he so deliberately distorted Catholic teaching here.  Were this an exchange that he published for his readers (which would, of course, never ever happen), he would be in a world of hurt right now to try justify what he did, and his own readers would know it.  This is so blatantly a lie that the only way he can get away with garbage like this is that the folks who read his website simply do not look into these things beyond his words.  They don't follow up and do any research on their own.  Matt Slick has tickled their ears (2 Tim 4:3) and they have gone away happy.

Matt Slick

The sad result is that in Roman Catholicism, justification before God is a process that is maintained by the effort and works of the Roman Catholic.  This is a very unfortunate teaching since it puts the unbearable burden of works righteousness upon the shoulders of the sinner.  By contrast, the Bible teaches that justification/salvation is by faith.

  • "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness," (Rom. 4:5).
  • "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1).
  • "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God," (Eph. 2:8).

My Comments

Well, garbage in, garbage out.  Mr. Slick, you start off with a number of propositions that are garbage, so you quite naturally wound up with a conclusion that is garbage.  Catholics do indeed believe that justification is indeed a process - you got that part right.  But, then again, so does the Bible: "For in this hope we were saved," (Rom 8:24). "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God," (1 Cor 1:18). "But he who endures to the end will be saved," (Matt 10:22).  We "were" saved, we are "being" saved, and we "will" be saved (if we persevere) - that is the language of process.  Nowhere does Scripture say you are completely and irrevocably saved at one moment in time, by one act of faith, and you need not do a thing after that.  In fact, doesn't Luke say that in order to follow Christ we have to pick up our cross "daily"?  That's just one example among many in the Bible that directly contradict your fallible interpretation of Scripture by which you determine, by your own authority, your false doctrines of men.

Catholics do not believe in a so-called "works righteousness."  I challenge you to even find that term in any official teaching of the Catholic Church. It is a term made up by those who wish to besmirch the teaching of the Catholic Church by giving their own interpretation of Catholic teaching, rather than allowing the Catholic Church to explain her teachings as she teaches them.  We do believe their is a burden put onto the shoulders of the sinner, as Scripture very plainly tells us there is in that quote I just referenced from Luke 9, about how the sinner has to pick up his cross daily to follow Christ.  Is that not a burden?  Yet, Christ tells us that His "yoke is easy, and My burden is light," (Matt 11:30).  So, we have a burden that we are responsible for bearing...our daily cross...but with, in, and through Christ, that burden becomes easy and light.

And, to counter your Scripture quotes - which you have taken out of context and interpreted in your own fallible way to mean something that they do not mean - I will simply tell you to go back and read again the Scripture passages that I offered earlier.

Finally, I have to say that, overall, I am appalled by the way you consistently quote Catholic teachings out of context to support your own fallible interpretation of Catholic teaching which is, in fact, not what the Catholic Church actually teaches and believes and practices.  You need to apologize to Catholics and to all those you have mislead in this regard.  If you wish to disagree with Catholic teaching, fine...you have that option.  But, you need to disagree with what the Catholic Church actually teaches, and not some bizarre, twisted, perverse rendering of Catholic teaching that you have fabricated on your own that bears little resemblance to the real thing.


Well, that went on a bit longer than I had originally planned, but I hope it was useful for you.  I will tackle the 2nd half of his article in the next issue.  Hope you guys have a great week!

Apologetics for the Masses