Can you be a Catholic and a Socialist?

How the Eucharist refutes Islam.

When studying Islam, I was quite taken back as it claims for itself that Mohammad was prophesied in the books of the New Testament.

Those who follow the Messenger, The unlettered Prophet, Whom they find mentioned In their own (Scriptures)—In the Law and the Gospel, It is they who will prosper. (Qur’an 7:157)

So, looking at that verse, you would think that Mohammad would be all over the place, or by passing, right? Wrong! There is no mention of him anywhere. Muslim apologists scramble around the bible trying desperately to find anything that remotely resemble mohammad.
They use (John 14:16) and say, Mohammad is the comforter in that verse! Mohammad a comforter? If you've ever read anything from Islamic sources you will find the opposite. Anyway, St John's gospel is refuting the gnostics, what do you think they are denying? Divinity of christ!! Go to John 6, what else are they denying? The real presents in the Eucharist!!!! 

So, what other examples in the new testament does the Eucharist refute this? In the books of the New Testament we read:

1 Corinthians 11:23

"For I have received from the Lord what I have also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the same night that he was handed over, took bread,"

1 Corinthians 11:24

"and giving thanks, he broke it, and said: "Take and eat. This is my body, which shall be given up for you. (Do) this in remembrance of me.""

1 Corinthians 11:25

"Similarly also, the cup, after he had eaten supper, saying: "This cup is the (New Testament) in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.

See how St Paul is quoting Jesus in the last supper. The only time Jesus mentions New Testament is when he is implementing the Eucharist! He says, do this in memory of me, not read or write this but do. So what is the New Testament? The Eucharist! The New Testament was a sacrament, long before it ever became a document, according to the document. That's why the early Christians used to call the New Testament, the books of the new testament, because of its litergical proximity to what jesus called the new testament, which is the Eucharist. So can you see how there is no possible way that  Mohammad was prophesied in the New Testament?!

God bless. 

Understanding Ephesians 2.

Every time I get in any sort of debate or see a discussion about salvation/justification Protestants always seem to bring up (Ephesians 2  8-9) to say that works has nothing to do with salvation.

Ephesians 2:8
"For by grace, you have been saved through faith. And this is not of yourselves, for it is a gift of God."
Ephesians 2:9
"And this is not of works, so that no one may glory."

Do you see? It's very clear in verse 9 that's it's not of works. But what does it mean that it's not of works?
Christ died on the cross, we didn't. We done nothing to merit that. He is talking about your first initial grace that you get through baptism.
I know what you're saying, he don't mention baptism there?! But you have to bring in the parallels. Colossians 2 and Ephesians 2 are parallel text.
Anti Catholic and Protestant Apologist James White even agrees that they are. He mentioned it on the dividing line in 2015.
Colossians 2:12 and Ephesians 2:8-9 talk about the same thing, you're first initial grace you get, and Colossians 2:12 tells us that it is baptism.

Colossians 2:12
"You have been buried with him in (baptism.) In him also, you have risen again (through faith,) by the work of God, who raised him up from the dead."

Ephesians 2:8
"For by grace, you have been saved (through faith.) And this is not of yourselves, for it is a gift of God."

Galatians 3:26
"For you are all sons of God, (through the faith) which is in Christ Jesus."
Galatians 3:27
"For as many of you as have been (baptized in Christ) have become clothed with Christ."

As you can see, another parallel is Galatians 3:26-27 where it uses the same phase, through the faith, or through faith, and tells us its by our baptism.
Through the faith means believing in Jesus Christ and being baptised. That's why in ancient times the baptised was called the faithful, and was called the sacrament of faith, and that's why all the church fathers believed in baptismal regeneration. All the Fathers of the church that commented on (John 3:5) said Jesus was referring to baptism. To deny baptismal regeneration is not only going by the clear teaching of Scripture, but to go up against all the fathers on it. Could all the fathers be wrong? I don't think so

St Alphonsus Liguori on the Greeks, (History of Heresies) The Greeks rejection of Florence.

The chastisement of God soon overtook that fickle people; in 1453, Mohomet II took Constantinople by assault, and gave it up to sack and slaughter; the infuriated soldiery slew all who came in their way, cast down the alters, profaned the monasteries, and despoiled the wretched inhabitants of all their property. Thus fell the Empire of the east, after eleven centuries of a glorious existence. The Greeks continue to the present day, obstinately attached to their errors; they are slaves to the Turks in their ancient capital. That noble Church that gave the world, St Athanasius, Gregory, Basil, and so many other learnerd and holy doctors, now lies trampled under foot, vice usurping the place of virtue, and ignorance seated in the chair of learning. The Greek Church, in a word, the mother of many saints and doctors of the Church, has, on the account of its separation from the Roman See, fallen into a state of deplorable barbarity and wretched slavery. 

The nightmare verse for Muslims.

The Quran is full of nightmare verses. The one that sticks out more than most to me is: (Quran 4:82)

It reads as follows:

Do they not then reflect on the Quran? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would have certainly found in it many contradictions.

(Many) contradictions?

Allah, the all knowing and seeing God, contradicting himself?

Shouldn't of it said; They would of found in it contradictions?

The "many" part is the error. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but seems pretty obvious to me.

Another Muslim dilemma in this verse.

Let's just say, it did say what it should of said. It leaves another problem! 

Mohammad saying that the Quran has no contradictions to prove its divine inspiration, is in itself problematic.

If I was to write a book and say:

My is book is divinely inspired because it has no contradictions, I would probably get laughed at. There are many books out there with no contradictions. It really is a silly argument from Mohammad (or Allah.) 

As you can see, there is no way the Quran is from God, and Mohammad was certainly a false prophet. 

To rub more salt in the wounds, there are loads of contradictions. It's full of them. Here is a whole host of them:

https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/#internal

God bless. 

Proving that Jesus founded the Catholic Church by contraception.

For me, this the best proof of the Catholic Church rather than orthodox, coptic, protestant churchs, etc, is contraception. 
From the beginning of Christianity and up until the 1930s, all Churchs condemned the use of contraception.
The most eye opening people who was against contraception was the reformers.
Here is Martin Luther and John Calvin on this issue:

Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed." (Luther's Works 7, 20-21)

"I will content myself with briefly mentioning this, as far as the sense of shame allows to discuss it. It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is doubly horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. The wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the see of his brother out the womb, and as cruel and shamefully was thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime, by defiling the earth was his seed, so that Tamar would not receive a future inheritor." ( John Calvins Commentary on Genesis)

These are strong words from these two.
Could you imagine what they would think of protestantism now? A protest in a protest.

The reformers was the only ones against contraception, the Church Fathers also.
Here are some of the writings of these great men:

Clement of Alexandria
“Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

Hippolytus
“[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered” (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12 [A.D. 225]).

Epiphanius of Salamis
“They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption” (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).

John Chrysostom
“Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. . . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws? . . . Yet such turpitude . . . the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth” (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

What about the Eastern Orthodox Church?!

Eastern Orthodoxy

An official document of the Russian Orthodox Church prohibits contraception, (except when it is specifically approved by a confessor) 

As you can see, harsh words from these great men, especially from St John Chrysostom.
This is why not being in the Church that Jesus founded can lead to all kinds of errors.
The one Church that still holds contraception is immoral? No need to guess, my Church, the Catholic Church!

6 reasons I'm a Roman Catholic.

1. The first reason I'm a Catholic is because of the Catholic saints!

Especially, St francis of Assasi, and St Padre Pio, St Alphonsus Liguori, and a shout out to confirmation Saint, St Maximilian kolbe.
St Alphonsus Liguori, the day he was baptised as a Catholic, when he was 16 until the day he died at 90, he never committed (ONE) mortal sin. You can't get holiness like this where God has cursed. 

2. The second reason is the communion of Saint's!
I was watching a Protestant called Sam Shamoun do a seven part series on the communion of Saint's, please check it out, it's on YouTube. One thing that I did pick up was when he said, you need to know that the Saint's are in heaven who's intercessions you are requesting. So, I would say, we need a infallible Church to tell us who's intercessions we can ask for, right?
The last thing we need is to ask for their prayers, or venerate someone who is in hell. I think the devil would like that.

3. The third reason is Contraception!
For me, this is the best argument for Catholicism.
I don't want to go into to much depth with this, as I want to do a entire blog on it. But no Christian before the 1930s tolarated contraception, and now its seeping through Christianity like a plague. The only church that still teaches contraception is always immoral, is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church!!

Eastern Orthodoxy:

An official document of the Russian Orthodox Church prohibits contraception "except when it is specifically approved by a confessor" does not involve the possibility of aborting a conceived child, is for reasons of inability to raise a child, and is done with spousal consent

4. The Miracles!
I could write all year about the miracles, but will focus on 2. St Padre Pio had the stigmata, and could tell the penitents in confession their sins before they could. There was a man called Joe Greco. Joe see St Padre Pio in a dream and he ask him if he could heal his Father. Not long after his Father was healed. So Joe went to visit St Padre Pio, and before he could reach him, the Saint said, so your Father is alright then? So Joe started thinking in his head, was it you? Was it you? And the Saint replied, in the dream.

In the Seventeenth century the Franciscan Friar; St Joseph of Cupertino, who was saintly, levitated. About Joseph, the writer Colin Wilson, (Who is no friend of the Catholic Church) in his classic 1971 study, The Occult, wrote, " The weight of the evidence is such that we know that Joseph of Cupertino was able to fly when he was in ecstasy, as well as we know that Napoleon died on St Helena. 

"St Joseph flew, there is no possible doubt about it" He flew on the Altar, through candles (that never burned him) and flew back again. 

Just to add, in Colin's work on the occult, he also mentioned, St Dunstan of Glastonbury. He says that, St Dunstan was able to change the position of the Church by pushing it, and doesn't know how to explain it. 

5. Exorcisms. 

Thanks to socal media, we can find out a lot more than we used too. YouTube has lots of channels about exorcisms and there is a good channel called: 

"The Exorcism files"

It's real cases from Fr Martin's exorcisms, and it's got audio from real actors playing the parts of the story. Some really good episodes, and chilling stuff.

In Dr Richard Gallaghers book called, "Demonic foes" He talks about a case of a women named Julia who was possessed. He talks about how one evening at 3am (the Demonic hour btw) when he and his wife was asleep, they woke to to the noise of their cats almost killing each other. Later that day there was a knock at the door. It was the Priest and Julia. The Priest said, "there is a girl here that I want you to meet" She looked at him and said, with a slight smirk, "how was them cats last night"?

This is only scratching the surface. If you listen to the exorcists, you can hear all kinds of different Exorcisms stories. Ie, People claiming up walls, speaking in languages that there is no way they could known, etc...

There is a old saying, lots hate the Catholic Church until they need a exorcist Priest. 

6. The fifth reason I'm Catholic is because there is a Pope in every century!
The Orthodox Christians like to say that the Pope started to punch above his weight, so the Pope now and back then is different. But if there was a Pope back then, that means that his office was instituted by Christ, so it's not the Pope/Church you have a problem with, it's Christ himself, especially when our Lord declares;
I will be with you always, even until the end of age.
Matthew 28:20.

God bless.