1 Timothy 3:15

[Seeking12]

instead of coming here presenting your own views about what the Church is why dont you give facts that the Church is not the Catholic Church but a bunch of local churches? give us the history of local churches as you presented here from the time of the Apostles to today.

give us the names of earlier Christians who testifies to what you belief today as the Church.

:byzsoc:

**Paul, Peter, James, John, Andrew, Bartholomew, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Thaddaeus, Thomas, James, Simon the Zealot, Philip and Jesus Christ.

the church at Jerusalem, at Antioch, in the church that was {there,}, at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the church, of the church which is at Cenchrea, the church of the Laodiceans, the church of the Thessalonians, the church in Ephesus write, the church in Smyrna write, he church in Pergamum write, he church in Thyatira write, the church in Sardis, the church in Laodicea, the church in Philadelphia, To the churches of Galatia, the church of God which is at Corinth**

 

[Seeking12]

I know you’re getting hit on all sides in here, so I won’t belabor this for you too much…but I’ll just respond to you this way…

The Catholic Church is actually quite implicit (and in some cases, explicit) in Scripture as well. You don’t find the word Catholic because other biblical terms were first used, like ONE, and UNITED, which (synonymous with “catholic”) describe Her essence, and other terms such as ROCK, KEYS, BINDING/LOOSING etc. which describe Her authority; and still other terms such as BISHOPS, BAPTISM, “THIS IS MY BODY”, which describe Her substance. If you’re searching for “Catholic” in terms of Vatican City, and you want to discover through Scripture something looking exactly like the Catholic Church in Rome, that search is futile, since that particular essence of The Church is found in the world as it has evolved over centuries. But it’s still the same original Church in the Bible. I’m sure you’ll just agree to disagree with me there, but there it is for you.

Now, you say no one can fully understand the Trinity, and I agree. But why do Christians hold it as fundamentally essential to believe in something that no one lay person discerned from reading Scripture? In other words, my point is that you believe in things about Christianity which you, yourself, did not originally come up with by reading Scripture.

This is a fundamental quandry. Ask yourself, did you come up with the concept of the triune God on your own? I presume not. Must you accept it to be a Christian? Yes. Did you then learn it from a person who taught it to you? Probably so.

Now, what does this all mean? It means you must admit that just you, God, and the Bible is not enough. It means there must be some other teaching authority. But who is granted this authority? The person in Sunday School who taught you the triune God? No. Only one Christ-approved authority on earth is possible if unity is to be possible. I’ll leave it at that for now.

God Bless

**The question of how you come to the knowledge is not the issue; the issues becomes how does what one learns in agreement with Scripture; the test of its validity. Stepping back; how does one come to believe what the Bibles says is true? It is the work of God.

Name one thing that is Catholic teaching; not in the Bible, that is necessary for salvation.**

 

[DavWan]

[Paul, Peter, James, John, Andrew, Bartholomew, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Thaddaeus, Thomas, James, Simon the Zealot, Philip and Jesus Christ.

Um… prove it? We can say that they are witnesses for us after all.

the church at Jerusalem, at Antioch, in the church that was {there,}, at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the church, of the church which is at Cenchrea, the church of the Laodiceans, the church of the Thessalonians, the church in Ephesus write, the church in Smyrna write, he church in Pergamum write, he church in Thyatira write, the church in Sardis, the church in Laodicea, the church in Philadelphia, To the churches of Galatia, the church of God which is at Corinth

[/quote]

Or perhaps The Church in Jerusalem, in Antioch (etc). This is eisegesis that assumes that the Church was in fact a number of different denominations. Did Paul teach different from Bartholemew? Did James and John have conflicting doctrines? Or were they one Church even if in different places?

You need to prove the Bible meant what you say it does.

 

[wisdomseeker]

**Paul, Peter, James, John, Andrew, Bartholomew, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Thaddaeus, Thomas, James, Simon the Zealot, Philip and Jesus Christ.

the church at Jerusalem, at Antioch, in the church that was {there,}, at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the church, of the church which is at Cenchrea, the church of the Laodiceans, the church of the Thessalonians, the church in Ephesus write, the church in Smyrna write, he church in Pergamum write, he church in Thyatira write, the church in Sardis, the church in Laodicea, the church in Philadelphia, To the churches of Galatia, the church of God which is at Corinth**

Oh wow! you just gave us a big time history of the Churches.

:knight2: :knight2:

 

[DavWan]

[The question of how you come to the knowledge is not the issue; the issues becomes how does what one learns in agreement with Scripture; the test of its validity. [COLOR=“Red”]Stepping back; how does one come to believe what the Bibles says is true? It is the work of God.

In agreement with Scripture according to whom? Catholics believe there is Scriptural justification for what we believe. What you have is an assumption the Catholic teaching cannot be true, and that colors how you read scripture.

But actually, you have created a circular argument with the part I put in red in your statement. The Bible is true because it is a work of God? And I suppose we know God is to believed because the Bible says so?

We believe in the Inspired nature of Scripture because the Church created by Jesus Christ has decreed it is so. How do you know that only the books in the Bible are Inspired no more and no less? Why Hebrews but not The Epistle of Barnabas?

You can’t expect us to believe you based on something so subjective as your personal experience after all.

Name one thing that is Catholic teaching; not in the Bible, that is necessary for salvation

First of all, demonstrate that the Word of God is limited to Scripture. This is the unproven assumption you need to prove before moving on to your question.

 

[SteveGC]

**The question of how you come to the knowledge is not the issue; the issues becomes how does what one learns in agreement with Scripture; the test of its validity. Stepping back; how does one come to believe what the Bibles says is true? It is the work of God.

Name one thing that is Catholic teaching; not in the Bible, that is necessary for salvation.**

You mean, retrospective proofing?? I’m sorry, that’s an absurd logic. No one does that. That reeks of forcing Scripture to be twisted to what you learn outside Scripture. If you say, “how does what one learns agree with Scripture”, it presumes you have the CORRECT interpretation of Scripture. To have the CORRECT interpretation of Scripture, somebody has to have the bonafide protection of The Holy Spirit. Is that you? YOU have the CORRECT interpretation of Scripture? Just you? Or many like you? Are you sure the others interpret it the same way (especially on salvific essentials?). I would wager not. So, how can you “validate” using the Bible what you learn outside the Bible, if in fact, you don’t lay claim to the bonafide CORRECT interpretation of it as given through the Holy Spirit? That’s why it’s imperative that there is a Christ-granted authority this side of heaven, who indeed DOES have the protected truth, the CORRECT interpretation of Scripture. You may not believe it’s the Catholic Church, but it certainly isn’t any protestant, sitting at home reading his/her Bible, trying to validate what they are learning.

There is nothing unscriptural about the Catholic faith. Sacred Scripture is part of the Deposit of Faith, intertwined and working in union with Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. Scripture does not refute Catholicism, it reflects it.

God Bless

 

[Seeking12]

In agreement with Scripture according to whom? Catholics believe there is Scriptural justification for what we believe. What you have is an assumption the Catholic teaching cannot be true, and that colors how you read scripture.

But actually, you have created a circular argument with the part I put in red in your statement. The Bible is true because it is a work of God? And I suppose we know God is to believed because the Bible says so?

We believe in the Inspired nature of Scripture because the Church created by Jesus Christ has decreed it is so. How do you know that only the books in the Bible are Inspired no more and no less? Why Hebrews but not The Epistle of Barnabas?

You can’t expect us to believe you based on something so subjective as your personal experience after all.
First of all, demonstrate that the Word of God is limited to Scripture. This is the unproven assumption you need to prove before moving on to your question.

I don’t expect you to believe what the Bibles says; this is very apparent that the “Church” is the authority here, not Christ. One would have to have their head in the sand not to see that. No one can understand what the Bible means by what it says without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps it is the reason why so few get it right. What do you think?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I don’t expect you to believe what the Bibles says; this is very apparent that the “Church” is the authority here, not Christ. One would have to have their head in the sand not to see that. No one can understand what the Bible means by what it says without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps it is the reason why so few get it right. What do you think?

and you are one of them? says who?

 

[SteveGC]

I don’t expect you to believe what the Bibles says; this is very apparent that the “Church” is the authority here, not Christ. One would have to have their head in the sand not to see that. No one can understand what the Bible means by what it says without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps it is the reason why so few get it right. What do you think?

Christ and The Church are one. It’s not the Church OR Christ. It’s Christ’s Church. The Church only has authority because Christ has it, and uses The Church as an earthly instrument of His authority. If so few get it right, who DOES get it right? Don’t we need to know WHO is getting it right? Or, are you saying we’ll all just get it right some day when we have enough faith? …and hopefully we don’t pass from this earth before we get the salvific essentials right? That’s an intriguing theology that I would not associate with God’s plan of salvation. It’s akin to saying ‘The Truth *will someday be *revealed’, as opposed to the proper, ‘The Truth HAS BEEN revealed’.

God Bless

 

[JRKH]

I don’t expect you to believe what the Bibles says; this is very apparent that the “Church” is the authority here, not Christ.

Since The Church is the Body of Christ present on earth and protected by the Holy Spirit your statement seems rather odd.
The Church has the authority to bind and loose.
The First Council at Jerusalem is a clear example of this.

One would have to have their head in the sand not to see that. No one can understand what the Bible means by what it says without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps it is the reason why so few get it right. What do you think?

I would like to see you explain just how you know and accept the bible as the Word of God.
Let’s assume for a minute that I am a non-christian and you wish to evangelize me. Now I happen to have an old bible that belonged to my Grandmother who happened to be catholic. In our discussions I note that there are different numbers of books in our two bibles.
This leads me to ask you the question, “How can two books named ‘The Holy bible’ have different numbers of books?” Something isn’t right here. How do I know, 1) Which of these Holy Bibles is the complete Word of God and/or 2) perhaps I shouldn’t accept either one as complete and/or correct since Christians cannot agree even on the number of books.

So in order to convince me that I should be Christian, based upon bible belief, you will need to convince me of the validity of the Bible - but not FROM the Bible since I am questioning it due to the varying numbers of books.

Peace
James

 

[DavWan]

I don’t expect you to believe what the Bibles says; this is very apparent that the “Church” is the authority here, not Christ. One would have to have their head in the sand not to see that. No one can understand what the Bible means by what it says without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps it is the reason why so few get it right. What do you think?

Yet I do believe what the Bible says. This may seem strange to you, but Catholics do believe Scripture is inspired… we just don’t believe in Sola Scriptura… and there is nothing in the Bible to lead me to Sola Scriptura.

Christ’s authority is the authority of the Church. (Does Matt 18:17 mean anything to you? How about Luke 10:16?) If I did not believe that the Church was given the authority through Christ, I would not be a Catholic. [Of course since the promises of Christ to protect the Church would then be false, I would not be any Christian at all either]

 

[guanophore]

I don’t expect you to believe what the Bibles says;

This is silly, Seeking.

The Catholic Church wrote and compiled the NT. There is nothing in it that is not consistent with Catholic belief. We believe everything written in it, or we would not have canonized it.

What we don’t believe is an interpretation that comes along 1500 years later, that contradicts the gospel we have been given by the Apostles.

…this is very apparent that the “Church” is the authority here, not Christ.

This is a logic error, Seeking. Jesus is the one who committed the teaching authority to the Church. She is His Bride, and He has promised never to leave her orphaned, and to send His Spirit into all truth. There is no separation between Christ and His Bride. St. Paul explains this when he is writing about marriage. He makes it clear that Christ loves the Church as Himself, and gave up His life for her, to preserve her spotless. Jesus identifies Himself completely with the Church.

 One would have to have their head in the sand not to see that.

We see it differently because we see that Christ is Head of the Church. As such, He is capable of correcting His Bride if she strays.

No one can understand what the Bible means by what it says without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

I am not sure this is true. In general, I agree with you, but I think there are a lot of carnal minds that also understand certain things in the Bible. HOwever, I do agree that Spiritual Truths are discernable to those in the Spirit. The Spirit, however, does not contradict Himself. He does not “reveal” things to individuals that are not consistent with the once for all deposit of faith He has given to the Church. This is how we identify errors. They go out from us, because they are not “of” us.

 Perhaps it is the reason why so few get it right.  What do you think?

I think that is one reason. I think also that most of the Protestants don’t realize that they are separated from the Apostolic Teachings. They don’t know any better. They are like Apollos, being fervent about their faith, but not having all the truth.

 

[skeyes]

Thanks to all who answered seeking. You said what I would have said. It is so simple, so easy. When I quit trying to be infallible and let Jesus’ bride, the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, teach and lead me to Jesus, I don’t have to know it all. I just have to know the Church cannot lead me to death.
In His service,
Stan

 

[guanophore]

When you say we need the Church for salvation; you are again imposing your beliefs on the Scripture rather than viewing the Church teaching in light of what Scripture say; this is a real big mistake for many reasons

There is no need for Catholics to do any such thing. The NT reflects Catholic beliefs 100%. We view the Scripture in the light of the Apostolic Teaching from whence it came. There is no conflict, until someone steps away from Apostolic TEaching.

**What is the household of God? Of course the other things, Mary, purgatory, the Whole Catholic system hangs onto one verse in Scripture Matthew 16:18; without that one verse the whole Church crumbles. Kind of amazing that an entire system can be built upon one verse. **

I am sorry, Seeking, but you are wrong on this point. The Catholic Church is not a “bible based” Church. None of our Teachings hand on any verse of Scripture. The teachings come from Christ. They are REFLECTED in the NT, but the NT is not the Source of our faith, Jesus is. The Church was formed prior to the NT was written. Peter was renamed, and called Kepha (The Rock) for years before any NT letters began to be composed.

But to each their own and their own view; you must stick with what you believe in and be ready to give a defense and the Catholics here, for the most part, do a very good job.  I could honestly say to a Catholic that if they want to grow stronger in the Catholic faith, this would be a good place to go.

Thank you Seeking. It is very magnanamous of you to say this, especiallly in light of the fact that you disagree with us. May God richly bless your generous spirit.

Finally, the losing and binding; what is this all about and who does it pertain to?

He said that to Peter but it wasn’t just unique to Peter. It was true of all the other Apostles,

This is the authority to legislate - make rules and enforce them. I agree, it is a charism that was given to all the Apostles, and they passed it on to their successors, the bishops.

it's true of all preachers, it's true of all of us.

No. However, I will agree that intinerants (separated from the Authority appointed by Christ) have and do take it upon themselves to make their own rules as they see fit.

And then He says this, “Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. And whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And that particular statement has been misused repeatedly and confused. It’s very simple, not even complicated. The rabbis used to say, “If you don’t repent your sin is bound to you. If you do, it’s loosed from you.” That’s an old rabbinical concept. The rabbis would say, “You obey the Law, you’re free. You disobey the Law, you’re bound in sin.” Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

And who was the one to decide what “sin” is?

In other words, when you say to someone.“You won’t repent, you’re bound in your sin,” heaven is in agreement with that. You’re doing on earth what has been done in heaven, like the disciples’ (AKA: Lord’s prayer) prayer says. And if you say to someone, “You know, I want to tell you, because of your confession of faith in Jesus Christ and your affirmation that He’s your Savior and Lord, your sins are loosed from you, you are forgiven,” and when you said that you know you’re saying on earth what heaven has already said. This great eternal plan is being worked out that God ordained before time began with the Son and heaven is on schedule with it and we get to be the earthly gate keepers who act in harmony with heaven. What a privilege.

I do not disagree with what you have said here. It is only a small portion of the authority given to the church, though.

 

[guanophore]

**You were there? Where is that Aramaic version given to us and preserved? **

I don’t believe the original Matt. has been found. However, we have the testimony of those who read it, and knew Matthew wrote in Aramaic. NOne of the originals, even the other Gk. texts have survived either. We are trusting that God has been able to protect His word/

Maybe the Greek was used because of the nuances the language provides; as to avoid error?

I suppose this is possible. Certainly Gk. was more versatile and universal. However, Matt. was written in Aramaic because that was the first lang. of Jesus and the Apostles. When they were alone together, they usually spoke Aramaic.

Perhaps Jesus was multilingual as many were in that day?

I have no doubt.

I would say Jesus was able to speak Hebrew, since He read the Scripture that He literally was fulfilling upon the reading to the Jews. He probably knew Latin since that is likely what the Romans spoke; like before Pilot for example. He probably knew Greek as well. I bet Jesus knew every language ever spoken.

I doubt it. When the Latins were out in the world, they generally used Greek. It is more likely that Jesus conversed with Pilate in Gk. However, we don’t have the historical testimony for that as we do for the fact that Matt. was first written in Aramaic.

Ans we know there were many languages spoken on the day of Pentecost.

Yes. THis is why we must rely on the Apostolic Teaching to understand the meaning of the words that were used.

 

[guanophore]

**
Weak, thanks; but only of you consider truth to be weak. Putting God into your box will do nothing to further any point. We know many languages were spoken, that is fact. We know on the day of Pentecost many languages were spoken, that is fact. We know the Romans primary language was Latin, that is fact. But facts don’t matter.
**

The facts do matter, Seeking. The fact is that Jesus and His Apostles were Palestinian, and their primary language was Aramaic. The earliest prayers we have are preserved in Aramaic to this day!

Matthews Gospel was written in Aramaic.

Jesus called Peter a Rock, and said “upon this Rock I will build my church”. Jesus changed Peter’s name to Rock, and he was called “Rock” ever afterward. Those are the facts.

**Paul, Peter, James, John, Andrew, Bartholomew, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Thaddaeus, Thomas, James, Simon the Zealot, Philip and Jesus Christ.
the church at Jerusalem, at Antioch, in the church that was {there,}, at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the church, of the church which is at Cenchrea, the church of the Laodiceans, the church of the Thessalonians, the church in Ephesus write, the church in Smyrna write, he church in Pergamum write, he church in Thyatira write, the church in Sardis, the church in Laodicea, the church in Philadelphia, To the churches of Galatia, the church of God which is at Corinth **

No, Seeking. All these people were members of the One Body, the Church, which later became known as the Catholic Church.

I know it must seem strange to you for such unity to exist, since it is rare in PRotestant sects. But the Church in the NT is called “the Church throughout” (Catholic) - one Body, One Church.

**The question of how you come to the knowledge is not the issue; the issues becomes how does what one learns in agreement with Scripture; the test of its validity. Stepping back; how does one come to believe what the Bibles says is true? It is the work of God.

Name one thing that is Catholic teaching; not in the Bible, that is necessary for salvation.**

I think it does matter how one “comes to knowledge”. Catholics receive knowledge via the Apostolic Succession. Reformers receive knowledge from those who broke away from the One Church founded by Jesus, that started their own ecclesial communities with “different gospel”.

The problem with trying to use scripture as a test of validity is that everyone who reads it interprets it diffently. That means, whatever I think it means is “valid”. See the problem?

Catholic Teaching is found equally in Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture. It is more a matter of understanding what is written in scripture, in accordance with those who wrote it.

One thing that is lacking in Scriputure is the list of books that belongs in it. This came from SAcred Tradition. If you reject the validity of Sacred Tradition, then you have no basis for your canon.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I don’t know what most “Protestants” believe (I don’t think you do either) I only know what I as a Christian believe.
First, let me point out that the reason why St Paul said the church and not the Bible, was because the Bible was not readily available to all until the Guttenberg press was invented.

lol. Are you serious?

 

[broski234]

**
How many have you asked? Was it a statistically significant? It is interesting that when you showed the passage; they were able to conclude correctly that it was the "body of Christ, which is the church.

Invisible is not exactly the best way to describe it, maybe in a general context that we cannot see the “E” for elect, which is the true church and since so many false believers have infiltrated; it has become nearly invisible in that sense.

The Bible does not save, but the Word of God does and the Word is contained in the Bible. AND IN HIS BODY, THE CHURCH**

Someone may tell you something about the Bible, but it is the individual’s responsibility to see if it is true; do you do that? **WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ON PERSONAL INTERPRETATION, DON’T WE?**The prophecy alone would be enough. The word “Israel” would be enough. But the best proof of the authenticity is the regenerate message it gives is true.

When you say we need the Church for salvation; you are again imposing your beliefs on the Scripture rather than viewing the Church teaching in light of what Scripture say; this is a real big mistake for many reasons.THE CHURCH CAME BEFORE THE BIBLE SEEKING, DO SOME RESEARCH. READ THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS. I’M ON VACATION WITH MY FAMILY SO I WILL BE RESPONDING MORE LATER. GOD BLESS!

 

[Junebug999]

Maybe I should first clear up that I do study the Bible for myself. That is why I made the point about women wearing pants…but anyway let me see if I can answer your questions about what I believe.

1. I have searched many religions (J.W.,Mor,Bap,Meth,Pent,…) trying to figure things out (I have serious trust issues) and with the grace of God I have found that alot of religions claim basically the same things (God is God , Jesus is His Son, Mary was a virgin…) but they had differences as well. I just noticed that these relgions were based (if not loosely) on the Holy Bible but with their own spin and taking certain verses out of context. So I figured that since the only common denominator is the Holy Bible it must be right. Whether it is the “complete word of God” I don’t %100 know this. I will explain it like this. If God were to ask you to go to the store and buy a cheesecake would you wast your time trying to figure out which kind, (cherry- Catholics,Strawbery-Protestants) or would you think, “God knows my heart and how much I want to please him so I will bring just that plain cheesecake (the Holy Bible)” ?

2)I use everyone as my study guide and prayer. Not to mention that I ask for wisdom,discernment and lots of help from the spirit of truth.

My suggestion is to pray about your trust issues. I will pray that you put all your trust in Him, and that He leads you to His Church. And the cheesecake thing…I believe you DO want to follow Christ, and His teachings as given to us through the Holy Spirit through His apostles down through the ages in the Church Christ began. You do want that. To have that is a blessing beyond compare. I would not trade the blessing of being called to His Church for all the money in this world. I would not even trade that blessing for my very life. At the end of my first confession, the Priest said to me, “Never forget that great blessing God has given to you to bring you to the Church.” As I get closer and closer to baptism, that becomes more clear.

Oh, and by the way, I’m a daughter of a Baptist minister and know my way around Baptist (and now Catholic) doctrine. I have traded the doctrine of some man who founded the Baptist Church after the Luther breakaway for the doctrine of Christ’s Church! WOW, what a blessing. Oh, how much my Heavenly Father loves me, and he loves you too. He may be calling you to his Church as well. Consider it, pray about it, and if you come, come as a child believing, and our Heavenly Father will bless you in ways you never thought possible. You are in my prayers.

Blessings,

 

[mmplps7783]

Speaking as a recent convert to The Church, I will offer this possible response to your question, broski…

Some protestants wouldn’t refute the fact that the Bible didn’t just “fall out of the sky” with God’s blessing to go, read and be faithful. They would certainly accept some notion that some assembly of men that had appropriate lineage with the Apostles (and hence, unity with The Holy Spirit), properly proclaimed the inspired books which ultimately came to be known as The Holy Bible.

But, they would say, here’s the catch…that “assembly of men” had NOTHING to do with the Catholic Church. That church was a man-made bureaucratic heresy which used political power and the Word of God to control the masses, accumulate wealth, and so on. OK…maybe most protestants don’t go into the anti-Catholic left-field like that…but certainly most argue that the origin and meaning of this assembly of men is of no import, because they were only assembled by God to make the written Word proclamations, and then distribute that Word out to the ends of the earth. Along the way, others are free to come along, interpret Scripture by their own prayerful discernment (in unity with the Holy Spirit), continue the evangelical Gospel spreading, and the “essentials” of fundamental Christianity will be preserved for all time. It’s precisely “churches” like the Catholic Church, proclaiming it was The ONE and ONLY source of full truth, that led people astray, led them OUT of the Bible, and into a perilous fall.

You follow? In other words, protestants don’t protest the fact that a church (assembly) canonized scripture as we know it…they protest the fact that the Catholic Church was this assembly…or they protest that the Catholic Church did assemble it, but disintegrated into obscurity over the course of the following 1500 years, and rightly so. They (protestants) would say, finally in the 16th century, we got back to what was always intended…Bible alone, Holy Spirit-interpreted on an individual, personal basis. That’s all that is needed. “Thanks Catholic Church for answering God’s call to assemble The Book for Him…but you blew it as you sank into corruption…and now we rebuke you and leave you for our own Jesus, The Bible, & Me theology…oh, we’ll go ahead and keep the Book you gave us, though…thanks again.”

Sorry if that sounded offensive to protestants…but it was my way of dumbing down the general thinking. I don’t claim to speak for all protestants, but I wager most feel something along these lines…

Finally, as for the “church is the bulwark” verse…many protestants don’t refute that either, so long as you define “church” as they do: the body of believers. Who? The body of believers. Who’s that? Anyone who believes in Christ, acknowledges and repents (once) of their sins, and asks Christ into their hearts. So, WE, the “believers”, are the church…and YES AMEN, WE indeed DO hold up and defend the truth.

So what are we left with after all this? A debate over historical evidence of Catholic Church formation, succession, authority and continuity. As well as a debate over what the Apostles knew “the church” to actually BE. That’s where any debate should ultimately start. Those 2 questions. If protestants spent time on those 2 things alone…and really took an honest, unbiased long look at them…I think we’d be well on our way to Catholic unity.

God Bless

I would have to say that to some degree you are correct. But I believe Catholic Unity would still be a miracle. Too many “Protestants” feel like the Catholic Church is crooked and greedy. Not to mention idol worshipers. The Saints are a difficult matter to conquer.