A Question For Protestants regarding the Catholic Church...

[guanophore]

Yes, but what should raise red flags to all with minimal decernment are traditions and practices that are contrary to the Word.

Yes, of course. But all you have shown here at CAF is that you don’t understand the Sacred Traditions, or the word of God. Your deficient understanding of each does, indeed “rais red flags with minimal discernment”. However, if you are willing to learn, this is a good place to be!

what I do hate is lies and deception and I will earnestly defend the faith as we are requisted to do so.

You might wish to consider another venue, then Mike. CAF is not an outlet for your hatred of our faith, nor is it an appropriate environment for you to “earnestly defend” what you have been given to believe. We are here to provide Catholic answers. We welcome dialogue, but coming here as you have stated to “strip away the Roman Catholic doctrine” does not edify anyone.

Psa 149:7 To execute vengeance on the nations, And punishments on the peoples;
Psa 149:8 To bind their kings with chains, And their nobles with fetters of iron;
Psa 149:9 To execute on them the written judgment– This honor have all His saints. Praise the LORD!

If you believe that you are here to execute God’s vengence, to bind up Catholics with chains and fetters, and execute written judgement, then I think your motives for participating are incompatible with the purpose of CAF.

If it is an honor to you to tear and rip at the Body of Christ this way, then I will pray for you.

 

[DonLeon]

Protestants seem to forget or do not know that the holy Catholic church created the Bible. It is a waste of time to argue with them, it is like tryong to convince a mormon that joseph smith was a conman! you will get no where! It is only on there own spiritual search with some real education that they may find the truths revealed in the church! arguing with protestants will only absorb your valuable energy!

I agree that arguments get you nowhere. That is why we should discuss and dialogue and try to explain what our Protestant brothers do not understand. Those Protestants that do argue and resist and claim that they are right need persistent prodding to listen to the truth. Only our fervent, sincere, prayers for the Holy Spirit to help us will then satisfactory results occur. Meanwhile we Catholics should do our best to inform them of the truth.
God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Mikejw]

I don’t think there is any such thing as a Catholic “charm” but none of these other things you name are “scriptural abuses”. I don’t know where you are getting your information, but it seems high time for you to read some history.

Here is a little bit of history on the origin of different translations. I will add the table of contents if you do not wish to check out the link provided.bbaptist.org/which_version.pdf

I. PRESERVATION OR RESTORATION?.. 1
THE KEY ISSUE - PRESERVATION… 1
SCRIPTURAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS STUDY … 4
THE ISSUE - JUST WHAT IS AT STAKE?.. 5
THE ORIGINAL “AUTOGRAPHS” AND “PRESERVATION”… 6
WHAT DOES GOD PROMISE CONCERNING THE SCRIPTURES? … 8
GOD’S METHOD OF PRESERVING THE SCRIPTURES… 10
WOLVES PARADING AS SHEEP… 13
WHEN DID THE WOLVES BEGIN TO DEVOUR THE WORD?.. 13
BEWARE - “A LITTLE LEAVEN …”… 14
NOT AN “AD HOMINEM”… 15
THE GREEK STRONGHOLD … 16
II. BIBLICAL COMPARISONS DEPICTING THE PROBLEM… 21
III. THE 1881 REVISION… 49
A BRIEF HISTORICAL SYNOPSIS… 49
WHAT ARE THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE TODAY?.. 50
BASIC DEFINITIONS… 51
ERASMUS RESTORES THE RECEIVED TEXT (GREEK)… 52
AN ASSESSMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT… 54
WESTCOTT AND HORT’S INVOLVEMENT IN SPIRITISM… 59
AN ASSESSMENT OF ERASMUS… 60
IV. THE “TEXTUS RECEPTUS” … 63
ERASMUS AND THE WORK HE PRODUCED… 63
TYNDALE TRANSLATES THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS INTO ENGLISH … 64
LATER EDITIONS OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS… 65
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE … 66
WHAT ABOUT ALL THE CHANGES IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE? … 70
WHY THEN ARE NEW TRANSLATIONS THOUGHT NECESSARY? … 77
(1) Archaic Words… 78
(2) Variant Readings… 79
(3) Ancient Greek Manuscripts … 82
(4) Winds of Doctrine… 84
(5) Greed for Money … 88
V. THE GREEK TEXT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT… 91
THE MEN WHO CONTROLLED THE 1881 REVISION… 91
ORIGEN - THE FOUNTAINHEAD OF THE PROBLEM… 92
iii
ORIGEN’S BELIEFS… 94
ENTER CONSTANTINE (288-337 A.D.) … 97
THE “MYSTERIES” AND THEIR BEGINNING… 98

 

[Mikejw]

BACK TO CONSTANTINE … 101
THE COUNCIL OF NICEA… 102
CONSTANTINE COMMISSIONS EUSEBIUS TO MAKE 50 BIBLES … 103
THE INQUISITION … 104
JEROME AND THE LATIN VULGATE… 105
PUT IT ALL TOGETHER, PLEASE… 106
VATICANUS B AND SINAITICUS ALEPH … 106
ALEXANDRINUS “A” … 108
THE SCHOLARS VERSUS JESUS - THE BATTLE CONTINUES… 109
THE NESTLE GREEK TEXT … 110
THE CANON … 112
THE APOCRYPHA… 113
VI. HOW HORT SEDUCED THE 1881 COMMITTEE … 119
HORT “INVENTS” A HISTORY OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT… 119
Genealogical Method… 120
Conflation … 122
The “Fathers” Letters - External and Internal Evidence … 124
The “Early Revision”… 125
ECLECTICISM AND ITS FRUIT … 127
VII. THE HORTIAN-ECLECTIC THEORY REFUTED… 133
THE GENEALOGICAL METHOD FRAUD … 133
TEXT TYPE “FAMILIES” ARE ARTIFICIAL FABRICATIONS… 136
THE QUOTES FROM THE “FATHERS” … 139
PAPYRI (C.200 A.D.) SUPPORTS THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS … 142
ECCLESIASTIC REVISION? … 144
GAIUS, THOUGH LONG DEAD, SPEAKS… 148
ARTIFICIAL NATURE OF TEXT FAMILIES DEMONSTRATED … 149
ERASMUS VINDICATED… 153
ARE THE OLDEST MSS THE BEST? … 155
TO WEIGH THE WITNESSES OR TO JUST COUNT THEM?.. 159
HOW TO EVALUATE THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS… 161
WEIGH, BUT THEN COUNT… 162
THE IMPORTANCE OF VARIETY IN SELECTING EVIDENCE… 163
ANCIENT TRANSLATIONS SUPPORT THE RECEIVED TEXT … 164
THE BIBLE OF THE VAUDOIS (WALDENSES)… 167
THE ORIGINAL TEXT PRESERVED THROUGH THE CHURCH… 170
IS NATURALISTIC TEXT CRITICISM SCIENTIFIC?.. 174
iv
VIII. THE BELIEVING FRAME OF REFERENCE… 181
THE CHURCH’S HISTORICAL TEXT… 181
THE MODERN VIEW OF INERRANCY AMONG MOST CLERGY … 184
HOW PRINCETON WAS CORRUPTED … 186
HOW THE CONSERVATIVE SEMINARIES WERE CORRUPTED … 189
IX. THE CONCLUSION OF THE MATTER … 195
TECHNICAL OVERVIEW… 195
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW… 198
TEXT CRITICISM TODAY - THE AGE OF MINISCULES … 202

More links on the true history of translations.

buzzardhut.net/index/htm/Forever.Settled.pdf
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=42385501735388990&q=Gail+Riplinger
born2serve.org/images/kjvchartbig.gif

 

[Rightlydivide]

Forgive me for being unaware of that. However, that still does not change the fact that :The Holy Catholic Church teaches the same things today as it did in Jesus’s time. The writings of the Early Church Fathers and the Saints are in line with the modern doctrine. So actually, how many denominations split and when they split is irrelevant.

I see from your signature that you are a Fundamentalist. From what I know of Fundamentalism the common belief (which I’ll assume you believe as well) of the True Church is that it is the Fundamentalist churches. It states that the True Church was paganized and corrupted in 300 A.D. when Emperor Constantine made Christianity legal in the Roman Empire. This drew pagans to the church and it adopted depraved practices. The True Church then went underground, remaining a small sect of the modern Christian religion. It resurfaced briefly during the Reformation, went back under, and fully revealed itself in the 1920s.
This view of Church history is bogus, to say the least. From all the non-biblical writings we have from the same time period, NONE mention an underground church. You may say that the reason none mentioned it is because, duh, it was underground. I’m fairly sure any members of a church that decided to continue in the shadows would write about this, especially the church officials.
And another thing, why would the Church even allow itself to become paganized? Why would it let go of doctrine that it had so recently been taught to it by Jesus and the Apostles (this is 300 A.D. remember)?

That is not my view at all.
It is such a broad topic and your post is rather hard to respond to. Perhaps we could tighten it up or narrow it down a bit.

I do not consider 270 years recent at all. 270 years ago was roughly 1740!
I believe that elements of the church became pagan because they assimiliated the surrounding cultures. I find that Paul’s letters to any number of churches showed that in Corinth, Rome and other areas any number of heretical teachings and practices flourished. That is essentially all of Paul’s letters summed up. Very rarely did he write and spend the entire letter complementing people.

 

[laurenharper]

“These traditions are not considered infallible.”
Yes, but what should raise red flags to all with minimal decernment are traditions and practices that are contrary to the Word. Catholics know what I’m refering to without even having to post selected scripture, I keep getting the same baseless explainations. Look, I love catholics ok, we are all created in the image of God, but what I do hate is lies and deception and I will earnestly defend the faith as we are requisted to do so.

A few points. First, I think debates do better when we stick to a very narrowly defined question/topic (this goes to ALL contributors, I’m not just picking on you). It’s hard to respond to the avalanche of Bible verses you posted (though, it’s always nice reading Scripture =)). But with that said, my question to you is: take any Tradition of the Catholic Church (be specific) and show with Scripture only why it is an absolute lie. I predict this is how the debate would go: you would quote a verse, then I would quote a verse. And back and forth. That is what Protestants do all the time in doctrinal debates. You just go in circles, because no one ultimately has authority to interpret absolutely. There are enumerable protestants that are super intelligent, and are truth-seekers to the fullest, that STILL completely disagree on a lot of doctrine. This just shows that Scripture ISN’T crystal-clear. Jesus knew this when He left this world, and so set up a Church with a hierarchey of authority to make sure that Christians never got way off-base in their thinking. St. Augustine, when in debates with the local heretics of his day, after going thru Scriptures and still finding no resolution to the disagreement, would ultimately state the authority of the Rome as his claim to truth. And Augustine is pretty well-liked among Protestants, from what I experienced, so you might find that interesting. By the way, might I ask what your sources are for studying Catholicism? Make sure and read about it by someone who isn’t completely biased against it. I always read about Protestantism by great, highly respected Protestants like Martin Luther, R.C. Sproul, C.S. Lewis when I study it. That is because I really want to know Truth, and so I know I have to research fairly. So if you’re not already, do the same for Catholicism. I recommend Scott Hann, Christopher Wes, of course the Apostolic Fathers, and several others whose names seem to have slipped my mind.

 

[laurenharper]

The following refer to the time each practices were either A) first introduced, B) formulated, C) adopted by council, or D) proclaimed by a pope:

1. 310 Prayers for the dead began.
   375 The worship of saints.
   394 The Mass was adopted
   431 The worship of Mary began to develop.
2. Even with the above stated, there was much dissension by Catholic scholars concerning certain doctrine. For instance, at the Council of Trent, not everyone thought the Apocrypha was Scripture.

3)There are many more Scriptural abuses that could be added to the list above: monks, nuns, monastaries, convents, holy week, Ash Wednesday, holy oil, Palm Sunday, All Saints Day, relics, novenas, St. Christopher medals, charms, incense, forty days of lent, etc. etc. The above is nothing more than human inventions that have developed throughout the centuries. Not one of these traditions can be found in Scripture.

4)As far as the three favorable Scriptures relating to tradition? Whatever was taught orally, was eventually put down into writing.

During the time of the Apostles, the Scriptures were still developing, and whatever was taught orally by the Apostles was eventually written down. This is even indicated by Paul. He presents to them what he earlier taught them orally:

1. Something documented in writing is more reliable than trusting in oral teachings which inevitably is less accurate, even within ten minutes of its transmission. Could you imagine over a period of many centuries?

People searched the Scriptures, it was their final authority. We should follow the same example:

1. ‘Worship’ of the Saints/Mary? The word Catholics use is venerate. Big difference. Maybe some Catholics heretically worship Mary (I can’t account for every Catholic) but the Roman Church certainly prohibits it.

2)The ‘Apocrypha’, better known as the Deuterocanonicals, were all included in the original Jewish Septuigant (Old Testament). So the question was if they should be taken away, not if they should be added. Martin Luther wanted to strike them from the record because they created a kink in his new ‘sola fide’ and ‘sola scriptura’ arguments, just to name a few. Oh, and did you know that in the N.T., Jesus refered to the book of Tobit (one of the Deuterocanonicals)? I can’t quote you the passage off-hand, but will do the research and get back with you if you’re interested.

1. On Monks and Nuns. No, these vocations aren’t specifically listed in scritpure (though many people that decided to wholly dedicate their life to Christ/the ministry certainly are). But, Youth Minister isn’t a vocation listed there either. Just a thought. Ash Wed. is a day to reflect on Christ’s suffering before his crucifiction. And Palm Sunday is WIDELY celebrated among Protestants. I’m just not seeing a problem here.

4)Yes! And the Catholic Church, thru the years, has continued to put into writing what was taught by the Apostles and passed down orally thru the Church. Where in the Bible is a deadline listed as to when everything had to be transcribed?

1. So within 10 minutes of translation, meaning gets confused? Because many books of the Bible were written many years after the fact. Does this mean they’re not infallible? Of course not. Why? Because Christ, in the Bible, promised that His Church would be a PILLAR (unwavering) of truth, and the gates of Hades WOULD NOT prevail against Her. Church Tradition should not be likened to a game of ‘telephone’, where the ending message is almost always a twisted version of the first. With mere humans, this would be true, but with the power of Christ, oral teachings passed down over time can certainly be kept intact!

Do you mind if I ask a personal question (hopefully not, cause here goes =))? Did you join this forum because a) you are searching for truth and want to hear out the Catholic Church’s arguments, b) just idol curiosity, but not seriously interested, or c) you feel obligated to ‘witness’ to Catholics because you question their salvation. Just wanted to know where you’re coming from.

 

[Matariel]

The following refer to the time each practices were either A) first introduced, B) formulated, C) adopted by council, or D) proclaimed by a pope:

310 Prayers for the dead began.
375 The worship of saints.
394 The Mass was adopted
431 The worship of Mary began to develop.
593 The doctrine of purgatory was introduced.
606 Claims to papal supremacy took root.
650 Feasts in honor of the Virgin Mary started.
709 Kissing the pope’s foot began with Pope Constantine
750 The pope first assumed temporal power.
787 The worship of images and relics was introduced.
819 The first observance of the Feast of Assumption began.
850 The invention of holy water.
965 The blessing of the bells.
983 The canonization of saints was formulated.
998 Lent, Advent, and fasting from meat on Friday.
1003 Feasts for the dead were introduced
1074 The celibacy of the priesthood was asserted.
1076 The doctrine of papal infallibility suggested.
1090 The use of prayer beads (Rosary)
1115 Confession of sins to a priest was instituted.
1140 The doctrine of seven sacraments was introduced.
1190 The sale of indulgences.
1215 Transubstantiation was adopted by Pope Innocent III.
1216 The acceptance of auricular confession of sins to a priest.
1220 Holy water accepted
1226 The elevation and adoration of the wafer began.
1274 Purgatory was declared doctrine at the Second Council of Lyons.
1303 The Catholic Church as the only true Church for Salvation.
1316 The Ave Maria was introduced.
1414 Only Catholic priests can say the Mass and partake of the wine.
1438 Purgatory and the seven sacraments officially decreed.
1545 Tradition declared to be equal with Scripture by Council of Trent.
1546 The Apocryphal books added to the Bible by the Council of Trent.
1547 Rejection of justification by faith alone.
1562 The Mass declared a propitiatory offering.
1854 The immaculate conception announced by Pius IX.
1864 The doctrine of the temporal power of the pope was proclaimed.
1870 Papal infallibility was proclaimed at Vatican I.
1950 The bodily assumption and personal corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven proclaimed by Pope Pius III.
Even with the above stated, there was much dissension by Catholic scholars concerning certain doctrine. For instance, at the Council of Trent, not everyone thought the Apocrypha was Scripture. Nacchianti and Bonuccio rejected the idea that tradition held equal footing with the Scriptures (Gerrit C. Berkouwer, The Second Vatican Council and the New Catholicism Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965, p. 93). And not all believed the pope should be considered infallible, nor did some of them accept the idea of Mary’s immaculate conception (See encyclopedia articles on Vatican II and August Bernhard Hasler, How the Pope Became infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981, pp. 189ff.)

There are many more Scriptural abuses that could be added to the list above: monks, nuns, monastaries, convents, holy week, Ash Wednesday, holy oil, Palm Sunday, All Saints Day, relics, novenas, St. Christopher medals, charms, incense, forty days of lent, etc. etc. The above is nothing more than human inventions that have developed throughout the centuries. Not one of these traditions can be found in Scripture.

I see you have no real knowledge of Catholic Christian history or theology, and are probably using old “facts” from any of a number of grossly misleading anti-Catholic books, such as Boettener’s Catholicism, books that are easily refuted and rife with errors.

Come back when you’ve really looked at it from all sides.

As far as the three favorable Scriptures relating to tradition? Whatever was taught orally, was eventually put down into writing.

That’s incorrect. St. John’s Gospel and St. Paul both speak of things that were never written down, St. John even says the whole world couldn’t contain all the books if it were written down (obviously a hyperbole, but you get the point).

 

[guanophore]

Do you mind if I ask a personal question (hopefully not, cause here goes =))? Did you join this forum because a) you are searching for truth and want to hear out the Catholic Church’s arguments, b) just idol curiosity, but not seriously interested, or c) you feel obligated to ‘witness’ to Catholics because you question their salvation. Just wanted to know where you’re coming from.

I think I may have found the answer to your question on another thread:

As long as the Roman Catholic Church continues to assert its own authority and bind its people to “another gospel,” it is the spiritual duty of all true Christians to oppose Roman Catholic doctrine with biblical truth and to call all Catholics to true salvation. Meanwhile, evangelicals must not capitulate to the pressures for artificial unity. They cannot allow the gospel to be obscured, and they cannot make friends with false religion, lest they become partakers in their evil deeds (2 John 11).

 

[Church_Militant]

The following refer to the time each practices were either A) first introduced, B) formulated, C) adopted by council, or D) proclaimed by a pope:

310 Prayers for the dead began.
…
1950 The bodily assumption and personal corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven proclaimed by Pope Pius III.

Mikejw, concerning your list of dates/doctrines: I haven’t checked them for accuracy,

Don’t worry Lauren, he’s just another guy who seems to be a big fan of Lorraine Boettner and if so I have something that my friend Wolseley put together and has been real handy. It’s called… The “Boettner List”: Fact or Fiction?

There are many more Scriptural abuses that could be added to the list above: monks, nuns, monastaries, convents, holy week, Ash Wednesday, holy oil, Palm Sunday, All Saints Day, relics, novenas, St. Christopher medals, charms, incense, forty days of lent, etc. etc. The above is nothing more than human inventions that have developed throughout the centuries. Not one of these traditions can be found in Scripture.

And yet there is nothing in scripture that says any of those things has to be, so this guy is alleging abuses where there is no basis.

I’m not sure what the right name for that is…is it calumny?

As far as the three favorable Scriptures relating to tradition? Whatever was taught orally, was eventually put down into writing.

During the time of the Apostles, the Scriptures were still developing, and whatever was taught orally by the Apostles was eventually written down. This is even indicated by Paul. He presents to them what he earlier taught them orally:
(1 Cor. 11:23)(1 Thess. 2:5)

So here Paul is writing and elaborating what he had told (orally) them previously. And when it comes to “tradition,” it has to do with what the Apostles commanded them earlier, but now have it in writing:

That’s not really true. Look at these examples from a couple of my blog articles.

 **[Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.](http://blackieschurchmilitant-apocalypsis.blogspot.com/2007/08/apostles-taught-study-of-sacred.html)**

Tradition? No way!

 

[TheWhoFreak]

That is not my view at all.
It is such a broad topic and your post is rather hard to respond to. Perhaps we could tighten it up or narrow it down a bit.

I do not consider 270 years recent at all. 270 years ago was roughly 1740!
I believe that elements of the church became pagan because they assimiliated the surrounding cultures. I find that Paul’s letters to any number of churches showed that in Corinth, Rome and other areas any number of heretical teachings and practices flourished. That is essentially all of Paul’s letters summed up. Very rarely did he write and spend the entire letter complementing people.

To me that begs the question of why the Church would become paganized so quickly after Jesus’s death. Jesus died about 20-60 years before those letters were written, so none of His or the Apostles’ teaching would be lost in such a short amount of time. I don’t think the Church could have corrupted so quickly.

 

[Rightlydivide]

To me that begs the question of why the Church would become paganized so quickly after Jesus’s death. Jesus died about 20-60 years before those letters were written, so none of His or the Apostles’ teaching would be lost in such a short amount of time. I don’t think the Church could have corrupted so quickly.

Lets look at John’s Revelation. In it, seven churches are addressed.

Here are a few comments to the churches and pagan practices:

Rev 2:14
But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

Rev 2:15
So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate

Rev 2:20
Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

 

[Matariel]

Lets look at John’s Revelation. In it, seven churches are addressed.

Here are a few comments to the churches and pagan practices:

Regardless, the Church as a whole was promised that it would last forever and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. The Catholic Church is the only Church this promise was made to… and the only Church that is of apostolic origin (although the Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans also claim such, and have some legitimacy via apostolic succession).

 

[Rightlydivide]

Regardless, the Church as a whole was promised that it would last forever and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. The Catholic Church is the only Church this promise was made to… and the only Church that is of apostolic origin (although the Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans also claim such, and have some legitimacy via apostolic succession).

I do not believe the gates of hell will prevail against the church either. Before we get to our likely differing views of what constitutes church, what are the “gates of hell” and what does “prevail” mean to you? Why?

 

[Matariel]

I do not believe the gates of hell will prevail against the church either. Before we get to our likely differing views of what constitutes church, what are the “gates of hell” and what does “prevail” mean to you? Why?

Your view of a purely invisible collection of disunited people as the Church is a Reformation-era invention…

“the Gates of Hell” obviously represent the forces of evil. “Prevail” simply means to overcome.

The Catholic Church is 2,000 years old and has withstood the test. Like Christ its Head, the Catholic Church has both human (it’s body, the people) and divine (it’s soul, the Holy Spirit) aspects. Though the humans here on Earth in the Church often commit sins and evil-doing, the soul of the Church (the Holy Spirit) ever keeps her from falling into doctrinal error or heresy. This is just like in the Bible where Christ warned us that there would be tares among wheat and wolves among sheep within the Church. In this way, the holy Catholic Church, which is the sole Church of divine and apostolic origin, is saved from being overcome by the forces of the Devil and his angels. This, along with the Eucharist, were some of the most convincing reasons I finally leaft evangelical/fundamentalist Protestantism for the Catholic Church. I thank God, also, because my relationship with Him is immeasurably more deep now that I’m Catholic than when I was Protestant.

God bless on your spiritual journey.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Your view of a purely invisible collection of disunited people as the Church is a Reformation-era invention…

“the Gates of Hell” obviously represent the forces of evil. “Prevail” simply means to overcome.

The Catholic Church is 2,000 years old and has withstood the test. Like Christ its Head, the Catholic Church has both human (it’s body, the people) and divine (it’s soul, the Holy Spirit) aspects. Though the humans here on Earth in the Church often commit sins and evil-doing, the soul of the Church (the Holy Spirit) ever keeps her from falling into doctrinal error or heresy. This is just like in the Bible where Christ warned us that there would be tares among wheat and wolves among sheep within the Church. In this way, the holy Catholic Church, which is the sole Church of divine and apostolic origin, is saved from being overcome by the forces of the Devil and his angels. This, along with the Eucharist, were some of the most convincing reasons I finally leaft evangelical/fundamentalist Protestantism for the Catholic Church. I thank God, also, because my relationship with Him is immeasurably more deep now that I’m Catholic than when I was Protestant.

God bless on your spiritual journey.

When has anyone on this forum read me calling the church invisible? I think that instead of assuming what people believe, it would probably be better to ask them.
I had never heard the term until I started posting here. I believe that there are two uses for church essentially and I oversimplify for brevity. It is a physical location. It is those who “should be” saved as the KJV states:

Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Thank you for your answer. I think the gates would only have two purposes, to keep something out or to keep something in. As such, I see the term having a soteriological connotation much more than a statement about doctrinal error.

I am curious as to what constituted official doctrine in say 100 AD…pre-council/post apostolic Christianity in your view.

 

[Matariel]

When has anyone on this forum read me calling the church invisible? I think that instead of assuming what people believe, it would probably be better to ask them.

Sorry, it’s just that almost all Protestants seem to believe in a “hidden” an “invisible” Church, when in fact that was never the case in the Bible or Church history. Historically speaking, the original Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. The Church’s noit failing is not just based on the Petrine Scripture either, but also on other verses, such as the Church being declared the pillar and foundation of the truth (as St. Paul says) and that the Holy Spirit will guide and protect her, and that Christ will be with the Church to the end of time.

I had never heard the term until I started posting here. I believe that there are two uses for church essentially and I oversimplify for brevity. It is a physical location. It is those who “should be” saved as the KJV states:

I think it has two definitions as well: the 2,000-year old apostolic community known as the Catholic Church; and a building (lower “c”) that is consecrated by a bishop and set apart for the worship of God. The building is called a “church” because it is the meetingplace of the Church, but it is more than a meetingplace, it is the place where Christ is most especially present with His people.

Thank you for your answer. I think the gates would only have two purposes, to keep something out or to keep something in. As such, I see the term having a soteriological connotation much more than a statement about doctrinal error.

I see both views as being valid and not mutually contradictory.

I am curious as to what constituted official doctrine in say 100 AD…pre-council/post apostolic Christianity in your view.

Do you mean about the Church? Or specifically about the phrase “the Gates of Hell?”

 

[Rightlydivide]

Sorry, it’s just that almost all Protestants seem to believe in a “hidden” an “invisible” Church, when in fact that was never the case in the Bible or Church history. Historically speaking, the original Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. The Church’s noit failing is not just based on the Petrine Scripture either, but also on other verses, such as the Church being declared the pillar and foundation of the truth (as St. Paul says) and that the Holy Spirit will guide and protect her, and that Christ will be with the Church to the end of time.

I think it has two definitions as well: the 2,000-year old apostolic community known as the Catholic Church; and a building (lower “c”) that is consecrated by a bishop and set apart for the worship of God. The building is called a “church” because it is the meetingplace of the Church, but it is more than a meetingplace, it is the place where Christ is most especially present with His people.

I see both views as being valid and not mutually contradictory.

Do you mean about the Church? Or specifically about the phrase “the Gates of Hell?”

I do not know what most Protestants believe. I also think that most Protestants are not represented on a forum specifically designed for dialogue/debate with Catholics. It would be overrepresented by those whom think that Catholicism is in error and then those who are considering uniting with Catholicism.

As far as what church represents the practices, doctrine, and ethics of the earliest Christian church is something we disagree on. It is such a broad topic. I just cannot seem to help myself from jumping into threads directed at us!

 

[Roy5]

NO TRUE CHURCH

 There is no true church. We all are pilgrims living in a universe that may have a million or a billion solar systems like our own. The idea that one church understands all this is silly. We are like ants trying to understand a piano.

  I believe, however, that there is a correct way of dealing with religion. It's called tolerance - together with civil dialogue. Having a big tent that welcomes Christians (and others) of varying points of view. This foolish notion that one church contains the truth and every other church or temple is wrong is arrogant and false. 

   We are called upon to live by faith and not by knowledge. That satisfies me entirely. I don't need all the particulars, certainly not creeds written hundreds of years ago when we didn't have telescopes and microscopes (and when politics often played a much larger role than religion). This notion that the older the better is sad. I have read most of the Church Fathers. There is much wisdom there, but also a great deal of nonsense based on inadequate or mistaken data. That great doctor of the church, St. Thomas Aquinas, said that heretics should be delivered to the civil authorities to be executed. What do you think? A reasonable suggestion?

    If we say we think for ourselves we are, of course, quickly accused of pride or some such evil. But that's what I do. I try my best to follow the two great commandments, love God and love one another. When Jesus was asked how to gain eternal life, that was his answer. All this theological rigamarole is rather like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. A waste of good time and good brain power. We should devote ourselves to listening to one another in mutual respect and not trying to 'outwit' one another through argumentation. None of us knows very much, including Popes, Bishops, Preachers, Rabbis, Imam, whatever. But that shouldn't decrease our devotion to God, our efforts to serve humankind, and our marvel at this amazing but mysterious creation.

     God bless Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Mormons, Masons, Mennonites, Moravians - everybody! We'll all in this together, and religion should be a bridge and not a barrier. I'm sure that God is quite annoyed with all those who think they have special access to Him - or is that Her???

 

[phummel]

Hello ahollars,
Sorry for the delayed reply. I started writing a response but then got side tracked.

I will not bother posting the misgivings of Christian leadership from people outside the Catholic Church.
I’m sure you can think of a few of them on your own.

That is a good Christian response. For some reason things like this offend me. Misplaced trust, misrepresenting God, hypocrisy - this is not limited to the Catholic Church, but anyone who takes God’s name in vain.

The point, however, is even if I did, that is not a valid argument on the authenticity of teaching.

Ok, I accept that and appreciate your examples and comparison. You don’t throw out the teachings just because the teacher may sin. We are human, we all sin…

I wanted to know what was it that we taught that was in error from what was taught in the beginning.

This brings us the realm of me accepting beliefs/doctrines that are not the same as the Catholic Church. After all I am Protestant, and so I’ve placed my trust in other interpretations. I don’t believe it would productive to go through that list of differences.

For comparison, let’s say that after a divine revelation, a person lives the remainder of their life in fidelity.
After death, followers pick up the teaching to carry on, but fail to live up to the standard.
Does this relieve them of their responsibility for carrying the standard?

I don’t really buy into having a standard bearer. Those who have wisdom and Truth can write down their assertions, teach, and try to convince w/evidence that their interpretation is correct.

There will always be flaws in the men of religion, as their are flaws in us all, but that does not mean there is a flaw with the religion of men.

I don’t fully agree, but I like how you said it.

We Catholics are supposed to focus on what the Catholic Church teaches.

That makes sense - there is much wisdom there. However, my Protestant mind tells me to search, and seek, and read the Bible too. I don’t think the Catholic Church is the only source of wisdom. In fact, I would go so far as to say I don’t agree with the Catholic Church on many doctrinal and theological issues.
No use arguing - you have put your faith in the Catholic church and its teachings and I have not.

God Bless You,
paul