And the Gates of Hell will not Prevail Against it

[CollegeCatholic]

Last time I checked, good ol’ apostle Paul had a whole lot to say about breaking away from the Church… I don’t recall any of it being expressed as either good or part of God’s plan in general… not that I would put any emphasis on what the Bible says 'cause I am Catholic, afterall. I’ll leave the “proper” biblical interpretations to you Protestants. Heck, we all know Luther was right because once the laity had access to the Bible, everyone would agree on the truth of it. That’s why Protestantism is so unified. :I

 

[Brebuef]

Arron1; from where do you get this qoute by Luther. Specifically from what text, or letter? Thanks.

 

[Singinbeauty]

levi86:

What a surprise, a protestant playing the pedophile card. I just thank God that protestant churches are free from pedophilia, after all, I’ve never heard of a protestant “pastor” abusing children.

Please READ my statement before jumping on it…

I don’t think that God wanted church leaders to molest children either.

I said CHURCH LEADERS not priest or anything to suggest I was talking about JUST the catholic church.

 

[Singinbeauty]

thistle:

The Catholic Church is the universal church. What do you think the word catholic means??
The Catholic Church is the one true church which is the Deposit of Faith. It is the Church founded by Christ through Peter.
The different opinions are not within our church but the thousands of Protestant churches who all claim they have the correct interpretation of scripture. They are wrong and the Catholic Church in matters of faith and morals is infallible which can be proven by Scared Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.

And this is what you have been taught and believe. That’s great! All that I care is that you love Jesus with all of your heart, mind, and soul. And that you seek to follow Him. But for me there is a lot I cannot swallow with the RCC. I am part of the CATHOLIC (universal) church that exists through the believers of Jesus Christ. From what I understand there IS disunity and different opinions even within the catholic church and those in communion within it.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Singinbeauty:

From what I understand there IS disunity and different opinions even within the catholic church and those in communion within it.

Yes. But there is only one right one. The one taught by the authoritative magisterium. The presence of a multiplicity of opinions does not invalidate all of them.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Scott Waddell:

Yes. But there is only one right one. The one taught by the authoritative magisterium. The presence of a multiplicity of opinions does not invalidate all of them.

My point was, though, that the person I was quoting said that there was NO disunity or difference of opionions within the catholic church. I was just stating that there actually was. So what does this mean? There may be only one right one but I believe that there is only one right one within protestantism (if you HAVE to lump ALL other churches who are not catholic together though this hardly seems fair) and that is JESUS CHRIST Himself. I do not believe that He started the catholic church per se but the Christian Faith. Did He mean for such disunity? NO. We did that all on our own. Did He mean for His church to go on and kill or maim and torture anyone who thought different? NO. Again, we humans did that on our own. Did He want church leaders to mislead and molest Christ’s followers? NO. The catholic church, when the reformation happened, was getting a big head (in my honest opinion) and the power was getting to the church leaders heads. History can only support this theory. They were becoming like the pharisees. To protect their power they sought out Jesus and killed Him because His views threatened their power. Say what you will but I see evidence of this from the catholic church before the reformation. Using the government and it’s officials to protect it’s power. Luckily this is not the same catholic church that exists today. I see a major change in the course of christianity when the reformation occurred. If we humans hadn’t screwed things up, who knows, maybe the reformation wouldn’t have needed to be the wake up call that Christ’s Church needed. Instead of being the faithful and following Christ into the promised land we have stuck ourselves out here in the wilderness walking and walking until His return.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Singinbeauty:

My point was, though, that the person I was quoting said that there was NO disunity or difference of opionions within the catholic church. I was just stating that there actually was. So what does this mean? There may be only one right one but I believe that there is only one right one within protestantism (if you HAVE to lump ALL other churches who are not catholic together though this hardly seems fair) and that is JESUS CHRIST Himself.

Your right about lumping. Aparently the 6.023x10 to the 23rd power denominations are equally right.

I do not believe that He started the catholic church per se but the Christian Faith

The biblical, historical and common-sense evidence says otherwise.

.

Did He mean for such disunity? NO. We did that all on our own.

Yes. It is called heresy.

Did He mean for His church to go on and kill or maim and torture anyone who thought different? NO.

To grand and sweeping to be meaningful in a discussion. Also, Our Lord never promised that Church leaders would never sin, so this does not defeat the claims of the Church whatsoever.

Did He want church leaders to mislead and molest Christ’s followers? NO.

This hardly unique to the Catholic Church and thus proves nothing.

The catholic church, when the reformation happened, was getting a big head (in my honest opinion) and the power was getting to the church leaders heads. History can only support this theory. They were becoming like the pharisees. To protect their power they sought out Jesus and killed Him because His views threatened their power. Say what you will but I see evidence of this from the catholic church before the reformation. Using the government and it’s officials to protect it’s power.

Easy to assert. Difficult to establish to the point that it justifies splitting the Christ’s Church.

Using the government and it’s officials to protect it’s power. Luckily this is not the same catholic church that exists today. I see a major change in the course of christianity when the reformation occurred. If we humans hadn’t screwed things up, who knows, maybe the reformation wouldn’t have needed to be the wake up call that Christ’s Church needed. Instead of being the faithful and following Christ into the promised land we have stuck ourselves out here in the wilderness walking and walking until His return.

Well, since you acknowledge it is not the same church and that the Reformation was technically not necessary, come back home.

Scott

 

[Aaron_I]

Brebuef:

Arron1; from where do you get this qoute by Luther. Specifically from what text, or letter? Thanks.

I found the quote on a website. The source given was the book The Facts About Luther. I looked up the book, and it is written by Protestant historians, so I’ll assume it’s fairly accurate.

I’d like to reassert some points I made earlier. First, the Church is hierarchical (see Eph 4:11 among others). Also take a look at Mat 7:24-27 to get a glimpse at what happens to those who put their faith in Peter (the rock) vs those who don’t.

Finally I’d like to refer to Acts 15: 22-29. This passage shows me the authority of the Church. They refer to bad teachers who went out “without any mandate from us [the apostles and presbyters].” They also say that their decision is “the decision of the holy spirit and of us.”

 

[Sherlock]

Singinbeauty:

My point was, though, that the person I was quoting said that there was NO disunity or difference of opionions within the catholic church. .

There are no differing doctrinal teachings within the Church. That dissenters exist doesn’t change that. There is one authority, and that’s that.

Singinbeauty:

I was just stating that there actually was. So what does this mean? There may be only one right one but I believe that there is only one right one within protestantism (if you HAVE to lump ALL other churches who are not catholic together though this hardly seems fair) and that is JESUS CHRIST Himself. .

That’s an almost meaningless statement. Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants all believe that Jesus is central, but what does that mean? We believe that Jesus tells us to eat His flesh and drink His blood, in the New Covenant fulfillment of eating the Pascal Lamb. Without doing so, we have no eternal life, just as Jesus said: yet you deny the Eucharist. So we’re back to how to do Jesus’ will, and without the authority that Jesus gave to Peter and the Apostles when He founded His Church, you’re simply re-making Jesus into what fits you, not the other way around.

Singinbeauty:

I do not believe that He started the catholic church per se but the Christian Faith…

What’s the basis for your belief? The Catholic Church traces its beginning from the Apostles; through the Early Church; and down through the ages. History supports the Catholic Church’s claims. What historical evidence do you have for your position?

Singinbeauty:

Did He mean for such disunity? NO. We did that all on our own. Did He mean for His church to go on and kill or maim and torture anyone who thought different? NO. Again, we humans did that on our own. Did He want church leaders to mislead and molest Christ’s followers? NO. .

It’s called “fallen human nature”. If it surprises you, then you have a flawed idea of what original sin is and the state of human nature. And if you want to ascribe all of those things to the Catholic Church as if only Catholic humans sinned, then explain to me why it is that all of the things you mention are found in Protestant history in like abundance.

Singinbeauty:

The catholic church, when the reformation happened, was getting a big head (in my honest opinion) and the power was getting to the church leaders heads. History can only support this theory.

Singinbeauty:

Good grief, the Church always needed reforming, needs reforming now, and (I can safely guarantee this) will need reform in the future. This is not news. It’s because her human members are human, even if she is also divine. When I see the ego-empires that some televangelists have, I wonder that you would throw stones in such a glass house. And perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the political power wielded by various Protestant sects? I think the real problem is that you don’t understand human nature, nor do you understand the divine aspect of the Catholic Church. It’s not a man-made institution, but was founded by Christ.

Singinbeauty:

They were becoming like the pharisees. To protect their power they sought out Jesus and killed Him because His views threatened their power. Say what you will but I see evidence of this from the catholic church before the reformation. Using the government and it’s officials to protect it’s power. .

Protestant leaders did exactly the same. Are you going to reject Protestantism?

Singinbeauty:

Luckily this is not the same catholic church that exists today. I see a major change in the course of christianity when the reformation occurred. .

Yeah, that’s for sure! Christianity was split apart, and Protestantism ushered in relativism (which is inherent in Protestantism) Relativism and secularization go hand-in-hand, and so ushered in modernism and post-modernism (deconstructionism). Yup, it changed a lot…

Singinbeauty:

If we humans hadn’t screwed things up, who knows, maybe the reformation wouldn’t have needed to be the wake up call that Christ’s Church needed. Instead of being the faithful and following Christ into the promised land we have stuck ourselves out here in the wilderness walking and walking until His return.

You don’t seem to realize that “screwing up” is what humans do, and the Church was founded as a hospital for those who do so. Your comments here suggest that you think it’s a social club of the perfect, with even-more perfect leaders guiding you into yet more perfection. The Catholic Church is far more humble. She, with her authority to bind and loose sins, grants absolution; she feeds us with the Eucharist; she cares for the poor and disenfranchised; she spreads the Gospel. She is a mother who gives herself for her children. Are her members always holy and wise? No, but Jesus granted His protection to her and keeps her from error.
It’s not a country-club for saints.

 

[kp1]

Thal59:

Do you feel it is possible that God decided to reform the Catholic church by disunity, mass murder, and a multitude of jumbled “private interpretation” doctrines?

I have said it before and I will say it again. The so-called reformation reformed nothing! It was rebellion by some who used looting the church under the disguise of religious freedom as a means of becoming incredibly wealthy overnight.

The church reformed from within. The Protestant reformation was the single greatest victory by Satan over humanity since the temptation of Eve.

Thal59

ThaI59 - I think you are pretty close here! As we say in the Saint Michael prayer “by the power of God cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who wander through the world seeking the ruin of souls.”

I think to not consider the influence of sin, self interests, and the manipulation of the demonic upon our minds is to not see the whole picture. The demonis were still created as the Angels were, they have a superior intellect and can easily twist things on us.

Yes there was some corruption going on at the time before the reformation, and Luther thought he was trying to save the church by pointing out these corruptions. Then I can see how the demonic used his self worth and boisterousness against him. He then went further to split and denounce the RCC. In case you are unaware, to justify his spilt fromt he RCC, he declared the pope to be satan, just look deep into any Lutheran church bylaws/beiefs and they will tell you they stand behind Luther’s proclamation that the pope is the anti-chirst.

Christ protects his church by not changing or allowing change to her core doctrines/ dogmas of faith and morals. There will always be sin and corruption because men (in the general term) are succeptible to sin. Even the pope goes to confession. We beleive in the infallablity of the pope when making declarations on faith and morals because God will not let him make some change to his church! The pope does not have the authority of the King, The Holy Trinity, to change the dogma of the church, he can only tell you what the dogma does not say. He defines it more clearly for us in our time. We must be accepting of all of God’s gifts upon us! Well, this means NO abortion, NO contraception, NO Euthenasia. We shall not worship anyone but the Lord! Anything we put before our duty to God is considered worship of a false God. It could be sports, it could be food, it could even be sleep if we chose to do these things instead of attending Sunday Mass.

If you look at all of the Christain faiths, only one has survived as in their conception from the time of Christ till now with out succumbing to the whims of their followers. God sets rules and they are not suppose to be taken lightly. The RCC is the only one who had not succumbed to the human desire to usurp God’s plan for conception. Thus people have placed their own desires before that of God. You see, Jesus did not place this protection upon the Protestants, so that is why you have split after split and within a single denomination, they could have two congregations with very different defintions of scripture.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Scott Waddell:

Your right about lumping. Aparently the 6.023x10 to the 23rd power denominations are equally right.

You know, I could do WITHOUT the sarcasm. You don’t like my beliefs or what I stand for. I get that. You don’t have to be sarcastic. I don’t like being lumped in a pool of groups like mormans and other such extreme groups can ya fault me for that. My beliefs are nothing like their and I was saying it hardly seems fair that I am lumped in with them when my beliefs and their don’t mirror eachother whatsoever.
Scott Waddell:

The biblical, historical and common-sense evidence says otherwise.

So I have no common sense? Whatever. Biblical or otherwise does not support your way of thinking that the catholic church as it was before the reformation or after is the same one that Jesus had in mind.
Scott Waddell:

Yes. It is called heresy.

You have to reallize that the catholic church had a hand in the reformation by killing or beating people into submission rather than teaching them in love as Jesus did.
Scott Waddell:

To grand and sweeping to be meaningful in a discussion. Also, Our Lord never promised that Church leaders would never sin, so this does not defeat the claims of the Church whatsoever.

What I am saying is that there are a lot of things that Christ never intended to have His church go through but because we are human evil things happen because of our sinful nature. So maybe, just maybe, the reformation was good on paper but things have gotten out of control and need to get back on track. It was intended to bring people back to focusing on Christ rather than the power that the catholic church was gaining and it’s means of getting there.
Scott Waddell:

This hardly unique to the Catholic Church and thus proves nothing.

Ok, AGAIN, I did not say these things specifically towards the catholic church or don’t you read comments fully. You just see molestation and assume I am pointing my fingers at the catholic church… Jeez… Just a little sensitive aren’t we…
Scott Waddell:

Easy to assert. Difficult to establish to the point that it justifies splitting the Christ’s Church.

Just like when the Jewish religion was split because the Jews refused to believe that Jesus was who He claimed? We would be of the jewish faith if they hadn’t been so boneheaded and believed. The reformation where protestants came from isn’t the first and probably not the last…
Scott Waddell:

Well, since you acknowledge it is not the same church and that the Reformation was technically not necessary, come back home.

Scott

I NEVER said that the reformation wasn’t necessary. I, in fact, believe it IS and have stated so. It was necessary because the catholic church began to turn away from the truths it taught and become more of a power mongral rather than focus on what was important. The reformation has changed the course of the catholic church but has not completely healed it. There are still teaching that I personally think make Jesus sick but that is for another thread…

 

[jdc1084]

Wow, this has been an interesting thread.

But how Catholics can say they are unified and believe in exactly what the forefathers did back in the day–I just don’t see it at all. So many things have been added since then. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but belief in Purgatory, prayer to Mary, the rosary, and the canonization of dead saints, for example, were all established centuries after Jesus. Why did it take so long to decide on these things? I also understand that according to Catholics, while a priest or bishop may be sinful (just like you and me) what they interpret from the Bible is infalliable. Is this correct? If so, there are times in history when the Catholic church has changed what it has believed. But God is never changing, so why would he tell the Catholic Church one thing one day and another thing the next? Here’s one example I came across recently. For a long time, I understand that the Catholic Church believed that anyone outside of the Church could not be saved. The Fourth Lateran Coucil stated that “There is only one universal Church of the faithful, outside which none will be saved.” But since the Vatican II, protestants are merely “seperated brethern” that can be saved as well. So what is it yall trully believe?

I also read a couple entries that described protestants all claiming to each have the right interpretations of the Bible. The way yall talk, it’s almost as though you think some of us say “The sky is purple!” and “No, the sky is green!” But protestants do have a set of beliefs that they all believe the same in such as such as belief in the trinity, the redeeming blood of Jesus, etc. The differences in protestant churches are way less significant. Some of them prefer not to have instruments played in their services; some prefer full water baptism versus sprinkling; some prefer their pastors to rotate around every few years. But none of that is a matter of salvation. Most of us agree on the important matters and could care less whether this church has white choral robes and this other one has maroon.

As to the Reformation, Satan has been endlessly trying to destroy the Church…The Reformation was yet another one of a series of Satan’s skirmishes against the Church to divide it. Having hived off a lump he then proceeds to divide that lump off into more and more pieces

If Satan keeps dividing that ‘lump’ off into more and more pieces as you say, isn’t that like beating a dead horse?

I do not believe that He started the catholic church per se but the Christian Faith.

I agree. A few posts seem to take offense at this, which just seems ironic. Would not the Catholic Church claim to be centered around the Christian Faith?

You don’t seem to realize that “screwing up” is what humans do, and the Church was founded as a hospital for those who do so. Your comments here suggest that you think it’s a social club of the perfect, with even-more perfect leaders guiding you into yet more perfection

I thought the whole point SingingBeauty was trying to make was all about the “fallen nature” of man. Obviously, no one is perfect. Sure the protestants have messed up, and no one is trying to say that they are sparkling, perfect angels. We know we mess up. But from what I understand, Catholics claim that: What the Magestrate interprets from the Bible is infalliable; the Catholic Church is the only true church; the Catholic church has never changed since the days of Christ, etc. So what I gather is that while yall know that people of the Catholic Church are imperfect, the Church itself is perfect? But all the people that run the Church–the Pope, Bishops, priests, etc.–are men themselves. Isn’t it possible that at times throughout history they may have messed up or been a little off on something when running the Church? I thought that was the point SingingBeauty was trying to get across.

Okay here’s my last quote and I’ll be done… for now

The Catholic Church is far more humble. She, with her authority to bind and loose sins, grants absolution; she feeds us with the Eucharist; she cares for the poor and disenfranchised; she spreads the Gospel. She is a mother who gives herself for her children.

Many protestant churches will care for the poor, help those in need, and spread the Gospel too. As far as “authority to bind and loose sins and granting absolution” I thought that was only Christ’s job to do. What does this mean?

Well I think this post may be my record post in length. I really hope I didn’t offend anyone, because I really don’t mean to. This was just such an interesting topic and I wanted to put my two cents in, which is what these forums are for I suppose. It’s always interesting to learn the other views on things such as these. Thanks for putting up with me.

 

[jdc1084]

But protestants do have a set of beliefs that they all believe the same in such as such as belief in the trinity, the redeeming blood of Jesus, etc. The differences in protestant churches are way less significant. Some of them prefer not to have instruments played in their services; some prefer full water baptism versus sprinkling; some prefer their pastors to rotate around every few years. But none of that is a matter of salvation. Most of us agree on the important matters and could care less whether this church has white choral robes and this other one has maroon.

Okay, I know I’m quoting myself, but I just realized that what I said might be saying that all the 30,000 what-not denominations are all right. Like Singingbeauty, I wouldn’t want to get lumped with Mormons or some other groups either. I know a lot of extreme groups can get lumped with ‘protestants’ some of which aren’t even Christian. But the denominations I was referring to were those like Baptist, Church of Christ, Methodist, etc. Thanks!

 

[CollegeCatholic]

jdc1084:

Okay, I know I’m quoting myself, but I just realized that what I said might be saying that all the 30,000 what-not denominations are all right. Like Singingbeauty, I wouldn’t want to get lumped with Mormons or some other groups either. I know a lot of extreme groups can get lumped with ‘protestants’ some of which aren’t even Christian. But the denominations I was referring to were those like Baptist, Church of Christ, Methodist, etc. Thanks!

Under what authority can you label what is orthodox or not? Who is to say that Mormons have less claim to truth than Methodists? Perhaps you are not familiar with Momon teachings but they also claim that the Church “went bad” and the “truth” had to be recovered. Instead of waiting for 1500 years, they simply claim that right after Jesus and the disciples died, the Church went to poop. No longer did the Church have the rightful claim to the genuine priesthood. This idea of the Church going bad and needing to be replaced sounds familiar… oh wait, the REFORMATION! Wow, Protestants and Mormans have a central dogma that is shared!

Also, to claim that none of the “Christian differences” are salvific in nature considering the fact that many denominations don’t teach the Universal nature of Christ’s sacrifice and develope requirements of salvation that are almost impossible for someone outside of North America to achieve. Many Protestant denominations have reduced salvation to a matter of knowledge, an answer to an alter call, or proved by work ethic and success. I think you are making a generalization that wanders into the realm of complete innaccuracy by saying that the differences are not salvific in nature.

 

[jdc1084]

Under what authority can you label what is orthodox or not? Who is to say that Mormons have less claim to truth than Methodists? Perhaps you are not familiar with Momon teachings but they also claim that the Church “went bad” and the “truth” had to be recovered. Instead of waiting for 1500 years, they simply claim that right after Jesus and the disciples died, the Church went to poop. No longer did the Church have the rightful claim to the genuine priesthood. This idea of the Church going bad and needing to be replaced sounds familiar… oh wait, the REFORMATION! Wow, Protestants and Mormans have a central dogma that is shared!

Well I hardly know what to say. I wish we could just jump into each other’s heads for a second to understand what the other person thinks.

“Under what authority…” Well I hope the Bible counts for something. Sure, the Mormons use the Bible, but along with three other books, which all contradict each other. And from what I understand, the Bible is at the bottom of their list, so if one of their other books contradicts it, they’ll say the Bible was in error for that instance. Wow, to lump us with the Mormons… It’s like contrasting night and day. I could go all off on a discussion about Mormons, but as this is not the thread for that, I’ll hold off.

You know, for the longest time, I always thought of *Catholics and protestants * as lumped together really. We all believe in the blood of Jesus Christ to save us from our sins. God loves us and we live our lives to please him. Ah, if it were that simple. And it should be. But we as humans have built up so many walls and built so much stuff around the central truth that it has caused such a divide among people that are brothers and sisters in Christ. We should start acting more like it. And I’m talking about both Catholics and protestants.

I always get the general opinion that Catholics look down their nose at protestants. But why do you dispise us so much? Don’t we believe in salvation through Jesus’ blood just like you? What was the early church based around? Jesus’ message, the good news! We believe that. So how come you place us with the cults?

Many Protestant denominations have reduced salvation to a matter of knowledge, an answer to an alter call, or proved by work ethic and success.

But what about Catholics? You must believe in Jesus plus this and plus that. Jesus plus anything is saying that Jesus’ blood couldn’t do it all. I’m not saying that protestant churches have it all right either. Some people might just answer an alter call or think they can work themselves into heaven, but if they have had no heart change, then it’s all meaningless.
Faith without works is dead. And I know yall believe this and would often throw it in the face of protestants. Well I agree. Faith without works is dead; the things you do after you’re saved such as Baptism and evangelism and good deeds in general all come from wanting to be obedient to the Lord and wanting to please him. But *works without faith * is nothing. So by simply walking up to the alter or tithing or going to church every Sunday–even if it’s to a Catholic church–does not make you saved unless you have accepted Jesus into your heart and are living for him.

Well anyways, there’s my spill. Thanks for listening.

 

[Sherlock]

jdc1084:

But how Catholics can say they are unified and believe in exactly what the forefathers did back in the day–I just don’t see it at all. So many things have been added since then. )

Have you read the Early Church Fathers? If so, then you would know that Apostolic Succession, the Eucharist, and other core Catholic doctrines were there.

jdc1084:

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but belief in Purgatory, prayer to Mary, the rosary, and the canonization of dead saints, for example, were all established centuries after Jesus. Why did it take so long to decide on these things? I also understand that according to Catholics, while a priest or bishop may be sinful (just like you and me) what they interpret from the Bible is infalliable. )

I suspect, after reading your post, that you don’t know the difference between doctrine, devotional practices, and discipline (matters of custom). Doctrine does not change (reverse itself, etc.) but it does develop: you will not find the Trinity mentioned in Scripture, but it was developed over a period of time. Purgatory is no different, and has a Scriptural foundation. Doctrine isn’t invented, it’s discovered, and that’s why it develops:sometimes we discover new facets over time. Devotional practices (such as praying the Rosary) are just that: devotions. And no, you don’t understand infallibility at all given your presentation of it. My priest may be perfectly wrong in his interpretation of Scripture.

jdc1084:

If so, there are times in history when the Catholic church has changed what it has believed. )

You don’t understand what you’re talking about. And no, the Church has never reversed her doctrines.

jdc1084:

For a long time, I understand that the Catholic Church believed that anyone outside of the Church could not be saved. The Fourth Lateran Coucil stated that “There is only one universal Church of the faithful, outside which none will be saved.” But since the Vatican II, protestants are merely “seperated brethern” that can be saved as well. So what is it yall trully believe?)

The Church has not changed her doctrine. No one is saved outside the Catholic Church; we simply have come to realize that God has ways of effecting that that we do not know. It is, however, the “normative” means of salvation—that’s why Jesus established her. And “separated brethren” is more conducive to Christian cooperation than “material heretic”.

jdc1084:

But protestants do have a set of beliefs that they all believe the same in such as such as belief in the trinity, the redeeming blood of Jesus, etc. The differences in protestant churches are way less significant.

I was a Protestant for some years, and in that time went to a number of denominations, from Baptist to Evangelical. What you say is completely untrue: sure, they all said that Jesus was Lord, but that was about it for unity. Most churches I went to accepted the Trinity, but shied away from conversations having to do with the formulation of that concept (it’s not explicit in Scripture). Baptism was a huge bone of contention. “Once saved, always saved” was either embraced or condemned, depending on the church. These aren’t little matters, they have to do with salvation!

jdc1084:

Some of them prefer not to have instruments played in their services; some prefer full water baptism versus sprinkling; some prefer their pastors to rotate around every few years. But none of that is a matter of salvation.

Depends on what church you go to! I know Baptists that would say that immersion is the only way, and one is damned. (Actually, these Baptists have just about every body on the planet damned except themselves). No, the differences I experienced had far more to do with salvation than not. Just about every denomination had differences in the externals, it was the core docrines of salvation that differed from church to church.

jdc1084:

Most of us agree on the important matters and could care less whether this church has white choral robes and this other one has maroon.

Not true. How many different Protestant denominations have you studied? The difference in theology between a Baptist and an Episcopalian are far deeper than what you suggest, for example, and that’s just one example.

jdc1084:

Would not the Catholic Church claim to be centered around the Christian Faith?

Umm, it IS the Christian faith, so I don’t see why you are separating them.

 

[msproule]

EA_Man:

Just my two cents…another sense of the phrase “the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it…” is that of the Gates of Hell not being able to stand against the Church of Jesus Christ. In other words, there is an “offensive” meaning to this phrase in addition to the “defensive” meaning that seems to be more commonly understood.

I recently heard somebody making this point, as well. Gates operate in a passive sense rather than an active one. That is, they do not do something so much as they prevent something or someone else from doing something.

Using this frame of reference, the Church is on the offensive against Hell, whose gates will eventually be overrun. I actually think this makes more sense and as far as I know the Church has not ruled out this interpretation.

For what it’s worth, I see no logic behind the proposed Reformation connection. But that’s just my opinion…

 

[jdc1084]

Thanks for the responses. That’s what I’m here for, to learn.

And no, you don’t understand infallibility at all given your presentation of it. My priest may be perfectly wrong in his interpretation of Scripture.

So speaking of learning, when I talked about infallibility, I was only saying what I have heard other Catholics on this forum talking about. At first, I thought yall believed the whole person (priest, bishop, whatever) was infalliable. Then I heard that the person isn’t, but what they interpret is. So now if both the person *and * what they interpret are falliable, then what’s infallible? Please just help me to understand, as I’m very confused about this

No one is saved outside the Catholic Church; we simply have come to realize that God has ways of effecting that that we do not know. It is, however, the “normative” means of salvation—that’s why Jesus established her. And “separated brethren” is more conducive to Christian cooperation than “material heretic”.

I don’t understand what you mean here. You say ‘no one is saved outside the Catholic Church’ but then it sounds like the Catholic Church is only the ‘normaltive’ means? Shouldn’t it be the only means if you say no one is saved outside of it? Also, what do you mean by Christian cooperation and material heretic? What would be considered Christian cooperation by the Catholic Church? Sorry again for all the questions, but I sincerely want to understand what you’re talking about.

I know Baptists that would say that immersion is the only way, and one is damned. (Actually, these Baptists have just about every body on the planet damned except themselves).

I realize that you’re probably only talking about some Baptists. I’ve not doubt that there are some out there who would say that. But you always get a few nuts in the bunch. But for what it’s worth, my family has been mostly Baptist for years. And we have moved around quite a few times, so we’ve had the chance to see several different Baptist churches. Yes, they do prefer to have the full immersion Baptism, but if you have been sprinkled at a previous location, you’re not going to be kicked out of the church. You’re considered a member of the body of Christ, the same as someone who has been fully immersed. The important thing is the heart change that takes place. Who cares if you get a little water splashed on you or you get dunked in a tub. It’s what the action symbolizes. Now, sprinkling a baby is something that we don’t generally agree with, but that’s a differnt topic, which would best be saved for another thread.

Umm, it IS the Christian faith, so I don’t see why you are separating them

See following:
SingingBeauty said:

I do not believe that He started the catholic church per se but the Christian Faith.

Scott Waddell said:

The biblical, historical and common-sense evidence says otherwise

And Sherlock said:

What’s the basis for your belief? The Catholic Church traces its beginning from the Apostles; through the Early Church; and down through the ages. History supports the Catholic Church’s claims. What historical evidence do you have for your position?

And here’s what I said:

I agree. A few posts seem to take offense at this, which just seems ironic. Would not the Catholic Church claim to be centered around the Christian Faith?

I’m not separating them. I was just asking why yall were.

Thanks again for listening.

Hmm… by the way, I was wondering, how do yall get the quote to say who said it first? I just click the 'wrap

tags’ button, but it doesn’t look the same as yalls…

 

[EA_Man]

msproule:

I recently heard somebody making this point, as well. Gates operate in a passive sense rather than an active one. That is, they do not do something so much as they prevent something or someone else from doing something.

Using this frame of reference, the Church is on the offensive against Hell, whose gates will eventually be overrun. I actually think this makes more sense and as far as I know the Church has not ruled out this interpretation.

I don’t think that they’ve ruled this out either. It’s just that I hear the “defensive mode” of this so much, that I just wanted to offer up the picture of the Church attacking the strongholds of Satan as an alternative.

Peace,
EA

 

[dumspirospero]

That makes no sense at all…in attempting to save The ONe True Church…God decides to proceed with the reformation and enabling people to be led astray by heresy and sinfulness…
Cath.orProtes.?:

I am sure this will be heavily attacked. But who said “how” God was going to keep his church from succumbing to the gates of hell? Perhaps in ensuring the gates of Hell not prevail against his “church”, he sanctioned the Reformation.

I see no where in the Bible that says “how” he will do it or “when” he would do it…it could have been years after heretical views infiltrated the “church”.

Thought just occurred to me.