Do Protestants have "Faith"?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It is not over simplified.

I’m sorry, but it is. If Catholic ecclesiology were as straightforward as your post requires it to to be, Vatican 's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church would not be dozens of paragraphs & eight chapters long. The Catholic vision of the Church sees it as a far richer, far more complex, far more mysterious & far more interesting thing than your post allows for.​

The Church is sinless are you saying Christ committs sin?

Christ is not the Church. the Church is at once sinful & righteous: somewhat as Christ was at once “made sin” yet was perfectly righteous.​

Man committs sin not the Church

Christ promised that this Church – His Church will not fall.

That is good evidence of its weakness & sinfulness & of its nothingness apart from Him - for no promises would be needed, if it had any strength, holiness, or righteousness of itself. Only weak, wretched, poor, blind, naked, & needy sinners need His gracious promises.​

And His promises are entirely compatible with many falls on the part of the Church: He said, not that it would never be overcome on some occasions, but that “the gates of hell [would] never prevail”. This is a promise of final victory in His war - not of success in every battle, nor of perfect obedience by the Church. He did not say what He meant by “My Church” - still less did He specify any particular body of that name now existing. Christ began the Church with the Apostles even one of his Chosen Judas Iscariot committed grave sin. That does not mean His Church is fallible but the men in it may be.## But the Church on earth is made of sinful men: to separate the Church from its members, & to give it an absolute status as though the Church could exist in separation from its members, is an implicit denial of the reality of the Incarnation.

We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17).

Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").
Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church.

Indeed it would - He is well able to raise up children to Abraham from the stones: so He is not less able to raise up servants to Himself even if all Christians on earth should reject Him. God’s purposes are not hindered by the disobedience of his servants.​

…more…]

 

[bobzills]

c659smith,

Vatican II was not needed. It was the invention of Pope John XXIII.
The Church has always called a coucil when there was a dispute over doctrine. Vatican II was called for I don’t know what, only Pope John knows. The greatest threat at the time was from atheistic communism and Vatican II did not adress it. Not a single word about the greatest threat that was communism in the documents.
If anyone reads the constitution on the liturgy, it in no way gave permisssion for what happened with the new Mass. It was not the intention of Vatican II to have the priest face the people. It did not ban Latin, it only gave permission for the vernacular to be used in certain parts of the Mass.

Communion on the hand: forbidden by the Church berfore VII, and was started in Holland out of disobedience.
Altar girls: Never given permission from Rome.
Vatican II never gave permission for lay ministers of holy communion.

The new Mass was created by Cardinal Bugnini and six Protestant ministers. The Latin Mass was considered forbidden by bishops and Catholics until Pope Benedict said it was nver abrogated and any priest can say it without permission.

Many of the things that you have mentioned here may not have been explicitly approved by VII. At the same time, there arose something which might be called the spirit of VII, and in the aftermath of the Council, these things came into being in the RCC. For example, the clown Mass, the roll on the floor charismatic MAss, the monkey Mass, the Halloween Mass with Eucharitsic servers in Satanic costumes, the Peter, Paul and MAry folk MAss, the dancing girl Mass, and other weird things began to happen at Catholic colleges, such as the appearance of pornographic pro-lesbian plays being put on by students to celebrate Ash Wednesday. And these plays were part of the students’ English assignments. And conferences held at Catholic colleges by organisations promoting abortion and artificial birth control The local bishop may have said a weak word or two against these, but really they have not been stopped at all, and they continue in growing number. Further, take a look at what happened to the Catholic doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage. It may not have been abandoned theoretically, but in the real world, the fact is that the annulment rates have shot up dramatically from 9 per year in the USA in 1930, to more than 60,000 per year in the USA in some recent years. Now if just about anyone can get an annulment, then what does that tell you about the meaning of the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage??

 

[saint_rafael]

fbl9,
Just name the heresy, and it is around the Church. Every heresy that the Church fight in the past is around today, Arianism, palganism, gnosticism, modernism. I have grown tired of keeping track of all the nonsense I have read or heard from priests, bishops, nuns, theologians, lay people in the last couple of years .

Here’s just a few:

heretics who have not been excommunicated in the last decades like Hans Kung who denies the real presense, the resurrection, and everything else.

ecumenism run amok: Dialoging for I don’t know what. Cardinal Kasper who doesn’t believe in converting anyone.

Fr. Raymond Brown and his ilk who teach Biblibal heresies like the Bible books are just myths and stories. Genesis is a myth. Adam and Eve are myths, not real. Jesus is just a man, gospels are myths, miracles are literarry devices, Noah’s ark is a story, and it goes on and on.

Serious lay Catholics and priests who can explain better what I mean:
www.keepthefaith.org

FSSP priests who give great Catholic sermons
free mp3s
www.audiosancto.org

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

c659smith:

Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

That verse has to be understood in its context:​

• [Luk 10:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Luk&chapter=10&verse=1&version=rsv) After this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come.
• Luk 10:2 And he said to them, "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.
• Luk 10:3 Go your way; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves.
• Luk 10:4 Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals; and salute no one on the road.
• Luk 10:5 Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace be to this house!’
• Luk 10:6 And if a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you.
• Luk 10:7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages; do not go from house to house.
• Luk 10:8 Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you;
• Luk 10:9 heal the sick in it and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’
• Luk 10:10 But whenever you enter a town and they do not receive you, go into its streets and say,
• Luk 10:11 ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off against you; nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near.’
• Luk 10:12 I tell you, it shall be more tolerable on that day for Sodom than for that town.
• Luk 10:13 "Woe to you, Chorazin! woe to you, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.
• Luk 10:14 But it shall be more tolerable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you.
• Luk 10:15 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades.
• Luk 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
• Luk 10:17 The seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!”
• Luk 10:18 And he said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
• Luk 10:19 Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you.
• Luk 10:20 Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you; but rejoice that your names are written in heaven."
• blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Luk&chapter=10&version=rsV#3
  Why emphasise one verse near the end, while ignoring the rest of the passage ?

So the church could never sin.

 

[c659smith]

I’m sorry, but it is. If Catholic ecclesiology were as straightforward as your post requires it to to be, Vatican 's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church would not be dozens of paragraphs & eight chapters long. The Catholic vision of the Church sees it as a far richer, far more complex, far more mysterious & far more interesting thing than your post allows for.## Christ is not the Church. the Church is at once sinful & righteous: somewhat as Christ was at once “made sin” yet was perfectly righteous.## That is good evidence of its weakness & sinfulness & of its nothingness apart from Him - for no promises would be needed, if it had any strength, holiness, or righteousness of itself. Only weak, wretched, poor, blind, naked, & needy sinners need His gracious promises.​

And His promises are entirely compatible with many falls on the part of the Church: He said, not that it would never be overcome on some occasions, but that “the gates of hell [would] never prevail”. This is a promise of final victory in His war - not of success in every battle, nor of perfect obedience by the Church. He did not say what He meant by “My Church” - still less did He specify any particular body of that name now existing.

Christ began the Church with the Apostles even one of his Chosen Judas Iscariot committed grave sin. That does not mean His Church is fallible but the men in it may be.## But the Church on earth is made of sinful men: to separate the Church from its members, & to give it an absolute status as though the Church could exist in separation from its members, is an implicit denial of the reality of the Incarnation.## Indeed it would - He is well able to raise up children to Abraham from the stones: so He is not less able to raise up servants to Himself even if all Christians on earth should reject Him. God’s purposes are not hindered by the disobedience of his servants.

…more…]

For me it is that simple, While I follow Sacred Scripture, Sacred Teachings, and Sacred Traditions I can see the Catholic Church as the New Covenant. For in Her there is Jesus ( Eucharist)

Sacred Scripture and Sacred Teachings tells me that Jesus is the Head of the Church and we are the Body.

Sacred Teachings also tell me that Jesus is the Groom and the Church is his Bride–together like in Marriage They are One. “Let no man seperate what God has joined”.

Sacred Traditions lets me know the Old Testament and see what Christ has fulfilled and see what I must try to obey.

Gods laws to man–the Ten Commandments, Giving God Glory,etc…

The Church is infallible but the Body we do fall from time to time but with Love, trust, and understanding the Church like the prodigal son accepts us back as though we never left.

Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Teachings, never change.

 

[charlesh]

please tell us what are the hereies in the church today.

One of the heresies is a denial of transubstantiation. The official statistic is that 70% of laymen deny it. It is encouraged by actions by bishops and priests, such as:

• the use of cheap materials for chalices (as if it’s only a glass for holding wine)
• the permission of the laity to touch the sacred host (does more to damage faith in the eucharist than anything else)
• the priest turning towards the people DURING MOST of the New Order Mass rather than turning towards God in the Blessed Sacrament.
• the priest genuflecting only a couple of times during the New Mass
• priests, bishops, and laity who enter their churches and chat in front of the tabernacle as if they were not in the presence of God in the Blessed Sacrament, but only in a meeting hall.
• celebrating *ourselves *in the “Sign of Peace” almost immediately after *God *has come down on the altar
• standing while receiving communion (as if it were just bread and not Somebody before Whom “every knee shall bow”)
• declaring at Mass “Christ *will *come” immediately after He actually *has *come!
• equating “Mystery of Faith” with “Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again” (the “Mystery of Faith” really concerns the real presence, holy communion, and the sacrifice of the Mass)

This is by no means exhaustive, and I’m sure many people will say I’ve left out a few whoppers. But it adds up to the idea that the host is not really the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, but just some kind of sacred bread. If they don’t *say *it in as many words, their *actions *certainly betray their beliefs.

There are many other heresies that are demonstrated ALL THE TIME by the words and actions of many theologians, priests, bishops, and cardinals. Here’s a short list:

• denial of Original Sin,
• denial of Hell,
• denial of the existence of Satan,
• denial of Papal Supremacy,
• denial of the Sacrament of Confession,
• denial that Mary was free from Original Sin and remained sinless and a virgin,
• denial of the Catholic Church as the only means of salvation,
• denial of the Trinity (!)

The priesthood is attacked because Satan knows that he can get not only the priest in hell, but all those who follow and are corrupted by that priest. As faithful Catholics, we must proactively seek out orthodox priests, avoid heretic priests, and pray that they come around.

[edited to clarify the following:]
Keep in mind, I’m not saying the “Church” teaches these heresies, because it never could, it itself is indefectible. I’m saying the organization right now, here on Earth, is riddled with “churchmen” who are heretics.

 

[Cleopas]

Do Protestants have faith? Absolutely!

1st, Faith is the gift of God. The church does not own or control it. God does. He has dealt to everyman a measure of faith.

2nd, Protestant believers have the Scripture. They have heard and continue to study the (written) word of God. That is how faith comes according to the beloved Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Romans.

3rd, Having faith does not imply there is no need for yet further faith or clarity in the faith.Indeed even those chosen of Christ prayed “Lord increase our faith.”

4th, Protestants have Jesus, who is the author and finisher of the faith.

 

[bobzills]

One of the heresies is a denial of transubstantiation. The official statistic is that 70% of laymen deny it. It is encouraged by actions by bishops and priests, such as:

• the use of cheap materials for chalices (as if it’s only a glass for holding wine)
• the permission of the laity to touch the sacred host (does more to damage faith in the eucharist than anything else)
• the priest turning towards the people DURING MOST of the New Order Mass rather than turning towards God in the Blessed Sacrament.
• the priest genuflecting only a couple of times during the New Mass
• priests, bishops, and laity who enter their churches and chat in front of the tabernacle as if they were not in the presence of God in the Blessed Sacrament, but only in a meeting hall.
• celebrating *ourselves *in the “Sign of Peace” almost immediately after *God *has come down on the altar
• standing while receiving communion (as if it were just bread and not Somebody before Whom “every knee shall bow”)
• declaring at Mass “Christ *will *come” immediately after He actually *has *come!
• equating “Mystery of Faith” with “Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again” (the “Mystery of Faith” really concerns the real presence, holy communion, and the sacrifice of the Mass)

This is by no means exhaustive, and I’m sure many people will say I’ve left out a few whoppers. But it adds up to the idea that the host is not really the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, but just some kind of sacred bread. If they don’t *say *it in as many words, their *actions *certainly betray their beliefs.

There are many other heresies that are demonstrated ALL THE TIME by the words and actions of many theologians, priests, bishops, and cardinals. Here’s a short list:

• denial of Original Sin,
• denial of Hell,
• denial of the existence of Satan,
• denial of Papal Supremacy,
• denial of the Sacrament of Confession,
• denial that Mary was free from Original Sin and remained sinless and a virgin,
• denial of the Catholic Church as the only means of salvation,
• denial of the Trinity (!)

The priesthood is attacked because Satan knows that he can get not only the priest in hell, but all those who follow and are corrupted by that priest. As faithful Catholics, we must proactively seek out orthodox priests, avoid heretic priests, and pray that they come around.

Correct.
I was talking to a student at a Catholic high school concerning the first Commandment and the prohibition against idolatry. He said that a good example of how we avoid idolatry is by regarding the Eucharist as a symbol or a memorial, and It is not something to be worshipped, but only something that reminds us of the Last Supper, just as a picture might remind you of a relative. On further questioning, he said that this was what he had learned in religion class in the Catholic school.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Nice try, but you slander.

I do not own a Baltimore Catechism, nor do I ever read one. I do however own two copies of the Universal Catechism.
I do not attend a Latin Mass. Never do.
I am not anti-Vatican II, per se. However, not many will deny that the resultant falling away of the Faithful for the last 40+ years has been catastrophic. Not that the Council was the absolute cause, but it did allow “Satan to enter the sanctuary.” Not my words, but rather, Pope Paul VI.

By that reasoning, Nicea I in 325 must have been a catastrophe, because it was followed by over 200 years of Arian expansion, the separation of Armenia, Persia, Assyria, & Egypt from the rest of the Church, & in 610, Islam: not to mention persecution. The moral ? Nicea I must have been a pseudo-Council. It was untraditional, for it was the first Ecumenical Council, & it used the word “homoousion”, which had been used in an heretical sense by Paul of Samosata 50 years before.​

What the Pope said is discussed here:

• greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Azmn

…I refer you back to the popes, saints, and councils that were quoted verbatim earlier. In particular, The Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas. Therein lies authority. You simply have none. And with that I will shake the dust from my sandals and move on. Oh, and by the way, you may want to check out the Marian/Salvation thread on the Traditional Catholicism Forum.

None of us has authority - not even St. Thomas, when he is in error; & he sometimes is. In any case, he is one Doctor among many, one theologian among many, & one Saints among many: in no sense does he represent the entire theological tradition of the Church or even of the Roman Rite.​

The Popes of recent decades seem to think that Protestants are Christians - which they cannot be, if they are without faith

 

[Cleopas]

Correct.
I was talking to a student at a Catholic high school concerning the first Commandment and the prohibition against idolatry. He said that a good example of how we avoid idolatry is by regarding the Eucharist as a symbol or a memorial, and It is not something to be worshipped, but only something that reminds us of the Last Supper, just as a picture might remind you of a relative. On further questioning, he said that this was what he had learned in religion class in the Catholic school.

Wow! Good for Him and His teaching staff. They were willing to speak the truth even though it goes against a long standing “deified” religious tradition.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

First of all, all the Catechisms of the Catholic Church are valid. The Catechism of Trent, Pius X, Baltimore Catechism, and the new universal one teach the same truths of the faith. The new '92 Catechism goes into more detail and is written in pragragh form, while the thwe Baltiomre is a more direct and simple Q&A.

There was a Catholic Church before VII, but many Catholics seem to forget this. Vatican II was a pastoral council which means it was not a dogmatic council that had infallible definitions. None of the documents of VII are infallible. Pope Paul VI was not a fan of papal infallibility and did not use infallibility in anything he did.

Vatican II therefore, is not on the same level as the Council of Trent and Vatican I wich were dogmatic councils and used infallible definitions that issued anathemas sit.

An Ecumenical Council does nt have to define any further dogmas to be binding in conscience - & parts of V2’s teaching are infallible, because they are infallible their content. An example is the quoting of a definition by Vatican I in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church paragraph 25 (or so). Infallible teaching is not confined to the act of definition; the content of the definition is prior to the defining act, because the content is the reason for the defining act.​

The three Council are fully equal in authority - only the methods of teaching differed.

 

[c659smith]

fbl9,
Just name the heresy, and it is around the Church. Every heresy that the Church fight in the past is around today, Arianism, palganism, gnosticism, modernism. I have grown tired of keeping track of all the nonsense I have read or heard from priests, bishops, nuns, theologians, lay people in the last couple of years .

Here’s just a few:

heretics who have not been excommunicated in the last decades like Hans Kung who denies the real presense, the resurrection, and everything else.

ecumenism run amok: Dialoging for I don’t know what. Cardinal Kasper who doesn’t believe in converting anyone.

Fr. Raymond Brown and his ilk who teach Biblibal heresies like the Bible books are just myths and stories. Genesis is a myth. Adam and Eve are myths, not real. Jesus is just a man, gospels are myths, miracles are literarry devices, Noah’s ark is a story, and it goes on and on.

Serious lay Catholics and priests who can explain better what I mean:
www.keepthefaith.org

FSSP priests who give great Catholic sermons
free mp3s
www.audiosancto.org

There has been excommunications and will continue to be more. This has been happening since Cain killed Abel. Heritics and Satan will continue to surroud us and tempt us.

Have patience, know what you are doing in your heart is out of love and knowledge of the Church and do not judge leave that for the church. She will respond. Nothing works quickly.

Hans has been censored from teaching theology as a representative of the Catholic Church. Has celebrated his 80 th birthday.

Father Brown we can pray for now as where is he now?

From Kruez, Cardinal Walter Kasper has resigned in advance of his 75th birthday on March 5. The resignation was submitted on February 12.

 

[saint_rafael]

Cleopas,

Protestants don’t have the scripture. The Catholic Church gave the Bible to the world. Catholics wrote the new testament and Catholic bishops put the cannon together and under the inspiration of the holy ghost decided which books were infallible.
Council of Rome 382 A.D.
Council of Hippo 393 A.D.
Council of Carthage 397 A.D.
Council of Trent officially closed the cannon of the Bible forever.

That demon Martin Luther dropped seven books from the Old Testament, so Protestants don’t really have the scriptures. Most Protestant Bibles are also horribly translated.

Protestants don’t have Jesus. While they might believe in him, Jesus is only found in the Catholic Church, which is his only body. You find Jesus in the Eucharist, which is his true body and the only way to have a personal relationship for salvation.

 

[c659smith]

Do Protestants have faith? Absolutely!

1st, Faith is the gift of God. The church does not own or control it. God does. He has dealt to everyman a measure of faith.

2nd, Protestant believers have the Scripture. They have heard and continue to study the (written) word of God. That is how faith comes according to the beloved Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Romans.

3rd, Having faith does not imply there is no need for yet further faith or clarity in the faith.Indeed even those chosen of Christ prayed “Lord increase our faith.”

4th, Protestants have Jesus, who is the author and finisher of the faith.

Where is your mother or father – would you be here without them–Would you be Christian or have the bible without the Church?

You talk non-sense.

 

[c659smith]

Correct.
I was talking to a student at a Catholic high school concerning the first Commandment and the prohibition against idolatry. He said that a good example of how we avoid idolatry is by regarding the Eucharist as a symbol or a memorial, and It is not something to be worshipped, but only something that reminds us of the Last Supper, just as a picture might remind you of a relative. On further questioning, he said that this was what he had learned in religion class in the Catholic school.

Would this student like to tell us what teacher said this and in what Catholic High School?

Probably not !!!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Before Vatican II, the Magisterium was always very clear: It is not a matter of an individual’s character or traits. No one can be in the Church of Christ without professing the ensemble of the truths of Catholic Faith, being in unity with the Chair of Peter and receiving the same Seven Sacraments. The only Christian is one who accepts Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Church he established. Who can have God for Father and not accept the Church for Mother? (Pope Pius IX, Singulari quidem of March 17, 1856) Who can accept the spouse Christ, and not his mystical bride the Church? Who can separate the Head, the only begotten Son of God, from the body, which is His Church? (Pope Leo XIII, Satis cognitum of June 29, 1896). It is not possible.

In short, only those who profess the one Catholic Faith and are united with the Mystical Body of Christ are members of the Church of Christ. And only those members can legitimately bear the title of honor of Christian.

The Protestant sect started as a revolt, protesting the Church of Christ and, pretending to accept Christ without Peter, the authority He established on earth. With this split, they left the Church and became heretics. This used to be clearly said and understood, without sentimental fear of offending one’s neighbors or relatives: A Protestant is a heretic because he severed himself from the Body of the Church. He is not a Christian, and certainly not a “good Christian.”
www.traditioninaction.org/religious/m013rpProtestantsChristians.html

People who have never professed the Catholic Faith are not heretics - one cannot reject a Faith one has never known. Protestants are no more heretics by Catholic standards than Christians are sectarians by Jewish standards. That is what the earliest Christians were - members of a Jewish sect ​

To say that men such as C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or Karl Barth (who was praised by Pius XII) were not Christians, make no sense. People cannot pass on a faith they lack - these have: that’s why they are still read - & by Catholics.

 

[Cleopas]

Cleopas,

Protestants don’t have the scripture.

Wow! How convenient a denial of the obvious.

The Catholic Church gave the Bible to the world. Catholics wrote the new testament and Catholic bishops put the cannon together and under the inspiration of the holy ghost decided which books were infallible.

Really? I thought the Holy Ghost inspired the Apostles and their contemporaries to record the infallible word of God in written form? You mean such inspired writings were not infallible until hundreds of years later when the church decided to they could be? Does the tail really wag the dog?

Besides, my acquaintances in th Orthodox Communion of Churches tell me they gave us the Bible, and decided which books to include, etc.

Protestants don’t have Jesus. While they might believe in him, Jesus is only found in the Catholic Church, which is his only body. You find Jesus in the Eucharist, which is his true body and the only way to have a personal relationship for salvation.

You mean Jesus lied when he said where two or three were gathered togther in His name He was in the midst of them?

You mean Jesus was wrong when he said “if they be for me they cannot be against me” ?

And what then of His charge to “let them alone” who were casting out devil’s in His name but did not follow in visible unity with the apostles?

 

[charlesh]

That’s just horrible, Bobzills.

Cleopas, please allow me to respond. Some of those things are correct, but let me give you a couple things to think about.

1st, Faith is the gift of God. The church does not own or control it. God does. He has dealt to everyman a measure of faith.

True, Faith is a gift. And he can give us more as well as allow us to reject it so that it whithers up in us and dies. (One of the principle actions of sin is to kill off Faith.) The Church does not own–as you say–Faith. Rather, it is the instrument that God established to guard, hold, and spread faith on Earth. In other words, it defines what is true and what is error, through the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Ghost. In fact, not even the Pope has the ability to change the faith, or declare a new doctrine. He only has the ability to clarify and better define what has always been believed.

2nd, Protestant believers have the Scripture. They have heard and continue to study the (written) word of God. That is how faith comes according to the beloved Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Romans.

Well, Protestants have the printed word, but they don’t quite get what it means. They love to make up their own meanings, or follow someone else who did.

As I was saying, the Church is inspired and guided by the Holy Ghost. Just as the writers of Holy Scripture were (name removed by moderator)ired by the Holy Ghost, the Church was guided centuries later to tell us which books were in the Bible and which were not. The reason we believe that the Bible is the Word of God is because the Catholic Church told us it was 1,500 years ago and still does today. Regarding Romans, Paul actually said that faith comes by hearing, and he is talking about listening to the preaching of legitimately-sent teachers. Click here to see it in context.

4th, Protestants have Jesus, who is the author and finisher of the faith.

Protestants **deny ** the commandments and teachings of Jesus, as taught by His first apostles and their successors for 2,000 years. Protestants do not “endure sound doctrine” and they “heap to themselves teachers, according to their own desires, having itching ears.” St. Paul to St. Timothy.

Look at these two passages side by side:

1. All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations… Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. Here is the reference.
2. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.Here is the reference.

The good thing about many Protestants is that they have a sincere desire to love Jesus and know Him more. Many in my own family are this way. If Protestants keep an open mind and, as Jesus said, “seek…, knock…, and ask,” they will be lead by Him, the Holy Ghost, and Mary to the fullness of the truth and eventually to Heaven.

 

[colliric]

Wow! How convenient a denial of the obvious.

Really? I thought the Holy Ghost inspired the Apostles and their contemporaries to record the infallible word of God in written form? You mean such inspired writings were **not infallible **until hundreds of years later when the church decided to they could be? Does the tail really wag the dog?

Besides, my acquaintances in th Orthodox Communion of Churches tell me they gave us the Bible, and decided which books to include, etc.

You mean Jesus lied when he said where two or three were gathered togther in His name He was in the midst of them?

You mean Jesus was wrong when he said “if they be for me they cannot be against me” ?

And what then of His charge to “let them alone” who were casting out devil’s in His name but did not follow in visible unity with the apostles?

I agree with all your other points, but let me point out that the Catholic Church teaches that the bible is actually Inerrant and is NOT Infallible as it cannot make decisions for itself and “infallible” only pertains to a living being that can make decisions without error, or who cannot be killed. The bible is not Alive in a literal sense, so it is actually inerrant NOT infallible.

The church has never taught that the bible is “Infallible” or “fallible”, but that it is inerrant in the revelation of God that it contains. By inerrant this pertains only the original Hebrew and Greek documents written by the Ot writers and the Apostles as Modern Translations can actually be full of errors and dubious personal interpretations.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Cleopas,

Protestants don’t have the scripture. The Catholic Church gave the Bible to the world. Catholics wrote the new testament and Catholic bishops put the cannon together and under the inspiration of the holy ghost decided which books were infallible.
Council of Rome 382 A.D.
Council of Hippo 393 A.D.
Council of Carthage 397 A.D.
Council of Trent officially closed the cannon of the Bible forever.

That demon Martin Luther dropped seven books from the Old Testament, so Protestants don’t really have the scriptures. Most Protestant Bibles are also horribly translated.

Luther does not deserve that ​

Protestants don’t have Jesus. While they might believe in him, Jesus is only found in the Catholic Church, which is his only body. You find Jesus in the Eucharist, which is his true body and the only way to have a personal relationship for salvation.

So, they may believe in Him - yet He keeps to the CC ? That makes no sense. This amounts to saying that all Protestants are damned - it cannot mean anything else, as Jesus Christ is the only Saviour. And faith cannot be divorced from Christ Who is its Object in this way: to believe, have faith, & trust in Him are the same thing - & they cannot be, where He does not cause them & make men His own by them.​