Historical background of the Church, the Bible and Doctrines

[sympathy07]

The Bible and doctrines are both of historical background of Church. I didn’t find imagine liberal catholic.

 

[Radical]

I’'m a little slow here, am I understanding your right that every doctrines the church defined throughout its history are based on presumptions?

I wasn’t thinking of it in that way, but now that you mention it….I guess it could be argued that all the doctrine of our church(es) is based on presumptions. You (I am assuming you are a conservative RC) and I both believe that God exists (which is something that we wouldn’t be able to prove to the satisfaction of an atheist). You and I both believe that the scriptures are the reliable Word of God (which is something that we wouldn’t be able to prove to the satisfaction of a liberal theologian). As between you and I, I would classify these two things as mutual acknowledgements or admissions and not as presumptions (though between us and an atheist I believe that they would be properly classified as presumptions).

Now if we look at something such as the doctrine of the resurrection, b/c we both acknowledge the NT to be the reliable Word of God I would not say that it is based on a presumption (as between you and I) b/c it is clearly set out in the NT and so we can base it directly on God’s revelation. On the other hand, as between a fundamentalist and a RC, the fundamentalist will not acknowledge that the RCC=the Church Christ founded or that the RCC can not err wrt official doctrine. The RC cannot resort to tradition as that is not acknowledged as inerrant and the RC’s reliance on scripture is dependent on his particular interpretation b/c the passages in question do not clearly teach what the RCC claims for itself (You might say these claims are hidden in the passages). As such, I would categorize item (a) which read “a) the Church can not err in matters of doctrine" as a presumption.

The New Testament is hidden in the Old Testament and the Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament.’ I forget where I read that but I think it make sense in understanding the scriptures. The Marian Doctrines will fall into place once we understood how the Early Church saw them.

I think an honest fundamentalist should acknowledge that the 5th Century Church was more Catholic than Protestant, but the key question (from the fundamentalist’s point of view….and mine too, for that matter) is what did the first century church believe.

There are a lot more learned non-catholics who converted to the Catholic Church than to the EO,and other non catholic denominations.

This is my impression too, but I wonder what percentage of those learned converts adopted (what I call) presumptions (a) and (b)?

 

[ferdie]

Now if we look at something such as the doctrine of the resurrection, b/c we both acknowledge the NT to be the reliable Word of God I would not say that it is based on a presumption (as between you and I) b/c it is clearly set out in the NT and so we can base it directly on God’s revelation. On the other hand, as between a fundamentalist and a RC, the fundamentalist will not acknowledge that the RCC=the Church Christ founded or that the RCC can not err wrt official doctrine. The RC cannot resort to tradition as that is not acknowledged as inerrant and the RC’s reliance on scripture is dependent on his particular interpretation b/c the passages in question do not clearly teach what the RCC claims for itself (You might say these claims are hidden in the passages). As such, I would categorize item (a) which read “a) the Church can not err in matters of doctrine" as a presumption.

Now this is where Is 22, Mat 16, Jn 20, Jn 21 and others come into play. How do the early church understood these bible passages compared to how the fundamentalist today understood them. You say that fundamentalist do not acknowledge Tradition and yet they are rich with protestant traditions that came into play only in the 16th century, while Catholic Tradition dates back to the Apostles.

I think an honest fundamentalist should acknowledge that the 5th Century Church was more Catholic than Protestant, but the key question (from the fundamentalist’s point of view….and mine too, for that matter) is what did the first century church believe.

We can read from Church History that the first century church is very much catholic. Look at the writings of Ignatius, Clement and others, What about The Didache and other written documents that very much prove that the early church is very much catholic than fundamentalist? Can a fundamentalist produce a document written by a fundamentalist in the early church?

 

[racing59]

Now this is where Is 22, Mat 16, Jn 20, Jn 21 and others come into play. How do the early church understood these bible passages compared to how the fundamentalist today understood them. You say that fundamentalist do not acknowledge Tradition and yet they are rich with protestant traditions that came into play only in the 16th century, while Catholic Tradition dates back to the Apostles.

We can read from Church History that the first century church is very much catholic. Look at the writings of Ignatius, Clement and others, What about The Didache and other written documents that very much prove that the early church is very much catholic than fundamentalist? Can a fundamentalist produce a document written by a fundamentalist in the early church?

I am not a Fundamentalist, so I can not speak for them, I am a Covenantalist.The first century Christian Church took place mostly in homes were the Agapy meal was celebrated.There was great persecution of Christians at this time so being out in the open was not an option.Ignatius came to us in the second century.The early Church was in a chaotic period, that is why we have many of Paul’s letters to churches in different ereas. John wrote in Revelation chapter 2 and 3 to seven churches within a 50 mile radious which (did not servive this period) a warning to straighten up their act.The term Catholic is Universal, but to a non-RCC it refers to the Christian Church as a whole being the Bride of Christ. RCC has a lot of Tradition from the Early Church,but to except the Primacy of Peter is an act of Faith.Not even in the Early Fathers are all doctrines of Faith there, they had to of developt over time.There are two doctrines I have yet to find in RCC, first being a doctrine on the “Tree of Life” in Gen2:9 and the Second being Covenants in Heaven.

 

[ferdie]

I am not a Fundamentalist, so I can not speak for them, I am a Covenantalist.The first century Christian Church took place mostly in homes were the Agapy meal was celebrated.There was great persecution of Christians at this time so being out in the open was not an option.Ignatius came to us in the second century.The early Church was in a chaotic period, that is why we have many of Paul’s letters to churches in different ereas. John wrote in Revelation chapter 2 and 3 to seven churches within a 50 mile radious which (did not servive this period) a warning to straighten up their act.The term Catholic is Universal, but to a non-RCC it refers to the Christian Church as a whole being the Bride of Christ. RCC has a lot of Tradition from the Early Church,but to except the Primacy of Peter is an act of Faith.Not even in the Early Fathers are all doctrines of Faith there, they had to of developt over time.There are two doctrines I have yet to find in RCC, first being a doctrine on the “Tree of Life” in Gen2:9 and the Second being Covenants in Heaven.

The seed is already in there. I’m not going to object that the Primacy of the Office of the Bishop of Rome developed in time. It developed in accordance to the need of the growing church and to combat heretical views popping in and out of the church. Once we put ourselves in the time of of the Old Testament in understanding the passages on Isaiah 22, and then put ourselves in the time of the first Christians, reading in parallel Mt 16 and Isaiah 22, we will understand the Catholic Church when they talk about the Primacy of Peter and his God given Authority. We live in a visible world that requires a visible head. We can not achieve unity by using the abstract alone, we need the object. We need to see, hear, know and feel the Authority of Jesus Christ in his Church.

 

[Radical]

Heya Ferdie,

Now this is where Is 22, Mat 16, Jn 20, Jn 21 and others come into play. How do the early church understood these bible passages compared to how the fundamentalist today understood them.

So let’s take one of these as an example. Show me an ECF who understood Jn 21 (I assume you mean the bit regarding Peter) in the fashion that the RCC would want to interpret it in order to support Petrine primacy and then demonstrate how you would establish the continual existence of that interpretation back to the date that Christ spoke the words to Peter (all w/o making any assumptions/presumptions).

You say that fundamentalist do not acknowledge Tradition…

You need to be precise on this….I said that they did not acknowledge tradition as inerrant.

… and yet they are rich with protestant traditions that came into play only in the 16th century, while Catholic Tradition dates back to the Apostles.

The dispute is not about the age of any tradition, it is about its inerrancy. I think all would agree that flawed tradition ain’t that important and that inspired tradition should be treated on par with scripture. The question is whether any inspired tradition still remains.

We can read from Church History that the first century church is very much catholic. Look at the writings of Ignatius, Clement and others, What about The Didache and other written documents that very much prove that the early church is very much catholic than fundamentalist?

So what about the Didache is Roman Catholic vs. fundamentalist?
The F does not believe in a real bodily presence and the RC does. The Didache doesn’t speak of a real bodily presence, but calls the Lord’s Supper spiritual food. The F only recognizes the virginity of Mary at the Lord’s birth, whereas the RC has a handful of Marian doctrines in addition to the virgin birth and Mariology seems to permeate all RC doctrine. The F has a church leadership that is appointed by the congregation and the RC has a church leadership appointed from above. The F holds to adult baptism only and the RC likes to get the baptism done at infancy. I consider those distinctions and wonder what it is that you think is so Catholic about the Didache?

Can a fundamentalist produce a document written by a fundamentalist in the early church?

He would say yes, and point to the documents that constitute the NT for starters…and, who knows, he might also point to the Didache.

 

[ferdie]

So let’s take one of these as an example. Show me an ECF who understood Jn 21 (I assume you mean the bit regarding Peter) in the fashion that the RCC would want to interpret it in order to support Petrine primacy and then demonstrate how you would establish the continual existence of that interpretation back to the date that Christ spoke the words to Peter (all w/o making any assumptions/presumptions).

When Jesus was talking to Peter in John 21, He already alluded to the Office of the Chief Steward in Mt 16.In this, Jesus after His resurrection, fulfilled His promise, and appointed Peter head of the church. So when Jesus told Peter to feed and tend his lambs and sheep He was talking to Peter in his capacity as the Chief Shepherd and Chief Steward.
We as the flock needs a shepherd. The flock is a visible community that requires a visible shepherd. A Shepherd protects and guides his flock. When the chief shepherd dies who takes care of the flock? Another appointed chief shepherd, right? But the chief shepherd must be sent like the previous chief shepherd was sent. He must be sent with full authority, otherwise his leadership will be questioned. The authority given to the chief steward or chief shepherd must extend up to the end of the world. This is done by stablishing the ofice of the chief steward (MT16) and chief shepherd (Jn 21). These are not assumptions since this is what the early christians who are jews understood these passsages at that time.
Aren’t the Apostles sent to proclaim the Good news until the ends of the ages? Each Apostles hold an Office. This is how the Good News is to be spread, according to the teaching Authority of that office.
All well-regulated society have a visible leader. States have presidents or Prime Ministers, companies have CEOs or presidents, schools have principals or superintendents. The church have the pope as its visible head.

The dispute is not about the age of any tradition, it is about its inerrancy. I think all would agree that flawed tradition ain’t that important and that inspired tradition should be treated on par with scripture. The question is whether any inspired tradition still remains.

Well actually the age of the tradition comes into play also. If the tradition we are talking just started a couple of centuries ago, and the tradition is paraded as a doctrine believed in the early church, then it becomes questionable right? We then go back to in the Tradition of the Church and check if the questionable doctrine is really believed in the early church. Let say for example the doctrine of scripture alone. It has been proven historically that it is not the belief of the early Christians. Thus the age of the tradition is one factor in determining if it’s inerrant. IMO, Tradition must be Apostolic to be inerrant.
Now for the question whether any inspired Tradition still remains, I don’t know, I can’t answer that. But one things is for sure, the Living Church is here protected by the Holy Spirit in teaching all revealed truths. So as a Catholic, I am assured that the ship I’m riding will not sink no matter what storm or problem we encounter.

 

[JRKH]

(Snip)

I think an honest fundamentalist should acknowledge that the 5th Century Church was more Catholic than Protestant, but the key question (from the fundamentalist’s point of view….and mine too, for that matter) is what did the first century church believe.

(Snip)

I think it would be safe to say that the 1st Century Church believed that it was Led by Jesus Christ, Guided by the Holy Spirit, and Unified under the Authority of the Bishops appointed by the Apostles over the various Church locations. That unity and authority meant that there was but one Christian Church and all Christians accepted that authority as real and necessary to unity.

It is also safe to assume that there were any number of “beliefs”, “books”, “letters” that were prevelant in some areas but not in others and that there were any number of “Doctrinal issues” that had yet to come up, or had not yet been completely dealt with.
It must be remembered that the Church in the 1st Century was under persecution. Tricky business trying to set up God’s Kingdom in a “war zone”.

Peace
James

 

[Radical]

When Jesus was talking to Peter in John 21, He already alluded to the Office of the Chief Steward in Mt 16… These are not assumptions since this is what the early christians who are jews understood these passsages at that time.

Please provide the citations proving that these early Christians (who were Jews) understood these passages in that way…otherwise it quacks like an assumption, waddles like an assumption…

All well-regulated society have a visible leader. States have presidents or Prime Ministers, companies have CEOs or presidents, schools have principals or superintendents. The church have the pope as its visible head.

all well-regulated societies? You haven’t forgotten that when God brought his first set of chosen people into the promised land he specifically refrained from giving them a king. The people insisted on a king being appointed from among them so that they would be as the other nations. In doing so, they rejected God as their king. (1 Sam 8) Who had it right, the other nations or God?

Well actually the age of the tradition comes into play also. If the tradition we are talking just started a couple of centuries ago, and the tradition is paraded as a doctrine believed in the early church, then it becomes questionable right?

no, it doesn’t become questionable…it starts as a questionable thing b/c it is tradition and not scripture.

. IMO, Tradition must be Apostolic to be inerrant.

I and (I believe) the fundamentalists agree…but we wouldn’t agree that any pure apostolic tradition remains outside of scripture.

Now for the question whether any inspired Tradition still remains, I don’t know, I can’t answer that. But one things is for sure, the Living Church is here protected by the Holy Spirit in teaching all revealed truths. So as a Catholic, I am assured that the ship I’m riding will not sink no matter what storm or problem we encounter.

haven’t you just restated presumption (a) here?

 

[Radical]

Hey JRKH, hope you are doing well on the home front

I think it would be safe to say that the 1st Century Church believed that it was Led by Jesus Christ, Guided by the Holy Spirit, and Unified under the Authority of the Bishops appointed by the Apostles over the various Church locations.

It is with the “Unified under the Authority of the Bishops appointed by the Apostles” that we might disagree. The Didache doesn’t specify appointment by apostles but calls for appointment by the congregation. If Peter was Rome’s first bishop (which I don’t think was the case) then the church at Rome would have carried on for a time w/o a bishop (until Peter got there). Clement doesn’t seem to be writing as a monarchical bishop and Ignatius doesn’t address a bishop at Rome. Unity under a group of monarchical bishops seems to be a development rather than a thing initiated by either the Lord or his apostles.

That unity and authority meant that there was but one Christian Church and all Christians accepted that authority as real and necessary to unity.

it was a practical solution

Tricky business trying to set up God’s Kingdom in a “war zone”.

good thing then that God’s grace is sufficient for us and that his power is made perfect in our weakness.

Peace

 

[Peter_J]

All well-regulated society have a visible leader. States have presidents or Prime Ministers, companies have CEOs or presidents, schools have principals or superintendents. The church have the pope as its visible head.

I agree with you here, Radical. Namely the argument that X is a characteristic of society, so X should be a characteristic of the Church, doesn’t work for me at all.
Your Old Testament reference is a good counter-argument, and another good counter-argument can be found in Luke 22:24-27,

24Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

Hence we see in Acts that, although Peter was the leader, the Apostles all met together at the Council of Jerusalem and made a decision together.

Likewise, 3 centuries later Rome was acknowledged as the first-ranking See, but a conciliar decision was made regarding Arianism. And so on in Church history.

In short, Papal Primacy and Luke 22, properly understood, don’t contradict each other.

 

[JRKH]

Hey JRKH, hope you are doing well on the home front It is with the “Unified under the Authority of the Bishops appointed by the Apostles” that we might disagree. The Didache doesn’t specify appointment by apostles but calls for appointment by the congregation. If Peter was Rome’s first bishop (which I don’t think was the case) then the church at Rome would have carried on for a time w/o a bishop (until Peter got there). Clement doesn’t seem to be writing as a monarchical bishop and Ignatius doesn’t address a bishop at Rome. Unity under a group of monarchical bishops seems to be a development rather than a thing initiated by either the Lord or his apostles.

Fair enough -
The early Church did indeed use a different method than today for choosing the Bishops, including the Pope. It seems that the real key though is the Idea that they believed that the most important thing for them to do is to remain united in The Truth. Thus they were united under the Bishops who remained, as best as they could, in communication with each other.
Naturally, as time went on the Church developed in Doctrine and in Structure just as any NCC church will do.

That unity and authority meant that there was but one Christian Church and all Christians accepted that authority as real and necessary to unity.

it was a practical solution

And it is still a good solution.

good thing then that God’s grace is sufficient for us and that his power is made perfect in our weakness.

Peace

Amen to that

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I agree with you here, Radical. Namely the argument that X is a characteristic of society, so X should be a characteristic of the Church, doesn’t work for me at all.
Your Old Testament reference is a good counter-argument, and another good counter-argument can be found in Luke 22:24-27,

24Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

Hence we see in Acts that, although Peter was the leader, the Apostles all met together at the Council of Jerusalem and made a decision together.

Likewise, 3 centuries later Rome was acknowledged as the first-ranking See, but a conciliar decision was made regarding Arianism. And so on in Church history.

In short, Papal Primacy and Luke 22, properly understood, don’t contradict each other.

Peter,
Nicely Put - I think that sometimes our NCC brothers get to focused on “The Infallible Pope” and loose the reality of how broad deep the decision making really is in the Church.

Peace
James

 

[racing59]

I wish every one on these threads good discuse things as you all are. I am really enjoying reading this thread. It is intellegent and well thought out on both sides. I just have one question. Matthew 16:17-20 were Peter is given the keys to the Kingdom is it not an assumption that only Peter was given that authority,when in John 21:25 not everything Jesus said and did was written down? Couldn’t Jesus gave all the Apostles this authority and it not be written down? Are there not sects of Messianic Jews that were a part of the early Christian Church and yet the do not fall under RCC Primacy?

 

[ferdie]

Please provide the citations proving that these early Christians (who were Jews) understood these passages in that way…otherwise it quacks like an assumption, waddles like an assumption…

.
This is a tall order for a busy man like me. I’m posting here from memory. I have to research this to come up with an answer.

all well-regulated societies? You haven’t forgotten that when God brought his first set of chosen people into the promised land he specifically refrained from giving them a king. The people insisted on a king being appointed from among them so that they would be as the other nations. In doing so, they rejected God as their king. (1 Sam 8) Who had it right, the other nations or God?

God restored His Kingdom by sending His Son Jesus Christ the King. And when Jesus Christ the King departed, He appointed His Chief Steward to take care of the Kingdom.

no, it doesn’t become questionable…it starts as a questionable thing b/c it is tradition and not scripture.

Scripture is a part of Tradition in the written form.

I and (I believe) the fundamentalists agree…but we wouldn’t agree that any pure apostolic tradition remains outside of scripture.

The proclamation was* by word of mouth*. Mat 28 and Mark 16, tell us that our Lord Jesus Christ’s command was to ‘go into the whole world and* preach* the gospel to every creature’.
The Apostles founded Churches, ordained bishops and priest (Acts 14, Titus 1 and others), and if any of them wrote letters it was on a particular occasion, to a particular group of people from other regions, with different situations, and cultures from people in future ages.Nor could they have had any idea that in later generations some people would claim the* everything of importance* that our Lord taught them was contained in their letter, or that nothing unwritten could be regarded as God’s word, or part of the apostolic ‘gospel’.
As far as I can remember, there is nothing in the scripture that says Oral Tradition will cease once we have the Scripture. Remember that in scripture and throughout the 1st and 2nd centuries, Christians were exhorted to cling to the tradition of the apostles, to listen to the Pastors of the Church who inherited the truth when they hold the office of the bishops. Christians were not told to hold to scripture, but to tradition.

 

[ferdie]

racing59;5168000
I wish every one on these threads good discuse things as you all are. I am really enjoying reading this thread. It is intellegent and well thought out on both sides. I just have one question. Matthew 16:17-20 were Peter is given the keys to the Kingdom is it not an assumption that only Peter was given that authority,when in John 21:25 not everything Jesus said and did was written down? Couldn’t Jesus gave all the Apostles this authority and it not be written down? Are there not sects of Messianic Jews that were a part of the early Christian Church and yet the do not fall under RCC Primacy?

Well it is unlikely that all the Apostles were given the keys of the kingdom. We have to understand this passage according how the early Christians who were Jews understood it. The Davidic Kingdom continued with the coming of the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Jesus is the new king of the new kingdom. Back then it was just for the Jews, now with Jesus it encompasses the whole world. Jesus knew that he was leaving, and as a wise ruler he knew that his kingdom will need a visible ruler, just like in the Old Testament (Is 22). In the OT there is only one Steward who is given the keys. Jesus was setting up an office that will hold the keys until the age to come. The other Apostles were given power to bind and loose after Jesus was resurrected, but Peter was the only one give the keys.
As for the Messianic Jews that was part of the early church and not under the Catholic church, I don’t know about it. All who belongs to the church listen to the bishops appointed by the Apostles. So if they disobeyed their bishops who were sent by the Apostles by laying of hands, then they were not in full communion with the church founded by the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[SyCarl]

Well it is unlikely that all the Apostles were given the keys of the kingdom. We have to understand this passage according how the early Christians who were Jews understood it. The Davidic Kingdom continued with the coming of the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Jesus is the new king of the new kingdom. Back then it was just for the Jews, now with Jesus it encompasses the whole world. Jesus knew that he was leaving, and as a wise ruler he knew that his kingdom will need a visible ruler, just like in the Old Testament (Is 22). In the OT there is only one Steward who is given the keys. Jesus was setting up an office that will hold the keys until the age to come. The other Apostles were given power to bind and loose after Jesus was resurrected, but Peter was the only one give the keys.
As for the Messianic Jews that was part of the early church and not under the Catholic church, I don’t know about it. All who belongs to the church listen to the bishops appointed by the Apostles. So if they disobeyed their bishops who were sent by the Apostles by laying of hands, then they were not in full communion with the church founded by the Lord Jesus Christ.

I would note that Augustine indicates that the keys were given to the whole Church and for a specific purpose.

He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.

On Christian Doctrine, Book 1, Chapter 18
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.v.iv.xviii.html?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=19#v.iv.xviii-p3.1

 

[ferdie]

I would note that Augustine indicates that the keys were given to the whole Church and for a specific purpose.

On Christian Doctrine, Book 1, Chapter 18
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.v.iv.xviii.html?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=19#v.iv.xviii-p3.1

After our Lord Jesus Christ’s resurrection, he said to all the Apostles, " Receive the Holy Spirit, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained". But to Peter **alone **did our Lord Jesus Christ address these words: " I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven."

 

[Peter_J]

Peter,
Nicely Put

Thanks, James. (For some reason I had forgotten about this thread.)

• I think that sometimes our NCC brothers get to focused on “The Infallible Pope” and loose the reality of how broad deep the decision making really is in the Church.

Peace
James

Definitely.

We don’t believe in a Sola Papa doctrine. For example, it is an official Catholic teaching that a council cannot be an Ecumenical Council without papal support; but there’s no teaching that says that papal support alone makes a council an Ecumenical Council.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

What do you guys think is the likelihood of 10 nominal fundamentalist and 10 nominal Catholics, both with just enough knowledge of Jesus, becoming full pledge Catholics or full pledge fundamentalists if both groups will undergo a 3 month catholic catechism and 3 month fundamentalist catechism covering the historical background of both churches, the protestant and catholic bibles and different doctrines? I’m just curious coz a lot of Catholics that convert to some form of Christianity are mostly not knowledgeable of Jewish and Christian History and whatever they learn of the Catholic Doctrines come from their newly found religion.

Many Protestants, Fundamentalist & not, are very learned - that does not make them Catholics.​

“Knowledge puffs up - grace builds up”, as St. Paul points out. But for God’s grace, all the learning in the world would be profitless, or worse. So no measure of knowledge could possibly lead a single human being to Christ. It was not by intellectual brilliance or vastness of learning that Simon son of John recognised Jesus of Nazareth as God’s Messiah - it was by the utterly gracious revelation of the Father, and by nothing less.