History of the Roman Catholic Church

[NDfan]

who is doing private enterpretation and who is not? do you know?

Interesting question. I recently read an article that talked about this very topic and I thought it was right on the money. The article, written by a protestant mind you, talked about authority and the need for us to submit to the authority of the church. The writer of the article was blasting modern day evangelicals stating that many are rogue individuals who reject the authority of the church and decide they know better about what scripture is saying. Hence private interpretation. This then leads to them creating their own church with their own following with their own doctrines etc. etc. etc.

Since many of these evangelicals can be traced to maybe the Methodist church, or the Presbyterian church, or whatever they tend to hold to some of those foundations but apply their own spin. Then voila you have a new version of the Methodist, Presbyterian, whatever church which has led to who knows really how many denominations we have today.

This article went on to speak about the problem with church in today’s society is that we are trying to bend the church to fit what people like instead of people just accepting the fact that it’s GOD’s church and HE doesn’t bend to fit us. We need to focus more on wanting to be with GOD and accepting what HE gave us. Needless to say I was astounded by this article and it got me thinking that it’s pretty much right on the money.

So the answer to who is doing private interpretation is anyone that rejects the authority of the church and tries to do it their way. This article made mention that no one has the authority to just get up and walk out on GOD and start a new way of trying to reach HIM. We all need to submit to the authority of the church period!!

The individual wrote about the reformation and suggested that the Catholic church went in the wrong direction with some doctrines that the reformers thought needed correcting. But that this correction or any reform for that matter should always happen within the church universal and never outside. I guess this could start a whole new argument and dedicated thread on who’s right and who’s wrong. But the point of the article was that the churches ultimately needed to start some type of dialogue for the ultimate cause of unity. Not sure if that will happen in our lifetime but I think we can pray and remain hopeful.

PEACE

 

[NDfan]

Therefore, you seem to claim that at least 29,999 of the divisions are wrong, while your favorite denomination is correct. Where is the authority for your denomination to make such a claim? And, who gave that authority, and how?

Well I’m not claiming to know who’s right and who’s wrong. I’m merely making the point that the notion of Sola Scriptura gets abused improperly when folks start claiming it is the cause of thousands of denominations. It has nothing to do with it and just demonstrates a lack of understanding of what the doctrine really states and means. Private interpretation is singularly the biggest cause of the many denominations that exist today. Again private interpretation is not Sola Scriptura. Folks who make private interpretations of scripture may say they adhere to Sola Scriptura but one has nothing to do with the other.

I believe the RCC has made errors in defining some of it’s doctrines. Not that some of the content of the doctrines themselves are incorrect but requiring them as beliefs and calling one a heretic for not believing them is ridiculous. I also believe many denominations are erroneous in trying to start their own brand of Christianity by performing private interpretation of scripture and then thinking they know better.

 

[po18guy]

Well I’m not claiming to know who’s right and who’s wrong.

Good!

I’m merely making the point that the notion of Sola Scriptura gets abused improperly when folks start claiming it is the cause of thousands of denominations.

I cannot see any other common factor amongst all of the denominations. Also, look at the timing of the creation of those denominations. The Luther-made concept was the beginning of the mega-fragmentation of Christianity. It is the rejection of Church authority and the triumph of individual opinion over objective truth.

It has nothing to do with it and just demonstrates a lack of understanding of what the doctrine really states and means. Private interpretation is singularly the biggest cause of the many denominations that exist today. Again private interpretation is not Sola Scriptura.

No, but sola scriptura IS private interpretation, since those who introduced it and those who hold to it deny Church authority. There is no other way around this.

Folks who make private interpretations of scripture may say they adhere to Sola Scriptura but one has nothing to do with the other.

I absolutely must disagree here. SS and PI are virtually inseparable. All private interpretation is not due to SS, but has similarity in the denial of Church authority. Likewise, SS had its very creation in private interpretation.

I believe the RCC has made errors in defining some of it’s doctrines. Not that some of the content of the doctrines themselves are incorrect but requiring them as beliefs and calling one a heretic for not believing them is ridiculous. I also believe many denominations are erroneous in trying to start their own brand of Christianity by performing private interpretation of scripture and then thinking they know better.

Well then, you have just launched on a lifetime quest to find the one denomination out of the thousands that has what you personally believe is correct interpretation. This requires no obedience, but only agreement. See where this leads you?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Interesting question. I recently read an article that talked about this very topic and I thought it was right on the money. The article, written by a protestant mind you, talked about authority and the need for us to submit to the authority of the church. The writer of the article was blasting modern day evangelicals stating that many are rogue individuals who reject the authority of the church and decide they know better about what scripture is saying. Hence private interpretation. This then leads to them creating their own church with their own following with their own doctrines etc. etc. etc.

Since many of these evangelicals can be traced to maybe the Methodist church, or the Presbyterian church, or whatever they tend to hold to some of those foundations but apply their own spin. Then voila you have a new version of the Methodist, Presbyterian, whatever church which has led to who knows really how many denominations we have today.

This article went on to speak about the problem with church in today’s society is that we are trying to bend the church to fit what people like instead of people just accepting the fact that it’s GOD’s church and HE doesn’t bend to fit us. We need to focus more on wanting to be with GOD and accepting what HE gave us. Needless to say I was astounded by this article and it got me thinking that it’s pretty much right on the money.

So the answer to who is doing private interpretation is anyone that rejects the authority of the church and tries to do it their way. This article made mention that no one has the authority to just get up and walk out on GOD and start a new way of trying to reach HIM. We all need to submit to the authority of the church period!!

The individual wrote about the reformation and suggested that the Catholic church went in the wrong direction with some doctrines that the reformers thought needed correcting. But that this correction or any reform for that matter should always happen within the church universal and never outside. I guess this could start a whole new argument and dedicated thread on who’s right and who’s wrong. But the point of the article was that the churches ultimately needed to start some type of dialogue for the ultimate cause of unity. Not sure if that will happen in our lifetime but I think we can pray and remain hopeful.

PEACE

very interesting. i guess what is happening today is what started 500 years ago. once one leave the Church he can do what ever he wants for he is without authority. and this is the doctrine of the deformers. i say deformers because ML, Calvin and whoever had no authority to reform the Church. when i hear non Catholics talking i can sense that they believe that they reformed the CC, so the CC is no longer the Church and that they are the church. but we know them by the fruits. so there you have it the fruits of those who disobey the Church. and division will continue because all you have to is learning somethings of the Bible and a pastor is borne. self ordination.

remember Joe Osteen? when some of the protestants complaint about him being a pastor, he immediatly declared himself as a reverend. so you have it.

the SS was not meant for people to put their hands on so easily. Now we have the SS being used for even self gain and deceive people. and no one can stop…

i am sure Jesus must not be very happy with what is going.

I am sure the CC is a nuisance for non Catholics. i think they see the CC as their enemy. the enemy of their perverted freedom.

**
"When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven? (The Priesthood 3:4:177 [post A.D. 386]). **

 

[po18guy]

very interesting. i guess what is happening today is what started 500 years ago. once one leave the Church he can do what ever he wants for he is without authority. and this is the doctrine of the deformers. i say deformers because ML, Calvin and whoever had no authority to reform the Church. when i hear non Catholics talking i can sense that they believe that they reformed the CC, so the CC is no longer the Church and that they are the church. but we know them by the fruits. so there you have it the fruits of those who disobey the Church. and division will continue because all you have to is learning somethings of the Bible and a pastor is borne. self ordination.

the SS was not meant for people to put their hands on so easily. Now we have the SS being used for even self gain and deceive people. and no one can stop…

i am sure Jesus must not be very happy with what is going.

I am sure the CC is a nuisance for non Catholics. i think they see the CC as their enemy. the enemy of their perverted freedom.

I would almost venture to say that the writer of ND fan’s article was a high-church Lutheran. I have recently spoken with one (CAF member) whose view was that the “reformers” went too far, in effect creating a “separatist” church, rather than forcing the reforms (many of which were needed) in the one authoritative Church.

It is becoming obvious that, in light of the explosion of varying beliefs, one must ponder this point. Either there is one Church with all authority, or none of them have it. We do not want to live under the second circumstance.

 

[rachah]

very interesting. i guess what is happening today is what started 500 years ago. once one leave the Church he can do what ever he wants for he is without authority. and this is the doctrine of the deformers. i say deformers because ML, Calvin and whoever had no authority to reform the Church. when i hear non Catholics talking i can sense that they believe that they reformed the CC, so the CC is no longer the Church and that they are the church. but we know them by the fruits. so there you have it the fruits of those who disobey the Church. and division will continue because all you have to is learning somethings of the Bible and a pastor is borne. self ordination.

remember Joe Osteen? when some of the protestants complaint about him being a pastor, he immediatly declared himself as a reverend. so you have it.

the SS was not meant for people to put their hands on so easily. Now we have the SS being used for even self gain and deceive people. and no one can stop…

i am sure Jesus must not be very happy with what is going.

I am sure the CC is a nuisance for non Catholics. i think they see the CC as their enemy. the enemy of their perverted freedom.

**
"When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven? (The Priesthood 3:4:177 [post A.D. 386]). **

The more I study the history of religion and the bible, the more conviction I have for my Catholic faith.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The more I study the history of religion and the bible, the more conviction I have for my Catholic faith.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I would almost venture to say that the writer of ND fan’s article was a high-church Lutheran. I have recently spoken with one (CAF member) whose view was that the “reformers” went too far, in effect creating a “separatist” church, rather than forcing the reforms (many of which were needed) in the one authoritative Church.

It is becoming obvious that, in light of the explosion of varying beliefs, one must ponder this point. Either there is one Church with all authority, or none of them have it. We do not want to live under the second circumstance.

somebody out there may be seing the light.

**
"When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven? (The Priesthood 3:4:177 [post A.D. 386]). **

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

what is the problem? are you afraid to answer these question? why is it intimidation? these are simple question.

all the question is related to your post. is it ok for you to ask question but not to answer them?

Unfortunetly, for me I quess. I was unable to edit my response as I ran out of time. So following is that amendment.

does this say that each person must be his own authority?

No, it simple states that ALL scripture is usefull for instruction, reproof ect, ect, ect. indicating that we need to compare what we are told to by what is written, after all, the Apostles would not contradict themselves, as the OP has already admitted.

does this say that the Church is not the One built by Christ?

Of which Church are you referring? Admittedly Christ only built one Church of which he IS the cornerstone, the foundation upon which it is built. Just because a church claims to be the one true church doesn’t mean it is so, and that includes the one I belong too. God know who his people are, so let him decide who and where his church is.

does this say that everyone understand what it is written?

Did God give you a brain? Did he give you understanding? Can you read and figure things out for yourself, or do you have to rely on others to think for you. What is plainly written is easily understood.

does this say that we should not obey the Church?

It says we should evaluate what we have been and are being taught. If it contradicts scripture then it is error. And if the Church teaches error they it should not be obeyed. However, it isn’t the Church that teaches error, it is the individual within the Church that teaches error and that can and sometimes does include those who claim to know the most.

show where it says anyone holding the Bible is to claim authority to teach.

Did not Paul teach that the Church is a nation of Priests? If the Church is a nation of Priest then all the Church has authority to teach.

**
Mt 18:17, “But if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be as a heathen and the publican (a tax collector for the Roman Empire).” **

Until it can be decided through proper evaluation, both scriptural and historical, what constitutes the true church this verse can refer to any of the myriad of churches within the world today.

So, shall we get on with disecting the scriptures, reading them for what they are, without interjecting predjudiced ideas and seeing where they lead us or do we go the rounds again with the same ole retoric, using the same old self proclaimed proofs that have been consistanly bantied about whenever these questions are put forth. Shall we have a rational civil debate or another, “shut the heretic up” session?

It’s up to you.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Note that this says all Scripture, and does not say Scripture is all. BIG difference. Catholics believe 2 Timothy 3:16 as Saint Paul wrote it - not as it was later twisted by those who claim it somehow proves “sola scriptura”.

First, it was written by Paul, who advised the early Church to retain both the epistles as well as the Apostolic Tradition that he and the Apostles handed on. Sola scriptura spits in Saint Paul’s face in this regard.

Tell me what this means:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 (King James Version) “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

Christ established His Church not on “sola scriptura”, but on Apostles who were lead by the Holy Spirit.

This may surprise you me being non-Catholic and all, but I do agree that the Aposltes passed down verbal tradition to the Chruch, that was the point of my original question “Would the Apostles taught anything different verbally than they had written in their epistles.” To wit you correctedly answered “no”, I applaude you on your answer. Of all the people I have posed that question too you, sir, are the only one that has ever responded.

Now the question is not “Did the Apostles pass down verbal Tradition.” but is “Has that verbal Tradition been corrupted?” Remember that man’s nature is to sin, for whatever reason, if man becomes greedy for power (power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely) then he will devise ways to twist things to his benefit. If there is a chance that Tradition has be corrupted then to what source do we turn? And even if Tradition has not been corrupted to was source do we compare that Tradition. Tradition and Scripture should be like identical twins, we should not be able to tell them apart.

 

[po18guy]

This may surprise you me being non-Catholic and all, but I do agree that the Aposltes passed down verbal tradition to the Chruch, that was the point of my original question “Would the Apostles taught anything different verbally than they had written in their epistles.”

Christ instituted the perfection of the oral tradition, having all knowledge within Him. On those occasions when He was in the temple, he used the sacred scrolls, since that is where they were safeguarded. Nothing in Catholic teaching counters scripture, since the source is the same. Improper understanding of her teaching leads to all disagreement. Once properly understood, all objections fade.

Now the question is not “Did the Apostles pass down verbal Tradition.” but is “Has that verbal Tradition been corrupted?”

First, one must trust the Holy Spirit to lead both the Apostles, and their hand chosen successors. To doubt that they were lead into all truth, as Christ spoke, is to nod to the evil one, is it not? Now, I know that all other churches teach against the Catholic Church in some manner. But, but in doing so, they open the door to total corruption of the word. Once considered, who on earth is to determine who, what, when, where, why, and to what degree this “corruption” has proceeded. This is the fatal error in all “restoration” churches. They each have diverging opinions on the foregoing.

Remember that man’s nature is to sin, for whatever reason, if man becomes greedy for power (power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely) then he will devise ways to twist things to his benefit. If there is a chance that Tradition has be corrupted then to what source do we turn?

First, every member of every church is corrupted by sin. Please separate personal sins from the principles taught. Failure to do so dooms every church. Another problem here is that you also are agreeing that scripture might also be corrupt, since its source is the same Apostles and their successors.

And even if Tradition has not been corrupted to was source do we compare that Tradition. Tradition and Scripture should be like identical twins, we should not be able to tell them apart.

Actually, you can tell them apart. The oral tradition is complete, while scripture remains incomplete.(John 20:30, 21:25) Consider: there is not three years worth of teaching and preaching in the New Testament. This is especially so considering the parallelism of the synoptic Gospels. Where’s the remainder?

To justify separation from the original Church, one must provide clear and convincing evidence of corruption. This must go far beyond allegations, insinuation and mere disagreement. Specificity must reign supreme, or the assertion fails. I have seen nothing approaching such detail amongst the claims of "restoration"churches. It begins to sound like the “witnesses” against Christ, whose testimony did not agree.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Well then, you have just launched on a lifetime quest to find the one denomination out of the thousands that has what you personally believe is correct interpretation. This requires no obedience, but only agreement.

And, you might add, personal interpretation.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

No, it simple states that ALL scripture is usefull for instruction, reproof ect, ect, ect. indicating that we need to compare what we are told to by what is written, after all, the Apostles would not contradict themselves, as the OP has already admitted.

The Apostles would not contradict themselves, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t contradictions in Scripture. Paul says have faith in the Lord and you’ll be saved. His letters have been made to say works do not contribute to salvation, thereby contradicting the Lord Himself (see Mt. 25:31-46). James says man is justified by his works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24.) Contradictions abound. How do we reconcile them?

Admittedly Christ only built one Church of which he IS the cornerstone, the foundation upon which it is built. Just because a church claims to be the one true church doesn’t mean it is so, and that includes the one I belong too. God know who his people are, so let him decide who and where his church is.

The implication there seems to be we don’t know which is the true Church of Jesus Christ. We believe Christ did, indeed, decide who and what His Church is. “Blest are you.Simon son of John. No mere man has told you this, but my heavenly Father.” Mt. 16:17 tells us Peter has been singled out from among the Apostles for devine revelation. “I for my part declare to you, you are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church…” Mt. 13:18. That passage does two things – it establishes Peter as the earthly foundation of the Church and that the Lord will build it on that foundation. Since Peter died in the 1st Century, we must conclude the Lord had already begun building His Church. In the 1st Century. “…and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it.” id. The implication there is the Church Jesus built in the 1st Century will last to the end of the world. (See Mt. 28:20.) “When he comes, therefore, being the Spirit of Truth, he will guide you to all truth.”
John 16:13. That is a promise the Lord made to the early Church, which became the Catholic Church; that she would be guided in the future and for all time, to the truth.

There is plenty of proof, in Scripture, in Sacred Tradition and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers and in the history of the Church itself that the Catholic Church is the one Church the Lord came to build.

Did God give you a brain? Did he give you understanding? Can you read and figure things out for yourself, or do you have to rely on others to think for you. What is plainly written is easily understood.

Would that it were so.

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53.

“…Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it and gave it to his Desciples. ‘Take this and eat it,’ he said, 'This is my body.” Mt. 26:26.

Now, suddenly, what is plainly written is not so easly understood, is it? And if you have no authority to rely on to decide the meaning for you, you just might end up with 33,000 opinions. Or more.

It says we should evaluate what we have been and are being taught. If it contradicts scripture then it is error.

That is the doctrine of sola scriptura, which cannot be found in Scripture. And, as has been shown, there is much in Scripture that contradicts Scripture. If Scripture contradicts Scripture, what then?

Did not Paul teach that the Church is a nation of Priests? If the Church is a nation of Priest then all the Church has authority to teach.

What do you mean by ‘all the church?’ Everyone in the ‘church?’ Every denomination and sect has authority to teach? Teach what? Certainly not the Truth.

             _____________________________

Originally Posted by wisdomseeker

Mt 18:17, “But if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be as a heathen and the publican (a tax collector for the Roman Empire).”

Until it can be decided through proper evaluation, both scriptural and historical, what constitutes the true church this verse can refer to any of the myriad of churches within the world today.

With all due respect, it is a matter of record which is the true Church of Jesus Christ and I have shown you just how logic proves it.

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

I just feel the need to correct the original post in a couple places.

First, there is no split between Pauling Christianity and what the other Apostles taught. Paul is seen meeting with the Apostles at various points throughout the Book of Acts, and he and Peter mention one another in letter. Peter even declares Paul’s letters to be Scriture. These two men were not part of varying sects, but members of the same Church.

Further, the term “Roman Catholic Church” did not exist in the 4th century. It began around the 16th century as a Protestant slur against Catholics. Before that, the Catholic Church was only called just that: the Catholic Church.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[po18guy]

Further, the term “Roman Catholic Church” did not exist in the 4th century. It began around the 16th century as a Protestant slur against Catholics. Before that, the Catholic Church was only called just that: the Catholic Church.Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

Just as with the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament. At the time of the reformation they were (and still are) disparagingly referred to as the “apocrypha”. Those who disregard those books had better pray that they are not the inspired word of God!

 

[pelc24u]

It has been said that the mark of the true chuch of Christ is seen by the churches refusal to become part of what is currently “acceptable” in modern society, such issues as gay marriage, ordination of gay or lesbian ministers, protection of life from conception to death and ordination of women to name a few. Many protestant faiths have been ripped apart because of these issues. The Roman Catholic church stands firm on these issues. It’s goal is not and never has been to be compliant with what is currently socially acceptable but instead to uphold the mandates of the bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ. This is not to say that throughout the years, leaders and memebers of the RCC have not violated these teachings, but these are human beings, the truth of Jesus Christ has not and never will change.

 

[jblake]

Benjamin8o8;:

The Roman Empire legally recognized Pauline Christianity as a valid religion in 313 AD.

Not only was Rome not the only power back then, but there were Christians living in places where Roman influence was non-existent. Those Christians were not part of what became Catholic Christianity.

Catholics were the only people recognized as Christians.

The history of 景教 demonstrates the falseness of that claim.

jonathon

 

[wisdomseeker]

Unfortunetly, for me I quess. I was unable to edit my response as I ran out of time. So following is that amendment.

No, it simple states that ALL scripture is usefull for instruction, reproof ect, ect, ect. indicating that we need to compare what we are told to by what is written, after all, the Apostles would not contradict themselves, as the OP has already admitted.

Of which Church are you referring? Admittedly Christ only built one Church of which he IS the cornerstone, the foundation upon which it is built. Just because a church claims to be the one true church doesn’t mean it is so, and that includes the one I belong too. God know who his people are, so let him decide who and where his church is.

Did God give you a brain? Did he give you understanding? Can you read and figure things out for yourself, or do you have to rely on others to think for you. What is plainly written is easily understood.

It says we should evaluate what we have been and are being taught. If it contradicts scripture then it is error. And if the Church teaches error they it should not be obeyed. However, it isn’t the Church that teaches error, it is the individual within the Church that teaches error and that can and sometimes does include those who claim to know the most.

Did not Paul teach that the Church is a nation of Priests? If the Church is a nation of Priest then all the Church has authority to teach.

Until it can be decided through proper evaluation, both scriptural and historical, what constitutes the true church this verse can refer to any of the myriad of churches within the world today.

No it does not. only if you believe that the Church is not ONE but many.

**

St. Cyprian, “He cannot have God for his father who does not have the Church for his mother”.

**

 

[wisdomseeker]

This may surprise you me being non-Catholic and all, but I do agree that the Aposltes passed down verbal tradition to the Chruch, that was the point of my original question “Would the Apostles taught anything different verbally than they had written in their epistles.” To wit you correctedly answered “no”, I applaude you on your answer. Of all the people I have posed that question too you, sir, are the only one that has ever responded.

Now the question is not “Did the Apostles pass down verbal Tradition.” but is “Has that verbal Tradition been corrupted?” Remember that man’s nature is to sin, for whatever reason, if man becomes greedy for power (power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely) then he will devise ways to twist things to his benefit. If there is a chance that Tradition has be corrupted then to what source do we turn? And even if Tradition has not been corrupted to was source do we compare that Tradition. Tradition and Scripture should be like identical twins, we should not be able to tell them apart.

We? who are we? if you are outside the Church, obviously you will not be able to understand neither, written and Oral.

**
St. Cyprian, “He cannot have God for his father who does not have the Church for his mother”. **

 

[Randy_Carson]

So, technically we protestants can claim that our beginnings were the same as the RCC, just that we took a different route due to HERESIES of the Roman Bishop.

I mean no disrespect, but you did ask.

Since Jesus told us that the Church was to be like a city on a hill, it would not seem logical for the early Church to difficult to find.

Could you perhaps provide us with some evidence that the early non-Catholic Church existed at all? Perhaps some quotes from their early writings?

And how is it that this early non-Catholic Church accomplished so little in terms of the Great Commission?

Finally, I have a few verses and questions concerning the “heresies” that you allude to.

The Great Apostasy Refuted from Scripture

Many non-Catholic Christians attempt to deny the authority of the Catholic Church by suggesting that at some point in its history (the dating of this is variable and vague), the Catholic Church had become so corrupt that it no longer represented true Christianity. This idea is also held by Mormons and is known as the Great Apostasy. The issue to be examined, therefore, is whether total apostasy of the Church was possible. The following verses suggest that apostasy was not possible, and questions are submitted to our non-Catholic friends for their consideration.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church fell into total apostasy, does this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into totally apostasy for nearly 1500 years, did Jesus remain with the Church “always” as possible?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church fell into apostasy, did Jesus not give the Counselor or did the Counselor simply fail to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church fell into total apostasy, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into total apostasy? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”