How long will it take for non-Catholics to finally accept Catholicism?

[jmcrae]

You don’t have to be a protestant to disagree with the assertion that Peter was the head of the Church. The Orthodox will take issue with that as well.

The Orthodox have never denied that Peter and his successors have a primacy of honour, and that a Council of the Church cannot be called by anyone but him (which is why they have had no Councils of their own since they went into schism nearly 1,000 years ago).

What they disagree with is that he has the authority to make dogmatic pronouncements on doctrine outside of the workings of a Council.

 

[RobGentner]

I should not answer this because I am not a Protestant.**
That is OK, you act like a protestant! So by the power given to me, I baptise you an acting protestant. **
This question assumes the RCC to be the church Jesus established. I do not believe that is so.
**So that statement eliminates you being a Roman catholic! But as I mentioned many times…Who care what you believe but yourself? Who should it matter to but you? I really don’t care ! **

Protestants do, and this question is rightly directed to them.
They Do? Wait until they ask you to "prove that! It should be fun to read!

However, I’ll still try to answer the question under the given assumption that the RCC was the church Jesus established.** Not “given assumption” rather “The obvious truth” if you don’t mind! **

Jesus did not feel a need to form other churches. He only has one church and it never died out, as He promised. Those that followed His commandments continued to be with His Church, no matter how few in number they are.

---

This is what you would have asked if I said that:
and what were those commandmanets did they superceed the ones given by his father? does this mean that only a few followers know of his commandments? ****

**
** " This is what I say to your remark: ****
So True! The devil felt a need for false churchs not Jesus! There are millions who follow Jesus’ commandments, we are called Catholics!
Those that rejected His laws He spewed out from His Church. God is the one who decides who belongs to His Church, not man. Man cannot join God’s church. God puts man in His church. The Vatican or any church building is not the church.

** Strange belief system. The robotic church of God? I thought he called us? Hmmm I thought we had “free will” My Bad! **

God’s people are the church. They do not need a building to become a church. They are THE church – those that follow Him and keep His commandments.

**True that is why we call outselfs “The Body of Christ” God needs no buildings his people do! **

God did not say His church will be large in number.

**He didn’t say it wouldn’t be! If I was protestant, this would be a great time to invoke God’s commandment “Go forth and multiple” **

Jesus tells His church: “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom”(Luke 12:32).

**Yes, He did and as we both know he was talking to St peter, the first Pope, and Yes, we were few then. Hoeever maybe Jesus’ “little flock” remark was a term of endearment like calling your wife “my baby”? I don’t extract things Jesus said like two words to prove that He was “teaching” anything by using those two words! **

Would God’s church be deceived by Satan? Not likely.

**One of the reasons Christ came was to establish His Church. The RCC… The way Satan deceives people is to make them think that God did not mean what He said…God’s church can not be deceived. But if people couldn’t be deceived by the devil wouldn’t we be gods? The Body of Christ has cancers that will be removed by God! **

But God says that, “the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world” (Rev. 12:9).

**Yes, and it will come to pass! **

The vast majority are deceived by Satan. The very few – God’s “little flock” – are free from Satan’s deception.

**Or it could explain why people are leaving the RCC and protestant churchs are gaining members? Or it could explain nothing at all. **

This could explain why the RCC now could not be God’s church even if it was the church Jesus established in the beginning.

** Only in your mind! :whacky: Jesus said otherwise. I refer you to: John 17: 1- 23 . Also Jesus is the Groom, His church the RCC,the Body of Christ is His bride. He would never divorce us! **

**GOD BLESS YOU! **

 

[RobGentner]

Well just to answer your question…Protestants can answer your “unanswerable” question:
If Jesus is God, and He established His Church here on earth. and He gave that church authority over his followers. Why would He later feel a need to form other churches?

Jesus founded the Catholic Church which is not exclusive to the church at Rome. Protestants and Orthodox do not interpret those cited passages to refer to a monarchial government that rules the Church from the Vatican. If you weren’t so arrogant and condescending you might see how your question isn’t such a stumper after all.

P.S. Don’t bother praying for me. I don’t need a proud pharisee looking down at this poor tax collector.

**
My Dear Friend in Christ, If you weren’t so arrogant and condescending you would never insult someone by making such a harsh statement “Don’t bother praying for me. I don’t need a proud pharisee looking down at this poor tax collector.”**

In the USA most people look down on tax collectors!

I would suggest you read Mark Shea’s book, By What Authority? he tells that his conversion to Catholicism began when he realized that he, as a non-Catholic, did believe wholeheartedly certain matters of faith/morals that could not be supported with Scripture. It might uncloud your mind.

I caution you to watch what you say, there are monitors! They might “bite” you! I hope they don’t. You were just filled with unjust anger!
No need to apologize to this humble follow of Jesus’ true church. You were forgiven before you spoke such poisonous words. They might offend someone to whom they actually applied Jesus also forgives you - read John 8:11

Be at peace!

 

[Mailman]

If one believes the Bible (which for whatever reason is not really included as part of the historical record), then one may say, based on various passages, including Matthew 16:18-19 and John 21:15-19, that the claim of Peter to have been head of the Early Church is true, which means that (barring any evidence that the Papacy ever moved somewhere else without later returning to Rome) that the Bishop of Rome is the current head of the Church that Christ established.

The “Rock” in Matthew 16 is clearly Jesus Christ, not Peter. Even Augustine acknowledged that. Peter may have been the senior elder of the church but never its head. Peter himself said the head of the church is Christ (1 Pet.2:6). No human being can be the head of God’s Church because Christ is living. The Bible also does not teach that the Church would have an unbroken succession of leaders. That is a purely Catholic teaching. If we based our examination solely on the biblical record, the RCC could not be the Church that Jesus built. Here’s why.

Nowhere in the Bible do we find God’s Church described as a large and influential body in the world. The RCC is a very large and influential church. It even used to crown kings and emperors. On the night Jesus was seized to be crucified, He quoted a prophecy for His Church: “It is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.” Later in Acts 8, we read of a great persecution which caused the Church to be scattered throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria.

Is it possible that the small body of believers remained scattered over the face of the earth ever since? Of course, it is possible. In fact, that is highly possible as the Word of God never said anything about the Church becoming big and influential world affairs. In fact, Christ’s instruction to His Church, through the New Testament, was NOT to participate in this world’s politics and affairs. His command to His Church is, “COME OUT FROM AMONG THEM, AND BE YE SEPARATE” (II Cor. 6:17).

Soon after the Church came into being, there were already false teachers trying to supplant the truth. Even in the earliest of Paul’s epistles, he says “the mystery of iniquity doth already work” (II Thess. 2:7). Paul apparently wrote this about 50 or 51 A.D. The Roman world then was being filled with numerous mystery religions which stemmed from the old sun-worshipping mysteries.

In Acts 20:29-30, Paul delivered this final message to the local congregations: “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things.” Why? “TO GAIN DISCIPLES AFTER THEM.” To gain a personal following for themselves! To start some new church! These “grievous wolves” must have been successful in forming their own “Christian” groups. What if one of these groups became what is now the RCC? Is that possible? Of course!

Now, not only Paul, but also Peter, warned the churches that MANY would be misled. There were already false teachers among Christians who would bring in heresies, “and MANY shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the WAY OF TRUTH shall be evil spoken of” (II Pet. 2:2).

Jude also included in his letter the admonition that every Christian “should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares…” (Jude 3, 4, 19).

The apostle Paul instructed Timothy to, “reprove, rebuke, exhort … For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts” – the congregations wanting to do what they please – “shall heap to themselves teachers” – ministers who will preach what they want to hear – “… and they shall TURN AWAY THEIR EARS FROM THE TRUTH, and shall be turned unto FABLES” (II Tim. 4:2-4).

This was in the days of the apostles. Many who fellowshipped in the local churches of the early Church were already being enticed by false teachers with mysticism and sun-worship that were engulfing the Roman Empire. The letters of Paul were twisted to give another meaning than intended (II Pet. 3:15-16). And these false teachers remained within the congregations and soon began to expel the true Christians.

In John’s letter to Gaius, we read: “I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes… received us not… and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and CASTETH THEM OUT OF THE CHURCH” (3 Jo 9-10).

Here we see that the true Christians were being put out of the visible, organized congregations. They were the SCATTERED ones of whom John said: “Therefore the world knoweth us not” (John 3:1).

The visible, organized church in Rome that the historians saw as Christian could very well have been a false church.

 

[Mailman]

This is a matter of objective historical record; there shouldn’t really be any kind of debate on this, because all serious historians agree that the off-shoot Jewish organization established by a man in Galilee named Yeshua, who was the son of a carpenter (which is mispronounced “Jesus” by his modern day English-speaking devotees) can be traced forward to the modern age through the Catholic Church. The claim of the Pope to be the successor of St. Peter, who was a close follower of Jesus, has been proven to be objectively true.

Here’s something about history writing.

History writing is not mere recording of facts. It is essentially interpretative. G. Ernest Wright in “The Biblical Archaeologist Reader,” says: “The reconstruction of ancient history is an abstracting from the facts by means of hypothesis …” And what happens when the hypothesis is in error? The reconstruction of history will be in error as well. If some historian “thinks” the church that sprung up in Rome is apostolic, that assumption becomes fact when he writes its history.

Each historian interprets the facts in accordance with his own hypothesis. He ignores those facts that do not fit the hypothesis. “This is inevitable for any hypothesis,” admits George E. Mendenhall; for a hypothesis “is not intended as a presentation of eternal truth” (page 38 of “Biblical History in Transition,” “The Bible and the Ancient Near East”). Yet many of these hypotheses ARE passing for truth in history books.

It is usually assumed that history is solely a matter of collecting factual material, judiciously evaluating it, and recording it for posterity. “Nothing could be farther from the truth,” was what C. W. Ceram wrote in “Secret of the Hittites,” p. 119.

A historian is not a scribe, but a JUDGE of the evidence that is brought before him. He is his own final authority. He is not judged by, but sits in judgment of, history. Whatever evidence does not conform to the commonly accepted beliefs of the age or community in which he lives he could easily reject.

History, in other words, is based only on that part of evidence which agrees with the prevailing opinions of the society in which a historian lives. Of course historians use facts – but how they use those facts, which facts they use, which facts they ignore or reject and the interpretation they place on the facts – that is the crux of the problem.

Again, from C. W. Seram: “The SELECTION of sources still rests upon the discretion of the individual historian. What he chooses as relevant depends upon his conception of the period he is studying. In this the historian is limited by his own temperament and guided by the spirit of his age.”

One cannot read any major historical subject such as the Middle Ages, the Inquisition, or Church History without discovering Catholic, Protestant or agnostic bias. No Biblical subject can be read in any encyclopedia without noting the author’s liberal, conservative or orthodox views.

The Catholic historians will write that the church at Rome is without doubt the off-shoot of the Church of the early apostles. But Protestant historians may not write the same thing. Here’s some church history from the respected mainline Protestant scholar Jesse Lyman Hurlbut in his “Story of the Christian Church” p.41:

“For fifty years after St. Paul’s life a curtain hangs over the church, through which we strive to look; and when at last it rises, about 120 A.D. with the writings of the earliest church-fathers, we find a church in many aspects very different from that in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul.”

And here’s another from the church historian Schaff in his “History of the Christian Church” p. 196:

“The remaining thirty years of the first century are involved in mysterious darkness, illuminated only by the writings of John. This is the period of church history about which we know least and would like to know most. This period is the favorite field for ecclesiastical fables and critical conjectures.”

Is the church at Rome the Church that Jesus founded? One can never tell from the historical record. The only way to find out is to refer to the book that Jesus Himself said is the Word of God. The church that follows the teachings of that book is the true Church.

 

[VARC]

The Orthodox have never denied that Peter and his successors have a primacy of honour, and that a Council of the Church cannot be called by anyone but him (which is why they have had no Councils of their own since they went into schism nearly 1,000 years ago).

What they disagree with is that he has the authority to make dogmatic pronouncements on doctrine outside of the workings of a Council.

How wrong you are. It was the Roman Emporer that called the first seven councils. The bishop of Rome didn’t even attend them.

 

[Mailman]

By fulfilled does not mean that they were abrogated, but rather, they became re-oriented into the direction of Christ incarnate, Christ sacrificed, and Christ risen from the dead.

So, because of Christ risen from the dead, the Sabbath now has been transformed into Resurrection Day. God is no longer resting; God, who became a man who is now risen from the dead, is once again active in the world, so instead of celebrating the day of His rest, we celebrate the day of His resurrection - not because God was dead and then came back to life, but because Jesus, God as man, rose from the dead, and in so doing, blew the locks off of the gates of Heaven (since as God, He could not go anywhere except Heaven, and in His humanity, had therefore to make it possible for His own humanity, and thus, all of humanity, to be able to go to Heaven.

Circumcision became transformed into Baptism; the Passover became the Holy Mass, and so on and so forth.

jmcrae, Thanks for being kind enough to clarify that for Rob.

So, the old law was re-oriented. In other words, it underwent a CHANGE in direction. And it seems only one commandment was affected by this re-orientation: The Sabbath commandment. The Sabbath commandment CHANGED in its character and nature – from being God’s Rest Day into His Resurrection Day.

So, you’re right, the old law was not abrogated. But, it was CHANGED. If you don’t mind my asking— Does the RCC have the authority to change God’s law? If so, how was that authority given? Can it be supported by Scripture or is this from the RCC’s oral “Tradition”?

 

[VARC]

jmcrae, Thanks for being kind enough to clarify that for Rob.

So, the old law was re-oriented. In other words, it underwent a CHANGE in direction. And it seems only one commandment was affected by this re-orientation: The Sabbath commandment. The Sabbath commandment CHANGED in its character and nature – from being God’s Rest Day into His Resurrection Day.

I’ll remind you that many precepts in the Law of Moses needs not be observed by christians. Animal sacrifices, prohibition on images, dietary restrictions, stoning adultress. The Law of Moses doesn’t apply any more because it had served its purpose. It prepared the people of Israel for the messiah. We are now justified by faith in Christ.

 

[Mailman]

I’ll remind you that many precepts in the Law of Moses needs not be observed by christians. Animal sacrifices, prohibition on images, dietary restrictions, stoning adultress. The Law of Moses doesn’t apply any more because it had served its purpose. It prepared the people of Israel for the messiah. We are now justified by faith in Christ.

Sorry about that. I should have clarified which law. What I was referring to was the 10 commandments law, not the added ceremonial or ritual laws which are no longer binding today because Christ had come. The 10 commandments law is the BASIC SPIRITUAL LAW for which David said, “They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness” (Psa. 111:7-8). Yes, we are justified by faith. But “faith without works is dead.” By “works” of course James meant the keeping of the 10 commandments law - all of it.

 

[VARC]

Sorry about that. I should have clarified which law. What I was referring to was the 10 commandments law, not the added ceremonial or ritual laws which are no longer binding today because Christ had come. The 10 commandments law is the BASIC SPIRITUAL LAW for which David said, “They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness” (Psa. 111:7-8). Yes, we are justified by faith. But “faith without works is dead.” By “works” of course James meant the keeping of the 10 commandments law - all of it.

The Bible NEVER refers to 10 commandments. Even Ps 111 refers to “God’s commandments” which would refer to the entire Torah. The “10” commandments are largely a pious human tradition. The scripture never seperates those 10 commandments as somehow apart or above the entire Law of Moses.

 

[Mailman]

The Bible NEVER refers to 10 commandments. Even Ps 111 refers to “God’s commandments” which would refer to the entire Torah. The “10” commandments are largely a pious human tradition. The scripture never seperates those 10 commandments as somehow apart or above the entire Law of Moses.

Exodus 24:38
Deut. 4:13
Deut. 10:4

 

[VARC]

Exodus 24:38
Deut. 4:13
Deut. 10:4

i stand corrected; but i don’t have 38 verses in the 24th chapter of ex

 

[VARC]

Paul didn’t make any reference to the 10 commandments as somehow above or apart from the Law. He does say in Gal that if one wants to keep part of the Law then they are bound to the whole Law. So if someone insisted of observing the sabbath than they shouldn’t be uncircumcised or eating bacon either. All of these things are part of the Law

 

[jmcrae]

Here’s something about history writing.

History writing is not mere recording of facts. It is essentially interpretative.

Sure. But the guy doing the interpreting - St. Irenaeus - was living in 180 AD. His audience was the Roman Curia itself.

G. Ernest Wright in “The Biblical Archaeologist Reader,” says: “The reconstruction of ancient history is an abstracting from the facts by means of hypothesis …” And what happens when the hypothesis is in error? The reconstruction of history will be in error as well. If some historian “thinks” the church that sprung up in Rome is apostolic, that assumption becomes fact when he writes its history.

We are looking at documents that date back to about 180 AD, that give lists of the Popes back to St. Peter. Your American list of Presidents of the United States goes back longer than that, and our list of the Prime Ministers of Canada is almost that long. Do you think there are any errors in either of those lists, or that there is some form of “interpretation” going on that negates the reality of that history? (The fact that George Washington was an English subject and probably didn’t know at the time of the Revolutionary War that he was the first President of the United States doesn’t mean that he wasn’t - or that, therefore, the concept of the United States of America doesn’t find its existence in a tangible reality that dates back to his period of leadership.)

Each historian interprets the facts in accordance with his own hypothesis. He ignores those facts that do not fit the hypothesis.

We’re not talking about something that was found under a rock just last weekend, and somebody is trying to figure out what it is, with various different ideas being bandied about.

We’re talking about a living history that has been ongoing right from day one of the Church, where the “interpretation” has been being passed down by Church historians who were living very near the time of the events that they were recording, and just being added to each time we get a new Pope.

A historian is not a scribe, but a JUDGE of the evidence that is brought before him.

This is true.

He is his own final authority.

Actually, no, he’s not. He has peers who evaluate his work. He has an educated audience, some of whom were present at the time of the events in question, who critique and refine his findings - who keep him honest. He has those who follow in his footsteps, who either find his work valuable and publish it for their own use and the use of their own students, or who don’t find it valuable and allow it to get lost.

As far as I am aware, there was nobody there except the Early Church, to say whether he was telling the truth, or not. Judging by their response to his work, it seems as though they had no issues with it, since they called him a Saint, and republished his work far and wide.

He is not judged by, but sits in judgment of, history. Whatever evidence does not conform to the commonly accepted beliefs of the age or community in which he lives he could easily reject.

The community in question was the Early Church. Are you saying that they got bamfoozled into thinking they had a Pope, when really, they didn’t?

 

[RobHom]

How wrong you are. It was the Roman Emporer that called the first seven councils. The bishop of Rome didn’t even attend them.

Not really, he’s not. You missed the point of his post. While the Roman Emperor called the Councils…it was for specific reasons.

From here: answers.com/topic/ecumenical-council

*The first seven councils were called by the emperor (first the Christian Roman Emperors and later the so-called Byzantine Emperors, i.e., the Eastern Roman Emperors after the Western Roman Empire ended in 476). Most historians agree that the emperors called the councils to force the Christian bishops to resolve divisive issues and reach consensus. One motivation for convening councils was the hope that maintaining unity in the Church would help maintain unity in the Empire. The relationship of the Papacy to the validity of these councils is the ground of much controversy between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Churches and to historians.

The Roman Catholic Church holds that these ecumenical councils are infallible.*

He was referring to a schism that occurred 1000 years ago. Not 1500 years ago. And even still, there is dispute among many churches as to who counts what as what…except Catholics.

 

[jmcrae]

So, you’re right, the old law was not abrogated. But, it was CHANGED. If you don’t mind my asking— Does the RCC have the authority to change God’s law?

God has the authority to change God’s law, and God makes this known by means of the Church that He established. (Notice how although Abraham was bound to circumcision, he was not bound to the Ten Commandments - through Moses, God made a change in the Law for the Israelites at that time. He also established the Levitical priesthood in the days of Moses - in the time of Abraham, every father of a family was his own priest. And the laws given to Abraham were never binding on Adam or on Noah, either. So, it is not out of character for God to change His own laws.) No doubt Jesus Himself made these things known to the Apostles during the period between the Resurrection and the Ascension into Heaven, since already, Sunday observance of the Eucharist is alluded to in the Book of Acts, where it is referred to as “the breaking of the bread on the first day of the week.”

St. Justin makes clear in his Apologia to the Emperor Trajan that this “first day” is referring to Sunday.

The Church also has disciplinary authority of its own, clearly given by Christ to the Apostles. (He who hears you, hears Me," - Luke 10:16 and “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” - Matt. 28:18 and “Whatsoever ye bind on earth is bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye loose on earth is loosed in Heaven,” - Matt. 18:18, etc.)

The authority of the Church was given by Christ to the Apostles, and through the Apostles, by the laying on of hands, to those Bishops who remain in communion with the See of Peter. (St. Paul alludes to this process in his first letter to St. Timothy, when he is instructing him on the selection and ordination of Bishops in his Archdiocese.)

The Bishops are at liberty to delegate some types of their authority to priests, other types to deacons, and yet other types to both male and female lay people.

 

[jmcrae]

i stand corrected; but i don’t have 38 verses in the 24th chapter of ex

Neither do I.

 

[Mailman]

i stand corrected; but i don’t have 38 verses in the 24th chapter of ex

Sorry, that should have been 34:28.

 

[RobHom]

The Bible NEVER refers to 10 commandments. Even Ps 111 refers to “God’s commandments” which would refer to the entire Torah. The “10” commandments are largely a pious human tradition. The scripture never seperates those 10 commandments as somehow apart or above the entire Law of Moses.

Never say never…

drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=2&ch=20&l=17&f=s#x
drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=5&ch=5&l=21&f=s#x
drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=52&ch=13&l=9&f=s#x

The word “commandments” occurs 221 times where it refers to God or the Lord… drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?t=0&q=commandments&b=drb

The word “laws Moses” there are 53 occurrences.
drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?t=0&q=law+of+Moses&b=drb

The words “law or laws” occurs 50 times, and several times the word “commandment(s)” is in the same sentence.
drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?t=0&q=law++laws&b=drb

Actually, they are not a “pious human tradition”…they were God’s Commandments given to Moses… and they were separate from the “law”. And as to how many parts of the Bible are written…it would seem very clear indeed that the Commandments are quite separate from the “law”.

If they were not separate, then they would not apply to Christians today…right?

 

[RobGentner]

Here’s something about history writing.

History writing is not mere recording of facts. It is essentially interpretative. G. Ernest Wright in “The Biblical Archaeologist Reader,” says: “The reconstruction of ancient history is an abstracting from the facts by means of hypothesis …” And what happens when the hypothesis is in error? The reconstruction of history will be in error as well. If some historian “thinks” the church that sprung up in Rome is apostolic, that assumption becomes fact when he writes its history.

Each historian interprets the facts in accordance with his own hypothesis. He ignores those facts that do not fit the hypothesis. “This is inevitable for any hypothesis,” admits George E. Mendenhall; for a hypothesis “is not intended as a presentation of eternal truth” (page 38 of “Biblical History in Transition,” “The Bible and the Ancient Near East”). Yet many of these hypotheses ARE passing for truth in history books.

It is usually assumed that history is solely a matter of collecting factual material, judiciously evaluating it, and recording it for posterity. “Nothing could be farther from the truth,” was what C. W. Ceram wrote in “Secret of the Hittites,” p. 119.

A historian is not a scribe, but a JUDGE of the evidence that is brought before him. He is his own final authority. He is not judged by, but sits in judgment of, history. Whatever evidence does not conform to the commonly accepted beliefs of the age or community in which he lives he could easily reject.

History, in other words, is based only on that part of evidence which agrees with the prevailing opinions of the society in which a historian lives. Of course historians use facts – but how they use those facts, which facts they use, which facts they ignore or reject and the interpretation they place on the facts – that is the crux of the problem.

Again, from C. W. Seram: “The SELECTION of sources still rests upon the discretion of the individual historian. What he chooses as relevant depends upon his conception of the period he is studying. In this the historian is limited by his own temperament and guided by the spirit of his age.”

One cannot read any major historical subject such as the Middle Ages, the Inquisition, or Church History without discovering Catholic, Protestant or agnostic bias. No Biblical subject can be read in any encyclopedia without noting the author’s liberal, conservative or orthodox views.

The Catholic historians will write that the church at Rome is without doubt the off-shoot of the Church of the early apostles. But Protestant historians may not write the same thing. Here’s some church history from the respected mainline Protestant scholar Jesse Lyman Hurlbut in his “Story of the Christian Church” p.41:

“For fifty years after St. Paul’s life a curtain hangs over the church, through which we strive to look; and when at last it rises, about 120 A.D. with the writings of the earliest church-fathers, we find a church in many aspects very different from that in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul.”

And here’s another from the church historian Schaff in his “History of the Christian Church” p. 196:

“The remaining thirty years of the first century are involved in mysterious darkness, illuminated only by the writings of John. This is the period of church history about which we know least and would like to know most. This period is the favorite field for ecclesiastical fables and critical conjectures.”

Is the church at Rome the Church that Jesus founded? One can never tell from the historical record. The only way to find out is to refer to the book that Jesus Himself said is the Word of God. The church that follows the teachings of that book is the true Church.

**
I actually agree with what you state above. Since the RCC is the onl;y church that can claim the bible because the RCC decided what was contained in the bible and protestants only followed, changed, or corrupted the original bible. So the question of which church is the real church has finally be verified. Thanks mailman!
Which begs the question. Knowing the things you quote above, why do you try to make the bible be exactly correct? It is inspired not infalliable.

I was out fishing, I caught 3 bass and one large Catfish. While I was gone you guys went kind of “heavy”. :tsktsk: Ok, Everyone take a deep breath … Hold it …OK …Exhale … Again! Feel better?

BTW, Does anyone know what happened to thread …" Why do protestants think they know more than catholics, …" Or something like that. It disappeared~

God Bless**