How to resolve this dilemma?

[Nick_Jones]

Who are these “real sheep” you speak of and why are there so many denominations that split every single day? We are talking about thousands of denominations. I could show you 5 examples in my town. At one time this one particular church was one. Then, because the “real sheep” decided someone did not understand scripture, they split. They split again,and again,and then once more. Who was right? Every single one of those denominations believe in the same Jesus as the Catholics. All of the members have a real heart for Christ but they also have a problem with authority and when something did not go their way they split.

The real sheep follow the Good Shepherd and they will accept no vicar and no substitutes. Jesus said, “I am the way.” He also said, “My sheep hear my voice and they follow me.”

There are numerous denominations but even if there are tens of thousands of denominations, that fact, in itself, doesn’t mean that they are all divided in terms of their basic doctrinal beliefs.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The real sheep follow the Good Shepherd and they will accept no vicar and no substitutes. Jesus said, “I am the way.” He also said, “My sheep hear my voice and they follow me.”

There are numerous denominations but even if there are tens of thousands of denominations, that fact, in itself, doesn’t mean that they are all divided in terms of their basic doctrinal beliefs.

As I have said on more than one occasion, if any practical proof is needed of the Kharisma of Infallibility, we have only to compare the Catholic Church with the Protestant sects.

For 2,000 years, the Church has taught a constant and coherent doctrine. In only a quarter of that time, Protestants have quarreled, split, fragmented, re-fragmented and broken apart. You can look at the fruits of the Reformationi and find churches which have diametrically opposed beliefs.

 

[Nick_Jones]

The great thing about Catholicism is that because of the foresight of its Founder and Fathers, anyone can without any trouble compare the Doctrines of Catholicism today with Catholicism at any date in the last 2000 years, - it is recorded history. So you are sure, beyond any doubt, that here at least is a true record of Christianity from the beginning and its promise.

Then let’s do some comparing: Where in Scripture did the early church teach any of the following:

1. The papacy
2. Infallibility of human authorities.
3. Purgatory.
4. The selling of indulgences.
5. The burning (at the stake) of heretics.
6. The persecution of those who disagree with the church.
7. The sinlessness of mother Mary.
8. The veneration of mother Mary.
9. That there are “non-mortal” sins.
10. That we are justified by faith plus our good works.
11. That outside of the RCC there is no salvation.
12. That in our fallen and unregenerate condition, we retained our “free will” to do good.

 

[anthony022071]

The real sheep follow the Good Shepherd and they will accept no vicar and no substitutes. Jesus said, “I am the way.” He also said, “My sheep hear my voice and they follow me.”

Christ made Peter a Shepherd. He told Peter to feed his sheep,and to confirm the brothers.

St. Ephraem the Syrian (ca. A.D. 350):
“Then Peter deservedly received the Vicariate of Christ over His people.”
(Ephraem, Sermon de Martyrio. SS. App. Petri et Pauli)

“To whom, O Lord, didst Thou entrust that most precious pledge of the heavenly keys? To Bar Jonas, the Prince of the Apostles, with whom, I implore Thee, may I share Thy bridal chamber…Our Lord chose Simon Peter and appointed him chief of the Apostles, foundation of the holy Church and guardian of His establishment. He appointed him head of the Apostles and commanded him to feed His flock and teach it laws for preserving the purity of its beliefs.”
(Ephraem, Homilies, 4:1, 350 A.D.)

Opatatus (c. 367 A.D.):
“In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas [Rock] — of all the Apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the Apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would presume to set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner… Recall then the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church.”
(Opatatus, The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2)

St. Epiphanius of Salamis (385 A.D.):
"Holy men are therefore called the temple of God, because the Holy Spirit dwells in them; as that Chief of the Apostles testifies, he that was found to be blessed by the Lord, because the Father had revealed unto him. To him then did the Father reveal His true Son; and the same [Peter] furthermore reveals the Holy Spirit. This was befitting in the First of the Apostles, that firm Rock upon which the Church of God is built, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The gates of hell are heretics and heresiarchs. For in every way was the faith confirmed in him who received the keys of heaven; who looses on earth and binds in heaven. For in him are found all subtle questions of faith. He was aided by the Father so as to be (or lay) the Foundation of the security (firmness) of the faith. He (Peter) heard from the same God, ‘feed my lambs’; to him He entrusted the flock; he leads the way admirably in the power of his own Master.
(Epiphanius, T. ii. in Anchor)

St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. A.D. 387):
“Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church.”
(Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote)

John Cassian, Monk (c. AD 430), to Pope Celestine I:
“That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God.”
(Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276).

St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (A.D. 465-533):
“That which the Roman Church, which has the loftiest place on the earth, teaches and holds, so does the whole Christian world believe without hesitation for their justification, and does not delay to confess for their salvation.”
(Letter 17, 21, A.D. 519)

John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. A.D. 715):
“The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren.”
(John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)

 

[Nick_Jones]

Jesus said, “I am the way.”

Rome says that Rome is the way:

780 The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Jesus said, “I am the way.”

Rome says that Rome is the way:

So your theory is that Christ did not establish a Church?

 

[sandusky]

vern humphrey:

Nope – it’s a way of saying, “None so blind as him who will not see.”

vern Humphrey:

Duck and hide, eh?

vern Humphrey:

Then accept His Church, founded upon Peter, to whom was given the Keys to the Kingdom and the power to loose and bind. And who was promised the gates of hell would not prevail.

Back to the OP; how do you know, apart from the church’s claim?
vern humphrey:

Now there’s a meaningless statement!

Do you deny that salvation comes through His Church?

A bit further down in your post you say this concerning the church and salvation:
vern humphrey:

There are exceptions – for one who is invincibly ignorant, but who nevertheless strives for a Christ-like life.

You don’t believe that salvation necessarily “comes through His Church,” so why are you asking me that question; IMO, you should be giving that more thought.

And, how does one strive for Christ-likeness, when one doesn’t know that Christ exists, because his ignorance is so ignorant that it’s described as "invincible?"

What was the kyregma of the apostles?
vern humphrey:

No, because Christ made His promise to Peter.

We’re back on the carousel again—because the church says so, but back to the OP, other than that, how do you know?

 

[anthony022071]

Jesus said, “I am the way.”

Rome says that Rome is the way:
Quote:
780 The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men.

That means that the Church is the Body of Christ.

When Paul was on the road to Damascus,Christ said to him,“Saul,Saul,why are you persecuting me?” How was Saul persecuting Christ,when Christ was risen from the dead?
Saul had been persecuting Christ’s body,the Church.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Christ made Peter a Shepherd. He told Peter to feed his sheep,and to confirm the brothers.

How do you know that Christ made Peter a shepherd? I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just wondering how you can know this.

 

[vern_humphrey]

How do you know that Christ made Peter a shepherd? I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just wondering how you can know this.

Did He not say “feed my sheep?”

 

[Nick_Jones]

So your theory is that Christ did not establish a Church?

I’m agreeing with you that Christ DID establish the church, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. But as to the RC dilemma, how can it be resolved?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m agreeing with you that Christ DID establish the church, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. But as to the RC dilemma, how can it be resolved?

There is no dilemma – which Church has existed since the First Century, the Catholic Church, or the Lutheran, Baptist, etc.?

Which Church has taught the same consistent doctrine for 2,000 years? And which churches in less than a quarter of that time have fragmented, split, quarreled, broken up, and re-split?

 

[Nick_Jones]

Did He not say “feed my sheep?”

The question isn’t what the words (of Scripture) SAY, but rather, what do the words of Scripture MEAN? If you have chosen to place your faith in the religion of Rome, then how can you have it both ways? Either Rome is right about private interpretation of Scripture or it is wrong. Which is it?

 

[Nick_Jones]

There is no dilemma – which Church has existed since the First Century, the Catholic Church, or the Lutheran, Baptist, etc.?

Which Church has taught the same consistent doctrine for 2,000 years? And which churches in less than a quarter of that time have fragmented, split, quarreled, broken up, and re-split?

See post # 43 for proof that the RCC that we know of today, is not the same church as that of the NT.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The question isn’t what the words (of Scripture) SAY, but rather, what do the words of Scripture MEAN?

They mean what they say.

If you have chosen to place your faith in the religion of Rome, then how can you have it both ways? Either Rome is right about private interpretation of Scripture or it is wrong. Which is it?

I’m afraid you’ll have to explain that to me. You seem to be under the impression that somehow Catholics are not allowed to study scripture.

We have great lattitude in that area – but in this case, there is an official Church interpretation, and surprise, surprise!! It agrees with the wording of the pericope.

Jesus created a Church.

He based it on Peter.

He gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom.

He gave Peter the power to loose and bind.

And He promised the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church.

And His words have been borne out – for 2,000 years, His Church has taught a constant and consistent message. And in less than a quarter of that time, Protestants have fragmented, quarreled, split up, re-fragmented, and so on. Anyone can see how the Kharisma of Infallibility has protected the Church, and how without it Protestantism has rapidly lost its way.

 

[vern_humphrey]

See post # 43 for proof that the RCC that we know of today, is not the same church as that of the NT.

That’s your idea of proof? To ask vague questions – many of which assume things that are not factual?

If you’ve got some proof – real proof – trot it out.

 

[anthony022071]

See post # 43 for proof that the RCC that we know of today, is not the same church as that of the NT.

Then where do you think the breaking point was between the Church of the New Testament and those Church Fathers?
The earliest evidence for papal authority is Pope Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians,which was written around 96,when the apostle John was still alive.

Pope Clement to the Church of Corinth:

“Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect.” (Letter to the
Corinthians 58:2, 59:1).

Ignatius:

“You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus:

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [inter AD. 180-190]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops qf the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid. 3:3:2).

 

[Nick_Jones]

That’s your idea of proof? To ask vague questions – many of which assume things that are not factual?

If you’ve got some proof – real proof – trot it out.

My point is that it is quite easy to CLAIM that the RCC today, is the SAME church as the early church of the NT, but are they the same? Does the RCC today teach what the apostles taught in the NT church?

If any of my questions were too vague, I’ll be happy to clarify whatever needs clarification…if you will attempt to answer them.

If I’ve assumed anything that is not factual, just tell me where I’ve erred, and I’ll correct my mistakes…if you are serious about answering them.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Then where do you think the breaking point was between the Church of the New Testament and those Church Fathers?

You seem to be assuming that the ECF were all unanimous in every opinion. Most cults continue to change and “develop doctrine” over time, so it is not possible to identify a specific date for a “breaking point.”

 

[Thing]

Then let’s do some comparing: Where in Scripture did the early church teach any of the following:

1. The papacy
2. Infallibility of human authorities.
3. Purgatory.
4. The selling of indulgences.
5. The burning (at the stake) of heretics.
6. The persecution of those who disagree with the church.
7. The sinlessness of mother Mary.
8. The veneration of mother Mary.
9. That there are “non-mortal” sins.
10. That we are justified by faith plus our good works.
11. That outside of the RCC there is no salvation.
12. That in our fallen and unregenerate condition, we retained our “free will” to do good.

Ok let me get this straight, if I answered these things - you would become Catholic.
Is that right?