I never get an answer from Protestants as to WHERE the original Church is that Christ founded

A

antiSatan5

Member
On the previously mentioned forum I used to go to (that was extremely anti-Catholic), I would ask people: Well, if the Catholic Church is not the true Church Christ founded, which one is?

No one ever answered that Q except this one Mormon who said something about how... This isn't verbatim but I vaguely recall him saying something about how the real Church.. what? Disappeared? That was the implication even though that word was not used, but anyhow, I guess the Church had some serious issues somewhere in history and virtually disappeared (or something) and only Joseph Smith was able to "resurrect" the thing! LOL Sorry about laughing but it's just amazing to me the things people come up with. I mean, well... Actually, now that I think about all this (more), I can see where someone would believe that the Church went underground for a time because that is basically what the Sedevacantist Catholics are saying in this modern era, that we've been w/o a pope since 1958. However, what did the Mormon "church" say about the period of time BEFORE 1958? Well, they're not interested in the Catholic Church before or after 1958, so there's that... But anyhow.. where was I?

I'll be back after I get recombobulated.. LOL

OK, I recombobulated more/less. In this day and age, no one is totally "combobulated" IMO but anyhow, apparently the mormons say that there was no good Church until the 1800th century (or was it the 19th?) when the world had the good fortune of welcoming the awesome Joseph Smith to save the Church!

Um... yeh. The only problem w/ that is that Jesus said His Church would not fail, that even the very gates of Hell could not prevail against it. And Jesus also said or implied that His Church would be visible.. "A city on a hill cannot be hid." - Maybe there are other psgs about the visibility of Christ's Church but I cannot think of them right now (though I've read the Bible, the DR version)
 
antiSatan5 said:
On the previously mentioned forum I used to go to (that was extremely anti-Catholic), I would ask people: Well, if the Catholic Church is not the true Church Christ founded, which one is?

No one ever answered that Q except this one Mormon who said something about how... This isn't verbatim but I vaguely recall him saying something about how the real Church.. what? Disappeared? That was the implication even though that word was not used, but anyhow, I guess the Church had some serious issues somewhere in history and virtually disappeared (or something) and only Joseph Smith was able to "resurrect" the thing! LOL Sorry about laughing but it's just amazing to me the things people come up with. I mean, well... Actually, now that I think about all this (more), I can see where someone would believe that the Church went underground for a time because that is basically what the Sedevacantist Catholics are saying in this modern era, that we've been w/o a pope since 1958. However, what did the Mormon "church" say about the period of time BEFORE 1958? Well, they're not interested in the Catholic Church before or after 1958, so there's that... But anyhow.. where was I?

I'll be back after I get recombobulated.. LOL

OK, I recombobulated more/less. In this day and age, no one is totally "combobulated" IMO but anyhow, apparently the mormons say that there was no good Church until the 1800th century (or was it the 19th?) when the world had the good fortune of welcoming the awesome Joseph Smith to save the Church!

Um... yeh. The only problem w/ that is that Jesus said His Church would not fail, that even the very gates of Hell could not prevail against it. And Jesus also said or implied that His Church would be visible.. "A city on a hill cannot be hid." - Maybe there are other psgs about the visibility of Christ's Church but I cannot think of them right now (though I've read the Bible, the DR version)
Click to expand...

The LDS do maintain, with a straight face, that the New Testament-era Church was basically the same as the LDS are now, Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods, baptism for the dead, the whole nine yards.

As to Protestants (which the LDS are not), they typically maintain that the "church of Jesus Christ" is the body of all believers, regardless of denomination, and they do not confine it to any one sect.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
The LDS do maintain, with a straight face, that the New Testament-era Church was basically the same as the LDS are now, Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods, baptism for the dead, the whole nine yards.

As to Protestants (which the LDS are not), they typically maintain that the "church of Jesus Christ" is the body of all believers, regardless of denomination, and they do not confine it to any one sect.
Click to expand...
Why would the LDS not be protestant? Any so called "church" that is not Catholic is in the same camp as those who protested the Church way back when and continue to do so. Also, I don't recall Aaron or Melchizedek baptizing the dead.. so it looks like they are not even in conformity w/ the Old T in that regard (I'm shocked.. [sarcasm alert])
 
antiSatan5 said:
Why would the LDS not be protestant? Any so called "church" that is not Catholic is in the same camp as those who protested the Church way back when and continue to do so. Also, I don't recall Aaron or Melchizedek baptizing the dead.. so it looks like they are not even in conformity w/ the Old T in that regard (I'm shocked.. [sarcasm alert])
Click to expand...
The term "Protestant" is used typically to describe any ecclesiastical body in the West that descends from the eponymous "reformation", even if it is several splits removed from the original bodies (Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, et al).

LDS has no roots in any of these, aside from using the King James Bible. It is a de novo restorationist religious movement founded upon the claims of Joseph Smith, and is hard to think of as even being Christian, let alone Protestant.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
The term "Protestant" is used typically to describe any ecclesiastical body in the West that descends from the eponymous "reformation", even if it is several splits removed from the original bodies (Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, et al).

LDS has no roots in any of these, aside from using the King James Bible. It is a de novo restorationist religious movement founded upon the claims of Joseph Smith, and is hard to think of as even being Christian, let alone Protestant.
Click to expand...
I sometimes don't think ANY "protestant" or whatever u call them is a Christian. I know that sounds harsh, but you don't know the problems I've had w/ them in the past.. or maybe you do since maybe you also have tried to reason w/ some of them? In any case, this is what I believe: Christ founded a Church and it is not one of the protestant ones. And after a person reaches a certain level of maturity walking with Christ or trying to.. that person is going to have an interest in the historical Church and thereby have an interest in Catholicism. So it's not like people cannot discover that the RCC is... at least a HUGE part of Church history, if they don't want to believe it is the true Church. And then the Holy Spirit will lead them and they will (sometimes) become Catholic. So what I'm saying is that there is no real excuse for someone not becoming a member of the Church Christ founded. Who does not ask him or herself what the True Church is, where it is... ? so that would be the beginning of this journey to the CC. The rude and nasty people at that forum I brought up some time ago were all Protestants. Only a few were atheists or agnostics or "other." I mean, you will know them by their fruits and they treated me like DIRT, so no one can blame me for wondering if Protestants are very "Christian."
 
antiSatan5 said:
On the previously mentioned forum I used to go to (that was extremely anti-Catholic), I would ask people: Well, if the Catholic Church is not the true Church Christ founded, which one is?

No one ever answered that Q except this one Mormon who said something about how... This isn't verbatim but I vaguely recall him saying something about how the real Church.. what? Disappeared?
Click to expand...
They call it the Great Apostasy, when Christ's true teachings went into hiding for hundreds of years until the Truth was revealed. Not defending this at all, just explaining the teaching . . .

Rude and nasty people are unfortunately everywhere online. So are good ones.
 
blackforest said:
They call it the Great Apostasy, when Christ's true teachings went into hiding for hundreds of years until the Truth was revealed. Not defending this at all, just explaining the teaching . . .

Rude and nasty people are unfortunately everywhere online. So are good ones.
Click to expand...

Just to make sure I understand (asking a hypothetical LDS person here, not you), Our Lord founded His "church" with the same doctrines and beliefs, more or less, as the LDS have today, the various priesthoods and endowments, and, I'm assuming, polygamy, but very soon afterwards, so soon that no one could even chronicle when it took place, this "apostasy" took place, and lasted until the angel visited Joseph Smith and showed him where certain holy books, embossed in gold, were buried somewhere in upstate New York. (And then those books disappeared.)

They tell you to pray to know that it is true, and that you will get a "burning in the bosom" that will be proof of this.

I think I'll pass. I'm also not into religious leaders coming up with new doctrines and making changes because of some revelation they say they got. Thankfully Catholicism doesn't work like that.
 
The Sedevacantists say that the Great Apostacy happened in 1958, or at least most of them give that year and I concur. Some of them say that Pius Xii was murdered and I have a tendency to believe that also, even though there isn't the kind of evidence (or I haven't yet found it anyhow) that we have RE the murder of JP I. It is widely believed that "archbishop" Markinkus murdered the latter w/ the help of other Vatican apostates. And so the secret societies that had threatened to take over the church for centuries finally did. The bible talks about this great apostacy, and I don't know about anyone else but I can't see what could possibly be a greater Great Apostacy than what we have in the Vatican today --and have had since 1958.
 
The No.3 edition of the Baltimore Catechism outlines that priests have the power to make their sacraments ineffective based on conditions that they are free to set themselves at their own discretion. It is in questions 612-617 and implied in question 585.

Some on this forum have alleged that there are rules preventing the abuse of this power. However, the mere existence of conditional salvation proves that priests have the power to make it happen. There are laws preventing the abuse of firearms as well, but the point is, anyone who has a gun has the power to cause death, just as anyone who is a priest has the power to deny the efficacy of the sacraments. Oversight won't always stop it and probably isn't always slavishly adherent to the rules about when to stop it.

It could be that the Catholic church is the church which the Lord founded, but since it is in the hands of fallible individuals, it can let people down. It need not be proven that at some point, a new church was founded which became the Catholic church.

Can it be that in various places, people weren't being saved because some faction or other influenced the priests to behave unfairly, and no oversight was exercised, be it ever so alleged that rules exist which prevent the arbitrary or unfair denial of the sacraments?
 
They all claim to be the "remnant" - a defensive move required by their distinct lack of history. Some Baptists go so far as to set John Smyth aside and claim that John the Baptist is their founder. But I thought he pointed to someone greater...
 
Last edited:
Regarding conditional administration of sacraments, this pertains to when a sacrament (such as baptism) is conferred when there is a doubt as to whether the sacrament was ever validly administered, or whether there is a doubt as to whether the penitent is disposed to receive the sacrament (as in Extreme Unction/Anointing of the Sick when the penitent cannot communicate and it cannot be determined whether they desire to receive the sacrament, or whether the person is dead or alive).

Here are the questions from the Baltimore Catechism #3 to which you refer:

Q. 612. Can the Sacraments be given conditionally?
A. The Sacraments can be given conditionally as often as we doubt
whether they were properly given before, or whether they can be validly
given now.

Q. 613. What do we mean by giving a Sacrament conditionally?
A. By giving a Sacrament conditionally we mean that the person
administering the Sacrament intends to give it only in case it has not
been given already or in case the person has the right dispositions for
receiving it, though the dispositions cannot be discovered.

Q. 614. Give an example of how a Sacrament is given conditionally.
A. In giving Baptism, for instance, conditionally--or what we call
conditional Baptism--the priest, instead of saying absolutely, as he
does in ordinary Baptism: "I baptize thee," &c., says: "If you are not
already baptized, or if you are capable of being baptized, I baptize
thee," &c., thus stating the sole condition on which he intends to
administer the Sacrament.

Q. 615. Which of the Sacraments are most frequently given conditionally?
A. The Sacraments most frequently given conditionally are Baptism,
Penance and Extreme Unction; because in some cases it is difficult to
ascertain whether these Sacraments have been given before or whether
they have been validly given, or whether the person about to receive
them has the right dispositions for them.

Q. 616. Name some of the more common circumstances in which a priest is
obliged to administer the Sacraments conditionally.
A. Some of the more common circumstances in which a priest is obliged to
administer the Sacraments conditionally are: (1) When he receives
converts into the Church and is not certain of their previous baptism,
he must baptize them conditionally. (2) When he is called--as in cases
of accident or sudden illness--and doubts whether the person be alive or
dead, or whether he should be given the Sacraments, he must give
absolution and administer Extreme Unction conditionally.

Q. 617. What is the use and effect of giving the Sacraments
conditionally?
A. The use of giving the Sacraments conditionally is that there may be
no irreverence to the Sacraments in giving them to persons incapable or
unworthy of receiving them; and yet that no one who is capable or worthy
may be deprived of them. The effect is to supply the Sacrament where it
is needed or can be given, and to withhold it where it is not needed or
cannot be given.

We went all through this scenario of a malevolent priest withholding intent to receive a sacrament from the penitent who wishes to receive it --- something that is not even hinted of in the excerpt above --- and I am not going to get into that discussion again.
 
The questions and answers from the catechism clearly state that the priest has the power to confer salvation conditionally. The examples stated imply the priest would be well versed in the rules of when to use conditional salvation and, by implication, the fact that he has the power to withhold the efficacy of the sacraments at his discretion.

Admit, please, that after reading those six questions and answers, there would be little doubt in a priest's mind that he has the power to withhold salvation at his discretion, though he is asked to use it according to the rules.

You seem determined to keep insinuating that it always works the way it's supposed to.

The police have the power to inflict harm in various ways on suspects, and rules which are supposed to prevent them. That doesn't always stop police from using excessive force.

You naively insist that only a truly impossible level of maliciousness could lead a priest to place selfish conditions on salvation but it is not so. Suppose, for example, Martin Luther's priest decided his sacraments would work except when saving an eligible potential priestly candidate would lead him away from the priesthood. Then, Luther is caught in an open field in a sudden lightning storm, his courage fails him, and he becomes a priest.

Would that be a truly evil level of malevolence? The parish needs a priest after all, there may not be a great deal of jobs to go around for young Martin Luther, and father so-and-so may have been long past due for retirement, half blind, arthritic, etc. or perhaps knew of such a one who needed replacing.
 
If it is important to you, to think that a priest could, theoretically, withhold the intention to confer a sacrament, while remaining form and matter intact, and telling no one of his intent not to confer a sacrament, that is up to you. It's not something Catholics generally go around talking about or thinking about.

Any conception of Almighty God that I am capable of having, tells me that if one of the faithful were to be subjected to this level of duplicity, and were rightly disposed to receive whatever sacrament were at issue here, that same God would not hold it against the penitent, and would confer some kind of grace commensurate with what the sacrament would have been. God's Grace is not limited to the sacraments.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
Any conception of Almighty God that I am capable of having, tells me that if one of the faithful were to be subjected to this level of duplicity, and were rightly disposed to receive whatever sacrament were at issue here, that same God would not hold it against the penitent, and would confer some kind of grace commensurate with what the sacrament would have been. God's Grace is not limited to the sacraments.
Click to expand...
Maybe if you pray for it.
 
Dissenter said:
The No.3 edition of the Baltimore Catechism outlines that priests have the power to make their sacraments ineffective based on conditions that they are free to set themselves at their own discretion. It is in questions 612-617 and implied in question 585.

Some on this forum have alleged that there are rules preventing the abuse of this power. However, the mere existence of conditional salvation proves that priests have the power to make it happen. There are laws preventing the abuse of firearms as well, but the point is, anyone who has a gun has the power to cause death, just as anyone who is a priest has the power to deny the efficacy of the sacraments. Oversight won't always stop it and probably isn't always slavishly adherent to the rules about when to stop it.

It could be that the Catholic church is the church which the Lord founded, but since it is in the hands of fallible individuals, it can let people down. It need not be proven that at some point, a new church was founded which became the Catholic church.

Can it be that in various places, people weren't being saved because some faction or other influenced the priests to behave unfairly, and no oversight was exercised, be it ever so alleged that rules exist which prevent the arbitrary or unfair denial of the sacraments?
Click to expand...
Do you personally know the teaching at seminary, or the directions for administering the sacraments? It seems like you are assuming error for some reason. Even if the Church erred as to a sacrament, does not God know the heart of the believer?
It appears to me that "could be" and "Can it be" are rhetorical exercises which have no direct bearing on reality.
 
I am wondering at this point, if it would be possible for one to claim that the Catholic Church is not the one true Church to which one must adhere, if one realizes that they must adhere to it in order to be saved, because its priests could, theoretically, fool penitents by surreptitiously tampering with intention, form, or matter, such that they could trick adherents into receiving sacraments that they think are valid but in fact are not.

To suggest that a priest could internally withhold intention is no different than suggesting that he could use invalidating form (secretly omitting words intrinsic to the validity of the sacrament, such as the words of consecration, which would be easier to do in the traditional Latin rite where such words are whispered) or matter (using hosts secretly made with rice flour instead of wheat). In either case, the penitent would be none the wiser (except perhaps to say "hey, this host tastes funny" or "I think I heard the priest say hoc non est enim corpus meum"). Sacramental validity rests upon all three factors, and collapses if any one of them are not intact.

The logic here seems to be, that in a "one true Church" to which all who seek salvation must adhere,
  • there would have to be some miraculous way to prevent a priest from carrying out such nefarious deception (perhaps by Almighty God striking him dead if he sought to execute such a plan),
  • such that a believer would never, ever be in danger of receiving a sacrament deliberately made invalid by the priest who confers it,
  • and in the absence of such intervention, the Catholic Church's claims evaporate.
Such a claim would be a "gotcha" moment for dismissing the Catholic Church. Am I right?
 
Last edited:
antiSatan5 said:
On the previously mentioned forum I used to go to (that was extremely anti-Catholic), I would ask people: Well, if the Catholic Church is not the true Church Christ founded, which one is?
Click to expand...
The current Pentecostal church I have to deal with contends that the church never went away. Never went into hiding. Was there all along for the "true believers" but nothing was actually recorded of it.

Somehow this makes it harder to argue against.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
I am wondering at this point, if it would be possible for one to claim that the Catholic Church is not the one true Church to which one must adhere, if one realizes that they must adhere to it in order to be saved, because its priests could, theoretically, fool penitents by surreptitiously tampering with intention, form, or matter, such that they could trick adherents into receiving sacraments that they think are valid but in fact are not.

To suggest that a priest could internally withhold intention is no different than suggesting that he could use invalidating form (secretly omitting words intrinsic to the validity of the sacrament, such as the words of consecration, which would be easier to do in the traditional Latin rite where such words are whispered) or matter (using hosts secretly made with rice flour instead of wheat). In either case, the penitent would be none the wiser (except perhaps to say "hey, this host tastes funny" or "I think I heard the priest say hoc non est enim corpus meum"). Sacramental validity rests upon all three factors, and collapses if any one of them are not intact.

The logic here seems to be, that in a "one true Church" to which all who seek salvation must adhere,
  • there would have to be some miraculous way to prevent a priest from carrying out such nefarious deception (perhaps by Almighty God striking him dead if he sought to execute such a plan),
  • such that a believer would never, ever be in danger of receiving a sacrament deliberately made invalid by the priest who confers it,
  • and in the absence of such intervention, the Catholic Church's claims evaporate.
Such a claim would be a "gotcha" moment for dismissing the Catholic Church. Am I right?
Click to expand...
If you return to my hypothetical case about the priests who ministered to a reformer, the reformer would not necessarily need or want to dismiss the entire Church. They may merely want a way to obtain salvation.

Catholicism may have worked for the hypothetical reformer for the most part, so long as they stayed in line, and maybe the hypothetical reformer's conscience could tell that their local priest or hierarchy had decided that they would receive the Lord's help so long as they stayed in line, perhaps even due to reminders which they could not help but analyze with a confessor's eye toward whether their priest were betraying a bit of guilt.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
We went all through this scenario of a malevolent priest withholding intent to receive a sacrament from the penitent who wishes to receive it --- something that is not even hinted of in the excerpt above --- and I am not going to get into that discussion again.
Click to expand...
Malevolence is not required. All that is required is for a fallible or weak minister of the sacraments to decide his conditions on salvation were the lesser of two evils.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top