Protestants, when did the Catholic Church go bad?

[joclucsylv]

isn’t THIS Gods will? God “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” 1 Timothy 2:4

Of course he desires all people to be saved. Remember…we all have free will. Scripture says we have to do the will of the Father to enter heaven. Salvation is lost through sin. You agreed. So you are working on your salvation. Don’t know why you can’t admit it.

 

[joclucsylv]

One last parting question faithalone 1.

Why do you trust the Catholic Church to approve the books of the bible, but you can’t trust Her for interpretation? The book you love so much is a Catholic book.

Also, does it not bother you that the protestant bible (which I assume you follow) has missing books?

 

[faithalone1]

The gospels were adressed to US!!!

What you are telling me is that the gospels were written for a different audience so we can’t apply them to our lives??

Of course the WORD was addressed to all. BUT these gospels were addressed to specific groups at the time of their inception. Matthew was for the Jews, Mark for the Romans, Luke for the Greeks and John was a “recap” or complete gospel. If you read a NIV bible it states at the beginning of matthew “this gospel was addressed to the Jews”. it doesn’t mean it doesn’t “apply” to us obviously. Great commision?

 

[faithalone1]

One last parting question faithalone 1.

Why do you trust the Catholic Church to approve the books of the bible, but you can’t trust Her for interpretation? The book you love so much is a Catholic book.

Also, does it not bother you that the protestant bible (which I assume you follow) has missing books?

21 of the 27 books in the NT was written and ACCEPTED universally by 100 AD. there was in FACT a greek orthodox bible in existence in or around 350 AD BEFORE the RC or OC or whovever Cannonized our NT today. AND bottom line is that i trust in God and that he will assure that the truth of his word to be recieved. It matters not WHO "cannonized"it. It doesn’t hold water nor imply a “True Church” claim as being valid coming from the RC. In my view.

 

[faithalone1]

One last parting question faithalone 1.

Why do you trust the Catholic Church to approve the books of the bible, but you can’t trust Her for interpretation? The book you love so much is a Catholic book.

Also, does it not bother you that the protestant bible (which I assume you follow) has missing books?

Goodnight and God Bless.

 

[onemangang]

So why didn’t Calvin submit to the papacy?

I do not have an answer for that. I suppose those steep in Calvin’s writings could answer that.

Perhaps you could find it in one of his commentaries here ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom32.ii.lii.html?bcb=right

I guess because Calvin saw himself as a “reformer” not a splinter group, and further reading of what Calvin said was, it does not mean Christ gave the keys to those who came after Peter.

books.google.com/books?id=-zQDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA478&lpg=PA478&dq=John+Calvin+++Lutherans++know+peter+the+rock&source=bl&ots=aIEHX4jZwo&sig=L9CUgP36PqCxo20Yewltq8bnHQc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eM5NT9jAIIiZiQKA3vTACw&sqi=2&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=John%20Calvin%20%20%20Lutherans%20%20know%20peter%20the%20rock&f=false

 

[onemangang]

Well “One True Churchism” can be a complicated subject. I just believe the true church is made up of true believers who obey the word of god the best as possible. Fact is 75% or more of “chirstians” dont even attend church regularly nor participate in worship with god in their daily lives. so we have people who are Christian in name only. Are they saved because there in your “One True Church” while a devout god fearing baptist etc. isn’t? “True churchism” is not healthy. just my view.

Here is an overview on the Catholic view of what you are talking about from new advent

Members of the Church

The foregoing account of the Church and of the principle of authority by which it is governed enables us to determine who are members of the Church and who are not. The membership of which we speak, is incorporation in the visible body of Christ. It has already been noted (VI) that a member of the Church may have forfeited the grace of God. In this case he is a withered branch of the true Vine; but he has not been finally broken off from it.** He still belongs to Christ. Three conditions are requisite for a man to be a member of the Church.**

In the first place, he must profess the true Faith, and have received the Sacrament of Baptism. The essential necessity of this condition is apparent from the fact that the Church is the kingdom of truth, the society of those who accept the revelation of the Son of God. Every member of the Church must accept the whole revelation, either explicitly or implicitly, by profession of all that the Church teaches. He who refuses to receive it, or who, having received it, falls away, thereby excludes himself from the kingdom (Titus 3:10 sq.). The Sacrament of Baptism is rightly regarded as part of this condition. By it those who profess the Faith are formally adopted as children of God (Ephesians 1:13), and an habitual faith is among the gifts bestowed in it. Christ expressly connects the two, declaring that “he who believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16; cf. Matthew 28:19).

It is further necessary to acknowledge the authority of the Church and of her appointed rulers. Those who reject the jurisdiction established by Christ are no longer members of His kingdom. Thus St. Ignatius lays it down in his Letter to the Church of Smyrna (no. 8): **Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be; even as where Jesus may be there is the universal Church". In regard to this condition, the ultimate touchstone is to be found in communion with the Holy See. On Peter Christ founded his Church. **Those who are not joined to that foundation cannot form part of the house of God.

The third condition lies in the canonical right to communion with the Church. In virtue of its coercive power the Church has authority to excommunicate notorious sinners. It may inflict this punishment not merely on the ground of heresy or schism, but for other grave offences. Thus St. Paul pronounces sentence of excommunication on the incestuous Corinthian (1 Corinthians 5:3). This penalty is no mere external severance from the rights of common worship. It is a severance from the body of Christ, undoing to this extent the work of baptism, and placing the excommunicated man in the condition of the heathen and the publican". It casts him out of God’s kingdom; and the Apostle speaks of it as “delivering him over to Satan” (1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Timothy 1:20).

Regarding each of these conditions, however, certain distinctions must be drawn.

Many baptized heretics have been educated in their erroneous beliefs. Their case is altogether different from that of those who have voluntarily renounced the Faith. They accept what they believe to be the Divine revelation. Such as these belong to the Church in desire, for they are at heart anxious to fulfill God’s will in their regard. In virtue of their baptism and good will, they may be in a state of grace. They belong to the soul of the Church, though they are not united to the visible body. As such they are members of the Church internally, though not externally.

**Even in regard to those who have themselves fallen away from the Faith, a difference must be made between open and notorious heretics on the one hand, and secret heretics on the other. Open and notorious heresy severs from the visible Church. **The majority of theologians agree with Bellarmine (de Ecclesiâ, III, c. x), as against Francisco Suárez, that secret heresy has not this effect.

In regard to schism the same distinction must be drawn. A secret repudiation of the Church’s authority does not sever the sinner from the Church. The Church recognizes the schismatic as a member, entitled to her communion, until by open and notorious rebellion he rejects her authority.

Excommunicated persons are either excommunicati tolerati (i.e. those who are still tolerated) or excommunicati vitandi (i.e. those to be shunned). Many theologians hold that those whom the Church still tolerates are not wholly cut off from her membership, and that it is only those whom she has branded as “to be shunned” who are cut off from God’s kingdom (see Murray, De Eccles., Disp. i, sect. viii, n. 118). (See EXCOMMUNICATION.)

 

[joclucsylv]

21 of the 27 books in the NT was written and ACCEPTED universally by 100 AD. there was in FACT a greek orthodox bible in existence in or around 350 AD BEFORE the RC or OC or whovever Cannonized our NT today. AND bottom line is that i trust in God and that he will assure that the truth of his word to be recieved. It matters not WHO "cannonized"it. It doesn’t hold water nor imply a “True Church” claim as being valid coming from the RC. In my view.

Well, since you reject the authority of the CC, you have absolutely no way of determining the certainty (infallibly) which books make up the bible. In order to arrive at an infallible list of books, there must be an infallible authority outside of the bible, that is the church. Therefore, if one rejects the infallible authority of the Church and holds to scripture alone, he reamains unable to determine if scripture is truth at all.

The 7 books Luther removed are found in the septuagint. The NT quotes from the OT 350 times, and 300 of those quotes are from the septuagint. The authors of the NT accepted the Septuagint version of the OT. Also, 400 years after Luther rejected the Septuagint, hebrew copies of these books were found in the dead sea scrolls.

Also, it was not the bible, but Tradition of the Church which helped determine the authorship of the biblical books. The Gospel of Matthew, for example, does not indicate who wrote it. It is from Tradition and the Chruch that we know it was written by Matthew. Since scripture is silent on who wrote Matthew, protestant logic would require one to conclude that it’s an open question.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

yep i believe i can lose my salvation too.I’m NOT a calvinist. Free will, i agree.

Ok, so if you don’t perform those works of charity, will you keep God’s grace? The answer is no, you will lose your salvation. So works are necessary for salvation. Faith is just the beginning of our justification.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Ok i can play cut and paste too.
. 20 reasons why Peter Not A Good Choice For The First Pope

Peter was just one of the 12 apostles (Mt.10:1-2; Mk. 3:13-19; Lk. 6:13-16).
Peter was just one of the three close friends of Jesus (Mt. 17:1; 26:36-37).
Peter denied the Lord Jesus three times (Mt. 26:69-75; Lk
Peter was a married man: 1 Cor. 9:5; Matthew 8:14
Peter was rebuked by the Lord (Mt. 16:23; Jn. 21:20-22).
Peter was rebuked by Paul (Gal. 2:11).
Peter never accepted reverence (Acts 10:25-26); (No man should, Rev. 19:10; 22:9).
Peter was not superior to the other apostles (Mt. 18:18; 2 Cor.11:5;12:11).
Peter and the other apostles, in consideration of their demise, wrote letters preserving their combined God-given revelations for all time (2 Pet. 1:12-15; 3:1-2; Eph. 3:3-5.).
Peter along with the other apostles were to “sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mt. 19:28).
Peter was not the head of the church - Jesus is the only head of His church (Eph. 1:22-23;Col.1:19)
Peter was not selected to be the Vicar of Christ on earth (no references in the Bible).
Peter never talked about any “successors” to him.
Peter and Paul never wore any of the many titles of the modern Popes (2 Pet. 3:15).
Peter and no other disciple(s) were to be “the greatest in the kingdom” (Mt. 18:1-4; 20:20-28); rather, they were to be equal.
Peter’s name in the Greek is Petros (a detached stone, Jn. 1:42) but Jesus said the church would be built upon the “rock” or Petra (a mass of rock) - Mt. 16:18.
Matthew 16:18 Peter is masculine gender and rock in femine gender; in context they cannot refer to the same thing.
Peter and Paul declared that Jesus was “the chief cornerstone” (Acts 4:12; Eph. 2:20).
Peter and the other apostles were merely the layers of the foundation Stone - Jesus (Acts 4:11-12; Eph. 2:19-20).
Finally, Jesus Himself said that “all authority” was given to Him both "in heaven and on earth (Mt. 28:18-20).

Have fun.

Yep.
So?
He was also told to feed Jesus’ sheep three times.
Yet that was before he was made an apostle, and there is no mention of his wife in the NT
Aren’t we all? The pope isn’t perfect.
He never accepted worship, correct.
So? The pope is human.
But he was (Matt. 16:18-19).
Your point?
Because there were twelve apostles…
That’s why he is called the Vicar of Christ.
So are you saying Jesus would just let the teaching authority of his Church die with the apostles???
They never mention the title Trinity to God either, yet God obviously is Three in One.
Doesn’t say they would be equal, but rather to be greater they must become less. And it wouldn’t matter because Mary is the highest saint.
But it was spoken in Aramaic, so it would be Kepha both times.
But if Peter isn’t that rock spoken about by Jesus later in the sentence, it makes no sense grammatically.
No one is arguing he isn’t.
See above.
And therefore he can give his authority to who ever he wants to. And he gave it to the Church (Matt 16:18-19, Matt 18:18, 1 Tim. 3:15)

It wasn’t a lot of fun, but hey whatever.

 

[JustaServant]

so we earn our salvation. i dont believe anything a human being can “do” can save them. virtually every other religion says this and its makes religion a system to work in. I try to do good BECAUSE i’m saved, not because I’m trying to get saved.

First, Catholics ultimately believe that we are saved, not by faith or works, but by Jesus Christ and Him alone. Jesus Christ’s death and Resurrection is the sole source of our justification (being in a right relationship with God) and salvation (sharing in God’s divine life). But as a result of Christ’s death and resurrection, we are now able to receive God’s grace. Grace is God’s own divine life which He infuses into our souls. It is what Adam initially lost for us, and Christ won back for us. This grace initially causes us to seek God and to believe in Him (the “faith” part). Non-Catholics generally stop here.

But God desires us to respond to His grace by putting our faith into action (the “works” part). This is why Jesus always taught about our salvation in the context of what we actually did during our earthly lives, and not how much faith we had (“whatever you did to the least of my brothers, you did to Me.” Matthew 25:40,45). When Jesus teaches about His second coming where He will separate the sheep from the goats, He bases salvation and damnation upon what we actually did (“works”), whether righteous or evil. Matthew 25:31-46. In James 2:14-26, James is similarly instructing us to put our faith into action by performing good works, and not just giving an intellectual assent of faith. James says such “faith apart from works is dead.” James 2:17,26.

So we must do more than accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior. Even the demons believe Jesus is Savior, and yet “they tremble.” James 2:19. We must also do good works. Faith is the beginning of a process that leads us toward justification, but faith alone never obtains the grace of justification. Faith and works acting together achieve our justification. Saint Paul says it best when he writes that we need “faith working in love.” Galatians 5:6. We are not justified and saved by faith alone.

Secondly, it is important to distinguish between the “works” James taught about in James 2:24 and the “works of the law” Saint Paul taught about in Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16,21; 3:2,5,10; and Eph. 2:8-9. Protestants generally confuse James’ “good works” from Paul’s “works of the law” when they attempt to prove that “works” are irrelevant to justification and salvation. The “works of the law” Paul taught about in Ephesians 2:8-9 and elsewhere referred to the Mosaic law and their legal system that made God obligated to reward them for their works. They would thus “boast” about their works by attributing their works to themselves. Cf. Rom. 4:2; Eph. 2:9. Saint Paul taught that, with the coming of Christ, the Mosaic (moral, legal, and ceremonial) law which made God a debtor to us no longer justified a person. Instead, Paul taught that we are now justified and saved by grace (not legal obligation) through faith (not works of law). Eph. 2:5,8. Hence, we no longer “boast” by attributing our works to ourselves. We attribute them to God who gives everything to us freely by His grace.

Therefore, we are no longer required to fulfill the “works of law,” but to fulfill the “law of Christ” Gal. 6:2. This is why Paul writes that the “doers of the law (of Christ)” will be justified. Rom. 2:13. Of course, the “works of the law” Paul wrote about in Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16,21; 3:2,5,10 and Eph. 2:8-9 have nothing to do with the “good works” James is teaching in James 2:24 or the “law” Paul is teaching about in Rom. 2:13 (because they are part of the same Word of God which can never contradict itself).

 

[Bballer32]

Ok i can play cut and paste too.
. 20 reasons why Peter Not A Good Choice For The First Pope

Peter denied the Lord Jesus three times (Mt. 26:69-75; Lk

 

[Bballer32]

One thing to know here is that these passages were adressed to different people for various reasons. The gopsels are different because of the audience they were addressed too. Greeks, jews, romans. same thing with the rest of the NT. I believe salvation is gift of grace from God and we recieve it.

In Acts 10:31 Cornelius is taken notice by God by his WORKS of Charity.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Speaking For myself as a Protestant Christian i can offer a response. I personally don’t/can’t see the Catholic church as infallable nor as having any kind of supreme authority. The Catholic church had a monolpoly of power over Christianity for 1500 years for various reasons.The CC like any other church is fallible and makes mistakes. With the Reformation we also saw the printing press and spread of the bible to more people. once more people could actually read the word they saw the Christian Faith in a different light.Protestants just dont see the Pope or CC as having any special authority beyond any other church.

The CC teaching on Salvation was questioned and that helped spark the Reformation IMO.To me , the CC has always been wrong in regards to salvation and its view on itself as being infallible along with the bible.(sola scriptura is my belief). Yes the CC transcribed,cannonized the Word for all of us, thank you. But since that point we have seen a lot of man-made corruption, that to me,shows the CCs to be in error. The CC teachings(especially on salvation, and authority) were largely unchallenged because people had little access to scripture prior to the printing press. The CC monopoly on christianity was lost forever because of the printing press and the conviction of the great Reformer Martin Luther. The CC was as much of a poliitcal force as religious IMO and acted as such.This led to the Reformation. Power Corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. To me, that sums up a lot of CC history. I’ve always believed that the church of christ is a body of believers, not a group of churches overseen by a supreme bishop. I could never accept a church, tradition,teaching magesterium, or man here as infallible.

Catholics do a lot of good in the world and that doesn’t go unnoticed. and despite our differences on certain theological issues, a lot of good can be done.And i will say that a lot of confusion followed after Martin Luther. I see a LOT of negatives on the Protestant side, but it doesn’t change the truth of the Reformation IMO. So the CC has always been fallible and makes mistakes. But all faithful followers of Christ make up the “true” church IMO…

But if it is true that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, wouldn’t that mean that God is absolutely corrupt?

 

[Publisher]

But if it is true that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, wouldn’t that mean that God is absolutely corrupt?

Only if one believes in a fallible God.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Yep.
So?
He was also told to feed Jesus’ sheep three times.
Yet that was before he was made an apostle, and there is no mention of his wife in the NT
Aren’t we all? The pope isn’t perfect.
He never accepted worship, correct.
So? The pope is human.
But he was (Matt. 16:18-19).
Your point?
Because there were twelve apostles…
That’s why he is called the Vicar of Christ.
So are you saying Jesus would just let the teaching authority of his Church die with the apostles???
They never mention the title Trinity to God either, yet God obviously is Three in One.
Doesn’t say they would be equal, but rather to be greater they must become less. And it wouldn’t matter because Mary is the highest saint.
But it was spoken in Aramaic, so it would be Kepha both times.
But if Peter isn’t that rock spoken about by Jesus later in the sentence, it makes no sense grammatically.
No one is arguing he isn’t.
See above.
And therefore he can give his authority to who ever he wants to. And he gave it to the Church (Matt 16:18-19, Matt 18:18, 1 Tim. 3:15)

It wasn’t a lot of fun, but hey whatever.

I think the fact that Jesus made Peter the rock on which He would build His Church is the only reason needed for why “Peter would make a good first Pope.” My Mom was not raised in any church and religion did not play an important role in her life - until she became a very young woman. She set out to find the “True Church” without any idea of what the True Church would be. She read the bible and when she read the passage where Jesus builds His Church on Peter that was it. She joined RCIA (or whatever it was called way back then). She didn’t complete the classes because she “died” and was baptised on her death bed at age 19. Except she wasn’t really dead, not quite, and she lived until the age of 82. And she was one of the staunchest Catholics I have ever known.

If Jesus did not build His Church on Peter (and the rest of it with the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and the power to loose and bind and all that) then Jesus was not God, or was a very inefficient God who was definitely not omnipotent, or He didn’t care, or He planned it so that His Church (*His /Church) would fail, or it was all a big joke and He didn’t mean a word of it.

I just can’t see it.

(Sorry for bringing up my Mom but I love her and miss her very much and I tend to write about her in posts because of that.)*

 

[LittleSoldier]

Only if one believes in a fallible God.

But there is nothing in the saying about being fallible. It only refers to power and absolute power and is being used as a reason why the Catholic Church is not the True Church. Logically, I can come to only one conclusion if I accept that saying and that is that God is absolutely corrupt - not a good God to worship or love; a very frightening God.

 

[Publisher]

But there is nothing in the saying about being fallible. It only refers to power and absolute power and is being used as a reason why the Catholic Church is not the True Church. Logically, I can come to only one conclusion if I accept that saying and that is that God is absolutely corrupt - not a good God to worship or love; a very frightening God.

If it’s a philosophical discussion you wish to engage in…I’m not the best person to do so with you…if absolute power corrupts absolutely…a human phrase…from fallible humans…to ascribe to God our own frailties to me makes no sense…for myself I can barely concieve of a trip being made in a manned space craft to Mars, let alone seek to understand the creator of all that exists…seen and unseen…what I have experienced of God I found through Jesus of Nazareth and experienced His abiding Presence…what I have come to “know” of God is that He is love…deep…sure…steady and unfathomable…“we see thru a glass darkly…we know in part…”

How you wish to apply “logic” to the finite understanding of the Infinte and Ineffable is indeed a conundrum…“logic” fails me when I seek to do so…so…I’m not the best person to “philosophise” about the “corrupt nature” of a Being that is “Wholly Other” and Unknowable…except in a very limited way…because of the finiteness of the human mind in general…and my mind in particular.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Priests, monks had access to the Bibles. People were saved through Faith.If these people had Faith I believe they were saved.But being saved by works in a church is a false teaching for me. Anybody can go through the motions. Works dont save because i cant EARN heaven. God only cares about whats in your heart. we do good BECAUSE we’re saved. Thats my view.

Where does the bible say that we are saved by faith alone?

And doesn’t the bible teach that faith without works is dead? Here it is, in a Protestant bible:

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

[James 2:14-26,NKJV, bolding added by this poster for emphasis

Please read the following, also taken from a Protestant bible:

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
[Matthew 25:31-46,NIV]

Do you accept these passages as being God’s truth?

I have one more question. If you read Scripture and believe you are guided by the Holy Spirit and so you believe your interpretation is correct and I read the same Scripture and believe I am guided by the Holy Spirit and so my interpretation is correct, but our interpretations are complete opposites, which interpretation is correct?

 

[LittleSoldier]

If it’s a philosophical discussion you wish to engage in…I’m not the best person to do so with you…if absolute power corrupts absolutely…a human phrase…from fallible humans…to ascribe to God our own frailties to me makes no sense…for myself I can barely concieve of a trip being made in a manned space craft to Mars, let alone seek to understand the creator of all that exists…seen and unseen…what I have experienced of God I found through Jesus of Nazareth and experienced His abiding Presence…what I have come to “know” of God is that He is love…deep…sure…steady and unfathomable…“we see thru a glass darkly…we know in part…”

How you wish to apply “logic” to the finite understanding of the Infinte and Ineffable is indeed a conundrum…“logic” fails me when I seek to do so…so…I’m not the best person to “philosophise” about the “corrupt nature” of a Being that is “Wholly Other” and Unknowable…except in a very limited way…because of the finiteness of the human mind in general…and my mind in particular.

No conundrum. The phrase is being used as a means to prove that the Catholic Church is not the true Church. I am saying this is illogical. I am defending the Catholic Church. That’s all.