What are the main differences between Bible Christians and Catholics?

[KathleenGee]

Richard,

You keep asking the same questions over and over and over and over and over…and it makes me loopy.

History is full of fractured religions, groups of religions, because people interpret things differently. People all look at things from their own angle…

You do as well. If you want to believe in Christ with your own personal interpretation without a church then that is your choice.

But because of your personal interpretation without Church, whatever we say goes no where, whatever happened in history with people splitting apart because of errors of who Christ is or what church is has its own grievous consequences of society.

I receive the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ as well as the Word of God. You don’t have faith, you don’t receive. I have a tremendous library to draw on within my Roman Catholic faith. There is so much to learn about the Word of God and how it is practiced and lived out.

I told you before, I will tell you again…I believe and follow all the Bible quotes you pull out. But it is context that makes us different. You reject Christ’s Church and it eats you up. So you continue to ask the same questions here over and over…

How do you know your SDA church is right? It came out about the same time as the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses…how come you didn’t join them? What is keeping you from joining these other Restorationists religions???

A person is on much safer ground with the faith and Church Christ gave us 2,000 years ago. With that amount of time, certainly many events have colored it. But as long as you refuse to learn anything, you will not be able to study our history, our people, the sacraments and their effect on our life.

My Church is not based on putting down yours.

 

[rainman10]

If i may expand on your question for Richard…

If there was a difference,when did “your” interpretation become the official correct interpretation? Were you taught this version of the text’s meaning or did you radomnly read these verses and bingo you knew they meant what you claim thier meaning to be.

I would really like to hear Richard’s (or any other protestant who believes in personal interpretation of the Bible) response to this question. Seems like Richard did not see it, or maybe ignored it because he can’t answer it?

 

[wmscott]

How do you know that for a fact?

Could the Spirit be the Spirit of confusion considering that every Christian claims to read the Bible and yet they seem to be guided into different interpretations.
But how do you know that your pastor is teaching you the truth?
One convert from Evangelicalism said that she was really angry for having been lied to by her pastors. I don’t think she meant that they deliberately lied to her but that they just did not know the truth so ended up teaching her lies.
Your pastors do not have the guarantee of of the Holy Spirit.
But how can that ultimately help when the thing that you are trying to decipher is precisely the word of God?

That would be like trying to figure out if what your father is saying is true by asking your father.
The life Application Bible is corrupt Bible. It puts exegesis in place of the original text.
The Catechism a brilliant reference for verifying whether we are interpreting the word of God correctly.

I suggest you try it.

Hi benedictus2, when BlueLake states “The Holy Spirit guides us when we read the word.” the question I have is doesn’t Sacred Scripture say that the HS will be sent to aid and guide the Church. I know we are to read Sacred Scripture and that we pray that the HS be with us as we do, but when there is dispute or doubt and there can only be one truth, it is the Church who is the only authentic and authorized interpreter of Sacred Scripture is it not.

 

[Cruxis117]

Please tell me how God’s plan of salvation in Jesus Christ differs from “the salvation message of Jesus Christ and Him crucified”

It doesn’t. But the initial difference I am speaking of is that the Bible is the sole source of this knowledge. I agree that we need no more than this message to preach. I also agree that what Jesus taught to the Apostles wasn’t always written down, but was oral teaching.

What’s the secret if "it does not tell us “all about our Salvation” what’s the rest of the story?

I don’t think you took the time to read my post. It’s not a secret. Not Gnostic knowledge we’re dealing with here. The fact of the matter is, is that the Sacred Scriptures holds the story, but that Sacred Tradition does too. For example, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 speaks of how we are to hold fast to the traditions (or teachings, depending on your Bible version) that have been taught to us, whether by word of mouth or by letter. Not letter alone.

You can read can’t you?

We agree that the Apostles could read, but many and most of the population during that time could barely read at all. That’s why it was preached, not just given out to read. No offense, but I never heard of an ancient Zondervan Press printing out Bibles two thousand years ago. No, while we can read, it is the matter of the people doing the preaching. That is why he commissioned the Apostles, and still does so today with the successors of those Apostles, the Bishops of the Catholic Church.

Stand up no, but give instruction? Your kidding, Right?

It has instruction, but it does not speak, interpret, or in other words, give it. Put like this. Many people have read the Driver’s Manual to learn how to drive, but do they not still need a teacher who has driven? Do we not agree that there are many people who have read that manual, and still have gotten into accidents? The Sacred Scriptures are useful, or profitable, for instruction, as well as many other things. But who was given the keys to the kingdom? And who was given the ability to bind and loose sins? The Apostles, not the bible.

We don’t call the bible a preacher but it contains some of the best sermons that have ever been written and the most of the men that wrote the bible were the best preachers ever known.

Agreed. But likewise, you must agree that preaching by using speech was the primary way of getting the Gospel out. The bible does contain some of the best sermons that have ever been written, and Sacred Tradition has the best oral traditions that have been passed down from the Apostles.

Again are you saying that these people are preaching thigs not contained in the bible? And are these things needed for our salvation?

Yes, they are needed for our salvation. And yes, many of these things can and are found in the Bible. But likewise, we hold that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scriptures are equal, neither one over the other. As I have said, it is not just the written word we must have. It is the verbal word, the one preached, so that we may fully know of the Living Word.

But you did agree that the bible does teach us of God’s plan of salvation in Jesus. So if it is taught someplace else besides the inspired word of God, it would be redundant and without the validity of inspiration.

Not at all. This is the fallacy of many Protestants: Either/Or. It must be either Faith or Works. Or either Sacred Scriptures or Sacred Tradition. We agree that yes, the bible does have the story of God’s plan of Salvation. But again, not just the Bible. When you post, be clear of what you write. I have clarified, yes, I believe the bible does have this story. But not just the Bible. For Jesus did not hand out bibles. Jesus spoke to his Apostles and told them to go. And the successors of those Apostles still do so today.

No it does say to go and preach. But the things that Jesus told them to go and preach eventually were written down and that is what we call the bible.

Likewise though, it wasn’t just written down. The Church assembled the Canon of Sacred Scripture, and has preached and still preaches the Gospel. What we call the Bible is a set of inspired books that was assembled by an inspired and infallible Church, which is the inspired interpreter of these books. Whereas by your own authority, per the bolded words in the quotation above, you have decided what is inspired by your own opinion. I will trust the Church on this matter, and on the matter of doing as Jesus told them to: Go and preach the Gospel, teaching us to observe everything that Jesus commanded them, which can be found in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

 

[KathleenGee]

The second letter of St. Peter is very defining about such disputes.

Our faith is based on the bestowed witness by the Apostles of our His Majesty, Our Lord Jesus Christ, that we are not to follow angels or any other doctrine than that witnessed by the Apostles, and that we are not to follow private interpretation.

The Catholic Church has been faithful and not of it itself but with the presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The Church insured the Apostolic Witness, the authorizing of correct books of Sacred Scripture, and the creed…the Gospel of St. John was not approved for some time until it was verified it was written by him; the Book of Hebrews was not approved for 200 years until it was verified and appropriate for Scriptural use.

Finally, the doctrine of faith was comprised in the Apostles Creed and then clarified in the Nicene Creed.

Apostolic witness, correct designation of appropriate books for public revelation in Sacred Scripture and the creed, condensing and defining our core beliefs.

All this work is called Tradition – the insuring of accuracy of the true Jesus Christ. How many times others use tradition as a sign our church is false when contrary, it is the very means to insure Truth in Christ and Church.

 

[JustaServant]

bluelake:
How about you? Do you have doubts on anything? do you check the Word Of God? Not the Catechism, the holy Bible.

God bless,
bluelake

Are you trying to evangelize?

 

[bluelake]

While I agree with pablope that we need to deinfe some terms here. I’d say that the so -called “Bible Christians” are those who hold to some form and defintion of Sola Scriptura (of which there are several to many definitions) and private interpretation.
They deny the concept of an Authoritative Church for the teaching and interpretation of the Bible even though the bible speaks clearly to such authority and not to private interpretation.

From here you may get a long list of doctrinal differences on everything from the Bible canon itself to the Real presence to Baptism to assurance of salvation to works to…
But the long and the short of the difference is authority. Who has the authority to interpret and teach and resolve the doctrinal issues that have been coming up, more or less continuously, since the matter of circumcision was at Antioch and the Council of Jerusalem.

Peace
James

All christians believe in Jesus Christ. Christ died for our sins.
Jesus is our Savior. all christians believe this .
However, some are not as loving to our Savior as He is to us. That is the problem.
If the Trinty is present in your church and you are filled with God’s Spirit that is the beginning of your walk with the Lord.
We are commanded not to judge others. Mt.22:36-39, Mt.7:1-5

God bless,
bluelake

 

[bluelake]

Of course we have sacred tradition, but the intention behind the statement “catholics are bible christians” is that we follow everything that is taught in the bible, which of course includes sacred tradition.

Now everyone knows that certain protestants using the term have led to the general meaning that it refers purely to sola scriptura. But from a Catholic perspective we are true bible christians because we follow everything it teaches instead of conveniently ignoring things “like sola scriptura” that are unscriptural.

Afterall why should we be limited by the flawed definition of a group of protestants who are unbiblical to begin with.

How would you define ‘Sacred Tradition’?

bluelake

 

[Irish_Polock]

How would you define ‘Sacred Tradition’?

bluelake

I wrote about this last night in a different post.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7485194&postcount=15

 

[Cat_Herder]

You may define tradition as mere biblical interpretation. But tradition simply means the teachings of a church. Churches do not teach Scripture, they teach tradition; Scripture is used as one means of validating traditions. But no church uses only Scripture as the means of authenticating traditions. I’ll prove it to you.

The Bible does not say “the correct understanding of the Godhead is the Blessed Trinity.” That is a tradition, one that is well supported by the Bible even though the Bible never uses the word “Trinity” (or “purgatory,” “nun” or “pope”). So you might argue that the Trinity is not a tradition but a mere biblical interpretation.

Here is another one: The Bible does not say “go to church on Sunday.” This tradition is derived from the Apostles’ breaking of bread (i.e. the Eucharist) on the Lord’s Day in Acts 20:7. But the Bible never says that Sunday is the proper day for worship or breaking bread; it just happens to be the day on which Paul broke bread. Saturday, not Sunday, is the biblical Sabbath, and nowhere in the Bible is there any indication that Sunday is the day to which the commandment to honor the Sabbath pertains. In fact, the NT seems to say that there is no valuation of one day over another (Romans 14:5-7). Here we see that the “mere biblical interpretation” paradigm is stretched to the breaking point.

The Bible does not say “you may eat pork.” In fact, the Bible says the opposite in Deut. 14:8. The tradition allowing Christians to eat pork hinges on a vision given to Peter as recorded in Acts 10:12-15. Notice however that Peter does not actually kill and eat the creatures in the vision. Instead, he interprets the vision as referring to Gentile people, not animals, being clean (Acts 10:28). Clearly, interpreting the vision as meaning that pigs are now clean food is an addition to Peter’s words—an addition to Scripture. We are well past “mere biblical interpretation.”

The Bible does not say “a marriage should be conducted before a minister and in a church; the parties should administer vows and the minister should pronounce them married.” The Bible does say that marriage exists and that it is between a man and a woman, and that it is indissoluble. However, the Bible does not say how to actually conduct a marriage; that is something that is defined on the Church’s own authority. A marriage ceremony is not a mere biblical interpretation; it is defined from whole cloth by the Church. By the Bible alone, all that we would have is:

[BIBLEDRB]Mark 10:7[/BIBLEDRB]

… in other words, leave your parents’ house, skip the altar, and fornicate.

The Bible says to keep the Passover as a perpetual ordinance. (Ex. 12:14). When was the last time you saw a Christian at a seder table? The argument that all OT commandments no longer apply is bunk; Jesus clearly teaches otherwise, and the OT also says “thou shall not take the [Lord’s Name] in vain,” (Ex. 20:7), a command not repeated in the NT, and no one will argue that that commandment is abolished. And we see the same deletions in the NT: the Bible says that women must not speak in church (1 Cor 14) and must always have their heads covered (1 Cor 11). And yet, all of these commandments have been abolished by all of the world’s churches—even the Adventists!—based on their own tradition. And then there are the traditions that prohibit alcohol when Paul didn’t (1 Tim. 5:23).

Therefore: all churches have traditions that are authoritative apart from Scripture!

How do we know that the traditions are good, like the ones Paul mentions in 2 Thess. 2:15 and 2 Thess. 3:6, and not bad, like the ones the Lord rejects in Mark 7:13? It isn’t enough to just open the Bible and see if the tradition makes Scripture void. Clearly the tradition of the Sunday sabbath makes void the Jewish sabbath; pork violates no pork; and so on. If we were to accept the Bible as the only authority, then even the Seventh Day Adventists, so proud of rejecting the Sunday sabbath and sausage, have made void the Word of God because their founder is a woman, they have “unbiblical” marriage ceremonies, etc.

Many Protestants have come to this realization and so have sought to “purify” the church of all teachings that are “not in the Bible,” but we would have to reinstitute the dietary laws and change the civil laws to get rid of marriage ceremonies in order to accomplish this race to the bottom.

The simple answer: not everything the Apostles taught is in the Bible. The Bible says so.

[BIBLEDRB]2 Thessalonians 2:14[/BIBLEDRB]

Hence what makes tradition Sacred is not just whether the Bible explicitly states, or even implies, the tradition. Having a marriage ceremony doesn’t contradict Scripture, but it ADDS to the Bible. Calling pork clean is a reasonable interpretation of the vision, but it ADDS to the Bible because that is not Peter’s interpretation and is not written anywhere in the Bible. Making Sunday the Sabbath and abolishing the Passover TAKES AWAY from the Bible, although again, the subtraction can be justified as a reasonable interpretation of what is written. But if we allow every “reasonable interpretation” of Scripture to be an authoritative tradition, then we have ourselves an aborting, contracepting and euthanizing culture of death.

What makes Tradition Sacred is whether it actually came from the Apostles. The Apostles came from God and received the Holy Spirit. The Bible came to us through men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit as the Apostles were—Moses, the psalmists, the prophets, and in the case of the NT, the same Apostles. There is no reason to hold that what teachings of the Apostles made it into their letters should be valued over their oral teachings (and this is the thrust of 2 Thess. 2:14-15). However, it is sure that no teaching can be apostolic if it contradicts EITHER the Bible or what the Apostles taught orally or outside of the biblical letters.

 

[Irish_Polock]

You may define tradition as mere biblical interpretation. But the word tradition simply means the teachings of a given church. Churches do not teach Scripture, they teach tradition; Scripture is used as one means of validating traditions. But no church uses only Scripture as the means of authenticating traditions. I’ll prove it to you.

The Bible does not say “the correct understanding of the Godhead is the Blessed Trinity.” That is a tradition, one that is well supported by the Bible even though the Bible never uses the word “Trinity” (or “purgatory,” “nun” or “pope”). So you might argue that the Trinity is not a tradition but a mere biblical interpretation.

Here is another one: The Bible does not say “go to church on Sunday.” This tradition is derived from the Apostles’ breaking of bread (i.e. the Eucharist) on the Lord’s Day in Acts 20:7. But nowhere in the Bible is a declaration that Sunday is the proper day for worship or breaking bread; it just happens to be the day on which Paul broke bread. Saturday, not Sunday, is the biblical Sabbath, and nowhere in the Bible is there any indication that Sunday is the day to which the commandment to honor the Sabbath pertains. In fact, the NT seems to say that there is no valuation of one day over another (Romans 14:5-7). Here we see that the “mere biblical interpretation” paradigm is stretched to the breaking point.

The Bible does not say “you may eat pork.” In fact, the Bible says the opposite in Deut. 14:8. The tradition allowing Christians to eat pork hinges on a vision given to Peter as recorded in Acts 10:12-15. Notice however that Peter does not actually kill and eat the creatures in the vision. Instead, he interprets the vision as referring to Gentile people, not animals, being clean (Acts 10:28). Clearly, interpreting the vision as meaning that pigs are now clean food is an addition to Peter’s words—an addition to Scripture. We are well past “mere biblical interpretation.”

The Bible does not say “a marriage should be conducted before a minister and in a church; the parties should administer vows and the minister should pronounce them married.” The Bible does say that marriage exists and that it is between a man and a woman, and that it is indissoluble. However, the Bible does not say how to actually conduct a marriage; that is something that is defined on the Church’s own authority. A marriage ceremony is not a mere biblical interpretation; it is completely defined from whole cloth by the Church. If we were going by the Bible alone, all that we would have is:

… in other words, leave your parents’ house, skip the altar, and fornicate.

The Bible says to keep the Passover as a perpetual ordinance. (Ex. 12:14). When was the last time you saw a Christian at a seder table? The argument that all OT commandments no longer apply is bunk; Jesus clearly teaches otherwise, and the OT also says “thou shall not take the [Lord’s Name] in vain,” (Ex. 20:7), a command not repeated in the NT, and no one will argue that that commandment is abolished. And we see the same deletions in the NT: the Bible says that women must not speak in church (1 Cor 14) and must always have their heads covered (1 Cor 11). And yet, all of these commandments have been abolished by all of the world’s churches—even the Adventists!—based on their own tradition.

Therefore: all churches have traditions that are authoritative apart from Scripture!

How do we know that the traditions are good, like the ones Paul mentions in 2 Thess. 2:15 and 2 Thess. 3:6, and not bad, like the ones the Lord rejects in Mark 7:13? It isn’t enough to just open the Bible and see if the tradition makes Scripture void. Clearly the tradition of the Sunday sabbath makes void the Jewish sabbath; pork violates no pork; and so on. If we were to accept the Bible as the only authority for validating prohibitions, then even the Seventh Day Adventists, so proud of rejecting the Sunday sabbath and sausage, have made void the Word of God because their founder is a woman, they have “unbiblical” marriage ceremonies, etc.

Many Protestants have come to the above realization and so have sought to “purify” the church of all teachings that are not “in the Bible,” but as you can see, we would have to reinstitute the dietary laws and change the civil laws to get rid of marriage ceremonies in order to accomplish this race to the bottom.

The answer to the riddle is simple: not everything the Apostles taught is in the Bible. The Bible says so.

Hence what makes tradition Sacred is not just whether the Bible explicitly states, or even implies, the tradition. Having a marriage ceremony doesn’t contradict Scripture, but it ADDS to the Bible. Calling pork clean is a reasonable interpretation of the vision, but it ADDS to the Bible because that interpretation is not Peter’s interpretation and is not written anywhere in the Bible. Making Sunday the Sabbath and abolishing the Passover TAKES AWAY from the Bible, although again, the subtraction can be justified as a reasonable interpretation of what is written. (Hence the Fundamentalists who get all angry about Sacred Tradition do the very thing they accuse the Catholic Church of doing.)

What makes Tradition Sacred is whether it actually came from the Apostles. The Apostles came from God and received the Holy Spirit. The Bible came to us through men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit as the Apostles were—Moses, the psalmists, the prophets, and in the case of the NT, the same Apostles. There is no reason to hold that what teachings of the Apostles made it into their letters should be valued over their oral teachings (and this is the thrust of 2 Thess. 2:14-15). However, it is sure that no teaching can be apostolic if it contradicts EITHER the Bible or what the Apostles taught orally or outside of the biblical letters.

Very well articulated Cat Herder.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Very well articulated Cat Herder.

Thank you :tiphat:

After you quoted, I made a few edits to add a few things, including the alcohol issue, which is another glaring example of Protestants making the NT void with their traditions. I’d appreciate feedback on which post is better as I ran into the 6,000 character limit.

 

[PbloPicasso]

doctrine wise, work from majors to minor doctrine, thanks

Man, you’ve opened up a tidal wave. Maybe it would be best to deal with one denomination at a time. Protestant is not a religion but a movement that consists of many different (congregationally speaking, tens of thousands ecclesial communities with differences)

 

[PbloPicasso]

You may define tradition as mere biblical interpretation. But tradition simply means the teachings of a church. Churches do not teach Scripture, they teach tradition; Scripture is used as one means of validating traditions. But no church uses only Scripture as the means of authenticating traditions. I’ll prove it to you.

This is exactly what I try to teach people because this is exactly what I realize after leaving Catholicism for what I thought to be the one true Church established by Christ and if it wasn’t I was determined to find it. Ultimately I discovered exactly what you say here and a decade later stated out loud by myself that “it’s a shame that the Catholic Church is dead, if it ever existed, because it has beautiful teachings that make sense but no one believes it, not even the bishops believe it enough to defend it” I really did say that and it was the beginning of the end for the Church of Christ for my belief.

Ultimately as I discerned truth in what I knew and tried to learn my wife and children followed me right back to the Catholic Church. I knew that if I crossed the Tiber my wife my leave me, but she began asking questions too to see if there was any truth to what I had discovered. She was converted not by the intellect, the way I was, but by the spirit in the peacefulness of the Church teaching. My son was glad to get away from the hellfire and brimstone preaching and teaching that triggered his anxieties everytime we stepped foot in a Church of Christ congregation building. God has been good to us.

 

[PbloPicasso]

I nearly die laughing at cradle Catholics that think Bible Christians know their scripture better than Catholics and are so sincere. They have the same problems any Christian has, whether Catholic, Orthodox or one of the multitude of Protestant denominations representing there particular sect of non-belief on some rejected Catholic or other Protestant doctrine. It’s a real zoo out there too.

 

[KathleenGee]

CatHerder and PabloPicaso…

Great posts and sharing!

 

[benedictus2]

Hi benedictus2, when BlueLake states “The Holy Spirit guides us when we read the word.” the question I have is doesn’t Sacred Scripture say that the HS will be sent to aid and guide the Church.

Excellent point wmscott. The Holy Spirit was to be sent not to aid in reading the Bible but to guide the Church! And Christ established only one Church not 33.0000.

I know we are to read Sacred Scripture and that we pray that the HS be with us as we do, but when there is dispute or doubt and there can only be one truth, it is the Church who is the only authentic and authorized interpreter of Sacred Scripture is it not.

If the HS guided every single reader, then it is truly perplexing that He guided them to discordant interpretations.

Pentecost was supposed to be the reversal of the tower of Babel even and with the reformation, we have the tower of Babel all over again.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You can read can’t you?

We don’t call the bible a preacher but it contains some of the best sermons that have ever been written and the most of the men that wrote the bible were the best preachers ever known.

Hello again Richard,

The majority of people, today, can read. How long has that been true? When the letters and epistles of the New Testament were written, what percentage of people could read? At what point in history did the ‘majority’ become able to read themselves?

Those authors of scriptures were some of the greatest preachers/teachers in history. What are you saying about their ability to preach and teach their successors? If God could protect His truth so that you feel you know it, how come you feel He couldn’t have protected it so that those who succeeded those great preachers and teachers couldn’t have known it as well, or better, as you feel you know it? At what point in history do you feel God ‘revealed’ His truth to men and what about those generations of men who were without the truth as you feel you know it?

I’m sorry, but your argument lacks a certain logic, in my honest opinion.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
You can read can’t you?

We don’t call the bible a preacher but it contains some of the best sermons that have ever been written and most of the men that wrote the bible were the best preachers ever known.

Hello again Richard,

The majority of people, today, can read. How long has that been true? When the letters and epistles of the New Testament were written, what percentage of people could read? At what point in history did the ‘majority’ become able to read themselves?

Those authors of scriptures were some of the greatest preachers/teachers in history. What are you saying about their ability to preach and teach their successors? If God could protect His truth so that you feel you know it, how come you feel He couldn’t have protected it so that those who succeeded those great preachers and teachers couldn’t have known it as well, or better, as you feel you know it? At what point in history do you feel God ‘revealed’ His truth to men and what about those generations of men who were without the truth as you feel you know it?

I’m sorry, but your argument lacks a certain logic, in my honest opinion.

I’m not sure I understand why you think that I in any way suggested that the apostles did not have the ability to teach and preach the truth to their successors. You say “I’m sorry, but your argument lacks a certain logic, in my honest opinion” I would appreciate it if you would point out to me where you think this deficit of logic occurs.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
You can read can’t you?

We don’t call the bible a preacher but it contains some of the best sermons that have ever been written and most of the men that wrote the bible were the best preachers ever known.

I’m not sure I understand why you think that I in any way suggested that the apostles did not have the ability to teach and preach the truth to their successors. You say “I’m sorry, but your argument lacks a certain logic, in my honest opinion” I would appreciate it if you would point out to me where you think this deficit of logic occurs.

If those great preachers/teachers sufficiently taught their successors, which was a combination of preaching and letters and epistles along with the interpretations of what they had written, wouldn’t those successors have been able to preach and teach their successors? For a thousand years there was a unified Church and it was Catholic. This was the same Church that preserved scriptures, with each successor passing them along with the preaching and teaching they had received. It seems to me, to deny the Catholic Church is to say that those preachings and teachings became ‘wrong’ at some point in time. When exactly was that, in your opinion? Also, do you believe that God left many generations without His truth until the reformation or, more precisely, until the founding of the Church you belong to?