What is the Catholic gospel message?

[diggerdomer]

. The church Jesus founded certainly still continues to exist, .

Thanks for responding.

Can you prove your claim above?

 

[Thing]

Hi Thing,

This is a very simple, neat, and tidy view of history. My own view is slightly more complex and not very neat or tidy at all. Jesus sometimes used the image of a vine and the branches to signify our connection to Him or our separation from Him. Throughout OT history the Jews continually wandered away from the Lord. When Jesus preached on the earth most Jews rejected Him and eventually crucified Him. It is only the CC that seems convinced that old branches never get cut off, and new branches never get grafted into the vine. The CC view of history is very simple, tidy, and convenient…until you read the bible.

ok… so do you think the CC is ‘cut off’ the vine?

 

[guanophore]

Hi guanophore,

I disagree. Although it is true that God prepared for Himself a certain nation (the Israelites) through whom would come both the Messiah and the written word, the repentant thief on the cross next to Jesus was saved by grace, through faith in Jesus. Any attempt to attribute salvation to anyone or anything other than the grace of God is, of course, heresy.

Of course, everyone is saved by grace, through faith. Nothing has changed. This is how people were saved in the OT, as well as the new.

 

[swords99]

One thing we need to look at is the claim that the Catholic church makes in that they are the original church straight from the Apostles.

If we examine the New Testament Church, what we see is something very different from the Catholic church today. In the Book of Acts Chapter 2 we read that the Church of Christ was established in Jerusalem (not Rome) on the day of Pentecost. They were first called “Christians” In Antioch, Not “Catholics” This church that Christ built had a unique foundation: Jesus Christ, Himself being the chief cornerstone and head of this Church. There was no earthly head.The believers made up the body of Christ. It had elders (also called pastors or bishops) overseeing each church and guiding and feeding the Lord’s flock.

There was no hierarchy among these elders. After the death of the Apostles, the elders, deacons, evangelists and teachers took responsibility to defend the faith (Jude 3). Many were taught by the apostles and are known as early church fathers, or apostolic fathers.

For years after the apostle John’s death, the church struggled to keep its faithfulness to the purity of the New Testament church. But new ideas and changes crept in slowly over a period of time, especially in organization. Instead of a plurality of elders, a bishop began to preside. Ignatius of Antioch sought to unify the church under the rule of one man, modeling it after the pattern of the Government. By 150 AD this new one man rule caused a departure from the simplicity of the Church that Christ built. This slowly began the catholic movement many years later and many doctrines and traditions not taught by Jesus or the Apostles were introduced.

The Bible never authorized any hierarchy such as the papacy. When Christ established His Church, He gave some to be apostles, some evangelists, some teachers, some pastors and some prophets. He never made one bishop preside over others. However, man deviated from the original pattern. The Bible also tells us that bishops are to be the husband of one wife. It does not teach the necessity of celibacy.

I must ask my catholic friends at this point, if the Pope is to be celibate, and you believe Peter was ordained the first pope, and all subsequent popes must follow Peter’s example, then why was Peter married or allowed to be so?

In 1500, Martin Luther and others had noticed that some of the teachings and organization of the Catholic Church were very different from that of the New Testament Church. Doctrines were added which are not found in the Bible. ( Assumption of Mary, Infant baptism/sprinkling, etc.) These Reformers sought to bring back the simplicity of the 1st Century Church which was free of the complexities of hierarchical absolute rule and man made traditions that is prevalent in the catholic church today. He brought to the fore front the doctrines and traditions not found in the Bible such as indulgences, image worship, prayers to saints, etc.

Sola Scriptura became the cry. The Bible defines the Church, and God’s Word must be supreme over the Church. Not the other way around.The Supreme doctrinal authority of Christians is Jesus Christ through the Bible only. We are to use the example given by the noble Bereans in Thessalonica who searched the Scriptures daily to see if what was preached to them was in accordance to what God had revealed in His Word. If anything being taught was not found in these Scriptures, they were to be rejected, even condemned as heresy.

If we read books written by Catholics, for catholics, then of course we will get the catholic slant. Same is true of Protestantism. One should read books written by those with no catholic or protestant bias or preference who have extensively researched and accurately recorded Christian history.

“

 

[JustaServant]

Sword,
You intend to prove to us that we are wrong, that we are not Christian, that we are apostates, and, unless we come to your side, you probably believe we are destined for damnation. We believe that your theory of your history is fundamentally flawed, that you are a product of a “reformation” that has done more to divide Christianity than unite it, and that you are separated from the Church Christ established. Your sects were not saints, but schismatics. They may have led holy lives (some of them, anyway), but they separated themselves from the Church Christ founded.
When Christ said the gates of Hell would not prevail, and when we read that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth, I do not believe we are talking about the elect only. We are talking about the institution Christ founded on earth upon the Apostles, most notably Peter.

 

[fhansen]

For years after the apostle John’s death, the church struggled to keep its faithfulness to the purity of the New Testament church. But new ideas and changes crept in slowly over a period of time, especially in organization. Instead of a plurality of elders, a bishop began to preside. Ignatius of Antioch sought to unify the church under the rule of one man, modeling it after the pattern of the Government. By 150 AD this new one man rule caused a departure from the simplicity of the Church that Christ built. This slowly began the catholic movement many years later and many doctrines and traditions not taught by Jesus or the Apostles were introduced.

Pure specualtion.

The Bible never authorized any hierarchy such as the papacy.

It’s almost too bad the bible isn’t clearer on a lot of things so Protestants, et al wouldn’t get so confused. I guess that’s the point, though, scripture was never intended to be ones sole authority.One way or the other God authorized a hierarchy which has obviously served to prevent the kind of continuous division Protestantism has fallen into.

However, man deviated from the original pattern.

Protestantism hasn’t? They can’t even agree on how to structure a Church and its government, let alone refrain from deviating with each other on doctrine.

 

[diggerdomer]

If we examine the New Testament Church, what we see is something very different from the Catholic church today.

If you examine anything in the New Testament, or any writings from the first century A.D., you will find most things are different today. So?

This church that Christ built had a unique foundation: Jesus Christ, Himself being the chief cornerstone and head of this Church. There was no earthly head.The believers made up the body of Christ. It had elders (also called pastors or bishops) overseeing each church and guiding and feeding the Lord’s flock.

The Church’s foundation has not changed. The leadership has. We know from Acts 15 (and Gal 2) that certain Apostles assumed leadership roles. The elders, or pastors, or bishops that you cite are the “earthly heads” of the Church while at the same time Jesus Christ was, is, and always will be the foundation of His Church.

There was no hierarchy among these elders.

Yes there was. See Acts 15 and Gal 2. The very fact that certain people were identified as bishops, presbyters, and/or deacons indicates that there was a division of ministry and service in the church, that certain roles were proper to certain individuals.

many doctrines and traditions not taught by Jesus or the Apostles were introduced.

Like the Trinity? Like the hypostatic union? Yep, those were introduced, thank God.

The Bible never authorized any hierarchy such as the papacy. When Christ established His Church, He gave some to be apostles, some evangelists, some teachers, some pastors and some prophets. He never made one bishop preside over others. However, man deviated from the original pattern. The Bible also tells us that bishops are to be the husband of one wife. It does not teach the necessity of celibacy.

Christ never authorized building Churches either. Or the New Testament. Or speaking English. Or driving automobiles.

I must ask my catholic friends at this point, if the Pope is to be celibate, and you believe Peter was ordained the first pope, and all subsequent popes must follow Peter’s example, then why was Peter married or allowed to be so

Whether or not the Pope is celibate is entirely a Church discipline. The Church could change it any time She so decided. Obviously Popes have not always been celibate. So what’s your point?

 

[guanophore]

I have indeed taken a good look at the sources that have been offered as ‘proof’ that the CC is the same church that was founded by Jesus. Once again, I need to point out that if the Scriptures themselves can be wrongly interpreted then so can all historical documents be wrongly interpreted. **So it seems to me that Catholics have completely relied on their OWN PRIVATE INTERPRETATION of various documents in order to reach their conclusions…**exactly what they say is so horribly wrong with sola Scriptura! Such irony!

Wells, I agree, if that is what Catholics had done, we would be in the same boat. However, this is not the case. On the contrary, we received from the Apostles what Jesus taught them, and that which they passed on to their successors, the bishops. This is the “paradosis”, or the Divine Deposit of faith. All documents are interpreted in the light of this sacred tradition, and it is all done corporately, and not individually. This is how the early heresies were put to rest.

 

[guanophore]

Hi MDK,

Is it possible that you might be wrong?

It seems to me that most of you are far too confident that the CC is the one founded by Jesus even though none of you has been able to explain how you have come to know what you say you know. If it is important to God that we are Catholics, then God most certainly would have provided the means of knowing that the CC is His church.

Catholics have followed the commandment of the Apostles to hold fast to the teachings that were committed to us by them, both in person, and in writing. We have observed the ‘paradosis’ through the succession of bishops. We have held fast to the faith that was once for all delivered to the Church.

Jude 3
3 Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

We have not departed from it to create doctrines of our own extracted from bible verses taken out of context. That is how we know that we are part of the Church founded by Christ.

 

[guanophore]

If we are not saved by grace alone through faith alone, then what is it that saves us from our sins?

We are saved by the blood of Jesus, shed for us, while we were yet sinners, the expiation for us.

Faith is never alone. It always abides with hope and love.

1 Cor 13:13
13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Haven’t you ever wondered, if “faith alone” is what saves, why the Apostles taught that love was the greatest?

 

[Benadam]

Faith is never alone. It always abides with hope and love.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Thing,

This is a very simple, neat, and tidy view of history. My own view is slightly more complex and not very neat or tidy at all. Jesus sometimes used the image of a vine and the branches to signify our connection to Him or our separation from Him. Throughout OT history the Jews continually wandered away from the Lord. When Jesus preached on the earth most Jews rejected Him and eventually crucified Him. It is only the CC that seems convinced that old branches never get cut off, and new branches never get grafted into the vine. The CC view of history is very simple, tidy, and convenient…until you read the bible.

Actually, Mick, it is the Bible which supports the Catholic view of the Church. Your view REQUIRES the Catholic Church to apostatize at some point in its history. I question whether this is possible based upon the promises of Christ. Consider the following:

Off the Rails
The Loss of Authority of the Catholic Church Refuted from Scripture

Many non-Catholic Christians attempt to deny the authority of the Catholic Church by suggesting that at some point in its history (the dating of this is variable and vague), the Catholic Church had become so corrupt that it no longer represented true Christianity. This idea is also held by Mormons and is known as the Great Apostasy. The issue to be examined, therefore, is whether total apostasy of the Church was possible. The following verses suggest that apostasy was not possible, and questions are submitted to our non-Catholic friends for their consideration.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church fell into apostasy, does this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into apostasy for nearly 1500 years, did Jesus remain with the Church “always” as possible?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church fell into apostasy, did Jesus not give the Counselor or did the Counselor simply fail to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church fell into apostasy, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into apostasy? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

 

[guanophore]

You are arguing in a circle again, MDK. It is certainly possible that you are not following what God established. That is why I asked all of you… how you can KNOW that the CC is the same church that was founded by Jesus. The answers given always seem to follow the same circular path:

We know that we follow the true church because it is impossible for the gates of hell to prevail against Christ’s church, and we know that the CC is Christ’s church because the gates of hell have not prevailed against it.

Is this not circular? Yet, surprisingly, this is (to many of you) the good news:

That Jesus founded the CC, outside of which there is no salvation.

As I see it, we ought to place all of our confidence in Jesus, and not in created things–even churches. Many religions will say, “We are the way.” But Jesus said, “I am the way.” It is Jesus, and He alone, who is worthy of all of our worship, praise, trust, and loyalty. No one comes to the Father except through Him.

Jesus identifies Himself completely with His Body, the Church. It is the Divine elements of the Church that make her immutable and infallible, not the human parts.

 

[swords99]

JustaServant; Sword,
“We believe that your theory of your history is fundamentally flawed…”

Often times someone, say a Catholic or Church of Christ member, Assembly of God member, a Lutheran, a Mormon, etc. make the claim when presented with evidence which disagrees with what they have been taught, that your proof is flawed! They say this because the evidence did not come from their church. Too many times catholics quote only catholic sources, mormons do the same thing, as do Lutherans, Church of Christ, etc. How will we learn Truth if we don’t search for it? Repeating what we have heard since childhood or from our church leader, doesn’t necessarily make it truth. I encourage everyone to read. Read books by historians who have researched and are not pro or anti catholic and thus have no “agenda” but the love of true history. Read the Holy Bible without inserting man-made traditions and preconceived notions. Read it anew! Read the Book of Acts and the Epistles.

Read what Mary Ann Collins, a catholic nun wrote: Here is but an excerpt:

"The Roman Catholic Church claims that the early Christians were all Roman Catholics, and that (aside from the Orthodox Church) all Christians were Roman Catholics until the Protestant Reformation. It claims that the Apostle Peter was the first Pope, ruling from Rome. It also claims that it gave us the Bible.

But do these claims stand up to the test of history? Or are they false credentials? There is historical evidence that the Roman Catholic Church began with Emperor Constantine. Read the Book of Acts and the Epistles and compare the Church shown there with the roman catholic church today.

After Constantine’s “conversion,” the Church was radically changed. Suddenly, being Christian resulted in power, prestige, and promotion (whereas previously it had resulted in persecution). Suddenly, by the Emperor’s decree, Christianity became “politically correct”. So ambitious people joined the Church for worldly reasons. The Bishop of Rome was supported by the military might, political power, and wealth of the Roman Emperor. Worldwide church councils were convened.

This was the birth of the Roman Catholic Church. It was created in the year 314 A.D. by Emperor Constantine and Bishop Silvester.

Before Constantine, the church was a band of heroic men and women who were so committed to serve the Lord Jesus Christ that they would endure any hardship. After 314 A.D., the Church became infiltrated by opportunists who were seeking power and political advancement. Church leaders were no longer in danger of persecution. Rather, they enjoyed all the trappings of power and luxury.

In 314 A.D., Emperor Constantine crowned Silvester as Bishop of Rome. Silvester lived in luxury, with servants waiting on him. Constantine confessed his sins to Silvester and asked for his advice. Silvester presided over worldwide Church councils. He had a splendid palace and a sumptuous cathedral. He had power, prestige, wealth, pomp, and the favor of the Emperor.

Constantine had promoted the Church by giving it special benefits. But Theodosius forced people to become Catholics by imposing harsh punishments on anybody who disagreed with the Bishop of Rome…

Roman Catholicism was now the state religion of the Roman Empire. The Roman Catholic Church, which was born under Emperor Constantine, had now become so powerful that a bishop could give orders to the Roman Emperor.

Some Catholic doctrines seem to conflict with the plain meaning of Scripture. As a result, people who read the Bible for themselves are likely to doubt or dispute those doctrines. One way of solving that problem is to prevent laymen from reading the Bible. The Catholic Church took that approach for hundreds of years.

For centuries, Christians were forbidden to possess the Scriptures in any language, including Latin. Reading the Bible was considered to be proof that someone was a heretic. Men and women were burned at the stake for reading the Bible in Latin.

Who wrote the Bible? Was it Catholics? No.

"The Old Testament was written by God’s inspired prophets, patriarchs, psalmists, judges, and kings. It was faithfully copied and preserved by Jewish scribes. Modern Protestant Bibles have the same content as the Hebrew Bible.

The New Testament was written by Christian apostles. None of them were Catholics, because there was no Roman Catholic Church at the time. This was over two centuries before Constantine’s “conversion”. (everything written in the Bible was written before 100 AD)

The early Church did not have the New Testament as we know it. Rather, individuals and local congregations had portions of it. They would have one or more of the Gospels, some of the letters which Apostles had written, and perhaps the Book of Acts or the Book of Revelation."

These are not my words but the words of a Catholic nun.

Galatians 4:16 “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?”.

…

.

…

.

 

[HoustonsSon]

Gods intention is that all will share in His life. He chooses to let us decide if we’ll go along with that program or not. There was only one visible Church spreading the good news for 1500 years until confusion entered due to apostasy from that Church on a large scale.

fhansen,

Please reference Coptic, Chaldean, and Greek Orthodox.

 

[JustaServant]

You’ve got to be kidding Sword.
Mary Ann Collins???:doh2:
You are aware she doesn’t exist, right?
She’s used by Jack Chick.
Seriously, if this is where you are getting your information, you are a deep in lies and falsehoods.

 

[JustaServant]

One cannot claim to serve the cause of Christ by using propaganda and falsehoods to promote an agenda. This will only lead to disillusionment and resentment in the ‘converts’ as they realize they have been sold a bill of goods. I feel sorry for those who are needlessly divorced from their Church and buy the anti-Catholic lies. Honest disagreement is one thing, using propaganda and twisting the facts is another.

 

[guanophore]

Ok, so now I’m confused. The apostle Paul taught we are saved by grace alone. That man can do nothing to save himself or add to his salvation.

It is true that it is only by God’s grace we are saved, however, it is incumbent upon us to “add” ourselves to Him. We must receive/choose His grace.

Acts 2:40-41
40 And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “**Save yourselves **from this crooked generation.”

It is given to us to choose, for God does not save us against our will.

Gen 4:7
7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it."

We “do well” when we accept His grace by faith.

Deut 30:19
19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life,

It is 100% God’s grace and the righteousness of Christ in the believer. Not our own “righteousness.”

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

The Catholic church teaches that there’s no salvation outside the church. (other religious groups teach the same thing, such as SDA, LDS, JW). So, what does the catholic church believe? Does the Sacraments save us? Baptism save us? “Good works”? Does man’s traditions save?

There is only One Church, swords. Everyone who is “in Christ” is a member of His One Body, the Church. It is not possible to be saved apart from Christ, and not possible to be joined with Christ without being a member of His Body.

Sacraments, including baptism, are avenues of God’s grace. It is by grace we are saved, through faith, not of works,lest any man should boast.

Where in the Holy Bible does it say works or baptism saves?

Baptism saves in the same way the other sacraments do…by grace, through faith.

“Baptism…now saves you…” 1 Peter 3:20-21

Paul never taught any of these things are requisite to salvation.

.

No, he taught that they were gifts of God to the Church, and a sure means by which we can stay on the straight and narrow path. God, however, is not bound my any of these things. He can save whoever He wants, however He likes.

The Bible says our most righteous acts are filthy rags. Paul said he was glad he was not called to baptize, but to preach.

You have taken this passage out of context. He was glad because he did not want people using baptism by him as a source of division. He taugth that all believers are born again of water and Spirit in baptism.

Paul also said he had preached the entire Gospel. If baptism is necessary for salvation then why didn’t Paul preach baptism?

He did. He was baptized, he baptized, and he taught the meaning of baptism.

Why didn’t he baptize everywhere he went preaching?

There were too many converts! Paul always travelled with a cadre, so he would have helpers with baptism, and other duties. His primary charism was preaching, and he needed to spend copious amounts of time fasting, praying, and studying to prepare for preaching. He did not have time to baptize all the converts, and, as he noted, God did not call him to do all the baptisms himself. Everywhere he preached there were baptisms, but he did not administer them all.

Either Paul was disobedient by only preaching half the Gospel, or baptism isn’t necessary for salvation.

Neither is true. Jesus commanded us to be baptized. However, God can save people who have never been baptized. The command applies to us, not to Him.

 

[guanophore]

Why are you so confident in your religion? I assume there must be some reason for your supreme confidence!

We choose to trust the promises of Christ. He said He would build His Church, that He would send His spirit to guide her into all Truth, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail. We believe He is God, and that He is able to keep His promises. We believe all that is written about His Bride, the Church.

Eph 5:23-27
Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

He has cleansed and purified His bride, so that she is holy, and without blemish.

The reason you have trouble understanding why Catholics beleive what they do about the Church is that you have a truncated view of “church”. Most of our separated brethren think that the church is only the believers here on earth. This describes the fallible part of the church, but does not recognize that the whole is much greater than the sum of these parts. The Head of the Church is Christ, and her Soul is the Holy Spirit. it is these divine elements that make her pure, infallible, and immutable.

 

[Disciple96]

JustaServant; Sword,
“We believe that your theory of your history is fundamentally flawed…”

Often times someone, say a Catholic or Church of Christ member, Assembly of God member, a Lutheran, a Mormon, etc. make the claim when presented with evidence which disagrees with what they have been taught, that your proof is flawed! They say this because the evidence did not come from their church. Too many times catholics quote only catholic sources, mormons do the same thing, as do Lutherans, Church of Christ, etc. How will we learn Truth if we don’t search for it? Repeating what we have heard since childhood or from our church leader, doesn’t necessarily make it truth. I encourage everyone to read. Read books by historians who have researched and are not pro or anti catholic and thus have no “agenda” but the love of true history. Read the Holy Bible without inserting man-made traditions and preconceived notions. Read it anew! Read the Book of Acts and the Epistles. …

.

I snipped the rest of your lengthy reply in hopes that I could ask you to read what you wrote here. And that you would abide by your own advice. Please do check your facts. Please do notice that Mary Ann Collins is considered to be a fake “nun” by Protestants and Catholics alike. Please tell me you aren’t getting this long laundry list of misinformation from Loraine Boettner’s book, Roman Catholicism. I can’t believe anyone would even waste their time reading such a thing. And by the way, the 314 A.D. argument is so notoriously false that it doesn’t even deserve a response. Please tell me that you did not derive this notion from the Da Vinci Code.

And please do read the Catechism and find out what Catholics really believe. Please do re-read the Bible. Please do any and/or all of these things before responding to my reply.

Thank you very much for not slandering the name of Holy Mother Church further.