What is the Catholic gospel message?

[Randy_Carson]

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

No, these are the words of someone using the pen name of Mary Ann Collins and claiming to be a former novice (who never took final vows) in order to advance an anti-Catholic agenda.

If you want to be taken seriously as an apologist, you have to do your homework, okay?

Mary Ann Collins
speroforum.com/wiki/default.aspx/SperoWiki/MaryAnnCollins.html

Background

Mary Ann Collins is known within Fundamentalist churches as a former Catholic nun who is an expert on Catholicism. She produces several self-published books and runs CatholicConcerns.com - an often-referenced website among those who seek to refute Catholicism as a false religion. [Note: This website (and all others she claims to have created) appear to be down. --Randy ]

Suspect History

Mary Ann Collins’ history is questioned by Protestants and Catholics alike, as she would be in a long line of fake nuns.

Was she a nun?

Mary Ann Collins considers herself a former nun although she never took her vows. On all her publications and websites, she lists herself as, “Mary Ann Collins: Former Catholic Nun”. She admits she was expelled from the convent she attended but the religious order or convent she attended remains mysterious. She refuses to say where she attended and no one has admitted that Mary Ann Collins attended a convent even as a novice.

From her biography:

NUNS AND NOVICES

I was in religious life for a little over two years. I was a novice but I never made vows. A novice is someone who has entered a religious order and has been given a habit. He or she undergoes training and “religious formation” in preparation for taking vows. (There are novice monks as well as novice nuns.)

Some people have asked me why I call myself a former nun when I never made vows. According to “The Catholic Encyclopedia,” if a monk or a nun has been accepted by a religious order (which I was) and has been given a religious habit (which I wore), then he or she is a monk or a nun in the broad sense of the term. So I refer to myself as a former nun.

NOTE 1. “Novice” in the 1913 edition of “The Catholic Encyclopedia,” Volume XI. This article is available on-line. The term “novice” refers to both monks and nuns who go through a period of training and preparation. In Section II, “Juridical Condition,” the article states that a novice in a religious order is a “regular” in the widest sense of the word. (A “regular” is a technical term for a monk or a nun.)

newadvent.org/cathen/11144a.htm

NOTE The article often speaks of “he” when modern usage would be to say “he or she”. Section I, "Definition and Requirements,"specifically mentions nuns. And it gives instructions regarding married women who want to become nuns. So the article is about both novice monks and novice nuns.

Changing Biography

Mary Ann Collins revised her biography on at least three occasions, one of which is not acknowledged on her website from 2001.

Knowledge of Catholicism

The following is a biography as listed on her book, “Freedom from Catholicism” on Amazon.com:

Mary Ann Collins is a former Catholic nun who spent many years in the Catholic Church, studying its teachings and traditions. After a period of seeing many distressing contradictions to Scripture, she eventually left the Catholic Church and joined her parents’ church which was founded on solid, scripturally-based teaching. In so doing, she found the relationship with God that she had been hungering for all her life.

Many consider this to be misleading. Mary Ann Collins, though, admits she only spent two years as a novice and never grew up Catholic in her biography that she wrote on her website.

No Information

Besides Mary Ann Collins’ writings, there is no personal data about her. She has never given an interview, no one has admitted knowing her or seeing her or even having an e-mail dialogue with her. No one knows where she lives or what she does for a living.

A plausible hypothesis is that Mary Ann Collins does not exist; that she’s a fictional character to give credibility to her anti-Catholic writings.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Will the real Mary Ann Collins please stand up?
Critically questioning the existence of ex-nun Mary Ann Collins
By Julie Davi
speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=1799

“I joined the Roman Catholic Church because I was looking for God. I entered the convent because I wanted to be close to God and to serve Him with radical devotion. But it wasn’t until after I left Catholicism that I found the kind of relationship with God that I had been looking for all along. You can read about it in my poems.”

Thus begins the biography of Mary Ann Collins who tells a tumultuous story of seeking God in the Catholic Church but finding false teachings and faithless priests. This led to her seeking God in her parents’ “Scripturally based Protestant Church” where thanks to Bible study she realized, “As I learned more about the Bible, I began to realize that some Catholic teachings are contrary to Scripture. This was disturbing, but I kind of pushed those contradictions to the back of my mind and didn’t deal with them. They made me uneasy, but I wasn’t emotionally able to handle the idea that there might be something wrong with the Catholic Church.” Eventually she left the convent where she was a novice for over two years in the 60s. She wasn’t heard from anyone until later when she began a web site (catholicconcerns.com) where she self-publishes books she claims show the errors of Catholicism.

Taken as a simple testimony, there is nothing unusual in Mary Ann Collins’ biography she publishes on her website. A cursory search of the internet reveals many sites containing personal stories of disillusionment with Catholicism, exposés claiming that Catholic teachings are not scripturally based, and declarations of personally held beliefs of foundational Christian doctrine. Many of them contain one or more of Collins’ works as proof that their beliefs about Catholicism are valid. Their view, which would seem quite reasonable, is that if a former nun says something about Catholic beliefs, then it must be true. As a result, Mary Ann Collins’ books and writings are widely distributed and believed among Fundamentalist Christians.

---

Where in the world is Mary Ann Collins?

What is unusual is that Mary Ann Collins cannot be located other than on her web site. She states on her web site that her father and pastor cautioned her not to give any personal information. Collins obeyed them with such zeal that many Catholics and Protestants alike now question whether she exists at all or is actually a creation devised by a person or people to credibly spread disinformation about the Catholic Church. In this information age it is fascinating to find someone about which there is no concrete information. No one has admitted ever knowing or seeing her. No one knows where she lives or what she does for a living. She has never given an interview, including anything as innocuous as speaking at a local church to promote her discoveries or books. This is a level of privacy not achieved even by Jack Chick, a famous and notoriously reclusive distributor of anti-Catholic materials. Despite all his efforts at concealment, because of his belief that the Catholic Church pursues ex-Catholics, basic details of Chick’s life and career have gradually trickled into public knowledge. Furthermore, he occasionally has been seen in public which has resulted in a hand-drawn sketch.

---

Which Story Do We Believe?

Collins’ own biography contributes to her elusiveness. For example, since she attended a convent for over two years and was asked to leave, it is reasonable to think that someone could be found who remembers her and could identify its location. However, this has never happened. Perhaps if one could find the mysterious convent, then the question could be answered as to which of Collins’ different versions of her dismissal is accurate.

 

[JustaServant]

…because of his belief that the Catholic Church pursues ex-Catholics,…

Them Jesuit ninja squads are deadly. It’s kinda hard though with those long flowing robes. Starts looking like a Peter Sellers movie.

 

[guanophore]

If the Catholic Church is THE church founded by Christ Himself, then where did Jesus ever teach that we are to put traditions before or on par with Scripture? Jesus quoted Scripture often and rebuked the pharisees for ritual keeping and legalism.

.

Every time that Jesus said “you have heard that it is said…but I say to you…” He was addressing how the Teachings of Moses were misinterpreted, misapplied, or misused. He did not change what was written before, but how it was to be understood and applied. Jesus believed and practiced Sacred Tradition, and taught this to His Apostles. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are two strands of the One Divine Revelation of God to humanity.

There is nothing inherently wrong with ritual keeping. If there were, God would not ever have given such extensive rituals to the Jewish people. Practicing it without faith is a problem, definitely.

Where is it taught that we must confess our sins to a man (priest) when confession and prayer are to be directed to God alone.

Scripture is clear we are to confess to one another.

Scripture is clear that He gave the power to remit and retain sins to His Apostles. They passed this on to their successors.

When did Christ ever teach praying to saints long since dead?

Jesus taught that those who have gone before us in the faith live forever. He demonstrated this by having a little chat with Moses and Elijah, and made sure His Apostles were there to witness what He was doing.

These are things that need to be closely looked at and addressed.

I agree! You came to the right place.

The Bible needs to be closely examined. If such traditions are not taught in our Scriptures, then they must be abandoned.

I think you will have a hard time finding this statement, or anything like it, in the scriptures. this is an extrabiblical doctrine invented 1500 years after the Apostles.

Someone on here wrote that protestantism didn’t exist before 1500, but what they fail to understand is that protestantism wasn’t some “new” faith.

I agree. Heresies have been rampant since shortly after Jesus founded His One Church.

It was a protestation against a church that had gotten too big and powerful and had strayed from the simplicity of the Gospel that Jesus and the Apostles taught. What happened is that the CC had fallen into waters of errors.

I agree that people did protest against atrocities. However, these are not the fault of the Church . These are the actions of sinful men that abandoned the teachings of Jesus, and practiced abuses.

They were profiting from the sale of indulgences and sins were being absolved for those who could afford to pay. These and other things led Martin Luther to break away and nail his thesis to the church door.

Yes. But such things are not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

There was a catholic (universal) church already in existence at the beginning but it was not the catholic church of today. The modern Catholic church came into existence sometime after 300 AD.

You have been misled.

You also will find, if you are willing to study history, that this assertion is not true.

Protestantism was not a "new" faith, but rather revisions were made because of  unscriptual things being taught and practiced in the CC.

We do not have the authority to “revise” what was taught by Jesus and the Apostles.

Neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever taught infant baptism or baptism by sprinkling.

The Apostles taught immersion, or at least pouring. Sprinking is used as a reminder of our baptismal vows. Jesus did not forbid infants,a nd the Apostles baptized whole households.

They never taught prayer or worship were to ever be directed to Mary.

Catholics do not worship Mary. They did not need to “pray” to Mary as we do, because she ws physically present with them.When they wanted her prayers, they just said so!

Reform was necessary and the Holy Bible needed to be in every home. It needed to be read by the farmer as well as the housewife...everyday folk, not just members of the clergy. People could not remain ignorant. People perish when there is lack of knowledge.

I think you have a little history to study about the Bible.

The CC had too much power and it needed to be in the hands of the people.

I think you are conflating political and economic power with spiritual authority.

If we do not know what the Scriptures teach, then how can we know if what is being preached to us is even scriptural? The CC at that time frowned upon individual interpretation of Scripture,

And still does.

and it was this very monopoly that the Reformers protested against.

No, they were protesting against abuses, not the teaching of the Apostles. They separated themselves from those who were behaving corruptly, and in the process, departed from the Teaching of the Apostles. They sought to replace authority that was acting corruptly, and inadvertantly replaced what Jesus put in place with themselves.

I was raised Catholic but left when I became an adult. I never once heard the necessity of being “born-again”, which the Bible clearly teaches. I hardly ever read the Bible. We had no Bibles in the church! I was never taught that only God can forgive sins. Jesus never played a major role in catholic teaching. I never even knew Him all those years I attended mass and religious instructions. I never even knew how to pray in my own words as I was accustomed to chantings.

There is a whole generation of us that were very poorly catechized. I left the faith too, and stayed away, steeped in heresies for many years.

I’ve had Mormon missionaries come to my door telling me they are the one true church because they have apostolic succession. The Catholic church claims the same thing. I have since realized that it is not a church ( i.e. religion), but a relationship with Jesus Christ that is of the utmost importance. The Church (bride) of Christ is made up of believers everywhere.

What brings you here?

 

[guanophore]

The Catholic church did not write the Bible. The modern catholic church as we know it today didn’t exist until after 300 AD.

You have been misled by anti-Catholic bigotry.

They have their Latin Vulgate but it is a translation of the Holy Scriptures. The Holy Spirit is the author who moved the hands of the men as they wrote. Thanks to men like Wycliffe and Tyndale, we have the Bible in English.

The men whose hands were moved by the HS were Catholic. I think you need a little more study on the history of Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

The term "the Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church."

And occurs more than once in the Muratorian Fragment (c. 180), where, for example, it is said of certain heretical writings that they “cannot be received in the Catholic Church”.

And a little later, Clement of Alexandria [died around 215 ad] speaks very clearly. “We say”, he declares, “that both in substance and in seeming, both in origin and in development, the primitive and Catholic Church is the only one, agreeing as it does in the unity of one faith”

Great post Thing.

I beg to add one detail, however. The first time the Church is described by the word “catholic” is in Acts 9:31. A look at the Greek in this verse will reveal “ekklesia kath holos” translated “the Church throughout” (universal).

 

[guanophore]

The Catholic Church is constantly being reformed. But one cannot reform the Church by leaving it. One must remain within it and help it frm within when it needs help.

The Church does not need reform, as she is the pure and holy spotless bride of Christ. However, the sinful men joined to her are constantly in need of reform. You are so right, this occurs when those in her sacrifice for her purity, as He did.

 

[guanophore]

If I understand you correctly, God is trying to save everyone, and God has made His grace for salvation available to everyone, more or less equally. But not everyone is equally faithful in terms of their own cooperation with God’s grace–only those who are sufficiently righteous in their cooperation with grace will attain salvation.

It is true that God desires that all be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth. It is also true that, in His sovereignty, He has ordained that we choose whether we wish to be with Him, or not. We are given the same privilege as the angels.

I am not sure what that means “sufficiently rightous in their cooperation with grace”. Even our ability to respond to His grace comes from His grace. It is not by any works of righteousness of ours that we are able to cooperate with Him, but because He is at work in us to both will and to do His pleasure.

But this makes God passive in salvation.

Such an assertion makes no sense at all. How can God, who pours out His grace, and desires that all come to the knowledge of the Truth, be passive?

In this scheme, God only makes salvation POSSIBLE for all of us; but He doesn’t actually save anyone.

Such a formulation, which does not even follow logic, is also a gross departure from what Jesus taught.

And why shouldn’t people boast of their own righteousness if, in the end, they were saved because of their own righteous cooperation with His grace?

Indeed, why not? Such a thing is against all that Jesus taught.

It is possible that I’ve misunderstood what you are saying. If so, my deepest apologies.

Yes, you have misunderstood quite seriously.

I view Jesus as active in my salvation–as He was in the life of Saul on the road to Damascus) and not merely a passive god who has only made salvation some sort of possibility for me…if I cooperate well enough.

Both things are true. He reaches out, and we need to lay hold of that which has laid hold of us.

 

[swords99]

Here’s what’s confusing. The claim that the Catholic church wrote the Bible. Up until the time of Jesus’ death there was no “church”. Jesus had not yet built it. Jesus Himself had the Scriptures which were the Old Testament. He quoted from them often. The Old Testament writers were Moses, David, Solomon and other prophets, seers and kings. There was no “church” in existence.

The New Testament authors were Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, Timothy and Paul. These men were Apostles or followers of the apostles. Eye witnesses. That was a requirement for canonization. Although Paul was not around during Christ’s ministry, he saw Jesus on the Damascus Road. So that gave him the right to be an apostle and his works were considered canon.

2 Peter 1:21 says: “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” The Holy Spirit is the author of the Holy Scriptures, not a “church”.

Read 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God…

God the Holy Spirit inspired these men, perfectly and accurately, to write the words of God for the church. The church did not “inspire” anything because Jesus had not yet built His church.

When the apostles wrote their letters, the various congregations received them, read and spread them. They copied them for other believers in Christ Jesus. And they recognized the authority of these writings in the Christian’s life. So the Scriptures were produced by these men of God, and were produced FOR the church. The Bible tells us that the “church” is the “called out ones”. They are all believers in Jesus Christ, not a building or organization. The New Testament church started to meet in homes and sometimes women led these house churches. Soon these early Christians had to meet underground because Christianity was declared illegal, until Constantine declared Christianity the religion of Rome in about 313 AD.

The last book of the Bible was Revelation, written about 96 AD, just before the apostle John’s death around 100 AD. After the apostles died, the churches continued to collect the letters they did not have, to read them and understand the authority under God by which they wrote.

So we know for a fact that all the books of the Bible were written before 100AD. The Catholic church didn’t even exist before 100AD!

 

[swords99]

Ah, I knew you guys would get a kick out of Mary Ann Collins! And that’s the whole point I’m trying to get across! Catholics will only read catholic sources! Whether she’s a real person or a pseudonym, history can easily be checked and verified and what this person wrote is verifiable and accurate. I was once catholic and knew nearly nothing about Christian history. I am not anti catholic and have no agenda but to challenge everyone to do the research. Seems many of you know more about Mary Ann Collins then you do christian history.

I would love to see some Bible verses to back up the claim that Catholics existed in the NT. That the NT church is exactly like the catholic church today. The hierarchical organization, Priests and popes, catechisms, mass, clerical robes, Baptism by sprinkling, veneration of Mary. Where can I find these things in the Holy Bible? Can someone show me?

 

[Thing]

The Church does not need reform, as she is the pure and holy spotless bride of Christ. However, the sinful men joined to her are constantly in need of reform. You are so right, this occurs when those in her sacrifice for her purity, as He did.

St. Francis’ vision asked him to rebuild the Church, St. Francis took that very literally at first. Obviously Dogma and Doctrine are not reformed, so when I said ‘reform’ the Church it was in the sense of St. Francis’ ‘reform’. I think I mentioned St. Francis somewhere to give the idea. Perhaps ‘reform’ has unexpected connotations and ‘rebuild’ is better.
The EO was in schism only because it was Catholic. So that particular thing was saying before the schism EO did not exist because it was Catholic in union with the Church. The first Bishop of Constantinople was in union with the Pope, so it was a safe, if general, point that all was Catholic around that time.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The word “gospel” means “good news”. What is the Catholic gospel in your opinion?

Jesus has conquered sin and death, and opened the gates of heaven for us. We can follow in his footsteps and be resurrected and receive the Holy Spirit. Also Jesus has established his Kingdom, which we know is going to be victorious!

 

[Mannyfit75]

Ah, I knew you guys would get a kick out of Mary Ann Collins! And that’s the whole point I’m trying to get across! Catholics will only read catholic sources! Whether she’s a real person or a pseudonym, history can easily be checked and verified and what this person wrote is verifiable and accurate. I was once catholic and knew nearly nothing about Christian history. I am not anti catholic and have no agenda but to challenge everyone to do the research. Seems many of you know more about Mary Ann Collins then you do christian history.

I would love to see some Bible verses to back up the claim that Catholics existed in the NT. That the NT church is exactly like the catholic church today. The hierarchical organization, Priests and popes, catechisms, mass, clerical robes, Baptism by sprinkling, veneration of Mary. Where can I find these things in the Holy Bible? Can someone show me?

Actually it is mentioned.

What about the bible itself

Quote:
Acts 9: 31
The church throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria was at peace. It was being built up and walked in the fear of the Lord, and with the consolation of the holy Spirit it grew in numbers.

Or in the original Greek

Quote:
Acts 9:31
Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Γαλιλαίας καὶ Σαμαρείας εἶχεν εἰρήνην, οἰκοδομουμένη καὶ πορευομένη τῷ φόβῳ τοῦ κυρίου, καὶ τῇ παρακλήσει τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐπληθύνετο.

Ecclesitas katho holos = Church through out the whole = Catholic Church

After this story, St Paul then preached gospel to other areas.
Even the apostles - including St Paul claimed membership of this Church. Catholic describe the universal message of the Gospel to all people.

 

[JustaServant]

Here’s what’s confusing. The claim that the Catholic church wrote the Bible. Up until the time of Jesus’ death there was no “church”. Jesus had not yet built it. Jesus Himself had the Scriptures which were the Old Testament. He quoted from them often. The Old Testament writers were Moses, David, Solomon and other prophets, seers and kings. There was no “church” in existence.

The New Testament authors were Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, Timothy and Paul. These men were Apostles or followers of the apostles. Eye witnesses. That was a requirement for canonization. Although Paul was not around during Christ’s ministry, he saw Jesus on the Damascus Road. So that gave him the right to be an apostle and his works were considered canon.

2 Peter 1:21 says: “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” The Holy Spirit is the author of the Holy Scriptures, not a “church”.

Read 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God…

God the Holy Spirit inspired these men, perfectly and accurately, to write the words of God for the church. The church did not “inspire” anything because Jesus had not yet built His church.

When the apostles wrote their letters, the various congregations received them, read and spread them. They copied them for other believers in Christ Jesus. And they recognized the authority of these writings in the Christian’s life. So the Scriptures were produced by these men of God, and were produced FOR the church. The Bible tells us that the “church” is the “called out ones”. They are all believers in Jesus Christ, not a building or organization. The New Testament church started to meet in homes and sometimes women led these house churches. Soon these early Christians had to meet underground because Christianity was declared illegal, until Constantine declared Christianity the religion of Rome in about 313 AD.

The last book of the Bible was Revelation, written about 96 AD, just before the apostle John’s death around 100 AD. After the apostles died, the churches continued to collect the letters they did not have, to read them and understand the authority under God by which they wrote.

So we know for a fact that all the books of the Bible were written before 100AD. The Catholic church didn’t even exist before 100AD!

Go to this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=367564
and try to explain it.

 

[diggerdomer]

So we know for a fact that all the books of the Bible were written before 100AD. The Catholic church didn’t even exist before 100AD!

You might know that for a fact, but Catholic and other scholarly opinions differ. Some suggest 2 Peter was the latest book, after 100 A.D.

And yes, the Catholic church (as you say) did exist before 100 A.D.

 

[Mick_Taylor]

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.”

Hi Randy,

If it is impossible for the church to fall into serious error, why are there numerous warnings in the NT concerning the false teachers in the church who will secretly introduce new and false doctrines?

It is my understanding that every church that teaches the truth is a potential target of attack from the false teachers who work for the devil. How are the sheep supposed to recognize false teachings? From the bible. We must do as the Bereans did: compare what is taught with the word of God to see if the teachings are true.

Your faith, if you belong to Jesus, will not be in your religion or your church, for those things are created things–they are fallible and corruptible. But the word of God is eternal and perfect. If we belong to Jesus, then all of our trust (faith) is in Him, for He alone is worthy. It is impossible for us to be certain which people here on the earth are saved Christians. But it is possible to know that certain people are NOT saved…or at least not yet saved. When ever you find someone who’s faith is in their religion, you will know that such a person is not saved, and doesn’t yet know Jesus.

 

[yankee_drifter]

I’m new to this site and have just been reading the forums. Although I am not catholic, I’m not so closed minded that I cannot believe there are no true believers in the catholic church. I believe christian brethren can be found in most every faith. I was glad to have found this site, until I began following some of the threads and noticed everyone jumps on one person like a pack of wolves. Is this what Christ taught? Does it make you feel good knocking someone down? So, what if the guy isn’t catholic?! He still has a right to be here. As do I. But I feel discouraged about posting anything on here because of all the antagonism. Why can’t we all get along? If someone disagrees, you label them a product of the Reformation. That’s a cheap shot! It gets tiring after awhile to see this ganging up on someone. What’s the benefit? Catholics and protestants/evangelicals can learn much from each other.
A mind that is closed shrivels up. The Reformation was NOT about abolishing the catholic church, but rather to make some reforms because of the abuses that were going on and the church was getting too powerful and very wealthy. A far cry from the poor carpenter’s son from Nazareth. Also the fact that man-made traditions were taking precedent over the Holy Scriptures.

Let me ask some questions:

Do you defend unscriptural traditions?

Was the roman catholic church really around in the 1st century? Scriptures do not support your consensus that the first Christians were catholic. The Bible simply doesn’t say that.

Was the 1st century church founded in Rome? The Bible says it was Jerusalem.

Who were the catholics that you claim wrote the bible? Names? When?

Where in the bible does it say priests have the power to forgive sins? Bible says it belongs to God alone.

If you need to use outside sources or extra biblical sources to prove your case, then how can you convince the rest of the christian world?

“Let God be true…and every man a liar.”

 

[Mick_Taylor]

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?

Hi Randy,

Not all of the church fell into apostasy. A remnant of the church has remained. There are still faithful Christians all over the world that are devoted to Jesus, and who worship Him in spirit and in truth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ah, I knew you guys would get a kick out of Mary Ann Collins! And that’s the whole point I’m trying to get across! Catholics will only read catholic sources! Whether she’s a real person or a pseudonym, history can easily be checked and verified and what this person wrote is verifiable and accurate. I was once catholic and knew nearly nothing about Christian history. I am not anti catholic and have no agenda but to challenge everyone to do the research. Seems many of you know more about Mary Ann Collins then you do christian history.

Since you are the one who first mentioned “her” name, you have undermined your own credibility. If this is the kind of “research” you rely on, why should we listen to anything you have to say. If you want to be taken seriously, you’ll have to do better than this.

Regarding history, I can assure you that anyone who spends any real time studying apologetics (as many of us in this forum have) has at least a passing familiarity with Church history and that those of us who are converts to Catholicism also have some familiarity with non-Catholic sources. If you feel there is some area of history that bolsters your cause, then by all means, start a thread. Be careful, however…studying history has led many Protestants back to the one true Church!

I would love to see some Bible verses to back up the claim that Catholics existed in the NT. That the NT church is exactly like the catholic church today. The hierarchical organization, Priests and popes, catechisms, mass, clerical robes, Baptism by sprinkling, veneration of Mary. Where can I find these things in the Holy Bible? Can someone show me?

I could address each and every one of your listed items, but it’s far easier for you to rattle of a laundry list of “grievances” than it is for me to provide the responses that would be required to correct your misunderstandings. So, let me take a different approach…

Why don’t you begin by proving to me fro the Bible that we have to be able to show you everything from the Bible?

You see, this requirement is itself simply a tradition of Protestant men.

However, I will offer this one simple observation: Who were the Catholics in the New Testament? Peter, Paul, John, James, Timothy…

There was only one Church, and it was called the “Catholic Church” beginning near the end of the first century (within the lifetime of John the Apostle).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy,

If it is impossible for the church to fall into serious error, why are there numerous warnings in the NT concerning the false teachers in the church who will secretly introduce new and false doctrines?

Because individual preachers will slip in like wolves among sheep. No question. However, the Church, as a whole, will never fall into error, and she never has. And while we’ve had some bad popes, none of them have ever taught error formally. Privately, maybe, but not publicly and formally in their role as head of the universal Church.

It is my understanding that every church that teaches the truth is a potential target of attack from the false teachers who work for the devil. How are the sheep supposed to recognize false teachings? From the bible. We must do as the Bereans did: compare what is taught with the word of God to see if the teachings are true.

The Bereans did no such thing and this is an amazing (and common) misinterpretation of the Berean incident.

Berean Rejection of Sola Scriptura
From Steve Ray’s article: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

If one group could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the “dogs,” not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a “tradition,” it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an “extension” of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the “other Scriptures,” which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).

+++

Those who followed the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Thessalonians, rejected Paul’s oral preaching and the long awaited Messiah. Those who accepted oral teaching AND scripture, the Bereans, accepted the Gospel and the Messiah.

Additionally, although both groups searched the scriptures, they came to contradictory conclusions about the Messiah. Clearly, scripture alone is insufficient to ensure proper interpretation.