R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Our faith is in Christ and in the Church which He established and has protected from error as a sure guide for His people for 2,000 years.
- Status
D
deanarrca
Guest
Ok is this remnant Invisible- or can you identify this remnant?- How accurately is this said remnant interpreting scripture? When I identify this remnant how do i know they are teaching/ interpreting the scriptures like the Apostles and the early church? Where is this Church that the gates of hell shall not prevail against? Which church is accurately dividing the word of truth? Which church is being guided by the holy Spirit? Which Church is the Pillar and foundation of Truth?
You want to insist the Catholic church can’t possibly be the true Church, yet you offer no alternatives. You say it is impossible to know this true church - You claim all churches are fallible so there is no such thing as a true visible church. You claim the Bible is infallible yet the infallible Bible can be interpreted fallibly unless you also have an infallible interpretation. In that case your infallible Bible, as I see it, is really of no use to you. What church has the correct doctrines and is correctly dividing the word of truth? What are my options? To rely on my own understanding?
The way I solved this dilemma was to find out what the Apostles and early Christians taught- I will place my bets that those much closer in time to the source have the most accurate interpretation. And that looks a lot more like modern Catholic Doctrine than it does any of the Protestant denominations I have been to. You can’t recreate First century Christianity by looking just at the Bible 1500 years after the fact. Just like you could not recreate Temple worship Judaism just by looking at the Old testament texts. To get that right you would have to also look at the oral Judaic tradition. The ancient old testament Jews were not Sola Scripturists (sp?) and neither are the New testament Christians.
There are Christians in all denominations that baptize by water in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And that is what the catholic Church teaches.
I found it quite refreshing when I came to the Catholic Church that they already accepted me as a Christian and did not require me to be re-baptized. That cannot be said for the Fundamentalist denominations I belonged to.
D
deanarrca
Guest
Sorry - I had a few more additional thoughts for Mick or Sword
Hypothetical Situation Mick-
According to you what Church should I belong to since you feel the Church I belong to is corrupt? What are my options in your mind?
Since, according to you, all Churches are fallible, should I even belong to any organized church? I know several people who have given up on all organized religion. Should it be just me God and my personal interpretation of the Bible- No Church required.
Most Street evangelists, after they have lead a person in the “Plan of Salvation” and had them say the “sinners prayer” simply give them the instruction to find a good “Bible Believing” Church".
That actually is an absurdity - Been there done that. Every Church I have been in has appealed to the Bible to support their beliefs- Trouble was they all taught vastly different things. No they did not all agree on the essentials. I don’t have a lifetime to visit every different Protestant denomination. My search, and faith journey and most importantly I believe God has lead me home to the Catholic church. I am not going to spend another 30 years trying to figure out which church to attend.
Mick or Sword if you tell me that you are Christian and you have been baptized by water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost- I will accept you as a Christian brother. Whether you are are in a state of saving grace or not is not for me to judge. That is between you and God alone. The wheat and the chaff grow together in all churches including the Catholic and it is not my job to figure out who is who sitting next to me in the pew. My personal opinion is that it is easier to be in a state of saving Grace in the Catholic church and pray for unity and all will come home to the Church founded by Christ. But I also recognize the help of all the Protestant churches that I have attend along the way and have a great deal of respect for all of them. I have known wonderful strong Christians in all the churches I have been in. I first learned to love and trust Jesus in a Protestant church.
Hypothetical Situation Mick-
According to you what Church should I belong to since you feel the Church I belong to is corrupt? What are my options in your mind?
Since, according to you, all Churches are fallible, should I even belong to any organized church? I know several people who have given up on all organized religion. Should it be just me God and my personal interpretation of the Bible- No Church required.
Most Street evangelists, after they have lead a person in the “Plan of Salvation” and had them say the “sinners prayer” simply give them the instruction to find a good “Bible Believing” Church".
That actually is an absurdity - Been there done that. Every Church I have been in has appealed to the Bible to support their beliefs- Trouble was they all taught vastly different things. No they did not all agree on the essentials. I don’t have a lifetime to visit every different Protestant denomination. My search, and faith journey and most importantly I believe God has lead me home to the Catholic church. I am not going to spend another 30 years trying to figure out which church to attend.
Mick or Sword if you tell me that you are Christian and you have been baptized by water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost- I will accept you as a Christian brother. Whether you are are in a state of saving grace or not is not for me to judge. That is between you and God alone. The wheat and the chaff grow together in all churches including the Catholic and it is not my job to figure out who is who sitting next to me in the pew. My personal opinion is that it is easier to be in a state of saving Grace in the Catholic church and pray for unity and all will come home to the Church founded by Christ. But I also recognize the help of all the Protestant churches that I have attend along the way and have a great deal of respect for all of them. I have known wonderful strong Christians in all the churches I have been in. I first learned to love and trust Jesus in a Protestant church.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
If I understand you correctly, I think this is an important difference from the Catholic faith.
As the Nicene Creed states, that all Christians pray, we do believe in the Church. We really can’t completely separate faith in Christ (and God) from faith in the Church…again, it’s partof our faith as the Nicene Creed teaches. We believe is (in the words of Vatican II) always holy and always in need of reform. Always holy because of its foundation in Christ (the Church will never ultimately be separated from Christ). Always in need of reform because we humans are sinful.
I
Ignatius
Guest
The Gospel message of The Catholic Church is the one received by the Apostles from Jesus Christ. We wrote a book about. Here’s it is:
The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D…
ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:
It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun***, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament. ***
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…
AD 393:
Council of Hippo. "It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.
The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…(canon 47 A.D. 397).
The Gospel of Jesus Christ remains the same as the one received by The Apostles. If you would like to learn more about the teachings of Jesus Christ, please contact the folks at http://www.chnetwork.org/. I promise, if you unite yourself to Jesus Christ through His Church, you will experience the great gift the He has promised to those who follow Him. As Jesus said, “He who eats My body and drinks My blood lives in Me and I in him and I will raise him up on the last day.” And He is faithful and sure to keep His promises. Repent, turn to the Gospel and be saved and you will have everlasting life.
Grace and peace be with you.
Your servant in Christ.
P
paul_c
Guest
Yankee Drifter, the purpose of this website is to give Catholic Answers to questions people ask. Given that, its not surprising that a bunch of Catholics are ready to answer questions from a Catholic perspective. And it is also not surprising that while you think that the reformation was about making reforms, we think it was about deviating from the Truth for the sake of men’s own desires. After all, it is pretty appealing to believe that all you need is faith to be saved and that sin is inconsequential in comparison to Christ’s saving power. And its also very appeoaling to be your own authority, answerable to no one. Unfortunately, that is not what Jesus said. He said you must do God’s will to be saved and he appointed the church to help people understand that.
No Catholic tradition is in opposition to Scripture. Scripture is simply a subset of Catholic tradition.
Well, yes, in fact it does say that the First Christians were Catholic. Catholic means universal and until the reformation, there was only one Christian church and so it was called Catholic.
Of course the Church was founded in Jerusalem, but the headquarters moved to Rome with St. Peter.
All of the New Testament Authors were Catholic (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Jude, Paul, James, Peter). Remember, Catholic simply means the universal church of which all Christians were members until the reformation (other than the orthodox, who broke away in 1054 during the Great Schism)
No, Jesus gave the authority to forgive sins to Peter ( and the Apostles.
Here is John 20:22-23:
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.
Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
Typically we answer your concerns with the Bible because we know you will respond best to that. In my experience, the Bible is sufficient to prove our cases, even though we are not limited to the Bible.
P
paul_c
Guest
Mick,
you incorrectly assume that to believe what the Catholic Church teaches is in conflict with what Jesus taught. In fact, Jesus founded the Catholic Church under the leadership of St. Peter to spread his teachings, which it has done faithfully for 2000 years. If you read the new Testament with that understanding, it all comes into place. Frankly, if it wasn’t for the Catholic Church, you would have no knowledge of Jesus at all. You put all your faith in the word of God, but if you do any critical research at all in how that word of God came into being, you will quickly learn that the Church initially spread the Truth about Jesus by word of mouth. It was at least a decade, if not two before any of this began to be written down by the Apostles and their followers to help in its dissemination. And it wasn’t until 382AD that the bible was put into its current Catholic form (in the 1500s, the Protestants actually subtracted 7 old testament books because they didn’t like the messages in them.) If you continue on with your research, you will find that the Reformers actually decided that they knew more about what God wanted than those that had been safeguarding the word of God for the previous 1500 years. Why did they think that they had special revelation in this regard? What was the proof of their authority? Martin Luther was so vain that he claimed that it was his right to change the wording of the Bible and also the Gospel message to one where sin no longer mattered in salvation. If fact, he famously counselled others to “sin Boldly” if they believed in the saving power of the Cross. This is in direct contradiction to what Jesus taught when he said in Matthew 19 that the way to heaven was to follow the 10 commandments and to give to the poor. So, you see, Martin Luther , who was a Catholic priest, was one of those false teachers that Paul , Peter and James warned about.
S
swords99
Guest
Peter was martyred by AD 68 or earlier. Eusebius wrote that Peter was killed by Nero. This means that 2 Peter was written in or before AD 68. The reference in 2 Pet 3 to the letters of Paul seems to put this letter toward the end of Peter’s lifetime, almost certainly into the 60’s.
Although it was not unheard of for people in the first century to write pseudepigraphical books, there are more than a few scholars who do not get this impression for 2 Peter. The books of the New Testament were accepted by the 2nd century church because of a consensus that they had apostolic authority. The second century church assigned apostolic authority to this book. Much evidence puts 2 Peter in the first century. It is generally believed that the Bible was written between 1500 BC and 100 AD
Don’t believe everything you google. Go to the library and read Christian history.
Although it was not unheard of for people in the first century to write pseudepigraphical books, there are more than a few scholars who do not get this impression for 2 Peter. The books of the New Testament were accepted by the 2nd century church because of a consensus that they had apostolic authority. The second century church assigned apostolic authority to this book. Much evidence puts 2 Peter in the first century. It is generally believed that the Bible was written between 1500 BC and 100 AD
Don’t believe everything you google. Go to the library and read Christian history.
J
JustaServant
Guest
Lets try it again Sword. You claim the Catholic Church did not exist until Constintine, Please go to this thread and prove it please:Peter was martyred by AD 68 or earlier. Eusebius wrote that Peter was killed by Nero. This means that 2 Peter was written in or before AD 68. The reference in 2 Pet 3 to the letters of Paul seems to put this letter toward the end of Peter’s lifetime, almost certainly into the 60’s.
Although it was not unheard of for people in the first century to write pseudepigraphical books, there are more than a few scholars who do not get this impression for 2 Peter. The books of the New Testament were accepted by the 2nd century church because of a consensus that they had apostolic authority. The second century church assigned apostolic authority to this book. Much evidence puts 2 Peter in the first century. It is generally believed that the Bible was written between 1500 BC and 100 AD
Don’t believe everything you google. Go to the library and read Christian history.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=367564
Or are you admitting you are unable to?
D
Disciple96
Guest
I’ve given a couple of forms of the Catholic Gospel message. Which is the Gospel message. Which is really the only Gospel message. If anyone brings you another gospel, let him be anathema. To quote a really good source. 
But let’s see, I think I can word it a different way, even though all three of my replies on this so far are really one and the same, referring to one and the same Gospel, as I said.
The Catholic Gospel message is that Christ died for us, gave us His Church which was born from His side on the Cross, gives Himself to us in the Holy Eucharist when He gives us His Body and Blood, just as He said on the night He was betrayed, when He took the bread and wine, blessed it, saying “This is My Body, This is My Blood,” and told His apostles to eat and drink, and to do this in remembrance (an English word translating a technical word used in liturgical worship and sacrifice) of Him, and giving us the grace we need for our salvation through the sacraments which He established to be administered in the Church which He established… And that we are to love one another as He has loved us. And that if we love Him, we will follow Him and obey His commandments.
There. I think that’s a pretty good brief summary of the Catholic Gospel message, as were the other ones: my paraphrasing of the Apostle’s Creed and a Scripture quote. I like this thread, it’s really making me think about how to put these things into words. I find that I am less interested in arguing about what Christ said, than I am in actually trying to do what He said. Imagine that. And me, a Catholic.
But let’s see, I think I can word it a different way, even though all three of my replies on this so far are really one and the same, referring to one and the same Gospel, as I said.
The Catholic Gospel message is that Christ died for us, gave us His Church which was born from His side on the Cross, gives Himself to us in the Holy Eucharist when He gives us His Body and Blood, just as He said on the night He was betrayed, when He took the bread and wine, blessed it, saying “This is My Body, This is My Blood,” and told His apostles to eat and drink, and to do this in remembrance (an English word translating a technical word used in liturgical worship and sacrifice) of Him, and giving us the grace we need for our salvation through the sacraments which He established to be administered in the Church which He established… And that we are to love one another as He has loved us. And that if we love Him, we will follow Him and obey His commandments.
There. I think that’s a pretty good brief summary of the Catholic Gospel message, as were the other ones: my paraphrasing of the Apostle’s Creed and a Scripture quote. I like this thread, it’s really making me think about how to put these things into words. I find that I am less interested in arguing about what Christ said, than I am in actually trying to do what He said. Imagine that. And me, a Catholic.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And you can go online and do the same by reading the writings of the Early Church Fathers. For example:Peter was martyred by AD 68 or earlier. Eusebius wrote that Peter was killed by Nero. This means that 2 Peter was written in or before AD 68. The reference in 2 Pet 3 to the letters of Paul seems to put this letter toward the end of Peter’s lifetime, almost certainly into the 60’s.
Although it was not unheard of for people in the first century to write pseudepigraphical books, there are more than a few scholars who do not get this impression for 2 Peter. The books of the New Testament were accepted by the 2nd century church because of a consensus that they had apostolic authority. The second century church assigned apostolic authority to this book. Much evidence puts 2 Peter in the first century. It is generally believed that the Bible was written between 1500 BC and 100 AD
Don’t believe everything you google. Go to the library and read Christian history.
Earliest Use of the Name “Catholic Church”
The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as the Way (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those who followed Christ began to be called Christians beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26).
As early as 107 A.D., that same group was referred to as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])
Notice that Ignatius does not introduce the term “Catholic Church”; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. That means that the Christian assembly was probably calling itself the “Catholic Church” during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century.
The Catholic Church began with Peter and the Apostles and continued without interruption or cessation through their disciples (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.) down to the present day.
As a side note, it is interesting that the believers in Antioch coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church”.
M
Mick_Taylor
Guest
I said:
As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.
Acts 17:10-12
As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.
M
Mick_Taylor
Guest
It is obvious that in your view, Paul is arguing against sola Scriptura in this passage from Acts 17. What is it specifically, that makes you convinced that Paul is talking about sola Scriptura here?
M
Mick_Taylor
Guest
What makes you think that the Thessalonian Jews reasoned from the Scriptures before they stirred up a mop to protest Paul’s preaching?
If the Bereans were not adherents of sola Scriptura and the Thessalonians were, why is it that the Bereans searched the Scriptures to see if Paul’s teachings were true, and not the Thessalonian Jews?
T
Thing
Guest
The Bereans listened to the Church first of all [in the person of St. Paul].
They *received *the *message *with great eagerness… …to see if what Paul said…
D
David_Zampino
Guest
Then I would say that yes, your experience here is limited!
M
Mick_Taylor
Guest
I meant to say Luke, not Paul. Sorry about that!
G
guanophore
Guest
Well, specifically, Catholic men, inspired by the God, were moved by the HS to write the books now contained in the NT.
Later, those appointed to authority by the Apostles gathered these books together with the Septuagint and called the collection “Bible”. The Catholic Church does not claim to have written the OT, only to have compiled it together with the Catholic writings (NT).
1 Thess 2:13
This was one of the criteria, yes. Another was that the contents of the book be consistent with what the Apostles taught, which was preserved in the Catholic Church.
Indeed!
And in the case of theNT, those men were Catholic.
I think you are misunderstanding what the Catholic Church believes and teaches.
Yes!
By, for, and about Catholics.
The fact that they are called out does not mean that they had no organization. They were organized around the authority appointed by Christ.
I think you have misunderstood the Edict of Milan. What Constantine did was declare that Christianity was no longer illegal in the Roman empire. That is a far cry from becoming the State Religion. But, you are correct that, when this occurred, the Christians (all Catholic) began to take over the Pagan places of worship and make them into Churches.
G
guanophore
Guest
The Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ, birthed when the water and blood poured form His side on the Cross,and empowered by the HS on pentecost. It was already being described as Catholic at the time Luke wrote the book of Acts:
Acts 9:31
1 So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.
If you look at the Gk. here you will see “kath holos” - throughout all. This is the universal church, the same throughout the whole world. This is the Church in unity with the Apostles, and their successors appointed with their authority. It has been described by the word “Catholic” since the time Luke wrote the book of Acts.
Reallly? I guess I must not be a very good Catholic.
Why didn’t they ever teach me that in seminary?
There is a whole generation of Catholics that have never studied their faith. I know, I am one of them. I did not begin to study Christian history until after I left the Church. Fortunately, I studied my way back.
I cannot see how the NT Church could look the same 2000 years later. Jesus Himself said that the small mustard seed would grow into a large tree. It is almost impossible to recognize a mustard seed by looking at the tree. What remains the same is the preservation of the Apostolic Teaching.
You seem to be suffering under the error that all of what Christians ought to believe is found in the bible. If you are really interested in these elements of the Catholic Church, we would be happy to show them to you. The priesthood is very biblical. The word “pope” did not evolve for centuries, as it is a Latinization of the word “papa” that attached itself to the Bishop of Rome. It was not used in the East, where the term “Patriarch” is still used.
The Mass is in scripture, but baptism is to be done by immersion or pouring. Sprinkling is the reminder of the baptismal waters used in liturgy. Jesus demonstrates the veneration of His Mother, which is also found in scripture.
As far as robes go, we find references to this in scripture as well, but in the very early days of the Church, the believers were persecuted. They had to meet in deserted places outside the city, in secret in homes, or in caves and catacombs. Some of the meeting places were very cold, and people wore cloaks during the meetings. The elders were the most prone to the cold, and always wore extra robes to keep warm. Have you ever been in a cave?
G
guanophore
Guest
Because individuals can, and do, fall into error. When that happens, they are separated from the Holy Bride of Christ.
I agree about the potential targets. However, the Apostles taught that the Deposit of Faith handed down by them (paradosis) was to be used as the standard for judgement. They were to hold fast to what was committed to them, because it was a sure standard by which error could be known. I agree that we should do what the Bereans did, but what made them “more noble” was that they received the Apostolic Teaching with eagerness. When this is done, one will find no contradiction with the Scriptures.
Such a statement reveals a deficient understanding of the Church founded by Christ.
Eph 5:23-31
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. 28 Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body.
The Church has Christ as her Head, the Source of her infallibility. She is sanctified, cleansed, presented to Himself in splendor, without spot, or wrinkle.
You are confusing the fallible men attached to the Church with the Holy and pure elements. The Church cannot sin because she has as her Soul the Holy Spirit, who cannot sin. Those who separate themselves from the HS can sin, and thereby separate themselves from the Church.
Yes, we completely trust Jesus to keep His word that He would lead the Church into all Truth,and would not leave her orphaned.
I agree that it is not our place to determine who is saved, and who is not. However, it is possible to see that people are committing sins, and that they have separated themselves from His Holy Bride in doing so.
Since Jesus is Head of the Body, one who trusts completely in Jesus can also trust completely in His Holy Bride, who is pure, and leads us into all Truth, just as He promised.
- Status