Why would I trust any Protestant church, since the gates of hell supposedly prevailed against the church founded by God?

[joe370]

For 1500 years the Catholic Church, founded by God (long before, even one Protestant Church existed) - according to most Protestant/Evangelical Church leadership, has been guilty of blasphemy regarding the Eucharist. If they are right then the gates of hell did in fact prevail against Jesus’ church, again, long before any Protestant Church ever existed. If the preceding is true then why in the world would I trust any Protestant church founded by man, considering the fact that the gates of hell supposedly prevailed against the church founded by God, and the gates of hell did prevail, if in fact the Catholic Church was guilty of Eucharistic idolatry in every century leading up to the protestant reformation?

 

[ZDHayden]

For 1500 years the Catholic Church, founded by God (long before, even one Protestant Church existed) - according to most Protestant/Evangelical Church leadership, has been guilty of blasphemy regarding the Eucharist. If they are right then the gates of hell did in fact prevail against Jesus’ church, again, long before any Protestant Church ever existed. If the preceding is true then why in the world would I trust any Protestant church founded by man, considering the fact that the gates of hell supposedly prevailed against the church founded by God, and the gates of hell did prevail, if in fact the Catholic Church was guilty of Eucharistic idolatry in every century leading up to the protestant reformation?

I would like to make a few comments based upon observations I have made:

I) Not all protestants reject the Real Presence – most do it seems, but not all (if you go by the number of groups, most Protestants reject the real presence, but as for actual numbers, I am not certain as I think quite a few Lutherans believe in the Real Presence as do Anglicans). Be careful when you use definite words. Just a friendly suggestion from my experience in debate.

II) – Protestants are NOT going to like this one very much – The way I look at it, there are a few possibilities. 1. The critics of Christianity are right and Christ was a lier. 2. Christ was not a lier but because we (the Catholic Church) messed up so bad, Joseph Smith and Mormonism were necessary, thus making the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and all of protestantism invalid (you cannot bring truth out of a lie). 3. Christ was not a lier and the Church faithfully held the Gospel until part of it overstepped its bounds and added the word filioque to the Creed and increasing the power of the papacy, justifying a schism in 1054. OR 4. The Church faithfully held the Gospel for 1000 years only to face a tragic schism that rendered the part broken away to lose part of the truth but not so much as to lose its validity, necessitating an old, but differential name (Catholic was used in the first few centuries to describe the Church) until the 1500s when an Augustinian monk named Martin Luther came along and, seeing problems in his geographic area, impatiently (the solutions were given and applied in the Council of Trent several decades after the 95 theses) sowed the seeds of a dangerous heresy that fights against the Church to this very day.

By the religion portion next to my name, you can see the conclusion I agree with. Only one of the above is true, but this is not the place to debate that.

 

[Rightlydivide]

For 1500 years the Catholic Church, founded by God (long before, even one Protestant Church existed) - according to most Protestant/Evangelical Church leadership, has been guilty of blasphemy regarding the Eucharist. If they are right then the gates of hell did in fact prevail against Jesus’ church, again, long before any Protestant Church ever existed. If the preceding is true then why in the world would I trust any Protestant church founded by man, considering the fact that the gates of hell supposedly prevailed against the church founded by God, and the gates of hell did prevail, if in fact the Catholic Church was guilty of Eucharistic idolatry in every century leading up to the protestant reformation?

Well this is a change of tone for you Joe!
We are not guilty of blasphemy. I understand that you believe we are. I am not sure why. Did you explain that on another thread I missed?
As far as the gates of hell prevailing, I think it is important to understand that Catholics and Fundamentalists have different views on exactly what that constitutes. First of all, in looking at the passage I think it is helpful to look at some OT passages to ascertain what it means by the gates of hell.
So, no I do not think that the gates of hell prevailed however because you believe your church is the church founded by God, we will have a difficult time agreeing on the exact interpretation.

 

[cooterhein]

I count three disputable points that stand between you and success on this one.

Rightlydivide got one. Who’s to say the Eucharist is something that could make the Gates of Hell prevail? I’ve heard a number of variations on this one, and to this point, I haven’t heard any good reason to name a particular thing that would cause this to happen. I could just as easily make an argument against the identity of the CC as the One True Church by saying “Look at how many Christians aren’t Catholic. If the Reformation really were breaking up the OTC, that means the Gates of Hell prevailed. Therefore, the CC cannot be the OTC.” (Look at me, demonstrating that I understand the form of the argument). In that case, all you have to do is assume that the Reformation doesn’t constitute an occasion for the Gates of Hell to prevail.
Here’s an interesting thought, though: If you were a Christian in the first century, how would you have assessed the Reformation as a hypothetical?

Number two is the accusation of blasphemy. I know some anti-Catholics do it, but there’s a reason most of us don’t. Even though we agree in denying the RP, most of us don’t accuse you (or the EO or Lutherans or Anglicans) of blasphemy. It’s more than courtesy, and it’s not like we’re quietly judging you without telling you about it. Unless non-Catholics feel that Catholics have erred so grievously that they can’t be called “a Christian church” anymore (which does happen on occasion), we don’t accuse you of blasphemy because we really don’t think it’s right to follow the logic there from a denial of transubstantiation. And without a proper accusation of blasphemy (which I would not have predicted you’d be fishing for today), there’s no case for the Gates of Hell hypothetically prevailing.

Third, the conclusion that the Gates of Hell have prevailed (when the CC fails to prevail) is dependent on an implicit faith in the historic reality of apostolic succession and the responsibility of the CC to safeguard the truth. This allows you to equate a failure of the CC with a failure of Christ’s Church in the general sense, and non-Catholics don’t equate things that way for the CC at any point in history.

It’s a fun game, though. Your logic does achieve internal validity if you can get non-Catholics to agree that the CC was at one time synonymous with Christ’s One True Church, the doctrine of the Real Presence and/or transubstantiation qualifies as blasphemy, and that this would qualify as something that causes the Gates of Hell to prevail against Christ’s One True Church- which, as we already established (how did that happen again?) is the CC.

Good luck with that.

 

[ignatius777]

I count three disputable points that stand between you and success on this one.

Rightlydivide got one. Who’s to say the Eucharist is something that could make the Gates of Hell prevail? I’ve heard a number of variations on this one, and to this point, I haven’t heard any good reason to name a particular thing that would cause this to happen. I could just as easily make an argument against the identity of the CC as the One True Church by saying “Look at how many Christians aren’t Catholic. If the Reformation really were breaking up the OTC, that means the Gates of Hell prevailed. Therefore, the CC cannot be the OTC.” (Look at me, demonstrating that I understand the form of the argument). In that case, all you have to do is assume that the Reformation doesn’t constitute an occasion for the Gates of Hell to prevail.
Here’s an interesting thought, though: If you were a Christian in the first century, how would you have assessed the Reformation as a hypothetical?

Number two is the accusation of blasphemy. I know some anti-Catholics do it, but there’s a reason most of us don’t. Even though we agree in denying the RP, most of us don’t accuse you (or the EO or Lutherans or Anglicans) of blasphemy. It’s more than courtesy, and it’s not like we’re quietly judging you without telling you about it. Unless non-Catholics feel that Catholics have erred so grievously that they can’t be called “a Christian church” anymore (which does happen on occasion), we don’t accuse you of blasphemy because we really don’t think it’s right to follow the logic there from a denial of transubstantiation. And without a proper accusation of blasphemy (which I would not have predicted you’d be fishing for today), there’s no case for the Gates of Hell hypothetically prevailing.

Third, the conclusion that the Gates of Hell have prevailed (when the CC fails to prevail) is dependent on an implicit faith in the historic reality of apostolic succession and the responsibility of the CC to safeguard the truth. This allows you to equate a failure of the CC with a failure of Christ’s Church in the general sense, and non-Catholics don’t equate things that way for the CC at any point in history.

It’s a fun game, though. Your logic does achieve internal validity if you can get non-Catholics to agree that the CC was at one time synonymous with Christ’s One True Church, the doctrine of the Real Presence and/or transubstantiation qualifies as blasphemy, and that this would qualify as something that causes the Gates of Hell to prevail against Christ’s One True Church- which, as we already established (how did that happen again?) is the CC.

Good luck with that.

I have run across MANY protestants that consider the catholic church heretical so lets put the pretense of respect by protestants for catholicism aside. The earliest writings of the fathers of the church speak to the issue of the real presence indicating it was a belief of the church from the very beginning. All heresies that have come up against the catholic church have been dealt with including luther, who sadly suffered from some very profund mental illness.

 

[cooterhein]

I have run across MANY protestants that consider the catholic church heretical so lets put the pretense of respect by protestants for catholicism aside. The earliest writings of the fathers of the church speak to the issue of the real presence indicating it was a belief of the church from the very beginning. All heresies that have come up against the catholic church have been dealt with including luther, who sadly suffered from some very profund mental illness.

“Heretical” is a lighter charge than “blasphemous,” though, don’t you think?

 

[jphilapy]

Well this is a change of tone for you Joe!
We are not guilty of blasphemy. I understand that you believe we are. I am not sure why. Did you explain that on another thread I missed?
As far as the gates of hell prevailing, I think it is important to understand that Catholics and Fundamentalists have different views on exactly what that constitutes. First of all, in looking at the passage I think it is helpful to look at some OT passages to ascertain what it means by the gates of hell.
So, no I do not think that the gates of hell prevailed however because you believe your church is the church founded by God, we will have a difficult time agreeing on the exact interpretation.

Joe didn’t accuse protestants of blasphemy. He said they accuse catholicism of it.

 

[cooterhein]

You know, it might be kind of fun to do a poll comparing responses from various kinds of Christians.

Question: Have the Gates of Hell prevailed against Christ’s Church:
A) Much
B) A little
C) Not at all

I wonder how that one would go.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Good luck with that.

John 6:

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink." (53-55)

Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” (60)

"After this, many of His disciples drew back…" (66)

My response every time. Maybe you should begin to look at things less at a basis of fact and more at a basis of faith.

 

[flyonthewall]

I think Rightlydivided has a point, that we must first decide what it means for the gates of hell to prevail.
As I understand it, it does not line up with how I see you understand it, so we have a very strong chance of simply talking past one another.

 

[joe370]

I think Rightlydivided has a point, that we must first decide what it means for the gates of hell to prevail.
As I understand it, it does not line up with how I see you understand it, so we have a very strong chance of simply talking past one another.

Hey Fly…

If the devil managed to deceive the Catholic Church into teaching that the bread and wine is only a symbol of Jesus’ body and blood as early as the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century (and the devil did not by the the way, rightly divide) - and not the real flesh and blood of our savior Jesus Christ, (my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink…) - then the devil did in fact manage to prevail against the church founded by God, for the simple fact that Jesus’ church was supposedly guilty of Eucharistic idolatry, which is utter blasphemy and the hallmark of apostasy. Many (not all) - non-Catholics make this very claim! If that does not constitute blasphemy then nothing does…

Of course the CC is not guilty of such silly claims made by so many non-Catholics…

 

[joe370]

cooterhein;7258259]I count three disputable points that stand between you and success on this one.

Rightlydivide got one. Who’s to say the Eucharist is something that could make the Gates of Hell prevail? I’ve heard a number of variations on this one, and to this point, I haven’t heard any good reason to name a particular thing that would cause this to happen. I could just as easily make an argument against the identity of the CC as the One True Church by saying “Look at how many Christians aren’t Catholic. If the Reformation really were breaking up the OTC, that means the Gates of Hell prevailed. Therefore, the CC cannot be the OTC.” (Look at me, demonstrating that I understand the form of the argument). In that case, all you have to do is assume that the Reformation doesn’t constitute an occasion for the Gates of Hell to prevail.
Here’s an interesting thought, though: If you were a Christian in the first century, how would you have assessed the Reformation as a hypothetical?

Evasive language…

The CC is guilty of Eucharistic idolatry, long before any protestant church existed, if in fact the bread and wine does NOT become the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ - period!!! If the protestant claim is true then the gates of hell have been victorious over the church founded by God, but of course that protestant claim, made by some, not all, is not the true.

Number two is the accusation of blasphemy. I know some anti-Catholics do it, but there’s a reason most of us don’t. Even though we agree in denying the RP, most of us don’t accuse you (or the EO or Lutherans or Anglicans) of blasphemy.

Most, not all, protestants say that make the claim that catholics worship mere bread and mere wine and re-sacrifice Jesus over and over. You know that I am right!!! I have been accused of that silliness time and time again right here at CAF.

It’s more than courtesy, and it’s not like we’re quietly judging you without telling you about it. Unless non-Catholics feel that Catholics have erred so grievously that they can’t be called “a Christian church” anymore (which does happen on occasion), we don’t accuse you of blasphemy because we really don’t think it’s right to follow the logic there from a denial of transubstantiation. And without a proper accusation of blasphemy (which I would not have predicted you’d be fishing for today), there’s no case for the Gates of Hell hypothetically prevailing.

Transubstantiation is an utter joke and a lie made up by the Magisterium of the CC to most protestants and you know that to be true.

Third, the conclusion that the Gates of Hell have prevailed (when the CC fails to prevail) is dependent on an implicit faith in the historic reality of apostolic succession and the responsibility of the CC to safeguard the truth. This allows you to equate a failure of the CC with a failure of Christ’s Church in the general sense, and non-Catholics don’t equate things that way for the CC at any point in history.

If not the CC then which church is Christ’s church safeguarding truth??? Please don’t say: all of them as the one true church. That makes zero sense to me.

It’s a fun game, though. Your logic does achieve internal validity if you can get non-Catholics to agree that the CC was at one time synonymous with Christ’s One True Church, the doctrine of the Real Presence and/or transubstantiation qualifies as blasphemy, and that this would qualify as something that causes the Gates of Hell to prevail against Christ’s One True Church- which, as we already established (how did that happen again?) is the CC.

Good luck with that.

Sarcasm is the usual response from protestants when faced with reality. That was all I could ever muster as a former protestant, when faced with truth. Thanks for the feedback though…

]

 

[Bluegoat]

You’ll never understand Protestantism, because you only accept generalizations and aren’t willing to really enter into a Protestant way of thinking. What would you tell a Protestant who wanted to understand Catholicism? You can’t look at it with a critical eye and fight every step - you will never understand any worldview that way. You have to, at least notionally, enter into the idea as a disciple, and simply learn as much as possible about it that way. The same way I imagine you approach Catholicism yourself when something doesn’t seem to make sense.

 

[joe370]

=

Bluegoat;7259878]You’ll never understand Protestantism, because you only accept generalizations and aren’t willing to really enter into a Protestant way of thinking.

That’s a little insulting considering the fact that I was a protestant my whole life.

What would you tell a Protestant who wanted to understand Catholicism? You can’t look at it with a critical eye and fight every step - you will never understand any worldview that way.

Nope…I respect everyone’s right to believe whatever they want to believe.

You have to, at least notionally, enter into the idea as a disciple, and simply learn as much as possible about it that way. The same way I imagine you approach Catholicism yourself when something doesn’t seem to make sense.

I am confused as to why you are not simply addressing the OP!!! What is your response to the OP?

 

[joe370]

You know, it might be kind of fun to do a poll comparing responses from various kinds of Christians.

Question: Have the Gates of Hell prevailed against Christ’s Church:
A) Much
B) A little
C) Not at all

I wonder how that one would go.

Which church? Are you talking about the Catholic Church?

 

[JHow]

You know, it might be kind of fun to do a poll comparing responses from various kinds of Christians.

Question: Have the Gates of Hell prevailed against Christ’s Church:
A) Much
B) A little
C) Not at all

I wonder how that one would go.

Maybe you should start the poll on a different thread, but don’t you suppose that all Christians will answer “no”, believing (at a minimum) that their own tradition (little t) maintains continuity with the early church and thus hell has not prevailed against the true Church from Christ’s time to present day?

 

[Bluegoat]

Which church? Are you talking about the Catholic Church?

I doubt it, since it would be begging the question.

 

[The_Sentry]

Some of these threads make me think that things aren’t very good between Catholics and non-Catholics right now. We’re not the bad guys , and being non-Catholic doesn’t mean that we think ill of Catholics!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Sentry,

Sometimes it seems that way; I have a great affection for Anglicans and happen to think they have valid orders. I’m sad to see the chaos going on in the Anglican “realignment” and the mind-boggling amount of overlapping and criss-crossing acronyms as well as the TEC lawsuits and insanity though. It’s tough to see a church you love going through so much craziness. The Catholic Church has had its own insanity in the last decade with mass child abuse, abusive nonsense like liturgical dancing, and Catholic insitutions like Georgetown and Notre Dame dumping huge $$$ to welcome a pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-stem cells president come to speak. It seems Christendom is under attack in all quarters these days…sadly.

Some of these threads make me think that things aren’t very good between Catholics and non-Catholics right now. We’re not the bad guys , and being non-Catholic doesn’t mean that we think ill of Catholics!

 

[cooterhein]

Maybe you should start the poll on a different thread, but don’t you suppose that all Christians will answer “no”, believing (at a minimum) that their own tradition (little t) maintains continuity with the early church and thus hell has not prevailed against the true Church from Christ’s time to present day?

I do think all Christians will answer “no,” but I don’t think it necessarily has to do with tradition. Big t or little t.