Why Catholicism Is Preferable to Protestantism

April 10, 2014 | 740 comments

My new book, The Protestant's Dilemma, shows in a myriad of ways why Protestantism is implausible. We sifted through many arguments to boil the book down to the most essential. A few chapters didn't make the cut but are still good enough to share. Here's one of them.

If Protestantism is true,

There's no way to know whether you're assenting to divine revelation or to mere human opinion about divine revelation.

Protestants and Catholics both believe that God has revealed himself to man over the course of human history, culminating in his ultimate self-revelation in Jesus Christ. But whereas Catholics believe that Christ founded a visible Church—which subsists in the Catholic Church—and has protected its doctrines from error, Protestants reject the notion of ecclesial infallibility, maintaining that no person, church, or denomination has been preserved from error in its teachings. Which means that anyone could be wrong, and no person or institution can be trusted with speaking the truth of divine revelation without error.

Universal Fallibility

“No one is infallible.” If Protestantism has a universal belief, this is it. Luther pioneered this idea when he asserted that popes and Church councils had erred. If they had erred, it meant God had not guided them into all truth; instead, he allowed them to fall into error and, worse, to proclaim error as truth. 

And so the most a Protestant can do is tentatively assent to doctrinal statements made by his church, pastor, or denomination, since those statements, being fallible, could be substantively changed at some time in the future. We see this all the time in Protestantism, most commonly when a Protestant leaves one church for another due to doctrinal disagreement, especially after his church changed its position on an issue he considered important.

Consider the question of same-sex “marriage.” Until quite recently, all Protestant denominations taught this was a contradiction in terms. But now many have modified or even completely reversed this doctrine. Those Protestants who accept this new teaching believe that the old one was wrong—an erroneous human opinion that became enshrined in their church’s statement of faith. They can do this confidently, knowing that none of their fellow church members can plausibly claim that it contradicts an irreformable dogma that was infallibly revealed by God. 

Ultimately, then, a Protestant (who remains Protestant) studies the relevant sources—Scripture, history, the writings of authoritative figures in his tradition—and chooses the Protestant denomination that most aligns with his judgment. But then, they say, Catholics do the same thing: studying the sources and then choosing the Catholic Church based on their own judgment. So they see no difference in this regard.

Because Catholicism is true,

Christians can know divine revelation, as distinct from mere human opinion, because God protects it from authoritatively teaching anything that is false.

How is the Catholic’s judgment different from a Protestant's, if at all? The difference lies in the conclusion, or finishing point, of the inquiry they make. Whereas the Protestant can ultimately submit only to his own judgment, which he knows to be fallible, the Catholic can confidently render total assent to the proclamations of the visible Church that Christ established and guides, submitting his judgments to its judgments as to Christ's. 

And so a Catholic can know divine revelation, as distinct from human opinion, by looking to the Church, which speaks with Christ’s voice and cannot lie. For a Protestant, only the Bible itself contains God’s infallibly inspired words, so he desires to assent to that. But since the Bible must be interpreted by someone, the closest he can come to assenting to biblical teaching is assenting to his own fallible interpretation of it. And assenting to yourself is no assent at all.

The Protestant’s Dilemma

If Protestantism is true, all are fallible. So the Protestant must rely on his own judgment above that of his church. And the orthodoxy of the church itself is judged against his interpretation of the Bible. Thus is becomes impossible to distinguish between what divine revelation actually is versus what a fallible human being thinks it is. This fact makes the Catholic Church, philosophically speaking, preferable to Protestantism, since God’s truth can be known—and known with certainty.

 

Devin Rose grew up a militant atheist. As a college student he was radically converted to Christ and began practicing Evangelical Christianity. A few years later, long prayer and study led him to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church. Today he is a professional software developer, amateur lay...

The Protestant's Dilemma
What if Protestantism were true? What if the Reformers really were heroes, the Bible the sole rule of faith, and Christ’s Church just an invisible collection of loosely united believers? As an Evangelical, Devin Rose used to believe all of it. Then one day the nagging questions began. He noticed things about Protestant belief and practice that didn’t add up. He began following the logic of Protestant claims to places he never expected it to go—leading to conclusions no Christians would ever admit to holding. In The Protestant’s Dilemma, Rose examines over thirty of those conclusions, showing with solid evidence, compelling reason, and gentle humor how the major tenets of Protestantism—if honestly pursued to their furthest extent— wind up in dead ends of absurdity.

Comments by Catholic.com Members

#1  Logan Rieck - Albany, Illinois

The first thing I thought of after reading this article is what St. Paul wrote to Timothy.

1 Timothy 3:15

If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

The Church possesses the ability to be infallible and this was recognized by even the Early Church. And it's not just what is directly told us in Scripture but what the Church tells us is important because our Lord told us that He would send us the Holy Spirit that would lead us unto all truth (John 16:13) and this verse also makes me think of certain Marian Dogma such as our Lady's Assumption which isn't immediately in Scripture (but can be understood from it).

These are just my thoughts.

April 10, 2014 at 5:36 pm PST
#2  Paula DiSanto - Jordan, New York

To piggyback on what Logan has said, the early church members knew without a doubt what God expected from them in church and because of 2 Timothy 3:15 they did not ever have to guess at what God's will was in regards to the church--they knew how to act in church, what church was and meant, and what the truth was/is. This is not so in the protestant church as it depends on the pastor's leading and the denomination, meaning, baptist, methodist, etc.

Thanks for bringing this back to my mind Logan as I too spent about ten years in the protestant church before coming to the Catholic church.

April 10, 2014 at 5:58 pm PST
#3  Christine O - Greenwood, Indiana

I've been studying and praying as an apologetic for just a little over a year now, and one of the Protestant arguments that frustrates me the most is the belief that wherever "the church" is mentioned in the Bible, it encompasses all believers. Obviously this is taken completely out of context, for as Catholics, we know that "the church" is the Catholic church. Do you have any suggestions on how to respond to this?

Thank you in advance!

April 11, 2014 at 4:29 am PST
#4  Andrew Miller - Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

It's a pretty simple argument, but I'd use Matthew 18:15-17. If someone you know is sinning, but doesn't realize it (say, engaging in homosexual behavior), doesn't take your word for it, and doesn't take your friends' word for it, you should look to the church.

But can you look to just any church? Ask any ol' person who belongs to the body of Christ? You'll get differing answers due to all the different interpretations, and some will even say that behavior isn't immoral at all! There has to be one authoritative church because there is only one truth.

April 11, 2014 at 6:44 am PST
#5  Devin Rose - El Cajon, California - Catholic Answers Blogger

Christine,

Andrew's answer is a good one. You can also look to the early Church, its unity and authority, as we see in Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem. The Church, led by the rightful authorities that Christ had established, made a binding decision on all the faithful. That type of binding decision is impossible if the Church is merely the invisible collection of all believers.

April 11, 2014 at 7:34 am PST
#6  Eric McCabe - Rosemount, Minnesota

Hi all,

Coming from one of the most conservative Lutheran denominations (and now going to RCIA to convert :)) I have to admit there is a certain level of contradiction with the "invisible church" claim. Although the pastor of my past church would argue there are physical marks of this "invisible church" he could not prove to me where these marks really are. For example, he would mention wherever the Word and Sacraments are taught and administered in their truth and purity, that is where the "Church" is. My question for him was where exactly does that happen (besides our church of course). This is where he could not answer. Even within the Lutheran sect itself, there are so many divisions, synods, congregations etc. that do not "administer and teach the Word and Sacraments in truth and purity." Ironically, we would recite we believed in the communion of saints and one holy apostolic church in the Nicene Creed. I just couldn't rest easily reciting that when the real Communion of Saints are those in which are part of Christ's body, one lord, one faith, one chalice now and for the past 2000 years is the Catholic Church. It's disappointing when Protestant brethren regard the Catholic Church as a denomination just like their own church. I was taught that the Pope was the anti-christ, Catholics worship Mary and re-sacrifice Christ, Catholicism is works based, etc. etc. etc. Every Protestant should really learn true Church history and it investigate not with the guidance of another Protestant but listen to a Catholic as well. It took me 31 years to do that and I am eternally glad I did! I am eternally grateful that the Holy Spirit had led me through His love to Christ's Church. :)

April 11, 2014 at 10:43 am PST
#7  Christopher Travis - Huntsville, Alabama

I am amazed at how many Protestants will be very firm that the church was invisible and includes all believers, then five minutes later they will say the church went apostate. I always ask them how can an invisible church go apostate. They will contridict themselves and keep right on believing it.

Many people of this generation, especially in America do not put much thought into how diffulcult it was for the church to be out in the open in the early years. We take our religious freedom for granted. We are very blessed to have the treasures we do have about early church history.

Eric, you must be getting very excited, its almost here! I get very inspired when I hear about Protestants who convert to Christ's Church! It takes a boat load of humility and many times much sacrifice, that is indeed true love for Christ!!!

April 11, 2014 at 8:34 pm PST
#8  Obinna Dominic - abuja, Enugu

I dont know why catholic church cannot agree to the truth though they know it. They keep pursuing shadows rather than substance. Let them tell the people the truth. No matter how many centuries, how many millions of people that are on their side, God,s words cannot be changed. Let the catholic church tell the whole world the truth why the former pope resigned.

April 13, 2014 at 2:41 am PST
#9  Obinna Dominic - abuja, Enugu

I dont know why catholic church cannot agree to the truth though they know it. They keep pursuing shadows rather than substance. Let them tell the people the truth. No matter how many centuries, how many millions of people that are on their side, God,s words cannot be changed. Let the catholic church tell the whole world the truth why the former pope resigned.

April 13, 2014 at 2:45 am PST
#10  Christopher Travis - Huntsville, Alabama

Obinna, why the pope resigned is a matter of discipline not doctrine. By the way what are you trying to say? That the Catholic Church changed God's word? Can you be more specific?

April 13, 2014 at 4:41 am PST
#11  Usulor Kenneth - Lagos, Lagos

Obinna

Why not open up so that we understand you well and know the answer we can give you? Why are wrapping up words?

April 13, 2014 at 6:46 am PST
#12  Usulor Kenneth - Lagos, Lagos

Obinna

Why not open up so that we understand you well and know the answer we can give you? Why are wrapping up words?
And it seems you are digressing from our topic.

April 13, 2014 at 6:51 am PST
#13  Obinna Dominic - abuja, Enugu

I left the catholic seminary school after my first apostolic work in one parish. Why does the catholic church keep ignoring a very simple order from God when he said in the book of exodus 20 that we should not bow down to any image, even if it is the image of anything in heaven or anywhere. So what excuse do the catholics have for bowing down to images whereas God said no to that,,, even if it is the image of anything in heaven.

April 13, 2014 at 1:36 pm PST
#14  Obinna Dominic - abuja, Enugu

I left the catholic seminary school after my first apostolic work in one parish. Why does the catholic church keep ignoring a very simple order from God when he said in the book of exodus 20 that we should not bow down to any image, even if it is the image of anything in heaven or anywhere. So what excuse do the catholics have for bowing down to images whereas God said no to that,,, even if it is the image of anything in heaven.

April 13, 2014 at 1:36 pm PST
#15  Logan Rieck - Albany, Illinois

Obinna, yes, our Lord told us (or told Moses) to not bow down to any graven image. Why? So as not to worship them. This is what the heathen and gentile nations did around Israel, they would worship an image they had just set up, not because it symbolized anything but they actually worshiped that image.

Then why do Catholics use images and statues? Because Israel did as well. Did I remind you that Solomon decorated the inside of the Great Temple with statues of Cherubim? Need I remind you the awe and terror just the Ark of the Covenant brought upon those who saw it though it was just an object and not God (David dancing around it as it was brought up to Zion). We understand that these things are just symbols and represent something else? That we bow down to an image shows the respect we wish to give to whatever the image is of but we cannot so we utilize the symbol. It is not worship, nothing but God Himself is worshiped.

This is without mentioning the dozens of other things that God told Moses for the Israelite nation to not do but we as Christians are free to do (the dietary law is a good example). The Israelite Nation was an example to the heathen nations around it to follow what is good and that images themselves possess no power. In that the Law is fulfilled in Christ the Law was transformed by Him into a higher understanding and meaning and statues can serve their purpose, as well, as pictures or representations as things good, like a picture.

April 13, 2014 at 2:00 pm PST
#16  Usulor Kenneth - Lagos, Lagos

Obinna

My dear, I'm sorry for that big blow on you which you could not defend. It hit you hard and crashed your defensive weapon, that is, your faith, and knocked you out of you intended lofty state of the priesthood. The same blow hit the Jews when they saw our Lord eating with sinners ( Matt 9:11, Mark 2:16, Luke 5:30 ). For this reason our sweet Saviour said "Blessed is he that shall not be scandalized in me" ( Matt. 11:6 ). The Jews received their own scandal in the Head which is our Lord himself but you received your own in His Body which is the Church. My brother all hope are not yet lost for you. That is why God has provided Catholic Answers and has really brought you in contact with it in order to reinstate you into that blessed state from which you were knocked off by scandal. Just forget about what those who hate or misunderstand the Catholic Church tell you for as the scriptures says, "the bewitching of vanity obscureth good things and the wandering of concupiscence overturneth the innocent mind" ( Wisdom 4:12 ). It is against this type of tragedy that the Holy Ghost warned us; "Unless thou hold thyself dilligently in the fear of the Lord, thy house will soon be overthrowned" ( Ecclessiasticus 27:4 ). Keep coming to Catholic Answers while opening your heart to the nudge of the Holy Ghost through this site. And always call to mind Matt. 16:18 that the Catholic Church is infallible doctrinally.

April 13, 2014 at 6:14 pm PST
#17  Tom Runkel - Weirton, West Virginia

UK
We must remember that we as Catholics believe in the whole bible and others out there only believe in the parts they want to believe in. They say don't worship or look upon graven images. Yet when the Jews were in the desert and plagued by serpents God had them make and "image" of a serpent and when they did they were healed. That would mean God violated his own command, if you are against graven images. So until those people believe in the whole bible we waste our time arguing with them.

God Bless.

April 14, 2014 at 4:28 am PST
#18  K Berg - hennef, Nordrhein-Westfalen

Great Book - Devin . I am a recent convert from Wisconsin Synod Lutheran .
I was anti - Catholic most of my entire life . Thank you for this book . Also Relevant Radio in Chicago . ETWN Radio in Toledo , Ohio , I drove many miles from Toledo to Chicago and back , listening trying to find the truth.
Luther and Calvin both have hurt the church in countless ways .
God wants us unified . Not divided.
I am now vilified by many of my protestant friends , because I converted to Catholicism . Sad .

April 14, 2014 at 11:51 pm PST
#19  Eric McCabe - Rosemount, Minnesota

K Berg,

As a recent convert from WELS to Catholicism, I know your frustration received on behalf of your protestant friends. Remember to remain humble and in love towards our protestant brethren. As a former Lutheran, I placed my "doctrinal pride" above my faith expressing itself through love. We as converts to the true Church of Christ must embrace charity towards all, especially those who persecute us new converts.
God bless you K Berg!

April 15, 2014 at 7:18 am PST
#20  Benson Jones - Columbia, South Carolina

Devin,

I understand your argument. However, I wonder if over time the Catholic Church became too dogmatic at times and didn't leave some things up to "mystery" and this was the strife that came along later. Sadly the I think the protestants got things wrong as well.

I am protestant. I attend an Anglican Church now, but enjoy a more traditional approach to Christianity. I like how the Orthodox church has apophatic theology but I'm also a westerner at heart.

April 15, 2014 at 2:26 pm PST
#21  Logan Rieck - Albany, Illinois

Benson,

Mystery is a fundamental necessity of Christianity, God Himself could never be fully realized by humanity because He Himself is incomprehensible and so far above us. But that does not mean we should not issue and recognize dogma, despite if it seems at an over-abundance, because our Lord told us He would send the us the Holy Spirit that would lead us into all truth. If He has led us into this truth then we have no choice but to recognizance it as it is.

Our Lord promised to St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles that He would set forth a Church that would never be overtaken by the kingdom of the netherworld. One Church must have stayed the course of truth for 2000 years and never been touched by corruption in truth in presenting the Gospel and always continuing in understanding through the Holy Spirit.

God bless.

April 15, 2014 at 2:51 pm PST
#22  Gerry Soliman - Bacoor, Cavite

I have a question: How does one determine with certainty that the Catholic Church is indeed that infallible church founded by Christ without using private interpretation of the Bible, history, tradition, or some other spiritual references?

April 15, 2014 at 7:50 pm PST
#23  Logan Rieck - Albany, Illinois

Gerry,

I don't mean to be rude but I think you ask a rather illogical question. Let me explain. Infallibility in doctrine is inherently a spiritual aspect of the Catholic Church, this necessitates a spiritual source to reveal a spiritual truth.

If we cannot appeal to Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition which are our Divine understanding of God that could only be brought by God Himself giving this understanding to us it remains impossible to understand spiritual truths without using any spiritual references.

This is just my take on your question. We cannot ascertain what is of God or about God without Him directly informing us so (we can certainly make guesses if we wanted to) because He is so infinitely superior and exalted above humanity and human reasoning and understanding.

April 15, 2014 at 8:10 pm PST
#24  Gerry Soliman - Bacoor, Cavite

Hi Logan,

I mean no disrespect but my question is not how does one identify the true church without using references but rather how does one identify the true church without using "private interpretation" of references. Then again, I didn't quite notice Mr. Rose's assertion:

[The difference lies in the conclusion, or finishing point, of the inquiry they make.]

Isn't this carriage before the horse? If a person, through his study of references, chooses the Catholic Church then that person is doing the right thing but not so if he chooses otherwise. Is that how it works?

Thanks.

April 16, 2014 at 4:43 am PST
#25  Christopher Travis - Huntsville, Alabama

Gerry, it is easy to find the true Church...find the only living and surviving institution on earth that has no human founder. It can't be the Luthern church because if Martin Luther never existed then neither would the Luthern church. The same can be said about all Protestant churches. It can also be said about other religions, erase Mohammad from time and there is no Islam. Erase Charles Taze Russell and there are no Jahovah's. Erase Joeseph Smith Jr. and there goes the Mormon's too. I can't find anyone to erase from time to make the Catholic Church dissapear, except....Jesus Christ! Conclusion, it must be His Church and His alone. If it is of God it must also be acompanied by great miracles for the whole world to see, the Catholic Church has many. She has survived endless attacks from within and without, She has survived every individual attack, attacks by armies from cities, nations, other religions and more. Despite being poorly led at times she is still the most recognizable institution in the world, She isn't hiden under a basket in the darkness but is there always shinning the light of Christ for the whole world to see. And who does the secular world hate most? Yes, there is only one logical conclussion when all the pieces are put together, the Catholic Church belongs to God because no matter how bad man tries to take Her down or screw her up from within She can't be extinguished. There is Mass going on every hour, minute, and second of the day. There is never a lapsed moment in time for prayer as nuns and monks devote their entire lives to prayer and making repriations for the sins of the world. There are some unholy folks in the Church but the Light and Truth of Christ will always overcome their darkness, they will pass but Christ's Church will not only survive, but will continue to shine!!!

April 16, 2014 at 5:28 am PST
#26  Eric McCabe - Rosemount, Minnesota

Christopher - Amen!

Being Lutheran my entire life, until now, it was not until I read the books of James, 1 & 2 Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation that lit a tiny flame inside my head and heart which caused me to doubt many of the Protestant (Lutheran) positions and look into Catholicism. It's ironic, because I now know the potential dangers of private interpretation, but it was me personally coming across chapters in the New Testament that I really wasn't exposed to in 20+ years being a Lutheran, that lit that Catholic flame. This flame grew into a full blown inquiry and finally a conversion. For example, the entire book of James pretty much debunks Protestantism such as sola fide (faith alone), not confessing your sins to one another (sacrament of confession), no anointing of the sick etc. etc. etc. It's sad how many Protestants are literally afraid just to even read or research Catholicism because they think they might be jeopardizing the fate of the faith in doing so. If it was not for Catholic Answers, EWTN, Relevant Radio, Scott Hahn etc. I would not have been able to get good answers to many many questions that plagued me for years. God bless Catholic Answers and Karl Keating!

April 16, 2014 at 12:11 pm PST
#27  toral vora - oslo, Vestfold

Spam deleted

April 16, 2014 at 6:01 pm PST
#28  Christopher Travis - Huntsville, Alabama

Eric, first of all God bless you for being humble enough to not just see the truth, but accept it. You are right about it being sad that so many Protestants are affraid of Catholicism. It seems ok for them to jump church to church, even though they don't agree with each other, but just not the Catholic Church. Years ago I attended many Protestant churches, and 9 out of 10 of the preachers told myths and lies about the Catholic Church. The congregations bought in to it so its no wonder why they are gun shy about Catholicism. I will say this, Protestants seem more charitable and humble than ex Catholics. I have been defending and explaining my faith for about three years now, I've got to learn to be more understanding and gentle, the frustration and passion I have is hard to contain at times. Happy Easter and welcome to Christ's Church!!!

April 16, 2014 at 7:59 pm PST
#29  Gerry Soliman - Bacoor, Cavite

Mr. Travis,

You said:

[it is easy to find the true Church...find the only living and surviving institution on earth that has no human founder.]

All churches claim to be founded by Jesus Christ. I understand that you claim that your church is founded by Christ. But if I ask any of your opponents in the faith, they will all say your church is founded by men. They will have their basis and arguments, just us you have against them.

Let me ask you this: Who or what told you that the Catholic Church is founded by Christ? And once you've answer that, answer this next: How sure are you that you understood your reference correctly knowing that you are not infallible?

April 17, 2014 at 4:20 am PST
#30  Tom Runkel - Weirton, West Virginia

Mr. Soliman,

True many churches claim to be founded by Jesus however if you are intellectually honest you can historically find that most of their beginnings are some time after Martin Luther.

But if you go back to early church fathers you will see an unbroken line of succession.

God Bless.

April 17, 2014 at 5:51 am PST
#31  Christopher Travis - Huntsville, Alabama

Gerry, thank you for your questions. Sure others can claim Jesus established their churches but like I stated, they were all man made. I can easily find the person, dates, and places of when these other churches or religions were founded. The founders left clear and undisputable evidence of their intentions and beliefs. How can all the evidence be ignored? As Tom stated so well, one has to be intellectually honest, and might I add, also intellectually humble. Are you implyimg that we should ignore the evidence history has left behind?

Who was the first president of the United States? Who was responsible for WWII? Who invented electricity? Who was the King of England in 1565? Who was the Roman Emporer or the Egyption Pharoh in the time of Jesus? Do you reject any of the truths history tells us about these people and events? People only reject such historicaly clear truths when they are biased or need to reject it out of convienance, kind of like many Muslims reject the holocaust ever happened. We would have to reject the entire Bible if we can not rely on historical documents and oral history. I know I am not infallible and do not claim to be, but I also know I don't have to be to use my intellect when searching for the truth. All of history shows Jesus founded a church, all of history shows this was the Catholic Church, the whole world, secular and other religions even are witness to this fact, it is only those who disagree with Her or wish it wasn't true that reject such overwhelming evidence. Then they start holloring She was invisible or apostate. She can't be either because warlords, other emporers, nations and individuals inside and out can not attack something invisable. And to be apostate is to completely abandon Christ, and that has never happened as the trail of martyrs for 2000 years have testified with their lives for.

April 17, 2014 at 6:45 am PST
#32  Christopher Travis - Huntsville, Alabama

The answers to your questions is that the combination of Scripture, Mat 16:18, Mat 5:14, Mat 5:19, Mat 18:15, Mat 22:10, Mat.28:19, Luk 10:16, John 8:32, John 10:16, John 14:26, John 16:13, John 17:23, Acts, Corinthians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Timothy, *****, and Revelations. There is much said about a Church that was founded, how long it would last, the mission of the Church, the authority and leadership of the Church, and the unity of the Church. If Scripture spoke so much of this Church it should be able to be found in other historical events and documents. Ask the Jews who this Church was, ask the Roman Empire, ask the other nations all over the world that were converted to Christianity. There are mounds and mounds of evidence, from secular sources and early writtings from the early Church fathers, heritics, and critics. The bishops were targeted because of their authority, thousands upon thousands of martyrs. How much proof does one need? Who has the oldest and most surviving texts of Scripture? Who has the relics of the apostles, many saints, and martyrs. What other church has wordly miracles such as Fatima, Lourdes, and Guadalupe just to name a few. Where does the Shroud of Turin rest? Who launched the Crusades and Inquisitions?

How much proof would be enough? I throw it all in the basket and examine all the evidence, without bias. My references are Scripture, historical documents both Christian and secular, historical events such as persecutions, wars, councils, and other major landmarks. I study the early church fathers, martyrs and lives of the saints. I follow the miracles, that the whole world witnessed. There is no shortage of proof, that is unless you don't want it to be true.

April 17, 2014 at 7:35 am PST
#33  larry stutes - san juan del rio, Queretaro

i live in the second most catholic country, mexico, and have lived in italy as well. the most obvious results of the roman cath. religous system is corruption, ignorance of God and the things of God, hypocracy, sexual perversion of all types, half truths to decieve and so forth. it is obviously clear that at a minimum th rcrs has failed its constituency but being a poor duplicate of the jewish tremple system that was cast out by God what would you expect. any group that equates tradition and ritual with the same authority as the word of God is clearly an instrument of satan. the rcrs has no authority except self appointed authority to change, add to or otherwise moderate the bible. by their lies, deception and not encouraging their followers to have faith in God according to his word, they have condemned millions to damnation. thanks be to God he delivered me from your evil grasp and made me his son, reborn and renewed. i promise to reveal your lies, rcrs, every opportunity i have. your day of judgement will be a very interesting one that i hope i can observe.

April 18, 2014 at 9:36 am PST
#34  larry stutes - san juan del rio, Queretaro

i live in the second most catholic country, mexico, and have lived in italy as well. the most obvious results of the roman cath. religous system is corruption, ignorance of God and the things of God, hypocracy, sexual perversion of all types, half truths to decieve and so forth. it is obviously clear that at a minimum th rcrs has failed its constituency but being a poor duplicate of the jewish tremple system that was cast out by God what would you expect. any group that equates tradition and ritual with the same authority as the word of God is clearly an instrument of satan. the rcrs has no authority except self appointed authority to change, add to or otherwise moderate the bible. by their lies, deception and not encouraging their followers to have faith in God according to his word, they have condemned millions to damnation. thanks be to God he delivered me from your evil grasp and made me his son, reborn and renewed. i promise to reveal your lies, rcrs, every opportunity i have. your day of judgement will be a very interesting one that i hope i can observe.
April 18, 2014 at 9:36 am PST

April 18, 2014 at 9:39 am PST
#35  Victor Sweeney - West Fargo, North Dakota

Well, Larry, you have not really revealed any concrete "lies" so far, so let's have them!

April 18, 2014 at 9:51 am PST
#36  Christopher Travis - Huntsville, Alabama

Instruments of satan? Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against His church. Sorry larry if that promise doesn't mean much to you.

April 18, 2014 at 10:37 am PST
#37  Gerry Soliman - Bacoor, Cavite

Mr. Runkel:

You said:

[But if you go back to early church fathers you will see an unbroken line of succession.]

The early church fathers are not unanimous in their beliefs. Take for instance as to who or what is the rock of Matthew 16:18. There are church fathers who say it is Peter while the majority say it is his confession. You can't say that all church fathers did not make a denial that Peter is the rock, that is assuming without verifying.

Making it worse, not all church fathers believed Peter was given alone the keys. Majority of them do not teach that the successors of Peter should be in Rome.

So if you're going to encourage me to read history, it doesn't support you at all.

April 18, 2014 at 6:54 pm PST
#38  Christopher Travis - Huntsville, Alabama

Gerry, bring forth your evidence of early church fathers who did not support the succession of St. Peter. They all may not have been unanimous in their beliefs but they prove there was ONE universal church and the head of the church was in Rome. Just because they did not agree on everything proves nothing, even to this day there are bishops who will disagree with one another, that is why there has always been councils held. Even the Apostles had different opinions and had to work out binding matters of faith, such as the council held in Jarusalem. The evidence that supports ONE universal church is far more evident than any that are used as excuses to disprove it. Like Tom said, you have to be intellectually honest, which means you can't be fishing for excuses.

April 19, 2014 at 3:37 am PST
#39  Tom Runkel - Weirton, West Virginia

Mr. Soliman,
And can you give me the proof of what you say.

God Bless.

April 19, 2014 at 5:40 am PST
#40  Pamela Jenkins - Martin, Tennessee

Mr. Stutes,
Instead of hoping to observe our day of destruction (which I conclude from your other comments will not be good), shouldn't you be praying for us that we will be able to avoid such a judgment? After all, Jesus tells us to love our enemies.

"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.…

April 19, 2014 at 5:46 am PST
#41  Gerry Soliman - Bacoor, Cavite

Mr. Runkel,

[Gerry, bring forth your evidence of early church fathers who did not support the succession of St. Peter.]

Excuse me but I said was:

"Making it worse, not all church fathers believed Peter was given alone the keys. Majority of them do not teach that the successors of Peter should be in Rome."

You may want to read properly what I wrote. Then again, it's up to you to find just one church father during the first 400 years who believed all together

1. Peter is the rock
2. Peter alone has the keys
3. The keys establishes the papacy
4. All successors of Peter must sit in Rome.

That's the challenge. Find someone who believes absolutely all of the above during the first 400 years. I'll save you the time, you can't.

[They all may not have been unanimous in their beliefs but they prove there was ONE universal church and the head of the church was in Rome. Just because they did not agree on everything proves nothing, even to this day there are bishops who will disagree with one another, that is why there has always been councils held. Even the Apostles had different opinions and had to work out binding matters of faith, such as the council held in Jarusalem. The evidence that supports ONE universal church is far more evident than any that are used as excuses to disprove it. Like Tom said, you have to be intellectually honest, which means you can't be fishing for excuses.]

They do believe that there is a universal church. But do they all believe that it is headed by the Bishop in Rome?

That's the problem with you people. It's okay for bishops and church fathers to disagree and yet the church is united, but Protestants cannot make this excuse. It's double standard.

April 20, 2014 at 5:17 am PST
#42  Christopher Travis - Huntsville, Alabama

You still didn't tell us which church father didn't think Peter was the rock, or who said Peter wasn't given the keys. Why is that all the church fathers who knew the apostles or were within one generation away were unanimous on this issue of authority for the bishop of Rome?

It isn't a problem to disagree, the problem is when there is a lack of humility to accept a difference and change. The church fathers and bishops held councils to reach a conclusion, Protestants have no leadership (apostolic succession) so they splinter and divide when they disagree, their authority is individualism and the laity. Not a double standard at all.

You do not have to accept the authority we believe was handed down by Christ, that is your own free will. But what are your intentions. To change our minds? For what purpose? To further divide and splinter Christianity into another 30,000 denominations who compete against each other? Jesus prayed we would be one and that's what we believe and pray for.

April 20, 2014 at 6:09 am PST
#43  Tom Runkel - Weirton, West Virginia

Mr. Soliman,
Let me try this one more time. Show me the proof of what you claim.

God Bless.

April 20, 2014 at 7:40 am PST
#44  Logan Rieck - Albany, Illinois

Gerry, we don't need to look beyond the first generation of Christians to understand that the Holy See of Rome was understood to be foremost among all the other churches and the teacher of the rest. St. Ignatius of Antioch, a student of St. John, writes in the his Epistle to the Romans:

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

While St. Ignatius does address all the churches he writes to during his journey to his martyrdom very highly the greeting he sends to Rome is easily the most laudable to any of the churches. He even writes that she, the See of Rome, presides over love itself.

Of course, St. Ignatius also is the first writer we have to call the Church the Catholic Church and explicitly mentions that the Eucharist is the flesh of the Lord in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans which also immediately disestablishes Protestantism from the start (ch. 7 & 8).

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

April 20, 2014 at 2:21 pm PST
#45  Ged Narvaez - Daraga, Albay

Wow. Thanks Logan for sharing all this wonderful stuffs. =)

Tracts/apostolic-succession is found here at Catholic Answers.

April 20, 2014 at 7:21 pm PST
#46  Gerry Soliman - Bacoor, Cavite

Mr. Travis,

[You still didn't tell us which church father didn't think Peter was the rock, or who said Peter wasn't given the keys.]

Let's try Chrysostom:

"Having said to Peter, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonas, and of having promised to lay the foundation of the Church upon his confession; not long after He says, Get thee behind me, Satan. And elsewhere he said, Upon this rock. He did not say upon Peter for it is not upon the man, but upon his own faith that the church is built. And what is this faith? You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (In pentecosten 52.806.75 – 52.807.1)

April 20, 2014 at 11:27 pm PST
#47  Ged Narvaez - Daraga, Albay

Now Mr. Gerry...(if you would mind)
(From the same Chruch Father)
Try to read (John Chrysostom. Ad eos qui scandalizati, 17 ante A.D. 407);
AND (John Chrysostom, De Eleemosyna, 3:4, ante A.D. 407);
AND from Chrysostom:
“The Lord favours Peter, giving him a great reward, BECAUSE HE BUILT THE CHURCH UPON HIM. For since Peter had confessed Jesus son of God, Jesus said that THIS CONFESSION WHICH PETER UTTERED WOULD BE THE FOUNDATION OF FUTURE BELIEVERS, just as every man should be about to raise up the house of faith and should be about to lay this foundation. For even if we put together innumerable virtues, we, however, may not have the foundation — a proper confession, and we build in vain. Moreover since Jesus said my church, he showed himself to be the lord of creation: for all realities serve God. . . .Therefore if we shall have been confirmed in the confession of Christ, the gates of hell, that is, sins, will not prevail against us.” –Cited by John Bigane, Faith, Christ or Peter: Matthew 16:18 in Sixteenth-Century Roman Catholic Exegesis (Washington D.C.: University Press, 1981), pp. 31-32.
Also...
Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 32:18, A.D. 380)
And from the words of Jesus Christ, Our Lord >Matthew16:19 (Note, here he was singled-out, -changing of Name, power to bind or loose, etc).
Conclusion: St.Chrysostom does not deny supremacy of Peter but he teaches us two interpretation that thru HIS own faith that the Church was built and when I say Peter, I mean that unbroken ROCK. An interpretation that are not-mutually-exclusive.

April 21, 2014 at 3:20 am PST
#48  Ged Narvaez - Daraga, Albay

Now Mr. Gerry.. (if you would mind)
(From the same Church Father)
Try to read (John Chrysostom. Ad eos qui scandalizati, 17 ante A.D. 407); AND
(John Chrysostom, De Eleemosyna, 3:4, ante A.D. 407); AND
from Chrysostom:“The Lord favours Peter, giving him a great reward, BECAUSE HE BUILT THE CHURCH UPON HIM. For since Peter had confessed Jesus son of God, Jesus said that THIS CONFESSION WHICH PETER UTTERED WOULD BE THE FOUNDATION OF FUTURE BELIEVERS, just as every man should be about to raise up the house of faith and should be about to lay this foundation. For even if we put together innumerable virtues, we, however, may not have the foundation — a proper confession, and we build in vain. Moreover since Jesus said my church, he showed himself to be the lord of creation: for all realities serve God. . . .Therefore if we shall have been confirmed in the confession of Christ, the gates of hell, that is, sins, will not prevail against us.” –Cited by John Bigane, Faith, Christ or Peter: Matthew 16:18 in Sixteenth-Century Roman Catholic Exegesis (Washington D.C.: University Press, 1981), pp. 31-32.
Also...Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 32:18, A.D. 380). AND
From the very word of Jesus Christ, Our Lord,>Matthew16:19.
(Note, Peter is singled-out, -changing of Name, power to bind or loose, keys, supremacy etc).
Conclusion: St. Chrysostom does not deny supremacy of Peter but rather he teaches us two interpretations -upon HIS OWN faith that the Church is built AND when I say Peter, I mean that unbroken ROCK. Thus, interpretations are not-mutually-exclusive.

April 21, 2014 at 3:29 am PST
#49  Christopher Travis - Huntsville, Alabama

Gerry, are you really trying to use those words from John Chrysostom against his own faith? St. Chrysostom was backing up what we Catholics take to heart, that the Church is Divine. He wasn't trying to undermine the authority of the papacy. Even if he was (but he wasn't) would it make the other hundreds of bishops, priest's and deacons of that time wrong? The reality you will refuse to see is that this great saint and doctor of the Church was very Catholic. You should read the beautiful things he had to say about the Holy Eucharist!!! I'm just curious Gerry, without a google search, why do you think Jesus changed Peter's name?

Ged, thank you for posting as Paul Harvey would say "the rest of the story." It is only out of desperation that people "fish" for any reason they can find to negate the papacy. With no authority to follow the church can then become anything a person wants. If Gerry was being honest intellectually he would not only read the rest of what St.Chrysostom had to say but also what the other early Church fathers had to say as well, why pick one and ignore the others? I pray he will read "the rest of the story" with an open mind and without bias.

April 21, 2014 at 5:08 am PST
#50  Stevie Davis - Queen Creek, Arizona

I agree with Gerry but I don't know who this John Chrysostom is. The church was founded on Christ, the Son of God. Just Who Peter said He was.

keys to the kingdom? what do you define that as?

loose and bind? Jesus gave that to all of the Apostles. Those weren't 'special' to just Peter. It also doesn't mean that they can make up something not supported by scripture and say it is now the 'church rule'.

where does it say in scripture that the 'church' is Catholic?

How did the Apostle to the Jews get to be Catholic pope?

long time Catholic here. Even longer time now not Catholic.

April 21, 2014 at 3:19 pm PST
#51  Mark Grimes - Watauga, Texas

Where are you Catholics getting your info from. Certainly not the bible I have in my house.

April 21, 2014 at 4:39 pm PST
#52  Mark Grimes - Watauga, Texas

Where are you getting that the Catholic Church is the true "church of God"???

April 21, 2014 at 4:42 pm PST
#53  Mark Grimes - Watauga, Texas

I'll save you guys some time, how many of you have been to the vatican? Well, I have been many times while stationed in naples Italy while in the navy. At first I was overwhelmed at the beauty of it, but then I began to look closer. Upside down crosses, innumerable images of the very same sun gods image used on old roman coins, made out of solid gold and displayed for the world to see. St. Peter's square, ever heard of it? Google earth it and tell me what you see in the center. Along with a genuine Egyptian obelisk shipped from Heliopolis to Rome by the roman emperor Caligula.
Isaiah 27:9 KJV
[9] By this therefore shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged; and this is all the fruit to take away his sin; when he maketh all the stones of the altar as chalkstones that are beaten in sunder, the groves and images shall not stand up.

April 21, 2014 at 5:04 pm PST
#54  Mark Grimes - Watauga, Texas

There is so much wrong with the catholic ideology I could write a book! Thanks for the inspiration guys!!!

April 21, 2014 at 5:11 pm PST
#55  Gerry Soliman - Bacoor, Cavite

Hi Ged,

Unfortunately for you we exert every effort to verify the source where you cite your quotation from Chrysostom. Most scholars do not see a support from Chrysostom of Peter being the rock but rather just "a rock". You would have to contend with the findings of scholar von D€llinger, in his work The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), 74:

Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt 16:18, John 21:17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter’s successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess—Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas—has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter! Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church of the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter’s confession of faith in Christ; often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all the other Apostles, the twelve being together the foundation-stones of the church. The Fathers could the less recognize in the power of the keys, and the power of binding and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship of the Roman bishop, inasmuch as—what is obvious to any one at first sight—they did not regard the power first given to Peter, and afterwards conferred on all the Apostles, as any thing peculiar to him, or hereditary in the line of Roman bishops, and they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing.

April 21, 2014 at 6:08 pm PST
#56  Eric McCabe - Rosemount, Minnesota

"...and when I name Peter, I name that unbroken Rock, that firm foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples ..." (St. John Chrysostom, Hom iii de Paednit).

"Peter, the leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church." (St. John Chrysostom, In illud hoc Scitote)

"Peter ... that Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the Faith, the Foundation of the Confession." (St. John Chrysostom, Hom de Dec Mill Talent)

...."Fundamentalist (Protestant) writers insist that fundamentalism is nothing but a continuation of Christian orthodoxy, which prevailed for three centuries after Christ, went underground for twelve hundred years, surfaced with the Reformation, took its knocks from various sources, and was alternately influential and diminished in visibility." (Karl Keating)

When researching Church history, try not to limit yourselves to just anti-Catholic and fundamentalist sources :):)

April 21, 2014 at 7:19 pm PST
#57  Christopher Travis - Huntsville, Alabama

My gosh good people! We are mearly humans yet we have the intellegence to know what "giving the keys" to somebody means! Any Jew knew what that meant because they were familiar with the prophet Isaiah. Pretend all you want, twist and destort, search for all anti Catholic reasons you can, but it changes nothing. Pretend that our living God in the flesh changed Simon's name to Peter because it sounded corny! There is so much evidence in Scripture and then it is backed up by ALL of early Christianity and you still refuse to see it! Where is all the protests and resistance from the other hundreds of bishops? Well, where is it? If SO MANY protestants protest now, surely many early learned and faithful Christian's would have protested back then too! And all this stuff about upside down crosses and all? Use your noggins, Peter requested to be crucified upside down because he said he wasn't worthy to be crucified the way Christ was. Jesus told us how he would die! Instead of looking at ALL the evidence you only see the minimal excuses of what you want to see! Tell us, which one of the Church Fathers or other bishops protested against the bishop of Rome? Go ahead, try to Google away the Chair of St. Peter. Which one of the early Church Fathers or Churches did not believe the Holy Eucharist was the real flesh and blood of Christ which you will deny too! I find it hard to believe people 2000 years later think they have more knowledge than those who personaly knew the apostles and were within one, two, and three generations of Christ when His crucifixion was still fresh! Can a nation lead itself with out a single leader such as a president, king, prime minister etc...? Can a a state lead itself without a governor? A city without a mayor A school without a principle?

April 21, 2014 at 8:55 pm PST
#58  Edward Osiecki - Fort Mill, South Carolina

I stand with Gerry and Stevie in their comments. -----Why argue about the church being built on Peter and confirmed by the early church Fathers? Nowhere in Scripture does it tell us to rely on the church Fathers. Why rely on church Councils they too were never unanimous in agreement? ----- Why not rely on God's Word for that answer which is found in Eph.2:19,"Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's Household. v20 built on the foundation of the APOSTLES and PROPHETS, with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone. That's pretty clear isn't it? ----- Paul refers to Jesus as the ROCK 1Cor 10:4 Also Peter does so too in 1Pet 2:8. ----- If the one and only true Catholic church (Cath. not in the Bible) was built on Peter. then why is Jesus in Rev 1:11 telling John," Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the SEVEN churches etc."? Seven churches? ----- Something else that I observed in reading all of these posts. It seems that the Catholics seem to think that they have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit who guides and protects only them from error but no one else. ----- If you read The New American Catholic Bible and compare it to the Catechism of the Catholic Church they contradict each other.

April 22, 2014 at 9:58 pm PST
#59  Edward Osiecki - Fort Mill, South Carolina

To Christopher You say [ Which one of the early Church Fathers or Churches did not believe the Holy Eucharist was the real flesh and blood of Christ] Even Jesus, Himself, never believed that it was. Let's see what the Scripture says. Mat26:26, " While they were eating, Jesus took bread gave THANKS and broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, 'Take and eat; this is my body.'" v27 Then He took the cup, gave THANKS and offered it to them, saying, " "Drink from it, all of you v28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. v29 THIS IS IMPORTANT Jesus says," I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (NOT BLOOD at this point) from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom. After Jesus gave thanks to the Father the fruit of the vine should have been changed to His blood per Transubstan-tiation but wasn't it still was the fruit of the vine. If it had been changed to blood Jesus would have violated the Jewish law which prohibits drinking actual blood.------When you read Luke 22:19,"Jesus,"And he took bread, gave THANKS and broke it, and gave it to them saying. "This is my body given for you; do this in RENEMBRANCE of me. -----When you read the same passage in 1 Cor.11:26, it says,"For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you PROCLAIM the Lord's death until He comes. And not Re-sacrifice His death.

April 22, 2014 at 10:59 pm PST
#60  Christopher Travis - Huntsville, Alabama

Edward, perhaps you should have put these words into caps also "THIS IS MY BODY," and "THIS IS MY BLOOD." Jesus did not say this is like or this represents my body and blood. If Mat 26:26 was the only verses concerning this whole doctrine about whether or not the bread and wine becomes Christ's flesh and blood you might have a good argument. But it's not, there are many more verses such as John 6 and 1 Cor 11.

You see, neither you or me were there 2000 years ago when Jesus spoke these words, but there was people who were there, the Apostles. The Apostles did not rely on a few words or have to self interperet from a book, they actually got taught face to face and were living the Scriptures. They passed on through written AND oral tradition the things Jesus handed down to them. The Apostles after Pentecost then began to establish churches throughout the lands and apointed Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. These properly ordained ministers got the best possible teaching and training there could be other than being face to face with Jesus. My conscience tells me that those who were within a generation or two of Jesus and who received their training face to face with the Apostles would have far superior knowledge of such a diffulcult doctrine than that of those who can ONLY read it well over 1500 years later, or in your case 2000 years later.

There is absolutely zero, zilch, non existant any documents, debates or councils to back up your position of the Holy Eucharist being mearly a symbol. On the otherhand, the whole of Christiandom for over 1500 years believed it was more than just a symbol. Even the first reformers such as Luther and Calvin, who also believed strongly in self interpretation, believed the Holy Eucharist was the real flesh and blood of Christ.There is also no documents, debates, or councils held for such a diffulcult belief as a new invention of Christianity. Why is that? Perhaps because it was understood from the beginning, hence the reason why Roman superiors thought the Christians were canibals. Wow, even the seculars heard right! Did the Christians reject the claim? No! Justin Martyr marched down to confirm and explain what Christians believed and got his head lopped off for doing so! Lucky for us his writings still survive, perhaps you should read it at face value, without bias and without trying to explain it away.

You and I could debate just about every passage of Scripture 24 hours a day with each other and disagree on it all if it was a matter of your personal opinion verses my personal opinion. Why would you be right and I would be wrong, I think we are both intellegent people. The difference is that I have the tradition of early Christianity and over 2000 years of unbroken Apostolic succesion to help me discern such diffulcult Scripture. I wasn't there 2000 years ago but I know who was. How could I possible think my short 47 years on earth make me wiser than the Apostles, early Church Fathers, and the thousands upon thousands of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons who have been studying and meditating on Scripture for over 2000 years. If idolotry crept into the Church surely someone faithful Christian would have stepped forward with protest, just as you and many others do today. Where are they? Just one valid rejection. The truth is it wasnt an invention that crept into the church, it has been a continuous belief and strongly held doctrine since it first came off the lips of our Saviour, the day it shocked some Jewish folks enough that they stopped following Him and ran for the hills. Here it is a couple thousand years later and it still is a hard saying and it is still shocking folks!!! It is hard for me to understand too, just as it was for the Apostles, but I'm with St. Peter, where else am I to go! The words of Christ are eternal life, and what were those words..."Unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you do not have life within you!"

April 23, 2014 at 6:08 am PST
#61  Eric McCabe - Rosemount, Minnesota

Christopher,

Your last paragraph if simply flawless.

God bless Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Succession. Without them and the Holy Spirit working through them, think of where Catholic interpretation of Sacred Scripture would be! When you throw out the authority of the Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, you really throw out what Sacred Scripture really is. It's just sad that many Protestants view the Church (not that invisible one!) with such contempt that leads to a desire to interpret Scripture individually out of spiritual pride. What they are doing or saying, is they themselves are the Pope of their own church, or at least the pastor of their denomination is. I personally, had to literally sacrifice my doctrinal pride (instilled in me for decades by Protestant pastors and teachers) in exchange for humble love for the Church of Christ. This was only done by grace alone.

People, don't be afraid of the Catholic Church and/or Catholicism. I promise, it will not put your soul in jeopardy to sincerely read Catholic literature and history. Or simply talk to a Catholic priest or laymen. It will NOT kill you! God bless you all!

April 23, 2014 at 7:42 am PST
#62  Debbie Douglas - Fraser, Michigan

Yes, thank you Christopher and Eric for these wonderful comments. As a "saved" Protestant for only eight years and the recent tragedy of my 23 y.o. son's death, my road to Rome has just begun in ernest. Though I have followed a little Catholic gal (Ann Barnhardt) online for a few years and have known in my heart that Catholicism IS The True Church my battle with hubby and friends has also just begun in ernest. Please pray for my son, Justin and my hubby and friends to understand my need, desire and will to convert. And thank you Catholic Answers for explaining so clearly to help me arm myself with The Truth. God Bless you all.

April 23, 2014 at 9:24 am PST
#63  Debbie Douglas - Fraser, Michigan

*yeah...earnest*

April 23, 2014 at 9:29 am PST
#64  obayi ifeanyi - Enugu, Enugu

Christopher.
Thank you very much for your ever briliant and spot-on apologetical responses.I always find your comments very inspiring.May God bless you and your family abundantly.I wish I can find more time to respond to some of the illogical post some protestants send here.Your post above is faultless.Its odd that some people will use our Lord's word in mattew26;26 to ague against the holy eucharist like the comment#59 above.lf we will go by that line of reasoning,then it means that Our Lord did not turn water to wine in wedding in canna because he reffered to the wine as water when he said "take some water out and take it to the man in charge of the feast" (John2:8)and note that the water had become wine at that time yet Our lord reffered to the wine as water.This is probably a way our Lord reminds us, that he uses ordinary things to achieve even the extra ordinary.A trillion arguements against facts of history cannot change a single fact of history.Happy Easter to everyone that visits this site.I will be praying for you guys.

April 23, 2014 at 12:35 pm PST
#65  Christopher Travis - Huntsville, Alabama

Eric, Debbie, and Obayi, thank you so much for your kindness in supporting my reply to Edward. Please forgive me for all my spelling and gramer mistakes in all my posts, this Nook tablet I use most of the time has a terrible spell check, and English was by far my worse subject in school, as Mother Angelica said, I had to study to make an F:) Also forgive me if I ever come across cranky, frustrated, or too sarcastic. Sometimes I catch grief for my Catholic faith from people during the day here at home out in the real world and my frustration can come out in my posts. I wish I had an ounce of Tim's humility and patience!!! What a wonderful job the entire staff at Catholic Answers has accomplished, from the ease of the site, the material they provide, and the charitable responses they give. What EWTN is to the TV world, Catholic Answers is to the internet world. We are very blessed to have both!!

I want you to know the three of you inspire me to continue to grow in my faith. Converts have a very special place in my heart because of the humility and sacrifice it takes to make such a life altering decision. I could read or listen to your stories all day. I was blessed enough to be born Catholic, ignorant enough to leave the faith for 25 years, and then Very Very Blessed to be called back Home. You will all be in my prayers, I love you all (even the ones I disagree with) and God Bless!!! Happy Easter!!!

April 23, 2014 at 3:18 pm PST
#66  Edward Osiecki - Fort Mill, South Carolina

Hi Christopher,
Jesus said in Mat 4:4, "It is written: Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God" ---- I take that to mean that I'm suppose to read the Bible and do what it tells me to do. Jesus never said that I was to have the magisterium of the Catholic church interpret it for me. The Bible also says that the Holy Spirit will teach me, thus, I don't need 2,000 years of church history to do so. You try to make a point that ever since Jesus spoke the words THIS IS MY BODY and THIS IS MY BLOOD, that for 2,000 years people took that literally. If that were true then why did it take the Catholic church 1640 years to make it its doctrine at the Council of Trent? ( obviously it was made then to counter the Reformation 1517 )---- Also If that were so, why isn't it so in the book of Acts. People there simply gathered in homes and broke bread in remembrance of Jesus. Also Paul gives us in 1 Cor.14:26-39 the order of worship and no mention of celebration of Mass there or anywhere else in the Bible----- According to the Catholic church's teaching, In order for the Bread and Wine to be changed to the actual flesh and blood of Jesus it has to be done by an ordained priest, which then obviously made Protestant pastors irrelevant . (There is no Scripture proof for it.) ----Now let's get back to what Jesus said in John 6:53,"I tell you the truth, unless you eat the FLESH of the Son of Man and drink His BLOOD, you have no life in you." He then goes on to say in v 63 The Spirit gives life; the FLESH counts for nothing". Then in plain English so that all can understand, He said, " THE WORDS I HAVE SPOKEN TO YOU ARE SPIRIT etc". (And not literal because if they were literal Jesus would then be a loaf of bread because in the same passage He said that He's the BREAD which came down from heaven.------The unique thing about the Bible is that it always interprets itself. When we come upon a Scripture that seems to be unclear, God always provides another Scripture to clarify any uncertainty. Just like Eph 2:10-20 proves the church was not built upon Peter alone.

April 23, 2014 at 6:05 pm PST
#67  Edward Osiecki - Fort Mill, South Carolina

To Christpher,
you said, "[ I wasn't there 2000 years ago but I know who was. How could I possible think my short 47 years on earth make me wiser than the Apostles, early Church Fathers, and the thousands upon thousands of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons who have been studying and meditating on Scripture for over 2000 years.] ----There's no mention of "priests" in the New Testament. Priesthood was abolished at the cross Mat 27:51 indicated by the torn temple veil, meaning that now born again Christians may enter the Holy Place by the blood of Jesus Heb 10:19-20. -----You Also said,"[If idolotry crept into the Church surely someone faithful Christian would have stepped forward with protest, just as you and many others do today. Where are they? Just one valid rejection]" There were many rejections, they wound up dead burnt at the stake. In fact Martin Luther had to hide in order not to be arrested and prosecuted. Have you ever read what went on during the Spanish inquisitions? Besides the Bible was then banned in the 'index of forbidden books" until 1964. Yes 1064, per Public Broadcast Stations "The Secrets of the Inquisition". Ed O.

April 23, 2014 at 6:46 pm PST
#68  Edward Osiecki - Fort Mill, South Carolina

Correction to the above Yes 1964 not 1064 Ed O.

April 23, 2014 at 6:49 pm PST
#69  Christopher Travis - Huntsville, Alabama

Edward, you are very right about Mat 4:4, man can not live on bread alone, that is exactly what Jesus meant and what we Catholics believe. That is why He said He would give something greater than the manna in the desert...that would be His flesh and blood. You said you take it as your supose to read the Bible and do what Jesus said to do...how was the early Church supose to take it considering there was no Bible yet? Even if there was a Bible less than one in ten people could read, maybe that's why Jesus founded a Church instead of ordering a Bible into each individuals hands. The majority of people back then relied on oral teaching. You read, while they were hands on.

You constantly say "the Bible says." That is the same thing the other 30,000 denominations say, many who disagree with what you say. Perhaps the correct philosophy is "the Bible and the Church say..." Christ nor the Apostles ever seperated Scripture from the Church, yet you do. Yes indeed, when you seperate the two there is rampent disagreements and as many interpretations as there are people. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, the teaching authority, not each individual. The Holy Spirit is not confused and is not a liar. How could your interpretation be right and mine be wrong if we both read Scripture and we both love and pray to the same God? Why? Does the Holy Spirit love you while ignoring my prayers and pleas to guide me? And how can you accept "what the Bible says" without accepting the authority that wrote, preserved, verified, authenticated, copied, and brought the Bible to the entire world? If it were not for the Church you would have no Scripture at all.

It did not take the Church 1640 years to believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Officialy defining, because of heresies, and actually believing are two different natures. It wasn't until the fourth century that the Holy Trinity was defined. Are you going to say that Christians did not believe in that doctrine before it was officialy defined? The Church that defined and defended the Trinity is the very Church you oppose on the Holy Eucharist, what sense does that make?

Sure the early Christians gathered in homes to break bread. The Church was brand new and was under many persecutions. Imagine if Christianity, our lives were in danger for our beliefs, wouldn't the majority worship Christ underground, such as what has happened in many communist countries. That disproves nothing. I guess your going to tell me the altars in the early Church were for decoration only.

The Spirit gives life and the flesh counts for nothing...hmm. That is absolutely correct, OUR flesh counts for nothing. Surely you aren't saying Christ's flesh counts for nothing, I hope you don't mean that. There is no hope for salvation with out the flesh and blood of Christ. There is nothing more valuable to the world than Christ's flesh and blood! The Word became FLESH. Not just Spirit. And yes the Words Jesus spoke were Spirit AND Life....those Words were "you must eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man. He said it many times. The Jews understood Jesus, that's why they left. Why can't you understand what Jesus said if the Jews who were there understood Him perfectly clear? They left because they thought Jesus was asking them to be canibals. Did Jesus say "no, don't leave that's not what I meant?" He let them go.

April 23, 2014 at 9:33 pm PST
#70  Christopher Travis - Huntsville, Alabama

Edward, you are correct about a priesthood being abolished, but its not the one you are thinking about. The Jewish priesthood was abolished. They rejected Christ and animal sacrifices were no longer needed. You do know the word priest derives from the Greek word presbyteros, right? Maybe your Bible uses the word elders. Regardless, the three words are interchangable and ecclesiastical jurisdictions and the difference between them and the laity could not be made any clearer in NT Scripture.

You say there were many valid rejections to the doctrine of Christ's Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. Because this is a world wide blog site, perhaps now would be a good time for you to bring forth any documented rejections within the first thousand years of Christianity. You are protesting against this long held Christian doctrine for the whole world to see, surely you can find some early Christians who did the same. Without bringing us any more self interpretations, and without interjecting many other doctrines into the mix, such as your opinions on the priesthood, papacy, or inquisitions, show some solid proof, show us just one Christian Church, or heck even just one Christian within the first thousand years who rejected this hardest of doctrines, the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Just out of curiousity, have you ever really sat down and read what the earliest preachers, the early Church Fathers, those who knew the Apostles, had to say?

God bless, and hope your day is filled with the love and peace of Christ.

April 24, 2014 at 5:37 am PST
#71  Eric McCabe - Rosemount, Minnesota

Ah, the Scripture interpreting Scripture technique. I believe St. Iranaeus of Lyons (Church Father) in the second century was an advocate of this technique in his book The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. This can be a useful tool when applied correctly. However, Iranaeus was just as much of an advocate of Rome, the Bishop of Rome, Apostolic Succession and Oral Church Tradition just as much. With that being said, the SIS tool can be misused and it is quite often. A lot of Protestants, maybe even some Catholics I suppose, like to sling verses that have the word or words to encapsulate an overarching topic without considering each context those verses are in. For example, Lutherans will use use all the verses regarding justification of faith as opposed to being justified by works of the Mosaic Law, take them out of their context, and use them to reason that we are justified by faith alone and not ANY works such as those of charity. For example, Romans 3:28 and Galatians 2:16. I'm no apologist or theologian, but I would strongly encourage to look at the context of these verses, meaning who Paul is writing to, when, where, and why he is writing etc. During this time, many developing Christians still believed the Jewish custom of circumcision (sign of covenant) among others, A WORK OF THE LAW, was still necessary to be performed after Christ's death and resurrection. Paul was very adamant in saying that Christ was the accomplishment (It is finished!) of the Old Covenant and all the required laws that came with it. However, for Jews (being Jews their entire life) might perhaps be just a little hesitant to give up such valued customs in such a quick transition, hence his letter. So, to list or sling all these versus, without looking at their contexts, and group them all together to try to prove a point on a general topic such as justification can lead you to a heresy of faith alone.

Also, when Paul was mentioning faith, he wasn't referring to an intellectual or one time acceptance of Jesus into your heart, he was referring to a faith that is infused with love (Galatians 5:6) that is a free gift from the Holy Spirit through Baptism, and that this faith should be maintained with the co-operation of His grace by working out our salvation with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12). Of course, the only way we can do this is by the grace of Christ as apart from him we can do nothing (John 15:5), but with Him we can do anything through Him that strengthens us (Phil 4:13). Besides, what's a faith that moves mountains but has no love (1 Corinthians 13:2).

So, anyone and any denomination can take one Scripture verse out of context to interpret another Scripture verse that remains in its context. Or both passages or all can be taken out of context when trying to interpret them together. SIS sounds wonderful and can be, but I would suggest it gets abused more often than not considering the complexity of Scripture and the way, why, when, and how it was written. This is why the Church and its Magesterium is so crucial for proper interpretation to prevent this from happening within the Church. Imagine the Catholic Church without the Magesterium, the unity wouldn't hold for one day! Imagine just one person trying to interpret the Scripture privately without the authority of the Church....Luther did that and look what happened, 30,000 and growing denominations, sects, synods, congregations, churches.

Edward, pray that the Lord can humble your heart and lead you into the authority of Christ's Church. God Bless!

April 24, 2014 at 10:11 am PST
#72  Edward Osiecki - Fort Mill, South Carolina

To Christopher, you said,
"[Edward, you are very right about Mat 4:4, man can not live on bread alone, that is exactly what Jesus meant and what we Catholics believe. That is why He said He would give something greater than the manna in the desert...that would be His flesh and blood. You said you take it as your supose to read the Bible and do what Jesus said to do...how was the early Church supose to take it considering there was no Bible yet?]" ----- My response: This is the O.T. Duet 8:3 states,"man does not live by bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord." From where do you get the mistaken idea that they had no Bible? Yes! Not in the form as we do but they had the Scriptures. And in Acts 17 the Bereans checked out Paul daily with the Scriptures to see what he preached was true.. -----You said,"[ Even if there was a Bible less than one in ten people could read, maybe that's why Jesus founded a Church instead of ordering a Bible into each individuals hands. The majority of people back then relied on oral teaching. ]".----- My response: If what you say is true and only less than one in ten people could only read, then why is Paul saying this, Col.4:16," After this letter has been read to you,see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicas" There was an exchange of letters and copies were made for them to read.------You said. "[You constantly say "the Bible says." That is the same thing the other 30,000 denominations say, many who disagree with what you say.]" ------ My response: Your statement here is nonsense! What's your source of proof 30,000 denominations. Some Catholic sites claim as high as 50,000. How do you know that they disagree with me? Keep the baloney out when a point is trying to be proved as to who's right.------ You say,"[Perhaps the correct philosophy is "the Bible and the Church say..." Christ nor the Apostles ever seperated Scripture from the Church, yet you do. Yes indeed, when you seperate the two there is rampent disagreements and as many interpretations as there are people. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, the teaching authority, not each individual.]" ----- My response: Nonsense! Not according to my Bible. 1 Cor. 12: 28 states, "And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles,second prophets, third TEACHERS, then workers of miracles,also those having gifts of healing etc. How do you know that that gift wasn't given to me or others who read the Bible? Here's where you and I differ sharply. On another site I read your post where you give the magisterium full authority to interpret Scripture where I don't because Jesus never told us to so. The Bible is my sole authority,as taught by Jesus Himself. In the days of the Reformation it was called Sola Scripture. How would anyone know that they aren't being deceived unless they checked with the Scriptures.------You say, "[The Holy Spirit is not confused and is not a liar. How could your interpretation be right and mine be wrong if we both read Scripture and we both love and pray to the same God? Why?]"----- My response: Because of pride of having to admit to being wrong. I already showed you in John 6:53 that Jesus, Himself, said that eating His flesh and drinking His blood are Spirit and are not to be taken literally. So what did you do to avoid a direct yes or no answer you tried to make me look foolish by saying this, "[The Spirit gives life and the flesh counts for nothing...hmm. That is absolutely correct, OUR flesh counts for nothing. Surely you aren't saying Christ's flesh counts for nothing, I hope you don't mean that.]" You know very well that I don't mean that. You should be ashamed of your self to even suggest that of me. By doing so you dogged the answer to the question.------ You say,"[ Does the Holy Spirit love you while ignoring my prayers and pleas to guide me? And how can you accept "what the Bible says" without accepting the authority that wrote, preserved, verified, authenticated, copied, and brought the Bible to the entire world? If it were not for the Church you would have no Scripture at all.]" ------ My response: Nonsense! The Old Testament Scriptures were available to all before the Catholic church ever exsisted. Also for 300 years the Christian church got along very well with the New Testament in letter form as mentioned above Col.4:16, 1John 5:13, 2Pet 3:15-16------You say, "[There is no hope for salvation with out the flesh and blood of Christ. There is nothing more valuable to the world than Christ's flesh and blood!]" ------My resonse: Yes! We are to par take in communion in remenbrance of Him but that is not the gospel. Mark 16:15 Jesus states," Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be SAVED, but who does not believe will be condemned." Also 1 Cor.15:2,states," By this gospel you are SAVED, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you.-----that Christ died for our sins----he was buried and raised on the third day." That's the gospel that SAVES! The thief on the cross never had communion yet he was SAVED.­­­­­ -----­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­You Say, "[since it first came off the lips of our Saviour, the day it shocked some Jewish folks enough that they stopped following Him and ran for the hills. Here it is acouple thousand years later and it still is a hard saying and it is still shocking folks!!! It is hard for me to understand too, just as it was for the Apostles,]" -----My response: When you receive communion do you taste flesh and blood? No! Either did I when I was a Catholic. As well as the apostles knew that they were not eating Jesus' actual flesh and drinking His actual blood because they could taste that it wasn't. They also knew the law that forbides them to eat blood. Lev.17:10 states,"And I will turn my face against any one, whether an Israelite or a foreigner living among you,who eats blood in any form." The apostles were so aware of that fact that in Acts15:29 -21:25 they even sent a letter to the believers in Antioch telling them to abstain from eating blood. They new Jesus meant it symbolically. Why can't you can't understand that especially when He tells us so John 6:63?
For 2,000 years until 1964, Catholics received only the waffer. How and why did they deviate from from Jesus taught?
Ed O.

April 24, 2014 at 5:50 pm PST
#73  Eric McCabe - Rosemount, Minnesota

Hey Ed,

Where in your bible does it say Scripture should be the ONLY or SOLE authority?

Eric

April 24, 2014 at 8:02 pm PST
#74  Edward Osiecki - Fort Mill, South Carolina

Hi Eric,
I'm glad that you asked!

Jesus taught it in the parable :Luke 16:27, the rich man being tormented in Hell speaks to Abraham, "I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, v28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment. v29 Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets (Scriptures), let them listen to them.' v30 No, father Abraham, he said, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent. v31 He said, to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets (Scriptures), they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." Please NOTE! Only the Scriptures are mentioned of authority the Priesthood are EXCLUDED. Mat 23:29 Jesus said, "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! v33 He calls them, "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Are you now getting the picture? If not please read,"The Oxford Dictionary of Popes" by J.N.D.Kelly ISB 0-19-282085-0

Ed O.

.

April 24, 2014 at 9:37 pm PST
#75  Christopher Travis - Huntsville, Alabama

Edward, no it was the NT. Read John 6. I agree we must live by the Word of God, but Gods word are not just empty words, they are action also. What good is a word with no follow through. God doesn't just want us to hear, He wants us to do.

Yes St. Paul wrote letters and they were read aloud in Church, like I said only one and ten people could read then. Do the research, there was no education for the masses, only for the privaleged. You seem to want to dodge such historical facts.

My proof of 30,00 denominations, the World Christian Encyclopedia, a non Catholic source. Also the United Nations study on Christian denominations. All anyone has to do is ride down the road to see this, they are right next to each other and across the streets competing for parishoners. It is a competition for different beliefs and anyone who says different is dodging the truth. Go ask a pastor why he isn't in the church across the street or the one next door to him. Id love for you to do this and tell me what he says.

I have nothing to be ashamed of, your own words were " the flesh profits nothing. " You said that, not me. I hold nothing against you for saying that because it is a typical and often repeated remark by Protestants. I have no doubt you know the flesh of Christ is important. That is why you should not use the phrase "the flesh profits nothing" to try and disprove the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Of course you can't taste flesh and blood in the Holy Eucharist. Do you taste flesh and blood when you eat a piece of chicken? Do you not realize our Lord is capable of miracles? Can you feel your soul? Yet it is real isn't it? Can you see wind? Yet it is real and present. If you base your belief off of taste instead of faith there lies the problem.

When you bring forth any Christian Church who believed the Holy Eucharist was just a symbol before the Protestant revolt, I will be done with blogging and with the Cathoic Church. Until then you are doing no more than voicing your opinion and interpreting Scripture to fit your dislike of Catholicism. It is really this simple, just show me any proof that Christianity from day one denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Show me the date this doctrine was invented. Can you fault me for holding on to what Christianity has professed and held to be true for over 2000 years when there is not a single argument or debate against it. To me it is the same as Mormons or Jahovahs telling me Jesus was not the Son of God.

Despite our differences in theology, do know I do recognize and appreciate your love and passion for our Lord. I do love our Lord as much as you and it is why I defend my faith that so many criticize and try to tear down. No matter our differences we are still brothers in Christ and there is nothing wrong with a debate. I never want to offend you and if I do I apologize, but I can not bend or give an inch to what I believe to be the truth. God bless you Edward.

April 24, 2014 at 9:42 pm PST
#76  Christopher Travis - Huntsville, Alabama

Eric, you said the key phrase. Edward even said some promising and important words..."they did not LISTEN." Amen to that, it did not say they did not READ and understand. Scripture tells us the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth. It also tells us when two people have a disagreement that can not be resolved, take it to the CHURCH. And it also tells us no Scripture is a matter of private interpretation.

April 24, 2014 at 10:02 pm PST
#77  Edward Osiecki - Fort Mill, South Carolina

To Christpher,
Allow me to quote tou:
"[I have nothing to be ashamed of, your own words were " the flesh profits nothing. " You said that, not me. I hold nothing against you for saying that because it is a typical and often repeated remark by Protestants. I have no doubt you know the flesh of Christ is important. That is why you should not use the phrase "the flesh profits nothing" to try and disprove the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.]" My response: With such a crazy statement as you make here, I'm wondering who and why am I debating you? Please open your Bible to John 6:63, and you'll find that I did not make up that statement but I was quoting Jesus "flesh counts (profits)for nothing". If that statement displeases you, tell Jesus about it not me.
Ed O.

April 25, 2014 at 1:08 pm PST
#78  Eric McCabe - Rosemount, Minnesota

Edward,

Do you believe or does your denomination believe in consubstantiation or memorialism when regarding to the Lords Supper?

Eric

April 25, 2014 at 2:49 pm PST
#79  Edward Osiecki - Fort Mill, South Carolina

Hi Christopher,
Please allow me to apologize for a statement that I made in my prior post to you. I wish that I hadn't said it, so I'm sorry. In this post my listing what you say followed by my response.
Edward, no it was the NT. Read John 6. I agree we must live by the Word of God, but Gods word are not just empty words, they are action also. What good is a word with no follow through. God doesn't just want us to hear, He wants us to do.
My response: I don't understand what your "no it was the NT?" The Scripture which states that man does not live by bread alone was mentioned first in Duet 8:3 and re-quoted by Jesus in Mat 4:4. My point was, Yes, they had the Bible Scriptures then.
Yes St. Paul wrote letters and they were read aloud in Church, like I said only one and ten people could read then. Do the research, there was no education for the masses, only for the privaleged. You seem to want to dodge such historical facts.
My response: I didn't question your historical facts, my point was Scriptures were available to all people. I imagine then some could read them and some could not.
My proof of 30,00 denominations, the World Christian Encyclopedia, a non Catholic source. Also the United Nations study on Christian denominations. All anyone has to do is ride down the road to see this, they are right next to each other and across the streets competing for parishoners. It is a competition for different beliefs and anyone who says different is dodging the truth. Go ask a pastor why he isn't in the church across the street or the one next door to him. Id love for you to do this and tell me what he says.
My response: What are trying to prove about the 30,000 denominations??? Are you saying that's why the Catholic church is better because of ONE Scripture interpre-tation?--- If so, read this. Vatican Council 1870. There were 1,000 present, 535 voted for (something I don't recall here) 2 voted against it.The rest 463 got mad and went home and didn't vote at all. Had those 463 plus the 2 went out and started their own churches there would be 465 more Catholic churches, then multiply that over 2,000 years, there probably would be more than 100,000 Catholic churches today. My best point is back then, if you disagreed with the Catholic church you wouldn't be able to go and start your own church because they would have burnt you at the stake as a heritic. Does this settle that matter now?

I have nothing to be ashamed of, your own words were " the flesh profits nothing. " You said that, not me. I hold nothing against you for saying that because it is a typical and often repeated remark by Protestants. I have no doubt you know the flesh of Christ is important. That is why you should not use the phrase "the flesh profits nothing" to try and disprove the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
I responded to this on another post for which I apologize for the statement that I made.
Of course you can't taste flesh and blood in the Holy Eucharist. Do you taste flesh and blood when you eat a piece of chicken? Do you not realize our Lord is capable of miracles? Can you feel your soul? Yet it is real isn't it? Can you see wind? Yet it is real and present. If you base your belief off of taste instead of faith there lies the problem.
My response: Yes give me a piece of chicken and I'll tell you if I'm eating the flesh (skin) or the blood. Yes, I know that the Lord can perform miracles. He did so at the wedding at Cana when he changed the water into very good wine. Did they taste that it was wine? Yes, they did. If they had been given some of the water they would able to differentiate it as being changed. What faith does it take to believe in the wind? You can't see it but you most certainly can see what it does.
When you bring forth any Christian Church who believed the Holy Eucharist was just a symbol before the Protestant revolt, I will be done with blogging and with the Cathoic Church. Until then you are doing no more than voicing your opinion and interpreting Scripture to fit your dislike of Catholicism. It is really this simple, just show me any proof that Christianity from day one denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Show me the date this doctrine was invented. Can you fault me for holding on to what Christianity has professed and held to be true for over 2000 years when there is not a single argument or debate against it. To me it is the same as Mormons or Jahovahs telling me Jesus was not the Son of God.
My response: Acts 2:46 states. "Every day they countinued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts." Can you tell me from this passage that they experienced the Real Presence of Christ in the bread that they broke? No! And neither can I. But from what I read in it they don't call it the Eucharists and I'm sure that they never heard of the word taught by the Catholic church "transubstantiantion" So the only thing that they went by is the words of Jesus "This is my body" and "this is my blood" Did they think that they were eating and drinking Jesus' actual physical body and blood? No! Becuase Jesus tells them in John 6:63, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit.". AND NOT LITERAL So how can someone now try to convince me through transubstantiation that Jesus is lying, that is, the bread and wine now become the literal body and blood of Christ. Let me be clear here. Transubstantiation teaches the bread now has the physical taste of Jesus' flesh and the wine has the physical taste of Jesus' blood which is not true. Is the Lord present in that element? No. Is He present to the individual? In his mind yes. Jesus said when two or three gather in his name, He's present.
Despite our differences in theology, do know I do recognize and appreciate your love and passion for our Lord. I do love our Lord as much as you and it is why I defend my faith that so many criticize and try to tear down. No matter our differences we are still brothers in Christ and there is nothing wrong with a debate. I never want to offend you and if I do I apologize, but I can not bend or give an inch to what I believe to be the truth. God bless you Edward.
My response: Yes, all that you say about me I feel the same towards you. I'm debating you not that I want to destroy your faith but I want to make you aware as to where the truth lies. Is it what you are told by man or is it what is told by Jesus and the apostles in the Scriptures. The Scriptures we know that they are God inspired but with man, who knows? I'm 85 yrs.old, I spent the first 30 yrs. of my life being reared a Catholic attending Catholic schools, was an altar boy etc. Later in life because of a divorce and re-marriage I changed denominations. In Catholicism I learned much about their catechism. In Protestantism I learned much about the Bible. I then concluded why have the Bible at all if it's not comeplete? So if Jesus and the apostles said it, that's truth, If something else in addition is being taught then that adds to Scripture which is prohibited Prov.30:6, 1Cor.4:6, Rev.22:19. God Bless you Christopher,
Ed O.

April 25, 2014 at 5:57 pm PST
#80  Edward Osiecki - Fort Mill, South Carolina

Hi Christopher,
In your post #76 you say,"Scripture tells us the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth." Where in Scripture does it say that and which church ? Jesus is addressing Seven of them in Rev.1:11. That's not in the Bible. That statement may be found in the Catholic catechism which again is man's idea not Holy Spirit inspired. Should I believe it? Go ahead if you want to be misled. As I already showed you, Jesus is adressing seven churches. You say, "And it also tells us no Scripture is a matter of private interpretation," That's not in the Bible. The Catholic catechism in #85 says the church alone has that authority to interpret Scripture. My question is, to which of the seven churches and by whom did they get this authority? Peter supposedly the first pope didn't know about it because in 2Pet 3:14-15 he says, Dear friends----His (Paul's) letters contain some things that are hard to understand which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do other Scriptures----therefore be on gaurd about error." If you are ignorant and unstable then you better let the magisterium interpret the Scriptures for you, if you are not ignorant then watch for errors and interpret the Scripture for your self. If the church had the authority why didn't Peter say, "let me interpret the Scriptures for you?"
Ed O.

April 25, 2014 at 7:26 pm PST
#81  Edward Osiecki - Fort Mill, South Carolina

Hi Christopher,
On another site about Hell, you posted #38 this, "There is one truth, they both exist and ONLY our Lord knows who goes where. We do not need to know, and neither are we worthy to comprehend such a sensitive matter. It involves our family, friends, those we love and those we do not love as much. Our Lord alone has the burden of making such infinate and eternal decisions." ------ Really? Don't you have anything to do or say about where you'll spend eternity? ------John 1:1 says, "In the begining was the Word (another name for Jesus) and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." So when we read God's Word, it's like God (Jesus) speaking face to face with us.-----In Mark 16:15-16 Jesus speaks telling His disciples," Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. v16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be SAVED, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Saved people go to heaven, condemned people go to hell. Don't you believe that Jesus is telling the truth here? So why are you saying "only the Lord knows who goes where" ------1John 5:13 states," I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may KNOW that you have eternal life." This Scripture assures me that if I believe in the Son of God I'll be saved and it wants me to KNOW for CERTAIN NOW here on earth where I'll spend eternity. So why are you saying only the Lord know who goes where???? You either believe what the WORD says or you don't, which is it??? Think about it? I pray that this will open your mind that God's word is truth. God Bless
Ed O.

April 25, 2014 at 9:45 pm PST
#82  Salonsar War - Shillong, Kentucky

Hi Edward,
Here's where it says the Church is the pillar of truth.
>> 1 Timothy 3:15 -- "if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

Which church? Well, there's only one church that claims apostolic succession and claims that Jesus established it with Peter as the head.

April 26, 2014 at 5:01 am PST
#83  Edward Osiecki - Fort Mill, South Carolina

Hi Solonsar War,

You said, "[Which church? Well, there's only one church that claims apostolic succession and claims that Jesus established it with Peter as the head]".-------My response: There is no basis in Scripture for your claim of apostolic succession the opposite is true per Eph 2:20, God's household v 20 built on the foundation of the apostles (PLURAL) and prophets with Christ Jesus Himself ( not Peter or the Pope) as the chief cornerstone." This Scripture alone debunks the idea that the church was built on Peter as being incorrectly claimed by Catholics.------ Nowhere in Scripture does it say that there would be any need for apostolic succession. Everything needed for salvation and Christian life is contained in the Scriptures. What more is needed?------ If Jesus meant as Catholics claim that the church is built upon Peter then why is Jesus telling John in Rev.!:11 to send letters to the SEVEN churches? Why didn't Jesus tell John to send the letter to Peter?---- Also my Bible reads that the church built by the apostles and prophets was a Christian church per Acts 11:26 not a Catholic church as you claim. The meaning of Catholic is universal, Christ's church is exclusive. -----Catholic catechism # 847 which states," Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience---those too may achieve eternal salvation," That's a lie! ---- Now contrast that to what the Scriptures say Acts 4:12, " There is NO salvation through anyone else nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved".--- If you follow the logic of what the Catholic church teaches per noted above, that means that all the suicide bombers 9/11 and all will be saved and have eternal life since they all did so in the name of their God. Who do you believe is right the Bible or the Catechism? Ed O.

April 26, 2014 at 2:15 pm PST
#84  Eric McCabe - Rosemount, Minnesota

Ed,

Who canonized the New Testament that you read from? Who decided those 27 books were the inspired inerrant Word of God and the others such as the Acts of Paul, 1 Clement, the Gospel of Peter were not inspired? By whose authority and by what means were the books of the NT canonized?

Eric

April 27, 2014 at 9:13 am PST
#85  Edward Osiecki - Fort Mill, South Carolina

Hi Eric,
As I already said in my earlier post, The Old Testament was available to all before the Catholic church even existed. Act 17:11 The Bereans examined the Scripture to see what Paul preached was true.------By 66 AD all of the New Testament was also available. In 397 AD at the Third Council Of Carthage is the first decision on a cannon. So over 300 years the Christians had the Scriptures available to them and they knew by the indwelt Holy Spirit which were true or false.---- But the irony of it all, is, the Catholic church banned reading the Bible and on December 22, 1560, Julian Hernandez was burnt to the stake for having a Bible. -----Why was the Bible banned by a church when Jesus said in Mat 4:4 that man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God?------The ban was not lifted until 1964, as a result, Catholics can now read it but only the magisterium can interpret the Scriptures. So Catholics aren't kept in the dark anymore about what the Scriptures say but because they can't interpret for themselves, in reality, Catholics are back to square one, that is, they are kept ignorant by their own magisterium. ------In Acts 18:26 When Priscilla and Aquila (common people tent makers) heard Apollos preach, they invited him into their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately. ( No magisterium needed) ----2Tim 3;16 states the whole Bible is God inspired. And is useful to teach us what is TRUE and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives etc.v17 It is God's way of making us well prepared at every point, fully equipped to do good to everyone. How can that be done unless we read and interpret the Bible for our selves.Ed O.

April 27, 2014 at 8:21 pm PST
#86  Christopher Travis - Huntsville, Alabama

All of the NT could not have been available in 66 AD, 2Peter was written later than that.You are very correct that the Christians who determined Scripture had the Holy Spirit guide them, that's why we Catholics accept the NT. These early Christians who determined Scripture did not act as individuals, none of them were seperate or outside the one church founded by Christ. You have to be in complete denial to think the Bible self authenticated itself and just randomly came together without the church. It didn't just fall out of the sky with signatures and with a certificate of authenticity. There has never been a speration between the church founded by Christ and Scripture, the two are not divided and never will be. It wasn't the laity that determined Scripture, it was the apostolic authority established by Christ.

April 28, 2014 at 5:12 am PST
#87  Eric McCabe - Rosemount, Minnesota

Ed,

"By 66 AD all of the New Testament was also available. In 397 AD at the Third Council Of Carthage is the first decision on a cannon."

What do you mean "by 66AD all of the New Testament was also available?" Would you care to elaborate on this claim with substantiated historical references?

Eric

April 28, 2014 at 10:06 am PST
#88  Edward Osiecki - Fort Mill, South Carolina

Hi Eric,

Hi Eric,
Your question to me:

"What do you mean "by 66AD all of the New Testament was also available?" Would you care to elaborate on this claim with substantiated historical references"?

My response:
As Paul was about to be martyred ( 2 Tim 4:6-8) making this the last epistle that Paul wrote, so obviouly Timothy had all the epistles that Paul wrote and also the three Gospels, around 66 A.D. Paul was martyred 67 A.D. I should have used the word "most" instead of "all" above. ED O.

April 28, 2014 at 7:49 pm PST
#89  Edward Osiecki - Fort Mill, South Carolina

Hi Christopher,

In answer to your last post I'm pretty much aware of the fact that The Scriptures combined by themselves and just fell from the sky. So allow me to quote some of what's written on page 745 of Halley's Bible Handbook:

Eusebius ( A.D. 264-340), bishop of Caesarea, Church Historian, lived through, and was imprisoned during Diocletian's persecution of Christians which was Rome's final effort to blot out the Christian Name. One of its special objects was the destruction of all Christian Scriptures. For ten years Bibles were hunted by the agents of Rome, and burned in public market places. To Christians the question of just what books composed their Scriptures was no idle matter.----Later Eusebius became Constantine's chief religious adviser. ---- Constantine's first act upon ascending the throne was to order, for the churches of Constantinople, FIFTY BIBLES, to be prepared, under the direction of Eusebius, by skillful copyists on the finest of vellum, and to be delivered by royal carriages from Caesarea to Constatinople. " You have authority also, by virtue of this letter, to use two of the public carriages for their conveyance; by which arrangement, the copies, when fairly written, will most easily be forwarded for my personal inspection. One of the deacons of your church may be entrusted with this service, who, on his arrival here shall experience my liberality. God preserve you, beloved brother."

What books constituted the New Testament of Eusebius? EXACTLY the same books that now constitute the New Testament.

Ed O.

April 28, 2014 at 8:59 pm PST
#90  Edward Osiecki - Fort Mill, South Carolina

Hi Christopher,

Yesterday two more saints were supposedly added to Catholic church's roster.

However; according to the Scriptures all born again believers are saints. 2 Cor "To the church of God in Corinth, together with all the saints throughout Achaia"-----Phil "To all the saints in Christ Jesus in Phillipi etc" ---- Did you ever wonder why Moses or Elijah are not listed in the Catholic church's roster of saints so they too could be prayed too? We know for certain that they are in heaven since they made their appearance in the Transfiguration.-----For my first 30 years of being a Catholic I prayed to St. Christopher the traveling patron saint. Most Catholics including myself had a small statue of him on our car's dashboards for his protection. Prior to starting out on any long trip we would pray to St. Christopher asking for his protection. Then in 1957, the Catholic church announced that there is no record of a St. Christopher. Quite a let down wouldn't you say?
Ed O.

April 28, 2014 at 9:42 pm PST
#91  Christopher Travis - Huntsville, Alabama

Ed, so what is your point in post 89?

No let down at all Ed about St. Chrisropher, why should there be? My faith doesn't revolve around whether or not the saint list is 100 % accurate. He either existed and the stories about him are true or they are not. No big deal, it has nothing to to do with the dogmas of my Catholic faith, it is a discilpline, not a dogma. And besides, the Church never declared in any formal decree that St. Christopher never existed as you are implying.

Your desire to peck away at all you can find against the Catholic Church is duly noted from all your posts. What will make you happy Ed, that we billion Catholics will leave the Church that taught us everything we know about Christ. Should we cease believing in the Church that nourishes and sustains our relationship with Christ because you googled ways that try and disprove our faith? Should the Vatican forever close its doors and the entire Magisterium dissapear, end all Apostolic succession? It is one thing to have a fair debate or discussion about theology, but its only fair to question ones intention when they cherry pick history to try and knock down or destroy other peoples faith, fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who sincerely love Jesus and want to be a part of the Divine institution our Saviour established to feed and guide His flock.

God bless you Ed and let us be one in Christ today, let us unite our prayers for the victims of the tornadoes that have injured so many, and has taken the lives of some while destroying countless homes and business of others here around my home town in Alabama. Your prayers and anyone who reads this are much needed right now. Peace be with you all.

April 29, 2014 at 5:21 am PST
#92  Edward Osiecki - Fort Mill, South Carolina

.

Hi Christopher,

My point on post 89 debunks what you claim in one of your earlier posts that the Catholic church gave us the Bible. And without the Catholic church we wouldn't have the Bible today.

That's nonsense! That's not true. The early church had the Scriptures as we have today before the Catholic church ever existed. Eusebius also had the Bible as we have today prior to the Third Council of Carthage A.D.397. Eusebius died in A.D.340. So you can remove that lie from the list of your rebuttals about the Bible.

Shouldn't our aim be at getting at the TRUTH? I'm not trying to destroy your faith, I'm trying to make you aware of the TRUTH. My Truth is in Jesus and the apostles alone per the words in the Bible, while your truth is a mixture of Jesus, apostles and the Catholic church as I see it. That would be okay if the Catholic church taught truth but unfortunately many things the Catholic church teaches contradicts what Jesus and the apostles taught in the Bible.

It's pretty much the same today as to what took place in the Old Testament. The Scriptures were available but the Pharisees and the teachers made up many of their own rules. That's why John the Baptist calls them, "you brood of vipers" Mat 3:7 and Jesus calls them Hypocrites Mat 15:7, "You hypocrites! Issaiah was right when he prophesied about you:' These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' RULES TAUGHT BY MEN. That's exactly what's going on now in the Catholic church a bunch of rules taught by men which has nothing to do with the Scriptures.

Mat 23, the seven "Woes". this whole chapter speaks negatively about the leaders and teachers of that day. If that took place then why wouldn't you believe that it's not happening again today? Mat 23:13 the very first "Woe" states, "Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." Because of their man made rules. Now compare the salvation plan of Jesus and the apostles to the salvation plan of the Catholic church, you'll find there's a contradiction that's what I'm trying to make you aware of and I'm not trying to win an argument or trying to destroy your faith.

ED.O.

April 29, 2014 at 5:44 pm PST
#93  Christopher Travis - Huntsville, Alabama

Ed, it isn't nonsense to say the Catholic church gave us the Bible. The nonsense is your denial to accept historical facts. The early Church was the Catholic Church. If Jesus is not the founder then who is? Give us the persons name and date.

You are indeed trying to destroy the Catholic faith. That is why you cherry pick Scripture and history. Your only goal is to make people see and accept YOUR TRUTH as you see it, as though you are the infallible holder of truth and the Catholic Church is just the opposite. Your desperation to make us Catholics see what you preceive to be the truth sticks out like a sore thumb, it is very erradict, vague, and nothing more than worn out lies and myths. Your last post is a good example of your cherry picking, you use Esebius to try and bolster your position, yet you will completeley ignore Irenaeus. If anything half way sounds like it disputes Catholicism you cling on to it as gold, yet if anything upholds a Catholics position you completely ignore it.

While I do not wish to argue with you, I can not with a good conscience remain silent when you or anyone else relentlessly throws stones at the faith I hold so dear to my heart. God bless and have a good day.

April 30, 2014 at 6:13 am PST
#94  Eric McCabe - Rosemount, Minnesota

Ed,

Please provide factual and historical content that supports a firm canon (list of books) that were to be in the New Testament prior to 397. In other words, who and when determined what books (gospels, acts, epistles, revelation) were to be canonized in the New Testament, and who and when threw out all the other books such as the Acts of Paul, the Gospel of Peter, 1 Clement etc.?

When Christ was condemning the Pharisees and the teachers of the law in Matthew 23, he wasn't condemning ALL rules or ALL tradition, just CORRUPT rules and tradition such as that of the Pharisees, their hearts were corrupt and evil filled with greed. Your interpretation is like saying the Constitution of the United States doesn't need a government to interpret, legislate and enforce the rules (regulate) what is said in the document.
If the Catholic Church did not have structure, rules, tradition etc. it would fail to stand. Just look at the 40,000 different denominations without the structure that the Catholic Church has. Even churches within branches like Lutheranism and Presbyterian cannot even remain united. They spring up different synods and sects creating and adopting new catechisms, boards of elders, constitutions etc. They ALL claim to have the gift of the Holy Spirit guiding them through "Scripture alone" method. The Bible is the most complex book of the most complex literary styles written in completely different times of different cultures, peoples, languages encompassing poetry, legal codes, letters, oracles, proverbs, historical records, stories, fables, fiction and apocalypses that can be figurative at times while literal at others, using hyperbole, different tones, and formats. This is exactly why Peter mentions that Scripture is not to be of one's own interpretation.

Please, with respect, do not say the Catholic is "shutting the kingdom of heaven in men's (sic) faces." Your anti-Catholic statements do not resemble the "faith expressing itself through love" Paul mentions to the Galatians. Your individual pride of Scripture and man-made interpretations of it does not show love. In fact, the many of the interpretations you cite are from anti-Catholic novelists which only have hatred and contempt for the Catholic Church and Her members, which of none are written in the first 1500 years of the Church. What a coincidence, when Luther in the 16th century interpreted the Bible himself and did away with the authority of the Church, that all these different denominations sprang up and all these anti-Catholic books started selling like hot cakes. Just show me one protest, one anti-Catholic book (on dogma not practice), or another bible believing church without authority and rules before 1500AD. Ed, humble your heart, pray for faith expressing itself through love, and read some Catholic literature ~ I would recommend Karl Keating's "Catholicism and Fundamentalism." Just remember, if you have a faith that can move mountains, but not love, your faith is futile (I'm not necessarily saying you do not have love, but just rather seems your Scriptural pride precedes your love of of others, if not I apologize)
God bless you Ed O. :)

Eric

April 30, 2014 at 6:37 am PST
#95  Edward Osiecki - Fort Mill, South Carolina

Hi Christpher,
The title of this blog is "Why Catholicism Is Preferred To Protestanism" To me that sounds anti-Protestanism so why do you feel offended and accuse me of being anti-Catholic when I try to express my Scripture knowledge otherwise? ----- You say, "Your desire to peck away at all you can find against the Catholic Church is duly noted from all your posts."------ {Can you tell me how else can I defend Protestanism without sounding anti-Catholic?} ------ You say, "What will make you happy Ed, that we billion Catholics will leave the Church that taught us everything we know about Christ." -------{ Here you bring up an interesting point. You seem encouraged and strengthened by the fact that there are billions of Catholics while the opposite should be true. Jesus in Mat. 7:13, states, "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and MANY enter through it. v14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a FEW find it," Also everything we know about Christ is found in the Scriptures both O.T. and N.T.------You say, " Should we cease believing in the Church that nourishes and sustains our re-lationship with Christ because you googled ways that try and disprove our faith? Should the Vatican forever close its doors and the entire Magisterium dissapear, end all Apostolic succession?"------{That will never happen. My desire is for Catholics to be knowledgeable of the TRUTH.------You say, " It is one thing to have a fair debate or discussion about theology, but its only fair to question ones intention when they cherry pick history to try and knock down or destroy other peoples faith,etc."------{Is it I that cherry picks history? Or is it YOU when you bring up the 1500 years Catholic church existed prior to the Reformation then 2,000 years. That's suppose to be better than the only 500 years of Protestanism. The Catholic church gave us the Bible, 30,000 denominations etc.etc."-----You say, "God bless you Ed and let us be one in Christ today, let us unite our prayers for the victims of the tornadoes that have injured so many, and has taken the lives of some while destroying countless homes and business of others here around my home town in Alabama. Your prayers and anyone who reads this are much needed right now. Peace be with you all. " ------ { I say Amen to all of that. And God Bless you Christopher}
Ed O.
P.S. Somewhere much earlier in this blog you cautioned someone about evil spirits. I wholeheartedly agree with what you said there. That is something to be taken very seriously. My ex-wife began reading books by Edgar Casey which openned her up to the evil spirits. Sometime later, I'll share it with you.

April 30, 2014 at 1:06 pm PST
#96  Edward Osiecki - Fort Mill, South Carolina

Hi Christopher,

Before I respond to your post, I know that Huntsville, AL is in tornado alley. I hope and pray that you escaped much of the present storms being reported on the daily news.

Now to your post, I'm not in anyway trying to destroy yours or anyone else's Catholic faith. I have many friends who are Catholics, in fact my first cousin is a Catholic monsignor priest in my home town, my goal is to inform you what the Bible teaches and you decide your own faith.----- You say, " Ed, it isn't nonsense to say the Catholic church gave us the Bible. The nonsense is your denial to accept historical facts.-----{ I'm not denying that there was a Third Council of Cartridge in A,D, 397 where decision were made about the Bible's cannon, what I'm trying to convince you is that, yes, there was a Bible available like we have today which was produced by Eusebius before he died in A.D. 340 which is an earlier date than Cartridge. This debunks the claim by Rome that if it weren't for them we wouldn't have any Bible as you stated earlier. Go onto Wikipedia and check it out for yourself. Look up Constantine, when there, you'll see the name Eusebius and Fifty Bibles. It explains the whole story, it even show pictures of pages of it.} ----- You mention "The early Church was the Catholic Church. If Jesus is not the founder then who is? Give us the persons name and date." ------{You were told that the early church was Catholic but according to Acts 11:26 the disciples were called Christians not Catholics, Catholic is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Acts 26:27 King Agrippa asked Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian"? 1Pet 4:16, this comes out of the mouth of the first Pope, "But whoever is made to suffer as a CHRISTIAN should not be ashamed etc." Isn't it strange that the early church were called Christians not Catholics.

Then you accuse me of, "Your only goal is to make people see and accept YOUR TRUTH as you see it, as though you are the infallible holder of truth and the Catholic Church is just the opposite. Your desperation to make us Catholics see what you preceive to be the truth sticks out like a sore thumb, it is very erradict, vague, and nothing more than worn out lies and myths". -------{Christopher, never once did I lie or told a myth on any of my postings, I'm surprised you would accuse me of that. Everything that I presented was and is the Truth, not my truth as you also accuse of but what the Scriptures say.

As I already said my intention in this debate is to present to you what the Scriptures say and make you aware of that. Then you decide what you want to believe. Jesus in Mat.24:35, states,
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my word will never pass away". Luv yah in Christ Christopher.

Ed O.

April 30, 2014 at 8:31 pm PST
#97  Christopher Travis - Huntsville, Alabama

Ed, I won't lie, I do get offended at times when anyone, not just you, uses half truths and hand picked Scripture and history to degrade the faith that I hold to be true and as a Divine gift from God to lead me to eternal life. This is the faith of my ancestors (probably yours too), my family, and my children. If you post things to try and make my faith look like all it does is preach a false gospel and mislead people then you can bet on me responding with a little fire and passion. Who doesn't stand up for the family and faith they love? You say you want us to have the TRUTH, but it isn't YOUR truth that we seek, we as Catholics don't seek individual truth, we seek what we believe to be the truth of Jesus Christ handed down by Apostolic Tradition, both written and oral. You on the other hand seek your truth through self interpretion of Scripture and anti Catholic web sites.

I am still waiting for you to tell me which Christian Church before Protestantism did not believe the Holy Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ. Please give us some concrete evidence and not just another self interpretation of Scripture. Surely if someone invented such a hard doctrine to believe there should be evidence and/or a protest. And please tell us when the Catholic Church was founded and by who if it wasn't Christ.

And yes I am encouraged that there are over 1.2 billion Catholics, Jesus prayed that we would be ONE. The more that hold the same faith the closer we are to being one. Christ's Church was meant to sit upon a hill and be seen, and to be the light of the world, not to be hidden under a basket. There is no doubt that Christ founded a Church, and there is no doubt He gave this Church authority, mission, and protection from the gates of hell. He did not pass out Bibles and tell everyone to read it and they are on their own. Christ's Church is more than each individual acting on their own accord and it was more than just a book.

I would like to hear about what happened with your ex wife and the evil spirits, and I would like to share the whole story about what happened to my wife and I. You are welcome to friend me on here and I will email it to you. Until next time, God bless and have a great day.

May 1, 2014 at 5:29 am PST
#98  Christopher Travis - Huntsville, Alabama

Ed, Christian and Catholic are one in the same. Are you saying Catholics are not Christian? Catholic is a term used as a description of the one, holy, apostolic, and universal Church. It got that name because of all the many heresies that kept springing up, such as Arianism, Gnosticism, and Montanism. Since you take to heart and hold as truth what Eusebius says why not read what Irenaeus had to say about the Catholic Church? He was before Eusebius and was two generations away from Jesus. This is why I accused you of cherry picking history, because if it suites your position you use it, if it doesn't you will not even bring it up. And I do believe what Esebius says about Scripture and that Constatine ordered fifty Bibles, however, neither one of them on their own were the final authority on that matter, no more than any other Bishop acting alone, that is why the Apostles held councils and the Bishops did the same.

Just curious, but what do you think about the letters written by Irenaeus?

And you keep saying you want to make us aware of what Scripture says, once again we know what it says, we just have a different understanding. What makes you right and us wrong? If we stopped believing what the Catholic Church proclaims and insert your truths would it then be infallible and be the one true Church?

May 1, 2014 at 6:04 am PST
#99  Debbie Douglas - Fraser, Michigan

Thank you Christopher & Ed for this debate. As a believer all of my life but never "churched" or knowing what or why I believed (maybe my infant baptism helped me?)....and then marrying (2nd marriage) a Protestant who told me all about Jesus I'm now fervently searching for the truth. Much to my husband's perturbation, I've concluded that Catholicism is the true Church Jesus promised the gates of Hades would not overcome. It is so very obvious to me that Luther's Scripture alone "theory" has done just the opposite of what he thought it would. Scripture cannot be the final authority as it takes interpretation...therefore, YOU the reader of Scripture becomes the final authority. This is huge to me...and you cannot argue with facts...there are 25,000 plus "denominations" of Protestantism who don't agree. Confusion IS NOT from God.

May 1, 2014 at 7:13 am PST
#100  Edward Osiecki - Fort Mill, South Carolina

Hi Debbie,

Welcome to the debate. Jesus said in Mat 4:4 " It is written (duet 8:3) Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." Can you tell me what that means.

Ed O.

May 1, 2014 at 10:21 am PST

You are not logged in. Login or register to leave a comment.