Evangelicals Becoming Catholic, why?

by Steve Ray on May 24, 2012

Below is an interesting YouTube video (really audio) of an Evangelical Radio show in which two Evangelicals discuss why so many Evangelical Protestants are leaving to join the Catholic Church.

The host and guest are trying to be honest in the show entitled  “Why Evangelicals are Returning to Rome.” Although towards the end of the video they are making some statements that are historically inaccurate (about Luther and the Popes); nevertheless, their questioning tries to be honest. It is interesting that they are taking note of a large exodus. I am one of those who Crossed the Tiber to Rome.

Furthermore, this was coming from a Protestant network that is decidedly anti-Catholic.  They are willing to discuss openly what has been happening for years now (the exodus of Evangelical ordained ministers to Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches).  They also mention briefly EWTN, the program Journey Home and the moderator Marcus Grodi, a convert from Evangelical Christianity. It is obvious this is all new to them since they didn’t even know how to pronounce Marcus Grodi’s name.

The moderator Ingrid Slater asked Pastor Bob DeWay; “Let’s talk about the problem; what do you think is the seed bed (this is sort of a rhetorical question; everybody knows what a mess Evangelicalism is as a whole today doctrinally speaking).  What is setting people up for this disenchantment and the willingness to look to Roman Catholicism?”

Here are some of the Problems that Bob Deway lists, though they really have no explanation since they are blind to the real problems within Protestantism, which are things that cannot be fixed. If they were fixed they would be Catholics.
(1) The Seeker Movement took the Bible out of churches.
(2) People are not steeped in solid Bible teaching (yeah, but according to whose interpretation?).
(3) Big churches that don’t preach the Bible (who decides what should be taught??).
(4) The influx of mystical practices, contemplative prayer, the labyrinths.
(5) Seminaries that are training therapeutic practitioners rather than theologians.
(6) The idea that we have to have to justify our practices and beliefs from Scripture – according to what Luther and the other reformers – which has now been overlooked.

The moderator then mentioned a book saying, “Coming Home by Fr Peter [Eastern Rite] (I am not even going to use the term father). . . He used to head up Campus Crusade here in the Midwest” Evidently he is now heading up an organization helping Evangelical ministers come into the Eastern rite Churches.  If you want to know why he made his move from Evangelical Protestantism you can listen to the video.

For years you’d hear Evangelicals boast of the fact that their churches were filled ex-Catholics.  But in too many cases the Evangelical churches are just the exit ramp that eventually leaves them disillusioned and abandoning the faith altogether. Now the tide is changing.  Some Evangelicals seem to be oblivious to the fact of this large exodus of Evangelical ministers and lay people.

A year ago, Karl Keating of Catholic Answers Live said he believed there were now more Evangelicals or Fundamentalists leaving Protestantism to become Catholic than the other way around. Even Evangelicals admit that there are notable Protestants becoming Catholics but no notable Catholics becoming Protestants.

I could take exception to several of Pastor Bob’s statements and argue decisively against them, but that is not the point of my posting this video.

{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }

Pete May 10, 2011 at 5:56 PM

If Pastor Bob is so sure that Sola Scriptura is correct then why doesn’t he simply debate these former Evangelicals who want to debate him on the subject? Who is fearing what?

Armando Borja May 11, 2011 at 12:43 AM

In the last days many will leave the faith. Prostestans’ transfering to Roman Catholicism, though something to be considered, does not prove that the Roman Catholic Church is the church founded by Christ.

Tom N May 11, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Armando,
Ah, but if it’s not the One Church founded by Christ, which one is? Which one, other than the Catholic Church, was around at the time of Christ (around as in just getting started, as was the Catholic Church)??? The short answer is “none”. Only the Catholic Church was alive and well in the year 34. Only the Catholic Church was alive and well in the years 134, 234, 334, 434, 534, etc etc. And, coincidentally, the name “Catholic” was first written (althought it may have been spoken earlier) in the year 110 by Ignatius of Antioch. Therefore, only the Catholic Church could be the Church spoken of by Christ (I will build MY Church) emphasis mine, and “The gates of Hell will not prevail against it”…meaning there will never be a time when the Catholic Church is not alive and well, otherwise Christ would be a liar, which He is not. Read Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History (written in 325) where he very precisely describes the history of the Church from the time of Christ until then (325). In that book you will find the faith articles believed, the succession of the Bishops of the Catholic Church from each of the Apostles right down through the ages, the discussion of the Canon (who held which book as inspired, those that were not, etc). Much can be learned from the early Christians (who again were nothing but Catholic in name and belief).
Peace,
Tom

Pete May 11, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Or, maybe Armando, in the last days many will leave the one true Church for some form of Protestant (50,000 Man-made and constantly splintering) ideology. Ever consider that?

Barbara May 27, 2011 at 10:12 PM

I have not viewed the video yet, but I am one of 22 converts from Protestantism to Catholicism in 4 years, in a tiny parish in Central California. 18 of the 22 came from the same Protestant church, but honestly we didn’t communicate with one another very much until someone was actually out. This was not a case of “stealing the sheep.” I can only describe it as the Holy Spirit drawing us to the truth and beauty of the Catholic Church, in all different ways–the intellectuals got their fill, the ones who received experientially got that. We have a wonderful, wonderful priest who loves RCIA, which he teaches himself since the church is so small. Each person must speak for him/herself, but I can tell you that the very first time I went to Mass, I knew I was home. I have written a pretty long conversion story which I may send you in due time. I was received into the Church on June 13, 2010, and that ranks as one of the very best days of my life, right up there with my wedding day. It took me a year and a half to become a Catholic since I needed a Pauline Privilege ruling. It was infinitely worth the wait. My dear husband of 27 years followed me into the Truth five weeks ago at the Easter Vigil. Though we are not young, we love Jesus more and more and feel that the best is yet to be.

Armando Borja January 5, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Tom: Ah, but if it’s not the One Church founded by Christ, which one is? Which one, other than the Catholic Church, was around at the time of Christ (around as in just getting started, as was the Catholic Church)??? The short answer is “none”.

Armando: You are right, Tom. None off the churches today was obviously around in 34 AD, not even the Roman Catholic Church of today. But there is a church during that time and that is the church mentioned in the Bible.

Tom: Only the Catholic Church was alive and well in the year 34. Only the Catholic Church was alive and well in the years 134, 234, 334, 434, 534, etc etc. And, coincidentally, the name “Catholic” was first written (althought it may have been spoken earlier) in the year 110 by Ignatius of Antioch. Therefore, only the Catholic Church could be the Church spoken of by Christ (I will build MY Church) emphasis mine, and “The gates of Hell will not prevail against it”…meaning there will never be a time when the Catholic Church is not alive and well, otherwise Christ would be a liar, which He is not.

Armando: But, if we compare the teachings and practices of Roman Catholics today to the teachings of the first church in the Bible, it is clear that Roman Catholics today is not the same with the church mentioned in the Bible. For example, Christians in the Bible don’t pray to any saint, they don’t bow down and talk to images when they talk to a saint in heaven. They don’t believe the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is repeated in an unbloody manner during the mass (Heb 10:18). They don’t believe that Mary is Mediatrix of all grace (2Tm 2:5).

Even if Roman Catholic Church can trace their history back to the apostles, if the their teachings is different from what the apostles preached, they are disconnected to the apostles and the first church. Read this:

“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!” — Gal 1:8

Even the apostle Paul included himself to the “we” who may preach another gospel. If he do that — and he did not — he, together with others who preach another gospel, is accursed. Paul can trace his authority back to Christ just as Roman Catholic Church can , according to them, trace their history to the apostle. But even so, if they preach that which is different from what the apostles preached originally, they are accursed. Their historic traceability is irrelevant now. What they teach determines if they are a the true church.

You asked where is the true church today? Any church who continues to believe and preach the gospel preached by the opostles is the church of Christ. There were no time in history where nobody believe and preached what the apostles preach. And what the apostle preached is not what the Roman Catholic Church of today is preaching.

Peace,
Tom

marty May 5, 2012 at 4:34 PM

STEVE RAY HERE: I LEFT MARTY’S COMMENT HERE FOR IT’S COMEDY VALUE. HIS COMMENT IS NUTS AND SHOWS A DEEP SENSE OF IGNORANCE.

MARTY SAYS, The few cases of “Evangelical” preachers/ministers converting to RCism are most convincingly (IMO)
explained by the “pull” of “something earthy”, something material, something “I can do” beyond just believing the gospel of grace. I would add that it also is the “pull” to walk by sight rather than by faith.

Jared Z May 14, 2012 at 11:45 AM

“What the apostle preached is not what the Roman Catholic Church of today is preaching. ” -Tom.

Well until you can show show me another denomination that acknowledges the primacy of St. Peter’s role in the Church (Matt. 16:18,) the cleansing fires of Purgatory (1 Cor. 3:15-16,) the authority of the Church to forgive and retain sin (John 20:23,) the Virgin Mary as Queen of Heaven (Revelations 12:1,) or the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist (1 Cor. 11:27-29,) then I’m going to go ahead and say yeah, they are the True Church, and they ARE preaching the gospel that the Apostles preached. Converted last year. ;)

Blessings & Peace, Jared Z.

Catherine Ina May 24, 2012 at 12:19 PM

I am also converted to Catholic Christianity from evangelical Lutheranism. Why? I always loved the Bible, and I found and still find that Evangelicals have a very selective reading of Scripture. Even the Bible itself does not teach sola scriptura. Bible-alone doctrine is a late invention. For the first few hundred years the Church was guiding the believers. The Bible came out of the Church. Evangelicals seem to be against Church history. The New Testament was written, preserved and interpreted by the Catholic Church over time.. If you believe the Catholic Church was lead back then, why do you believe that God has left this Church today? He promised Himself He would not let it fall into error. It would go against the promises of Christ if he had abandoned the Church. I love Evangelicals, but they really are cast into confusion. They need to come back to the Church Christ instituted, under the true shepherd to which he gave His shepherd’s staff when he chose the 12 and said to Peter “you are Peter… and feed my sheep”. I hardly ever met an Evangelical who knows what the Catholic Church actually teaches. As I said, I love my Evangelical brethren, love to pray, talk and sing with them, but some of them seem scared of the stories they created by their own imagination about the Catholic Church.

De Maria May 24, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Armando, the Church of Scripture is the Catholic Church:

First, Jesus Christ appointed a Pastor as head of the entire Church: John 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

I see only a few Churches with such a Pastor. Further, Jesus Christ said that the Pastor over His Church would be infallible:

Matthew 16:17-19 (King James Version) 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The list of Churches accept this teaching gets smaller. Certainly, all Protestant denominations can now be eliminated.

Jesus Christ not only said that the Pastor was infallible but Scripture describes the Church as infallible: Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

The list remains the same, but now I can certainly eliminate all Protestant denominations.
Back to Matt 16:18, Scripture says that Jesus Christ established one Church. History shows that all the Churches sprang from the Church which is frequently described as the Mother Church. The Catholic Church.

By simple logic of elimination, that leaves only the Catholic Church. Further, the Catholic Church can produce records tracing back to Apostolic times.

Therefore, I conclude that it is the Catholic Church which is described in Scripture.

Scripture says that the Church teaches the Wisdom of God:

Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Is God’s Wisdom infallible? I say yes.

Is there really any need to say more? I don’t think so. But there is more.
Scripture says that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth: 1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
God is here saying that the Church always upholds the truth. I believe God. Therefore, I conclude that the Church is infallible.

Scripture says: Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Here the Church is depicted as keeping hell in a state of seige. And further it is said that hell will never prevail against the Church. If the Church committed errors in the mission given her by God, then the gates of hell would have prevailed.

God says that won’t happen. I believe God.

Therefore, I conclude that the Church of Scripture is infallible.

There is only one Church today which claims to be infallible. The Catholic Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

kent May 25, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Mostly Luther and Calvin somewhat were both disgruntled Catholic priests. Luther was declared a heretic and nearly burned at the stake. I don’t think God appointed them heads of any church. They pretty much started their own following by reprinting the bible from latin to their native languages of German and French and in Luther’s case actually changed the wording of the new German bible to include saved by faith “alone.” We have had many sects from the first beginnings of the Catholic Church at Pentacost when the Holy spirit descended on the apostles, Gnostocim, Islam and arianunism to name a few. We have many home grown sects: mormons. protestantism is a sect that seems to hang on by fleecing of the flock. All of these little churches with no Godly head but some pastor who knows nothing about the spirit, salvation and rightousness will eventually come crumbling down.

Rick June 1, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Aren’t you guys analyzing this way too literal? I mean. Isn’t a Christian someone who has Christ living inside(Holy Spirit)? Anyone who has HIM and has been born anew by confessing Him as one’s saviour is saved. This metanoia will provoke graceful deeds and you will be part of Christ’s church. His church is one and made from his children everywhere, which by definition, is Catholic. That IS the meaning of the name, no?

Shouldn’t we be doing God’s Will as one? Shouldn’t we let HIM judge? If you do not agree with something, can’t you simply disagree without judging others?

God bless you all.

STEVE RAY HERE: RICK, ACCORDING TO JESUS, BEING BORN AGAIN IN BY WATER AND SPIRIT – BAPTISM (SEE TOO 1 PETER 3:21), NOT SIMPLY BY CONFESSING HIM AS SAVIOR. AND ONE CANNOT BAPTIZE THEMSELVES. IT TAKES A CHURCH. JESUS FOUNDED A CHURCH AND IT IS ENCUMBENT ON US — IF WE LOVE OUR SAVIOR — TO FIND OUT WHAT HE ACTUALLY STARTED AND HOW WE CAN BE A MEMBER OF IT, SINCE IT IS OF COURSE HIS BODY.

SO NO, WE ARE NOT BEING TOO LITERAL, WE ARE BEING OBEDIENT.

Ed June 3, 2012 at 2:16 PM

I converted to the Catholic Church, Latin Rite — not Roman, from my Baptist upbringing. I value the love of the Bible I learned from in the Baptist church, but when I saw pastors give entirely different, and many times contradictory interpretations of Bible passages, yet both interpretations were supposed to be “the TRUTH”, I decided something was wrong. This started me on a long search for consistency of belief and consistency of biblical interpretation. After finding the same inconsistencies in ALL of the Protestant churches in my local, the only thing left was the dreaded “Whore of Babylon”, the Catholic Church. The first time I attended Mass, I was overwhelmed with emotion because of the solemn beauty of the Mass where I was exposed to a mega dose of the Bible. Besides the three readings (only three in those days, but after Vatican II there were four) from the Bible, I found Scriptures all through the Mass. I later learned that the readings were the same all over the world. AND I found CONSISTENCY in the interpretation of the Scriptures. I fell in love with the Mass, but it was a long time before I actually joined the Church. I still needed to search for the Truth about the Catholic Church because I was taught many horrible things about the Church. Catholics claimed a continuous, unbroken lineage back to the Apostles, and Jesus himself. One of the first books I read was the history of the Church by Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, the “Father of Church History”; b. about 260; d. before 341. It was actually several books, but I saw by reading the first book that the Catholic Church was indeed the Church of the Bible, the one established by Jesus upon Simon Peter as described in Matthew 16:13-19. Then I read writings by Justin Martyr and discovered that the Mass today is almost identical in make-up to that of the early Church – before the end of the 2nd century. And from the Didache I learned the Church’s teachings have not changed in 2000 years.

And that is why I have been a Catholic for 45 years.

Rick June 4, 2012 at 5:28 PM

STEVE RAY HERE. RICK, YOUR TONE IS APPRECIATED. A FEW COMMENTS BELOW IN CAPS.

Steve, thanks for your reply to my previous comment!. I find this topic most interesting and of most importance. Also, your blog is very well thought out.

To get back to your response:
Correct, Baptism is also necessary. And it has to be performed by His church. I agree. But Which is His Church?

There are teachings that the Roman Catholic Church practices today that the Primitive Church, the ONE Jesus established, did not. Practices that can be sinful in nature. Wouldn’t that invalidate the Church as His? Like the Pharisees, where the church used to be the one God left for His people, but they walked astray.

Wouldn’t then, the Church be made of faithful followers? Those who do exactly what Jesus taught? And I refer here, to the Church as the sons and daughters of God, not a building.

For example, where did Jesus teach his disciples to ask (pray) to Moses, Abraham or any other saint for help? Catholics today pray to many Saints depending on their needs.

And on Mary, I’m certain Jesus has a very special place for her on heaven. Being his Earthly mother, she was a truly blessed woman, to be selected as the mother of our saviour. She had to have been full of God’s grace and love. I see the importance, her role had on God’s plan for our salvation. But, why should we pray to her?

Furthermore, God never wanted us to have images of anything above of bellow, yet Catholic churches are full of sculptures and images. Images people sometimes use to pray and even kiss a Baby Jesus Sculpture at christmas time. Isn’t that sinful?

Are we supposed to remain or go back to being a catholic when we see all these things? And what will happen to everyone who follows Jesus’ teachings. Those who confess him and repent and are baptized. Who feel the Holy Spirit in them, who start a very personal relationship with Our Loving Father. Who love him above all. Who do His will and by His Holy Grace, do good deeds to others. Those who pass His teachings to their children. Who do all of this but not on a Catholic building. Are those not, God’s sons and daughters? Are those not His Church? What happens to all those faithful believers?

I believe your description of Church is too narrow. Catholic means universal. And being obedient is following His teachings. Doing what he taught us. Is the Catholic church doing only that?

Thanks for the opportunity to comment. God bless you all.

RICK, YOU MAKE A LOT OF HUGE ASSUMPTIONS IN YOUR NOTE ABOVE. IT IS USUALLY THE RESULT OF BEING STEEPED IN A TRADITION THAT OPPOSES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH — AS I WAS UNTIL 1994. THE CHURCH LOOKS DIFFERENT TODAY THAN 2,000 YEARS AGO — GRANTED. BUT THEN AGAIN YOU LOOK DIFFERENT NOW THAN YOU DID IN YOUR FIRST YEAR. YOU HAVE THINGS THAT YOU DID NOT HAVE THEN, LIKE TEETH AND HAIR AND QUITE A BIT OF SIZE. THE CHURCH DID NOT REMAIN THE SAME IN APPEARANCE ANY MORE THAN YOU DID. HOWEVER, ORGANICALLY IT IS THE SAME, AS YOU ARE ORGANICALLY THE SAME PERSON AS THE BABY.

I DON’T HAVE TIME TO RESPOND TO ALL YOUR OBJECTIONS BUT I WOULD SUGGEST YOU READ MY BOOKS “UPON THE ROCK” AND “CROSSING THE TIBER” WHICH DETAIL THIS CAREFULLY. I CAN’T TELL YOU THE HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS WHO HAVE DISCOVERED THE FULLNESS AND BEAUTY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THROUGH READING THEM.

GOD BLESS.

Ed June 10, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Rick,

So what you are saying is that the Church apostatized? That would mean that Jesus lied when he made these statements:

John 14:16, “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of Truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.”

John 14:26, “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name – he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.”

John 15:26, “When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.”

John 16:12-13, “But when he comes, the Spirit of Truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.”

Luke 10:16, “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

Matthew 16:18-19, “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on the earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”

I, for one, say Jesus did NOT lie, and the Church has kept His teachings complete, intact, and incorrupt after these 2000 years.

De Maria June 21, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Rick,

You said,
Thanks for the opportunity to comment. God bless you all.

And you as well.

Steve, thanks for your reply to my previous comment!. I find this topic most interesting and of most importance. Also, your blog is very well thought out.

To get back to your response:
Correct, Baptism is also necessary. And it has to be performed by His church. I agree. But Which is His Church?

This is De Maria. Please see my response to Armando, above, for my methodology.

There are teachings that the Roman Catholic Church practices today that the Primitive Church, the ONE Jesus established, did not. Practices that can be sinful in nature.

Name one such practice.

Wouldn’t that invalidate the Church as His?

If it were true. But it isn’t.

Like the Pharisees, where the church used to be the one God left for His people, but they walked astray.

What did Jesus say?
Matthew 23:1-3
King James Version (KJV)
1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Wouldn’t then, the Church be made of faithful followers?

What does Scripture say?
Matthew 13:30
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Those who do exactly what Jesus taught?

You might want to study the lives of the Saints. They are they which have done exactly what Jesus taught, in this life. That is why the Church holds them up as our models:
Hebrews 6:12
That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

And I refer here, to the Church as the sons and daughters of God, not a building.

Understood.

For example, where did Jesus teach his disciples to ask (pray) to Moses, Abraham or any other saint for help?

Luke 16:24
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame…..

Catholics today pray to many Saints depending on their needs.

Correct.

And on Mary, I’m certain Jesus has a very special place for her on heaven. Being his Earthly mother, she was a truly blessed woman, to be selected as the mother of our saviour. She had to have been full of God’s grace and love. I see the importance, her role had on God’s plan for our salvation. But, why should we pray to her?

Check out Job 42. Notice how God instructed Job’s friends to turn to Job. And have Job pray for them. And He would listen to Job’s prayers but not to theirs.

Same concept:
James 5:16
King James Version (KJV)
16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Furthermore, God never wanted us to have images of anything above of bellow,

God commanded the Hebrews to make the Cherubim (Exodus 25:18) and the bronze serpent (Num 21:9).

yet Catholic churches are full of sculptures and images. Images people sometimes use to pray and even kiss a Baby Jesus Sculpture at christmas time. Isn’t that sinful?

No. Do you carry pictures of your family in your wallet or on your phone? Have you ever kissed someone’s picture? I’m certain you weren’t showing your affection to the polaroid, if you did. Same concept. The Saints are our family, our brothers and sisters in Christ. Mary is our Mother (Rev 12:17). And we love our family in Christ.

Are we supposed to remain or go back to being a catholic when we see all these things?

Not if you don’t believe in them.

And what will happen to everyone who follows Jesus’ teachings. Those who confess him and repent and are baptized. Who feel the Holy Spirit in them, who start a very personal relationship with Our Loving Father. Who love him above all. Who do His will and by His Holy Grace, do good deeds to others. Those who pass His teachings to their children. Who do all of this but not on a Catholic building. Are those not, God’s sons and daughters? Are those not His Church? What happens to all those faithful believers?

God knows. God will judge.

The difference between the Catholic Church (and Orthodox) and other religions is that we are Sacramental. In the Sacraments, we are saved and walk upon Mount Sion, with the spirits of men made righteous, in this life.

All others will await the Judgement before they, if they are judged righteous, will enter heaven.

I believe your description of Church is too narrow. Catholic means universal. And being obedient is following His teachings. Doing what he taught us. Is the Catholic church doing only that?

The Catholic Church does it better than anyone else. Because she has the fullness of the Truth (1 Tim 3:15: Eph 3:10).

Sincerely,

De Maria

Amos July 9, 2012 at 1:57 AM

Its fun that people like Armando just like any other ignorant protestant(though am not saying Armando is ignorant) think that they know what Catholics uphold best than what Catholics know on the same .
I would to give any Protestant a challenge if he/she is willing prove to me that the Christian Doctrine as been changed as thought by the Early Christian and thought know by the Bishops…
Remember DOCTRINE and MORALS are different from PRACTICES..
If you do that then you could have set out a very strong basis to destroy the Church`s stand(Catholic Church`s teachings)

Armando Borja July 21, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Tom: Ah, but if it’s not the One Church founded by Christ, which one is? Which one, other than the Catholic Church, was around at the time of Christ (around as in just getting started, as was the Catholic Church)??? The short answer is “none”.

Armando: You are right, Tom. None off the churches today was obviously around in 34 AD, not even the Roman Catholic Church of today. But there is a church during that time and that is the church mentioned in the Bible.

Tom: Only the Catholic Church was alive and well in the year 34. Only the Catholic Church was alive and well in the years 134, 234, 334, 434, 534, etc etc. And, coincidentally, the name “Catholic” was first written (althought it may have been spoken earlier) in the year 110 by Ignatius of Antioch. Therefore, only the Catholic Church could be the Church spoken of by Christ (I will build MY Church) emphasis mine, and “The gates of Hell will not prevail against it”…meaning there will never be a time when the Catholic Church is not alive and well, otherwise Christ would be a liar, which He is not.

Armando: But, if we compare the teachings and practices of Roman Catholics today to the teachings of the first church in the Bible, it is clear that Roman Catholics today is not the same with the church mentioned in the Bible. For example, Christians in the Bible don’t pray to any saint, they don’t bow down and talk to images when they talk to a saint in heaven. They don’t believe the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is repeated in an unbloody manner during the mass (Heb 10:18). They don’t believe that Mary is Mediatrix of all grace (2Tm 2:5).

Even if Roman Catholic Church can trace their history back to the apostles, if the their teachings is different from what the apostles preached, they are disconnected to the apostles and the first church. Read this:

“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!” — Gal 1:8

Even the apostle Paul included himself to the “we” who may preach another gospel. If he do that — and he did not — he, together with others who preach another gospel, is accursed. Paul can trace his authority back to Christ just as Roman Catholic Church can , according to them, trace their history to the apostle. But even so, if they preach that which is different from what the apostles preached originally, they are accursed. Their historic traceability is irrelevant now. What they teach determines if they are a the true church.

You asked where is the true church today? Any church who continues to believe and preach the gospel preached by the opostles is the church of Christ. There were no time in history where nobody believe and preached what the apostles preach. And what the apostle preached is not what the Roman Catholic Church of today is preaching.

James August 2, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Armando, your use of Gal 1:8 is rediculous. Firstly, the Gospel Paul first preached was not from the scripture (not the New testament, anyway, which did not exist). Even the book of Galatians… Was written AFTER he already earlier preached ORALLY to the them (ie. tradition). What Galatians 1:8 is esssentially saying is “Believe what we already preached (verbally told) you! -and if we start telling you something different, question it!”

Secondly, Galatians, as a letter of scripture, arises because of some of the first sola scriptura folks, who claimed from sola scriptura, quite rightly, that the bible clearly taught that every convert must be circumcised. I’m not even goona go through all that; just recall that the entire OT teaches this and there was no real NT at the time of these controversies, and even the four gospels do not repudiate circumcision. In fact, the only places that repudiate circumcision are Galatians (being written in response these sola scriptura “Judiazers”) and Acts Chapter 15, written, very clearly, regarding the some controversy. In fact, Acts Chapter 15 records what is the first “ecumenical council” to decide something that scripture does not address clearly and authoritatively and must be addressed by the Holy Spirit working through the CHURCH. There were to be seven more such councils i nthe next 700 years, addressing everything from The trinity, Jesus’s human and divine natures (and by extension, that of his mother as the Theotokos), to veneration fo Icons, etc). There have been other local councils, such as in North Africa, that in 393 even finally answered the question as to what books are part of the Bible!

The truth is, the bible arises out of “Tradition”, and is rightfully interpreted out of Tradition. Tradition is also the only way we know that all the first Apostles chose torture and death rather than recant their belief that they personally witnessed and spoke with the risen Christ. The accounts of them being crucified upside down, or being roasted alive, or having their skin flayed off while alive, etc.. these accounts are not in the bible. Even the account of Paul does not end with him being beheaded (tradition), but being old and happily preaching from prison, awaiting the day he will soon be with the Lord (scripture does not say if he expected to be killed to just die old). In essence, we can’t know the scripture itself was just “made up” at some early point by clever liars. We only reasonably believe this because of the traditions that support the bibles origins. We essentially believe because 12 different someone’s died for Jesus; this was witnessed by others, who passed this on to others, etc… down to the present times.

I had one comment as well about what you said with regard to the end times, when people fall away from the faith… This does not bode well for the protestant movement in particular since protestantism nicely fits this scripture as people leave the hsitoric church in droves. The fact that it has been happening for 500 years.. well those 500 are 500 “mere” years in light of a 2000 year old church; and with God, a thousand years are as a day… so for a last half day, apostasy HAS been happening. People are starting their OWN churches, theological doctrines based on their OWN understanding of scripture and have left their shepherds (bishops).

Shalom, James

Armando September 9, 2012 at 12:53 PM

De Maria: Armando, the Church of Scripture is the Catholic Church:

Armando: Do you mean the Roman Catholic Church? What verse?

De Maria: First, Jesus Christ appointed a Pastor as head of the entire Church: John 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Armando: Nothing in the above Bible verse says that Peter was appointed by Christ as the head of the entire church. Your interpretation contradicts other parts of the Scripture that are clear and direct. Your interpretation contradicts the following.

Ephesians 5:23 Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body.

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy:

Ephesians 1:22 And he hath subjected all things under his feet, and hath made him head over all the church,

Christ is the head of the entire church. He did not appoint another head of the entire church.

What eight Scriptures show that there is no foundation in the Scriptures for the Papacy?
Scripture one: Christ taught that all the apostles were equal. Matthew 23:10: ‘Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ; and ye are all brethren.’ Matthew 23:11: ‘But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.’ In Mark 10:42, when the disciples strove among each other for supremacy, Jesus said: ‘Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and their great ones exercise authority upon them.’ Mark 10:43: ‘But so shall it not be among you; but whosoever will be great among you shall be your minister.’ Mark 10:44: ‘And whosoever of you will be the chiefest shall be servant of all.’ Mark 10:45: ‘For even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.’ From these passages it is evident that Christ conferred no superiority upon Peter, for if He had the strife could not have arisen, and Christ would have referred to His grant of supremacy to Peter.
Scripture two: Peter himself nowhere alludes to such supremacy. He says rather: ‘The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ.’ (I Peter 5:1) He here calls himself an elder and witness, but nowhere the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth.
Scripture three: Peter was sent by the other apostles to Samaria: ‘Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John.’ (Acts 8:14) Just think of ‘His Holiness’ the Pope being sent by the Cardinals to preach the Gospel! It is well known that for many years Popes have not preached at all.
Scripture four: A council of the apostles and brethren was held at Jerusalem, Peter was present, and yet the sentence of James was followed (Acts 15:6-29).
Scripture five: The apostle Paul declares in 2 Corinthians 11:5 that he was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles, which is inconsistent with the notion of Peter’s supremacy.
Scripture six: Peter, James and John are called pillars. ‘James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars.’ (Galatians 2:9)Because Peter was a pillar he was not the foundation.
Scripture seven: ‘Paul withstood Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed.’ (Galatians 2:11) It is hardly the attitude to an ‘Infallible Pope.’
Scripture eight: When Paul enumerates the various officers of the church he does not say: ‘First the chief apostle’ or ‘the vicar of Christ, Jesus Christ upon earth’ or ‘the father of kings and princes,’ but ‘apostles’ (Ephesians 4:11).

De Maria: I see only a few Churches with such a Pastor. Further, Jesus Christ said that the Pastor over His Church would be infallible:
Matthew 16:17-19 (King James Version) 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Armando: Nothing in these verses says that the Pastor over His Church is infallible.

Perhaps they don’t tell you that Pope Honorius was condemned by the Sixth General Council in 681 and was denounced as a heretic by every Pope who succeeded him until the 11th century. Innocent I and Galacius I were condemned by the Council of Trent. Also, on various occasions two people have at the same time claimed to be Pope, and each has cursed the other as an impostor.

If your Popes were infallible, they would have not been condemned by other popes and church councils. Your church history proves that popes are fallible.

De Maria: Jesus Christ not only said that the Pastor was infallible but Scripture describes the Church as infallible: Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Armando: Infallibility,according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, is the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals.

The verse De Maria used is not about infallibility of the church. The “manifold wisdom of God” refers to the new relationship between believing Jews and Gentiles in one body.

This wisdom is not communicated here by teaching.

The medium by which this wisdom is known is the church itself; the recipients are the angelic hosts “in the heavenly realms” (cf. Eph. 1:3). Not people.

These “rulers and authorities” refer to both good and evil angel. As the angelic hosts witness the church, they must admit that having Jews and Gentiles in one body is evidence of God’s wisdom.

It is clear that the church in the said verse was not making a definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals. The church is not teaching angelic beings in heavenly places.

Ephesians 3:10 does not support your stand on the infallibility of you church. You are missing the point of the verse.

De Maria: Back to Matt 16:18, Scripture says that Jesus Christ established one Church. History shows that all the Churches sprang from the Church which is frequently described as the Mother Church. The Catholic Church.
By simple logic of elimination, that leaves only the Catholic Church.
Churches who are faithful to the teachings of the apostles, separates from the Church of Rome in obedience to the following verses in the Bible:

1Corinthians 6:14-17
Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore, Go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing:

That’s why we separate from you, Roman Catholic Church.

De Maria: Further, the Catholic Church can produce records tracing back to Apostolic times.

Armando: But, if we compare the teachings and practices of Roman Catholics today to the teachings of the first church in the Bible, it is clear that the Roman Catholic Chrich today is not the same with the church mentioned in the Bible. For example, Christians in the Bible don’t pray to any saint in heaven, they don’t bow down and talk to images as a way of talking saints in heaven. They don’t believe the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is repeated in an unbloody manner during the mass (Heb 10:18). They don’t believe that Mary is Mediatrix of all grace (2Tim 2:5).

Even if Roman Catholic Church can trace their history back to the apostles, if the their teachings is different from what the apostles preached, they are disconnected to the apostles and the first church. Read this:
“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!” — Gal 1:8

Even the apostle Paul included himself to the “we” who may preach another gospel. If he do that — and he did not — he, together with others who preach another gospel, is accursed. Paul can trace his authority back to Christ just as Roman Catholic Church can , according to her, trace their history back to the apostles. But even so, if they preach that which is different from what the apostles preached originally, they are accursed. Their historic traceability is irrelevant now. What the Roman Catholic Church teaches today tells us that she is not the true church founded by Christ.

De Maria: Scripture says that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth: 1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
God is here saying that the Church always upholds the truth. I believe God. Therefore, I conclude that the Church is infallible.

Armando: But the Roman Catholic Church does not uphold the truth. Her teachings are inconsistent and contradictory the Holy Scripture. The Roman Church, for example, make the people believe that the bread in the Mass becomes God after a priest consecrate it. That’s is idolatry.

De Maria, why don’t you go to your room and sincerely talked to God about what I wrote here. Ask him to to show you whether what I told you here is true or not.

I will answer James when I have time. I will try to show James how he missed the point.

Elizabeth Cole September 25, 2013 at 2:43 PM

I grew up Catholic, left off practice of my faith, then wandered around several churches before coming back. It just seemed like the preaching I was hearing treated the Bible like Ann Landers, and people wanted to be soothed rather than challenged. There would be preaching and singing but no Eucharist. It’s like foreplay without consummation.

The one time I was handed a tray of cut up Wonder Bread and shot glasses of grape juice, I asked the person sitting next to me, “What is this?” They answered, “Bread and grape juice.” I passed the tray without taking any. At that time, I didn’t even really explicitly, consciously know the doctrine of the Real Presence but I knew it in my bones, and I knew that was a pale imitation. I thought, I don’t care if there is a world-class university professor organist here, a shot glass of grape juice just shattered my illusions. These people can’t even share a communion cup, what can they teach me about loving my neighbor?

My Dad had taught me years ago about shadow and substance. I felt like I was in the land of shadows–pale imitations. Only Catholicism and Orthodoxy have substance–the Real thing.

If it’s not the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of God’s dearly beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, then…to hell with it. (Paraphrasing Flannery O’Connor)

Elizabeth Couch September 25, 2013 at 4:40 PM

If both sides of this debate would unite and stop keeping score of who is winning over whom and realize that this world is completely full of causes that we both agree on and actually work together, wouldn’t it be amazing what we could accomplish? Whether either side wants to admit it or not, we are brothers and sisters in Christ. This doctrine fighting just tears us apart, which is the way the enemy conquers.

De Maria June 29, 2014 at 1:39 AM

I’m surprised that I missed this message. I’ll respond to it just for practice.

Armando: Do you mean the Roman Catholic Church? What verse?

Pretty much the entire New Testament.

Which Church has one Shepherd appointed by Christ?

John 21:17

New International Version (NIV)
17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.

Which Church passes down the Keys to the Kingdom to every generation?
Matthew 16:18-19

King James Version (KJV)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Which Church claims infallibility?
1 Timothy 3:15

King James Version (KJV)
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Ephesians 3:10

King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Which Church provides Baptism of water?
John 3:5

King James Version (KJV)
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Acts 22:16

King James Version (KJV)
16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Which Church still expects Christians to keep the Ten Commandments?
Revelation 22:14

King James Version (KJV)
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Which Church teaches Apostolic Succession?
2 Timothy 2:2

King James Version (KJV)
2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

Etc. etc.

The Catholic Church is described in Scripture.

Armando: Nothing in the above Bible verse says that Peter was appointed by Christ as the head of the entire church.

Yes, it does. When Jesus tells St. Peter to feed His sheep, He is appointing him the Shepherd of His Flock, the Church.

Your interpretation contradicts other parts of the Scripture that are clear and direct. Your interpretation contradicts the following.

Ephesians 5:23 Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body.

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy:

Ephesians 1:22 And he hath subjected all things under his feet, and hath made him head over all the church,

Christ is the head of the entire church.

Yes, He is.

He did not appoint another head of the entire church.

Yes, He did.

What eight Scriptures show that there is no foundation in the Scriptures for the Papacy?
Scripture one: Christ taught that all the apostles were equal. Matthew 23:10: ‘Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ; and ye are all brethren.’ Matthew 23:11: ‘But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.’ In Mark 10:42, when the disciples strove among each other for supremacy, Jesus said: ‘Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and their great ones exercise authority upon them.’ Mark 10:43: ‘But so shall it not be among you; but whosoever will be great among you shall be your minister.’ Mark 10:44: ‘And whosoever of you will be the chiefest shall be servant of all.’ Mark 10:45: ‘For even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.’ From these passages it is evident that Christ conferred no superiority upon Peter, for if He had the strife could not have arisen, and Christ would have referred to His grant of supremacy to Peter.

You are still intentionally sidestepping the passages I provided. Those Scriptures do not contradict the ones I provided. The Scriptures I provided contradict your interpretation. In fact, you have purposely avoided interpreting those Scriptures because you know that they explicitly say that Jesus appointed St. Peter the Shepherd of His Flock just as the Catholic Church Teaches today.

Scripture two: Peter himself nowhere alludes to such supremacy. He says rather: ‘The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ.’ (I Peter 5:1) He here calls himself an elder and witness, but nowhere the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth.

He didn’t need to say it. Christ already said it. The important thing is that he didn’t deny it.

Scripture three: Peter was sent by the other apostles to Samaria: ‘Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John.’ (Acts 8:14) Just think of ‘His Holiness’ the Pope being sent by the Cardinals to preach the Gospel! It is well known that for many years Popes have not preached at all.

They preach everyday. They say the Mass everyday and it always includes a homily. And they hold General Audience every week.

Scripture four: A council of the apostles and brethren was held at Jerusalem, Peter was present, and yet the sentence of James was followed (Acts 15:6-29).

It Peter’s sentence which was followed. St. James, as Bishop of Jerusalem, closed the meeting. But all obeyed Peter’s word.

Scripture five: The apostle Paul declares in 2 Corinthians 11:5 that he was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles, which is inconsistent with the notion of Peter’s supremacy.

St. Paul also said:
1 Corinthians 15:9King James Version (KJV)
9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Scripture six: Peter, James and John are called pillars. ‘James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars.’ (Galatians 2:9)Because Peter was a pillar he was not the foundation.

This is merely a different metaphor. Jesus called him the Rock. I believe Jesus.

Scripture seven: ‘Paul withstood Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed.’ (Galatians 2:11) It is hardly the attitude to an ‘Infallible Pope.’

St. Peter was not teaching. St. Peter was eating with the Jews and St. Paul wanted him to continue eating with the Gentiles. It has nothing to do with infallibility.

Scripture eight: When Paul enumerates the various officers of the church he does not say: ‘First the chief apostle’ or ‘the vicar of Christ, Jesus Christ upon earth’ or ‘the father of kings and princes,’ but ‘apostles’ (Ephesians 4:11).

So what? Does he deny it? You are simply arguing from silence. He was free to say anything he wanted.

Armando: Nothing in these verses says that the Pastor over His Church is infallible.

If this verse doesn’t say that Peter is infallible, it doesn’t say anything at all:

Matthew 16:17-19 (King James Version) 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven, is, by definition, infallibility.

Perhaps they don’t tell you that Pope Honorius was condemned by the Sixth General Council in 681 and was denounced as a heretic by every Pope who succeeded him until the 11th century.

Pope Honorius was not condemned for what he said or did, but for neglecting to do what he needed to do. Infallibility is about preaching the Truth. In fact, that very council confirmed the infallibility of the Papacy, explicitly, in its writings.

Innocent I and Galacius I were condemned by the Council of Trent.

Luther’s doctrines were condemned at the Council of Trent. I’ve never heard that any Popes were condemned. You’ll have to provide the documentation.

Also, on various occasions two people have at the same time claimed to be Pope, and each has cursed the other as an impostor.

And the authentic Pope was right. So, that does not affect infallibility.

If your Popes were infallible,

They are.

they would have not been condemned by other popes and church councils. Your church history proves that popes are fallible.

You don’t understand the Doctrine of infallibility. Popes are infallible when they Teach Christian Doctrine to the entire Church ex-Cathedra, that is, from the See of Peter.

Armando: Infallibility,according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, is the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals.

There you go. So, why did you make those comments above? Were you simply lying?

The verse De Maria used is not about infallibility of the church. The “manifold wisdom of God” refers to the new relationship between believing Jews and Gentiles in one body.

Lol! You’re reaching. Or, perhaps that is what that means to you. But, the “manifold wisdom of God” is what the Church Teaches. The Church speaks for Jesus Christ, speaks for God, in this world:

2 Corinthians 5:20King James Version (KJV)
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

This wisdom is not communicated here by teaching.

Yes indeed it is. In Sacred Tradition and in Scripture.

The medium by which this wisdom is known is the church itself; the recipients are the angelic hosts “in the heavenly realms” (cf. Eph. 1:3). Not people.

Those who partake of the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, dwell in the heavenly realms:
Hebrews 12:22-24King James Version (KJV)
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

These “rulers and authorities” refer to both good and evil angel. As the angelic hosts witness the church, they must admit that having Jews and Gentiles in one body is evidence of God’s wisdom.

It is clear that the church in the said verse was not making a definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals. The church is not teaching angelic beings in heavenly places.

Ephesians 3:10 does not support your stand on the infallibility of you church. You are missing the point of the verse.

It is you who are missing the point. Heaven is in eternity. The Catholic Church will be teaching the Wisdom of God IN ALL ETERNITY.

Churches who are faithful to the teachings of the apostles, separates from the Church of Rome in obedience to the following verses in the Bible:

1Corinthians 6:14-17
Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore, Go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing:

That’s why we separate from you, Roman Catholic Church.

Satan has fooled you. The Catholic Church has brought the light of Christ to the entire world. In separating yourself from the Catholic Church, you have separated yourself from the Body of Jesus Christ.

Armando: But, if we compare the teachings and practices of Roman Catholics today to the teachings of the first church in the Bible, it is clear that the Roman Catholic Chrich today is not the same with the church mentioned in the Bible.

I have done so above, Armando. The Catholic Church is described in Scripture. Protestants are also described:
2 Timothy 4:3King James Version (KJV)
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

For example, Christians in the Bible don’t pray to any saint in heaven,

Luke 16:24King James Version (KJV)
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, ….

they don’t bow down and talk to images as a way of talking saints in heaven.

That is true. But it is not forbidden. Especially since we take Jesus as our example and He spoke to Saints in heaven:
Mark 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.

They don’t believe the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is repeated in an unbloody manner during the mass (Heb 10:18).

Yes, they do. You should have read a little bit further:
Hebrews 10:25-31King James Version (KJV)
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

To what do you think verse 29 is making reference if not the Eucharist?

They don’t believe that Mary is Mediatrix of all grace (2Tim 2:5).

Yes, they do.
Revelation 12:17King James Version (KJV)
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Even if Roman Catholic Church can trace their history back to the apostles, if the their teachings is different from what the apostles preached, they are disconnected to the apostles and the first church. Read this:
“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!” — Gal 1:8

1st. The Teachings of the Catholic Church are identical to the Teachings of the Apostles.
2nd. But the teachings of the Protestants contradict the Teachings of the Apostles. 2 examples:

Protestants set Tradition aside and say, “By Scripture alone!” But Scripture says:
2 Thessalonians 2:15King James Version (KJV)
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

And Protestants set works aside and say, “By faith alone!” But Scripture says:
James 2:24King James Version (KJV)
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Therefore it is Protestants who preach a new gospel and are accursed, as Scripture dictates.

Even the apostle Paul included himself to the “we” who may preach another gospel. If he do that — and he did not — he, together with others who preach another gospel, is accursed. Paul can trace his authority back to Christ just as Roman Catholic Church can , according to her, trace their history back to the apostles. But even so, if they preach that which is different from what the apostles preached originally, they are accursed. Their historic traceability is irrelevant now. What the Roman Catholic Church teaches today tells us that she is not the true church founded by Christ.

It is the Protestants who preach another gospel, as I have shown. Therefore it is they who, by your admission, are accursed.

Armando: But the Roman Catholic Church does not uphold the truth. Her teachings are inconsistent and contradictory the Holy Scripture. The Roman Church, for example, make the people believe that the bread in the Mass becomes God after a priest consecrate it. That’s is idolatry.

Jesus is God. And Jesus said that the bread which He gave for the life of the world is His flesh (John 6:51). And Jesus also said:
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

De Maria, why don’t you go to your room and sincerely talked to God about what I wrote here. Ask him to to show you whether what I told you here is true or not.

You do the same Armando. I am a revert to the Catholic Faith. Long ago, I compared the doctrines of the Protestants to the Scriptures and I found that they contradict the Word of God. Every single Protestant doctrine that contradicts the Catholic Church, also contradicts Scripture.

God bless you,

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria June 29, 2014 at 1:48 AM

Elizabeth Couch September 25, 2013 at 4:40 PM
If both sides of this debate would unite and stop keeping score of who is winning over whom and realize that this world is completely full of causes that we both agree on and actually work together, wouldn’t it be amazing what we could accomplish? Whether either side wants to admit it or not, we are brothers and sisters in Christ. This doctrine fighting just tears us apart, which is the way the enemy conquers.

I think, or hope, we all yearn for unity. But the existence of heretics is permitted by God in order to highlight the infallible Teaching of the Church:
1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Leave a Comment

 

Previous post:

Next post: