One interesting and especially dark corner of this conversation about Mary is the unwillingness to believe that she remained a virgin all her life. In teaching Confirmation classes, the teenagers were completely incredulous. In our post-modern way of seeing things, that is an inpossible sacrifice, and one not worth making even if it were possible.

By focusing on ourselves, we become so small that we cannot see the vastness into which we are invited.

Thanks Mark. Textured post. I’m still thinking about it. And feeling sheepish because I don’t give Mary enough time.

And pride and power? You nailed it. So many of my worldly encounters have been with folks whose engine in life has been powered by hubris and not humility. To which I confess. To put it succinctly, our credo had been that we were special, i.e., better and entitled––of course, the corollary of that is you’re not. Our hubris, our excessive pride, our arrogance had been nothing more than a form of self-idolatry.

As for me, it kept me from God. It made me unwise. And it generated behavior and consequences that weren’t positive or in my self-interest. 

Mary’s surrender to God is a great lesson.

Unfortunately, Mark, your post will probably get very few comments from the ‘general’ NCRegister reader (these types of posts usually do???)... but I sincerely hope (and pray) that the young struggling Catholic will take heed.

And, as they (whoever they are) say… you did good my friend - you did good!

Matthew 18:4 - “Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

Matthew 11:11 - “Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”

I looked in the Beattitudes. I can find “Blessed are the powerful”.

Oops, I meant I cannot find “Blessed are the powerful”.

That’s awesome Mark.  I think it was St. Louis who said God chose the least powerful and most humble creature (Mary) to wield the power of His grace for us because it drives the most powerful and proud creature (the devil) nuts.

Mark,
  The source of the perpetual virginity of Mary is the “Protoevangelium of James,” generally conidered to have been written in the middle of the second century.  It also is the source of the names of Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anna, and the Josephite marriage.  The document is very detailed about Marys’s early life and “marriage” to Joseph, an aged widower who didn’t want the marriage.  It is so detailed that you have to accept it as revelation and make it part of the canon, or you have to reject it as a fable.  The Church has always rejected it.  To this day, the Roman Catholic Church regards it as fraudulent, and yet teaches its contents as sacred truth.  How do you justify that?  How can you justify teaching something the apostles never even heard of?

No, Everett.  The source of the doctrine is the fact that Mary was perpetually a virgin and the whole Church remembered this fact, beginning with the apostles.  The Protoevangelium of James reflects the existence of this tradition and incorporates it into a legend about Mary, but it does not originate the tradition.  You might as well say that “Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter” is the source of our belief that Abraham Lincoln existed and was President.  No.  “Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter” is, like the Protoevangelium, a fictional tale which refers to a tradition which precedes it. One can distinguish between the fiction and the real traditions that fiction exploits to tell a story.  That’s why the Church rejects the fictional book, but retains the real tradition just as we are not forced to conclude that, because “Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter” is fictional, therefore Abe never existed and never was President.

Once we are done discussing the meaning of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, we will take a look at the strong evidence for the historicity of it.

And, by the way, nothing so clearly demonstrates the provincialism of the anti-Catholic American Protestant polemicist as the insistence on attributing some belief common to all the apostolic Churches east and west—from Catholic to Orthodox to Copt to Chaldean to the Thomas Churches of India—to the “Roman Catholic Church”.  It’s like the entire Eastern Church doesn’t even exist for these people.  I’m sure the Orthodox Patriarchs in their sundry sees will be grateful to know that they only believe all that rubbish about Mary because the Pope of Rome commands them to do so.

Mark,
  Since Mary’s perpetual virginity is mentioned neither by the apostles nor the apostolic fathers, what evidence do you have that it’s an apostolic tradition?  The earliest father I know to mention it was Terullian, and he rejected it.

Patience.  As I said, we will discuss the evidence for the historicity of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary in a week or two.

@Everett
How is it that “the apostles never heard of” the hidden life of Mary when John took her into his home (Jn 19:27)?  You think they didn’t talk?

I went through a phase in my life when I really liked some of the New Testament Apocrypha out there. There is no way to tell how much is pious legend or remembered gossip; and nothing in them is vital for salvation; but they do paint another picture than the Gospels about Jesus’ and Mary’s lives.

My favorite (and I doubt strongly it ever happened) were the stories of Jesus using the power of resurrection in childhood, innocently, just like a child might (resurrecting a young playmate who died falling off the aqueduct to testify that Jesus did NOT, as accused, push him. I don’t think Nazareth was a big enough town to have an aqueduct at the time, for one. And I seem to remember another story about resurrecting a bird that had fallen out of a nest.)

But like I say- more myth than fact. There was also a later one about the Apostle John, and something about a plow that Christ himself had created in Joseph’s woodworking shop, as well as of course mention of the still living Virgin.

But NOTHING necessary to believe for salvation- and NOT a part of public revelation at all, just gossipy stories about a child, written down long after the fact.

And therein I believe lies our answer.  Our modern version of Mary, cobbled together from oral tradition, is useful for pointing men towards Christ- one cannot meditate on the mysteries of the Rosary without seeing Christ- but Christ alone in necessary for salvation. 

MARK,
Can’t wait to see you write on the perpetual virginity of Mary. Should be interesting.

Craig,
  You have no evidence they talked about Mary’s perpetual virginity or anything else. Speculation is a poor substitute for evidence.

Mark,
  I wasn’t implying that Rome was the only part of the Church to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary; it actually originated in the East, and early on, they were the most zealous champions of the doctrine.  But this is not an Orthodox blog.  The"Abraham Lincoln,Vampire Hunter,” is a false analogy.  There is a plethora of evidence about the presidency of Lincoln.  There is no evidence connecting the “Protevangelium” to apostolic tradition.  Conservative Catholic historians Warren Carroll and Luigi Gambero both mention the “Protoevangelium” in their histories. 
Both admit it’s apocraphal.  Both had good things to say about it.  Both said it was based on tradition.  Neither claimed the tradition was apostolic.  I’m sure they would have like to.
  I’m looking forward to your post on the perpetual virginity of Mary historically.  I’ll respond Scriptually.
  Incidentally, or ,perhaps, not incidentally, I’m not Protestant. 

“I wasn’t implying that Rome was the only part of the Church to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary”

That’s true.  You weren’t implying it.  You were *saying* it: “To this day, the Roman Catholic Church regards it as fraudulent”

By the way, the Church does not regard it as “fraudelent”.  Merely as non-canonical.  The Church also has not canonized Caesar’s Gallic Wars or Josephus.  That doesn’t mean they are historically false.  The Protoevangelium may contain a great deal of historical memory.  But even if the whole thing is a pious legend it does not make the Perpetual Virginity of Mary false—which was my point.

@Everett
Evidence?  You think they lived together and worshipped together and waited on the Holy Spirit together along with all the other early apostles and they didn’t bother to learn about her?  That’s just silly.  By that logic you would have to reject the Annunciation and the entire nativity narrative.

There just is no way to claim that Mary was a perpetual virgin so long as we have the gospel accounts. To many examples of her own children mentioned.

@Justin- Aramaic isn’t that straightforward about “her own children” either way.  The Protoevangelion claims they were Joseph’s children from previous marriages; also possible in both Koine Greek and Aramaic from the culture in question is that they were cousins- John the Baptist is also referred to as Jesus’ brother.

Ted,
Aramaic has nothing to do with it since the gospels were written in Greek. What is the Protoevangelion?

A book of rumors about the Holy Family witten in the 2nd Century, attributed to James though certainly written after his death.  But the Greek is the same, this was common practice in the Alexandrian Empire for 200 years before Christ was born.

Mary must have been a woman steeped in the OT. Just look at how her prayer in Luke 1:46-56. She would have known that to have many children would be a blessing of the Lord and something she would have wanted. The evidence of the gospels shows that this was indeed the case.
Any book written in the 2nd century could not have been written by James.

Perhaps (?) something to seriously ponder:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/talmud.htm

Ted Seeber,
  The New Testament wasn’t written in Hebrew or Aramaic; it was written in Greek and the word used ,adelphos, is never used for cousin or distant relative; it’s the Greek for natural brother.

Mark,
  If the Protoevangelium is merely a pious legend, then it does make the perpetual virginity false; it’s the earliest source we have for that doctrine.  Neither the author of the document nor the scores of fathers who believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity ever claimed it was apostolic tradition.

Mark,
I erred in using the word “fraudulent.”  Mea Culpa.

@Everett
It was translated from those languages into Greek.  When translating you cannot introduce words and expressions that don’t exist in the original language.

@Everett

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
by Dr. Robert Schihl

Fathers of the Church

Church Fathers from at least the fourth century spoke of Mary as having remained a virgin throughout her life:

Athanasius (Alexandria, 293-373);
Epiphanius (Palestine, 315?-403);
Jerome (Stridon, present day Yugoslavia, 345?-419);
Augustine (Numidia, now Algeria, 354-430);
Cyril (Alexandria, 376-444);
and others.

Teaching of the Universal Church

The Council of Constantinople II (553-554) twice referred to Mary as “ever-virgin.”

Protestant Reformers

The protestant reformers affirmed their belief that Mary, while remaining every-virgin, was truly the Mother of God. Here are only a few examples:

Martin Luther (1483-1546), On the Divine Motherhood of Mary, wrote:

In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such great good things were given her that no one can grasp them. ... Not only was Mary the mother of him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572.)

Luther wrote on the Virginity of Mary:

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

The French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) also held that Mary was the Mother of God.

It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. ... Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary as at the same time the eternal God. (Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35.)

Calvin also up held the perpetual virginity of Mary, as did the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), who wrote:

I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

Objections

There are some very common objections to the belief that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus.

1) The Bible frequently speaks of the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus.

First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these “brothers and sisters” of Jesus were children of Mary.

Second, the word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Aramaic and other semitic languages could not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a cousin, for example. Hence, John the Baptist, a cousin of Jesus (the son of Elizabeth, cousin of Mary) would be called “a brother (adelphos) of Jesus.” In the plural, the word means a community based on identity of origin or life. Additionally, the word adelphos is used for (1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2); (2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23); (3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19); (4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17); (5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29); (6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47); (7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (8) mankind (Mt 25:40); (9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and (10) believers (Mt 23:8). (From Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.)

2) A second objection to Mary’s virginity arises from the use of the word heos in Matthew’s gospel. “He (Joseph) had no relations with her at any time before (heos) she bore a son, whom he named Jesus” (Mt 1:25, NAB).

The Greek and the Semitic use of the word heos (until or before) does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated. In this case, there is no necessary implication that Joseph and Mary had sexual contact or other children after Jesus.

3) A third objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary arises from the use of the word prototokos, translated ‘first-born’ in Luke’s gospel.

But the Greek word prototokos is used of Christ as born of Mary and of Christ’s relationship to His Father (Col 1:25). As the word does not imply other children of God the Father, neither does it imply other children of Mary.

The term “first-born” was a legal term under the Mosaic Law (Ex 6:14) referring to the first male child born to Jewish parents regardless of any other children following or not. Hence when Jesus is called the “first-born” of Mary it does not mean that there were second or third-born children.

@Dismas
Dang man.  That was solid.

There are Greek words for cousin—anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36. The bible never uses these two Greek words anepsiosor and sungenisin reference to Jesus brothers. If the brothers and sisters mentioned in connection with Jesus in Matt 13:55-56 were really his cousins Matthew would have used anepsiosor or sungenisin and not adelphós which denotes a blood relative.

@Jerome
Once again.  If Matthew started in Hebrew and got translated into Greek, changing the Hebrew word into a Greek word that does not exist in Hebrew would be a no-no.  The potential for a corruption of the original is to great to risk.

For example:  If you say, “I’m mad.”  Your translator must use the closest possible word for ‘mad’.  If they take the initiative and use a more precise word it may come out as “I’m crazy.” when you meant “I’m angry.” or visa versa.

Craig,
There are no manuscripts of the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew . All we have are Greek manuscripts. “All surviving ancient manuscripts of the New Testament or parts thereof, whether complete or fragmentary, were written in Greek.  This includes virtually complete Uncial manuscripts from the fourth and fifth centuries such as Codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, as well as a large array of ancient papyri, most of which are fragmentary.  Some of the papyri manuscripts date back to the first half of the second century.  In contrast, there are no surviving manuscripts of an original Hebrew or Aramaic New Testament, assuming such ever existed.” The Original Language of the New Testament
By David Maas

@Jerome
True, but you’re still over thinking it.  We don’t know if Matthew even spoke, much less read and wrote, Greek.  Matthew probably dictated the gospel to a scribe.  It doesn’t matter.  All it shows is the eventual futility of sola scriptura.  Martin Luther would be appalled if he knew what kind of exegesis his legacy would inspire.

Ya see, THIS is why papal infallibility is essential to a true handing down of the faith.  Without the Holy Spirit acting in a special capacity to avoid egregious errors mankind would be doomed to live in darkness.

Craig,
All that we can go by is what we have. The entire NT was written in Greek. There is no Hebrew manuscript for Matthew. This tells us that he wrote in Greek.
Where has any pope spoken infallibly on this issue? What pope said infallibly that Matthew wrote in Hebrew?

@Jerome
The perpetual virginity of Mary has been a dogma of the Church for one thousand years before the reformation.  And you’re lost in a sea of semantics.  What the Church has to ‘go by’ is the Holy Spirit.  Jesus Christ guaranteed that a bunch of uneducated rubes would set the world on fire and prevail against all odds and all errors until the end of time.  How?  Not by their own power, but His.

We don’t call it ‘faith’ for nuffin.  The Holy Spirit is required to discern the truth.  That’s why Christ is a “stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks.”  (1 Cor 1:23)

Craig,
  The Scriptures warned about i.e. false teachers would come into the church and deceive many. See 2 Peter 2:1 for example. The perpetual virginity of Mary was not taught by the apostles nor could it have been since the NT clearly shows that Mary did have her own children.  This is doctrine is not of the Holy Spirit for the mere fact that the Spirit would be contradicting the very Scriptures for which He is the author of.

Jerome…dude!  Don’t believe the false teachers!  The gates of hell will not prevail against His one holy and apostolic Church.  Trying to split hairs over verses that seem to contradict the teaching of the Church is how the false prophets operate. But don’t worry, “The kingdom of God doesn’t depend on words, but on power.”  (1 Cor 4:20)

“The perpetual virginity of Mary was not taught by the apostles nor could it have been since the NT clearly shows that Mary did have her own children.”

No.  The NT shows no such thing.  There is actually no evidence at all that Jesus had siblings.  None.  That you think there is simply shows that you have not done your homework.  We will discuss the evidence for the PVoM in a week or two.  Meanwhile, consider the possibility that Catholic teachers have, after all, read the Bible and considered these elementary objections that every fundamentalist with a Bible seems to think he is the first person to have raised.

It’s the amazing provincialism that just stuns me.  Like the anti-science crackpot who says, “If the earth rotates then why isn’t there a constant breeze? Huh?  Answer that, smart guy!  Huh?  Huh?  See how God has made foolish the wisdom of the worldly wise!  I have simple Christian faith and I’m smarter than all you edjimacated people put together!  Behold my prophetic biblical faith shattering the intellectual strongholds of the apostate!”

Consider, just for a second, that somebody in 2000 years of Catholic history, besides you, has taken a look at the passages in the NT that speak of the brothers of the Lord.  Just consider it.  Ask yourself if it’s really likely that all Catholic for all of history have all been blithering morons until God suddenly enlightened you to the existence of these passages.

Craig,
It is the Scriptures themselves that protect us from error. That is why they warn of false teachers and their false teachings that can deceive people. Jesus never promised that church leaders could not err. Men can and will deceive. Just look at the history of your church and you will find abundant examples of it not being guided by the Holy Spirit . False prophets will present some truths but will also have error in their teachings. The errors can seen in how they contradict the Scripture. We see this in the teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary. Scripture clearly shows she had her on children after Jesus.
BTW- you know you have the truth when it lines up with the Scripture on every detail.

Jerome:

If you are married or know someone who is, does their marriage line up with Scripture on every detail?

“Top 10 Ways to Find a Wife, According to the Bible”):

10. Find an attractive prisoner of war, bring her home, shave her head, trim her nails, and give her new clothes. Then she’s yours. – (Deuteronomy 21:11-13)
9. Find a prostitute and marry her. – (Hosea 1:1-3)
8. Find a man with seven daughters, and impress him by watering his flock.- Moses (Exodus 2:16-21)
7. Purchase a piece of property, and get a woman as part of the deal. – Boaz (Ruth 4:5-10)
6. Go to a party and hide. When the women come out to dance, grab one and carry her off to be your wife. – Benjaminites (Judges 21:19-25)
5. Have God create a wife for you while you sleep.-Adam (Genesis 2:19-24)
4. Kill any husband and take his wife. -David (2 Samuel 11)
3. Cut 200 foreskins off of your future father-in-law’s enemies and get his daughter for a wife -David (I Samuel 18:27)
2. Even if no one is out there, just wander around a bit and you’ll definitely find someone. -Cain (Genesis 4:16-17)
1. Don’t be so picky. Make up for quality with quantity. – Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-3)

If you think I’m being flippant, please answer a serious question: how do you contract a valid marriage, according to the Bible?  With whom?  With how many wives.  Please show your work.  Make sure it lines up with the Bible in every detail.

Moral: When you speak about “lining up with the Bible in every detail” here is the game you play as a Protestant:

If a thing is condemned by the Church, but permitted by the Protestant (say, gay marriage) the demand is for an explicit text forbidding it (“Show me where Jesus said one word about not allowing gay marriage! That’s just the Church imposing its purely human ideas on what Jesus came to say.”).
 
Conversely, if a thing is allowed by the Church but condemned by the Protestant, the demand is for an explicit text commanding it. So, for instance, we get demands like, “Where in the Bible do you find anyone asking us to pray to dead people? That’s just the Church imposing it’s purely human ideas on what Jesus came to say.”

So if somebody says “Trinity” is not in the Bible, you reply, “It’s implied in the Bible.  But if a Catholic says the PVoM is implied in the Bible you say, “It’s not explicitly taught in the Bible.  It a dumb rhetorical trick, but it sure is popular with a lot of fundamentalists who don’t like to think too much.

But what about when your fallible reading of the scriptures leads you into error?
30000 denominations of Protestants cannot all be right!

Scripture teaches us that the Church is the ground and pillar of truth.  Scripture is the inspired and inerrant Word of God, but declares itself only profitable to teach, reprove, correct and instruct.  It also says it’s not to be privately interpreted and that those who do, do so to their destruction:
.
[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. [1 Timothy 3:15]
.
The pillar and ground of the truth: Therefore the church of the living God can never uphold error, nor bring in corruptions, superstition, or idolatry. St. Jerome (342-420)
.
[16] All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, [2 Timothy 3:16]
.
All scripture,: Every part of divine scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But, if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures, which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone: nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it. St. Jerome (342-420)
.
[20] Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. [2 Peter 1:20]
.
[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. [2 Peter 3:16]

Mark,
A Christian’ marriage should be a marriage that reflects Christ. There are many teachings and exhortations on this. Ephesians 5:22-33 is a good place to look at for married Christian couples on the attitudes they are to have toward each other.  The points you gave do not apply to Christian marriages.

Gay marriage does not really exist. It is a fundamentally different than what marriage is by definition. Jesus did speak against homosexuality in Mark 7:21 i.e. fornication’s.
I agree that lots of fundamentalists don’t think too deep. I’m finding that Roman Catholics don’t defend their beliefs that well either.

Ted,
Who has the infallible interpretation of Scripture? I know you will claim your church does. If so, where can this infallible interpretations of the verses of the Bible be found?

@Jerome
Here come the big dogz.  Hang in there my brother!  Just remember, there is no substitute for the Truth!

Mark,
A Christian should only marry another Christian. “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” 2 Cor 6:14

A wife is bound as long as her husband is living. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to anyone she wants—only in the Lord. 1 Cor 7:39

Should be the husband of one wife—
4 “Haven’t you read,” He replied, “that He who created them in the beginning made them male and female,”
5 and He also said:

“For this reason a man will leave
his father and mother
and be joined to his wife,
and the two will become one flesh?

6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, man must not separate.”

Matt 19

Jerome:

I’m not talking about gay marriage.  And I’m aware that Christian marriage should reflect Christ.  You are wrong that Paul or Jesus explicitly say that marriage should be to one woman.  For that, you are relying on Sacred Tradition, not Scripture.  That’s why Martin Luther taught that, on the basis of sola scriptura, polygamy was morally acceptable.

However, my point is different.  Where, in Scripture, does it tell us how to get married.  What is the procedure for doing it?  Age of consent?  To whom?  Who officiates?  How many witnesses?  What do a man and woman do in order to become man and wife and not merely co-fornicators?

So: answer the question.  Show your work.

Or just face the fact that you read the Bible and live with the help of Sacred Tradition.

Glad to see that my earlier prediction of “very few comments” was proven wrong here.. but it’s a shame that the bulk of the comments are now just becoming that typical boring back-and-forth non-productive blah-blah with closed-minded non-Catholics intent on proving the Church wrong.  Some things just never change… zz-zz-zz-zzz [yawn]

Mark,
Where in Scripture do Jesus and Paul teach that marriage should not be just to one woman and one man? Chapter and verse please.
What Sacred Tradition are you talking about? Since its not Scripture, what makes it “sacred”? Do you have the official church backup for specific Sacred Traditions? If so, where can I see this?
As for Scripture giving us the details how a marriage ceremony is to be done, it does not say.  What Scripture does teach is what I gave you.

Dismas,
  In that long list of quotes, you didn’t quote a single apostle, because you can’t.  Even the fathers you quoted didn’t claim it was an apostolic tradition.  It is purely the tradition of man.

—The New Testament wasn’t written in Hebrew or Aramaic; it was written in Greek and the word used ,adelphos, is never used for cousin or distant relative; it’s the Greek for natural brother.—

All of the New Testament events, if not written, were spoken in Hebrew or Aramaic and thus had to be translated. E.g., Christ did not say “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church.” What Christ said was “You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church.” The Greek translation gets it wrong. That error is carried into English so that no modern Protestant without biblical/theological/ancient language training can know the truth about Christ establishing a church with Peter at the helm.

Everett, If you say it, it must be true.  Thanks for you input and participation.

New Catholic,
How can you say “The Greek translation gets it wrong” in regards to Peter being the foundation of the church when all we have for NT are only Greek manuscripts? The only way you can show the Greek is wrong on this is to show that Matthew wrote in Hebrew or Aramaic. If you can do that, then you have some support for your assertion. Right now all you have is an unsupported assertion.

Because it does.  Rock in Aramaic isn’t gendered.  It is in Greek.  obvious translation error.

Ted,
How would we be able to test your theory if we don’t have a manuscript in Aramaic to look at? If the original Greek manuscript of the gospel of Matthew is in error then that means that it can’t be the Word of God since it would have an error. Are you willing to concede that?

Not a translation error.  Just common sense.  We know what Jesus called Simon: “Kefa” (Cephas when transliterated).  It means “Rock”.  The same word, translated to Greek is “Petra”.  That’s feminine.  Simon is a man.  So “Peter”.  Male.

It’s only complicated for Fundamentalists who want to play word games instead of use common sense.  Bottom line: Peter is the Rock on which the Church is founded.

By the way, “Kefa” is also a punning reference to the High Priest of the Old Covenant that was passing away: Caiaphas.  That’s because “Kefa” was being appointed as a priest of the New Covenant by the great High Priest.

“How would we be able to test your theory if we don’t have a manuscript in Aramaic to look at?”

But we do.  The Syriac Orthodox Church still has their scriptures in Aramaic.

“If the original Greek manuscript of the gospel of Matthew is in error then that means that it can’t be the Word of God since it would have an error. Are you willing to concede that?”

Of course I am, because the first chapter of the Gospel of John claims that Jesus is the Word of God, not scripture.  I am not a Bible Worshiper like the Protestant Fundamentalists are.

If the modern day RC view is correct why don’t we see this in the NT in the writings of the apostles such as Paul nor in the early church fathers? The fact is that the papacy is a later historical development. Its not about word games but Truth.

Jerome WE DO.  It is you who do not, and the fact that you don’t is just willful bias against the Church.

By the way Papias tells us that Matthew wrote in Hebrew (by which he likely means Aramaic).  He is also the source who tells us Matthew wrote Matthew.  Matthew, ironically, does not tell us who the author of his gospel is.  So you are relying on Sacred Tradition to even know that Matthew wrote Matthew, Jerome.  Same for all the other gospels.  The inspired text never states who the authors were.  You owe your knowledge of that to Sacred Tradition handed down through Holy Mother Church, the pillar and ground of the truth.

You could at least have the courtesy to say thank you.

Ted,
You do what? Are you claiming to have an original copy of Matthew’ gospel written in Aramaic? If so, where can I see it?

This is not about “willful bias against the Church” but asking you and the others to support their claims. So far, no one has. It has to make one wonder what is wrong with RC claims that are not being supported by facts.

We do see it.  “You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church.”  We see it in the fact that Peter is the obvious head of the apostolic college, speaking more than all the other apostles put together.  We see it in that he makes the call at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.  And we see it in that the Fathers clearly see his successors at Rome as enjoying primacy.

I do not.  And it’s not an original, it’s a copy of a copy of a copy, and was itself possibly reverse translated in the 4th century from Greek to Aramaic, though the Syrian Metropolitan of Antioch claims that the Peshitta (their canon, their Bible) is far older.

But I’ve seen it on TV.  It is in a Cathedral in Antioch.  It has been referenced by scholars in all the mainstream Catholic branches as our best source for what the *original conversations in the Gospels* would have looked like, seeing as how Nazareth is within a few miles of the border with Syria, and Syriac is a language that is clearly descended from Aramaic.

Here is a blog posting by somebody else that includes the relevant verse we’re talking about:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/08/the-two-rocks-of-matthew-1618-in-the-syriac-peshitta/

What does it mean that Peter is head of the church? We don’t see any apostle appealing to him in their writings to support their letters. We don’t see them pointing to him as the foundation on which the church is built. In fact Peter himself never makes any claim for himself that he is superior in rank to any other apostle. In fact he puts himself on the same level as the others. See 1 Peter 5:1.  So the idea that Peter is the head of the church has no foundation to it because there are no facts to support that claim.

Actually Paul should be the head of the church since he wrote more than Peter did. So did John. We have more words from them than Peter.

Rome did not gain primacy until after the 1st century. Rome in the late 1st and 2nd century was headed by a plurality of elders. There was no single head of the entire church for centuries.

Ted,
Your post does not support your position. It does not in the support the idea that Matthew wrote in Aramaic. The original gospels were written in Greek and that is what we have to deal with. Secondly as I have pointed out that there is no support in the NT that Peter was looked upon as the supreme head of the church.

Jesus didn’t give Paul the keys to the Kingdom.  Jesus gave Peter the keys:
.
[18] And I say to 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 to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. [20] Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. [Matthew 16:18-20]
.
[18] Thou art Peter: As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven. (St. Jerome 342-420)

Jerome, why would a person from Nazareth speak Greek?  You are clutching at straws.  I did not say Matthew was written in Aramaic.  I said that when Matthew knew Christ, they both *spoke* Aramaic.

At this point, I must assume you to be illiterate, since you can’t even read what I wrote.

Dismas,
How did Peter use the keys?  Did the others have the keys also?

Jerome have you stolen the keys?

Ted,
How would you know exactly what words Jesus spoke in Aramaic if we don’t have the original gospel in Aramaic? Do we have written records of what the Aramaic was spoken in the 1st century? 
Maybe we should look at other things in the gospels such as what does it mean when the angel spoke to Mary and called her “favored one”. RC apologist like to claim this phrase means she was without sin her entire life. They think the Greek means this even though there is no support for this from any Greek lexicon. Since Aramaic was supposedly the language of the time then maybe “favored one” in Aramaic does not mean without sin. Makes me wonder.

He used them to establish Jesus’ visible Church on earth.  The narrow gate of salvation that has existed unchanged in unbroken succession for over 2000 years.  The gates of hell shall not prevail against it, not even you Jerome.

“How would you know exactly what words Jesus spoke in Aramaic if we don’t have the original gospel in Aramaic?”

Because we still have Aramaic speakers today.  Now true enough *right now* their country is in the midst of a civil war, but that doesn’t mean that Aramaic speakers don’t exist.

“Do we have written records of what the Aramaic was spoken in the 1st century?”

Yes, we do, in the Syriac Orthodox community, which still uses this language today.

“Maybe we should look at other things in the gospels such as what does it mean when the angel spoke to Mary and called her “favored one”. RC apologist like to claim this phrase means she was without sin her entire life.”

Not quite.  Rather we claim that because Jesus Christ, who was *WITHOUT SIN* didn’t break the 4th Commandment, Mary was *protected* from the *effects of her sin*, not that she was without sin.

There’s a huge difference, but I wouldn’t expect an illiterate like you to understand it.

Is Peter the only one that used the keys to establish the kingdom? Did Christ also give the others keys?

Must one repent and believe in Christ for salvation?

Ted,
Languages change over time. Words change their meanings. To think words have not changed their meaning in the past 2000 years would be a stretch to say the least.

Jesus was without sin. That much is supported by Scripture. There is not one shred of evidence from the Scripture that “Mary was *protected* from the *effects of her sin*”. There were even church fathers that believed she had sinned. I know the Scripture well enough to know that Mary was a sinner just like the rest of us. She admits as much in Luke 1:47. No amount of church authority or claims of being led by the Holy Spirit can change this.

Repent and believe, Jerome.  The Kingdom of God is at hand, it can be found at the narrow gate, the Catholic Church and the grace that flows from Her seven sacraments.  The same grace which brings you here.

Languages do not change their meaning when they are carefully preserved.

[46] And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. [47] And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. [48] Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. [49] Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name. [50] And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him. [Luke 1:46-50] 

[48] Shall call me blessed: These words are a prediction of that honour which the church in all ages should pay to the Blessed Virgin. Let Protestants examine whether they are any way concerned in this prophecy. (St. Jerome 342-420)

Dimas,
Where does Jesus connect the Kingdom of God and the narrow gate with the RCC? Where does Jesus teach these 7 sacraments?

It is true that Mary was blessed for the task that God called her to. However, it is wrong to exalt her as your church has done. It goes far far beyond what the Scriptures says about her. This is something your church needs to repent of.

Jerome, I’m sure if you say it, you think it must be true.  Thanks for your input and participation.

Craig,
  Jerome is not splitting hairs; he’s simply believing what is written, and you’re rejecting it.  The brothers of the Lord are mentioned in Matthew 12:46,47;13:55.  The same word is used for Peter and Andrew (Matthew 4:18) and James and John (Matthew 4:21).  To be consistant, you would have to say that they weren’t natural brothers; they were cousins or distant relatives.
  Mark also mentions the Lord’s brothers (3:31,32;6:3).  The NAB note on 6:3 is revealing: ” The question of meaning here would not have arisen but for the faith of the church in Mary’s perpetual virginity.”  That is this post-apostolic doctrine about Mary’s perpetual virginity determined the meaning of the word of God.
  We also read about the Lord’s brothers in Luke 8:19,20; John 2:12;7:3,5,10;Acts 1:14;Galatians 1:9.  The word for brothers in these verses,adelphos, is used over 200 times in the New Testament.  Are you saying when it refers to the Lord’s brothers, it has a meaning it has nowhere else in Scripture?
  The fact that the perpetual virginity of Mary was believed for over a thousand years before the Reformation means nothing.  The antiquity of a doctrine does not determine its truthfulness; its origin does.  No one has and no one ever will prove the apostles or even the apostolic fathers taught or even heard of Mary’s perpetual virginity.  The first time we hear of it is in the “Protoevangelium of James”.  Error began early.  While the churches of Galatia practically still had the words of Paul ringing in their ears, they turned away from the truth.
  Lastly, in Acts 20:27, Paul told the elders in the church in Ephesus, “I have not “shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God”, and he said nothing about Mary’s perpetual virginity or immaculate conception or bodily assumption.  Neither did the other apostles.  In fact, neither Paul nor any other apostle say anything about Mary; She’s not mentioned in the epistles.

Jerome says “The Greek translation gets it wrong. That error is carried into English”

I should not have used the words “wrong” or “error”. Rather I should have said, the Greek does not do the Aramaic turn-of-a-phrase justice. Mark Shea (may he pontificate forever) explained it correctly above.

Jerome says “Rome did not gain primacy until after the 1st century. Rome in the late 1st and 2nd century was headed by a plurality of elders. There was no single head of the entire church for centuries.”

If Rome did not gain primacy until after the first century then why did Clement of Rome issue an authoritative directive to the church at Corinth prior to his death in approximately AD94; a letter still being read as authoritative more than a century later (Eusebius, Church History IV.30)?

Jerome says “Is Peter the only one that used the keys to establish the kingdom? Did Christ also give the others keys?”
Must one repent and believe in Christ for salvation?”

Yes, Christ only gave the keys to Peter. You need to study ancient cultures to understand that that meant being made prime minister and the position of prime minister was passed on to others at the death of a prime minister.

Jerome says “Must one repent and believe in Christ for salvation?”

The Catholic Church has always taught the need of repentance and baptism, both of which presupposes belief in Christ, as necessary for salvation. See Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:38.

Et tu Everett?

“No one has and no one ever will prove the apostles or even the apostolic fathers taught or even heard of Mary’s perpetual virginity.”

I would have to agree with you.  You’ll also never ‘prove’ that God exists to someone that has not been given the gift of supernatural faith.  To those who believe no explanation is necessary.  To those who do not believe no explanation is sufficient.  If the awesome exhortations of Mark and Dismas don’t move you, my advice is you hit your knees and ask for eyes to see and ears to hear.  God is merciful and kind.  He will show you what cannot be proven by any means.

New Catholic—
This is from a Roman Catholic scholar:
“We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded…“Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?”...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).”

There is no historical record of Peter passing on his authority to anyone before he died.

Keep in mind that when Clement of Rome was giving instructions to another church that he did not claim to be the leader of the entire church. Secondly, other churches also gave instructions to other churches.

Christ also gave keys to the other apostles. See Matt 18:18.

Is repentance and belief in Christ enough to save a person?

Well.. let’s check-in and see what the boys have settled over the last 24 hours:

Looking for marriage definitions in scripture… inquiring about Sacred Tradition and what it is… disputing apostolic tradition versus tradition of men… language of the N.T… looking for the Hebrew version of Matt… defining Rock in Aramaic… explaining Peter can’t be a feminine man… quick lesson on the Syrian Orthodox Church… declaring the Papacy is a later historical development… slight intro to Papias… still looking for that original copy of Matt. in Aramaic… back to Peter and rocks… quick review of a TV show… explaining Peter is not head of Church - actually Paul should be… your wrong nah-nah… an apparent scavenger hunts for keys… claim that Mary was a sinner… repentance… St. Jerome’s comments… an acceptance that Mary was blessed but the RCC still honors her way too much… and btw Jesus still had brothers nah-nah…doesn’t matter how long perpetual virginity was believed it could still be wrong nah-nah…etc…etc.

Hmmm… hate to say it, but it’s not looking very good for an agreement at this point boys.  Perhaps another 40,000+ comments might help?

And Craig has given to nuclear defense for Rc’s—“To those who believe no explanation is necessary.  To those who do not believe no explanation is sufficient.”  Meaning—just shut up and believe it cause we said so..

@Jerome
You are correct sir!  It is nothing but an unapologetically unsophisticated appeal to authority.  The authority of CHRIST!

Craig,
If you are appealing to Christ why does your church teach things the Lord Jesus never did?

Jerome, buddy…do you really need me to quote you all the places that Jesus tells his disciples that He will show them more?  Try John 16:12-13

Do you accept the teachings of Paul?  Of course you do.  But by your logic if he had tried to preach to you would have to reject him because he was not Christ.

The Holy Spirit is alive and well and is revealing and healing today, tomorrow and forever.

Craig:

Trust me… you don’t need this.  These types just continue to *bait* to keep talking and get their warped and misguided agenda across.  Anything they can say to irritate and/or challenge you is acceptable to them.

Do yourself a favor and go pour yourself a drink and forget about them.  They will have plenty to account for when their day comes… especially their comments about the Mother of God.

You REALLY don’t have to play this game…

Take care

Thanks ED.  You’re special.  Jerome’s not so bad.  Heck, Mark use to be a Protestant.  If there’s hope for Mark there’s hope for everybody.

Craig,
Have you read John 16:12-15 closely? Here it is—
“12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.
15 All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.”
Now I know Roman Catholics don’t like to exegete the Scripture but we must in this case. Notice the context.  Jesus is giving final instructions to His disciples before His crucifixion. He is not talking about revealing things to later generations of Christians but to the disciples themselves who will preach the gospel and to whom He will personally give them teachings and insights. This is what we call the New Testament. The letters of the NT are what Jesus was referring to.
There is no more revelation that was given after the apostle John died. Now if your church or anyone else wants to claim that it is still happening then it should be added to the New Testament as new Scripture.

Ps- don’t listen Ed. His kind wants you to stay in the dark and not think for yourself. He doesn’t want you to engage because he knows his own faith is weak. 

Well, Craig, the verdict is still out on Mark (just kidding)... but as Fr Hardon said:

[According to Basil (330-379), “the friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin.”]

Sooo…..weak!....must….have….....FAITH!!!  Good one Jerome.  And good luck trying to convert ED.  He’s rock solid.  To the point of being bored with childish things.  (1 Cor 13:11)

But let me ask you a serious question…are YOU a disciple of Christ?  You’re preaching the gospel and denying any new revelations.  Be careful my friend.  Jesus said some pretty harsh things about denying the Holy Spirit.  Every sinner that genuinely converts has there own private ‘new revelation’.  When Christ comes again it will be quite the new revelation and Lord have mercy on anybody that denies it.

Basil is not an apostle or prophet but a man. A man in this case who either does not know the Scripture on this issue or is deliberately deceiving people.

Keep knocking your head against that Rock, Doctor J.  Either your head will explode or you’ll see the light.  Either way I’ll be praying for you.

Craig,
Yes i am a Christ follower. I take the Scripture as the ultimate authority because it alone is the inspired-inerrant Word of God. All teachings are to be judged by the Scripture. Those that are supported by Scripture are to be believed and are binding. Those that are not, are to to be rejected.

What do you mean that"Every sinner that genuinely converts has there own private ‘new revelation’.”?

Remember: the Scripture warns that there will be false teachers in the church that will deceive people. 2 Peter 2:1. You cannot obey this command because the RCC has countered it with its false claim that it cannot err in matters of faith and morals. It takes upon itself an authority that the Lord Jesus never gave.

New revelation?  It’s a ‘born again’ thing.  I thought you’d understand.

Craig says, “I take the Scripture as the ultimate authority because it alone is the inspired-inerrant Word of God.”

The Protestant trinity, (i.e., sola scriptura, sola fide and perspicuity of scripture) have resulted in more than 43,000 denominational “truths” that have been evolving for the past five hundred years. The Catholic Church has been teaching the same truth for 2,000 years. The fact is, the authority in the Protestant world is the individual’s own personal, private interpretation of Scripture.

Jerome, your profession of faith is unscriptural, I have provided you numerous passages from Scripture that directly refute your errors.  You also provide no evidence or proof to support your erroneous statements that Scripture is the ultimate authority because it alone is the inspired-inerrant Word of God or that all teachings are to be judged by the Scripture.  Where’s your proof and evidence for your credo, it’s certainly not Scriptural.

Craig and Jerome, whether you accept it or not, whether you like it or not, the fact is, every time you open your Bible, you are accepting the authority of the Catholic Church because it is the Catholic Church that gave you your Bible. The Catholic Church determined which texts (out of many existing texts) were inspired and inerrant, thus part of the canon. Protestants can and did reject portions of the original Bible but they cannot add anything. The Catholic Church has closed the canon.

Mark,
  After Peter made the confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Christ said to him,“I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church.”  The Lord did not say, “You are Peter, and upon you I will build My church.”  Without Peter, Christ would still have a Church; without Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God, there would not be a Church.
  The Greek word for Peter is petros, and it’s masculine.  The Greek word for rock is petra, and its feminine.  That alone tells us the rock upon which the Church is built is not Peter.  Moreover, in Ephesians 2:19,20, Paul writes, “Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstaone.”  It was the apostles and prophets confessing Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God who are the foundation of the Church.  And in that confession, Christ Himself was the foundation.  The same apostle writes in I Corinthians 3:1,“For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
  There was no thought in the early Church about the Church itself being built on Peter.  None.  In the middle of the third century,  Pope Steven I became the first person in the history of the Church to use Matthew 16 to claim authority over the entire Church; he was largely ignored.  There is no mention of Rome or apostolic succession in Matthew 16.  Indeed, there is no mention of apostolic succession in Scripture.  Why would it take 200 years to make this claim if it had been taught by Christ and the apostles?
  Nowhere in Scripture is Peter ever assciated with Rome. At he the end of the second century, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, became the first person to write that Peter founded the church in Rome.  We know his statement is wrong, because he also said Paul was a co-founder, and that can’t be true.  We don’t find Paul in Rome until the last chapter of Acts; he was there as a prisoner, and the church was already established.  In the first chapter of the book of Romans,Paul makes it clear he had never been to Rome.
  In I Clement, the first century Roman bishop mentions Peter and Paul (5:4,5).  He tells of their labor, their hardship, and their martyrdom.  He says nothing about either, still less, both founding the church.
  We don’t know who founded the church in Rome.  Even if it were Peter, Rome isn’t given authority over the rest of the Church or any other church by Christ or the apostles. 

Jerome, which came first the Church or the Bible?
.
[16] And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. [Matthew 28:16-20] 
.
[18] All power: See here the warrant and commission of the apostles and their successors, the bishops and pastors of Christ’s church. He received from his Father all power in heaven and in earth: and in virtue of this power, he sends them (even as his Father sent him, St. John 20. 21) to teach and disciple, not one, but all nations; and instruct them in all truths: and that he may assist them effectually in the execution of this commission, he promises to be with them, not for three or four hundred years only, but all days, even to the consummation of the world. How then could the Catholic Church ever go astray; having always with her pastors, as is here promised, Christ himself, who is the way, the truth, and the life. St. John 14.
.
...but some doubted, indeed!

New Catholic,
  The Catholic Church did not give us the Bible; the Orthodox did.  Rome had virtually nothing to do with establishing the canon.  It also had little to do with the ecumenical councils or the early creeds, all which were written in Greek, like Scripture.  The overwhelming majority of those we call church fathers were from the Greek churches, not the Latin churches.  Greek was the lingua franca the common tongue, of the Roman Empire.  Before Matthew was converted, he was a publican, a tax colector.  He worked for the Romans, and we can reasonably assume he spoke Greek.  Apparently Christ did,too.  He did have a conversation with Pilate.  If Pilate didn’t speak Aramaic or Christ didn’t speak Latin, then they both used Greek.  Greek is the language God chose to have the New Testament written in; there’s no eidence it has been translated from another language.

Everett, thanks for the Greek lesson but regardless of your scruples and dubious grasp of Greek grammar, you conveniently ignore the next passage:

[18] And I say to 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 to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. [Matthew 16:18-19]
.
[18] Thou art Peter: As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven. (St. Jerome 342-420)

So what are you saying Everett, are you admitting the Bible you use is invalid when you say, “Greek is the language God chose to have the New Testament written in; there’s no eidence it has been translated from another language.”
.
Clearly if you make this claim, we’re making progress.

Everett:

Don’t be dumb.  As was already discussed above:

We know what Jesus called Simon: “Kefa” (Cephas when transliterated).  It means “Rock”.  The same word, translated to Greek is “Petra”.  That’s feminine.  Simon is a man.  So “Peter”.  Male.

It’s only complicated for Fundamentalists who want to play word games instead of use common sense.  Bottom line: Peter is the Rock on which the Church is founded.

By the way, “Kefa” is also a punning reference to the High Priest of the Old Covenant that was passing away: Caiaphas.  That’s because “Kefa” was being appointed as a priest of the New Covenant by the great High Priest.

Read Jesus, Peter, and the Keys if you actually want information.  If you want to just keep wasting with combox word games, stay the course.

@New Catholic
You got confused.  Jerome said that.  Ouch, friendly fire.

Jerome says “Christ also gave keys to the other apostles. See Matt 18:18.”

Matthew 18:18 says nothing about the keys. Matt. 18:18-20 speaks of the authority of the apostles to bind or loose. What does that mean to Protestants? Christ also gave the apostles the authority to forgive or not forgive sin. What does that mean to Protestants? The perpetual nature of the apostolic role is demonstrated by Peter calling for a replacement of Judas’ (see Acts 1:16-26). And the fact that more will be called to the apostolic role is supported by Christ’s actions when he, after Matthias was added to the number of the apostles, called Paul directly (see Acts 9 and following).

The fact is, when I left Protestant evangelicalism, I left behind the need to ignore or reinterpret Scripture. Just prior to leaving an evangelical Baptist congregation, I had to explain to my young teen son how wrong two separate passages were that were contained in his Word of Life material that stated, When Christ said… He didn’t mean what it says!!! When I left Protestantism behind I left all that convoluted, contradictory mental gymnastics behind. Thanks be to God.

In regard to your Catholic theologian, I don’t know the author (which is not meant as criticism) therefore, I don’t know if he is historically based or is one of the more modern catholic skeptics. No insult intended to F.A. Sullivan, I just don’t know.

Jerome, you say “There is no historical record of Peter passing on his authority to anyone before he died.
Keep in mind that when Clement of Rome was giving instructions to another church that he did not claim to be the leader of the entire church. Secondly, other churches also gave instructions to other churches.”

There is plenty of evidence that there was a perpetual bishop of the sEE OF Rome. There is no evidence for many ancient events but that does not preclude historians accepting the occurrence of those events. There are plenty of references by early Church fathers that the bishop of Rome or the See of Peter did have ultimate authority. Where is your evidence that other bishops sent authoritative instructions to congregations outside of their bishopric? I would be interested in seeing and assessing the scope of such action. Clements was unquestionably absolute. Your use of the plural for churches in that last sentence misrepresents the fact that there was only one Church. St. Ignatius, writing c. AD100, refers to that Church as the “Catholic” Church. 

Dismas,
I assume you agree that the 66 books of Scriptures are inspired-inerrant. What else is inspired-inerrant? Can you give me concrete examples? Sacred Tradition is said to be equal with Scripture. I still have to see some examples and evidence that these traditions are inspired-inerrant. An official list from your church would be the place to start.

New Catholic,
You write “The Protestant trinity, (i.e., sola scriptura, sola fide and perspicuity of scripture) have resulted in more than 43,000 denominational “truths” that have been evolving for the past five hundred years.”
This is claimed by many Roman Catholics and I have yet to see any make the connection that sola scriptura is the cause of this.  In fact, can you define what sola scriptura is?
I suggest you go into 5 different Protestant churches near you and see what they believe about:
1) Do they believe the Bible is the Word of God?
2) Do they believe that Christ is God?
3) Do they believe that Christ died for sin?
4) Do they believe that all grace comes through Mary?
5) Do they believe that the pope is the head of the entire church?

I would suspect that all would answer these questions the same way. Would you agree?

Jerome - keep up, you’ve already defined your credo, sola scriptura, for us: 
.
I take the Scripture as the ultimate authority because it alone is the inspired-inerrant Word of God. All teachings are to be judged by the Scripture. Those that are supported by Scripture are to be believed and are binding. Those that are not, are to to be rejected.
.
...which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. [2 Peter 3:16]

New Catholic,
You claim that Matthew 18:18-20 is not about keys. That is not true. Compare that with Matthew 16:19 which says-“  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven.” As you can see the keys have to do with binding and loosing.  That is the same idea in Matthew 18:18.
It’s sad that you left Protestant evangelicalism and have embraced the doctrines of Rome. Are you aware that the Roman Catholic church denies the gospel? It denies that a man is saved by faith alone in Christ alone.  Here is what the council of Trent said about justification—
“ CANON 9:  “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
CANON 12:  “If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed”
Compare this with what the Scripture teaches:
“Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” (Rom. 3:24).
“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law,” (Rom. 3:28).
“For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness,” (Rom. 4:3).
“Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” (Rom. 5:1).
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God,” (Eph. 2:8).
“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost,” (Titus 3:5).
As you can see Rome denies the gospel. Our salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone.

You wrote—“ There are plenty of references by early Church fathers that the bishop of Rome or the See of Peter did have ultimate authority.” Can you get those references and the dates of them? For example who wrote such a thing like this in the late 1st and early 2nd century that says that the church at Rome and its bishop is the supreme leader of the entire church?

Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., is professor emeritus of the faculty of theology at the Gregorian University in Rome, where he also earned an S.T.D. degree. He now teaches ecclesiology at Boston College.

As for thinking you have certainty in the meaning of Scripture now that you have joined the Roman Catholic church is not true. There is no such thing in the Roman Catholic church as an infallible-official interpretation of all the verses of the Scripture. Roman Catholics really can’t say what the official and infallible interpretation of a Scripture is since no such work exist. 

Dismas,
Just as I thought. You have nothing to bring to the table to support your views.

BTW- who gave you the right to interpret Scripture? I thought RC’ were not to do that.

Jerome, even Satan has faith.  Satan believes in redemption and Jesus, why isn’t he saved and why do you so conveniently ignore these Scriptures:

[17] So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. [18] But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. [19] Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. [20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? [James 2:17-20]
.
[26] For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead. [James 2:26]
.
Thank you for pointing out that I have nothing to bring to the table.  I agree with you whole heartedly, it’s possibly the only truthful insight you’ve had all day.  I have nothing to offer.  I seek not to do my will, but only the will of my Father.

Roman Catholics don’t ‘interpret’ scripture.  We read it with the light of reason and supernatural faith, guided and informed by 2000 years of apostolic successors.

Jerome, you say “It’s sad that you left Protestant evangelicalism and have embraced the doctrines of Rome. Are you aware that the Roman Catholic church denies the gospel? It denies that a man is saved by faith alone in Christ alone.”

The phrase “by faith alone is expressed one time and only one time in Scripture; James 2:24 and it has the inconvenient word “not” in front of it. “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (RSV). How can an entire movement in Christianity be based on a doctrine explicitly contradicted by Scripture? Unfortunately for many hardcore sola fide Protestants, Scripture teaches that faith and faithfulness are required. Faithfulness are the works we allow the Holy Spirit to do through us. Fortunately, most devout Protestants/evangelicals actually practice good works while denying that they do. I’m glad you listed the findings of the Council of Trent. I concur fully with what Christ’s one, holy catholic and apostolic Church teaches.

Dismas,
The only verse in Scripture that I’m aware that references belief and Satan i.e. demons is found in James 1:19.  Demons do not have “saving faith” i.e. repentance from sin and believe that Christ died for sins. The other thing to consider on this issue is that salvation is never offered to fallen angels. So this would not apply to Satan or demons.
What James is explaining that if a person claims to believe in Christ then there will be works that show that belief.  If there is no works then that person’ claim-profession of faith is dead.  There is no real saving work of salvation in such a person.
So what exactly is the will of the Father? What does your church tell you what it is?

Craig,
You wrote-“ Roman Catholics don’t ‘interpret’ scripture.  We read it with the light of reason and supernatural faith, guided and informed by 2000 years of apostolic successors.”
So if I ask you what Luke 1:47 means what would reason, faith and the 2000 years of apostolic successors tell you? Its seems to me for you to answer this you would at a minimum have to have read all the church fathers and councils as a starter. I know of no Roman Catholic who has done this. 

New Catholic,
  I never said we are saved by faith alone. I did say we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone. There is nothing that can be added to the work of Christ on our behalf that can save us in any way.  James is not teaching that works are part of the work of Christ that saved us. Rather he is teaching that if a person claims to believe in Christ then there will be works that show that belief.  If there is no works then that person’ claim-profession of faith is dead.  There is no real saving work of salvation in such a person.
Since you have embraced Trent you have denied the gospel. Trent has denied the gospel by claiming that salvation is not entirely of Christ but requires works of men. See also Romans 10:9-10 and Ephesian 2:8-9.

Jerome…now you’re getting silly…it’s not that hard.  You have to be humble to ask for help.  Dismas the Super Scholar is just trying to help a brother out but you don’t want it. 

“...He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.”  (Luke 1:51)

Craig,
Its not silly what I asked you. You made a claim that when you really look at it is silly. You know full well no one does this. I have no reason to think any modern day RC has either.

Of course they don’t.  They don’t have to you doof.  There isn’t a exegesis test to get into heaven (thank God).  By your weird salvation, all the illiterate peasants that never had their own bible were doomed.  Silly!  This is what happens when culture places too much emphasis on education.

@Craig, laughing out loud my brother from the same Mother.  I’m no super scholar and I have no great gift of apologetics.  I do proclaim, however, to have seemingly excellent copy and paste skills.

and of course the power of internet searches doesn’t hurt either.

I used to think the thinking of you two was the exception for rc’s. I no longer think that. There just is no depth here. Sad.

@Dismas…are you sure?  You sound like The Hammer of the Heretics.  You must have some secret weapon that cuts through the darkness and augments your feeble natural powers.

Try not to feel too sorry for us Jerome.  Were not leaning on our own undestanding.  (Proverbs 3:5)

Jerome, we certainly don’t profess One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic faith for nothing now do we?  It’s part of our credo.

Dismas
Your church has gone far far beyond any creed in its doctrines.

Then the King will say to the sheep on his right, “I was hungry, thirsty, naked and sick—and you fed me, gave me to drink, clothed, and visited me.”

But to the goats on his left he will say “I was hungry, thirsty, naked and sick—and you did nothing but blather about sola scriptura, salvation by faith alone, and setting yourself up as judge, jury and executioner of the faith of Catholics you knew nothing about in some stupid combox somewhere.”

Mark,
It is you who will be held accountable for deceiving people with your articles.  Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. James 3:1

Yeeeaahh booouuuy!!!  And don’t forget, “but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.  With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness.  Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be.”  Please pray for us Saint James!

Vivat Jesus Craig!

?

New Catholic,
  I’m not sure how you came up with the number of 43,000 Protestant denominations; the number seems to increase all the time.  Is that as bad as three million or thirty million cafeteria Catholics? The effect is the same.  The church of Rome has not been teaching the same thing for two thousand years; it has been evolving for two thousand years.  Very little the church teaches can be found in the first five centuries of our history.  Consider this: “And so we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus are not justifed through ourselves or through our wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.”  Those are the words of Clement, a first century bishop in Rome.  Had he written the same thing in the sixteenth century, the one Catholics call “Pope Saint Clement” would have been denounced as a heretic.  Read Pope Pius IX’s “Syllabus of Errors”, and then talk about immutable Catholic teaching.  You should really do some research on the “Donation of Constantine”, and then talk about about the glories of Mother Church.  Do you believe that error have no rights?  That was the justification for the inquisitions.  The list is not quite endless, but close.

@Everett- the number increases all the time due to the fragmentary effect of sola sciprtura on doctrine.  And at least Cafeteria Catholics are *listening* in Church from time to time; and thus have the ability to be further converted.

Ted,
Would you happen to show us the connection with Sola Scriptura in these supposed large number of Protestant churches is due primarily to Sola Scriptura? Or will this be just another claim with no support that is so common here?

Sola Scriptura is *way too big* of a subject for comboxes.  But the conclusion is obvious to anybody who has even done a comparative theology study between Lutherans and Calvinists, let alone any other more closely related third or fourth generation Protestants.

Heck, you can even see competing interpretations in the comparative theology of Trinity Pentecostals vs Oneness Pentecostals!

Interpretation of scripture drives the creation of new denominations since 1450.  All schisms before that were over either outright heresies such as Gnosticism, or politics such as the Eastern vs Western Empire (with nationalism eventually overtaking the Eastern Orthodox, which is why their liturgies are so tied to local ethnicity without being the least bit invalid).

When you give up the concept of the living authority of the Pope in favor of scripture, what you are really doing, to paraphrase Martin Luther later in his life, is giving permission for every maid to become her own Pope.

Ted,
I don’t think you quite understand what you are claiming. I don’t think you even know what Sola Scriptura is by your comments.
What pope has ever defined one verse of Scripture? Do you know of one and if so, what verse?

Literally HUNDREDS of verses have been defined by the Popes.  In fact, that’s the Pope’s real job- to define and protect dogma and doctrine, for all of humanity, in conjunction with the ordinary magisterium.  It is the meaning of the term “Apostolic Authority”.

I’m astounded you didn’t know this.  It is in fact what the Protestant Rebellion was all about- rejecting the authority of the Pope and replacing it with supposedly “the authority of scripture alone”, aka, Sola Scriptura.

Most recently, and for a new generation of hungry information age theologians, Pope John Paul II gathered *the entire teaching of the church and all of it’s interpretations of scripture that are still authoritative* into a single volume.  I suggest you go and read it- it makes for a fascinating scripture study at the very least, especially if you read it side by side with the Bible and look up *every* verse that is referenced:
http://www.amazon.com/Catechism-Catholic-Church-Second-Edition/dp/0385508190

Ted,
Give me one verse that a pope has infallibly (ex cathdra) interpreted?
The catechism is not a interpretive work on the Scripture. Rather it is the doctrines of the RCC’s put in short statements with Scripture references.

For example if you want to know what a specific verse of Scripture means you don’t go to the catechism. In fact I don’t know where a RC can go to find out what the official-infallible interpretation is of a particular verse is to be found. Do you?

Ted:

Be cautious of your language.  Loosely talking about the Pope “defining” hundreds of verses is highly problematic.  Defining which verses?  How?  About what?  The Pope has “defined” every verse in Scripture in the sense that he defined which books were canonized.  But he has defined virtually no verse in the sense of saying, “This passage means X and only X.”  Now and then the Magisterium will correct a false reading, so “The Father is greater than I” does *not* mean that the Son is not God.  But the Church almost *never* concerns itself with micromanaging our reading of individual verses.  Only a Fundamentalist expect this and only a Fundamentalist thinks it hugely telling when the Pope fails to comply with this silly demand.  Don’t get suckered into trying to top everything a Fundamentalist says.

True it is NOT “the passage means X and only X”.  But it is also incorrect to say that the Magisterium (and by extension, the Pope) do not define dogma in terms of scripture.  The CCC (which is what I referred Jerome to) is chock full of scripture references that in essence say “this verse (or sometimes chapter) refers to this doctrine.  In fact, quite often the CCC itself out fundamentals the fundamentalists; especially in the dogma surrounding the Eucharist.  I can’t name a single fundamentalist denomination that has the proper understanding of John Chapter 6, even when you prooftext it to them.

In fact, I’ll repeat myself.  Jerome, the answer to your question is in the footnotes and references of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Catechism-Catholic-Church-Second-Edition/dp/0385508190

Ted:

What you mean is that the Magisterium defines doctrine.  What you said was that the Magisterium defines hundreds of verses, as though the job of the teaching office is to micromanage our interpretation of individual passages of Scripture.  It’s not.  To be sure, Scripture suffuses and informs the Church’s teaching.  But the Church does not breath down our neck and tell us how each and every word of Scripture is to be read and understood.  Fundamentalism thinks that way, not the Church.

Thank you Mark. The RCC is not really bound by Scripture for its doctrines. Rather it claims authority for itself to proclaim doctrines that do not have to be grounded in Scripture although it tries to. This is why Rc’ get into such difficulties when they are challenged to show how its doctrines are grounded in Scripture and are unable to.

This is also explains why RC’ are guilty of private interpretations since there is no such thing in the church as an official-infallible interpretation of Scripture. RC’s must depend on their own interpretations when it comes to understanding what the authors of Scripture meant.

If doctrine doesn’t drive our interpretation of scripture, what does?  We’re not exactly free, like the Protestants are, to read scripture as *separate* from the Church.  That is the mistake I see the fundamentalists making- Scripture Alone, rather than Scripture alongside the Rest of Holy Tradition and the Doctrines of the Magisterium.  That’s how the Holy Spirit works to me *through* the Church, not against it.

Mark, my first comment was only to be explanatory of an earlier point made by another that dealt with the process of translation from one language to another. Sadly it became the topic of debate for the remainder of this comment section. I am sorry; your original topic deserved much more attention. And thanks for clarifying my rather brain dead comment. You actually are one of the guilty who are responsible for my downfall into papism.

Everett and Jerome, I work 14 hours a day and have only a moment here and there to offer a response. It seems that your approach is to only say “no it doesn’t—show me proof” you don’t seem willing to entertain any explanation at all. In effect, you seem to be suggesting that when Scripture says something, you can merely explain it away by quoting some supposed contradictory passage. When I, for example, mentioned the schismatic nature of Protestantism with some rather damning evidence like 43,000 denominations, you ignore the obvious evidence that the cause is because anyone can come up with his or her own interpretation of Scripture and start their own congregation. Mark and some others have mentioned the concept of common sense being necessary but you then head off in some new direction. Mark has a Catholic blog. Seemingly any non-Catholic visiting the blog would be interested in what Catholics believe, why they believe it and how they arrived at that belief. Even more significantly, as Protestants (I’m assuming), you should be interested to know how we ex-evangelicals have arrived at the decision to make that change. It was not easy, it required challenging everything we previously held dearly, especially our “anything-but-Catholic” previous stances. Sadly, this is not such a discussion. Rather, this seems to be an argument where if I say the sky is blue, you say it isn’t. It is not my interest to argue. I have way too many serious demands on me from my patients. Don’t be surprised, like Steven Ray and many other virulent anti-Catholics, myself included, that you one day find yourself Catholic. God bless the two of you and you too Mark.

SCOTUS defines the Constitution, and the Magisterium defines Dogma and Doctrine.  And since scripture is a part of dogma and doctrine- lots of verses can ONLY be interpreted in a Catholic Context.

A Catholic can’t, for instance, read John 6:41-51, and claim that the real presence doesn’t exist in the Eucharist.  Those verses HAVE been dogmatically defined as a single interpretation.

For more of this- like I said, read the Catechism.  It’s full of verses that have been doctrinally and dogmatically defined.

@Jerome- That is incorrect. The Church defines what Scripture IS.  This is all in Fidei Depositum:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19921011_fidei-depositum_en.html

On the Deposit of Faith.

Ted,
The church recognized what Scripture is. When John finished his gospel for example it was Scripture at that point onward even if the church of the day did not recognize it as such. It is the Lord Who defines Scripture and not the church.

Ted,
It is one thing to interpret Scripture in its context and another to use Scripture to support a doctrine. The catechism is not about interpreting Scripture but is used to support RC doctrines. If we were to exegete John 6:41-51 we would not conclude it is about the real presence.

No,  Jerome.  What you said was a dishonest twisting of my words.  Every Catholic doctrine is reflected by and compatible with Scripture.  Every. Single. One.  Do not attempt to twist what I say again or you are gone from these comboxes.  I have no time for correcting you when you try to distort what I say. Comprende?

New Catholic,
I’m sure you got your reasons for leaving your church and embracing Rome. I always wonder when ex-Protestants forsake their churches for Rome if they were totally aware of what they were losing in the process. To lose the gospel is a terrible thing and embrace all the doctrines of Rome that don’t have solid foundations in Scripture.
You made an assertion that there are over 43,000 denominations nd implied that all these denominations are due to Sola Scriptura or Protestants making things up and starting their own churches. This characterization is without foundation and I asked you to check out 5 Protestant churches near you to see if your charge has merit. You will be surprised because it will not fit your view on this. I’m all for a good discussion but keep in mind that if you are going to make claims like this then be ready to back this up facts.

A Catholic can’t, for instance, read John 6:41-51, and claim that the real presence doesn’t exist in the Eucharist.  Those verses HAVE been dogmatically defined as a single interpretation.

No, Ted.  They haven’t.  What has been defined is the dogma of the Real Presence in the Eucharist and those verses are read, in part, in light of that. The dogma tells us what, at the very least, those very *cannot* mean—They can’t mean the Eucharist is just a symbol.  But the dogma does not in the slight exhaust our ability to draw multiple layers of meaning from that text.  You can keep going back to it an finding more as you make more connectons between it and the rest of revelation.  The Church is *disinclined* to define things unless she has to.  I’m aware of *no* biblical passage where the Church says, “It means this one thing and this one thing only.”  Scripture is too rich for that.  What many definitions do is say, “At the very least it means X, or it definitely can’t mean Y.”  But the Church never says of a passage I can only mean Z.

“it can only mean Z”.

Jerome, thirty thousand or forty thousand denominations that differ in regard to basic teaching such as follows cannot all be correct. Each led by devout, God fearing believers who contradict other devout God fearing believers. Of most importance, there is no way to know which one is correct. None of those denominations has existed for more than five hundred years and some were begun yesterday. I have attended Baptist (free will and Calvinistic), Nazarene, Plymouth Brethren, Methodist, Congregational, Evangelical Free, Evangelical Bible Church, Episcopal and others. I am a Wheaton College and Fuller Theological Seminary graduate. I am an authentic born again, Billy Graham, evangelical Christian who realized that evangelical was not enough (as one author has described in his own conversion story). But here are the contradictory doctrines that are very important:
1. People have free will to respond to God’s gift of saving grace; -or- people do not have free will and take no personal part in accepting God’s gift of saving grace.
2. Believers are once saved-always saved despite subsequent sinful actions; -or- after accepting Christ, intentional sin results in loss of salvation thus requiring subsequent repentance and reconciliation with God.
3. Predestination means that, regardless of an individual’s personal wish, God arbitrarily selects some for salvation and others for damnation; -or- predestination involves a mystery whereby God, who is outside of time and space, offers salvation to all mankind but has foreknowledge of those who will freely accept or reject the grace of salvation.
4. We are saved by faith alone; -or- we are saved by grace alone as evidenced by our faith and works.
5. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are just three different names for the one-person God; -or- God is a Trinity of three distinct persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who share one nature in a manner mysteriously impossible for us to understand.
6. It is necessary to speak in tongues to be saved; -or- speaking in tongues is neither proof of, nor necessary for, salvation –or- speaking in tongues ceased when the last apostle died.
7. Baptism is not necessary and has no real effect; -or- baptism is efficacious and is required except in the case of extraordinary circumstances (e.g., conversion immediately prior to death, such as occurred with the thief on the cross).
9. Christians are no longer under the law of the Ten Commandments; -or- Christians are still under the law of the Ten Commandments.
Those are contradiction present in the Protestant evangelical world that have great implication for salvation (look at #2 and #9). And contrary to the claim that the Catholic Church has evolved and radically changed, one need only read Ignatius of Antioch to recognize that virtually every doctrine of the twenty-first century Catholic Church is contained in the epistles of this first century martyr who knew St. John and probably St. Peter and St. Paul. It is ludicrous to suggest that those apostles were such poor evangelists that they taught St. Ignatius faulty Catholic ideas, ideas that, according to Protestants, didn’t develop until centuries later. I choose to align myself with the two-thousand-year-old, one, true, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that verifiably (for those who are willing to do the research) teaches what the apostles taught.

Jerome you said:  “I’m sure you got your reasons for leaving your church and embracing Rome. I always wonder when ex-Protestants forsake their churches for Rome if they were totally aware of what they were losing in the process.”
You cannot imagine how the opposite is true. I left a fragmented world of denominations that are more concerned about being sure they are “not Catholic” for the full Gospel as the apostles taught the faith. To compare most Protestant denominations to the Catholic Church is like comparing a flashlight to the sun. I understand that you are concerned for our souls, but it is Protestants who have only a fragment of the truth and day by day are straying further from the truth as they eject one doctrine after another and develop new concepts like the health and wealth gospel and once-saved-always-saved, safe-and-secure-for-eternity. May our Lord lead you to the truth found only in His one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. God bless.

That was powerful.

Well.. let’s check-in again to see what the boys have settled over the last 24 hours:

Hmmm… hate to say it, but it’s STILL not looking very good for an agreement at this point boys.  Perhaps another 39,900+ comments might help?

In any case… I’ve read enough of this endless chatter here tonight.  If you don’t mind, I’m just going to go get a cold beer and sit down and watch a few old Jimmy Swaggart tapes.

I mean hey, seriously boys… I just can’t really think of a better way for a Catholic to find out the REAL truth.  Can you?  I mean he’s so-so smart… and so sincere.  Sometimes - I hate to admit - he just makes me cry.  ;(

New Catholic,
There is a lot here. I noticed you did not address any of my original questions such as:
1) Do these protestant churches believe the Bible is the Word of God?
2) Do they believe Jesus is God and died for our sins?
I could list quite a number of doctrines that Protestants agree on.  Let me address some of yours and lets go their.
Lets take #1. There are a number of different answers to this question. I believe that we are responsible for our choices in life and will be held accountable. That is what the judgment is all about. You also bear the burden here. What is the official Roman Catholic teaching on this issue?
#2- it is true that once a person is truly saved they cannot-will not lose their salvation.  There are a number of passage that support this doctrine. Let me give you one. Philippians 2:13. If God is at work in the believer then how can God fail to bring about our salvation?  Eternal life by definition cannot be lost. Everyone sins no matter how hard they try not to.  That’s why understanding the what the death of Christ accomplished. Colossians 2:13-14 tells us that all our sins have been forgiven and taken out of the way.  If all our sins have been forgiven (including every sin you will ever commit) then how can we lose our salvation since only sin could cause the loss of salvation?
#3 God choice of the elect is His choice to make. He is not obligated to save anyone. Many people hate this doctrine because they have no control of it. God will have mercy on those whom He chooses and will harden those whom He desires. See Romans 9:14-24
#4- we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone. Our works are the outward fruit of salvation.
#5 The Trinity is not a contradiction. It is difficult to understand but this certainly is well supported by Scripture.
#6 No. it is not necessary to speak in tongues to be saved nor is necessarily evidence of salvation.
#7 Water baptism does not save. The only thing that saves in faith in Christ alone. Baptism is rite that shows a believers identification with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection.
#9 We are no longer under the law such as the 10 commandments to be saved by them. No one can keep them perfectly. No one can be justified in sight of God by keeping them. See Galatians 2:16. One of the functions of the law is to be a tutor and lead us to Christ that we may be justified by faith. Galatians 3:24
As for the Roman Catholic church not changing is not supported by the facts. The church for centuries did not teach as official doctrines such doctrines indulgences, purgatory, the Marian dogmas, celibate priesthood, and an infallible papacy. None of these doctrines were believed by the apostles or the New Testament church. 

Hmmm… something sounds familiar here:

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Protestantism/Protestantism_042.htm

New Catholic,
  I’m not Protestant; I’m an apostate Protestant.  You’re saying I was explaining away things was an excuse for not studying Catholic history; virtually everything you said was wrong.
  I’m much harder on Protestants than I am Catholics.  I suffered much from them, spiritually and personally.

Mark,
  If what you say about Matthew 16:18 is true, then why did it take 200 years for someone to realize the Church is built on Peter and there’s such a thing as apostolic succession; obviously it wasn’t taught by Christ and the apostles.  What evidence do you have Peter founded the church in Rome?  Which of the fathers acknowledged Peter and his successors as head of the Church?  The book of Revelation is Christ’s last word to His church.  He addresses seven churches, not one of which is Rome.  Do you think that’s signicant?

Jerome…buddy…I think you’re the missing the point. 

New Catholic has laid down his own powerful and personal testimony of drawing closer to Christ.  He’s not so much concerned with arguing technicalities and doctrines and formulas.  He’s enjoying the fruits of the Holy Spirit…knowledge, wisdom, and the peace that passes understanding.  And out of the love he has received he is calling you and others to experience the same.  That’s testifying.  Not fighting. 

Thank you New Catholic.  The spirit of combox combat tends to devolve into acrimonious flame wars and troll patrols.  It takes some gifts to rise above it.

Everett, I don’t understand your question about the 200 years.  What publishing company from 1-200AD are seeking written proof from?  How do you know that the Apostles and Church fathers could even read and write?  Which proof would satisfy you, stone tablet, papyrus, or animal skin writings?  Do you think oral tradition played any important role back then?
.
Apostates, undoubtedly, are the weirdest thinkers.

Craig… buddy… Theology matters. Even if people claim to have peace and joy does not mean its of Christ if the theology is false. Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Hindus etc also claim peace but in reality that peace is not grounded on truth.

Ted,
  Luther may have been the first to use the term “sola scriptura”, but he wasn’t the first to teach the concept; Moses was.

“You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandents of the Lord your God which I command you.” Deuteronomy 4:2 Sola Scriptura

“If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’-which you have not known-‘and let us serve them’, you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer,, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul.  You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him.”  Deuteronomy 13:1-4 Even when we see a miracle, it is to be judged by the word of God.  Sola Scriptura

“This book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night,that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it.  For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good succcess.” Joshua 1:8 Sola Scriptura

“Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.  Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you , and you be found a liar.”  Proverbs 30:5,6 Sola Scriptura

“To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”  Isaiah 8:20 Sola Scriptura

When the Lord Jesus was tempted in the wilderness (Matthew 4,Luke 4), He didn’t give His opinion; He didn’t argue; He didn’t resort to tradition.  He simply said,” it is written…., and three times quoted Scripture.  Sola Scriptura

“Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea.  When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.  These were more fairminded {lit.noble} than those in Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness , and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.” Acts 17:10,11 When the nobleminded Bereans heard the testimony of Paul and Silas that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, they didn’t seek the counsel of the priests or the rabbis;they didn’t consult custom or tradition.  “They searched the Scriptures…Therefore many of them believe.”  Sola Scriptura.  It still works.

“Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one agaainst the other.” I Corinthinians 4:6 We are not to exceed what is written.  Sola Scriptura

“Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.”
Jude 3 We’re not looking for amendments.  Sola Scriptura
 

Dismas,
Quite a few of the fathers wrote during that time; none mention Peter’s authority over the church or apostolic succession.  Caviling is a poor substitute for evidence.

Everett - great, provide your sources.  List the works to which you refer and it’s author.

@Jerome
Once again, you are correct sir!  You and I would agree that Christ is the way the truth and the life.  (John 14:6)  Don’t settle for theologizing.  Taste and see.  (Psalm 34:8)

Craig,
Not sure what you mean by “theologizing”. If you reading the letters of the NT you will find that the apostles were adamant about correct doctrine. They would not allow for any false teachings for a second. Just look at Paul’ statement in Galatians 1:6-10 to see how far Paul would go to defend the truth.

@Jerome
Correct again!  If this were a game show you would be running away with the win.  So if the apostles were so adamant about preserving the truth…how did they blow it?  Protestants by their very nature are protesting that the One, Holy, and APOSTOLIC Church blew it and has fallen away from the truth.  This pattern is as old as heresy itself.  Catholics believe that the apostles triumphed in preserving the truth of the gospel and will continue until Christ comes again.

Craig,
The apostles did not “blow it” but the men after them did. This is why its important to expose the errors of your church. The apostles never taught that Mary did not have other children for example. Your church does. Your church denies the gospel that the apostles taught. Read the quotes from Trent that I quoted above. Compare it with what the apostles taught and you will find its not the same things.

@Jerome
If the men after them blew it, you imply that Christ blew it by not sending the Holy Spirit to guide and protect His Church until the end of time.  Be very careful about what you imply my friend.  Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is some serious business.  (Matthew 12:31)

Craig,
Jesus and His apostles warned there would be false teachers that would come into the church and deceive many. So the idea that the Christ would protect the church from error is patently false. If He was going to protect the church from error then why these warnings? In fact if you read the 1st 3 chapters of Revelation you would know that error was already creeping into the church. It is the Lord Jesus Himself Who rebukes these churches.

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit does not apply to this issue.

Jerome, here are some responses:
In regard to your #1 & #2: Do Protestants believe the Bible is the word of God and Jesus is God and died for our sins?
Fundamentalists, Yes;
Evangelicals, mostly yes (but some are creeping toward the liberal wing’s = maybe/maybe not) Liberal Protestants, maybe, maybe not, and even No.

You then respond to some of the contradictions I listed with your opinions. On some of them we are in agreement and disagreement on others. But it is not me that disagrees; it is the two-thousand-year-old Catholic Church that disagrees with some of your opinions. That is the point I am trying to make. You have your own opinion based on how you, Jerome, read Scriptures. I am dependent upon two-thousand-years of consistent teaching. To further my point, I was merely identifying a few contradictions that exist throughout the Protestant/evangelical denominations (there are many more). You clearly do not agree with what some Protestant denominations teach as your responses show. But how does the average believer know which one is correct? I have never been in a single Protestant congregation that taught all that I knew to be true and I could never be aware if there was something that was true and/or necessary that I was missing (i.e., I couldn’t know what I didn’t know). If you follow Catholic news items you will be aware that a certain priest was recently removed from the active priesthood (forbidden to even represent himself as a priest) because he was actively fighting for gay marriage. Now there are thousands of Protestants and some Protestant denominations (liberal I grant you) that are doing the same thing. Who or what can step in and correct that? Any believer in those congregations is being misled without any means to correct the problem because each of those groups believes in perspicuity of Scripture and sola Scriptura. I came to realize that when I claimed those doctrines for myself it was merely another way of proclaiming, “Don’t contradict my personal, papal infallibility”. Now I accept the Shepherd Christ established and the Church he established.

You are a Bible believer; there were no New Testament Scriptures for approximately 20 to 30 years after Christ ascended to heaven. When there were Scriptures there were also dozens of other Christian writings competing for the status of Scripture and recognized by some as Scripture. Some books we now know to be canonical were rejected by some Christian regions. So the New Testament you and I have did not exist until the end of the fourth century (I know that Protestants claim that the NT books were self-evident, as do the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons claim for their extra-biblical writings). The common man could not read. It took until the Middle Ages (when the Catholic Church established universities for the common man) that reading was common enough for a higher percentage of people to be able to read the Bible. But, not many Bibles existed because it took approximately three years for a scribe to copy one Bible. No one could carry those Bibles because they were huge (think large suitcase) and heavy (think case of Xerox paper). No one could afford those Bibles because they took approximately three years of wages to buy. So, anyone who was a Christian was a Christian via the teaching of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. The fact is there was no possibility of Bible Believers existing until long after the invention of the printing press. So no Bible believers could exist until about the sixteenth century. So for sixteen centuries there could be no Christians; if being a Bible believer is the only way to be Christian.

In regard to your last point: the Church changing its teaching and adding doctrines never before believed: you need to understand that there are core doctrines that are more fully explained by the Church to counter heretical ideas. So what you think of as new is really only more fully explained material. You also need to understand that the establishment of probably all doctrinal statements was necessary only when some group began to teach a heresy. You and I know that George Washington was our first president. We don’t need to have a doctrine of first presidency because no one disputes that. Now think of the situation where some group began teaching that some other person was the first president. There would need to be a scholarly debate and establishment of the correct standard for teaching U.S. history. That is why some doctrines seem to Protestants to come out of the blue. When a big enough movement began to teach falsehoods, the Church then officially declared in a doctrinal statement what the Church had always believed. Virtually all the reformers recognized Mary to be a virgin, to have remained a virgin, to have been immaculately conceived, and to have been assumed into heaven. It was not until a few centuries of Protestantism (i.e., sola Scriptura and perspicuity of Scripture) that more and more Protestants began to reject those beliefs wholesale thus requiring the Catholic Church to define what had always been believed.
I used to be where you are. Keep fighting against the Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit has a way of using that desire for truth to bring people to the truth. When you reach that point you will be shaking your head with disbelief as to how you could be so faithful in studying Scripture and have not seen or understood large swaths of Scripture. I know that is how I have experienced Bible reading since entering Christ’s only, true, one, holy catholic and apostolic Church.

Everett, I hope Mark, Ed, Craig, Dismass and others will correct all my errors. I thought something I said was at least approaching the truth.

Jerome, here are some responses:
In regard to your #1 & #2: Do Protestants believe the Bible is the word of God and Jesus is God and died for our sins?
Fundamentalists, Yes;
Evangelicals, mostly yes (but some are creeping toward the liberal wing’s maybe/maybe not)
Liberal Protestants, maybe, maybe not, and even No.

You then respond to some of the contradictions I listed with your opinions. On some of them we are in agreement and disagreement on others. But it is not me that disagrees; it is the two-thousand-year-old Catholic Church that disagrees with some of your opinions. That is the point I am trying to make. You have your own opinion based on how you, Jerome, read Scriptures. I am dependent upon two-thousand-years of consistent teaching. To further my point, I was merely identifying a few contradictions that exist throughout the Protestant/evangelical denominations (there are many more). You clearly do not agree with what some Protestant denominations teach as your responses show. But how does the average believer know which one is correct? I have never been in a single Protestant congregation that taught all that I knew to be true and I could never be aware if there was something that was true and/or necessary that I was missing (i.e., I couldn’t know what I didn’t know). If you follow Catholic news items you will be aware that a certain priest was recently removed from the active priesthood (forbidden to even represent himself as a priest) because he was actively fighting for gay marriage. Now there are thousands of Protestants and some Protestant denominations (liberal I grant you) that are doing the same thing. Who or what can step in and correct that? Any believer in those congregations is being misled without any means to correct the problem because each of those groups believes in perspicuity of Scripture and sola Scriptura. I came to realize that when I claimed those doctrines for myself it was merely another way of proclaiming, “Don’t contradict my personal, papal infallibility”. Now I accept the Shepherd Christ established and the Church he established.

You are a Bible believer; there were no New Testament Scriptures for approximately 20 to 30 years after Christ ascended to heaven. When there were Scriptures there were also dozens of other Christian writings competing for the status of Scripture and recognized by some as Scripture. Some books we now know to be canonical were rejected by some Christian regions. So the New Testament you and I have did not exist until the end of the fourth century (I know that Protestants claim that the NT books were self-evident, as do the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons claim for their extra-biblical writings). The common man could not read. It took until the Middle Ages (when the Catholic Church established universities for the common man) that reading was common enough for a higher percentage of people to be able to read the Bible. But, not many Bibles existed because it took approximately three years for a scribe to copy one Bible. No one could carry those Bibles because they were huge (think large suitcase) and heavy (think case of Xerox paper). No one could afford those Bibles because they took approximately three years of wages to buy. So, anyone who was a Christian was a Christian via the teaching of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. The fact is there was no possibility of Bible Believers existing until long after the invention of the printing press. So no Bible believers could exist until about the sixteenth century. So for sixteen centuries there could be no Christians; if being a Bible believer is the only way to be Christian.

In regard to your last point: the Church changing its teaching and adding doctrines never before believed: you need to understand that there are core doctrines that are more fully explained by the Church to counter heretical ideas. So what you think of as new is really only more fully explained material. You also need to understand that the establishment of probably all doctrinal statements was necessary only when some group began to teach a heresy. You and I know that George Washington was our first president. We don’t need to have a doctrine of first presidency because no one disputes that. Now think of the situation where some group began teaching that some other person was the first president. There would need to be a scholarly debate and establishment of the correct standard for teaching U.S. history. That is why some doctrines seem to Protestants to come out of the blue. When a big enough movement began to teach falsehoods, the Church then officially declared in a doctrinal statement what the Church had always believed. Virtually all the reformers recognized Mary to be a virgin, to have remained a virgin, to have been immaculately conceived, and to have been assumed into heaven. It was not until a few centuries of Protestantism (i.e., sola Scriptura and perspicuity of Scripture) that more and more Protestants began to reject those beliefs wholesale thus requiring the Catholic Church to define what had always been believed.
I used to be where you are. Keep fighting against the Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit has a way of using that desire for truth to bring people to the truth. When you reach that point you will be shaking your head with disbelief as to how you could be so faithful in studying Scripture and have not seen or understood large swaths of Scripture. I know that is how I have experienced Bible reading since entering Christ’s only, true, one, holy catholic and apostolic Church.

Everett, I hope Mark, Ed, Craig, Dismass and others will correct all my errors. I thought something I said was at least approaching the truth.

Mark, The last post was flagged for possibly being spam, I inadvertently resubmitted, since I corrected a couple of minor errors, the second submission is the better one.
Thanks

@Jerome
You are getting confused between the Church and its members.  People are led astray, but the Church who is the mystical body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27) will prevail.  You also try to separate Jesus from his Church.  When Christ appeared to Saul he said, “Why are you persecuting ME?”  Not, “...persecuting my Church.”  As Paul so eloquently and repeatedly stressed, the Church IS the body of Christ.  They cannot be separated.

False teachers are heretical by definition.  They lead people away from his One, Holy and Apostolic Church.  They have been doing it since the beginning (Gnostics, Manicheans, etc.) and will continue until the end.  That doesn’t mean that they prevail against the Church.  Because even though many are led astray He said, “...I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.”  (Matthew 28:20)

BTW Jerome, it’s pretty obvious that you love Christ and would never intentionally blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.  But just be careful when you turn your zeal against the Church that IS Christ.  “But anyone who denies me here on earth will be denied before God’s angels.”  (Luke 12:9)

Craig,
The church are the members. There is no church without people. Surely you are not telling me that Jesus is the church when your church is responsible for so much evil that went on for centuries? The inquisitions went on for centuries with the full approval of popes and the magesterium. Was Jesus with your church then? 

The problem you have in regards to determining false teachers in your church is that you reject the Scripture as the determiner for all doctrines.

Jerome, that’s the nub of it.  You think scripture is “the determiner for all doctrines.”  I think the Holy Spirit, working in the Church determines doctrine.  The Scribes and the Pharisees were the most learned scripture scholars in all of Israel, and yet they failed to recognize the Messiah.  They thought they were smart enough to tell what God was going to do by reading His scriptures instead of trying to humbly listen for His word.

At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.”  (Luke 11:25)

Craig,
How do you know when the Holy Spirit is working in the Church? What are the signs when this is happening?

Jerome, regarding the inquisitions, bad popes, evil poops, and whatever else you can think of: 

Even if there were such a thing as a church without sinners…it wouldn’t matter to me…because they sure as shucks wouldn’t let me in.

Craig,
You are not addressing the issue. If the Holy Spirit is guiding your church then how do you account for the inquisitions? How could there be bad popes if Christ is protecting the church? How could the Holy Spirit allow such wickedness to exist for centuries?

@Jerome
That’s a very good question.  John 3:8 says, “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” 

The difficulty of seeing ‘signs’ is that you need faith to see them.  Jesus warned against demanding signs in Matthew 12:39 and Luke 11:29.  Personally I think the reason a lot of people (Catholics included) have a hard time seeing them is because we are exposed to them everyday.  Catholics watch a miracle occur every time they go to Mass.  They have serious sins absolved by Christ every time they go to confession.  Sanctification is happening so much through the Holy Spirit that if you’re looking for something weird and out of the ordinary you’ll miss it.

I wish I could tell you that I see the “Holy Spirit descending like a dove” but I don’t…at least not very often.  I have to rely on faith most of the time just like most people.

Jerome…sigh…about “bad stuff”...as far as I can tell it has something to do with Adam and Eve and sin and the devil and yada yada yada.  The straight scoop is that Christ equips us to BATTLE evil…not take a holiday from it.  We are required to struggle with it as long as we’re alive.  We won’t be free from it until this world passes away.

Come to think of it, that’s a great refutation for salvation by faith alone.  If all we needed was faith, we wouldn’t have to WORK against evil.  But as every repentant sinner knows we are forced to WORK at fighting against evil if we want to remain in the grace of God.

Jerome, here are some responses:
In regard to your #1 & #2: Do Protestants believe the Bible is the word of God and Jesus is God and died for our sins?
Fundamentalists, Yes;
Evangelicals, mostly yes (but some are creeping toward the liberal wing’s = maybe/maybe not);
Liberal Protestants, maybe, maybe not, and even No.

You then respond to some of the contradictions I listed with your opinions. On some of them we are in agreement and disagreement on others. But it is not me that disagrees; it is the two-thousand-year-old Catholic Church that disagrees with some of your opinions. That is the point I am trying to make. You have your own opinion based on how you, Jerome, read Scriptures. I am dependent upon two-thousand-years of consistent teaching. To further my point, I was merely identifying a few contradictions that exist throughout the Protestant/evangelical denominations (there are many more). You clearly do not agree with what some Protestant denominations teach as your responses show. But how does the average believer know which one is correct? I have never been in a single Protestant congregation that taught all that I knew to be true and I could never be aware if there was something that was true and/or necessary that I was missing (i.e., I can’t know what I don’t know). If you follow Catholic news items you will be aware that a certain priest was recently removed from the active priesthood (forbidden to even represent himself as a priest) because he was actively fighting for gay marriage. Now there are thousands of Protestants and some Protestant denominations (liberal I grant you) that are doing the same thing. Who or what can step in and correct that? Any believer in those congregations is being misled without any means to correct the problem because each of those groups believes in perspicuity of Scripture and sola Scriptura. I came to realize that when I claimed those doctrines for myself it was merely another way of proclaiming, “Don’t contradict my personal, papal infallibility”. Now I accept the Shepherd Christ established and the Church he established.

You are a Bible believer; there were no New Testament Scriptures for approximately 20 to 30 years after Christ ascended to heaven. When there were Scriptures there were also dozens of other Christian writings competing for the status of Scripture and recognized by some as Scripture. Some books we now know to be canonical were rejected by some Christian regions. So the New Testament you and I have did not exist until the end of the fourth century (I know that Protestants claim that the NT books were self-evident, as do the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons claim for their extra-biblical writings). The common man could not read. It took until the Middle Ages (when the Catholic Church established universities for the common man) that reading was common enough for a higher percentage of people to be able to read the Bible. But, not many Bibles existed because it took approximately three years for a scribe to copy one Bible. No one could carry those Bibles because they were huge (think large suitcase) and heavy (think case of Xerox paper). No one could afford those Bibles because they took approximately three years of wages to buy. So, anyone who was a Christian was a Christian via the teaching of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. The fact is there was no possibility of Bible Believers existing until long after the invention of the printing press. So no Bible believers could exist until about the sixteenth century. So for sixteen centuries there could be no Christians; if being a Bible believer is the only way to be Christian.

In regard to your last point: the Church changing its teaching and adding doctrines never before believed: you need to understand that there are core doctrines that are more fully explained by the Church to counter heretical ideas. So what you think of as new is really only more fully explained material. You also need to understand that the establishment of probably all doctrinal statements was necessary only when some group began to teach a heresy. You and I know that George Washington was our first president. We don’t need to have a doctrine of first presidency because no one disputes that. Now think of the situation where some group began teaching that some other person was the first president. There would need to be a scholarly debate and establishment of the correct standard for teaching U.S. history. That is why some doctrines seem to Protestants to come out of the blue. When a big enough movement began to teach falsehoods, the Church then officially declared in a doctrinal statement what the Church had always believed. Virtually all the reformers recognized Mary to be a virgin, to have remained a virgin, to have been immaculately conceived, and to have been assumed into heaven. It was not until a few centuries of Protestantism (i.e., sola Scriptura and perspicuity of Scripture) that more and more Protestants began to reject those beliefs wholesale thus requiring the Catholic Church to define what had always been believed.
I used to be where you are. Keep fighting against the Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit has a way of using that desire for truth to bring people to the truth. When you reach that point you will be shaking your head with disbelief as to how you could be so faithful in studying Scripture and have not seen or understood large swaths of Scripture. I know that is how I have experienced Bible reading since entering Christ’s only, true, one, holy catholic and apostolic Church.

Everett, I hope Mark, Ed, Craig and others will correct all my errors. I thought something I said was at least approaching the truth.

Craig,
Since you have no evidence that the HS is leading your church you must assume so. Correct? Even when there is evidence that He is not (because of the evil) you must assume He is guiding.

Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone. Salvation by faith alone is not biblical faith. Faith must have an object to believe in. Only belief in the Lord Jesus can gain a person salvation. This does not mean we are not to work out our salvation. We are to resist sin and pursue Christ-likeness.

Jerome, here are some responses:
1) Do these protestant churches believe the Bible is the Word of God?
2) Do they believe Jesus is God and died for our sins? The answers are:
For fundamentalists YES.
For evangelicals mostly YES but some are gradually creeping toward the liberal position of only MAYBE.
For liberal denominations MAYBE, MAYBE NOT and NO.
There are thousands of denominations that represent each of these positions.
You responded with your opinions to the examples of contradictions I listed.  We can find Protestants from many different denominations that disagree with your opinions. That is the point I am trying to make; you have your opinions based on how you (Jerome) interpret Scripture. Thousands of other individuals and entire denominations filled with similarly devout believers disagree with you on one or more points. Since all of the positions I listed in the very short list of contradictions (there are many more contradictions) are representative of evangelical denominations, even you disagree with what other evangelical Bible Believers teach.
How does the individual know which one is correct. If once-saved-always-saved, safe-and-secure-for-eternity is correct then those who fear losing their salvation and scrupulously confess each and ever sin are at no real risk. But if the Arminians are correct then all those Calvinists and Lutherans are in eternal trouble (i.e., damnation). That contradiction either matters not one whit or it matters a great deal.

Jerome, you say: “#2- it is true that once a person is truly saved they cannot-will not lose their salvation.  There are a number of passage that support this doctrine. Let me give you one. Philippians 2:13. If God is at work in the believer then how can God fail to bring about our salvation?  Eternal life by definition cannot be lost. Everyone sins no matter how hard they try not to.  That’s why understanding the what the death of Christ accomplished. Colossians 2:13-14 tells us that all our sins have been forgiven and taken out of the way.  If all our sins have been forgiven (including every sin you will ever commit) then how can we lose our salvation since only sin could cause the loss of salvation?”

Your response is consistent with the tendency I used to have, i.e., to take one or a few verses and think I had the final answer. However, there are many verses that point out the risk of falling away; the need for perseverance; and the need for works (falling away, cf.: Galatians 5:4; Hebrews 6:6; perseverance, cf.: Mt 7:21-23; 13:21; 25:11-13; 1Cor 9:27; 10:12; Gal 5:4; 1Tim 4:1; 5:15; Heb 3:14; 6:4-6; 10:36; need for works, cf.: Mt 7:21, 12:50, 19:21 & 25:31-46; Lk 11:28; Jn 5:28-29 & 14:15; Gal 5:6b; Phil 2:12-18; Jas 2:18b-24; & 1Pet 1:17). Why would the authors of the epistles waste time writing about the possibility of losing one’s salvation if it couldn’t happen? All the epistles were written to practicing Christians, I don’t think any of the epistles were written for the purpose of evangelizing unbelievers (others can confirm or correct me if I am wrong). When you consider how short the Bible is, why would the all-knowing Holy Spirit lead the authors to waste precious space on a non-issue?
You believe in once-saved-always-saved. Many others do too; but not all evangelical Protestants. How can we know who is right when we have no authority regarding interpreting Scripture?

New Catholic,
You have the same problem I have. Surely you don’t think that all RC’ believe the same things do you? I know a priest that is head of a large church that does not believe the pope is the head of the church. We also know there are differing views of abortion in your church. Or take contraception. Same problem. I could go on and on with examples. I could also give you examples out of your catechism that contradicts Scripture.

RC’s also interpret Scripture and its just their opinions also. This includes, priests, nuns, bishops and even the pope. Remember: there is no official-infallible interpretation of the Scripture in the RCC. No RC can claim the official-infallible interpretation of a given verse.

If OSAS i.e. eternal security is false then when a person loses their salvation they can never regain it back. See Heb 6:4-6.

I can determine a false doctrine from a correct doctrine by Scripture. My question for you is: how do you know when your church is teaching falsely? What is your criteria to determine if your leaders are deceiving you? Remember: no one is infallible. Men can and have taught falsely.

Jerome…sheesh…for a man of faith you sure talk a lot about ‘evidence’.  “Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember?”  (Mark 8:18)  For those that have ‘eyes to see and ears to hear’ every Saint in history is evidence.  Every holy communion is evidence.  Every congregation, every chapel, every monastery, every sinner that has turned back to God is evidence, and yet you sound like you’re not even sure if God exists because you don’t see the ‘evidence’.  That’s why it’s called FAITH and not ‘evidence’ or ‘proof’ or ‘signs’.  You don’t seem as interested in finding out how you can see the world through the eyes of faith as you do about ‘proving’ that you are right and that the Catholic Church is wrong.  You don’t want ‘faith without works’ you want ‘evidence without faith’!

New Catholic,
How much have you studied the Scripture? Take Mt 7:21-23. What is the context for those verses? Is this a description of a true believer?

Where did Jesus or His apostles teach that a person needs an authority to interpret Scripture?

Craig,
Again, where is the evidence that the host changes? The fact is, there is none.

When Jesus was walking this earth and did His miracles did He do them in private and want people to take His word for it or did He do them in public where people could see those miracles as truly happening?

This same principle works throughout Scripture when a miracle takes place. Look at Moses. He gave signs to the people that he spoke with God.

@Jerome
For God’s sake keep looking.  But stop looking for evidence and start looking for miracles.  Sooner or later you’ll be forced to cry out, “Son of David have mercy on me!” (Mark 10:48)  Until then accept the ‘sign of Jonah’ (Matthew 16:4)  When Jesus did miracles and signs none of the smarty-pants accepted them.  All it did was enrage them and make them plot his demise.  If you can’t see them, admit you’re blind because Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.”  (John 9:41)

Jerome, the issue is not whether a lot of RC’s don’t believe all the things I do. I am not contrasting what individual Protestants believe, I am contrasting what the denominations believe and how the denominations contradict each other. The Catholic Church teaches one set of beliefs and can be shown to have taught those beliefs throughout history despite all the human failings of individual believers, priests, bishops or popes. The Church doesn’t change by rejecting what it previously taught. In some Protestant denominations doctrine changes when a new pastor is hired. In other denominations democratic vote decides what is and is not truth.

You are correct that there are individuals in the Catholic Church that have different opinions about abortion but you are incorrect about there being different opinions about abortion in Church teaching; it never has varied since the time of the first century Didache.

Individuals can interpret Scripture however they want, they have free will but the authoritative source of interpretation is the Church, not the individual.; not the individual believer, priest or bishop. It is the Church that gave us the infallible, inerrant Scriptures (I know Protestants reject that but doing so requires ignoring history). The Church gave us the doctrines of the Trinity, the nature of Christ, and all other doctrines that all Protestant denominations used to believe. Many denominations no longer accept those seminal doctrines. Protestant accept the infallibility of Scripture but do not seem to understand that doing so is accepting the authority of the Church, the Church that established the canon authoritatively.

I have not read Scripture enough, I’ll grant you that, but in Matt 7:21-23 Christ is speaking to those who believe they are Christians. I believe I am a Christian. You believe you are a Christian. I don’t think I took those passages out of context.

The discussion to demonstrate that Jesus intended us to have a Shepherd is far too long for a comment. Maybe Mark will tackle that one. However, I am the defender of the Church that can be demonstrated to have taught the same doctrine and to have had the same practices for two thousand years in all nations, cultures, socioeconomic groups and races. Protestantism has changed and is changing more and more rapidly. That means something and should concern all Protestants. There cannot be truth when it changes regularly? 
You reject the infallibility of the Church, I know that is the Protestant opinion.

New Catholic,
Of course I reject the infallibility of the RCC or any church for that matter. No one and no church is infallible. Fallible fallen men cannot be infallible. Just look at the history of your church and you will quickly see the fruit.  There has been only one human being in all of history that was infallible and that is the Lord Jesus.

You claim to be “defender of the Church that can be demonstrated to have taught the same doctrine and to have had the same practices for two thousand years in all nations,..” and yet this cannot be defended with the facts. The New Testament church never taught that Mary was sinless, immaculately conceived, purgatory, indulgences, celibate leadership as a requirement, the papacy and papal infallibility to name a few things your church teaches not found in the NT or early church. These doctrines and practices were also unknown in the early centuries of the church.

Jerome, Scripture is infallible and it was written by men guided by the Holy Spirit. You are suggesting that infallibility would be withdrawn when Christ promised the Holy Spirit would lead the Apostles into all truth, forever. The great heresies were centuries in the future but you believe a Loving God would withdraw infallible guidance even while dozens of false gospels were being written and the Church had not yet recognized what writings were inspired and inerrant and be authoritatively declared to be Scripture. If God can inspire several men to write infallible Scripture he can guide one man to infallibly teach correctly about each and every issue arising in the Church throughout the millenniums. As a Protestant I believed that the Holy Spirit would guide every individual to the truth but 40,000 contradictory denominations doesn’t seem to support that theory. Of course the Church did not have to teach many things to people who already knew those things, just like we wouldn’t need the Bible to teach us about Christ if we had been there with the apostles and observed the events. Virtually every reformer accepted the immaculate conception, the virgin birth, the perpetual virginity and the assumption. It was known by all Christians until after the period of the enlightenment that led to empiricism and rationalism; the perspectives that only science is truth and the spiritual doesn’t exist. Now Protestants have joined the   empiricists and reject the Scriptural teaching that the Holy Spirit will lead the Church to teach correctly. Yet, you still need to reconcile 40,000 denominations with disparate doctrines in regard to truth. I am sorry you don’t recognize the truth that the Catholic Church is teaching the same as it did in the time of martyr St. Ignatius of Antioch (c.AD100), a disciple of the apostles. It is sad to think so many are led by the false impression that they can rebel from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, established by Christ and the source of all Scriptures and doctrines upon which Protestants base their teaching.

Jerome, I shouldn’t have said “I am the defender of the Church”; the Holy Spirit has filled that role by leading Christ’s Church into all truth” for two thousand years.

New Catholic,
You are avoiding dealing with the problems I have brought up in the Roman Catholic church. The New Testament church nor did the early church teach those doctrines I mentioned. No one in the New Testament church believed those doctrines. No one. We also don’t see these doctrines for centuries.  These doctrines deny core teachings of the Scripture. So your claim that the Roman Catholic church has taught the same thing for 2000 years does not hold up under scrutiny. 
I ask you again, what Protestant church denies that the Bible is the Word of God? Which ones deny that Christ is God and died for our sins? Which ones embrace the pope as the head of the entire church? I know quite a number of Protestant churches that agree on these things and more. However, there will be differences of opinion within these denominations on other issues. That is to be expected.  Some things we cannot know with certainty because there is not enough information about it to make a definitive truth claim. You have the same thing in the Roman Catholic church.
Can you give me 5 different examples of Protestant churches that have 5 different views on a particular issue?  This should be quite easy to demonstrate if your figure of 40,000 contradictory denominations is true.
Christ is still building His church to this day. However it is not required nor possible in the church to be infallible. You assert infallibility but you have not proved it.  You want this infallibility for your church but the facts do not support it. Before the Protestant Reformation many Roman Catholic leaders believed a reformation was necessary in the church itself. The mere fact this was a desire shows that the church was not perfect in teaching or in leadership.  This also counts against the idea that the leader of infallibility.
  If your church was infallible how could there have been the inquisitions that had approval from popes and the magisterium for centuries?  This goes directly against your statement—“ If God can inspire several men to write infallible Scripture he can guide one man to infallibly teach correctly about each and every issue arising in the Church throughout the millenniums.”  We also have a pope that was condemned as a heretic for teaching heresy.  Again, if the Holy Spirit was guiding your church how could these things have happened?
You also have to address how your church has contradicted the Scripture by requiring celibacy as a requirement for leadership. This requirement contradicts 1 Timothy 3.
The point is this: your church has changed its teachings over time and some of its doctrines contradict Scripture.
One other thing about Ignatius of Antioch. When he uses the term “Catholic church” that is not the same thing as the Roman Catholic church. They are not the same things. In his day there was no papacy, Marian dogmas, celibate leadership. These are distinctions of the Roman Catholic church.
I have no problem with your statement that you are a defender of the Roman Catholic church. If you were not, we would not be having this discussion.

1 Cor 4:20

Some things just never change… zz-zz-zz-zzz [yawn]

Jerome, I gave examples about theological issues that matter on which different denominations contradict each other. If one position is correct, the other is wrong. All of those issues are related to salvation in one way or another. It is not beneficial to list actual denominations because that will just start new arguments by some members of some of those denominations that will claim “I’m a (fill in the denomination) and I don’t believe that”; which is another example of the chaos in the Protestant world. People attend denominations with which they disagree because they like the music, like the pastor, like the people, etc. Correct doctrine matters (Paul says something to that effect a number of times).
On the issue of new doctrines suddenly arising. If you study Church history you would be aware that all hell broke loose every time some bishop tried to teach a new doctrine. No such thing occurred with the defining of the doctrines you are suggesting; that is not until later Protestants (17th & 18th century), in their quest to shed all vestiges of Catholicism, rejected those doctrines. However, as I have pointed out at least twice above, all the major reformers held to those doctrines. The burden of proof is on you to prove those doctrines didn’t exist previously. There are many representatives of hymns and poems showing reverence to Mary from the earliest time in the Church. The Magnificat is a Biblical representation of just such a hymn; it’s Biblical.
Jerome, I attended numerous Protestant denominations for over fifty years and never once heard Mary blessed. I heard her demeaned in numerous ways “she was just a vessel, nothing more” “any girl would have done” “she didn’t remain a virgin” are among the derogatory comments I heard from childhood. The audacity of us Protestants discussing the alleged sexual activities of the Mother of our Lord and Savior. How crass, how hideous. What filthy minds we have to even go there. Even the reformers never went there except in defense of the doctrines you claim are ex nihilo. If Mary was not respected and, as the early Church did with all saints, asked to pray for believers, then why is there no historical evidence of any Orthodox or Catholic believers, theologians, priests, bishops reacting against the introduction of such “false” teaching?

Jerome, here are some authors who were evangelical or fundamentalist believers who have entered the Catholic Church. They present all of the information you are requesting far better than I am able to do.
Armstrong, Dave; A Biblical Defense of Catholicism; The One Minute Apologist; The Catholic Verses
Currie, David B.; Born Fundamentalist – Born Again Catholic
Grodi, Marcus C.; Thoughts for the Journey Home
Hahn, Scott; Rome Sweet Home
Howard, Thomas; Evangelical Is Not Enough
Madrid, Patrick; Surprised By Truth

Now, off to Mass.
Ray, Steve; Crossing the Tiber
Shea, Mark; By What Authority: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition

New Catholic,
You are generalizing on the differences between denominations. On the core doctrines, orthodox Protestant churches and denominations agree. Doctrines such as the Bible (66 books) are inspired-inerrant, the trinity, the deity of Christ, Christ died for our sins, believers must be baptized, the Lord supper, salvation is in Christ alone. I could name a few more where all these churches share the same things.
Take your point ““I’m a (fill in the denomination) and I don’t believe that”. Depends what this is. If it’s someone who is teaching that you should be materially rich then i would not believe that.  Do you believe everything a priest says in a homily? Do you agree that priest should get married? Do you believe Roman Catholic politicians who support abortion should receive communion?  I have heard all kinds of opinions among Roman Catholics. I guess I should assume there is chaos in your church to.
The point on new doctrines is that your church does not teach the same doctrines that were taught in the New Testament and the early church.  This point is indisputable. As for the reformers, they were Roman Catholics at one time and would have believed some of these things the church taught. The reformers, as great as they were, were not infallible. They could err. What they focused on what salvation-justification by faith alone in Christ alone. It was the gospel that was corrupted in the Roman Catholic church and Rome refused to repent of this error and embrace the gospel that was taught by Christ and the apostles. Have you studied the causes of the Protestant Reformation?
The doctrines of Mary don’t appear in history for centuries.  In regards to Mary and her place in the Roman Catholic church these are just some of things your church teaches that was unheard of for centuries:
“Leo XIII, Encyclical, Octobri mense adventante, Sept 22, 1891, ASS 24, 1891, 196: “... it is right to say, that nothing at all of that very great treasury of all grace which the Lord brought us—for ‘grace and truth came through Jesus Christ’ [Jn 1. 17]- nothing is imparted to us except through Mary, since God so wills, so that just as no one can come to the Father except through the Son, so in general, no one can come to Christ except through His Mother.”
“Pius XI, Apostolic Letter, Galliam, Ecclesiae filiam, March 2, 1922, AAS 14, 1922 186: “She, the Virgin Mother, [is] the treasurer [sequestra] of all graces with God.”
Do you now believe that all grace comes through Mary? No one comes to Christ but through her? Again no one for centuries taught this.
Just because you may not of heard someone in a Protestant church say Mary was not blessed does not mean she was not. Protestant do teach and believe she was blessed for the part she played in bringing Christ into the world and raising Him.  What we don’t do is deify her and worship her as we see in your church.  The evidence of Scripture is that she did have children of her own. Sexual relations between husband and wife (including Mary and Joseph) is a good and sacred thing.  It is not a filthy thing.

New Catholic,
I’m aware of many who have converted to your church. I have listened to a few “testimonies” and to tell the truth I’m not impressed. I wonder how well they knew Scripture and RC doctrines before they converted. They have lost so much by embracing these doctrines and denying so much of Scripture. Its sad.
Did you understand before you converted that you could no longer have assurance of salvation? That all grace comes through Mary? That the death of Christ for your sins is not enough to pay for all of them and if you die in a state of mortal sin you will be condemned? Or that His blood does not cleanse you of all your sins and that you must go to purgatory to be cleansed of those sins?

Jerome, You keep going back to the idea that there are individual Catholics who disagree with what the Church teaches as if that is proof the Church is wrong. It makes no different what individuals believe. It is what the Church teaches that matters. When I point out differences in theology among Protestants, it is the doctrines of the denominations I am critiquing, not individuals. I know you reject the idea that the Church does not teach the same as it did in the first century. You will have to discover your error on your own (the readings I listed would help), however, not a single Protestant denominations teaches anything close to what its founders taught and those denominations have divided repeatedly spawning new gospels. You mention “orthodox Protestant” denominations, so even you are beginning to recognize you can’t find the truth in all of Protestantism. What percentage are orthodox Protestants of all Protestant denominations. Do all those denominations hold to the same essential doctrines? I know they don’t, baptism (both method and necessity) for one example.

You say, “I wonder how well they knew Scripture and RC doctrines before they converted. They have lost so much by embracing these doctrines and denying so much of Scripture. Its sad.” Obviously you have not heard many since an overwhelming number of those who have converted (many hundreds in recent years) are life-long evangelical pastors, theologians, evangelists and missionaries. If you read the books I listed you would discover how remarkably well they understand Scripture - You would also realize that in many ways there are very few differences between orthodox Protestants and Catholics. Sadly, Calvinism and once-saved-always-saved doctrines are not orthodox and cannot be squared with Scripture. I was dismayed, after my eyes were opened and I approached Scripture without the blinders of Protestantism, how non-biblical Protestantism is and how utterly grounded in Scripture Catholicism is.

Having been raised in both Calvinistic Baptist and Arminian Nazarene denominations, I have never believed in once-saved-always-saved. I have known since I was a Child that if I died in a state of mortal sin I would be damned. For a sinner like me, it causes me to repent and get to confession often (remember, Christ said to lust or to hate is the same as adultery and murder). I have faith that our loving Lord is not playing “Gotcha games” and I do not fear that He will strike me dead instantly after I have had a lustful thought. But I do fear that if I deluded myself into thinking that future sins were forgiven and required no repentance and no confession, that at some point I would not only be facing damnation but, given the nature of sin, would have drifted further and further into sin until I might not hear Christ knock, or Christ calling, as I raced along the broad way to Hell while calling out Lord, Lord.

Christ is “all grace” “all mercy” “all love” and the “bread of heaven” and, yes, He came through Mary our blessed Mother. All grace came through Mary. Mary’s role in redemptive history is so great that I do not hesitate to say that any other biblical character, except her son Jesus Christ, would have virtually no impact on redemptive history if they had never existed. All the other biblical characters were incidental to what was to come. Mary is the only person whose role was significant enough that redemption through the God-man Jesus Christ could not have occurred without her willing cooperation (Lk 1:38). Just like there would be no need for the crucifixion if Adam and Eve had not fallen, there would be no redemption through the man Jesus Christ if God had not known her before he formed her in the womb and dedicated her before she was born (Psalms 22:10, 139:13-16; Isaiah 49:1b; Jer. 1:5). As the one renamed “Full of Grace,” this second Eve made good on the opportunity to undo the first Eve’s rejection of God’s will by accepting the Archangel Gabriel’s request to be the channel of all mercy, all grace, all love on behalf of all mankind. No other biblical character played as critical a role as did she. No one!

I too used to believe Catholics deified Mary. They don’t. To deify Mary is idolatry and sacrilege. Sadly, the claim Catholics worship Mary is one of the Protestant lies I used to perpetrate myself. It took understanding the difference between honoring and worshiping that got me on the right track.  Would it be honoring your mother to say about her, “any girl would have done” “she’s nothing special” “why any girl in this room could just as easily been your mother”? I don’t think so. Don’t do as I did and confuse honor with worship. No catechized Catholic would worship Mary. But to honor the Mother of my Lord, the Mother my Lord gave me, how wonderful, how glorious, how reassuring that she loves me and cares for me.

It is Paul who said, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake,” He went on to say, “and in my flesh I COMPLETE WHAT IS LACKING in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Col.1:24).

Christ’s blood does cleanse me from all my sins. Christ’s blood is sufficient to cleanse the whole world of its sins. But Christ’s blood is not efficacious for all unless they respond to His mercy. As a sinful person I still sin and cling to sin. Also, Christ never said His blood took away the temporal consequences of my sin. Purgatory is that last cleansing process for those admitted to heaven. Whether it matters to you or not, C.S. Lewis believed in purgatory. Maybe he didn’t understand Scripture either.

As I prepare for another week of 14 hour days, I don’t have time to continue this endless back and forth. May God bless you. I hope you are not merely trying to dissuade Catholics of the truth of their faith, rather I hope you are still seeking all truth. Keep seeking. Christ will lead you to His Church. If you don’t want that, you should probably quit this process. The Holy Spirit has a way of tripping us up and landing us anti-Catholics in Christ’s one, true, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
Love in Christ

@New Catholic, the truth and beauty of your witness is stunning, may God always grant it’s increase.  In contrast to Jerome’s gospel of personal self justification and least common denominator of belief, there is just no comparison.

New Catholic,
Your church is not wrong because RC’ believe things differently than what your church teaches. Rather, it is has doctrines that are not apostolic and deny the Scripture. That is the issue. 

Jerome, which came first the Church or Scripture and who is it really that denies apostolic and Scriptural teaching, you or our Church.  Jerome, you’ve got nothing but hearsay and false witness.  You even reject and contradict what the very Scriptures say themselves:
.
[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. [2 Peter 3:16]
.
[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. [1 Timothy 3:15]

Dismas,
The Scripture came 1st. The OT predates the church as the teachings of Christ do.
To say that Mary did not have her own children (Matt 13:47, Mark 6:3) and was immaculately conceived is to deny the clear teaching of Scripture. Romans 3:9 and 5:12.

You really should not be quoting Scriptures you don’t understand.

Jerome wrote:
Craig,
Again, where is the evidence that the host changes? The fact is, there is none.
********************************************************
You can say the same thing about Baptism and Holy Matrimony.  What sense perceptible change takes place in a baptized person to prove that they have been baptized and have entered into Christ’s body, the Church?  What lab test can I run to prove that a wedding couple are validly married?

Jerome, here’s your problem.  In light of the truth and beauty set forth and adhered to in the Roman Catholic Church for over 2000 years, your alien gospel of self justified, lease path of resistance, lowest common denominator Christianity is an EPIC FAIL.  It lacks not only truth and beauty but the very Cross of Christ Himself. 
.
You have no salt, you’re but a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a false prophet. No pain, no gain.  No sacrifice, no salvation.  Protest all you want my friend, but until you accept the Cross of Christ, believe the fullness of His Gospel and his true Church your nothing more than a sounding brass or tinkling cymbal.

You can look at the wedding certificate. Interview the witnesses to the wedding. References to them being husband and wife i.e. Mr and Mrs on their mail. Sharing of their last names.
If a person who has been baptized because they have believed in Christ then you will see the fruit of that in their lives. Fruit such as putting sin out of their lives, reading the Scripture and helping others would be a way to discern a change has taken place. Paul’s conversion on the Damascus road clearly showed a changed life.

Dismas,
Not sure where you getting the idea that “No pain, no gain.  No sacrifice, no salvation.” and “your alien gospel of self justified, lease path of resistance,..” Is this what you think Protestantism is about?

Jerome, enough of your truthless riddles, give it a rest.

Okay… let’s try to get this message across again. [ugh..]

It appears to me that the word is out that if you want to easily *knock* the Catholic Church just act like you’re politely asking questions and hijack a thread on NCRegister.  No one will stop you (why I don’t know???)... and you will get *plenty* of *free* time to spread your silly agenda and insult the Church, regardless of the original topic.

When they (those silly Catholic commenters and posters who *truly* want to help seeking souls find the truth) finally get exhausted and finally give-up answering your immature and deceitful questions and remarks… just wait for another opportunity to play the *same game again*.  Those Catholics are so-o-o dumb.  They never seem to learn.

=====

So I *seriously* ask… when will this immature game stop???

ED, I see no reason to hide from or ignore the captiousness and hubris of people like Jerome and his ilk. Be not afraid, hide not your light under a bushel basket, take up your Cross.  The immature and deceitful questions of Jerome and his ilk fool noone.  They only serve to further redound to the truth rather than detract from it.  They also provide the added blessing of sharpening the skills of those who sincerely value truth and care enough to defend, promote and preserve it.

Dismas -  Sorry you disagree with me… but I stand by what I said.  [Matt. 7:6]

ED, I get your point, however, do you see no value in sharpening the skills of those who sincerely value truth and care enough to defend, promote and preserve it.

Craig Roberts, Dismas, Ed and Mark, thanks for your help and corrections.
Craig, sorry I mistook you earlier.
Everett, I quit responding to you because “virtually everything said was wrong.” I didn’t want to bother you with any need to respond.
Jerome, You seem to keep arguing the same issues over and over. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I guess the Catholic Church is much like Everett has seen about me, all wrong, nothing right, entirely in error. May God bless all of you and may Everett and Jerome be led to His Church.