Is the Church corrupt as the headline to this article suggests?  It is first of all an institution run by ordinary frail human beings subject to error just like any other being. They and we are all Holy creations capable of many unholy actions and thoughts. But corruption is the abuse of the entrusted power for private or corporate power. It hurts everyone who depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority. 
Just how corrupt is the Roman Catholic Church?  Judge for yourself but first read my blog http://whenreligionfails.blogspot.ca/2012/08/pope-benedict-is-deeply-hurt.html
Be forewarned it is not for the timid and it is not for those who believe that a religious institution will save them.  It is mainly for those who look beyond the institution and have find God in their hearts.

On Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 savvy wrote:

“Who were these early Christians who received the canon from the Apostles?”

MY RESPONSE . .
One thing is certain they weren’t Roman Catholics!

Most historians agree the Roman Catholic church was formed in 312 A.D. at the time of the so-called “miraculous conversion” to Christianity of the Roman Emperor Constantine.
This agrees with what Thomas Patrick Doyle . . a Roman Catholic . . writes concerning the RCC:

He writes . . .

1) “The Catholic Church was officially recognized by Emperor Constantine in the early 4th century. With this recognition the religious leaders, soon to be known as the “clergy” gradually evolved into a separate, privileged class, the most exalted members of which were the bishops.”

Mr. Doyle goes on to say . . .

“the centralization of power (the papacy) was not evident until the middle ages (12th-13th centuries) during which time several popes gradually reserved various powers to themselves.”

Citation:
1) Source / Article: A VERY SHORT HISTORY OF CLERGY SEXUAL ABUSE IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH / Rev. Thomas Doyle, J.C.D., C.A.D.C.

Link: http://www.crusadeagainstclergyabuse.com/htm/AShortHistory.htm

The problem with your theories June and Trebert, is that they have been tested in courts of law recently and found to be false.

June,

I asked you for an Apostolic father to prove your theories. If you are going to make historical claims stick those who were around at the time, not someone else.

The RCC did not determine what the canon of the NT was to be. The church at Rome during this time did not have that kind of influence.

Mark puts it so well why the RCC is so corrupt—“The whole shooting works is, after all, founded on Peter, who was, in Chesterton’s fine phrase “a shuffler, a coward, and a snob—in a word, a man”.

Any church that is founded on a man will be corrupted.

I am also an adult convert, and I HAVE witnessed terrible abuses of power, mostly since the change of Popes, by both clerical and lay persons.  I have been caught in the middle of people I love on both sides who get spiteful with each other.  I have cried bitterly over folks who leave because they feel they have no other choice, and equally cried bitterly over the self-righteous “old-timers” who don’t care when others leave.  If this is heartbreaking for me, what must it do to our God?  I also know that if I left, I could “shop around” for a church that would allow me to be in (lay)ministry, whether I am female or not.  So, why do I stay?  Because, I can’t go back to the Protestant view that Holy Communion is merely a symbol…even an optional one in some cases, yet some of those same churches seem to hold on to the literal translation of many Scriptures, but not the ones about and for Holy Communion.  Jesus gave us the parable of the wheat & tares, but, St. Paul says something even more interesting in Philippians 1:15-18:  “Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:  the one do it of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel; but the other proclaim Christ of faction, not sincerely, thinking to raise up affliction for me in my bonds. What then? only that in every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and therein I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.”  My “beloved neighboring cellmate Paul” as I call him, knew early on that the Church would include corrupt members, yet he stayed….and he prayed.  I’m trying to follow that example.

Ritagail B,
What is the gospel? How does the RCC tell you how to be saved?
If you read Paul you will find that his main emphasis was the gospel and its power to save.

Ted,

Please prove that the church of Rome was not involved in determining the canon of scripture.

June,

Cherry-picking quotes from the fathers misses the point. They ALSO held tradition was equally important and that the church, not each individual Christian was the interpreter of scripture and tradition.

Irenaeus

The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth.

For how stands the case?

Suppose there should arise a dispute relative to some important question among us. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary [in that case] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the churches? (ibid. 3:4).

Tertullian

Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled (The Prescription Against Heretics 22,30 [A.D.200])

Irenaeus

For even creation reveals Him who formed it, and the very work made suggests Him who made it, and the world manifests Him who ordered it. The Universal [Catholic] Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the Apostles (Against Heresies 2:9 [A.D. 189]).

True knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved, without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither addition nor curtailment [in truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the Word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy… (ibid. 4:33 [A.D. 189]).

Jerome

Don’t you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Sirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command.  For many other observances of the Churches, which are do to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law (The Dialogue Against the Luciferians 8 [A.D. 382]).

A strong case can be made for Romans 1-thru-7 whereby Paul explains “how” the gospel saves the sinner.  On this basis, Paul then opens Romans 8:1 with his ultimate declaration.

@savvy- the proof is that the Church of Rome, through the Synods and Councils, DID determine scripture.  I said that these whacked out theories about the sex abuse scandals have been proven wrong in court.

@Casting Crowns, @June-
The trouble with that is the letter to the Romans, according to the archaeological evidence, was written *before* Mark, the earliest Gospel.  Therefore obviously Paul was talking about something other than scripture.

June,

I did not deny that scripture is not an Authority.  We deny that it’s the ONLY authority. The fathers themselves do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura, not found in scripture.

.

Ted Seeber,

I was responding to the other Ted.  The comedy is that those railing against the evils of Popery, are themselves part of thousands of churches, that play God when it comes to their conflicting doctrines ALL based on scripture.

This is why I look for consistency in doctrine and not people.

Ted, (My opinion, since you asked) The Gospel is the Good News that God decided to become one of God’s own creation in the body of Jesus Christ, to live, suffer (both joy and pain—all of what it means to be “human”), die, resurrect, ascend, pour out God’s Holy Spirit, (and will return), so that we become Jesus’ brothers and sisters and have eternal life with and in Him.  The wholeness of Catholic teaching embraces all of this, it’s not God’s fault that it isn’t always lived well, that’s where God’s grace and love covers the Church’s sins.  That’s where Jesus stands in our midst as Intermediary for us all, begging us with all gentleness and humility to come to Him, to learn from Him.  I didn’t join the Catholic Church because of human beings, I joined Jesus because He called me to Himself.  I will let St. Paul have the final say in 1 Cor. 11:23-26:  “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”  In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”

@Ted Seeber:  Catholic scholarship agrees Paul is explaining the gospel in Romans 1-7 so what is the “something other” he is talking about?  Mark’s gospel is the shortest but is also the most action packed.  He was essentially a personal secretary to Peter.  Where do Mark and Paul disagree?  You have failed to make any coherent point in your remarks.

Ted et al: The canon of scripture we have today was, in the final analysis, first promulgated by Damasus I in the late fourth century.  Local synods basically agreed with this at Carthage and Rome (meaning these local council said, “We’re doing Rome is doing”.  This act of canonization was, in fact, part of a larger overall effort by Damasus to get canonical ducks in a row with regularization of liturgy in the Roman Church.  The question before hims was “How do we do our worship services and a subset question was “Exactly which books do we use in our readings?”  Voila.  Canon of scripture regularized.  It was already largely regularized by common consensus anyway, But this made it official.  Then it got reflected in Jerome’s Bible.  Then at Florence and Trent this now venerable tradtion just got written down in gold ink and underlined three times when clever young reformers decided they knew a thing or two.  So yeah.  It all goes back to Rome and, in fact, to Pope Damasus I.

savvy,
As far as I know when the canon of the NT was determined it did not require the approval of the bishop of Rome. There are no statements that a pope’ approval was necessary.

Other Ted- then you need to *really* research the politics of the Church from the 2nd to the 9th century.

Mark,
You are mistaken about the NT canon being first promulgated by Damasus I in the late fourth century. It was Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria who was before Damasus I:

“In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of the books that would become the twenty-seven-book NT canon, and he used the word “canonized” (kanonizomena) in regards to them..”

savvy,
If you were looking for consistency of doctrine you would not be RC.

Ted:  Athanasius canon, like all the canons promulgated before it, is a local decree by a local bishop for the local Church in his area.  Damasus canon is adopted by the whole of the Western Church because of the Vulgate.  That’s the canon that Florence and Trent will dogmatically ratify 11 and 12 centuries later.  My reference was not to the NT canon but the whole canon.

Ted,

This is your opinion only.  You skipped Pope Julius 1 letter to Bishop Athanasius on this issue. They were part of the same church.

Pope St. Julius I (342):

Writing to the Byzantine court after Athanasius had been deposed from the Alexandrian see by the Arians .....

“It behoved you to write to us that thus what is just might be decreed for all. For they who suffered were Bishops, and the Churches that suffered no common ones, over which the Apostles ruled in person. And why were we (the Pope) not written to concerning the Church, **especially Alexandria**? Or are they (the Arians) ignorant that this has been the Tradition first to write to us, and thus what is just be decreed from this place (Rome)? If therefore, any such suspicion fell upon the bishop there (Alexandria), it was benefitting to write to this Church (Rome).” (Julius, Ep. n. 6,21.)

The bottom line is the RC Church decided what books went into the Bible, had these books translated to Latin(St. Jerome)and then meticulously hand copied it for centuries (by monks in monasteries) for centuries.  Surviving hand written editions are the same as modern editions - Mr. Shea, did I get that more or less right?

More or less.  I could add a bunch of qualifications and caveats if you like.  The last line is particularly problematic.  But the basic fact remains that the Bible is the written aspect of the Church’s tradition. Community first, then the community’s book later.

@Mark Shea:  Do you know why all these books were translated into Latin?  For what purpose?  I always wondered why.  Thanks.

@Casting Crowns- I’m not Mark and I don’t play him on TV, but I think maybe a good part of St. Jerome’s reasoning is that the common people no longer spoke Greek.  But the one thing Pagan Rome had done *right* is that everybody spoke Latin.

In fact, Latin is at the root of most languages spoken in the Old Empire today.

Casting Crowns:  They were translated into Latin because that was the common tongue of the day, just as English is the most common tongue today.

Eventually, other translations were made as different language groups emerged in Europe and gained in power and influence.  As a general rule, language dominance follows political and economic dominance.  When Alexander established a huge empire, Greek became the dominant language.  When Rome became the power, Latin became the language.  As the Empire broke into nationstates, their languages became more or less important as they did.  With the success of England and America on the world stage, English took over.  I expect we’ll all be learning Chinese soon. :)

Thank you, Mark and Ted (Seeber).  There’s always something new to learn.

There is only one 100% true statement about the Catholic Church:  It is full of sinners.

On Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 12:08 PM (EST) Savvy wrote:
“June,  Who were these early Christians who received the canon from the Apostles?  Have you even read the writings of the early church?  And where does scripture mandate sola scriptura as the only rule of faith?”

MY RESPONSE,which follows,was posted twice and subsequently removed by blog administrator? ? ?
An examination of the fathers reveals that the doctrine of Scripture Alone as the sole standard for faith and Practice for Christian was common among the chief ancient theologians. Note the following examples documented by Francis Turretin:
Tertullian: “I adore the fullness of the Scriptures” (Treatise Against Hermogenes 22*.3 [ACW 24:57; PL 2.218]). And again: “Hermogenes may teach that it is written, or if it is not written let him fear that woe to those who add anything” (ibid.). And elsewhere: “We have no need of curiosity after Christ, nor of inquisition, after the gospel. When we believe, we first believe this, that there is nothing beyond which we ought to believe” (Prescription Against Heretics 7 [ANF 3:246; PL 2.20-21]). Jerome says, “That which does not have authority from the Scriptures, we can as easily despise as approve” (Commentariorum in Evangelium Matthaei [PL 26.180] on Mt. 23:35, 36). Augustine says, “In the things openly declared in the Scriptures, we can find whatever is necessary for faith and practice” (CI 2.9* [FC 2:72; PL 34.42]). Basil says, “It is a proof of unbelief and a sign of pride either to weaken any of those things which are written or to introduce what is not written: (cf. Concerning Faith [FC 9:58-59; PG 31.678-79]). Irenaeus says, “We knew not the provision for our salvation through others than those through whom the gospel came to us, which indeed they preached, but afterwards through the will of God delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be the pillar and foundation of our faith” (Against Heresies 3.1 [ANF 1:414; PG 7.844]).[1]
Citation: [1] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:139-140

I will leave those following this discussion with a quote from former Roman Catholic James McCarthy’s Book “The Gospel According to Rome”

  “Both sides (Catholic & non-Catholic) agree that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that as such they speak with divine authority. The Lord Jesus Himself, in John 10:35, clearly identifies the Word of God as Scripture. The Point of controversy is Tradition.  The Roman Catholic Church asserts that Tradition is also the Word of God. The question which the Roman Catholic Church must answer, therefore, is: Where do Jesus, the prophets, or the apostles teach that Tradition is the Word of God? Or, more precisely: Where in the Bible can it be found that Scripture and Tradition together, as interpreted by the Pope and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, are to be the Church’s rule of faith?  This is what Roman Catholicism is really asserting and should be the topic of debate.  And since the Roman Catholic Church is the one asserting the authority of Tradition and the Magisterium, the burden of proof lies in Rome.”

Source:  Good News for Catholics
Link:  http://www.gnfc.org/mccarthy.html
**********
I trust those following this discussion can judge for themselves as to the credibility of the source referenced above and to the veracity of the testimony borne by Mr. McCarthy.
May God be pleased to lead many Roman Catholics into a personal and serious study of the Scriptures for themselves that they be found as the Bereans, of whom it was said:
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”  (God’s Word as it is found in Acts 17:11)

“Some people imagine you can stick with Jesus but ditch the Church.  Not possible.  Christ is the head and the Church is his body.”

Those people are called “protestants”. Are you really saying that Protestants aren’t Christians?

Mark stakes a lot on this idea.  He’s saying I shouldn’t hold it against him that he financially supports the RCC, because he has no choice.  It’s not his fault that his donations are funding some evil behavior—he HAS to support them or else be damned.

Mark, is there nothing the Roman Catholic Church could do to make you quit?  Clearly a child abuse conspiracy isn’t enough, nor its efforts discourage the use of condoms in AIDS-stricken Africa, nor its ongoing attack on the civil liberties of non-Catholics in America.  Is its grip on your soul so firm that you would support it even if it endorses genocide?  Slavery?  Human sacrifice?

You are morally culpable for your membership, and for the things your donations support.  According to your faith, God *wants* you to support this corrupt church.  If you were a moral person, you would choose a better god to worship, one whose chosen church doesn’t do evil things to preserve its own power.

Your argument reminds me of the war criminals who argued at Nuremberg that they “were only following orders”.

“Are you really saying that Protestants aren’t Christians?”

No.

@WBThacker:  I’ve never heard any Catholic clergy ever say Protestants are not Christians.  There are a lot of plain dumb and myopic Catholics who might think that even though the Vatican calls Protestants “our separated bretheren.”  Still, there are plenty of dumb and myopic Protestants as well.  If you are seeking a “perfect” church, when you find it let us know.  One thing, though, as soon as you or I join, that church would no longer be perfect.  We do not follow men—but Christ.

When are we going to discuss the over 1,000 priests who were falsely accused of sexual abuse as of 2002?
Have you read The Conspiracy by Monsignor McCarthy, Double Standard and Catholic Priests Falsely Accused by David Pierre, or Hope Springs Eternal by James Valladares?
The lives of good men are totally destroyed by lies.  The abuse of children cannot be tolerated but it is just as wrong to ignore the evil that has been done to our priests, and it is time to speak up in defe4nse of the innocent.

@Joann Richmond, what you say is true and likely the church practice of often making cash settlements to people falsely claiming abuse has been an unwise decision.  In retrospect, such easy payouts only fueled distrust and raised speculation the priesthood was/is/remains rampant with untrustworthy clergy.  Every accuser (and the accused) needs to be judged on its own independently.  Paying people to drop accusations might be expedient but has been unwise and very costly both in money and reputation.

@Mark Shea
Posted by Mark Shea on Monday, Aug 27, 2012 4:17 PM (EST):

“No.  It’s like saying my faith in a hospital isn’t affected by the quality of its janitors.  The bishops don’t run the joint.  The Holy Spirit does.”

The problem is that this analogy is fatally flawed. Even employees of a hospital are not required to OBEY the janitorial staff, and can correct that staff as to procedure. If a pedophile priest can tell a kid to come see him in the sacristy after confession for “penance”, should the kid trust the priest? Of course not. The problem is, how is the kid to know whether or not the priest is a pedophile? It is because of this obedience problem that even the Pope has said he understands why the abuse scandal has caused some Catholics to leave the Church. How is anyone supposed to know if they’re being instructed or manipulated?

I agree that the problem is not as widespread as the media reports, and that we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater, but the fact that it happens at all should Catholics pause to think about what obedience means with respect to the hierarchy. It’s a practical matter. If some of the hierarchy has winked at pedophilia by moving priests around, what are parents to do? Just trust in the Holy Spirit who runs the place? It would be nice if the Holy Spirit ran the place so that these things didn’t or couldn’t happen, but they do, and parents have to take practical steps to protect their children, to the point of interfering with the confessional. “What did the priest tell you as penance?” is a reasonable question to ask a teenager these days. It’s a sad situation.

To my question, “Are you really saying that Protestants aren’t Christians?”, Mark Shea replied

“No.”

That’s the answer I expected.  So let me return to the question you set out to answer: “Why do you remain Catholic when members of your communion do great evil?”

You spoke of your faith in Jesus, but that doesn’t explain why you remain a Catholic.  You could be just as Christian if you joined another denomination, right?

So tell me again why your faith in Christ requires you to support the Roman Catholic Church—the denomination with the most hierarchical church, therefore one most susceptible to corruption.  If there’s more than one way to come to Jesus, why aren’t you culpable for choosing a way that supports more evil than your alternatives?

Because I don’t believe in a Minimum Daily Adult Requirement approach to revelation.  I want the fullness of the Revelation Christ came to give.  That subsist in the Catholic communion, so I’m Catholic.

I don’t know where you get the notion that a hierarchical Church is most susceptible to corruption.  Personally, I think any form of governance is susceptible to corruption.  However, since Jesus founded a hierarchy (“He who listens to you listens to me”) I figure he knows what he’s doing.  If he’s willing to risk it, so am I.

On Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 11:09 AM JD wrote:

“JuneAnnette, it’s nice to quote the Bible.  By the way, where did the Bible come from?  Who decided what books would go into it?  Who preseverved it for a millenium painstakingly hand copying it?  You wouldn’t have a Bible to quote from if it weren’t for the RC Church.”

MY RESPONSE to JD was posted twice and twice it was removed by the blog administrator? ?  Perhaps three times is a charm!
JD . .
It is a Catholic myth that the Roman Catholic “church” gave us the Bible! The authority of the Hebrew Bible (The Old Testament) is God Himself who revealed Himself through the prophets who wrote God’s word to the people.  This authority of Scripture continued with the New Testament as Christ’s church is built on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20). The teachings and writing of Jesus and his Apostles form the essence of Christianity. Jesus through His apostles established His church, and through them revealed Scripture.  The Old Testament consists of the 22 books that comprise the Jewish Bible, known as the Tanakh, compiled by the Jews, while the New Testament received from the Apostles, compiled by the early Christians, is comprised of 27 books. In summary, the early Christians had in their hands what was a Bible to them, namely, the Old Testament Scriptures, those from which Jesus oft quoted!  As it is written in Romans 3:1-2, the “oracles of God” were committed to the Jews. We can produce almost all of the New Testament from the church fathers writings and quotations before the year 150 A.D. proving that there was no church government to approve of what was in or out. The Scripture is God-breathed and thus its’ origin is with God, and not man. “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”  (2 Pt.1:21)
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:  That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (II Tim. 3:17) The word ‘INSPIRED’ from II Timothy 3:15-17 literally means ‘God-breathed’. Though men wrote the Old and New Testaments, it is God who worked through them to write exactly what HE wanted. By their own testimony, the Scriptures are not merely the product of man, but are authored by God himself.

The fact is that Jesus never setup the office of the papacy. There is no mention of it in the entire New Testament.

@Ted:  Is it your position that Kingdom living have no structure or leadership?  How do you expect the gospel was to be rolled out during the apostolic age without any thought or order of presentation?  Maybe you are OK with an overseer consensus of Bishops—but just no titular popehead?  Is that it?

On Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 11:09 AM JD wrote:

“JuneAnnette, it’s nice to quote the Bible.  By the way, where did the Bible come from?  Who decided what books would go into it?  Who preseverved it for a millenium painstakingly hand copying it?  You wouldn’t have a Bible to quote from if it weren’t for the RC Church.”

JD, my response to you was posted twice and subsequently removed both times by the blog administrator? ?  I thought the third time might be a charm.
It is a Catholic myth that the Roman Catholic “church” gave us the Bible! The authority of the Hebrew Bible (The Old Testament) is God Himself who revealed Himself through the prophets who wrote God’s word to the people.  This authority of Scripture continued with the New Testament as Christ’s church is built on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20). The teachings and writing of Jesus and his Apostles form the essence of Christianity. Jesus through His apostles established His church, and through them revealed Scripture.  The Old Testament consists of the 22 books that comprise the Jewish Bible, known as the Tanakh, compiled by the Jews, while the New Testament received from the Apostles, compiled by the early Christians, is comprised of 27 books. In summary, the early Christians had in their hands what was a Bible to them, namely, the Old Testament Scriptures, those from which Jesus oft quoted!  As it is written in Romans 3:1-2, the “oracles of God” were committed to the Jews. We can produce almost all of the New Testament from the church fathers writings and quotations before the year 150 A.D. proving that there was no church government to approve of what was in or out. The Scripture is God-breathed and thus its’ origin is with God, and not man. “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”  (2 Pt.1:21)
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:  That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”  (II Tim. 3:17)  The word ‘INSPIRED’ from 2 Timothy 3:15-17 literally means ‘God-breathed’. Though men wrote the Old and New Testaments, it is God who worked through them to write exactly what HE wanted. By their own testimony, the Scriptures are not merely the product of man, but are authored by God himself.

Casting Crowns,
There is to be structure in the church. Its laid out in a number of places in Scripture such as I Tim 3. If various bishops want together to help each other that would be a good thing. The problem in the early centuries was when the bishop of Rome wanted to be recognized as the bishop of bishops. Its from this the papacy developed.

Casting Crowns—in case you didn\‘t get my message, Claire thinks you and Kellyann are my imaginary friends. Check out Jennifer Fulwiler\‘s blog on Melinda Gates.

JuneArnette, I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll read this book you’re touting by the fallen-away priest if you read this one: “100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura” by Dave Armstrong.
.
Deal?

JoAnna wrote: 
I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll read this book you’re touting by the fallen-away priest if you read this one: “100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura” by Dave Armstrong.
.
Deal?
**********
JoAnna,  I have supported my belief / assertion that the early church subscribed to Sola Scriptura. At the request of Savvy, I have even cited an “apostolic father” to support my case. I have already done extensive research and expended a great deal of time and energy in studying these matters out. I have weighed the evidence and am fully persuaded of that which I have affirmed. 
I suggest that those following these discussions do likewise.  Each must decide for themselves as to the credibility of the source and the trustworthiness of the author. 

JuneAnnette, A Christian by God’s grace & a Witness for Christ

p.s.  I have not cited any books written by “fallen away priests”, but rather from former priests who have been converted to TRUTH!

On Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 11:09 AM JD wrote:

“JuneAnnette, it’s nice to quote the Bible.  By the way, where did the Bible come from?  Who decided what books would go into it?  Who preseverved it for a millenium painstakingly hand copying it?  You wouldn’t have a Bible to quote from if it weren’t for the RC Church.”

JD . . by way of a postscript . . . 
The large reference series of books called the Ante-Nicean Fathers contains all of the surviving writings of the early Christian teachers up to 325 A.D. It is interesting that those writers cite or quote from all of the books of our New Testament. The New Testament could be reproduced from those writings The boastful claim of the Roman Catholic Church that it has been the sole guardian and preserver of the sacred Scriptures down to the present, is nothing but pure falsehood. The Bible is not a Roman Catholic book. Roman Catholics did not write it, nor do their doctrines and church meet the description of the doctrine and church of which it speaks. The New Testament was completed before the end of the first century, A.D. The things in it do not correspond to the Roman Catholic Church which hundreds of years after the death of the apostles slowly evolved into what it now is. The Roman Catholic Church is not the original and true church, but a “church” born of many departures and corruptions from the New Testament church.  “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:  That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”  (II Tim. 3:17)  The word ‘INSPIRED’ from 2 Timothy 3:15-17 literally means ‘God-breathed’. Though men wrote the Old and New Testaments, it is God who worked through them to write exactly what HE wanted. By their own testimony, the Scriptures are not merely the product of man, but are authored by God himself. God gave us the Bible. God preserves His Word.
“For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.”  (Ps. 119:89)

JuneAnnette, A Christian by God’s grace & a Witness for Christ

June,
.
And I, as a former Protestant, have also examined my beliefs and am convinced that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth. You can read my conversion story here: http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/2009/06/my-conversion-story.html
.
Your arguments are weak and easily refutable. You quoted ONE church father out of context to support your view. You quoted Scripture that doesn’t say what you claim it says.
.
Yes, the man you supported is a fallen-away priest. But I will read his book if you read the one I recommended. Deal?

JoAnna,

As I have already said, I have no need to make further inquiry into these matters.  FYI . .  I quoted more than ONE church father, as you will see by scrolling up to my comment date-stamped:
“Posted by JuneAnnette on Thursday, Aug 30, 2012 9:19 AM (EST)”
JoAnna, you are entitled to your opinion / assessment of my arguments, but I don’t find anything you have offered so far that compels me to believe otherwise.

JuneAnnette, A Christian & a Witness for Christ

June,
.
I’m also assured of my beliefs, but I’m always open to new perspectives—which is why I’m willing to read the book authored by your fallen-away priest friend. It’s too bad you’re not willing to be similarly open-minded.

Joanna,
As I said, I have no need to consult additional sources in this matter.
I would add . . that when it comes to my Christian faith, I am unarguably not open-minded neither open to new perspectives. My faith is rooted and grounded solely in the TRUTH of God’s Word, and there can be no surer foundation upon which to rest than the revelation God has given us in His Word of salvation through the person and work of Jesus Christ alone. By God’s grace, I am resting by faith in the finished work of my Lord & Saviour, Jesus Christ for my salvation. 

I have found reading and meditating upon the Scriptures more profitable for the soul, for as it is written . . “the entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding to the simple.” (Ps. 119:130)
and again . . “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”  (Rom. 10:17)

JuneAnnette, a Christian & a Witness for Christ

1) I am amazed at the non-Christian attitude of those attacking the Church.  If you were really Christians, you would address the leaders of the church in your complaints, not try to lead Christ’s people astray.
2) The authority of the bible is purely based on the authority of the church which can ONLY be authoritative if led as explained by Christ himself by the Holy Spirit.  If you are a Christian who doubts the authority of the church (via the Holy Spirit), then you must doubt the authority of the Bible, or you logically inconsistent (hypocritical).
3) God is Love.

JuneArnette,

See, I’m always prepared to give a reason for the hope that is in me (1 Peter 3:15). I don’t worry about my Church’s doctrines being challenged or tested, because I know they will stand up to scrutiny. I’m sorry you don’t have the same faith in your church’s doctrines.
.
When I read and meditate upon the Scriptures, I find that the do indeed confirm that Catholicism is the fullness of truth. For example, I believe Jesus when He says that we must eat of his body and drink of his blood to have eternal life (John 6:53 - 58).
.
Let me ask you this. If we both meditate on the Scriptures, and we both ask the Holy Spirit to guide us to truth in doing so, how do we know who is right when we come to different conclusions?

JoAnna,
Since you now believe you have the “fullness of the truth” would that include the doctrines that the apostles never taught such as the papacy, indulgences, purgatory and the Marian doctrines?

Rob,
You second point is mistaken—“The authority of the bible is purely based on the authority of the church..” The Scriptures derives its authority from God Himself Who is the author of Scripture. This is why all church teachings are to be grounded in Scripture and those that are not, are not binding and false.

JoAnna,
In any of the last supper accounts does Jesus say specifically that eating the bread and drinking to wine leads to eternal life?

June - I see you’re avoiding my question because you don’t know how to answer it.
.
To answer your question, why do you say the apostles never taught those doctrines?

June - so your claim is that Jesus lied in John 6:53 - 58?
.
He said, at the Last Supper, “This IS my body… This IS my blood,” not “this symbolizes my body/blood.”

JoAnna,
Where did the apostles teach such thing as indulgences or purgatory for example?

Jesus used metaphorical language quite a bit in His teachings. So it is in John 6:53-58. Just as eating and drinking is essential for human life so is belief in Him essential for eternal life. He uses the specific example how the manna in the wilderness during the time of Moses sustained the physical needs of the people for life so to He is the spiritual bread that is to be taken in by faith in Him that leads to sustenance and eternal life. Note also in this passage there is no hint of the last supper nor of the passover meal which the last supper is a reenactment of.

@Ted

So since the Church decided on the books used in the Bible three centuries after Christ’s resurrection how is that possible?

Also note Jesus never mentions the New Testament.  He does mention His Church, the authority of the church, that HE will always be with the church and that the Church will endure for all times.

Matthew 16:

16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,  and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 28:
16 The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them.
17 When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted.
18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

Acts 1:
6 When they had gathered together they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
7 He answered them, “It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has established by his own authority.
8 But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

John 20:
19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
21 [Jesus] said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.
23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

Rob,
Is the church the source of the NT or God? Are the books inspired-inerrant because the church makes them so or are they inspired-inerrant because God is the author and source?

@Ted “Where did the apostles teach such thing as indulgences or purgatory for example?”

1) Christ’s church taught these things through the authority given them by Jesus Himself. Purgatory was defined by the council of Trent, I believe.
2) Did you think Jesus would create his Church (promise to be with them through the ends of the ages) and then abandon it after the original apostles died?

@Ted “Is the church the source of the NT or God? Are the books inspired-inerrant because the church makes them so or are they inspired-inerrant because God is the author and source?”

1) The books were written by their authors, members of Christ’s Church, who were guided by the holy Spirit as promised by Jesus.
2) The selection of the books was done by Christ’s Church in 325AD by the council of Nicene, which also produced the Creed, again guided by the holy Spirit.

The Nicene Creed
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Lately I’ve also wondered why our organized religion becomes perverted and the leadership condones the behavior.  Thanks for the reminder that it’s all about Christ. 

Ted, how do you know that the apostles didn’t teach indulgences or purgatory?
.
If Jesus’ was using symbolic language, how do you explain John 6:53 - 58? When Jesus’ followers left Him because they thought He was speaking literally, why didn’t He call them back and explain that He was only using metaphorical language?

Rob,
Since the doctrine of purgatory was not taught by the apostles and was unknown for centuries we can then say that this doctrine are not apostolic. The question is: where did Jesus give later bishops the authority to teach things that neither He nor His apostles taught?

Jesus is building His church. However, He never guaranteed the church could not teach false doctrines. In fact His apostles warned that there would be false teachers who would come into the church and deceive many.(2 Peter 2:1)  In fact we already we already know false doctrines were being taught by some churches during the time of the apostles. See Rev 1-3.

JoAnna,
We know the apostles never taught indulgences or purgatory because they never hint or mention these things.

Some of the followers of Jesus left Him in John 6 because they could not accept and believe His claims. He already know who they were. See John 6:64

Ted - you said, “We know the apostles never taught indulgences or purgatory because they never hint or mention these things.”
.
How do you know this? Were you there?
.
“Some of the followers of Jesus left Him in John 6 because they could not accept and believe His claims.”
.
Right, his claims that they had to EAT his body and DRINK his blood to have eternal life. They took him literally, and left him as a result—and He didn’t correct them but instead reaffirmed the teaching.

@Ted “Since the doctrine of purgatory was not taught by the apostles and was unknown for centuries…”

1) There is reference to indulgence being used within the church on behalf of the early martyrs - 200s AD.
2) We are all part of the body of Christ and therefore we can pray for and suffer for another 1 Corinthians 12:26.

So while I respect your ideas, I will stick with Jesus’s Church guided by the holy Spirit on matters of faith.  You seem to believe in a dead church, one that Christ abandoned?  I cannot believe that Jesus would found a church in his own name and then abandon it.  He may admonish us as he did Peter when we are wrong (for we are only men), but He has not abandon us.

June,

You have not refuted any arguments here. I responded with a quote from the Apostolic fathers themselves on the need for BOTH scripture and tradition as held by the church, and the church structure in the early church.

Why don’t you also admit that the same Apostolic fathers held to the literal meaning of John 6.

Allow me to relate this bit of information.  A parish priest recently stated “Half my parish does not believe in Transubstantiation.  They view the communion metaphorically.”  He stated “This is what Catholicism teaches, but it is not a condition of salvation and does not prevent Protestants from entering Heaven.”

savvy,
Is there an official list of the traditions of the RCC so we can know specifically what they are? Since we know exactly what Scripture is we need to know the same for traditions don’t you think?

What is the “the literal meaning of John 6” and how do you know that is the way to understand it?

@Casting Crowns

Are you sure?  Because Jesus might disagree with you.

John 6:
51 “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
—-
I will not bet my salvation against Christ’s Word.

As a pastor, I would be nervous if the people I was entrusted with did not understand this.

@Ted

This is a good place to start. 
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/
http://www.vatican.va/
—-
But if you want a quick summary of 2000 years of prayer and study you have a lifetimes worth of reading ahead.

Ted,

Tradition refers to those teachings of the Apostles entrusted to the churches. They mostly overlap with scripture, but the mode of transmission is different.

We need tradition to help explain scripture. When the early church said, being born again was water baptism, why do some Protestants argue it’s just saying some prayer accepting Jesus.

The early church also held that the Eucharist was not just symbolic, why do Protestants say otherwise.

There’s much more, as Rob says, we cannot explain everything here.

Justin Martyr

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father… and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

Tertullian

[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life” (On Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).

Hippolytus

Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D.215]).

The Eucharist.

Ignatius of Antioch

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

. . . and are now ready to obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds and to share in the one common breaking of bread – the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore (Letter to the Ephesians 20 [A.D. 110]).

Rob,
Where is the Lord’s supper mentioned at in John 6?

Where in any of the supper accounts does Jesus mention that by eating it, a person gains eternal life?

savvy,
You wrote: “Tradition refers to those teachings of the Apostles entrusted to the churches. They mostly overlap with scripture, but the mode of transmission is different. We need tradition to help explain scripture.”

The only teachings we have of the apostles is found only in the NT. Are you claiming there are teachings of the apostles not found in the NT? If yes, what specifically are these teachings?

When you read Scripture how do you use tradition to help you get the correct meaning of a given text?

June,

Tertullian (while not technically a Church Father, since he later became a Montanist) affirms that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ and is a sacrifice of benefit even for departed Christians:

“The flesh feeds on THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, so that the SOUL TOO may fatten on God.” (Resurrection of the Dead 8:3)

“Likewise, in regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at the SACRIFICIAL prayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive THE BODY OF THE LORD…THE BODY OF THE LORD HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AND RESERVED, each point is secured: both the participation IN THE SACRIFICE…” (Prayer 19:1)

“The Sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord commanded to be taken at meal times and by all, we take even before daybreak in congregations… WE OFFER SACRIFICES FOR THE DEAD on their birthday anniversaries…. We take anxious care lest something of our Cup or Bread should fall upon the ground…” (The Crown 3:3-4)

Are you saying Tertullian was contradicting himself.

Why don’t you just read the fathers yourself, instead of reading what others say about them?

The Eucharist is not a new sacrifice, but a re-presentation of the once and for all sacrifice.

savvy,
Have you read the church fathers? There are 38 volumes and I have never met any RC that has read them.

Dear Ted,

I’m not sure what or why you are asking, but this looks like it could go on for a while and I don’t want to be rude, but I cannot spend all night.
If you are looking for answers then I provided a link that has more than I could eek out in a few weeks of evenings. 
.
Try to understand my pov.  The Holy Spirit has been guiding Christ’s church in these matters for 2000 years.  That is a wonderful gift to us.  I am not trying to interpret God’s word from ignorance, I am standing on the shoulders of all the saints who came before me.  I have to study and think what His Word means to me, but I am not burdened with the same neophyte questions that every person would ask if they did not have the body of work that thousands upon thousands have slaved over.
.
I think rather than re-guessing the Eucharist every day when someone wonders about it, we should be asking deeper questions. How can I help heal the hatred in the world?  God is Love.  How do I bring His creation into accord with His will?
I don’t mean you should not struggle with your faith, but do not argue with people until you have read what the Holy Spirit has already revealed to Christ’s church. 
Jesus promised us that He would be with His church until the end of days.  Please study what His church has learned.
God bless you.

Savvy,

I’m merely offering this well-researched article as a resource to those who desire to study this matter further. 
As William Webster has pointed out, “The Roman Catholic teaching of the eucharist contradicts Scripture and it cannot be validated by the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”

I offer another excerpt from Mr. Webster’s article:

“However, the theological giant who provided the most comprehensive and influential defence of the symbolic interpretation of the Lord’s Supper was Augustine.13 He gave very clear instructions and principles for determining when a passage of Scripture should be interpreted literally and when figuratively. Passages of Scripture must always be interpreted in the light of the entire revelation of Scripture, he concluded, and he used John 6 as a specific example of a passage that should be interpreted figuratively.14”

Let each reader draw their own conclusions. 

JuneAnnette, A Christian by God’s grace & a Witness for Christ

Ted,

I have not read all of them, but from what I have read, I know that June and friends are simply distorting facts.

@Rob:  Since you are a Catholic Pastor, I would be happy to provide the Pastor’s name, Parish and location via Mark Shea.  I hope you are not saying only Catholics can get to Heaven.

@JuneAnnette
I’m sorry but your authority is? One author’s opinion from the 1600s?
Why would you place your faith in one man’s opinion vs. 2000 years of the holy Spirit’s divine guidance?

June,

This article is not well-researched. So once the statement about Tertullian was refuted you come up with Augustine who said.

Augustine

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know that you have received what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ, That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction (ibid. 272).

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_the_real_presence.htm

St. Augustine is referring to something called the four senses of scripture. It’s strange that you should quote someone who said, that he would not believe in the scriptures if it was not for the church.

@Casting Crowns
I’m sorry “As a pastor I would be…” was intended to indicate “As that pastor I would be…”, I am not a pastor.
No, I am not making declarations on salvation, I am saying that I am not betting my salvation on trying to convince others that Jesus did not mean what Jesus said.

Rob,
What does authority have to do with the truth? If the HS was guiding your church then how is it that it has doctrines that are not apostolic?

@Rob:  Jesus says in Mark 16:16 “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”  Even I —as a Catholic know that salvation is based upon my full faith and belief in Jesus as my Lord.  In ACTS 16: 31, Paul and Silas proclaim to their trembling jailer “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.”  In Romans 10: 9 Paul further says:  “That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”  NOW *** Rob, I do not discount the value and reverence of the Eucharist or Communion taken by my Baptist wife.  But in the larger context, it’s been my experience growing up Catholic that the more Eucharist a Catholic receives—the better.  Thus, someone taking the Eucharist 5,000 times in their life has a leg up over someone only receiving it 1,000 times.  No question the Lord’s grace is evident when we commemorate the Last Supper.  But it’s not so much the “physical” receiving of Eucharist as much as receiving Jesus to come and live inside you.  Does Jesus reside in you in your heart or only in the bread?  The idea of receiving more and more Eucharist then becomes distorted to the point of becoming a “work.”  The work of salvation has already been done.  I cannot take credit for my participating in the work completed only by Jesus.  That would be a sin of pride on my part.  If Christ does not reside in your heart, be one Catholic or Protestant—all the bread you receive does not matter.
Just like “belief” has great depth as well.  How is one’s life changed then **because** you declare belief on the Lord Jesus? 

@Rob:  Refer to Romans 4:9 whereby Abraham’s faith in God was credited to him as “righteousness”—because he believed and TRUSTED.  Abraham acted on that belief and obeyed the Lord even to the point of slaying Isaac because he trusted the Lord was, in fact, trustworthy and faithful to do all He promised in his life.  One of the most important passages in all of Scripture is Genesis 22:5 “. . . and then we will come back to you.”  This is Abraham telling his servant the boy and I will return to you upon their trip up Mount Moria.  God had fulfilled every promise to Abraham so even though the Lord commanded him to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham knew he and the boy would return even if God had to raise Isaac from the dead.  Eucharist is not as important as the living God come to live inside you.  It’s not the physical element, it’s the spiritual.

It will be painfully clear to those who study these matters out that there was a divergence of opinion amongst the early church fathers on the passage in Scripture found in John 6:57-63.  It must be understood as well that these men were purely uninspired writers and we will not be judged by their writings in the last day.
The authority of the inspired Scriptures does not rest upon the testimony of the Church, but directly upon God. Roman Catholicism makes the Scriptures dependent upon the church when the truth is that the Holy Spirit used God’s Word to give birth to the church. The church is built upon the Scripture (Eph. 2:20) and derives its’ authority from it. Roman Catholicism would have us place our faith in the church before we can believe the Bible. Further, it would have us direct our faith to fallible sinful men as the foundation of Christianity instead of the infallible Word of God.  Such thinking is blasphemous!
If everything, including the verbal teaching of an apostle, is to be subject unto and tested by written revelation, then obviously the supposed unwritten oral tradition of Romanism must also be subject to Scripture and not the other way around. Anything taught by the Roman Catholic Church that cannot be proven from the Bible (i.e., the 66 books of the Old and New Testament) must be discarded as man-made rubbish.

JuneAnnette, A Christian & a Witness for Christ

I am not saying that the teachings of the Apostles are not found in the NT, but that the Apostolic fathers many of whom knew the Apostles and were taught by them, have a different interpretation of scripture than you do. You are reading things backward, either reading your own views into scripture or that of the church you belong too.

My last post was for Ted.

CHILDREN. We are talking about the abuse of thousands of CHILDREN. I am a scholar of religion and spirituality and I believe not all Catholics are bad people, on the contrary. But we should be livid as a society and move our efforts towards fixing this problem for the children.

@Casting Crowns
I’m not arguing with you. Just for me, I try to follow as much as I can of what Jesus said was required including the Eucharist and acts of mercy. I understand the passages that say “faith alone” and I am not judging others, but for me I cannot ignore the other Words of Jesus.

@Ted
“What does authority have to do with the truth? If the HS was guiding your church then how is it that it has doctrines that are not apostolic?”

What? The church is apostolic. So your statement does not make sense.  The holy Spirit guides Christ’s church it is not “mine” it is catholic, universal.

It will be painfully clear to those who study these matters out that there was a divergence of opinion amongst the early church fathers on the passage in Scripture found in John 6:57-63.  It must be understood as well that these men were purely uninspired writers and we will not be judged by their writings in the last day.
The authority of the inspired Scriptures does not rest upon the testimony of the Church, but directly upon God. Roman Catholicism makes the Scriptures dependent upon the church when the truth is that the Holy Spirit used God’s Word to give birth to the church. The church is built upon the Scripture (Eph. 2:20) and derives its’ authority from it. Roman Catholicism would have us place our faith in the church before we can believe the Bible. Further, it would have us direct our faith to fallible sinful men as the foundation of Christianity instead of the infallible Word of God.  Such thinking is blasphemous!
If everything, including the verbal teaching of an apostle, is to be subject unto and tested by written revelation, then obviously the supposed unwritten oral tradition of Romanism must also be subject to Scripture and not the other way around. Anything taught by the Roman Catholic Church that cannot be proven from the Bible (i.e., the 66 books of the Old and New Testament) must be discarded as man-made rubbish.

Jesus equates the Scriptures with God’s word (John 10:35). Conversely, Jesus condemns some traditions because they contradict the written word (Mark 7:1-13). Never does Jesus use religious tradition to support His actions or teachings. Before the writing of the New Testament, the Old Testament was the only inspired Scripture. However, there were literally hundreds of Jewish “traditions” recorded in the Talmud (a collection of commentary compiled by Jewish rabbis). Jesus and the apostles had both the Old Testament, and the Jewish tradition. Nowhere in Scripture does Jesus or any of the apostles appeal to the Jewish traditions. In contrast, Jesus and the apostles quote from, or allude to the Old Testament hundreds of times. The Pharisees accused Jesus and the apostles of “transgressing the tradition of the elders” (Matthew 15:2). Jesus responded with a rebuke, “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” (Matthew 15:3). The manner in which Jesus and the apostles distinguished between the Scriptures and traditions they possessed is an example for the church. Jesus specifically rebukes the Pharisees for treating the “commandments of men” as doctrines (Matthew 15:9).

JuneAnnette, A Christian & a Witness for Christ

@JuneAnnette
Do you think you are the first person to make these arguments?
You are denying that Jesus created the Church and that Jesus blessed the Church with the holy Spirit.  The church is Christ’s bride - He does not abandon the church.  For you to deny Christ’s church is to deny Christ.  If the church is led by Christ through the holy Spirit, then how could they be “uninspired” writers?  If Christ promised to be with his church until the end of times, then how could you abandon the church?

Rob,
What does it mean that the church is led by the Holy Spirit and how does one identify this leading? When we study RCC history we see a lot of evil such as with the inquisitions that had the full support of the popes and bishops. This went on for centuries. Are we to believe this was all done by the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

Ted,

When we study Protestant history we find a lot of evil, such as witch-hunts, using the Bible to justify slavery etc. The reformers constantly called each other heretics. History is complicated.

What we mean by the Holy Spirit guiding the church, is the church’s official teachings on faith and morals, even if it’s people do not subscribe to it.

None of these Popes or others taught, defined or changed any doctrine.

This is a list of official Catholic teachings for all time.

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/dogma.htm

Protestant sources are also biased and exaggerated when it comes to the inquisition. This BBC documentary explains it well with interviews by historians who have studied the facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMkjvCKTK3Q&feature=youtube

We do not do puritan reformations, start church after church in the hope of creating the perfect one. It does not exist.

Quoting Rob: “You are denying that Jesus created the Church and that Jesus blessed the Church with the holy Spirit.  The church is Christ’s bride - He does not abandon the church.  For you to deny Christ’s church is to deny Christ. “

OK, I’ll chalk that down as at least ONE Catholic who doesn’t think Protestants are Christians. :-)

“The church is Christ’s bride”

So if Christ married the Church, and the Church is Peter, isn’t that Biblical justification for same-sex marriage?

@WBThacker,
Funny stuff - there are a few scriptural references of Christ’s devotion to his church likened to that of a husband to his bride.  I don’t think it is literal as much to indicate devotion.
It is not for me to judge others, I am only pointing out the error in denying Christ’s church, denying the scriptural basis for this, denying that Christ committed the holy Spirit to the church or denying that Christ guides his church.
Finally, please do not take my words as condemnation of others, but merely a defense of the truth from those who doubt.

WBThaker,

There is no one group called Protestant. There are thousands of churches all invoking God for their claims. When not calling each other wrong over what the Bible says, they are calling Catholics wrong. We are fed up and want to be left alone.

savvy,
Don’t know how one could exaggerate the inquisitions for centuries. What I’m asking is how a church that claims to be led by the Holy Spirit could do such a thing? You can’t get much more anti-Christ than this.

Ted,

There was never one whole series of events called the Inquisition for centuries as pointed out in the documentary. You might want to read this too.

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/an-inquisition-primer

The church does not claim to be made up of perfect people. The Holy Spirit protects the churches official teachings on faith and morals.

You are failing to make a distinction here.

@Ted
Oh Ted, don’t be naive. 
1) How about a church that was founded on the lust of a king, who divorced his wife stole another mans wife, murdered more than one wife and went on to murder thousands who would not swear to his “new” church with him as moral leader.  Then allowed the starving of millions in Ireland?
2) How about a church lead by Martin Luther, a pronounced anti-semite, whose writings were used to justify Nazi nationalism that lead to the murder of over 10 million people mostly Jews out of hate?
3) Or the reformation witch hunts which killed 20,000 to 60,000 across Europe?
4) Should I include atheists that murdered 30 to 60 million installing communism in Russia and China?
—-
God gave man free will.  And men, sinners will do evil things. God already knows what is in our hearts and our souls and yet he died for us.  I hardly think he would abandon his church knowing that we are sinners and need him during the bad times worse than ever.

savvy,
Jesus never promised to protect the church from doctrinal errors. If He had, there would have been no need to warn the church that false teachers would come in a deceive many with their false teachings as 2 Peter 2:1 warned would happen.

I’m also curious why the Holy Spirit is incapable of keeping its leaders morally pure?

@Ted and @Rob—Jesus said “I will put my Spirit in you.” He is speaking about us as men and women —NOT an organization.  The flaws in both Protestantism and Catholicism are man made.  Despite the fanfare and ritual of ordination of Catholic priests or Christian ministers, no one can argue each clergyman is Spirit-led.  No wonder there are good priests and bad.  Good ministers and bad.  No church “owns” or has the power to confer the Holy Spirit.  Such power rests the Lord Himself.  The “church” is us (His people) led by His Spirit.  This is why when such church leaders fail us we do not become disillusioned.  Our faith is in Christ—not the failed men running it nor their institution.

Rob,
Protestant churches are not founded on a man like Luther but on the Lord Jesus and Scripture. In terms of the killing by the RCC has killed 4,951,000 Protestants and others. See World Christian Encyclopedia.

Keep in mind the claim of your church that claims to be the only church led by the Holy Spirit.

Ted,

Jesus did say there would be false teachers, but did not say they would succeed.

People have free-will. God will not force them to do something against their will. In the same way that the Holy Spirit does not keep leaders pure in thousands of Protestants churches either.

My church does not claim to be the only church guided by the Holy Spirit. Why don’t you just take a look at the links Rob gave you to understand what the church teaches.

“Protestant churches are not founded on a man like Luther but on the Lord Jesus and Scripture.”

Yet everybody reads scripture through the lens of their own church and invokes God for their conflicting views.
In the case, why does the early church not even recognize your views, esp, those of the newer churches.

Scholars/historians have also debunked your phony statistics. Europe never had that many people, collectively, never mind Protestants.

Mr. Ted,
I am writing to you and The National Catholic Register in reference to the comments made on Aug 30th, 2012 by Rev. Benedict Groeschel. I find no reference to it on your website. Apparently, it was swept under the rug.
I am a Catholic. I wholeheartedly believe in the Gospel. But, I don’t understand why the Church does not condemn (by condemn I mean force to retire) the comements made by Rev. Groeschel. Who cares about his years of service. Do you realize he called Jerry Sandusky, “a poor guy”. To any reasonable minded layperson, it sounds as if he is hiding some type of behavior that is similar. As if he emphasizes with Mr. Sandusky.
If you read the indictements of the victims of Mr. Sandusky you will become ill. His victims were as young as 10 years old, which he raped.
I understand we all sin to some degree. I understand only Christ will be the judge. However, The Roman Catholic Church is losing it’s followers because OF THE INACTION OF THE CHURCH on this issue.
I remember in 2001, Pope John Paul II, refused to meet with the victims of the abused in MA. Why? If Canon Law states “otherwise” maybe it’s time for a layperson to come in and revise this archaic law. If not, I honestly see little hope for the survival of Christianity.
In my experience the children of the Catholic babyboomers are not just denouncing Catholicism; because of this issue but, Christ as the son of God. The Vatican must demand the retirement of Rev. Groeschel to the world in order to send a message of empathy for the victims of abuse.
YSIC,Angela

Your view of the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church is naive.  To somehow deflect prosecution of the guilty priests (and others) to civil court ineffectiveness is ludicrous.  I recently watched a video produced in the late 90’s as part of the Catholic Church’s education program on child sex abuse.  Clearly the church knew it was a problem then.  The steps taken back then were insufficient (and ineffectual).  It is stonewalling from apologists like you that will continue to hurt the Catholic Church.  I hope that the church hierarchy will accept and rectify the mistakes of the past and truly clean house.  Stop defending these child molesters and those that enabled them!
John Gillard

The thoughts of Lord Acton, an English Catholic historian, politician, and writer, who lived from 1837 to 1869? on what Roman Catholicism calls “the Holy Inquisition”

William Shaw Kerr quotes from Lord Acton, who was among the most learned of the English Roman Catholics, regarding the basic nature of the Inquisition. Lord Acton’s conviction was that,
“The Inquisition is peculiarly the weapon and peculiarly the work of the Popes. It stands out from all those things in which they co-operated, followed or assented as the distinctive feature of papal Rome. It was set up, renewed and perfected by a long series of acts emanating from the supreme authority in the Church. No other institution, no doctrine, no ceremony is so distinctly the individual creation of the Papacy, except the dispensing power. It is the principal thing with which the Papacy is identified, and by which it must be judged. The principle of the Inquisition is the Pope’s sovereign power over life and death. Whosoever disobeys him should be tried and tortured and burnt. If that cannot be done, formalities may be dispensed with, and the culprit may be killed like an outlaw. That is to say, the principle of the Inquisition is murderous, and a man’s opinion of the Papacy is regulated and determined by his opinion of religious assassination.”
A greater witness is borne by Christ Himself against the unholy Roman Catholic “church”:    “Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:”  God’s Word: Matt. 4:21
Indisputably Pope Innocent III sanctioned MURDER . . .
“Anyone who attempts to construe a personal view of God which conflicts with (RC) Church dogma must be burned without pity.” 

JuneAnnette, A Christian byGod’s grace & a Witness for Christ

Angela, obviously you have forgotten that OUr Lord promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church. The Church will survive in spite of some of her members. As Mark said, the priests and bishops do not run the church, the Holy Spirit does.

Re: Fr. Groeschel, when he called Mr. Sandusky that “poor guy” he most likely was referring to him being a poor sinner, not that he was some sort of ‘victim’. He was showing some mercy, as we all should, if we expect mercy for ourselves.

This ‘zero tolerance’ for abusers within the Catholic Church is not necessarily a good thing. With it, once accused, you are guilty even if you are innocent. People want to see the Church closed down at least in this country over this grievous scandal, well then, should we close all our public schools as well due to the sex abuse that goes on there? And we all know the schools are guilty of the same mismanagement and insufficient action when dealing with some of their abusive members as well.

Joanp62, Status quo like Fr. Groeschel.

June, please read the following, which addresses
Acton’s (false) statements: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/holinquisit.htm

Why is it that the anti-church haters get so indignant when faced with the facts? 
-
They lie, quote questionable sources, dig out the worst (and usually exaggerated) moments of Christianity (which they of course take no ownership of) and imply that Christ has abandon his church because we are sinners.
-
You point out that Christ has pledged his devotion to the church until the ends of time, that Jesus sent the holy Spirit to guide the church, and that God already knows that we are sinners. You of course back this up with the very obvious and clear scriptural references. You point out that denying Christ’s church and attacking it is not a good idea.  You point out that without Christ’s church we would not have the bible (which the church compiled in 325AD. You point out that the Nicene Creed is the Creed of the church and the group that compiled the bible.
-
They of course change the subject with more tirades about man’s sins, accuse you of trying to invalidate their religion and salvation.  But the truth is all this blather is only about two things.
1) They want to demoralize you because yes people in the church have done bad things, but remember God loves us, sinners all.
2) They want you to abandon the church. But to that I say, where would we go, for Jesus has the words of everlasting life and this church is His church.
-
So while I have no illusions about the people of the church being perfect (especially me), and I believe in criticism, reflection on our sins and repentance, I am devoted to Christ’s church and to doing what I can to make it better.  And no amount of attacks, accusation or innuendos will separate me from my God.

As Christ said . . “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” (Matt. 7:16)

1) From 1200 to 1500 the long series of Papal ordinances on the Inquisition, ever increasing in severity and cruelty, and their whole policy towards heresy, runs on without a break. It is a rigidly consistent system of legislation: every Pope confirms and improves upon the devices of his predecessor. All is directed to the one end, of completely uprooting every difference of belief… The Inquisition ... contradicted the simplest principles of Christian justice and love to our neighbor, and would have been rejected with universal horror in the ancient Church.

2) It is important here to emphasize Rome’s role in the brutality of the Inquisition. Roman Catholic apologists are quick to point out that it was the state that put heretics to death. This is an alibi meant to excuse the Vatican’s role in the atrocities. However, Dollinger, the leading 19th century Catholic historian, stated: “The binding force of the laws against heretics lay not in the authority of secular princes, but in the sovereign dominion of life and death over all Christians claimed by the Popes as God’s representatives on earth, as [Pope] Innocent III expressly states it.”
In other words, the secular arm of the state acted only as it was pressured to do so by the popes. Even kings who hesitated to commit genocide on their own populaces were spurred into action by their fear of papal excommunication or subversive Catholic activities within their kingdoms.
Dollinger continues: “It was the Popes who compelled bishops and priests to condemn the heterodox to torture, confiscation of their goods, imprisonment, and death, and to enforce the execution of this sentence on the civil authorities, under pain of excommunication,”

Citations: 1) J.H. Ignaz von Dollinger; The Pope and the Council (London, 1869)
2)J.H. Ignaz von Dollinger; op cit.

The Croatian Massacre – Forced Conversions & Murder -  Article: The Vatican’s Holocaust.  The sensational account of the most horrifying religious massacre of the 20th century By Avro Manhattan - Link:http://www.reformation.org/holocaus.html
“Thou shalt not kill and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.” Matt. 5:21 / “Do no violence to no man.” Luke 3:14

The murderous campaigns of the Inquisition; the Crusades; the Croatian Massacre carried out under the auspices of the RCC, along with the Vatican Bank Irregularities (Money Laundering) and the Clergy Abuse Scandal / Cover Up brought to light in our day in the providence and mercy of God, militate against Roman Catholicism’s outrageous claim to be Christ’s Church and are wholly inconsistent with His doctrine as it is revealed in God’s Word.  These are not the works of those who lay claim to be Christ’s representatives on earth.  These are not the works of those who purport to be “guided by the Holy Spirit.” (Matt. 7:16)  These are programs and policies that were deliberately (pre-meditated) put in place by the Roman Catholic church at various times throughout her history which originated at the very top echelon of the RC hierarchy, namely the cardinals & popes, and presided over, carried out and implemented by her priests and bishops, and thus cannot be dismissed by the argument so often put forward by Roman Catholic apologists . . that the church is comprised of sinners.  These are works that Christ Himself declares to be diabolical in nature and anti-Christian in spirit.  “Ye are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning . . . he is a liar, and the father of it.” (John 8:44)  Many former Roman Catholics like myself have renounced the religion of Rome in order to wholeheartedly embrace the religion of Jesus Christ without contradiction.  Roman Catholicism is not CHRIST’s CHURCH!

JuneAnnette, A Christian by God’s grace & a Witness for Christ

@JuneAnnette,
Please give it up.
You have shown yourself to be a hater and a non-Christian.
Since you have denied Christ’s church I don’t see what you hope to accomplish other than insulting Christ and his people.
I am praying for you, it is never too late to set your path straight.

Great article, Mark. I enjoy reading your work.

James
www.olivieri.me

Rob,
Its not about attacking people but about the claims made about your church and its doctrines that set it apart from the rest of true Christian churches. Claiming to be guided by the HS is not a defense for your position.

Ted,

June has not addressed doctrine, but random copy and paste garbage.

There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church, which is, of course, quite a different thing. (Bishop Fulton Sheen)

Rob and Joanna,

Modern Evangelicals tend to make these arguments against other Protestant churches they dislike too. They think everybody who came before them is wrong.

savvy,
It is not true that June has not addressed doctrine.  see her post at Sep 1, 2012 9:16 AM (EST):

No RC wants to get into a discussion on this. I don’t blame them either since it can’t be defend via Scripture.

Ted,

June has addressed her interpretations of scripture.

Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).

He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

June,
.
Are you under the mistaken impression that no one person has ever been killed in the name of Protestantism? If so, I kindly urge you to look up Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Martin Luther, et al.
.
What is most remarkable is that the most sinful of Popes never once taught error as doctrine. Isn’t that amazing? How do you explain that?

Why is there no mention of Father Benedict. G. and the foolish things he was allowed to say?  Why did nobody from EWT or National Catholic register
proofread what he has said.  Now I hear he is off the air and retiring. 
Nothing mentioned here about that.

It is not unfair to have open and objective discussions.  The problem is they typically and quickly deteriorate into “You hate the the Catholic church” or “You hate Protestants” (But I’ll pray for you) LOL.  There is enough factual evidence to disseminate about the Inquisition and the Crusades to know the abuses which occurred.  The church was under great threat from Islam during that period of the Inquisition and was not always making the wisest of decisions and during the Crusades.  The Vatican has even said so.  The church, the body of Christ is filled with imperfect people.  The last 10 years is proof of that.  Those in leadership are not immune to Satanic deception (and attack) which Christ said would happen.  He said His church would prevail, but His church is *us*—the body, His members.  Jesus did not say there would be no consequences for poor decisions, financial or administrative mismangement or men who acted upon their own wisdom instead of going to prayer first.
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

@JuneAnnette,
I think I’ll stick with the Word of God about His Church over you, an un-Christian woman who hates Christ’s Church.

Gerry, please see here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/egregioustwaddle/2012/09/holier-than-none.html
.
NCR et al have addressed Fr. Groeschel’s comments.

@Rob, please, can’t you do any better than that?  You forgot the—“But I’ll pray for you.”  Insults are not constructive to the discussion.  It might help if you and JuneAnnette attempt to establish at least a baseline of common agreement.  Tone it down.  You too, JuneAnnette.

@Casting Crowns says “It is not unfair to have open and objective discussions…”
1) I agree with a great deal of what you have said.
2) It is fine to come on a Catholic web site and point out your view or justify your ideas, it is not ok to come on and attack as some on here have (I’m not referring to you).  I would not do that to any group.
3) I have only called out the haters.  They admit in their own words that they believe the church is evil and deny that it is Christ’s church. They post again and again their hatred.
4) I have clearly said that the people of Christ’s church have sinned. We are all sinners so it is silly to think that we the body of Christ have not made errors or sinned.
5) The Church and her apostolic tradition are inseparable.  You cannot say that Christ created a church without apostles.  You cannot accept the Bible without accepting the apostolic tradition of the church. We would not have a bible without it.
6) I do not hate or deny protestant or non-protestant Christians.  I believe they are part of the body of the church and that they have decided to separate/distance themselves from the church.  I do not believe they are less important which is one of the reason that I do pray for all of us.
—-
I really think that you have a very solid understanding of the Gospel and suggest you are struggling with what you want to be true vs. what you know to be true.

JoAnna,
Trent erred when it denied the gospel. It said that a man cannot be saved by faith alone in Christ alone.

Pope Honorius erred and was condemned as a heretic by later popes.

Ted,
.
The Bible doesn’t say that we are saved by faith alone. Does the book of James (2:24) deny the gospel, too?
.
Pope Honorius never taught error as doctrine. See here: http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp

JoAnna,
What is James addressing in his letter about faith? He is addressing a person who claims to have but no works to show that he has it. Such a faith is dead. His justification is not about being justified before God but before men and himself.

Paul on the other hand in Romans, Galatians and Ephesians is addressing how we are justified by faith alone in Christ alone.

How could Pope Honorius not be a heretic (a heretic is one who teaches falsely) if he was not only a heretic but was condemned as such by later councils and popes?

@JoAnna:  [“The Bible doesn’t say that we are saved by faith alone.”]  JoAnna, you will want to be careful with that statement.  Jesus says in John 11:26 “and everyone who lives and believeth in me shall never die.”
Further, in ACTS 16:31 the jailer asks of Paul and Silas “What must a man do to be saved?”  Paul replies:  “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”  Now, it is totally naive and foolish for someone to think a profession of *belief* grants you thus license to sin and live an evil life henceforth.  However, faith in Christ alone is the pathway toward walking in obedience before the Lord.

@Casting Crowns

How do you reconcile Matthew 25

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne,
32 and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33 He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
36 naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’
37 Then the righteous* will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
38 When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
39 When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’
40 And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’
41 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43 a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’
44 Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’
45 He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’
46 And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

@Rob:  There is no problem.  Matthew 25 is the application of walking in faith.  You do not perform good works because you have to, (which is legalism) your good works are performed because you *want* to—because Christ has saved you from your sins.  We are saved not by good works but UNTO good works.  They are an outward expression of your faith in Christ Jesus.  I already said a profession of faith does not grant you license to sin, but faith alone (yes) can save a child of 9 or and elderly person of 89 or anyone who is unable to do anything else but have faith.  No one is discounting Matthew 25 in the least.  Even unbelievers perform many great and charitable works but have no faith in Christ.

Casting Crowns,

The issue is the definition of faith. The older Protestants now agree with Catholics that faith includes the entire deposit of faith, which is hope, faith, love, and charity, rather than just faith as intellectual belief as shared by modern Evangelicals.

Faith is just the beginning step.

@savvy:  I have not met any Evangelicals who only have “intellectual” faith.  They do not disagree with you.  Just as there are many Catholics who are not fully instructed in the faith, so too are those in Protestantism.

Casting Crowns,

This was a response to Ted’s question about the council of Trent. If you read the actual document it explains what this means. Both sides have been arguing past each other on this issue.

“If anyone says that the godless are justified by faith alone . . . let him be anathema” (Trent, VI, canon 9). Again, “For faith, unless hope and charity are added thereto, neither unites one perfectly with Christ nor makes one a living member of his body” (Trent, VI, ch. 7).

This simply means that real faith is not opposed to hope and charity.

@Casting Crowns,
I am uncomfortable with your reply to both Matthew 25 and savvy’s Trent reference. I only dwell on this because we are talking about the salvation of our souls and any others that might read this discussion.
1) Only through Christ’s death on the cross and his resurrection is it possible for us to be saved. For it opened the gates of heaven
2) Through our belief in Jesus Christ we can be saved.
3) But, Acts of Mercy are required.
—-
So:
1) Yes, if you have faith you should have works as well.
2) BUT, if you have faith without works you may not gain eternal life.  This is not me saying this, this is Christ who says it.
—-
As a Catholic I DO hear from people all the time that salvation is through faith alone.  As I noted a few days ago, I am not judging. I am saying for me, I will not risk that faith alone will save, and I will not tell or imply to anyone that faith alone will save, because Christ said if you do not perform these acts of mercy… you will not be saved.

...the comment that the church is corrupt.. is so obvious coming from a non-believer, Who do not study the Bible and who is in the dark about his own spirituality. It is the human nature to err, to fail to heed the instructions given to us, from our God, and that is why you, as an outsider looking in commented the way you did. We hear this kind of comment from the secular world mainly because of the Bible illiteracy.

“Even unbelievers perform many great and charitable works but have no faith in Christ.”

If by faith in Christ, you mean accepting Christ into your heart, then it’s still based on something that you do. If God regenerates us in Baptism or by receiving the Eucharist, it is something that God does, not we do.

So could it be that those who claim to hold to faith alone, really do not know what they mean?

Ted,

Pope Honorius’ letters to Sergius are not doctrinal definitions ex cathedra; thus they are outside the scope of infallibility defined by the First Vatican Council.

The Third Council of Constantinople was thus in error when it condemned Honorius for heresy. But a Council, of course, has no authority except insofar as its decrees are confirmed by the pope.

The reigning Pontiff, Leo II, did not agree to the condemnation of his predecessor for heresy; he said Honorius should be condemned because “he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted.”

This is a crucial distinction. Honorius probably should have known the implications of using the “one will” formula; he could have found out by writing a letter to Sophronius of Jerusalem. But he was no heretic.

http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp

Rob,

Luther and Calvin both held that good deeds done by unbeliever were worthless, because they did not have faith. Trent seems more sensible when it says, that real faith does not oppose hope and charity.

savvy,
Pope Honorius was successively condemned as a heretic for centuries:

“This condemnation was repeated by the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787. Moreover, from the eighth century to the 11th century, this condemnation was included in the oath taken by every new pope.“http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/2586

If we are not saved by faith alone in Christ alone then we don’t have the gospel of Christ. No works by men can do anything to gain salvation.

Ted,

There were certainly personal disagreements over whether his views constituted heresy or not. But, the link you gave me states:

“The general consensus of Catholic historians at the time of Vatican I, as well as later, was that although Pope Honorius publicly took an heretical position for which he was condemned, his acts did not rise to the level of an ex cathedra teaching and so do not threaten the integrity of the Church’s teaching on papal infallibility. The conditions for infallibility are quite stringent, and current Canon Law (No. 749.3) warns that “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such.”

Or as Ronald Knox explained, “To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine.”

@savvy,
Thanks for the note.  I did not have a problem with the information from the council of Trent.  This is also more in line with my view that Christ died for all mankind, not just one pre-selected group.
—-
We do know that without Christ’s sacrifice we could NEVER be JUSTIFIED by our works alone. Which is why I listed the three points above.
—-
Part of the reason Luther and Calvin had odd views on works is because they did not believe in free will.  Calvin believed you were predestine to damnation or salvation.  Luther believed a variation on this that is a bit confusing and tries to walk a tight-rope between predestination and free will.  In our time the idea of predestination seems a bit crazy, but was a big debate at the time.
—-
My biggest problem of faith without works is that you have to ignore Christ’s own words in Matthew 25 in favor of a specific interpretation of Ephesians 2:8-10.  I cannot do that. I believe that we are saved by Christ but we are judged by Christ as well.  This is what He said.

Thanks Rob.  The issue here is the definition of faith.  Some think that works would be adding to faith, but for faith to be real, it would not be opposed to charity, which is our response to faith in us. In all these cases God is still the prime mover.

@Rob:  I’m not sure you understand what I wrote.  Salvation is based upon what Christ did—NOT what we do.  The victory over death has already been won.  In your humbleness and gratitude for this gift, you are motivated toward corporeal works of mercy stated in Matthew 25.  You have received a gift you cannot keep.  The gospel is a gift you must give away to others—either in sharing the good news or by charity to others.  Those works, however, merit nothing for the sinner.  You cannot earn your salvation by way of your performance.  Faith in -and- acceptance of the price paid by Christ means you were bought—HE owns you.  As Paul states:  YOU are not your own.  I still stand on faith alone can be saving for someone totally unable to perform works.  For example, an elderly person coming to Christ in a nursing home or an incapacitated stroke victim or even a child of 10 dying of Leukemia.  Or even a perfectly healthy man or woman giving their life to Christ and then suddenly struck down in death without time to do anything—let alone even know the gospel.  Sufficient is the blood of Christ to be applied justly as the Father decides how and to whom He will apply it.

@Rob:  [“This is also more in line with my view that Christ died for all mankind, not just one pre-selected group.”]  True, He died for all, but not all will be saved.  Reference Hebrews 9:28 “so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”  All mankind has not been (nor will be) eagerly waiting for Him despite the gift of salvation won at Calvary.

Casting Crowns,

“Or even a perfectly healthy man or woman giving their life to Christ and then suddenly struck down in death without time to do anything—let alone even know the gospel.”

Giving your life to Jesus is still an action on your part.

@savvy:  “such an action on your part” is totally out of context regarding Matthew 25 and is independent of the referenced example.  And you know it.  You’re not that naive.

Casting Crowns,

I was not referring to Matthew 25, but to the statement that a person who accepts Christ into their heart is not performing an action on their part. On the contrast, the sacraments are sacraments of beliefs, where God acts and we do not.

@savvt:  A willful decision for Christ or acceptance to obey the Lord is different than what is described in Mathew 25.  One would not come forward nor have the propensity to receive the sacraments in faith had not the Holy Spirit touched your life.  Yes, God has acted but the response is up to you.

JuneAnnette = Catholic Church Hater and bigot

Rob,
You sound like a militant homosexual. Just because someone doesn’t share your views and and makes a case against them does not mean they are “Catholic Church Hater and bigot”. Better to refute another’ view with facts and reasons than to call them names. Agreed?

@Ted
I don’t consider calling someone homosexual an insult.
Do you know JuneAnnette?  I do.
She is an anti-Catholic who has attacked the church over and over again.  It is an obsession with her and I suspect a disease.  She will latch onto any anti-Catholic issue to spew her hate.

Casting Crowns,

I do agree that Jesus is the sole saviour, but I think your definition of belief is narrow. Scripture tells us even demons believe there is a God. The fallen angels fully knew who God was yet rejected him.

I know non-Christians who are much better people than Christians. To condemn someone just because they do not say a prayer or have subjective faith, is just unjust.

@savvy:  I never gave my definition of belief so how can it narrow?  If you agree to be baptized, THAT is a declaration of belief and acceptance of the gospel of Jesus Christ (unless you are lying and only going through the process to please someone).  You will have to explain yourself.  Whom did I condemn?  What prayer are you talking about and what is your definiton of subjective faith?  As for non-Christians who are much better people than Christians,—again what is your point?  Even unbelivers do acts of kindness and charity.  There are Catholics and Christians who are peripheral.  Those who only attend church yet are lukewarm toward Christ.  Some only “identify” oneself as Catholic or Christian because they were raised as children in the church yet haven’t practiced their faith in 20 years.  Example:  Nancy Pelosi says she is Catholic.  Does her public witness testify to her Catholicism specifically or Christianity in general?  Faith should never remain stagnant but continually growing and developing in your intimacy with Jesus.  One’s faith at 40 years old should be far more than at 20 years old.  If your faith is not growing, something is wrong with your walk and bears internal reflection upon one’s true commitment to the Lord.  You may think you have the Holy Spirit.  The real question is how much you have allowed the Holy Spirit to have of you —just some of you —or all of you?

Casting Crowns,

I do not disagree with anything you have said, but I was baptized as a child where God regenerated me and continues to save me through the sacraments.

Rob,
Militant homosexuals are intolerant of different views and don’t dialogue. That’s why the name call.  She brought up some good factual points about the RCC and you did not refute them. RCC history and doctrines are not anti-catholic issues.

savvy:  We agree with much.  I also was baptized as a child except I do not agree that the sacraments enable salvation,—only the shed blood of Christ provides salvation for the sinner.  The sacraments do, though, enable continuing grace to live in (and for) Christ.

@savvy:  You have centered upon a most critical word—that of regeneration.  Ephesians 2 speaks to the flesh—those who were once dead in their trespasses and sins.  It is the blood of Christ now applied to you giving you new life (regeneration) to walk no longer in the flesh but now in the Spirit (which is His).  This is why the blood of the cross is so critical.  Absent of Calvary, the sinner (which is all men) there is no hope of eternal life with Christ.

Casting Crowns,

Yes the shed blood of Jesus enables salvation, but where does this grace come if not from Christ himself?

@Ted - that is your stereotype of people, I don’t accept it.
-
If you look back you will see that I addressed the issues of sin and sinners, so don’t say I did not address a point. 
-
As noted JuneAnnette is a full time anti-Catholic.  Child abuse is just her current club (for the last 5 years) that she chooses to bludgeon the faithful with. If you do not know JuneAnnette then your comment is understandable, but I do know her - she IS a hater.
-
At some point when you have addressed the same posting by her that she has posted hundreds of times, you will realize that she is a bigot and a church hater.  She does not want to have her point addressed, she wants to demoralize the faithful and damage the Catholic church.

@savvy:  Yes, grace is dispensed by Christ through the Holy Spirit.  John 7:38 says “Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.”

Ted,  F.Y.I.

You comment regarding militant homosexuals directed to Rob may go a long way in explaining the vitriol Rob has directed toward me. For the record, I do not know Rob and Rob most certainly does not know me.  Apparently he thinks that one cannot speak out against the Roman Catholic Clergy Abuse Scandal and denounce Roman Catholicism for it unbiblical and extra-biblical doctrines as well without being construed as a Catholic hater. I have vigorously denounced Roman Catholicism on the basis of her doctrines as anti-Christian. For this I make no apology. I have spoken out against homosexuality as well, and for this I make no apology either.  While I have been vocal in these respects, I have never expressed hatred for individual Catholics and/or those who lay claim to being “homosexuals”.  Nor have I expressed hatred toward Rob but the same cannot be said for him with respect to me.  So long as Roman Catholic apologists like Rob arrogantly claim to be the “one true church of Jesus Christ” I will continue to declare that Roman Catholicism is not Christ’s church!

Christians are called to bring a two-fold witness; one that bears witness to the truth and one that exposes that which is false! This I have done. I stand in solidarity with those of like precious faith, like Richard Bennett, whom others on this forum have assailed as well, and stand in solidarity as well with the victims of Roman Catholic Clergy Abuse and those who advocate for them. That would include Thomas Patrick Doyle, (though we hold contrary theological positions) who has been especially vocal in his criticism of the way in which the RC Bishops have mishandled the ABUSE SCANDAL, and most notably, their failure to respond in a Christ-like way.  Mr. Doyle too has been vilified by others on this thread.

JuneAnnette, A Christian by God’s grace & a Witness for Christ

Ted,  Prior post, along with excerpts from the commentary of Thomas Patrick Doyle, RC priest, Canon Lawyer & RC Clergy Abuse Victim’s Advocate have been removed. In light of the following,  I’m sure Rob would regard Doyle as a Catholic hater as well. 
*******
REFLECTIONS OF THOMAS PATRICK DOYLE OP / US DOMINICAN PRIEST:

“My serious questioning started when I found myself on the inside looking out as the clergy sex abuse scandal started to unfold back in 1984. As I saw first-hand the duplicity and institutionalized lying of the self-proclaimed “successors of the Apostles” I slowly began to wonder if the apostles weren’t actually a cabal of anti-Christian dolts or on the other hand, I wondered if the infallible connection between the popes, bishops and church monarchy was neither infallible nor divinely willed. It was not exactly a pleasant or secure feeling as my not-quite-paralyzed brain began to ask the inevitable question: “If they can easily lie about raping innocent little children, can they just as easily lie about everything else?” The next stop on the journey was actually the first stop: taking the risk of asking myself what was and was not true and viable about everything else I had been told to believe. I finally paused long enough to let soak in the reality of this deeply embedded dynamic: I (all of us actually) had been consistently told what I must believe. I had never been asked to believe or offered the option of figuring the basics out for myself. ” *** Article Online: ‘Clergy Sexual Abuse Bibliography’

Ted,  Prior post, along with excerpts from the commentary of Thomas Patrick Doyle, RC priest, Canon Lawyer & RC Clergy Abuse Victim’s Advocate have been removed. In light of the following,  I’m sure Rob would regard Mr. Doyle as a Catholic hater as well.
********
“Over two-thirds of the U.S. bishops have knowingly covered sexual abusers and in so doing have directly caused the ruination of the souls and often the bodies of countless more victims. The almighty Vatican, for all its carefully tooled statements of concern has not called a single bishop to accountability. A few have resigned but so what? They have committed crimes with impunity. Why Because they are bishops and in the magical thinking of the papacy, bishops
are above hard-ball justice. Some bishops have even been sexual abusers themselves. None have been defrocked. I have seen consistent, hard evidence of a radical disconnect between the mandate of Christ in the Gospel in reference to such matters, and the actual actions of the bishops and the popes. In short, the popes (JP2 and Benedict XVI) and the bishops have not acted as Christians but rather as agnostic, self-serving businessmen.”

Source:  Reflections from 25 Years of Experience At the Start of the New Year
Thomas Doyle, J.C.D. / January 1, 2010

Ted, then there’s former Roman Catholic priest, *Robert Hoatson.  Again I am sure Rob would regard Mr. Hoatson as a Catholic hater as well.
*****
Rober Hoatson had this to say about the Roman Catholic “church” in a recent interview on NPR . . and I quote:

“Well, unfortunately the Catholic Church has been corrupted to its core and I felt that I could not remain inside that structure. There is so much yet to be revealed about the inside of the Catholic Church that it’s just mind-boggling. And I couldn’t remain a part of that institution and remain faithful to my own integrity”

Source:  NPR – National Public Radio
Link: http://www.npr.org/2012/01/13/145170447/catholic-church-corrupt-to-its-core-says-survivor

Note: Robert Hoatson is a former Catholic priest who now runs Road to Recovery, a New Jersey-based, nonprofit counseling service for victims of clergy abuse

Here is June from 2005.
—-
June & Ralph Nadolny (4/11/2005)
from Holland, OH - USA
“ Great Sermon! ”
This is a serious & sobering message with particular relevance to our time. In response to God’s command to “. . . try the spirits whether they are of God . . . ” 1 John 4:1, Rev. Greer exposes the “great !@#$%” of Rev. 17 to be the Catholic Church. He shows, in the light of Scripture, that while they masquerade as a church of Christ, their true spirit is that of anti-christ, as seen in their doctrines and practices, and as they seek to usurp the glory and honour that belong only to our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Rev. Greer calls on all of God’s people who profess Christ, to separate from, and depart out of any churches that are part of the apostate Ecumenical Movement and their unholy alliance with the Catholic Church, the “mother of harlots”, that “ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Rev. 18:4 Any professing Christian jealous for God’s glory will want to hear this solemn message.
June & Ralph Nadolny

BTW - the word blocked out is pronounced “hor”.
-
Here is the sermon from one of her teachers.
http://www.fpcaudio.org/sermoninfo.asp?SID=410056595
-
There are hundreds of June’s posts on hundreds of issues including attacking her church founder for trying to end the war between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.
-
Yes I know June.

JuneAnnette- I see your comments were removed from the NPR article:

June Annette (JuneAnnette) wrote:

This comment has been removed because it did not meet the NPR.org Community Discussion Rules.

Mmmmm,interesting. Anyway, the article was about a man 18 and older who was clearly engaging in homosexual activity while a member of a Catholic Religious Order. He was an adult. He now claims that somehow, through therapy, he is remembering other incidents of abuse from when he was younger? C’mon. He’s still being groomed and manipulated, only this time by those who are claiming to be helping him.

What a great blog.  I am learning a lot from it.  I too, am a convert, and most appreciative of comments from JuneAnnette & Casting Crowns that make salient comments, those that require thought.

I feel badly for Ritagail B. and identify with what she wrote about being caught in the middle.  My mother objected to my converting to Roman Catholicism, and is still not happy.  I converted prior to revelations that provide the subject matter for this blog, those that link corruption to our church.

A good friend is a life-time Roman Catholic, a conservative that remains practicing.  She has followed the church since the news from Boston broke about mismanagement of dioceses regarding priests that had allegations of abuse against them, about 10 years now.

I asked her about “Fr. Thomas Patrick Doyle” who is mentioned above, and learned he is still a Dominican priest, he has not left the church.  Fr. Doyle warned bishops years ago the same conditions that allowed Boston to implode were happening everywhere.  But he was ignored by US bishops and the Vatican back then.  Because he has been speaking up, saying the same thing like a “Town Crier”, he has since been demonized for it by some lay people too, those that prefer he would stop saying what he knows.

Fr. Doyle was demoted by the institutional church for speaking up, and although he was very close to retirement in the military, his superiors fired him, putting his military pension into jeopardy.  It does not seem that he was treated charitably at all, by anyone.

All the more reason for us to heed what JuneAnnette & Casting Crowns wrote about Jesus, our Lord and Savior, Who is trustworthy, all-knowing and all-powerful, and Who will never leave us, or forsake us!  The One Cornerstone and the Head of His Bride, the Church.

Rob, f.y.i., I am not a member of the Free Presbyterian Church.  I am a shut in and as such, have in the past, listened to the sermons of John Greer with my husband, also a former Roman Catholic converted to Christ.
Indeed I have denounced Ian Paisley for entering into an unholy alliance with the Roman Catholic “church”, along with many other Bible-believing Christians.More specifically I denounced him for his duplicity, as a politcian/preacher.  He like the RC “church” has sought to blend politics with Christianity, roles that are incompatible with the true servant of God.  For this I make no apology. Furthermore, I stand by my comments made in connection with the sermon preached by John Greer regarding the Roman Catholic “church”. Richard Bennett, and many, many other Biblical Apologists agree that the RCC is ‘MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS & ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH – Rev. 17:5
This is God’s Word!
I commend those following this discussion to read Mr. Bennett’s commentary entitled ‘Antichrist Unveiled’ and judge for yourselves if the RC “church” is who is in view in the passages of Scripture which he expounds. 

Source:  Article Online: ‘Antichrist Unveiled’
“None, but God, could have delineated beforehand the “mystery of iniquity,” which is clearly the Office of the Papacy of the Roman Catholic Church. Man could never have anticipated all this; only God foretells it. That a power claiming to act for God, to be “as God,” in the midst of the Christian Church, flouting His truth and mocking His own Holiness, defies imagination. Corruption, fraud, and false pretenses have ruled the world for ages from the very same seven-hilled city where the pagan Roman Empire once ruled by military force. And, they are such that if they were not clearly described by the Lord’s Word, and seen in past and recent history, man would never have expected them. The prophetic portrayal of the wickedness of the system built around the Antichrist is a demonstration of the divine inspiration of the Bible and the power and authority of our Lord God.”

Richard Bennett is a Biblical Apologist, Christian Evangelist & former Roman Catholic priest

JuneAnnette, A Christian by God’s grace & a Witness for Christ

In regarding the Irish Govt. decision to close the embassy : Most observers are also seeing it as a direct retaliation of the Irish government against the Church for the Church’s many years of allegedly lax supervision in dozens of cases of child abuse and sexual abuse.
Likewise,
In India particularly in the Tamil Region (Madras Region-South India) all the catholic hierarchies are running a parallel government nobody questions them. The bishops of Tamilnadu (South India) are running
after money, cheap popularity/publicity mania, casteism and politically
motivated. The lay Catholics or the parishioners are divided by as two
groups by the parish priests, one group to support the parish priest
and the other groups raise any voice or rightly protest against the
bishop or any priest, then they with the aid of police and civil
officials are harassed and are unjustly the people and are deprived of
the sacraments likes baptism, confirmation, Holy Communion and holy matrimony.
Some catholic churches are closed for years together. The
catholic hierarchy in Tamilnadu (Madras Region) doesn’t have the basic
Christian quality of love and tolerance but they are continuously
harassing the lay Catholics till they surrender. Individual catholic
or the group of Catholics or any catholic association wrote to the Holy See of
the catholic hierarchies concerned in Vatican, but, all in vain not even
an acknowledgment was received. For the aforesaid reasons, a good
number of Catholics have left the Church and joined other Christian
denominations. No bishops or priests bother about it. In a civil
society the people can get their relief from courts or other grievance
cell. But nothing is available to a layman in the Catholic Church. Especially
the Bishop of Kottar Diocese (South most tip of India), he is a most
powerful bishop than any other bishop in the world. The lay Catholics
are pathetic at the hands of the postors of Kottar Diocese.
The same accusation like Irish will mount against the Holy See in near future in relates to the Catholic Bishops of Tamilnadu.

To those following this discussion . .
In matters regarding the ongoing Roman Catholic Clergy Abuse Scandal and the reprehensible Cover Up by those who occupy the highest positions of spiritual rule in the Roman Catholic “church”, I have consistently cited Roman Catholic priests, active and former.  Thomas Patrick Doyle, Richard Sipe, Patrick Wall, Bob Hoatson, etc have featured prominently in my posts simply because they have been privy to these matters from the very start, thus their critical commentary is invaluable to those who want to know the truth. These men have impressive credentials and have shown themselves to be men of principle and integrity who have acted upon their religious convictions, though it entailed confronting the powers that be in their “church” . . the so-called “princes of the church”.  Doyle, et al have fought tirelessly against some very formidable odds to hold the RC hierarchy accountable, though sadly they have been met with stalwart resistance all along the way.  They have been fiercely opposed by both bishop and laity alike, in an atmosphere which can only be described as openly hostile, yet they have persevered with what they rightly regard as a just cause. The moral courage and stature these men have displayed in publicly denouncing those who occupy the highest positions in the RC “church” is both inspiring and admirable. For these men I have the deepest respect and highest regard. Rob and those of his ilk are unapologetic “church” apologists, whose animating principle is self-preservation at all costs. Because they cannot defend, excuse and/or justify the conduct of their bishops, they continue to pursue an unholy vendatta against Doyle and those in his camp,in an attempt to silence them by assailing their characters and impugning their motives. Some in the “church” have even stooped so low as to suggest they are in it for the money. It’s no wonder they’re gunning for Doyle.  After all it was he who pointed out in open court during the trial of Msgr. Lynn that the recently deceased Cardinal Bevilaqua’s (sp?) order to destroy internal documents was nothing short of “obstruction of justice.”  To their credit Doyle and his colleagues have strenuously pressed for reform but because that reform is in large part directed at the bishops, they have been on the receiving end of all kinds of slander and false innuendo. 
Though on biblical grounds I am diametrically opposed to Roman Catholicism, that antagonism does not prevent me from acknowledging that some Roman Catholics, despite the flawed theology and erroneous doctrines they have imbibed are nevertheless to be admired.
Thankfully the Roman Catholic “church”, for all her power and influence, does not YET control the media, nor freedom of speech, a right guaranteed to all by the 1st Amendment of our Constitution. . myself included!  I will not be bullied or intimidated into silence by those who foolishly imagine that their “church” and/or “church rulers” are above reproach and immune from criticism whose sole objective is to suppress the truth!

JuneAnnette, A Christian by God’s grace & a Witness for Christ

To those following this discussion . .
In matters regarding the ongoing Roman Catholic Clergy Abuse Scandal and the reprehensible Cover Up by those who occupy the highest positions of spiritual rule in the Roman Catholic “church”, I have consistently cited Roman Catholic priests, active and former.  Thomas Patrick Doyle, Richard Sipe, Patrick Wall, Bob Hoatson, etc have featured prominently in my posts simply because they have been privy to these matters from the very start, thus their critical commentary is invaluable to those who want to know the truth. These men have impressive credentials and have shown themselves to be men of principle and integrity who have acted upon their religious convictions, though it entailed confronting the powers that be in their “church” . . the so-called “princes of the church”.  Doyle, et al have fought tirelessly against some very formidable odds to hold the RC hierarchy accountable, though sadly they have been met with stalwart resistance all along the way.  They have been fiercely opposed by both bishop and laity alike, in an atmosphere which can only be described as openly hostile, yet they have persevered with what they rightly regard as a just cause. The moral courage and stature these men have displayed in publicly denouncing those who occupy the highest positions in the RC “church” is both inspiring and admirable. For these men I have the deepest respect and highest regard. Rob and those of his ilk are unapologetic “church” apologists, whose animating principle is self-preservation at all costs. Because they cannot defend, excuse and/or justify the conduct of their bishops, they continue to pursue an unholy vendatta against Doyle and those in his camp,in an attempt to silence them by assailing their characters and impugning their motives. Some in the “church” have even stooped so low as to suggest they are in it for the money. It’s no wonder they’re gunning for Doyle.  After all it was Doyle who pointed out in open court during the trial of Msgr. Lynn that the late Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua’s order to shred a list of 35 active priests accused of molesting children as “obstruction of justice.”  To their credit Doyle and his colleagues have strenuously pressed for reform but because that reform is in large part directed at the bishops, they have been on the receiving end of all kinds of slander and false innuendo. 
Though on biblical grounds I am diametrically opposed to Roman Catholicism, that antagonism does not prevent me from acknowledging that some Roman Catholics, despite the flawed theology and erroneous doctrines they have imbibed are nevertheless to be admired.
Thankfully the Roman Catholic “church”, for all her power and influence, does not YET control the media, nor freedom of speech, a right guaranteed to all by the 1st Amendment of our Constitution. . myself included!  I will not be bullied or intimidated into silence by those who foolishly imagine that their “church” and/or “church rulers” are above reproach and immune from criticism whose sole objective is to suppress the truth!

JuneAnnette, A Christian by God’s grace & a Witness for Christ

I submit this comment for what I believe to be the third time? ? ?  In matters regarding the ongoing Roman Catholic Clergy Abuse Scandal and the reprehensible Cover Up by those who occupy the highest positions of spiritual rule in the Roman Catholic “church”, I have consistently cited Roman Catholic priests, active and former.  Thomas Patrick Doyle, Richard Sipe, Patrick Wall, Bob Hoatson, etc have featured prominently in my posts simply because they have been privy to these matters from the very start, thus their critical commentary is invaluable to those who want to know the truth. These men have impressive credentials and have shown themselves to be men of principle and integrity who have acted upon their religious convictions, though it entailed confronting the powers that be in their “church” . . the so-called “princes of the church”.  Doyle, et al have fought tirelessly against some very formidable odds to hold the RC hierarchy accountable, though sadly they have been met with stalwart resistance all along the way.  They have been fiercely opposed by both bishop and laity alike, in an atmosphere which can only be described as openly hostile, yet they have persevered with what they rightly regard as a just cause. The moral courage and stature these men have displayed in publicly denouncing those who occupy the highest positions in the RC “church” is both inspiring and admirable. For these men I have the deepest respect and highest regard. Rob and those of his ilk are unapologetic “church” apologists, whose animating principle is self-preservation at all costs. Because they cannot defend, excuse and/or justify the conduct of their bishops, they continue to pursue an unholy vendatta against Doyle and those in his camp,in an attempt to silence them by assailing their characters and impugning their motives. Some in the “church” have even stooped so low as to suggest they are in it for the money. It’s no wonder they’re gunning for Doyle.  After all it was Doyle who pointed out in open court during the trial of Msgr. Lynn that the late Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua’s order to shred a list of 35 active priests accused of molesting children as “obstruction of justice.”  To their credit Doyle and his colleagues have strenuously pressed for reform but because that reform is in large part directed at the bishops, they have been on the receiving end of all kinds of slander and false innuendo. 
Though on biblical grounds I am diametrically opposed to Roman Catholicism, that antagonism does not prevent me from acknowledging that some Roman Catholics, despite the flawed theology and erroneous doctrines they have imbibed are nevertheless to be admired.
Thankfully the Roman Catholic “church”, for all her power and influence, does not YET control the media, nor freedom of speech, a right guaranteed to all by the 1st Amendment of our Constitution. . myself included!  I will not be bullied or intimidated into silence by those who foolishly imagine that their “church” and/or “church rulers” are above reproach and immune from criticism whose sole objective is to suppress the truth!

JuneAnnette, A Christian by God’s grace & a Witness for Christ

Whoever is moderating these comments is not keeping up very well. I posted this link days ago, and do not see it.

June, the Rev. Doyle is not the ‘wonderful priest’ you claim him to be. He does not even consider himself a Catholic really. He is probably the worst example of a Catholic priest, who does not appear to even have a clue as to what the priesthood is about. See below.

http://www.themediareport.com/2012/05/15/rev-thomas-p-doyle-op/

Regardless of the sins of some of her members, the Catholic Church is the Church founded by our Lord Jesus beginning with the Apostles. The Church of the time of Pentecost is the same Church today. I will never leave this Church because then I would be leaving Our Lord Jesus. Believe what you will, but keep your rude, unChristian venom to yourself.

@JuneAnnette- I am praying for your health.  You wrote that you are a shut-in.  I pray for healing for you.  God bless your husband that cares for you.  Your posts sound very much like my Catholic friend that helps me with background information, as I converted to the Roman Catholic Church prior to the scandals being made known.

There is a link to the Media Report above.  Just from having glanced at it, what it contains seems slanted.  So I asked my friend again about Fr. Thomas Doyle.  She gave me this link below that is in his own words.  I think it’s important to have accurate information, in order to come to any conclusions, and to discern his work:

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ia-davenport/archives/doyle.htm

The link is not slanted, it shows where Doyle has gone way off the tracks as a Catholic and a priest. It is stating facts. As disgusting as the priest abuse scandal is, this man obviously has a major ax to grind and has other issues with the Catholic Church. As I stated, he has no clue about the Catholic church or what it means to be a priest.

Joan62 - your last post intrigues me, because I have been battling my dear mother, who hails from an Evangelical Christian background, for years, ever since I first wanted to convert to Roman Catholicsm.  You wrote that Father Doyle has no clue about what it means to be a priest or about what it means to be Catholic.  Please may I ask you what YOU think it means to be a priest, and what it means to be Roman Catholic?

I ask because Fr. Doyle is a man my lifelong Catholic friend admires, if not for every last bit of his theology, which I don’t think she knows, at least for his work to draw attention to the scandals that would, had he been heeded by bishops, saved me personally from having egg on my face with my mother, almost daily.

You have no idea the flack I take - and my answer to her is not, “Well, it would be better if this were not in the newspapers, because, the press hates Catholics!”  A string of priests & even Bishop Zavala in Los Angeles have fathered children.  I refuse to look the other way, and pretend the problem and all these childen do not exist. 

I’m numbed to the revelations now, and just thank God that I have a nice Catholic friend that takes “social justice” issues seriously; she’s “pro-life” and “pro-family”, “pro-traditional marriage” and “pro-religious liberty” and she has compassion and wisdom; yet she does not hide or shoot people with, “You sound Protestant”, when they ask questions, or misinterpret “Religious Liberty” with “taking religious liberties” so the clergy is above any and all accountability, to anyone.  Like Bishop Finn being deemed guilty, and just getting a slap on the wrist.  Rome may have aleady promoted him to a higher office, for pulling off that coup!

Pro-life and Social Justice for my friend is to protect the VULNERABLE, and not to protect the clergy (priests and bishops) from having their reputation tarnished, and at the expense of everyone of all ages & sexes, in the pew. 

I converted to Roman Catholicism, in large part due to the wisdom of my friend, that was a good example of Christian living to me.  I admired her greatly.  Since she thinks well of Fr. Doyle, I have to say that it packs weight for me.

Now I’m not suggesting he fill the role of pope.  Or that he take any greater role in the church, like Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  But Fr. Doyle and all his work ought not to be dismissed, just because he’s pointing out flaws and foibles in the arena of our bishops.  He ought not to be slandered, by anyone.

The key to me is this: Has Fr. Doyle been saying the same things, for years, or has he changed his story? It looks to me he’s been consistent, and had bishops and Rome heeded him years ago, our church would be in better shape, and it would be considered trustworthy, and it would have saved a lot of people a lot of grief.  The only thing worse than ignoring Fr. Doyle years ago, would be to continue to ignore him and others like him, now.  People in the pew deserve better.  I, for one, am listening to him, as well as others in the Catholic Church, with their fingers on the pulse of its inner workings, in order to facilitate health & growth.

@Terah James
Ah here is the snake in the grass - Terah James.
The most anti-Catholic Catholic I have ever heard from.  She will always ask the most oh so innocent of questions, “because her mother asks them” and then she rips into the church like a piece of meat.
-
Terah James and JuneAnnette are trolls or worse, hater.
Joanp62-Don’t cast pearls before swine. They have no interest in the truth.

Rob:

Unless of course Terah is simply a new Catholic trying to navigate life in the Church in a difficult time.  In which case, the worst thing a Catholic could do is hunker down and start slinging ill-founded accusations instead of addressing her legitimate concerns.

Just a thought.

@Mark
Of course if there were not hundreds of entries by Terra to read and judge from.  It does not need to be a matter of speculation if you read the history of posts on this sight.

Okay.  I have not read much of her.

Terah, my opinion of Fr. Doyle is based on what I have read of his comments online. The site I posted is one example.
I do not turn a blind eye to these disgusting abuse scandals, the behavior of some priests and bishops is diplorable. They also do not appear to have a good idea of what it means to be a priest of the Church.

I do not have the time to post a longer response as I am out of town. I will try to elaborate more tomorrow. But I just want to say, if we read the writings of the Saints and other Catholic spiritual books,as well as the CCC and scripture, we can learn just what it means to be Catholic, Christian and a follower of Christ, whether we are a lay person or religious. And I am very surprised whenever I hear of what some Catholics say and do, most especially when they are priests and nuns- that I wonder why they even became a priest-because they surely did not receive a proper training in the seminary. Their worldliness is one aspect- they appear to be following the way of the world and have been more influenced by the world than by Christ.

Hey Mark, I just wanted to say that I have been enjoying your little Catholic-minute talks I have been hearing lately on Catholic radio.  Thanks and keep up the good work!

JoanP62 - Thank you for taking the time to reply back to me.  You wrote,
“I do not turn a blind eye to these disgusting abuse scandals, the behavior of some priests and bishops is diplorable. They also do not appear to have a good idea of what it means to be a priest of the Church.”

Joan, if what you claim is true, by calling the abuse “disgusting” and the behavior of bishops “deplorable”, allow me to warn you that kind of observation -and those words- are what Rob, and his ilk, object to.

If I were you, I’d not admit to thinking anything bad about the Catholic Church.  Being a good Catholic is to look the other way.  Ignore everything.  If you know something is wrong, don’t talk about it, except in your immediate family.  Your first post was perfect, blaming victims, the press and whistleblowers like Fr. Doyle, is good.  Stick with that.

I was wrong to point out other facts, and I apologize to you for that.  Please don’t spend any more time with this.  I thought this forum would be ‘safe’, as the topic is “Why bother with such a corrupt church?” But it’s not corrupt.  The Catholic church is everything it should be.  Every priest and every bishop that walks the face of the earth is Jesus.  They are all ideal clergymen.  None of them have ever done the slightest thing wrong.

Joan, I haven’t been posting in that many National Catholic Reg. blogs.  But Rob wrote that I have written “hundreds” of comments.  Furthermore, he judged my intentions, and labeled me a “snake”.  While I am not a new Catholic, I did convert prior to the revelations coming out about how clergy abuse has been handled.  So I am new to all the venom that Catholics can spew out at those that ask questions.

It’s a good thing I have my dear friend to use as an example of Christian charity.  She is ONE Catholic that does not look the other way, or call bad behavior, good, just because it’s the behavior of a clergyman.  She’d agree with you about the terms disgusting and deplorable.  With her, and even with others, I can speak freely.  I can ask questions, share my true feelings, beliefs and fears.  Look to her, for support.  I take my faith in Jesus seriously.  From the sound of your post, Joan, you do too.  We will all have to answer to Him, Rob included.

Terah, being a good Catholic does not mean to look the other way. Nor does trying to expose the problems within the Catholic church alone, ala “Rev” Doyle make you a good Catholic.

There are too many Catholics, including priests and nuns, who are not the Good Catholics they claim to be because they openly dissent on Church teaching on faith and morals. And priests especially, although really all of us, must be aware of what the Church teaches and says about herself. She claims to hold the fullness of the Truth and that she is both human and divine. She claims that when teaching on Faith and Morals that the Holy Spirit is with the Church and she cannot err on those matters. The Church will not mislead us.

That means abortion is always intrinsically evil, sodomy is evil (whether done by same sex or opposite sex partners) marriage is for a man and a woman ONLY, contraception is always wrong, we are to be in the world but not OF the world, we should be seeking holiness and union with God, we must practice the Corporal Works of Mercy, but also the Spiritual works, which in many ways is probably more important because a person’s soul and eternal life is at stake. If a Catholic does not believe this, then they need to go somewhere else, period. Maybe first they should pray and ask Jesus to show them where they may be in error and be willing to be humbly obedient to Holy Mother Church. Otherwise, why stay?

So, yes, when Priests and Nuns and lay people dissent from Church teaching, publicly supporting these evils, vote for politicians who support these evils, then NO, they have no clue what it means to be Catholic and to Follow Christ, no matter what so-called “good” things that they may do.

Lastly, I do not believe the Church is corrupt. There are those within the Church that are corrupt, but the Church as Christ’s Body, and the Bride of Christ, especially in her Sacraments and teachings on faith and morals is not corrupt.  God Bless.

Joan - Okay, this is weird.  I agree with everything you wrote in your last post, and I mean I agree, 100%. 
*abortion is always intrinsically evil
*sodomy is evil (whether done by same sex or opposite sex partners) *marriage is for a man and a woman ONLY,
*contraception is always wrong
*we are to be in the world but not OF the world
*we should be seeking holiness and union with God
*we must practice the Corporal Works of Mercy, but also the Spiritual works, which in many ways is probably more important because a person’s soul and eternal life is at stake.

ALL the above are your words.  I agree with everything. To it, I add:
*NO WOMEN PRIESTS—I have come to understand that’s HUGE—and
*we need official church leadership (but my wish is for our said leaders to be unified under God, concerned with everything lay people are concerned about, PLUS: preaching the Gospel in its entirety, fulfilling the Great Commission.)

Between you and me (and please, let this be our secret) I too, would use the terms you used: “disgusting” and “deplorable” to describe priests & bishops having sex outside of marriage with anyone (men, women or children).  Plus I object to the cover-ups of said behavior by superiors, clerical peers & lay people that know what is going on.  Again, we agree.

What I find odd is, presumably, we are in 100% agreement about everything that is important morally speaking, yet the reason I responded to you is over something about which we disagreed (namely, I believe Father Thomas Doyle is still an active Roman Catholic priest & “Catholic”, perhaps not unlike a Nancy Pelosi-Catholic, or a Ted Kennedy-Catholic, but he’s still Catholic.  You believe he is no longer Catholic).

My Catholic friend would agree with all you wrote too.  About Fr. Doyle, I know she respects him, so she’d be in my camp there.  Since you wrote about priests and nuns that are either extreme left, right or center, it seems to me what comes under the Umbrella of “Roman Catholic” is not unlike the 20,000 Protestant/non-Catholic Christian denominations figure I often read about.

Please don’t misunderstand that as an attack.  It’s just an observation.  Catholic teachers/leaders are all over the place on matters, and in some cases, they are matters of GREAT importance.  At least on matters of GREAT importance, you & I & my Catholic friend (that disagree on minor things? Fr. Doyle being “Catholic”) agree on the majors. I’m just thinking out loud here.  God bless you, too.  Hope you had a good trip.

Hi Terah, this is my second attempt, the first time didn’t go through.
Yes, we do seem to have an agreement on the Catholic Church. Regarding Fr. Doyle, there is much to be concerned about. These things are listed here:

http://www.themediareport.com/2012/05/15/rev-thomas-p-doyle-op/

I would be interested to hear your impression of some of the criticisms of this man. He has made some strange and erroneous claims about the Church and the Eucharist, his politics appear to be at odds with Church teaching and spirituality and he quite frankly is antagonistic toward the Church as a whole, including its teachings, instead of having issues with those who are guilty within the abuse scandals. It’s a problem for a lay person, but it’s even worse when you are a priest and you appear to be against much of what your Church is all about.

Thanks and God Bless you.

I am just a simple catholic that just plods on in life full of hope and no dispair. So much is being written and said these days i do believe people are forgeting what is realy going on. Paul 1X said in 1966 that Satan was now in the home of the church,how true. Since then this creature of perdition has steped up his attack to a fury just look around and see the disobedience of many priests and nuns and putting many lay against lay even many sadly leaving the church i know of some who have gone over to Islam, he must be licking his lips. But not for long lets face it he is in my view throwing his last dice he knows he cant win all we have to do is focus in full the teachings of our lord keep the faith and pray for those who seek solace in demonic new age teachings. And lastly live in hope then fear is gone as St Padre pio said “Pray,hope and dont worry”.

Those who would try to lead us into protestant scandal by leading us away from the Church established by Christ, the Holy Catholic Church, and therefore, Christ Truly Present in the Holy Eucharist, should remember what Jesus said.
-
“Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.”
-
I am Catholic because Jesus said:
-
“Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 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. 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.”
-
I am Catholic because Jesus saith to Simon PETER: “Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these?” ...“Feed my lambs.” He saith to him again: “Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?” ...“Feed my lambs.” He said to him the third time: “Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?”
-
PETER was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: “Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee.”
-
He said to him: “Feed my sheep.”  The Good Shepherd appoints a shepherd for His flock when He is away.  Peter, the first Pope.
-
I am Catholic because Jesus said, “Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.”
-
And because when His disciples said of this, “This is a hard saying, who can hear it?” and then they walked with Him no more because of it, He did not go after them and say He was only speaking metaphorically.  He meant it. I am Catholic because of The Holy Eucharist.
-
I am Catholic because He said, “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” The Sacrament of Confession.

-
I am Catholic because Jesus prayed, “Those whom thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled. ... Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.

And not for them only do I pray, BUT FOR THEM ALSO WHO THROUGH THEIR WORD shall believe in me;  THAT THEY ALL MAY BE ONE, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”
-
How can we be one if everyone is free to interpret and decide morality for themselves?  With thousands upon thousands of dissenting ‘denominations’, is it any wonder so few in the world truly believe?
-
I am Catholic because He said, “...I go to the Father; and you shall see me no longer…I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.” 
-
He knew that things to come would require a source for Truth.  ie, contraception, in-vetro fertilization, cloning, ...  The Good Shepherd does not leave His flock without a shepherd.  He established the Church with a single shepherd in charge of the priesthood, and the Paraclete guides/shews him. 
-
Are there some wayward priests, bishops and even popes?  Yes, but Judas was hand picked by Jesus, Himself, and even so, The Holy Spirit has guided the Church in matters of Faith as is evident by examples such as the promulgation of Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI, not exactly a hard core conservative, at a time when the tide was against it.  And it turns out his encyclical was prophetic. 
-
How many former Catholics left the Church because of their rejection of this teaching, even though it was given by the man granted the authority by Jesus, when He said, “What you hold bound…”  The successor of Peter.  Peter himself established the apostolic succession we know today, when he called for a successor to Judas, and we can see the Church structure was formed at the beginning, in the early writings of the early Church.  The Didache, for example speaks of bishops, etc…
-
Jesus said,  “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 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.”  He did not say, “Write it all down in a book and let them figure it out on their own.” 
-
I am Catholic because it is the only thing that makes sense based on what Jesus said.
-
Deo Gratias.

Very well put, Pamela. God Bless.

I agree with Mark entirely.  But I also think the bishops, especially in common law countries, need to really understand that they are viewed by the laity (and the law) as supervisors of their priests.  Until learning this recent lesson the hard way, I don’t think the U.S. bishops really saw themselves as having responsibility to discipline and possibly remove wayward priests.  Even now, I think this is only a recent evolution of corporate governance, and only exists at a very superficial level. 
But even for a sinful, imbecilic organization, and taking away the view that it is guided by the Holy Spirit, the organized Church evidences a pretty amazing ability to LEARN and adapt.  We’ve come a long way from the corruption of the renaissance popes and the complete debasement of the papacy in the darkest of the dark ages.  This alone is sufficient for a certain level of optimism.

Joan - Regarding what Fr. Doyle has been reported as saying about the church, the Eucharist, etc., I think we have to separate it from what good he has done, that is FACTUAL.  He tried to warn bishops over the years about clerical abuse.  It is well documented.  Had they listened & heeded his warnings, it would have saved everyone from harm.  It’s important to keep to ONE issue - that of how he was a whistleblower that was ignored.

Fr. Doyle is not seeking to be Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  If he were, anything he said or thought would be open to question and scrutiny.  But there are MANY priests that are not high-profile, that say (and teach!) things contrary to what’s approved by the church.  They are more dangerous, because they are under the radar.

It’s not impossible that many things that Fr. Doyle has been accused of saying are not even true.  When people are in the public eye, saying things other people do not like, it opens them up to being slandered.  The phrase, “Kill the messenger” is so well-known, as a result.

So I’d not be surprised if many things Fr. Doyle is accused of saying, he didn’t even say.  His focus is on protecting lay people from clergy that are having sex outside of marriage, a no-no behavior, for everyone.  Key for everyone is the Five Non-Negotiables, and I pray that our church leadership would focus on that, and LEAD, in an honorable way, so that our church can get back on course.  They are engaging lay people now, and that’s healthy. That would not have happened during the Dark Ages.

TO: “servus humilis” post, Thursday, Sep 13, 2012 1:51 PM—great point!

Terah, I do believe that many of the allegations regarding Fr. Doyle are accurate, and if so, it doesn’t matter what other “good things” he may do, his behavior and comments about the Church are important. He appears to have much anger toward the Church. Remember, less than 2% of all priests have been accused of abuse. As reprehensible as that may be, we are all sinners and this inflated self-righteous outrage exhibited by some within the Church is prideful and suspect. It is as though certain people, including some priests, hate the Church, and are using the abuse scandal to further their own agenda. Below is a portion of an article by the Catholic League reporting on what took place at a SNAP meeting last summer. What this man is saying and doing is as bad as the abusers. In his case, he is responsible for possibly losing souls who may believe his lies.

<<The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) held a national conference in Washington, D.C., July 8-10. This report details what happened.

It was sad to learn that the worst anti-Catholic rant of the day was delivered by Thomas Doyle, an ordained Dominican priest. The recovering alcoholic has butted heads with bishops before, and after one such confrontation he was removed from a military chaplain post. He also likes to blame Pope John Paul II for the abuse scandal. At the conference, Doyle spewed out every anti-Catholic canard possible. Here are a few examples:

• The Church was established by Constantine—not Jesus Christ.
• The Church = fear, power, and guilt.
• The Church is inauthentic and there is a “toxic religiosity” in this institution. The toxicity keeps people subjugated.
• There needs to be a radical restructuring of the priesthood.
• The Mass = magic words. People are compelled to sprinkle water on the forehead of babies or they will go to Hell when they die.
• He referred to priestly vestments as “dresses.”>>

One man says to a priest “I don’t go to Catholic Church because it is full of hypocrites”.  The priest responds; “There is always room for one more.”

I say “I could never belong to a church that would except some one like me:)

@Bruce - your post would make more sense if you used the word “accept” not “except”.  Also, someone is a compound word, although you could use them separately when it makes “scents”.

@Pamela
Beautiful - thank you.

Rob… your discernment about a ‘snake’ is correct.  Don’t back off… keep up the good fight.

Joan - I think no one is 100% bad or 100% good.  I think people need to be given credit for the good they do, and corrected about the bad they do. Just like with troubled priests that have offended, or bishops that mishandled the priests they were to oversee.  None of the priests or bishops would have been 100% good/bad.  Some troubled priests have done wonderful things, in terms of social justice issues, and I think they deserve to be credited for it.  Everyone deserves to be embraced, and urged to repent and turn to God, because He desires that everyone come to Him. We are to be salt and light, in a dark world.  Not to embrace bad behavior.  But to embrace the people and bring them to Christ.

@Terah….the “troubled priests that have offended” should be “corrected”?  Some of them have done wonderful things in terms of social justice - and deserve CREDIT? Pedophiles belong in PRISON - and if they started a youth group to keep under-privileged kids off the streets (social justice) - they were just “stocking their shelves”.  No one is perfect - that means we have clergy who swear, may be a little lazy, etc.—- these men may be “troubled”.  Pedophiles are criminals who belong where they can not commit CRIMES.  I think it’s disgusting that you want to give someone “Credit” because they carried an old lady’s groceries across the street once.  They can turn to God in PRISON - lots of social justice and good can be done there, and our children, and the upstanding members of our clergy won’t have to suffer for their sins.

Terah, I agree with most of what you posted. However, there are some things that bad people do that is worse than other bad things that people do. For instance, abortion is worse than a small lie, or stealing a loaf of bread. For a priest to be so outspokenly anti-Catholic, to ridicule aspects of the Church that he is a member of, well- there is something pretty seriously wrong with him. All we can do is pray for him and hope that God will change his heart and mind.

Hey June, better head on over to www.stopbaptistpredators.com and let them know that it’s all in their head. After all, according to you, only the CC’s priests abuse kids.
.
By the way, you realize that your lies above can be easily refuted by a simple google search, right? Do you realize that bearing false witness is a sin?

@JuneAnnette
Must you come on this site and masturbate, posting the same materials and hate over and over.
It really is disgusting and frankly the rest of us are tired of watching you demonstrate how horrible lost and deluded “christians” who reject the church can be.

JuneAnnette, we are all well aware of the homosexuals in the priesthood and the ‘lavender mafia’ in the seminaries. This goes back to the 70’s or so. Many good men were turned away or forced to leave seminaries because of this. It is also the majority of the problem with the abuse scandal. Most of those abused were over 14 year old males. There was more homosexual activity than pedophilia. This is what happens when people ignore or try to thwart Church teaching.

But this is the Church Christ founded, it is NOT unholy, even if some of her members are.

You really need to get a life. You are not telling us anything we do not already know. But we will not forsake the Church that Jesus himself founded and where He gives us Himself in the Eucharist.

Sorry, June. You are wrong and it is you who are blind. As far as impact on the youth are concerned, it isn’t just the Catholic Church that has had abuse problems. It is in many other Christian denominations,public schools, and anywhere children can be found. It is because we are sinful human beings. The Church was infiltrated by homosexuals and others seeking to undermine her. But I know God will prevail and the gates of hell will not.

You think that all of your posts are telling us things we don’t already know. We are well aware that there are corrupt people in our church. 1/12 of Our Lord’s Apostles was corrupt. And Judas was hand picked by Jesus. There is corruption in the Protestant denominations as well. There is corruption in Government. We are sinful people. And so are you.

Perhaps instead of feeding on all of this scandal, you need to get your head out of the gutter and learn the history of early Christianity, and the beautiful spirituality and theology of Christ’s Church- the Catholic Church. Your arrogant, self-righteous indignation is not Christ-like.

Why is it that so often, Catholics will attack a messenger, and speak to the person in an uncharitable manner, as if the person has no feelings?  JuneAnnette is broaching topics that, granted, are hard to hear.  But for those of us that ARE the Pray, Pay and Obey types, it behooves us to be aware of what is being brought to our attention.  Please, let’s not cast fingers at OTHER denominations.  The Church Jesus started, first led by Peter, should be above the Baptist Church up the street, in terms of morals and policy that protects people from clergymen whose morals are not fully in alignment with God’s will for them, and us.  Rob’s comment crossed a line.  I think it should be pulled from this blog.  What he wrote is no way to speak to a lady.  I’m sorry for that, JuneAnnette.  Rob showed neither class nor discernment.

@Joanp62:  You are correct re molestation, abuse, sexual harrassment (and all sorts of evil) occurring in government, schools and in Protestant churches.  The difference with the Catholic church is one of structure.  Government has civil law to remove teachers and administrators.  Protestant churches dismiss Pastors and Youth Ministers “at will” since they are employees.  They are subject to a code of ethics or a morals clause.  In the Catholic church, diocesan Bishops may transfer or move a priest to some other position, but they still remain a “priest.”  Why cannot a Bishop defrock and dismiss abusive clergy?  Why cannot a priest be terminated “for cause” and no longer be on the payroll?  He will be then left to seek other employment.  Sometimes you just have to fire someone.

Casting Crowns - “Why cannot a Bishop defrock and dismiss abusive clergy?  Why cannot a priest be terminated “for cause” and no longer be on the payroll?  He will be then left to seek other employment.  Sometimes you just have to fire someone.”

Because a priest is NOT an employee. They are not on anyone’s ‘payroll’. Do you think they receive a paycheck from the Vatican or their Diocese? They make their living from their Parish, the weekly collection goes to all the expenses of the parish and other obligations, and the priests receive their living expenses from that. Also, the priest is ordained into the priesthood- they are not ‘hired’ so to speak. Most priests, even diocesesan do not have a lot of money, unless they have money from their own resources from before they became priests. They have trained and studied for this and it is not easy to just “get another job” , especially if they have been priests for many years.

Ok, the latest comments from JuneAnnette have disappeared.

Terah, I don’t know if you saw them, but June had posted some comments on the 15th that aren’t showing now. She is anything but a messenger that we are ‘attacking’. She has posted over and over again the same old criticisms, telling us that the Catholic Church is evil, unholy, and that we must leave her. We have told her that we are not ignorant of all that she brings up about our Church. We have given her reasons why, inspite of the sinfulness of some of her members, we will stay with the Catholic Church, and she just keeps up.

Terah, please stop apologizing to June for us. Re-read some of her posts if you need to. And like I said, there were several from yesterday from her. She is harrassing us, plain and simple.

@Terah James
Oh Terah I’m ever so sorry that you misinterpreted my comments to June.  You know she has an illness and a hatred in her soul that has grown ever so strong that she cannot help but spend all day attacking the Catholic Church.
Terah, I know you are oh so new to the Catholic Church so you probably just don’t understand that when you support the people who hate the church, spread false stories about the church, or just fail to defend the church, that you are not showing devotion to Christ’s bride.
But keep asking questions, maybe some new ones vs just the anti-Catholic ones and I’m sure, added with the hundreds of posts you have already made, you will start to understand Her doctrine.
BTW, try not to do things like dismiss the Eucharist as “it doesn’t really matter” and reject Marian theology as “it cannot be” - and don’t tell people that they “do not need to perform works” of mercy for their salvation. 
If you joined the church to change 2000 years of faith you may have made a mistake.  If you joined the church to gain better access to the holy Spirit, the Church and her teachings, then start listening and reading and stop taking fundamental positions against the church.
Finally there is a difference between ensuring the church lives up to her role vs beating her over the head every time one of us sins.

@Casting Crowns…..most orders of priests do not take a vow of poverty - the following is from the FAQs sheet available on the website for the Archdiocese of Portland (first one I came upon).  Not picking a fight - just know you like accurate info.

Do priests get paid?
Since a diocesan priest does not take a vow of poverty, he receives a personal salary. Priests receive a salary commensurate with the local standard of living enabling him to pay for expenses he has: medical, car, books, entertainment, vacation and charitable contributions. Basic necessities are provided by the parish where he serves.

The amount of money made by a priest is not really important. We have chosen to live simply, without accumulating a lot of material possessions, in order to enable us to focus our lives more easily on Jesus, and to serve His people.
http://www.portlanddiocese.net/info.php?info_id=191

@Joan62…If you would like to use the phrase “homosexual activity [rather] than pedophilia” then the parties involved must have reached the age of consent. Perhaps you think that “normal” Catholics want to protect sexual predators.  I don’t believe that.  Would you mind providing your source for the above post regarding the general age of the males involved in the “activity”?  I would like to read it.  The age of consent for sexual activity does vary from state to state, just as do the laws regarding sodomy and adultery.  If possible, please find a law for me that states that a 14 year old boy can consent to sodomy by someone over the age of 21.  Thank you.

Kellyann, pedophilia is defined as a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. That is usually under 14, even under the age of 12. The John Jay study on the priest abuse scandal showed that there was a larger amount of teenage boys who were the victims. A google search should get you the info.

Re-read my post.I said nothing nor did I imply anything about age of consent. My point was not to say that abuse did not happen- but that most of the abusers were homosexual and not pedophiles. I would appreciate it if people did not add meaning to a post that was not there.

Mr Shea: thans for the beautiful and perfect description of why we are Catholics - in all my life I could never have come up with the description and reasons you have given, although I felt it to be and believed it to be as you alone could have put it in writing.
Thank you

Rob, I did not misinterpret your comments.  You were crude in your response to a lady, and there is NEVER any excuse for being unkind.  None.
I did read JuneAnnette’s posts.  All of them.  She provided facts for anyone interested in having more detail than what is normally found on a very conservative Catholic site.  If it’s true, it will hold up.  If it’s untrue, it will not hold up to scrutiny.  It is unwise to keep our collective heads in the sand, feeling threatened by news we don’t like to hear.  There is never an excuse for rudeness.  There is never an excuse for a man not behaving as a gentleman with a woman.  None.

@Terah James said “There is never an excuse for a man not behaving as a gentleman with a woman.  None.”
-
Oh Terah, there IS a time - when someone like June calls YOUR mother, Christ’s bride, a w-hore and a harlot, or frankly when someone like you, a Catholic, supports her when you know she has made those statements - shame on you.
-
Are you willing to stand up for Christ’s church?

@Joanp62 [“They are not on anyone’s ‘payroll’. Do you think they receive a paycheck from the Vatican or their Diocese?”]    Joan, they DO receive a salary and they must file an IRS 1040 or at least a (1040A) like everyone else.  Lifelong FICA deductions are what entitle clergy to receiving Social Security once they retire.

[“They have trained and studied for this and it is not easy to just “get another job” , especially if they have been priests for many years.”]  So how is that OUR problem once their sacred trust has been broken?  Joan, you have actually identified the core of the problem by your statement.  Why should a corrupt or sexually abusve priest be a problem for a parish (or diocese) after he has been found guilty in court OR after a settlement has been agreed to by the victim(s)?  You are saying his presence at the parish level (or diocesan) needs to be endured by the rest of Catholics so he should be retained for life.  We should all just “put up with it.”  Is that what you are defending?

Casting Crowns, you will find your answer here:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_salary_of_a_Catholic_priest

They do not receive a salary if they serve a parish. Their pay comes from the weekly contributions. If they work for the Diocese and do not have their own parish, the diocese pays them. They usually don’t bring in more than 30K a year.

You stated: “You are saying his presence at the parish level (or diocesan) needs to be endured by the rest of Catholics so he should be retained for life.  We should all just “put up with it.”  Is that what you are defending?”

No. That is not what I said nor what I was implying. Why are liberals so bent on assuming things? I was simply stating that it is not so easy to “fire” a priest.

@Joanp62:  And I am saying that is exactly the problem.  People in the pew are forced to endure clergy who are no longer worthy of trust because it is not “easy” to remove them.  It is for this reason that Bishops have been compelled to move clergy around rather than immediately dismissing them.  Do you (or not) support the defrocking of clergy who have violated a sacred trust?

First, if a priest is found guilty of child abuse, wouldn’t they be in jail? Second, if for some reason they are not in jail, that doesn’t mean that the priest should stay on working in a parish or anywhere around children. They should be dismissed or laicized, but I am not sure what the procedure is within the church. Much of what you are speaking about happened years ago. Now that this scandal has been out in the open for 10 years or more, I don’t think any bishop in their right mind would simply transfer a priest to another parish. That just isn’t happening anymore. I believe and I hope that at least in this country, they are handling these cases properly now. If they aren’t they should be.

Regarding the removal by bishops of priests, I saw a headline today that may interest everyone:

http://cal-catholic.com/wordpress/2012/09/17/los-angeles-archbishop-suspends-faculties-of-pro-homosexual-priest/

Seems at least one archbishop removed a priest from ministry, for promoting same sex relationships (thankfully!).  More bishops should lead, similarly, as should Rome.

There would be less confusion about what Catholics believe.  This priest should have been told about the 5 Non-Negotiables.