Catholic Church the One True Church - 10/27/2003
"You are peter and on this rock i build my church; to you I give the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven" Papal infallability is certainly true. A common argument of you protestants is "well you have had corrupt popes" So what, cant you notice how the Holy spirt has laways protected the chuyrch from any change in dogma on faith and morals. If the corrput popes were so Yes i agree we have had corrupt popes but one things for sure is that we have kept the word of God on faith and morals. They have never changed and never will. From the earliest times we see the bishops of Rome acting as if they had special authority in succession from St. Peter, and we also see the rest of the Church accepting their authority as if they knew it was genuine. Thus Pope Clement wrote to settle a problem in the Church of Corinth before the end of the 1st century. During the first few hundred years of Church history, moreover, many who were accused of heresy appealed from every corner of the known world to Rome for vindication or condemnation. The
Fathers too repeatedly attest to the authority of the Roman See. And the Popes always had the decisive word at general councils, as when the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon said in response to the Papal definition of the two natures of Christ, "Peter has spoken through Leo" -- and accepted it
There are only two covenants, the old and the new. But the first Christians under the New Covenant had a living and infallible guide to the truth in Christ himself. Surely the lack of such a guide in future times would constitute yet another covenant -- the difference would be so radical. The argument runs as follows:
It is clear even from Scripture that Peter had a special commission and special powers from Christ to care for the flock of Christ, to bind and loose, and to confirm his brothers in faith -- indeed he had the very powers of the keys to the Kingdom. Obviously, these powers were essential to the
Church as constituted by Christ. And Christ promised to be with the Church always to the end of time, and said that the powers of hell would not prevail against it.
Now, clearly Christ knew that Peter would not live until the end of time, so he must have intended that the power he gave to Peter would be carried on until His return. After all, Peter was to feed "my" (Christ's) sheep, and so was serving as the vicar of Christ in Christ's absence. When Peter died, a new vicar would take his place, and so on, until Christ returned to claim his own. The parable of the steward awaiting his Master's return is very much to the point.
Just as clearly, Peter's authority also enabled himself (and his successors) to set forth the manner in which their successors would be selected, either by choosing the successor personally before death, or by setting forth some other means -- eventually, election by the college of cardinals.
Moroever, if these special and essential powers were to pass out of existence, it would be proof that Christ was no longer with his Church and that the powers of Hell had indeed prevailed. Therefore, again, Christ must have intended successors to Peter.
For this reason, we are not at all surprised that subsequent popes claimed to have the Petrine power and that the early Christian community accepted it without question. As I indicated above, this authority was excercised by the fourth Pope, Clement, while St. John the Evangelist was still alive. The earliest Christians were in a position to know Christ's will from other sources than Scripture (just as we today, under the guidance of the Church, are able to learn from Tradition
Now we come to the specific question of infallibility, by which the successors of Peter continue to confirm the brethren. Since the successors of Peter have the same Petrine authority, which comes ultimately from Christ, to bind and loose, they have the authority to bind the faithful in matters pertaining to salvation -- that is, in faith or morals. Now, if a Pope could bind the faithful to error, it would be a clear triumph of the powers of Hell, because the entire Church would be bound to follow the error under Christ's own authority. Obviously, this cannot happen.
Therefore, the logic of the situation demands that the Petrine power of confirming the brethren must be an infallible power. When the Pope intends by virtue of his supreme authority to teach on a matter of faith and morals to the entire Church, he MUST be protected by the Holy Spirit from error --
else the powers of hell would prevail.
This is the logic behind infallibility. But, of course, it is not based solely on logic, since it is attested in Scripture and was held by the earliest Christians and the Fathers and, indeed, by the vast majority of Christians from the beginning.
Further, it is not a new thing. It was precisely defined at Vatican I in order to clarify what was at that time a confusing issue, but this was by way of stating clearly what Christ's teaching was, not by way of adding anything new. Vatican I therefore carefully enumerated the conditions under which the Pope was in fact infallible -- the same conditions which logic
demands, which Scripture suggests, and which tradition shows us in action down through the centuries.
When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called "infallible" and the teaching which he articulates is termed "irreformable" Jesus christ taught that the true church has to be Universal, has to promote
holliness. The Catholic chruch is the only one that covers bothe these two totally.
A few other points especially about how you bible tells us the catholocism is correct.
Did Our Lord write any part of the New Testament or command His Apostles to do so? Our Lord Himself never wrote a line, nor is there any record that He ordered his Apostles to write; He did command them to teach and to preach. Also He to Whom all power was given in Heaven and on earth (Matt. 28-18) promised to give them the Holy Spirit (John 14-26) and to be with them Himself till the end of the world (Mat. 28-20).
COMMENT: If reading the Bible were a necessary means of salvation, Our Lord would have made that statement and also provided the necessary means for his followers.
How many of the Apostles or others actually wrote what is now in the New Testament? A Few of the Apostles wrote part of Our Lord's teachings, as they themselves expressly stated; i.e., Peter, Paul, James, John, Jude, Matthew, also Sts. Mark and Luke. None of the others wrote anything, so far as is
COMMENT: If the Bible privately interpreted was to be a Divine rule of Faith, the apostles would have been derelict in their duty when instead, some of them adopted preaching only.
Was it a teaching or a Bible-reading Church that Christ founded? The Protestant Bible expressly states that Christ founded a teaching Church, which existed before any of the New Testament books were written.
Rom. 10-17: So then faith cometh by HEARING, and hearing by the word of God.
Matt. 28-19: Go ye therefore and TEACH all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Mark. 16-20: And they went forth, and PREACHED everywhere the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
Mark 16-15: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world and PREACH the gospel to every creature.
COMMENT: Thus falls the entire basis of the "Bible-only" theory.
Was there any drastic difference between what Our Lord commanded the Apostles to teach and what the New Testament contains? Our Lord commanded his Apostles to teach all things whatsoever He had commanded; (Matt. 28-20);
his ,Church must necessarily teach everything; (John 14-26); however, the Protestant Bible itself teaches that the Bible does not contain all of Our Lord's doctrines:
John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, etc.
John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
COMMENT: How would it have been possible for second century Christians to practice Our Lord's religion, if private interpretation of an unavailable and only partial account of Christ's teaching were indispensable?
Does the New Testament expressly refer to Christ's "unwritten word"? The New Testament itself teaches that it does not contain all that Our Lord did or, consequently, all that He taught.
John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, etc.
John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written everyone, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written Amen.
COMMENT: Since the Bible is incomplete, it needs something else to supplement it; i. e., the spoken or historically recorded word which we call Tradition.
What became of the unwritten truths which Our Lord and the Apostles taught?
The Church has carefully conserved this "word of mouth" teaching by historical records called Tradition. Even the Protestant Bible teaches that many Christian truths were to be handed down by word of mouth.
2 Thes. 2-15: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Tim. 2-2: And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
COMMENT: Hence not only Scripture but other sources of information must be consulted to get the whole of Christ's teaching. Religions founded on "the Bible only" are therefore necessarily incomplete.
Between what years were the first and last books of the New Testament written? This first book, St. Matthew's Gospel, was not written until about ten years after Our Lord's Ascension. St. John's fourth gospel and Apocalypse or Book of Revelations were not written until about 100 A. D.
COMMENT: Imagine how the present-day privately interpreted "Bible-only" theory would have appeared at a time when the books of the New Testament were not only unavailable, but most of them had not yet been written.
When was the New Testament placed under one cover?
In 397 A. D. by the Council of Constantinople, from which it follows that non-Catholics have derived their New Testament from the Catholic Church; no other source was available.
COMMENT: Up to 397 A. D., some of the Christians had access to part of the New Testament; into this situation, how would the "Bible-only privately interpreted" theory have fitted?
Why so much delay in compiling the New Testament? Prior to 397 A. D., the various books of the New Testament were not under one cover, but were in the custody of different groups or congregations. The persecutions against the
Church, which had gained new intensity, prevented these New Testament books
from being properly authenticated and placed under one cover. However, this
important work was begun after Constantine gave peace to Christianity in 313
A.D., allowing it to be practiced in the Roman Empire.
COMMENT: This again shows how utterly impossible was the "Bible-only"
theory, at least up to 400 A. D.
What other problem confronted those who wished to determine the contents of
the New Testament? Before the inspired books were recognized as such, many
other books had been written and by many were thought to be inspired; hence
the Catholic Church made a thorough examination of the whole question;
biblical scholars spent years in the Holy Land studying the original
languages of New Testament writings.
COMMENT: According to the present-day "Bible-only" theory, in the above
circumstances, it would also have been necessary for early Christians to
read all the doubtful books and, by interior illumination, judge which were
and which were not divinely inspired.
Who finally did decide which books were inspired and therefore belonged to
the New Testament? Shortly before 400 A. D. a General Council of the
Catholic Church, using the infallible authority which Christ had given to
his own divine institution, finally decided which books really belonged to
the New Testament and which did not.
Either the Church at this General Council was infallible, or it was not. If
the Church was infallible then, why is it not infallible now? If the Church
was not infallible then, in that case the New Testament is not worth the
paper it is written on, because internal evidences of authenticity and
inspiration are inconclusive and because the work of this Council cannot now
be rechecked; this is obvious from reply to next question.
COMMENT: In view of these historical facts, it is difficult to see how
non-Catholics can deny that it was from the (Roman) Catholic Church that
they received the New Testament.
Why is it impossible for modern non-Catholics to check over the work done by
the Church previous to 400. A. D.? The original writings were on frail
material called papyrus, which had but temporary enduring qualities. While
the books judged to be inspired by the Catholic Church were carefully copied
by her monks, those rejected at that time were allowed to disintegrate, for
lack of further interest in them.
COMMENT. What then is left for non-Catholics, except to trust the Catholic
Church to have acted under divine inspiration; if at that time, why not now?
Would the theory of private interpretation of the New Testament have been
possible for the year 400 A. D.? No, because, as already stated, no New
Testament as such was in existence.
COMMENT: If our non-Catholic brethren today had no Bibles, how could they
even imagine following the "Bible-only privately interpreted" theory; but
before 400 A. D., New Testaments were altogether unavailable.
Would the private interpretation theory have been possible between 400 A. D.
and 1440 A. D., when printing was invented? No, the cost of individual
Bibles written by hand was prohibitive; moreover, due to the scarcity of
books, and other reasons, the ability to read was limited to a small
minority. The Church used art, drama and other means to convey Biblical
COMMENT: To have proposed the "Bible-only" theory during the above period
would obviously have been impracticable and irrational
Who copied and conserved the Bible during the interval between 400 A. D. and
1440 A. D.? The Catholic monks; in many cases these spent their entire lives
to give the world personally-penned copies of the Scriptures, before
printing was invented.
COMMENT: In spite of this, the Catholic Church is accused of having tried to
destroy the Bible; had she desired to do this, she had 1500 years within
which to do so.
Who gave the Reformers the authority to change over from the one Faith, one
Fold and one Shepherd program, to that of the "Bible-only theory"? St. Paul
seems to answer the above when he said: "But though we, or an angel from
heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached
unto you, let him be accursed." (Galations 1-8 - Protestant version ) .
COMMENT: If in 300 years, one-third of Christianity was split into at least
300 sects, how many sects would three-thirds of Christianity have produced
in 1900 years? (Answer is 5700).
Since Luther, what consequences have followed from the use of the
"Bible-only" theory and its personal interpretation? Just what St. Paul
foretold when he said: "For the time will come when they will not endure
sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves
teachers, having itching ears." 2 Timothy 4-3 (Protestant edition).
According to the World Almanac for 1953 there are in the United States 20
different organizations of Methodists, 22 kinds of Baptists, 10 branches of
Presbyterians, 13 organizations of Mennonites, 18 of Lutherans and hundreds
of other denominations.
COMMENT: The "Bible-only" theory may indeed cater to the self-exaltation of
the individual, but it certainly does not conduce to the acquisition of
In Christ's system, what important part has the Bible? The Bible is one
precious source of religious truth; other sources are historical records
(Tradition) and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit.
COMMENT: Elimination of any one of the three elements in the equation of
Christ's true Church would be fatal to its claims to be such.
Now that the New Testament is complete and available, what insolvable
problem remains? The impossibility of the Bible to explain itself and the
consequent multiplicity of errors which individuals make by their theory of
private interpretation. Hence it is indisputable that the Bible must have an
2 Peter 1-20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of
any private interpretation.
2 Peter 3-16: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things;
in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are
unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto
their own destruction.
Acts 8-30:And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet
Esaias, and said, understandest thou what thou readest? 31. And he said, How
can I except some men should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would
come up and sit with him.
COMMENT: Only by going on the supposition that falsehood is as acceptable to
God as is truth, can the "Bible-only" theory be defended.
Who is the official expounder of the Scriptures? The Holy Spirit, acting
through and within the Church which Christ founded nineteen centuries ago;
the Bible teaches through whom in the Church come the official
interpretations of; God's law and God's word.
Luke 10-16: He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you
despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
Matt. 16-18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this
rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
Mal. 2-7: For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek
the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.
COMMENT: Formerly at least, it was commonly held that when individuals read
their Bibles carefully and prayerfully, the Holy Spirit would guide each
individual to a knowledge of the truth. This is much more than the Catholic
Church claims for even the Pope himself. Only after extended consultation
and study, with much fervent prayer, does he rarely and solemnly make such a
What are the effects of the Catholic use of the Bible? Regardless of what
persons may think about the Catholic Church, they must admit that her system
gets results in the way of unity of rule and unity of faith; otherwise
stated, one Faith, one Fold and one Shepherd.
COMMENT: If many millions of non-Catholics in all nations, by reading their
Bible carefully and prayerfully, had exactly the same faith, reached the
same conclusions, then this theory might deserve the serious consideration
of intelligent, well-disposed persons-but not otherwise.
Why are these so many non-Catholic Churches? Because there is so much
different interpretation of the Bible; there is so much different
interpretation of the Bible because there is so much wrong interpretation;
there is so much wrong interpretation because the system of interpreting is
radically wrong. You cannot have one Fold and one Shepherd, one Faith and
one Baptism, by allowing every man and every woman to distort and pervert
the Scriptures to suit his or her own pet theories.
COMMENT: To say that Bible reading is an intensely Christian practice, is to
enunciate a beautiful truth; to say that Bible reading is the sole source of
religious faith, is to make a sadly erroneous statement.
Without Divine aid, could the Catholic Church have maintained her one Faith,
one Fold, and one Shepherd? Not any more than the non-Catholic sects have
done; they are a proof of what happens when, without Divine aid, groups
strive to do the humanly impossible.
COMMENT: Catholics love, venerate, use the Bible; but they also know that
the Bible alone is not Christ's system but only a precious book, a means, an
aid by which the Church carries on her mission to "preach the Gospel to
every living creature" and to keep on preaching it "to the end of time."
Were there any printed Bibles before Luther? When printing was invented
about 1440, one of the first, if not the earliest printed book, was an
edition of the Catholic Bible printed by John Gutenberg. It is reliably
maintained that 626 editions of the Catholic Bible, or portions thereof, had
come from the press through the agency of the Church, in countries where her
influence prevailed, before Luther's German version appeared in 1534. Of
these, many were in various European languages. Hence Luther's "discovery"
of the supposedly unknown Bible at Erfurt in 1503 is one of those strange,
wild calumnies with which anti-Catholic literature abounds.
COMMENT: Today parts of the Bible are read in the vernacular from every
Catholic altar every Sunday. The Church grants a spiritual premium or
indulgence to those who read the Bible; every Catholic family has, or is
supposed to have, a Bible in the home. Millions of Catholic Bibles are sold
During the Middle Ages, did the Catholic Church manifest hostility to the
Bible as her adversaries claim? Under stress of special circumstances,
various regulations were made by the Church to protect the people from being
spiritually poisoned by the corrupted and distorted translations of the
Bible; hence opposition to the Waldensians, Albigensians, Wycliff and
COMMENT: Individual churchmen may at times have gone too far in their zeal,
not to belittle the Bible, but to protect it. There is no human agency in
which authority is always exercised blamelessly.
Origin of Christ's Church
The Bible teaches that the true Church began with Christ over 1900 years
ago, not with men or women 15 to 19 centuries later. It was founded when Our
Lord spoke the following and other similar words:
Matt. 28, 18-20: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is
given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore. and teach 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 lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
COMMENT: History proves that the First Protestant Church was the Lutheran,
founded in 1517 by the ex-priest Martin Luther; all other of 300 to 500
sects have been created since then.
Authority of Christ's Church
The Bible teaches that the rulers of Christ's Church have authority which
must be obeyed in matters of religion.
Heb. 13, 17: Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves:
for they watch for your souls as they that must give account, that they may
do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Matt 18-17: And if he shall neglect to hear them tell it unto the church:
but if he neglect to hear the church let him be unto thee as an heathen man
and a publican.
Luke 10-16: He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you
despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
Matt. 16-19: And I will give unto thee (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of
heaven: and whatsoever thou (Peter) shall bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven: and whatsoever thou (Peter) shall loose on earth shall be loosed in
COMMENT: The apostles repeatedly claimed this authority: Gal. 1-8; John
1-10; Acts 15, 23 and 28. Hence the laws or precepts of the true Church are
founded upon the same authority as the commandments of God. For the Church
of Christ has authority to act in his Name.
Infallibility of Christ's Church
i.e., That it cannot err in teaching Christ's Religion
HOLY COMMUNION. Wow this is a big one and i cant believe how people fall the
other way. You know in my church the holy catholic church miracles happen
every day. I ask you to investigate something called OUR LADY OF FATIMA. An
absolute undeniable miracle. For now go to this website for proof
please i beg u read the whole thing
KIND REGARDS AND PRAYERS
CONTENDER MINISTRIES RESPONSE:
Dear Mr. Morgan:
My name is John Schroeder. I'm a former Roman Catholic converted to Fundamental, Bible Christianity. I am the author of "Heresies of Catholicism...The Apostate Church." I invite you to buy and read that book from cover to cover. It will effectively relieve your mind of many of Rome's false teachings. You will find it especially enlightening with regard to the "rock" upon which Christ founded Christianity (not Roman Catholicism). You will learn that the papacy did not exist until the 7th century, and was not secure until the forged documents known as the Isidorean Decretals turned up in the 9th century. You will learn that the great Augustine so oft quoted by Rome, was opposed to bishops of Rome attempting to high-jack Christianity, and was in fact secretary of an eastern church synod that condemned the Bishop of Rome and ordered him to withdraw his legates from Africa.
Your 25 "Questions" are taken from a Roman Catholic polemic entitled "The Catholic Religion Proved By The Protestant Bible." It is a remarkable document, full of falsehoods and "strawmen" set up by RCC apologists to rebut the Fundamentalists' insistence that doctrines come exclusively from the Scriptures and not from a man-made source called
"Sacred Tradition." What makes this document so unique, and at once so bizarre, is the way it attempts to accomplish the impossible. On the one had it appeals to the divine Word of God for support of the papacy, while on the other had it attacks the Bible as not inspired, not complete, not trustworthy, not written by God, on and on and on. It is not a document
worthy of serious consideration.
I am sorry that you have allowed Rome to do your thinking for you. I am sorry they have led you to believe that you have some influence in the justification of your soul. I am especially sorry that they have convinced you that the divine Word of God is not sufficient and lacks what you need to be saved. Rome's contention that it is responsible for the New Testament, that sola scriptura is phony because there were no Bibles for 400 years, are 1) a lie, and 2) ridiculous. For Rome's information folks were getting saved in the first five centuries completely without the man-made doctrines of Purgatory, Transubstantiation, Confession, Mortal/Venial Sin, Indulgences, Confirmation, Temporal Punishment, Mary's intercession, etc. And the Synod of Carthage at which Rome claims it set the canon of the New Testament was attended exclusively by African bishops, members of the eastern orthodox churches, who had no allegiance whatever to the bishop of Rome (there was no pope at the time) or to the western branch of Christendom. Check your history, sir.
Paul said all he wanted was to "know Christ." I regret that as a Roman Catholic you can never KNOW CHRIST, but only the inneffectual Jesus of the Vatican.