Need help answering a non-Catholic friend's article

My friend told me to read this article. He says he agrees with its assessment and wants my take on it. Before I respond I would like some input from this community.

Thanks ahead of time.

I will try my best.

With regards to the Table of Content issue. From my understanding the Catholic Church gets its Dogma from the Depostit of Faith. The Deposist of Faith being what Jesus and The Apostles taught. That This existed before the new testament was written (right Jesus was born way before Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John ever wrote about it, and So was Jesus’ promise to Peter about building the church on him). We get the New Testament from the Early Church Fathers really. They were there and new what was written by the aposltes and what wasn’t.

The Church in Rome

I find it odd that the author of this ariticale comes out and tells you about how the High Preist Ciaphas was wicked but, yet the office is still good (he prophsied right) and that God put up that office which would be held by people (which as scripture shows can be wicked at times but, still valid). But, he neglects the fact that the office was not invalidated because of his wickedness (scince God was still working through the office) but rather that the High preist bit was nullified by Christ (who was the new High preist). Which I would assume that shows the opposite of which he was hoping. That God sets up something and it is permanite regardless of how bad the person holding it was and that it could only be invailidated by God (not by man or his actions) and sense Jesus would be with them unto the end of the world (Matthew 28:20) I don’t see why anyone would assume that Jesus would take away the office.

I know this is a bit incomplete of what is needed but, at least this is a starting point which I hope and pray will be of some use to you. Good luck and God bless.

The notion that the Church of Rome, the See of Peter, is just another particular church and so just as susceptible to having its lampstand removed as any other particular church, ignores the promises of infallibility our Lord made to Peter and his successors, the bishops of Rome (the popes):

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)

[size=2]“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” (Luke 22:31-32)


The author appear to me to be criticizing the Church without understanding what he is criticizing.

For ex: he says…

Put simply, my challenge contains two questions: Has the Roman Catholic Church made infallible pronouncements throughout her history? And may we have an infallible and complete list of them?

A better informed person would know there have been infallible pronouncements made by some popes.
He should also be aware that pronouncements that come from valid councils are considered infallible.
He should also be aware that teachings that have been passed down through the ages, and taught by the Pope in union with the bishops and cardinals are also to be considered infallible.

I don’t agree at all that the Church does not understand the scope or limits of where her teaching authority comes from.
That he does not understand it is his problem, not the Church’s.

Basically a joke of a “apologetics page”. It appears to turn the question around at Catholics, but not only does it fail, it still leaves the protestant position totally unanswered.
It pretends to be interested in historical facts, eg:
Put simply, my challenge contains two questions: Has the Roman Catholic Church made infallible pronouncements throughout her history? And may we have an infallible and complete list of them?
But this is empty talk, if we were to simply put the first few ecumenical council documents in front of him he would be stunned. One thing that pops out is the clear authority of Bishops and the office of Bishop, both of which dont exist in protestantism.
Another thing he says:
This pattern is given to us in the New Testament in the form of a very stern warning. Paul used the illustration of the olive tree in Romans 11 to show that Gentiles can be removed from the covenant in just the same way that unbelieving Jews were removed. The olive tree is the Catholic Church, the true Israel of God, and the Lord Jesus Christ is the root. That tree will never be chopped down; we have God’s word on it. Moreover, we have His word that the tree will grow and flourish, as a visible Church, until the earth is filled with its fruit.
Interesting he used the “warning” in Rom11, considering some protestant dont believe salvation can be lost!! Next he talks about “as a VISIBLE Church”, show us in history where this “visible” Church is shown to exist? Right here he is stealing old Catholic apologetics positions, the Catholic Church openly claims to be the Church Christ established, a living and visible institution. Show us what protestant church makes these claims?
He goes on to misapply passages, eg badly confuse the “church at Rome” that Paul was writing to with the Catholic Church…
Paul expressly warns the Gentiles at Rome (Rom. 1:7; 11:13) that their removal from the Catholic Church was a very real possibility. “Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee” (v. 18). What we have here is a letter from Paul the apostle to the Church at Rome, telling her that she is not the root, but simply another branch on the tree. He states further that if she becomes haughty and proud, she could be removed as completely as previous branches were removed.
Is this twisting and abusing or what? This is insane!

To conclude, oh man this is sad…
Now all this leaves us still with the question of the identity and location of the true Catholic church, a question that will have to be developed at length another time. But in the meantime, it was Irenaeus who said, and said well, that “where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church.” Where is the olive tree? The answer of Scripture is plain: Where there are olives.
Another thing I have started to notice is that protestant do recognize there was such a thing as a “Catholic Church”, however they are now trying to apply it to themself, failing badly I might add!
And what is this “will have to be developed at another time”? this guy didnt say anything in the article except change the subject and not answer anything! Then he has the guts to quote Irenaeus!??? He is destroyed right here, Irenaeus openly and explicitly defended the Popes and Catholic Church!! These people are not interested in the facts, challenge this guy to really see what Irenaeus wrote!

And to top it off look how he ends, is that an ending? That means nothing.

Lets also not forget the chapter and verse divisions in the Bible, that was invented by a Catholic priest (i think around 1200AD?).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit