Prove me wrong (mostly to protestants here)

My Protestant girlfriend wants me to give her faith a fair chance, but the following is the stumbling block I have in even beginning to consider her faith.

Does anyone who is non-catholic deny the following? and if so, back up your comments please for my own benefit, thanks.

Priests and deacons are validly ordained by the bishops (Episcope/Apostles) (Acts 15:6,23; Acts 14:23; 1 Tim 4:14, 1 Tim 5:22; 2 Tim 1:6-7; 1 Tim 5:17; Jas 5:13-15 … presbyters/elders (priests) were ordained, preached and taught the flock, administered sacraments), who are traced in succession right down to the Apostles (Acts 1:15-26; 2 Tim 2:2; Tit 1:5).

The Church is the final say on spiritual disagreements (Mt 18:10-18), Christ Protects the Church founded on Peter (Mt 16:18), Gave the Church authority to make rules and disciplinesand Peter alone is given the Keys to the Kingdom **(Mt 16:19), **The Church had everything in common (Doctrines) and always had the breaking of bread **(Acts 2:42-44), **The Church is the Pillar/Foundation of Truth **(1 Tim 3:15), We mustobey the leaders of the Church (Hebrews 13), **There is one flock and one Sheppard (Jn 10:16), Rejecting the authority in the Church is as Jesus said rejecting Christ himself **(Luke 10;16). **I encourage you to look up all these verses from the bible that show a true church was formed with the Apostles as leaders, and selecting leaders to continue the ministry and has continued right into the early church to the present day. To truly appreciate this, one needs to read the writings of the Early Church Fathers, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons (which I have all their writings and am in the midst of reading). This is the Early Christian Church with the Universal (Catholic) faith.

no one eh? I should probably do this in a Protestant forum, lol.

[quote=go Leafs go]no one eh? I should probably do this in a Protestant forum, lol.
[/quote]

The problem with any Protestant “proving you wrong” is that much of what you said contains presuppositions. By this, I mean that your agrument is fine based on what you believe…for example, the idea the Peter is the rock that Christ actually built his church on. I’m not nearly smart enough to even get into that topic…or others like it.

This could be why there have been no responses.

~mango~

[quote=go Leafs go]My Protestant girlfriend wants me to give her faith a fair chance, but the following is the stumbling block I have in even beginning to consider her faith.

Does anyone who is non-catholic deny the following? and if so, back up your comments please for my own benefit, thanks.

[/quote]

You’ve covered a lot of ground in your post. It might be helpful to break up some of what you would like to discuss into smaller sections and raise one at a time to discuss.

~Matt

[quote=go Leafs go]no one eh? I should probably do this in a Protestant forum, lol.
[/quote]

And you may want to keep it to one topic. This is so broad you are only inviting shallow answers…

ken

Greetings!

The way I understood your post you claim that the Church is true because the Bible says so, am I correct? I would like to answer you on this but I just have this one question:

Who determines the truthfulness of the Bible?

I’m just curious, would you mind answering it?

Good points, and Paradox and Mango. Paradox, I wanted to tell you that I have read many of your previous posts, and I think you have the utmost class.

I guess what I am having trouble getting past is that based on what I submitted, it seems fairly obvious to me that a visible church with an office of Bishop and hierarchy. It also seems very obvious to me that a visible Ministry was established. In reading the writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatiaus of Antioch, much more, they all confirm this and also confirm the shape of the early church.

So where is this early Church? Given Apostolic succession and the doctrines, it’s pretty obvious that it’s the Catholic Church. Given the Bible was put together by the councils of the Church, ratified by a Pope, and accepted by all, it’s pretty obvious that the whole Chrisitian Community was Catholic.

Now, knowing this, how can anyone turn their back on this Church founded by Christ on the Apostles?

[quote=Springer]Greetings!

The way I understood your post you claim that the Church is true because the Bible says so, am I correct? I would like to answer you on this but I just have this one question:

Who determines the truthfulness of the Bible?

I’m just curious, would you mind answering it?
[/quote]

Infallibly, the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, ratified by the Pope.

[quote=II Paradox II]And you may want to keep it to one topic. This is so broad you are only inviting shallow answers…

ken
[/quote]

“Gave the Church authority to make rules and disciplines and Peter alone is given the Keys to the Kingdom **(Mt 16:19), **”

The bestowing of the keys on Peter has been variously understood - the interpretation which most Christians on the Web who are in union with Rome seem to be familiar with, is not the only one in Catholic tradition. The passage has been taken to be

[list]
*] a grant to the Church as a whole through Peter
*]as a grant to the church of the diocese of Rome
*]as (IIRC) a grant to the cardinals
[/list]Some have emphasised the connection between Peter and the Church, and his role as servant of the Church’s well-being; others, have emphasised the dignity of the Petrine office. And some have emphasised this passage so much, that the others have been overshadowed. There are quite a few variations of emphasis and meaning within the Church’s own tradition - which is one reason that not everyone is persuaded by arguments which lay great stress on the unique authority of the Roman Pope; it represents only one strand in Catholic tradition (which is probably one explanation of the difference between the highly authoritarian pre-Vatican II Papacy, and the return to collegiality since). ##

[quote=Gottle of Geer]“Gave the Church authority to make rules and disciplines and Peter alone is given the Keys to the Kingdom **(Mt 16:19), **”

The bestowing of the keys on Peter has been variously understood - the interpretation which most Christians on the Web who are in union with Rome seem to be familiar with, is not the only one in Catholic tradition. The passage has been taken to be

[list]
*]a grant to the Church as a whole through Peter
*]as a grant to the church of the diocese of Rome
*]as (IIRC) a grant to the cardinals
[/list]Some have emphasised the connection between Peter and the Church, and his role as servant of the Church’s well-being; others, have emphasised the dignity of the Petrine office. And some have emphasised this passage so much, that the others have been overshadowed. There are quite a few variations of emphasis and meaning within the Church’s own tradition - which is one reason that not everyone is persuaded by arguments which lay great stress on the unique authority of the Roman Pope; it represents only one strand in Catholic tradition (which is probably one explanation of the difference between the highly authoritarian pre-Vatican II Papacy, and the return to collegiality since). ##
[/quote]

Good points. It does to me seem however that in the Early Church did view this given that if a Pope did not ratify the council, it’s decisions were not upheld, therefore given the Pope the final say.

[quote=go Leafs go]Infallibly, the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, ratified by the Pope.
[/quote]

Those people are a part of the Church, am I right?

I respect you for defending your church but there is a problem on your argument: it is circular.

You agreed that the church is true because the Bible says so. Unfortunately from your reply it seems that the Bible is true because the church says so.

God didn’t limit the interpretation of the Bible to councils, magistrates etc. God gives wisdom to anyone who asks be it a minister or just a member.

[quote=Springer]Those people are a part of the Church, am I right?

I respect you for defending your church but there is a problem on your argument: it is circular.

You agreed that the church is true because the Bible says so. Unfortunately from your reply it seems that the Bible is true because the church says so.

God didn’t limit the interpretation of the Bible to councils, magistrates etc. God gives wisdom to anyone who asks be it a minister or just a member.
[/quote]

The Church agree’s that the BIble is equally authoritative as is the Magisterium of the Church. Given non-catholics are generally BIBLE ONLY, it is the source that we must quote here. The Church has equal authority however can never contradict scripture as it is the Church that has decided which books of all early scripture is inspired/authoritative. The Church is true also because Christian History of the Early Church demands it and proves it.

[quote=go Leafs go]The Church agree’s that the BIble is equally authoritative as is the Magisterium of the Church. Given non-catholics are generally BIBLE ONLY, it is the source that we must quote here. The Church has equal authority however can never contradict scripture as it is the Church that has decided which books of all early scripture is inspired/authoritative. The Church is true also because Christian History of the Early Church demands it and proves it.
[/quote]

Okay, you started out by saying you haven’t given your born again girlfriend’s faith a chance is because you believe that the Church of Rome is the one true apostolic church as evidenced by the Bible and history.

It is ironic that your church is subservient to the things she defines and interpret. My point is your understanding of the verses of your first post is, I’m sorry to say, incorrect. I already presented to you how circular is your argument.

Now with regards to history, you may have a bit of a problem there. The Eastern Orthodox Church can make the same claim and at the same time discrediting the Church of Rome. They can present their historical proofs how true they are as opposed to your evidences. So which one of you is true?

[quote=Springer]Okay, you started out by saying you haven’t given your born again girlfriend’s faith a chance is because you believe that the Church of Rome is the one true apostolic church as evidenced by the Bible and history.

It is ironic that your church is subservient to the things she defines and interpret. My point is your understanding of the verses of your first post is, I’m sorry to say, incorrect. I already presented to you how circular is your argument.

Now with regards to history, you may have a bit of a problem there. The Eastern Orthodox Church can make the same claim and at the same time discrediting the Church of Rome. They can present their historical proofs how true they are as opposed to your evidences. So which one of you is true?
[/quote]

yet it was the Eastern Orthodox Church that submitted to the Pope in councils ratified by the Pope for 7 or so Councils. So they contradict themselves now that they do not submit to the Pope

and about what “my church” defines and interprets, the early Church Fathers of “The Church” (if that will satisfy you) share the same views on all Christian Doctrines and interpretations of Scripture. For 1000 years there was no record of disagreement in “the Church”, and their teachings are the same found today in the Catholic Church, so you tell me what to think of this?

Go Leafs, find a new girlfriend. What she is asking you to do is nonsensical. What she means by fair chance is that you treat truth and falsehood as if they were the same.

Would you consider giving a “fair chance” to the proposition 2+2=5?

:smiley:

[quote=malta]Go Leafs, find a new girlfriend. What she is asking you to do is nonsensical. What she means by fair chance is that you treat truth and falsehood as if they were the same.

Would you consider giving a “fair chance” to the proposition 2+2=5?

:smiley:
[/quote]

I know, this is tough man

ex-Protestant Response:

I was babtized in a Presbyterian church, confirmed in a Methodist church, and discipled in a Baptist church, always wondering if it shouldn’t be easier than church-hopping (not to mention denomination-hopping). My Catholic ex-boyfriend’s love for the Catholic church inspired me to do a little asking, searching, and extensive research into theoligical histories of both Protestantism and Catholicism. What I have come to believe (thank God) is that the Catholic Church IS, in fact the church created by Jesus Christ. Even the Orthodox churches originally split away because of wrong theoligical assertions about the Trinity and Divinity of Christ, to which they no longer subscribe.

But I digress. My point here is that many Protestants are raised to pick a church based on “what that particular church can do for them and their needs”. Even the denomination is usually irrelevant, mainly because both secularism and religious tolerance have caused so much dillusion in the actual theology of the Protestant churches, that people hold onto a community, instead of a real theology (i.e., theology other than the core beliefs that define them as Christian, more or less).

Is your girlfriend willing to give your church a chance? The truth is that Catholicism is Christianity at its fullest, and why would you want to settle for less? And furthermore, if you went to ANY NON-CATHOLIC church, you would miss out on the Eucharist, as no other church believes in Transubstantiation. Even Real-Presence churches only believe in the spiritual presence.

My advice is to be loving and kind about it, but standing firm in your love for the Catholic church and dedication to it is the best thing you can do. Maybe she’ll even come around, like I have. :wink:

But don’t get caught up in church-hopping. It takes the focus off Christ and puts it in on yourself.

Good luck and God bless.

ex-Protestant Response:

I was babtized in a Presbyterian church, confirmed in a Methodist church, and discipled in a Baptist church, always wondering if it shouldn’t be easier than church-hopping (not to mention denomination-hopping). My Catholic ex-boyfriend’s love for the Catholic church inspired me to do a little asking, searching, and extensive research into theoligical histories of both Protestantism and Catholicism. What I have come to believe (thank God) is that the Catholic Church IS, in fact the church created by Jesus Christ. Even the Orthodox churches originally split away because of wrong theoligical assertions about the Trinity and Divinity of Christ, to which they no longer subscribe.

But I digress. My point here is that many Protestants are raised to pick a church based on “what that particular church can do for them and their needs”. Even the denomination is usually irrelevant, mainly because both secularism and religious tolerance have caused so much dillusion in the actual theology of the Protestant churches, that people hold onto a community, instead of a real theology (i.e., theology other than the core beliefs that define them as Christian, more or less).

Is your girlfriend willing to give your church a chance? The truth is that Catholicism is Christianity at its fullest, and why would you want to settle for less? And furthermore, if you went to ANY NON-CATHOLIC church, you would miss out on the Eucharist, as no other church believes in Transubstantiation. Even Real-Presence churches only believe in the spiritual presence.

My advice is to be loving and kind about it, but standing firm in your love for the Catholic church and dedication to it is the best thing you can do. Maybe she’ll even come around, like I have. :wink:

But don’t get caught up in church-hopping. It takes the focus off Christ and puts it in on yourself.

Good luck and God bless.

[quote=Springer]Those people are a part of the Church, am I right?

I respect you for defending your church but there is a problem on your argument: it is circular.

You agreed that the church is true because the Bible says so. Unfortunately from your reply it seems that the Bible is true because the church says so.
[/quote]

Actually it’s not circular. In addition to being the written word of God, the bible is also a historical document. It has proven to be quite historically accurate so one can trust that it accurately records the events that are described therein. The authority of the Church is determined historically without needing to even address the area of divine inspiration.

If one accepts the testimony of history then the Church indeed has the authority to proclaim the inspiration of what is in the bible. It is really a spiral argument that zeroes in on the final conclusion by first treating the bible as accurate history and subsequently as the word of God. (Faith is of course still a necessary component.)

God didn’t limit the interpretation of the Bible to councils, magistrates etc. God gives wisdom to anyone who asks be it a minister or just a member.

He certainly gives wisdom, but does He give authority to anyone who asks? I don’t think so.

The same can apply to any Protestant church.

The claim their denomination or church or whatever it is they want to call themselves is true because of their respective interpretation of the Bible is right.

They then attest that the Bible is true because they say it is. This “circular logic” can be attributed to pretty much any religion with anything that is scriptural.

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