The only church that christ established is

This topic is empty.

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 17 total)

Author
Posts

February 19, 2010 at 1:17 am#179117

Catholic Apologist

Participant

THE ONE TRUE CHURCH

The Only Church That Christ Established is the Catholic Church

By Father Damen 1855

“He that believeth an is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” Mark xvi. 16.

My Dearly Beloved Christians:—From these words of our Divine Saviour, it has already been proved to you, that faith in necessary for salvation, and without faith there is no salvation; without faith there is eternal damnation. Read you own Protestant Bible, 16th verse of St. Mark, and you will find it stronger there than in the Catholic Bible.

Now then, what kind of faith must a man have to be saved? Will any faith do? Why, if any faith will do, the devil himself will be saved, for the Bible says the devils believe and tremble.

It is, therefore, not a matter of indifference what religion a man professes; he must profess the right and true religion, and without that there is no salvation, for it stands to reason, my dear people, that if God reveals a thing or teaches a thing, He wants to be believed. Not to believe is to insult God. Doubting His words, or to believe even with doubt and hesitating, is an insult to God, because it is doubting His Sacred Word. We must, therefore, believe without doubting, without hesitating.

I have said, our of the Catholic Church there is no divine faith—can be no divine faith out of that Church. Some of the Protestant friends will be shocked at this, to hear me say that out of the Catholic Church there is no divine faith, and that without faith there is no salvation, but damnation. I will prove all I have said.

I have said that out of the Catholic Church there can be no divine faith. What is divine faith? When we believe a thing upon the authority of God, and believe it without doubt, without hesitating. Now, all our separated brethren outside of the Catholic Church take the private interpretation of the Bible for their guide; but the private interpretation of the Bible can never give them divine faiths.

Let me, for instance, suppose for a moment, here is a Presbyterian; he reads his Bible; from the reading of his Bible he comes to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is God. Now, you know this is the most essential of all Christian doctrines—the foundation of all Christianity. From the reading of his Bible he comes to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is God; and he is a sensible man, an intelligent man, and not a presumptuous man. And he says: “Here is my Unitarian neighbor, who is just as reasonable and intelligent as I am, and, from the reading of the Bible, he comes to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is not God at all. “Now,” say he, “to the best of my opinion and judgment, I am right, and my Unitarian neighbor is wrong; but, after all,” says he, ” I may be mistaken! Perhaps I have not the right meaning of the text, and if I am wrong, perhaps he is right, after all; but to the best of my opinion and judgment, I am right and he is wrong.

On what does he believe? On what authority? On his own opinion and judgment. And what is that? A human opinion—human testimony, and, therefore, a human faith. He cannot say, “I am sure, positively sure, as sure as there is a God in heaven, that this is the meaning of the text.” Therefore, he has no other authority but his own opinion and judgment, and what his preacher tells him. But the preacher is a smart man. There are many smart Unitarian preachers also, but that proves nothing; it is only human authority, and nothing else, and, therefore, only human faith. What is human faith? Believing a thing upon the testimony of man. Human faith is believing a thing upon the testimony of man. Divine faith is believing a thing on the testimony of God.

The Catholic has divine faith, and why? Because the Catholic says: “I believe in such and such a thing.” Why? “Because the Church teaches me so.” And why do you believe the Church? “Because God has commanded me to believe the teaching of the Church; and God has threatened me with damnation if I do not believe the Church, and we are taught by St Peter, in his epistle, that there is no private prophecy or interpretation of the Scriptures, for the unlearned and unstable wrest the very Scriptures, the Bible, to their own damnation.”

That is strong language, my dear people, but that is the language of St. Peter, the head of the Apostles. The unlearned and unstable wrest the Bible to their own damnation! And yet, after all, the Bible is the book of God , the language of inspiration; at least, when we have a true Bible, as we Catholics have, and you Protestants have not.

But, my dearly beloved Protestant friends, do not be offended at me for saying that. You own most learned preachers and bishops tell you tat, and some have written whole volumes in order to prove that the English translation, which you have, is a very faulty and false translation.

Now, therefore, I say that the true Bible is as the Catholics have it, the Latin Vulgate; and the most learned among the Protestants themselves have agreed that the Latin Vulgate Bible, which theiour has given us a living teacher, that is to give us the true meaning of the Bible.

And He had provided a teacher with infallibility; and this was absolutely necessary, for without this—without infallibility we could never be sure of our faith. There must be an infallibility; and we see that in every well-ordered government, in every government—in England, in the United States, and in every country, empire and republic, there is a Constitution and a supreme law.

But you are not at liberty to explain that Constitution and supreme law as you think proper, for then there would be no more law if every man were allowed to explain the law and Constitution as he should think proper.

Therefore, in all governments there is a supreme judge and supreme court, and to the supreme judge is referred all different understandings of the law and the Constitution. By the decisions of the supreme judge all have to abide, and if they did not abide by that decision why, my dear people, there would be no law any more, but anarchy, disorder and confusion.

Again, suppose for a moment that the Blessed Saviour has been less wise than human governments, and that He had not provided for the understanding of His Constitution, and of His Law of the Church of God. If He had not, my dear people, it would never have stood as it has stood for the last eighteen hundred and fifty-four years. He has then established a Supreme Court, a Supreme Judge in the Church of the Living God.

It is admitted on all sides, by Protestants and Catholics alike acknowledged, that Christ has established a Church; and, strange to say, all our Protestant friends acknowledge, too, that he has established but one Church—but one Church—for, whenever Christ speaks of His Church, it is always in the singular. Bible readers, remember that; my Protestant friends, pay attention. He says; “Hear the Church,” not hear the churches. “I have built My Church upon a rock”—not My Churches.

Whenever He speaks, whether in figures or parables of His Church, He always conveys to the mind a oneness, a union, a unity.

He speaks of His Church as a sheepfold, in which there is but one shepherd—that is the head of all, and the sheep are made to follow his voice; “other sheep I peaks of have who are not of this fold.” One fold, you see. He speaks of His Church as of a kingdom, in which there is but one king to rule all; speaks of His Church as a family in which there is but one father at the head; speaks of His Church as a tree, and all the branches of that tree connected with the trunk, and the trunk with the roots; and Christ is the root, and the trunk is Peter and the Popes, and the large branches are the bishops, and the smaller branches are the priests, and the fruit upon that tree are the faithful throughout the world; and the branch, says He, that is cut off from that tree shall wither away, produce no fruit, and is only fit to be cast into the f
ire—that is, damnation.

This is plain speaking, my dear people; but there is no use in covering the truth. I want to speak the truth to you, as the Apostles preached it in their time—no salvation out of the Church of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Now, which is that Church? There are now three hundred and fifty different Protestant churches in existence, and almost every year one or two more are added; and besides this number there is the Catholic Church.

Now, which of all these varied churches is the one Church of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? All claim to be the Church of Jesus.

But, my dear beloved people, it is evident no church can be the Church of evident no church can be the Church of Jesus except the one that was established by Jesus. And when did Jesus establish His Church? When? When He was here upon earth. And how long ago is it that Christ was upon earth? You know our Christian era dates from Him. He was born many centuries ago. That is an historical fact admitted by all. He lived on earth thirty-three years. That was about nineteen centuries before our time. That is the time Christ established His Church on earth. Any Church, then, that has not existed thus long, is not the Church of Jesus Christ, but is the institution or invention of some man or other; not of God not of Christ, but of man.

Now, where is the Church, and which is the Church that has existed thus long? All history informs you that it is the Catholic Church; she, and she alone among all Christian denominations on the face of the earth, has existed so long. All history, I say, bears testimony to this; not only Catholic history, but Pagan history, Jewish history and Protestant history, indirectly.

The history, then, of all nations, of all people, bear testimony that the Catholic Church is the oldest, the first; is the one established by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

If there be any Protestant preacher who can prove that the Catholic Church has come into existence since that time, let him come to see me, and I will give him a thousand dollars. My dear preachers, here is a chance of making money—a thousand dollars for you.

Not only all history, but all the manuments of antiquity bear testimony to this, and all the nations of the earth proclaim it. Call on one of your preachers and ask him which was the first church—the first Christian Church. Was it the Presbyterian, the Episcopalian, the Church of England, the Methodist, the Universalist or the Unitarian? And they will answer you it was the Catholic Church.

But, my dear friends, if you admit that the Catholic Church established by oldest—the Church established by Christ—why are you not a Catholic? To this they answer that the Catholic Church has become corrupted; has fallen into error, and that, therefore, it was necessary to establish a new church. A new church, a new religion.

And to this we answer; that if the Catholic Church had been once the true church, then she is true yet, and shall be the true Church of God to the end of time, or Jesus Christ has deceived us.

Hear me, Jesus, hear what I say! I say that if the Catholic Church now, in the nineteenth century, is not the true Church of God as she was 1854 years ago, then I say, Jesus, Thou has deceived us, and Thou art an imposter! And if I do not speak the truth, Jesus, strike me dead in this pulpit—let me fall dead in this pulpit, for I do not want to be preacher of a false religion.

I will prove what I have said. If the Catholic Church has been once the true Church of God, as is admitted by all, then she is the true Church yet, and shall be the true Church of God until the end of time, for Christ has promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. He says that He has built it upon a rock, and that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it.

Now, my dear people, if the Catholic Church has fallen into error, then the gates of hell have prevailed against her; and, if the gates of hell have prevailed against her, then Christ has not kept His promise, then He has deceived us, and if He has deceived us, then He is an imposter! If He ve an imposter, then He is not God, and if He be not God, them all Christianity is a cheat and an imposition.

Again, in St. Matthew, 28th chapter and verses XIX and XX., our Divine Saviour says to His Apostles: “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you.” “Lo,” says He, “I , Jesus, the Son of the Living God, I, the Infinite Wisdom, the Eternal Truth, am with you all days, even until the end of the world.”

Christ, then, solemnly swears that He shall be with His Church all days to the end of time, to the consummation of the world. But Christ cannot remain with the Church that teaches error, or falsehood, or corruption. If, therefore, the Catholic Church has fallen into error and corruption, as our Protestant friends say she has, then Christ must have abandoned her; if so, He has broken His oath; if He has broken His oath He is a perjurer, and there is no Christianity at all. Again, our Divine Saviour (St. John 14th chapter) has promised that He would send to His Church the Spirit of Truth, to abide with her forever. If, then, the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, teaches the Church all truth, and teaches her all truth forever, then there never has been, and never can be, one single error in the Church of God, for where there is all truth there is no error whatsoever.

Christ has solemnly promised that He will send to the Church the Spirit of Truth, who shall to the Church the Spirit of Truth, who shall teach all truth forever; therefore, there has never been a single error in the Church of God, or Christ has failed in His promises if there has.

Again, Christ commands us to hear and believe the teachings of the Church in all things; at all times and in all places. He does not say hear the Church for a thousand years or for fifteen hundred tears, but hear the Church, without any limitation of time whatever. That is, at all times; in all things until the end of time, and he that does not hear the Church let him be unto thee, says Christ, as a heathen and as a publican. Therefore, Christ says that those who refuse to hear the Church must ve looked upon as heathens; and what is a heathen? On that does not worship the true God; and a publican is a public sinner. This is strong language. Could Christ command me to believe the Church if the Church could have led me astray—could lead me into error? If the teaching of the Church be corrupt, could He, the God of truth, command me without any restriction or limitation to hear and believe the teachings of the Church which He has established?

Again: Our Divine Saviour commands me to hear and believe the teaching of the Church in the same manner as if He Himself were to speak to us. “He that heareth you,” says He, in His charge to the Apostles, “heareth Me, and he that despiseth you despiseth Me.” So then, when I believe what God teaches. If I refuse what the Church teaches I refuse what God teaches.

So that Christ has made the Church the organ by which He speaks to man, and tells us positively that we must believe the teaching of the Church as if He Himself were to speak to us.

Therefore, says St. Paul, in his Epistle to Timothy, “the Church is the ground”—that is, the strong foundation, “and the pillar of the truth.” Take the ground or foundation of this edifice away, and it crumbles down; so with regard to these pillars upon which the roof rests; take them away and the roof will fall in; so St. Paul says, “the Church is the ground and the pillar of truth,” and the moment you take away the authority of the Church of God you induce all kinds of errors and blasphemous doctrines. Do we not see it?

In the sixteenth century Protestantism did away with the authority of the Church and constituted every man his own
judge of the Bible, and what was the consequence? Religion upon religion, church upon church, sprang into existence, and has never stopped springing up new churches to this day. When I gave my Mission in Flint, Michigan, I invited, as I have done here, my Protestant friends to come and see me. A good and intelligent man came to me and said:

“I will avail myself of this opportunity to converse with you.”

“What Church do you belong to, my friend,” said I.

“To the Church of the Twelve Apostles,” said he.

“Ah,” said I, “I belong to that Church too. But, tell me, my friend, where was your Church started?”

“In Terre Haute, Indiana,,” says he.

“Who started the Church, and who were the Twelve Apostles, my friend?” said I.

“They were twelve farmers,” says he; “we all belonged to the same Church—the Presbyterian—but we quarreled with our preacher, separated from him, and started a Church of our own.”

“And that,” says I, “is the Twelve Apostles you belonged to—twelve farmers of Indiana? The Church came into existence about thirty years ago.”

A few years ago, when I was in Terre Haute, I asked to be shown the Church of the Twelve Apostles. I was taken to a window and it was pointed out to me, “but it is not in existence any more,” said my informant, “it is used as a wagon maker’s shop now.”

Again, St. Paul, in his Epistles to the Galatians, says: “Though we Apostles, or even an angle from heaven were to come and preach to you a different Gospel from what we have preached, let him be anathema.” That is the language of St. Paul, because, my dearly beloved people, religion must come from God, not from man. No man has a right to establish a religion; no man has a right to dictate to his fellow-man what he shall believe and what he shall do to save his soul. Religion must come from God, and any religion that is not established by God is a false religion, a human institution, and not an institution of God; and therefore did St. Paul say in his Epistles to the Galatians, “Though we Apostles or even an angel from heaven were to come and preach to you a new Gospel, a new religion, let them be anathema.’

You see, then, my dearly beloved people, from the text of the Scriptures I have quoted that, if the Catholic Church is the institution of God, and not of man, and this is a fact—a fact of history, and fact of history so well proved, so well supported, as that the Catholic Church is the first, the Church established by Jesus Christ.

So, in like manner, it is an historical fact that all the Protestant churches are the institutions of man—everyone of them. And I will give you their date, and the name of their founders or institutors.

In the year 1520-368 years ago—the first Protestant came into the world. Before that one there was not a Protestant in the world, not one on the face of the whole earth; and that one, as all history tells us, was Martin Luther, who was a Catholic priest, who fell away from the Church through pride, and married a nun. He was excommunicated from the Church, cut off, banished, and made a new religion of his own.

Before Martin Luther there was not a Protestant in the world; he was the first to raise the standard of rebellion and revolt against the Church of God. He said to his disciples that they should taken the Bible for their guide, and they did so. But they soon quarreled with him, Zuinglius, and a number of others, and everyone of them started a new religion of his own.

After the disciples of Martin Luther came John Calvin, who in Geneva established the Presbyterian religion, and, hence, almost all of those religions go by the name of their founder.

I ask the Protestant, “Why are you a Lutheran, my friend?’

“Well,” says he, “Because I believe in the doctrine of good Martin Luther.”

Hence, not of Christ, but of man—Martin Luther. And what kind of a man was he? A man who had broken the solemn oath he had made at the altar of God, at his ordination, ever to lead a pure, single, and virginal life. He broke that solemn oath, and married a Sister Catharine, who had also taken the same oath of chastity and virtue. And this is the first founder of Protestantism in the world. The very name by which they are known tells you they came from, or profess to believe in, Martin Luther.

So the Presbyterians are sometimes called Calvanists because they came from John Calvin.

After them came Henry VIII. He was a Catholic, and defended the Catholic religion; he wrote a book against Martin Luther in defense of the Catholic doctrine. That book I have myself seen in the library of the Vatican at Rome a few years ago. Henry VIII defended the religion, and for doing so was titled by the Pope “Defender of the Faith.” It came down with his successors, and Queen Victoria inherits it today. He was married to Catharine of Arragon; but there was at his court a maid of honor to the Queen, named Ann Boleyn, who was a beautiful woman, and captivating in appearance. Henry was determined to have her. But he was a married man. He put in a petition to the Pope to be allowed to marry her—and a foolish petition it was, for the Pope had no power to grant the prayer of it. The Pope and all the bishops in the world cannot go against the will of God. Christ says: “If a man putteth away his wife and marrieth another, he committeth adultery, an he that marrieth her who is put away committeth adultery also.”

As the Pope would not grant the prayer of Henry’s petition he took Ann Boleyn anyhow, and was excommunicated from the Church.

After a while there as another maid of honor, prettier than the first, more beautiful and charming in they eyes of Henry, and he said he must have her, too. He took the third wife, and a fourth, fifth and sixth followed. Now this is the founder of the Angelican Church, the Church of England; and, therefore, it is that it goes by the name of the Church of England.

Our Episcore English Catholic.” What is the meaning of the word Catholic? t comes from the Greek word CATHOLICUS—universal—spread all over the earth, and everywhere the same. Now, first of all, the Anglican Church is not spread all over the earth; it only exists in a few countries, and chiefly only where the English language is spoken. Secondly, they are not the same all over the earth, for there are now four different Anglican churches: The Law Church, the High Church, the Ritualist Church and the Puseyite Church. CATHOLICUS means more than this, not only spread all over the earth and everywhere the same, but it means, moreover, at all times the same, from Christ up to the present day. Now, then, they have not been in existence from the time of Christ. There never was an Episcopalian Church or an Anglican Church before Henry VIII.. The Catholic Church had already existed fifteen hundred years before the Episcopal came into the world.

After Episcopalianism different other churches sprang up. Next came the Methodist, about one hundred and fifty years ago. It was started by John Wesley, who was at first a member of the Episcopalian Church; subsequently he joined the Moravian Brethren, but not liking them, he made a religion of his own—the Methodist Church.

After John Wesley several others sprang up; and finally came the Campbellites, about sixty years ago. This Church was established by Alexander Campbell, a Scotchman.

Well, now, my dear beloved people, you may think that the act of the twelve apostles of Indiana was a ridiculous one, but they had as much right to establish a church as had Henry VIII, or Martin Luther, or John Calvin. They had no right at all, and neither had Henry VIII, or the rest of them any right whatsoever.

Christ had established His Church and given His solemn oath that His Church should stand to the end of time; promised that He had built it upon rock, and that the gates of hell should never prevail against it—hence, my dear people, all those different denominations of religion are the invention of man; and I ask you can man save the soul of h
is fellow-man by any institution he can make? Must not religion come from God?

And, therefore, my dearly beloved separated brethren, think it over seriously. You have a soul to be saved, and that soul must be saved or damned; either one or the other, it will dwell with God in heaven or with the devil in hell; therefore, seriously meditate upon it.

When I gave my Mission in Brooklyn several Protestants became Catholics. Among them there was a very highly educated and intelligent Virginian. He was a Presbyterian. After he had listened to my lecture he went to see his minister, and he asked him to be kind enough to explain a text of the Bible. The minister gave him the meaning. “Well, now,” said that gentleman, “are you positive and sure that is the meaning of the text, for several other Protestants explain it differently?” “Why, my dear young man,” says the preacher, “we never can be certain of our faith.” “Well, then,” says the young man, “good-bye to you: If I cannot be sure of my faith in the Protestant Church, I will go where I can,” and he became a Catholic.

We are sure of our faith in the Catholic Church, and if our faith is not true, Christ has deceived us. I would, therefore, beg you, my separated brethren, to procure yourselves Catholic books. You have read a great deal against the Catholic Church, now read something if favor or it. You can never pass an impartial sentence if you do not hear both sides of the question.

What would you think of a judge before whom a policeman would bring a poor offender, and who on the charge of the policeman without hearing the prisoner, would order him to be hung? “Give me a hearing,” says the poor man, “and I will prove my innocence. I am not guilty,” says he. The policeman says he is guilty. “Well, hang him anyhow, “says the judge. What would you say of that judge? Criminal judge! unfair man; you are guilty of the blood of the innocent! Would you not say that ? Of course you would.

Well now, my dearly beloved Protestant friends, that is what you have been doing all along; you have been hearing one side of the question and condemning us Catholics as a superstitious lot of people, poor ignorant people, idolatrous people, non-sensical people, going and telling their sins to the priest; and what, after all, is the priest; more than any other man? My dear friends, have you examined the other side of the question?

No, you do not think it worth your while; but this is the way the Jews dealt with the Apostles, the minister s of the Church, and with primitive Christians.

Allow me to tell you, my friends, that you have been treating us precisely in the same way the Jew and Pagans treated Jesus Christ and His Apostles. I have said this evening hard things, but if St. Paul were here tonight, in this same pulpit, he would have said harder things still. I have said them, however, not through a spirit of unkindness, but through a spirit of love, and a spirit of charity, in the hope of opening your eyes that your souls may be saved. It is love for your salvation, my dearly beloved Protestant brethren—for which I would gladly give my heart’s blood—my love for your salvation that has made me preach to you as I have done.”

“Well,” say my Protestant friends, “if a man thinks he is right would not he be right?” Let us suppose now a man in Ottawa, who wants to go to Chicago, but takes a car for New York; the conductor asks for his ticket; and he at once says: “You are in the wrong car; your ticket is for Chicago, but you are going to New York.” “Well, what of that?” says the passenger. “I mean well.” “Your meaning will not go well with you in the end,” says the conductor, “for you will come out at New York instead of Chicago.”

You say you mean well, my dear friends; your meaning will not take you to heaven; you must do well also. “He that doeth the will of My Father,” says Jesus, “h alone shall be saved.” There are millions in hell who meant well.

You must do well, and be sure you are doing well, to be saved. I thank my separated brethren for their kindness in coming to these controversial lectures. I hope I have said nothing to offend them. Of curse, it would be nonsense for me not preach Catholic doctrines.

Taken from Catholic Truth, Imprimatured 1897, and written by Rev. Arnold Damen, S.J.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Father Damen was born in the province of North Brabaut, Holland, March 20, 1815. He was admitted to the Society of Jesus, November 21,1837, and was one of the band of devoted young novices brought over to this country by Rev. Father De Smet, the renowned Indian missionary.

Florissant, near St. Louis, was then, as now, the headquarters or novitiate of the western Jesuit province. It was there Father Damen commenced his career in the United States fifty year ago. It was there his remains were laid at rest, according to his own wish and request, January 4, 1890, in the presence of the honored Provincial of the Society and of many of the Fathers who at different times had been associated in his labors in Chicago or St. Louis.

I first saw and heard Father Damen in the year 1855, during a mission he conducted in old St. Mary’s, the then pro-cathedral, corner Wabash avenue and Madison street. His companion in the mission was Father Glaizal.

Young as I then was, that mission made an impression on me, and that impression was largely due to the zeal and power of Father Damen. He was then in the full vigor or manhood, of majestic presence, with a command of language and a force of eloquence which must have carried by storm all hearts in the congregation. I know he did mine.

Thousands in this city, tens of thousands all over the land, can testify to his zeal for souls. The ‘work of his life was his missions.’ With a chosen band of companions of the Society, he conducted great missions in nearly every principal city in the United States, and , as a consequence, twenty-five years ago Father Damen was more widely known in this country and may be said to have exercised a greater influence personally than any bishop or priest in the Catholic Church.

His power as a pulpit orator was everywhere recognized, and his success as a missionary surpassed anything ever known in this or perhaps any other country. Wherein lay this marvelous and acknowledged power?

It was not in his polished periods or his rhetorical style. It was not in the beauty of his language nor the copiousness of felicity of his illustrations. Not a few of his associates surpassed him in the graces or oratory, as they did in learning, but Father Damen’s force and power carried everything before it. He cared nothing for applause or criticism. He was working to save souls.

Taken from “Tribute to His Memory,” written shortly after his death, for the “Catholic Home”, of Chicago, by Hon. William J. Onahan.

February 19, 2010 at 1:20 am#179118

NickHassan

Participant

Hi CA,
Are you speaking of the political 'church' responsible for the torture and murders of the Inquisition?
Her hands are bloodied.

February 19, 2010 at 1:25 am#179119

NickHassan

Participant

Hi CA,
Catholicism is dependant on imaginary historical links to Peter.
Peter and his Master will deny any such relationship.
Historical fruit identifies the father of Catholicism.

February 19, 2010 at 2:10 am#179123

942767

Participant

Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 19 2010,12:17)

THE ONE TRUE CHURCH

The Only Church That Christ Established is the Catholic Church

By Father Damen 1855

“He that believeth an is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” Mark xvi. 16.

Now then, what kind of faith must a man have to be saved? Will any faith do? Why, if any faith will do, the devil himself will be saved, for the Bible says the devils believe and tremble.

Whenever He speaks, whether in figures or parables of His Church, He always conveys to the mind a oneness, a union, a unity.

He speaks of His Church as a sheepfold, in which there is but one shepherd—that is the head of all, and the sheep are made to follow his voice; “other sheep I peaks of have who are not of this fold.” One fold, you see. He speaks of His Church as of a kingdom, in which there is but one king to rule all; speaks of His Church as a family in which there is but one father at the head; speaks of His Church as a tree, and all the branches of that tree connected with the trunk, and the trunk with the roots; and Christ is the root, and the trunk is Peter and the Popes, and the large branches are the bishops,
and the smaller branches are the priests, and the fruit upon that tree are the faithful throughout the world; and the branch, says He, that is cut off from that tree shall wither away, produce no fruit, and is only fit to be cast into the fire—that is, damnation.

Now, which of all these varied churches is the one Church of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? All claim to be the Church of Jesus.

The history, then, of all nations, of all people, bear testimony that the Catholic Church is the oldest, the first; is the one established by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

And to this we answer; that if the Catholic Church had been once the true church, then she is true yet, and shall be the true Church of God to the end of time, or Jesus Christ has deceived us.

So that Christ has made the Church the organ by which He speaks to man, and tells us positively that we must believe the teaching of the Church as if He Himself were to speak to us.

Therefore, says St. Paul, in his Epistle to Timothy, “the Church is the ground”—that is, the strong foundation, “and the pillar of the truth.” Take the ground or foundation of this edifice away, and it crumbles down; so with regard to these pillars upon which the roof rests; take them away and the roof will fall in; so St. Paul says, “the Church is the ground and the pillar of truth,” and the moment you tak
e away the authority of the Church of God you induce all kinds of errors and blasphemous doctrines. Do we not see it?

In the sixteenth century Protestantism did away with the authority of the Church and constituted every man his own judge of the Bible, and what was the consequence? Religion upon religion, church upon church, sprang into existence, and has never stopped springing up new churches to this day. When I gave my Mission in Flint, Michigan, I invited, as I have done here, my Protestant friends to come and see me. A good and intelligent man came to me and said:

“I will avail myself of this opportunity to converse with you.”

“What Church do you belong to, my friend,” said I.

“To the Church of the Twelve Apostles,” said he.

“Ah,” said I, “I belong to that Church too. But, tell me, my friend, where was your Church started?”

“In Terre Haute, Indiana,,” says he.

“Who started the Church, and who were the Twelve Apostles, my friend?” said I.

“They were twelve farmers,” says he; “we all belonged to the same Church—the Presbyterian—but we quarreled with our preacher, separated from him, and started a Church of our own.”

“And that,” says I, “is the Twelve Apostles you belonged to—twelve farmers of Indiana? The Church came into existence about thirty years ago.”

After the disciples of Martin Luther came John Calvin, who in Geneva established the Presbyterian religion, and, hence, almost all of those religions go by the name of their founder.

I ask the Protestant, “Why are you a Lutheran, my friend?’

“Well,” says he, “Because I believe in the doctrine of good Martin Luther.”

So the Presbyterians are sometimes called Calvanists because they came from John Calvin.

As the Pope would not grant the prayer of Henry’s petition he took Ann Boleyn anyhow, and was excommunicated from the Church.

After John Wesley several others sprang up; and finally came the Campbellites, about sixty years ago. This Church was established by Alexander Campbell, a Scotchman.

Christ had established His Church and given His solemn oath that His Church should stand to the end of
time; promised that He had built it upon rock, and that the gates of hell should never prevail against it—hence, my dear people, all those different denominations of religion are the invention of man; and I ask you can man save the soul of his fellow-man by any institution he can make? Must not religion come from God?

No, you do not think it worth your while; but this is the way the Jews dealt with the Apostles, the minister s of the Church, and with primitive Christians.

Taken from Catholic Truth, Imprimatured 1897, and written by Rev. Arnold Damen, S.J.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Taken from “Tribute to His Memory,” written shortly after his death, for the “Catholic Home”, of Chicago, by Hon. William J. Onahan.

Hi CA:

You quote the following scripture from the article that you posted:

Quote

“He that believeth an is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” Mark xvi. 16.

Aren't Catholics bapitized when they are infants? The scripture states “He that believeth and is baptized”. Has an infant believed the gospel when the Catholic church baptizes him?

The true church is the body of Christ and is made manifest through love of God working in and through God's children.

Love in Christ,
Marty

February 19, 2010 at 2:41 am#179126

Elizabeth

Participant

Quote (942767 @ Feb. 19 2010,13:10)

Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 19 2010,12:17)

THE ONE TRUE CHURCH

The Only Church That Christ Established is the Catholic Church

By Father Damen 1855

“He that believeth an is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” Mark xvi. 16.

Now then, what kind of faith must a man have to be saved? Will any faith do? Why, if any faith will do, the devil himself will be saved, for the Bible says the devils believe and tremble.

Whenever He speaks, whether in figures or parables of His Church, He always conveys to the mind a oneness, a union, a unity.

He speaks of His Church as a sheepfold, in which there is but one shepherd—that is the head of all, and the sheep are made to follow his voice; “other sheep I peaks of have who are not of this fold.” One fold, you see. He speaks of His Church as of a kingdom, in which there is but one king to rule all; speaks of His Church as a family in which there is but one father at the head; speaks
of His Church as a tree, and all the branches of that tree connected with the trunk, and the trunk with the roots; and Christ is the root, and the trunk is Peter and the Popes, and the large branches are the bishops, and the smaller branches are the priests, and the fruit upon that tree are the faithful throughout the world; and the branch, says He, that is cut off from that tree shall wither away, produce no fruit, and is only fit to be cast into the fire—that is, damnation.

Now, which of all these varied churches is the one Church of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? All claim to be the Church of Jesus.

The history, then, of all nations, of all people, bear testimony that the Catholic Church is the oldest, the first; is the one established by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

And to this we answer; that if the Catholic Church had been once the true church, then she is true yet, and shall be the true Church of God to the end of time, or Jesus Christ has deceived us.

So that Christ has made the Church the organ by which He speaks to man, and tells us positively that we must believe the teaching of the Church as if He Himself were to speak to us.

Therefore, says St. Paul, in his Epistle to Timothy, “the Church is the ground”—that is, the strong foundation, “and the pillar of the truth.” Take the ground or foundation of this edifice awa
y, and it crumbles down; so with regard to these pillars upon which the roof rests; take them away and the roof will fall in; so St. Paul says, “the Church is the ground and the pillar of truth,” and the moment you take away the authority of the Church of God you induce all kinds of errors and blasphemous doctrines. Do we not see it?

In the sixteenth century Protestantism did away with the authority of the Church and constituted every man his own judge of the Bible, and what was the consequence? Religion upon religion, church upon church, sprang into existence, and has never stopped springing up new churches to this day. When I gave my Mission in Flint, Michigan, I invited, as I have done here, my Protestant friends to come and see me. A good and intelligent man came to me and said:

“I will avail myself of this opportunity to converse with you.”

“What Church do you belong to, my friend,” said I.

“To the Church of the Twelve Apostles,” said he.

“Ah,” said I, “I belong to that Church too. But, tell me, my friend, where was your Church started?”

“In Terre Haute, Indiana,,” says he.

“Who started the Church, and who were the Twelve Apostles, my friend?” said I.

“They were twelve farmers,” says he; “we all belonged to the same Church—the Presbyterian—but we quarreled with our preacher, separated from him, and started a Church of our own.”

“And that,” says I, “is the Twelve Apostles you belonged to—twelve farmers of Indiana? The Church came into existence about thirty years ago.”

After the disciples of Martin Luther came John Calvin, who in Geneva established the Presbyterian religion, and, hence, almost all of those religions go by the name of their founder.

I ask the Protestant, “Why are you a Lutheran, my friend?’

“Well,” says he, “Because I believe in the doctrine of good Martin Luther.”

So the Presbyterians are sometimes called Calvanists because they came from John Calvin.

As the Pope would not grant the prayer of Henry’s petition he took Ann Boleyn anyhow, and was excommunicated from the Church.

After John Wesley several others sprang up; and finally came the Campbellites, about sixty years ago. This Church was established by Alexander Campbell, a Scotchman.

Well, now, my dear beloved people, you may think that the act of the twelve apostles of Indiana was a ridiculous one, but they had as much right to establish a church as had Henry VIII, or Martin Luther, or
John Calvin. They had no right at all, and neither had Henry VIII, or the rest of them any right whatsoever.

Christ had established His Church and given His solemn oath that His Church should stand to the end of time; promised that He had built it upon rock, and that the gates of hell should never prevail against it—hence, my dear people, all those different denominations of religion are the invention of man; and I ask you can man save the soul of his fellow-man by any institution he can make? Must not religion come from God?

No, you do not think it worth your while; but this is the way the Jews dealt with the Apostles, the minister s of the Church, and with primitive Christians.

Taken from Catholic Truth, Imprimatured 1897, and written by Rev. Arnold Damen, S.J.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Taken from “Tribute to His Memory,” written shortly after his death, for the “Catholic Home”, of Chicago, by Hon. William J. Onahan.

Hi CA:

You quote the following scripture from the article that you posted:

Quote

“He that believeth an is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” Mark xvi. 16.

Aren't Catholics bapitized when they are infants? The scripture states “He that believeth and is baptized”. Has an infant believed the gospel when the Catholic church baptizes him?

The true church is the body of Christ and is made manifest through love of God working in and thr
ough God's children.

Love in Christ,
Marty

Yes,Marty all Babies are Baptized at the Catholic Church. Unfortunately we were too, both my Husband and I came from there. In fact when we told my Mother-In-Law what we were doing, She told us to trow the Bible in the Garbage Can… That is how Catholics feel about their Church. If God does not call you, you will think that is the only Church that saves people. We were just like Him…
When we told some of our former friends they- Oh, my God- Georg told them that He was going to brake the cross like a piece of wood, I am paraphrasing though…

February 19, 2010 at 2:43 am#179127

Elizabeth

Participant

We left that Church in 1984 and were Baptized according to Scripture in 1985. We are so thankful to God that He called us out of that system.
Peace and Love Irene

February 19, 2010 at 7:12 pm#179255

Catholic Apologist

Participant

Quote (942767 @ Feb. 19 2010,13:10)

Aren't Catholics bapitized when they are infants? The scripture states “He that believeth and is baptized”. Has an infant believed the gospel when the Catholic church baptizes him?

The true church is the body of Christ and is made manifest through love of God working in and through God's children.

Love in Christ,
Marty

Infant Baptism

Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a “born again” experience—that is, after one has “accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.” At the instant of acceptance, when he is “born again,” the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after “being saved,” goes to heaven anyway.

As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to “accept Jesus” in order to reach heaven.

Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (2:39). We also read: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Christ Calls All to Baptism

Although Fundamentalists are the most recent critics of infant baptism, opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists (“re-baptizers”) echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14).

More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’” (Luke 18:15–16).

Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, “Now they were bringing even infants to him” (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means “infants”—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.” And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: “to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven.” The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said “let them come unto me,” who are we to say “no,” and withhold baptism from them?

In Place of Circumcision

Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ”—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

Were Only Adults Baptized?

Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no “cradle Christians,” people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.

Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were rai
sed in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a “decision for Christ.” Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

Specific Biblical References?

But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that “She was baptized, with her household” (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family” (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that “he and his wife were baptized,” but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.

Catholics From the First

The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that “according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants” (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

No Cry of “Invention!”

None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when—exactly—an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it?

But Fundamentalists try to ignore the historical writings from the early Church which clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism. They attempt to sidestep appeals to history by saying baptism requires faith and, since children are incapable of having faith, they cannot be baptized. It is true that Christ prescribed instruction and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19–20), but his general law on the necessity of baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of baptism. Although infants are included in the law he establishes, requirements of that law that are impossible to meet because of their age are not applicable to them. They cannot be expected to be instructed and have faith when they are incapable of receiving instruction or manifesting faith. The same was true of circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers.

Furthermore, the Bible never says, “Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants”; it simply says, “Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation.” Yet Fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation. He can thus scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact same exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation.

It becomes apparent, then, that the Fundamentalist position on infant baptism is not really a consequence of the Bible’s strictures, but of the demands of Fundamentalism’s idea of salvation. In reality, the Bible indicates that infants are to be baptized, that they too are meant to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Further, the witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those who criticize the Catholic Church’s teaching on infant baptism. The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16).

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

February 19, 2010 at 7:15 pm#179258

Catholic Apologist

Participant

Quote (Elizabeth @ Feb. 19 2010,13:41)

Georg,

Infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus’ writings below (since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated). Since he was born in a Christian home in Smyrna around the year 140, this means he was probably baptized around 140. He was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna at that time—Polycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.

Irenaeus

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

February 20, 2010 at 3:55 am#179363

Elizabeth

Participant

Ohhhh, you are so right what you said up there about infallibility, I copied some of it.

“”” And He had provided a teacher with infallibility; and this was absolutely necessary, for without this—without infallibility we could never be sure of our faith. There must be an infallibility; and we see that in every well-ordered government, in every government—in England, in the United States, and in every country, empire and republic, there is a Constitution and a supreme law.

That all was your stuff; yes we have infallible teachers in church; that's why there are so many denominations.
Yes we have the brightest and wisest in government; that's why all governments go bankrupt.
What good is a constitution if those that swore to uphold it and protect it, trample on it?
You are so right with your last statement, it want be long and we will have exactly that.
Who is your “infallible teacher, the pope? let me give you some history of your popes, history you claim I have no knowledge off.

The beginning of
THE ROMAN UNIVERSAL CHURCH
and who ruled it

313 AD
After almost three Centuries of brutal and bloody persecution, the Roman emperor Constantine issues an edict, granting all Christians full freedom to practice their religion.
321 AD
Constantine issues an edict forbidding work on Sunday, and making it the day of worship.
324 AD
Constantine establishes Christianity as the official religion of his empire. It will become known as the “ Roman universal church “.
325 AD
Constantine calls the first ecumenical Council at Nicea. 318 Bishops attend to settle doctrinal disputes, one of which was the relationship of Jesus to the Father. The teaching of Arius, a priest, that Jesus was created was rejected and condemned. Another ruling of the council was that the commemorating of Christ’s death be no longer kept, enforced by death to those who would still do; instead; the resurrection be celebrated on Sunday.
451 AD
The fourth ecumenical council was held in Chalcedon, a city in Asia Minor. When Bishop Leo I of Rome ended his pronouncements, Bishop Augustine of Hippo North Africa offered his approval by saying, “ Rome has spoken, the cause is ended.“ While the rest of the bishops responded “ Peter has spoken by Leo, let him be anathema – that is accursed – who believes otherwise”.
452 AD
Attila the Hun threatens to invade Rome. The bishop of Rome, Leo I, meets with Attila; and the invasion is avoided. This increases the prestige and power of the bishop greatly.
455 AD
Bishop Leo I saves Rome again, by persuading the Vandal king Geiseric, of north Africa, to take the people’s wealth, but not their lives.
533 AD
Justinian, Eastern Roman emperor, declares that the bishop of Rome be the head of all bishops, and be the only one to be called “Pope”.
553 AD
Justinian calls a general church council in Constantinople, to settle disputes between Catholics who believe in the two natures of Christ – divine and human – and the Monophysites, who believe in the one nature of Christ – divine.
565 AD
Justinian dies; his death leaves the western empire and Rome without real protection. The eastern emperors consider themselves still rulers of the west, but more and more matters are left up to the Pope of Rome, who eagerly assumed charge, including military matters. Now he was also able to take on the title “ Pontifex Maximus“, pontiff for short. To become the pope of Rome, to become Pontifex Maximus – chief religious ruler – was the desire and ambition of many bishops and none clergies as well. It was bought; it was sold and occasionally obtained by murder. Also, the use of icons and images, and the veneration of the Virgin Mary and Saints, had become increasingly more popular. The true Christians, however, inheriting from Judaism repugnance toward idolatry, disapproved of these practices. In the Eastern Empire, many battles were fought over icons:
726 AD
Emperor Leo III has icons removed from churches and destroyed.
780 AD
Empress Irene permits the use of icons in church service again.
800 AD
Pope Leo III crowns Charlemagne holy Roman emperor of the west. The pope makes two statements here; one, he declares his independence from the eastern empire; two, he shows the world that the pope rules over kings; not always with success, however.
813 AD
Emperor Leo V of the east removes all icons again.
843 AD
Empress Theodora elects the once persecuted iconoclast, Monk Methodius, to the patriarchal throne, from which he declared the final restoration of icons.
896 AD
Newly elected pope Stephen VI has the body of former pope, Formosus, exhumed. The corpse is dressed in papal regalia and put on trial, charged with treason, assaulted with questions and accusations, and after the trial dragged through the streets of Rome. The next year, pope Stephen VI is himself overthrown, imprisoned, and strangled.
904 AD
Sergius III becomes pope after ordering the murder of his predecessor. He lives openly with a prostitute, Mrozia. He fathers a number of sons by her. One of the sons will be the future Pope John XI. His reign begins the period known as, “the rule of the harlots.“
955 AD
Pope John XII turns the Lateran (popes) palace, into a literal brothel.
962 AD
Pope John XII crowns Otto the Great, of Germany, “holy Roman emperor”. The pope, however, refuses to give an oath of obedience to the King; so Otto deposes of Pope John XII, and makes his own candidate pope, Leo VIII.
1059 AD
Pope Nicholas II convenes the Lateran Council, which decrees that a College of cardinals will elect future popes. This action takes away the emperor’s influence in papal elections.
1073 AD
Pope Gregory VII declares, “The pope is master of emperors.” The pope insist the pope is above all nations and rulers, and only responsible to God. King Henry IV of Germany disagrees. The disputes escalate to were the king attempts to depose the pope. The pope instead excommunicates the king. This action by the pope absolves all of Henry’s subjects from their oath of allegiance to the king and triggers a revolt in Germany. Henry gives in to the pope; in December of 1077, he meets the pope at Canossa, Northern Italy. The pope makes Henry stand barefoot in the snow, for three days and three nights, before he grants him absolution. The power struggle between church and state, however, continues.
1215 AD
Frederick II is crowned holy Roman emperor; he is engaged in a fierce struggle with pope Gregory IX. Each calls the other Antichrist. The pope claims that the Roman church has never erred; to resist it is to resist God.
1302 AD
Pope Boniface VIII in a bull (official document) asserts that to obtain salvation, every man must be subject to Rome, and that the pope is supreme over all kings, and that under penalty of excommunication, kings are not allowed to tax the clergy. His bull is received with violent apposition from all rulers. The French king writes the pope a letter and addresses him “Your Supreme Foolishness“.
1305 AD
Pope Clement V takes up resident in the city Avignon, France, because of political unrest in Rome. Popes remain there till 1377 and become the tool of the French court. This stay is also referred to as “the Babylonian captivity”.
1378 AD
Urban VI, an Italian, is elected pop
e. French cardinals disagree and elect a Frenchman as pope, Clement VII. There are now two popes, and each excommunicates the other and each calls the other Antichrist. In 1409, cardinals from both sides meet in the council of Pisa, to depose both popes and elect a new pope, Alexander V. The other two popes refuse to resign; now there are three popes. Finally in 1417, the Council of Constance deposes of all three popes and unanimously elects Pope Martin V.
1492 AD
The church is loosing its grip on people because of the corrupt lives popes live, such as Pope Alexander VI, formerly Rodrigo Borgia, who neglects church affairs in pursuits of personal pleasures. He also has a son, Cesare Borgia.
1511 AD
German monk, Martin Luther, makes a pilgrimage to Rome. He is appalled at the corruption and vice he finds so openly practiced there. He has often heard the popular proverb, “If there is a hell, Rome is build over it“; now he believes it. Luther is further disturbed by the selling of papal indulgences or pardons for sins. The selling of indulgences had become big business.
1517 AD
Martin Luther nails a document to the door of the Castle Church, Wittenberg – Germany. On it are his 95 theses, disagreements, in criticism of the churches’ doctrine and the selling of indulgences.
1520 AD
In June, Pope Leo X issues a bull, criticizing Luther’s teaching. In December, the same year, Luther publicly burns the papal bull. An ecclesiastical revolution to be known as the “Protestant Reformation“ is now in full swing.
1521 AD
Luther is excommunicated. Emperor Charles V summonsed Luther for a hearing before the assembly of Worms – Germany. Luther refuses to recant, and nothing is settled. Charles declares war on protestors; in spite of great persecution, Protestants gain in followers.
1545 AD
The Roman universal church organizes the “Counter Reformation“. The Council of Trent decrees a thorough reform of the church, and clarifies church doctrine. These efforts eliminate many of the abuses that had triggered the Protestant Reformation.
1555 AD
Both religion, Catholic and Lutheran, are officially recognized within the empire.
1618 AD
Political rivalries among the many petty princes of Europe are sharpened by religious differences among them. Peace collapses, and the most terrible of all religious wars brakes out. Catholics and Protestants fight each other for thirty years. The German countryside lies in ruins.
1789 AD
The French Revolution has begun. King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette are guillotined; and thousands of Catholics, priests and nobles, are massacred; the revolution lasts for thirteen years.
1798 AD
In a disagreement with Pope Pius VI, the French General Napoleon sends his troops to Rome, and takes the pope prisoner. He is brought back to France and jailed. He dies there the next year.
1804 AD
Pope Pius VII publishes an address, in which he declared it to be the doctrine of the gospel that all should obey established governments, including himself. Napoleon summons the pope to Paris to witness the self-crowning of the first French emperor.
1809 AD
Napoleon decrees the Papal States annexed as part of the French Empire. Pope Pius VII replies with a bull of excommunication. Napoleon replies with a laugh. “ In these enlightened days, none but children and nursemaids are afraid of curses.” The pope becomes Napoleons prisoner and is taken to the City Fontainebleau, near Paris.
1813 AD
Pope Pius VII finally signs the Concordat. In it, he places all authority in Napoleons hands to nominate bishops and metropolitans, without any power of the pope to veto such appointments. The pope is permitted to return to Rome the next year. The pope’s power to rule has been broken; the indignation has been accomplished (Dan. 11:36).
1834 AD
The Vatican abolishes torture.
1870 AD
Pope Pius IX declares the infallibility of the Pope. This dogma holds that when a pope speaks officially to the Catholic church, on a doctrine of faith or morals, he cannot err.
These historical facts should really make us think what foundation the Catholic church has been build on. It is obvious, in this twenty-first century that the pope no longer has the power he once had, but his influence remains strong.

Georg

February 22, 2010 at 4:43 am#179734

Catholic Apologist

Participant

Quote (Elizabeth @ Feb. 20 2010,14:55)

These historical facts should really make us think what foundation the Catholic church has been build on. It is obvious, in this twenty-first century that the pope no longer has the power he once had, but his influence remains strong.

Georg

Look here. I have already refuted your premise that Constantine started the Catholic Church.

It is indisputable fact of history that St. Peter was martyred in Rome. We have the letters from his successors centuries before Constantine. Go read Clement of Rome's first century letters. He claimed jurisdiction over the church he was writing to back then. Would a successor to the apostles who knew the apostles be so wrong so early?

Why do you insist on deceiving yourself?

You are without excuse. You KNOW what you write is false. I am tempted to reproduce the proof AGAIN. But the reason I would do so would be for someone reading this. So if someone besides George has NOT seen this evidence, please let me know.

Otherwise we can all see that you are a fraud.

February 22, 2010 at 5:57 am#179753

Elizabeth

Participant

I had steam coming out of my computer reading your post.
I never said Constantine “started” the church, in fact I did say, he had persecuted the Christians and the Jews.
Did I not say that Peter was executed in Rome? along with Paul?
What evidence do you have that your church was called “Catholic” (universal), before Constantine.
You ask, could successors be so wrong, so early?

Gal 1:6 ¶ I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

I say, that depends on the successor.

1Ti 6:3 ¶ If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
1Ti 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
1Ti 6:6 But godliness with contentment is great gain.
1Ti 6:7 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
1Ti 6:8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
1Ti 6:9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Do you think the Catholic clergy has even read these scriptures?
Where do you think I got all those fraudulent facts from?

Georg

February 22, 2010 at 6:53 am#179768

942767

Participant

Hi CA:

The scripture that you quoted states: “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved”. An infant cannot believe, and so, baptism of an infant is a ritual and has no significance. Sin is defined as the “transgression of the law”, and therefore, and infant has not sinned. Children of Christian parents are under the law of their parents and are saved. The scripture states: 1 Co. 713And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

And:Ephesians 6 1Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.

2Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise;

3That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

Children of unsaved parents will not be judged. It is the parents who are responsible for the children. It is they who will be judged. Children will not go to hell. This is a misunderstanding based on the false doctrine that you call “orginal sin”. The scripture states that “by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin and death passed upon all men in that all men have sinned”. All men have sinned, and that is true, but sin as I have already stated is the transgression of the law, and therefore, an infant has not sinned. By your doctrine, Jesus also would be guilty of “original sin”, and we know that if he had sinned, there would be no resurrection from the dead since “the wages of sin is death”.

Our commission from the Lord is to go into the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Salvation is by faith so that it may be by grace. When a person believes the gospel and comes to God with a repentant heart, baptism in water should follow signifying the person's union with Jesus in is death, burial and resurrection. It signifies that the person has died unto sin, and has been raised from the dead(spiritual separation from God) to a personal relationship with God has the Father of his spirit.
If a person has not believed or if someone has believed and has not repented, and he is baptized. He goes into the water a dry sinner and comes up a wet sinner. There has been not change.

Those scriptures that you quote where someone's household was baptized do not say anything about infants being baptized. There may have been children that were baptized, but again we are not told this, but you are adding to the scripture because of the false doctrine of “original sin”.

And by the way, I am not being critical. My desire is God's very best for every individual, and I pray that we may come into unity as the body of Christ, and teach the Word of God in truth.

Love in Christ,
Marty

February 27, 2010 at 12:13 am#180603

Catholic Apologist

Participant

Quote (Elizabeth @ Feb. 22 2010,16:57)

I say, that depends on the successor.

Do you think the Catholic clergy has even read these scriptures?
Where do you think I got all those fraudulent facts from?

Georg

Quote

I had steam coming out of my computer reading your post.

The wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God

Quote

What evidence do you have that your church was called “Catholic” (universal), before Constantine.

“Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.” — St. Ignatius of Antioch written probably AD 98 to 117 (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8)

Quote

Do you think the Catholic clergy has even read these scriptures?

Of course. The Galatian churches were under St. Paul at this time. So was he speaking of his own unorthodoxy? Hardly. Your argument fails miserably.

Quote

Where do you think I got all those fraudulent facts from?

My guess is:

A. Some conspiracy website void of fact and full of fancy

B. Armstrong's own imagination

February 27, 2010 at 12:14 am#180604

Catholic Apologist

Participant

Quote (942767 @ Feb. 22 2010,17:53)

And by the way, I am not being critical. My desire is God's very best for every individual, and I pray that we may come into unity as the body of Christ, and teach the Word of God in truth.

Love in Christ,
Marty

So long as everyone agrees with the “Marty version” of Christianity.

Right. I got it.

February 27, 2010 at 12:36 am#180614

Elizabeth

Participant

Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 27 2010,11:14)

Quote (942767 @ Feb. 22 2010,17:53)

And by the way, I am not being critical. My desire is God's very best for every individual, and I pray that we may come into unity as the body of Christ, and teach the Word of God in truth.

Love in Christ,
Marty

So long as everyone agrees with the “Marty version” of Christianity.

Right. I got it.

Marty I don't think knows the Catholic Church and Marty believes in the trinity which I do not. It is a man made doctrine and not of God. Ancient History shows plenty….
What you said to my Husband is laughable and I let Him answer that. Mr. Armstrong has nothing do with our understand of the Scriptures. In fact we think, that He was wrong in many instances. But He is that made us aware of the Bible and to blow the dust of it and read it. It was a Book that was written about the Two Babylonian that convinced me. I had gone to the Bible Store to get anything on Mr. Armstrong because so much was written about Him and I wanted to find out. I wanted to prove Him wrong. Also when we got some Booklets from the world wide Church of God, we called our Parish Priest who I was in constant
contact with because I was the President for the Woman Organization at the time. At one point He told Georg, and I quote:” God is calling you.” All Ancient History too, told us plenty.
You should really prove to yourself if the trinity is right or wrong. But of course the pope has more Authority then the Bible which is God's Word…..
Irene

February 27, 2010 at 4:26 am#180664

NickHassan

Participant

Hi CA,
If Jesus started the catholic church why are you not ashamed?
Why are you not repenting in dust and ashes over her open rebellion against God, His Son and His teachings?
Why are you not taking on yourself to bring her to repentance, discarding all the accreted rubbish and reestablishing the love of truth as her treasure?

Don't worry.
The Lord has no part in her any more.

February 27, 2010 at 5:26 am#180671

Elizabeth

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 27 2010,15:26)

Don't worry.
The Lord has no part in her any more.

Nick good questions. However He is gone again and I think just like the last time he stayed away for awhile. Time will tell.
Irene

Author
Posts

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 17 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

The only church that christ established is

Recent Replies

Forums

Forum Topics

POPULAR WRITINGS

Study Tools

ABOUT THIS SITE

Navigation

The only church that christ established is

Recent Replies

TOPICS

Forums

Forum Topics

POPULAR WRITINGS

Study Tools

ABOUT THIS SITE

Navigation

Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?

Create Account