If you see Historical Documents Showing Jesus Founded Only one Church &

[HRoberson]

That Church Jesus founded is Catholic, Will you become A Traditional Catholic and work out your salvation with fear and trembling in the hope of saving your soul.   

In the scenario above, will you become a Traditional Catholic to avoid the eternal pains of Hell Fire?

Only a fool will end up in Hell for denying the Catholic Church Jesus founded, especially when its history as the One True Church Jesus founded is so well documented.

You are confused on several points of your faith. Perhaps you should speak to your priest.

If I will show you historical Documents showing the Church Jesus built is the Catholic Church, will you become a Traditional Catholic in hopes of avoiding eternal Hell?

No, actually. And the Catholic Church is OK with that. I wonder, do Traditional Cathloics submit to Francis and church councils?

Why do you hate Jesus so much? You just admitted you will not believe all Christ has revealed.

1 Corinthians 16:22

If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha.

You're jumping to conclusuions. Are Traditional Catholics real Catholics or are you just another denomination?

We believe the Catholic Faith as Christ has revealed. We do not compromise the Catholic faith to appease the Vatican 2 Freemasons. We also have apostolic succession.

Do you reject the Bishop of Rome, who called and accepted the work of the Freemasons?

[To Know is to Serve]

That Church Jesus founded is Catholic, Will you become A Traditional Catholic and work out your salvation with fear and trembling in the hope of saving your soul.   

In the scenario above, will you become a Traditional Catholic to avoid the eternal pains of Hell Fire?

Only a fool will end up in Hell for denying the Catholic Church Jesus founded, especially when its history as the One True Church Jesus founded is so well documented.

You are confused on several points of your faith. Perhaps you should speak to your priest.

If I will show you historical Documents showing the Church Jesus built is the Catholic Church, will you become a Traditional Catholic in hopes of avoiding eternal Hell?

No, actually. And the Catholic Church is OK with that. I wonder, do Traditional Cathloics submit to Francis and church councils?

Why do you hate Jesus so much? You just admitted you will not believe all Christ has revealed.

1 Corinthians 16:22

If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha.

You're jumping to conclusuions. Are Traditional Catholics real Catholics or are you just another denomination?

We believe the Catholic Faith as Christ has revealed. We do not compromise the Catholic faith to appease the Vatican 2 Freemasons. We also have apostolic succession.

Do you reject the Bishop of Rome, who called and accepted the work of the Freemasons?

Most Bishops and Priests are not validly ordained since Vatican 2. These Freemasons can not take the Catholic faith from my heart. Even many validly ordained Bishops and Priests are weak in the Catholic faith.

[HRoberson]

That Church Jesus founded is Catholic, Will you become A Traditional Catholic and work out your salvation with fear and trembling in the hope of saving your soul.   

In the scenario above, will you become a Traditional Catholic to avoid the eternal pains of Hell Fire?

Only a fool will end up in Hell for denying the Catholic Church Jesus founded, especially when its history as the One True Church Jesus founded is so well documented.

You are confused on several points of your faith. Perhaps you should speak to your priest.

If I will show you historical Documents showing the Church Jesus built is the Catholic Church, will you become a Traditional Catholic in hopes of avoiding eternal Hell?

No, actually. And the Catholic Church is OK with that. I wonder, do Traditional Cathloics submit to Francis and church councils?

Why do you hate Jesus so much? You just admitted you will not believe all Christ has revealed.

1 Corinthians 16:22

If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha.

You're jumping to conclusuions. Are Traditional Catholics real Catholics or are you just another denomination?

We believe the Catholic Faith as Christ has revealed. We do not compromise the Catholic faith to appease the Vatican 2 Freemasons. We also have apostolic succession.

Do you reject the Bishop of Rome, who called and accepted the work of the Freemasons?

Most Bishops and Priests are not validly ordained since Vatican 2. These Freemasons can not take the Catholic faith from my heart. Even many validly ordained Bishops and Priests are weak in the Catholic faith.

That's not what I asked.

[To Know is to Serve]

That Church Jesus founded is Catholic, Will you become A Traditional Catholic and work out your salvation with fear and trembling in the hope of saving your soul.   

In the scenario above, will you become a Traditional Catholic to avoid the eternal pains of Hell Fire?

Only a fool will end up in Hell for denying the Catholic Church Jesus founded, especially when its history as the One True Church Jesus founded is so well documented.

You are confused on several points of your faith. Perhaps you should speak to your priest.

If I will show you historical Documents showing the Church Jesus built is the Catholic Church, will you become a Traditional Catholic in hopes of avoiding eternal Hell?

No, actually. And the Catholic Church is OK with that. I wonder, do Traditional Cathloics submit to Francis and church councils?

Why do you hate Jesus so much? You just admitted you will not believe all Christ has revealed.

1 Corinthians 16:22

If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha.

You're jumping to conclusuions. Are Traditional Catholics real Catholics or are you just another denomination?

We believe the Catholic Faith as Christ has revealed. We do not compromise the Catholic faith to appease the Vatican 2 Freemasons. We also have apostolic succession.

Do you reject the Bishop of Rome, who called and accepted the work of the Freemasons?

Most Bishops and Priests are not validly ordained since Vatican 2. These Freemasons can not take the Catholic faith from my heart. Even many validly ordained Bishops and Priests are weak in the Catholic faith.

That's not what I asked.

If the Bishop of Rome is validly ordained and goes against Catholic dogma and Theology, I follow infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. Most people are not educated on Catholic Dogma and Theology and are likely to be deceived by Bishops and Priests saying things contrary to infallible Catholic Dogma and Theology.

[HRoberson]

That Church Jesus founded is Catholic, Will you become A Traditional Catholic and work out your salvation with fear and trembling in the hope of saving your soul.   

In the scenario above, will you become a Traditional Catholic to avoid the eternal pains of Hell Fire?

Only a fool will end up in Hell for denying the Catholic Church Jesus founded, especially when its history as the One True Church Jesus founded is so well documented.

You are confused on several points of your faith. Perhaps you should speak to your priest.

If I will show you historical Documents showing the Church Jesus built is the Catholic Church, will you become a Traditional Catholic in hopes of avoiding eternal Hell?

No, actually. And the Catholic Church is OK with that. I wonder, do Traditional Cathloics submit to Francis and church councils?

Why do you hate Jesus so much? You just admitted you will not believe all Christ has revealed.

1 Corinthians 16:22

If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha.

You're jumping to conclusuions. Are Traditional Catholics real Catholics or are you just another denomination?

We believe the Catholic Faith as Christ has revealed. We do not compromise the Catholic faith to appease the Vatican 2 Freemasons. We also have apostolic succession.

Do you reject the Bishop of Rome, who called and accepted the work of the Freemasons?

Most Bishops and Priests are not validly ordained since Vatican 2. These Freemasons can not take the Catholic faith from my heart. Even many validly ordained Bishops and Priests are weak in the Catholic faith.

That's not what I asked.

If the Bishop of Rome is validly ordained and goes against Catholic dogma and Theology, I follow infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. Most people are not educated on Catholic Dogma and Theology and are likely to be deceived by Bishops and Priests saying things contrary to infallible Catholic Dogma and Theology.

That's not what I asked either. The question was simple, do you reject the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, the one who convened VII, and who as Bishop of Rome, the Supreme Pontiff, ratified the results of the Council?

This should be easy enough to answer.

[To Know is to Serve]

That Church Jesus founded is Catholic, Will you become A Traditional Catholic and work out your salvation with fear and trembling in the hope of saving your soul.   

In the scenario above, will you become a Traditional Catholic to avoid the eternal pains of Hell Fire?

Only a fool will end up in Hell for denying the Catholic Church Jesus founded, especially when its history as the One True Church Jesus founded is so well documented.

You are confused on several points of your faith. Perhaps you should speak to your priest.

If I will show you historical Documents showing the Church Jesus built is the Catholic Church, will you become a Traditional Catholic in hopes of avoiding eternal Hell?

No, actually. And the Catholic Church is OK with that. I wonder, do Traditional Cathloics submit to Francis and church councils?

Why do you hate Jesus so much? You just admitted you will not believe all Christ has revealed.

1 Corinthians 16:22

If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha.

You're jumping to conclusuions. Are Traditional Catholics real Catholics or are you just another denomination?

We believe the Catholic Faith as Christ has revealed. We do not compromise the Catholic faith to appease the Vatican 2 Freemasons. We also have apostolic succession.

Do you reject the Bishop of Rome, who called and accepted the work of the Freemasons?

Most Bishops and Priests are not validly ordained since Vatican 2. These Freemasons can not take the Catholic faith from my heart. Even many validly ordained Bishops and Priests are weak in the Catholic faith.

That's not what I asked.

If the Bishop of Rome is validly ordained and goes against Catholic dogma and Theology, I follow infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. Most people are not educated on Catholic Dogma and Theology and are likely to be deceived by Bishops and Priests saying things contrary to infallible Catholic Dogma and Theology.

That's not what I asked either. The question was simple, do you reject the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, the one who convened VII, and who as Bishop of Rome, the Supreme Pontiff, ratified the results of the Council?

This should be easy enough to answer.

I do not reject Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, the one who convened VII, but I am strong enough in the Catholic faith to know Vatican 2 is not Catholic.

[Carey]

Matthew 18:20(NIV)

20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them."

These people are His Church, they can come from any denomination.

The Jesus I know is more concerned with our personal relationship to Him than what can be vain tradition.

Do you believe the quote below to be true?

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Yes.

[Carey]

You did not answer the question and that is because you are obstinate?

False. I absolutely did answer it. A resounding NO is my answer.

Here is why:  I don't need your church to save me. I have the revelation that Christ is the Son of God.  He and He alone is the rock, the light, the gate, the way, the Truth and no person comes to the Father except through Him.

Why didn't you answer the question I asked of you...I'll ask again:
what will you do with the scripture I have shared, with Christ's very own words testifying about who and what saves?

You just admitted you will not become Catholic even after finding out Jesus founded the Catholic Church. You refuse to love Christ enough to follow him into the church he founded. You do not love Christ if you hate the Catholic Church he founded. Since you refuse to follow Christ in all he reveals, in your present state of mortal sin, you don't deserve to enter the kingdom of heaven.

How arrogant of you.

[To Know is to Serve]

You did not answer the question and that is because you are obstinate?

False. I absolutely did answer it. A resounding NO is my answer.

Here is why:  I don't need your church to save me. I have the revelation that Christ is the Son of God.  He and He alone is the rock, the light, the gate, the way, the Truth and no person comes to the Father except through Him.

Why didn't you answer the question I asked of you...I'll ask again:
what will you do with the scripture I have shared, with Christ's very own words testifying about who and what saves?

You just admitted you will not become Catholic even after finding out Jesus founded the Catholic Church. You refuse to love Christ enough to follow him into the church he founded. You do not love Christ if you hate the Catholic Church he founded. Since you refuse to follow Christ in all he reveals, in your present state of mortal sin, you don't deserve to enter the kingdom of heaven.

How arrogant of you.

Christ doesn't change his teachings because people don't want to mortify themselves.

[HRoberson]

That Church Jesus founded is Catholic, Will you become A Traditional Catholic and work out your salvation with fear and trembling in the hope of saving your soul.   

In the scenario above, will you become a Traditional Catholic to avoid the eternal pains of Hell Fire?

Only a fool will end up in Hell for denying the Catholic Church Jesus founded, especially when its history as the One True Church Jesus founded is so well documented.

You are confused on several points of your faith. Perhaps you should speak to your priest.

If I will show you historical Documents showing the Church Jesus built is the Catholic Church, will you become a Traditional Catholic in hopes of avoiding eternal Hell?

No, actually. And the Catholic Church is OK with that. I wonder, do Traditional Cathloics submit to Francis and church councils?

Why do you hate Jesus so much? You just admitted you will not believe all Christ has revealed.

1 Corinthians 16:22

If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha.

You're jumping to conclusuions. Are Traditional Catholics real Catholics or are you just another denomination?

We believe the Catholic Faith as Christ has revealed. We do not compromise the Catholic faith to appease the Vatican 2 Freemasons. We also have apostolic succession.

Do you reject the Bishop of Rome, who called and accepted the work of the Freemasons?

Most Bishops and Priests are not validly ordained since Vatican 2. These Freemasons can not take the Catholic faith from my heart. Even many validly ordained Bishops and Priests are weak in the Catholic faith.

That's not what I asked.

If the Bishop of Rome is validly ordained and goes against Catholic dogma and Theology, I follow infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. Most people are not educated on Catholic Dogma and Theology and are likely to be deceived by Bishops and Priests saying things contrary to infallible Catholic Dogma and Theology.

That's not what I asked either. The question was simple, do you reject the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, the one who convened VII, and who as Bishop of Rome, the Supreme Pontiff, ratified the results of the Council?

This should be easy enough to answer.

I do not reject Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, the one who convened VII, but I am strong enough in the Catholic faith to know Vatican 2 is not Catholic.

You accept the Bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff of the entire Catholic Church, a church who governs herself on the basis of councils ratified by the Vicar, and yet you feel free to argue with the Supreme Pontiff, the results of a validly accepted council, and the Magisterium.

My, you must be one smart dude to presume to instruct the entire church in the errors of the Supreme Pontiff, acting as the spiritual father of all Christians.

Well, I suspect that makes you Protestant since that's what they do.

[To Know is to Serve]

That Church Jesus founded is Catholic, Will you become A Traditional Catholic and work out your salvation with fear and trembling in the hope of saving your soul.   

In the scenario above, will you become a Traditional Catholic to avoid the eternal pains of Hell Fire?

Only a fool will end up in Hell for denying the Catholic Church Jesus founded, especially when its history as the One True Church Jesus founded is so well documented.

You are confused on several points of your faith. Perhaps you should speak to your priest.

If I will show you historical Documents showing the Church Jesus built is the Catholic Church, will you become a Traditional Catholic in hopes of avoiding eternal Hell?

No, actually. And the Catholic Church is OK with that. I wonder, do Traditional Cathloics submit to Francis and church councils?

Why do you hate Jesus so much? You just admitted you will not believe all Christ has revealed.

1 Corinthians 16:22

If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha.

You're jumping to conclusuions. Are Traditional Catholics real Catholics or are you just another denomination?

We believe the Catholic Faith as Christ has revealed. We do not compromise the Catholic faith to appease the Vatican 2 Freemasons. We also have apostolic succession.

Do you reject the Bishop of Rome, who called and accepted the work of the Freemasons?

Most Bishops and Priests are not validly ordained since Vatican 2. These Freemasons can not take the Catholic faith from my heart. Even many validly ordained Bishops and Priests are weak in the Catholic faith.

That's not what I asked.

If the Bishop of Rome is validly ordained and goes against Catholic dogma and Theology, I follow infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. Most people are not educated on Catholic Dogma and Theology and are likely to be deceived by Bishops and Priests saying things contrary to infallible Catholic Dogma and Theology.

That's not what I asked either. The question was simple, do you reject the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, the one who convened VII, and who as Bishop of Rome, the Supreme Pontiff, ratified the results of the Council?

This should be easy enough to answer.

I do not reject Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, the one who convened VII, but I am strong enough in the Catholic faith to know Vatican 2 is not Catholic.

You accept the Bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff of the entire Catholic Church, a church who governs herself on the basis of councils ratified by the Vicar, and yet you feel free to argue with the Supreme Pontiff, the results of a validly accepted council, and the Magisterium.

My, you must be one smart dude to presume to instruct the entire church in the errors of the Supreme Pontiff, acting as the spiritual father of all Christians.

Well, I suspect that makes you Protestant since that's what they do.

I follow the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church. Vatican 2 is not Catholic. If you studied Catholic history like the rest of us,  you would know that.

[HRoberson]

That Church Jesus founded is Catholic, Will you become A Traditional Catholic and work out your salvation with fear and trembling in the hope of saving your soul.   

In the scenario above, will you become a Traditional Catholic to avoid the eternal pains of Hell Fire?

Only a fool will end up in Hell for denying the Catholic Church Jesus founded, especially when its history as the One True Church Jesus founded is so well documented.

You are confused on several points of your faith. Perhaps you should speak to your priest.

If I will show you historical Documents showing the Church Jesus built is the Catholic Church, will you become a Traditional Catholic in hopes of avoiding eternal Hell?

No, actually. And the Catholic Church is OK with that. I wonder, do Traditional Cathloics submit to Francis and church councils?

Why do you hate Jesus so much? You just admitted you will not believe all Christ has revealed.

1 Corinthians 16:22

If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha.

You're jumping to conclusuions. Are Traditional Catholics real Catholics or are you just another denomination?

We believe the Catholic Faith as Christ has revealed. We do not compromise the Catholic faith to appease the Vatican 2 Freemasons. We also have apostolic succession.

Do you reject the Bishop of Rome, who called and accepted the work of the Freemasons?

Most Bishops and Priests are not validly ordained since Vatican 2. These Freemasons can not take the Catholic faith from my heart. Even many validly ordained Bishops and Priests are weak in the Catholic faith.

That's not what I asked.

If the Bishop of Rome is validly ordained and goes against Catholic dogma and Theology, I follow infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. Most people are not educated on Catholic Dogma and Theology and are likely to be deceived by Bishops and Priests saying things contrary to infallible Catholic Dogma and Theology.

That's not what I asked either. The question was simple, do you reject the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, the one who convened VII, and who as Bishop of Rome, the Supreme Pontiff, ratified the results of the Council?

This should be easy enough to answer.

I do not reject Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, the one who convened VII, but I am strong enough in the Catholic faith to know Vatican 2 is not Catholic.

You accept the Bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff of the entire Catholic Church, a church who governs herself on the basis of councils ratified by the Vicar, and yet you feel free to argue with the Supreme Pontiff, the results of a validly accepted council, and the Magisterium.

My, you must be one smart dude to presume to instruct the entire church in the errors of the Supreme Pontiff, acting as the spiritual father of all Christians.

Well, I suspect that makes you Protestant since that's what they do.

I follow the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church. Vatican 2 is not Catholic. If you studied Catholic history like the rest of us,  you would know that.

Not Catholic? Convened by a Pope, accepted and ratftied by a Pope, and taught by the Magisterium. Maybe you could help me out here....where do you get your standing within such a church to tell the Vicar and Magisterium that they're wrong?

Within such a church, where do you get the standing to argue with the very Vicar of the very Christ that you don't agree?

I'm still thinking you are a closet Protestant because you sure talk like one. What with all your picking and choosing when you have to toe the line or not.

[HRoberson]

Is there a reliable website for all things Traditional Catholic? One that might shed some light on what you don't like that those Freemasons did? Is there more to this than just not liking the loss of pomp and not liking Vatican II?

A website perhaps that isn't primarily complaints and emotion would be preferable.

Thank you.

[To Know is to Serve]

That Church Jesus founded is Catholic, Will you become A Traditional Catholic and work out your salvation with fear and trembling in the hope of saving your soul.   

In the scenario above, will you become a Traditional Catholic to avoid the eternal pains of Hell Fire?

Only a fool will end up in Hell for denying the Catholic Church Jesus founded, especially when its history as the One True Church Jesus founded is so well documented.

You are confused on several points of your faith. Perhaps you should speak to your priest.

If I will show you historical Documents showing the Church Jesus built is the Catholic Church, will you become a Traditional Catholic in hopes of avoiding eternal Hell?

No, actually. And the Catholic Church is OK with that. I wonder, do Traditional Cathloics submit to Francis and church councils?

Why do you hate Jesus so much? You just admitted you will not believe all Christ has revealed.

1 Corinthians 16:22

If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha.

You're jumping to conclusuions. Are Traditional Catholics real Catholics or are you just another denomination?

We believe the Catholic Faith as Christ has revealed. We do not compromise the Catholic faith to appease the Vatican 2 Freemasons. We also have apostolic succession.

Do you reject the Bishop of Rome, who called and accepted the work of the Freemasons?

Most Bishops and Priests are not validly ordained since Vatican 2. These Freemasons can not take the Catholic faith from my heart. Even many validly ordained Bishops and Priests are weak in the Catholic faith.

That's not what I asked.

If the Bishop of Rome is validly ordained and goes against Catholic dogma and Theology, I follow infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. Most people are not educated on Catholic Dogma and Theology and are likely to be deceived by Bishops and Priests saying things contrary to infallible Catholic Dogma and Theology.

That's not what I asked either. The question was simple, do you reject the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, the one who convened VII, and who as Bishop of Rome, the Supreme Pontiff, ratified the results of the Council?

This should be easy enough to answer.

I do not reject Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, the one who convened VII, but I am strong enough in the Catholic faith to know Vatican 2 is not Catholic.

You accept the Bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff of the entire Catholic Church, a church who governs herself on the basis of councils ratified by the Vicar, and yet you feel free to argue with the Supreme Pontiff, the results of a validly accepted council, and the Magisterium.

My, you must be one smart dude to presume to instruct the entire church in the errors of the Supreme Pontiff, acting as the spiritual father of all Christians.

Well, I suspect that makes you Protestant since that's what they do.

I follow the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church. Vatican 2 is not Catholic. If you studied Catholic history like the rest of us,  you would know that.

Not Catholic? Convened by a Pope, accepted and ratftied by a Pope, and taught by the Magisterium. Maybe you could help me out here....where do you get your standing within such a church to tell the Vicar and Magisterium that they're wrong?

Within such a church, where do you get the standing to argue with the very Vicar of the very Christ that you don't agree?

I'm still thinking you are a closet Protestant because you sure talk like one. What with all your picking and choosing when you have to toe the line or not.

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/VaticanII_Church_Exposed.php

Vatican II "Catholic" Church Exposed

The Catholic Church is the true Church, but the post-Vatican II "Catholic" Church is not the real Catholic Church.  It's the Counter Church of the last days.  It purports to be Catholic, but it is not.  It's presided over by antipopes and heretics, as this website proves.  The other sections listed above in our header deal specifically with the heresies of the leaders (the supposed "popes") of the Vatican II sect and their main council.  This section focuses on the rotten fruits, other heresies, and other important points about the post-Vatican II "Catholic" Church and its members. 

The Great Apostasy and a Counterfeit Church predicted in the New Testament and in Catholic Prophecy

Is the Vatican II sect the Whore of Babylon prophesied in the Apocalypse?

This article gives the stunning evidence that the Vatican II sect, a counterfeit Church which opposes the true Catholic Church in the last days, is the Whore of Babylon prophesied in Apocalypse chapters 17 and 18

The Vatican II sect's Protestant Revolution: the 1999 Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification

The Vatican II Church actually agreed with the Lutherans on Justification... see the proof here

The Vatican II sect vs. the Catholic Church on partaking in non-Catholic worship

This article shows that the Vatican II sect now officially recommends what the true popes of the Catholic Church forbade under pain of mortal sin

The Seminaries of the Vatican II sect are unspeakable cesspools of homosexuality and heresy

The Vatican II sect promotes idolatry by its general worship of man, by its particular worship of man in the New Mass, and by its promotion of idolatrous religions

One can be pro-abortion and part of the Vatican II sect at the same time

The Religious Orders in the Vatican II sect: Totally Apostate

This article includes a section on the apostasy of Mother Teresa and her religious order, The Missionaries of Charity

The Apostasy of the Hierarchy and prominent members of the Vatican II sect - is this your hierarchy?

This article covers the astounding heresies and apostasy of the "bishops" and other prominent members of the Vatican II sect – the Counter Church – as well as the Catholic teaching that heretics immediately lose authority in the Catholic Church

[Carey]

You did not answer the question and that is because you are obstinate?

False. I absolutely did answer it. A resounding NO is my answer.

Here is why:  I don't need your church to save me. I have the revelation that Christ is the Son of God.  He and He alone is the rock, the light, the gate, the way, the Truth and no person comes to the Father except through Him.

Why didn't you answer the question I asked of you...I'll ask again:
what will you do with the scripture I have shared, with Christ's very own words testifying about who and what saves?

You just admitted you will not become Catholic even after finding out Jesus founded the Catholic Church. You refuse to love Christ enough to follow him into the church he founded. You do not love Christ if you hate the Catholic Church he founded. Since you refuse to follow Christ in all he reveals, in your present state of mortal sin, you don't deserve to enter the kingdom of heaven.

How arrogant of you.

Christ doesn't change his teachings because people don't want to mortify themselves.

Well, in another sense of the word, I am mortified that a fellow Christian would forego his place as humble servant and appoint himself an agent of God, deciding for Him who is deserving of heaven. 

Romans 14:4(NIV)

4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

[To Know is to Serve]

You did not answer the question and that is because you are obstinate?

False. I absolutely did answer it. A resounding NO is my answer.

Here is why:  I don't need your church to save me. I have the revelation that Christ is the Son of God.  He and He alone is the rock, the light, the gate, the way, the Truth and no person comes to the Father except through Him.

Why didn't you answer the question I asked of you...I'll ask again:
what will you do with the scripture I have shared, with Christ's very own words testifying about who and what saves?

You just admitted you will not become Catholic even after finding out Jesus founded the Catholic Church. You refuse to love Christ enough to follow him into the church he founded. You do not love Christ if you hate the Catholic Church he founded. Since you refuse to follow Christ in all he reveals, in your present state of mortal sin, you don't deserve to enter the kingdom of heaven.

How arrogant of you.

Christ doesn't change his teachings because people don't want to mortify themselves.

Well, in another sense of the word, I am mortified that a fellow Christian would forego his place as humble servant and appoint himself an agent of God, deciding for Him who is deserving of heaven. 

Romans 14:4(NIV)

4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

None of us deserve to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Since Christ founded only one Church and that Church is Catholic, Only people who die Catholic have a chance at getting to heaven.

[HRoberson]

Tkits,

Thank you, but I'm looking for a site that has reasoned statements rather than an alarmist lumping of religious orders all into "homosexual cesspools."

Something that refrains from sensational name calling would be good.

[To Know is to Serve]

These Vatican 2 religious orders are homosexual cesspools. If you are in to that sort of thing, keep endorsing Vatican 2. Now you know why I am Catholic instead of Vatican 2.

[HRoberson]

These Vatican 2 religious orders are homosexual cesspools. If you are in to that sort of thing, keep endorsing Vatican 2. Now you know why I am Catholic instead of Vatican 2.

Yes well, is there a reasoned, non-sensationalist website that explains concisely and cogently what you TCs don't like about V2? One that would compare and contrast pre-V2 teachings and documents with the V2 and post-V2 teachings and documents?

This is a serious request, but I get turned off by highly emotional soundbite accusations.

So, is there such a site?

[To Know is to Serve]

http://www.fatherwathen.com/

[.:Lily:.]

That Church Jesus founded is Catholic, Will you become A Traditional Catholic and work out your salvation with fear and trembling in the hope of saving your soul.   

In the scenario above, will you become a Traditional Catholic to avoid the eternal pains of Hell Fire?

Only a fool will end up in Hell for denying the Catholic Church Jesus founded, especially when its history as the One True Church Jesus founded is so well documented.

Since the papal church not only neglects the command of Christ but even compels the people to ignore it and to act against it, it is certain that it is not Christ's church but the synagogue of Satan which prescribes sin and prohibits righteousness. It clearly and indisputably follows that it must be the abomination of Antichrist and the furious harlot of the devil. (Martin Luther --- 1019)

What kind of a church is the pope's church? It is an uncertain, vacillating and tottering church. Indeed, it is a deceitful, lying church, doubting and unbelieving, without God's Word. For the pope with his wrong keys teaches his church to doubt and to be uncertain. If it is a vacillating church, then it is not the church of faith, for the latter is founded upon a rock, and the gates of hell cannot prevail against it (Matt.16:18). If it is not the church of faith, then it is not the Christian church, but it must be an unchristian, anti-Christian, and faithless church which destroys and ruins the real, holy, Christian church. (Martin Luther, vol. 40, Church and Ministry II, The Keys, p.348)

[To Know is to Serve]

    

Lesson 1:
Bible Definitions

1.  What does the word "Bible" mean?

The word "Bible" means "book."

2.  From what language is the word derived?
(Etymological definition)

From the Latin "Biblia," which in turn comes from the Greek. 

3.  Is the Greek word for what we call the "Bible" in the singular or in the plural?

In the plural, which means that it should be translated "the books".

4.  Why did the Greeks use the plural form?

They used the plural form because the Bible is not one book but a collection of books.

5.  Is the Latin word for what we call the Bible in the singular or in the plural?

It is in the singular and, therefore, should be translated "the book".

6.  Why does the Latin use the singular form?

Because the Bible is the most important book there is, since it is the Word of God.

7.  What does the Bible contain?

The Bible contains chiefly a history of God's Revelation to mankind.

8.  What does the Bible give us in addition to the history of God's dealings with mankind?

In addition, the Bible gives us instructions in faith and morals.

9.  Does the Bible give other instructions?

Certain books give detailed instructions for the carrying out of religious worship in the Old Law.

10.  Did the Bible, as some seem to think, fall from heaven?

No; the Bible was written by man.

11.  If the Bible was written by man, why do we say it is the written word of God?

Though written by man, we can truly say it is the written word of God, because it was written under the inspiration of God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Lesson 2:
Inspiration Of The Bible

1.  Must we believe in the inspiration of the Bible?

Yes, the inspiration of the Bible is an article of Faith which cannot be denied without sin.

2.  What is meant by inspiration of the Bible?

Inspiration of the Bible means, in the first place, that those who wrote the Bible were impelled to do so by God.

3.  What else is meant by inspiration of the Bible?

Principally that those who wrote the Bible were protected from error while writing what God impelled them to write.

4.  Is there a special name for that protection of the writer from error?

Yes, it is called "biblical inerrancy." It means that there are no errors in the Bible.

5.  What proof have we that the Bible is inspired?

The Catholic Church, which is infallible, teaches us so.

6.  Does not the Church itself rely on the Bible for proofs of its infallibility?

Besides those found in the Bible, the Church has many other proofs for its infallibility.

7.  What general proof have we for the inspiration of the Bible?

Besides many others, we have Our Lord's constant references to the Old Testament as the word of God, while the early Christian Church testifies to the inspiration of the New Testament.

8.  Are all the parts of the Bible inspired?

"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost ..." (Leo the XIII in Providentissimus Deus, E.B.  124, 127)

9.  Does the inspiration apply to the originals only, or to the translations also?

Both: It applies absolutely to the originals, and to the translations insofar as they are faithful to the originals.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Lesson 3:
Dates And Division Of The Bible

1.  When was the Bible written?

The Bible was written during a period covering more than 1500 years.

2.  When was the first book written?

The exact date is not known, but it must have been some fifteen hundred years before Christ, since its author was Moses.

3.  When was the last book written?

The last book was written about the year 93 A.D.

4.  What period of time does the Bible, as a book of history, cover?

As a history, the Bible covers a period of many thousands of years.

5.  Name the event with which the Bible, as a book of history, begins. 

The creation of the universe.

6.  What events bring the Bible, as a book of history, to a close?

The life of Christ and early spread of Christianity.

7.  How is the Bible divided?

The Bible is divided into the Old and New Testaments.

8.  Is the division into Old and New Testaments suitable?

It is, since the Old Testament deals with the span of time before Christ's first coming with the expectation for the future Savior, while the New Testament treats of His life and work in this world, or the realization of that hope.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Lesson 4:
The Old Testament

1.  How many books does the Old Testament contain?

It contains from forty-five to forty-seven books, depending on how the books are divided.

2.  Into how many classes may these books be divided?

Three.

3.  Name these classes. 

Didactic or Doctrinal, Historical, and Prophetic books.

4.  Is there any reason for this classification?

Yes, the very matter contained in them suggests this classification.

5.  What are the Didactic or Doctrinal books?

There are the books that contain the teachings of God to man.

6.  How many Didactic books are there in the Old Testament?

Seven: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus.

7.  Why are others called "Prophetical Books"?

Because they treat of the Messiah and His life, passion, and death in a prophetical manner.

8.  Are all the Prophetical books of equal importance?

No; four of these books are called the Greater Prophets because they are greater in length and deal with more important matters, generally, than the other twelve which are called the Lesser Prophets.

9.  Why are the remaining books classified as "Historical books"?

The remaining books are so classified because they narrate the history of the People of God and the history of our salvation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Lesson 5:
The New Testament

1.  How many books are there in the New Testament?

There are twenty-seven books in the New Testament.

2.  When were these books written?

These books were written during a period extending from 35 A.D.  to 93 A.D.

3.  By whom were they written?

They were written mainly by the Apostles.

4.  Why do we say "mainly"?

We say "mainly" because some books of the New Testament were written by men who were not the Apostles, i.e., St.  Mark and St.  Luke.

5.  How may the books of the New Testament be classified?

Like those of the Old Testament, the books of the New may be grouped into three classes.

6.  Name these three classes. 

They are the same classes as with the Old Testament: Historical, Didactic, and Prophetical.

7.  Name the Historical Books. 

The Historical Books are the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.

8.  Name the Didactic Books. 

The Didactic Books are all the Epistles.

9.  Name the Prophetical Books. 

There is only one Prophetical Book i? the New Testament, namely, the Apocalypse of St.  John.

10.  What do we learn from the New Testament?

From the New Testament we learn the principal events in the Life of Christ, many Christian beliefs and practices, as well as much history of the early Catholic Church.

11.  Was the New Testament written primarily to convert people?

No, conversion was done by preaching.  The New Testament was written to strengthen the Faith of the people already converted.

12.  Can we prove it?

Yes: "It seems good to me also, ...  to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed" (Lc.  I, 3-4).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Lesson 6:
Canon Of Sacred Scripture

1.  How many books does the entire Bible contain?

Seventy-two or seventy-four, depending on the way they are calculated

2.  How do we know with certainty that the Bible contains only these books?

We know with certainty that the Bible contains only these books because the number is fixed by the "Canon of the Scriptures."

3.  What is meant by the word "Canon"?

"Canon" is a Greek word that means a standard or rule.

4.  What is meant by the "Canon of Scriptures"?

Originally, the Canon of Scriptures meant the qualifications required of a book before admittance into the number of recognized inspired writings; now it means the very collection of these books recognized as inspired.

5.  Who decides which books belong to the Bible and which do not?

The Catholic Church decides.

6.  By what authority does the Catholic Church make this decision?

By that of Christ, Who has made her the infallible teacher of faith and morals by both the oral and the written word.

7.  What special mark was required of a book before its admittance into the collection known as the Bible?

The special mark required was clear proof of its inspiration.

8.  By whom was the first list of the books of the Bible drawn up?

Pope Damasus, at the Roman Council of 382 A.D.

9.  By what name are those books, whose authenticity was never questioned, known?

They are known as the Proto-Canonical Books.

10.  Why are they so called?

They are so called because from the beginning they were recognized as Scriptural; the Greek prefix "proto" has the signification "from the first" or "originally," hence the use of the term "proto-canonical" to describe those books.

11.  By what name are the disputed books known?

They are known as the Deutero-Canonical Books.

12.  Why are they so called?

They are so called because their recognition as Scriptural came "afterwards"; the Greek word "Deutero" used as a prefix has the signification of "second" or "later."

13.  Name the Deutero-Canonical Books. 

Tobias, Wisdom, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Machabees (I & II), Judith, Esther (Ch X.  v.  4 to end), Daniel (Ch.  III, vs. 52-93).  The Protestants call them "Apocryphal" Books.

14.  Why did the Hebrews not admit these books as part of the Bible?

As a whole, the Hebrews stopped admitting these books after the second Century A.D., because they were written in languages other than Hebrew, or were of uncertain authorship.

15.  Did the Hebrews ever formally rejected these books?

On the contrary, even if they did not accept these books as part of the Bible, they were always held in the greatest reverence by the Hebrews.

16.  Under what guidance does the Church declare which books are canonical and which are not?

Under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

17.  How do we know that she has this guidance?

We know that she has this guidance because Christ promised assistance to His Church until the end of times [Matthew 28:20].

18.  Has the Church made use of human means in drawing up the Canon of Scriptures?

Yes; she investigated carefully whether the doctrine taught in the book was in harmony with Tradition and whether the book was of apostolic origin.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Lesson 7:
The Bible And Tradition

1.  Do we not have in the Bible books written by authors, other than the Apostles?

We have, but these authors lived in apostolic times and merely recorded the words and deeds of the Apostles themselves.

2.  Why does the Church not admit any books except those of Apostolic origin?

The Church does not accept any book not of Apostolic origin because the Deposit of Faith was completed with the death of the last Apostle (St.  John).

3.  Why does the Church require that a book should be in
harmony with Tradition?
She requires that a book be in harmony with Tradition because the Gospel had already been preached before a word of the New Testament was ever written.

4.  Are there in the Bible any books whose inspiration was doubted by some for a time?

Yes, the Second Epistle of St Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse.

5.  Are there any books not found in the Bible today which for a time were thought by some to be inspired?

Yes, namely the "Gospel of St.  James," the "Gospel of St. Thomas," the "Acts of St.  Paul," amongst many others.

6.  What happened to these books once thought to be inspired?

They were rejected as spurious.  It does not mean necessarily that these books are bad; it simply means that they are not part of the Bible because they were not inspired by the Holy Ghost; they are what we Catholics call "Apocrypha" or "Apocryphal books." The Protestants erroneously give the name "Apocrypha" to the Deutero-Canonical books.

7.  What does this attitude of the Church prove?

This attitude proves, amongst other things, that the Church sifts everything carefully before approving or rejecting.

8.  What do we mean by Tradition?

By Tradition we mean that body of doctrine which has been handed down to us, alongside the doctrine clearly taught in the Bible.

9.  Who has handed down Tradition?

The Church, through her teaching office (Also called "Magisterium"), has handed down Tradition.

10.  What guarantee have we that Tradition is not false?

We have the guarantee of Christ in His statement that the Church would not err in teaching.

11.  Does the Bible then, not contain all Christian revelation?

No, and it was never intended that it should.

12.  What proof do we have that the Bible does not contain the complete Deposit of Faith?

There is the fact that Christ commissioned His Apostles to "Preach and teach" (Mt.  28, 19), whereas no mention of "Writing" is found; furthermore, the Gospel was widely spread before a single word of the New Testament was ever written.

13.  What further Scriptural proof have we that the Bible does not contain the complete Deposit of Faith?

The words of St.  John that conclude his Gospel, "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written" (Jn.  21, 25).

14.  What view do Protestants hold about the Deposit of Faith?

Protestants hold that all things necessary for salvation are found in the Bible.  To quote Luther: "The Bible and the Bible only."

15.  Do Protestants ignore Tradition?

Totally, and in this t?ey are illogical, for it is by Tradition that we know what the Bible contains.

16.  What is the Catholic view of the Bible and Tradition?

That, while the Bible is the chief source, it is neither the only nor the original source of our knowledge of Revelation.

17.  To what may we compare the relation between the Bible and Tradition?

We may compare it to a professor's textbooks and his lectures; as a professor's lectures in the classroom, and his textbooks clarify each other, so does the Bible clarify Tradition and is clarified by it in turn.

18.  Has Tradition aided the Bible in other ways?

Yes, it has preserved the Bible and has helped the Church to sift the true from the false, and has kept us from false interpretation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Lesson 8:
The Languages Of The Bible

1.  Were all the books of the Bible originally written in one language?

No, besides Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic were used.

2.  What books were written in Hebrew?

Almost all the books of the Old Testament.

3.  What books were written in Greek?

In the Old Testament, the Second Book of Machabees and the Book of Wisdom; in the New Testament, all books except the Gospel of St.  Matthew.

4.  What books were written in Aramaic?

The Gospel of St.  Matthew.

5.  When were the books of the Old Testament, that were originally written in Hebrew, translated into Greek?

About 220 years before Christ.

6.  Why was the translation from Hebrew into Greek made?

Because the Jewish people was dispersed into countries where the Greek tongue predominated, and so it gradually forgot the mother tongue, speaking only Greek.  Hence the wish to have the Bible in the Greek tongue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Lesson 9:
The Septuagint Version

1.  Who were the translators of the Old Testament?

The translators of the Old Testament were Jewish scholars well acquainted with both the Hebrew and the Greek languages.

2.  By what name is this translation known?

It is known as the Septuagint Version.

3.  Why is it called by that name?

It is called by that name because it was commonly supposed that seventy scholars were employed in the work of translating.

4.  Was it known by any other name besides that of the Septuagint?

It was known as the Alexandrian Version to distinguish it from the Hebrew or Palestinian Version.

5.  Why was it known as the "Alexandrian Bible?"

Because this translation was made in Alexandria, Egypt, which had the biggest and most vibrant Jewish community outside of Israel.

6.  Is there any other difference between the Septuagint and the Palestinian version, besides their language?

Several; The Septuagint contains more books than the Palestinian version and is about three hundred years older. The Palestinian Version originated approximately around 106 A.D.  and is different from the Hebrew texts that were the basis for the Septuagint translation.

7.  Why does the Septuagint have more books than the Palestinian version?

The translators had a well-founded belief that these books were inspired.

8.  Were these added books accepted by the Hebrews?

Yes, but only up until 106 A.D., when the Palestinian, known also as the pharisaic version, became the norm.

9.  Was the Septuagint Version much in use in Our Lord's time?

It was used not only by the Greek-speaking Jews but also by the Palestinian Jews; Our Lord and the Apostles frequently quoted it.

10.  Did this Greek translation of the Bible help to spread Christianity?

It helped very much, because Gentiles, particularly the Greek philosophers, had ?ead it, and had knowledge of the prophecies referring to the Messiah, with the result that when St.  Paul preached to them, many converts were made.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Lesson 10:
The Vulgate

1.  Name again the languages of the Old Testament before the time of Christ. 

Hebrew and Greek.

2.  In what languages did the Apostles write their Gospels and Epistles?

They wrote their Gospels and Epistles in Greek, except St. Matthew, who wrote his Gospel in Aramaic.

3.  How did translations in languages other than Hebrew and Greek come into existence?

As Catholicism spread among peoples of different languages, the demand for the Bible in their various languages grew.

4.  Name some of the earlier languages into which the Bible was translated. 

Armenian, Syrian, Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopian.

5.  Was the Bible translated into Latin?

Many translations into Latin were made during the early Catholic centuries.

6.  Were these Latin translations satisfactory?

No; many inaccuracies existed, due to errors of the copyists, or errors of translation caused by a poor understanding of the original language.

7.  Which of the Latin translations was the best known?

The best known Latin translation was either the "Old African" or the "Old Italian" (Vetus Itala).

8.  What was the result of the general dissatisfaction with these Latin translations?

Pope Damasus (Pope from 366 to 384) commissioned St. Jerome to make a new and accurate translation.

9.  How did St Jerome go about this work?

He studied carefully the Hebrew and Greek versions, and from these made his new translation.

10.  By what name is the Latin translation of St.  Jerome known?

It is known as the Vulgate Version.  Vulgate means common or vulgar in Latin and it was called so because Latin was the common tongue of the Western Roman Empire.

11.  Does the Vulgate have the Church's special approval?

The Council of Trent (Italy) in 1546 declared it to be the only authentic and official version for the Latin Rite: " The same Sacred and Holy Synod ...  hereby declares and enacts that the same well-known Old Latin Vulgate edition ...  is to be held authentic in public readings, disputations,sermons, and expositions, and that no one shall dare or presume to reject it under any pretense whatsoever." (DZ.  785).  It is still the official Catholic Bible today.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Lesson 11:
The Douay Bible

1.  Is there a Catholic translation of the Bible in English?

Yes, it is the translation known as the Douay-Rheims Version. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

2.  Why is it called "Douay-Rheims"?

Because it was begun at Rheims and finished at Douay in 1582-1609 by a group of English priests exiled in France.

3.  What happened in the sixteenth century to cause the publication of a reliable and accurate translation?

During the Protestant "Deformation" in England many false translations had been made, hence there was great necessity of placing in the hands of Catholics a reliable and accurate translation.

4.  Is it true that the Bible was never translated into vernacular languages before the Protestant Deformation?

It is not true; the first translation known in England was the translation into Anglo-Saxon made by Venerable Bede in the eighth century.  There is a Gothic translation, made by a certain bishop Ulfilas around 1380.  The first German translation predates Luther by a good fifty years.

5.  Why do Protestants assert that the Bible was never translated before the Deformation?

Through a mixture of ignorance and bad faith.

6.  What is the most well known of the false?English Protestant translations?

It is the version called the "King James," named after the King who commissioned it in 1604.  It was finished in 1611.  It is still the most popular of the Protestant Bibles in the English speaking world.

7.  What is wrong with the "King James" version?

Like all the Protestant Bibles, it is incomplete and poorly translated.  It is a "Pick and choose" version.  Such is the real lack of respect of the "Reformers" for the word of God!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Lesson 12:
The Bible And Science

1.  Is the Bible a book of science?

The Bible is not a book of science, and was never intended to answer the purpose of a book of science.

2.  Does the Bible teach anything that has to do with science?

Yes, the Bible mentions many things that have to do with science.

3.  Name one biblical account that touches on science. 

The account of the Creation in the Book of Genesis touches on many branches of science.

4.  Does not the Bible contain many things that science has proved false?

Since God is the author of the Bible and also, the foundation of true science, the Bible cannot err when it touches on science.

5.  How, then, are we to account for the apparent contradictions between the Bible and science?

In many ways, for example: some so-called scientific findings are false; others are mere unsubstantiated theories (Evolution); while still others, when properly examined, do not contradict the biblical narrative.

6.  Is not the Bible statement that the sun stood still in the heavens (Jos.  10, 13) an example of obvious error?

No, we must remember that the Bible was written in every-day language of the time, not in scientific terms.  Even to this day, for example, we speak of sunset even though the sun is not setting anywhere and we know that the Earth is turning around the Sun and not vice-versa.

7.  Can one be a great scientist and still be a firm believer in the Bible?

Yes, there have been and are now many great Catholic scientists, believing firmly in the Bible.

8.  Name some scientists who, at the same time, believed firmly in the Bible. 

Copernicus (a priest), Pascal, Gauss, Ampere, Pasteur, Marconi, to name just a few.

9.  Does the Catholic Church discourage the study of science as being opposed to the Bible?

Nonsense; on the contrary, the Catholic Church has always encouraged science; some of her most eminent children have also been leaders in science.

10.  Can science be of any help to Bible study?

True science can help Bible study in interpreting some difficult passages.

11.  Is the Bible helpful in the study of science?

As a lighthouse helps a ship at sea, so does the Bible help scientists.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Lesson 13:
The Bible And History

1.  Is the Bible an historical book?

The Bible is not an historical book per se; it is primarily a religious book; but it does contain a certain amount of historical teaching, which benefits from inerrancy, like all the rest of the Bible.

2.  Why would historical teachings benefit from inerrancy?

A great number of historical facts are intimately united to our Faith in such a way that one cannot deny the historical facts in the Bible, without denying the Faith.

3.  Give an example of such a connection between our faith and history. 

The historical fact of the Resurrection of Our Lord cannot be denied without denying our Faith at the same time, for: "...  If Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith also is vain ..." (I Cor.  XV, 14).

4.  How are we to account for the apparent contradictions between the Bible and his?ory?

There are several reasons which account for these apparent contradictions:
- Most of the time the apparent contradiction is due, either to a poor understanding of the text, or to a poor understanding of the context.
- When this is not the case and we have historical sources which contradict the Bible, it is the Bible which, time after time, is finally proven right.

5.  Give an example of the Bible being proven right against historians. 

Barely two hundred years ago, most of the non-Catholic historians denied the existence of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires, because the only known historical references of the time came from the Bible.  The archaeological excavations of the last century not only proved the existence of both empires, but located their capital cities: Babylon and Ninive.  No self-respecting historian will doubt the existence of these civilizations now.

6.  So the Bible is always historically correct?

Yes, it is undoubtedly better to take God at His Word, than any self-proclaimed "Expert historian." Most of the historians who cling to an historical interpretation which contradict the Bible, do so because of their religious prejudices, and not for any serious historical or scientific reasons.

7.  Can history be of any help to the study of the Holy Scriptures?

Yes; a good historical background is very useful for a proper understanding of many parts of the Bible.

8.  Is the Bible helpful in the study of history?

Yes: both as an historical source and as a guideline to avoid errors.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Lesson 14:
Interpreting The Bible

1.  Is the meaning of the Bible so clear that anyone reading it, can readily understand it?

The Bible is by no means so easily understood: St.  Peter himself tells us that it contains many things: "...  hard to be understood ..." (II Pet.  III,16).

2.  Whom do we have to interpret the Bible for us?

The Catholic Church interprets the Bible for us.

3.  Is it natural that we should have a guide in interpreting the Bible?

Quite natural, just as in America, we have the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution of the United States.  The difference is that the Church is infallible and the Supreme Court is not!

4.  So the Church cannot make mistakes in interpreting the Bible?

No, for she is under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

5.  How does that guidance manifest itself?

Through Tradition, the teachings of the Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, and of learned men.

6.  Do Protestants acknowledge the interpretation of the Church or of any other authority?

No; Protestants hold that anyone who reads the Bible in the proper spirit will be guided by the Holy Ghost in interpretation.

7.  Is this belief of Protestants a sensible one?

No; it is against the Bible, against Tradition, against reason.

8.  How is it against reason?

Because the result of this belief has been that, as many interpretations exist as there are individual thinkers, and many of these interpretations contradict each other; since the Holy Ghost cannot contradict Himself, He cannot be the guide of these interpretations, and therefore, this belief of these Protestants is false.

9.  How is it against Tradition?

The constant Tradition of the Church since Apostolic times is that the proper interpretation of the Word of God belongs to the Church founded by Him, i.e., the Catholic Church; and as St Paul tells us, we have to: "...  stand fast: and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.  ..." (II Thes.  II, 14).

10.  How is it against the Bible?

St.  Peter warns us that in the Bi?le, there are: "...  things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and the unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.  ..." (II Pet.  III,16).  Now, if the Holy Ghost was inspiring personally, every individual reader of Scripture, what St Peter tells us would be impossible, because obviously, no one can read the Bible for their own destruction, and be inspired by the Holy Ghost at the same time.  Since it is certain that St Peter was inspired by the Holy Ghost when he wrote that, it means that there is no personal inspiration from the Holy Ghost while reading the Bible; and that this Protestant belief cannot be true, since it contradicts the Bible.

11.  Is the accusation that Catholics have no freedom of interpretation in biblical matters true?

In a material or literal sense, it is true, exactly as in any well-regulated society, nobody has the "freedom" to kill, maim, and loot.  In a spiritual sense, it is quite the opposite, for St.  John reminds us that: "...  the truth shall make you free ..." (Jn.  VIII, 32), and thanks to the vigilance of the Church, Catholics do enjoy freedom from error, which cannot be the case with the Protestants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Lesson 15:
Reading The Bible

1.  Are we under any obligation to read the Bible?

We are under no obligation to read the Bible.

2.  Are Catholics forbidden to read the Bible?

By no means; on the contrary, all Catholics are urged to read the Bible.

3.  Besides ordinary benefits, what do those gain who read portions of the Bible every day?

"A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful, who with the veneration due to the divine word make a spiritual reading from Sacred Scripture.  A plenary indulgence is granted, if this reading is continued for at least one half an hour." (Enchiridion of Indulgences.  Authorized English edition.  1969.  Catholic Book Publishers.  New York.  Page 68.  # 50)

4.  Is the Bible ever read for Catholics?

During every single Mass of every single day, portions of one of the Gospels and of some other book of the Bible, often the Epistles, are read.  Many of the prayers of the Missal come from the Bible.

5.  Who is bound to read the Bible daily?

All those who have received Major Orders, and those belonging to certain orders of monks or nuns, are bound to read parts of the Bible daily.

6.  What is such reading called?

It is called "saying the Holy Office" or "reciting the Breviary."

7.  What portions of the Bible are read by those who are bound to it?

In the course of the week the complete Book of the Psalms is read, while in the course of the year a good part of the Bible, together with commentaries of some parts, is read.

8.  Is the reading of the Bible profitable?

The reading of the Bible is most profitable, for such readings elevate our thoughts and lift them nearer to God.

9.  In what spirit should the Bible be read?

It should be read in the spirit in which it was written, i.e., not out of idle curiosity or for the sake of the language and literature, but humbly and devoutly, for instruction and enlightenment.

10.  May Catholics read any version of the Bible they choose?

No; Catholics are forbidden to read false versions, just as they are forbidden to read bad books.  The same principle is to be applied by analogy to many so-called "Modern Catholic" versions of the Bible because they depart considerably from the only official Bible of the Church, which is the Vulgate, and they were written with a Modernist and Ecumenical motivation, more aimed at pacifying Protestants than for the edification of the Catholic faithful.

11.  How is the Bible read most profitably?

Eith?r under a professor's guidance or with the aid of a reliable commentary.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Lesson 16:
Differences Between Catholic And Protestant Versions

1.  Does the Catholic version of the Bible differ from Protestant versions?

Yes, in many ways.

2.  What is the most noticeable difference?

The most noticeable difference is the absence of seven whole books and parts of two others from the Protestant versions.

3.  What books are not contained in the Protestant version?

The Deutero-Canonical Books (See lesson 6).

4.  Why are the Deutero-Canonical Books Omitted by Protestants?

Because the Protestant versions of the Bible follow the late Palestinian version of the Bible, which also omits these books (See lesson 8).

5.  Name another difference between the Catholic and Protestant versions. 

Many important arbitrary changes are found in the texts of the Protestant Bible.  According to some scholars, the most popular Protestant Bibles have literally hundreds of mistranslations, additions and omissions.

6.  To what do such changes of text lead?

They lead to an entirely different interpretation from the one intended by the Sacred Writer.

7.  Give an example of this change of text. 

In Ephesians 2:8, St Paul says, "For by grace you are saved through faith ...", and the New King James version reads, "For by grace you have been saved through faith ..."

8.  Why were the Reformers so anxious to change texts?

They were anxious to change texts to give force to the particular doctrine of their choice.

9.  Should that behavior of the Reformers raise some questions in our mind?

Yes, what did they believe exactly concerning the Bible? Either they did not believe it was the Word of God, and therefore felt free to change it any which way; or if they did believe it was the Word of God, it took a lot of pride and presumption to correct God's word.  In either case, they should be called "Deformers" rather than Reformers.

10.  Name other differences between the King James version and the Douay version. 

The King James version has a preference for words of Anglo-Saxon origin whereas the Douay version freely uses words of Latin origin.  The Douay version latinizes the name of some books while the King James gives what they thought at the time to be the Hebrew name.  Many Protestant versions other than King James omit the Epistle of St.  James.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Lesson 17:
Materials Used In Composing The Bible

1.  What has become of the original copies of the Bible?

They have been either destroyed or lost.

2.  What were the causes of destruction or loss?

Many, particularly persecution and the fragility of the materials used, which did not withstand the ravages of time.

3.  How was persecution a cause for the loss or destruction of the originals?

Sometimes the Christians themselves destroyed the original to prevent profanation at the hands of the pagan persecutors; some other times they were found and destroyed by the pagans.  The persecution of Decius (Roman Emperor from 249 to 251) was particularly vicious in this regard.

4.  If the originals have been lost, how do we know whether what we possess now are accurate copies?

We know from Tradition, History and the teaching authority of the Church, that we possess accurate copies of the originals.

5.  What material was used in the writing of the Bible?

Before the invention of paper, papyrus, and vellum or parchment were used.

6.  What is papyrus?

Papyrus is the substance made from reeds of bull-rushes; a plant particularly abundant in the valley?of the Nile in Egypt.  Two layers were placed at right angles to each other and glued together.  It was used mainly before the Christian era.

7.  What is parchment or vellum?

The skin of animals, preferably goats and calves, especially prepared for writing.

8.  What was used in lieu of a pen?

For writing on papyrus, reeds were used, and for vellum, a stylus or metal pen.

9.  Were the books of the Bible bound as are our books?

No, they were rolled around a stick, hence we read of Our Lord rolling and unrolling the Scriptures in the Temple.  When documents are in that form (rolled), they are usually called scrolls.

10.  What style of writing was used?

Up to around the third century A.D.  only capital letters were used.  There was no separation between words, no division between chapters, and no division between verses.  This style was call the Uncial style.

11.  What style was used after the third century A.D.?

The style known as the Cursive style.  There was still no spacing between words, but capitals were introduced at the beginning of sentences.

12.  When were the books divided into chapters?

This was done by Stephen Langton (+ 1228).  Chancellor of the University of Paris until 1213, when he became Archbishop of Canterbury (England).

13.  When were the chapters divided into verses?

Even more recently; this was done by the French printer Robert Estienne (1503-1559).

14.  What was the first book printed after the invention of the printing press?

The first book printed around 1455 by Gutenberg, the inventor of the printing press, was the Catholic Bible in Latin (Vulgate).  It has been a best-seller ever since.

[winsome]

To Know is to Serve,

As HRoberson has clearly exposed you have left the Catholic Church and become a Protestant.

I urge you to foget this Sedevacantist nonesense, repent and return to the Catholic Church.

We would welcome you back.

God bless

Winsome.

[FireSword]

To Know is to Serve,

As HRoberson has clearly exposed you have left the Catholic Church and become a Protestant.

I urge you to foget this Sedevacantist nonesense, repent and return to the Catholic Church.

We would welcome you back.

God bless

Winsome.

He's not a protestant. A protestant increases faith and preaches to the lost. He's typical of many catholics of pre reformation, one reason I will not join, too many legalists, even after the reformation help introduce grace and other blessings to the Catholic church, but some still cling to the old ways.

[e.r.m.]

That Church Jesus founded is Catholic, Will you become A Traditional Catholic and work out your salvation with fear and trembling in the hope of saving your soul.   
Th
In the scenario above, will you become a Traditional Catholic to avoid the eternal pains of Hell Fire?

Only a fool will end up in Hell for denying the Catholic Church Jesus founded, especially when its history as the One True Church Jesus founded is so well documented.

The New Testament church became the Catholic Church. It didn't start off that way. The New Testament Church did not ask dead saints to pray for them and they did not kill heretics. The New Testament Church did not call themselves the universal church. The apostles taught that salvation was through Jesus, they didn't teach that salvation was through the church.

[MeMyself]

Only people who die Catholic have a chance at getting to heaven.

This is a lie.  Scripture has been shared and in Christ's own words that HE is the only way to heaven.

[e.r.m.]

To Know is to Serve,

As HRoberson has clearly exposed you have left the Catholic Church and become a Protestant.

I urge you to foget this Sedevacantist nonesense, repent and return to the Catholic Church.

We would welcome you back.

God bless

Winsome.

Is the church more important than Christ from whom the church comes?

[Man_Of_Honor]

Focus from OP is aimed towards a man-made church. Not on the Lord's Church, Body of Christ.

[winsome]

To Know is to Serve,

As HRoberson has clearly exposed you have left the Catholic Church and become a Protestant.

I urge you to foget this Sedevacantist nonesense, repent and return to the Catholic Church.

We would welcome you back.

God bless

Winsome.

Is the church more important than Christ from whom the church comes?

Why do you ask such a question in reply to my post to To Know is to Serve?

[notreligus]

John 14: 6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 10:9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture.

John 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die;

Acts 4:11-12 Jesus is "'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.'Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved."

Quite clear that it is through Jesus we are saved, no need to worry about hell if you don't deny the One who truly saves. (That would be Christ, not what church you attend)

+1

[e.r.m.]

To Know is to Serve,

As HRoberson has clearly exposed you have left the Catholic Church and become a Protestant.

I urge you to foget this Sedevacantist nonesense, repent and return to the Catholic Church.

We would welcome you back.

God bless

Winsome.

Is the church more important than Christ from whom the church comes?

Why do you ask such a question in reply to my post to To Know is to Serve?

To Know is to Serve,

As HRoberson has clearly exposed you have left the Catholic Church and become a Protestant.

I urge you to foget this Sedevacantist nonesense, repent and return to the Catholic Church.

We would welcome you back.

God bless

Winsome.

Is the church more important than Christ from whom the church comes?

Why do you ask such a question in reply to my post to To Know is to Serve?

Sorry, I realize now that you were quoting. My apologies.

[Alan]

There should be a "religion" board for these kinds of nonsense threads, moderator governed of course 

[HRoberson]

http://www.fatherwathen.com/

Thank you, the good Father seems to have been a nice man. It was tragic reading his updates.

Even so, the site is a mixed bag and doesn't adequately address my interests. There is too much having to wade through conspiracy theories, pastoral concerns and whatnot. Perhaps there is a site that might be organized like this:

Title: Why the Catholic Church After Vatican 2 is Not the Real Catholic Church
Point 1: Vatican 2 teaches......(with citations to relevant V2 documents and texts)
Point A: True Catholic Church teaching is..... (with citations to relevant documents)
...
...
Point 400: Why Catholics don't need to submit to the acts of V2 even though it was a validly convened and validly ratified by the Vicar of Christ, and endorsed and taught by the Magisterium. (with citations to appropriate church documents that would give the TC's authority to opt out of a validly approved conciliar decision).

I will observe that all the Bishops who convened V2 had been validly ordained and constituted prior to the council, and certainly the Vicar who called it was Vicar already when he convened the council. At what point did these men lose their apostolic charism so that you now feel justified in blowing them off?

Is there a site that could do this for me?

[e.r.m.]

That Church Jesus founded is Catholic, Will you become A Traditional Catholic and work out your salvation with fear and trembling in the hope of saving your soul.   

In the scenario above, will you become a Traditional Catholic to avoid the eternal pains of Hell Fire?

Only a fool will end up in Hell for denying the Catholic Church Jesus founded, especially when its history as the One True Church Jesus founded is so well documented.

Is the church more important than Christ from whom the church comes?

[e.r.m.]

Not one word about a church denomination.

Would you like to read some historical documentation? 

Ummm, no thanks. I've the Word of God, and that's more than sufficient for me. :)

Do you believe all Jesus teaches?

Where did jesus teach Salvation through Jesus is salvation through the Church?