Ten Facts Most Catholics Don’t Know (But Should!)

by Gary Zimak on July 9, 2010 · 117 comments

Every time I hear someone claim to be an “ex-Catholic”, a sense of sadness comes over me.  In just about every case, people leave the Catholic Faith due to a lack of understanding.  After all, if Catholics truly believed that they were members of the one, true Church founded by Christ (and necessary for their salvation), nobody would ever leave!  In an effort to help clarify what the Catholic Church teaches, I have compiled a list of 10 important facts that every Catholic should know.  More than simply Catholic trivia, these are important concepts that can help us to better understand and defend our beliefs.  In no particular order, these items have been compiled based upon my work at Following The Truth and my own study of the Catholic Faith.

1. Women Will Never Be Priests – Often incorrectly lumped in with the subject of married priests, this is a doctrine that has been infallibly decided and will not change.  In 1994, Pope John Paul II issued an Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in which he declared once and for all that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”  Unlike the issue of married priests (which could possibly change), women’s ordination is an impossibility that will not happen.  It is not a “glass ceiling” or the Church’s attempt to hold back women.  Instead, it is an infallible recognition that men and women have different roles and that Christ instituted a male priesthood.

2. Fridays Are Still Days Of Penance – Ask almost anyone and they will tell you that Catholics are no longer required to abstain from meat on Fridays throughout the year.  However, the current Code of Canon Law (CIC) states that, with the exception of solemnities, “All Fridays through the year and the time of Lent are penitential days and times throughout the entire Church.” (CIC 1250)  Furthermore, “Abstinence from eating meat or another food according to the prescriptions of the conference of bishops is to be observed on Fridays throughout the year unless they are solemnities.” (CIC 1251)  In the United States, the bishops have declared that it is permissible to substitute some other form of penance, but we are still urged to fast from “something” in remembrance of the Lord’s death on the cross.

3. The Bible Is A Catholic Book – Did you ever wonder how the Bible came into being?  A little known, but easily documented fact is that the books of the Bible were compiled by the Catholic Church.  For many years after Christ ascended into Heaven, there was debate about which scriptural writings were inspired by God.  The canon of Scripture (the books of the Bible) was first formally decided at the Synod of Rome in 382.  This decision was upheld at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397).  At these Catholic Church councils, the same 46 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books that appear in today’s Catholic Bibles were declared to be inspired by God.  As a side note, approximately 1200 years after this decision was made, Martin Luther and the Protestant reformers removed 7 books from the Old Testament.  As a result, most Protestant Bibles are still missing these 7 books.

4. The Mass Is The Same Sacrifice As Calvary – The biggest mistake that many Catholics make is treating the Holy Mass as “just another church service”, similar to those held by other religions.  In the Mass, Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross is made present, its memory is celebrated and its saving power is applied.  The Council of Trent teaches that Christ left a visible sacrifice to His Church “in which that bloody sacrifice which was once offered on the Cross should be made present, its memory preserved to the end of the world, and its salvation-bringing power applied to the forgiveness of the sins which are daily committed by us.”  When we attend Mass, we are mystically transported to Calvary, where we can unite ourselves with the Lord’s Sacrifice to the Father!

5. Annulments Are Not Catholic Divorces – Unlike the legal process known as “divorce” (in which a marriage is terminated), a declaration of nullity (annulment) states that a valid marriage never existed.  This decision is based upon the finding that on the day that marriage vows were exchanged, some essential elements were lacking.  This process is completely in conformity with the Catholic teaching regarding the indissolubility of marriage.  Incidentally, the granting of an annulment does not render children illegitimate.

6. In Vitro Fertilization Is Morally Unacceptable – Many Catholics suffering from infertility utilize this process in the hopes of conceiving children, while remaining unaware that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) declares it “morally unacceptable”(CCC 2377).  In the Vatican Instruction, Donum Vitae, the Church states “…in conformity with the traditional doctrine relating to the goods of marriage and the dignity of the person, the Church remains opposed from the moral point of view to homologous ‘in vitro’ fertilization. Such fertilization is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo.”

7. There Is No Salvation Outside Of The Catholic Church – Originally stated by St. Cyprian, the Latin axiom “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” reminds us that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.  This dogma was declared at the Fourth Lateran Council and is a source of confusion for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.  According to the Catechism, all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is His Body.  It does not mean that non-Catholics cannot achieve salvation.  Individuals who are unaware that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church may still achieve salvation through the merits of the Church, despite their lack of knowledge.

8. In An Emergency, Anyone Can Baptize – Although the ordinary ministers of Baptism are bishops, priests and deacons, anyone can baptize in an emergency, even a non-baptized person.  This extraordinary decision can be attributed to the necessity of Baptism for salvation and the Church’s desire to make it readily available to all.

9. Hell And Purgatory Still Exist –  Contrary to the belief of many Catholics, the Church still teaches that “the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin, descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, eternal fire” (CCC 1035)  Furthermore, “all who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation, but after death they undergo purification, so to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.” (CCC 1030)  This purification process, formally declared by the Church at the Councils of Florence and Trent, is known as Purgatory.

10. Catholics Don’t Worship Mary And The Saints – Many Catholics are confused about the role of the Blessed Mother and the Saints.  Should we pray to Mary and the Saints or should we go “right to the top” and pray to God?  In a nutshell, the Catholic Faith teaches that we must worship God alone.  Mary and the Saints are to be honored, not worshipped.  However, their intercession can be extremely powerful and emulating their virtues can put us on the road to Heaven.

While the above list only scratches the surface of the robust Catholic Faith, it provides a glimpse into the depth of Catholic teaching.  Further explanation on these and other topics can be found by examining the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, both of which can be found online at the Vatican website (www.vatican.va).  Not only will studying the teachings of the Catholic Church enable us to better defend her when challenged, it will help us to become closer to Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, who founded our Church 2,000 years ago.

By Gary Zimak

Newer Comments →
  • Joe DeVet

    Thank you! Pretty basic stuff that “most Catholics” don’t know. I would add these:

    1) Contraception is intrinsically evil and therefore objectively sinful in all circumstances (based on same principle which makes ivf wrong even if no baby’s life is lost.)

    2) Formal cooperation in evil, and in appropriate circumstances material cooperation in evil both bear the same culpability as the evil act itself. Thus, referring or counseling for abortions or taking part in the legalization of abortion is gravely wrong. (I daresay most Catholics don’t understand why pro-abortion politicians should not receive communion.)

    3) It is wrong to do evil in order to bring about a perceived “greater good”, but under the right circumstances it may be moral to do something which itself is not wrong but which brings about an unintended bad consequence (double effect.) This seems obscure, but it is necessary for people to understand the recent abortion brouhaha involving Bishop Olmsted was all about.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Ten Facts Most Catholics Don’t Know (But Should!)  | Catholic Exchange -- Topsy.com

  • consecrata

    Thanks for your response Joe…this ‘formal cooperation with evil’ is not known by many Catholics. Joe Biden even went to Kenya to urge them to allow abortion to be legalized through their constitution telling them that if they did, then the money would flow to them…Nancy Pelosi rabidly supports abortion and advocates for abortion legislation at every opportunity…Arch. Burke, the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatorum in Rome, the highest Vatican Court, who is himself a Canon lawyer, has stated over and over and over again that Canon Law states that those like Pelosi and Biden must not be permitted to receive Communion, and that this is not a matter of Bishops’ opinions…yet, our Bishops do not enforce this because some of the Bishops say that this would be to politicize the Eucharist. I think that the failure to enforce this is politicizing the Eucharist – also, it is cutting off a way of conversion for those who are entrenched in supporting abortion…Nancy Pelosi once stated that if her Bishop were to tell her she could not receive the Eucharist because of her pro abortion stance, she would have been devastated. Perhaps that would have been the catalyst for conversion…a child who is engaged in harmful behavior and is told by his parents that he must stop and yet continues in his destructive behavior and is given no consequences will conclude that his behavior is no big deal…I believe that if the Bishops would take a stand and refuse the Eucharist to all those who publicly promote abortion there would be a radical change of heart on the part of some Catholic politicians who, at this time, are using the Bishops lack of courage as an excuse to let all know that the Catholic Church is on their side…even calling in radical anti Church Catholic organizations to support their point of view…this is not about punishment but conversion, about showing the grave moral evil as the taking of human life, the genocide of the human race…we need to pray that our Bishops will act before millions more human babies are exterminated in the wombs of their mothers.

  • Linda S

    I am a returning Catholic. I left because of the priest abuse which happened in my parish. Should you not be asking why people leave the church? Have they been hurt by the church? Will lists of church teachings help people return to the church? I know church rules did not bring me back. I would have looked at your list and ask why are you trying to hurt me more. Even though your list speaks of truth, I know it was the gentle love of Jesus that brought me back. I believe the Holy Spirit tugged at me for years to return to the truths of the Church. Once I was open to returning the Holy Spirit prompted me to study, take classes, and to learn the authentic teachings of the Church. Christ provided me gentle nonjudgmental people who lovingly guided me. I suggest compassion and prayer will work miracles in helping our fallen away brothers and sisters. May the peace of God’s love be with you.

  • rsmaxwell

    Linda S: While what you say is true, I have two questions. One, why would this list hurt you? And, two, why is this article failing to win back fallen away Catholics? I ask because I don’t think that this was intended to bring fallen away Catholics back into the fold, so I’m curious as to why this was brought up.

  • Jerry Rhino

    Gary,
    You wrote, “Often incorrectly lumped in with the subject of married priests, this is a doctrine that has been infallibly decided and will not change. In 1994, Pope John Paul II issued an Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in which he declared once and for all that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
    My investigation as to infallible papal declarations, in order to document them, has turned up little. Besides these three, I have found little in the last two hundred years which theologians have apparently agreed upon:
    1 Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;

    2 Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception;

    3 Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.

    Would you inform us of how you made the determination that this was an infallible declaration, and where one might find a definitive list?

  • johnpaul87

    Here is what you said about no salvation outside the CC ; “Individuals who are unaware that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church may still achieve salvation through the merits of the Church, despite their lack of knowledge.” Youre not getting off the hook that easy. What is it ? No salvation outside the CC or there is salvation outside? What is this merits thing? You sure dismissed that subject real fast, and its the the utmost important subject on earth. Will someone get to heaven or not. All the rest is just smoke and mirrors. Rituals and dos and donts, none of that matters. Are you going to heaven. How are these merits given to people. I want to know cause i might need them.

  • noelfitz

    Apostolic Letters are not infallible. The Pope is infallible only when he speaks ex cathedra. The last time a pope spoke in this way was when the Assumption of Our Lady was defined by Pius XII in 1950.

  • v4victory

    Decent selection of concepts. A good start on a big job. I frequently make apologia for the sacraments.

  • http://followingthetruth.com Gary Zimak

    noelfitz and Jerry Rhino: Thanks for the comments, but you are overlooking the fact that the Church can teach infallibly by virtue of the Ordinary Magisterium and that’s what Pope John Paul II was doing in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. In fact, then-Cardinal Ratzinger (the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) and now Pope Benedict XVI, addressed the infallibility of Pope JP II’s statement on the male priesthood in his letter of October 28, 1995:

    Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

    Responsum: In the affirmative.

    This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

    The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

    Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.

    Joseph Card. Ratzinger
    Prefect

  • http://followingthetruth.com Gary Zimak

    Linda S: First of all, welcome back to the Catholic Church! This article was my attempt to highlight some misunderstood and little known teachings of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, many Catholics leave the Church because they don’t understand her teachings. For instance, if one understands that the Holy Mass is the Lord’s sacrifice at Calvary made present and that He is there Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity…do you think they would ever leave to join another church just because they may have better music or more dynamic preaching? While I’m in no way diminishing the harm done by the priestly abuse crisis, if one understands that the perfect Church founded by Jesus is made up of imperfect sinners then they would be much less likely to leave her. Just as the Jewish people revered the Law of the Lord (Look especially at Psalm 119), we can see the “gentle love of Jesus” in the teachings of His Church. Rather than looking at Church teachings as “rules”, I recommend that you view them as the Lord Jesus communicating directly with us. In that way, we can experience His loving care for each of us as He shows us the way to Eternal Life!

  • http://followingthetruth.com Gary Zimak

    johnpaul87, I apologize for the brevity of some of my explanations, but I had a lot of material to cover in a rather limited amount of space. I’m glad that you questioned this statement, because it can be complicated. Essentially, this is what is known as “invincible ignorance” which states that if someone is not familiar with the teachings of Christ or is not aware that the Catholic Church is the one, true way to salvation, then it is still possible for them to be saved. However, if one does know that the Church is necessary for salvation and they leave, then they could be “in trouble”. It gives us a great example of the Lord’s mercy. As I mentioned in the article, the Fourth Lateran Council declared that “The universal Church of the faithful is one outside of which none is saved.” Expanding on that idea, in the encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII stated “Nevertheless equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord.” Thanks again for your comments and I hope that this clears things up a bit.

  • http://www.catholicexchange.com Mary Kochan

    Also, whatever saving grace anyone, inside or outside of the Church receives, still comes through the Church. That is why we offer the Mass for all those whom the Son has gained for the Father and for all those whose faith is known to God alone.

  • johnpaul87

    Thanks gary for the reply. Dont take this personal, but yes, it cleared up something for me. Hard line catholics stand on the no salvation outside the CC idea. Not catholic, no heaven. You say some pope expanded on this. Fancy way of saying that this doctrine is wrong and an embarrasment. The CC maintains its teachings are infallable. Since you cant unsay something, you have to expand on it. 500 yrs ago the common man tended to believe anything said by a man in a fancy glittery robe and a tall funny looking hat. Well, that dont work anymore. Let me re state that. Modern man doesnt believe things that are obvious scams. But lots of modern men still fall for scams. Im not making much sinse. Now a days you get people fired up for saying politically incorrect things, like all Jews are going to hell, which is what the CC doctrine says. So its time to revise that doctrine. Time to admit that CC doctrine is not infallable. Anyway, Jesus said that you must be born again to enter heaven, so that is between each person and his maker, not up to some organization to dole out salvation.

  • http://www.catholicexchange.com Mary Kochan

    johnpaul87, how do you know Jesus said you have to be born again?

    What does it mean to be born again and how do you know it means that?

  • johnpaul87

    Hi Mary! How do i know Jesus said you have to be born again? Im taking the bibles word for it. I believe whats in that book because i have testes it and stood on the promises that are made. Havent you read any of the 4 gospels? In them, Jesus says you must be born again to enter into the kingdom of god. He goes on to explain that the unsaved man is eathly and cannot understand the ways of the spirit. This soul will not go to the kingdom. He goes on to say that only that which came down from heaven will go back up to heaven. When you are born again Jesus gives you a new spirit. One from heaven. Then you can see and understand the things of the spirit. Jesus said to make no mistake, the spirit blinds the natural man to the bible. Thats why people read it and still have unbiblical ideas and practices. Read the gospels and ask Jesus to give you this new spirit. He says he will,so believe.

  • http://followingthetruth.com Gary Zimak

    johnpaul87, I don’t take your comments personally at all! In fact, I welcome them and am pleased that you took the time to comment on my article. Firstly, I have to correct something that I wrote in my previous comment. The Papal citation was actually from Pope Pius IX and came from “Singulari quandem” on Dec 9, 1854. Pope Pius XII did address the topic in “Mystici Corporis”, but not in those words. I was a little cross-eyed when I was typing last night:-)

    As far as some of your other points about the Church “reversing doctrine”, I have to disagree with you. Doctrine can develop over time, but it does not change. There is still no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church (established by Christ) is still the only means for salvation. However, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Holy Mother Church has expanded on that doctrine and stated that it is POSSIBLE (not certain, but POSSIBLE) for non-Catholics to be saved, HOWEVER that salvation still comes through the merits of the Church.

    It’s obvious that you revere the Holy Bible and that’s a good thing because it is the written Word of God. However, your use of the Bible indirectly implies your submission to the authority of the Catholic Church. As mentioned in my article, this is because the Catholic Church was responsible for compiling the Bible. That’s one reason why the Protestant doctrine of sola-scriptura is so flawed. If the Bible alone is all that is needed for salvation, where in the Bible does it list the books that should be in the Bible? I’m sure you’ll agree that it doesn’t. Rather, an outside authority (namely the Catholic Church) decided (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) which books were considered to be inspired.

    As you stated to me, I hope you don’t take my comments personally. It’s obvoius that you’re a good person who is seeking the truth and I trust that you’ll recognize the same desire in me. Good, friendly dialog about the Lord is ALWAYS a good thing!

  • http://www.catholicexchange.com Mary Kochan

    LOL, johnpaul87, of course I have read the Gospels. My first question to you was for the sake of showing the point that Gary made above. Without the Catholic Church you have no Bible.

    My second question was to show that you would need to interpret the wrods of Jesus to mean SOMETHING. What that something you interpret them to mean is going to be based on your own ideas or the ideas of some preacher you have listened to or some book you have read. I notice that you do not connect being born again with baptism, even though that is the biblical connection:

    In John 3:5 Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of WATER and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Do you understand that Jesus is referring to baptism? See also: Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:12–13; Titus 3:5.

    Ah, but how do we Catholics know that that we have the correct understanding — not just the experential meaning you seem to be giving it. We know because the early Christians, who identified themselves as Catholic, who knew the apostles and had been taught by them to understand the meaning of scripture universally understood it just that way.

    No Church Father referred to John 3:5 as anything other than water baptism. Here are just a few examples.

    Justin Martyr

    “As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]” (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

    Irenaeus

    “‘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’” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

    Tertullian

    “[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life’” (Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).

    Hippolytus

    “The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and he, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the Spirit of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all ye kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism” (Discourse on the Holy Theophany 8 [A.D. 217]).

    The Recognitions of Clement

    “But you will perhaps say, ‘What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?’ In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: ‘Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’” (The Recognitions of Clement 6:9 [A.D. 221]).

    Testimonies Concerning the Jews

    “That unless a man have been baptized and born again, he cannot attain unto the kingdom of God. In the Gospel according to John: ‘Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ [John 3:5]. . . . Also in the same place: ‘Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you’ [John 6:53]. That it is of small account to be baptized and to receive the Eucharist, unless one profit by it both in deeds and works” (Testimonies Concerning the Jews 3:2:25–26 [A.D. 240]).

    Cyprian of Carthage

    “[When] they receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’” (Letters 71[72]:1 [A.D. 253]).

    Council of Carthage VII

    “And in the gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with his divine voice, saying, ‘Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ . . . Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ” (Seventh Carthage [A.D. 256]).

    Cyril of Jerusalem

    “Since man is of a twofold nature, composed of body and soul, the purification also is twofold: the corporeal for the corporeal and the incorporeal for the incorporeal. The water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul. . . . When you go down into the water, then, regard not simply the water, but look for salvation through the power of the Spirit. For without both you cannot attain to perfection. It is not I who says this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter. And he says, ‘Unless a man be born again,’ and he adds the words ‘of water and of the Spirit,’ ‘he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ He that is baptized with water, but is not found worthy of the Spirit, does not receive the grace in perfection. Nor, if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it” (Catechetical Lectures 3:4 [A.D. 350]).

    Now, if you have some contrary interpretation, we as Catholics would ask you, how do you know that your interpretation is correct? And if all you can offer for support is your own thoughts or your own interpretation, then we we would need to say to you, please, reconsider the kid of authority you are claiming for yourself.

    Yes, the man who is born again and who has the Spirit of God, understands the word of God. But that man does not seek to divorce the Word of God from the Church, which is the pillar and support of the truth and which gave us the written Word. Nor does he attempt to divorce the Holy Spirit from the Church, for He is the soul of the Church. Instead that man sees the harmony of the Spirit working in him to generate new life through the ministry of the Church and then to sanctify him as member of Christ’s body, both with the sacraments and by the Word of God.

    God bless you as you seek the truth.

  • cathmike

    One of the facts I would definitely include in any list is that the Catholic Church is NOT the Roman Catholic Church (a very common misconception) but is the communion of 22 ritual churches that are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Typically these other churches are known as “the eastern rites” in the West. Many times people will say that one thing or another is “definitely Catholic” when it fact it is only “Roman Catholic.” Within the Catholic Church there is a great diversity – including Malankara Catholics from India, Chaldean Catholics from Iraq and Syria, Greek (or Byzantine) Catholics from Europe and the Middle East. “There are many mansions in my Father’s house” said Our Lord.

  • johnpaul87

    Thanks Mary and Mark. Mary, you gave quotes from men, sure a sentence or 2 of scripture is mingled in with them. I beg to differ about the CC giving us the bible. If people did praise god, the stones would cry out. God used some men to put togeather a bible.Or rather assemble books already written. Claiming to be good enough to give us the bible isnt quite right. The books were already there.God is strong, my god is. He uses whom he will to get done what he wants. Now the CC wants to take credit for the bible. Yrs after the book was put togeather, some of the CC leaders happened to look thru it saw that thier religion was suspect. Too late now, you cant unsay things. So, just forbid the people to own a bible much less read one. I know you guys know all this, its just a reminder. The penalty for being caught with a bible; torture and or death. When basking in the glory that the CC gave mankind the bible, you forget to mention the unspeakable torture men got when the CC found you with one.Never mind that. Jesus baptises with the holy spirit. John the Baptist made that clear. Being dunked in water is not a ticket to heaven. Anyone can be dunked. A man came to Jesus secretly one nite and asked; what must i do to enter into the kingdom of heaven? I dont have to tell you the answer. Tell me something, were the people dunked in water by John born again? Or were they saved?

  • http://www.catholicexchange.com Mary Kochan

    What do the Scriptures say about that? Acts 19: 1-5.

    It is pure silliness to say that getting dunked in water saves, or that that is what we claim. If you are not going to have a respectful conversation, then go away.

    If we thought that being dunked in water saves, then the act of giving a baby a bath would be quite sufficient and we wouldn’t bother with baptism. Even many Protestants conduct baptism and you demean all Christians when you call it getting dunked in water, because it is of course an invocation (calling upon) the Holy Spirit and is joined with the prayers of all Christains of all time and for adults requires preparation by preaching the Gospel to them and eliciting from them a confession of faith — see Romans 10: 6-17.

    Yes, I did give you quotes from men. So let’s see, you accept that those men were used by God to bring you the Bible (they were martyrs, BTW, not persecuters — please make some little attempt to get your history straight) but you don’t accept what they say about the meaning of Jesus words. So you want the Holy Spirit to be with them on the issue of the Bible and what books belong in it and then to leave them when they interpret Scripture. How do you know the Holy Spirit left them when they interpreted Scripture?

    It seems that the only way you have to judge is because they disagree with YOUR interpretation. Don’t you see any problem with that?

  • noelfitz

    Gary
    I am very grateful to you for your reply to my post. I appreciate it that you took the time to reply to me and you have given me food for thought.

  • johnpaul87

    Mary, the reason i dont put stock in those men is cause they tow the catholic line. They always end with saying that the CC is the way. I didnt mean to give the idea that i interpret scripture. I read it and believe it. You forgot to answer the question of whether the people who got Baptised by John were spirit filled by that action. The answer is no, they were not spirit filled, nor was thier place in heaven secured.It was just an outward sign to let them and others know they believed in the messiah.John was the first to baptise. He was the messenger of god predicted in the old test. Jesus gives men the holy spirit, thats when you are born again.

  • http://followingthetruth.com Gary Zimak

    noelfitz – You’re welcome. And I am grateful for you taking the time to post a comment about the article. God Bless You!

  • http://www.catholicexchange.com Mary Kochan

    I did answer that question with the Scriptural reference to Acts 19: 1-5. I’m sorry: I thought you would be familiar with it and recognize that it answered your question:

    While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

    They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

    So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied.

    Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”

    On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

    Yes, when a person is baptized as a Christian (which John’s disciples were not), he receives the Holy Spirit. That is HOW Jesus gives him the Holy Spirit — through baptism.

    I can’t help but notice that I keep giving you Scriptures that you keep ignoring, like all these Scriptures I gave you previously and to which you never responded: Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:12–13; Titus 3:5. Do you believe what they say about baptism?

    Please deal with them in your next answer or else just go and have a nice day somewhere else.

    God bless you.

  • johnpaul87

    Dear Mary, im away from home and at work, dont have my bible to check references. Im sorry but being born again is totally different from water baptism. On rereading your big post, i can across one obvious falsehood, twisting of scripture. I dont have time now to point out anymore. Heres one you can check for yourself; Tertullian

    “[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life’” (Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).

    That is not a quote from the bible.The Jesus i know wouldnt talk like that. His sheep know his voice. You know Mary, these were not born again men. Just like i was at one time. I believed anything and everything. Your salvation now depends on you and Jesus. John baptised with water,but Christ is with the holy ghost.Two different operations. Try it. You might like it.

  • johnpaul87

    Justin and Irenaeous you quoted , both seem to think water baptism renews the spirit. Of course if they say it, its good enough for you. Jesus didnt come to save the healthy, he came to save the lost and the sick.They that be whole need not a physician.If you are “rite with god” then great for you. I started a blog a week or so ago at the prompting of a friend, The Joyfulpapist.the adress is; http://www.cherrybombcoutour.blogspot.com/ come in and feel free to make any comments or suggestion you like. I wont delet you. Im much more tolerant than most. thanks

  • boleggs49

    johnpaul87, you say that you read the Bible and believe, but your very act of reading and believing involves interpreting the Scriptures, otherwise there would be nothing to believe. Christ established His Church upon Peter and the other Apostles, giving them the power and authority to teach as He taught. This teaching authority was passed on from the Apostles to the Bishops and their successors they ordained. This is the Magisterium of the Church, which still today teaches and guides us. It was the from the Apostles and their successors that we received the books of the New Testament. The Apostles and their successors are the Church we speak of when we say that the Bible came to us from the Church. The Church took these New Testament Scriptures and combined them with the Old Testament Scriptures to make the Bible. It should also be noted here that the Old Testament Scriptures were from the Septuagint, which is what the Apostles and early Christians used. How do I know this? Most of the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are from the Septuagint and not from the Hebrew translated into Greek. There is a big difference. Since the Bible came from the Church, we should therefore look to the Church, who is guided by the Holy Spirit, to understand the Scriptures and their interpretation. If we do not do that, then we are using our own personal interpretation, and we do not have the guarantee that our interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit. Jesus tells us several times that we must be born of the water and the spirit, and this can only mean that we must be baptized. Any other interpretation is just plain wrong. It is not Mary who is twisting the Scriptures, but you to fit your own personal intention, just as did Martin Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and the other Protestant reformers. I am surprised that a devout Christian as you seem to present yourself would not have a Bible with you at all times. In addition to my regular printed Bible, I have three versions of the Bible on my Palm Zire, so I can look up Bible references at anytime. Of course, the version you carry is also important, so my Bibles are all approved by the Church from whence they came, so I know I am getting the straight story since many Protestant Bibles contain writings that have been twisted to represent Protestant theology rather than the true Faith. I will pray that God will grant you a greater understanding of the Truth. God bless you.

  • johnpaul87

    Whooops, caught another fib.Cyril of Jerusalem; Nor, if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it” (Catechetical Lectures 3:4 [A.D. 350]).
    Jesus never said that. As a matter of fact its anit -scriptural. The same guy says out of one side of his mouth that we must be born again of water and spirit, and out the other misquotes Jesus on water baptism as the decieding factor. Befor that he says that when you are in the water some spiritual thing comes on. This is how the unsaved talk. Its not a shame to be unsaved.Everyone is born unsaved. Its up to people like me to tell people like you the good news. What happened to those disciples in the room at pentacost can happen to you. They werent in water, they were sitting around in a room.The disciples werent born again while they were with the Master. Thats why , like some people, they didnt understand what Jesus meant most of the time.

  • boleggs49

    I don’t see any quotation marks anywhere. It is evident that Cyril was not quoting directly, but giving the sense of Jesus’ teachings, and there is nothing there that contradicts His sayings in the Bible. Jesus does say that in Mark 16:16, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, whoever does not believe will be condemned.” Notice that He said “believes AND IS BAPTIZED” will be saved. This is the same as what Cyril said. Mary listed several other places where Jesus spoke of the necessity of being baptized. In charging the Apostles with the Great Commission, what does Jesus say? “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” Matthew 28:19-20. It is clear that baptism is necessary for salvation, otherwise He wouldn’t have charged the Apostles with the task.

  • boleggs49

    johnpaul87, I don’t understand why you place so much importance on being “born again” when it is mentioned only once in the New Testament, and yet “baptize” is mentioned 7 times, “baptized” is used 45 times, “baptism is used 20 times, and “baptizing” is used 11 times. It would seem to me that baptism is much more important than being “born again”, especially when the word used for born again is also translated begotten from above and born from above. But this is just the thing that some Protestants pick up on and twist out of shape, like they do with the so-called “rapture”.

  • vetusmores

    At the risk of feeding a troll …

    johnpaul87 said, “Now the CC wants to take credit for the bible.”

    No one said the Church *wrote* the Bible, but it was the Church councils that decided which books were divinely inspired, and thus worthy of inclusion in what we refer to today as “the Bible.”

    At the time the Bible was assembled, a great number of texts existed which either conflicted with those texts already generally accepted, or were of uncertain/unknown origin. Those were left out. Many still exist today. See, for example, the “Infancy of Jesus Christ,” the so-called “Lost Gospel of Peter,” and the recently discovered “Gospel According to Judas.”

    johnpaul87 wrote: “So, just forbid the people to own a bible much less read one. I know you guys know all this, its just a reminder. The penalty for being caught with a bible; torture and or death.”

    I don’t suppose you have a reputable citation for this?

    The idea that the Church forbade people to own Bibles stems from the fact that it was once necessary to chain Bibles down. Anyone could go into a Church and read the Bible, but they couldn’t take it home with them, because in the days before presses, Bibles were rare and extremely expensive. They had to be meticulously hand-copied onto sheepskin — an entire herd of sheep for a whole Bible. In today’s terms, a Bible in those days would cost about ten years’ wages to produce.

    Also, literacy rates in those days was nothing like it is now. In fact, it was a quite rare thing to be able to read (which alone puts the lie to the notion of /Sola Scriptura/). People didn’t own copies of the various books of the Old Testament in Jesus’ time and earlier, either, for the same reasons.

  • johnpaul87

    Vetusmores, Why did they, the CC, kill and torture those who had bibles? Its a matter of history. I know you would like that to just go away.Hey, im no better. Im a sinner royal.

  • johnpaul87

    Vetusmores, ive had catholics claim that the CC wrote the bible. Its entertaining to see the different ideas catholic put out. Who am i to point a finger? I was sinner galore until i was saved. Really, i wasnt that bad. I was saved at 15 yrs old. But unsaved die and go to the lake of fire, no matter how nice they are.

  • johnpaul87

    Ill tell you why catolics beat the drum. Cause they have loved ones who are departed. Instead of facing the obvious, that the CC is full of vice and no salvation is to be found there, they make claims of CC innocense and deny the news reports of truck loads of pervert priests. I feel sorry for them. Lost loved ones. I will not let my daughter die unsaved. The new test claims that if i get saved, i can save my house.Why do catholics hate the idea of being born again?

  • johnpaul87

    Vetusmores, im not going to site a source for the torture and murder of bible believers by the CC. I want your own catholic brothers and sisters to see that you deny history. I dont blame you. I wouldnt want to admit my ancesters are doomed. Its a terrible thing, and im not happy about it. save yourself

  • boleggs49

    johnpaul87, you won’t cite your sources on the Church torturing or killing people for owning Bibles because it is not true. It is a fact that Peter was an Apostle, especially selected by Jesus and given power and authority, by Jesus, over His Church, the Catholic Church. John was an Apostle, selected by Jesus and given power and authority in His Church. Paul was also an Apostle especially selected by Jesus and confirmed in his authority by Peter and the other Apostles. Matthew, Mark, Luke, James, and Jude also held positions in the Church. It was in the execution of their duties that they wrote the Gospels and Epistles that make up the New Testament. Since the writings were written by men who held authority in the Church, and since it was the Church who gathered and assembled those writings into the New Testament, and since it was the Church who coupled the New Testament and the Old Testament (Septuagint) together into the book we now know as the Bible, it can truly be said that the Bible came to us through the Church. There were two reasons for the Church to bring those books together into the Bible, 1) they were used in the Liturgy of the Church, most particularly in the Mass, and 2) they were brought together into a unified book so it would be easier for those wishing to read the Scriptures. The Church has always encouraged the reading of the Scriptures, and has guided the people in its understanding and interpretation so people wouldn’t be mislead as you are, and as Vestasmores stated, the Church even made the Bible readily available to the people by having it available for reading in the church, and yes, it was chained to the podium or stand to keep it from walking away because it was an extremely expensive book. Once the printing press was invented and the cost of Bibles came down, the Church encouraged the people to own their own Bibles as long as they were editions approved by the Church. I continue to pray for you. God bless you.

  • boleggs49

    Addressing the problem of sex abuse in the Church, the rate of abuse is 2.7 percent in the Catholic Church. What is it in the Protestant churches? Try on 10 percent, so that means that you are 3 to 4 times more likely to be abused by someone in authority in a Protestant church, so don’t talk to me about truckloads of pervert priests. As Jesus said, take the plank out of your eye before trying to remove the speck from the eye of someone else. You sir are a hypocrite to the nth degree, and I continue to pray for you. God bless.

  • boleggs49

    Regarding the Church on Bible reading: “the Catholic reader naturally questions whether the amount of good done is, after all, to be measured by the number of volumes distributed. A considerable number of Protestant missionaries have already answered the question negatively, and if we may judge from many letters from ministers in the mission field, there is a growing feeling among thinking Protestants that the promiscuous distribution of the Bible “without note or comment” is a doubtful means of propagating Christian doctrine. Even as a means of proselytism, the scattering of Bibles seems not to produce the expected results. A missionary on the Malay peninsula, among others, complains that although thousands of Bibles were distributed, it was, so far as he could learn, “with scarcely any perceptible benefit”. He “did not hear of a single Malay convert on the whole peninsula”. The natives of the missionary countries are, according to reports, eager to obtain books from the societies, but agents and missionaries and bishops have reported that in many cases the volumes were used for vulgar and profane purposes. Indeed, the reckless distribution of the Scriptures in too many cases becomes an occasion for the profanation of the written Word, rather than for the growth of religion. Instances of abuse of the Bible could be collected freely from the letters of missionaries, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

    But for deeper reasons than this, the attitude of the Church toward the Bible societies is one of unmistakable opposition. Believing herself to be the divinely appointed custodian and interpreter of Holy Writ, she cannot without turning traitor to herself, approve the distribution of Scripture “without note or comment”. The fundamental fallacy of private interpretation of the Scriptures is presupposed by the Bible societies. It is the impelling motive of their work. But it would be likewise the violation of one of the first principles of the Catholic Faith — a principle arrived at through observation as well as by revelation — the insufficiency of the Scriptures alone to convey to the general reader a sure knowledge of faith and morals. Consequently, the Council of Trent, in its fourth session, after expressly condemning all interpretations of the sacred text which contradict the past and present interpretations of the Church, orders all Catholic publishers to see to it that their editions of the Bible have the approval of the bishop. Besides this and other regulations concerning Bible-reading in general, we have several acts of the popes directed explicitly against the Bible societies. Perhaps the most notable of these are contained in the Encyclical “Ubi Primum” of Leo XII, dated 5 May, 1824, and Pius IX’s Encyclical “Qui Pluribus”, of 9 November, 1846. Pius VIII in 1829 and Gregory XVI in 1844, spoke to similar effect. It may be well to give the most striking words on the subject form Leo XII and Pius IX. To quote the former (loc. cit.): “You are aware, venerable brothers, that a certain Bible Society is impudently spreading throughout the world, which, despising the traditions of the holy Fathers and the decree of the Council of Trent, is endeavouring to translate, or rather to pervert the Scriptures into the vernacular of all nations. It is to be feared that by false interpretation, the Gospel of Christ will become the gospel of men, or still worse, the gospel of the devil.” The pope then urges the bishops to admonish their flocks that owing to human temerity, more harm than good may come from indiscriminate Bible-reading. Pius IX says (loc. cit.): “These crafty Bible Societies, which renew the ancient guile of heretics, cease not to thrust their Bibles upon all men, even the unlearned, — their Bibles, which have been translated against the laws of the Church, and often contain false explanation of the text. Thus, the divine traditions, the teaching of the fathers, and the authority of the Catholic Church are rejected, and everyone in his own way interprets the words of the Lord, and distorts their mean, thereby falling into miserable errors”.

    Thus are given the chief reasons of the opposition of the Church. Furthermore, it can scarcely be denied that the Bible societies, by invading the Catholic countries and endeavouring to foist the Protestant versions upon a Catholic people, have stirred up much discord, and have laid themselves open to the charge of degrading the Sacred Book by using it as an instrument of proselytism. Still in almost all the books and pamphlets which are written to show the results of Bible propagandism, naïve complaints are made by the writers that the Catholic priests forbid the dissemination of the Scriptures among their people. The societies do not offer to supply Catholics with Catholic Bibles, fortified with the ecclesiastical Imprimatur, and supplied with the necessary notes of explanation. If such an offer were refused, there might be some pretext for the complaints of the societies, but so long as they follow their present course, it must be evident that they have small ground for wonder if the authorities of the Church oppose them. The true attitude of the Church towards the popular use of the Scriptures is shown by the establishment of the Societa di San Geronimo, for the translation and diffusion of the Gospels and other parts of the Bible among the Italian peoples.

    There have been many dissensions and some schisms among the members of the Bible societies themselves. At the very foundation of the British and Foreign Bible Society Bishop Marsh, consistently with the principles of the Church of England, objected to the printing of the text, “without note or comment”, and recommended the addition of the Book of Common Prayer. The objection was, of course, overruled. In 1831, the British and Foreign Bible Society decided to demand belief in the Trinity as a requisite to membership. This led to a schism and the foundation of the Trinitarian Bible Society. Another schismatic society, originating from a doctrinal difference, is the Bible Translation Society, a body composed of Baptists who were dissatisfied because the original society’s Bibles did not translate the texts which relate to baptism by words that would signify immersion. Again, from the American Bible Society, there has been a schism of Baptists, originating, as in England, over the translation of baptizein. This dissident body, founded in 1837, is called The American and Foreign Bible Society. This organization in turn experienced a secession, the recalcitrants forming the American Bible Union, in 1850.” This comes from the website NewAdvent.com.

  • boleggs49

    Attitude of the Church towards the reading of the Bible in the vernacular

    The attitude of the Church as to the reading of the Bible in the vernacular may be inferred from the Church’s practice and legislation. It has been the practice of the Church to provide newly-converted nations, as soon as possible, with vernacular versions of the Scriptures; hence the early Latin and oriental translations, the versions existing among the Armenians, the Slavonians, the Goths, the Italians, the French, and the partial renderings into English. As to the legislation of the Church on this subject, we may divide its history into three large periods:

    (1) During the course of the first millennium of her existence, the Church did not promulgate any law concerning the reading of Scripture in the vernacular. The faithful were rather encouraged to read the Sacred Books according to their spiritual needs (cf. St. Irenæus, Against Heresies III.4).

    (2) The next five hundred years show only local regulations concerning the use of the Bible in the vernacular. On 2 January, 1080, Gregory VII wrote to the Duke of Bohemia that he could not allow the publication of the Scriptures in the language of the country. The letter was written chiefly to refuse the petition of the Bohemians for permission to conduct Divine service in the Slavic language. The pontiff feared that the reading of the Bible in the vernacular would lead to irreverence and wrong interpretation of the inspired text (St. Gregory VII, “Epist.”, vii, xi). The second document belongs to the time of the Waldensian and Albigensian heresies. The Bishop of Metz had written to Innocent III that there existed in his diocese a perfect frenzy for the Bible in the vernacular. In 1199 the pope replied that in general the desire to read the Scriptures was praiseworthy, but that the practice was dangerous for the simple and unlearned (“Epist., II, cxli; Hurter, “Gesch. des. Papstes Innocent III”, Hamburg, 1842, IV, 501 sqq.). After the death of Innocent III, the Synod of Toulouse directed in 1229 its fourteenth canon against the misuse of Sacred Scripture on the part of the Cathari: “prohibemus, ne libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti laicis permittatur habere” (Hefele, “Concilgesch”, Freiburg, 1863, V, 875). In 1233 the Synod of Tarragona issued a similar prohibition in its second canon, but both these laws are intended only for the countries subject to the jurisdiction of the respective synods (Hefele, ibid., 918). The Third Synod of Oxford, in 1408, owing to the disorders of the Lollards, who in addition to their crimes of violence and anarchy had introduced virulent interpolations into the vernacular sacred text, issued a law in virtue of which only the versions approved by the local ordinary or the provincial council were allowed to be read by the laity (Hefele, op. cit., VI, 817).

    (3) It is only in the beginning of the last five hundred years that we meet with a general law of the Church concerning the reading of the Bible in the vernacular. On 24 March, 1564, Pius IV promulgated in his Constitution, “Dominici gregis”, the Index of Prohibited Books. According to the third rule, the Old Testament may be read in the vernacular by pious and learned men, according to the judgment of the bishop, as a help to the better understanding of the Vulgate. The fourth rule places in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the New Testament in the vernacular to laymen who according to the judgment of their confessor or their pastor can profit by this practice. Sixtus V reserved this power to himself or the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and Clement VIII added this restriction to the fourth rule of the Index, by way of appendix. Benedict XIV required that the vernacular version read by laymen should be either approved by the Holy See or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned and pious authors. It then became an open question whether this order of Benedict XIV was intended to supersede the former legislation or to further restrict it. This doubt was not removed by the next three documents: the condemnation of certain errors of the Jansenist Quesnel as to the necessity of reading the Bible, by the Bull “Unigenitus” issued by Clement XI on 8 Sept., 1713 (cf. Denzinger, “Enchir.”, nn. 1294-1300); the condemnation of the same teaching maintained in the Synod of Pistoia, by the Bull “Auctorem fidei” issued on 28 Aug., 1794, by Pius VI; the warning against allowing the laity indiscriminately to read the Scriptures in the vernacular, addressed to the Bishop of Mohileff by Pius VII, on 3 Sept., 1816. But the Decree issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Index on 7 Jan., 1836, seems to render it clear that henceforth the laity may read vernacular versions of the Scriptures, if they be either approved by the Holy See, or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned Catholic authors. The same regulation was repeated by Gregory XVI in his Encyclical of 8 May, 1844. In general, the Church has always allowed the reading of the Bible in the vernacular, if it was desirable for the spiritual needs of her children; she has forbidden it only when it was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm.

    This information was taken from the website NewAdvent.com

  • louis

    I remember differently who first said: “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.” In my view, it was St. Ignatius of Antioch. He was bishop of that city (the largest of the Roman empire after Rome itself) and he was arrested and taken to Rome for refusing to acknowledge the divinity of the emperor. He died there around 108 A.D. Some scholars say he was a disciple of St. John, the Evangelist. I think that the doctrine — that outside the Church there is no salvation — was formulated at the First Council of Nicea, in 325. Other Fathers of the Church taught it, prior to the said Council (St Cyprian of Carthage, St. Justin, Martyr, Origen, and Tertullian). The late Fathers Sts. Jerome and Augustin also taught it. The faithful have been reminded of it throughout the Church’s history. In more recent times, the First and Second Vatican Councils taught it, as did Popes Pius X, Paul VI, and John Paul II.

  • boleggs49

    Yes, Louis, Jesus established His Church, the Catholic Church, just for the purpose of bringing salvation to man. To those who say that the Catholic Church is not the same Church that Jesus established, the Greek word καθολικός (katholikos), from which Catholic is derived, means “universal”. It was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early 2nd century. That means that the Catholic Church is that same Church that Jesus established with Peter as His first pope.

    There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church, which is, of course, quite a different thing. (Bishop Fulton Sheen)

    God bless you.

  • boleggs49

    Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]). This is the earliest text we have that refers to the Church as the Catholic Church, so this shows that the Church was known as the Catholic Church while it was in it’s early years and not from the 4th century or later as some Protestants claim. They do this trying to say that it is not the same Church Jesus established upon Peter, but a “Roman” church, usually established by Constantine or someone else. Some even deny that Peter was ever in Rome, however, Peter writes in 1 Peter 5:13, “The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting,as does Mark, my son.” Babylon was code for Rome.

    God bless you.

  • johnpaul87

    Ignatious of antioc wrote this that and the other thing.He said this that and the other thing. Therefor it is all true.Where ever Christ is, there is the catholic church. Talk, thats all it is. Your salvation is a matter between you and Christ personally. Not some org.

  • johnpaul87

    Bro Bolegg, you talk a good game. Where were you when your history professor went over medieval history? A cold perhaps? Tell me mr bible scholar, why was the reign of the Cc called the dark ages?

  • boleggs49

    johnpaul87, Christ gave us His Church, the Catholic Church, as His instrument of Salvation. You dismiss all of the great early Fathers of the Church because they confirm that the Catholic Church is the one and only Church Christ established upon Peter and the other Apostles. You are so full of yourself that you cannot see the Truth. You interpret the Bible to fit your own perverted views, twisting the true meanings of the Scriptures to promote your own agenda. As a matter of fact, I did take courses on the Old Testament and Church History, and you know what I found? That the Catholic Church has been true to the teachings of Christ for all these years since He began His mission. Given the choice, I will always choose to believe the Church Christ established over all of the Protestant churches that have been established by fallible men like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and all the rest of the Protestant heretics. Can you explain why there are now over 25,000 Protestant denominations in the USA now? I can, it’s because of people just like you who think you know more than Christ’s own Church and who prefer their own personal interpretations of the Scriptures to the interpretation and guidance of the Church who gave us the Bible in the first place. You don’t talk a good game because you cannot back up any of your claims with real proof, not even from the Scriptures because you distort the true meaning of those Scriptures. You need to crawl back in your hole and pray that God will have mercy on your soul. I pray for you. May God have mercy on you.

  • boleggs49

    By the way, johnpaul87, here is what Wikipedia has to say regarding the dark ages, “”Dark Ages” is a term referring to the perceived period of both cultural and economic deterioration as well as disruption that took place in Western Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire.” It had nothing to do with the Catholic Church. You may go to the corner now and put your dunce cap back on. May God have mercy on you.

  • boleggs49

    johnpaul87, if I am your brother as you suggest, then the Blessed Virgin Mary is your mother. Though, in fact, she is because while Christ was on the cross, one of His seven final words was when He said to Mary, “Woman, behold your son.” Then He said to the disciple He loved, “Behold your mother.” Looking at these verses from John 19, we learn two things. First, Mary had no other children, only Jesus, because if she had other children, Jesus would not have needed to give her into the care of the Apostle John. Second, by giving Mary into John’s care, He is also giving her to all of Jesus’ brothers and sisters, His followers, as their mother, too. Those were very powerful and very important words Christ uttered as He was dying on the cross for our sins. I would very much like to carry on an intelligent discussion with you, however, all one has to do is look at your sentence construction, spelling, punctuation and ridiculous claims to see that you are just a fool trying to look important. That is probably why you distort the meaning of the Scriptures so badly. Remember the words of our Lord, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord.’ will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in Heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’” Matthew 7:21-23 How do we know that we are doing the will of His Father? By following the guidance of His holy Church, the Church He established upon Peter when He said in Matthew 16:18-19, “And so I say to you, you are Peter(Kephas in Aramaic, which means large rock or boulder), and upon this rock (again Kephas, meaning large rock or boulder) I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” And Jesus promised His Church the guidance of the Holy Spirit when He said, “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. This is the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive because it neither sees Him nor knows Him.You know Him because He abides with you, and He will be in you.” John 14:16-17 And, “I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.” John 14:25-26. And again in John 15:26-27, Jesus said, “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth, who comes from the Father, He will testify on my behalf. You also are to testify because you have been with me from the beginning.” Therefore, it is truly said that the Spirit of Truth resides in Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church. Protestant churches cannot claim to have the Holy Spirit residing in them because they have departed from the Truth, and there is no unity of Truth among them since each preaches their own doctrine and holds their own interpretation of the Scriptures. I will continue to pray for you. May God have mercy on you.

  • http://www.catholicexchange.com Mary Kochan

    boleggs49, it is not quite accurate to to say that the Dark Ages had nothing to do with the Church. The Church was the entity that preserved civilization through that period. When the barbarians overran Europe, they destroyed a lot of the libraries and Roman infrastructure. Waves of invasions and disease greatly reduced the populations and because so many teachers were also priests who cared for the sick, a lot of teachers died and this greatly reduced the education that was available for several generations.

    In response, the monasteries, as well as some convents, became centers of economic activity and technological advancement. They started schools and hospitals. (The entire modern university system began in the monastery schools.) But most importantly, the Church set about converting the barbarian tribes to Christianity.

    In fact modern historians have learned so much about this that they no longer even use the term “Dark Ages” — they call it the medieval period now.

  • boleggs49

    The term was not applied because of the Church as johnpaul87 said. And, yes, I know that modern scholars do not use the term any longer. However, you are incorrect in saying that the Church controlled or was responsible for civilization following the collapse of the Roman Empire. It was a several centuries before the Church gained the prominence it was later known for.

Newer Comments →