Does Jesus Himself condemn Sola Scripitra?

[boughtwithaprice]

I'm not convinced that Jesus taught specifically against Sola Scriptura. What is 100% evident is that He did not teach Sola Scriptura.

SS is a reletively new idea that gained some adherants mostly in the past 100 years. It is still only believed by a small minority of Christians.

I was just caught by what He said the Pharisees.
“You search the Scriptures and think you have eternal life in them, but the Scriptures speak of me, and you don’t believe me. Moses will be your judge” (paraphrase)
The New Testament is treated the same way today. Some search the Scriptures thinking they have eternal life in them, but the Scriptures speak of the Church, but some don’t believe in the Church and actually speak ill of her the way the Pharisees spoke of Jesus. “By Beelzebub, he casts out demons” They say the Pope is the antichrist and the Church teaches the mark of the beast. Paul spoke of the Church. Is Christ divided? God forbid! They don’t believe in the Church, Paul will be their judge, just as Jesus said Moses would judge the Pharisees.
I was shocked at the parallels when I heard the Gospel spoken at Mass last Thursday

 

[Clare73]

I'm not convinced that Jesus taught specifically against Sola Scriptura. What is 100% evident is that He did not teach Sola Scriptura.

Indeed!

His (unwritten) words were also the word of God.

 

[concretecamper]

I was just caught by what He said the Pharisees.
“You search the Scriptures and think you have eternal life in them, but the Scriptures speak of me, and you don’t believe me. Moses will be your judge”

Reminds me of modern day SS adherants. Can't see the forest through the trees.

The reason I am not convinced is because the Jews did have a teaching authority and an oral tradition. Jesus said "They sit on the seat of Moses.". The Jews weren't Sola Scripturists

 

[BobRyan]

Your response to a post that had nothing but scripture in it - is to suppose that 1 John 2 condemns the quote of those scriptures?

How is that even logical?? I don't follow your logic just then.

God made one nation church in Ex 19-20
God made one Christian church in Matt 28

and Paul said "error will come in" in Acts 20.

ACts 20
28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears

1 Tim 1 shows error coming in.

3 John 1 shows error coming in so effectively as to shut out Christians from fellowship in the local church.

Mark 7 points to the One Nation Church started by God at Sinai and says "in vain do they worship Me teaching for doctrine the commandments of men"

For your argument to hold, you would have to show that the Apostles taught what you teach.

The idea that the Apostles affirmed scripture instead of condemning the texts just quoted - is not the stretch that you seem to imply.

"all scripture given by inspiration from God AND to be used for doctrine" 2 Tim 3:16

My argument is completely logical

Your response to nothing-but-scripture quoted was simply to say it is false. That is not logical

, yet you do not believe

I do not believe scripture is to be condemned

, because you do not believe the ones who were sent

believing scripture is not an illustration rejecting it. Your logic is hard to follow.

You believe your own interpretation of scripture

You are condemning the mere quote of it.

, not scripture itself. If you believed scripture, you would believe the ones who were sent, as Jesus sent them out into the world

Which is why I quote them

, but you don’t. You believe one that came on her own, 1800 years after God’s promise to the Church.

Many true Christians have existed since the first century and scripture affirms the work of the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor 12 rather than condemning it.

I don’t follow your logic

Look at scripture. IT is to be affirmed.

You want us to believe one who was not sent by Jesus

The idea of rejecting those scriptures just quoted (scriptures written by inspiration from the Holy Spirit the way 2 Tim 3:15 says they are --) is not an example "believing those sent by Jesus"

to refute the ones that were sent because you think your prophet is better and erases all of God’s previous work,

Prophets of God do not erase scripture - they affirm it. And they do not promote the idea of condemning scripture.

How are you different from Jehovahs witnesses, Mormons or Muslims

None of those groups affirm the One God (Deut 6:4) in "Three Persons" Matt 28:19
None of them affirm the gospel found in scripture. (Saved by grace through faith Eph 2:8-10)
So none of them pass the Acts 17:11 sola scriptura test of doctrine.

That is a huge difference.

that claim the Gospel was inferior until their prophet came along?

There is no "Gospel is inferior" claim in any of my posts nor any that you have quoted so far using a quote of something I posted.

details matter.

When we read the Apostolic teaching from the second century from Iraneus,

Try reading actual scripture - rather than condemning it when it is posted.

The Apostles taught that we do not tithe because everything belongs to God

quote a text of scripture teaching that.

There is no need to teach do not commit adultery or do not steal

Are you then condemning Christ's teaching in Matt 19 that teaches that very thing?
Are you then condemning Paul in Rom 13 that teaches that very thing?
Are you then condemning James in James 2 - that teaches that very thing?
Are you condemning the Baptist Confession of faith Section 19 that teaches that very thing?
Are you condemning the Westminster Confession of faith that teaches that very thing?
Even Dies Domini teaches it regarding the Ten Commandments,

Your logic seems to assail all of Christianity just then -- or do you wish to clarify???

We do not keep Sabbath because we are in the perpetual rest of the Lord Jesus

not one text of scripture says that.

By contrast in Is 66:22-23 we find that in the New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship" and in the book of Acts we find that "Every Sabbath" Paul is preaching the gospel to both gentiles and Jews .

details matter.

He said if they say that Jesus returns in secret places believe it not, yet you teach He did come in secret in the 1840s.

No I don't teach any such thing. We are still waiting for Christ.

You need to read more.

 

[BobRyan]

The SDA deny apostolic authority and say the Pope is the antichrist.

actual scripture says this -

Mark 7:

7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

hopefully neither you or I feel the need to condemn that teaching of Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus pretty much condemns sola scriptura in John 5.

not true.

Matt 5:
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

John 10:35 "scripture cannot be broken" -- that is the teaching of Jesus.

Acts 17:11 blesses the practice of sola scriptura testing of doctrine where we "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things are so" EVEN in the case that "those things" are being taught by a first century Apostle -- such as Paul.

details matter.

 

[Clare73]

Reminds me of modern day SS adherants. Can't see the forest through the trees.

The reason I am not convinced is because the Jews did have a teaching authority and an oral tradition. Jesus said "They sit on the seat of Moses.". The Jews weren't Sola Scripturists

Had they been, they would not have received Jesus' new revelation.

 

[The Liturgist]

actual scripture says this -

Mark 7:

7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

hopefully neither you or I feel the need to condemn that teaching of Christ.

The passage you quoted from Mark 7 is indeed a powerful teaching of Christ our True God. But it’s helpful to look at what Jesus was addressing in its historical context. In that chapter, He was speaking to the Pharisees and scribes about their own specific traditions that contradicted those of Second Temple Judaism more broadly, and which also contradicted the scripture that had established the Old Covenant with Israel.

The point of our Lord was not to condemn all tradition, but to rebuke the Pharisaical customs that contradicted the Old Covenant. So in context, He’s not talking about sincere differences in interpretation between believers today, but the Pharisees and their negation of the Old Covenant, with was hypocritical.

This distinction matters because not every disagreement about doctrine or practice can be compared to the Pharisees’ behavior—especially when both parties are trying to be faithful to scripture.

The closing line of your comment—“hopefully neither you nor I feel the need to condemn that teaching of Christ”—introduces a problem in reasoning that it might be helpful to point out. It appears to equate your interpretation of the passage with the passage itself, and suggests that disagreeing with your reading is equivalent to rejecting Christ. This is a logical fallacy known as begging the question, because the conclusion—that one must agree with your interpretation to accept Christ’s teaching—is assumed within the premise. The argument essentially says: this is what Christ meant, and anyone who disagrees is rejecting Him. But that skips over the question of whether your interpretation is the only valid one, which is precisely what is being debated.

There’s also an element of false dilemma here, because it frames the conversation as though there are only two choices: agree with your view of the passage, or reject our Lord’s authority. But in truth, faithful and thoughtful Christians have held differing interpretations of many passages for centuries while still upholding Christ’s authority and revering His words. Scripture does not interpret itself in a vacuum, and good-faith differences in understanding are not the same thing as rebellion or disregard.

This approach also brushes up against a kind of rhetorical pressure, where any disagreement can be made to seem like moral or spiritual failure. But that makes honest conversation difficult. If every interpretation is treated as the only possible one, and all others as dangerous or dishonest, then the process of mutual discernment and testing all things by the Scriptures —as the Bereans did—is shut down before it begins. Which is particularly problematic when one is seeking to argue in favor of sola scriptura, insofar as this pressure to conform with extremely specific interpretations, which in the case of Mark 7 are contrary to the historical context of the verse in question and also ignore other texts that speak about the importance of tradition, undermines the idea of Sola Scriptura.

So I do agree that we should not condemn Christ’s teaching, nor do any Christian members of ChristianForums. And it is not doing that when one has a legitimate difference of opinion over the correct interpretation.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

It seems that people are thinking I said Christ condemns scripture. That is not true. I said Christ taught against SOLA scriptura.
The Pharisees had the scriptures and Christ confirmed that and even said they sit in Moses’ seat, so He did not say that the Scriptures were false
It is the fact that the Scriptures speak of Christ and He was standing right in front of them, but they did not believe. They held onto their own view or what the scriptures said instead of Him of whom the scriptures spoke. They refused to believe that God was standing right in front of them and could be anything other than they imagined Him to be.

That is what SOLA scriptura does. It limits God to the understanding of the reader which reverses the Gospel. Instead of following Jesus denying ourselves and taking up our cross, sola scriptura commands God to be subject to us and follow us rather than we follow Him

The apostolic teaching is self denial, complete surrender to Our Lord in total submission. As Paul says, I am determined to know nothing among you except Christ and Him crucified
Our eyes are on Jesus and not ourselves because we have died to our old self and have risen with Him.
If we know who Jesus is, then we no longer need the Ten Commandments, because if we are following Jesus, we automatically keep the commandments. As the scriptures says we cannot sin because His seed remaineth in us

Jesus is also very concerned about ordination. Jesus said if I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. He also says, I receive not glory form men. This goes against a democratic run Church, as democracy would make God subject to the opinions of men. No

Christ built a Church, and it started 2000 years ago. It stayed in existence by passing apostolic authority by the laying on of hands, and all authority is vested in the Vicar of Christ, our Holy Father, the Pope.

Those that have received ordination by Apostolic succession are God’s anointed, as they have received the anointing from a previously anointed. Sola Scripturists that claim to speak for God have assumed this authority for themselves. They come in their own name rather than receive ordination. That is something even Jesus Himself said He would not do

You are free to believe whomever you want, but you have to know that when you speak from your own understanding or believe another from a group started by a man or woman, you are placing your faith in human and not God.
Paul spoke of this when he rebuked them that said I am of Paul, I am of Apollo, we don’t follow men

God has already built His Church. Paul even warns, if any of you think he is wise in the way of the world, become a fool for Christ. How can we think we are so wise to build a Church to rival God’s own already built?

All of the rival Churches seem full of denial. Just as Paul says, they have a form of godliness but deny its power

They deny the need for good works and mock those that do them
They deny the need for penance which is a denial of mourning which is one of the beatitudes.
They deny the justice of God by denying hell, even though denial of an eternal God would require an eternal punishment.
Some deny free will, which is a denial of love
Some deny the beauty of God’s law and tell you His commandments are too burdensome so don’t even try to follow them
Some even say that God is an idiot in that He does not know what He is doing. They say He makes mistakes and has to erase them by annihilating souls, even though He is not a man that He should lie and He said the gifts and calling of God are without repentance
Others deny His power in saying that God did not build a Church or that He did it wrong and it was as overrun by apostasy even though Jesus said that would never happen

No no I am done with the deniers. I will follow Christ and His Church, I will deny myself and choose to live for the one that Loved me and gave Himself for me

The Spirit and the Bride say come drink of the waters of life freely, or you can listen to yourselves and other men We do have a free choice

 

[Jermayn]

This was the Gospel read at Mass on Thursday April 3. It is from John 5

Jesus said to the Jews: “If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is not true. But there is another who testifies on my behalf, and I know that the testimony he gives on my behalf is true. You sent emissaries to John, and he testified to the truth. I do not accept human testimony, but I say this so that you may be saved. He was a burning and shining lamp, and for a while you were content to rejoice in his light. But I have testimony greater than John’s. The works that the Father gave me to accomplish, these works that I perform testify on my behalf that the Father has sent me. Moreover, the Father who sent me has testified on my behalf. But you have never heard his voice nor seen his form, and you do not have his word remaining in you, because you do not believe in the one whom he has sent. You search the Scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf. But you do not want to come to me to have life.


“I do not accept human praise; moreover, I know that you do not have the love of God in you. I came in the name of my Father, but you do not accept me; yet if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe, when you accept praise from one another and do not seek the praise that comes from the only God? Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father: the one who will accuse you is Moses, in whom you have placed your hope. For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, because he wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”



Several things stuck out to me in this passage and I cannot believe that I did not see this before.

Jesus says that the Father has sent Him, but you have never heard His voice nor seen His form, and you do not have His word remaining in you.

WHY? Is it because they did not believe the scriptures? No, Jesus says that they have the scriptures and think that they have eternal life through them, but they don’t. WHY?

They do not believe on whom he has sent. He whom the Father has sent is Jesus, we know, but whom did Jesus send? He told the Apostles to go into all the world and preach the Gospel teaching them to obey all I have commanded you. Apostle means one who is sent.
He did not say to search the scriptures day and night to come to your own conclusions. No, authority was given to the Apostles, and they were sent by Jesus, so all Christians are obligated by faith to believe them.
The Bereans tested Paul by reading the scriptures to see if what he said was true, but they did not use the scriptures to abandon Paul and go on their own thinking they knew better.


He goes on to say “How can you believe when you accept the praise from one another and not the praise that comes from God alone?”

The scriptures speak of Apostolic authority, yet those that claim Sola Scriptura use it as an excuse to disbelieve the Apostles. They cry freedom of conscience.
Yes you have God given free will, but God does not praise freedom of conscience. He says I desire obedience rather than sacrifice. Who do we obey? The Apostles whose authority has come down to us by the laying on of hands and the promise of the Holy Spirt. Who do sola scripurists obey? If they are honest then it is no one, as each interprets scripture by his own understanding.

If we cannot obey the Apostles whom we can see, how can we claim to obey God whom we cannot see?
Yes obedience takes humility, but humility is the primary Christian virtue. There was even a song that I fondly remember as a Protestant
“Trust and obey, trust and obey. For there is no other way to be happy in Jesus than to trust and obey.”

I am not ashamed to say that I trust and obey the Apostles who were sent in the Catholic Church. I tired sola scriptura but was frequently beset by sin and told not to worry. When I finally submitted to the full authority of the Catholic Church without reservation, the sin that so easily beset me was gone. God gave me the grace that sola scriptura never could, because sola scriptura came from my own understanding and the praise of men, not from God.

You all have freedom of conscience and can follow whoever you want. I know His grace is real and I am following His Apostles in the Catholic Church. It is the Church Jesus built and confirms by the Holy Spirit

Jesus pretty much condemns sola scriptura in John 5. May God have mercy and he that has a ear to hear let him hear

I don’t claim to know everything about the Catholic Church, but I think you may be misrepresenting what Protestants actually believe when it comes to Sola Scriptura.

We don’t believe that reading the Bible automatically saves a person, or that salvation comes from Scripture itself. Rather, we believe that Scripture is the only infallible source of truth about Christ and Christianity. It teaches us how to be saved, but salvation itself comes through grace by faith in Jesus Christ, not through the mere act of reading.

The verses you referenced from John 5 are primarily addressing the Jewish leaders who had the Scriptures but still missed the coming of the Messiah. Jesus is pointing them back to Himself, not setting up any other person or office as infallible. So, I don’t see how this passage supports the idea that anyone other than Christ Himself holds infallible authority.

I’m truly glad you’ve found a place where you feel spiritually supported and that you've experienced victory over sin, that’s something to rejoice in. At the same time, I wouldn’t take that personal experience as proof that Protestant beliefs are wrong. Many believers in Protestant churches have experienced the same kind of spiritual freedom, transformation, and deep communion with God through Christ.

 

[concretecamper]

I think you may be misrepresenting what Protestants actually believe when it comes to Sola Scriptura.

Protestantism can't agree on a definition of SS, so that is why we have the problem that raise here.

 

[Jermayn]

Protestantism can't agree on a definition of SS, so that is why we have the problem that raise here.

While different Protestant groups may apply Sola Scriptura in different ways, most agree on the core definition: the Bible is the only infallible authority for faith and practice. No pope or any other human, except Jesus Christ, is considered infallible. It's really a very simple doctrine. Does every Catholic interpret things the Pope says the exact same way?

 

[The Liturgist]

While different Protestant groups may apply Sola Scriptura in different ways, most agree on the core definition: the Bible is the only infallible authority for faith and practice. No pope or any other human, except Jesus Christ, is considered infallible. It's really a very simple doctrine. Does every Catholic interpret things the Pope says the exact same way?

But the Orthodox do not regard any individual human other than Jesus Christ, who is fully man and fully God, as being infallible (nor would we say that the infallibility of Christ was limited to His divinity because that violates the principle of communicatio idiomatum and is crypto-Nestorian). Yet we still disagree with sola scriptura, although we definitely agree with prima scriptural.

However, the definition of sola scriptura used by high church Anglicans and confessional Lutherans who reject crypto-catholicism is extremely close to what we believe. Closer in some respects than Roman Catholicism, since like the Orthodox, the Anglicans and Lutherans reject Papal Infallibility. Conversely, the nuda scriptura approach advocated for by some* is extremely different from our beliefs.


*Including, paradoxically, by the SDA, whose belief in nuda scriptura is complicated by their acceptance of the prophecy of Ellen G. White as inspired and authoritative, and their acceptance of her interpretation of scripture as the only plausible interpretation, to the extent that non Adventists on CF are routinely accused of disagreeing with Scripture when they merely disagree with the favored SDA definition.

Ironically insofar as SDA doctrine makes Ellen G White the only infallible interpreter of Scripture, against the Fathers, against Tradition, against the use of historical context and other modes of analytical interpretation, we would disagree with Adventism of the SDA variety for the same reason we disagree with the Roman Catholics.

 

[concretecamper]

While different Protestant groups may apply Sola Scriptura in different ways, most agree on the core definition: the Bible is the only infallible authority for faith and practice.

Some protestants go way beyond this definition, and some protestants fall way short of it. That is the problem.

 

[Jermayn]

Some protestants go way beyond this definition, and some protestants fall way short of it. That is the problem.

I think the real issue might be in seeing this diversity as a problem in the first place. The existence of differing interpretations doesn't invalidate Sola Scriptura, it just reminds us that human understanding is limited, and we must approach Scripture with humility, study, and dependence on the Holy Spirit. The question isn’t whether people will disagree, but where final authority rests when they do, for Protestants, that's the Bible, not any one individual or council.

 

[concretecamper]

I think the real issue might be in seeing this diversity as a problem in the first place. The existence of differing interpretations doesn't invalidate Sola Scriptura, it just reminds us that human understanding is limited, and we must approach Scripture with humility, study, and dependence on the Holy Spirit. The question isn’t whether people will disagree, but where final authority rests when they do, for Protestants, that's the Bible, not any one individual or council.

So God would give us infallible Scriptures with no sure-fire (infallible) way to interpret them? Ok then.

 

[The Liturgist]

So God would give us infallible Scriptures with no sure-fire (infallible) way to interpret them? Ok then.

Well there is an infallible mode of interpretation, which is the ecumenical synods, which aside from certain aspects of Chalcedonian syntax which the OO legitimately objected to on the basis of a contradiction of the writings of Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria and his supporter, Archbishop Celestine of Rome (at the time Roman bishops were not styled Pope, so I reserve the title for those that are, such as Pope St. Gregory the Great, who was the most influential Pope on the Eastern church due to his revision of the Liturgy of the Presanctified; we do have the older form but it lacks the lovely hymn “Let my prayer arise” and his other contributions, also his dialogues are splendid, so that in the Orthodox church we venerate him as Diologos, which is noteworthy considering how many Greek fathers wrote dialogues) but not semantics, are congruent with the theology of all Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches.

We also have the ancient liturgies themselves, which have a Hagiopolitan and Antiochian core which is shared by all of them and which in their ancient form, before post-1054 revisions in the case of the Western Rites, and similar issues with the East Syriac Rite such as certain hymns by Mar Narsai and the incorrect attribution of a translation of the Anaphora of St. Basil to Nestorius (whose attempt to remove the word Theotokos from the Byzantine liturgy led directly to his anathematization), which in both cases can easily be identified and ignored, represent and embody both the consensus patrum and the life of the Early Church.

So whereas a Roman Catholic who really cared about doctrine would read the CCC and various official encyclicals, an Eastern Orthodox trying to do the same thing could do so simply by opening up their prayerbook or any of the other 30 or so liturgical books we use. And a Coptic Orthodox need only open the Coptic Reader app which consolidates everything in one application and applies the propers automatically, which people are attempting to do for the Byzantine Rite and have done for the Tridentine Rite with the Benedictine and different editions of the Roman breviaries.

 

[concretecamper]

Well there is an infallible mode of interpretation,

You don't need to convince me.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

While different Protestant groups may apply Sola Scriptura in different ways, most agree on the core definition: the Bible is the only infallible authority for faith and practice. No pope or any other human, except Jesus Christ, is considered infallible. It's really a very simple doctrine. Does every Catholic interpret things the Pope says the exact same way?

Catholics are required as a matter of faith to accept the teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Church, over which the Pope rules infallibly

That does not mean that every word that comes form his mouth is from God, but he is the guardian of the faith, and there is no appeal of a final ruling by the Pope.

Oh there are many so called “cafeteria Catholics” that pick and choose what they want to believe, but they are in error. Some even want to call the Pope a heretic and claim to speak above him. That is also error.
Jesus gave Peter the keys to heaven. Keys is plural. One is teaching authority and the other is political authority. To rebel against teaching authority is heresy, and to rebel against political authority is schism. Both are equally evil and they do injury to the body of Christ.
Both are sins, yet Christ can forgive if we repent. Judas rebelled against Christs teaching authority in that he scoffed at the bread of life discourse and betrayed Our Lord. He did not repent and is lost the son of perdition. Peter betrayed the political authority of Christ when Jesus told him of suffering. “Lord, pray that this never happen to you” Jesus said get behind me Satan. Peter repented, Christ forgave him and made him the first Pope. We note that the Apostles did not elect him but Jesus Himself restored him, countering his three denials, Simon son of Jonah lovest thou me? Feed my lambs.

If these sins are done in ignorance, they can be forgiven. The Catholic Church does not judge you, nor do I judge you, but as Jesus told the Pharisees Moses would be their judge, Paul will be your judge
Almost all Protestant denominations have something evil to say about the Catholic Church, from we are ignorant and don’t know the Bible or the Gospel to we are evil pagans that carry the mark of the beast , yet no one can show a scripture that contradicts the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Causes one to wonder

 

[The Liturgist]

Please have a blessed Palm Sunday my Roman Catholic friends, and join me in praying for the reconciliation of our churches - we may disagree about what needs to happen in order for reconciliation to occur, but we do agree it should occur.