Misconceptions about Protestants

[Catherineanne]

Ok so w/o me reading it, does it say that "conscience is an act of our own intellect?"

I asked d, who studied Ethics etc. Apparently, this was Freud's view, but nobody else much agreed.

 

[Catherineanne]

Actually, ... Catholics also deny very much the person of the Holy Spirit and personal salvation. I know many Catholics who believe that Jesus died a generic death for all, and by virtue of their being baptized into the 'church', one is automatically saved.

 

[Catherineanne]

Why not use the term heresy? Because it refers to Faithful and devout believers that were TORTURED, MAIMED and KILLED by YOUR Church.

I am sorry to have to say, RR, that in the Reformation Roman Catholics were also tortured and burned, and protestants were not above accusations of heresy. Feelings clearly ran very high. The lesson for us is NOT that Catholics are capable of torture, but that we ALL are.

This is just Ireland:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08163a.htm

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Just as an FYI
A very good book to learning Koine Greek is Mounce's Basic of Biblical Greek. It starts by teaching the most common words in the NT so that by the time you are a third or so into the book, you can already read about 50% of the NT.

Thank you, I have now added it to my Amazon wishlist.

Could you recommend a good primer on learning Latin?

I am using Scanlon [Amazon | Publisher]

Most beginner Latin books are aimed at Classical Latin (e.g. Wheelock's) rather than Ecclesiastical Latin. Much of it the same but some words have changed over time (esp. pronunciation but also in the written form) and anyway it's nice to be translating religious texts in addition to just random sentences. I know you're not Catholic but by the end of the first book you will understand everything in the Mass and much of the Breviary. The second book covers Latin used in more theological, rather than liturgical, texts.

My priest (and others in traditional seminaries) went through many years of Latin study (and many other classes are taught in Latin), I'm very much a beginning first-year student. I am learning Latin with some guys from my parish, one of the guys is just out of high school and going into seminary (FSSP). I wish I could audit classes from the seminary, that would be so interesting.

I took two years of Japanese in high school. I don't remember much of it but it's certainly an interestingly structured language. The biggest roadblock was simply learning vocabulary since its so different. But there are so many cognates between Latin and English or even more if you already know a Romance language like Italian, French or Spanish. In each chapter of Scanlon, you are given vocabulary and then cognates and then derivatives of the words you have already learned so you build up your vocabulary very quickly.

I also never learned English very formally so I'm also learning more about English grammar (e.g. participles, gerunds, etc.) and expanding my English vocabulary.

Oh, by the way, there is no answer key in Scanlon because it is intended for use in a classroom but there are many people who have posted their answers online. The one I like is: Here but for some reason the "index" link doesn't work (the words "Return to Index" are there but there is no actual link) so you have to increment the (Roman) numeral at the end of the URL (e.g. Lesson IX).

Anyway, have fun with it!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Lively Stone Actually, ... Catholics also deny very much the person of the Holy Spirit and personal salvation.
I know many Catholics who believe that Jesus died a generic death for all, and by virtue of their being baptized into the 'church', one is automatically saved.

Is that a type of cryptic response?

 

[MKJ]

Thank you, I have now added it to my Amazon wishlist.



I am using Scanlon [Amazon | Publisher]

Most beginner Latin books are aimed at Classical Latin (e.g. Wheelock's) rather than Ecclesiastical Latin. Much of it the same but some words have changed over time (esp. pronunciation but also in the written form) and anyway it's nice to be translating religious texts in addition to just random sentences. I know you're not Catholic but by the end of the first book you will understand everything in the Mass and much of the Breviary. The second book covers Latin used in more theological, rather than liturgical, texts.

My priest (and others in traditional seminaries) went through many years of Latin study (and many other classes are taught in Latin), I'm very much a beginning first-year student. I am learning Latin with some guys from my parish, one of the guys is just out of high school and going into seminary (FSSP). I wish I could audit classes from the seminary, that would be so interesting.

I took two years of Japanese in high school. I don't remember much of it but it's certainly an interestingly structured language. The biggest roadblock was simply learning vocabulary since its so different. But there are so many cognates between Latin and English or even more if you already know a Romance language like Italian, French or Spanish. In each chapter of Scanlon, you are given vocabulary and then cognates and then derivatives of the words you have already learned so you build up your vocabulary very quickly.

I also never learned English very formally so I'm also learning more about English grammar (e.g. participles, gerunds, etc.) and expanding my English vocabulary.

Oh, by the way, there is no answer key in Scanlon because it is intended for use in a classroom but there are many people who have posted their answers online. The one I like is: Here but for some reason the "index" link doesn't work (the words "Return to Index" are there but there is no actual link) so you have to increment the (Roman) numeral at the end of the URL (e.g. Lesson IX).

Anyway, have fun with it!

I used Wheelock for my first year of university Latin, and we transitioned into translating medieval Latin hymns in my second year with no problem, so using a classical program won't hold one back in that area.

The advantage would be that classical Latin tends to be more difficult than medieval Latin, so anyone who might like to read classical sources as well might be better off just to start with classical Latin.

 

[Catherineanne]

Is that a type of cryptic response?

That is me laughing at the irony of a misconception about protestants in a thread about misconceptions about protestants.

 

[Standing Up]

I am using Scanlon [Amazon | Publisher]

Most beginner Latin books are aimed at Classical Latin (e.g. Wheelock's) rather than Ecclesiastical Latin.

Know anyone who can translate medieval latin (c450ad) into english? Anyone? PM me please.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Thanks for the information on the Latin primers!

"The advantage would be that classical Latin tends to be more difficult than medieval Latin, so anyone who might like to read classical sources as well might be better off just to start with classical Latin."

Greek is similar, Attic is harder than Classic is harder than Koine is harder than modern. The language gradually became simpler as time went on. There are odd declensions in Attic that disappeared even by the Koine era.

Brian

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I used Wheelock for my first year of university Latin, and we transitioned into translating medieval Latin hymns in my second year with no problem, so using a classical program won't hold one back in that area.

The advantage would be that classical Latin tends to be more difficult than medieval Latin, so anyone who might like to read classical sources as well might be better off just to start with classical Latin.

I started with Wheelock two years ago on my own but didn't grok it, the same with Scanlon. But after having gone to the Latin Mass for more than a year and learning other prayers in Latin, it finally clicked and now it's just a matter of learning it.

Father said not to mix learning classical and ecclesiastical Latin because you might get confused. Certainly, hearing it spoken is grating and almost unintelligible. It's kind of like listening to someone with a Cockney accent -- it's English... I think. Ecclesiastical pronunciation is so lyrical and lends itself beautifully to intonation and chanting.

Gloria (with words)
I'm not sure where this is. In the comments, the OP says "Krakow, Poland". It appears to be the same FSSP church shown in this pontifical Mass.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I'm working* through "A Primer to Ecclesiastical Latin."

*Haven't touched in several months.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Thanks for the information on the Latin primers!

"The advantage would be that classical Latin tends to be more difficult than medieval Latin, so anyone who might like to read classical sources as well might be better off just to start with classical Latin."

Greek is similar, Attic is harder than Classic is harder than Koine is harder than modern. The language gradually became simpler as time went on. There are odd declensions in Attic that disappeared even by the Koine era.

Brian

Latin actually grew more declensions. Old Latin only had two declensions, which were very similar to the first and second declensions in Epic Greek.

Compare Greek, Old Latin and Classical Latin declensions.

Then, in the Middle Ages, the declensions started crossing. For example, classical Latin will have animis for the dat./abl. pl. of animae but for some reason by medieval Latin, that form borrowed its ending from a different declension and became animabus. The same thing happened with famulis -> famulabus and some other words. Why? I have no idea.

 

[hedrick]

This is not to say that the Pope has a dictatorial authority over the Catholic Church really but more as that Protestants don't hold any sort of obedience to anyone but themselves with regards to any teach on faith, morals or any other practice. Nobody in a Protestant hierarchy of any particular denomination really claims any authority, it's just for administration purposes.

The confessional Protestant churches lodge doctrinal and disciplinary authority in the community. Depending upon the Church, the way decisions are made and carried out may differ slightly. In the Reformed tradition, pastors have real leadership responsibility, but significant decisions are made by the Session for the local church, and larger bodies for decisions of wider scope. Note that all of these bodies consist entirely of ordained elders.

As I understand it, the EO tradition also gives the community a role in doctrinal decisions, in that a decision is not final unless the Orthodox community as a whole accepts it. I don't believe there's any one person in the Orthodox community that can make doctrinal decisions. As far as I know, disciplinary and other pastoral decisions are more likely to be done by a bishop in the Orthodox tradition than by a single person in the Reformed tradition, although pastors do have some degree of authority in pastoral matters, as well as in interpreting Scripture for the congregation.

I've said this enough times in the past that it's hard to understand why you keep claiming that Protestants obey no one but themselves. I would classify "every Protestant is a self-contained authority" as a misconception in the sense of the OP. In theory this could be true in the non-confessional churches, but in practice they don't differ so much from the confessional churches in how they make decisions.

I should note that obedience is a somewhat misleading term in some cases. While most members do defer to the community consensus on many doctrinal matters, people like me who are more involved in theology are part of the discussion. I don't exactly regard the PCUSA as an external authority that I obey. My conclusions normally (always?) agree with the conclusions of the PCUSA community, but not because it is an authority that I obey so much as because PCUSA teachings represent the conclusions of a community of which I am a part.

 

[Heavens]

If it was actually clear, there wouldn't be thousands of different Protestant denominations all teaching contradictory beliefs.
So rejecting historical evidence is a good thing to do?

Catholic history means nothing, unless someone wants to count the beloved saints that they murdered down through time. Yes I own the Book of Martyrs set and read them often. But that wasn't my point.

Protestants or catholics... No man made denomination on this planet has proper beliefs or doctrines. Catholics have a couple ideas that are sort of close, each of the other denominations hit and miss on truths too.
But none are "the church".
Only individuals who have received the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ are His Body. The rest are tares. How many of either of those in any denomination, who knows but God.
Only THESE people are the church;

(Heb 12:22) but ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels.

This is my church

 

[sunlover1]

Catholic history means nothing, unless someone wants to count the beloved saints that they murdered down through time. Yes I own the Book of Martyrs set and read them often. But that wasn't my point.

Protestants or catholics... No man made denomination on this planet has proper beliefs or doctrines. Catholics have a couple ideas that are sort of close, each of the other denominations hit and miss on truths too.
But none are "the church".
Only individuals who have received the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ are His Body. The rest are tares. How many of either of those in any denomination, who knows but God.
Only THESE people are the church;

(Heb 12:22) but ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels.

This is my church

Mine too!
LETS HAVE CHURCH!

Shall we start with communion?
All praise and glory be to God!

 

[Heavens]

Mine too!
LETS HAVE CHURCH!

Shall we start with communion?
All praise and glory be to God!

Yes yes!

 

[MKJ]

I started with Wheelock two years ago on my own but didn't grok it, the same with Scanlon. But after having gone to the Latin Mass for more than a year and learning other prayers in Latin, it finally clicked and now it's just a matter of learning it.

Father said not to mix learning classical and ecclesiastical Latin because you might get confused. Certainly, hearing it spoken is grating and almost unintelligible. It's kind of like listening to someone with a Cockney accent -- it's English... I think. Ecclesiastical pronunciation is so lyrical and lends itself beautifully to intonation and chanting.

Gloria (with words)
I'm not sure where this is. In the comments, the OP says "Krakow, Poland". It appears to be the same FSSP church shown in this pontifical Mass.

Interestingly, when the Catholic Church decided to have everyone to switch to the Italian pronunciation, it was very controversial. Apparently the French, for example, were quite incensed that they would not be allowed to speak Latin like proper Frenchmen. One of the areas that objected, and ultimately refused to change, was Poland.

So, according to my old Latin prof, somewhere there are some films of JPII saying Mass when he first became pope, and he keeps slipping back into Polish Latin.

 

[chilehed]

...Tell me, did you become a Catholic despite having basic and serious theological disagreement with what the CC teaches? If you did, would you have accepted their authority and become (remain) Catholic anyway, or would you conclude they were not what they claimed? No need to answer, but I am saying that if you think a body has made a huge mistake, that can be a good reason to not accept their authority. Otherwise why not become a Mormon, or a member of any other group that makes claims of authority.

Thanks for your respectful reply and honest question.

My investigation of Catholicism was made simultaneously with a critical evaluation of the Reformed theology I had grown up with. The first time though I hit the high points of the most common doctrinal differences ( sola scriptura, sola fide, Marian doctrines, etc.), expecting that I would quickly prove Catholic teaching to be false. But what happened was that Catholic teaching appeared more sound than I expected, and Reformed theology less.

I was surprised, and dug in deeper. But the more I studied the worse it got, until I realised that in every case the best that Reformed theology could do in my mind was a draw. In many cases Catholic theology was more consistent with scripture, reason and the evidence of the beliefs of the early Church.

I slowly realised that I believed that Catholic doctrine was wrong not because the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture told me so, but because it was what I'd been taught from childhood.

One day I was studying the Westminster Confession and noticed something in a new light:

"The Lord Jesus, as king and head of his Church, hath therein appointed a government in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, by virtue whereof they have power respectively to retain and remit sins, to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word and censures;...
It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience...​

When I checked the scripture references I didn't find that they made the case very well. So I did my own study to find out what Scripture said about the institution of the Church government. I concluded that these statements are consistent with the texts of Sacred Scripture and with the extra-biblical historical evidence:

1. The church is a divine institution: the Bride and Body of Christ. ( Eph. 1:22-23; Song of Songs; Isaiah 62; Jeremiah 2:1-3; Jeremiah 3:1-5, 3:19-20, 5:7)
2. The church is the foundation and pillar of truth. (1 Tim. 3:15)
3. The Church is forever visible, not hidden. (John 1:3-5; Matt. 5:14-15; Luke 8:16,11:33)
4. The Church will proclaim the true gospel continuously, forever. (Isaiah 59:21; Matt. 16:18b; Matt. 28:20b; 1 Pet 1:25)
5. The Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles.( Ephesians 2:17-22; Ephesians 3:4-5)
6. Jesus will always be with the Apostles, and they will never teach erroneous doctrine. (John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:12-13, 17:17-19.)
7. The Apostles speak with the authority of God. (Matthew 10:20, Luke 10:16)
8. The Apostles will remember everything Jesus taught them. (John 14:16-18, 26, Luke 21:33)
9. The Apostles will be one in the doctrine they teach. (John 17:20-23)
10. The Apostles have to power to forgive sin. (John 20:21-23)
11. God will give the Apostles whatever they ask for in Christ’s name, and the fruit they bear will remain. (John 15:16, 16:23; Romans 1:13)
12. St. Peter has a pre-eminent place among the Apostles. (Matthew 16:17-19; Isaiah 22:20-25)
13. The Apostles, and not the believers at large, had the authority to interpret Scripture and teach binding doctrine. (Rom 13:1-2; Heb. 13:17; 1 Tim 1:3; 2 Pet. 1:16–21, 3:2, 3:16; Jude 8, 10-11 (ref. to Numbers 16)
14. The Magesterium (the teaching authority of Christ’s Church) exercised that authority to make binding decisions on matters of faith. (Acts 15)
15. The teaching authority that Jesus gave to the Apostles extended to the Apostles’ sucessors. (Acts 1:20,26; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 3:9-11)
16. The early Church believed in the sucession of Magesterial authority. (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Cyprian of Carthage)​

I was thus forced, against my will, to further conclude that the overwhelming evidence from Sacred Scripture and from extra-biblical historical doumentation is that Jesus founded a Church with a visible, hierarchical and infallible teaching authority vested in the sucessor to St. Peter and the Bishops in union with him

Faced with that, I desperately searched for any evidence that the early church held doctrine consistent with Reformation Protestantism. That search was in vain, and in fact the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the Church, from the earliest days, unabashedly taught doctrines that are held by the Catholic Church and that were rejected by the Reformers. This is the reason I abandoned Protestantism and formally entered the Catholic Church at the Easter Vigil of 2004.

At that time there were still a number of teachings with which I had difficulty, but in the face of that was the truth that Christ gave His Church the authority to determine doctrine. He didn't give it to me. I wasn't in the room when he made those promises to the Apostles.

If I was certain of some doctrine, and Jesus appeared to me and told me I was wrong, then I'd abandon my firmly held belief because Jesus is Truth, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. And He established His Church with a teaching authority, saying "he who hears you, hears me." So when the Church defines a doctrine with which I disagree, then on the authority of Christ I know that I'm the one who's wrong.

Since then I've resolved those remaining difficulties. They had to do with Catholic teachings on sexual morality. I was most certainly wrong.

 

[Heavens]

Thanks for your respectful reply and honest question.

My investigation of Catholicism was made simultaneously with a critical evaluation of the Reformed theology I had grown up with. The first time though I hit the high points of the most common doctrinal differences ( sola scriptura, sola fide, Marian doctrines, etc.), expecting that I would quickly prove Catholic teaching to be false. But what happened was that Catholic teaching appeared more sound than I expected, and Reformed theology less.

I was surprised, and dug in deeper. But the more I studied the worse it got, until I realised that in every case the best that Reformed theology could do in my mind was a draw. In many cases Catholic theology was more consistent with scripture, reason and the evidence of the beliefs of the early Church.

I slowly realised that I believed that Catholic doctrine was wrong not because the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture told me so, but because it was what I'd been taught from childhood.

One day I was studying the Westminster Confession and noticed something in a new light:

"The Lord Jesus, as king and head of his Church, hath therein appointed a government in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, by virtue whereof they have power respectively to retain and remit sins, to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word and censures;...
It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience...
​

When I checked the scripture references I didn't find that they made the case very well. So I did my own study to find out what Scripture said about the institution of the Church government. I concluded that these statements are consistent with the texts of Sacred Scripture and with the extra-biblical historical evidence:

1. The church is a divine institution: the Bride and Body of Christ. ( Eph. 1:22-23; Song of Songs; Isaiah 62; Jeremiah 2:1-3; Jeremiah 3:1-5, 3:19-20, 5:7)
2. The church is the foundation and pillar of truth. (1 Tim. 3:15)
3. The Church is forever visible, not hidden. (John 1:3-5; Matt. 5:14-15; Luke 8:16,11:33)
4. The Church will proclaim the true gospel continuously, forever. (Isaiah 59:21; Matt. 16:18b; Matt. 28:20b; 1 Pet 1:25)
5. The Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles.( Ephesians 2:17-22; Ephesians 3:4-5)
6. Jesus will always be with the Apostles, and they will never teach erroneous doctrine. (John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:12-13, 17:17-19.)
7. The Apostles speak with the authority of God. (Matthew 10:20, Luke 10:16)
8. The Apostles will remember everything Jesus taught them. (John 14:16-18, 26, Luke 21:33)
9. The Apostles will be one in the doctrine they teach. (John 17:20-23)
10. The Apostles have to power to forgive sin. (John 20:21-23)
11. God will give the Apostles whatever they ask for in Christ’s name, and the fruit they bear will remain. (John 15:16, 16:23; Romans 1:13)
12. St. Peter has a pre-eminent place among the Apostles. (Matthew 16:17-19; Isaiah 22:20-25)
13. The Apostles, and not the believers at large, had the authority to interpret Scripture and teach binding doctrine. (Rom 13:1-2; Heb. 13:17; 1 Tim 1:3; 2 Pet. 1:16–21, 3:2, 3:16; Jude 8, 10-11 (ref. to Numbers 16)
14. The Magesterium (the teaching authority of Christ’s Church) exercised that authority to make binding decisions on matters of faith. (Acts 15)
15. The teaching authority that Jesus gave to the Apostles extended to the Apostles’ sucessors. (Acts 1:20,26; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 3:9-11)
16. The early Church believed in the sucession of Magesterial authority. (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Cyprian of Carthage)
​

I was thus forced, against my will, to further conclude that the overwhelming evidence from Sacred Scripture and from extra-biblical historical doumentation is that Jesus founded a Church with a visible, hierarchical and infallible teaching authority vested in the sucessor to St. Peter and the Bishops in union with him

Faced with that, I desperately searched for any evidence that the early church held doctrine consistent with Reformation Protestantism. That search was in vain, and in fact the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the Church, from the earliest days, unabashedly taught doctrines that are held by the Catholic Church and that were rejected by the Reformers. This is the reason I abandoned Protestantism and formally entered the Catholic Church at the Easter Vigil of 2004.

At that time there were still a number of teachings with which I had difficulty, but in the face of that was the truth that Christ gave His Church the authority to determine doctrine. He didn't give it to me. I wasn't in the room when he made those promises to the Apostles.

If I was certain of some doctrine, and Jesus appeared to me and told me I was wrong, then I'd abandon my firmly held belief because Jesus is Truth, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. And He established His Church with a teaching authority, saying "he who hears you, hears me." So when the Church defines a doctrine with which I disagree, then on the authority of Christ I know that I'm the one who's wrong.

Since then I've resolved those remaining difficulties. They had to do with Catholic teachings on sexual morality. I was most certainly wrong.

Looks like that "westminster confession" really screwed with your search for Christ. Too bad that impressed you. Like a fly caught in a web of delusions.

Well lets just all pretend those scriptures relate to the catholic denomination.
One question though just for fun, if Peter was the big mucky muck over all the other apostles, why did he screw up concerning the judahizers and suffer Paul to rebuke him?
For that matter, why wasn't Peter the one who filled up the New Testament with scriptures and not Paul? Was he too busy poping somewhere?
Oh, and why didn't Peter know he was the "pope"?
And again, why would you follow after a denomination instead of simply following Jesus' Holy Spirit and His Word instead of all the above nonsense you did?
Just curious.

 

[MKJ]

Thanks for your respectful reply and honest question.

My investigation of Catholicism was made simultaneously with a critical evaluation of the Reformed theology I had grown up with. The first time though I hit the high points of the most common doctrinal differences ( sola scriptura, sola fide, Marian doctrines, etc.), expecting that I would quickly prove Catholic teaching to be false. But what happened was that Catholic teaching appeared more sound than I expected, and Reformed theology less.

I was surprised, and dug in deeper. But the more I studied the worse it got, until I realised that in every case the best that Reformed theology could do in my mind was a draw. In many cases Catholic theology was more consistent with scripture, reason and the evidence of the beliefs of the early Church.

I slowly realised that I believed that Catholic doctrine was wrong not because the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture told me so, but because it was what I'd been taught from childhood.

One day I was studying the Westminster Confession and noticed something in a new light:

"The Lord Jesus, as king and head of his Church, hath therein appointed a government in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, by virtue whereof they have power respectively to retain and remit sins, to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word and censures;...
It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience...​

When I checked the scripture references I didn't find that they made the case very well. So I did my own study to find out what Scripture said about the institution of the Church government. I concluded that these statements are consistent with the texts of Sacred Scripture and with the extra-biblical historical evidence:

1. The church is a divine institution: the Bride and Body of Christ. ( Eph. 1:22-23; Song of Songs; Isaiah 62; Jeremiah 2:1-3; Jeremiah 3:1-5, 3:19-20, 5:7)
2. The church is the foundation and pillar of truth. (1 Tim. 3:15)
3. The Church is forever visible, not hidden. (John 1:3-5; Matt. 5:14-15; Luke 8:16,11:33)
4. The Church will proclaim the true gospel continuously, forever. (Isaiah 59:21; Matt. 16:18b; Matt. 28:20b; 1 Pet 1:25)
5. The Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles.( Ephesians 2:17-22; Ephesians 3:4-5)
6. Jesus will always be with the Apostles, and they will never teach erroneous doctrine. (John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:12-13, 17:17-19.)
7. The Apostles speak with the authority of God. (Matthew 10:20, Luke 10:16)
8. The Apostles will remember everything Jesus taught them. (John 14:16-18, 26, Luke 21:33)
9. The Apostles will be one in the doctrine they teach. (John 17:20-23)
10. The Apostles have to power to forgive sin. (John 20:21-23)
11. God will give the Apostles whatever they ask for in Christ’s name, and the fruit they bear will remain. (John 15:16, 16:23; Romans 1:13)
12. St. Peter has a pre-eminent place among the Apostles. (Matthew 16:17-19; Isaiah 22:20-25)
13. The Apostles, and not the believers at large, had the authority to interpret Scripture and teach binding doctrine. (Rom 13:1-2; Heb. 13:17; 1 Tim 1:3; 2 Pet. 1:16–21, 3:2, 3:16; Jude 8, 10-11 (ref. to Numbers 16)
14. The Magesterium (the teaching authority of Christ’s Church) exercised that authority to make binding decisions on matters of faith. (Acts 15)
15. The teaching authority that Jesus gave to the Apostles extended to the Apostles’ sucessors. (Acts 1:20,26; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 3:9-11)
16. The early Church believed in the sucession of Magesterial authority. (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Cyprian of Carthage)​

I was thus forced, against my will, to further conclude that the overwhelming evidence from Sacred Scripture and from extra-biblical historical doumentation is that Jesus founded a Church with a visible, hierarchical and infallible teaching authority vested in the sucessor to St. Peter and the Bishops in union with him

Faced with that, I desperately searched for any evidence that the early church held doctrine consistent with Reformation Protestantism. That search was in vain, and in fact the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the Church, from the earliest days, unabashedly taught doctrines that are held by the Catholic Church and that were rejected by the Reformers. This is the reason I abandoned Protestantism and formally entered the Catholic Church at the Easter Vigil of 2004.

At that time there were still a number of teachings with which I had difficulty, but in the face of that was the truth that Christ gave His Church the authority to determine doctrine. He didn't give it to me. I wasn't in the room when he made those promises to the Apostles.

If I was certain of some doctrine, and Jesus appeared to me and told me I was wrong, then I'd abandon my firmly held belief because Jesus is Truth, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. And He established His Church with a teaching authority, saying "he who hears you, hears me." So when the Church defines a doctrine with which I disagree, then on the authority of Christ I know that I'm the one who's wrong.

Since then I've resolved those remaining difficulties. They had to do with Catholic teachings on sexual morality. I was most certainly wrong.

I've also looked seriously into Catholism at one time. The papal claims seemed possible to me, but not a slam dunk. However, I was unable to come to accept their views on merit, penance, purgatory and indulgences. (in the sense that they are all related, not every aspect of all of those teachings.) These seemed quite clearly wrong. Ultimatly I do accept there is a hierarchy and authority in the Church, but I think the CC has made some errors in understanding how it is meant to work (which has lead to some other errors.)

So I can see the Reformers POV. I really don't think they could in many cases see a better solution - they couldn't affirm what the CC wanted them to, and they were then excommunicated. What to do but figure out a way to exist without the hierarchy?