How Quickly Catholic Heresy Took Over the Church (Immediately)

Young, Evangelical, and Catholic ^ | November 5, 2011 | Brantly Callaway Millegan

[Mr Rogers]

Odd, then, that so many Catholic scholars thought he did NOT accept the Apocrypha (there were no Deuterocanonicals in his time) as acceptable for doctrine.

And in most of the examples you give, he is illustrating something from the Apocrypha, not citing it as authoritative.

Your best case seems to be this citation:

“Not to waste more words, the blessed prelate after many exhortations left her chamber; and, when I asked him what he had accomplished, replied, “Only this that old as I am I have been almost persuaded to drink no more wine.” I relate this story not because I approve of persons rashly taking upon themselves burthens beyond their strength (for does not the scripture say: “Burden not yourself above your power”? Sirach 13:2) but because I wish from this quality of perseverance in her to show the passion of her mind and the yearning of her believing soul; both of which made her sing in David’s words, “My soul thirsts for you, my flesh longs after you.”

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001108.htm

The Protestants did not argue that the Apocrypha was evil, or unacceptable for reading, but that it was not scripture - the breath of God. And since Jerome called various parts of Daniel ‘fables’, and explicitly rejected the authority of the Apocrypha, I doubt this one passage shows he rejected what he publicly proclaimed.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“The influence of Origen’s and Athanasius’s restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, excluding the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them “ecclesiastical” books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books.

In appreciating his attitude we must remember that Jerome lived long in Palestine, in an environment where everything outside the Jewish Canon was suspect, and that, moreover, he had an excessive veneration for the Hebrew text, the Hebraica veritas as he called it. In his famous “Prologus Galeatus”, or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, and Judith are not on the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine.

An analysis of Jerome’s expressions on the deuterocanonicals, in various letters and prefaces, yields the following results: first, he strongly doubted their inspiration; secondly, the fact that he occasionally quotes them, and translated some of them as a concession to ecclesiastical tradition, is an involuntary testimony on his part to the high standing these writings enjoyed in the Church at large, and to the strength of the practical tradition which prescribed their readings in public worship.

Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the “confirmation of the doctrine of the Church”, to borrow Jerome’s phrase.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

[paladinan]

Mr Rogers wrote, in reply to my comment:

Your basis for saying something is scripture is: The Roman Catholic Church has said so.

Yes, and no. Yes, in the sense that the only firm basis for believing a given book to be inspired Scripture is the judgment and testimony of the One Church Whom Christ established as the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). And this idea was extant far earlier than you might suppose:

"Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichæus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." (St. Augustine [354-430 A.D.], "Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental" 5:6)

If that is your reasoning, feel free to use it when you stand before God. All men will stand before God as individuals, and give account.

My dear fellow! Surely you see that this bit of soaring rhetoric settles nothing at all? I could as easily say it of you, who pick and choose the Scriptures based on your "deep personal feelings" (despite the fact that untold numbers of equally devout and prayerful Christians rely on that same standard, but disagree with you both in the content of the Scriptures and in their interpretation). You really must do better than that.

But you might as well call the Book of Mormon scripture, since the LDS Church says it is so.

Precisely. It isn't simply a matter of "what feels right", or "my pastor says so" or even "this is the Bible I was given when I was a child, so that's good enough for me"; you've essentially told us that you neither know nor care how you settled your mind on the contents of Scripture; you're quite satisfied to let mere blind credulity lead you. More on that, below.

[Paladin] “Truth is not a matter of “oh, well, let’s each follow our own way”; you don’t evangelize with “have it your way” as a message, do you? Then what do you consider the truth, and how do you know it?”

[Mr Rogers] I offer the Gospel, but only the Holy Spirit can convict a man’s soul, and even then not if the man refuses.

Half a moment, here; you've completely side-stepped the question, altogether! It's not much use talking about "offering the Gospel" when you haven't even settled the CONTENTS of that Gospel! It's not enough for you to say, "I simply 'know' that my 66-book Bible is true and complete! For that matter, I "know" that you are mistaken! Surely you see that we cannot both be right, on this point? And surely you see that the point is a critically important one? It cannot be left to mere personal taste.

I do not attempt to prove God mathematically. Nor do I attempt to prove something is or is not scripture.

You wouldn't need to do so, either, were you Catholic. Do you not see that you accept the 66-book Canon as blindly as many Catholics accept the 73-book Canon? But both cannot be correct... and if 2 Maccabees is correct, for example, about the goodness and efficacy of prayers for the dead, then I assure you that it will make a tremendous difference to you and to your loved ones who die! No... you really do need to face these issues head-on, and not simply run away from them.

If someone rejects the Bible, that is their choice. If they read the Gospels and say, “So what?”, then my words will not convince them.

Come, now. Are you so apathetic to souls as that? Some people ask "so what" simply to be belligerent; that's true... and no one will reach them unless they open up to the message in the future. But what of the sincere seeker who asks "so what?" in earnest? What if they're curious and open, but have heard competing claims from differing religions or denominations? The "health-and-wealth Gospel" adherents promise them health and wealth, if only they believe; the Christian Scientists assure them that pain and illness are only illusions; the Seventh-Day Adventists warn that worshipping on Sunday is a crime worthy of damnation. If they sincerely want to know why they're wrong, and why you're right, will you simply shrug at them, and walk away?

And it is certain that saying, “The Roman Catholic Church says so” will not help, unless the person is already a Roman Catholic.

It would, were it followed by an explanation of how the Catholic Church is the very Church established by Christ on St. Peter, promised never to fall to the Gates of Hades. Explanations like these (such as you are loath to offer, even for the Scriptures) are quite vital. I could ask the same of you: for one who is not already a "Bible Believer", of what use would your "sharing the Gospel" be? And if they already believe it, what would be the POINT of your efforts?

Fallible man will make fallible decisions, but as more and more Christians read it, more and more will be convicted by the Holy Spirit.

My dear fellow: that very thing happened, almost 2000 years ago, when more and more people were convicted by the Holy Spirit to accept the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ. At best, this statement of yours is simply wishful thinking, since you've no basis (and no ambition, as you admit) for defending the Faith against error (despite the fact that you seem to be dabbling in it, here). Your above claim settles nothing at all.

And the problem is hardly as large as you make it out to be. The Gospel of Thomas had very few proponents. In fact, who considers it scripture? What canon list did it appear on?

The Gnostics were quite fond of it, for one (since they wrote it). And had there been no Catholic Church, there would have been no Canon list of any sort, at all; so I wonder why you consider that a point in your favour...

But given that the Catholic Church didn’t speak ‘authoritatively’ until the mid-1500s, it is kind of hard to argue that the Catholic Church ‘gave us the NT’. Your starting assumption is incorrect; the Catholic Church, on at least five different occasions, defined the Sacred Canon of Scripture (see here for a few references; there are fuller lists, but I have very little time, now, to search for them)... none of which declarations, by the way, ever included 3 and 4 Esdras or the Prayer of Manasses. If you can find a single dogmatic definition from any Ecumenical Council which says otherwise, I'd be happy to read it.

On the contrary, it worked rather hard from about 1200-1800 to PREVENT it.

Oh, do avoid being silly, here! If you're hoping to trot out the tired old canard about "the Catholic Church keeping the Bible from the people", please do reconsider that nonsense. Had the Church wished to do that, whyever would She have translated those Sacred Scriptures into dozens of vernacular languages (including English) long before the King James Bible ever saw the light of day? Why not destory all copies of the Bible, to keep it from falling into the "wrong hands" (save, perhaps, for one copy, for which the Church could charge a hefty admission to see the "one last Holy Book"). Have some sense, man!

[Mr Rogers]

Good grief! Your appeal to authority proves nothing!

If someone already accepts the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, THEN...well, then scripture ought to worry them, for the teachings of the Catholic church contradict scripture.

But if they do not accept the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, then you have no where to go. If you debate with Mormons, as I have, then you are left with “My church says this!” and they reply, “My church says different!”

An argument from authority all hinges on which authority is accepted.

That is where the actual quote from Augustine comes in. Read in context, he says the lives of the Christians convinced him the church was true, and thus he accepts the gospel taught by the church.

“But what of the sincere seeker who asks “so what?” in earnest? What if they’re curious and open, but have heard competing claims from differing religions or denominations?”

Then if they can see the gospel in the lives of believers, and read the gospel themselves, the Holy Spirit will work in their lives as He did in mine. But if they reject the Gospel, then sometimes the correct response is to follow the example of the Apostles:

45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began to contradict what was spoken by Paul, reviling him. 46And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,

“’I have made you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’” - Acts 13

You see, the real church of God is not about rituals, or getting someone to be sprinkled with water, but one of spiritual repentance and power. And if someone rejects the Gospel, having seen it and heard it, then sometimes - not always, but sometimes - the only response is, “So be it.”

“It would, were it followed by an explanation of how the Catholic Church is the very Church established by Christ on St. Peter, promised never to fall to the Gates of Hades.”

Tough to do, since Peter never claimed that authority, and Jesus doesn’t seem to have given it to him. Very few people, reading Matt 16:16, would go, “Oh, Jesus is making Peter the Head of His Church, and Vicar in His place!”

Add in that scripture records Paul rebuking Peter for bad teaching and living (see Galatians 2), and the idea that Peter was set by Christ as an infallible head of the church just doesn’t sound too convincing.

Then add in that history shows no sign that the Bishop of Rome was accepted as the head of all the bishops, and given the obviously evil lives of some Popes, and there just is no substance there.

“I could ask the same of you: for one who is not already a “Bible Believer”, of what use would your “sharing the Gospel” be?”

Because the power of the Holy Spirit is real, and still exists. Because many who read the Gospels ARE convicted and changed. Because many who see the lives of believers DO believe.

Not all. Many will go to destruction, which is why that road is “wide”.

“My dear fellow: that very thing happened, almost 2000 years ago, when more and more people were convicted by the Holy Spirit to accept the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ.”

Simply not true. There was no Pope at Pentecost. There is no hierarchy with one given power to decide all in the early church. Try reading Romans 14. Paul doesn’t answer the dispute, and he doesn’t tell the church at Rome to ask Peter. Instead, he says:

5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. 9For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

10Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11for it is written,

“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God.”

12So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Why not tell them to ask Peter? Heck, why did they write Paul at all? Why not tell them to ask their Bishop?

Well, because these things are a matter of conscience, and we are individually accountable to GOD for our service, not to MAN. It is INDIVIDUAL, because “ each of us will give an account of himself to God.”

“Had the Church wished to do that, whyever would She have translated those Sacred Scriptures into dozens of vernacular languages (including English) long before the King James Bible ever saw the light of day?”

You need to read your history. First, until Wycliffe, there was NO vernacular translation of the Bible in English. The most extensive was a translation of the Gospels done around 1000 AD, and never widely distributed.

In response to the Wycliffe translation, the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1408 made it illegal to translate without approval from the Catholic church - approval that no one received, apart from the rich to translate parts for their own practice.

And for hundreds of years, it was the official policy of the Roman Catholic Church to severely limit access to vernacular translations, sometimes requiring written permission from the Pope himself.

Fact. Not fiction.

“Your starting assumption is incorrect; the Catholic Church, on at least five different occasions, defined the Sacred Canon of Scripture...”

Golly, why did they have to repeat themselves? After all, if they authoritatively settled it, there was nothing left to discuss!

But in fact, the Catholic Church did NOT settle the issue prior to Trent, and then Trent (1546) screwed it up.

The Vulgate had, for 1000+ years, contained the Prayer of Manasses, 3 Esdras (1 Esdras in the King James Bible), and 4 Esdras (2 Esdras in the King James Bible). But Trent forgot to list them, so what to do?

In 1592, Pope Clement VIII published the revised Vulgate, and he moved those 3 into an appendix “lest they utterly perish”. But before Trent, they were part of the Apocrypha. So a new term had to be invented, to describe the Apocrypha minus the books Trent left out, and so the term “Deuterocanonical” was invented (in 1566) to describe those books Trent approved of, minus the ones they left out.

Meanwhile, prior to Trent, Catholics such as Luther’s accuser were free to deny the canon status of the Apocrypha:

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

i ignored it because it’s ridiculous. because these fathers don’t mention baptism, is not indication that they didn’t believe in baptismal regeneration. if anything, it speaks to how well the doctrine was entrenched, there was no dispute.

want proof? read my post #175, read the epistle of barnabas, the shepard of hermas, st. irenaeus, justin martyr, et al, all testify to baptismal regeneration.

what don’t we find anywhere?

we don’t find any fathers or groups opposing baptismal regeneration. why do you think that is?

[stfassisi]

You really ought to recognize that it is no coincidence that the deuts reveal New Testament realities and fulfillment of prophecies pointing to Christ,therefore these books glorify Christ since they reveal Him through the typology

Just a few examples from scripturecatholic
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

That was substituting magic for the power of God. And those who promoted that system by enforcing ignorance and defying God’s word will face God’s punishment.

you are kidding aren’t you?

Read John 20:22, was this magic?

what about Acts 8:14-17, magic to you?
Acts 9:17, magic?
Acts 19:6, magic?

i could go on, but the point is made. The Church has authority given to it by Jesus Christ Himself, and that authority has been passed on by the laying on of hands as the Apostles showed us.

if someone wants to oppose the Church and hold to 16th century tradition of men, well, there isn’t much more than i can do, if such won’t accept the Scriptures, there isn’t much more to be done.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

see post #66

[Mr Rogers]

The idea that you touch a bit of water to a baby, and the baby becomes a born-again Christian, filled with the Holy Spirit, is obscene.

It goes against everything in the Gospels. You must repent and believe to be saved. Baptismal regeneration is evidence of how early magicians entered the church, following the example of Simon Magus.

In a sense, you are right. There isn’t much to discuss. Anyone reading the New Testament cannot help but see that baptism follows regeneration.

If water baptism made one a Christian, the New Testament - part of the scriptures that equips a man for “every good deed” - would tell all Christian parents to baptize their children. It does not.

Nor is any example given of infant baptism.

God is not a genie. You cannot rub the bottle and make Him do squat.

Like Purgatory, if true, then Baptismal Regeneration would be one of the most critical doctrines to be found in scripture. It would permeate the New Testament. And like Purgatory, it does not.

[Mr Rogers]

Acts 19:

“1 And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. 7There were about twelve men in all.”

I have no idea how you get baptismal regeneration out of that. They believed, and were baptized.

John 20:

19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

It was to his disciples, not just Apostles. And Jesus gave them the Holy Spirit, although the public revelation wasn’t until Pentecost. Jesus wasn’t just pretending, and really planning on conferring the Holy Spirit later at Pentecost. Jesus did what he said - but the outward manifestation of it was at Pentecost, and that was for the benefit of the Jews.

That helps with understanding Acts 8.

“14Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. 18Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, 19saying, “Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

At this point, the disciples had not figured out that God was going to extend salvation outside of the Jews. And first, before extending it to the Gentiles, He extends it to Samaria (Think John 4 and the Samaritan woman).

The Holy Spirit regenerated them when they believed, but the Holy Spirit did not fall on them like at Pentecost until the Apostles (who had remained in Judea) went there to investigate. And we know there was then an outwardly visible sign, like Pentecost, because Simon saw the result.

Where do you get baptismal regeneration from that?

Where do you get an act of magic? What is the indication man can perform a rite, and God must do as man says?

Later, in Acts 10, Peter is forced to understand that even the Gentiles are to be saved:

“44While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”

Baptism with water follows the baptism of the Holy Spirit, done by Jesus without needing the help of man. The baptism of the Holy Spirit may be quiet (John 20) or a public manifestation (Acts 2 or 8). Water baptism & laying on of hands is to help others believe, not to create belief or to save apart from belief.

“14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

[stfassisi]

“”evidence of how early magicians entered the church, following the example of Simon Magus.””

Ridiculous! Simon Magus was rejected as a heretics by Saint Irenaues and others

Doctrines and practices of Simon Magus and Menander.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103123.htm

[Mr Rogers]

Those are hardly quotes. God judges man according to his deeds throughout the Bible, so claiming that is a quote from the Apocrypha is...a stretch. A BIG stretch, as are the others.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

what’s obscene is your thinking we are saved by works, rather than grace.
your repenting and believing doesn’t save you, we are saved by grace, not by works.
Jesus commanded baptism as the means to regenerate souls, this is biblical, historical, orthodox Christian belief.
the natural man can’t understand it and there is a way that seems right to him but we know where that leads.

funny you say anyone reading the NT can’t help but see baptism follows regeneration, but NO ONE SAW THIS FOR 16 CENTURIES.
I GUESS THERE WERE NO CHRISTIANS FOR 1,500 YEARS.
the comment about the genie is what you’d expect from the natural man.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

Baptism with water follows the baptism of the Holy Spirit, done by Jesus without needing the help of man.

may i direct your attention to Matthew 28, Jesus gives the Church His authority to BAPTIZE AND TEACH.
The Church is the Body of Christ, when it baptizes you, it is Jesus baptizing you.
You can’t seperate Jesus from His Body!
this is what the natural man doesn’t understand, they think the Church is like the Elk Club or the Moose lodge.
the natural man doesn’t realize the Holy Spirit leads and protects the Church.
the natural man thinks they can start their own church or not fellowship with the Church.
the natural man rejects biblical regeneration as shown in Acts 2:38 and 22:16.
the natural man rejects the One , Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
the natural man rejects Jesus in His John 17 prayer to the Father or Paul’s command in 1 Corinthians 1.
the natural man rejects Paul in Ephesians telling us there is ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM.
the natural man thinks he can believe whatever he wants.
the natural man says there are two baptisms, not one.
the natural man is lost.

[smvoice]

The Church is the Body of Christ, when it baptizes you, it is Jesus baptizing you.".

WRONG.

"For BY ONE SPIRIT are we all baptized into one Body". 1 Cor. 12:13. It is the Holy Spirit baptizing you into the Body of Christ. NOT Jesus baptizing you.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

you are correct the Holy Spirit does the regenerating, but the priest, representing the Body of Christ, the Church has the authority received directly from Jesus to baptize.
you can’t seperate Jesus from His Body.

[smvoice]

AH, so it’s the Alter Christus (another Jesus) that baptizes Catholics into the “body of Christ”?

[Revolting cat!]

Book Mark 1:1

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

why do you think you can seperate the head from the body?

he who hears you, hears me.

what do you think Matthew 28 is all about?

[smvoice]

I think it is about "Time Past". And you need to find "But Now" in your Bible. The Church the BOdy of Christ was not formed in Matthew 28.

Now if your Alter Christus is baptizing you into "the body of Christ", then you have many problems. Another Jesus, another gospel, and another spirit. That's what "But Now" would show you, in no uncertain terms.

[stonehouse01]

Thank you markomalley - this is fantastic. I have four volumes of sermons of the Great Fathers and have read many of the sainted Catholic apologists/doctors/defenders who have over the march of history launched their brilliant defenses of the Church’s inerrant Doctrines.

This article presents it all so beautifully and in so well laid out a manner. The True teachings of the Church are actually not complicated - it is the heretics twisting doctine that makes theology appear to be convoluted. The Truth is easily grasped and beautiful.

Satan has spread confusion since the very beginning - he is the root of every heresy and lie. Also notice that the heresies/errors dreamed up by men repeat themselves over and over through the ages with differing names - except maybe modernism since it is the “synthesis of all of them.”