Articles
Converting?
Links
About Us
Contact Us
Search

The Errors of Protestantism

In the 16th century the Catholic Church experienced a large separation which significantly changed Christianity. This was due to the reforms of the Protestant Reformation. Below we pose arguments against the overall tenets of the Protestant Revolution as put forth by Martin Luther (1483-1546), John Calvin (1509-1564), Ulrich Zwingli, Theodore Beza and other Protestant reformers that followed. The facts we present below (compiled from the writings of St. Francis de Sales and other apologetics resources) show that the tenets of this revolution and the Protestant religions based on them cannot be correct. These Protestant beliefs we discuss are found in parts of the most common Protestant denominations we see today including Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Adventist and many other post-Reformation reformed Protestant churches. See the facts we present below and decide for yourself.

NOTE: While some may consider the points below confrontational, they are not intended to be. Rather they are intended to be written as arguments against each particular belief, and we ask you to present your arguments if you feel they are incorrect.


Click a topic:

  1. The Protestant reformers had no legitimate mission from God (or from someone given power by God) to reform the Church

  2. To those who say the Protestant reformers had an immediate mission from God to reform the Catholic Church

  3. To those who say the true church is invisible

  4. To those who say the Catholic Church perished, which brought about the need for a reformation

  5. To those who say the true Church can err

  6. The Protestant reformers have violated Holy Scripture

  7. The translations and interpretations of the Scriptures have been violated by the Protestant reformers

  8. To those who claim they can interpret and understand the Scriptures themselves

  9. To those who do not believe in Apostolic tradition, but in Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura)

  10. To those who believe that faith alone (Sola Fide) justifies our salvation

  11. The true Church of Christ must be one in unity and doctrine

  12. The true Church ought to be resplendent with miracles

  13. Only the Catholic Church has been shown to be accompanied with repeated first class miracles

  14. The true Church of Christ ought to always practice the perfection of Christian life

  15. The true Church of Christ must be universal

  16. The true Church must be ancient, the Protestant churches are very new in comparison

  17. The true Church of Christ must be perpetual

  18. The true Church of Christ must be fruitful

  19. The Protestant reformers have violated the authority of the Councils

  20. To those who do not believe in St. Peter as being authority of the Apostles

  21. To those who do not believe St. Peter was first Bishop of Rome and that he had successors that continued to lead the Church

  22. To those who do not believe in the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) and His authority over the Church

  23. To those who do not recognize and do not have respect for the authority of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope)

  24. The teaching of the Protestant reformers contradicts reason

  25. To those who do not believe in the seven Sacraments as the Catholic Church always has

  26. To those who do not believe in Purgatory or in praying for the faithful departed

  27. To those who do not recognize or have any devotion to the Blessed Virgin

  28. To those who do not believe in veneration of statues, pictures, crucifixes and other images of Christianity

  29. To those who feel sin does not affect your salvation, or believe that by simply choosing Jesus as your "personal savior", you have been saved regardless
     

1. The Protestant reformers had no legitimate mission from God (or from someone given power by God) to reform the Church:

bulletJesus Christ instructed His Apostles to preach the Gospel to the whole world, therefore they had an "immediate" mission from God. St. Paul sent Timothy of Ephesus and Titus of Crete as Bishops to help him on his first mission, therefore they had a "mediate" mission from someone given the power by God to send them.
bulletOn the other hand, never have we seen any of the Protestant reformers show any mission from God or from anyone else to reform the church. Rather it is readily apparent they wrongfully took it upon themselves to make reforms. "How shall they preach unless they be sent"? Romans 10:15.
bulletNo individual has the right to associate himself with the Apostles or attempt to act under their authority; the individual must be sent or commissioned with divine authority. "He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber" John 10:1. Here we see Martin Luther openly agreeing with this.
bulletConsider verses such as "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" John 20:21 and  "He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me" John 13:20.
bulletHow can people without any authority attempt to make such drastic decisions affecting a divinely founded, global Church? Laity or princes do not have authority or power to start such a mission, rather someone must be sent legitimately, in Apostolic fashion, such as from a Bishop, or their mission is null. "Neither doth any man take the honor to himself but he that is called by God, as Aaron was." Hebrews 5:4
bulletIf you say the reformers were given appropriate mission to reform the Catholic Church, then we ask who is the authority that sent them? We know it was not the Catholic Church for the ideas of the Reformation are against Catholic teaching, and it was not the Lutheran and other Protestant churches for they were not yet formed when the reformation was being organized. So on who's authority was the mission of the Reformation?
bulletIf the church from which the Protestant reformers came were true, they can only be labeled heretics for having left it. And if the church from which the reformers came were NOT true, then that church could not have given the reformers true mission to reform the Catholic Church.

2. To those who say the Protestant reformers had an immediate mission from God to reform the Catholic Church:

bulletTo claim that the Protestant reformers were given direct mission by God to reform the church requires undeniable proof, otherwise people all over the world could easily claim direct mission from God on all sorts of beliefs, then where would we be? Then each time we thought we were following the truth we would be forever interrupted by men claiming an extraordinary vocation. Is that how Jesus intended His Church to be?
bulletConsider the miracles sent by God through Moses so that others would believe his mission. Also consider the miracles performed by Jesus and the Apostles so that the people would believe their word. Yet the Protestant reformers, despite making the most drastic changes to the Catholic Church since its founding, have never shown a miracle or any other sign to prove their mission, as would have occurred elsewhere in Scripture with such a drastic change to the faith. Jesus did not hesitate to show signs when reforming the Church, so what audacity do the Protestant reformers have to propose changes as drastic as Jesus made without showing any signs? "Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? Otherwise believe for the very works' sake. Amen, amen I say to you, he that believeth in me, the works that I do, he also shall do; and greater than these shall he do." John 14:11,12
bulletWhy should we take the Protestant reformers mere word without a sign? He who boasts an extraordinary mission from God without immediately producing undeniable signs cannot be believed.
bulletIf there was a true immediate mission from God to reform the church, then we ask which one had the true mission; Luther, Calvin, or another reformer? Each of these men had opposing beliefs from the start which resulted in different denominations so it is quite obvious these men did not have an immediate mission from God.
bulletFor those who would like to claim the Protestant reformers were true prophets, why did they act contrary to all other prophets before them by not showing any undeniable signs to prove their words, and by opposing the one true Church which no other true prophet has ever done?
bullet"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema" Galatians 1:8.
bulletConsider the repeated vulgarities in the writings of the reformers. Did Our Lord or the Apostles or Saints speak in this manner? Are we really to believe that someone sent from God to reform the Church was to speak in this manner?
bulletFurthermore, why would Luther claim he was not someone holy if he truly had an immediate mission from God to reform the Church?
bulletAnd lastly, the Protestant reformers such as Luther and Calvin each have openly claimed the Catholic Church to have been the True Church during the early centuries of Christianity. Then later when these men fell into disagreement with the Church, they suddenly claimed it was a false Church. Do you think someone who had an immediate mission from God would teach that something is true, then later recant and teach the exact opposite? Have we ever seen Our Lord or His Apostles teach us something and then later have a change of heart and teach us the exact opposite? It is plainly obvious that hypocritical teaching is not from God.


3. To those who say the true Church is invisible:

bulletNowhere in Scripture will it ever be found that the Church is invisible. Rather references in Scripture are everywhere which point to a visible Church. How are the following verses to be understood of an invisible Church?

"And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will  not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" Matt 18:17.

"Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." Acts 20:28

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" 1 Tim 3:15

"And sending from Miletus to Ephesus, he called the ancients of the church" Acts 20:17

"And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church, and by the apostles and ancients, declaring how great things God had done with them" Acts 15:4

"And when they had ordained to them priests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed" Acts 14:22

"And when they were come, and had assembled the church, they related what great things God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles" Acts 14:26

"And going down to Caesarea, he went up to Jerusalem, and saluted the church, and so came down to Antioch" Acts 18:22

bulletIt is illogical to think that Jesus would establish His Church then make it invisible and inaccessible to us. If that were the case, where would one seek it to rule it, converse with it and lay complaints before it?
bulletWhen the Church sent St. Paul, and received him, when he confirmed it, ordained priests in it, assembled it, saluted it, wrote to it, and persecuted it, was this just in spirit? These were visible acts on both sides!
bulletThe pastors and doctors of the Church are visible, therefore the Church is visible. The pastors and their sheep must know each other. What kind of shepherd cannot see his flock? St. Peter was as to a pastor when Jesus told him, "feed my sheep", and so were the Apostles, and they are all visible.
bulletIt is the property of the Church to carry on the preaching of the Word of God, the Sacraments etc. How could this be called invisible?
bulletHow do Christians begin their course as people of God? By Baptism, a visible sign. And by whom are they governed? By bishops, which are visible men. And how has the Church been persecuted over the centuries? By visible people. Need we say more?
bulletTo put it simply, the body is composed of body and soul, and so is the Church. The Church consists of Her interior soul, which is faith, hope, charity, grace etc (all invisible), and Her exterior, which is her members, preaching, Sacraments, sacrifices etc (all visible).
bulletSome Protestants, in defense of the invisible Church theory, have claimed that there are two Churches; one visible and imperfect Church made of its members (which can err and are called "reprobate"), and one invisible and perfect Church made of the "elect" that only God knows (which cannot err). Not only is this belief not found in Scripture but it is also illogical as we will now explain:

It is well known that all members of the Church must have their sins loosed and retained as Scripture says. Those whose sins are retained are considered reprobate (this includes priests and bishops), though they remain members of the Church until their sins are loosed. It is not until a person is cast from the Church that they are no longer considered members. Judas was reprobate, yet he was Apostle and bishop.
To say only the elect (which Calvin and other reformers say are unknown to us) are members of the true Church is to say we cannot know for sure who our prelates are and who to pay obedience to. This goes to show that not only the elect, but also the reprobate are in the Church. The Church is equivalent to an army with good and bad soldiers, many of which stray or are killed, but the army as a whole still remains victorious over the gates of hell despite downfalls of its members.
bulletIn summary, the New Testament frequently refers to the Church as an external, visible society. How then could Our Lord require us to believe under penalty of damnation (Mark 16:18) and to consider the Christian disobedient to the Church's commands "a heathen and a publican" (Matt 18:17) if we could not easily and unmistakably recognize the Church as a visible society?
 

4. To those who say the Catholic Church perished, which brought about the need for a reformation:

bulletTo say that the Church perished or went apostate is blasphemous against the Passion of Our Lord. Didn't Jesus undergo His passion and death for us that He could establish His Church for all of us? Of what sense does it make that Our Lord should let go of His Church which cost Him so dear right after He established it? Of what sense would it make that He would take it back from us after giving it to us? How could He have abandoned the Church, which cost Him all of His blood? Do you think that Jesus is weaker than His adversary, the devil, and was overcome by him?
bulletIn Scripture Jesus clearly made promises on promises pertaining to the perpetuity of His Church. To say the Church perished is to call Jesus a liar. "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt 16:18)
bulletWho gave Luther and Calvin a commission to revoke so many holy and solemn promises which Our Lord made of His Church? Did Our Lord not say of His Church, "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"? (Matt 16:18) And didn't He say, "behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" Matthew 28:20? And didn't Our Lord say "And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever" John 14:16? And don't we see repeated mention in the New Testament that Our Lord will be with us? How can all of these promises stand if the Church perished or went apostate? And if the true Church is to last forever as Christ told us, how can it have failed or went apostate for a thousand years as the Protestant reformers claim?
bulletHe who thinks himself to be the reformer or resuscitator of the Catholic Church attributes to himself the honor due to Jesus alone, and makes himself greater than the Apostles. The Apostles preserved the Church by their ministry after Our Lord instituted it. He who says that he has found the Church dead and raised it to life himself is the most audacious human alive.
bulletIf the Church did perish and the Protestant reformers were the ones to truly resuscitate the Church back to a true state, that would make them greater than the Apostles. But never have they shown any signs or wonders of such greatness in their lives as the Apostles did!
bulletTo say that the Church perished sometime after the first five or six centuries as the Protestant reformers say is to imply nothing else than our predecessors for nearly 1000 years before the reformation are damned, for outside of the true Church there is no salvation.
bulletAnd lastly, there is no doubt there were problems in the Church before the Reformation. The Church has always had problems in every century and has always been persecuted, as Our Lord told us would be the case. We also see in Scripture that Our Lord said He would be with His Church forever and that it would never fail. Looking at the history of the Church, whenever problems had arisen, the Church, guided by the Holy Ghost, always called together General Councils and corrected the problems. If there were problems in the Church before the Reformation, it was not up to unknown men like Luther and Calvin to try and correct them on their own without any authority when it was well known that the Church had always used General Councils to correct problems for the 1500 years prior.


5. To those who say the true Church can err:

bulletThe Protestant reformers such as Calvin and Beza claim the Catholic Church to have been the True Church during the early centuries of Christianity (before they claim it fell into error). During those five hundred years the Church had fought and condemned the doctrines of the Protestant reformers. Yet now Calvin and Beza have the audacity to offer the same doctrines again as medicine and holy reformations? If when the True Church in the early centuries of Christianity declared those Protestant beliefs to be error, how can the Protestant reformers now claim them to be truth and to base their new churches on them?
bulletIf the Church can err, to whom shall we have recourse in our difficulties? Protestants will say Scripture. We do not doubt that we must believe in and consult Scripture, but what if our difficulty pertains to Scripture itself? How can we find an answer? I cannot go to Luther or Calvin for they have opposing opinions. Do you really think Our Lord went to the trouble to establish His Church just to leave us in anarchy with no recourse on matters which could or could not damn us?
bulletAll denominations shout their claims with equal assurance that their interpretation of Scripture is accurate, which would leave all others inaccurate. To say Our Lord has not left us any guides to help us choose the good from the bad in an environment that He knew contained much error, is to say that He wishes us to perish, which we know He does not.
bulletOur Lord said, "And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" (Matt 18:17). How else can this be understood than Our Lord sends us to the Church in our differences?
bulletIf the Church can err, and God commands us to go to the Church, then this means God wishes to deceive us. Does it make sense that God would send all of His lambs to the slaughter by commanding them to consult a Church that can contain error?
bulletWhen St. Paul says, "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), why would he call the Church the "pillar and ground of truth" if it could contain error?
bulletIf the Church did err and the Protestant reformers started churches of their own as they did, then how can we explain this verse from Scripture: "And he hath subjected all things under his feet, and hath made him head over all the church" (Ephesians 1:22). This verse refers to Jesus being head of ONE church, not multiple churches such as those started by Lutheran, Calvin and subsequent Protestants.
bulletIt must be made clear here that when we refer to the Church not erring, we are referring to the Church not misguiding the faithful with respect to faith and morals, which we are required to hear and know for our salvation. The Church at the same time is also a human society because it consists of human members. This is why scandals, heresies, schisms and sins among its members also arise. These sins are expected with human beings and do not indicate a failure of a divinely founded Church that Our Lord promised would never fail! Did the mission of all the Apostles fail or cease to be because Judas turned to betrayal? Of course not. Christ Himself foretold of these type of problems in Scripture when He spoke parables in Matthew 13 regarding the cockle growing together with the wheat and the net containing good fish and bad fish. Consider the verses, "Again the kingdom of heaven is like to a net cast into the sea, and gathering together of all kind of fishes. Which, when it was filled, they drew out, and sitting by the shore, they chose out the good into vessels, but the bad they cast forth. So shall it be at the end of the world. The angels shall go out, and shall separate the wicked from among the just." Matthew 13:47-49.
bulletIn summary, Our Lord said His Church would never fail, yet we clearly see members of His Church making mistakes due to their human natures. These mistakes clearly do not indicate failure of the Church. Again, the Church is equivalent to an army with good and bad soldiers, many of which stray or are killed, but this does not affect the army as a whole. The same applies to the true Church of Christ; it continues unscathed over the gates of hell despite the downfalls of its members.


6. The Protestant reformers have violated Holy Scripture:

bulletThe Protestant reformers have said the Catholic Church was the true Church in Her early days. It is important to note that it is the Catholic Church who, through Her early Councils, originally confirmed which books of the Bible were considered inspired, and which books were to be included in the Canon of the Bible itself. This was essential to assure copies of Scripture had in those days agreed with the originals, and also to weed out books which contained heretical doctrine in them. The Catholic Church confirmed the books (the Canon) of the Bible in the Councils of Hippo (393) and 3rd Council of Carthage (397) when, according to the Protestant reformers, She was still the true Church (click here for the actual Council text and scroll down to see the list of books in the Canon at that time, which is the same Canon used by the Catholic Church today). The Catholic Church also confirmed the same Canon at the Council of Florence (1441) and Council of Trent centuries later and have used the same Canon ever since the Council of Hippo in 393. How then did the Protestant reformers remove so many books (i.e. Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Machabees, Wisdom etc) from the Old and New Testaments if it was the true Church that ruled they were Canonical? If the Protestant reformers truly thought the Catholic Church was the true Church at one time then later fell into error, why do the reformers not follow the decisions the Church made when She was still supposedly true?
bulletWho told the Protestant reformers that the books they removed from the Bible were not legitimate and by what authority did they remove them? Some Protestant reformers claim some books were rejected because they were not in Hebrew or Chaldaic, though some other books that were kept by the Protestant reformers were not in these languages either, so this excuse cannot be used. And where is it found in Scripture that they should be written in a certain language?
bulletTo say that some books were not accepted because they were not accepted by the Jews does not apply to the point at hand either. The Catholic Church holds the books of Machabees and others mentioned above as Canonical, and if she was the true Church when She determined this, then this is what must be believed. Because the Jews did not accept the deutero-canonical books does not effect the fact that the early Christian Church accepted them. Where in Scripture does it say the Christian Church has not as much power to give authority to the Sacred Books as the Mosaic may have had?
bulletWhy do the Protestant reformers call parts of Scripture false when the whole of antiquity has held them as articles of faith? We see many writers from the first three centuries including St. Clement of Rome, St. Irenaeus, St. Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian and many others all allude to the deutero-canonical books we mention above. Who gave the reformers the direction to declare these books false? For example, the book of Judith was made authoritative by the Council of Nice, when the Church was never greater or more solemn. Why blatantly defy the decisions of this council?
bulletOf those reformers who claim their decisions to strike books from the Canon are from the Holy Ghost, we ask that you please show proof. Why would the Holy Ghost suddenly give inspirations as to what everyone must believe to unknown men like Luther and Calvin, after they abandoned the Councils and the entire Church? Shall we simply believe the reformers at their word? How then do we believe or not believe the next person who also claims the same inspiration? If the Protestant reformers were inspired, then God would clearly show the world a sign like with others inspired in Scripture, but a sign the reformers have not shown so they are not to be believed.
bulletIf God had revealed something a thousand times over to a private person we should not be obliged to believe it unless God gave us such an undeniable sign that we could no longer call it into question. How else are we to separate the false prophet from the true prophet? If we were obliged to believe everyone claiming internal revelations, we would soon be swamped with deceivers and would be completely lost.
bulletWhere did the Protestant reformers come up with the exact list of books in the Canon they choose to follow? Who told them which books should be included or removed? It was not the Jews that told them as the Gospels would not be there. It was not from the Council of Laodicea for the Apocalypse would be in it. It was not from the Council of Carthage or Florence for Ecclesiasticus and Machabees would be included. So where did the reformers decide on their specific list of books to include? No such Canon was used before the Protestant reformation as the many Protestant denominations use now. What is the likelihood that the Holy Spirit hid for the first 1400+ years of the Church, then revealed a new Canon to two unknown men, namely Luther and Calvin?
bulletThe Protestant reformers have taken away many books from the original Scriptures such as  Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom and both books of Machabees. In the ancient Church there was originally some doubt about some books being inspired and no doubt about many others, yet the Protestant reformers have accepted some of the doubtful and cast out some that were never doubtful. So why were the specific set of books cut from the Scriptures by the Protestant reformers other than that the doctrine of some were hard for them to accept? The reformers do not give a logical answer for their striking some books from the Canon and it is clear that they were simply contradicting the Church. It just so happens that the contents of the books of Machabees contains doctrine on the intercession of Saints and prayers for the departed and Ecclesiasticus contains doctrine on the honor of relics, which is doctrine that just so happens to be accepted by the Catholic Church and denied by the reformers. Remember, it was the Catholic Church in Her early days (when She was the True Church according to the Protestant reformers) that received the books Machabees as canonical along with the other books of Scripture. So why defy the Church on just Machabees?


7. The translations and interpretations of the Scriptures have been violated by the Protestant reformers:

bulletIt is one thing for the Protestant reformers to dare cut off entire books, chapters, sentences and words from Scripture, but even more, the books that they chose not to cut off they have corrupted and violated by their translations. Compare the Vulgate Latin translation from the middle of the second century, (universally received by the Church at that time and declared as authentic by the Council of Trent) to translations of Scripture Protestant churches use today. There is a night and day difference in wording. And even worse, compare translations of Scripture between different Protestant denominations and they also differ!
bulletHow can private men (the reformers) so boldly take their hand to the word of God and change it? If one man does such a thing, then what is to stop the next man from doing it to his taste, and the next to his taste? An example:
In Acts 2:27 we see, "thou wilt not leave my soul in hell" while in a version of a Protestant bible we see the verse, "thou shalt not leave my corpse in the tomb". Clearly this is not an accurate translation and the meaning is not at all the same. It is common knowledge that only one word can change the meaning of an entire sentence. We note here that Hieronymus Emser, a literary opponent of Luther, points out 1400 inaccuracies in Luther's translation of Scripture, while Bunsen, a Protestant scholar, points out 3000. If Luther, Calvin and other reformers' translations of a verse in Scripture differ from the original AND from each other, which one is the word of God? Or are all three versions of the verse still the word of God, though their translation may make their meaning completely different from the next? How can so many brains which are so different make so many translations without overthrowing the sincerity of Scripture?
bulletIt has always been a practice of the early Church to limit the Scriptures to universal languages such as Greek and Latin since they are not only universal but also not subject to changes like other languages. Most other languages change town to town in accents, phrases, and words (i.e. slang), and vary season to season and age to age and therefore it has never been recommended by the early Christian Church to translate the Bible to other languages that are not fixed languages. Doing so has much more danger than profit as we can see from our example above. Though we note here also that the early Christian Church has never disallowed translation of the Scriptures to non-fixed languages, though She has always insisted that public services of the Church use a fixed language translation to avoid possibly misleading the faithful with verses of possibly incorrect translation and meaning.
bulletIn summary, the Protestant reformers not only made major changes to Scripture by poor translations, but also translated Scripture to all the local non-fixed languages of the people where they started their churches, and they use those faulty translations in their church services. Is it not evident why there are so many Protestant interpretations of Scripture all in conflict with one another?
 

8. To those who claim they can interpret and understand the Scriptures themselves:

bulletThe Protestant reformers claim that we simply need to refer to Scripture for our salvation. We agree, but when two people disagree on the interpretation of Scripture, who shall be the judge as to the correct interpretation? Disagreements arise in nearly every verse of Scripture of which could easily lead one of the parties to damnation. It is illogical to think that Our Lord would expect us all to interpret Scripture on our own with no judge to turn to since this will always lead to endless disagreements. There can be countless wrong answers to a question, but only one right answer. All of those interpreting Scripture incorrectly will be lead down the wrong road. It is illogical for us to think God left us in anarchy with respect to interpretation of Scripture, at the mercy of the winds and the tide, with no pilot to help steer the way, as this would mean he wishes our destruction. As with a ship at sea, if everyone attempts to steer in the direction they think is right, we will inevitably wind up lost.
bulletConsider the Constitution of the United States if there were no U.S. Government to rule over it and make decisions over conflicts and offenses that arise with it. The result would be anarchy. Where have you ever seen any great province or organization which has governed itself? Consider any governed country, state, or any organized group throughout the history of the world. All were governed by an earthly leader of some sort or else they would wind up in chaos and confusion. If there were not a king in a kingdom, a foreman in a shop, or a captain of a ship, there would be no order. Why then do the Protestant reformers claim that all of their members do not need an earthly ruler to help guide them? What has this gotten them but thousands of opposing denominations (and growing) which is nothing better than anarchy? Never can a province be well governed by itself, especially when it is large.
bulletIf it is true that the Scriptures are so easy to understand, what is the use of the commentaries made by countless Protestant ministers, and what good are so many schools of Theology?
bulletAlso consider the verse, "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16). How else can we interpret this than to say Scripture is difficult to understand, and to interpret it incorrectly can lead to our destruction?
bulletAnd to those who say they must read and understand Scripture themselves, consider the large number of poor ignorant people who cannot read the Scriptures. What is to happen of them? Obviously they can find and seek their salvation through the mouth of a pastor. "How shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher?" Romans 10:14.
bulletConsider the verse, "And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him." Acts 8:30-31. Obviously interpretation of Scripture is needed!

9. To those who do not believe in Apostolic tradition, but in Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura):

bulletThe Bible was not put under one cover until the Councils of Hippo (393) and 3rd Council of Carthage (397) accepted the official list of books (click here for the actual Council text and scroll down to see the list of books in the Canon at that time, which is the same as used by the Catholic Church today). Not for over 1000 years after these early Councils was the printing press invented (1450), so Bible manuscripts were quite rare and costly before the printing press came about. Between 397 and 1450 then, how did most people learn about the contents of Scripture, and who was the authoritative figure for the early Church during these centuries? The authority clearly could not have been the Bible, but clearly was the Church Herself who preached it to the faithful. So how can Scripture have been our only guide for the centuries before copies of the Bible were readily available, and were the people who lived during those centuries all damned because they did not have access to Scripture?
bulletConsider this verse from Scripture: "Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name" John 20:30-31. What else does this tell us than Jesus did and said other things that were not recorded in Scripture? Are we really to think that anything Jesus did or said that didn't make it into the books of Scripture are false or should not be adhered to?
bulletConsider the verse, "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written" John 21:25. Clearly there are many things Jesus said and did that were passed on as tradition (by word of mouth) and did not make it into the books of Scripture.
bulletNowhere in Scripture do we see references to Jesus writing anything down during His public life, nor does Scripture show that He ever asked His Apostles to write down what He was teaching either. If Scripture were the ONLY resource we should have for our salvation, surely Jesus and His Apostles would have written constantly, but they did not. So while Scripture is essential, tradition is also essential.
bulletNowhere in Scripture does it say Scripture alone should be accepted as revelation, and it certainly does not say we should condemn Apostolic tradition. Look all through the Gospels and you will see nothing spoken against tradition except for traditions which are human or against Scripture. Why do the Protestant reformers add this to Our Lord's words? It is forbidden to add anything to Scripture, as it is to take anything away from it. Why do the Protestant reformers also take away the traditions which are expressly authorized?
bulletConsider the verse, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." 2 Thessalonians 2:14. What else does this tell us than the Apostles spread the word of God not only through Epistles, but also by WORD, and that we should hold to the traditions which we are taught?
bulletAny unwritten Apostolic doctrine we call Tradition. Consider the verse, "If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order, when I come." 1 Corinthians 11:34. This clearly shows St. Paul writing important words to the Corinthians, then stating he will "set the rest in order" when he comes, yet we do not have writing about them elsewhere. What he said then, will it be lost to the Church? No, it has come down through tradition.
bulletConsider the verse, "Having more things to write unto you, I would not by paper and ink: for I hope that I shall be with you, and speak face to face: that your joy may be full." 2 John 1:12. St. John had something worthy of being written yet he chose to speak instead. Instead of Scripture, he has made tradition.
bulletConsider the verse, "Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus." 2 Timothy 1:13. This is clearly St. Paul recommending to St. Timothy an unwritten Apostolic word. This is tradition!
bulletAlso consider the verse, "And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also." 2 Timothy 2:2. What is this but the Apostle speaking, the witnesses relating, and St. Timothy teaching, followed by these teaching others? This is clearly tradition.
bulletConsider the verse, "I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now" John 16:12. When did He say these things which He had to say? Was it all written? It is also said that He was forty days with them teaching them of the Kingdom of God, but we have neither all of His apparitions nor everything He told them during that time.
bulletConsider the verses, "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” Matthew 28:20, and “He that heareth you, heareth me" Luke 10:16, etc. This clearly shows the Apostles teaching is true revelation.


10. To those who believe that faith alone (Sola Fide) justifies our salvation:

bulletNowhere in the bible does it state faith "alone" justifies, and this new doctrine was not heard of before the 16th century. Why did the Protestant reformers propose it and what authority gave it to them?
bulletConsider the verse, "Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in. Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me." Matthew 25:34-36. Are these not examples of good works? Why would Our Lord give them so much emphasis if only faith was of importance?
bulletConsider the verses, "And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. Honor thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. The young man saith to him: All these I have kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me? Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me." Matt 19:16-21. Are the above verses not filled with good works? How much more proof from Scripture do we need to show that Our Lord commanded us to do good works for our salvation?
bulletConsider the verse, "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works." Matthew 16:27. Again here we have more proof that good works are required of us.
bulletConsider the verse, "And every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labor." 1 Corinthians 3:8. Again this clearly does NOT refer to faith alone, but to labor, which is works.
bulletConsider the verse, "And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." 1 Corinthians 13:2 (St Paul). What is charity other than helping the needy? Charity is clearly considered among good works. And in the same Chapter we also see the verse, "And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity." (1 Corinthians 13:13). This clearly puts charity BEFORE faith, so to say "faith alone" is all that is required of us is clearly contrary to Scripture.
bulletConsider the verse, "Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?" James 2:24. How much more plain can it be said that faith alone is not enough for our salvation?
bulletConsider the verse, "What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?" James 2:14. And we see several verses later that the answer to this question is NO.
bulletConsider the verse, "So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself." James 2:17. No explanation is needed for this verse!
bulletConsider the verse, "But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith." James 2:18. Another extremely obvious verse that proves our point on the subject.
bulletConsider the verses, "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? James 2:20-21. No explanation is needed for these verses.
bulletConsider the verse, "For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead." James 2:26. How can the Protestant reformers claim faith is sufficient when we read a verse like this with such obvious meaning?
bulletAnd finally consider the verse, "Wherefore, brethren, labor the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election." 2 Peter 1:10
bulletIn summary, justification by faith alone has overwhelming opposition in Scripture. Some Protestants have been known to reference other verses from Scripture in an attempt to show that works are NOT required for our salvation. However if one looks at verses that appear to speak negatively about works, they are clearly referring to works that glorify men and not God. Here we agree; works done to please men do not help with attaining our salvation.


11. The true Church of Christ must be one in unity and doctrine:

bulletFirst, it cannot be that the true Church is divided of belief in opinion, as God would no longer be its author. God, a God of Truth, could not possibly have revealed a plurality of religions, or a multitude of varying Christianities. Our Lord taught one religion and founded one Church, not multiple ones. The Protestant denominations clearly fall into this category with their thousands of denominations, all with beliefs opposing the other. How can we call thousands of opposing denominations a reformation of the Church? Our Lord's threat of damnation for not believing clearly condemns the opposing Protestant denominations that have formed since the Protestant reformation.
bulletConsider the verse, "And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." Matthew 12:25. Are not Protestant denominations divided among themselves with little hope to reunite?
bulletConsider the verse, "And let the peace of Christ rejoice in your hearts, wherein also you are called in one body: and be ye thankful." Colossians 3:15. One body is one Church, and cannot possibly be thousands of opposing denominations.
bulletWhen the Protestant reformers brought forward the belief that each was to interpret Scripture on his own, that made each person on earth equivalent to the next. Under this belief a lay person is equivalent to a priest or minister, therefore it is optional for a lay person to consult them. This situation inevitably leads to conflicts between all of these "equal" people claiming their interpretation is correct, which inevitably leads to different denominations which inevitably leads to multiple doctrines. As already mentioned above, nowhere is it found in Scripture that we are to interpret Scripture on our own, rather Scripture does clearly indicate Our Lord instructed His Apostles to, "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." Matthew 16:15. Clearly we must believe in one religion as taught by the Apostolic successors to be saved, not to believe two unknowns like Luther or Calvin, or any other number of reformers claiming different doctrines.
bulletLooking at all the Catholic Church has been through with respect to heresies and persecution, the same faith remains in Catholics century to century. Looking at any random point in the history of the Catholic Church, if there was ever a difference in opinion relating to faith or morals, a General Council or the Roman See, guided by the Holy Ghost, has always determined what the correct belief should be, and you will see every Catholic has always submitted to their decisions and argued no more. The Protestant denominations do not have this structure, and therefore they will forever be in disagreement and will forever have multiple doctrines. Can one really call this introduction of contradicting doctrines a reformation of the Church? This is not the teaching of Our Lord.
bulletThe Protestant reformers such as Luther and Calvin did not even agree on the same canon of Scriptures from the start of the Reformation. They also differ in opinion on things such as number of Sacraments and other beliefs. For example, Protestant denominations are as much divided among themselves regarding Justification than they are divided with the Catholic Church, with no hope of ever coming to an agreement. Scripture cannot be their judge because it is concerning Scripture that they are in disagreement. From the start of the Reformation this was clearly a red flag that this so-called reformation of the Church was not sent from God, as why would God suddenly decide to spin off multiple denominations with opposing doctrines? Why didn't Jesus teach, approve or ever hint of such a thing?
bulletThose who have a diversity of canon, that are divided into thousands of opposing denominations with different beliefs, cannot "add up" to one true Church, and neither can they be called by the name of "Church" like the Catholic Church can who has one same head, the same canon of the Scriptures, and one like rule for interpreting them. "He that is not with me, is against me" Matthew 12:30.
bulletIt is very common these days to get a variety of answers when asking Protestants if their denomination holds the truth over other Protestant denominations. We've heard some Protestants claim "Our denomination is not 100% correct". If not, then we ask why are you a part of that denomination? If your denomination is not the true Church as Christ gave to us, which denomination IS the true Church, the pillar of truth? We know it must exist somewhere because Christ promised us it would always exist.
bulletWe have also heard some Protestants claim that it is not for them to place judgment on the correctness of any denomination. We ask, why not? Our Lord clearly laid out what the truth is and how we are to be saved, why are you now unsure about it, and most of all why are you indifferent about it? Here we present two points against these illogical claims:

1) For one to claim they are a Lutheran or Presbyterian or some other Protestant, but yet be indifferent and not claim their religion is the true or correct religion is absurdity. How can one be indifferent in what they believe? This is the same as believing truth and error are both acceptable. Are mathematicians indifferent in the outcome of their equations? Are scientists indifferent in their studies? If they were, they would not have the respect of their peers and would not be mathematicians or scientists. Where would we be if every scientist or mathematician or doctor were to be indifferent in their work and always produce uncertain results generation to generation? What you believe in must be the truth from your perspective or you cannot claim you believe in it. The fact of the matter is, if no one is an authority and if everyone is open to their own interpretation of Scripture, this inevitably leads to indifferentism, for who knows who is right! Nowhere else in the world will you see the concept of indifferentism accepted as we see with Protestant denominations. It is just as wrong to deny the faith than it is to be indifferent about searching for it!

2) If one Protestant denomination believes in the real presence in the Holy Eucharist, and another believes it to be a symbol only, these are directly opposing views and only one can be the truth. If the Symbolic point of view were true, then the believers in the real presence would be guilty of idolatry among other things and if the real presence is true, the symbolic believer would be following a false religion. How can Protestants be indifferent about denominations when critical beliefs such as this separate them? How could Protestants be neutral on a belief that would decide whether we are saved or damned? Only one belief is true according to Our Lord. To say one religion is as good as another when such massive differences exist between each of them is to say truth and error are acceptable to Our Lord, which is simply absurd. Our Lord never taught multiple doctrines!
 

12. The true Church ought to be resplendent with miracles:

bulletFirst, let us define the two types miracles; first class and second class. In this section, when we refer to miracles, we are referring to those of the first class, as explained on our Miracles Page.
bulletFirst class miracles were obviously left with the Church to confirm Her teaching. No doubt first class miracles were originally used to confirm the word of Moses, that he might be believed. And Our Lord said that if He himself had not done miracles, the Jews would not have been obliged to believe him. And we know by looking at the history of the Catholic Church and Her Saints that they have always been resplendent with first class miracles, of which have never stopped. We know this based on the many authors we have with irreproachable authority century after century. Why then do some Protestants attempt to say miracles have ceased from the Church? Miracles have always been with the Church and therefore they are a property of the Church. If God used miracles to speak to men in Scripture, why would He remove this from the Church He established for all of us?
bulletConsider the verse, "And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover." Mark 16:17,18. Our Lord does not say "all" believers would work miracles, and does not say miracles would be limited to just the Apostles or limited just to the years in which they lived, but simply that miracles will follow "those who believe”.
bullet

Consider the verse, "Otherwise believe for the very works' sake. Amen, amen I say to you, he that believeth in me, the works that I do, he also shall do; and greater than these shall he do." John 14:12. The part of the verse "he also shall do; and greater than these shall he do" clearly backs up the other verse directly above with respect to the miracles Jesus performed. "Believe for the very works' sake" confirms that miracles are but signs to make us believe.

bulletIn a nutshell, "those who believe” are in the church, and those believers are followed by miracles, therefore in the Church there are miracles. There are believers in all times, and believers are followed by miracles, therefore in all times there are miracles.
 

13. Only the Catholic Church has been shown to be accompanied with repeated first class miracles:

bulletTo assure our points below are understood, please see our explanation of first and second class miracles on our Miracles page (if you have not already done so) before reading this section.
bulletThere is simply no doubt about the repeated astounding miracles associated with Catholic Church and Her Saints over the centuries, which so many historians describe, and so many persons had a part in, and where so much evidence is left behind, many of which took place in the Church’s early years when the Protestant reformers considered the Catholic Church to be the true Church. Some quick examples are St. Francis of Paula raising the dead to life, St. Francis Xavier raising a man to life and healing the paralyzed, deaf, dumb and blind. There are many, many bodies of Saints discovered incorrupt without embalming even after being centuries under ground, and these bodies spanning nearly 20 centuries are still on display all over Europe. There are also many, many books dedicated to these happenings and others. Yet the Protestant reformers have chosen to play down these happenings and even deny them, we can only assume because these first class miracles have not been found in their churches. To deny such an overwhelming number of occurrences with an abundance of credible witnesses and evidence is simply looking the other way. And to try and claim 2000 years of first class miracles are either all lies, hallucinations, or simply not miracles at all is absurdity. If the writings of repeated first class miracles in the Catholic Church are not miracles, then how can they be explained?
bulletSome Protestant denominations have also attempted to claim that these miracles seen throughout the Church's history are all from Satan. We answer that to collectively claim all of the greatest of Saints throughout 2000 years of Church history all performed miracles via Satan is as absurd as saying Our Lord cast out devils by the devil.
bulletFor those Protestants who claim that they have first class miracles in their churches, we ask that you please bring forward proof for your claims as the Catholic Church always has. It is possible second class miracles may be experienced by anyone that God chooses, but second class miracles are always questionable and are of no comparison to the first class miracles experienced repeatedly in the Catholic Church over the centuries. We have yet to see any proof for first class miracles in Protestant churches such as Saints raising others from the dead, Saints incorrupt bodies, the stigmata and SO many other astounding occurrences seen in the Catholic Church over the centuries.
bulletSome Protestants have also tried to claim that there is no longer a need for miracles since the Gospel of Christ has already been preached to all corners of the earth and since Christianity has already been established. If this were true, then miracles would probably have stopped occurring at some point during the first few centuries after Christ at periods when Christianity was quite secured and the persecutions had ceased, but so far were miracles from ceasing in those centuries and in all other centuries since the time of Christ, that this theory is made illogical.
bulletThe Protestant reformers have also claimed they made no new church, but simply polished and cleaned up the existing Church which had failed. Since they removed key parts of the faith and Sacraments which were in the true Church in Her early days, the result is not a reformed church but a new one. At the time before the Church was "reformed" it contained the character of first class miracles. We ask all Protestant denominations; show us the character of first class miracles in your church now as it was in the early days of the Church.
bulletThe Church has always been accompanied by first class miracles, just as Her founder Jesus Christ was. Therefore She is the true Church. No other society can claim these miracles which the Catholic Church does, so glorious and so continual, unless God was with it! "If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham." John 8:39.
bulletGod cannot be an author or confirmer of a lie, therefore that which is continually confirmed by miracles cannot be a lie, but must be truth. It is true that there are both false miracles and true miracles, and some miracles that are debatable as to the presence of God's power (i.e. second class). True miracles as sent from heaven will be apparent to the elect. "By their fruits you shall know them." Matthew 7:16
bulletThere is scarcely any article of our religion which has not been proved by miracles. Where the true miracles are, we know the true Church is. God would never bear witness to a Church which did not have the true faith, and was erring, deceiving and idolatrous. For this reason, and the reason that Protestant Churches do not appear to have first class miracles, we believe the Protestant Reformation was a departing of the true faith.
bullet

Why is it that first class miracles are seen so continually throughout the history of the Catholic Church, but not seen outside of it? We answer with this verse from Scripture, "And he wrought not many miracles there, because of their unbelief" Matt 13:58

bulletAs with miracles, the Catholic Church at all times has also had prophets, yet some Protestant reformers have also claimed that prophecy has left the true Church along with miracles. Yet there have scarcely been any Saints in the Catholic Church throughout the last 2000 years who have not prophesied. We ask the Protestant denominations, if your church be the true church, please show us the prophets from your church as the Catholic Church can from any given point over the last 2000 years.
 

14. The true Church of Christ ought to always practice the perfection of Christian life:

bulletLooking at the New Testament, it is filled with teachings from Jesus on how to live the perfect Christian life. Here are many examples of recommended virtues direct from Scripture. In addition to these virtues, Jesus was entirely poor and lived on alms as an example to us, and taught His Apostles to carry nothing when they went to preach. He also taught us to be humble, meek and obedient even to those of which we have no obligation. He left us examples of poverty, chastity, and self-denial. Of what purpose were all these examples if they were not to be put into practice?
bulletConsidering the examples Jesus has set for us, consider the lives of the Saints who have imitated these virtues throughout their entire lives and were able to perform miracles as Our Lord did. Moreover, the Catholic Church as a whole has always put into practice these virtues in every season for the love of God.
bulletConsider the glory of so many Saints and other devout religious who gave up all and risked their lives to travel to foreign countries and spread the faith, without other expectation than of labors, miseries, and martyrdom, and without other aim than the honor of God and the salvation of souls. Many of these Saints have died for Christ as did St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Polycarp, St. Agnes and St. Cecilia; they have won whole nations to Christ like St. Patrick, St. Boniface, St. Ansgar, St. Methodius, and St. Francis Xavier; they have founded religious orders of men and women that won countless souls to the perfect following of heroic virtues such as St. Benedict, St. Bernard, St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Madeline Barat; they have given up all in life to care for the sick, the poor and the imprisoned such as St. Camillus, St. Vincent de Paul, and St. John of Matha; and they have defended the faith in every part of the world as did St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Canisius. These are just a few examples.
bulletNow compare these to the lives of the Protestant reformers and their subsequent churches who condemned the monastic discipline and gave it up altogether. And rather than imitate the virtue of poverty, many aim to make the temporal goods of their church theirs. The virtue of chastity was condemned and has been scarcely practiced since. In addition, without a Pope to be obedient to and no need to consult others on interpretation of Scripture, the virtue of obedience was blurred. And with no need to confess sins, the borders of morality have been blurred as well. Martyrdom is also scarcely heard of in Protestant churches since the Reformation. Many ministers marry when they did not in the early Church. ("He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God." 1 Cor 7:32). Why did the Protestant reformers oppose and stop practicing these virtues in direct opposition to the examples of Our Lord and early Church?
bulletHere we present a quote from Calvin which clearly shows Catholics in the early days of the Reformation already accusing Calvin and his churches with abandoning these virtues.
bulletIn summary, the Protestant reformers and most Protestant churches that came afterward have abandoned these virtues of the perfect Christian life at the word of the reformers; ordinary men. Yes, all of these virtues are not mandatory, but we can see they are highly recommended in Scripture. Christ gave us these repeated examples for a reason, and the Catholic Church and Her Saints and those in monasteries have continually practiced these virtues to the fullest.


15. The true Church of Christ must be universal:

bulletNo matter which part of the world you may travel to, you will notice that all Catholic Churches are called "Catholic". Now consider the names of churches started by the Protestant reformers such as Calvinist, Lutheran, Congregationalist, Protestant etc. Protestant churches were not in existence before these names existed, and these names were not created before Protestant churches were. They were not reformed, but all created NEW and SEPARATE.
bulletIn addition many Protestants refer to their churches as "reformed", yet the Lutherans, Anabaptists, Trinitarians and others also claim to use the term "reformed". At the same time many Protestant denominations oppose that the other uses the term because they all are in opposition on their beliefs. How could all of these flavors of names, all in disagreement, be the true Church of Christ?
bulletOur Lord perfectly formed and sanctified His Church with His life. The true Church, "the pillar and ground of truth", never needed reforming and to say that the Church Our Lord left us was in need of reforming is to say that Our Lord didn't establish His Church correctly or that the Holy Ghost failed to protect it. Changing or reforming the Church which Our Lord established is not called reform, it is called heresy.


16. The true Church must be ancient, the Protestant churches are very new in comparison:

bulletAs Tertullian once said, "Error is a corruption of truth, truth must then precede". Moses was before Abiron, Dathan and Core; the angels were before the devils, Lucifer was good before he fell into eternal darkness etc. Consider the verse, "They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us." 1 John 2:19. "Went out from us" means they were within before they went out. The going out is called heresy, the being within is fidelity. The true Church precedes heresy. In the centuries immediately after Christ the Catholic Church was the only notable Christian Church in existence, so what can we say for the Protestant denominations which started appearing in the 16th century and later?
bulletCalvin himself admits that in the first few centuries the Catholic Church had not yet strayed from the Evangelic doctrine. Well the question for Protestants then becomes, when was it that the true Church lost Her faith? At what time, under what bishop, by what means, by what force, and by what steps did this false religion take possession of Rome and the Church itself? What protest, what troubles, and what lamentations did it cause? Was everyone asleep while Rome was forming new doctrines and Sacraments? Is there not one single historian to publish or leave behind any commentaries on such a great matter? Why can't the Protestant reformers answer the above questions? Yet no one questions when the Protestant reformation and churches began because every related incident is well known, and the troubles, woes and violence that were caused by them.
bulletThe true Church of Christ was started by Christ, the Protestant churches were started in the 16th century and later by ordinary men. Some Protestants may try and claim their church was around before the 16th century and to them we ask, where was your Protestant church before the 16th century, what was it called, was it called by the same name, and who in history claimed to be a part of it? Do not try and say it existed but was invisible, for if it were not seen and is not referenced in historical documents, who can say it existed? And if you still claim your Protestant church existed before the Reformation, Luther contradicts you, for he said he was quite alone when he started the Reformation.
bulletIf one of the churches must be true, it is the Catholic Church since it is clearly the only perpetually existing Christian Church since the time of Christ. The new Protestant churches therefore cannot be called true, but can only be called heretical.


17. The true Church of Christ must be perpetual: