Why do you believe the Catholic Church is not “it”? Surely it can’t be that in its someodd 2000 years of existence church officials did some bad things. Humanity does bad things. Even the disciples did bad things. But the idea of a church, of a solid community following Tradition and Jesus’s teachings that was what never fell through. Don’t you think? And in that, the Catholic Church still stands. Is it really logical that Jesus/God would have wanted the church to be reformed and reformed and reformed, causing dissention and tension among his people? Do you think Jesus would have left his precious church in the hands of people he believed would ruin it? This is what I can’t understand, and why I think every other “restorationist” church marks itself with a certain kind of ungodly arrogance because it claims to be better than the church JESUS established. Just think about it for a second: why would Jesus have trusted Peter, a sinful but holy man, with carrying on his church if he wouldn’t trust all those who came after him. It just doesn’t make sense that someone 1500 years or 1800 years or 2000 years later who never had any kind of succession or contact with those who had that kind of succession in the church need “to restore” something. Restoring something rests on the presumption that something needs to be restored, perfected. My gosh, don’t you think Jesus would have been a little if not a lot offended by the notion that the church HE created isn’t good enough? What about the church needs to be restored, and how do you know what needs to be restored? I’m not trying to grill you, I really am curious. I want to understand what you believe.

Personally, and I apologize if I offend but I feel it necessary to share, I think what it comes down to is faith. How much faith do YOU have in what Jesus established? If you think everyone got it wrong after Jesus doesn’t that mean Jesus messed up by entrusting his church to them? What makes your church anymore Godsent than those who came right after Christ? It sounds like you’re pretty untrusting of those whom He left to carry on his church.

I think an examination of Simon Peter is highly appropriate right now. We can agree that Peter was an amazingly holy man—the “disciple whom He loved” (John 19:26). Jesus left this man EVERYTHING (Matthew 16:18-19) right before his death including the care of his mother (John 19:26-27). But Peter was a man of great fault. Recall Matthew 18:22-33 when Jesus walks on water. The disciples cannot believe their eyes and are filled with terror as Jesus says to them, “Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid”. Peter says, “Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water”. Then Jesus commanded Peter to come, but Peter began to walk on water he, became frightened and his faith caused him to sink into the stormy ocean. Angrily, Jesus asks, “You of little faith, why did you doubt?” (Perhaps you and I could reflect upon this passage and ask God what it is in our lives with which we could use more faith, whether it be which church to follow or other things) Here we see even mighty Peter untrusting of the power of God. He also tries to stop Jesus from going to his death, but appalled, Jesus rebukes him harshly (Matthew 16:22-23). Again Peter makes another awful error by denying Christ three times. But who is this man? Is he not the man who Jesus entrusted with everything?

Likewise it can be gathered that those who followed Peter through succession also made some blunders, big and small. But you and I and all of the mankind have to trust somewhere along the lines of comprehension when historical fact and rationality start to falter that God fortified his church from the very beginning, that he would never leave the church (Matthew 16:18) and “will be with [us] always” (Matthew 28:20). He would make his word “a light to the nations” and His teachings is/ were/ always will be inerrant.

It is too easy for men of little faith to name-call the Catholic Church and try to start their own or “restore” rather than to tackle the difficult concept of having faith in God and trusting that his original establishment of a church would withstand every test. I will confess: I’ve had my own misgivings about the church. But the more I research and earnestly pray that I find the truth, I keep feeling called to Rome sweet home (Rome Sweet Home by Scott and Kimberly Hahn might peak your interest). I challenge you Braden, to spend some more time researching and reading on Catholicism, looking past misconceptions and lies others have spread, for some real, honest answers. I think you may be surprised by the steadfast, moral, brave teachings and the love, strength, and passion of the Church. May the Lord bless you and keep you, and give you peace.

First of all, I apologize if I have in any way violated Ephesians 4:17-32. I try to keep things calm and as fair as possible.

I do not recall having said that the church that Christ established was ever removed from the face of the earth. I will say that I do not think that the Catholic church is it. You believe that the “rock” that Christ refers to in Matthew 16:18-19 is Peter. To me, it seems obvious that the rock is actually Peter’s confession that Jesus Christ is the son of God, the founding bedrock principle of His church.

As far as inherited depravity, I believe that evil is learned, not inherent. For instance, if eating mushrooms was evil and I didn’t know it, I might eat them. Would I be sinning because I willfully ate something I wasn’t supposed to? Surely not. It’s the same with Adam and Eve. God told them not to do something and they did it anyway. That was the first sin because it was an act of disobedience.

I can’t imagine how I would be taking Ezekiel 18:20 out of context. You believe that sin started with Adam, as do I. But I do not believe that Abel was a sinful man because of Adam. Sin is definitely something that we learn when we understand the difference between good and evil. I can’t fathom why you would think a newborn innocent baby is an alien sinner if it isn’t baptized.

Speaking of which, baptism in the scriptures is always voluntary. It is never once performed on a baby in the Bible. It is always a conscious decision. The Catholic church evolved the position of infant baptism, along with many of its other positions.

As for the Bible, the Catholic Church initially opposed the translation of the Bible into any other language but Latin, did they not? Why else would they want Martin Luther torn limb from limb for his “heresy?”

As an organization, the Catholic church has flip-flopped far more times than John Kerry ever could.

When it comes to Mary, the scriptures never say that she was the mother of God, an idea that I personally see has heretical since God is an eternal being. Mary was the physical carrier and yes, mother of Jesus Christ, the human incarnation of God on earth, but not God himself. Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus, but she was not always a virgin as Jesus had brothers after he was born (Matthew 12:46, Mark 3:31, Luke 8:19).

I try to be a fair guy in this, believe it or not. I even went to midnight mass last week to try to better understand the Catholic faith. In writing this on my political blog, I noticed that I somehow offended Catholics more than Mormons, which is ironic because I thought the blog was a bit more scathing towards Mormons. I apologize if I have offended you. Please consider this points. God bless!