Scripture Support For Sola Scriptura

MK:It is a lie from the pit of Hell that we can take man’s word (oral tradition) over the word of God.

BFHU: I agree with you that we cannot take man’s word over the word of God. And I can assure you as a former, zealous, sola scriptura Protestant that the Catholic Church does not do this.You mistakenly confuse an INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE that you, or your pastor, or some other explanation of a passage is the same thing as Scripture but it is not. That is why Protestantism, unhinged from the historic roots of Christianity has given birth to thousands of different denominations. Each denomination, split off due to a disagreement of how certain scriptures should be INTERPRETED. They all had the same scriptures and the same desire to follow Christ. But they came up with a lot of differences and confusion.

If Scripture was truly self-interpreting then all would interpret it the same. Then there are some who wonder why there are so many different denominations and interpretations. They end up coming to the conclusion  that anyone who interprets it differently than they and their church does, doesn’t truly have the Holy Spirit guiding them.

But how do they KNOW? How do they KNOW that THEY are not the ones who think they are being guided by the Holy Spirit but are actually NOT being guided by the Holy Spirit? How does any Protestant KNOW the Catholic Church isn’t exactly what she claims to be: The ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC CHURCH: Founded by Jesus Christ Himself upon Peter and the Apostles?

You err when you say:  oral tradition = { elevating man’s words above the word of God. }

All oral tradition cannot be defined this way. You contradict no lesser person than the Apostle Paul when he told the Thessalonians and Corinthians to hold fast to the traditions that he had taught them whether oral or written.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

MK:Scripture even tells us that we should not take the word of angels over the word of God. Anyone–it doesn’t matter who you are or what denomination you come from–who perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ is accursed!

BFHU: I agree.

MK: Just a few scriptures that support what man calls Sola Scriptura are:

Psalms 12:6-7: The words of the LORD are pure words;
As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.
7You, O LORD, will keep them;
You will preserve him from this generation forever.

BFHU: Agreed. The word of God is extolled but nothing here says that ONLY the written word of God  is to be adhered to.

MK: Isaiah 28:9-14: 12He who said to them, “Here is rest, give rest to the weary,”
And, “Here is repose,” but they would not listen.
13So the word of the LORD to them will be,
“Order on order, order on order,
Line on line, line on line,
A little here, a little there,”
That they may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared and taken captive.14Therefore, hear the word of the LORD, O scoffers,
Who rule this people who are in Jerusalem,

BFHU: Amen. But, again,  nothing here says that ONLY the written word of God  is to be adhered to.

MK: Matthew 16:18: 18“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

BFHU: Absolutely. And that Church, the Catholic Church, has not been overpowered.

MK: John 15:1-11: 1“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser….3“You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you….7“If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you….

BFHU: I love the parable of Christ the Vine. But again, nothing here says that ONLY the written word of God  is to abide in us.

MK: 1 Cor 1:10-13-Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you.12Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.”13Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

BFHU: I totally agree with this.From this passage we see that Jesus did not want a bunch of denominations. He only founded ONE Church. The Catholic Church is the only Church that has been in existence since Jesus founded her.

Not clear why you have used this verse to support sola scriptura because nothing  says anything about the idea that ONLY the written word of God  is to be adhered to.

MK: 1 Cor 3:5-17-

BFHU:That is a great passage but nothing in it says anything about scripture, let alone that ONLY the written word of God  is to be adhered to.

MK: 1 Cor 4:6-6Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

BFHU: Agreed. This is an excellent verse to portray that we must not let anything  nullify or contradict the word of God in Sacred Scripture. We, the Catholic Church believe this. But I think you are reading “not to exceed what is written” in the verse to mean that only what is written is to be adhered to, believed, followed, etc. Therefore, all oral teaching not explicitly contained in the written scripture is to be shunned as heresy…or something along this line.

This is a good example of differences in interpretation.

But Catholics read this scripture to mean that nothing may contradict anything in scripture according to the interpretation that has always and everywhere been believed.

MK: Gal. 1:6-9-I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;7which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!9As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

BFHU: Absolutely. If you notice St. Paul refers to what they learned from him by his preaching not by what was written. Again there is nothing here about adhering only to what has been written in Scripture.

Here is another example of a different interpretation. You read or interpret this to say that the Bible is the only sure reservoir of what Paul taught. Therefore, only it must be accepted because it is the earliest document of what the apostles taught, orally.

The Sacred Scriptures were not canonized to be Sacred Scripture until about 400 AD. Of course the epistles and books were written very early but so were a lot of other documents written at the same time and before 400 AD. These contain a lot of information about the Christian Faith. Some trustworthy and some not trustworthy. So Christians, for 400 years were exposed to all of these writings and the leaders in the church had to protect them from what was in error.

When Scripture was canonized it was for the purpose of separating the wheat from the chaff. But it also limited inclusion to those writings by people who knew Jesus.  But between the resurrection and the time scripture was canonized there were many excellent writings that were faithful and true.

If however, the Protestant idea was correct, that what was canonized by the Church in 400 AD was the only teachings about Christian Faith that were to be believed and that all else must be rejected, then we would expect to see the Catholic Church do an about face on all the uniquely Catholic doctrines.

If the canonization of scripture was supposed to present to the world all of the information necessary for salvation and growth in holiness and condemn every other teaching not explicitly contained in scripture then ancient writings should abound with teachings about sola scriptura.

But there are none of these. The Catholic Faith continued to teach the same doctrine regarding Purgatory, Mary and Prayers for the dead. So, historically the canonization of scripture clarified what writings could be relied on to be infallible. This does not, therefore, mean that every other writing positively contained error. Some did and some didn’t.

MK: Revelation 22:18-19-I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;

19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

BFHU:But according to Deuteronomy the book of Revelation itself is  added contrary to Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy 4:2:“You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

MK: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NASB)

BFHU:This is the classic verse used to support Sola Scriptura. But where does it say that ONLY Scripture is inspired by God and profiable for teaching….etc.?????? There is nothing in this verse that contradicts Catholic Church teaching.

Did Jesus Found an Invisble Church?

Copied with permission from
To those who say the true Church is invisible:

Nowhere 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 priests of the church” Acts 20:17

“And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church, and by the apostles and priests, 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

It 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?

When 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!

The 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.

It 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?

How 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?

To 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).

Some 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.

In 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 16:16 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.)

For the rest click Protestant Errors

Where Did Luther (et. al) Get Authority to Change Christianity?

The following is taken from with permission.
The Protestant reformers had no legitimate mission from God (or from someone given power by God) to reform the Church:

Jesus 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.

On 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.

No 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. Consider 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.

How 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

If 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?

For the rest click –>Protestant Errors

Who Started Your Church?

1517 Lutheran, by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church.

1534 Church of England, by King Henry VIII because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

1560 Presbyterian, by John Knox in Scotland.

1582 Congregationalist, by Robert Brown in Holland .

1605 Baptist, John Smyth, in Amsterdam.

1628 Dutch Reformed church, by Michaelis Jones , in New York.

1744 Methodist, John and Charles Wesley in England.

1774Unitarian, by Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London.

1829 Mormon (Latter Day Saints), by Joseph Smith in Palmyra, N.Y .

1840 Holiness Churches by  Phoebe Palmer

1865 Salvation Army, by William Booth in London.

1870 Jehovah’s Witnesses by Charles Taze Russell

1879 Christian Scientist, by Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy.

1887 Christian and Missionary Alliance by  Rev. Albert Benjamin Simpson

1895 Church of the Nazarene by Dr. Phineas F. Bresee & C.W. Ruth

1900 Pentecostal by Charles Parham (Kansas), William J. Seymour (Los Angeles)

1914 Assembly of God (300 pastors from the Pentecostal movement)

1965  Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, founded by Chuck Smith.

33AD Catholic Church,  by Jesus Christ the Son of God .

“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 Ignatius of Antioch; 110 A.D. ).

The Immaculate Conception is Just a Theory

Well, if you say that it is true that for 1500 years all Christians believed in Mary’s immaculate conception, even Martin Luther! Then isn’t it also true that ” for almost 2000 years, all Christians/nonbelievers, believed that the EARTH not the sun, was the center of the solar system/universe???” And well, we ALL know how that theory turned out… which brings me to this conclusion:

Immaculate Conception = a THEORY
Jesus = The Way, The Truth and The Life.

Unless you point to a single line in scripture that specifically says “Mary was without sin” then all you have is a theory, plain and simple, not truth, just a THEORY.

BFHU: I reject your assertion that unless something is found specifically in scripture it is nothing more than a THEORY.

And for this reason:
There is not a single scripture that defines the Holy Trinity.

There is not a single scripture that lists the books that should be in the Bible.

There is not a single scripture that says the Bible and only the Bible contains all religious Truth–The doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

There is not a single scripture that says salvation is by Faith alone.

You have fallen for the Protestant habit of hypocrisy; which is to apply a standard to the Catholic Church (in order to prove she is not the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself) but never apply this same standard to Protestant beliefs.

Both Catholics and Protestants have doctrines and beliefs that CAN NOT BE FOUND EXPLICITLY IN SCRIPTURE. Therefore, one must decide who to trust: The Catholic Church which defined the doctrine of the Trinity and canonized the New Testament, founded by Jesus on Peter and the Blessed Apostles 2000 years ago or one the the thousands of Protestant denominations founded by various men , a mere 40 (Chuck Smith-Calvary Chapels) to 500 years ago Martin Luther.

Eucharist in the Early Church

Q. Did the Christians in the first three centuries believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist?

A. Yes. They certainly did!

110 AD–St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John wrote  :

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6,2)

“I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ…and for drink I desire His Blood, which is love incorruptible.” (Letter to the Romans 7,3)

150 AD–St Justin Martyr wrote to the Emperor of Rome :

“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true…For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the Flesh and the Blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66,20 )

180 ADSt. Irenaeus, was the bishop of Lyons, France and a student of St. Polycarp who sat at the feet of the Apostle John. St. Irenaeus wrote  :

“He (Jesus) has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.” (Against Heresies, 5,2,2 )

350 AD St Cyril of Jerusalem, in a teaching to those coming into the Church wrote :

Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ.” (Catechetical Lectures:(Mystagogic 4) 22,6 )

Thus we see that the Christian Church, at the very beginning of its history taught and believed that the bread and wine of communion was transformed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ in fulfillment of Jesus’ discourse on the Bread From Heaven in John 6 and the plain sense of His words at the institution of Communion at the Last Supper. “This is My Body” This is My Blood”

This is the same Church that Jesus founded on Peter and the Apostles.

This is the same church that Jesus promised the Gates of Hell would never overcome.

This is the same Church that chose the books of the Bible out of all the other books floating around the ancient world, at the end of the fourth century.

This is the same Church that was called Catholic at least as early as 110 AD.

This is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Ancient, but ever young.

Are Catholics Christian?

Q. Are Catholics Christians?
A. Yes. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.

“Upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” Matt. 16:18

Q. Why is it called the Catholic Church?

A. “Catholic” comes from the Greek word kataholos meaning universal. The Christian Church has been called “The Catholic Church” at least since 110 AD. We know this from a letter written by St. Ignatius of Antioch:

“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 Ignatius of Antioch;
110 A.D. ).

Q. Are Catholic Christians born again?

A. Certainly. In the Catholic faith tradition we believe that we are born again through the waters of baptism.
Jn 3:5 “Unless one is born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
I Peter 3:21 “…baptism now saves you..”.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,


Q. I am a CHRISTIAN. That’s what they were first called in Antioch (Acts 11:26), and that is what Peter said he was proud to be called (1 Pe 4:16). I’m not sure why everyone insists on calling themselves by any other title, other than referring to the only name given under heaven that can save you (Act 4:12).

BFHU: Me too. We, Catholics are Christian, too. “Catholic” comes from the Greek word kataholos meaning universal. The Christian Church has been called “The Catholic Church” at least since 110 AD. We know this from a letter written by St. Ignatius of Antioch:

“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 Ignatius of Antioch; 110 A.D. ).

There is nothing is this quote that indicates St. Ignatius is coining a new phrase but just the contrary, he is clarifying where one can reliably find Jesus Christ, valid Eucharist, and the authentic CATHOLIC CHURCH. The different names spring up due to division and heresy. Those who broke away from the Catholic Church were proud to differentiate themselves from it. Even in the first century, the use of the name, Catholic Church, was used to guide people to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as opposed to heretical sects that arose at that time.

Q. I have one question for everybody: At what point did Jesus Christ stop being the way, truth, life, and the one to whom we look for guidance?
BFHU:….UHMMMM….BEATS ME…..We believe Christ is all of the above.

Q. At what point did His life stop being the model for us?
BFHU:Who are you referring to? He is our model.

Q. Read the gospels and Acts, the story of the first church, Please!!!
BFHU:We in the Catholic Church have been reading and hearing the Gospels every Sunday for 2000 years. Who exactly is it that you are so sure have never read them?

Church Heirarchy

Q. I am a member of the true church of Christ. The Church of Christ. We are made up of tens of thousands of congregations world wide, each of which are completely independent from and yet one with the others,

Do you believe this is good or attractive when Jesus said, “that all of them may be one?” Jn 17:21 Independent from is not one with the others. A married couple who act completely independently from each other are not unified or one with each other.

Q. …and with a structure according to the Scriptures.

We also are organized according to the Scriptures Where is the Heirarchy in Scripture? but are not confined to them since our organization began and evolved for 400 years before the NT was canonized. Popes and Bishops in the Early Church
Q. We are able to speak the same things and be of the same mind because the New Testament is our only authority. We do not use creed books or “church traditions”.

“Church Traditions” I will say again are NOT the mere tradtions of men, but the very teaching of the apostles received from Christ. You have no way of actually KNOWING that you are of the same mind as the authors of the NT because Protestantism came along 1500 years after Christ. You are only of the same mind as your own mind or the mind of your pastor or some other Protestant teacher you trust. But Protestant theology is unhinged from many of the ancient teachings of Apostolic Christianity and the only authority, ultimately is yourself. Every Protestant is his own pope. That is why it is NOT ONE as desired by Christ in John 17 but fractured into thousands of denominations.

We do not follow the Law of Moses. Jesus is the head, and there is only one head.

We totally agree that Jesus is the head of His body the Church.

Q. As the Scriptures commands us to speak as the oracles of God, we speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent.

This is a delusion, because you believe in the doctrine of sola scriptura and yet it is nowhere to be found in the pages of scripture. It is a tradition of men and therefore condemned by St. Paul.

Did the Catholic Church Change?

Q. I had a discussion yesterday with a Protestant friend of mine and I was maintaining my belief that the Catholic Church has not changed its doctrine. But he mentioned that ST Irenaeus was clearly for the doctrine of election and so was the Catholic Church and this doctrine changed years after to what we believe today that Jesus died for everyone.

A. The fact that a Saint, even one as great as St. Irenaeus, taught something does not mean their teaching was infallible or that it is what the Church taught. Besides this,all kinds of heresies were taught for centuries by Catholic Heretics. But these were opposed by the Pope and the Magesterium. Ask your friend for the citation or where it can be found that the Church taught limited atonement, predestination and/or the doctrine of election. I do not believe she will be able to prove it.
The Sacred Scripture:

I Tim 2:3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

So Timothy either lied, or this scripture is not infallible, or God was impotent to do His part to atone for all men. None of these are good choices.

The Catholic Church has always taught that NOT everyone will BE saved but as far as I know it has never taught that Christ died only for the elect. So, I would love to have your friend try to prove the contention that the Church has changed her doctrines.

Q. My friend was very clear that since the doctrine of the Catholic Church changed, that its not the same Catholic Church that I believe in. I had no answer to this and I really hope that I do find the answer

A. The Catholic Church has NOT changed. Our understanding of the teaching of the apostles has deepened and developed over the centuries. Just like an acorn planted in the earth grows into a giant tree. It did not become a different tree but the giant oak looks very different than an acorn. The Catholic Church never changed. Your friend contends that it has. He says he has proof that is has but this proof needs to be presented so that we can all judge for ourselves. We cannot just take his word for it.