Protestant 'heresy'?

[historyb]

That, friend, is an insult to every Protestant.

Protestants are material heretics, note not formal though some may be who rejected Christ Church outright. After the Protestant Revolt the first ones like Luther, Calvin, etc were formal heretics because they rejected Christ when they rejected His Church. Through no fault of their own those who are separated from Christ Church are still Christian and they are our separated brethren.

That doesn't change the fact that many twist Scripture to fit their own agenda as the SDA do. Your right I should have been more specific and I am sorry for the generalizations.

[RoyS]

Protestants are material heretics, note not formal though some may be who rejected Christ Church outright. After the Protestant Revolt the first ones like Luther, Calvin, etc were formal heretics because they rejected Christ when they rejected His Church. Through no fault of their own those who are separated from Christ Church are still Christian and they are our separated brethren.

That doesn't change the fact that many twist Scripture to fit their own agenda as the SDA do. Your right I should have been more specific and I am sorry for the generalizations.

Seriously? I'm not going to get into this same, tired old argument again. There are plenty of forums out there that are 'Catholic Only'; maybe you would be more comfortable at those; you could all congratulate yourselves for being the only 'true Christians'. What arrogance.

[RoyS]

A man arrives at the gates of heaven. St. Peter asks, "Religion?"

The man says, "Methodist."

St. Peter looks down his list, and says, "Go to room 24, but be very quiet as you pass room 8."

Another man arrives at the gates of heaven. "Religion?"

"Baptist."

"Go to room 18, but be very quiet as you pass room 8."

A third man arrives at the gates. "Religion?"

"Jewish."

"Go to room 11, but be very quiet as you pass room 8."

The man says, "I can understand there being different rooms for different religions, but why must I be quiet when I pass room 8?"

St. Peter tells him, "Well the Catholics are in room 8, and they think they're the only ones here.

[Benjie]

Sadly, the best jokes (which is a description of the one that RoyS just posted) are based in truth. In this case, pure and total truth.

And that, my friends, is a sad thing.

[historyb]

Seriously? I'm not going to get into this same, tired old argument again. There are plenty of forums out there that are 'Catholic Only'; maybe you would be more comfortable at those; you could all congratulate yourselves for being the only 'true Christians'. What arrogance.Ye

Yes quite serious. Your aggorance is assuming that is what my post said. Also misrepresenting what I said

[Hansc]

Sadly, the best jokes (which is a description of the one that RoyS just posted) are based in truth. In this case, pure and total truth.

And that, my friends, is a sad thing.

Hi, Benjie, good to see you here. We just finished another round with Gabe ( I think, it's finished, and it reminded me of "Kim")

[Benjie]

Hi, Benjie, good to see you here. We just finished another round with Gabe ( I think, it's finished, and it reminded me of "Kim")

smh. . . Some people have nothing better to do, I guess.

I don't know how often I will be around. Work is nuts, as are responsibilities with the church. I would call it the "C"hurch, but we worship Christ instead of Mary. ;) (Jus' tryin' to keep it on topic. lol!)

[historyb]

Not funny and a misrepentation to boot.

[Benjie]

Not funny and a misrepentation to boot.

Um. . . Good one? *thumbs up*

[historyb]

There is that arrogance you always exhibited thinking your better than "those Catholics" because you worship right. So much for being loving and Christ like, there is none exhibited from what you write

[HisDaughter]

As childish as this sound hb... there is some truth to what we used to say as children. "it takes one to know one". If you think someone is being arrogant , could it be the reason you see the arrogance in others is because you have been the same way?

hb... Chill out hb and let the Holy Spirit reveal Truth. Share what you believe and give the basis for you statement, then let Him do the rest. I remember reading about the Inquisition by th Catholic Church, they were arrogant in what they believed, it was more about their power then the Truth of God. They used terror to change behavior rather than appealing to the heart. Insults do not touch the heart unto revelation but it expresses false superiority. Think about this hb.... are you trying to convince people of what you believe for their sake or for the sake of your pride. If it is for their sake you wouldn't want to beat it over their heads but you would want to appeal to their hearts and that doesn't happen with insults, shaming, or accusations.

Arrogance is when you are concerned about your own ..... Love is when you are concerned for others.

[Benjie]

There is that arrogance you always exhibited thinking your better than "those Catholics" because you worship right. So much for being loving and Christ like, there is none exhibited from what you write
Whom are you speaking to here? I don't know of anyone that is engaging in conversation with you that has the attitude or thought process you are referencing.

Just to clarify, please remind me: you do believe that you are in the only correct church, right? You also believe that you are the only one worshiping God correctly, right?

Just checking. . .

[Titus]

Protestants are material heretics, note not formal though some may be who rejected Christ Church outright. After the Protestant Revolt the first ones like Luther, Calvin, etc were formal heretics because they rejected Christ when they rejected His Church. Through no fault of their own those who are separated from Christ Church are still Christian and they are our separated brethren.

That doesn't change the fact that many twist Scripture to fit their own agenda as the SDA do. Your right I should have been more specific and I am sorry for the generalizations. So, are you saying that unless we come back home to the one true church we're all going to hell? Sounds like it to me, if we're all heretics and all, because I openly and purposefully reject your church. It is not Christ's church. If it were, there would have been no inquisition. There would have been no indulgences.

[HisDaughter]

So, are you saying that unless we come back home to the one true church we're all going to hell? Sounds like it to me, if we're all heretics and all, because I openly and purposefully reject your church. It is not Christ's church. If it were, there would have been no inquisition. There would have been no indulgences.

Good point Titus! I do not believe the True Church would be responsible for killing anyone because of what they believe.

[historyb]

As childish as this sound hb... there is some truth to what we used to say as children. "it takes one to know one". If you think someone is being arrogant , could it be the reason you see the arrogance in others is because you have been the same way?

hb... Chill out hb and let the Holy Spirit reveal Truth. Share what you believe and give the basis for you statement, then let Him do the rest. I remember reading about the Inquisition by th Catholic Church, they were arrogant in what they believed, it was more about their power then the Truth of God. They used terror to change behavior rather than appealing to the heart. Insults do not touch the heart unto revelation but it expresses false superiority. Think about this hb.... are you trying to convince people of what you believe for their sake or for the sake of your pride. If it is for their sake you wouldn't want to beat it over their heads but you would want to appeal to their hearts and that doesn't happen with insults, shaming, or accusations.

Arrogance is when you are concerned about your own ..... Love is when you are concerned for others.

Sorry, no. Benjie did this on the old site and got away with it. RoyS called me arrogant so apply the logic of your post he is arrogant too. If someone does want to be deemed arrogant than maybe he should show love first (think benjie)

[historyb]

So, are you saying that unless we come back home to the one true church we're all going to hell? Sounds like it to me, if we're all heretics and all, because I openly and purposefully reject your church. It is not Christ's church. If it were, there would have been no inquisition. There would have been no indulgences.

No and I said that tons before, the problem is people react instead of think what was posted. I said Protestants are Christians but they are material heretics, the original ones like Luther are formal unless they repented then their chance of getting to Heaven is small. Today's Protestant Christian are not responsible for the fathers of there religion and once and for all everyone read - PROTESTANTS ARE CHRISTIANS I NEVER SAID THEY WERE NOT!

[historyb]

Good point Titus! I do not believe the True Church would be responsible for killing anyone because of what they believe.

Many Protestants did that too, Calvin had a man killed because he disagreed with him. There is enough blood on every Christian religions hands to go around. The true Church is not that way because of her members but because of Christ. (Note I do not think there are any true Churches)

[historyb]

Whom are you speaking to here? I don't know of anyone that is engaging in conversation with you that has the attitude or thought process you are referencing.

Just to clarify, please remind me: you do believe that you are in the only correct church, right? You also believe that you are the only one worshiping God correctly, right?

Just checking. . .


No, but you do. More than once is a very, very un Christ like way on the old site you always reminded that you were better because your worship was true and mine was false because I didn't worship like you

[HisDaughter]

Many Protestants did that too, Calvin had a man killed because he disagreed with him. There is enough blood on every Christian religions hands to go around. The true Church is not that way because of her members but because of Christ. (Note I do not think there are any true Churches)

Protestants are not a single organized church. I go to a church that is deemed by Catholic's as protestants. I don't consider myself a protestant, I am a Christian. I am not a Lutheran, either. Calvin was a man not a church.

You say "There is enough blood on every Christian religions hands to go around", well the Catholic's by for have the bloodiest hands. Please don't get me wrong, today is different, today many Catholics would be considered heretics today if ruled by those in the day of the inquisition. They have come to a better understanding but, I don't believe they are "The Church" exclusive for they still error in many of their doctrines. There doctrines contradict Scripture. While you might not believe "Sola Scriptura" Anything that contradicts Scripture is error.

[HisDaughter]

No, but you do. More than once is a very, very un Christ like way on the old site you always reminded that you were better because your worship was true and mine was false because I didn't worship like you

What would you worry about regarding one thinking they are "better" than you. If you stand right before God what do you worry of other's thoughts about you. Measure yourself according to God's standards and you will be less offended.

[historyb]

Protestants are not a single organized church. I go to a church that is deemed by Catholic's as protestants. I don't consider myself a protestant, I am a Christian. I am not a Lutheran, either. Calvin was a man not a church.

You say "There is enough blood on every Christian religions hands to go around", well the Catholic's by for have the bloodiest hands. Please don't get me wrong, today is different, today many Catholics would be considered heretics today if ruled by those in the day of the inquisition. They have come to a better understanding but, I don't believe they are "The Church" exclusive for they still error in many of their doctrines. There doctrines contradict Scripture. While you might not believe "Sola Scriptura" Anything that contradicts Scripture is error.

No Catholics don't. The Protestants in Ireland have very bloody hands and most Evangelicals would be considered heretics by the reformers who founded the Protestant churches. Protestants act as if the inquisition was all over it wasn't, it was in Spain and was not sanctioned by the Church.

The problem with "every thing that contradicts Scripture is bad" is that all believe something not Scriptural by someone else and that idea is not even found in Scripture. Paul tells timothy to Keep both what he has been taught and written not just written only.

[historyb]

What would you worry about regarding one thinking they are "better" than you. If you stand right before God what do you worry of other's thoughts about you. Measure yourself according to God's standards and you will be less offended.

Oh okay, showing Christ love is something no one has to do then. Gotta ya. You all get on me but when someone else here like Benjie is rude to me it's perfectly wonderful because I am a stupid sub par Catholic Christian

[HisDaughter]

So, we are responsible for your walk in Christ? Ok, you don't think we are fair, you believe Benji is rude to you, so you can behave based on your feelings? Who is your example, are we your example or is Christ? Blame is the oldest excuse in the life of man, poor me follows closely.

Know who you are in Christ and in the long run of things, you will not be concerned or offended by what others think of you.

I am done here hb. God Bless

[historyb]

So you will just let others act any old way then? I never siad that anyone was responsible for my walk so don't even pretend I did that is a copout. You all mod me fine but when it comes to others let them walk all over ones who aren't in the "club". This is about mods not doing there jobs, there is a double standard here I get ding but Benjie can be as rude as he wants to a member of the forum

[RoyS]

So you will just let others act any old way then? I never siad that anyone was responsible for my walk so don't even pretend I did that is a copout. You all mod me fine but when it comes to others let them walk all over ones who aren't in the "club". This is about mods not doing there jobs, there is a double standard here I get ding but Benjie can be as rude as he wants to a member of the forum

hb, your memory is failing. I recall almost everyone being admonished by mods at one time or another, including Benjie, Titus, Beyond Blessed, Barbarian, and, yes, you. We're not going to stop doing our jobs because the look of the site has changed. No one is 'picking on you'. I happen to disagree with the statements you made about Protestants being heretics, no matter how you try to qualify them. I was discussing your statements, not 'moderating you'. If you recall, every mod here was a plain ol' member before becoming a mod. We're still interested in, and permitted to, take part in discussions. We're still the same people, you know (perhaps a bit older).

[historyb]

Yet benjie gets a pass for being rude in the thread, but if I slip up than the hammer comes down. http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a20/OptimalProtocol/Smiley_Crying.gif

[RoyS]

Yet benjie gets a pass for being rude in the thread, but if I slip up than the hammer comes down. http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a20/OptimalProtocol/Smiley_Crying.gif

Please show me where, in this thread, did Benjie say one rude thing to you, or anyone else?

[Benjie]

No, but you do. More than once is a very, very un Christ like way on the old site you always reminded that you were better because your worship was true and mine was false because I didn't worship like youUm, actually, that is a very blatant lie. Not once have I ever said that I was better than anyone else, nor that my worship was true and anyone else's was false.

Now, to clarify again, because your response kind of muddled together. Do you think that you are worshiping in the one true church? Do you believe that you are the one worshiping correctly because you are in the only correct church?
Yes or no, please.

[historyb]

Please show me where, in this thread, did Benjie say one rude thing to you, or anyone else?

Post number 18

[Benjie]

Post number 18Well, let's see:

Hi, Benjie, good to see you here. We just finished another round with Gabe ( I think, it's finished, and it reminded me of "Kim")smh. . . Some people have nothing better to do, I guess.

I don't know how often I will be around. Work is nuts, as are responsibilities with the church. I would call it the "C"hurch, but we worship Christ instead of Mary. ;) (Jus' tryin' to keep it on topic. lol!)
Hmm, I see. You consider the light joking (hence the "lol!") about the differences between protestants and Catholics to be rude? Hmm. . . Well, I apologize that you took it wrong.

Now, was I talking about you, or the stereotype of Catholics in general? (Hint: it's the latter.)

[BobRyan]

No and I said that tons before, the problem is people react instead of think what was posted. I said Protestants are Christians but they are material heretics, the original ones like Luther are formal unless they repented then their chance of getting to Heaven is small. Today's Protestant Christian are not responsible for the fathers of there religion and once and for all everyone read - PROTESTANTS ARE CHRISTIANS I NEVER SAID THEY WERE NOT!

Since you bring up the point of calling Protestant heretics (presumably for believing the Acts 17:11 Bible teaching about "sola scriptura" testing of doctrine) -- Out of curiosity -- given that Lateran IV was an ecumenical council - and that their decrees are therefore considered "infallible" to this very day by the Catholic church leadership, what about the Lateran IV command to "exterminate" heretics?

How does that fit with the more recent and welcomed Catholic position that Protestants can be saved?

in Christ,

Bob

[Titus]

No and I said that tons before, the problem is people react instead of think what was posted. I said Protestants are Christians but they are material heretics, the original ones like Luther are formal unless they repented then their chance of getting to Heaven is small. Today's Protestant Christian are not responsible for the fathers of there religion anbd once and for all everyone read - PROTESTANTS ARE CHRISTIANS I NEVER SAID THEY WERE NOT!You called all protestants heretics. That is pharisaical hypocrisy. The rcc considers heresy a hare's breadth from apostasy. Persistent hersey is punishable by excommunication. If we are separated brethren, we are condemned by your church to forever be. I see in the rcc the same qualities that Jesus hated and preached against in the pharisees.

[RoyS]

Post number 18
(sigh) So, tell me how his one lighthearted jab was any different than you seriously saying all Protestants are heretics (multiple times)? As a Protestant, I took umbrage personally at that. My subsequent remarks were from me, personally, not in any capacity as a mod. Nobody's picking on you, hb. You should know by now that you need a thick skin to discuss reasonably on internet forums.

[historyb]

You called all protestants heretics. That is pharisaical hypocrisy. The rcc considers heresy a hare's breadth from apostasy. Persistent hersey is punishable by excommunication. If we are separated brethren, we are condemned by your church to forever be. I see in the rcc the same qualities that Jesus hated and preached against in the pharisees.

Yes and they are, but material only not formal there is a difference. The Catholic Church calls all Protestants separated brethren because of their love for Christ, that does not mean that every thing Protestant hold to is correct.

[historyb]

(sigh) So, tell me how his one lighthearted jab was any different than you seriously saying all Protestants are heretics (multiple times)? As a Protestant, I took umbrage personally at that. My subsequent remarks were from me, personally, not in any capacity as a mod. Nobody's picking on you, hb. You should know by now that you need a thick skin to discuss reasonably on internet forums.


I was relating a truth and not trying to be mean, many doctrines Protestant hold to are in error and that is called material heresy. This is no different than the SDA believing in Soul Sleep most Protestants accept them as brethren even though they have that error, that is called material heresy. Benjie weather did it to completely make fun of a group of Christians. I never once said you all were not Christians but by the one sentence he declared a million plus people to be non Christians, I know he will get away with it though and I am quite sure I'll be told that was not what he meant and at the same time be dinged

[RoyS]

I was relating a truth and not trying to be mean, many doctrines Protestant hold to are in error and that is called material heresy. This is no different than the SDA believing in Soul Sleep most Protestants accept them as brethren even though they have that error, that is called material heresy. Benjie weather did it to completely make fun of a group of Christians. I never once said you all were not Christians but by the one sentence he declared a million plus people to be non Christians, I know he will get away with it though and I am quite sure I'll be told that was not what he meant and at the same time be dinged

I give up. :rolleyes: You are far too paranoid, brother.

[historyb]

Just as I thought, different rules for different people

[RoyS]

Good grief! Ok, here you go:


smh. . . Some people have nothing better to do, I guess.

I don't know how often I will be around. Work is nuts, as are responsibilities with the church. I would call it the "C"hurch, but we worship Christ instead of Mary. (Jus' tryin' to keep it on topic. lol!)

Benjie, don't make any more jokes that will offend those who call all Protestants heretics!!

Happy now?

[historyb]

No, because you will continue to have double standards, when I slip up you will always be harsher on me as a mod you should not be partial. The only thing that will make me happy is for you to slam the hammer done on stuff like that and not just stuff you want to.

Even your post was a mockery. It would nice if you learn what words mean like material heresy which does not mean what you attribute to it. You even you all believe that SDA are in material heresy (error) for soul sleep, and you all believe Catholics are materiel heretics (error) that does not mean they are not Christian

[Benjie]

Good grief! Ok, here you go:



Benjie, don't make any more jokes that will offend those who call all Protestants heretics!!

Happy now?Okay.

No more light-hearted fun on CWS. Got it.

/sarcasm

[Titus]

Yes and they are, but material only not formal there is a difference. The Catholic Church calls all Protestants separated brethren because of their love for Christ, that does not mean that every thing Protestant hold to is correct.See, I looked in your Catholic encyclopedia, and oddly enough, I couldn't find anywhere that they made a distinction. Heresy is heresy. The rcc classifies heresy as sin, plain and simple. There is no such thing as a sin for which you are not accountable. If you are guilty of sin, you are guilty of sin, and if the rcc wants to jusdge me as being in the grip of sin because I reject them, so be it. It doesn't really matter because biblically they have no authority over me, and have no right to classify me as a heretic simply because I won't kiss the ring. The Bible is the final authority in the establishment of doctrine, and the rcc wants you to reject that truth, becuase as long as you do, they still have power over you.

[historyb]

See, I looked in your Catholic encyclopedia, and oddly enough, I couldn't find anywhere that they made a distinction. Heresy is heresy. The rcc classifies heresy as sin, plain and simple. There is no such thing as a sin for which you are not accountable. If you are guilty of sin, you are guilty of sin, and if the rcc wants to judge me as being in the grip of sin because I reject them, so be it. It doesn't really matter because Biblical they have no authority over me, and have no right to classify me as a heretic simply because I won't kiss the ring. The Bible is the final authority in the establishment of doctrine, and the rcc wants you to reject that truth, because as long as you do, they still have power over you.

It is not my Catholic Encyclopedia and it is not an official document of the Church, and there are different types of heresies. Further I have no idea what Encyclopedia you are talking about.

Here is from


Towards material heretics her conduct is ruled by the saying of St. Augustine: "Those are by no means to be accounted heretics who do not defend their false (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05781a.htm) and perverse opinions with pertinacious zeal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15753a.htm) (animositas), especially when their error (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm) is not the fruit of audacious presumption but has been communicated to them by seduced and lapsed parents (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11478c.htm), and when they are seeking the truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) with cautious solicitude and ready to be corrected" (P.L., XXXIII, ep. xliii, 160). Pius IX (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12134b.htm), in a letter to the bishops (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) of Italy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08208a.htm) (10 Aug., 1863), restates this Catholic doctrine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm): "It is known to Us and to You that they who are in invincible ignorance (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm) concerning our religion but observe the natural law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm) . . . and are ready to obey God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) and lead an honest and righteous life, can, with the help of Divine light and grace (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm), attain to eternal life . . . for God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) . . . will not allow any one to be eternally punished who is not wilfully guilty" (Denzinger (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04736b.htm), "Enchir.", n. 1529). X.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm#REF_II

Even you believe that some Christians are in Material Heresy for believing in soul sleep. That does not make them non Christian, just in error. Everyone is getting their collective panties in a bunch because they only want to go with how they understand a word without even researching what other meanings might be behind it. You act like I'm being mean I am not, you Protestants believe Catholics are material heretics

As far as Sola Scriptura there is no evidence that it is in the Bible, nor that the Bible is our sole Authority.

[RoyS]

No, because you will continue to have double standards, when I slip up you will always be harsher on me as a mod you should not be partial. The only thing that will make me happy is for you to slam the hammer done on stuff like that and not just stuff you want to.

Even your post was a mockery. It would nice if you learn what words mean like material heresy which does not mean what you attribute to it. You even you all believe that SDA are in material heresy (error) for soul sleep, and you all believe Catholics are materiel heretics (error) that does not mean they are not Christian

Hb, you want this site to be 'for the long- time members' only, and that's just not going to happen. However, the mods will always hold old-timers to a higher standard; you've all been here long enough to KNOW the rules, and what is expected. You've seen the site shut down, because of train wrecks and meltdowns. The mod team 'will 'slam the hammer' as we feel it is needed, not at the whim of any one person.
Now that that is out of the way:
As Titus pointed out, the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't use the phrase 'material heresy' a single time. And, yes, I DO know the meaning of words. My vocabulary and understanding of the English language have always been above average. Your very own Catholic Encyclopedia says this:

Degrees of heresy

Both matter and form of heresy admit of degrees which find expression in the following technical formula of theology and canon law. Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree. But if the doctrine in question has not been expressly "defined" or is not clearly proposed as an article of faith in the ordinary, authorized teaching of the Church, an opinion opposed to it is styled sententia haeresi proxima, that is, an opinion approaching heresy. Next, a doctrinal proposition, without directly contradicting a received dogma, may yet involve logical consequences at variance with revealed truth. Such a proposition is not heretical, it is a propositio theologice erronea, that is, erroneous in theology. Further, the opposition to an article of faith may not be strictly demonstrable, but only reach a certain degree of probability. In that case the doctrine is termed sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens; that is, an opinion suspected, or savouring, of heresy (see THEOLOGICAL CENSURES).
NOT 'heresy', but 'getting close' as it were. Sort of like 'almost pregnant'.
All I can say is, I'm glad my faith doesn't require a set of encyclopedias to define each and every aspect, action, or thought.

[historyb]

Hb, you want this site to be 'for the long- time members' only, and that's just not going to happen. However, the mods will always hold old-timers to a higher standard; you've all been here long enough to KNOW the rules, and what is expected. You've seen the site shut down, because of train wrecks and meltdowns. The mod team 'will 'slam the hammer' as we feel it is needed, not at the whim of any one person.

Yes I been here a long time and seen many things, and you will still use double standards because some Christians are just better than others so we can end the discussion with that knowledge.


Now that that is out of the way:
As Titus pointed out, the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't use the phrase 'material heresy' a single time. And, yes, I DO know the meaning of words. My vocabulary and understanding of the English language have always been above average. Your very own Catholic Encyclopedia says this:

I showed that there is a distinction. I have no idea what place Titus referenced


NOT 'heresy', but 'getting close' as it were. Sort of like 'almost pregnant'.
All I can say is, I'm glad my faith doesn't require a set of encyclopedias to define each and every aspect, action, or thought.

Hmm, Concordance, Dictionaries, and Commentaries nope not an Encyclopedia but close.

[RoyS]

Yes I been here a long time and seen many things, and you will still use double standards because some Christians are just better than others so we can end the discussion with that knowledge.
Ok, you want to feel sorry for yourself, go right ahead. We're ALL out to get only YOU!! (sigh)


I showed that there is a distinction. I have no idea what place Titus referenced
You showed no such thing; you presented your opinion. I think you know very well what site Titus and I are talking about; it's the very first hit on Google when you search 'catholic encyclopedia':
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/



Hmm, Concordance, Dictionaries, and Commentaries nope not an Encyclopedia but close.
Oh, please. What is a concordance? A list of verses where certain words or phrases appear. Certainly not an encyclopedia. Some Catholic Bible have them too, right?
What is a dictionary? Spelling, pronunciation, definition and etymology of words. Again, not an encyclopedia. You've used dictionaries before, right?
Commentaries? A critical explanation or interpretation of a text. Once more... not an encyclopedia. Do you know how many hits you get with a search for 'Catholic commentaries'? So, you have them too!
Search 'Protestant encyclopedia'; the first two hits are:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Protestantism
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Protestant Episcopal Church in the ...

Not one single hit for an encyclopedia that is used across the board by all Protestants.

[historyb]

If you look at post number 56 you can see material heresy being defined from new Advent.

[RoyS]

If you look at post number 56 you can see material heresy being defined from new Advent.
Ahh, I missed that before. I must not have delved into that encyclopedia deeply enough. Ok, then; mother church thinks all us Protestants are heretics. Yet another reason to eschew her teachings of men.

[HisDaughter]

hb
Don't you see this as a problem, the Catholic Encyclopedia and the other info you sighted as conflicting? It is like when people use one scripture to support their point and someone having an opposing point using another scripture. Now the discussion on SS is lost because of chasing rabbits.

SS goes hopping down the bunny trail with opposing points battling over supporting documentation. Look SS is getting away. LOL

[historyb]

huh? I see nothing conflicting and your right I took the OP off topic and am sorry to the OP. Now I got the bunny trail song in my head :D

[dave]

All Protestants are not heretics. The Catholic Encyclopedia is a great resource, but if you want the easy-to-read-and-understand version, just go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This will tell you most every teaching of the Catholic Faith, why, how, Scriptural references, etc...that you could want to know.

Heresey - "..."Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11" (CCC 2089)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7C.HTM

But more importantly, the Church explains:

"817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276 (CCC 817-819, emphasis mine)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

That particular chapter goes on to talk about working toward unity...good reading.

[HisDaughter]

huh? I see nothing conflicting and your right I took the OP off topic and am sorry to the OP. Now I got the bunny trail song in my head :D OK NOW I have it in my head LOL:D

[Titus]

Nothing profitable left here to discuss.

[historyb]

OK NOW I have it in my head LOL:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5W7SUhojrA

:D:D

[historyb]

Nothing profitable left here to discuss.

Your right to much misunderstanding

[RoyS]

Your right to much misunderstanding

OK, Help me to understand. What are the 'primary' doctrines that I must believe, according to the RCc? Just give me the list that they command.

[Titus]

Your right to much misunderstanding:rolleyes:

[historyb]

OK, Help me to understand. What are the 'primary' doctrines that I must believe, according to the RCc? Just give me the list that they command.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm everything you want is in there

[RoyS]

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm everything you want is in there
I didn't ask for a link. I would like it if YOU would answer my question.

[Philthy]

OK, Help me to understand. What are the 'primary' doctrines that I must believe, according to the RCc? Just give me the list that they command.
They are the same ones that the Bible lists, and then some!

[RoyS]

They are the same ones that the Bible lists, and then some!
Very funny, Phil. Since your name isn't historyb, kindly refrain from injecting yourself into this discussion.

[Philthy]

Sadly, the best jokes (which is a description of the one that RoyS just posted) are based in truth. In this case, pure and total truth.

And that, my friends, is a sad thing.

I don't know Benjie, "pure and total truth"? I think you might be spinning things just a little there. Certainly the CC doesn't teach that "only Catholics go to Heaven" although there might be some confusion based upon a misunderstanding of what the term "Catholic Church" is meant to mean. It basically means everyone who is "saved", ie the mystical body of Christ, the branches which remain united to the Vine, etc etc. Undoubtedly there are many ignorant Catholics who are relying on their nominal allegience to the CC as being their ticket to Heaven and who also believe that anyone who doesn't belong to a Catholic parish can't go to Heaven. But for what it's worth the CC doesn't actually teach that.

[Benjie]

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm everything you want is in thereActually, I'm kinda curious as to what you consider to be primary doctrine as well. In your words, what must I believe? I don't want a link to a website, I want your words. Scripture tells us to always be ready to give an answer for the hope that we have - here is your chance to do it.

[BobRyan]

Protestants are material heretics, note not formal though some may be who rejected Christ Church outright.

How does that teaching fit in with the statements made in the council of Lateran IV??

How much of a heretic can we be - and still everything is ok??

in Christ,

Bob

[historyb]

I do not care about this thread. People can not seem to get past their idea of what word's mean. We can lock threads we start, please do not unlock it.

[RoyS]

I do not care about this thread. People can not seem to get past their idea of what word's mean. We can lock threads we start, please do not unlock it.
I'm still working on the options in the Admin CP. Members will not be allowed to close threads. Why don't you just answer the question I (and Benjie) asked?

[historyb]

No, I am done

[historyb]

and done and done

[RoyS]

Well, I guess you can't give an answer. Do NOT close this thread again.

[RoyS]

Could any of our Catholic members answer the question of what the RCc deems to be primary doctrine?

[historyb]

Well, I guess you can't give an answer. Do NOT close this thread again.

I did, but you didn't like it.

The Eucharist is the most primary doctrines, everything revolves around it. The real presence of Christ body and blood as said in Scriptures: This is my body, this is my Blood. Catholics take that seriously

[historyb]

Now it has been answered even though many will not accept it.

[RoyS]

I did, but you didn't like it.

The Eucharist is the most primary doctrines, everything revolves around it. The real presence of Christ body and blood as said in Scriptures: This is my body, this is my Blood. Catholics take that seriously
Oh, cool! Then, if I take Communion, I'm not a heretic anymore?

[RoyS]

Historyb, I told you not to close this thread again. You just got yourself 3 days of time out.

[dave]

Could any of our Catholic members answer the question of what the RCc deems to be primary doctrine?

Roy, I happen to have some spare time this evening (after the kids go to bed) and I'll try to answer this, at least a bit. It's important, first, to recognize what we have in common, and then work from there. So, starting at the points I think we have in common...we believe in 1 Triune God, Jesus was born of a virgen, we are saved by Grace, Christ suffered a one-time Sacrifice on the Cross, the Bible is the inspired Word of God...

When I get the kids to bed I'll come back to list some of the particularly Catholic Doctrines.


Oh, cool! Then, if I take Communion, I'm not a heretic anymore?

I posted what the Church teaches on heresey earlier on. That aside, you shouldn't receive Communion unless you actually are "in communion" with the Church that Christ established. There are a number of reasons you would not do this. First, if you, as a non-Catholic, received Communion you would be professing your belief in something that you probably don't really believe. You'd also be professing an assent of Faith to a Church that you don't really assent to. Then there are the words of caution that Paul gives is in 1 Cor 11:26-30 "26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. " (New International Version)
You would not want to "drink judgment" on yourself for not having properly prepared for the Eucharist.

[RoyS]

Roy, I happen to have some spare time this evening (after the kids go to bed) and I'll try to answer this, at least a bit. It's important, first, to recognize what we have in common, and then work from there. So, starting at the points I think we have in common...we believe in 1 Triune God, Jesus was born of a virgen, we are saved by Grace, Christ suffered a one-time Sacrifice on the Cross, the Bible is the inspired Word of God...

When I get the kids to bed I'll come back to list some of the particularly Catholic Doctrines.



I posted what the Church teaches on heresey earlier on. That aside, you shouldn't receive Communion unless you actually are "in communion" with the Church that Christ established. There are a number of reasons you would not do this. First, if you, as a non-Catholic, received Communion you would be professing your belief in something that you probably don't really believe. You'd also be professing an assent of Faith to a Church that you don't really assent to. Then there are the words of caution that Paul gives is in 1 Cor 11:26-30 "26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. " (New International Version)
You would not want to "drink judgment" on yourself for not having properly prepared for the Eucharist.
Dave,
Many Protestant churches offer communion. By partaking, I am 'doing this in remembrance of Him'. If, by virtue of not subscribing to the RCc doctrine, I am 'not worthy', well, tough. What 'church', exactly, do you think Christ established? The RCc? If so, I heartedly disagree. Christ's church is the body of believers, of whatever denomination they may be.

I look forward to you posting the requirements for salvation that the RCc demands.

[Philthy]

I don't believe the CC demands requirements for salvation. It communicates the truth that it believes it has received through the promised guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit. This is how God chose to preserve, protect and reveal the NT of Scripture. The CC believes that it is the same Church that Christ said he would build on Peter, the rock, and recognize the pope as that successor to Peter through the millenia . Certainly some of the basics that are taught are that you need to be in a state of grace, which is a work of God based entirely on the merits of Christ. They also teach that we can, through serious, unrepentant sin lose our salvation but that it is possible to be restored again to a state of grace by confession/repentance. The Catechism addresses the issue of salvation of those who do not agree with the teaching of the CC saying basically that it is ultimately in God's hands. That is why they don't declare anyone in Hell - it simply is not their call. By the way, the CC teaches basically what you say when you say that "Christ's church is the body of believers" - catholic means universal - so the universal church. They simply use the term "state of grace" to describe someone who is saved, they also include in the Church all those who have died and been judged worthy of Heaven. So there are 3 divisions of the Church: the Church militant (that's us who are still engaged in the spiritual battle of mortal life in a state of grace), the Church suffering (all those who have died and been judged worthy of Heaven but are being purified of remaining attachment to anything other than God), and the Church glorious (all those in Heaven).

I hope that's helpful

[RoyS]

I don't believe the CC demands requirements for salvation. It communicates the truth that it believes it has received through the promised guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit. This is how God chose to preserve, protect and reveal the NT of Scripture. The CC believes that it is the same Church that Christ said he would build on Peter, the rock, and recognize the pope as that successor to Peter through the millenia . Certainly some of the basics that are taught are that you need to be in a state of grace, which is a work of God based entirely on the merits of Christ. They also teach that we can, through serious, unrepentant sin lose our salvation but that it is possible to be restored again to a state of grace by confession/repentance. The Catechism addresses the issue of salvation of those who do not agree with the teaching of the CC saying basically that it is ultimately in God's hands. That is why they don't declare anyone in Hell - it simply is not their call. By the way, the CC teaches basically what you say when you say that "Christ's church is the body of believers" - catholic means universal - so the universal church. They simply use the term "state of grace" to describe someone who is saved, they also include in the Church all those who have died and been judged worthy of Heaven. So there are 3 divisions of the Church: the Church militant (that's us who are still engaged in the spiritual battle of mortal life in a state of grace), the Church suffering (all those who have died and been judged worthy of Heaven but are being purified of remaining attachment to anything other than God), and the Church glorious (all those in Heaven).

I hope that's helpful
Is your name Dave? Why do you feel the need to answer for others? Your little diatribe was not helpful, because it's all regurgitated RCc claptrap. I was asking Dave for his OWN WORDS.

[BobRyan]

Hi Philthy -


The Catechism addresses the issue of salvation of those who do not agree with the teaching of the CC saying basically that it is ultimately in God's hands. That is why they don't declare anyone in Hell - it simply is not their call....

I hope that's helpful

I think we can all agree that Catholic doctrine is not always the same as Protestant doctrine on this or that point.

I think we can all agree that the Catholic church has a lot of emphasis on transubstantiation that most Protestant groups do not have.

Normally we would all point to the other group and say "all are Christian" even though we have differences in doctrine.

But a Catholic poster brought up the concept of "heretic" on this board and so this thread was started.

In the Catholic church that concept "has a history" that includes what is still considered today "infallible teaching". Lateran IV comes to mind.

The question is - how much of that applies today? Is it all ended in the past and simply an illustration of things that happened in the dark ages that none of us would want to see happen again or is it some good decision made then that even today should be viewed as the right course of action to take with so-called heretics and also very instructive when it comes to the meaning of the term "heretic".

in Christ,

Bob

[dave]

Roy, with all due respect, Philthy has given good and solid information. Even if you disagree with him, he has valuable insight to share from the Catholic perspective. I see that I can learn a lot myself from him.

In regards to communion. Yes, I know that most Protestant churches offer communion. There is a huge difference though between theirs and ours. We believe Christ is fully present in the Eucharist...that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. For that reason, you would not want to receive Communion at a Catholic Mass unless you truly believed this...by receiving you'd be professing that Truth (yes, I realize you don't see it as Truth...which is why receiving would be a lie).

Anyway, I'm not going to post for you what the RCC says are the "requirements of salvation". We do believe in Grace and in the Sacraments, but God is not limited by His Grace...we can't presume to know who is/is not saved because we can never fully understand God in His fullness.

Without further delay, here is the basics (and I will follow up more specifically in the next post) :

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. God of God, light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[dave]

I found this helpful so I borrowed it from another thread...

The core principles or essence of Catholicism cannot be summed up as briefly as you would like. The word "catholic" itself means "universal." And so Catholicism is a universe of doctrines all of which hang together as essential to the whole.

The term "catholic" was first used to distinguish authentic Christians from those who had begun to pervert the ancient doctrines ... such as the Arians, the Pelagians, the Nestorians, etc. The Church began to call itself "Catholic" (to distinguish itself from the others) because it believed in the universal unity of Christian doctrine John 17:21 ... "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me." (user ID “Charlemagne II” from this thread: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=578315&highlight=Core+Doctrines+of+Catholicism )

So, here are some of what I see as being particularly Catholic Doctrines (not necessarily requirements of salvation as I noted above):

“The true rule of Faith is Scripture and Tradition [Apostolic Tradition, not “tradition”] as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles plus the authority to interpret Scripture rightly.” (1)

“With Christ and the apostles general revelation ended”. (2) This means that Doctrine cannot change, no new teachings be added, or old ones removed. Doctrine can be explained, can grow, can progress with understanding, but cannot change. Practices and disciplines (clothes, languages in the Mass, personal devotions, the “sign of the cross”) however, can (and do) change.

“Christ has…redeemed us…(Note that redemption is not the same as salvation, but it is a necessary prelude.) [sic] He did His part, and now we have to cooperate by doing ours. If we are to pass through the gates, we have to be in the right spiritual state…spiritually alive.” (3) We are saved BY grace THROUGH faith+works.

Baptism is necessary to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. *(as an ordinary means...again, God is not limited by His Graces, so we don't presume that all unbaptized are therefore damned)

Christ gave us two methods to have our sins forgiven…Baptism (which only happens once) and confession. The ordinary form of confession is that which Christ instituted when he established the Priesthood.

The only final/permanent destinations are Heaven and Hell. Since no sin can enter into Heaven, the stain of sin and the temporal punishment of sin committed during life must be purged “as by fire” before the soul enters into Heaven. This state of purging is called purgatory.

Christ made Peter the head of His Church and this “seat” is passed down through Apostolic Succession. (Peter was the first Pope, in other words.)

The Church Magesterium, the body of Bishops as a whole, and in a special way, the Pope as the head of the Bishops, teach infallibly when defining matters of Faith and Morals.

Jesus Christ is fully present in the Eucharist. You’ll hear this referred to as The Real Presence.

The Mass is a re-presentation of the one-time Sacrifice of Christ…not a re-sacrificing.

Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin, gave birth to Christ as a virgin, remained a virgin throughout her life, was assumed into Heaven by the power of God, and is the mother of Jesus Christ…both His humanity and His divinity…and can rightly be called the mother of God.

(1,2,3 Keating, “Catholicism and Fundamentalism”)

This is not an exhaustive list. These are just some of the more particularly Catholic Doctrines. If you REALLY want to know all of it (with full explanations, Scriptural references, etc…) it really is best to get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

[dave]

Last but not least, and from that same thread I borrowed from earlier, here is a quote from Fulton Sheen in what could be considered an attempt to define the Catholic Faith:

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues;” because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God;” because they “say indulgence is a permission to commit sin;” because the Pope “is a Fascist;” because the Church “is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things, it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.

If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. ... the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many miss its obviousness..." (Bishop Fulton Sheen)

[Unclaimed Treasure]

Without further delay, here is the basics (and I will follow up more specifically in the next post) :

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. God of God, light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

And this is what you will find that every long-term member of this forum also believes with the caveat that "catholic" means universal and is therefore not limited to one denomination.

[dave]

Unclaimed Treasure, my understanding is that Catholics understand "catholic" in that Creed to mean the same as you do. It's "apolstolic" where we'd differ I think. I won't say that definitively though...I can research it more if you'd like.

[Philthy]

And this is what you will find that every long-term member of this forum also believes with the caveat that "catholic" means universal and is therefore not limited to one denomination.
Yeah, but such a claim kind of misses Sheen's last point, " ...the CC is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many miss it..." And while I do believe there are saved Christians in a variety of denominations I don't think it is useful to think of the catholic church as a collection of churches with contrary beliefs. It certainly didn't mean that in Apostolic times nor for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

[Unclaimed Treasure]

I have no problem with apostolic, either. Understanding that if the definition of "apostle" is limited to those followers of Jesus who knew Him it is a historical fact that the apostles were the first spreaders of the gospel. They went out, according to Christ's command and preached the gospels and made disciples who made disciples who made disciples until nearly two thousand years later one brought the message to me.

Granted, some of the more flamboyant evangelical churches are led by "apostles." Of course their definition of the word simply means one who plants a church.

And that is one of the most important thing I find necessary with this format: defining words. We all, of whatever denomination, develop our own language. The difficulty with that is that we use the same words but we mean different things...sometimes grossly different things and sometimes just the nuance of a definition...but unless we agree on definitions, we can't truly communicate.

[Unclaimed Treasure]

All Christian churches go back to Christ. Christ commissioned his disciples...the 120 in the Upper Room. They shared the gospel. They made disciples. The disciples made disciples...and so forth on up to and including the present generation of believers. You came to Christ because someone prayed for you and shared the gospel with you, whether it was your parents from childhood up or another person as an adult. That is how the church spreads, how it has always spread...one believer telling another person... and just like mitochondrial DNA, it goes back along the same line to the beginning.

[dave]

I have no problem with apostolic, either. Understanding that if the definition of "apostle" is limited to those followers of Jesus who knew Him it is a historical fact that the apostles were the first spreaders of the gospel. They went out, according to Christ's command and preached the gospels and made disciples who made disciples who made disciples until nearly two thousand years later one brought the message to me.

Granted, some of the more flamboyant evangelical churches are led by "apostles." Of course their definition of the word simply means one who plants a church.

And that is one of the most important thing I find necessary with this format: defining words. We all, of whatever denomination, develop our own language. The difficulty with that is that we use the same words but we mean different things...sometimes grossly different things and sometimes just the nuance of a definition...but unless we agree on definitions, we can't truly communicate.

Yes, and here we'd differ because we believe in Apostolic Succession. In other words, the true "catholic and apostolic" Church would be the one whose Faith and Authority was handed down through the generations from the Apostles to their successors. And yes, the definitions do get everyone tripped up. That's why it is important to read the writings of the earliest Christians (what we call the Early Church Fathers) to see how they understood things. The likes of Athanasius, Origen, Hippolytus (check my spelling), Augustine, Hermes, etc...offer detailed insight into what the very first Christians believed and understood to be Christianity.

I've only recently begun reading these early Christians and it is such a rich font of information...for any Christian really...not just Catholics.

[RoyS]

(sigh) I asked for a list of what the RCc deems necessary for salvation. So far, I've received no response.

[Unclaimed Treasure]

I can respect that difference. And I've been reading some of the early writings, too.

[dave]

(sigh) I asked for a list of what the RCc deems necessary for salvation. So far, I've received no response.
In the simplest of terms...Saved by grace through faith+works.

To quote Karl Keating, "“Christ has…redeemed us…(Note that redemption is not the same as salvation, but it is a necessary prelude.) [sic] He did His part, and now we have to cooperate by doing ours. If we are to pass through the gates, we have to be in the right spiritual state…spiritually alive.”

If you'd like a more in-depth look into it, the Catechism is the best source. I don't mind putting the information together and posting it here...but it'll take a couple days, maybe more... You could get a quicker in-depth answer from a Catholic forum.

[dave]

(sigh) I asked for a list of what the RCc deems necessary for salvation. So far, I've received no response.

Oh wait...maybe this is more what you are looking for...this makes it pretty clear what the Church says is necessary for salvation...much clearer than I was able to do for you:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1257-1261).

The numbers within that are footnotes that refere back to Scripture, Canon Law, Papal Documents, etc...

[Titus]

Ephesians 2:8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.



As soon as you add works to grace, it is no longer the gift of God.
Example: Let's say you like me a lot, and one day you happen in front of a jewelry store. There in the front window is a beautiful Rolex. You think, "wow. I bet ole Titus would love to have that. I'm gonna get for him." You come to me and say, I think a lot of our friendship, and I saw this and thought you would just love to have it, so here it is as my gift to you as a token of my friendship. I'm very flattered and admire how beautiful and lavish the gift, but then I say, dave this is just too much. It's too expensive. I can't accept it. Here. Let me give you some money to help offset the cost, and I pull my wallet out and give you $200.00. Is it still a gift? No. I just got a great deal on a Rolex. A $5k watch for $200.00.
We are not saved by good works but unto good works or for good works.

[RoyS]

Oh wait...maybe this is more what you are looking for...this makes it pretty clear what the Church says is necessary for salvation...much clearer than I was able to do for you:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1257-1261).

The numbers within that are footnotes that refere back to Scripture, Canon Law, Papal Documents, etc...
I see. So, the RCc says that getting dunked or sprinkled with water ensures salvation? That seems pretty simplistic.

[dave]

Ephesians 2:8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.



As soon as you add works to grace, it is no longer the gift of God.
Example: Let's say you like me a lot, and one day you happen in front of a jewelry store. There in the front window is a beautiful Rolex. You think, "wow. I bet ole Titus would love to have that. I'm gonna get for him." You come to me and say, I think a lot of our friendship, and I saw this and thought you would just love to have it, so here it is as my gift to you as a token of my friendship. I'm very flattered and admire how beautiful and lavish the gift, but then I say, dave this is just too much. It's too expensive. I can't accept it. Here. Let me give you some money to help offset the cost, and I pull my wallet out and give you $200.00. Is it still a gift? No. I just got a great deal on a Rolex. A $5k watch for $200.00.We are not saved by good works but unto good works or for good works.

Titus this is an excelent example. And I agree with you in the scenario you painted. We believe in unison on this point I think. Where we differ is that you see Catholics as wanting to add something to "Grace", but in actuality we are not. "Grace" does not equal "Faith". Grace cannot be added to or subtracted from. That's why the Bible makes no contradiction in the following verses compared with what you provided...they are in unison:

“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.” (James 2:24-26)

“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.” (Gal 5:6)

“And we know that the judgment of God [a]rightly falls upon those who practice such things. 3 But do you suppose this, O man, [b]when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But [c]because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.” (Rom 2:2-8)

“If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.” (1Cor 13:2)

“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments….” (Jn 14:15)
“And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” 17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”” (Mt 19:16-17)

The last 2 examples (do not say “…believe in my commandments”…but “keep”.)
All these add something (works) to faith without affecting Grace. Perhaps the difference between us is that Catholics see the difference between Faith and Grace. Grace is God’s gift…Faith is my belief in it...works is the physical manifestation (something I do or don't do) that externally reveal the internal faith I have...(to the best of my understanding).

Saved (redeemed) by Grace...not works, not even faith...THROUGH (justified by) faith+works. The Grace is already there...I have to believe it, accept it, and live a life that reflects it.

[dave]

I see. So, the RCc says that getting dunked or sprinkled with water ensures salvation? That seems pretty simplistic.

Not just the RCC, but Christ Himself. The simplicity of a matter is not a measure of its truthfullness.

"Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born [a]again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (Jn 3:3-5)

"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned." (Mk 16:16)

"...and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." (Col 2:11-12)


If you;d like, I can provide some quotes from the earliest Christians on what they believed in regards to Baptism...I'll have to look when I get home (sometimes I get my topics confused) but I think I have some of these dating back to 80 A.D. up through, say, the mid 500's. At the very least I have ones from Hippolytus (215 AD) and Origen (244 AD).

[RoyS]

Don't trouble yourself. I'm well aware of the Bible verses concerning baptism.
Why is it, then, that the RCc considers anyone who is not a member of 'mother church' to be a 'material heretic'? I'm a Protestant; I've been baptized and I believe.

[Titus]

Titus this is an excelent example. And I agree with you in the scenario you painted. We believe in unison on this point I think. Where we differ is that you see Catholics as wanting to add something to "Grace", but in actuality we are not. "Grace" does not equal "Faith". Grace cannot be added to or subtracted from. That's why the Bible makes no contradiction in the following verses compared with what you provided...they are in unison:

“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.” (James 2:24-26)

“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.” (Gal 5:6)

“And we know that the judgment of God [a]rightly falls upon those who practice such things. 3 But do you suppose this, O man, [b]when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But [c]because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.” (Rom 2:2-8)

“If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.” (1Cor 13:2)

“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments….” (Jn 14:15)
“And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” 17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”” (Mt 19:16-17)

The last 2 examples (do not say “…believe in my commandments”…but “keep”.)
All these add something (works) to faith without affecting Grace. Perhaps the difference between us is that Catholics see the difference between Faith and Grace. Grace is God’s gift…Faith is my belief in it...works is the physical manifestation (something I do or don't do) that externally reveal the internal faith I have...(to the best of my understanding).

Saved (redeemed) by Grace...not works, not even faith...THROUGH (justified by) faith+works. The Grace is already there...I have to believe it, accept it, and live a life that reflects it.The passage about Rahab is commonly misunderstood. It means that she was shown to be right with God by her actions. Her actions did not save her, but demonstrated her salvation.

You do understand that justification means that God sees us as if we never sinned, yes?
With regards to Romans 2 context is everything. Paul is talking here to the Jews and telling them that they are under judgement just as the Gentiles.
1 Corinthians 13 has nothing to do with this conversation.
John 14 says If you love me you will keep my commandments. And of course why wouldn't it. If we love the one who pardoned us from hell would we want to do what pleases Him; being obedient to Him?
In Matthew 19 Jesus also told that young rich man if he wanted to enter heaven he had to go and sell all he had and give the money to the poor. Do you say that is also necessary for salvation?



Saved (redeemed) by Grace...not works, not even faith...THROUGH (justified by) faith+works.That's not what Paul said
Ephesiand 3:8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast.


Romans 3:23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.


You accept it and believe it and you live a life that reflects it because you have, not because you have to do so to solidify the deal.
1 Peter 1:3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

See what Peter said there? We are kept by the power of God through faith; not by faith + anything else. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we can live like hell if we are saved. What I am saying is that if we are saved, if our faith is genuine, we will not live that way.

[Titus]

Don't trouble yourself. I'm well aware of the Bible verses concerning baptism.
Why is it, then, that the RCc considers anyone who is not a member of 'mother church' to be a 'material heretic'? I'm a Protestant; I've been baptized and I believe.
Here's your answer.
Acts 24:10Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself:
11Because that thou mayest understand, that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship.
12And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city:
13Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.
14But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: 15And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

[Benjie]

Not just the RCC, but Christ Himself. The simplicity of a matter is not a measure of its truthfullness.

"Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born [a]again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (Jn 3:3-5)

"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned." (Mk 16:16)

"...and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." (Col 2:11-12)


If you;d like, I can provide some quotes from the earliest Christians on what they believed in regards to Baptism...I'll have to look when I get home (sometimes I get my topics confused) but I think I have some of these dating back to 80 A.D. up through, say, the mid 500's. At the very least I have ones from Hippolytus (215 AD) and Origen (244 AD).Then Jesus was a liar when He told the thief that he would be with Him in paradise. If baptism is a requirement for salvation, then it's not the Gospel. Jesus + anything = Nothing. Jesus + nothing = everything.

[dave]

Don't trouble yourself. I'm well aware of the Bible verses concerning baptism.
Why is it, then, that the RCc considers anyone who is not a member of 'mother church' to be a 'material heretic'? I'm a Protestant; I've been baptized and I believe.

Can you provide the reference for "material heretic"? I actually am not familiar with that term.

My understanding is that Luther, for example, committed heresey because, as a Baptized Catholic, he obstinately denied a truth (several truths) "which must be believed with divine and catholic faith." Those who have been born into the Lutheran church, however, never knew those truths, so they cannot have obstinately denied them.

Really, though, I don't know enough on this matter to give you the answer you deserve. You might try visiting Catholic Answers (or some other solidly Catholic forum) and ask the question there. You deserve a solid explanation for this...and I simply will fail in trying to give you one right now.

[dave]

Then Jesus was a liar when He told the thief that he would be with Him in paradise. If baptism is a requirement for salvation, then it's not the Gospel. Jesus + anything = Nothing. Jesus + nothing = everything.

No. As I noted earlier, God is not bound by His Graces. Read the Catechism excerpts I provided...they actually cover this clearly.

[Philthy]

Ephesians 2:8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

As soon as you add works to grace, it is no longer the gift of God.
You have some good stuff here!:cool: I do think, however, that Paul has limited his discussion in this verse to our initial salvation - being born again and becoming an adopted child of God, which is an entirely free gift by grace apart from works. But it would be a mistake to think that this is a reference to the rest of our lives as a Christian where we must "walk the walk" and persevere in faith so that at the completion of our lives we are judged the "good and faithful servant". The cool thing is that even walking the walk is by grace as Eph 2:10 above states, any good works we do are prepared for us by God...it is all by grace. So we don't do anything to "add" to what God has accomplished, but if we grow lazy and complacent, slip into serious unrepentant sin and fail to walk in the good works that God has prepared, then we may be placed with the goats at our final judgement (final salvation). At least that is how I've always made sense of how Paul, in one breath, can say "you are saved by faith apart from works" and then, just 3 chapters later say "Eph 3:3-5 Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you...Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." I think the earlier quote refers to entering into salvation - being born again - and the latter refers to the ongoing Christian life and, ultimately judgement as well.

[Philthy]

And that is one of the most important thing I find necessary with this format: defining words. We all, of whatever denomination, develop our own language. The difficulty with that is that we use the same words but we mean different things...sometimes grossly different things and sometimes just the nuance of a definition...but unless we agree on definitions, we can't truly communicate.

So true! ;)

[dave]

The passage about Rahab is commonly misunderstood. It means that she was shown to be right with God by her actions. Her actions did not save her, but demonstrated her salvation...

See what Peter said there? We are kept by the power of God through faith; not by faith + anything else. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we can live like hell if we are saved. What I am saying is that if we are saved, if our faith is genuine, we will not live that way.


I understand what you are saying. But I believe the Bible supports the Catholic position when you take the whole of Scripture together. Christ can't say something and then conflict with Himself...if I go by "faith alone", there are verses (such as what I posted) that conflict...unless I come up with some interpretive explanation. Saved by grace through faith + works is supported by those verses I provided and also does not conflict in any way with the ones you provided. One must simply understand the difference between grace, faith, and works, and how they relate.

I don't see how the verse "about Rahab" is only about Rahab. It could just as easily be observed that he says, "“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way,..." He makes a statement first to someone ("you") that is not Rahab, and about someone (a man) who is not Rahab...and then uses the story of Rahab as an example. And there is no suggestion that I can see, unless I begin to make an interpretation that is not evident in the words themselves, that her actions did not save her, but demonstrated her salvation. In simplest of terms...even though she was a harlot, she was justified by doing a work. If I take that verse in the most literal form...that she was "justified by works when she...[did something]..." then this verse fits perfectly into all the others without me having to interpret it.

[Benjie]

No. As I noted earlier, God is not bound by His Graces. Read the Catechism excerpts I provided...they actually cover this clearly.So, baptism is required for salvation "except", is not baptism is required for salvation. That turns it into "I think you, you, and you deserve it, but he and she don't". That turns salvation into something subjective instead of solid.

Why should I read the catechism? I have the Bible.

[Benjie]

Christ can't say something and then conflict with Himself...But you just said that He could. You said He is not bound by His graces, which means that He can conflict with Himself.

So, which is it?

[Unclaimed Treasure]

Then Jesus was a liar when He told the thief that he would be with Him in paradise. If baptism is a requirement for salvation, then it's not the Gospel. Jesus + anything = Nothing. Jesus + nothing = everything.

No, Benjie, I don't think that is what Dave is implying. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Dave) The passage of the catechism he posted said that baptism is indeed required...but that it doesn't necessarily require water. It specifically mentions a baptism of blood, in other words dying for belief in Christ, and a baptism of desire, especially in the case when it is not possible to do a water baptism. So the thief on the cross was, in expressing his faith in Christ, baptized by his desire because neither time nor water were available. So merely wanting to follow Christ constitutes a form of baptism.

[Philthy]

I see. So, the RCc says that getting dunked or sprinkled with water ensures salvation? That seems pretty simplistic.
Hi RoyS -
Not that I agree with you summary of what "the RCc says" with respect to Baptism, but I don't understand your objection exactly. Are you saying that God should put more complicated conditions upon the recipient of His grace? Some would - and have in this thread - questioned how can grace remain a free gift when you start imposing conditions upon it's dispensation. I would think that the entirely gratuitous nature of salvation by Baptism would be embraced by all those who hold to "by grace alone". :)

[Philthy]

So, baptism is required for salvation "except", is not baptism is required for salvation. That turns it into "I think you, you, and you deserve it, but he and she don't". That turns salvation into something subjective instead of solid. Why should I read the catechism? I have the Bible.
Just so you know, there are 3 types of Baptism: water, desire, blood, and they are all equally salvific. Baptism of desire is when someone accepts Christ and intends to be Baptized but through no fault of their own they die prior to actually being water Baptized. Blood baptism is those who are martyred for Christ's name. The teaching of the CC is that when you receive any of them, you receive the remission of sins (both original and actual) and are placed into a state of grace (ie you are saved). IF you should die immediately in this state (like the thief on the cross) you would go to Heaven. If you do not, then you are on the same road as the rest of us...walking the walk.

[RoyS]

Hi RoyS -
Not that I agree with you summary of what "the RCc says" with respect to Baptism, but I don't understand your objection exactly. Are you saying that God should put more complicated conditions upon the recipient of His grace? Some would - and have in this thread - questioned how can grace remain a free gift when you start imposing conditions upon it's dispensation. I would think that the entirely gratuitous nature of salvation by Baptism would be embraced by all those who hold to "by grace alone". :)
It's not 'my' summary, really; it's what dave said. I certainly don't believe that God makes salvation complicated; it's as simple as believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. If you read the entirety of this thread, however, you will see that one of our Catholic members said that the RCc proclaims that all Protestants are heretics. If that is the case, I just wanted to know exactly what the RCc does require to consider a person to be saved, and not a 'heretic'.

[Philthy]

No, Benjie, I don't think that is what Dave is implying. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Dave) The passage of the catechism he posted said that baptism is indeed required...but that it doesn't necessarily require water. It specifically mentions a baptism of blood, in other words dying for belief in Christ, and a baptism of desire, especially in the case when it is not possible to do a water baptism. So the thief on the cross was, in expressing his faith in Christ, baptized by his desire because neither time nor water were available. So merely wanting to follow Christ constitutes a form of baptism.
You are correct! And with respect to the thief on the cross, he met several "conditions" of being saved: He believed in Christ, he confessed his sin, he defended the innocent (Christ) and he united his suffering to Christs.

[Benjie]

No, Benjie, I don't think that is what Dave is implying. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Dave) The passage of the catechism he posted said that baptism is indeed required...but that it doesn't necessarily require water. It specifically mentions a baptism of blood, in other words dying for belief in Christ, and a baptism of desire, especially in the case when it is not possible to do a water baptism. So the thief on the cross was, in expressing his faith in Christ, baptized by his desire because neither time nor water were available. So merely wanting to follow Christ constitutes a form of baptism.Baptism of blood and desire?

Then baptism is not required for salvation. If the baptism that is required doesn't have to be an actual baptism, then it is a rule that makes no sense.

[Titus]

Ephesians 2:8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

You have some good stuff here!:cool: I do think, however, that Paul has limited his discussion in this verse to our initial salvation - being born again and becoming an adopted child of God, which is an entirely free gift by grace apart from works. But it would be a mistake to think that this is a reference to the rest of our lives as a Christian where we must "walk the walk" and persevere in faith so that at the completion of our lives we are judged the "good and faithful servant". The cool thing is that even walking the walk is by grace as Eph 2:10 above states, any good works we do are prepared for us by God...it is all by grace. So we don't do anything to "add" to what God has accomplished, but if we grow lazy and complacent, slip into serious unrepentant sin and fail to walk in the good works that God has prepared, then we may be placed with the goats at our final judgement (final salvation). At least that is how I've always made sense of how Paul, in one breath, can say "you are saved by faith apart from works" and then, just 3 chapters later say "Eph 3:3-5 Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you...Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." I think the earlier quote refers to entering into salvation - being born again - and the latter refers to the ongoing Christian life and, ultimately judgement as well.Hogwash. You can continue to respond to my posts if you like, but I won't be responding. If you are not Gabe you are imho just like him. You are not here for anything profitable, and I will not participate in your pathetic game.

[dave]

No, Benjie, I don't think that is what Dave is implying. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Dave) The passage of the catechism he posted said that baptism is indeed required...but that it doesn't necessarily require water. It specifically mentions a baptism of blood, in other words dying for belief in Christ, and a baptism of desire, especially in the case when it is not possible to do a water baptism. So the thief on the cross was, in expressing his faith in Christ, baptized by his desire because neither time nor water were available. So merely wanting to follow Christ constitutes a form of baptism.

Yes! Thank you for so clearly stating what I was having a hard time putting onto the screen.


You are correct! And with respect to the thief on the cross, he met several "conditions" of being saved: He believed in Christ, he confessed his sin, he defended the innocent (Christ) and he united his suffering to Christs.

Yep. And thanks to you as well.



Why should I read the catechism? I have the Bible.

I'm only providing the Catechism references because it was asked what the Church teaches to be core Doctrines, and what is needed for salvation. If all I do is give you my own words, you might not get the whole picture...as evidenced above...I was not able to clearly articulate what I was trying to say. If you read the Catechism, you can learn what the Church teaches without having to rely on my attempts to explain it. That's also why I recommended the Early Fathers, the very earliest of Christians. They are YOUR Early Fathers as well, ya know. I don't know of any Christian, even the staunchest anti-Catholics, who reject the Early Fathers...at least up until after Constantine (about 315 AD I think?). But most I know eagerly delve into Gregory I and Augustine and even more recent. You can learn a lot about your Christian roots by reading those great writers and martyrs of the Faith.

[dave]

Baptism of blood and desire?

Then baptism is not required for salvation. If the baptism that is required doesn't have to be an actual baptism, then it is a rule that makes no sense.

It IS required...and it must be an actual Baptism. I'm not asking you to agree with it, but if you are trying wrap your head around what Catholics believe, go back and read the Catechism excerpts I provided.

[RoyS]

Yes! Thank you for so clearly stating what I was having a hard time putting onto the screen.



Yep. And thanks to you as well.



I'm only providing the Catechism references because it was asked what the Church teaches to be core Doctrines, and what is needed for salvation. If all I do is give you my own words, you might not get the whole picture...as evidenced above...I was not able to clearly articulate what I was trying to say. If you read the Catechism, you can learn what the Church teaches without having to rely on my attempts to explain it. That's also why I recommended the Early Fathers, the very earliest of Christians. They are YOUR Early Fathers as well, ya know. I don't know of any Christian, even the staunchest anti-Catholics, who reject the Early Fathers...at least up until after Constantine (about 315 AD I think?). But most I know eagerly delve into Gregory I and Augustine and even more recent. You can learn a lot about your Christian roots by reading those great writers and martyrs of the Faith.
So, dave, what do you make of 1Peter 3:15?

15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
Don't you think this also includes being able to answer questions about the basics of your church's doctrine?

[BobRyan]

For the sake of Context - a Protestant in the original sense was a Catholic protesting the errors that had come into the church over time.

Initially Luther was focused on the errors being included in the sale of indulgences.

in Christ,

Bob

[RoyS]

For the sake of Context - a Protestant in the original sense was a Catholic protesting the errors that had come into the church over time.

Initially Luther was focused on the errors being included in the sale of indulgences.

in Christ,

Bob
Wonderful. That still does not answer my original question. I don't need a history lesson.

[Titus]

And this is what you will find that every long-term member of this forum also believes with the caveat that "catholic" means universal and is therefore not limited to one denomination.My brother is a Presbyterian and whenever I go to his church they always recite the apostle's creed. I cannot repeat that particular portion of the creed. The words stick in my throat, so I always substitute God's holy church.

The title, Symbolum Apostolicum (Symbol or Creed of the Apostles), appears for the first time in a letter from a Council in Milan (probably written by Ambrose himself) to Pope Siricius in about 390: "Let them give credit to the Creed of the Apostles, which the Roman Church has always kept and preserved undefiled".[/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed#Origins"]source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed#cite_note-2)

So, I cannot in good conscience say that part of the words. They were written by a catholic for catholics.

[Benjie]

I'm only providing the Catechism references because it was asked what the Church teaches to be core Doctrines, and what is needed for salvation. If all I do is give you my own words, you might not get the whole picture...as evidenced above...I was not able to clearly articulate what I was trying to say. If you read the Catechism, you can learn what the Church teaches without having to rely on my attempts to explain it. That's also why I recommended the Early Fathers, the very earliest of Christians. They are YOUR Early Fathers as well, ya know. I don't know of any Christian, even the staunchest anti-Catholics, who reject the Early Fathers...at least up until after Constantine (about 315 AD I think?). But most I know eagerly delve into Gregory I and Augustine and even more recent. You can learn a lot about your Christian roots by reading those great writers and martyrs of the Faith.You will find that many here don't care so much about what you are taught, but what you actually believe. I personally believe that if you cannot articulate it, how much of it do you actually understand and believe? I don't want to see the official church teaching, I want to read your own words. You are not a robot, you have your own thoughts and opinions. What are they?

[Benjie]

It IS required...and it must be an actual Baptism.Unless it isn't required - which means that it simply isn't required. Look at your own posts.


I'm not asking you to agree with it, but if you are trying wrap your head around what Catholics believe, go back and read the Catechism excerpts I provided.I'm not trying to wrap my head around what "they" believe, but what you believe.

[BobRyan]

Protestants are material heretics, note not formal though some may be who rejected Christ Church outright. After the Protestant Revolt the first ones like Luther, Calvin, etc were formal heretics because they rejected Christ when they rejected His Church. Through no fault of their own those who are separated from Christ Church are still Christian and they are our separated brethren..

We are asked to go back to the OP for the opening statement which says that Catholics who protest against the Catholic church - (leave it and become protestants in modern terminology) are the true heretics - and the rest of us are simply "material heretics".

The Catholic church teaches "no salvation outside the Catholic church" but has in some way opened a door for Protestants to be saved.

In the Bible that salvation comes under the "One Gospel" the New Covenant found in Hebrews 8 (quoted from the OT).

Under Catholic teaching the New Covenant is confined to the Catholic Mass.

So the question to be asked is -- how is it Protestants are saved if they cannot participate in the New Covenant according to modern Catholic teaching?

in Christ,

Bob

[RoyS]

We are asked to go back to the OP for the opening statement which says that Catholics who protest against the Catholic church - (leave it and become protestants in modern terminology) are the true heretics - and the rest of us are simply "material heretics".

The Catholic church teaches "no salvation outside the Catholic church" but has in some way opened a door for Protestants to be saved.

In the Bible that salvation comes under the "One Gospel" the New Covenant found in Hebrews 8 (quoted from the OT).

Under Catholic teaching the New Covenant is confined to the Catholic Mass.

So the question to be asked is -- how is it Protestants are saved if they cannot participate in the New Covenant according to modern Catholic teaching?

in Christ,

Bob
Ah, the epitome of arrogance. "If you don't believe what we believe, you are a heretic". Bob, you dance around the question, without answering in IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Grow a pair, and stand up for yourself, if you can.

[Titus]

And the word heresy itself is just one more thing that the rcc has perverted. In the bible it is used to describe division and factions, and in some usages simply a sect. So it's easy to see how they would pervert it. A person that doesn't believe their doctrine is causing division, so he must be a heretic. But I would submit those who come here spoiling for a fight are the real heretics according to God's word.

[dave]

Unless it isn't required - which means that it simply isn't required. Look at your own posts.

I'm not trying to wrap my head around what "they" believe, but what you believe.

What I believe is basically spelled out posts 79, 80, 81, and 91 (at least in reagrds to what we've been discussing here). What "I" believe IS what the Catholic Church teaches. My personal inability to explain it to your understanding doesn't make that fact any less so. It just means I'm not as prepared to explain the Fatih as I ought to be. So, in the meantime, instead of me trying to put the Faith in my own words when I am not able, I provide you the information straight from the source...the book that says "this is what Catholics believe...and why, etc...". In this way, if you want to know "what does dave believe?"...you will not be mis-guided by "dave's" inablility to articulate the teachings of Christ. Dave is a Catholic and believes everything in Scripture, as it is correctly understood and taught by the Church that Jesus Christ established. Dave is obedient to the Authority of Christ and His Church.

[dave]

We are asked to go back to the OP for the opening statement which says that Catholics who protest against the Catholic church - (leave it and become protestants in modern terminology) are the true heretics - and the rest of us are simply "material heretics".

The Catholic church teaches "no salvation outside the Catholic church" but has in some way opened a door for Protestants to be saved.

In the Bible that salvation comes under the "One Gospel" the New Covenant found in Hebrews 8 (quoted from the OT).

Under Catholic teaching the New Covenant is confined to the Catholic Mass.

So the question to be asked is -- how is it Protestants are saved if they cannot participate in the New Covenant according to modern Catholic teaching?

in Christ,

Bob

To establish credibility, you'll need to provide a Catholic source for the following:
-"...and the rest of us are simply "material heretics"." (historyb's post is not a source for Catholic Doctrine)

-"The Catholic church teaches "no salvation outside the Catholic church" but has in some way opened a door for Protestants to be saved."

-"Under Catholic teaching the New Covenant is confined to the Catholic Mass."

The second point actually has a sliver of correctness in it. You must understand what "no salvation outside the Catholic Church" means. It does NOT mean one must be "Catholic".

Anyway, the "answer" to your question is a based on a logical fallacy. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

If you are going to show a Catholic his "error", it needs to be approached honestly and with a full understanding what the Catholic Church REALLY teaches. Twisting the teachings or misrepresenting them, taking them out of their proper context, only harms your own credibility.

[dave]

In the spirit of fairness, since this is a good point you brought up (no salvation outside the Church), I’ll address it:

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 846-848:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

335-Cf. Cyprian (about 250 A.D.), Epistulae 73,21 PL3, 1169; De ecclesiae catholicae unitate PL4, 509-536
336-Lumen Gentium (LG) 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5
337-LG 16; cf.DS 3866-3872
338-Ad gentes (AG) 7; cf. Heb 11:6; 1 Cor 9:16

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

[Hismanysongs]

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336So then, I, who attend a United Methodist Church in full knowledge that the Catholic Church exists, am not saved.

[Philthy]

So then, I, who attend a United Methodist Church in full knowledge that the Catholic Church exists, am not saved.

Not at all! I don't beleive you fit into the category, "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." You obviously don't believe the CC is the one founded by Christ and that it is necessary for salvation, so most of this section doesnt really apply to you.
Let me back up and explain "non salus extra ecclesia" ie "no salvation outside the church" a little for anyone who is interested. It starts with what is meant by the "Catholic Church". There is a common understanding of that term and there is a theological one. In the statements above, the theological understanding predominates. Theologically the CC is the mystical body of Christ which is, in non-C quarters, known as the church of all believers, invisible church, etc. The term, Catholic Church, represents the very same concept. The problem is that there is also a visible form of the CC - the pope, the bishops, priests, etc which make up a separate element of the CC. Nonetheless, every human - living or dead - that is in a state of grace, united to Christ, saved, born again, whatever, is part of the mystical body of Christ (aka CC) and if they remain in that state until death they go to Heaven. It matters not whether they call themselves Methodist or Calvinist, etc. I hope that helps.

[Philthy]

Hi Bob!


The Catholic church teaches "no salvation outside the Catholic church" but has in some way opened a door for Protestants to be saved.
Yes - that way is through beign united to Christ, which is the essence of what the CC means by the term "Catholic Church" - see my post above for a littel more detail.
In the Bible that salvation comes under the "One Gospel" the New Covenant found in Hebrews 8 (quoted from the OT).
Yes, and the CC would say that the message above is part of that "One Gospel"

Under Catholic teaching the New Covenant is confined to the Catholic Mass.
I'm not sure where you got this. Mass is the celebration of the Eucharist (thanksgiving) - the "breaking of the bread" that was celebrated "daily" by the earliest Christians and to which they were "devoted" (cf Acts 2:42 and 2:46) The CC teaches that the Eucharist, being a Sacrament, is a visible sign instituted by Christ which communicates grace to a properly disposed recipient (ie it saves you/ it is an act of faith). I don't know where the notion that the NC is "confined to the Mass" comes from...
So the question to be asked is -- how is it Protestants are saved if they cannot participate in the New Covenant according to modern Catholic teaching?
in Christ,
Bob
The simple answer is by grace through faith working in love. The CC teaches that although God is bound (bad choice of words) to honor his word(He doesn't lie) with respect to communicating grace through the Sacraments(ie "whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life) He is not bound BY them - He can freely save whoever He wishes however He wishes. For example if I have a hot dog stand and I place a sign in front saying "Hot dogs sold for $1", I am "bound" to honor that if someone gives me a dollar. That does not prevent me, however, from giving a free hot dog to whomever I wish, whenever I wish for whatever reason I wish.
blessings!

[Benjie]

What I believe is basically spelled out posts 79, 80, 81, and 91 (at least in reagrds to what we've been discussing here). What "I" believe IS what the Catholic Church teaches. My personal inability to explain it to your understanding doesn't make that fact any less so. It just means I'm not as prepared to explain the Fatih as I ought to be. So, in the meantime, instead of me trying to put the Faith in my own words when I am not able, I provide you the information straight from the source...the book that says "this is what Catholics believe...and why, etc...". In this way, if you want to know "what does dave believe?"...you will not be mis-guided by "dave's" inablility to articulate the teachings of Christ. Dave is a Catholic and believes everything in Scripture, as it is correctly understood and taught by the Church that Jesus Christ established. Dave is obedient to the Authority of Christ and His Church.This is exactly why I asked what you, specifically, believe. I already outlined my reasoning behind that so I won't reiterate it here, but suffice it to say that I don't find an institution that has changed their beliefs so many times over the course of the centuries to be very stable. What they say they believe today may change tomorrow I'm after what you believe.

[Benjie]

So then, I, who attend a United Methodist Church in full knowledge that the Catholic Church exists, am not saved.As am I because I attend a Nazarene church - and would not set foot in a Catholic church if someone paid me to.

[dave]

This is exactly why I asked what you, specifically, believe. I already outlined my reasoning behind that so I won't reiterate it here, but suffice it to say that I don't find an institution that has changed their beliefs so many times over the course of the centuries to be very stable. What they say they believe today may change tomorrow I'm after what you believe.

I see, and I agree that I would not be comfortable in a religion that kept changing its Doctrines. I think you are combining disciplines and Doctrine. BTW, I believe in what I posted in those posts I mentioned...beginning with the Creed.

The Catholic Doctrines have remained unchanged...though there have been many clarifications on what the Doctrines are and how they are to be understood. While Doctrine does not change, it grows and is more understood as time goes on. Transubstantiation, for example, has always been believed...but there was never a need to formally give it a "name" until the 12th or 13th century (I forget what year this was). All you have to do is read the early Christian writings to see that the Doctrine of Christ's presence in the Eucharist has been around since the beginning of Christianty. But it was not until many centuries later a need arose to formaly define it, lest the fact of the True Presence be lost in translation.

Is there a particular Doctrine you have in mind that you believe has changed?


As am I because I attend a Nazarene church - and would not set foot in a Catholic church if someone paid me to.

Read Philthy's clarification on this point.

[Benjie]

I see, and I agree that I would not be comfortable in a religion that kept changing its Doctrines. I think you are combining disciplines and Doctrine. BTW, I believe in what I posted in those posts I mentioned...beginning with the Creed.

The Catholic Doctrines have remained unchanged...though there have been many clarifications on what the Doctrines are and how they are to be understood. While Doctrine does not change, it grows and is more understood as time goes on. Transubstantiation, for example, has always been believed...but there was never a need to formally give it a "name" until the 12th or 13th century (I forget what year this was). All you have to do is read the early Christian writings to see that the Doctrine of Christ's presence in the Eucharist has been around since the beginning of Christianty. But it was not until many centuries later a need arose to formaly define it, lest the fact of the True Presence be lost in translation.It grows and is more understood? That is simply another form of saying that it changed. Transubstantiation, for example, is stupid. No, the early Christians did NOT believe that the piece of bread they were munching on was the actual, factual body of Christ. That is something that the Catholic church added in their 'fuller understanding'. Galatians chapter 3 really seems to fit the Catholic church to a "t".


Is there a particular Doctrine you have in mind that you believe has changed?Not particularly.


Read Philthy's clarification on this point.I would really rather not, thank you.

[dave]

Sorry...duplicate post...

[dave]

It grows and is more understood? That is simply another form of saying that it changed.

Karl Keating explains:

“The opening verse of Hebrews reminds us that “in the old days, God spoke to our fathers in many ways and by many means”. This was done, the Greek implies, fragmentarily and under various figures. Man was not handed religious truth as though from a Scholastic theologian, neatly laid out and indexed…Doctrine had to be thought out, lived out, even pieced together, over centuries, the great leaps coming through new revelations.” (Keating-Catholicism and Fundamentalism, 142)

General revelation ended with Christ and the Apostles. This is why the Church rejected claims by those such as the Gnostics (who claimed to have secret doctrines or new revelations). This does not mean that existing Doctrine cannot “mature”, so-to-speak, or be more clearly understood. "It is not a matter of inventing new beliefs, but of clearing up obscurities regarding old ones.” (ibid., 143)



No, the early Christians did NOT believe that the piece of bread they were munching on was the actual, factual body of Christ. That is something that the Catholic church added in their 'fuller understanding'.

Do you have a credible source that shows the early Christians did NOT believe this? And what year did such a belief first occur then? This would probably be a whole new topic, but it's important that if you are going to make a claim like this that you be able to credibly support it. History does not support this claim.

[Titus]

The apostles certainly did not preach it. Not sure when the "early christians" got off on the wrong track.

[Benjie]

It grows and is more understood? That is simply another form of saying that it changed.Karl Keating explains:

“The opening verse of Hebrews reminds us that “in the old days, God spoke to our fathers in many ways and by many means”. This was done, the Greek implies, fragmentarily and under various figures. Man was not handed religious truth as though from a Scholastic theologian, neatly laid out and indexed…Doctrine had to be thought out, lived out, even pieced together, over centuries, the great leaps coming through new revelations.” (Keating-Catholicism and Fundamentalism, 142)

General revelation ended with Christ and the Apostles. This is why the Church rejected claims by those such as the Gnostics (who claimed to have secret doctrines or new revelations). This does not mean that existing Doctrine cannot “mature”, so-to-speak, or be more clearly understood. "It is not a matter of inventing new beliefs, but of clearing up obscurities regarding old ones.” (ibid., 143)Hmm. . . The doctrine of the Jewish fathers "had to be thought out, lived out, even pieced together, over the centuries" and became the doctrine of the Pharisees. Are you sure you want that?

The problem with what the RCc has done is that they are taking the "traditions" and making that of more importance than scripture. Mary had children that were father by Joseph, Mary was a sinner, etc., etc. Those are not "obscurities", they are truths.



Do you have a credible source that shows the early Christians did NOT believe this? And what year did such a belief first occur then? This would probably be a whole new topic, but it's important that if you are going to make a claim like this that you be able to credibly support it. History does not support this claim.Do you have a credible source that shows that Peter James and John actually thought they were eating Jesus flesh? Do you have proof that Paul thought he was drinking Jesus actual blood?

[Benjie]

The apostles certainly did not preach it. Not sure when the "early christians" got off on the wrong track.It was when the popes realized they could gain more power over the people by saying that they had the power to turn it into Jesus Himself. Like the money changers in the temple, they had to have control.

It's all a power play.

[dave]

Hmm. . . The doctrine of the Jewish fathers "had to be thought out, lived out, even pieced together, over the centuries" and became the doctrine of the Pharisees. Are you sure you want that?

The problem with what the RCc has done is that they are taking the "traditions" and making that of more importance than scripture. Mary had children that were father by Joseph, Mary was a sinner, etc., etc. Those are not "obscurities", they are truths.

I would not say tradition is put above Scripture. First, understand the difference between “traditions of men” and Apostolic Tradition. Then, consider where the Bible came from...how did someone, and who did it, and when, decide that the books in your Bible were the inspired Word of God?

I would say that what Catholics do is follow our admonition from the Apostle:
“15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess 2:15)

Afterall, “ 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” (John 21:25)




Do you have a credible source that shows that Peter James and John actually thought they were eating Jesus flesh? Do you have proof that Paul thought he was drinking Jesus actual blood?

Yes.
(1 Cor 11:23-30)
"23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. "

How can one be guilty of Christ’s body and blood if Christ’s body and blood are not present when one is eating the bread and drinking from the cup?

So, then...Do you have a credible source that shows the early Christians did NOT believe this?

[HisDaughter]

I would like to interject here.

I would not say tradition is put above Scripture. First, understand the difference between “traditions of men” and Apostolic Tradition. Then, consider where the Bible came from...how did someone, and who did it, and when, decide that the books in your Bible were the inspired Word of God?This is a matter of choice as to what you believe. My choice of belief is that by the inspiration of God scripture was written and by inspiration of God the Bible was complied.

I would say that what Catholics do is follow our admonition from the Apostle:
“15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess 2:15)

Afterall, “ 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” (John 21:25)


It is hard for me to understand why those who do not believe SS can use scripture to support SS as being wrong. LOL

[Benjie]

I would not say tradition is put above Scripture. First, understand the difference between “traditions of men” and Apostolic Tradition. Then, consider where the Bible came from...how did someone, and who did it, and when, decide that the books in your Bible were the inspired Word of God?

I would say that what Catholics do is follow our admonition from the Apostle:
“15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess 2:15)

Afterall, “ 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” (John 21:25)
The sad thing is that you cannot see the wide open door to false teaching that this opens up. Again, that's exactly how the Pharisees go to be so powerful. That you cannot see the similarities only speaks of the power that they have over you.





Yes.
(1 Cor 11:23-30)
"23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. "

How can one be guilty of Christ’s body and blood if Christ’s body and blood are not present when one is eating the bread and drinking from the cup?

So, then...Do you have a credible source that shows the early Christians did NOT believe this?#1 - it is impossible to prove a negative.

#2 - This scripture does nothing to support your claim. Scripture also talks about us taking refuge under His wing - does that mean that God is a great big chicken? Of course not! Does Paul ever say that he is eating and drinking Christ's actual body? Does Paul ever say that the elements turn into the physical embodiment of Jesus Christ? Answer: no.

[dave]

#1 - it is impossible to prove a negative.

#2 - This scripture does nothing to support your claim. Scripture also talks about us taking refuge under His wing - does that mean that God is a great big chicken? Of course not! Does Paul ever say that he is eating and drinking Christ's actual body? Does Paul ever say that the elements turn into the physical embodiment of Jesus Christ? Answer: no.

That Scripture is the credible source you asked for. I'm not trying to prove the fact of the Real Presence to you...I'm giving you the source you asked for. If you want to debate what that verse is saying, fine...that's a whole new topic.

And I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you if you can substantiate your claim...can you show some credible source to support the statement you made. You said:


...No, the early Christians did NOT believe that the piece of bread they were munching on was the actual, factual body of Christ. That is something that the Catholic church added in their 'fuller understanding'.


According to whom? Do you have any credible source to back up this statement. If you don't, that's fine, just say so. But if you are going to make statements like this, you should make sure they are true.

[dave]

I would like to interject here.
This is a matter of choice as to what you believe. My choice of belief is that by the inspiration of God scripture was written and by inspiration of God the Bible was complied.

HisDaughter, we are in agreement here. The statement you were responding to was my attempt to show that Catholics do not place tradition above Scripture. We too understand Scripture is the inspired Word of God. The questioned could be asked, "who decided what the table of contents would be for the NT?" Well, God decided of coarse. But in what manner did He make this decision known? Who did God go to and say, "make these the NT books of the Bible."? To answer it, you have to know when the Canon of NT Scripture was handed to us Christians.

Anyway, that's also another topic for another time/thread. My point is that all I am saying is that Catholics do not place tradition over God's Word (the Scriptures).


It is hard for me to understand why those who do not believe SS can use scripture to support SS as being wrong. LOL

Not believing in SS does not mean we do not believe in Scripture. Catholics believe Scripture to be the inspired Word of God.

[HisDaughter]

Not believing in SS does not mean we do not believe in Scripture. Catholics believe Scripture to be the inspired Word of God. Just a few questions... just for my understanding of how you believe (in other words not to debate you on this).

Being that the Catholics believe that Scripture is inspired;

1 how do they reconcile their doctrines that are contrary to Scripture?


2 What holds the highest authority?


3 If there is a contradiction then can both be inspired of God?

[dave]

Just a few questions... just for my understanding of how you believe (in other words not to debate you on this).

Being that the Catholics believe that Scripture is inspired;

1 how do they reconcile their doctrines that are contrary to Scripture?


2 What holds the highest authority?


3 If there is a contradiction then can both be inspired of God?

:) Sure!

1- There are no Catholic Doctrines that conflict with Scripture. We'll disagree here, but only on how the Scriptures are understood/interpreted. If you were to look at the entirety of the Bible, and read Scripture in that context (of the whole of Scripture, not just a verse compared to another, or a set of verses, or a book looked at separately), none of the particularly "Catholic" Doctrines are contrary to Scripture. Now, all our doctrines might not directly be stated IN Scripture (the Assumption of Mary by Jesus, for example), but there is nothing in that doctrine that conflicts with Scripture. The other side of that is that you have to know what the particularly Catholic Doctrines really are...not what they have been presented to be. The biggest obstacle I've found in discussing Catholicism with some is in clarifying what we really believe.

2- God...The Word of God...Christ's teaching/commands. Catholics believe the teachings of Christ are handed to us in two ways, oral and written. Something important to note is what "Tradition" means to a Catholic...it's "the teaching and teaching authority of Jesus, and derivatively, the Apostles...It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this Tradition as well as the Bible..." (Keating, 137). Not everything Christ taught was written down, so we can't know everything He taught by only reading His Word...we accept oral teaching as well (Luke 10:16, 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6). We make a distinction between "traditions" [of men] (what people wear, mythical accounts/legends, forms of devotions to saints...the particular "rubrics" of liturgy...) and Tradition (Apostolic Tradition handed down from Christ to the Apostles, from the Apostles to their successors).

3- There won't be a contradiction because God can't be in contradiction with Himself. [T]radition (as opposed to [t]radition) cannot conflict with the Bible because they flow from the same source...God.

[HisDaughter]

Thanks for your answer.

[Titus]

And when catholics add traditions 300, 400, 1200 years after the death of Christ we are to accept this as inspired and divine? As new revelation?

[historyb]

There is nothing added to the Deposit of Faith handed down. There may be tradition with a small t like a lot do.

[Titus]

There is nothing added to the Deposit of Faith handed down. There may be tradition with a small t like a lot do.In 21 Ecumenical councils over 1700 years the church never added to nor took away from Tradition? They never added books to the canon, or changed the rules at all? Vatican II didn't change Tradition? What exactly is the Deposit of Faith?

[historyb]

In 21 Ecumenical councils over 1700 years the church never added to nor took away from Tradition? They never added books to the canon, or changed the rules at all? Vatican II didn't change Tradition?

No they did not, The councils were had to clarify and define things that were already believed or as is more common to refute heresies. There were councils to defend the notion of not circumcising new Christians, there was council to define the hypostatic union of Christ, there was one defining the Trinity, one against the heresy of Arianism, etc.

As far as V2 the liberals took it and ran with it, twisting what was said along the way to their own insidious agenda (As liberals are want to do). Take the liturgy for example, it was never meant to change as t did but liberals took it and changed it until it was not even recognized any more and started destroying Churches inside because they wanted "Christ out of the way". Pope B16 is slowly but surely changing back to a respect for Christ in the Church and Liturgy.

The Church for the most part has been unchanged since the beginning. Yes there was the split between East and West, and when one studies the initial split it was over the one thing we all battle which is namely pride. Even with that split the Church really didn't deviate much until the 1500's which is when Luther revolted because of abuses he saw; which were real and addressed in the counter Reformation but Luther introduced new innovations that were not present in all past 1500 years of Christendom in either Catholicism or Orthodox. The new traditions he introduced were the Sola's expounded more by Calvin. Luther added the word "alone" to his translation of the Bible so that now it would read by faith alone; Luther took out books and rearranged them and if it was not for his friends implore him not to take out James he would have, a book which Luther considered a book of straw.

Later more non Catholic Christians completely removed those books of the Holy Scriptures that Luther rearranged.

For 1500 years in Christendom in both East and West Christ was considered to be present in the elements of the Eucharist and Baptism was considered efficient. Yet starting with Zwingli both these and more became mere symbols and nothing more.

So no the Catholic Church did not invent doctrines and Traditions in the councils, the doctrines were defined and defended.


What exactly is the Deposit of Faith?

The deposit of Faith includes Scripture and what the Apostles handed down with all the councils beginning with the Jerusalem Council in the book of Acts (Tradition).

[dave]

Thanks for your answer.

You're welcome. :)


And when catholics add traditions 300, 400, 1200 years after the death of Christ we are to accept this as inspired and divine? As new revelation?

No. There can not be any new public revelation. We believe that all public revelation ended with Christ and the Apostles. Maybe it would be best if you gave an example of what you mean?

In the meantime, I just happened to get this emailed to me today (no kidding) and it is EXACTLY about what I think you are talking about. It's part of a talk related to private revelation and whether we are required to believe those (we aren't) and whether they support or help clarify Christian Doctrine (some do...but it can only be seen whether they conflict with Doctrine or not...it can't be said whether these private ones are really "true").

"The Christian dispensation, since it is the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."

"Saint John of the Cross expresses this truth magnificently: 'Since he has given us his Son, his only word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything at once in this sole word--and he has no more to say. . . . Because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has spoken all at once by giving us this All who is his Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behaviour but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely on Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty" (Verbum Domini). http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html

[Titus]

Public revelation ended with Jesus. The apistles could not add to the finished work of Christ yet that is exactly what the rcc has attempted to do with 21 ecumenical councils over 1700 years. There is no need for all these councils to define that which is already defined by God's word.

[dave]

Public revelation ended with Jesus. The apistles could not add to the finished work of Christ...

You are right, the apostles did not add to the finished work of Christ...they taught it, explained it, etc... And Christ gave them the Holy Spirit to guide them in this. We don't disagree here.


...yet that is exactly what the rcc has attempted to do with 21 ecumenical councils over 1700 years. There is no need for all these councils to define that which is already defined by God's word.

Here you are misunderstanding what the Ecumenical Councils are and what they do. That's why I said it might be best if you give an example of a Doctrine you feel was changed or added by the Church.

You had mentioned infant baptism. Without getting into a debate about whether its necessary or not (different thread), the Church has always taught that baptism is necessary for salvation and has always baptized infants. When the Council of Carthage met in 253 AD, it was not about whether infants should be baptized...but at what age. Some were wanting to withold baptism from infants until the 8th day after birth. The Council condemned this opinion. But don't take my word for it, read it and check the sources yourself: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-necessity-of-baptism

You might disagree with what the Church teaches about Baptism and the Baptism of infants, but it is clear that this is no new teaching that the "rcc" has invented to add to Christ's Word.

[historyb]

JMJ




You might disagree with what the Church teaches about Baptism and the Baptism of infants, but it is clear that this is no new teaching that the "rcc" has invented to add to Christ's Word.

Indeed even many Calvinist and many Reformed practice infant baptism not because the Catholic Church says so, but because it is part of historical Christianity

[Hansc]

JMJ



Indeed even many Calvinist and many Reformed practice infant baptism not because the Catholic Church says so, but because it is part of historical Christianity

Calvinist also get a lot of stuff wrong. More people getting something wrong does not make something right. It just means more people got stuff wrong.

[historyb]

Calvinist also get a lot of stuff wrong. More people getting something wrong does not make something right. It just means more people got stuff wrong.

While he got things wrong on this he was right as the ECF attest. It was a belief from very early in the Church and it was not disputed until the 1500's or later

[BobRyan]

Mark 7 makes it clear that the ONE true Church magisterium in Christ's day - the nation church started by God at Sinai - put traditions of man in ahead of the word of God.

Acts 17:11 provides a much better model for us "Study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things are SO".

in Christ,

Bob

[Titus]

You are right, the apostles did not add to the finished work of Christ...they taught it, explained it, etc... And Christ gave them the Holy Spirit to guide them in this. We don't disagree here.



Here you are misunderstanding what the Ecumenical Councils are and what they do. That's why I said it might be best if you give an example of a Doctrine you feel was changed or added by the Church.

You had mentioned infant baptism. Without getting into a debate about whether its necessary or not (different thread), the Church has always taught that baptism is necessary for salvation and has always baptized infants. When the Council of Carthage met in 253 AD, it was not about whether infants should be baptized...but at what age. Some were wanting to withold baptism from infants until the 8th day after birth. The Council condemned this opinion. But don't take my word for it, read it and check the sources yourself: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-necessity-of-baptism

You might disagree with what the Church teaches about Baptism and the Baptism of infants, but it is clear that this is no new teaching that the "rcc" has invented to add to Christ's Word.How about the doctrine of papal infallibility, which was declared in 1302ad by Pope Boniface VIII? Would you say Pope Alexander the VI was infallible?

A recent Vatican document, "Response to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church" by William Cardinal Levada, recognizes that Christians outside of the Roman Church may be saved, he considers all other Christian groups defective. However, he makes a distinction between Protestants and “oriental Churches,” including the Eastern Orthodox Church. He recognizes the sacraments and Apostolic Succession of the Orthodox Church, but states that the Orthodox Churches “lack something in their condition as particular churches” because of their separation from Rome. Because they lack valid Apostolic Succession and valid Sacraments, the documents call Protestant groups “communities” rather than churches.
Martin Luther said Popes and councils err. He was so right. This is the kind of pharasaical teaching and declartion of the rcc that illustrates that they have no business in deciding what is and is not Christian doctrine.

Matthew 23:20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

[dave]

How about the doctrine of papal infallibility, which was declared in 1302ad by Pope Boniface VIII? Would you say Pope Alexander the VI was infallible?

A recent Vatican document, "Response to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church" by William Cardinal Levada, recognizes that Christians outside of the Roman Church may be saved, he considers all other Christian groups defective. However, he makes a distinction between Protestants and “oriental Churches,” including the Eastern Orthodox Church. He recognizes the sacraments and Apostolic Succession of the Orthodox Church, but states that the Orthodox Churches “lack something in their condition as particular churches” because of their separation from Rome. Because they lack valid Apostolic Succession and valid Sacraments, the documents call Protestant groups “communities” rather than churches.
Martin Luther said Popes and councils err. He was so right. This is the kind of pharasaical teaching and declartion of the rcc that illustrates that they have no business in deciding what is and is not Christian doctrine.

Matthew 23:20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

You bring up a really good point Titus.

First, I'm not sure how you see Matt 23 fitting the Catholic Church. The Pharisees were rebuked for fording the laws on the faithful while not following them themselves. They put on all the "bells&whistles" for good show, but did not adhere to teh law and matters of faith. Christ rebukes them, not for the 'bells&whistles', (..."these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone..." ) but for using them to look good while still ignoring the "weightier matters". If there is a way in which you feel the Church ignores these weightier matters, we should discuss it.

But back to Papal Infallibility: first you need to know what infallibility is NOT. Infallibility only applies to teachings of the Church on matters of faith and morals when proclaimed by a definitive act. And it is not just the Pope who is infallible.

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421 (CCC 891) http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM

Sure, you disagree that Peter was the first Pope and that Chrsit estblished a Church on earth with Peter as the head...the Rock...but for we who believe this, this teaching makes perfect sense. But what does this NOT mean? It does not mean the Pope can't be wrong. Popes have been wrong, some even poor examples of Christianity...they can't tell the future, they might not be good at math...a Pope is only infallible in-so-far as when , in virtue of his office as the successor to Peter, "...as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... "

And this also is no recent invention. It is implied in Scripture and was clearly a long-establshied belief by 256 A.D. "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Cyprian of Carthage; Letters 59 [55], 14)

More explanation on this: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

Again, you may not agree with the Church's teaching on Infallibility, but it is clear that this is no new invention of the Church.

[Titus]

Sorry Dave but apparently you didn't read the passage. Christ did bot rebuke them for not keeping the law. In fact he acknowledged that they kept it, but they fell short in the weightier mattersof judgment, mercy and faith just as the rcc has done. The rcc treats protestants just likethe Jews treated gentiles.

[Titus]

Further, I'm absolutely amazed that you refuse to believe papal infallibiity is an invention of the rcc. It was never declared in scripture; only by your magesterium. But if it helps you to sleep at night that the pope and his minions are infallible in teachings of faith and morality, I would submit that to be so, one must be capable of living it, and clearly there have been many popes and cardinals guilty of murder, adultery, and other forms of immorality. White washed tombs full of dead mens bones.

[dave]

Sorry Dave but apparently you didn't read the passage. Christ did bot rebuke them for not keeping the law. In fact he acknowledged that they kept it, but they fell short in the weightier mattersof judgment, mercy and faith...

I thought that's what I stated. I believe your sentence reflects my understanding.


...just as the rcc has done. The rcc treats protestants just likethe Jews treated gentiles.

How so?


Further, I'm absolutely amazed that you refuse to believe papal infallibiity is an invention of the rcc. It was never declared in scripture; only by your magesterium.

I understand, but I just showed you that it indeed was not an invention of the "rcc". I showed you that by 253 A.D. it was already a long-time belief of Christianity, before any "magesterium" declared it so. And that's only 1 example...there are plenty that I did not post because I don't want to get into a debate about that (in this thread). And the Scriptures do support the Catholic position in this matter. But here's where things get confusing...you don't think Scripture supports it based on YOUR understadning of Scripture (or based on the person who taught you, etc...). What makes you think your understanding is superior to another's who disagrees with you?


But if it helps you to sleep at night that the pope and his minions are infallible in teachings of faith and morality, I would submit that to be so, one must be capable of living it, and clearly there have been many popes and cardinals guilty of murder, adultery, and other forms of immorality. White washed tombs full of dead mens bones.

Why must one be capable of living it? I don't think any man is capable of living an infallible life. Peter denied Christ 3 times...did Jesus cast him aside or tell him he could no longer be an apostle? No, He told him after His resurrection, "feed my lambs...tend my flock...feed my sheep..." Christ knew that Peter was not the perfect example of faith and morals when He gave him this charge...who am I to expect more than Christ does? None of us is perfect, we all fall short, only saved by God's Grace. Yes, there have been Popes who are guilty of sins. The reality is that there is no man who is worthy of being Pope by his own merit. Fortunately for us, Christ guaranteed that His Church would stand against the gates of hell and never perish. The article I provided explains the rest.

I'm not askling you to agree with the Church. I'm asking you to do a little background check before you go making false claims that "the rcc invented" this or that teaching several hundred years after Christ.

[Philthy]

...The rcc treats protestants just like the Jews treated gentiles.
I'm not sure exactly what you actually mean by this, but I am sure it is merely your opinion. You could prove me wrong, of course, by providing something official from the CC which substantiates your claim, but you won't because there is nothing. Here is an official statement from the CC - among many - that affirms the fact that they are not treated nor considered in the way you claim.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#832
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."
So there it is from an official source. I would hardly describe the terms "joined in many ways...although imperfect(ly)" as treating "protestants just like the Jews treated gentiles". But perhaps you will provide something to justify your initial claim other than your opinion. Instead, I'm afraid that my prediction is that you will either ignore this post or meet it with emotion, conjecture, vague historical claims, ad hominem attacks, etc. Either way, to continue "bearing false witness" in the manner you have done is simply wrong.

I hope this helps

[Titus]

post # 159 Phil.

[Philthy]

post # 159 Phil.
Thank you for pointing that out - I should have done a better job of searching the thread. Let's look at the quote you provided and see if it squares with your claim that the CC treats Protestants the way "Jews treated the gentiles":

A recent Vatican document, "Response to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church" by William Cardinal Levada, recognizes that Christians outside of the Roman Church may be saved, he considers all other Christian groups defective.

Defective; having a defect, imperfect. Is that how the Jews viewed the gentiles? Hardly. They would never consider that the gentiles "may be saved" as the Cardinal says here. I'm sorry but this simply doesn't justify your original claim. Try being honest: how would you describe other Christian communities that have a different theology than you? Catholics for example. Would it be inaccurate to say that you view their theology and practice as defective in some way? I don't think so - I think that is a very accurate term.
And it isn't an infallible statement either. Why not go to the Catechism or to an encyclical?? No individual Cardinal is protected from error, although it's unlikely to find anything contrary to the Church's teaching in a statement issued by a Cardinal, it does happen.


However, he makes a distinction between Protestants and “oriental Churches,” including the Eastern Orthodox Church. He recognizes the sacraments and Apostolic Succession of the Orthodox Church, but states that the Orthodox Churches “lack something in their condition as particular churches” because of their separation from Rome..
Yawn. Perhaps this raises your hackles but the Orthodox Churches share a theological unity with the CC, can be factually and historically validated all the way back to the beginning of Christianity, and have maintained their theology and liturgical form over the thousand years since the split in 1054.

Because they lack valid Apostolic Succession and valid Sacraments, the documents call Protestant groups “communities” rather than churches.
So what? Do you even understand-from his theological perspective - why he would make such a distinction? If you don't, then you really haven't done your due diligence in understanding the terms he is using according to the definitions he would ascribe. He doesn't say, for example, that they're all damned or anything - like the Jews might say of the gentiles. Again, your "like the Jews treated the gentiles" characterization that I responded to originally has been shown to be blown out of proportion and unsupported by anything factual.

Martin Luther said Popes and councils err. He was so right. Translation: you agree with him - on this issue. From what I gathered on the "Is baptism essential" thread you certainly don't agree with Luther's sacramental theology, so why bring him up as if his saying it is what validates the contention?

This is the kind of pharasaical teaching and declartion of the rcc that illustrates that they have no business in deciding what is and is not Christian doctrine.
Not at all. You haven't demonstrated anything to support this conclusion. When you have something solid to base your claim upon, I'd be interested to see it - I'm always open to the truth. Until then, I'll stick with what the CC clearly states: Protestants are separated brethren in that they lack a visible unity to the CC but that they too, may be part of the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church."

[Titus]

philthy you are entitled to your opinion. We will agree to disagree. IMHO, you are the heretick of which Titus3 speaks. You came here to fight and I will fight with you no more. Titus 3 also tells christians how to deal with hereticks. Have a nice life.

[Philthy]

Further, I'm absolutely amazed that you refuse to believe papal infallibiity is an invention of the rcc. It was never declared in scripture; only by your magesterium.
Even if there were Scripture to support it, which there is, you still wouldn't accept it. Just like when Peter says, "baptism ...save you" in 1Pet 3:21 you still don't believe baptism saves us. So the Scripture jab really carries no weight whatsoever.
But if it helps you to sleep at night that the pope and his minions are infallible in teachings of faith and morality,
Ad hominem

I would submit that to be so, one must be capable of living it, and clearly there have been many popes and cardinals guilty of murder, adultery, and other forms of immorality. White washed tombs full of dead mens bones.
Really? So you maintain that the Apostles - whom I suppose you believed to be infallible in "letter or word of mouth" - were sinless? I don't think so. Instead, it appears that you've revealed another double standard that you readily apply to rationalize a theological position that you hold. You'll reject papal infallibility on the basis that some Popes were sinners, but you don't quite hold the same standard to the Apostles - namely Peter, who was rebuked by Paul for hypocrisy and dividing the body.

[Benjie]

philthy you are entitled to your opinion. We will agree to disagree. IMHO, you are the heretick of which Titus3 speaks. You came here to fight and I will fight with you no more. Titus 3 also tells christians how to deal with hereticks. Have a nice life.Toxicity. Lol!

[Titus]

precisely Benjie. A time to stay and a time to walk away. Titus 3:10

[historyb]

As this is my thread I request the thread closed. There is to many accusations thrown around and not enough understanding of different positions, I am convinced that we mortals will always let pride reign in our hearts and not ever want true loving dialog and trying to be understanding of others.

I am becoming convinced that we Christians may not be as Christian as we think we are.

[Philthy]

philthy you are entitled to your opinion. We will agree to disagree.
Fair enough
IMHO, you are the heretick of which Titus3 speaks.
Not only is this unfair and yet another of your appeals to your infallible opinion, but calling someone a heretic is not a particularly humble thing to do. I believe you are twisting Scripture just like Peter warned. So there.

You came here to fight and I will fight with you no more.
I came here to discuss. That includes exposing facts, rebuking and correcting, just like 2Tim reveals Scripture is useful for doing. Perhaps you feel that you can just make false, disparaging accusations against another faith community without being called out on it, but it's shameful that you do. Furthermore, you continue to judge me without warrant when you should be reflecting on the possibility that you said something offensive - or at least that it could have been interpreted that way - and responding in actual discussion. Instead, you resort to this:

Titus 3 also tells christians how to deal with hereticks. Have a nice life.
It seems you don't react very well to criticism. You seem to like to discuss things with folks that simply agree with you, but when someone calls you out on bearing false witness somehow you get to decide that they are a heretic and that the discussion is over. It doesn't appear that you are interested in discussion at all.

[Titus]

Wrong filthy. I don't have discussions with people I do not like.