Questions Concerning Catholic Church Teachings

[PaulSacramento]

The Catholic Church says salvation is only through their church. Scripture says salvation is by faith in who Christ is, and what he did. Does anyone else see the problem with a group who sets itself up as the only authority by which scripture can be interpreted, and by which salvation can come?

It is my understanding that the church means the WHOLE body of Christ ( Catholic meaning universal), so when the RCC says that salvation is only through THE Church ( they do NOT say THEIR church), I think they mean that salvation is found only in the "body of Christ".
I think that the view is, all those that put their faith in Christ are part of the "body of Christ" and that IS the Church.

[RickD]

The Catholic Church says salvation is only through their church. Scripture says salvation is by faith in who Christ is, and what he did. Does anyone else see the problem with a group who sets itself up as the only authority by which scripture can be interpreted, and by which salvation can come?

It is my understanding that the church means the WHOLE body of Christ ( Catholic meaning universal), so when the RCC says that salvation is only through THE Church ( they do NOT say THEIR church), I think they mean that salvation is found only in the "body of Christ".
I think that the view is, all those that put their faith in Christ are part of the "body of Christ" and that IS the Church.

Au contraire, my not wanting to offend, friend.

Did you read what Silvertusk posted?

Salvation Only Through The Catholic Church
“Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins.” Pope
Boniface VIII

“We believe with our hearts and confess with our lips but one Church, not that of
heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, outside of which we
believe that no one is saved. “ Pope Innocent III

“He who is separated from the Catholic Church will not have life. He who is
separated from the body of the Catholic Church, however praiseworthy his conduct
may seem otherwise, will never enjoy eternal life, and the wrath of God remains on
him by reason of the crime of which he is guilty in living separated from Christ...All
those who are separated from the holy universal Church will not be saved.” Pope
Gregory XVI

“It must be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no
one can be saved, that the Church is the only Ark of Salvation, and that whoever does
not enter it will perish in the Flood. It is a sin to believe that there is salvation outside
the Catholic Church! You must indeed see to it that the faithful have fixed firmly in
their minds the absolute necessity of the Catholic faith for attaining salvation.
Protestantism is the Great Revolt against God.” Pope Pius IX

“Those outside the Church do not possess the Holy Ghost. The Catholic Church
alone is the Body of Christ...and if separated from the Body of Christ he is not one of
His members, nor is he fed by His Spirit.” Pope Paul VI

“No one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless
he remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” Pope Eugene IV

Salvation Only Through Popes
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the
salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Pope
Boniface VIII

“Into this fold of Jesus Christ no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign
Pontiff, and Only if they be united to him can men be saved.” Pope John XXIII

“Those who are obstinate toward the authority of the Church and the Roman
Pontiff... cannot obtain eternal salvation.” Pope Pius IX

Sorry Paul. Silvertusk, you, me, and others not in the Catholic Church are what we call SOL. We do not pass GO, we do not collect $200. Straight to Hell for us!

This I ask to Bippy. Bippmaster, even though your church claims I cannot be saved because I'm not part of the "Catholic Church", I don't recognize the authority of the popes, I don't "possess The Holy Ghost", Protestantism is the Great Revolt against God, I don't partake in the Eucharist, I wasn't baptized in water. Bippy, I'm a perfect example of one who your church says has no chance for salvation. So, how do you consider me a brother in Christ?

[RickD]

Silvertusk wrote:
How can the pope's be infalliable if some of the above goes directly against the teaching of scripture?

I know this is from Wikipedia, and not the Catholic Church, but I think Byblos will agree it's accurate.(I hope)

Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error[1] "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church".[2]

The popes are not sinless, or infallible in everything they say. The infallibility of the popes is only when they define "doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church".

So there the argument goes. Popes say and do stupid things just like the rest of us.

[PaulSacramento]

http://www.catholicity.com/catechism/th ... holic.html

The Church is Catholic

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Simplified

« prev : next »

Catholic (Universal) in Means and in Mission (830-831)
The Church is Catholic (meaning "universal") in two ways. First, the Church is universal because Christ is present in her. She receives from him "the fullness of the means of salvation." In this fundamental sense, the Church was Catholic on the day of Pentecost and will be so until Christ returns.

Second, the Church is Catholic because she has a mission to the whole world. The new People of God (while remaining one) must spread throughout the world. God made human nature one and now he decrees that all the scattered people be gathered together. By its gift of universality, the church seeks the return of all humanity under Christ the Head (Second Vatican Council).

Catholic Even When Local (832-833)
The Church is really present in all legitimately organized local groups of the faithful united to their pastors (called "churches" in the New Testament). These communities might be small and poor. Yet, in these particular churches Christ is present and the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is constituted (Second Vatican Council).

The diocese (or eparchy) is a community of faithful headed by a bishop ordained in apostolic succession. These particular churches are modeled after the universal Church. In them the one and unique Catholic Church exists.

Unity in Rome (834)
Particular Churches are fully Catholic by their unity with Rome "which presides in charity" (St. Ignatius of Antioch). "For with this Church (Rome), by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church must necessarily be in accord" (St. Irenaeus). "All Christian Churches have held the great Church of Rome as their basis and foundation since, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her" (St. Maximus the Confessor).

In a Variety of Cultures (835)
The universal Church is not just a federation of different particular Churches. The universal Church is rooted in a variety of cultures and takes on different external expressions. The rich variety shows forth the Catholicity of the undivided Church (Pope Paul VI).

All are Called (836)
All men are certainly called to this Catholic unity. The Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and all mankind belong to or are ordered to Catholic unity.

Some are Incorporated (837-838)
The fully incorporated are those who accept all the Church's means of salvation and who, by profession of faith, the sacraments, church government, and communion, are united in the visible structure of the Church. However, a Church member who does not persevere in charity is not saved. He is in the Church's bosom, but "in body" not "in heart" (Second Vatican Council).

Others who are baptized and are called "Christian" but who do not profess the Catholic faith are still joined to the Catholic Church in many ways. They enjoy a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. The unity with the Orthodox Church is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness to permit a common celebration of Eucharist (Pope Paul VI).

The Jews - Awaiting an Unknown Messiah (839-840)
Those who have not heard the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.

The Jewish People were the first to hear the Word of God, and their faith is already a response to God's revelation. To them "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises" (Rom 9:4-5) and "this call of God is irrevocable" (Rom 11:29).

The People of God of the Old Covenant and new People of God expect the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. However, the People of the New Covenant await the return of a risen Messiah. The People of the Old Covenant await the coming of a still unknown Messiah, because they do not know or they misunderstand Christ Jesus.

Muslims (841)
God's plan of salvation includes those who acknowledge the Creator. Among these, in the first place, are the Muslims who profess the faith of Abraham and believe in one merciful God as mankind's judge on the Last Day.

A Common Origin (842)
The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is the common origin and goal of the human race. "All nations stem from one stock and all share a common destiny, namely, God. His providence extends to all" (Second Vatican Council).

Other Religions (843)
The Church recognizes that in other religions there is a search for a God. Any goodness or truth in these religions is a "preparation for the Gospel" (Second Vatican Council).

Possible Mistakes in Religious Behavior (844)
In his religious behavior, man can make mistakes. "Deceived by the Evil One, men have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the creature rather than the Creator. Without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair" (Second Vatican Council).

The Church as Noah's Ark (845)
The Father wants to reunite all humanity into his Son's Church. According to St. Augustine and St. Ambrose, the Church was prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saved the world from the flood.

"Outside the Church There is No Salvation" (846)
How do we understand this saying from the Church Fathers? All salvation comes from Christ through his Body, the Church which is necessary for salvation because Christ is present in his Church.

Jesus said, "The man who believes and accepts Baptism will be saved; the man who refuses to believe in it will be condemned" (Mk 16:16). By these words Jesus also affirmed the necessity of the Church, because Baptism is its door to the Church.

Refusing to Enter (847)
Someone who knows the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God and refuses to enter or remain in it, cannot be saved.

Just Not Knowing (848)
However, those, who through no fault of their own do not know either the Gospel of Christ or his Church, can achieve salvation by seeking God with a sincere heart and by trying to do God's will (Second Vatican Council). Although God can lead all people to salvation, the Church still has the duty to evangelize all men.

[RickD]

And Bippy, what do you think of this:

SPECIFIC CATHOLIC TEACHING AGAINST PROTESTANT AND SCHISMATIC SECTS
The Catholic Church also teaches that those baptized persons who embrace heretical or schismatic sects will lose their souls. Jesus founded His Church upon St. Peter, as we saw already, and declared that whoever does not hear the Church be considered as the heathen and publican (Matthew 18:17). He also commanded His followers to observe “all things whatsoever” He has commanded (Matthew 28:20). The Eastern schismatic sects (such as the “Orthodox”) and the Protestant sects are breakoff movements that have separated from the Catholic Church. By separating themselves from the one Church of Christ, they leave the path of salvation and enter the path of perdition.
These sects obstinately and pertinaciously reject one or more of the truths that Christ clearly instituted, such as the Papacy (Matthew 16; John 21; etc.), Confession (John 20:23), the Eucharist (John 6:54), and other dogmas of the Catholic Faith. In order to be saved one must assent to all the things which the Catholic Church, based on Scripture and Tradition, has infallibly defined as dogmas of the Faith.
Below are just a few of the infallible dogmas of the Catholic Faith which are rejected by Protestants and (in the case of the Papacy) by the Eastern “Orthodox.” The Church “anathematizes” (a severe form of excommunication) all who obstinately assert the contrary to its dogmatic definitions.
ʺTo understand the word anathema...we should first go back to the real meaning of herem of which it is the equivalent. Herem comes from the word haram, to cut off, to separate, to curse, and indicates that which is cursed and condemned to be cut off or exterminated, whether a person or a thing, and in consequence, that which man is forbidden to make use of. This is the sense of anathema in the following passage from Deut., vii, 26: ‘Neither shalt thou bring anything of the idol into thy house, lest thou become an anathema like it. Thou shalt detest it as dung, and shalt utterly abhor it as uncleanness and filth, because it is an anathema.’”107
Thus, a Protestant or an “Eastern Orthodox” who obstinately rejects these dogmatic teachings is anathematized and severed from the Church, outside of which there is no salvation. It’s quite interesting that, in issuing these dogmatic canons, the Church says: “If anyone shall say.... let him be anathema [anathema sit]” as opposed to “If anyone shall say... he is anathema [anathema est].” This qualification of “let him be” allows room for those Catholics who may be unaware of a particular dogma and would conform to the teaching of the canon as soon as it were presented to him. The person who is obstinate, however, and willfully contradicts the dogmatic teaching of the Church receives the full force of the automatic condemnation.
The point here is that if one is able to reject these dogmas and still be saved, then these infallible definitions and their accompanying anathemas have no meaning, value or force. But they do have meaning, value and force – they are infallible teachings protected by Jesus Christ. Thus, all who reject these dogmas are anathematized and on the road to damnation.
Pope Pius XI, Rerum omnium perturbationem (#4), Jan. 26, 1923: “The saint was no less a person that Francis de Sales... he seemed to have been sent especially by God to contend against the heresies begotten by the [Protestant] Reformation. It is in these heresies that we discover the beginnings of that apostasy of mankind from the Church, the sad and disastrous effects of which are deplored, even to the present hour, by every fair mind.”108
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Session 13, Can. 1 on the Eucharist, ex cathedra: ʺIf anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the Body and Blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by sign or figure, or force, let him be anathema.ʺ109
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Session 14, Canon 3 on the Sacrament of Penance: “If anyone says that the words of the Lord Savior: ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained’ [John 20:22 f.], are not to be understood of the power remitting and retaining sins in the sacrament of penance... let him be anathema.”110
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Session 14, on Extreme Unction and Penance: “These are the things which this sacred ecumenical synod professes and teaches concerning the sacraments of penance and extreme unction, and it sets them forth to be believed and held by all the faithful of Christ. Moreover, the following canons, it says, must be inviolately observed, and it condemns and anathematizes forever those who assert the contrary.”111
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 16, ex cathedra:
ʺAfter this Catholic doctrine of justification ‐ which, unless he faithfully and firmly accepts, no one can be justified ‐ it seemed good to the holy Synod to add these canons, so that all may know, not only what they must hold and follow, but also what they ought to shun and avoid.ʺ112 Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: ʺ... all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others... This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.ʺ113

[jlay]

Jlay are u claiming Calvin's word as Gods word.

What in the blue blazes are you talking about? I am the most anti-Calvin poster on this forum. The reformation is called that because it was to REFORM the church. It needed reform. There is a reason that time was called the Dark Ages. It is my view that men put too much confidence in theologians. And yes, that includes Calvin, Wesley, Edwards, Spurgeon, Chambers or anyone else who has written a commentary. But often those theologians are used by God to point out failings within the church. Interpretive error, etc. Luther, who was a fallible man, was one of those. Of course you guys treat him as the Devil's spawn. Was he perfect? No. But he rightly pointed out, as part of the church, where the church was flat out wrong. Of course we know what came of that. Sadly RCCs point out obvious errors by Luther, as if that implies that the church wasn't wrong. In other words you can only question church teaching if you have papal infallibility. Funny.

Due to this comment about Calvin, I should probably ignore the rest, but I'll wade through it.

No one was claiming Ignatius words as Gods words, but you must understand that the bible isn't self-interpreting .

I'm really curious to know exactly what you mean by self-interpreting. Question. Does the Bible have a consistent and clear message yesterday, today and tomorrow? Yes or no? Did God use common men to write it? Does God literally indwell EVERY believer? Did God design us to be able to read and understand what we read?

Also, I know who Ignatius is, and I don't need a history lesson, thank you.

Ignatius was a student of John the apostle. He taught the early church what was taught to him by John the apostle. What did Jesus say to the apostles? He said whoever hears you hears me. Again jlay I ask you, whose interpretation are you going to go by, the earliest Christianswho were in the position to know exactly what the apostles taught or the reformers who were 1400 years separated from them them. History is on the side of the earliest Christians. When someone taught as doctrine anything contrary to sacred scripture and sacred Tradition (tradition with a capital T) every single time it was pronounced as heresy by the early Christian Church.

Again, a straw man. I've already shown the fault in your argument on two fronts. In the second point I considered that Ignatius is spot on, yet how it still fails to support your view. You are reading your beliefs into his writing.

Heed the written word and the sacred oral tradition.
The bible never says listen to scripture only.
That was invented 1500 years later.

I would say it was unveiled. But of course transubstantiation fails that same test. As does the Rosary and a number of 'traditions.'

From the earliest times we saw a church hierarchy from the earliest Christians.
Clement of Rome taught against personal interpretation in the late 1st century as I posted from his writings and for this he wrote that the ordained future church leaders (the bishops, presbyters and deacons to make sure that sacred scripture and sacred tradition are consistent with what the apostles taught them.

From the earliest time we see a church wrought with error, which needed to be corrected.
Your error is that you are using the term "personal interpretation," and that simply is not what I am calling for. I am calling for proper exegesis. You act as if we are discarding all logic, reason, scholarship, history, etc. and approaching the text with anarchy. Straw man. It's a lie, and I'd appreciate it if you stop doing it. No wonder the RCC burned so many to death. The intolerance still lingers.

Ignatius in 110
Justin martyr
Origen and so on and so on.
They all stressed the importance of following church teachings, the bishops, the magisterium.
If someone didnt what happened throughout early Christian church history?

Again, you conflate the early views with what the RCC is today. Friend you have no more claim to those Fathers than any protestant or Orthodox Christian here. It is arrogance, pride and confidence in institutions and lineages.

The Arians, the docetists who taught that Jesus's humanity can be separated from his divinity, and this is why I have to disagree with Rick when he claims we should call Mary the mother of Jesus the man and not Jesus the God.
You cannot separate the 2 and the earliest Christians were firm in This belief and that is why the doctrine of the theotokos (Mary the mother of God) was developed at the same time as te doctrine of the trinity.
You can disagree on it if you want but your going against the majority of the early Christians.

That's between you and Rick. The "Mother of God" thing is the least of my concerns. I hate discussing the Mary issue. I would say that Protestants have been robbed of celebrating her testimony due to trying to question the RCC positions. It comes across as if we are attacking Mary, which is just ridiculous.

The Catholic Church gave us the doctrine of the trinity and also the theotokos .

And there is your error. The Church GAVE us the trinity? Or, is the Trinity a reality? It's like saying the Jews gave us the OT. No, God gave us the OT, and used a stubborn, stiff-necked, rebellious people. No wonder Stephen was stoned. I can see him questioning the religious hierarchy. "But we hold the oracles of God. We are the children of Abraham. You worship a carpenter from Nazareth. What makes you think you can know the scriptures apart from the Priesthood???" Stone him!!!You'd be surprised how the modern understanding of the Trinity differs from the early. Jac knows this subject and can explain it better.
The problem is your lens through which you filter everything. God used ordinary men to write the scripture. Many times there was no 'formal' institution. The scripture was written in various continents. It was written in Jail, palaces, captivity and exile. If we took the RCC's line of thinking today that you are proposing, and went back in time, I wouldn't be surprised if all the scripture were rejected on those conditions.

You can't name even one early apostolic father or early church father that believed in private interpretation of scripture.

Again, specifically define what you mean by "private interpretation."

They would be pulling their hair out if you had come out in the first 3 centuries and tod them that you had the right to interpret scripture the way you personally see fit to.

And they would be horrified at a so called church that burned people, persecuted, the inquisition, papal infallibility, vain repetitious prayers, etc, etc.

They would have taken a good look around and saw the thousands of different denominations if they had been alive today and they would have been delirious at what they saw.

I agree. The problem is you assume that the problem is on the outside. Brother, it's on the inside. The RCC created this reality. Enjoy. Hmm, I thought nothing would prevail against it (The RCC). It would have been far better, IMO, if the RCC had actually reformed.

We are one in Christ,and this is exactly what the apostles passed on to the apostolic fathers.
Christ said and The gates of hades shall not prevail over this church.

Several presumptive errors. You assume that you own the early church Fathers. You don't. The church is a heavenly body of believers, not your religious earthly institution. Your appealing to the early church fathers is nothing less than snobbery.

When I was heavily leaning towards becoming an evangelical, I did so because I saw a love and zeal for Christ that I really loved and admired which didn't see in the cradle catholics that I hung out with, and that respect at and admiration will never go away. Catholics need to learn how to fellowship the way evangelicals have and still do.
We are one in the body of Christ.

Understand that my criticisms of the RCC are not an endorsement of any denomination, or even of being a protestant. I have spent over 10 years in a Bible study that has RCC, Baptists, Methodist, Presbyterian, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Nazarene, and undecided.

[Silvertusk]

Jlay are u claiming Calvin's word as Gods word.

What in the blue blazes are you talking about? I am the most anti-Calvin poster on this forum. The reformation is called that because it was to REFORM the church. It needed reform. There is a reason that time was called the Dark Ages. It is my view that men put too much confidence in theologians. And yes, that includes Calvin, Wesley, Edwards, Spurgeon, Chambers or anyone else who has written a commentary. But often those theologians are used by God to point out failings within the church. Interpretive error, etc. Luther, who was a fallible man, was one of those. Of course you guys treat him as the Devil's spawn. Was he perfect? No. But he rightly pointed out, as part of the church, where the church was flat out wrong. Of course we know what came of that. Sadly RCCs point out obvious errors by Luther, as if that implies that the church wasn't wrong. In other words you can only question church teaching if you have papal infallibility. Funny.

Due to this comment about Calvin, I should probably ignore the rest, but I'll wade through it.

No one was claiming Ignatius words as Gods words, but you must understand that the bible isn't self-interpreting .

I'm really curious to know exactly what you mean by self-interpreting. Question. Does the Bible have a consistent and clear message yesterday, today and tomorrow? Yes or no? Did God use common men to write it? Does God literally indwell EVERY believer? Did God design us to be able to read and understand what we read?

Also, I know who Ignatius is, and I don't need a history lesson, thank you.

Ignatius was a student of John the apostle. He taught the early church what was taught to him by John the apostle. What did Jesus say to the apostles? He said whoever hears you hears me. Again jlay I ask you, whose interpretation are you going to go by, the earliest Christianswho were in the position to know exactly what the apostles taught or the reformers who were 1400 years separated from them them. History is on the side of the earliest Christians. When someone taught as doctrine anything contrary to sacred scripture and sacred Tradition (tradition with a capital T) every single time it was pronounced as heresy by the early Christian Church.

Again, a straw man. I've already shown the fault in your argument on two fronts. In the second point I considered that Ignatius is spot on, yet how it still fails to support your view. You are reading your beliefs into his writing.

Heed the written word and the sacred oral tradition.
The bible never says listen to scripture only.
That was invented 1500 years later.

I would say it was unveiled. But of course transubstantiation fails that same test. As does the Rosary and a number of 'traditions.'

From the earliest times we saw a church hierarchy from the earliest Christians.
Clement of Rome taught against personal interpretation in the late 1st century as I posted from his writings and for this he wrote that the ordained future church leaders (the bishops, presbyters and deacons to make sure that sacred scripture and sacred tradition are consistent with what the apostles taught them.

From the earliest time we see a church wrought with error, which needed to be corrected.
Your error is that you are using the term "personal interpretation," and that simply is not what I am calling for. I am calling for proper exegesis. You act as if we are discarding all logic, reason, scholarship, history, etc. and approaching the text with anarchy. Straw man. It's a lie, and I'd appreciate it if you stop doing it. No wonder the RCC burned so many to death. The intolerance still lingers.

Ignatius in 110
Justin martyr
Origen and so on and so on.
They all stressed the importance of following church teachings, the bishops, the magisterium.
If someone didnt what happened throughout early Christian church history?

Again, you conflate the early views with what the RCC is today. Friend you have no more claim to those Fathers than any protestant or Orthodox Christian here. It is arrogance, pride and confidence in institutions and lineages.

The Arians, the docetists who taught that Jesus's humanity can be separated from his divinity, and this is why I have to disagree with Rick when he claims we should call Mary the mother of Jesus the man and not Jesus the God.
You cannot separate the 2 and the earliest Christians were firm in This belief and that is why the doctrine of the theotokos (Mary the mother of God) was developed at the same time as te doctrine of the trinity.
You can disagree on it if you want but your going against the majority of the early Christians.

That's between you and Rick. The "Mother of God" thing is the least of my concerns. I hate discussing the Mary issue. I would say that Protestants have been robbed of celebrating her testimony due to trying to question the RCC positions. It comes across as if we are attacking Mary, which is just ridiculous.

The Catholic Church gave us the doctrine of the trinity and also the theotokos .

And there is your error. The Church GAVE us the trinity? Or, is the Trinity a reality? It's like saying the Jews gave us the OT. No, God gave us the OT, and used a stubborn, stiff-necked, rebellious people. No wonder Stephen was stoned. I can see him questioning the religious hierarchy. "But we hold the oracles of God. We are the children of Abraham. You worship a carpenter from Nazareth. What makes you think you can know the scriptures apart from the Priesthood???" Stone him!!!You'd be surprised how the modern understanding of the Trinity differs from the early. Jac knows this subject and can explain it better.
The problem is your lens through which you filter everything. God used ordinary men to write the scripture. Many times there was no 'formal' institution. The scripture was written in various continents. It was written in Jail, palaces, captivity and exile. If we took the RCC's line of thinking today that you are proposing, and went back in time, I wouldn't be surprised if all the scripture were rejected on those conditions.

You can't name even one early apostolic father or early church father that believed in private interpretation of scripture.

Again, specifically define what you mean by "private interpretation."

They would be pulling their hair out if you had come out in the first 3 centuries and tod them that you had the right to interpret scripture the way you personally see fit to.

And they would be horrified at a so called church that burned people, persecuted, the inquisition, papal infallibility, vain repetitious prayers, etc, etc.

They would have taken a good look around and saw the thousands of different denominations if they had been alive today and they would have been delirious at what they saw.

I agree. The problem is you assume that the problem is on the outside. Brother, it's on the inside. The RCC created this reality. Enjoy. Hmm, I thought nothing would prevail against it (The RCC). It would have been far better, IMO, if the RCC had actually reformed.

We are one in Christ,and this is exactly what the apostles passed on to the apostolic fathers.
Christ said and The gates of hades shall not prevail over this church.

Several presumptive errors. You assume that you own the early church Fathers. You don't. The church is a heavenly body of believers, not your religious earthly institution. Your appealing to the early church fathers is nothing less than snobbery.

When I was heavily leaning towards becoming an evangelical, I did so because I saw a love and zeal for Christ that I really loved and admired which didn't see in the cradle catholics that I hung out with, and that respect at and admiration will never go away. Catholics need to learn how to fellowship the way evangelicals have and still do.
We are one in the body of Christ.

Understand that my criticisms of the RCC are not an endorsement of any denomination, or even of being a protestant. I have spent over 10 years in a Bible study that has RCC, Baptists, Methodist, Presbyterian, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Nazarene, and undecided.

Jlay - I can't believe you said that!!!!!!! You are so wrong!!!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
I am the most anti-calvinist poster on this forum

[bippy123]

The Catholic Church says salvation is only through their church. Scripture says salvation is by faith in who Christ is, and what he did. Does anyone else see the problem with a group who sets itself up as the only authority by which scripture can be interpreted, and by which salvation can come?

It is my understanding that the church means the WHOLE body of Christ ( Catholic meaning universal), so when the RCC says that salvation is only through THE Church ( they do NOT say THEIR church), I think they mean that salvation is found only in the "body of Christ".
I think that the view is, all those that put their faith in Christ are part of the "body of Christ" and that IS the Church.

Correct Paul, and that has been my understanding of the Catholic Church's view on salvation also.
Of course there are fanatics on both sides of the fence , including Catholics that don't believe this, but they are going against the teachings of the Catholic Church , such as for example my old bible study teacher who went against the church's teachings center stage and told this to a crowd of evangelicals during an inter faith conference. As soon as I heard of this I left his bible study class and never returned. His priest was furious that he would misrepresent the catholic church's position on salvation. I almost left the church because of this until I understood the catholic faith's position on this very subject.

[bippy123]

Jlay, no one said that Luther didnt have legitimate gripes , on the contrary he had.
The abuse of indulgences was one of them, but the Vatican never supported these abuses. There were individual priests that did. This doesn't meant that Luther himself didnt also have other erroneous positions . He position on faith alone was against the historic Church's teachings . The church had always taught that it was Faith and works (God I spired works and not human I spired works). This is why at first he wanted to completely take out the book of James from the bible. Anyone that knows Luther's history knew he wanted to take it out, and he also wanted to take revelations out of the bible. Instead he was convinced by his more level headed brethren to keep both books in there, and instead he changed the verse in James from faith to faith alone. That little word alone had a huge impact in its meaning.

He also lessened the importance of the deutero canonicals which had been in the original bible since it was first pit together because it didn't agree with his PERSONAL interpretation on purgatory .

This is the danger of personal interpretation. Now Luther started out with a legit concern against the abuse of indulgences.
Just because a church worships in the fullness of Christ doesn't make the people within the church perfect, but as we see, interpretation of scripture was never given as a personal authority to one individual but to the church ,especially the pope who has the final say on interpretation (Jesus in scripture giving the keys to Peter and also giving him the power to bind and loose. It is this authority that was passed down to the church and future vicars of Christ down through the centuries.

It was Luther's personal interpretation that eventually caused the many splits we have within Christianity
. As I said before the great schism between orthodox and catholic was more a political phenomena than a theological one.

Most Christians today dont know that Luther prayed the rosary, and some Lutheran synods allow the rosary prayer to be prayed by Lutherans .

Guys you can't fully know Christianity unless you study the first 1500 years of it as these years are extremely I portent in understanding how Christians of those times were taught to worship and how the original church interpretated scripture.
Now there was good that came out of Luther's original protest against indulgences. The Church eventually clamped down on the abuses of indulgences in the later years.

[RickD]

The Catholic Church says salvation is only through their church. Scripture says salvation is by faith in who Christ is, and what he did. Does anyone else see the problem with a group who sets itself up as the only authority by which scripture can be interpreted, and by which salvation can come?

It is my understanding that the church means the WHOLE body of Christ ( Catholic meaning universal), so when the RCC says that salvation is only through THE Church ( they do NOT say THEIR church), I think they mean that salvation is found only in the "body of Christ".
I think that the view is, all those that put their faith in Christ are part of the "body of Christ" and that IS the Church.

Correct Paul, and that has been my understanding of the Catholic Church's view on salvation also.
Of course there are fanatics on both sides of the fence , including Catholics that don't believe this, but they are going against the teachings of the Catholic Church , such as for example my old bible study teacher who went against the church's teachings center stage and told this to a crowd of evangelicals during an inter faith conference. As soon as I heard of this I left his bible study class and never returned. His priest was furious that he would misrepresent the catholic church's position on salvation. I almost left the church because of this until I understood the catholic faith's position on this very subject.

Guys, the problem with what you're both saying, is that it's only partially true. And that makes it false.
Do a little search on what the Catholic Church teaches in regards to who exactly is part of the body of Christ, and how one becomes a believer. The Catholic Church's definition of the body of Christ is different from the rest of Christianity's definition.

Just one example is water baptism. Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself. One cannot be part of the Church(according to the Catholic Church), unless one is baptized in water.

Bippy, you're giving the politically correct, trying not to offend, version. Not the true Catholic Church version. I think you might be surprised how much you actually disagree with your own church on this.
A while back, Byblos and I were discussing this subject. He told me he believes I am his brother in Christ, even though his church said different.

[bippy123]

Also Jlay, the early Church fathers were catholic in their beliefs, and yes Jesus did create an institution, why do you think he built his church around Peter the rock and gave him the power to bind and loose. Why do you think that even before the early Church fathers that the apostolic fathers believed in a church that had a hierarchal structure with bishops and presbytery's that we were commanded to follow . These are the students of the apostles. If anyone was in the position to know the apostles teachings fully it was them.

Why do you think that Clement of Rome (a disciple of Peter and Paul) wrote in 96 ad that the apostles feared a split from the original church of Christ and ordained future leaders to pass down the church authority and continuity of teachings to.

Remember this is in 96ad that clement wrote this. Ignatius wrote his letters to the smyrneans in 110 ad and explicitly told Christian of those times to follow the bishop and presbytery. These dudes knew exactly what the apostles wanted them to pass down to the future generations of Christians. The church is a visible institution with its leader and a hierarchal structure. If you don't agree you need to take it up with the apostolic fathers and tell them that you know better then they knew what the apostles taught them.

[PaulSacramento]

RE: Baptisim:
The Only Door We Know (1257)
Jesus clearly told the apostles to baptize their disciples (Mt 28:19). "Whoever believes and is baptized, will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned" (Mk 16:16). Because Baptism is the only door to eternal happiness which the Church knows, she makes sure that all are baptized. Although God has bound salvation to Baptism, he himself is not bound by his sacraments (he can save by other means).

Death Before Baptism (1258)
Some, although not baptized, have suffered death because of faith in Christ. This Baptism of blood, much like Baptism of desire, brings about the fruits of the sacrament.

Catechumens who die before Baptism are assured of eternal salvation by their desire for Baptism and their repentance for sins.

Salvation of Those Not Baptized (1259-1261)
Because God wants everyone to be saved, the Spirit gives everyone a chance to share in Christ's death and rising. Those who are ignorant of the Gospel and the Church, yet seek the truth and do God's will (according to their understanding) can be saved. It is supposed that such persons would desire Baptism explicitly if they knew its necessity.

Concerning children who have died without Baptism, the mercy of God (who wills all to be saved) and Jesus' tenderness toward the children, allow the Church to hope that these children are saved. The Church calls parents not to prevent their children from receiving Baptism.

The Graces of Baptism

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Simplified

« prev : next »

Two Main Effects (1262)
The immersion in water signifies Baptism's two main effects - purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit. Peter promised his hearers (on Pentecost) that by Baptism they would receive "forgiveness for your sins" and "the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).

Forgiving Sin/Removing Punishment (1263)
Baptism forgives all sins (original and personal) and all punishment for sin (Council of Florence). Nothing remains to impede entrance into heaven.

Consequences Remain (1264)
Some consequences of sin (sickness, death, weakness of character) remain. There is also an inclination to sin called concupiscence with which we struggle. However, this inclination does no harm if resisted by Christ's grace (Council of Trent).

Effects of Baptism (1265-1266)
Baptism makes the believer an adopted child of God, a sharer in God's nature, a co-heir with Christ, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.

By sanctifying grace (the grace of justification), the baptized:

Are enabled to believe in God, hope in him, and love him (theological virtues)
Can live according to the power of the Holy Spirit (the sanctifying gifts)
Can grow in goodness (the moral virtues)
Baptism bestows the whole organism of the supernatural life.

Joined with Others (1267-1268)
By Baptism "we are members one of another" (Eph 4:25). This Body of Christ transcends all cultures, because "by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" (1 Cor 12:13).

The baptized have become "living stones." They are a royal nation, a holy priesthood, God's own people (1 Pet 2:9) sharing in the common priesthood of all believers.

Duties of Baptized (1269-1270)
The baptized belong to Christ and have the duty to serve others in the Church and to obey Church leaders. They have a right to the sacraments, to the nourishment of God's Word, and to all the Church's spiritual helps. They must participate in the Church's missionary activity.

One with All the Baptized (1271)
Baptism is the sacramental bond of unity (even for those not in full communion with the Catholic Church). By faith and Baptism, all "are incorporated into Christ, have a right to be called Christians and to be accepted as brothers" (Second Vatican Council).

Effects of Baptismal Seal (1272-1273)
Baptism seals the Christian with an indelible spiritual mark (the "character of Baptism") which sin cannot erase. Therefore, Baptism cannot be repeated.

This sacramental seal consecrates the person for Christian religious worship and requires them to participate in the Church's liturgy and to bear witness by their holy lives.

Sealed Forever (1274)
This "seal of the Lord" is for "the day of redemption." The Christian who is faithful to this seal will die "marked for eternal life" with hope in seeing God. "Baptism is the seal of eternal life" (St. Irenaeus).

[PaulSacramento]

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... s2c1a1.htm

[bippy123]

The Catholic Church says salvation is only through their church. Scripture says salvation is by faith in who Christ is, and what he did. Does anyone else see the problem with a group who sets itself up as the only authority by which scripture can be interpreted, and by which salvation can come?

It is my understanding that the church means the WHOLE body of Christ ( Catholic meaning universal), so when the RCC says that salvation is only through THE Church ( they do NOT say THEIR church), I think they mean that salvation is found only in the "body of Christ".
I think that the view is, all those that put their faith in Christ are part of the "body of Christ" and that IS the Church.

Correct Paul, and that has been my understanding of the Catholic Church's view on salvation also.
Of course there are fanatics on both sides of the fence , including Catholics that don't believe this, but they are going against the teachings of the Catholic Church , such as for example my old bible study teacher who went against the church's teachings center stage and told this to a crowd of evangelicals during an inter faith conference. As soon as I heard of this I left his bible study class and never returned. His priest was furious that he would misrepresent the catholic church's position on salvation. I almost left the church because of this until I understood the catholic faith's position on this very subject.

Guys, the problem with what you're both saying, is that it's only partially true. And that makes it false.
Do a little search on what the Catholic Church teaches in regards to who exactly is part of the body of Christ, and how one becomes a believer. The Catholic Church's definition of the body of Christ is different from the rest of Christianity's definition.

Just one example is water baptism. Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself. One cannot be part of the Church(according to the Catholic Church), unless one is baptized in water.

Bippy, you're giving the politically correct, trying not to offend, version. Not the true Catholic Church version. I think you might be surprised how much you actually disagree with your own church on this.
A while back, Byblos and I were discussing this subject. He told me he believes I am his brother in Christ, even though his church said different.

First of all baptism in water is biblically correct. I was watching a bible miniseries and I saw that verse come up during the movie and nicodemus was asking about being born again, when I saw Jesus's response I was shocked. They had Jesus not even say his whole verse and left out water baptism, even though it is plainly in scripture and this is what the historic and original Christian Church teaches .

John 3:5, where Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/born-again-in-baptism
Remember Rick the Catholic Church is the historically original Church of Christ just because you don't know of any modern church that teaches this it doesn't mean the original Christian Church of Christ didnt teach it.
We can go back to what the early Church fathers taught on this can't we? I won't because you probably know full well what they taught . The original Christian Church before the reformation of 1517 (or maybe even after) had always taught about water baptism.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html
These are just some of the verses that teach the importance of baptism. No early Church father ever taught anything accept in favor of baptism Rick so on that matter you are incorrect.




I'm not giving a waters down version of anything. If you read what the Vatican says about Protestants , they call them our brothers and sisters in Christ. Vatican 2 said it outright and a simple reading of their position on this will fully clarify it to you or anyone else that needs to know it.


As far as your opinion about the catholic view on water baptism
Here is the official teaching. It tells of baptism of blood or as its called baptism of desire.
If you don't fully understand this you are still baptized without fully being baptized .

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/salvatio ... the-church

We weren't born in the age of which there is one church. We are born in an age where there are thousands of different churches and God takes it into consideration as well. We are also 1900 years separated from the early Church fathers.
God first judges on the heart, remember this also Rick. This is alsow what the Catholic Church teaches.

I once had this very same conversation with a nun when I was on a retreat, because I love all my friends no matter what denomination they belonged to.
She then told me of a dream she had as a young girl in which she woke up screaming and crying .
Her mom asked what was wrong and she said " we all got it wrong, only the 7th say Adventists are going to heaven!!!!"
Her mom looked at her and smiled and said " do you think this is the way our lord is? No my daughter, he looks first and foremost at our heart".

We both chuckled about this but it gave me a big sigh of relief as I also had friends who were Hindus and Muslims as well as Jewish .

[bippy123]

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... s2c1a1.htm

Correct Paul and this has been Christian teaching since the beginning since the earliest days of Christianity.