Page 5 of 7

Re: Questions Concerning Catholic Church Teachings

Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:35 pm
by Furstentum Liechtenstein
bippy123 wrote: 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 .
Are you implying that those who do not put their faith in Jesus also have a chance at eternal life with God because He ''looks first and foremost at our heart'' ?

FL

EDIT: in The Catechism of the Catholic Church Check out entries 839-840 which treat of the Jews; entry 841 deals with Muslims, and entries 842-843 deal with other faiths. In my opinion, entries 841 to 843 leave the impression that these false faiths recognize the God of Dt 6:4. If so, this is unbiblical and wrong.

Re: Questions Concerning Catholic Church Teachings

Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:50 pm
by RickD
Bippy, from your link:
However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.
Bippy, all three of those apply to me, according to the Catholic Church.

Re: Questions Concerning Catholic Church Teachings

Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:07 pm
by Furstentum Liechtenstein
RickD wrote:Bippy, all three of those apply to me, according to the Catholic Church.
And to me, according to entry 846 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Roman Catholic Church - as an institution - is corrupt*, and its history confirms this. Individual Roman Catholics may be genuine believers in Christ, or ''born-again'' in Protestant parlance.

FL

* Protestant denominations are no better!

Re: Questions Concerning Catholic Church Teachings

Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:20 pm
by RickD
FL wrote:
The Roman Catholic Church - as an institution - is corrupt*, and its history confirms this. Individual Roman Catholics may be genuine believers in Christ, or ''born-again'' in Protestant parlance.

* Protestant denominations are no better!
FL, as your compatriots may say, you "Frappez le clou sur la tête".*
:clap:

*Don't blame me for the bad French. It's translation.babylon's fault.

PS-FL, you used to be a member of the Catholic Church?

Re: Questions Concerning Catholic Church Teachings

Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:09 pm
by RickD
Bippy wrote:
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 .
Water baptism is biblically correct. It's just not required for salvation.
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
That verse is not referring to water baptism. Look at the context. John 3:4-7
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. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born [c]again.

The verse is talking about being born again. Born once naturally(of water). And born again(by the spirit).
This is not promoting water baptism for salvation.
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.
The Catholic Church of today, is NOT the same as Christ's original church.
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.
Not for salvation. :beat:
We weren't born in the age of which there is one church.
Bippy, there has always been one church. Those who have faith in Christ for their salvation. Those are the church.

Re: Questions Concerning Catholic Church Teachings

Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 1:53 am
by bippy123
Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:
bippy123 wrote: 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 .
Are you implying that those who do not put their faith in Jesus also have a chance at eternal life with God because He ''looks first and foremost at our heart'' ?

FL

EDIT: in The Catechism of the Catholic Church Check out entries 839-840 which treat of the Jews; entry 841 deals with Muslims, and entries 842-843 deal with other faiths. In my opinion, entries 841 to 843 leave the impression that these false faiths recognize the God of Dt 6:4. If so, this is unbiblical and wrong.
As far as non Christians are concerned here it is.
In the section "The Constitution of the Church" the assessment reads:

"The Catholic Church professes that it is the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ; this it does not and could not deny. But in its Constitution the Church now solemnly acknowledges that the Holy Ghost is truly active in the churches and communities separated from itself. To these other Christian Churches the Catholic Church is bound in many ways: through reverence for God's word in the Scriptures; through the fact of baptism; through other sacraments which they recognize."

5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church." 6

Furstentum, if a person never had the chance to hear the gospel in the right way God does not hold that against them.
As far as what is the right way, you not I can judge that, only God can. This deals with non catholic Christians as well as non Christians. If the Church was given the authority to bind and loose by Jesus himself then they hold the fullness of Christ as far as the correct interpretation of scripture. The bible is composed of the writings of scripture, but those scriptures domt interprete themselves right? Since I have clearly shown from the writings of the apostolic fathers in which for example Clement of Rome talks about the apostles fearing what they taught would be be twisted ordained future bishops to make sure the fullness of Christs teachings would be passed on to the future generations of Christians. The apostolic fathers were given this authority to pass on. When you say it is unbelievable, I say according to whome and whose interpretation?
It all goes back to authority. It always has. Who did Christ give the authority to bind and loose to? Some pastor or priest or the one holy and apostolic church, with Peter as its head along with Christs other disciples.
Again the bible itself never says that it is the sole authority for the fullness of the faith. The early Christians believed in scripture and sacred Tradition.

Now Furstentum, ask yourself this, does your Church practice what the students of the apostles practiced? If not then your also telling the apostles that you don't except the fullness of their teachings that were passed down to them from the apostles. The apostle Paul when preaching to the Corinthians told them to follow what he preached to them whether it was in written form or orally. Christ never commissioned the apostles to write a book, he commissioned the apostles to preach the word of God. You cannot fully understand every verse in scripture unless you understand the first 1500 years of Christianity. You cannot disconnect between the time of Christ and leap forward 1500 years.

In the section "The Constitution of the Church" the assessment reads:

"The Catholic Church professes that it is the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ; this it does not and could not deny. But in its Constitution the Church now solemnly acknowledges that the Holy Ghost is truly active in the churches and communities separated from itself. To these other Christian Churches the Catholic Church is bound in many ways: through reverence for God's word in the Scriptures; through the fact of baptism; through other sacraments which they recognize."

5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church." 6

Re: Questions Concerning Catholic Church Teachings

Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:29 am
by bippy123
RickD wrote:
Water baptism is biblically correct. It's just not required for salvation.
Again Rick your offering your own opinion. Your also making yourself the sole authority of what is required for salvation and what is not. The Catholic Church also says that the baptism of desire is saving too so in a way I agree with you, but again I ask you do you believe in what the early Christians believed? Yes or no?
RickD wrote:
That verse is not referring to water baptism. Look at the context. John 3:4-7
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. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born [c]again.

The verse is talking about being born again. Born once naturally(of water). And born again(by the spirit).
This is not promoting water baptism for salvation.
Again Rick this is your opinion, your personal interpretation. Did the Holy Spirit give you the authority to interpret that verse in your way? And again I ask you how did you get that revelation ? If every person can claim that they have the authority to interpret scripture according to their own personal opinions then how come we have thousand of different opinions , and how can the Holy Spirit lead Christians into this chaotic state. It makes no sense rationally and it isn't what the early church fathers were taught either.
Your standing on very flimsy ground here Rick .
RickD wrote:
The Catholic Church of today, is NOT the same as Christ's original church.
The Catholic Church of today believes in a hierarchal structure, apostolic succession, the eucharist, authoritative interpretation (binding and loosing).
The same foundation that our church has today and that is what was passed down to them by the apostolic fathers who received it directly from the apostles who received their teachings from Christ himself . Sure there are many doctrines that have been more fully defined but that does t make te basic structure of the church any different in the last 2000 years.
By your argument the early Church in the first and 2nd century wasnt the same as the church of the 4th century because the doctrine of the trinity wasnt fully defined until the. 4th century. Do you see how nonsensical that sounds?

For you to claim this you would need to have a revelation from God in which he spoke to you and said "Rick, all doctrines from scripture were given from me to my apostles to be fully defined in the first century, which is ludicrous since the doctrine of the trinity itself wasn't fully defined until 250 to 300 years after Christ.

Some doctrines such as purgatory weren't fully defined until the 8th century. It doesn't mean they are unbiblical .
RickD wrote:
Bippy, there has always been one church. Those who have faith in Christ for their salvation. Those are the church.
Rick, again I ask you
1. Do you believe in fullness of Christs teachings that were given to the apostles and passed down to the apostolic fathers. The fullness of Christs word, not just in written form but orally. If not then You only believe in Christs written word and not the oral tradition that was passed down from the apostles onward. Do you believe that you have the authority to interpret scripture personally or do you believe in Christs full word that he gave the power to bind and loose not to every Tom , **** or Harry but to Peter along with his disciples.

Here we go again with sola scriptura.
Scripture alone wasnt practiced until 1500 years after Christ.
It is scripture and sacred tradition.


Here are some early Church fathers teachings on water baptism .
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html

Tradition / Church Fathers

I. “Born Again” Means Water Baptism

For Christ also said, 'Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: 'Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well…And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow...And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone…And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61 (A.D. 110-165).

"Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration,--as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God." Theopilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, 2:16 (A.D. 181).

" 'And dipped himself,' says [the Scripture], 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190).
RickD wrote:
Not for salvation.


Rick if you want to ignore the writings of the early Church fathers that is really up to you . Do you fully practice what the earliest Christians were taught to practice. Justin Martyr was a very early Church father and he knew the apostolic fathers so he was in the position to fully know what the apostolic fathers preaches, and the apostolic fathers studied directly from the apostles.

Again I ask you Rick, do you believe what the earliest Christian swere taught to believe or do you interpret the bible according to your own personal beliefs?
Is this the belief of the historic Christians or the beliefs of the reformers who came 1500 years after Christ. The bible does t interpret itself , it needs an authoritative interpreter or else there is chaos and thousands of different Churches each with their own personal interpretation.
As for me ill go with the authoritative interpretation that was given directly from Christ.

Re: Questions Concerning Catholic Church Teachings

Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:32 am
by bippy123
RickD wrote:Bippy, from your link:
However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.
Bippy, all three of those apply to me, according to the Catholic Church.
So you say Rick, but only God can fully judge anyone's situation .
Again remember that there isn't one church today as the was in early Christianity. The situation is totally different Rick.
Only God knows a persons heart. This is why I posted the story of my retreat with the nun. In my personal opinion I see you as a person that loves The Lord with great zeal. That is what I see in your posts and that to me comes from your heart.
I'm not saying this to be nice, I'm saying this because its how I truly fee, and you know from my posts Rick that I don't leave anything on the sidelines when I post.
I usually like to focus on what our faiths share .

Re: Questions Concerning Catholic Church Teachings

Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:39 am
by bippy123
Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:
RickD wrote:Bippy, all three of those apply to me, according to the Catholic Church.
And to me, according to entry 846 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Roman Catholic Church - as an institution - is corrupt*, and its history confirms this. Individual Roman Catholics may be genuine believers in Christ, or ''born-again'' in Protestant parlance.

FL

* Protestant denominations are no better!
You said it Furstentum , ACCORDING TO YOU.
You are now the authoritative interpreter of Christianity. Ill stick with the person who was given the authority to bind and loose. :)
Christ also said the hates of hades shall not prevail over this church. Now correct me if I'm wrong but there was no other church around in those early years but the Catholic Church. Or maybe you know of a group of non Catholics that were hiding in caves somewhere ready to pop out in 1517?
I trust in Christ's word .
And I trust in The authority that Christ gave to Peter and the apostles and the same authority that was passed down through ordination to the future church leaders by the apostles.
You can trust in the gospel according your private interpretations if you like. It's a free world.

Re: Questions Concerning Catholic Church Teachings

Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 3:58 am
by Furstentum Liechtenstein
bippy123 wrote:You said it Furstentum , ACCORDING TO YOU.
You are now the authoritative interpreter of Christianity. Ill stick with the person who was given the authority to bind and loose.
Don't be silly, Bippy. When did I claim to be ''the authoritative interpreter of Christianity''? y/:) Comments fueled by anger are always ridiculous.

This comment to RickD by you is odd:
bippy123 wrote:I usually like to focus on what our faiths share .
You and Rick share a common faith but a different religion.

FL

Re: Questions Concerning Catholic Church Teachings

Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:11 am
by jlay
FL,

I would say many if not most Protestant denominations hold to the Nicene Creed. In essence saying we don't reject the 'church,' but do reject the institution in Vatican City as being such. As I said earlier to Bippy, they have no more claim to the early church Fathers than we do. It is nothing but religious snobbery.

Of course Israel was the earthly institution of authority prior to the cross. Even then we know that the instituion was often in outright apostacy. Yet God always preserved a remnant. And often this remnant was completely seperate from the Temple.

Re: Questions Concerning Catholic Church Teachings

Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:49 am
by Furstentum Liechtenstein
jlay wrote:FL,

I would say many if not most Protestant denominations hold to the Nicene Creed. In essence saying we don't reject the 'church,' but do reject the institution in Vatican City as being such. As I said earlier to Bippy, they have no more claim to the early church Fathers than we do. It is nothing but religious snobbery.
Well, we agree. My guess is that the majority of faiths (including atheism) are infected by religious snobbery. Pride is a very tenacious sin.

This quote from Augustine,
The Church is a whore! ...but she's my mother.
...is revealing and indicates the circumspection - and the respect! - Christians had best have towards the denomination that nurtures them.

FL y:-B

Re: Questions Concerning Catholic Church Teachings

Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:44 am
by RickD
RickD wrote:
Water baptism is biblically correct. It's just not required for salvation.

Bippy wrote:
Again Rick your offering your own opinion. Your also making yourself the sole authority of what is required for salvation and what is not.
Bippy, I'm "making" scripture the sole authority of what is required for salvation.
Bippy wrote:
The Catholic Church also says that the baptism of desire is saving too so in a way I agree with you, but again I ask you do you believe in what the early Christians believed? Yes or no?
Bippy, scripture is my authority. If what any Christians, either early, middle, or modern believe doesn't line up with scripture, then their belief holds no authority with me.
RickD wrote:
That verse is not referring to water baptism. Look at the context. John 3:4-7
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. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born [c]again.

The verse is talking about being born again. Born once naturally(of water). And born again(by the spirit).
This is not promoting water baptism for salvation.


Bippy wrote:
Again Rick this is your opinion, your personal interpretation. Did the Holy Spirit give you the authority to interpret that verse in your way? And again I ask you how did you get that revelation ? If every person can claim that they have the authority to interpret scripture according to their own personal opinions then how come we have thousand of different opinions , and how can the Holy Spirit lead Christians into this chaotic state. It makes no sense rationally and it isn't what the early church fathers were taught either.
Bippy, scripture is clear and consistent that salvation comes by God's Grace, through faith in Christ. Scripture is also clear that water baptism symbolizes the true saving baptism, which is done by God's power alone, when one believes in Christ for salvation. Scripture clearly shows that water baptism is an outward declaration of the inner reality of the work of God in a person's "heart". In scripture, one is always saved before one is baptized in water.
Bippy wrote:
Your standing on very flimsy ground here Rick .
Au contraire monsieur Bippy! I stand on very solid ground. That ground is Jesus Christ!
RickD wrote:
The Catholic Church of today, is NOT the same as Christ's original church.

Bippy wrote:
The Catholic Church of today believes in a hierarchal structure, apostolic succession, the eucharist, authoritative interpretation (binding and loosing).
The same foundation that our church has today and that is what was passed down to them by the apostolic fathers who received it directly from the apostles who received their teachings from Christ himself . Sure there are many doctrines that have been more fully defined but that does t make te basic structure of the church any different in the last 2000 years.
By your argument the early Church in the first and 2nd century wasnt the same as the church of the 4th century because the doctrine of the trinity wasnt fully defined until the. 4th century. Do you see how nonsensical that sounds?
Bippy, I realize the Catholic Church thinks it's God's one, true church. I disagree, and you have not proven that the Catholic Church is, or ever was God's one, true church.
Scripture clearly and consistently proves that God's church is all those who have ever placed their faith in Christ for salvation.
Bippy wrote:
For you to claim this you would need to have a revelation from God in which he spoke to you and said "Rick, all doctrines from scripture were given from me to my apostles to be fully defined in the first century, which is ludicrous since the doctrine of the trinity itself wasn't fully defined until 250 to 300 years after Christ.
Bippy, all the revelation I need from God, is the revelation of Jesus Christ, shown to us in scripture. The Trinity is clear from scripture. It makes no difference when the doctrine was made official.
Bippy wrote:
Some doctrines such as purgatory weren't fully defined until the 8th century. It doesn't mean they are unbiblical .
Bippy, what makes purgatory unbiblical, isn't when the doctrine was defined. Purgatory is unbiblical because it isn't in the bible.
Bippy wrote:
Rick, again I ask you
1. Do you believe in fullness of Christs teachings that were given to the apostles and passed down to the apostolic fathers. The fullness of Christs word, not just in written form but orally. If not then You only believe in Christs written word and not the oral tradition that was passed down from the apostles onward. Do you believe that you have the authority to interpret scripture personally or do you believe in Christs full word that he gave the power to bind and loose not to every Tom , **** or Harry but to Peter along with his disciples.
Bippy, if only Peter and his successors were given the power to bind and loose, like the Catholic Church teaches, then why were all the disciples given the power by Jesus, shown in Matthew 18:18?
If Peter was the supreme successor of Christ who has the keys to the kingdom to be able to bind and loose, then why is this same right also granted to the other disciples?

Bippy wrote:
but to Peter along with his(Peter's) disciples.
Bippy, this is not biblical. The disciples were Christ's not Peter's. You are taking the beliefs that the Catholic Church has about Peter, and making them facts. Peter was one of many disciples. He wasn't the chief disciple. If Peter was head disciple, then why did Paul have to rebuke him?

The Catholic church has no reservations claiming the supremacy of Peter. But the problem is that even Peter never claimed his own supremacy.
1 Peter 5:1-2:
5 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness;
Peter calls himself a fellow elder, not the head or leader.
Bippy wrote:
The bible does t interpret itself , it needs an authoritative interpreter or else there is chaos and thousands of different Churches each with their own personal interpretation.
Bippy, isn't it ironic that all cults need an "authoritative interpreter" too? Cults don't allow their followers to be able to interpret scripture themselves either. That doesn't trouble you?

Re: Questions Concerning Catholic Church Teachings

Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:04 am
by PaulSacramento
Personally I think we need to focus on what we have in common and NOT the differences.
That said it is clear that certain doctrines will always be a "wall" between denominations.
That said, we need to remember the words of Our Lord:
He who is not against me, is for me.
As long as the Gospel of Our Lord is being preached, that is a good thing.
IMO, the minor details of doctrinal differences, while they may mean a lot to us, probably mean very little to God since HE KNOWS what is in OUR hearts and, more importantly, WHY they are in our hearts.

Re: Questions Concerning Catholic Church Teachings

Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:48 am
by RickD
PaulSacramento wrote:Personally I think we need to focus on what we have in common and NOT the differences.
That said it is clear that certain doctrines will always be a "wall" between denominations.
That said, we need to remember the words of Our Lord:
He who is not against me, is for me.
As long as the Gospel of Our Lord is being preached, that is a good thing.
IMO, the minor details of doctrinal differences, while they may mean a lot to us, probably mean very little to God since HE KNOWS what is in OUR hearts and, more importantly, WHY they are in our hearts.
Paul, It is the false, unbiblical doctrine Itself that divides the Church. Bringing the false doctrine (in any denomination) to light doesn't divide. Paul, if you had a friend who was caught up in something you believed was harming him, would you not talk to him about it? Would you pretend the problem didn't exist?

Respectful communication about differences is rarely a bad thing.