CATHOLIC BASHING THREAD TITLES

[BreadOfLife]

The Ratings await you.

"Ratings"??
You know, Rollo - the more clueless you get, the more cryptic you become.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

*********************BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!************************
Organizations are made of people!!!
Anti-institution, anti-authority "Christians" are often in rebellion against their own reformist principles.

The Jerusalem Council certainly regarded its teachings as infallible, and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself.
The Bible repeatedly teaches that the Church is indefectible; therefore, the hypothetical of rejecting the (one true, historic) Church, as supposedly going against the Bible, is impossible according to the Bible. It is not a situation that would ever come up, because of God’s promised protection.

What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. It is Protestantism that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15).

We reject any form of Protestantism, because all fail the test of allegiance to God’s Word in Holy Scripture, and the historical pedigree that the fathers always taught was necessary. Every heretic in the history of the world thumbed their nose at the institutional Church and went by Scripture alone. It is the heretical worldview to do so, precisely because they know they can’t prove that their views were passed down through history in an unbroken succession.

Therefore, heresies and Protestantism either had to play games with history in order to pretend that it fits with their views, or ignore it altogether.

It is the pitting of the ultimate source against the secondary, human source (the Church) which is the problem in your approach and that of Protestantism in general. You guys don’t like human, institutional authority and don’t have enough faith to believe that God can and does preserve it, so you try to undermine it by fallacious arguments, as presently.

No doubt you aren’t even aware that you are doing it. To do this is automatic in Protestantism; it’s like breathing. It’s like the fish that doesn’t know it’s in water. It all comes from the rejection of the infallibility of the Church (which is one thing that sola Scriptura always entails).

In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, and the Catholic Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.

Wow, are you ever brainwashed.

 

[Josiah]

Actually - that's false.
I never "insisted" that the Catholic Church is a mere "denomination".

As Protestant historian, Kenneth Samples wrote in His treatise, "What Think Ye of Rome?":
"The Catholic Church is the Tree from which Protestantism originally splintered."

The first Protestant sects were offshoots (denominations) of the Catholic Church. NOW, there are tens of thousands of offshoots from those offshoots - and their offshoots.

Finally - I know that your favorite mantra is "the Catholic Church has unity with NONE" - but the same is true for every Protestant denomination. NONE of them have identical doctrinal unity - so your claim is as silly as it is impotent . . .

So much for your LOUD insistence that I am on your Ignore list....



But yes, you defined a denomination as a set of congregations with the SAME corpus of doctrines. Since the RCC owned and operated parishes (according to you) have the SAME corpus of doctrines, according to you - it's a denomination. And one in unity with NONE.

And yes, I have said many times that the RCC is not alone in having a unity of none - it's true for some Protestant denominations, too. But there is no other denomination on the planet that is worse than the RCC on this point since it is impossible to be in full doctrinal unity with less than none. So your old, tired, mantra about the RC having so much "unity" is silly and wrong, isn't it? The RC unity is no better than any other denomination, it is in full doctrinal unity with NONE but it itself (and even that in so limited a sense as to be meaningless). THAT'S ALL I WAS SAYING.... the old, worn mantra you are parroting is just wrong. Does NOT make your denomination bad or anything, just the claim wrong.




.

 

[BreadOfLife]

So much for your LOUD insistence that I am on your Ignore list....

But yes, you defined a denomination as a set of congregations with the SAME corpus of doctrines. Since the RCC owned and operated parishes (according to you) have the SAME corpus of doctrines, according to you - it's a denomination. And one in unity with NONE.

And yes, I have said many times that the RCC is not alone in having a unity of none - it's true for some Protestant denominations, too. But there is no other denomination on the planet that is worse than the RCC on this point since it is impossible to be in full doctrinal unity with less than none. So your old, tired, mantra about the RC having so much "unity" is silly and wrong, isn't it? The RC unity is no better than any other denomination, it is in full doctrinal unity with NONE but it itself (and even that in so limited a sense as to be meaningless). THAT'S ALL I WAS SAYING.... the old, worn mantra you are parroting is just wrong. Does NOT make your denomination bad or anything, just the claim wrong.

You must have me confused with somebody else.
I don't "ignore" ignorant anti-Catholics - I expose them.

As for your moronic clams - first of all, there is no such thing as "RC" or "RCC" that I know of - so your claims could be right or wrong. Who knows?

As for Protestant denominations not having unity - this is a fact of history.
NO 2 Protestant denominations have 100% doctrinal OR hierarchical agreement.

you really should do your homework before posting , , ,

 

[epostle1]

So which building in the catholic church does God live in?
You do realize you are describing the church as an organization and not individual people who have given their hearts to Jesus.

Ephesians 3:10 – the wisdom of God is known, even to the intellectually superior angels, through the Church (not the Scriptures). This is an incredible verse, for it tells us that God’s infinite wisdom comes to us through the Church. For that to happen, the Church must be protected from teaching error on faith and morals (or she wouldn’t be endowed with the wisdom of God).

Ephesians 5:32- Paul calls the Church a “mystery.” This means that the significance of the Church as the kingdom of God in our midst cannot be understood by reason alone. Understanding the Church also requires faith. “Church” does not mean a building of believers. That is not a mystery. Non-Catholics often view church as mere community, but not the supernatural mystery of Christ physically present among us.

 

[brakelite]

*********************BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!************************
Organizations are made of people!!!
Anti-institution, anti-authority "Christians" are often in rebellion against their own reformist principles.

The Jerusalem Council certainly regarded its teachings as infallible, and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself.
The Bible repeatedly teaches that the Church is indefectible; therefore, the hypothetical of rejecting the (one true, historic) Church, as supposedly going against the Bible, is impossible according to the Bible. It is not a situation that would ever come up, because of God’s promised protection.

What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. It is Protestantism that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15).

We reject any form of Protestantism, because all fail the test of allegiance to God’s Word in Holy Scripture, and the historical pedigree that the fathers always taught was necessary. Every heretic in the history of the world thumbed their nose at the institutional Church and went by Scripture alone. It is the heretical worldview to do so, precisely because they know they can’t prove that their views were passed down through history in an unbroken succession.

Therefore, heresies and Protestantism either had to play games with history in order to pretend that it fits with their views, or ignore it altogether.

It is the pitting of the ultimate source against the secondary, human source (the Church) which is the problem in your approach and that of Protestantism in general. You guys don’t like human, institutional authority and don’t have enough faith to believe that God can and does preserve it, so you try to undermine it by fallacious arguments, as presently.

No doubt you aren’t even aware that you are doing it. To do this is automatic in Protestantism; it’s like breathing. It’s like the fish that doesn’t know it’s in water. It all comes from the rejection of the infallibility of the Church (which is one thing that sola Scriptura always entails).

In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, and the Catholic Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.
Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a "Lone Ranger"?

I agree with just about everything above. One thing I have a problem with. The church Jesus established didn't have its beginning in Rome. It began in Jerusalem. You cleverly make it sound as if Jesus went to Rome, established His church there, and all other churches came about because of Roman missionaries. Sorry, but such is about as devious and blatant distortion of history as one can dredge up. The church, as I said, began in Jerusalem. From there it spread to may places, and Rome was just one of many. Those Biblical promises of protection, truth, and light belonged to all the churches which developed from those first evangelists/apostles of the early church in Jerusalem. Rome had no more rights or claim to authority and God's blessings then, than any other church in Asia, Europe, the Far East, Africa, or Britain, and nor does she have those rights today. That the Roman church of the 6th century accepted the favour of the emperor and the worldly titles and honours of man as a civil potentate as well as religious, means that that particular branch of the Christian church divorced itself from God through committing adultery with the kings of the earth...which in no way means that Jesus failed in protecting His church just because one small insignificant branch of it chose to apostatise.
The Celtic church in Britain didn't seek worldly glory and fame. The Assyrian church didn't seek political power and riches. Nor the church in India, Asia, or China. No, they simply spread the gospel which riled Satan no end, and he managed to convince the Roman church to persecute those churches wherever she had influence and demand their submission to the Popes or else the Popes would use secular armies to wipe them out. Which sadly saw the end and demise of many God fearing people throughout many centuries. Jesus has protected His Truth. It still can be found. But not in Rome.
You Jesuits should heed the words of Gamaliel. Take heed in attacking God's people...you are opposing God Himself.

 

[epostle]

I agree with just about everything above. One thing I have a problem with. The church Jesus established didn't have its beginning in Rome. It began in Jerusalem. You cleverly make it sound as if Jesus went to Rome, established His church there, and all other churches came about because of Roman missionaries. Sorry, but such is about as devious and blatant distortion of history as one can dredge up. The church, as I said, began in Jerusalem. From there it spread to may places, and Rome was just one of many. Those Biblical promises of protection, truth, and light belonged to all the churches which developed from those first evangelists/apostles of the early church in Jerusalem. Rome had no more rights or claim to authority and God's blessings then, than any other church in Asia, Europe, the Far East, Africa, or Britain, and nor does she have those rights today. That the Roman church of the 6th century accepted the favour of the emperor and the worldly titles and honours of man as a civil potentate as well as religious, means that that particular branch of the Christian church divorced itself from God through committing adultery with the kings of the earth...which in no way means that Jesus failed in protecting His church just because one small insignificant branch of it chose to apostatise.
The Celtic church in Britain didn't seek worldly glory and fame. The Assyrian church didn't seek political power and riches. Nor the church in India, Asia, or China. No, they simply spread the gospel which riled Satan no end, and he managed to convince the Roman church to persecute those churches wherever she had influence and demand their submission to the Popes or else the Popes would use secular armies to wipe them out. Which sadly saw the end and demise of many God fearing people throughout many centuries. Jesus has protected His Truth. It still can be found. But not in Rome.
You Jesuits should heed the words of Gamaliel. Take heed in attacking God's people...you are opposing God Himself.

Nowhere in any of my posts, on this board or any other board on the internet, have I said the Church had it's beginnings in Rome. NOT ONCE.

It's true there were a few bad popes, so stop pretending we deny it. About 10 out of 266, or 2.6%. That is an improvement over 1:12.
You give no names.
No historical context.
No accredited historian to back up your false history (no accredited historian in their right mind would back up your psychotic screeching)
And all the bad popes put together DOES NOT DISCREDIT THE DOCTRINE OF THE PAPACY.
If satan himself were to somehow become pope, he would do a lot of damage, but he could NEVER teach an error because the Holy Spirit wouldn't let him.
Your hate propaganda against the CC flows from the teachings of an occult channelist, so your credibility is in the toilet.
BTW, we make jokes about fundies and cultists and their stupid Jesuit fixations.
+++++++++++++++++++++

The basic assumptions the typical Evangelical has about the papacy are part of the wallpaper in the Evangelical world. Being brought up in an independent Bible Church, I was taught that our little fellowship of Christians meeting to study the Bible, pray and sing gospel songs was like the ‘early Christians’ meeting in their house churches. I had a mental picture of ‘Catholic Pope’ which I had pieced together from a whole range of biased sources. When I heard the word ‘pope’ I pictured a corpulent Italian with the juicy name “Borgia” who drank a lot of wine, was supposed to be celibate, but who not only had mistresses, but sons who he called ‘nephews’. This ‘pope’ had big banquets in one of his many palaces, was very rich, rode out to war when he felt like it and liked to tell Michelangelo how to paint. That this ‘pope’ was a later invention of the corrupt Catholic Church was simply part of the whole colorful story.

But of course, the idea that the florid Renaissance pope is typical of all popes is not a Catholic invention, but a Protestant one. Protestantism has been compelled to rewrite all history according to it’s own necessities. As French historian Augustin Thierry has written, “To live, Protestantism found itself forced to build up a history of its own.”
Authority of the First Popes - Fr. Dwight Longenecker

"...However, seeing the pope as merely a temporal ruler and disapproving is to be too simplistic. Catholics understand the pope’s power to be spiritual. While certain popes did assume temporal power, they often did so reluctantly, and did not always wield that power in a corrupt way. Whether popes should have assumed worldly wealth and power is arguable, but at the heart of their ministry, like the Lord they served, they should have known that their kingdom was not of this world. Their rule was to be hierarchical and monarchical in the sense that they were serving the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It was not first and foremost to be hierarchical and monarchical in the worldly sense.

The Protestant idea that the papacy was a fifth century invention relies on a false understanding of the papacy itself. After the establishment of the church at Constantine’s conversion the church hierarchy did indeed become more influential in the kingdoms of this world, but that is not the essence of the papacy. The essence of the papacy lies in Jesus’ ordination of Peter as his royal steward, and his commission to assume the role of Good Shepherd in Christ’s absence. The idea, therefore, that Leo the Great was the first ‘pope’ is a red herring based on a misunderstanding of the pope’s true role.
The Early Papacy - 3 - Fr. Dwight Longenecker

 

[Helen]

@epostle
Where has your "epostle 1" gone?
Where are all your posts?...I thought @lforrest was going to blend all the posts from both of your user names...and now we have a THIRD name!!

 

[epostle]

List of popes - Wikipedia
I don't like using wikedpedia for Catholic information, I'm using it for those who would be suspicious of bias had I used the Catholic Encyclopedia. Bios are hyperlinked. All 6th century, refuting brokelight's SDA propaganda.

 

[epostle]

@epostle
Where has your "epostle 1" gone?
Where are all your posts?...I thought @lforrest was going to blend all the posts from both of your user names...and now we have a THIRD name!!

no, just one. lforrest said he would fuse the two and it didn't work. both got locked out

 

[Helen]

no, just one. lforrest said he would fuse the two and it didn't work. both got locked out

Oh NO!!! Can you use this on on both of your search engines ?
( which was the start of all the problems for you. )

 

[brakelite]

Nowhere in any of my posts, on this board or any other board on the internet, have I said the Church had it's beginnings in Rome. NOT ONCE.
It's true there were a few bad popes, so stop pretending we deny it. About 10 out of 266, or 2.6%. That is an improvement over 1:12.
You give no names.
No historical context.
No accredited historian to back up your false history (no accredited historian in their right mind would back up your psychotic screeching)
And all the bad popes put together DOES NOT DISCREDIT THE DOCTRINE OF THE PAPACY.
If satan himself were to somehow become pope, he would do a lot of damage, but he could NEVER teach an error because the Holy Spirit wouldn't let him.
Your hate propaganda against the CC flows from the teachings of an occult channelist, so your credibility is in the toilet.
BTW, we make jokes about fundies and cultists and their stupid Jesuit fixations.

I did not say that you had stated that the church began in Rome. I merely said you make it sound as if that is the case.

False history...psychotic screeching??? Hahaha. Are you actually attempting to convince us all that there was ever only one church, and that was in Rome???
What happened to the church that Thomas established in Goa, India?
What happened to the church that was founded in Britain before even Patrick came on the scene?
What happened to the church that was established by Paul and others throughout Asia?
What happened to the church that was founded in the middle east, known as the Assyrian church?
What of their "authority"? What of the promises that their truth would never be prevailed against?????
If you claim that they were all apostate churches, then why did Jesus fail with them but succeed with Rome? If they could apostatise, then why not Rome???????

 

[epostle]

Wow, are you ever brainwashed.

Wow, are you ever illiterate.

 

[brakelite]

Nowhere in any of my posts, on this board or any other board on the internet, have I said the Church had it's beginnings in Rome. NOT ONCE.

Your accusation of me using a straw-man argument is in fact a straw-man argument. Why? Because as I explained above, I didn't suggest you were making the claim that the church began in Rome, but writing in such a fashion as to give the impression that Rome was the first church. In fact, your entire argument re Jesus's authority and blessing and promises applying to only the Catholic church based in Rome demands the non-existence of any other churches developing outside of the Roman communion. History attests to that being untrue.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Ephesians 3:10 – the wisdom of God is known, even to the intellectually superior angels, through the Church (not the Scriptures). This is an incredible verse, for it tells us that God’s infinite wisdom comes to us through the Church. For that to happen, the Church must be protected from teaching error on faith and morals (or she wouldn’t be endowed with the wisdom of God).

Ephesians 5:32- Paul calls the Church a “mystery.” This means that the significance of the Church as the kingdom of God in our midst cannot be understood by reason alone. Understanding the Church also requires faith. “Church” does not mean a building of believers. That is not a mystery. Non-Catholics often view church as mere community, but not the supernatural mystery of Christ physically present among us.

Oh, I thought you were gonna tell me that the pope is God on earth, that's why you call him Holy Father

 

[Josiah]

As for Protestant denominations not having unity - this is a fact of history.
NO 2 Protestant denominations have 100% doctrinal OR hierarchical agreement.

The Catholic Church is in exactly the same reality. It has NO other church in which it is in 100% doctrinal or hierarchical agreeement.

I realize you are just parroting a old, old, tired and obviously WRONG talking point of some Catholics.... but you are just shooting yourself in the foot as you do it, you simply are showing the Catholic Church is no different, no better in this sense than any other denomination. Like many, there is no full unity beyond itself.

That's not a rebuke, it's not "anti-Catholic." Indeed, I have freely admitted the same is true for many other denominations, too. It's just noting the obvious: Your church is no better than any other in this way, it too does NOT have 100% doctrinal or hierarchical agreement with any other. Your parroted claim is wrong.... and silly... and just shooting yourself in the foot.

I'll say AGAIN. There is MUCH - very much - that is great about your denomination, things many of us greatly admire, many things to hold in esteem. I believe yours is one of the best churches there is. But ODDLY, Catholics of your type never talk about those - they too often just keep parroting, over and over and over and over and over, the same silly and wrong "talking points" and then seem amazed when non-Catholics point out the error in such. I'm amazed to see well-meaning Catholics doing their church so much harm.


- Josiah




.

 

[Enoch111]

I believe yours is one of the best churches there is.

I don't believe this is accurate in the least. The Catholic Church (or the Roman Catholic Church) is sending people to Hell with its false gospel. Any other gospel than the true Gospel of Christ is under a curse. See Galatians chapter 1, then study the Catechism of the Catholic Church quoted below (in red).

1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation*."Sacramental grace" is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.
*51 Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1604.[The Council of Trent was meant to totally condemn Protestants and evangelical truth]

1210 Christ instituted the sacraments of the new law. There are seven: Baptism, Confirmation (or Chrismation), the Eucharist, Penance, the Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders and Matrimony. The seven sacraments touch all the stages and all the important moments of Christian life: they give birth and increase, healing and mission to the Christian's life of faith. There is thus a certain resemblance between the stages of natural life and the stages of the spiritual life.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation*. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 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.62 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.
*60 Cf. Jn 3:5. ["Water" is a metaphor for the Word of God, the Gospel]

Did the Lord affirm that baptism is necessary for salvation in John 3:5? How could He do that and not contradict Himself? This is what He said in John 11:25,26, and there is no mention of water baptism in this statement (which is matched by many other similar statements in this Gospel).

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Therefore this is what we read in Acts 16:30,31: And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

I don't believe this is accurate in the least. The Catholic Church (or the Roman Catholic Church) is sending people to Hell with its false gospel.

If the Catholic believes in the Lord Jesus Christ and that God raised Him from the dead, in according to His word, they are saved, EVEN THOUGH they do not believe they are saved yet by believing so. This is the warning Paul gave in Hebrews 4:1-11 about laboring in unbelief in coming short of that rest in Jesus Christ.

Also, if one is turned away from believing in Him altogether, they are not going to hell either because He is faithful as He still abides in former believers.

Any other gospel than the true Gospel of Christ is under a curse. See Galatians chapter 1, then study the Catechism of the Catholic Church quoted below (in red).

Unless they repent, they run the risk of being cursed or damned as vessels unto dishonor in His House as in left behind at the pre great trib rapture. This is where the vessels unto dishonour comes from that are still in His House; as in not heeding the call to depart from iniquity; 2 Timothy 2:18-21

1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation*."Sacramental grace" is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.
*51 Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1604.[The Council of Trent was meant to totally condemn Protestants and evangelical truth]

1210 Christ instituted the sacraments of the new law. There are seven: Baptism, Confirmation (or Chrismation), the Eucharist, Penance, the Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders and Matrimony. The seven sacraments touch all the stages and all the important moments of Christian life: they give birth and increase, healing and mission to the Christian's life of faith. There is thus a certain resemblance between the stages of natural life and the stages of the spiritual life.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation*. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 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.62 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.
*60 Cf. Jn 3:5.

Did the Lord affirm that baptism is necessary for salvation in John 3:5? How could He do that and not contradict Himself? This is what He said in John 11:25,26, and there is no mention of water baptism in this statement (which is matched by many other similar statements in this Gospel).

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Therefore this is what we read in Acts 16:30,31: And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

It is unfortunate that believers are more loyal to their church and its teachings and its place in history rather than to Jesus Christ our Lord & Saviour. We are called to be witnesses of Him as led by the Spirit in us to do, in seeking the glory of the Son, and by Him, the glory of God the Father. We are not called to bear witness of our church in seeking the glory of the church as if the Good News is about the Church rather than Jesus Christ.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Catholic Church is in exactly the same reality. It has NO other church in which it is in 100% doctrinal or hierarchical agreeement.

I realize you are just parroting a old, old, tired and obviously WRONG talking point of some Catholics.... but you are just shooting yourself in the foot as you do it, you simply are showing the Catholic Church is no different, no better in this sense than any other denomination. Like many, there is no full unity beyond itself.

That's not a rebuke, it's not "anti-Catholic." Indeed, I have freely admitted the same is true for many other denominations, too. It's just noting the obvious: Your church is no better than any other in this way, it too does NOT have 100% doctrinal or hierarchical agreement with any other. Your parroted claim is wrong.... and silly... and just shooting yourself in the foot.

I'll say AGAIN. There is MUCH - very much - that is great about your denomination, things many of us greatly admire, many things to hold in esteem. I believe yours is one of the best churches there is. But ODDLY, Catholics of your type never talk about those - they too often just keep parroting, over and over and over and over and over, the same silly and wrong "talking points" and then seem amazed when non-Catholics point out the error in such. I'm amazed to see well-meaning Catholics doing their church so much harm.
- Josiah

I find it funny that you keep repeating the same tired mantra above in RED - yet you can't explain to be just WHY the Catholic Church should have 100% doctrinal or hierarchical agreement with ANY renegade offshoot.

Why would the Church, which is the fullness of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23) settle for anything less??

 

[Helen]

If the Catholic believes in the Lord Jesus Christ and that God raised Him from the dead, in according to His word, they are saved, EVEN THOUGH they do not believe they are saved yet by believing so. This is the warning Paul gave in Hebrews 4:1-11 about laboring in unbelief in coming short of that rest in Jesus Christ.

Also, if one is turned away from believing in Him altogether, they are not going to hell either because He is faithful as He still abides in former believers.

Unless they repent, they run the risk of being cursed or damned as vessels unto dishonor in His House as in left behind at the pre great trib rapture. This is where the vessels unto dishonour comes from that are still in His House; as in not heeding the call to depart from iniquity; 2 Timothy 2:18-21

It is unfortunate that believers are more loyal to their church and its teachings and its place in history rather than to Jesus Christ our Lord & Saviour. We are called to be witnesses of Him as led by the Spirit in us to do, in seeking the glory of the Son, and by Him, the glory of God the Father. We are not called to bear witness of our church in seeking the glory of the church as if the Good News is about the Church rather than Jesus Christ.

Excellent post...well said.