Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

[Philip James]

listen to them, and give them a king

Give honor to all, love the community, fear God, honor the king

As her subject, i have a duty to honour Queen Elizabeth, and to pray for her.

Peace be with you!

 

[bbyrd009]

So are you ready for your next lesson in manners. I take it that you really do not have a grip on reality. Who says I would not like being exposed. With this poor attitude people are just going to pick on you. I do not see too many liars on this site. To error is human. You have to come up with a different word other than liar, your use of it just make you look stupid. This site could use another knowledgeable Catholic, but the way you interact with people no one is going to take you seriously. And you still owe GodsGrace an apology. So I am working on your next lesson in manners.

teaching fish to walk, hmm, good luck

 

[bbyrd009]

Give honor to all, love the community, fear God, honor the king

As her subject, i have a duty to honour Queen Elizabeth, and to pray for her.

Peace be with you!

ah well, you get to choose who you are subject to in the world, certainly
subject yourself to her if you like, ok with me.
Who made you her subject? Wasn't God, guarantee you that bro

 

[Philip James]

ah well, you get to choose who you are subject to in the world, certainly
subject yourself to her if you like, ok with me

Actually I don't. My fathers made oaths to the British crown and to the Queen of Canada.
Would you have me dishonour my fathers?

All authority comes from God. Rebellion is not an option.

Peace!

 

[bbyrd009]

Actually I don't. My fathers made oaths to the British crown and to the Queen of Canada.
Would you have me dishonour my fathers?

All authority comes from God. Rebellion is not an option.

then wadr why are you playing at following a Guy who adopted all of Caesar's titles on purpose, and ordained a guy "baptising in the river Jordan" in a Theocracy, two virtual Middle Fingers pumped up all the way at The Man? Rebellion is not an option? How about subjecting yourself is not an option? Your father's oath is not incumbent upon you, who tells you that you dishonor your father by not accepting his oath? Listen to them, and give them a king see, he chose, and you can choose too, you did choose, whether you see the choice or not ok. And you can change your mind any time you like, too. And no offense but you can pretend to Christianity until then all you like, i will even refer to you as one, but no one will be fooled ok, that is not already a fool

 

[Philip James]

then wadr why are you playing at following a Guy who adopted all of Caesar's titles on purpose, and ordained a guy "baptising in the river Jordan" in a Theocracy, two virtual Middle Fingers pumped up all the way at The Man? Rebellion is not an option? How about subjecting yourself is not an option? Your father's oath is not incumbent upon you, who tells you that you dishonor your father by not accepting his oath? Listen to them, and give them a king see, he chose, and you can choose too, you did choose, whether you see the choice or not ok. And you can change your mind any time you like, too. And no offense but you can pretend to Christianity until then all you like, i will even refer to you as one, but no one will be fooled ok, that is not already a fool

Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.

Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.

Peace be with you!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Good Morning BoL
In post no. 118, YOU challenged ME to an educated conversation regarding a change in the CC.

You don't seem to understand what the challenge is:
It is NOT whether remarrieds receiving communion is a
TEACHING....DISCIPLINE...or
a DOCTRINE.

YOU have made the claim, repeatedly, that there has been no change in
catholic Doctrine/Discipline.

I maintain that there HAS BEEN.

You quoted something from John Paul II for dummies...
which I did read.

As I stated, it actually helps my case because Pope John Paul II
affirmed that it is not within Catholic doctrine/discipline to allow remarrieds to receive communion.

The very fact that NOW THEY ARE ABLE TO proves my point and no further discussion should be necessary.

However, for those reading along, I DO believe we should give them a good lesson in Catholic theology.

YOU posted something from John Paul for Dummies.

I am going to post A FORMAL DOCUMENT FROM THE VATICAN...
where it is emphatically stated that communion to remarrieds IS FORBIDDEN.


PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS

DECLARATION

II. CONCERNING THE ADMISSION TO HOLY COMMUNION OF FAITHFUL WHO ARE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED

ONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS

DECLARATION

II. CONCERNING THE ADMISSION TO HOLY COMMUNION OF FAITHFUL WHO ARE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED

The Code of Canon Law establishes that "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion" (can. 915). In recent years some authors have sustained, using a variety of arguments, that this canon would not be applicable to faithful who are divorced and remarried. It is acknowledged that paragraph 84 of the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, issued in 1981, had reiterated that prohibition in unequivocal terms and that it has been expressly reaffirmed many times, especially in paragraph 1650 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1992, and in the Letter written in 1994 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Annus internationalis Familiae. That notwithstanding, the aforementioned authors offer various interpretations of the above-cited canon that exclude from its application the situation of those who are divorced and remarried. For example, since the text speaks of "grave sin", it would be necessary to establish the presence of all the conditions required for the existence of mortal sin, including those which are subjective, necessitating a judgment of a type that a minister of Communion could not make ab externo; moreover, given that the text speaks of those who "obstinately" persist in that sin, it would be necessary to verify an attitude of defiance on the part of an individual who had received a legitimate warning from the Pastor. Given this alleged contrast between the discipline of the 1983 Code and the constant teachings of the Church in this area, this Pontifical Council, in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments declares the following:

1. The prohibition found in the cited canon, by its nature, is derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church. The scriptural text on which the ecclesial tradition has always relied is that of St. Paul: "This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord. A man should examine himself first only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself."

This text concerns in the first place the individual faithful and their moral conscience, a reality that is expressed as well by the Code in can. 916. But the unworthiness that comes from being in a state of sin also poses a serious juridical problem in the Church: indeed the canon of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches that is parallel to can. 915 CIC of the Latin Church makes reference to the term "unworthy": "Those who are publicly unworthy are forbidden from receiving the Divine Eucharist" (can. 712). In effect, the reception of the Body of Christ when one is publicly unworthy constitutes an objective harm to the ecclesial communion: it is a behavior that affects the rights of the Church and of all the faithful to live in accord with the exigencies of that communion. In the concrete case of the admission to Holy Communion of faithful who are divorced and remarried, the scandal, understood as an action that prompts others towards wrongdoing, affects at the same time both the sacrament of the Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage. That scandal exists even if such behavior, unfortunately, no longer arouses surprise: in fact it is precisely with respect to the deformation of the conscience that it becomes more necessary for Pastors to act, with as much patience as firmness, as a protection to the sanctity of the S

source: Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts

You DID NOT reply to my post no. 139..
so I can only ASSUME that you AGREE WITH WHAT I POSTED.

This will take us to the next step.

Now you've gone from abject ignorance to full-blown LIES.

The excerpt I presented from the book, John Paul II for Dummies said NOTHING about this being a doctrine - only a discipline.
YOU changed it to "discipline/doctrine" - whicih is NOT what the book says.

You keep presenting texts regarding this discipline and dishonestly trying to pass them off as "doctrinal" explanations.
They're NOT - and you have failed again . . .

Now - since I presented textual evidence of this being a discipline - I now challenge YOU to present me with official text calling this a "DOCTRINE". CAN you do that??

I'm not holding my breath . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.

Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.

Peace be with you!

i didnt say dont be subordinate to the queen, that is a different concept from subjecting yourself to the queen, yes? Bam subordinate yourself to everyone, hurrah, but i mean if the frigging queen jumps off a bridge, you gonna too? If the queen tells you to push someone off a bridge, you gonna do that too? Heck ya, right?

The passage you Quote has nothing to do with what we are talking about even, but rather adhering to just laws based upon the Decalogue, diff concept entirely?

 

[BreadOfLife]

So are you ready for your next lesson in manners. I take it that you really do not have a grip on reality. Who says I would not like being exposed. With this poor attitude people are just going to pick on you. I do not see too many liars on this site. To error is human. You have to come up with a different word other than liar, your use of it just make you look stupid. This site could use another knowledgeable Catholic, but the way you interact with people no one is going to take you seriously. And you still owe GodsGrace an apology. So I am working on your next lesson in manners.

Well - you can continue to lie - and that is your choice.
However - I will expose you at every turn when you do.

If you or any of your other anti-Catholic drones wants to have a charitable conversation - take a lesson from the likes of @amadeus or @ByGrace. We disagree on several issues - but they don't ignorantly attack like you and you friends . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

may he rot in hell imo

For you to wish that on ANYBODY shows that you don't know Christ.

 

[Philip James]

i didnt say dont be subordinate to the queen, that is a different concept from subjecting yourself to the queen, yes?

The two ho hand on hand. And I did not subject 'myself' to the Queen, my fathers did, and I will honour that contract until the Crown releases me from it.

Bam subordinate yourself to everyone, hurrah, but i mean if the frigging queen jumps off a bridge, you gonna too? If the queen tells you to push someone off a bridge, you gonna do that too? Heck ya, right?

I am not required to obey unlawul commands from any authority, but I am required to submit to any pentalties imposed on me...

Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.

For whenever anyone bears the pain of unjust suffering because of consciousness of God, that is a grace.

But what credit is there if you are patient when beaten for doing wrong? But if you are patient when you suffer for doing what is good, this is a grace before God.


Peace be with you!

 

[bbyrd009]

For you to wish that on ANYBODY shows that you don't know Christ.

well, hell has a diff meaning for me BoL, i expect to goto the same place ol' Ig did for one, and for two i'm sure not asking an obviously blind person their opinion about what i know anyway, and i have not claimed to know Christ either, so while you are in no position right now to understand this, you naturally assume you are the arbiter bc you are Standing There and arent leaving any time soon either, i guess, but that amounts to less than a hill of beans to anyone else i guess, ok? Or at least me?

See as long as you are proving in every post that you are a quail-eater who believes their own bs, well that just goes along with embracing Paul's wolves which is all ol' St Igmo is anyway, yeh? Another pustule that needs to be popped? Who is St Ig anyway? Some Rock Star? The Ancient Mother T?
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Ignatius_of_Loyola

ha pls, as if hell was even bad enough for this religious clown, this usurper, this "dignitary?"

 

[bbyrd009]

The two ho hand on hand

no they dont, unless you need them to. Some other dur just told you that, and now you beleive it wadr

I am not required to obey unlawul commands from any authority

until they are made into law at least, and then what hmm?

 

[Philip James]

no they dont, unless you need them to. Some other dur just told you that, and now you beleive it wadr
until they are made into law at least, and then what hmm?

'non servium' continues to echo down through the ages I guess..

Pax!

 

[bbyrd009]

...but I am required to submit to any pentalties imposed on me...

Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.

For whenever anyone bears the pain of unjust suffering because of consciousness of God, that is a grace.

But what credit is there if you are patient when beaten for doing wrong? But if you are patient when you suffer for doing what is good, this is a grace before God.

no, you are not "required" to submit to any penalties imposed upon you either, and those vv are irrelevant to that point also. For example you are perfectly free to appeal, or even not submit, either peacefully or violently, but this "required" thing comes from your own imagination, ok, someone has convinced you that you are "required" to do something, and it wasnt God or Christ bro, it was the world, ok?

'non servium' continues to echo down through the ages I guess..

Pax!

pax your mother bro, and when you can show me the passage about Jesus serving the authorities we can pick this up again, ok?
"Non-servium" is some warlock stuff you learned somewhere, far as i'm concerned.
Sounds like Disney?

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi GG,

All men are free to reject the life that's offered fo them of course..

'this day I set before you life and death, choose life therefore that you might live'
Has ever been what God holds out for men..

Personally, i think most will be saved...

Those that knowingly and willfully reject the gift of life will be lost...

My personal opinion is that Jesus changed the default setting from death to life and that one must willfully and knowingly choose death to be forever lost..

I hope in HIS merciful judgement for all.

Peace be with you!

 

[bbyrd009]

few there are who find it

pax your mother bro, and when you can show me the passage about Jesus serving the authorities we can pick this up again, ok?

I mean no offense but you do not even have any business, whatsoever, on a Christian forum.
Not that Romans cant be saved too, but why arent you on a Roman forum? They do exist
well, sort of

 

[bbyrd009]

why do we let Catholics pretend to be Christians, anyway?

 

[GodsGrace]

I always lose your post!


@Philip James
Here it is:

Hi GG,

All men are free to reject the life that's offered fo them of course..

'this day I set before you life and death, choose life therefore that you might live'
Has ever been what God holds out for men..

Personally, i think most will be saved...

Those that knowingly and willfully reject the gift of life will be lost...

My personal opinion is that Jesus changed the default setting from death to life and that one must willfully and knowingly choose death to be forever lost..

I hope in HIS merciful judgement for all.

Peace be with you!

Your personal opinion goes against what Jesus and the writers of the N.T. taught. This is why it's not such a good idea to have personal opinion....

In Mathew 7:13-14 Jesus tells us that the gate to heaven is NARROW...
And the gate that leads to destruction is WIDE.
The Narrow and Wide Gates

13“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14“For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

It seems that Jesus is telling us that FEW will find the narrow gate.
Some because they don't search for it...
Some because they think they've found it but have not...

The N.T. teaches us that we are born LOST and become SAVED by believing in Jesus, who alone has life for us.
John:3:16-21

No church that I can think of teaches that we are born saved...
they all teach that we are born lost and must become saved.

 

[GodsGrace]

why do we let Catholics pretend to be Christians, anyway?

Come on bb...
Catholics believe in Christ...
Christ...
ChristIANS.

They have some doctrine wrong....
Don't we all?