Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

[BreadOfLife]

well, so you say BoL, but somewhere along the line, see, you decided that you were the arbiter, ok, and i understand why and all, but what shows to a blind guy i care not a whit, wadr. I mean if you cant read "Ignatius" right i feel for you, sympathize, but that does not make your statement any truer, see. The man was an unrepentant slimeball from jump st near as i can tell, i mean you got a secret stash of mein kampf over there, too bro?

I don't care HOW much you hate Ignatius of Loyola - this has ZERO to do with that. It has everything to do with what CHRIST commanded, which is to love and pray for your enemies - not to wish them into Hell.

I don't condemn you ONE BIT for your anti-Christ comment.
Scripture does . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

I don't care HOW much you hate Ignatius of Loyola - this has ZERO to do with that. It has everything to do with what CHRIST commanded, which is to love and pray for your enemies - not to wish them into Hell.

I don't condemn you ONE BIT for your anti-Christ comment.
Scripture does . . .

Jesus said to LOVE your enemies and to PRAY FOR them

wadr ol' St Igmo is not my enemy, and i am not interested in trying to teach swine what the Scriptural understanding of "enemy" even is here, so i'll leave you to your boxing at the air ok, have a nice day bol

If it weren't for Catholics - YOU wouldn't know who Christ is.
NOT not that you do anyway . . .

hilarious bro, ty for the chuckles. Paul knew the wolves would rush in as soon as he left, not sparing the flock, but i guess that prolly aint even in a DRB huh?

 

[bbyrd009]

The only salvation is outside the papist church inc, better believe that if you believe anything. Catholics who recant might find salvation, yes. A few. But obviously if one chooses to follow a guy who picked up the crown Jesus refused more than once, they are a Judas, who seeks to force a literal crown onto Christ, and this is not ever going to happen, see.

The RCC exists to be overthrown by you, the seeker, and you will not enter the kingdom unless you do so i guess, 1 Corinthians 15:24 Lexicon: then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. which prolly aint in a DRB either i guess?

which is maybe also why lapsed catholics seem to make the best seekers, dunno

 

[BreadOfLife]

I've got some questions. One is about male circumcision and about people who observe the sabbath. When the Catholic Church was trying to working out terms of unity with the Coptic Christians, one problem was that the Copts practiced infant circumcision. This was at the Ecumenical Council of Florence. The Papal Bull written by Pope Eugenius IV contains some strong language:

It [The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.

Is that still taught by the Catholic Church?

I wonder what Pope Eugenius IV would have to say about Paul who circumcised Timothy? Did they both lose any hope of eternal salvation, or did both Paul and Timothy "recoil at some time" from their error?

How does that Papal Bull issued from an Ecumenical Council match up with Scripture?

1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Am I wrong that Paul wasn't that bothered by what day people observed?

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

Now if the Pope had said it was a matter of practice only, that would be one thing, but he seems to have made it a matter of doctrine also.

To answer your question in RED - it lines up perfectly with Col. 2 and Acts 15.

First of all - Paul was a JEW. He came from a Jewish background and many of his Jewish customs AFTER coming to Christ were just that - Jewish customs.

In Acts 15, the Apostles- along with the HOLY SPIRIT denounced what the Judaizers were doing with Gentile Christians when they were telling them that they needed to be circumcised as a mater of FAITH and salvation
In Col. 2:16-17 - Paul emphasizes the fact that ALL of the ceremonial and ritual Laws of Moses were nailed to the cross. they they were SHADOW of what was to come and the CHRIST was the reality.

THAT is what the Pope was talking about. If people were being circumcised and observing Jewish ceremonial and ritual Law as a requirement of salvation - then they were violating the Gospel because those things were mere shadows of Christ. It shows a lack of faith for a Christian to feel the need to observe the Mosaic Law for his salvation. It is also outright Scriptural hypocrisy.

Now - with that said - the Bull was not "new doctrine". It was DISCIPLINARY. It was a threat of excommunication for those who practiced Jewish ceremony as a matter of salvation. The key phrase above in RED is: "unless they recoil at some time from these errors."

This is a clear-cut case of discipline by excommunication.

 

[Philip James]

' we will not have this man rule over us'

Is not an option that ends well...

'Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me.'

Peace be with you!

 

[BreadOfLife]

wadr ol' St Igmo is not my enemy, and i am not interested in trying to teach swine what the Scriptural understanding of "enemy" even is here, so i'll leave you to your boxing at the air ok, have a nice day bol

hilarious bro, ty for the chuckles. Paul knew the wolves would rush in as soon as he left, not sparing the flock, but i guess that prolly aint even in a DRB huh?

And you can make all of the jokes you way - but in the end, you STILL made an ANTI-Christ statement when you wished that somebody "rot in Hell."
Jesus said:

Matt. 7:2
For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

So, I suggest you wear something light . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

And you can make all of the jokes you way - but in the end, you STILL made an ANTI-Christ statement when you wished that somebody "rot in Hell."
Jesus said:

Matt. 7:2
For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

So, I suggest you wear something light . . .

but see you are still a blind ring-kisser, offering advice, so meh?
Why are you even here, papist scum? Catholic forums not good enough for you, eh?
And "St" Igmo is a scumbag too imo, ok? Now i understand that pigs need Rock Stars to look up to, but that is about as Christian as your satanic religion is, ok, the one that insists that it must be between me and Christ? Ha so tell me more about how i dont know Christ, blind guy, never said i did, see, that is for you and your deceived friends to commend each other to themselves about, yeh?

"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning."
- Calvin (Bill Watterson)

So, I suggest you wear something light . . .

yes, i already know its perfectly ok for you to do it huh

 

[GodsGrace]

And you keep trying to BLUR the fact that you're wrong by posting volumes of Church documents on marriage.
This has NOTHING to do with the discipline of withholding Communion. It is simply one CAUSE for the discipline.

Marriage IS a doctrinal matter - withholding communion is NOT - as I have already proven to you.
Whenever the Pope changes a discipline - there are Bishops who are against it. Abstaining from meat on EVERY Friday used to be a discipline in the Church but was changed to be observed during Lent only. Not everybody was happy about it but it was STILL only a discipline.

If the Pope changes the discipline on the celibate priesthood - there will be MUCH more protest than you see against Amoris Laetitia - but it would STILL only be a matter of DISCIPLINE, not doctrine.

Just admit when you're wrong and that you don't know what you;re talking about . . .

Listen BoL
There has been an UPROAR by Catholic Bishops over this....if I need to post google pages I will,,,

Conservatives want Catholic bishops to denounce pope as heretic - Reuters

Once again, bishops around the world differ on 'Amoris'

You know very well what an outcry there was over this "discipline"...as you put it.

As you must surely know,,,the EUCHARIST is not a discipline but is a DOCTRINE of the Catholic Church and dare I say that it is DOGMA....a person cannot be a catholic unless he believes in transubstantiation.

Discipline regarding the Eucharist has to do with HOW it is administered...
For instance:
Can one eat before receiving communion.
Can communion be offered by a lay person.
Can communion be taken in the hand.
Can communion be taken more than once per day.
etc.

These are disciplines that are subject to change.

What IS NOT subject to change is the FAITH that the church protects.
JESUS said that divorce caused ADULTERY.

A person remarried and living in ADULTERY CANNOT receive communion because they are living in mortal sin.

A person in MORTAL SIN CANNOT RECEIVE COMMUNION.
This is not a discipline.....

This is at the very least doctrine.....I'd go so far as to say it's dogma, but this could be debated.

IF A REMARRIED LIVING IN ADULTERY CAN RECEIVE COMMUNION....
then SO CAN ANYONE ELSE IN MORTAL SIN.....

How can you NOT understand the severity of this situation caused by Pope Francis.

He lost the respect of MANY in the catholic church...
priests, bishops and laity.

Did YOU receive the letter sent out by the Vatican in 2014 (maybe 2015) asking for opinion
on certain family matters AND on certain situations regarding the SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST?

Well, I happen to have received it. And I knew back then that this change would happen...
Many refused to believe it,,,but it DID happen and the catholic world was turned upside down for at least 2 or 3 years. It MIGHT be subsiding now....

No person with any common sense will believe this is a change to a discipline.
This is a change to a major catholic doctrine/dogma.

A dogma is a truth received from the bible.
Divorce is a truth received from Jesus.
Communion cannot be received when in Mortal Sin.
Remarriage is a mortal sin.

Pope Francis has declared that REMARRIAGE IS NOT A MORTAL SIN.
Is this a discipline according to you?

Those that cannot accept this change, such as yourself, find every excuse to get around it.
THERE IS NO GETTING AROUND IT.

If remarrieds can receive communion...
ANYONE can receive -- even those in ANY STATE OF MORTAL SIN.

CHANGE HAS COME TO A DOCTRINE/DOGMA.
ACCEPT IT.

 

[GodsGrace]

If it weren't for Catholics - YOU wouldn't know who Christ is.
NOT not that you do anyway . . .

Why do you stoop so low?
What a terrible comment to make.
As I've always said...you're a terrible example of catholicism.

I just hope everyone here is intelligent enough to realize not all
catholics are like you.

 

[GodsGrace]

I totally agree wiv u brudder, catholosim is nothing but a demonic religion. and their appostites, they don't even follow the bible 2 the most part, they've twisted scripture 2 their own twisted way, they follow traditions of men. Their bible doesn't even come from the true manuscripts, it was written by the alaxandrians in the 9th century, a cultic group dat did devil worship, hence the fruit of their church dat ur seeing 2day! child pedeophilia not 2 mention all the wicked things they've done in the past, all the innocent blood they've shed, 2 much to go into right now, not 2 mention all the cover up 2, they have a rap sheet a mile long.

Catholics have a different bible?
Could you quote the title and editor please?

I have a lot of catholic bibles in my small library and they're EXACTLY the same as the Protestant bibles except that they have an additional 7 books in the O.T.

And could you list some things they do that are not biblical?

 

[prism]

And Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin, Iraeneus.... Dominic, Francis, Therese... Andre, Fulton, JohnPaul....

The living witness of the Holy Spirit through the Church in Rome and in Alexandria and in Constantinople....

Do you need more names?

Peace be with you!

Fine, I'll stick with the witnesses that actually saw and heard Jesus even for 40 days after His resurrection (as well as the abiding Holy Spirit, Who 44 years ago has changed this spiritual derelict into one who worships the true God, and continues to do so)....

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete. (1Jn 1:1-4)

 

[prism]

If it weren't for Catholics - YOU wouldn't know who Christ is.

Matthew 3:9 (KJV) And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

 

[Philip James]

Fine, I'll stick with the witnesses that actually saw and heard Jesus even for 40 days after His resurrection

Hello prism,

Sure, let's hear from them:

Paul- For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you,

Peter- Likewise, you younger members, be subject to the presbyters. And all of you, clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings with one another, for: "God opposes the proud but bestows favor on the humble.

John- They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number.

I can give you more. But clearly the apostles appointed (ordained) presbyters and bishops to shephard the Church after them.

Are you within an apostolic community? If not, why not?

Peace be with you!

 

[bbyrd009]

as I have already proven to you.

you got it really bad, huh deathboy? You are a terminal case i guess huh? You bit that apple hard, ate the whole thing yeh?

 

[GodsGrace]

And you keep trying to BLUR the fact that you're wrong by posting volumes of Church documents on marriage.
This has NOTHING to do with the discipline of withholding Communion. It is simply one CAUSE for the discipline.

Marriage IS a doctrinal matter - withholding communion is NOT - as I have already proven to you.
Whenever the Pope changes a discipline - there are Bishops who are against it. Abstaining from meat on EVERY Friday used to be a discipline in the Church but was changed to be observed during Lent only. Not everybody was happy about it but it was STILL only a discipline.

If the Pope changes the discipline on the celibate priesthood - there will be MUCH more protest than you see against Amoris Laetitia - but it would STILL only be a matter of DISCIPLINE, not doctrine.

Just admit when you're wrong and that you don't know what you;re talking about . . .

P.S.
You think there would be outcry if priests were allowed to be married?
WHO do you think would care?
NOBODY.
Except the church....how would Rome financially support a whole family!

We don't have laity complaining about the EUCHARIST....
we have BISHOPS and priests complaining about this....
Because doctrine has changed.

 

[DoveSpirit05]

Catholics have a different bible?
Could you quote the title and editor please?

I have a lot of catholic bibles in my small library and they're EXACTLY the same as the Protestant bibles except that they have an additional 7 books in the O.T.

And could you list some things they do that are not biblical?

Yeah, dats the problem, protestants are just the reformation of the CC dat came about in the 16th-century, the RSV is just one of many, I could list so many things but i'll be here all day, but i'll just leave u with a verse 1 corith 11:27-30, I used 2 be an altar boy I know how they roll.

 

[amadeus]

Hah!
Others, greater than you, have called the end of the Church, yet we remain...

Am I company man? In the company of the saints, absoultely yes, by the Grace of God, and as always, you are welcome to join us...

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace!

Aye, all of the parts of the Body of Christ. All are to subject themselves to Head. Any that do not do so before the end of their course, will, I would presume, not be part of the Body.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yeah, dats the problem, protestants are just the reformation of the CC dat came about in the 16th-century, the RSV is just one of many, I could list so many things but i'll be here all day, but i'll just leave u with a verse 1 corith 11:27-30, I used 2 be an altar boy I know how they roll.

You were an altar boy and think the catholic church uses a different bible?
What does 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 mean?

 

[amadeus]

perfect bro, pious, meaningless, addresses absolutely zero post, self-aggrandizing, plus the get out of jail free thing, i think you nailed it!
crying for peace is just the cherry on top i guess

Of course receiving an invitation is not such an uncommon thing. However, to respond to the invite in a way acceptable to the One extending the invitation is quite another thing, is it not?

"And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
For many are called, but few are chosen." Matt 22:11-14

Just what exactly is that "wedding garment" which is so very essential, it would seem? Hmmm?

 

[GodsGrace]

Who says the authority comes from Jesus? IOW, We know that because....?

Didn't Jesus give Peter the keys to the Kingdom?
Mathew 16:19

The keys signify authority.

This is a nice story about how a key has authority:

King David's Keys - rodnajohn