The myth of grace-only & easy-believism shattered forever

[Enow]

Yes there is … Eph 1:22-23 says the “Church” is the “fullness” of Christ - Christ is perfect, so therefore his Church is also perfect. The Church is perfect because it is guided by the Holy Spirit “into all truth” and cannot teach error - however, none of the Church’s individual members are perfect, as we are all sinners.

I believe the perfection is referring to our future resurrected state. Currently there is no perfect church when even Paul admits he is not perfect yet.

Philippians 3:12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, 14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. 16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. 17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. 18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.) 20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: 21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

I point out that the apostle John referred to the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide individual believers into all truth; not the Church.

1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.... 26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. 29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

Having a history of 7 "known' corrupt Popes living in unrepentant sins leaves that doctrine of the infallible Popes much to be desired & to be rejected as a doctrine of men, and certainly not a tradition plainly taught by His disciples. `Spiritual leaders should live by the Spirit of God as they teach by the Spirit of God. If they do not live by the Spirit of God, then they certainly can not teach by the Spirit of God.

Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. 19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. 20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

Scripture reproves the doctrine of the infallible Pope as contrived by men to excuse themselves for living in sin and walking in darkness so that the undiscerning masses will not question any teaching not supported by scripture. May the Lord Jesus Christ wakes you up.

 

[Enow]

The Church is the Word of God and therefore her appointed bishops and priests rule over me in spiritual matters.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God, not the Church. The Church is to be subjected to the Word of God, hence Jesus Christ the Lord. That means the appointed bishops and priests are to follow by example as yielding to the Word of God thus by following their examples, the followers submit to the Word of God, not them. When they go astray, and they have been, followers are required to subject them to the Word of God or excommunicate them if they refuse to repent by saying they can do no wrong.

Because they represent God, I am happy to address them as “Father” in the spiritual sense. Furthermore, Paul called himself a spiritual “father” to those under his care. I believe the apostle John and I believe the CC, but I don’t believe you.

Paul may refer to how he relates to them as a spiritual father in setting the example, but as for ruling as a father in a household, no. You would have support from scripture if they actually addresses one another as father Paul or father Peter or father John, but they did not, not even when referring to one another in letters.

If the Holy Spirit teaches you “all things” (1John 2:27), why do need to read the Bible? ... and why does Christ provide “apostles … prophets … evangelists … pastors and teachers” (Eph 4:11)?

For the perfecting of the believers by the scriptures. For individual learning, the witness of the Holy Ghost and the witness of scripture confirms truth as 2 witnesses is required for any truth to be known as per John 8:17.

Furthermore, if the HS teaches you “all things”, why are there other believers who disagree with your doctrine?

Going from the scripture that reproves long held church traditions and practices is why believers are having a hard time hearing Him. When you believe the church can do no wrong, you will not be able to receive that truth from Him through the scriptures. The same goes for non-Catholic churches.

You’ve misinterpreted these words from the passage you quote above - “ye need not that any man teach you” - which says the Holy Spirit (“the anointing”) will show (“teach”) the believer who the “antichrists” (v.1) are.

I believe the apostle John was signifying that we can rely on Jesus Christ to be our Good Shepherd thru the Holy Spirit in us where we are not reliant on man to teach us all things true.

 

[Enow]

Sorry, I don’t know what you mean.

Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:19 has saints breaks the least of His commandments and teach others are "called" the least in the kingdom of heaven. So from your point of view, how can a Catholic break any of those commandments to be a Catholic and still be called the least in the kingdom of heaven?

Before you write your answer, remember that Protestants were Catholics.

Are you saying the one true Church does not exist?

Not for how you mean it to be as per the Catholic Church herself, no. The body of Christ exists but whether or not an assembly of believers are abiding in Him, let alone the individual believer at that city is another matter.

If the one true Church doesn’t exist, then the Holy Spirit has failed miserably and Christianity is a chaotic, confused mess and a farce.

Jesus Christ is perfect. No one else, let alone a church is perfect yet to be called the true church.

What makes you say that?

Only 2 churches out of 7 in Revelations were without reproof and yet they were not called a true church or true churches. They each had the encouragement to continue to hold fast, which is an indicator that they too can fall away unless they hold fast the traditions taught of us as handed down from the N.T. and not the CC.

Ya got that right! - there are thousands of so-called churches that have gone astray … all the non-Catholic ones. But Jesus promised that his one, true Church would not go astray, when he said “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16)

No, Jesus was talking about what Peter had said about Jesus being the Christ, the Son of the living God and it is that the chief cornerstone. Paul agrees. Paul did not refer to Peter being that Rock, but Christ was and is the Rock.

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

.… which is what the Catholic Church teaches.Your Bible says Christ appoints “apostles … pastors and teachers” (Eph 4:11), who are obviously leaders of the Church and have authority over others. Jesus appointed Peter to be the shepherd of the Church (John 21:16-18).No Catholic doctrine needs to proven by the Scriptures. The mere fact that a doctrine is taught by the Catholic Church means that doctrine is the infallible word of God. Jesus didn’t say, The Scriptures will guide you into all truth - he said, The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth (John 16:13).

To assign the Catholic Church in place of Jesus Christ as the Good Shepherd thru the Holy Spirit in each believer is to allow a thief between you & Him.

John 10:1Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.... 7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. 10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

Pray about this at that throne of grace and expect an answer from your Good Shepherd rather than your CC.

 

[Enow]

So it looks like we agree that it is not as easy as calling upon the name of the Lord to become saved (which is what you originally alleged). I agree with you that we must build upon that foundation.

Whatever you build on that foundation which was laid by Jesus Christ will be judged, but that foundation remains, meaning salvation cannot be removed, but anything that is not of Him will be removed off of that foundation the hard way when the Bridegroom comes where one can incur a physical death ( 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 ) , but the spirit is still saved as per 1 Corinthians 3:15. See?

We are saved regardless of what we build on that foundation, but which resurrection do we want? The firstfruits of the resurrection as found abiding in Him to be that vessel unto honor in His House or be found in iniquity that denies Him for why He would deny us access to the Marriage Supper in Heaven and thus be resurrected after the great tribulation as vessels unto dishonor but still in His House as per verse 20 of 2 Timothy 2:19-21 ?

 

[Enow]

BINGO.

And I cite the Pope as another example of a saint being given accolades even though he doesn't seek them.
He is the Servant of the servants of God.

Propping themselves as offering a door as the means to salvation is setting themselves up for accolades. It is false modesty.

It's "wrong" to tell a Catholic to go back to their faith??

Just explaining why I believe you liked him, is all.

That's just another stupid anti-Catholic remark - and yet another reason I don't take people like you seriously . . .

Well, I do not agree with the CC nor the works of Catholicism as they pretty much deny Jesus as the Savior when they promote the CC as the means by which believers can save themselves by just as I do not agree with what Billy Graham promoted gaining the assurance of salvation by striving to keep their commitment to follow Christ. I consider both as laboring in unbelief even though they are saved for believing in the Lord Jesus Christ and that God had raised Him from the dead, and I believe God will judge the works on that foundation that denies Him as Savior because they had been saved, and unless they repent, they will be denied, as in disqualified to participate in the firstfruits of the resurrection to attend the Marriage Supper in His honor.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Propping themselves as offering a door as the means to salvation is setting themselves up for accolades. It is false modesty.

This is a LIE.

The Pope doesn't say that salvation is through him.
This would be heresy.

Just explaining why I believe you liked him, is all.

Don't assume . . .

Well, I do not agree with the CC nor the works of Catholicism as they pretty much deny Jesus as the Savior when they promote the CC as the means by which believers can save themselves by just as I do not agree with what Billy Graham promoted gaining the assurance of salvation by striving to keep their commitment to follow Christ. I consider both as laboring in unbelief even though they are saved for believing in the Lord Jesus Christ and that God had raised Him from the dead, and I believe God will judge the works on that foundation that denies Him as Savior because they had been saved, and unless they repent, they will be denied, as in disqualified to participate in the firstfruits of the resurrection to attend the Marriage Supper in His honor.

And once again - YOU made the false claim that the Catholic Church teaches that we "earn" our way into Heaven - which is a LIE.
How can you be expected to be taken seriously when you spew these kinds of lies just to make a point?

If you want to have a serious discussion - leave the BS at the door and stick to the facts . . .

 

[Enow]

This is a LIE.

The Pope doesn't say that salvation is through him.
This would be heresy.

Every Pope that represents the head of the Catholic Church as being the door to salvation is, without referring to himself.

Don't assume . . .

And once again - YOU made the false claim that the Catholic Church teaches that we "earn" our way into Heaven - which is a LIE.
How can you be expected to be taken seriously when you spew these kinds of lies just to make a point?

If you want to have a serious discussion - leave the BS at the door and stick to the facts . . .

And yet those that are not a member of the Catholic Church are not considered "Christians"?

"Vatican City, Rome – Pope Francis said that people cannot be Christians without the Church, explaining that Christian identity is rooted in it and that believers cannot stand alone.

“Our Christian identity is belonging to a people: the Church. Without this, we are not Christians. We entered the Church through baptism: there we are Christians,” Francis said during Mass on Thursday, Vatican Radio reported."

Pope Francis Says Christians Do Not Exist Outside The Roman Catholic Church • Now The End Begins

How am I not taking it right that salvation is only within her doors? Care to explain the quotes?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Every Pope that represents the head of the Catholic Church as being the door to salvation is, without referring to himself.

And yet those that are not a member of the Catholic Church are not considered "Christians"?

"Vatican City, Rome – Pope Francis said that people cannot be Christians without the Church, explaining that Christian identity is rooted in it and that believers cannot stand alone.

“Our Christian identity is belonging to a people: the Church. Without this, we are not Christians. We entered the Church through baptism: there we are Christians,” Francis said during Mass on Thursday, Vatican Radio reported."

Pope Francis Says Christians Do Not Exist Outside The Roman Catholic Church • Now The End Begins

How am I not taking it right that salvation is only within her doors? Care to explain the quotes?

First of all - Francis NEVER said that one must be a "ROMAN" Catholic to be a Christian. that is complete nonsense that YOU have falsely stated.
"Roman" simply refer to a Liturgical Rite in the Catholic Church. There are about TWENTY Liturgical Rites - and they are ALL in communion with each other.

Secondly - the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church IS taught.
HOWEVER, because YOU are dishonest and refuse to do your homework and would rather spread falsehoods - you didn't post the actual teaching.
Here it is from the Catechism:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

 

[Truther]

And I already obliterated this moronic position back in post #2236.
Here it is again - in case you missed it . . .

Time for another linguistics lesson . . .

From Macmillan Dictionary:

1. REPRESENTING someone or something
Ex. - They said they came “in the name of peace.”

From Cambridge Dictionary:
1. REPRESENTING someone or something
Ex. - "Open up in the name of the law" before they broke the door down.

From Thesaurus.com:
“In the name of” synonyms
1. THROUGH
2. THROUGH the agency of
3. Under the AUTHORITY of

From english.stackesxhange.com:
What does “in the name of…” actually mean?
Putting all religious contentions aside for the sake of our language, the etymology of name offers a good place to start understanding:

Old English nama, noma "name, reputation,"
from Proto-Germanic *namon

(cognates: Old Saxon namo, Old Frisian nama, Old High German namo, German Name, Middle Dutch name, Dutch naam, Old Norse nafn, Gothic namo "name"),

from PIE *nomn- (cognates: Sanskrit nama; Avestan nama; Greek onoma, onyma; Latin nomen; Old Church Slavonic ime, genitive imene; Russian imya; Old Irish ainm; Old Welsh anu "name").
IN ALL CULTURES, people of authority have always lent their reputation and their authority to their delegates. The founders and leaders of religious movements use the same delegation strategies as the founders and leaders of nations.
The English phrase in the name of simply asserts the reputation and authority of another person.

Here us an example from classic literature:
Victor Hugo's “Dramas” 1519, page 364:
“Richard Varney, in the name of God and Saint George we dub thee knight!”

This doesn’t state God’s “Singular name” as YOU keep insisting it must.

.....Commentary debunks the Bible per the Roman Catholic.

That is obvious.

Anything to do away with the name of Jesus and replace it with the name of any male(son).

Sick doctrine fella

 

[Truther]

Ummmm, can you show me where the Bible makes this idiotic claim?

Chapter and Verse, please . . .

Col 2:9

 

[Truther]

The desperate words of a person who has publicly LOST another argument.

I've already shown you the verses of Scripture that prove the Trinity. WHY is it that you can't refute them??
Gen. 1:26, Matt. 28:19, John 15:26, 1 Cor. 12:4-6, 2 Cor. 13:14, 1 John 5:7, Eph. 4:6, Psalm 68:5, Mal. 2:10, Isa. 63:16, 2 Cor. 1:3-4, John 3:16, John 8:41, 1 Thess. 3:13, Isa. 7:14, Isa. 9:6, John 1:1, John 1:3, John 8:58, John 10:30, John 15:9, John 20:28, Acts 5:3-4, 2 Cor. 4:4, Phil. 2:6, Col. 2:9, 1 Tim. 3:16, Heb. 1:8, Tit. 2:13, John 14:16-18, Luke 12:10, 2 Cor. 3:17, 2 Cor. 13:5, John 14:23, Acts 5:3-4

The trinity is God and a man?

I see now, God the Father, God the Man and God the Holy Ghost.

Wasn’t the 2nd person a microscopic sperm cell when He started?

 

[Enow]

First of all - Francis NEVER said that one must be a "ROMAN" Catholic to be a Christian. that is complete nonsense that YOU have falsely stated.

I never mentioned "Roman". That was from the title of the article I was quoting from at that web site. You guys can dance around that issue of RCC and the CC all you want but you are referring to the Church at Rome when it comes to origins of Catholic doctrines.

"Roman" simply refer to a Liturgical Rite in the Catholic Church. There are about TWENTY Liturgical Rites - and they are ALL in communion with each other.

If all in communion with each other than why have a conniption about anything referred to as Roman?

Secondly - the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church IS taught.
HOWEVER, because YOU are dishonest and refuse to do your homework and would rather spread falsehoods - you didn't post the actual teaching.
Here it is from the Catechism:

Check out the title you put there as quoting from the Catholic catechism.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

When you read #847 again, the way it is worded is towards all non-Catholics as those words were to serve as a reproof towards that were Catholics that turned Protestant. It is to the Protestants through the fault of their own that did know the Catholic's "gospel" that refuse to stay within.

You can't say that 847 does not apply only to non-believers because they do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church. See? #847 cannot apply to Protestants that refuse to remain within for why it is written that they are not saved because they know about the gospel of Christ.

So actually you only proven my point rather than yours. You are not seeing how it is written, because then if you really believe that applies to all Non-Catholic Christians & not just unbelievers, then you would have the Catholic catechism speaking out of both sides of their mouths. You can't say one thing and then say something that is the completely opposite of what they just written and several times too.

 

[BreadOfLife]

.....Commentary debunks the Bible per the Roman Catholic.
That is obvious.
Anything to do away with the name of Jesus and replace it with the name of any male(son).
Sick doctrine fella

In other words - you can't refute the linguistic facts I presented that DESTROY your position.

That's what I thought . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

The trinity is God and a man?

I see now, God the Father, God the Man and God the Holy Ghost.

Wasn’t the 2nd person a microscopic sperm cell when He started?

The Son is BOTH Human AND Divine.
NOT that difficult to grasp - for a person of faith, that is . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I never mentioned "Roman". That was from the title of the article I was quoting from at that web site. You guys can dance around that issue of RCC and the CC all you want but you are referring to the Church at Rome when it comes to origins of Catholic doctrines.

If all in communion with each other than why have a conniption about anything referred to as Roman?

Check out the title you put there as quoting from the Catholic catechism.

When you read #847 again, the way it is worded is towards all non-Catholics as those words were to serve as a reproof towards that were Catholics that turned Protestant. It is to the Protestants through the fault of their own that did know the Catholic's "gospel" that refuse to stay within.

You can't say that 847 does not apply only to non-believers because they do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church. See? #847 cannot apply to Protestants that refuse to remain within for why it is written that they are not saved because they know about the gospel of Christ.

So actually you only proven my point rather than yours. You are not seeing how it is written, because then if you really believe that applies to all Non-Catholic Christians & not just unbelievers, then you would have the Catholic catechism speaking out of both sides of their mouths. You can't say one thing and then say something that is the completely opposite of what they just written and several times too.

WRONG.
The teaching I presented from the Catechism is NOT aimed only at Protestants - but at EVERYBODY who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church

As for the "Roman" issue - you are LYING again.
This is what YOU posted in post #2267:
Pope Francis Says Christians Do Not Exist Outside The ROMAN Catholic Church • Now The End Begins

I was merely correcting you because YOU are responsible for the things YOU post.
The Pope NEVER made that statement.

 

[Enow]

WRONG.
The teaching I presented from the Catechism is NOT aimed only at Protestants - but at EVERYBODY who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church

ehh... that is not what I am reading there. You are pretty much saying the catechism is being hypocritical and the way I read it, to avoid being hypocritical is that #847 applies to unbelievers whereas #846 regarding any that know the gospel of Christ and the Church are not saved for not remaining in it; as in no salvation outside of the Church. You even gave the title before reading #846.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

And it becomes clear to me that it is as you deny it to be.

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

As for the "Roman" issue - you are LYING again.
This is what YOU posted in post #2267:
Pope Francis Says Christians Do Not Exist Outside The ROMAN Catholic Church • Now The End Begins

I was merely correcting you because YOU are responsible for the things YOU post.

Again, that is the quoted title from the article, but believe whatever you want.

The Pope NEVER made that statement.

Prove it. The catechism you provided proves that he would say that s there is nothing from that article that suggests otherwise other than true.

 

[BreadOfLife]

ehh... that is not what I am reading there. You are pretty much saying the catechism is being hypocritical and the way I read it, to avoid being hypocritical is that #847 applies to unbelievers whereas #846 regarding any that know the gospel of Christ and the Church are not saved for not remaining in it; as in no salvation outside of the Church. You even gave the title before reading #846.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

And it becomes clear to me that it is as you deny it to be.

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

WRONG.

Paragraph 846 is aimed at ANYBODY who who knows that the Church is necessary for salvation and rejects it - NOT just Protestants.
Paragraph 847 is aimed at ANYBODY who does not know Christ or His Church - NOT just Protestants.

No "hypocrisy" here - just YOUR inability to grasp plain English . . .

Again, that is the quoted title from the article, but believe whatever you want.

Prove it. The catechism you provided proves that he would say that s there is nothing from that article that suggests otherwise other than true.

It's NOT up to me to prove YOUR claim wrong.
It's up to YOU to prove that he said it since YOU posted it.

YOU are responsible for what you post. If it is a LIE - then YOU are guilty of spreading lies.
ALWAYS check your sources . . .

 

[RogerDC]

He is made Lord on earth and made God after resurrecting.

God cannot be killed, but a lord can.

There is no suggestion that "Lord" in Luke 1:43 means anything besides "God". You're reading into it something that isn't there.

What is the difference between "Lord" and "God"?

If Jesus was not God before the Resurrection, Jesus was a creature - so you're saying a creature became God, which is an absurd impossibility.

 

[Truther]

There is no suggestion that "Lord" in Luke 1:43 means anything besides "God". You're reading into it something that isn't there.

What is the difference between "Lord" and "God"?

If Jesus was not God before the Resurrection, Jesus was a creature - so you're saying a creature became God, which is an absurd impossibility.

Take your pick Roger:

You serve a once microscopic sperm cell God.

Or, you serve a redo of the 1st Adam, which was made an omnipresent, quickening spirit after his God resurrected him from the dead and filled his spirit body with every bit of Himself(Col 2:9).

Creating this new Jesus(God by default).....

22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.


....God lighting the city THROUGH Jesus, per the Col 2:9 effect on his body. God is the light source and Jesus is the "bulb".

 

[Truther]

The Son is BOTH Human AND Divine.
NOT that difficult to grasp - for a person of faith, that is . . .

Jesus said that here?....


24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


Stop pulling my leg, Catholic.