Who founded your church?

[Renniks]

The Pope is not infallible as a mere man apart from the Holy Spirit. This you cannot comprehend so you come up with fallacious arguments as present. It has nothing to do with being perfect

"Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the pope when appealing to his highest authority is preserved from the possibility of error on doctrine."

 

[Renniks]

Ummmmm, I was arguing against your false statements, namely :
"salvation is a one-time event"
"You can't lose salvation"

What I did was to show you that Scripture PROVES that both of those statements are wrong.

No, you didn't. You cannot "lose" salvation. You can discard it by falling into false beliefs. You can't merely sin your way into damnation, the only damnable sin is unbelief.

John 3:15-16 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

 

[Renniks]

WRONG.

First of all - the "heretics and schismatics" being referred to are APOSTATE CATHOLICS. These are people who knew the truth and rejected it. Paragraphs 846 and 847 of the Catechism, which are a sumation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside the Church tere is NOT Salvation) are in perfect line with this earlie statement. READ the text in RED above: "those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church".

As for the others - NOWHERE does it say that they must be full-fledged, Baptized members of the Catholic Church.
The entire point of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is about the fact that NOBODY is saved outside the Church.

Again - READ the text in RED.

Virtuall ALL Protestant sects have changed doctrines in the last 500 years. For starters, lets visit artificial contraception.
Before the Anglican Church's Lambeth Conference in 1930 - EVERY Chriatian group on the planet taught AGAINST artificial contrqaception. After that conference, where the teaching was changed - virtually EVERY Protestant sect followed suit.

Many have soince gon back to the teaching - but the Catholic Church stood resolute.
The Catholic Church has NEVER changes a SINGLE doctrine in 2000 years. That would be the sign of a FALSE church.

It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)

So this: "those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life."

Actually means this:
"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. "

That's impossible and absurd and anyone with a lick of sense knows these two statements directly contradict each other. But, hey, we can fudge all we want and change the meaning of words to keep up with the times, because we are the CC and we are infallible in doctrine! Good grief,, how can any thinking person accept such nonsense?

 

[Marymog]

I knew baptism wasn't necessarily for salvation, so why does your church teach that is?

Because The Church teaches scripture: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,....baptism that now saves you

Why do you teach opposite?

 

[Renniks]

I didn’t say the Pope as authority . I said sinful men (plural) lead The Church. That would be the magisterium in the case of The Church. The Poe doesn’t make doctrines.

Hebrews 13:17 says obey your leaders. What leaders do you obey Renniks?

curious

The CC are not my leaders, so the question is irrelevant. We are to obey those over us in our church community, as much as is possible. Of course, if they are not actually following the authority of scripture, that's a different matter and we have no obligation to obey a false teacher, because Chris is our ultimate authority, not man.

 

[Renniks]

I feel bad for what the Protestants did to Michael Servetus and their other fellow Protestants

So do I, but I have no reason to believe they acted justly, while if you are a member of the CC, you have to agree that the church has always been correct in its actions.

 

[Marymog]

So do I, but I have no reason to believe they acted justly, while if you are a member of the CC, you have to agree that the church has always been correct in its actions.

Sounds like you agree with The Church. That is why it apologized for the past atrocities that sinful men of The Church committed.

Nope....wrong again....No man has to agree with sinful actions of the men of The Church. We just can’t disagree with doctrine.

 

[Marymog]

The CC are not my leaders, so the question is irrelevant. We are to obey those over us in our church community, as much as is possible. Of course, if they are not actually following the authority of scripture, that's a different matter and we have no obligation to obey a false teacher, because Chris is our ultimate authority, not man.

I never suggested that The Church is your leader so your statement is irrelevant.

Which “church community “ would you like to go to so that we can “obey” what they teach? Joe’s bible only church in Anytown USA or one of the established Protestant denominations with hierarchy?

Can you see how your theory is not taught in scripture?

 

[Renniks]

Because The Church teaches scripture: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,....baptism that now saves you

Why do you teach opposite?

Pieces of verses again. Reading comprehension is important!

 

[Renniks]

Sounds like you agree with The Church. That is why it apologized for the past atrocities that sinful men of The Church committed.

Nope....wrong again....No man has to agree with sinful actions of the men of The Church. We just can’t disagree with doctrine.

It was the CC's doctrines that led to burning people at the stake.

 

[Illuminator]

So do I, but I have no reason to believe they acted justly, while if you are a member of the CC, you have to agree that the church has always been correct in its actions.

Nonsense. The Church has made mistakes in politics and administration, but never in doctrine mainly because the Bible says that can never happen. A falling away of the historic Church would have been recorded somewhere, not "discovered" in the middle of a revolt. St. Paul talks about end times, but he never says the Church would be overcome. It's a lie with no historical proof and is not in the Bible, but DOGMATIZED by anti-Catholics.

 

[Illuminator]

It was the CC's doctrines that led to burning people at the stake.

Again, you don't name the doctrines, just stupid generalities and meaningless insults, with no historical context.

and we have no obligation to obey a false teacher, because Christ is our ultimate authority, not man.

Christ never taught "Once Saved Always Saved", invented by John Calvin, a false teaching you accept.
55 Critiques of John Calvin: Introduction & Master List | Dave Armstrong (patheos.com)
God ordains certain MEN to teach, not any individual with a Bible, which is your biggest problem.

 

[Renniks]

Nonsense. The Church has made mistakes in politics and administration, but never in doctrine mainly because the Bible says that can never happen.

Do you hear yourself? Unreal.
But not to worry, there's always wiggle room for the CC because in Roman Catholicism, “the Word of God” encompasses not only the Bible, but also the Apocrypha, the Magisterium (the Church’s authority to teach and interpret divine truth), the Pope’s ex cathedra pronouncements, and an indefinite body of church tradition, some formalized in canon law and some not yet committed to writing.

Creed's, decisions of church councils, all doctrine, and even the church itself must be judged by Scripture—not vice versa. In no sense could the creeds and pronouncements of the churches ever constitute an authority equal to or higher than Scripture. Scripture always takes priority over the church in the rank of authority.
The fact is, the Roman Church sets itself above Holy Scripture in rank of authority.

 

[Renniks]

Christ never taught "Once Saved Always Saved", invented by John Calvin, a false teaching you accept.

How many times do I have to tell you: I'm not a calvinist. I do not believe in eternal security, as the Calvinists understand it.

 

[Renniks]

Again, you don't name the doctrine, just stupid generalities and meaningless insults, with no historical context.

In the Early Middle Ages (c. 476-1000 CE) and throughout the High Middle Ages (1000-1300 CE) and Late Middle Ages (1300-1500 CE). The Catholic Church made it clear that one could only attain salvation and eternal life by following the precepts of the Church, and one’s alternative was an eternity in the torments of hell or a limited, but almost equally unpleasant, stay in the fires of purgatory where one’s sins were burnt away. Heaven, hell, and purgatory were regarded as absolute certainties after death and, since the Church made all the rules regarding where a soul would wind up, people were forced to accept the clergy’s atrocious behavior.

The Christian mass was recited in Latin, the Bible was in Latin, and prayers such as the Our Father and Hail Mary were taught to parishioners and memorized in Latin – a language none of the peasantry and few of the nobility understood. Christ’s ministry, as recorded in the gospels of the Bible, was therefore the sole property of the clergy who claimed only the Church could rightly understand the intentions of the Christian god and interpret them for others.
Of course from there, was only a matter of time before the burning of heretics began.
You tell me what doctrine led to this state of affairs. I believe it was the church thinking it was the authority, not Christ and not scripture.

 

[Illuminator]

Do you hear yourself? Unreal.
But not to worry, there's always wiggle room for the CC because in Roman Catholicism, “the Word of God” encompasses not only the Bible, but also the Apocrypha, the Magisterium (the Church’s authority to teach and interpret divine truth), the Pope’s ex cathedra pronouncements, and an indefinite body of church tradition, some formalized in canon law and some not yet committed to writing.

Creed's, decisions of church councils, all doctrine, and even the church itself must be judged by Scripture—not vice versa. In no sense could the creeds and pronouncements of the churches ever constitute an authority equal to or higher than Scripture. Scripture always takes priority over the church in the rank of authority.
The fact is, the Roman Church sets itself above Holy Scripture in rank of authority.

This is fear mongering nonsense. It’s not a matter of one thing being “under” the other. All of that is the invention of the 16th century and the biblically bankrupt and meaningless notion of sola Scriptura. The Bible presents Scripture-Tradition-Church as a “three-legged stool”: the rule of faith. All are in harmony; all work together.

 

[Illuminator]

In the Early Middle Ages (c. 476-1000 CE) and throughout the High Middle Ages (1000-1300 CE) and Late Middle Ages (1300-1500 CE). The Catholic Church made it clear that one could only attain salvation and eternal life by following the precepts of the Church,

Because that is what the Apostles taught, and the Catholic Church was the only church at the time. The Church does not have the authority to change what the Apostles taught.

John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890), the great English convert to Catholicism, who is widely regarded as one of the most profound religious thinkers of his time, wrote in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), the one indispensable work on this subject:

One thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches . . . at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism . . . as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination . . . of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone . . . To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.
​

Protestants falsely argue that Purgatory is a later corruption, but it was present early on and merely developed. Original Sin, however, was equally if not more so, subject to development. One cannot have it both ways. If Purgatory is unacceptable on grounds of its having undergone development, then Original Sin must be rejected with it. Contrariwise, if Original Sin is accepted notwithstanding its own development, then so must Purgatory be accepted.

Thus Protestantism is inconsistent in its selective espousal of Christian beliefs. The so-called “Catholic distinctives” were merely cast off at the time of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century – basically due to prejudice and ignorance. Protestantism ever since has had to either distort, ignore, or be embarrassed by the facts of early Christian history which, again and again, are found to be much more in conjunction with Catholicism. Protestant anti-Catholic apologists are notorious for searching for quotes by Church Fathers which appear to support their presuppositions, while bypassing those (often by the same Father) which clearly suggest the Catholic outlook. I did this myself in the year before I was convinced of the truth of Catholicism.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, you didn't. You cannot "lose" salvation. You can discard it by falling into false beliefs. You can't merely sin your way into damnation, the only damnable sin is unbelief.

John 3:15-16 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Your statement above in RED is a gigantic contradiction.

You can't lose your salvation - but you CAN throw it away??
That is the SAME thing.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)

So this: "those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life."

Actually means this:
"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. "

That's impossible and absurd and anyone with a lick of sense knows these two statements directly contradict each other. But, hey, we can fudge all we want and change the meaning of words to keep up with the times, because we are the CC and we are infallible in doctrine! Good grief,, how can any thinking person accept such nonsense?

WRONG again.

The language used at Florence may sound harsher - but it absolutely falls in line with Extra Ecclesiam Nula Salus.
This is about the Church's understanding of what constitutes the person's the votum or desire. If a person's implicit desire is to conform himself to the Truth - then he seeks to conform himself to Christ. This is why Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus states explicitly:

"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. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Implicit desire is all that is needed.

 

[Renniks]

This is fear mongering nonsense. It’s not a matter of one thing being “under” the other. All of that is the invention of the 16th century and the biblically bankrupt and meaningless notion of sola

Lol, tradition, tradition! Tradition over scripture leads to false teaching