Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

BreadOfLife · Sep 2, 2019

aspen said:
Copts didn’t accept the Pope and were around from the beginning

They were still part of the Catholic Church.
There was NO other form of Christianity.

Try as you might - you can't change history . . .

brakelite · Sep 2, 2019

GodsGrace said:
You mean in the long gone past.
I agree....but I think we need to get over that.

We cannot "get over that" if current policy suggests that given the right circumstances and motivation, it can't happen again. In fact the book of Revelation and Daniel gives some broad and compelling detail that it will happen again, and as a direct result as someone else suggested, the amalgamation of church and state. Now you say this persecutions took place a long time ago, and you of course are quite correct, but it was only in 1929 that the Catholic church was granted political and religious sovereignty over the Vatican City... However, i am more personally concerned with what is taking place in the United states as a threat to religious freedom. The amalgamation of church and state there needs to be resisted at all costs.

Taken · Sep 3, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
More ignorance . . .

Ummmm, the Apostles were part of the Church, Einstein.

LOL..."part" of the Church...
Dude, they were JEWS and the First Members of the Church!

As for "those Gideons" - they werem't even founded until 1899.

I know...and HOW AWESOME in a little over 100 years they have spread the WORD OF GOD to over 2 Billion people.

That's about 1900 years AFTER the Catholic Church's founding.

And so what? I was acknowledging the awesome work of the Gideon's in a short span of 100 years.

"Those Gideons"

Click to expand...

wouldn't know Christ if NOT for the Catholic Church.

Again that is big of you to credit the "catholic church"...When it was the JEWS who started the FIRST Churches.

Do your homework . . .

Already have, and accredit the JEWS, where you accredit Gentiles.

Glory to God,
Taken

Grams · Sep 3, 2019

AMEN!

Taken · Sep 3, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
Christians are falling away, period.

Simple minds have simple understanding.

The NAME Christian was established IN SCRIPTURE as people who are FOLLOWERS of Jesus' Teachings...and absolutely CAN Fall Away.

Also established IN SCRIPTURE...
Saved and Born Again PEOPLE, regardless of what they are 'CALLED' "BY MEN"...
ARE "CALLED' "BY GOD"...sons of God....
And CAN NOT FALL AWAY.

Falling away "in faith" is an asinine term.

LOL

Falling away is falling away, Einstein . . .

LOL ~ your circular definition of "falling away"
Is expected from simple minds.

FYI...using a term in an attempt to define a term...IS a circular definition....LOL

And the benefit of such nonsense....NIL

Glory To God,
Taken

GodsGrace · Sep 3, 2019

Giuliano said:
Things seem to evolve. First some people lobby for something while others argue against it. Then the Pope or a council makes a decision and cites the oldest sources they can find in favor. Right now, an Archbishop made news demanding women be ordained as priests.

Former Vatican ambassador to UK calls for women to be ordained priests

ROME - A former Vatican ambassador to the United Kingdom says the fact women can’t be ordained to the priesthood is “intolerable.”

Spanish Archbishop Pablo Puente, 88, was speaking Aug. 25 during a Mass in honor of Ginés de la Jara, patron of the local fishermen brotherhood, in the Spanish coastal region of Cantabria.

“We cannot tolerate this flagrant discrimination against women by the Church,” Puente is reported to have said.

The archbishop’s comments were revealed on Twitter by the president of Cantabria, Miguel Ángel Revilla, who said that “in the middle” of Mass, Puente “grabbed the microphone and said: ‘Tomorrow, a very strong letter requesting that with urgency women be invested as priests will be sent to His Holiness, the Pope.’”

Afterwards, the politician said, “a good portion” of the nearly 1,000 people who attended the Mass applauded.

Puente served as apostolic nuncio to Great Britain from 1997 to 2004 and resigned at the age of 73, two years before the mandatory age of retirement. He was never given another official position.

Give them another 50 or 100 years of debate, maybe 200, and they'll be ordaining women and perhaps citing Archbishop Puente as a source.

Thanks for the correction; I went back and edited the post. I think maybe some were going astray before then; but when the Church got politicized, things got really mixed up.

The Orthodox says the Spirit proceeds from the Father to the Son and then to us or perhaps from the Father to us, in a hierarchy, yes. That was their traditional understanding and they cite John 15:26.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

I can't imagine that women will ever be allowed to be priests, and if you want to know, I happen to agree. Perhaps allowing more men to become Deacons? Perhaps allowing Priests to be married? They would do this before allowing women priests. Priests have to be men, like in the O.T. and N.T. Apostles.

Yes, you're right about how a concept become a doctrine.
A thought...it's expounded...and then a Pope declares it a dogma or a doctrine.

As to the Holy Spirit and John 15:26 states that He proceeds from the Father.
Great verse...and interesting. THIS is what the Creed should have stated...
Since all were IN GOD FATHER, both the Son (2nd person) and the Holy Spirit SHOULD proceed from the Father.

Not from the Father and the Son----Catholic.
Not from the Father THROUGH the Son---Orthodox.

How Catholics explaiin it is that the LOVE between the Father and Son IS THE HOLY SPIRIT.

I don't can't understand it in this way...but I think we each have to find our own way to accepting the Trinity/Godhead.

GodsGrace · Sep 3, 2019

brakelite said:
We cannot "get over that" if current policy suggests that given the right circumstances and motivation, it can't happen again. In fact the book of Revelation and Daniel gives some broad and compelling detail that it will happen again, and as a direct result as someone else suggested, the amalgamation of church and state. Now you say this persecutions took place a long time ago, and you of course are quite correct, but it was only in 1929 that the Catholic church was granted political and religious sovereignty over the Vatican City... However, i am more personally concerned with what is taking place in the United states as a threat to religious freedom. The amalgamation of church and state there needs to be resisted at all costs.

How could it happen again if the cc is falling apart right now?

And I don't understand what being given sovereignty over a small plot of land in Rome has to do with anything. In fact, I think it was the right thing to do....it's a shame ITALY is no longer sovereign. (but under the supervision of the E.U.)

epostle · Sep 3, 2019

GodsGrace said:
Yes, you're right about how a concept become a doctrine.
A thought...it's expounded...and then a Pope declares it a dogma or a doctrine.

88 The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to
the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths
contained in divine Revelation or having a necessary connection with them, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of
faith.

Dogmas are not expounded thoughts or concepts.

Difference Between Doctrine and Dogma

Giuliano · Sep 3, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
First of all - an image is not an "idol".
An idol is something other than God that is worshiped.

The word in Greek is ambiguous, εἴδωλον, and can mean either an image not used for worship or one that is.

Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

And, I'm NOT sure where you're getting your false information - but the Catholic Church has NEVER held to Iconoclasm - and actually deemed it a heresy.

Did I say they did? I said the early churches did not have statues. They didn't. When the matter came up for discussion, the controversy was over flat paintings; and the Second Council of Nicea said they were okay.

The fact that you reject history is fascinating because it illustrates how FAR anti-Catholic like you will go to make your point.

Me, anti-Catholic? I told you I have a statue of St. Francis. Downstairs I have a "very Catholic" picture of Jesus with the Sacred Heart. I think maybe you're the one who is since you go to extremes putting the Catholic Church in a bad light. You angry tone reminds me of the worst expressions of the Catholic Church -- like the Crusades and the Inquisition. I doubt if your priest knows how you write on the internet. I am sure your bishop didn't appoint you to act as an angry representative of the Catholic Church. You're a rogue Catholic in my book; and I am glad we have other Catholics here who seem to me to like good Catholics I've met.

History - not the Catholic Church shows that MOST people up to the end of the 18th century were functionally illiterate. That is a fact of HISTORY and NOT something that was "invented" by the Church.

And they have always had people giving sermons and reading the Bible. That worked just fine too. Peter wasn't holding up pictures when preaching at Pentecost.

Statues and images were a way of educating the masses - whether YOU approve of this historical fact or not . . .

I visited St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York once and didn't receive any education from the statues and pictures. Statues and pictures act as reminders of things we have already learned. Give me a break. They don't educate people . . . unless we want to think Adam had a belly button because that's how he is painted in the Sistine Chapel.

epostle · Sep 3, 2019

Giuliano said:
The word in Greek is ambiguous, εἴδωλον, and can mean either an image not used for worship or one that is.

Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

Did I say they did? I said the early churches did not have statues. They didn't. When the matter came up for discussion, the controversy was over flat paintings; and the Second Council of Nicea said they were okay.

Me, anti-Catholic? I told you I have a statue of St. Francis. Downstairs I have a "very Catholic" picture of Jesus with the Sacred Heart. I think maybe you're the one who is since you go to extremes putting the Catholic Church in a bad light. You angry tone reminds me of the worst expressions of the Catholic Church -- like the Crusades and the Inquisition. I doubt if your priest knows how you write on the internet. I am sure your bishop didn't appoint you to act as an angry representative of the Catholic Church. You're a rogue Catholic in my book; and I am glad we have other Catholics here who seem to me to like good Catholics I've met.
And they have always had people giving sermons and reading the Bible. That worked just fine too. Peter wasn't holding up pictures when preaching at Pentecost.
I visited St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York once and didn't receive any education from the statues and pictures. Statues and pictures act as reminders of things we have already learned. Give me a break. They don't educate people . . . unless we want to think Adam had a belly button because that's how he is painted in the Sistine Chapel.

There is not one verse in Scripture that forbids SCRIPTURE in ART FORM.

Oldest known art of Baby Jesus on His mother's lap,
150-170 AD.
Location: Catacombs of Priscilla (Rome, Italy)

Giuliano · Sep 3, 2019

epostle said:
There is not one verse in Scripture that forbids SCRIPTURE in ART FORM.

Oldest known art of Baby Jesus on His mother's lap,
150-170 AD.
Location: Catacombs of Priscilla (Rome, Italy)

That's not exactly "scripture in art form." It is a painting depicting something mentioned in the scripture. It also doesn't help establish the case that Bread of Life seems to want to make that paintings and statues were common in churches from the beginning.

I've read that the catacombs had several paintings. I'm not sure why that Emperor took offense to pictures.

epostle · Sep 3, 2019

Giuliano said:
That's not exactly "scripture in art form." It is a painting depicting something mentioned in the scripture.

It's the same thing.

Giuliano · Sep 3, 2019

epostle said:
88 The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to
the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths
contained in divine Revelation or having a necessary connection with them, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of
faith.

Dogmas are not expounded thoughts or concepts.

Difference Between Doctrine and Dogma

What good does holding Ecumenical Councils do if the Catholic Church on its own can alter the Nicean Creed?

Giuliano · Sep 3, 2019

epostle said:
It's the same thing.

People could look at that picture and not know what it meant.

epostle · Sep 3, 2019

Giuliano said:
What good does holding Ecumenical Councils do if the Catholic Church on its own can alter the Nicean Creed?

The Council of Constantinople decided the best way to refute the heresies of

Eutychianism (Jesus had one nature)
Macedonianism, (semi-Arianism)
Sabellianism (denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit)
and Apollinaris-ism (denied the proper humanity of Christ)

was to AMEND the Creed, they didn't "alter" it. They had the authority to do that. The essence of original truths remain constant FROM THE BEGINNING or they are not divinely revealed truths. Development does not mean "change". This is a good example of how doctrines develop. The main reason doctrine must develop is because they are challenged!
The doctrine of the Trinity came into greater bloom at the Council of Chalcedon, and it's verdicts are accepted by Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics.

BreadOfLife · Sep 3, 2019

Taken said:
LOL..."part" of the Church...
Dude, they were JEWS and the First Members of the Church!

I know...and HOW AWESOME in a little over 100 years they have spread the WORD OF GOD to over 2 Billion people.

And so what? I was acknowledging the awesome work of the Gideon's in a short span of 100 years.

Again that is big of you to credit the "catholic church"...When it was the JEWS who started the FIRST Churches.

Already have, and accredit the JEWS, where you accredit Gentiles.

Glory to God,
Taken

Grams said:
AMEN!

Yup – and the Gideons could NEVER have done so ha Jimd it not been for the Catholic Church who wrote the NT and compiled and copied the Bible for centuries before the world ever even heard of “Protestants”, let alone “Gideons” . . .

As for those Jews who started the Church – they were the first Catholics.
Just ask Ignatius of Antioch, who was a student of the Apostle John:

“Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the CATHOLIC CHURCH” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, AD 107).

Both of you - STUDY your history . . .

BreadOfLife · Sep 3, 2019

Taken said:
Simple minds have simple understanding.

The NAME Christian was established IN SCRIPTURE as people who are FOLLOWERS of Jesus' Teachings...and absolutely CAN Fall Away.

Also established IN SCRIPTURE...
Saved and Born Again PEOPLE, regardless of what they are 'CALLED' "BY MEN"...
ARE "CALLED' "BY GOD"...sons of God....
And CAN NOT FALL AWAY.

LOL

LOL ~ your circular definition of "falling away"
Is expected from simple minds.

FYI...using a term in an attempt to define a term...IS a circular definition....LOL

And the benefit of such nonsense....NIL

Glory To God,
Taken

WRONG again . . .

Scripture is CLEAR that born again people can fall away and LOSE their security . . .

Romans 11:22
“See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God's kindness to you, provided you REMAIN in his kindness; otherwise you to will be cut off.”
Paul is warning the faithful to REMAIN in God’s favor or they will lose their salvation. How can they lose what they never had?

Hebrews 10:26-27
“If we sin deliberately AFTER receiving KNOWLEDGE of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.”
This is a clear warning that falling away from God will result in the loss of our salvation. The Greek ford for “knowledge” used here is NOT the usual word (oida). This is talking about a full, experiential knowledge (epignosei). This verse is about CHRISTIANS who had an EPIGNOSIS of Christ and who can fall back into darkness and LOSE their salvation by their own doing.

2 Peter 2:20-22
For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the KNOWLEDGE of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first.
For it would have been better for them not to have KNOWN the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them.
Here, Peter illustrates that those who had a full, experiential knowledge (epignosei) of Christ – CHRISTIANS – who can fall back into darkness and LOSE their salvation by their own doing.

Matt. 5:13
You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
This one is self-explanatory - even to a blind person . . .

1 Cor. 9:27
"I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified."
Paul is saying that he wrestles with his own fleshly desires so that he might not fall back into sin.

2 Peter 3:17
Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.
Peter is warning the faithful not to fall back into sin and lawlessness.

1 John 2:24
See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. IF it does, you also will REMAIN in the Son and in the Father.
This is an admonition to try to remain faithful.

Rev. 3:5
He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels.
God cannot blot out a name that was never there in the first place. He is talking about CHRISTIANS who are already saved and how they can LOSE their salvation.

Rev. 22:19
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
How can God “take away” somebody’s “share” of heaven if they never had it to begin with? This is about CHRISTIANS who may or may NOT make it into Heaven.[/QUOTE]

You can't argue with Scripture . . .

BreadOfLife · Sep 3, 2019

Giuliano said:
The word in Greek is ambiguous, εἴδωλον, and can mean either an image not used for worship or one that is.

Genesis 1:1 (KJV)
Did I say they did? I said the early churches did not have statues. They didn't. When the matter came up for discussion, the controversy was over flat paintings; and the Second Council of Nicea said they were okay.

Me, anti-Catholic? I told you I have a statue of St. Francis. Downstairs I have a "very Catholic" picture of Jesus with the Sacred Heart. I think maybe you're the one who is since you go to extremes putting the Catholic Church in a bad light. You angry tone reminds me of the worst expressions of the Catholic Church -- like the Crusades and the Inquisition. I doubt if your priest knows how you write on the internet. I am sure your bishop didn't appoint you to act as an angry representative of the Catholic Church. You're a rogue Catholic in my book; and I am glad we have other Catholics here who seem to me to like good Catholics I've met.
And they have always had people giving sermons and reading the Bible. That worked just fine too. Peter wasn't holding up pictures when preaching at Pentecost.
I visited St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York once and didn't receive any education from the statues and pictures. Statues and pictures act as reminders of things we have already learned. Give me a break. They don't educate people . . . unless we want to think Adam had a belly button because that's how he is painted in the Sistine Chapel.

Ummmmm, first of all - YOU’RE not illiterate - so a painting or a statue wouldn’t have the same impact on YOU that it would on a person who can’t read.

As for the reason I called you “anti-Catholic” it’s because you invent things to throw at the Church instead of simply using factsToo many of you on this forum think it’s “okay” to hurl lies, myths and fairy tales at the Catholic Church with impunity – but that doesn’t make you “anti-Catholic. It DOES. If you can’t argue on facts and reason alone – then you should do your homework before posting.

Finally – I don’t care if you think I’m “rude” or “mean”. I am here to stamp out LIES – period.

Besides – there is nothing more rude or despicable than spreading lies . . .

Taken · Sep 3, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
WRONG again . . .

Scripture is CLEAR that born again people can fall away and LOSE their security . . .

Romans 11:22
“See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God's kindness to you, provided you REMAIN in his kindness; otherwise you to will be cut off.”
Paul is warning the faithful to REMAIN in God’s favor or they will lose their salvation. How can they lose what they never had?

Hebrews 10:26-27
“If we sin deliberately AFTER receiving KNOWLEDGE of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.”
This is a clear warning that falling away from God will result in the loss of our salvation. The Greek ford for “knowledge” used here is NOT the usual word (oida). This is talking about a full, experiential knowledge (epignosei). This verse is about CHRISTIANS who had an EPIGNOSIS of Christ and who can fall back into darkness and LOSE their salvation by their own doing.

2 Peter 2:20-22
For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the KNOWLEDGE of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first.
For it would have been better for them not to have KNOWN the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them.
Here, Peter illustrates that those who had a full, experiential knowledge (epignosei) of Christ – CHRISTIANS – who can fall back into darkness and LOSE their salvation by their own doing.

Matt. 5:13
You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
This one is self-explanatory - even to a blind person . . .

1 Cor. 9:27
"I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified."
Paul is saying that he wrestles with his own fleshly desires so that he might not fall back into sin.

2 Peter 3:17
Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.
Peter is warning the faithful not to fall back into sin and lawlessness.

1 John 2:24
See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. IF it does, you also will REMAIN in the Son and in the Father.
This is an admonition to try to remain faithful.

Rev. 3:5
He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels.
God cannot blot out a name that was never there in the first place. He is talking about CHRISTIANS who are already saved and how they can LOSE their salvation.

Rev. 22:19
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
How can God “take away” somebody’s “share” of heaven if they never had it to begin with? This is about CHRISTIANS who may or may NOT make it into Heaven.

You can't argue with Scripture . . .[/QUOTE]

LOL - your little go to copy and paste post that you have posted Repeatedly (and become a forum joke) is full of your words...and the Scriptures DO NOT verify your claims.

I can flat out say YOU ARE not qualified to determine which Scriptures Apply to me and Which Scriptures Do NOT APPLY to me...
Even when YOU open your yap and pretend You have the authority to MAKE false claims For Me. Sadly you are too dense to comprehend that you making false claims for others Makes you a liar....and sadly you seem quite content with being a liar, and everyone knows that about you.

UGH!

Glory to God,
Taken

Taken · Sep 3, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
Finally – I don’t care if you think I’m “rude” or “mean”. I am here to stamp out LIES – period.

Besides – there is nothing more rude or despicable than spreading lies . . .

LOL- A LIAR on a mission to stamp out Lies...

Your best joke yet BOL ...ha ha ha

Glory to God,
Taken

Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

Well-Known Member

brakelite

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads