How long ago was the Bosnian apparitions rejected? I have a newsletter I picked up from a Catholic vestibule with quotes from "Mary" and "testimonies" of lights and voices etc.
Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?
- Thread starter aspen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Well E, I cannot believe that allowing persons in mortal sin to receive communion is not a change in doctrine. If that isn't I don't really know what could be.
Cardinals and Bishops all over the world are very upset over this change.
I must say that your statement above does not agree with your link which states that CHANGE is not possible, and yet YOU say it is because we need to be pastoral and not phariseeism.
I agree that something must be done...
But I also, along with MANY others, believe this will be a change in doctrine.
I don't believe they've been rejected...
I believe they have not been confirmed, or accepted.
This has been going on for about 30 years now.
I also have actually spoken to persons that claim they saw the sun change color, or lights..have never heard about voices; but this Maria (?) woman sees Mary EVERY DAY...
It seems ridiculous to me.
The actual quotes from this so called Mary are borderline, some would suggest ten steps over borderline, idolatrous.
From the little I've heard that this Maria hears Mary say,,,to me it just sounds like normal statements that anyone could come up with.
I've always wondered why Mary doesn't appear to Protestants...I'm told because we don't believe in her; all the more reason! Maybe Protestantism would change its mind about all this glory given.
I respect and love the Mother of Jesus...but I do believe it goes beyond what any of the Early Fathers taught.
Protestants don't reject Mary. They don't 'not believe' in her. But perhaps in reaction to the Catholic at times over exuberant adulation the Protestant world does not hold her in such respect that they could. To the Catholic mind though the protestants'attitude to Mary borders on blasphemy... And to the protestants' mind the Catholic adulation borders on idolatry. I do think there is some middle ground there somewhere.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree fully, but will this common ground ever be found?
I doubt Catholics want to give up their Madonna.
It's interesting that even this Pope, who is very liberal, loves to talk about Jesus' Mother.
I don't see any change in the near future.
Then you should have no problem finding ONE ECF that opposed infant baptism. Good luck, you will need it.
If the Council of Carthage of 253 A.D. (post 991)isn't enough, nothing will satisfy you.
This doesn't prove the bishop was wrong, it proves the Church is very cautious about approving everything that comes along. The Church is not going to approve something that later proves to be false. Investigations are very meticulous. It took 25 years of careful investigation to approve Fatima, the most stunning and dynamic apparition in history.
Jesus never promised the Church would keep earthly affairs in order, He promised the Church would maintain doctrinal fidelity. This has nothing to do with administrative clumsiness, that you think discredits the historic institutional Church.The Bible teaches that the Church He established is infallible (teaches without error) and indefectible (it will last until the end of time). Your quote, John 16:13, proves infallibility. One either accepts this on faith, or they ignore the Bible because they haven't enough faith to believe that God would preserve His Church.
Last edited:
I concede. The Church has changed, but no changes have ever been made to the essence of the deposit of faith, given to us by Jesus and the Apostles.
You don't really understand what I'm asking.
It's OK...you're used to arguing with Protestants.
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,936
- 3,387
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,936
- 3,387
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
This is complete ignorant nonsense.
The SAME can be said about those with a penchant for exposing themselves.
Should they be strapped down so that they can't remove their clothing??
Should a vain woman only be allowed to wear burlap sacks instead of fashionable clothing??
should a greedy man be locked away so he can't make money??
It's not the skin that's evil.
It's not the clothing that';s evil,
It's not the money that's evil, It is the PERSON.
Christ Himself made WINE. Is HE responsible for those who got drunk at the Wedding at Cana??
You seem to be one of those people who blames everybody else for their sins instead of looking in a mirror . . .
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,936
- 3,387
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Really??
Augustine taught that Infant Baptism was an APOSTOLIC practice that was handed down . . .
Augustine
"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except APOSTOLIC" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
As for the Early Church Fathers "NOT" unanimously agreeing on Infant Baptism until a "couple of hundreds of years later" - this simply shows that you don't understand the writings of the Early Church.
The REASON we have arguments for or against many of the thing that we do from the Early Church is because they were called into question or challenged by heretics. THIS is why the letters and sermons of the Early Church Fathers are written as rebuttals - and not simply statements of fact. This is also why the titles of the letters and homilies have names such as "Against Heresies" (Irenaeus) or "On Baptism, Against the Donatists" (Augustine). Irenaeus wrote about Infant Baptism LESS than 100 years after the Apostle John walked the earth.
The SAME is true for doctrines and dogmas, such as the Trinity. It wasn't officially defined until the FOURTH century but was believed from the beginning. It wasn't until Arius went into heresy and challenged this basic tenet of the Christian faith that it was written about so thoroughly.
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,936
- 3,387
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
St. John of Damascus is listed as an "Early Church Father" in every list I've seen.
He lived in the 8th century,
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,936
- 3,387
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I've posted this at least TWICE on this thread alone.
Irenaeus
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: INFANTS, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an INFANT for INFANTS, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
Hippolytus
"Baptize first the CHILDREN, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The APOSTOLIC Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Origen
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to INFANTS. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to INFANTS. The APOSTLES, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).
Gregory of Nazianz
"Do you have an INFANT child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the INFANT be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).
John Chrysostom
"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even INFANTS, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).
Augustine
"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).
"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing INFANTS is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except APOSTOLIC" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,936
- 3,387
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
And some Protestant eat and drink too much.
Weren't they "taught" not to by their pastors??
The point is that EVERYBODY sins - even when they are taught NOT to sin.
The Catholic Church has NEVER taught anybody to "pray to" statues. This is idolatry and something that the Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught against.
Go sit in judgement of the sins of your OWN sect's people.
When they are sin-free - then come and talk to me about Catholic sinners . . .
Which goes to show the Holy Spirit is not telling bishops if such manifestations are of God or not. They have to rely on science and the like. Similarly, no one can tell if someone is a genuine saint unless there are miracles which science can't explain. Why is the Catholic Church so unsure about these things? I think I know. They wound up with egg on their faces before.
What are the "things to come" in that verse? You told me the creed got added to because of heresies. That tells me the Holy Spirit wasn't steering people about "future heresies" when they were composing the creed.
It says the Apostles will be guided into all truth; it doesn't say all their successors will be. And the "dogma" of "infallibility" seems to be only a few hundred years old, originating at the Vatican Council as a reaction to Protestantism.
What are the "things to come"? When I see a Pope who can tell when someone's lying to him the way Peter could, maybe I'll believe the Popes inherited Peter's mantle and that the Holy Spirit is seeing things and telling the Pope things.
I scoff at anyone who claims to know about Heavenly things while displaying naivete or ignorance about earthly things. What? God can tell him about all the deep mysteries of Heaven, but can't tell him how to govern his own house?
John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
I know what works for me. If I know something may tempt me to do something I believe is wrong, I try to avoid being around it. I think that is wise.
If someone wears daring clothes, he or she shouldn't be surprised if something flops out.
If a greedy man wants to achieve perfection, he may benefit by giving up his idol of money.
It is indeed the people who make the choices; and if people want statues, they are opting to have them as potential problems in their churches. It's certainly not the statues' fault. You're the one who wants to attribute "human qualities" to statues, saying they can educate people!
We did settle it, and I'm not not in the mood to go to go back and discuss it again.
That doesn't disprove miracles, which has nothing to do with the current discussion. Scientists are called in to disprove fraud, yet you find fault with that. There have been many fraudulent claims, which is why the Church is so careful.
Then you don't know your Bible.
Sheer nonsense. What was DEFINED does not mean INVENTED. You posted a verse on infallibility, which proves you don't know what it means. It's like you are saying the Apostles weren't being steered by the Holy Spirit because they didn't anticipate the Arian heresy 300 years into the future.
You just scoffed at the Church for using science (earthly things) to validate what science cannot explain. You contradict yourself. Scientists can only say that something has no explanation. AFTER THAT, the Church MAY declare a miracle, but most of time, doesn't.
The Pope is only infallible on matters of faith and morals. He is not a mind reader, a magician, nor a soothsayer. These are powers expected of the Pope by enemies, not Catholics. How the Church governs itself (ecclesiology) is huge topic. A rabbit trail.
Last edited:
Similar threads
