Is Any Denomination Saved?

[Enow]

WRONG.
This is a dissident "Catholic" site which promotes radical Traditionalism and denounces the Catholic Church.

It is NO better or trustworthy than any other anti-Catholic site.

This was from the comment section about the author:

"Laramie Hirsch is a red-pilled traditionalist Catholic writer. He is the author of the blogs Forge and Anvil and The Hirsch Files. His articles have appeared at blog sites such as Men of the West, Culture Wars, Stares at the World, Affirmative Right, The Counter-Revolution, and OnePeterFive. He lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma."

So I can take pause by what you say by how they apply the prophesies, but he did cite the sources of those prophesies.

Is this a Catholic site or not below?

Are these the End Times?

"Many prophecies from saints and mystics foretell of a time in our near future when the Catholic Church will be under siege. According to some prophecies, a certain scenario will play out: the pope will be forced into exile and will die, the nations will be at war, and then a Catholic man will help restore peace in the world and also help rebuild the Church with the aide of a new holy pontiff. All of this is supposed to precede the rise of the Antichrist and the Second Coming."

Do they list quotes from known Catholic leaders and Catholic saints or not?

 

[Taken]

WRONG.

The entire point of my bringing up historical events such as ...
The Black Plague of the 14th century
The Protestant Revolt of the 16th century
The American Revolution of the 18th century
... is that they are NOT specifically mentioned in Scripture. YOU seem to think that unless something is in the Bible - it's NOT true.

No, I thought nor said ANY such Thing.

You were Educated on Gods given Authority to mankind to Name things.

Peter was in Rome preaching along with Paul and building that church. Irenaeus lists him as being the first Bishop of Rome and Linus as his successor.

This is historical documentation that YOU reject simply because it's not in the Bible.
This is unbelievably stupid . . .

And yet - you reject history when it comes to Peter having been in Rome- even though it is attested to by the UNANIMOUS writings of the Early Church.

I'l make it easy for you:
Find ONE Early Church writer who DENIES that Peter was ever in Rome.

If you can do that - then you MIGHT have something.
Otherwise - consider yourself Historically-spanked . . .

You have mentioned repeatedly "a church" in Rome that Peter started...and Peter was Bishop of that Church, And Testimony of Irenaeus, for Facts you teach...and call other people unbelieveably stupid who do not believe your facts.

So elaborate...about the Facts of this Church you talk about.

What was that Church called?
WHO named that Church?
WHO Ordained or appointed Peter as Bishop?
Was Irenaus in Rome?
If not WHO notified him of Peter's WORKS?
How long did Peter preside as Bishop of that Church?
WHAT race; Gentile's, Jews, or Both were the makeup of the Congregation of that Church?
Why did Peter stop being Bishop of that Church?
WHO (Gentile's, Jews, Slaves, ???) built the stone, stick, mortar Church building?

 

[BreadOfLife]

This was from the comment section about the author:

"Laramie Hirsch is a red-pilled traditionalist Catholic writer. He is the author of the blogs Forge and Anvil and The Hirsch Files. His articles have appeared at blog sites such as Men of the West, Culture Wars, Stares at the World, Affirmative Right, The Counter-Revolution, and OnePeterFive. He lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma."

So I can take pause by what you say by how they apply the prophesies, but he did cite the sources of those prophesies.

Is this a Catholic site or not below?

Are these the End Times?

"Many prophecies from saints and mystics foretell of a time in our near future when the Catholic Church will be under siege. According to some prophecies, a certain scenario will play out: the pope will be forced into exile and will die, the nations will be at war, and then a Catholic man will help restore peace in the world and also help rebuild the Church with the aide of a new holy pontiff. All of this is supposed to precede the rise of the Antichrist and the Second Coming."

Do they list quotes from known Catholic leaders and Catholic saints or not?

Sooooo, if I go to ANY non-Catholic site and pull up ALL manner of bizarre diatribes and theories - can I attribute them as being "genuinely Protestant"?
OR - are some of them really off the tracks with their freakish, cult-like screeds? there are PLENTY of sites out there that claim to be "genuinely Christian" that simply aren't.

YOUR problem is that you won't go to official Catholic sources for your false attacks - you go to dissident sites that are geared toward defaming the Catholic Church.

Like I said before - this is just anti-Catholic rubbish. and another reason NOT to take you seriously . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, I thought nor said ANY such Thing.
You were Educated on Gods given Authority to mankind to Name things.

WRONG.
You made the claim that since it wasn't specifically in the Bible - Peter was NOT in Rome in post #468:
"Paul, Not Simon Peter "taught" the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Rome...
Paul, Not Simon Peter "taught" Jews AND Gentile's In Rome.
Paul was a Brethren to the Jews, because Paul was a Jew!
Paul (unlike Simon Peter), was also a Roman Citizen, entitled with certain RIGHTS, not Given to non-Citizen Jews. (Like Simon Peter)."

You then pasted several irrelevant verses of Scripture to "prove" your point.
This is your OPINION - and nothing else because the weight of history is against you . . .

You have mentioned repeatedly "a church" in Rome that Peter started...and Peter was Bishop of that Church, And Testimony of Irenaeus, for Facts you teach...and call other people unbelieveably stupid who do not believe your facts.

So elaborate...about the Facts of this Church you talk about.

What was that Church called?
WHO named that Church?
WHO Ordained or appointed Peter as Bishop?
Was Irenaus in Rome?
If not WHO notified him of Peter's WORKS?
How long did Peter preside as Bishop of that Church?
WHAT race; Gentile's, Jews, or Both were the makeup of the Congregation of that Church?
Why did Peter stop being Bishop of that Church?
WHO (Gentile's, Jews, Slaves, ???) built the stone, stick, mortar Church building?

- The Church in Rome was called the Church in Rome.

- Peter was appointed by Christ to "feed His lambs" and "tend his sheep" (John 21:15-19).

- Irenaeus was NOT the only one who attested to Peter being in Rome and starting that Church. There was also Dionysius of Corinth, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Optatus, Eusebius, Peter of Alexandria, Lactantius, Cyril of Jerusalem,Damasus, and Ambrose of Milan.

- That's a LOT of people YOU have to prove wrong . . .

- According to Eusebius - Peter was Bishop of Rome for 25 years.

Face it, pal - the weight of history is against you again . . .

 

[Taken]

Questions: to BOL-

What was that Church called?

- The Church in Rome was called the Church in Rome.

WHO named that Church?


WHO Ordained or appointed Peter as Bishop?

- Peter was appointed by Christ to "feed His lambs" and "tend his sheep" (John 21:15-19).

Was Irenaus in Rome?

If not WHO notified him of Peter's WORKS?

How long did Peter preside as Bishop of that Church?

- According to Eusebius - Peter was Bishop of Rome for 25 years.

WHAT race; Gentile's, Jews, or Both were the makeup of the Congregation of that Church?

Why did Peter stop being Bishop of that Church?

WHO (Gentile's, Jews, Slaves, ???) built the stone, stick, mortar Church building?

You talk so much about this Church...and Peters' work and Position...but yet you can't answer all the questions about this Church...or Peter? Awe.

Try again.
Taken

 

[Enow]

Sooooo, if I go to ANY non-Catholic site and pull up ALL manner of bizarre diatribes and theories - can I attribute them as being "genuinely Protestant"?
OR - are some of them really off the tracks with their freakish, cult-like screeds? there are PLENTY of sites out there that claim to be "genuinely Christian" that simply aren't.

YOUR problem is that you won't go to official Catholic sources for your false attacks - you go to dissident sites that are geared toward defaming the Catholic Church.

Like I said before - this is just anti-Catholic rubbish. and another reason NOT to take you seriously . . .

Did you go to see address at the link or not? Down below is the link as is before I put it in the link box at this forum site that put that label on it as
"Are these the End Times?"

catholicprophecy.org That is the site's address. Sure reads Catholic to me.

Are these the End Times? When it is posted, it only gives the title to the article.

You can solve the problem by providing an official Catholic site talking about those Catholic prophesies as quoted from Catholic sources.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Questions: to BOL-

1. What was that Church called?
2. WHO named that Church?
3. WHO Ordained or appointed Peter as Bishop?

I already answered those questions:
1. The Church in Rome was called the Church in Rome.
2. It wasn't a "name" but a location.
3. Peter was appointed by Christ to "feed His lambs" and "tend his sheep" (John 21:15-19).

NONE of the original Bishops/Apostles were ordained by anybody but Christ himself.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Did you go to see address at the link or not? Down below is the link as is before I put it in the link box at this forum site that put that label on it as
"Are these the End Times?"

catholicprophecy.org That is the site's address. Sure reads Catholic to me.

Are these the End Times? When it is posted, it only gives the title to the article.

You can solve the problem by providing an official Catholic site talking about those Catholic prophesies as quoted from Catholic sources.

Apparently - you didn't read the disclaimer:
"CatholicProphecy.org features prophecies from various saints and mystics. They are all thought to be accurate translations and accurate quotes, but we ask you to please use your own discernment and do your own research for verification. "

These are NOT official positions of the Church but independent prophecies from individuals.
Once again - you are dishonestly trying to show official Catholic positions from a NON-official source.

 

[Enow]

Apparently - you didn't read the disclaimer:
"CatholicProphecy.org features prophecies from various saints and mystics. They are all thought to be accurate translations and accurate quotes, but we ask you to please use your own discernment and do your own research for verification. "

These are NOT official positions of the Church but independent prophecies from individuals.
Once again - you are dishonestly trying to show official Catholic positions from a NON-official source.

The more you protest about dishonesty, the more you just don't want to prove that it is not a Catholic site run by Catholics, giving sources of quoted prophecies from Catholic saints thru out Catholic history.

Yes, I read the disclaimer which does not prove anything for what you want that to mean as not a Catholic site run by Catholics.

Are you being dishonest with yourself?

Show me an official Catholic site addressing these Catholic prophecies or admit that you don't have an answer right now.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The more you protest about dishonesty, the more you just don't want to prove that it is not a Catholic site run by Catholics, giving sources of quoted prophecies from Catholic saints thru out Catholic history.

Yes, I read the disclaimer which does not prove anything for what you want that to mean as not a Catholic site run by Catholics.

Are you being dishonest with yourself?

Show me an official Catholic site addressing these Catholic prophecies or admit that you don't have an answer right now.

I'll tell you flat-out that the Church doesn't have an official position on most of these "propehecies".
That's the FIRST red flag warning for any educated Catholic.

The sites and sources YOU have presented are NOT official claims of the Church.
You MAY be able to get away with this manure with your ignorant Catholic friends - but NOT with an educated Catholic . . .

 

[Enow]

I'll tell you flat-out that the Church doesn't have an official position on most of these "propehecies".
That's the FIRST red flag warning for any educated Catholic.

You should have a quote and a link citing that since you claim to be an educated Catholic.

The sites and sources YOU have presented are NOT official claims of the Church.
You MAY be able to get away with this manure with your ignorant Catholic friends - but NOT with an educated Catholic . . .

I said I read the disclaimer at the site so I can't see why you think I am misleading anyone by that article about the existence of Catholic prophecies.

But as it is, I think you are just too mad to have a discussion here.

Catholic Answers site addresses the topic of Catholic prophesies. They do address some of them realistically even though they seem to credit only a few worth noting.

Is Pope Francis the Final Roman Pontiff?

So is that an official Catholic site or not?

My point is there are Catholic prophesies but you keep insinuating that there isn't any by being dismissive of all of those sites in spite of citing Catholics in the past and YET the CC does not have an official position on most of these prophesies and again you lacking a quote from a reliable Catholic source saying so.

I can understand your position and can even accept it once you quote it, but the only reason I pointed to Catholic prophesies was about the ones that predicted the destruction of the Vatican during my discussion with another Catholic member of this forum.

Jack Van Impe seems to believe Francis is the last Pope as far as prophesies goes. I'm not endorsing him, but just referring him as speaking on that subject too.

 

[Taken]

I already answered those questions:
1. The Church in Rome was called the Church in Rome.
2. It wasn't a "name" but a location.
3. Peter was appointed by Christ to "feed His lambs" and "tend his sheep" (John 21:15-19).

NONE of the original Bishops/Apostles were ordained by anybody but Christ himself.

Well you skipped answering several questions...so perhaps you are limited in knowledge about the Church you mention so often.

NONE of the original Bishops/Apostles were ordained by anybody but Christ himself.

When you gloss over history with a latter tradition...the true scriptural meaning becomes obscured.

What do "you" mean "Bishops/Apostles" ?

 

[Philip James]

Prophecy: Europe’s Vatican-Destroying Revolution

Catholic site citing Catholic sources.

Brother Enow,

First, you should know that no private revelation is binding on any of the faithful. At most the Church (after testing) will pronounce something 'worthy of belief'.

You can find official Church teaching about the final trial and passion of the Church here: Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

#s 675-677

While i would happy to share my thoughts on the coming trial, perhaps thats best done in PM if you are interested.

Peace!

 

[Philip James]

There is one body of believers which is the Church with Jesus as the sole Head.

Agreed!

And as you pointed out, this one Church is found in various places or territories.
We call these 'particular' churches as opposes to the 'one Church'

Thus you have the Church in Smyrna, the Church in Rome, the Church in Alexandria, etc...

Now this belief that the Church is one is held by all the particular churches, everywhere. Thus it is understood by the whole Church.
It is thus a 'catholic' tenet of the Faith. The word catholic means 'according to the whole' or that which is found in the whole Church, everywhere.

This is what the bishops of the Church meant by the word catholic at the Council of Nicea when they put this in the Creed:

We belive in one holy catholic and apostolic church

Do you hold to the Nicene creed?

Peace!

 

[Enow]

Brother Enow,

Brother Philip James

First, you should know that no private revelation is binding on any of the faithful. At most the Church (after testing) will pronounce something 'worthy of belief'.

Understood. Do you have an official Catholic site that would pronounce something like that?

You can find official Church teaching about the final trial and passion of the Church here: Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

#s 675-677

While i would happy to share my thoughts on the coming trial, perhaps thats best done in PM if you are interested.

Peace!

Thank you for sharing that link and that portion from the Catholic catechism.

If you have time to share your thoughts in PM, feel free to do so. God be willing, I shall respond as well.

 

[Enow]

Agreed!

And as you pointed out, this one Church is found in various places or territories.
We call these 'particular' churches as opposes to the 'one Church'

Thus you have the Church in Smyrna, the Church in Rome, the Church in Alexandria, etc...

Now this belief that the Church is one is held by all the particular churches, everywhere. Thus it is understood by the whole Church.
It is thus a 'catholic' tenet of the Faith. The word catholic means 'according to the whole' or that which is found in the whole Church, everywhere.

This is what the bishops of the Church meant by the word catholic at the Council of Nicea when they put this in the Creed:

After reading #846 as supplied by BreadOfLife from the Catholic catechism, it does seem to suggest a different reading of what that One Church is in relations to non-Catholic Christians.

We belive in one holy catholic and apostolic church

Do you hold to the Nicene creed?

Peace!

The original creed of 325 A.D., I did not have a problem with it until they had modified it in 381 A.D., and so no.. I do not agree with everything in it.

As for what was intended in the Nicene creed regarding one apostolic Catholic Church as meaning universal, I do not believe the Catholic catechism meant it that way in #846, and one has to wonder why they use the term apostolic as if maybe inferring to line of successions from the apostles.

There is a web site that tries to prove each line in the Nicene creed as Biblical, but if you check those scriptural references by those lines, it has nothing to do in proving that line for what it says like the Holy Spirit being the Giver of Life when all scripture says Jesus is the Giver of Life ( John 6:33-35 ) and scripture is supposed to testify to Jesus being the One that gives life per John 5:39-40. Citing Genesis 1:2 hardly testify to the Spirit giving life.

The Spirit of Christ is life whereby when Jesus baptizes us with the promise of the Holy Ghost from the Father, then that is Jesus giving us life.

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

1 John 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Then you have worshiping the Holy Spirit with the Father & the Son, but Matthew 3:16-17 has nothing to do with that practice at all when just testifying to the Holy Spirit bearing witness with the Father's testimony at Jesus's water baptism that He is His Son and thus God. I know that the Holy Spirit is God and One of the 3 Witnesses within that One God, but scripture specified how the Father wants us to come to Him by in worship and that is by the only way of the Son in John 14:6 as that is the mind of Christ Paul wanted us to have when coming in to worship : Philippians 2:5-13 and so the only way to honor the Father is by honoring the Son and when any believer stops honoring the Son in worship by honoring the Holy Spirit or the "Trinity", then they are no longer honoring the Father as that is the judgment over every believer in Christ ( John 5:22-23 & John 13:31-32 )

So there are 2 lines in that modified Nicene creed that is not really supported by scripture and yet scripture seems to reprove otherwise. The indwelling Holy Spirit has been sent to testify of the Son ( John 15:26 ) to glorify the Son ( John 16:14 ) thru us ( John 15:27 ) and that has to include worship, fellowship, prayer and not just outreach ministry.

Well, that is where I stand in relations to the Nicene creed of 381 A.D. Thank you for sharing, brother.

 

[Philip James]

The original creed of 325 A.D., I did not have a problem with it until they had modified it in 381

Brother Enow, i believe we have a beginning.
Very well then, 325.

First, do you recognize that as a council of bishops of the whole Church, that, is a council of the bishops of particular churches that recognized each other as all being members of the One Church of Christ?

And what then do you think they are referring to here:

- these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.

Taken from here: Creed of Nicaea 325 - Greek and Latin Text with English translation

Peace!

 

[Enow]

Brother Enow, i believe we have a beginning.
Very well then, 325.

Okay, Brother Philip James.

First, do you recognize that as a council of bishops of the whole Church, that, is a council of the bishops of particular churches that recognized each other as all being members of the One Church of Christ?

Are you referring to the Council of Nicea? If so, no. I believe the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes that God hates in Revelations is about having a hierarchy in authority as governing over all the churches when there can be no governing authority outside the assembly of believers in a given place other than Christ Jesus, the Word of God, and thus His words as scripture as the governing from that Head Whom is Christ.

Protestants are guilty of doing the same thing with having their own Presbytery.

And what then do you think they are referring to here:

- these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.

Taken from here: Creed of Nicaea 325 - Greek and Latin Text with English translation

Peace!

Thank you for sharing that link. It is troublesome because that is not how I remembered the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D.

I went online to do a search and I found a site using the Nicene Creed of 381 A.D. rather than the 325 A.D.

Nicene Creed (A.D. 325) | CARM.org

So big mistake there at CARM.

This site at this link below has it correct by comparing the 2 creeds of 325 & 381 together with the first one in 325 as I remembered it as saying..

What is the Nicene Creed of A.D. 325 and A.D. 381? | NeverThirsty

So that is the creed as I recollected it as saying in 325 which is entirely different as you had referenced it at your link; hence troublesome. Not sure how we can prove which one is the correct one now.

But addressing that portion from the Nicene creed you had referenced as saying "- these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes," I would have to discern that with Him for a little bit since it wasn't as I had remembered the Nicene creed of 325 A.D. as saying.

Okay. I reckon I have some other contentions with the Nicene creed and not just from your reference and that is the Father being the Maker of Heaven and earth when it was Jesus with permission from the Father to create all things. It did acknowledge Jesus in the middle of the creed by Whom all things were made but scripture would testify differently whereby the Father took the backseat in helping with creation by agreeing with the Son. Like say in that request to "Let us make man in our image and in our likeness" was Jesus asking the Father for Him to do that, and by agreeing with the Son is how "They" establish a word in creation, thereby Jesus being our Creator and not just Our Redeemer.

John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men........ 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

I point this out because it shows how error can enter through all the churches by ecumenical means as gathering grapes of thorns and figs of thistles when the Word of God should be the final authority on all matters of the truth. The council of spiritual leaders makes churches become complacent in letting someone else outside the assembly set the beliefs of the church when the Word of God should have done it, and that was not to be so when each of us is living that reconciled relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

By that statement, it places the authority to anathematize any one that disagrees with the council by that creed they made up and yet scripture would disagree with them right at the beginning of that creed.

I understand that they are denouncing that heresy of any one that believes Jesus had not existed before He was born, but it leaves much to be desired since each assembly should have been able to reprove that heresy by the scripture with His help, rather than placing confidence in men in the higher authority or even in themselves individually since Jesus Christ is the Good Shepherd.

Psalm 118:8 It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. 9 It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You should have a quote and a link citing that since you claim to be an educated Catholic.
I said I read the disclaimer at the site so I can't see why you think I am misleading anyone by that article about the existence of Catholic prophecies.
But as it is, I think you are just too mad to have a discussion here.
Catholic Answers site addresses the topic of Catholic prophesies. They do address some of them realistically even though they seem to credit only a few worth noting.
Is Pope Francis the Final Roman Pontiff?
So is that an official Catholic site or not?
My point is there are Catholic prophesies but you keep insinuating that there isn't any by being dismissive of all of those sites in spite of citing Catholics in the past and YET the CC does not have an official position on most of these prophesies and again you lacking a quote from a reliable Catholic source saying so.

I can understand your position and can even accept it once you quote it, but the only reason I pointed to Catholic prophesies was about the ones that predicted the destruction of the Vatican during my discussion with another Catholic member of this forum.

Jack Van Impe seems to believe Francis is the last Pope as far as prophesies goes. I'm not endorsing him, but just referring him as speaking on that subject too.

Why don't you just TRY being honest - for once??

First of all - I never said that there "weren't ANY" Catholic prophecies as you falsely claim.
I said that the Catholic Church doesn't have an official position on MOST of the prophecies on your link.

Secondly - as I have stated ad nauseam - YOU are responsible for what you post - whether or not YOU are the one claiming it.
If you post from a spurious or dishonest site - it's YOUR responsibility.

Finally - I couldn't care less what a charlatan like Jack Van Impe says about the Vatican.
I don't take his dishonesty any more seriously than I take YOUR dishonesty . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well you skipped answering several questions...so perhaps you are limited in knowledge about the Church you mention so often.
When you gloss over history with a latter tradition...the true scriptural meaning becomes obscured.
What do "you" mean "Bishops/Apostles" ?

Funny how you accuse me of being "limited" in my knowledge about the Church - yet YOU don't even know that the Apostles were the first Bishops.
Time for another Bible lesson . . .

In Acts 1 - the Apostles and about 109 other gathered to select a successor for Judas.
In verse 20, Peter quotes Psalm 109 when he said:
“Let another take his office."

The Greek word used here for "office" is "Episkopay" - which means, "BISHOPRIC".

Get it now?