Is Any Denomination Saved?

[Enow]

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

Like you? If I give grace for your poor recollection and not call that dishonesty, you can do it too, brother

First of all - I never said that there "weren't ANY" Catholic prophecies as you falsely claim.

When you were dismissing the sites along with the sources named for those Catholic prophesies, you came out looking that way.

I said that the Catholic Church doesn't have an official position on MOST of the prophecies on your link.

Yeah... after a dismissing sites as if there were no such thing as Catholic prophesies, you "finally" stated that.

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.

The one article that used the term "Roman" in its title is not my fault. You wanted proof for why I believe the way I did about the Pope in representing the CC about a certain topic regarding salvation and I gave you one. Then you gave an excerpt from #846 from the Catholic catechism that proves my point. I can read the header that you provided before reading #846 proving my point. You just got mad and denied it as saying such plainly.

Then... in the midst of that discussion...

Posting links to articles about the existence of Catholic prophecies which was in turn a side bar note from a discussion with another Catholic poster about the Catholic prophesies citing the destruction of the Vatican... from which you joined in that discussion by insinuating that site was anti-Catholic and thus dismissing all Catholic sources for said prophesies .... even though the writer was a red pill Catholic.. etc and etc. remember now?

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 . . .

I do not like your poor recollection of the progress of this discussion and your main point for joining the discussion is to what? The same as you denounce Jack Van Impe for siting Catholic sources for those prophesies about Francis may be the very last Pope. You just want to deny it and you went ahead and called him dishonest. Why? What if the CC finally make an official statement on those Catholic prophesies to prove you wrong? If no official statement is forthcoming, should you not refrain from debunking and calling people dishonest les you appear to be dishonest yourself? Referring to Catholic prophesies is not being dishonest. It is a discussion about whether they think it will become true or not, regardless if it is an official Catholic source. Prophesies are that which has not come to pass yet. No one can say it is true or false, so there.

If you know your Catholic catechism well, what does # 675 - #677 says about the end? Or do you want to deny that official Catholic source too?

So go ahead and state ad nauseam all you want because you are responsible for what you post too, when you are being more argumentative with baiting and belittling rather than discussing with any one in meekness and gentleness and patience. You bite & devour and care not a wit how you come across. One thing I have learned, brother, is when a person protest way too much about anything, as in your case, other people's dishonesty, more than likely you are being dishonest yourself. When you accuse others of being obtuse or obstinate, the same can be said of you.

If you can't discuss this without the urge to bite, then don't bother replying at all. I'd say you are really mad at yourself for not seeing the truth and you still don't want to see the truth so what better way to deflect from the acknowledging the truth shown other than to attack the poster.

So keep on attacking posters without addressing the issue at all, in proving one way or another at all, and see what that gets you. Nothing.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Like you? If I give grace for your poor recollection and not call that dishonesty, you can do it too, brother
When you were dismissing the sites along with the sources named for those Catholic prophesies, you came out looking that way.

I don't care what YOU think I "came out looking" like.
I said explicitly that the Catholic Church didn't have an official position for "MOST" of the prophecies on your link.

Stick to the FACTS.

Yeah... after a dismissing sites as if there were no such thing as Catholic prophesies, you "finally" stated that.

Another dishonest statement.
I said this as soon as it came up.

The one article that used the term "Roman" in its title is not my fault. You wanted proof for why I believe the way I did about the Pope in representing the CC about a certain topic regarding salvation and I gave you one. Then you gave an excerpt from #846 from the Catholic catechism that proves my point. I can read the header that you provided before reading #846 proving my point. You just got mad and denied it as saying such plainly.

Then... in the midst of that discussion...

Posting links to articles about the existence of Catholic prophecies which was in turn a side bar note from a discussion with another Catholic poster about the Catholic prophesies citing the destruction of the Vatican... from which you joined in that discussion by insinuating that site was anti-Catholic and thus dismissing all Catholic sources for said prophesies .... even though the writer was a red pill Catholic.. etc and etc. remember now?

More dishonesty. Do you EVER stop??
Paragraphs 846 & 847 don't "prove" your point - they completely obliterate it.

As for the term "Rome" - YOU link stated flatly that the Pope said that only "Roman Catholics" would be saved.
YOU are responsible for posting a lie. If you don't do your homework - then YOU are to blame for the lie.

I do not like your poor recollection of the progress of this discussion and your main point for joining the discussion is to what? The same as you denounce Jack Van Impe for siting Catholic sources for those prophesies about Francis may be the very last Pope. You just want to deny it and you went ahead and called him dishonest. Why? What if the CC finally make an official statement on those Catholic prophesies to prove you wrong? If no official statement is forthcoming, should you not refrain from debunking and calling people dishonest les you appear to be dishonest yourself? Referring to Catholic prophesies is not being dishonest. It is a discussion about whether they think it will become true or not, regardless if it is an official Catholic source. Prophesies are that which has not come to pass yet. No one can say it is true or false, so there.

If you know your Catholic catechism well, what does # 675 - #677 says about the end? Or do you want to deny that official Catholic source too?

So go ahead and state ad nauseam all you want because you are responsible for what you post too, when you are being more argumentative with baiting and belittling rather than discussing with any one in meekness and gentleness and patience. You bite & devour and care not a wit how you come across. One thing I have learned, brother, is when a person protest way too much about anything, as in your case, other people's dishonesty, more than likely you are being dishonest yourself. When you accuse others of being obtuse or obstinate, the same can be said of you.

If you can't discuss this without the urge to bite, then don't bother replying at all. I'd say you are really mad at yourself for not seeing the truth and you still don't want to see the truth so what better way to deflect from the acknowledging the truth shown other than to attack the poster.

So keep on attacking posters without addressing the issue at all, in proving one way or another at all, and see what that gets you. Nothing.

If the Catholic Church officially says that all of the prophecies YOU posted are correct - then I will eat crow.
HOWEVER - this is NOT the case - YOUR wishful thinking notwithstanding . . .

What I stated is TRUE:
The Church doesn't have an official position on MOST of the prophecies you listed.[/QUOTE]

 

[Taken]

Funny how you accuse me of being "limited" in my knowledge about the Church -

Well? You selected questions to answer, didn't answer all, and said you did, but you did not!

yet YOU don't even know that the Apostles were the first Bishops.

Asking a question does not mean, the one asking does not know the answer.

Did you not learn that from Jesus?
Did you not learn that in elementary school?

Time for another Bible lesson . . .

Have you already forgotten, you are not my teacher!

Get it now?

Now? No. Not news.

 

[Taken]

To BOL
So keep on attacking posters without addressing the issue at all, in proving one way or another at all, and see what that gets you. Nothing.

Hard to have a conversation with someone whose 3 square meals are Arrogance...eh?

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Enow]

Hard to have a conversation with someone whose 3 square meals are Arrogance...eh?

Glory to God,
Taken

It does make one wonder when a life long Catholic discovers they have been lied to when defending the CC for all this time, that he would be tempted with pride and shame not to repent because of it.

He is our brother so pray for him. Maybe the Lord will give life long Catholics the love they need for Him that they would be led to repent.

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Asking a question does not mean, the one asking does not know the answer.
Did you not learn that from Jesus?
Did you not learn that in elementary school?
Have you already forgotten, you are not my teacher!
Now? No. Not news.

Nice TRY - but let's review our conversation . . .

I said:
"NONE of the original Bishops/Apostles were ordained by anybody but Christ himself."

YOU responded with:
"When you gloss over history with a latter tradition...the true scriptural meaning becomes obscured.
What do "you" mean "Bishops/Apostles" ?"

You asked the question because you were accusing me and the Catholic Church of making up this "tradition".
It is a Scriptural fact that you were completely UNAWARE of.

That's why you needed to be taught a Bible lesson . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

So keep on attacking posters without addressing the issue at all, in proving one way or another at all, and see what that gets you. Nothing.

Another LIE.

I've done nothing BUT address the issue AND have provided proof for my claims.
YOU, on the other hand have chosen to persist in lying your way through our conversation - and I have exposed you for it at every turn.

Perhaps this is the reason for your frustration . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hard to have a conversation with someone whose 3 square meals are Arrogance...eh?

Glory to God,
Taken

When people are exposed for ignorance or lying - they usually see it as "arrogance" on the part of their adversary.

Here's a neat trick I learned a LONG time ago:
Do your homework before posting . . .

 

[Philip James]

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.

Br. Enow,

Your link left out the anathemas, and both links left out the canons and letter to the Church in Eqypt which are also part of that document.
Here is an English translation of the full text: First Council of Nicaea – 325 AD - Papal Encyclicals

If wish to see it in the original languages (Greek and Latin), I'm confident you can find them.

I'll let you peruse that for a while, but I have a couple questions about this:

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

1. Why would you believe that is the 'doctrine of the Nicolations'. I'm truly curious if you have any kind of historical reference to these..

2. The Church seems clearly hierarchical in the NT to me. For example:

For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you,

Has a clear heirarchy of authority, Paul>Titus>Creten presbytery

And of course, there is the council of Jerusalem (the prototypical council )

If your suggestion 'there can be no governing authority outside the assembly of believers in a given place other than Christ Jesus' is true, then could the local churches have ignored the instruction of the council? Insisted on circumcising new gentile converts?

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

Indeed, which is why we trust the Holy Spirit to guard and guide the Church, despite the failings of men.
Outside the magesterium of the Church there is no such guaruntee...
' the gates of hell will not prevail against it'

Peace be with you!

 

[Enow]

Br. Enow,

Hi Brother Philip James

Your link left out the anathemas, and both links left out the canons and letter to the Church in Eqypt which are also part of that document.
Here is an English translation of the full text: First Council of Nicaea – 325 AD - Papal Encyclicals

If wish to see it in the original languages (Greek and Latin), I'm confident you can find them.

I tend to believe yours is the correct and original one while the ones I had been changed to make the creed more acceptable to Protestants. All "ecumenical" creed should be dropped. We have the scripture for our guide.

I'll let you peruse that for a while, but I have a couple questions about this:

1. Why would you believe that is the 'doctrine of the Nicolations'. I'm truly curious if you have any kind of historical reference to these..

No. Just from what the name means; if I recollect it properly, conquest of the laity or conqueror of the laity.

2. The Church seems clearly hierarchical in the NT to me. For example:

For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you,

Has a clear heirarchy of authority, Paul>Titus>Creten presbytery

But the presbytery is in that town. If you look at all the established hierarchy now over a chain of churches, that authority is not in that town.

The problem is nobody can reprove anyone in that presbytery from that town by the Word of God when the Presbytery is out of town. No one knows how they are voted in or how to vote one out as in excommunicating them when someone in authority is not repenting.

And it is like, they can't be touched and will not be submitting to the Word of God for why that qualifies it as the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.

And of course, there is the council of Jerusalem (the prototypical council )

That doctrine of the Nicolaitanes applies to them though.

If your suggestion 'there can be no governing authority outside the assembly of believers in a given place other than Christ Jesus' is true, then could the local churches have ignored the instruction of the council? Insisted on circumcising new gentile converts?

Indeed, which is why we trust the Holy Spirit to guard and guide the Church, despite the failings of men.
Outside the magesterium of the Church there is no such guaruntee...
' the gates of hell will not prevail against it'

Peace be with you!

When a web site picked out the 7 worst corrupt Popes in the history of the Catholic Church, it goes to point about the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes because no one had the means to reprove the Pope living in sin and no one seems to have the power to remove, let alone excommunicate that Pope.

So what about the spiritual welfare of that Pope? Or any Protestant member of a Presbytery? When they become untouchable and out of reach, it becomes somebody else's problem and yet they govern over a chain of churches and permit errant practices or compromise with social values, and pretty soon, they have to bow to the ones in authority when scripture should have been the final say over every head of a believer, no matter what.

 

[Philip James]

Hi Brother Philip James

No. Just from what the name means; if I recollect it properly, conquest of the laity or conqueror of the laity.

Brother, do you think it's wise to stand as an accuser of your brethren, on a charge with no substantial information?
You don't have to answer me on that, but I would urge you to prayerfully consider it.

But the presbytery is in that town. If you look at all the established hierarchy now over a chain of churches, that authority is not in that town.

The problem is nobody can reprove anyone in that presbytery from that town by the Word of God when the Presbytery is out of town. No one knows how they are voted in or how to vote one out as in excommunicating them when someone in authority is not repenting.

And it is like, they can't be touched and will not be submitting to the Word of God for why that qualifies it as the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.

But you just admitted that you have no idea what the 'doctrine of the Nicolations' was. So how then can you say such things?

As for the presbytery, I don't know what church you are describing but its not the Catholic church. In the Catholic church, every territory has its own presbytery in union with its ordinary Bishop. The executive, legislative and judicial rights and obligations of the presbyters and bishops, as well as the judicial process for complaints/penalties are laid out here: Code of Canon Law: Table of Contents .


It seems clear to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you reject the authority of the council of Bishops at Nicea in 325 to issue instruction that was binding on the whole Church.

So that brings me back to the council of Jerusalem:

That doctrine of the Nicolaitanes applies to them though.

I don't see how that answered my question, so let me rephrase please..

Do you think that the instruction sent out from the Council of Jerusalem was binding on the whole Church?

I called it the prototypical council, because it demonstrates how the Holy Spirit uses the elders of the Church to deal with disputes and issues that affect the whole Church. This is how HE brings all of us, together, into all Truth!

When a web site picked out the 7 worst corrupt Popes in the history of the Catholic Church, it goes to point about the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes

wait, wait wait... I thought you admitted there is no historical documentation of what the 'doctrine of the Nicolations' is. Are you really building a whole anathema out of the etymology of a name? With no evidence to show that the Church ever taught such? Careful brother...

because no one had the means to reprove the Pope living in sin

Are you kidding? People reprove the Pope all the time! I doubt any one else alive has every word he speaks so parsed by the world... especially with modern media... wow.

and no one seems to have the power to remove, let alone excommunicate that Pope.

umm.. I think that God has the power to remove a pope anytime He wishes...

So what about the spiritual welfare of that Pope?

Indeed he needs our prayers and support. What a burden...

Or any Protestant member of a Presbytery?

Protestant presbyters, I am sure, follow the rules of their communities, perhaps you should ask them?

... when scripture should have been the final say over every head of a believer, no matter what.

We have the scripture for our guide.

And what scripture is that? The 27 books of the NT? How do you know?

It is indisputable that the canon of the NT was set by the Catholic church. We can discuss how it was done, or why these books were chosen and not others, or which councils upheld the standard etc... but regardless, every time you acknowledge the canon of the NT, you implicitly affirm the authority of those who set the canon.

In holding to the canon of the NT as it is, you follow a Catholic Tradition.


Peace be with you!

 

[Enow]

Brother, do you think it's wise to stand as an accuser of your brethren, on a charge with no substantial information?
You don't have to answer me on that, but I would urge you to prayerfully consider it.

Is it true or not that Constantine chose ruling bishops to serve his interests in political power or not? I would suspect the council as rigged for ecumenicalism as in bringing the churches under their authority by establishing creeds for the churches to follow in establishing that authority over them, if you think about it.

But you just admitted that you have no idea what the 'doctrine of the Nicolations' was. So how then can you say such things?

I had read that online and doing a quick search, found this site that confirms a part of my recollection; but I remember it firmly as "laity" rather than people.

Who are the Nicolaitans?

"The three-part Greek word from which we get Nicolaitans is Nikolaites (Strong's #G3531). The first part, Niko, is defined as a conquest or victory over others. The second part, lai, means people. The last part, tes, represents the word "the." Taken together, the word is defined as someone who is a conqueror or victor over people."

My recollection stated that there was no other clue as to what the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes was but the deeds of the Nicolaitanes was sexual immorality. As it is, I cannot find the original web site where I had learned that that used laity instead of people.

As for the presbytery, I don't know what church you are describing but its not the Catholic church. In the Catholic church, every territory has its own presbytery in union with its ordinary Bishop. The executive, legislative and judicial rights and obligations of the presbyters and bishops, as well as the judicial process for complaints/penalties are laid out here: Code of Canon Law: Table of Contents .

Thank you for sharing, but the scripture you had cited before said the presbytery was to be in that city; not outside of it, remember? That is the distinction I was making about not having an authority out side of the city where there can be no face to face dealing with scripture reproofs.

It seems clear to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you reject the authority of the council of Bishops at Nicea in 325 to issue instruction that was binding on the whole Church.

Yes. Because that authority is not what the Biblical Presbytery was supposed to be when it is not the Presbytery in that city where believers dwells.

So that brings me back to the council of Jerusalem:

I don't see how that answered my question, so let me rephrase please..

Do you think that the instruction sent out from the Council of Jerusalem was binding on the whole Church?

I called it the prototypical council, because it demonstrates how the Holy Spirit uses the elders of the Church to deal with disputes and issues that affect the whole Church. This is how HE brings all of us, together, into all Truth!

This is where they deviate from scripture in what and how a presbytery is to serve.

wait, wait wait... I thought you admitted there is no historical documentation of what the 'doctrine of the Nicolations' is. Are you really building a whole anathema out of the etymology of a name? With no evidence to show that the Church ever taught such? Careful brother...

Let's put it this way, the council is going beyond what a Presbytery is Biblically.

Are you kidding? People reprove the Pope all the time! I doubt any one else alive has every word he speaks so parsed by the world... especially with modern media... wow.

Then what happened with those 7 Worst Popes in Catholic history that were living in sin? Why were they not excommunicated for not repenting to assign a Pope walking in the light rather than in darkness?

umm.. I think that God has the power to remove a pope anytime He wishes...

Did it happen with those 7 worst Popes? No. Is it on God to excommunicate the unrepentant brother living in sin? No. It is on the church to do that.

1 Corinthians 5th chapter at this link at Bible Gateway for reference.

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 5 - King James Version

Indeed he needs our prayers and support. What a burden...

I'll take your word for it that you & your church do say a prayer for him.

Protestant presbyters, I am sure, follow the rules of their communities, perhaps you should ask them?

They are unreachable. My former church switched Presbytery because the former compromised with social values and so they switched to a Biblical one, but the Biblical one is not exactly Biblical; but just not compromising with social values.

See what I mean? Who voted those guys and gals in? Nobody from the churches in our areas voted them in, nor do they know anything about them. And if the former Presbytery compromised with social values, what is to prevent the so called Biblical one from doing the same?

When the Word of God is to be the Head of every believer, and thus every church of that city, this is why I believe God hates the doctrines of the Nicolaitanes, because they become untouchables by the Word of God that they can get away with anything and so what can all the local churches do?

And what scripture is that? The 27 books of the NT? How do you know?

Well, think about it. Why look to an authority outside the city where believers live at when said authority is to address the issue with scripture, right? If the final say is by the scripture, then why look to let alone have an authority outside of the city where believers dwell?

It is indisputable that the canon of the NT was set by the Catholic church. We can discuss how it was done, or why these books were chosen and not others, or which councils upheld the standard etc... but regardless, every time you acknowledge the canon of the NT, you implicitly affirm the authority of those who set the canon.

In holding to the canon of the NT as it is, you follow a Catholic Tradition.

What about the Textus Receptus? What is the CC's position on that?

Peace be with you!

I hope you have a good night sleep, brother.