Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

[Giuliano]

Once again – you are missing the point.

Monks and nuns don’t give up their worldly possessions because they were greedy and hopelessly attached to their possessions like the rich Man. They practice mortification of the flesh, which is something that Paul endorsed. They deny themselves for the Kingdom of God, living a life of constant self-sacrifice.

The Rich Man whom Jesus addressed couldn’t do this. His possessions were at the center of his life and he couldn’t imagine life without them.

The monks and nuns don't starve?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Now there's the kind of impotent response I would have expected from one of you.
Good job . . .

 

[Grailhunter]

Spoken like yet another person who is used to spewing lies with impunity.

The problem with people like you is that you LOVE to spread falsehoods – but you HATE getting caught – and that’s where I come in.

I am the “bad guy” who exposes people like you and Giuliano and the rest.

Anyway – it doesn’t matter one single iota what YOU think about me. I’m not here to be your buddy – I’m here to expose lies and misrepresentations of the Catholic Church so that others reading this manure don’t get seduced by them . . .

All of it 100% truth. And you sir have a serious problem. What do you bet, you are the only person on this forum to receive "Manners Training" Those that love the Church have forgave its past, but there are serious issues that need to be addressed. The Catholic Church today is better than it has ever been.....but still it has some burning issues...I mean burning issues that need to be address. Odds are the Vatican is not going to be able to do that on their own. Those good people in the pews need to start speaking up. The leadership of the Vatican is bound up in politics and it is going to need the load voice of the people to push them.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The monks and nuns don't starve?

Nope.
And most of them were never rich, either . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

All of it 100% truth. And you sir have a serious problem. What do you bet, you are the only person on this forum to receive "Manners Training" Those that love the Church have forgave its past, but there are serious issues that need to be addressed. The Catholic Church today is better than it has ever been.....but still it has some burning issues...I mean burning issues that need to be address. Odds are the Vatican is not going to be able to do that on their own. Those good people in the pews need to start speaking up. The leadership of the Vatican is bound up in politics and it is going to need the load voice of the people to push them.

And that’s the difference between Christ’s Church, which is led by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15) – and the tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that are led by the ever-changing minds of the rabble in the pews.

Eph. 4:14
As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;

 

[Grailhunter]

And that’s the difference between Christ’s Church, which is led by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15) – and the tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that are led by the ever-changing minds of the rabble in the pews.

Eph. 4:14
As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;

As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;

Trickery of men! Oh my gosh! Do you know right from wrong! Like I said, you are a disgrace....are you saying the doctrine of the Church is child molesting? That the Holy Spirit stand behind your choice to not stop child molesting. There are things that need to change...the old dog can learn new tricks. Throwing stones at the Protestants makes no sense when you are sitting on a pile of bones in a burning church. Hypocrite, take that beam out of your own eye, so you can better see to remove the speck out of their eye. I want to see good for the Catholic Church, but it is going to have to listen and learn, or it will pay the price of its own evils and arrogance. The time to change is now!

 

[aspen]

Who's talking about behavior?

I said:

The catholic church has done a terrible job of educating its people.

A TERRIBLE JOB OF EDUCATING.

Protestants have used the bible to EDUCATE their people.
The CC has NOT.

In the states reading the bible was not ENCOURAGED when I was a young person.
In Italy it was FORBIDDEN for persons to read the bible, even after WWII.
It has just begun to be encouraged. I don't mean yesterday,,perhaps within the past 20 years or so...

Unfortunately, Vatican I set the tone for placing power in the hands of the clergy - it was not good for the church.

 

[GodsGrace]

Unfortunately, Vatican I set the tone for placing power in the hands of the clergy - it was not good for the church.

At the time of Vat I -- late 1800's --- the church here in Europe had a lot of power and ran governments...a very bad idea.

What do you believe would have been a better road to take rather than placing power in the hands of the clergy? I can't think of anything.

 

[aspen]

At the time of Vat I -- late 1800's --- the church here in Europe had a lot of power and ran governments...a very bad idea.

What do you believe would have been a better road to take rather than placing power in the hands of the clergy? I can't think of anything.

Recognizing that people were more educated and, like V II, educate them further in Church history and the Bible

 

[GodsGrace]

Recognizing that people were more educated and, like V II, educate them further in Church history and the Bible

I couldn't agree with you more.
I might have been able to stay in the CC.
It has so many good teachings.
(and some I can't agree with).

 

[BreadOfLife]

As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;

Trickery of men! Oh my gosh! Do you know right from wrong! Like I said, you are a disgrace....are you saying the doctrine of the Church is child molesting? That the Holy Spirit stand behind your choice to not stop child molesting. There are things that need to change...the old dog can learn new tricks. Throwing stones at the Protestants makes no sense when you are sitting on a pile of bones in a burning church. Hypocrite, take that beam out of your own eye, so you can better see to remove the speck out of their eye. I want to see good for the Catholic Church, but it is going to have to listen and learn, or it will pay the price of its own evils and arrogance. The time to change is now!

What an idiotic response.

Do you honestly believe that child molestation is Catholic doctrine??
It is a sin that was committed by a small minority of bad clergy and others in authority. NO different that the molestation going on right now in Protestant churches – which dwarfs the scandal in the Catholic Church.

When every member of YOUR sect is sin-free – then you can talk.
Talk about hypocrites not seeing the beam in your OWN eyes . . .

 

[Philip James]

Although fun to watch, I have some advice for you. When you are debating with Giuliano, you are sparring with intellect and some sort of achieve system that has to be impressive

Hello Grailhunter,

Giulano's a teddy bear.

As for the rest of your post, its a load of hooie...

Clearly you have no clue about topics such as chastity, miracles, power...
But nice drive by scattershot.

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you!

 

[Philip James]

At the time of Vat I -- late 1800's --- the church here in Europe had a lot of power and ran governments...a very bad idea.

Hello GG,
Do you think Kings converting from pagans and joining the Church was a bad idea?
Hmm... Rise of Europe's power, prosperity, righteousness, justice, honour, education... The Gospel and Christian values taken to the ends of the Earth ....

And what since countries have turned their backs on the Church.. Rebellions, wars, the rise of Babylon, and the degeneration of righeteousness, morality and honour..,

Peace!

 

[Grailhunter]

What an idiotic response.

Do you honestly believe that child molestation is Catholic doctrine??
It is a sin that was committed by a small minority of bad clergy and others in authority. NO different that the molestation going on right now in Protestant churches – which dwarfs the scandal in the Catholic Church.

When every member of YOUR sect is sin-free – then you can talk.
Talk about hypocrites not seeing the beam in your OWN eyes . . .

You are the one saying the Catholic Church is not going to change for nothing or nobody!
I guess you do not watch the news?
Like i said you are not a good defender of the Church.

 

[Grailhunter]

Hello Grailhunter,

Giulano's a teddy bear.

As for the rest of your post, its a load of hooie...

Clearly you have no clue about topics such as chastity, miracles, power...
But nice drive by scattershot.

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you!

Straight on target. Do more study....

 

[brakelite]

Hello GG,
Do you think Kings converting from pagans and joining the Church was a bad idea?
Hmm... Rise of Europe's power, prosperity, righteousness, justice, honour, education... The Gospel and Christian values taken to the ends of the Earth ....

And what since countries have turned their backs on the Church.. Rebellions, wars, the rise of Babylon, and the degeneration of righeteousness, morality and honour..,

Peace!

I think you need to dig a little deeper into history and discover the true nature and character of Europe as it developed through the ages. For example, one of the first pagan Kings to convert to Catholicism (I hesitate to say Christianity) was the Frank King Clovis. He was instrumental in the defeat of many minor kingdoms, a well as the Visigoths. He was about as converted as Constantine. Politically I suppose he could be named as one of the founders of modern Europe...aka the France part anyway... And of course the church loves to proclaim ownership and credit for any'conversion', regardless of character and Christian principles... Much like the evangelicals are claiming Trump as their own. I suppose we all gotta have our heroes.
As far as the bringing about of civilisation to Europe, Catholic credit for that is very much in doubt. The so called "holy Roman Empire" was characterised by war, persecution, somewhat held together by force of arms, but never without conflict, the masses uneducated and superstitious, industry non existent and the arts and trades languishing. It was the influx of literature and education from the east that changed the face of Europe.
If you want to see the fruit of Catholic sovereignty in nations, look no further than South America, the Philippines, Haiti, and other impoverished and destitute nations robbed of their resources and culture by the Spanish and Portugese.

 

[epostle]

Now let's look how this came up. You wrote, "To those who believe, evidence is not necessary. To those who refuse to believe, no amount of evidence will suffice. Validation through science is for unbelievers, not believers." Do you realize what you were saying? That kind of thinking is an open door for abuses and scandals that damage the reputation of the Church.

Scroll back. I was talking about miracles, not abuses. You are the one that questioned why bishops don't have instant built in miracle detectors, and I tried to explain why investigations are necessary. It doesn't mean bishops have no discernment. They have rules they must follow. Miracles occur strictly by the grace of God, not the Church. When the best medical science available says there is no explanation for something, it means nothing to those who refuse to believe, but miracles serve to affirm my faith in God, not the Church. You know as well as anybody with 2 functioning brain cells knows what would happen if the Church approved a miracle that later science proved it to be fake. (in this century, not the middle ages)The Church has learned a thing or two over the past 2000 years.

Or do you not care if Catholics look gullible and superstitious? Think of what you're saying, please.

I care very much. The protocol for investigations into miracles is extremely rigorous, to rule out superstition, to prove it was from God. That's good enough for me, but never good enough for those who refuse to believe.​

The context is perfect. Who was talking about heretics? I was talking about how the Catholic theology has evolved.

And I explained FOUR TIMES that doctrine does not evolve, it develops. The reason doctrine develops is BECAUSE of the heretics. Scripture alone was not enough, because the heretics were going by scripture alone. That's why councils were convened. Trinitarian theology HAD to develop, (which is accepted by most Christians) to give greater clarity to the Scriptures. Development of doctrine is deep stuff, it's not for baby Christians, and is almost absent in Protestantism. So it has to be explained over and over again.

The Catholic Church would say there was one apostolic deposit, given from Christ to the Apostles, and there’s been no change in that, in terms of essence or substance; so the Catholic Church preserves that, and is the Guardian of it. But, on the other hand, there is a growth in depth of clarity, in the understanding of those truths, without essential change. In other words, the subjective grasp of men increases, without the actual doctrine or dogma changing in an essential way. That’s the main distinction to keep in mind when one is talking about development.​

Overview of Development of Doctrine (TV Interview)
You are fixed on using erroneous terms like "change" and "evolve".

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Not once and then some more dribble by dribble over the centuries.

To you, it means "once and for all delivered unto the saints of 33 A.D." To me, it means " the faith once before delivered to the saints by the Apostles that is timeless". I contend that the same faith has not changed in it's essence. Furthermore, Jude 1:3 is a verse, not a doctrine, so it is irrelevant to development, but relevant to infallibility, which apparently you cannot, or will not, comprehend.

"...Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mt. 5:17, 13:31-2, Jn. 14:26, 16:13, 1 Cor. 2:9-16, Gal. 4:4, Eph. 1:10, 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture (“progressive revelation”). Examples: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, etc. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

 

[epostle]

In general, whenever Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development. It is only Protestant presuppositions – not always so “biblical” – which preclude development for fear of “excess.”

The Canon of Scripture itself is an example of developing doctrine. The New Testament never informs us which books comprise itself, and its Canon (final list of books) took about 360 years to reach its final form (at the Council of Carthage in 397). For instance, the books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not widely accepted by the Church until 350 A.D.!..."

I will continue to fail to understand how you can say something can change but still remain the same.

You will fail to understand as long as you stubbornly refuse to distinguish the different between development and change. I can only do so much.

Did I mention the Trinity? I was speaking of how doctrines in general have evolved.

Development of trinitarian theology is the simplest most direct example that I could think of.​

The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325, (not changed) and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381. The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed (not changed) in 451. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies.
Ibid.​

You think the Pope can speak infallibly about heavenly things -- things science can't disprove -- but he's incapable of speaking infallibly about earthly things? Surely you jest.

"things science can't disprove" has nothing to do with infallibility, and the Pope can only speak infallibly on faith and morals. Not everything the Pope says is infallible.

Shall we rewrite John?
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you (and all Catholic bishops and Popes) into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak (he's not speaking about anything so he's not hearing): and he will shew you (not the Popes or bishops but someone else) things to come.

"he will guide you into all truth" does not mean "he will force you into all truth. Your paraphrasing is incoherent. John 16:13 is about infallibility. You still haven't explained what "things to come" means, and you brought it up 3 times.

I wonder why they didn't go to Nicea to vote then. Only 22 Arians showed up out of 318? From a Catholic site:

Arianism and the Council of Nicea

The number of the bishops of the Council was 318. Twenty-two of them were in the Arian faction, with Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia as their leader. It is interesting to remark here that unlike many of the other bishops, neither the Bishop of Nicomedia nor any of his Arian companions bore on his body any marks of persecution.

You are making things up as you go -- it's either that or you're forgetful.

I was wrong then about the number of Arian bishops at the Council. I made a mistake. It's nice to see you referring to a Catholic site, and not one composed by atheists and wacko cults like the Sede Vacant.

The reason I asked was I've searched to see how times Popes have spoken ex cathedra, and nobody knows although some people say only twice.

The exercise of infallibility takes several forms (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 890-891, citing Lumen Gentium, 25). One form is exercised by the Pope when speaking ex cathedra (literally, “from the chair” of St. Peter, in his authority as pope) on matters of faith or morals, even if he does so without the support of the bishops. This is an exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church. While the pope has always held the power to exercise the Extraordinary Magisterium by speaking ex cathedra, the actual occurrence of an ex cathedra statement is quite rare. It is generally understood to have only occurred twice: Pope Pius IX’s definition of the dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception in 1854 and Pope Pius XII’s definition of the dogma of Mary’s Assumption in 1950. In both of these cases, the Pope was not teaching something new. Rather, he was confirming and clarifying something that the Church had already believed as part of God’s revelation.

If they've been refuted a milliion times, you should be doing a better job of it.

I am not an apologist, and never claimed to be one. The 500 year old so called "reformist" arguments have been refuted a million times, I was using a literary device called hyperbole. Sola scriptura, for example, did not develop from the past, it was spawned from one mans' mind, and not a well balanced one at that.

​

 

[epostle]

In general, whenever Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development. It is only Protestant presuppositions – not always so “biblical” – which preclude development for fear of “excess.”

The Canon of Scripture itself is an example of developing doctrine. The New Testament never informs us which books comprise itself, and its Canon (final list of books) took about 360 years to reach its final form (at the Council of Carthage in 397). For instance, the books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not widely accepted by the Church until 350 A.D.!..."
You will fail to understand as long as you stubbornly refuse to distinguish the different between development and change. I can only do so much.
Development of trinitarian theology is the simplest most direct example that I could think of.​

The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325, (not changed) and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381. The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed (not changed) in 451. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies.
Ibid.​

"things science can't disprove" has nothing to do within infallibility, and the Pope can only speak infallibility on faith and morals. Not everything the Pope says is infallible.
​

I have a big book of encyclicals by Pope Leo XIII. I bought it years ago before I had the internet. I don't recall which one I wanted to read; but I remember that's why I bought it. I didn't read much of it.
I happen to be Giuliano. Implicitly doesn't cut the mustard unless you want to apply the second "you" to them as well. Why should I explain "expiry date" of things to come when you used the phrase, not me? Are you mad, sir? I am weary of you repeating such a foolish question. You're the one who seems to think there was an expiry date on "things to come," not me. You explain it.

You explain "things to come," since you brought it up first, and twice more after that, and not once have you explained it. The onus is yours.

So the Apostles were not led into all truth?

I never said that.

Future generations of more spiritually gifted men would be guided into all truth?

I never said that either.

Don't confuse practices and culture with doctrines.

Where have I said that?

To use the example of the Trinity (since it seems to be a favorite subject), are you saying the Apostles didn't know about the Trinity because it didn't exist yet? And inappropriately too.

Of course they knew. You should quote me instead of making things up, which you just did FOUR TIMES.

You wrote: "You asked why there is no prophecy in the Catholic Church, and I proved otherwise. Now you are raising the bar because you have, again, been proven wrong. Prophecy is not a power, it is a gift of the Holy Spirit, who blows where He wills. There is nothing in Scripture that demands that prophecy accompanies ordination."

I wrote: "Some of the Apostles had it. If you want to "infer" that bishops inherited the "all truth" part, you should "infer" that they also would inherit the prophetic part.

The insistence that all bishops must have the gift of prophecy is an opinion, not a biblical truth. The authority to teach is conferred by the laying on of hands by an Apostle or another bishop, who ordains more bishops, ad infinitum. Again, there is nothing in scripture that says all bishops must have the gift of prophecy. It appears you have just invented a new doctrine.

shepherd needs to know where water is, where food is, where predators are. The earthly shepherd learns those things by experience; but a spiritual shepherd should have access to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in matters so he knows where potential dangers lie in the future so he can avoid them.

​

Yea, like the twin evils of contraception and abortion, that has ruined countless marriages. There are enough dead babies to fill the Rose Bowl Stadium. PopeJP2 called it "a cemetery of human cruelty". When Humanae Vitae came out in 1968, the world mocked us. Barriers between the unitive and the procreative elements between a man and a women harms true love, and often destroys whatever is there.​

​

Mit brennender Sorge ("With burning concern") On the Church and the German Reich is an encyclical of Pope Pius XI, issued during the Nazi era on 10 March 1937 (but bearing a date of Passion Sunday, 14 March).[1] Written in German, not the usual Latin, it was smuggled into Germany for fear of censorship and was read from the pulpits of all German Catholic churches on one of the Church's busiest Sundays, Palm Sunday (21 March that year).[2][3] Mit brennender Sorge - Wikipedia​

​

5 years AFTER the German encyclical was proclaimed, the Germans operated industrial-scale labor and death camps in Eastern Europe between 1941-1945, when the great bulk of Holocaust deaths occurred. If that is not prophetic, you tell me what is.​

​

In 1917, Our Blessed Mom PROPHECIED of two coming great wars if people didn't repent and turn to her Son. Fatima. The only reason she did that is because God told her to. I could go on.​

You are undermining yourself by saying no one can tell where the gift of prophecy may turn up. If that's the case, then consistency in logic would dictate that the ability to be guided into all truth could pop up anywhere too."

Truth comes from God, given to Jesus and the Apostles and their successors, and given to those who hear them. In that order. Nobody "owns" the truth. Not the Pope, and not you. It is RECIEVED, and can't be passed on by someone who doesn't have it in the first place.​

​

The GIFT of prophecy is intended to edify the individual or the community. The OFFICE of prophecy is intended for humanity. With that in mind, how many encyclicals are prophetic? I say quite a few.​

John 3:8 is about being born of the Spirit, not about ordaining clergy.

I never said it did.
​

 

[Giuliano]

Now there's the kind of impotent response I would have expected from one of you.
Good job . . .

Thank you. I'll take that as a compliment coming from you.