Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

[ScottA]

When you declined to say what you thought it was, that tipped everyone off.



It's very transparent.

Several posts ago when you became fixated with the idea that someone, anyone might not know that "fallible" is somehow "not fallible" when it comes to the church...that was the real tip off.

The plumb line went taunt and sent a quiver over the angels keeping the books. The Yehren Shift--has a wicked ring to it. Nice job!

 

[Yehren]

Several posts ago when you became fixated with the idea that someone, anyone might not know that "fallible" is somehow "not fallible" when it comes to the church...

That you had that that misconception was the real tip off. As you learned, it wasn't what you imagined it to be. Just in case you forgot, here it is, again...

Yehren educates Scott:
Papal infallibility applies only to statements ex Cathedra concerning faith or morals. If he declares that Juventus will win the league cup this year, the statement carries no more weight than whatever expertise he might have concerning professional football. If he declares that celibacy in the priesthood is a matter of doctrine, not a discipline, it means nothing but an opinion, if not issued ex Cathedra.

Your continued insistance that it means something else was futile, considering that the Church is quite clear about it:
An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.


Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.


At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with “Bible Christians.” For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.


Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection, of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example.


Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible; only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.


Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it “inspire” him to teach what is true.
Papal Infallibility

Your revision of infallibility is merely an imaginative, but uninformed guess. The ScottA Shift--has a wicked ring to it. Nice job!

 

[ScottA]

That you had that that misconception was the real tip off. As you learned, it wasn't what you imagined it to be. Just in case you forgot, here it is, again...

Yehren educates Scott:
Papal infallibility applies only to statements ex Cathedra concerning faith or morals. If he declares that Juventus will win the league cup this year, the statement carries no more weight than whatever expertise he might have concerning professional football. If he declares that celibacy in the priesthood is a matter of doctrine, not a discipline, it means nothing but an opinion, if not issued ex Cathedra.

The plumb line went taunt and sent a quiver over the angels keeping the books. The ScottA Shift--has a wicked ring to it. Nice job!

The teachings of men, a fixation on your own teachings, lies, criticisms...oh, yeah, and rambling nonsense.

Aren't you just the greatest!

 

[BreadOfLife]

So you say.

I say there's two kinds: Real ones and phony ones.

Matthew 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

I would not allow a Catholic bishop or priests to lay hands on me anymore than I would invite some far out Protestant clergy to. If Christianity is a hospital, I want medical staff that knows they are doing. It the clergy are obviously sick themselves, why would I believe they know how to heal me? I'd be afraid to get a demon if some of these "physicians" laid hands on me.

Speaking of fakers, I see Ernest Angley's private jet is grounded. He can't pay the bills to keep it flying. I think that's great that people aren't giving all the money he used to get from deceived people.

Story here: Televangelist Ernest Angley reportedly cannot pay to fix grounded ministry jet

I also don't care when Catholic dioceses go bankrupt.

YOU say??
What YOU say and what is fact are two different things.

Sooooo, am I to assume that you’re a Lone Ranger believer?? You don’t belong to a ecclesial body or faith tradition? The Bible condemns this kind of would-be Christianity (Heb. 10:25) . . .

 

[Yehren]

The teachings of men, a fixation on your own teachings, lies, criticisms...oh, yeah, and rambling nonsense.

It's telling that you're accusing people of lying without any substance. Everyone notices. You now realize that the doctrine of infallibility is not what you supposed it to be. Instead of accusations, think and learn.

Aren't you just the greatest!

Me? An old barbarian? I'm just showing you the obvious.

 

[ScottA]

It's telling that you're accusing people of lying without any substance. Everyone notices. You now realize that the doctrine of infallibility is not what you supposed it to be. Instead of accusations, think and learn.



Me? An old barbarian? I'm just showing you the obvious.

While showing yourself.

 

[BreadOfLife]

We are both calling evil within the church evil.

The difference is, you are making a case against Christ building His church only from the spirit of the Father whom is holy, trying to show proof that He has allowed in evil. But He has not, men have...which is rather proof of a church not built by Christ, but by men against Christ.

And you identify with that group. Not good.

More of your moronic double-speak. But, that’s how you usually roll when you're backed into a corner. Suffice it to say – you were WRONG when you tried to show that the Church is made up of only “perfect” people.

There is NO such thing - until you get to Heaven (Rev. 21:27) . . .

 

[ScottA]

More of your moronic double-speak. But, that’s how you usually roll when you're backed into a corner. Suffice it to say – you were WRONG when you tried to show that the Church is made up of only “perfect” people.

There is NO such thing - until you get to Heaven (Rev. 21:27) . . .

And there you go again confirming that you yourself (and your church) have not "entered in" to the kingdom of God...which began 2000 years ago.

Talk about "moronic!"

But thanks again for the confession.

 

[Yehren]

More of your moronic double-speak. But, that’s how you usually roll when you're backed into a corner. Suffice it to say – you were WRONG when you tried to show that the Church is made up of only “perfect” people.

There is NO such thing - until you get to Heaven (Rev. 21:27) . . .

Amen. The Church Christ founded was not for perfect people in no need of salvation. It's for sinners who are seeking to do better.

 

[Yehren]

And there you go again confirming that you yourself (and your church) have not "entered in" to the kingdom of God...which began 2000 years ago.

Luke 17:20 And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come? he answered them, and said: The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is within you.

 

[Giuliano]

YOU say??
What YOU say and what is fact are two different things.

Jesus might call the two types goats and sheep.

Sooooo, am I to assume that you’re a Lone Ranger believer?? You don’t belong to a ecclesial body or faith tradition? The Bible condemns this kind of would-be Christianity (Heb. 10:25) . . .

No need to make it personal. You aren't my priest or bishop. You haven't the slightest claim of authority over me.

Jesus' sheep know know his voice. Don't worry about me. I'm not going to catch a disease in a poorly run hospital from the staff which doesn't know how to cure itself.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus might call the two types goats and sheep.

No need to make it personal. You aren't my priest or bishop. You haven't the slightest claim of authority over me.

Jesus' sheep know know his voice. Don't worry about me. I'm not going to catch a disease in a poorly run hospital from the staff which doesn't know how to cure itself.

So, you're a Lone Ranger believer - just the kind the Bible condemns.
Good luck with that . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

And there you go again confirming that you yourself (and your church) have not "entered in" to the kingdom of God...which began 2000 years ago.

Talk about "moronic!"

But thanks again for the confession.

No - we ARE the Church that Jesus started 2000 years ago - with the history to prove it.
We go back further than the rabble that YOU took YOUR lead from 500 years ago . . .

 

[Giuliano]

So, you're a Lone Ranger believer - just the kind the Bible condemns.
Good luck with that . . .

Oh, I stand condemned because I don't want to follow ravening wolves?

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

 

[Yehren]

Oh, I stand condemned because I don't want to follow ravening wolves?

Other Christians are not "ravening wolves." We should be especially careful not to disparage others who follow Christ, even if we disagree with some of their beliefs.

And yes, Catholics have also been guilty of this; it's not one-sided.

 

[ScottA]

No - we ARE the Church that Jesus started 2000 years ago - with the history to prove it.
We go back further than the rabble that YOU took YOUR lead from 500 years ago . . .

I wasn't here 500 years ago, nor did I take any leads from others.

But you are correct to say that you go back further; but wrong that Jesus started a worldly church of men of flesh. Because what He started was from His Father in heaven.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Oh, I stand condemned because I don't want to follow ravening wolves?

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

No - YOU stand condemned by Scripture because you forsake the Body of Christ (Heb. 10:25) for your unbiblical Lone Ranger approach.

Christ gave Supreme Authority to His CHURCH (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, 20:21-25) - not to the individual.
HIS Church is NOT an invisible gaggle of anonymous believers - but a VISIBLE entity in the world:

Matt. 5:14
"You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden."

Your Lone Ranger approach to what YOU consider to be "Christianity" is thoroughly anti-Biblical . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I wasn't here 500 years ago, nor did I take any leads from others.

But you are correct to say that you go back further; but wrong that Jesus started a worldly church of men of flesh. Because what He started was from His Father in heaven.

No - you weren't here 500 years ago. You simply took the lead from the rebellious men who left the Church during that time.

Unfortunately, YOU and others have perverted THEIR perversions even further - -until you have what we have today:
Tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering factions of Protestantism - ALL teaching different doctrines yet ALL claiming to have the "Truth".

What a mess you've made . . .

 

[ScottA]

No - you weren't here 500 years ago. You simply took the lead from the rebellious men who left the Church during that time.

Unfortunately, YOU and others have perverted THEIR perversions even further - -until you have what we have today:
Tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering factions of Protestantism - ALL teaching different doctrines yet ALL claiming to have the "Truth".

What a mess you've made . . .

Now you are just lying.

I said, "nor did I take any leads from others."

 

[BreadOfLife]

Now you are just lying.
I said, "nor did I take any leads from others."

Do you believe in things like . .
- Sola Scriptura
- Sola Fide
- Eternal Security (OSAS)

Do you reject things like . . .
- The Real Presence in the Eucharist
- Baptismal Regeneration
- Prayerful Intercession of the Saints in Heaven

If you do - then you got your lead from the Rebels in the 16th century - and have been perverting their beliefs ever since . . .