Salvation loss. Is it possible?

[bbyrd009]

Your theology is individualistic and relativistic so on what grounds can you be sure it's true?

because truth is completely, 100%, subjective, as you have helped demonstrate when you cannot repeat a single absolute truth from Scripture. You just need to believe truth is subjective, so that you can stay convinced that you can define truth, even though you refuse to even try.

"Thou shalt" do this or that is as close as anyone else has come, but you are welcome to give it a try. I persist here because you keep seekers from finding Word, and will not even seek It for yourself?

 

[bbyrd009]

If the unity of Christians was meant to convince the world that Jesus was sent by God, what does the ever-increasing fragmentation of Protestantism say to the world?

obviously something that needs saying, or it would not exist, yes? Perhaps "you cannot define 'Church' in worldly terms, it remains 'people,' 'those who do God's will,' no matter what definitions you come up with."

 

[bbyrd009]

but planting and watering are metaphors for the function of a bishop.

so you say, but funny how now you wanna get metaphorical, after you have denied any allusions that others have realized, no matter how glaringly obvious they are, huh? Iow no one gets to define that but you?

 

[bbyrd009]

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."

What is the expiration date of this verse?

the moment a leader becomes a boss or accepts a crown, and one rejects them as antichrist of course.

i am 100% anarchist, and i follow that verse faithfully btw. Bam obey your leaders, and submit to their authority.

 

[Copperhead]

Hmmmm . . . where is the "apology" from Protestants for the 72,000 or so Catholics killed by Henry VIII??
Why is there no "apology" for the tens of thousands of Catholics who were starved to death by Elizabeth I??
Have the Calvinist Protestants ever apologized for murdering Dutch Catholic friars and clerics at Breille in the 16th century??

The problem with anti-historian Catholic haters like YOU is that you conveniently forget all of the blood that is on YOUR hands as a Protestant. Believe me, there is plenty of blood on everybody's hands - so before you go on pontificating about the "evils" of the Catholic Church - take a look at the historical mess in your OWN back yard . . .

You equate a secular power with a institutional church. That is like trying to use use the Communist Soviet Union as an counter argument. Sure, there have been atrocities committed on both sides, but the RCC as an institution has supported many times what has been done in it's name. Christians in general have done some pretty bad stuff in the name of Jesus, that is certain. But when the hierarchy of an institutional church supports this bad stuff, then it takes on a different level.

It really boils down to this.... if the RCC heirarchy supports salvation by faith in Christ alone, no other requirements needed for the salvation of the believer, I will change my view on the RCC. That nothing one can do in this life can make one worthy of salvation or "more worthy" than someone else. That there is no other name that one can place their trust in than Yeshua (Jesus) and the institutional church has no power whatsoever to effect salvation one way or the other. If one believes that, then they are in violation of Vatican II and most of RCC historical rulings. And by default they either ignore the RCC doctrine or support it. The problem stems from the idea that a temporal "church" is the church Yeshua had in mind.

I don't hate Catholics, or even the RCC in general. I generally just ignore it as a viable entity. It incorporates a works righteousness philosophy. I do reject it. I can reject something without necessarily hating it. But you expect folks to be slobbering fools for something or accommodating of it as a sound, biblical entity, otherwise it is hatred. Ahh.. the same methodology that many in modern political circles use if one doesn't hold to the idea that two befuddled folks of the same sex being like man and wife is ok. I outgrew the school yard intimidation stuff a long time ago.

 

[amadeus]

​

Jesus effectively rejected their man made traditions. He was a devout Jew and followed good Jewish traditions all His life.He was circumcised as a Baby, went to Jerusalem for the annual Passover and other celebrations.(Rosh Hashana, Sukkot etc.) He rejected their making void the word of God with man made traditions, He did not reject Judaism. That's why He came; to save sinners, not righteous people.

Yes, Jesus was a good follower of the laws given to God by Moses. He rejected that which man had added or changed. The Jewish leadership was not pleased with the truth which Jesus expressed by his very life and by his words.

If we are able to always follow his example, we will please the Father, no matter which group or denomination we belong to... or which one we do not.

 

[ScottA]

Soooo, YOUR problem is with priestly vestments??
Rev. 1:13, 4:4, 6:11, 7:9, 15:6, 19:13-14 tells us about priests wearing special vestments in the heavenly liturgy. Do you have the same problem with Protestant ministers wearing vestments or a collar?? Talk about being nit-picky and divisive.

It is not I who has a problem with the vanity of men (although I join Him), it is God. Notice that I did not take your bait of putting Catholic or Protestant labels on what I said. It is men in their vanity who do, and I do not join them, nor you.

Here on earth, Catholic priests wear liturgical vestments when celebrating Mass. In fact the entire Mass is taken right out of the Bible . . .

Rev. 1:10 speaks of the heavenly liturgy being celebrated on the Lord's day. Catholics are obliged to attend mass on Sunday (the Lord’s Day).
Rev. 1:12, 2:5 speaks of lampstands or “Menorahs” in heaven. They are also used in the mass here on earth.
Rev. 1:13, 4:4, 6:11, 7:9, 15:6, 19:13-14 tells us about priests wearing special vestments in the heavenly liturgy. Here on earth, Catholic priests also wear liturgical vestments when celebrating Mass.
Rev. 2:5, 16, 21; 3:3; 16:11 speaks of a penitential rite going on in heaven – just like the in the Mass on earth.
Rev. 15:3-4 speaks of the “Gloria” being recited in heaven. You will hear this recited during the Mass on earth.
Rev. 4:4, 5:14; 11:16, 14:3, 19:4 mentions the presbuteros(oi) (priests) in heaven. On earth, the priest offers Jesus’ eternal and ongoing sacrifice during the Mass.
Rev. 5:8, 6:9-11, 8:3-4 speaks of the saints in heaven interceding on our behalf – just as they are petitioned in the Mass.
Rev. 4:8 speaks of heaven's un-ending hymn of praise to God, “Holy, Holy, Holy”. This very same prayer is recited in the Mass.
Rev. 2:17 speaks of manna in heaven that is given to the faithful. Likewise, during the Mass, we receive the true manna - the Eucharist.
Rev. 5:8, 8:3-4 speaks of incense being used in heaven which has been part of the celebration of the Mass from the beginning.
Rev. 6:9 tells us about the martyrs under the heavenly altar which is mirrored by the Church's tradition of having relics of saints under the altars of our churches on earth.
Rev. 5 speaks of the Lamb (describing Jesus). During the Mass, Jesus is described as the Lamb of God during the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
Rev. 8:3, 11:1, 14:18, 16:7 speaks of an altar being present in heaven – which illustrates that an eternal sacrifice is being offered. That sacrifice is the very same one being offered on the altar during the Mass.
Rev. 14:4 speaks of those who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They are celibate. In the same way, our celibate priests and religious here on earth follow the Lord.
Rev. 15:7, 16:1-4, 8, 10, 12, 17; 21:9 speaks of chalices (bowls) being used in the heavenly liturgy. Likewise, chalices are used to offer our Lord’s eternal sacrifice on earth during the Mass.
Rev. 17, 19:9 speaks of consuming the Lamb at the marriage celebration in Heaven. This is done at every single Mass on earth during Communion.
Rev. 19:1, 3, 4, 6 speaks of the “Alleluia” being recited in heaven. You will find this recited at every Mass here on earth.

Indeed, but what you should have taken or understood, is that those were a shadow of what should now be in spirit. His word is spirit...and because you do not take Him at his word, you hinder those who would, to your own shame.

Finally, in Rev. 5:14; 7:12; 19:4, we read that heaven's concluding liturgical prayer “Amen” is the very one that is recited at the end of the Mass on earth.

Which end should now be "finished", for it is "today" that the day of promise, meaning the day in which He came. But again, not taking Him at his word, you look for another day which shall not come.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You equate a secular power with a institutional church. That is like trying to use use the Communist Soviet Union as an counter argument. Sure, there have been atrocities committed on both sides, but the RCC as an institution has supported many times what has been done in it's name. Christians in general have done some pretty bad stuff in the name of Jesus, that is certain. But when the hierarchy of an institutional church supports this bad stuff, then it takes on a different level.

It really boils down to this.... if the RCC heirarchy supports salvation by faith in Christ alone, no other requirements needed for the salvation of the believer, I will change my view on the RCC. That nothing one can do in this life can make one worthy of salvation or "more worthy" than someone else. That there is no other name that one can place their trust in than Yeshua (Jesus) and the institutional church has no power whatsoever to effect salvation one way or the other. If one believes that, then they are in violation of Vatican II and most of RCC historical rulings. And by default they either ignore the RCC doctrine or support it. The problem stems from the idea that a temporal "church" is the church Yeshua had in mind.

I don't hate Catholics, or even the RCC in general. I generally just ignore it as a viable entity. It incorporates a works righteousness philosophy. I do reject it. I can reject something without necessarily hating it. But you expect folks to be slobbering fools for something or accommodating of it as a sound, biblical entity, otherwise it is hatred. Ahh.. the same methodology that many in modern political circles use if one doesn't hold to the idea that two befuddled folks of the same sex being like man and wife is ok. I outgrew the school yard intimidation stuff a long time ago.

Frankly - I don't really care if you change your view on the Catholic Church - as long as you don't lie and make up fairy tales and myths like so many here are fond of doing. For starters, your view that the Catholic Church teaches a "works righteousness" is completely false.

As for Henry VIII and Elizabeth I being "secular" powers - apparently you don't know your history.
They were no more "secular" than any other Protestant denomination. BOTH Henry and his daughter were the HEAD of the Church if England. The fact that they also had broad secular power is irrelevant. The Catholics they butchered were enemies of his church.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It is not I who has a problem with the vanity of men (although I join Him), it is God. Notice that I did not take your bait of putting Catholic or Protestant labels on what I said. It is men in their vanity who do, and I do not join them, nor you.

Preistly vestments have nothing to do with "vanity". It is all done for the glory of God - and, as I showed you, is Biblical.

Indeed, but what you should have taken or understood, is that those were a shadow of what should now be in spirit. His word is spirit...and because you do not take Him at his word, you hinder those who would, to your own shame.

WRONG.
It shows what is going on in Heaven - NOT some past shadow.

Look - instead of just quoting the Bible - try to LEARN what it means . . .

 

[amadeus]

Does that mean your previous experiences in the CC had nothing to do with where you are now?

I have not said that, nor would I say it. My experience with the CC was very important to where I have been since and where I am now. This does not mean I should go back to it. I have been increased in the things of God, but He is not finished with me yet. Whether or not I come to the end of my course with Him is dependent on how well I pay attention to to and follow Him. The same, of course, would apply to you or anyone who really believes in Him.

If God has taken you to "many places" does that automatically mean He was previously absent from the beginning?

Of course not. My earliest memory of God was at my Catholic baptism. I was 6 years old and I knew in the moment of that ceremony that God was real.

God's plan doesn't need reconstructing, but ongoing renewal to implement it. That's why we have councils.

No, God has had His complete plan from His first creation of man. Man lost much of what he knew of that plan when he sinned the first time in Eden. Most part he moved farther and farther away from God and knowledge of God's plan with the passage of the centuries. Jesus came to restore, but most people rejected what he brought and in time even many of those who followed his followers, also moved into error in following. The New Testament does recognize this if we can believe what read. I do.

As to councils, if they were not being led by people who were led by God, how correct were their conclusions? I wasn't there and my knowledge of them is very incomplete, but then knowledge history is hardly a basis for deciding how to understand and follow God, is it? Men wrote history and quite often were politically motivated so as to write down things that were not true. Were the members of church councils always in agreement with one another? I expect that that they were not even as members of this forum are not always in agreement about the things of God.

The only way to come to agreement is to always seek first God's Kingdom and His righteousness. When we all do then we will all end up where God would have us to end up... on His side with Him. This would apply to practicing Catholics as well as Protestants and others.

Truth can only be proposed to those who are disposed to receive it. Do you think individualism and relativism are true? That's true. The CC teaches the fullness of truth, and she also teaches she is not the only church with truths.
I'll try to avoid pat answers. Truth is objective, not subjective. Your theology is individualistic and relativistic so on what grounds can you be sure it's true? It's not my job either but ask yourself if you have formulated a private theology as a yardstick for assessing the historic Church.

I disagree that the CC teaches the fullness of truth. They do teach a measure of truth as do most Protestant churches of my personal experience. I was previously wrong in my own conclusions and God changed me. He is still working on me. The same is true of any person who allows himself to be led by the Holy Spirit of God. John the Baptist expressed it this way:

"He must increase, but I must decrease." John 3:30

Jesus said that the unity of Christians would be objective evidence to the world that He had been sent by God (John 17:20-23). How can the world see an invisible "unity" that exists only in the hearts of believers?

If anyone "hungers and thirsts"after righteousness, he will be filled. As to someone else seeing what a person or a group has, that depends very much on the vision that God has given that person. In the beginning for an unbeliever, it will not be more than a glimmer of Light, but if he pursues, he will encounter more Light being filled with more and more as he continue along God's highway of holiness.

When we see into a person's heart, are we not beginning to see what God sees?

"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts." Prov 21:2

If the unity of Christians was meant to convince the world that Jesus was sent by God, what does the ever-increasing fragmentation of Protestantism say to the world?

Probably the same negative message sent by the activities and disagreements among Catholics. Prior to Vatican was the time of my own active Catholicism. It was on another forum a number of years ago that a Catholic made me aware of the changes brought about by Vatican II. I don't recall much about them now, but on the surface at least some of them seemed good to me. Why were they necessary? What have they accomplished?

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."

What is the expiration date of this verse?

You won't get me to argue against what scripture says. I may indeed disagree with someone else's understanding. The question here is who are these leaders and where did they get their authority? Your presumption I am sure is that the positions of authority in the RCC are of God. That may be so, but look closely at the history of Israel in the OT. What I read reminds me of all of organized Christianity today that I am able to observe. I don't see something better in most [or even all] Protestant groups than what I see in the RCC and vice versa. But looking just at the Catholic part, why is it that the Eastern Catholic churches and the Western RCC are not one?

Does that mean we don't need anyone to plant and water? Of course the credit goes to God for the increase, but planting and watering are metaphors for the function of a bishop.
"I planted, Apollos watered... He who plants and he who waters are equal." (1 Corinthians 3:6, 1 Corinthians 3:8)

Don't get to wrapped in the designation, "bishop". I once belonged to a Protestant group that did use that title. Others may use other titles. Most of them have something right according to scripture along with things wrong. The Apostle Paul wrote this:

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:" Eph 4:11-13

Many good words in those verses, and the HE that gave them would be God, would it not? When those positions are filled by men called by God who are doing what they are supposed to do, then they would be helping other believers to come to that "unity", that "knowledge", and that "perfection". There are certainly some Catholic priests who are called like that and are working like that. I met at least one when when I was an active Catholic. I have met at least one since I have been a non-Catholic believer in Christ. I met quite a few in both places who, if they were really called, were apparently not making much effort to follow the leading of God to accomplish their work. Notice, I make no distinction between the two. The only person I have even know holding a pastor's position who really worked as a pastor in my opinion is the one I have now. He was called to the ministry in 1936 when he was 11 years old. His ministry is his life even at his present age of 92 years.

Most Protestants do not have bishops, a Christian office which is biblical (1 Timothy 3:1-2) and which has existed from the earliest Christian history and Tradition.

Have a nice day.

Yes, indeed have a nice day and give God the glory for all things He has given each of us.

 

[ScottA]

Indeed, the Church without the Head in place is mindless. Jesus, of course, is the Head:

"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." Col 1:18

So the authority belongs not to the headless body, but to the Head.

Hear, hear!

 

[ScottA]

Haven't you then defined the hierarchy, which as you say is walking in unity. Each of us is to do our assigned job, which is not as a boss over other members of the body. The apostle Paul describes it here:

"But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. " I Cor 12:18

Indeed. Not that I would call it hierarchy, meaning that some have greater authority. But as you (and Paul) have said.

 

[ScottA]

Do you mean the leader that washed the feet of drug addicts and criminals? The same leader that has eaten with the homeless? Do you honor your parents??? You are are a real piece of work.

You obviously have not been paying attention. Christ clarified this, saying “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." But we are not talking about not doing good. On the contrary, we should all strive to do good works.

Why do you have such issues revering anyone? Paul tells us to “imitate” him, which is a concept, it seems to me, similar to “honoring” or “veneration” (1 Cor 4:16, Phil 3:17, 2 Thess 3:7-9); and this is because he, in turn, imitates Christ (1 Cor 11:1, 1 Thess 1:6). We are exhorted to honor and imitate the “heroes of the faith” in Hebrews 6:12 and chapter 11.

The subject there is "faith and patience", not honor. As Peter said, “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality."

Do you honestly think that by giving honor to other human beings it somehow supplants, replaces or competes with the worship due to God alone? Do you realize how STUPID that is?

You do not perceive the times. The honor among men, is Christ's - we are not our own. Nor is it a man of God whom now lives, but Christ who lives in him.

By giving honor to men - you deny Christ. This is anti-Christ.

 

[amadeus]

Paul ALSO wrote the following, regarding the LEADERS of Christ's Church on earth:

1 Thess. 5:12
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are OVER YOU in the Lord and who admonish you.

1 Tim. 5:17
Let the ELDERS THAT RULE well be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

1 Cor. 12:28
And God has placed in the church FIRST of all apostles, SECOND prophets, THIRD teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues.

EVERY Protestant sect has leadership because they ALL recognize that there IS a hierarchy in Christ's Church - but most of the hypocritically refuse to admit it . . .

When we are in doubt about who is due respect or honor or even double honour, we do need to be careful in how we treat them.

I agree that every sect, Catholic or Protestant of my experience has had a hierarchy of some kind. I believe that it would be wrong to speak against a person holding a position in any church group simply because we are biased [with or without good reason] against the group itself. We should be able to recognize the fruits of the individual as to whether he/she is of God or not. But...this would normally, I believe be necessary if we must deal with that person personally. If not, it wouldn't be our business and we should leave them to God, for then is it not between the person and God?

 

[ScottA]

Preistly vestments have nothing to do with "vanity". It is all done for the glory of God - and, as I showed you, is Biblical.

"All is vanity." But what was done for the glory of God, "is finished." Now, by doing what once was for His glory, since He has made His glory known...is to deny that "Christ has come in the flesh." 1 John 4:2

WRONG.
It shows what is going on in Heaven - NOT some past shadow.

The kingdom "is within." Without, is "outer darkness."

 

[Marymog]

Jesus wasn't taking about His physical parts, He was talking about His very Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, substantially present in consecrated Bread and Wine.

That's what I am saying also.

 

[epostle1]

I have not said that, nor would I say it. My experience with the CC was very important to where I have been since and where I am now. This does not mean I should go back to it. I have been increased in the things of God, but He is not finished with me yet. Whether or not I come to the end of my course with Him is dependent on how well I pay attention to to and follow Him. The same, of course, would apply to you or anyone who really believes in Him.

I suggest you pay a visit and attend Mass. But before you do, read Scott Hahn's testimony. It is a journey that took him from being a fervent Presbyterian minister and Professor of Theology at a major Protestant seminary (and an anti-Catholic) to become a Roman Catholic Theologian and internationally known apologist for the Catholic Church. Through study and prayer Scott Hahn came to realize that the truth of the Catholic Church is firmly rooted in Scripture.
The Scott Hahn Conversion Story
or if you prefer an audio of the same

[/quote]No, God has had His complete plan from His first creation of man. Man lost much of what he knew of that plan when he sinned the first time in Eden. Most part he moved farther and farther away from God and knowledge of God's plan with the passage of the centuries. Jesus came to restore, but most people rejected what he brought and in time even many of those who followed his followers, also moved into error in following. The New Testament does recognize this if we can believe what read. I do.[/quote] The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325 AD, in response to the heresy of Arianism. The full doctrine of the Trinity in 381 was clarified to end the heresy of the Macedonians. The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 431 in response to the Nestorian heresy. You are correct, some did stray from the truth. These authoritive verdicts are accepted by Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics. Why should Protestants accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on everything else???
Read more at Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?

As to councils, if they were not being led by people who were led by God, how correct were their conclusions?

The Council of Jerusalem was correct in their conclusions because scripture explicitly states the Holy Spirit was there. Remember, those at the J. council was, at first, an argumentative rabble. There is nothing in Scripture that says it would be the last, one and only council. Councils are modeled after the infallible Jerusalem Council. Protestants reject that or ignore it altogether because it doesn't fit the man made tradition of a supposedly non-infallible Church. Holiness of everyone present has nothing to do with an infallible decision. [/quote]I wasn't there and my knowledge of them is very incomplete, but then knowledge history is hardly a basis for deciding how to understand and follow God, is it? Men wrote history and quite often were politically motivated so as to write down things that were not true. Were the members of church councils always in agreement with one another? I expect that that they were not even as members of this forum are not always in agreement about the things of God.[/quote] No infallible decision is possible without the Holy Spirit's divine protection from error. This is a promise from God Himself. Therefore, the hypothetical of rejecting the (one true, historic) Church, as supposedly going against the Bible, is impossible according to the Bible. It is not a situation that would ever come up, because of God’s promised protection.
Read more at Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a "Lone Ranger"?
First of all, one might also loosely define tradition as the authoritative and authentic Christian history of theological doctrines and devotional practices. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is fundamentally grounded in history: in the earth-shattering historical events in the life of Jesus Christ (the incarnation, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, etc.). Eyewitnesses (Lk 1:1-2, Acts 1:1-3, 2 Pet 1:16-18) communicated these true stories to the first Christians, who in turn passed them on to other Christians (under the guidance of the Church’s authority) down through the ages. Therefore, Christian tradition, defined as authentic Church history, is unavoidable.
Read more at "Tradition" Isn't a Dirty Word

The only way to come to agreement is to always seek first God's Kingdom and His righteousness. When we all do then we will all end up where God would have us to end up... on His side with Him. This would apply to practicing Catholics as well as Protestants and others.

Well said.
continued...

 

[epostle1]

I disagree that the CC teaches the fullness of truth. They do teach a measure of truth as do most Protestant churches of my personal experience. I was previously wrong in my own conclusions and God changed me. He is still working on me. The same is true of any person who allows himself to be led by the Holy Spirit of God. John the Baptist expressed it this way:
"He must increase, but I must decrease." John 3:30

]

If anyone "hungers and thirsts"after righteousness, he will be filled. As to someone else seeing what a person or a group has, that depends very much on the vision that God has given that person. In the beginning for an unbeliever, it will not be more than a glimmer of Light, but if he pursues, he will encounter more Light being filled with more and more as he continue along God's highway of holiness.

I don't think such individualism can work. Either truth is objective, or it ends up subject to personal opinions.

When we see into a person's heart, are we not beginning to see what God sees?
"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts." Prov 21:2
Probably the same negative message sent by the activities and disagreements among Catholics.

So what. There have always been dissent and rebellion. That doesn't change Church teaching.

Prior to Vatican was the time of my own active Catholicism. It was on another forum a number of years ago that a Catholic made me aware of the changes brought about by Vatican II. I don't recall much about them now, but on the surface at least some of them seemed good to me. Why were they necessary?

The Church had to reformulate (not change) the manner in which her teachings were implemented. 500 year old methods and language of spreading the gospel doesn't cut it in a modern world.

What have they accomplished?

Pope JP2 proclaimed that the “Redeemer of Man” (the title of his first encyclical letter), Jesus Christ, is the path to authentic personal, social and universal freedom!
He authored more encyclical letters, apostolic exhortations, constitutions and letters than any Pope in the two thousand year history of the Christian Church. In these writings and so many allocutions, this marvelous man has given us a treasury to unpack for centuries.

He has meticulously and brilliantly developed themes during his service to the Church and the world. Among them; "The Culture of Life", "The Civilization of Love", "The New Evangelization", "The New Springtime of world missions ", "The Universal Call to holiness"; "Christian Marriage and family life as a domestic church";

And further: "A Spirituality of Communion"; "The Theology of the Body"; "The Common Good"; "The Unity of Life"; "The New Humanism"; "The New feminism and the Feminine Genius"; "The Two Lungs of East and West"; “A New Catholic Action", and a “New Advent” for all of humanity in Jesus Christ. There are several and they are all available on line. The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council - Papal Encyclicals

You won't get me to argue against what scripture says. I may indeed disagree with someone else's understanding. The question here is who are these leaders and where did they get their authority? Your presumption I am sure is that the positions of authority in the RCC are of God. That may be so, but look closely at the history of Israel in the OT. What I read reminds me of all of organized Christianity today that I am able to observe. I don't see something better in most [or even all] Protestant groups than what I see in the RCC and vice versa. But looking just at the Catholic part, why is it that the Eastern Catholic churches and the Western RCC are not one?

It's a common Protestant argument that tries to disprove unity. The schism has nothing to do with unity of belief, meaning we are one in doctrine. If whole communities break off in varying degrees of separation, claiming their own authority, the Church sees that as an injury to unity.
The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13, CCC 813–822)
Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches . The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse.

His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2).

Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers—the pope and the bishops united with him—have never changed any doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.
Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth | Catholic Answers

Don't get to wrapped in the designation, "bishop". I once belonged to a Protestant group that did use that title. Others may use other titles. Most of them have something right according to scripture along with things wrong. The Apostle Paul wrote this:
"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:" Eph 4:11-13

We have a single commission whose sole function is ecumenism.

Many good words in those verses, and the HE that gave them would be God, would it not? When those positions are filled by men called by God who are doing what they are supposed to do, then they would be helping other believers to come to that "unity", that "knowledge", and that "perfection".

Protestants attended Vatican II

There are certainly some Catholic priests who are called like that and are working like that. I met at least one when when I was an active Catholic. I have met at least one since I have been a non-Catholic believer in Christ. I met quite a few in both places who, if they were really called, were apparently not making much effort to follow the leading of God to accomplish their work. Notice, I make no distinction between the two. The only person I have even know holding a pastor's position who really worked as a pastor in my opinion is the one I have now. He was called to the ministry in 1936 when he was 11 years old. His ministry is his life even at his present age of 92 years.

Well aged like fine wine.

[/quote]

 

[Copperhead]

Frankly - I don't really care if you change your view on the Catholic Church - as long as you don't lie and make up fairy tales and myths like so many here are fond of doing. For starters, your view that the Catholic Church teaches a "works righteousness" is completely false.

As for Henry VIII and Elizabeth I being "secular" powers - apparently you don't know your history.
They were no more "secular" than any other Protestant denomination. BOTH Henry and his daughter were the HEAD of the Church if England. The fact that they also had broad secular power is irrelevant. The Catholics they butchered were enemies of his church.

Vatican II reaffirmed the Council of Trent, and in the Justification Cannons of the Sixth Session, it declared that anyone who claims justification is by faith alone is anathema. Copied here for you....

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

By default, if justification is not of faith alone, then it must require works. That is works righteousness.

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

And in just one session of Trent, there are roughly 23 anathemas against a belief in salvation by faith alone. And we haven't even gotten into saints and other stuff.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (NKJV) For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Romans 3:28 (NKJV) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

 

[amadeus]

I suggest you pay a visit and attend Mass. But before you do, read Scott Hahn's testimony. It is a journey that took him from being a fervent Presbyterian minister and Professor of Theology at a major Protestant seminary (and an anti-Catholic) to become a Roman Catholic Theologian and internationally known apologist for the Catholic Church. Through study and prayer Scott Hahn came to realize that the truth of the Catholic Church is firmly rooted in Scripture.

I grew in the CC as I have said. I have been to mass since that time but could not find in what I once found. Yes, I recall very well that I always looked forward to the short selections that the priest would read from scripture. Yes, it was a short selection. Apparently the current practice of reading the entire Bible within a a two year period came into being with Vatican II. I was a regular and devout Catholic until after my graduation from high school in 1961 which was before Vatican II. That the RCC can support everything it does with scripture does not make it all OK or correct. The Bible can be used to support some extremely radical beliefs and unfortunately it has been used too often to mislead rather than to guide new believers or would-be believers. I am not saying that the RCC has done such a thing purposely. But, it is not the only group that can do a good job of using scripture to undergird its doctrines.

As to Scott Hahn, I became familiar with him a few years ago through a friendly enemy on another forum who was very pro-Catholic and was very good at straightening out people who knew little about the RCC and blatantly attacked the it based on misinformation. My own beliefs lie a bit deeper than being misinformed. I will not elaborate here, but Scott Hahn did not sway me then and would not now. I do appreciate your efforts to help, but that is not where I am.

The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325 AD, in response to the heresy of Arianism. The full doctrine of the Trinity in 381 was clarified to end the heresy of the Macedonians. The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 431 in response to the Nestorian heresy. You are correct, some did stray from the truth. These authoritive verdicts are accepted by Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics. Why should Protestants accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on everything else???

Just so you do not misunderstand my background I'll describe it in short. From devout Roman Catholic, I moved to a position of trying to support the leading of a good life in this flesh without God. It did not work. From there I was drawn into the UPC, a Oneness, Jesus Only group and other similar groups. I stayed within that framework for about 11 years. As a Catholic, reading of the Bible by members was discouraged where I attended even though I learned later that that was not the position of Pope Pius XII. [He died while I was still attending high school.]

Within the oneness group Bible reading was strongly encouraged. At 32 years of age for the first time in my life, I started to read the Bible. Except for a fairly short period of time, I have been reading the Bible on a regular daily basis up to my present age of 73 years. In that alone they gave me something which I never found in Catholicism. After those 11 years, I moved away from oneness and have continued to grow in God and His Son through the leading of the Holy Ghost. I carefully do not move with or toward any leadership but I also not attack them unnecessarily. What is necessary? God knows and sometimes He lets me know.

The Council of Jerusalem was correct in their conclusions because scripture explicitly states the Holy Spirit was there. Remember, those at the J. council was, at first, an argumentative rabble. There is nothing in Scripture that says it would be the last, one and only council. Councils are modeled after the infallible Jerusalem Council. Protestants reject that or ignore it altogether because it doesn't fit the man made tradition of a supposedly non-infallible Church. Holiness of everyone present has nothing to do with an infallible decision.

I agree that the RCC did some correct things as well as some not so correct. I believe the same thing is true of every Protestant or non-Catholic group in my experience. This includes the one in which I presently work. The place for decisions to made which bind people, I believe, is in their own hearts, even if they belong to a group such as Catholicism or Protestantism in one of its various forms. The correct decisions come from eating the flesh and blood of Jesus regularly and continually. What I mean by that is different than what Catholics mean and also different than what almost all Protestants believe. But... that is not something I'll detail in this post.

No infallible decision is possible without the Holy Spirit's divine protection from error.

Believe it or not I agree with this. But, I believe that the only way a person can get to this place of always being correct is by always being in the Spirit. That is, by never quenching the Holy Spirit of God in him. How many people have attained to this? Not me, but God is not finished working in me yet.

This is a promise from God Himself. Therefore, the hypothetical of rejecting the (one true, historic) Church, as supposedly going against the Bible,

is impossible according to the Bible. It is not a situation that would ever come up, because of God’s promised protection.

Of course I must say that in spite of but not necessarily because of my previous affiliation with the RCC, I don't find in that group alone the one, true historic Church. When I was a Catholic, I never even thought about that. While I was always a reasonably good Catholic, my father [who lived in Oklahoma while I lived with my mother who was married to a to a Catholic in California], was always a devout follower of Christ as a Pentecostal. I visited him often enough to appreciate that God could be found outside of the Catholic Church even though at the time I would never have considered it.

My paternal grandmother was one of the best really Christian persons I have ever known. and she was never anything but Pentecostal. Maybe God set me up to know something about both sides of the that coin.

First of all, one might also loosely define tradition as the

authoritative and authentic Christian history of theological doctrines and devotional practices. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is fundamentally grounded in history: in the earth-shattering historical events in the life of Jesus Christ (the incarnation, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, etc.). Eyewitnesses (Lk 1:1-2, Acts 1:1-3, 2 Pet 1:16-18) communicated these true stories to the first Christians, who in turn passed them on to other Christians (under the guidance of the Church’s authority) down through the ages. Therefore, Christian tradition, defined as authentic Church history, is unavoidable.

I don't exclude tradition from my beliefs. On the contrary I know that all Protestant Churches have traditions of their own. It is not a strictly Catholic thing in spite of some people may say or even believe. One very Catholic thing that I cannot support is that the many of the scriptures found particularly in the 4 gospels are not directed to me and certain others, but only to certain ones as per the RCC. Therefore since not addressed to me any interpretation I am likely to have is likely to be wrong.