“Once Saved Always Saved” ...

[justasking4]

Lookie there … you actually agree with the Catholic Church on something.
We also believe the deposit of faith was complete with the death of the last apostle.

what doctrine of the Catholic Church is against what was deposited by the death of the last apostle?

michel

There are many doctrines that the Catholic Church teaches that the apostles never did.

 

[Strevel]

What you present here is not the what the Scriptures teach. If a person has the attitude that you speak of above that person is demonstrating that he was not saved to begin with if he has this kind of shallow attitude. A WSAS person is a person who seeks to be righteous and follow Christ.

Hi,
I understand what you are saying. I think we are seeing the same elephant from different ends. The experience I have had (and you have obviously had different and better) with this belief is sad. People do as they want and claim WSAS. However, I think we fundamentally agree.

Don

 

[guanophore]

Isn’t it wrong for a catholic to interpret the Bible personally as the title of this topic suggests?

No

For you to claim there are any essentials in the Bible requires you to personally interpret.

Yes. Everyone interprets when they read. Catholics interpret according to the Apostolic Teaching we have received that was handed down to us. When people interpret without this lens, they get away from what the Apostles taught.

 

[guanophore]

Depends what you mean by “grave” error. It is true that we can see even in the early centuries the church adopting unbilical concepts and doctrines.

I don’t think so, ja4. This is because “in the early centuries” there WAS no bible! the Bible as we know it today was not promulgated until 385. The canon was formed on the basis of which books represented Apostolic Teaching.

Don’t believe it becasue i say so but what do the Scriptures say?

It is not the mere saying of words that saves a man but it is a man who has geniune faith in Christ in whom the Spirit dwells in that saves a man.

Why do you suppose that spirit that is indwelling tells all His followers different things?

 

[guanophore]

There are different understandings of various doctrines in protestant churches. This is also true in the Catholic church.

The difference is that what the Church teaches is not based on any one person or one parish “understanding”. The Teaching is based on what was handed down by the Apostles. Those who refuse to embrace this are not Catholic.

I’m still confused about calling protestants “separated brethern”. Is it not true that the council of Trent condemns anyone who does not believe in the following:
THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST: “If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 1).

THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST: “If anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received spiritually only and not also sacramentally and really, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 8).

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: “If anyone says that in the Catholic Church penance is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord for reconciling the faithful of God as often as they fall into sin after baptism, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 1).

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: “If anyone denies that sacramental confession was instituted by divine law or is necessary to salvation; or says that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and still observes, is at variance with the institution and command of Christ and is a human contrivance, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 7).

Since as far as i know these “anathema’s” have never been recisinded i don’t know how it can be said protestants are just “separated brethren” when in fact the catholic church condemns them.

The Catholic Church does not “condemn” anyone. Those outside the Faith of the Church are, by definition anathema. There is no salvation outside of Christ, and Christ is One with His Body, the church.

 

[guanophore]

There are many doctrines that the Catholic Church teaches that the apostles never did.

Well, it does not appear that way to persons who have separated themselves from the Apostolic Tradition.

I can understand how it would be difficult for a person to discern.

 

[ckempston]

Well, it does not appear that way to persons who have separated themselves from the Apostolic Tradition.

I can understand how it would be difficult for a person to discern.

The Catholic church is who separated itself from the Apostolic Tradition when it ceased simply passing on what it had learned, and started tying heavy loads on men’s shoulders. Sounds similar to a religious group in Jesus’ time.

 

[cazayoux]

The Catholic church is who separated itself from the Apostolic Tradition when it ceased simply passing on what it had learned, and started tying heavy loads on men’s shoulders. Sounds similar to a religious group in Jesus’ time.

If the Catholic Church separated itself, then where is the Church that Jesus founded?
Please don’t say it went underground.
We know that His church is authoritative and must be a visible church.
If it is not the Catholic Church, where is it?

We know from the early Christian writings that much of what Catholicism teaches was taught after the apostles were gone.
At what point in time did the Catholic Church cease to be the one Jesus founded?

Salut, brother

michel

 

[guanophore]

The Catholic church is who separated itself from the Apostolic Tradition when it ceased simply passing on what it had learned, and started tying heavy loads on men’s shoulders. Sounds similar to a religious group in Jesus’ time.

Do you find the obedience to the commandments of God “burdensome”?

It was Jesus who said:
John 14:15-16

15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”

This is not something the Catholic Church “made up”!

If you find it a “heavy load” perhaps you need to examine your relationship with Jesus. He said that His yoke is easy and his burden light. Maybe if it does not seem that way, you are not letting Him carry you?

 

[cazayoux]

Do you find the obedience to the commandments of God “burdensome”?

It was Jesus who said:
John 14:15-16

15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”

This is not something the Catholic Church “made up”!

If you find it a “heavy load” perhaps you need to examine your relationship with Jesus. He said that His yoke is easy and his burden light. Maybe if it does not seem that way, you are not letting Him carry you?

This is assuming ckempston is referring to the commandments being the heavy burden.
Let’s not put words in his mouth.
I’m curious to know which heavy burdens *he *means.

michel

 

[VWcrazy]

The Catholic church is who separated itself from the Apostolic Tradition when it ceased simply passing on what it had learned, and started tying heavy loads on men’s shoulders. Sounds similar to a religious group in Jesus’ time.

Your premise is totally false. The ones who separated themselves from Apostolic Tradition are the ones who left the CC thereby rejectinging the Church Christ established and starting their own.

 

[ckempston]

Do you find the obedience to the commandments of God “burdensome”?

It was Jesus who said:
John 14:15-16

15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”

This is not something the Catholic Church “made up”!

If you find it a “heavy load” perhaps you need to examine your relationship with Jesus. He said that His yoke is easy and his burden light. Maybe if it does not seem that way, you are not letting Him carry you?

Sorry, all the church teaches is not in the Bible. Suggesting that I’m talking about anything in the Bible is bordering on dishonesty. It is quite evident that I am referring to all the ‘extra’ teachings that the church has come up with over nearly 2000 years.

Jesus’ yoke is easy and light, but the Catholic church’s isn’t. That’s why I’m not becoming Catholic. The Magesterium is exactly like the Pharisees that Jesus condemned in his day.

 

[ckempston]

Your premise is totally false. The ones who separated themselves from Apostolic Tradition are the ones who left the CC thereby rejectinging the Church Christ established and starting their own.

Saying it doesn’t make it so.

 

[ckempston]

If the Catholic Church separated itself, then where is the Church that Jesus founded?
Please don’t say it went underground.
We know that His church is authoritative and must be a visible church.
If it is not the Catholic Church, where is it?

You think the church is an institution with walls and borders. I think it exists as a result of Christians obeying God’s commands together. That is very visible, and it is not “underground.”

We know from the early Christian writings that much of what Catholicism teaches was taught after the apostles were gone.
At what point in time did the Catholic Church cease to be the one Jesus founded?

I’d disagree with you here. The earliest writings, say 200 years after Christ, say little more than what is found in the Bible, say, for instance, regarding Mary. However, go 300 years after Christ, and you find a HUGE difference in what people are writing. They’re no longer just asserting what is already in the gospels and epistles and what can be directly inferred from them, they’re saying all kinds of extra stuff that was **never part **of the Apostolic Tradition. What happened between 200 and 300 years after Christ? I mean no offense, but there’s no nice way to say it: the church was Romanized and Paganized.

I’m not one of those wackos who thinks the church was ruled by Constantine, but I do think, in some ways, making Christianity a state religion was both very bad, and very good. Very bad because Christianity became the “in” thing to do. If you were Roman, you were Christian. Very good, because Christianity was preserved for later generations, albeit, in a watered down and corrupted form, in my personal opinion.

 

[AliciaCL]

Double check history. Constantine did not make Christianity a state religion. He removed the laws that persecuted its practice. Christians were free to practice Christianity. It grew on its own.

 

[cazayoux]

Sorry, all the church teaches is not in the Bible.

Everything is not in the bible. The bible says so.
You are using the bible as the ONLY authority and we’ve been down the road of what was the ‘authority’ before the bible.
Jesus didn’t command the apostles to go out, write a book, and put in every hotel room.

It is quite evident that I am referring to all the ‘extra’ teachings that the church has come up with over nearly 2000 years.

This comes back down to whether or not Jesus founded an authoritative church.
We believe the bible is inerrant and inspired … from God.
So the bible is authoritative, we agree.
Nothing that the Catholic Church teaches is in opposition to the bible.

Jesus’ yoke is easy and light, but the Catholic church’s isn’t.

Hardly.
He calls for us to follow the narrow path.
He even calls for us to suffer in his name.

Let me ask what you make of this scripture.

Col 1:24
[24] Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,

Does this mean Christ’s suffering wasn’t enough?
Of course that isn’t what it means.
Jesus showed us the way.
WE are to suffer for Him and His Church to connect ourselves to Christ and His suffering.

That’s why I’m not becoming Catholic.

Keep with the great discussions and logic and I think you’ll find your way into the Catholic Church.
I know it may be hard to let go of some prejudice against the church.
Many do.
It’s logic, history, and doctrine that actually bring people into the Catholic Church.

The Magesterium is exactly like the Pharisees that Jesus condemned in his day.

What Jesus condemned was the actions of the Pharisees, not their teachings.
He supported their teachings.
Told the people to do what they say, but not what they do.
So if members of the magesterium were acting in a way against their own teachings, Jesus would tell you to listen to their teachings, but do not follow their actions.

What actions from those in the magesterium would you say are against the teachings of the Catholic Church or against the bible?

michel

 

[cazayoux]

You think the church is an institution with walls and borders.

This is not at all what I believe.
If every Catholic building in the world turned to dust today, the Catholic Church would still be here.

michel

 

[KingAlfred]

First, the Church looks at the entire canon of scripture when interpreting even one verse.
Second, the Church looks at the tradition of Church which includes, but is not limited to Early Church Fathers, Concicular documents, and Doctors of the Church.
Third, the Church looks at Magisterial Teaching from the beginning of the Church up to the present.

This is a very concise explanation and I am certain that it could be explained in more elevated terms, but for brass tax purposes this explanation should suffice.

Good job.

 

[KingAlfred]

“Once Saved Always Saved” or “OSAS” is an errant belief that many Protestant Christians hold to and there are many different “Protestant” definitions of what “OSAS” actually means.

Which leads us to the second errant Protestant belief, which allows for the “Personal Interpretation of the Bible”.

These two beliefs came from man’s ego and and his own intellect and not from God. They are both anti-biblical and anti-Christian, they are nonsensical and they do not work in the real world. They are both a contradiction.

Many more beliefs that are false have arose from these first two false beliefs (OSAS and Personal interpretation) and they have cause much division and many, million individual cases, where people actually belong to the “religion of their own intellect and ego” and not to any Church that Jesus Christ founded and that God intended for all men.

I am a Roman Catholic, so obviously I disagree with these two fabricated, man-made errors; “OSAS” and “Personal Interpretation of the Bible”.

What are your thoughts?

History proves you right, my friend.

 

[KingAlfred]

When I worked as a felony probation officer, I noticed that OSAS was the preferred ‘jail-house’ religion of most religious offenders. It was so common it actually became the source of cynical jokes about career offenders. Their lives were committed to OSAS Christianity whenever they were locked up, but to crime, whenever they weren’t.