“Once Saved Always Saved” ...

[Strevel]

And everyone who believes in sola scriptura believes in the sinners prayer? Catholics are always pointing out how Protestants misunderstand them and misrepresent them. Let’s watch those planks.

The idea that God / Jesus ment one thing for others and yet another thing for us is to give us all wiggle room for our deeds or missdeeds. Sola Scriptura, the individual understanding (revelation) of a scripture is a dangerous precipise.

Don in Vegas

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3969751]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.

Even in the time of Christ there was the OT which carried authority in the church. Secondly even though the canon was not entirely known in its complete form of 27 books the writings of the gospels and some of the letters did carry weight and authority in the church before the canon was finalized.

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

Its not necessarily that the Spirit is telling different things but that men interpret things differently based on a number of factors.

 

[cazayoux]

Even in the time of Christ there was the OT which carried authority in the church. Secondly even though the canon was not entirely known in its complete form of 27 books the writings of the gospels and some of the letters did carry weight and authority in the church before the canon was finalized.

In the time of Christ there was no consensus between the Jews regarding what was ‘scripture’ and what wasn’t. Pharisees, Sadduccees, Essenes, others … had differences in what was considered inspired. We know they all agreed on the first 5 books.
When Jesus spoke to someone, he referenced what that person considered to be scripture.

The 27 books of the NT were around along with many other writings. However, there was no agreement as to what was and was not inspired.
Some that are in our NT were not considered inspired by some.
Some that are not in our NT were considered inspired by some.

michel

 

[guanophore]

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

Well, ok. He is on a thread where we are talking about “an errant believe of OSAS”, among other things. He states that The Catholic Church puts “heavy burdens” on people. I took that to mean that Catholics believe that we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling (as opposed to the errant OSAS position). Do you think I took this out of context?

 

[guanophore]

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

No need to be sorry about it. It was never meant to be. The gospel message that Jesus entrusted to HIs Apostles was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. The message did not become less whole after the books were written. The Bible does not even testify of itself that it is to contain all of what the church teaches. The idea that it should is erroneous.

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.

Oh. The entire New Testament is a product of sacred tradition.
What does “extra” mean? It was the “extra” that created the NT in the first place, and the “extra” that collected, canonized, and promulgated it.

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

Perhaps there are a few things about Catholicism that you don’t understand?

That’s why I’m not becoming Catholic. The Magesterium is exactly like the Pharisees that Jesus condemned in his day.

In what way?

 

[guanophore]

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

Can you please show where the Catholic Church teaches this about itself?

Where did you get such a strange idea?

I think it exists as a result of Christians obeying God’s commands together. That is very visible, and it is not “underground.”

This is what the Catholic Church teaches, among other things.

The earliest writings, say 200 years after Christ, say little more than what is found in the Bible,

You have a lot to learn about you family history!

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.

Since you have rejected the Apostolic Tradition, then how can you assert this? You apparently don’t even know what it contained!

Since the canon of the NT was not closed by that same authority in 385, then how can you trust that your Bible is not “errant”?

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.

Again, you have a lot to learn about your family history. During those years, the Latin Rite was in the minority. If you want to assert that the Church departed from the Apostolic Teaching, then you will somehow have to account for the non-Roman parts of it, which have also received the apostolic teaching.

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.

I am glad you are not one of “those wackos” Where your family history seems to be lacking is that Christianity was not made the State religion. Waht Constantine did was de-crimminalize Christianity. Temporal Power was not transferred to the Roman Church until 600’s when the Empire in the West failed.

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.

I think you have your timeline a bit off. Being Roman did not make people more likely to be Christian. After the Edict of Milan, Christians were no longer living under a death sentence every day.

I agree that the transfer of secular power to the Roman Pontiff when the Imperial crown was transferred to Constantinople did create problems for the church. Jesus said “my kingdom is not of this world”, and when men tried to make the Holy Roman Empire in this world, it occasioned many opportunities for corruption.

 

[guanophore]

But every doctrine must be supported by the Bible, according to your own church’s methods of interpetation, is that not true? Isn’t it something like:

Must be attested to in the Bible.
Must be attested to by the Fathers
Cannot contradict other teachings.

I think so.

I’ve been pointing out for several days now that bowing to the Pope and kissing his ring is certainly in opposition to the Bible.

That’s just silly. These are human customs of courtesy and respect. It is no different than bowing to my sensei, or if I lived in Tibet, kissing my prayer cloth before giving it to the Dalai Lama.

The Bible was produced in the mideast, where bowing is customary (as it is in the Far East). Do you think that when the Japanese bow to their CEO at the beginning of the staff meeting they are “unbiblical”? Honestly!

I’d actually think “tying up heavy loads,” could only be understood as doctrines.

What is it that seems so heavy?

I’ll just stick to one: bowing to anyone/anything on earth, but we’ve already got this topic in several other threads. Maybe we should start a new one so I don’t get in trouble.

Or you could just recognize that this is a custom that is prevalent in many parts of the world. If you could broaden your mind a little, and attempt to transcend cultures, we could move on to somthing substantial.

Japanese students bow to their instructor when entering and leaving the classroom.

 

[guanophore]

Of course. And when it’s supposed “authority” contradicts that of God himself, “we obey God rather than man.”

And when was that?

The heresy was not about the Trinity but the nature of Jesus and the nature of the Spirit. THESE things ARE clear in the Bible.

Both heresies were prevalent. If these things are clear in the Bible, why are there people who call themselves Christian who don’t believe that Jesus is God, and that th e Spirit is a Person?

Jesus, Peter, Angels: don’t bow before men/images/created things
CC: bow before men/images/created things

In worship, of course. The act of bowing in itself is a greeting and a courtesy, a sign of respect. Not all “bowing” is worship, for heaven’s sake! God would not command and support a sin!

Sure. His name is Jesus.

Unlike many Protestants, I have not made the Bible a fourth person of the Godhead.

Thank goodness. You are workable!

Jesus has the authority still. Matt 28:18.

Yes, and he said “all authority is given Me…go therefore”. He sends the Apostles out with His own authority. “As the father has sent me, so I send you”.

I suppose I can’t really answer the question definitively. It would seem to me that the Word should certainly be viewed as authoritative, and those “over us in the Lord” have authority.

How do people get “over us in the Lord”?

I’m talking about idol worship, mostly. Call it iconography if you like, but the reason it rose in prominence is because people were so used to worshiping images. They just traded Mary for Ishtar. Just as bad in my view.

Well, the problem with this formulation is thatMary is venerated in all parts of the world who have accepted Apostolic Teaching, including most areas who never heard of “Ishtar” and many that did not practice idol worship.

You seem to have removed the teaching not to bow before men/angels/images.

Not removed, just understood in context. We worship no others before HIm.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not saying it’s the intention of most Catholics to worship. Bowing before a statue or person is wrong. Period. Don’t do it, whatever your intention is.

Hmmm.

Gen 27:29
29 Let peoples serve you,
and nations bow down to you.
Be lord over your brothers,
and may your mother’s sons bow down to you.

I saac wants the brothers of Jacob to sin, along with all the nations?

Gen 49:8

8 Judah, your brothers shall praise you;
your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies;
your father’s sons shall bow down before you.

Jacob wants Judah’s brothers to sin?

2 Kings 5:18-19
18 But may the LORD pardon your servant on one count: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, leaning on my arm, and I bow down in the house of Rimmon, when I do bow down in the house of Rimmon, may the LORD pardon your servant on this one count." 19 He said to him, “Go in peace.”

Can’t God tell when a bowing person is worshipping, or just following customary expectations?

Ps 72:9
9 May his foes bow down before him,

Solomon wants the enemies of Israel to worship him, because he is the king’s son?

Prov 14:19
19 The evil bow down before the good,
the wicked at the gates of the righteous.

The evil worship the righteous?

Isa 45:14
The wealth of Egypt and the merchandise of Ethiopia,
and the Sabeans, tall of stature,
shall come over to you and be yours,
they shall follow you;
they shall come over in chains and bow down to you.

Isaiah wants the enemies of Israel to worship the nation of Israel?

Rev 3:9-10
9 I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but are lying — I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you.

Jesus intends to make the enemies of the Church of Philadelphia worship the Philadelphians?

c’mon! Cant’ you see that there are other contexts to bowing?

 

[guanophore]

So, what Jesus could do, Peter, the other Apostles, and all his successors could do, eh? I find it a bit convenient that the “successors” of Peter can only “do” the unverifiable things that Peter and the other Apostles could do. If the Pope is sent in the same way Jesus sent the Apostles, he should be able to do all that they could to verify his authority to speak on God’s behalf. He can’t, so he doesn’t.

How do you know that teh Pope does not do what Peter and the other apostles could do? How do you know that God does not work though him whatever gifts God desires?

I don’t think it matters. John, the Apostle, “bowed” before an angel. I would think it pretty obvious that John knew not to worship any but God. The angel told John not to even bow (proskuneo) before him, even if he didn’t intend worship.

God and the angels can tell if a person is worshipping, or not. John mistook the angel for God.

It’s not about intentions. If you bow before anything, you are breaking a Biblical command.

I just posted a number of biblical examples of bowing that are not worship. For the record, I agree with you that the command about not bowing in worship is clear. I think what is unclear is your mind.

Examples, exceptions, and excuses do not make it ok.

James 4:17
17 Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, commits sin.

Since you feel this way, then for you to show any respect or reverence using a form that is customary in other parts of the world would be a sin, so you should not do it.

For others, who are aware that they are not worshipping, it is appreciable to respect others in the manner that is customary.

 

[AliciaCL]

I’ve been pointing out for several days now that bowing to the Pope and kissing his ring is certainly in opposition to the Bible.

I disagree bigtime. People bow or curtsy to the Queen of England but they don’t worship her. It’s simply a traditional action of deep respect. Kissing the Pope’s ring is recognizing his office, the office of St. Peter, the disciple.

 

[MrS]

ckempston’

You are persistent, and either very convicted in your beliefs, or very stubborn in your arguments (I think the latter)

Either way, I bow to your consistency… ooopss mybad.

.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3969757]
Originally Posted by justasking4
There are different understandings of various doctrines in protestant churches. This is also true in the Catholic church.

guanophore
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.

This still does not change the fact that there are different beliefs in the catholic church. No 2 catholics believe exactly the same things. Secondly the catholic church has not offically defined a number of things that catholics can believe or not. This results in a wide range of beliefs in the church.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
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.

guanophore
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.

Go back and read these anathema’s. These are specific condemnations by the catholic church against anyone who disagrees with them. These things have never been rescinded by the church and so those who do not agree and believe in them are condemned.

Your comment about " Those outside the Faith of the Church are, by definition anathema" does not square with the catechism:

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”
274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,
275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

 

[cazayoux]

This still does not change the fact that there are different beliefs in the catholic church. No 2 catholics believe exactly the same things. Secondly the catholic church has not offically defined a number of things that catholics can believe or not. This results in a wide range of beliefs in the church.

I’m sure we can find at least two that are in line.
You are exactly right that the Catholic Church has not given a definitive decree on every little thing.

Catholics are even free to interpret the bible for themselves as long as the individual includes any intrepretation from the Catholic Church as well.
The Church doesn’t about one verse or another ‘this is the only interpretation’, rather ‘this is a correct interpretation’. We must include that interpretation as correct.

I wouldn’t say it’s a ‘wide range of beliefs’, though.
If we are talking doctrine, it’s as narrow as it gets.
If we are talking priestly vestment colors and architectural styles, there is quite a variety.

From your list we see Baptism, the Eucharist, Reconcilliation, … these are the sacraments. The teaching from the church on these is very specific and these topics are very important.
If an individual doesn’t agree with them, they ‘set themselves apart’ (anathema) from Christ’s Church.

Go back and read these anathema’s. These are specific condemnations by the catholic church against anyone who disagrees with them. These things have never been rescinded by the church and so those who do not agree and believe in them are condemned.

Rightly so.
I would say however, that it isn’t the Church anathemizing (condemning) the person, it’s the person anathemizing (setting apart) themselves from the Church.
And on these topics, do you think it should be okay for you to disagree with what the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist (for example) and for you to still be a part of the Catholic Church?

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”
274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,
275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

YES!
So you can see that the Church isn’t the seperator, but the individual.
This shows that the Church doesn’t say that our ‘separated brethren’ are devoid of truth in their faith. Quite the opposite.

You can’t have it both ways to say that the Church condemns everyone then also recognizes the truth that they do have in their faiths.
Maybe your choice of the harshest definition of ‘anathema’ isn’t the correct one.

michel

 

[guanophore]

Even in the time of Christ there was the OT which carried authority in the church.

This statement simply makes no sense. There was no collection at the time of Christ called the Old Testament!

There was a collection of sacred writings called the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets, and the Writings. There were various sects of Jews that rejected parts of them. The Protestants later accepted the collection determined by those who rejected Christ, removing books that He and the Apostles used.

The Church did not promulgate what came to be known as the “Old Testament” for nearly 400 years after Christ!

Secondly even though the canon was not entirely known in its complete form of 27 books the writings of the gospels and some of the letters did carry weight and authority in the church before the canon was finalized.

And the reason for this is because the Church was given the Authority by Christ to declare them so!

Its not necessarily that the Spirit is telling different things but that men interpret things differently based on a number of factors.

Yes, I agree. the Holy Spirit does not lead the people of God into division. Where divisions exist, it is because people are not hearing and following the Spirit.

 

[guanophore]

This still does not change the fact that there are different beliefs in the catholic church.

No, ja4. There is one unified Catholic Teaching. Those who do not adhere to it are not faithful Catholics.

No 2 catholics believe exactly the same things.

This is just detraction and calumny. What do you hope to accomplish? You are demonstrating that you are not here to learn about Catholicism, but to find fault with our faith. This is not the purpose of CAF.

Secondly the catholic church has not offically defined a number of things that catholics can believe or not. This results in a wide range of beliefs in the church.

Within the One, Holy, and Apostolic faith there is a lot of room for diversity. To say that no two Catholics believe the same is a false witness.

Go back and read these anathema’s. These are specific condemnations by the catholic church against anyone who disagrees with them. These things have never been rescinded by the church and so those who do not agree and believe in them are condemned.

Clearly you do not understand anathema. We are born into the world condemned by original sin. The church has no need or desire to “curse” anyone. She recognizes when people are accursed, through lack of faith. Lack of faith brings the curse of death on every person. That was the case before Jesus built His church.

Your comment about " Those outside the Faith of the Church are, by definition anathema" does not square with the catechism:

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”
274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,
275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

They are considered members of the Catholic Church, ja4. Separated, indeed, and improperly joined. HOwever, since there is ONLY ONE CHURCH, then we recognized that everyone who is saved is a member of the Church, whether we recognize it or not, or whether we understand it or not.

 

[MrS]

This still does not change the fact that there are different beliefs in the catholic church. No 2 catholics believe exactly the same things. Secondly the catholic church has not offically defined a number of things that catholics can believe or not. This results in a wide range of beliefs in the church.

"

Nor does it change the fact… the fact…
that no 2 Catholics are offered different beliefs to accept… or reject

That is a major distinction… the Catholic Church Doctrines are unchangable
The Catholic Church disciplines often change.

Non-catholic faith communities are what they are because of changes and for changes… not in spite of them

.

 

[MrS]

This still does not change the fact that there are different beliefs in the catholic church. No 2 catholics believe exactly the same things. Secondly the catholic church has not offically defined a number of things that catholics can believe or not. This results in a wide range of beliefs in the church.

"

Nor does it change the fact… the fact…
that no 2 Catholics are offered different beliefs to accept… or reject

That is a major distinction… the Catholic Church Doctrines are unchangable
The Catholic Church disciplines often change.

Non-catholic faith communities are what they are because of changes and for changes… not in spite of them

.

 

[distracted]

I’ll just stick to one: bowing to anyone/anything on earth, :

if you bowing to someone forces you to commit the sin of idolatry, worshipping another human being, then you have got serious problems… I could kiss the pope’s hand all day long and i still would not consider him God… (I am a devout, practicing, card-carrying, Mary-loving Catholic).

 

[justasking4]

MrS;3975600]Nor does it change the fact… the fact…
that no 2 Catholics are offered different beliefs to accept… or reject

That is a major distinction… the Catholic Church Doctrines are unchangable

There are also many protestant beliefs that have not changed either.

The Catholic Church disciplines often change.

Non-catholic faith communities are what they are because of changes and for changes… not in spite of them

Would you happen to have a couple of examples?