Authority of the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter ladylinguist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O.S. still not answering the question!! i know you are not pentacostal, but what are you?

you have all the information on our religion to attack us, but you cleverly reveal very little about yourself. i find that a little unfair.
especially since you seem to find such glee in attacking the catholic church.
It’s quite the pattern in here actually. When there is a vehement anti-Catholic like OS saying derogatory things about the CC, that person usually doesnt divulge any information about their religious affiliation. We all have nothing to hide and he knows where we stand when it comes to Christ and His Church. Until he comes clean about the congregation he attends (if any), there really is no reason to take any of his posts seriously. He reminds me of a poster who was recently banned named “thecoach.” I wonder what else they have in common…
 
O.S. still not answering the question!! i know you are not pentacostal, but what are you?

you have all the information on our religion to attack us, but you cleverly reveal very little about yourself. i find that a little unfair.
especially since you seem to find such glee in attacking the catholic church.
I called Blessed Scripture! on him due to his claim to not be protestant, since his own profile (at that time) claimed that he was. I haven’t read it lately.

Notice that the “Rock foundation” pictured in his signature is actually made of paper and cardboard? Also, that he stands on it? I will stand on my bible only to get a better look at Christ. Anyway, who would not prefer Christ in the Flesh to Christ on paper?

May Christ’s peace always be with you.
 
his quote doesn’t even make very much sense to me. however, i notice since i asked him to declare his faith, he has left the building - like elvis. LOL
 
for some reason old scholar, i don’t think you have ever told us what your church is. you mentioned pentecostal the other day and i asked if that is your faith, but you didn’t answer. why don’t you want to reveal what church you belong to?
Sorry about that. Dinner and a movie took precedent. Have to satisfy the spouse you know…

Although I was Christened in a Methodist Church, baptised and raised in a Baptist Church, I am now a Lutheran. Hope that solves your problem…
 
O.S. still not answering the question!! i know you are not pentacostal, but what are you?

you have all the information on our religion to attack us, but you cleverly reveal very little about yourself. i find that a little unfair.
especially since you seem to find such glee in attacking the catholic church.
I have studied the RCC at great length to see why it did not reform when Luther and others tried to get it to. I wish it had…Anyone who knows the history of the RCC knows why it needed reforming so much…
 
old scholar, not my problem, just why so secretive?

by the way, what movie did you see?
 
i believe there was a counter reformation if i am not mistaken within the Catholic church.

i hope you are not basing everything you know about Catholics from watching the movie Luther — LOL
 
methodist - baptist - lutheran

sounds like you are moving closer to the Catholic church to me
 
Here’s a truth about a couple of Old Scholar’s lies, from INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*


**You need to check your history a little better. In the 18th century, Pope Pius VI wrote *Auctorem Fidei ***in 1794 condemning the teaching of the church that babies went to hell. He said the teaching was “false, rash, and injurious to Catholic education” because they denied the existence of a place “which the faithful generally designate by the name of limbo for children.” Limbus Infantium. Pope Pius VI implied that there are two possibilities: that unbaptized infants might spend eternity comfortably in Limbo or they might spend it being tortured in hell. The group called the Jansenists denied the possibility of limbo and Pope Pius VI thought the denial was un-Catholic.

In 1905 Pope Pius X made a definitive declaration confirming the existence of Limbo. “Children who die without baptism go into Limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but they do not suffer either, because having original sin, and only that, they do not deserve paradise, but neither hell or purgatory.”

Pope John Paul II in 1992 was reported as unhappy with the doctrine of Limbo and mentioned having it removed from the church’s 1992 catechism. But in 1995, he gave an ambiguous statement implying that aborted embryos and fetuses may be in Heaven or Limbo.

Check your history and see that it was in fact a doctrine but has been changed now. Thank God the RCC finally realized that it was a bad doctrine to begin with.

This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children.
  1. Catholic tradition has constantly affirmed that the Church is necessary for salvation as the historical mediation of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. This conviction found its classical expression in the adage of St. Cyprian: “Salus extra Ecclesiam non est”.[87] The Second Vatican Council has reiterated this faith conviction: “Basing itself on Scripture and tradition, it [the Council] teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it” (LG 14). The Council expounded the mystery of the Church at length: “The Church, in Christ, is in the nature of [a] sacrament - a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of the unity among all men” (LG 1); “Just as Christ carried out the work of redemption in poverty and oppression, so the Church is called to follow the same path if she is to communicate the fruits of salvation to men” (LG 8). “Rising from the dead (cf. Rom 6:9) he [Christ] sent his life-giving Spirit upon his disciples and through him set up his Body which is the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation” (LG 48). What is striking in these quotations is the universal extent of the Church’s mediating role in ministering God’s salvation: “the unity among all men”, “salvation of [all] men”, “universal sacrament of salvation”.
  2. In the face of new problems and situations and of an exclusive interpretation of the adage: “salus extra ecclesiam non est”,[88] the magisterium, in recent times, has articulated a more nuanced understanding as to the manner in which a saving relationship with the Church can be realized. The Allocution of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854) clearly states the issues involved: “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible (Old Scholar), are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord”.[89]
  3. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens. When one is invincibly ignorant (as Old Scholar is), God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”.[90]
  4. The universal salvific will of God, realized through Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit, which includes the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation, finds expression in Vatican II: “All men are called to this Catholic unity which prefigures and promotes universal peace. And in different ways to it belong, or are related: all the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ and finally all mankind called by God’s grace to salvation” (LG 13). That the unique and universal mediation of Jesus Christ is realized in the context of a relationship with the Church is further reiterated by the post-Conciliar papal magisterium. Speaking of those who have not had the opportunity to come to know or accept Gospel revelation – even in their case, the encyclical Redemptoris Missio has this to say: “Salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace … which has a mysterious relationship to the Church”.[91]
The church has since rescinded that belief and now says as I quoted before, that all Christians can be saved no matter what church they belong to.
 
It’s quite the pattern in here actually. When there is a vehement anti-Catholic like OS saying derogatory things about the CC, that person usually doesnt divulge any information about their religious affiliation. We all have nothing to hide and he knows where we stand when it comes to Christ and His Church. Until he comes clean about the congregation he attends (if any), there really is no reason to take any of his posts seriously. He reminds me of a poster who was recently banned named “thecoach.” I wonder what else they have in common…
I have attacked no one but have been personally attacked by posters on this thread. Not very Christian like either…
 
I called Blessed Scripture! on him due to his claim to not be protestant, since his own profile (at that time) claimed that he was. I haven’t read it lately.

Notice that the “Rock foundation” pictured in his signature is actually made of paper and cardboard? Also, that he stands on it? I will stand on my bible only to get a better look at Christ. Anyway, who would not prefer Christ in the Flesh to Christ on paper?

May Christ’s peace always be with you.
Nice to see what you think of the Bible—God’s Word!
 
old scholar, not my problem, just why so secretive?

by the way, what movie did you see?
It was called “Blind Horizen” with Val Kilmer. Very good actually. Then we watched the ending of the Baby Boomers or whatever they called it. The one where they gave babies to teens for a few days…Very sad to see National Television show unmarried teen agers in bed together tho’. They even tried to justify it.
 
Sorry about that. Dinner and a movie took precedent. Have to satisfy the spouse you know…

Although I was Christened in a Methodist Church, baptised and raised in a Baptist Church, I am now a Lutheran. Hope that solves your problem…
You say you’re a Lutheran but your profile says you are non-Protestant…Lutheranism is the epitome of Protestantism. Why the contradiction?
 
well, i am glad you enjoyed the movie. i have not heard of it, but i think val kilmer is a good actor.

i hope you are telling the truth about all those churches you have belonged to. i thought the only people who christened babies were catholic and anglican.

i thought you mentioned something the other day about being pentecostal.

i think i am still not getting the truth. you attack every time you post because you believe the Catholic church and the Pope are invalid.
 
You say you’re a Lutheran but your profile says you are non-Protestant…Lutheranism is the epitome of Protestantism. Why the contradiction?
**While Luther’s request for reform was eventually called the “Protest” it was actually a request for the Roman Catholic Church to clean its house and put it in order. Eventually it became known as Protestantism of course, but I reject that label. I still say I belong to the original church founded by Christ as we are taught everything the apostles taught and nothing more or less. The Bible does not say there is a supreme leader and I think the papacy has been forced on the people and is not biblical. In addition, it was not even thought of until hundreds of years after Christ. History is very clear about that.

Christ established only one church and all believers are members of that church and I can prove that by Scripture. I don’t need tradition to tell me I am wrong…**
 
well, i am glad you enjoyed the movie. i have not heard of it, but i think val kilmer is a good actor.

i hope you are telling the truth about all those churches you have belonged to. i thought the only people who christened babies were catholic and anglican.

i thought you mentioned something the other day about being pentecostal.

i think i am still not getting the truth. you attack every time you post because you believe the Catholic church and the Pope are invalid.
**I only mentioned something Pentecostals did…

Presbyterians and many Methodists still christen babies. I guess that’s their answer to infant baptism as they believe baptism comes after belief and not before.

The only thing I disagree with the RCC is what I have already stated. The Papacy, Marioltry, purgatory, prayers for the dead, confession to a priest and the other things I have listed in these threads. If you removed all those things, then we would have the original church Christ founded and all these other denominations would never have been established. That’s the way Christ wanted it you know but look at what has happened to it. That’s why I put it in the same category as the JWs and the Mormons.**

Later—it’s bedtime here now…http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/spezial/joshssmilies/41.gif
 
i believe there was a counter reformation if i am not mistaken within the Catholic church.

i hope you are not basing everything you know about Catholics from watching the movie Luther — LOL
There was a Catholic reformation begun before Luther was born. Saint Teresa of Avila and Saint John of the Cross were parts of it, although in the 1500s. And, yes, both of them suffered at the hands of the church. But, like Saint Jerome, they remained in the church. If only Luther’s ego had allowed him patience.

Christ’s peace.
 
Hi Old Scholar,

I have seen you claim several times on this thread that Peter was never in Rome, never preached in Rome, and never died in Rome. Here are two questions for you.

  1. *]Can you provide quote from the first five centuries of Christian history that claims Peter died in Jerusalem?
    *]Can you provide any Biblical quote that claims Peter died in Jerusalem?

    I have another question for you. Based on a few other points, you seem to claim that the Catholic Church teaches and believes that the Pope can contradict scripture.

    1. *]Can you provide any authoritative document or quotation from such a document that states this?
      *]Can you provide any Pope that says this in any document?

      I have one final question based on your claim that Catholic cannot receive the wine at the mass.

      Can you provide any Church document that forbids Catholics from receiving the Wine at mass?

      …OK. One more.

      You also claim that Christians worshiped on Saturday, not Sunday. Can you provide any evidence from the first three or four centuries of Patristic writings that also claims this?

      God bless,
      Ut
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top