Do those who leave the Church go to Hell?

[jericho777]

Bloodlines have nothing to do with Apostolic succession, jericho.

Rather, what has been passed down is* authority. *

Not lineage.

I agree not in this case but the principal is the same just because you are the CC you are acting like the Jews by thinking that you are beyond reproach and God would never cast you away.

 

[PRmerger]

You both have the same apostolic succession and have differing doctrinal views. You both have been at odds for 1000 years you both can’t be right. Which of you is more right you or them?

Where’s the quote from the Magisterium that we’ve excommunicated the EO’s?

 

[PRmerger]

You both have the same apostolic succession and have differing doctrinal views.

Could you please state what “differing doctrinal views” we have? Thanks.

The only one I’m aware of is the supremacy of the pope. Are there any others?

 

[jericho777]

Thank-you for your support

You are welcome. You shouldn’t be belittled for asking honest questions.

 

[PRmerger]

I agree not in this case but the principal is the same just because you are the CC you are acting like the Jews by thinking that you are beyond reproach and God would never cast you away.

There is nothing wrong with “acting like the Jews”, jericho. The Jews are our elder brethren in the faith. Jesus, in fact “acted like the Jews”. And so did all the apostles.

Now, if you’re proposing that since the Jews trusted in their bloodlines and Catholics trust in the apostolic succession, well, there’s nothing wrong with Catholics accepting apostolic succession, even if Jewish trust in their lineage was ineffectual.

 

[jericho777]

Your not a mind reader, and still speaking for someone else:shrug:

No I’m not but I know when someone is being condescending to another and Bazant feels that way.

Then why are you referring to Bible without the specific verse? Not a difficult conversation, just direct. And you are speaking for me,now? I would appreciate you don’t, I’m sure I can speak for me. You always talk for everyone else and read minds?

So then who is your final authority the bible or someone/thing else?

Again this is how the questioned arrived. You state something with no-referrence. It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks, or if I agree with you, its YOUR opinion at this point…

I form my beleifs around the word of God.

Geez talk about ???

I merely want to learn about the truth of God and intellectual debate. I’m not interested in making people feel bad just because I can or because I cannot present a reasoned defense of my beleifs. All ideas should be able to be defended in the public square of ideas. Because someone says so is not an answer. Arguements are won by building upon defendable truths and demonstrating their reality. IE the way the gospel was presented to the world with tangagle evidences of its reality. That’s all I’m saying.

 

[jericho777]

Where’s the quote from the Magisterium that we’ve excommunicated the EO’s?

That’s what I learned when I was younger. But the bigger question is you both can’t be right but both still have the same apostolic lineage (which is what you all say is the proof of the true church). I’ve been told there can’t be two true churches. So who is right? You or them.

 

[jericho777]

Could you please state what “differing doctrinal views” we have? Thanks.

The only one I’m aware of is the supremacy of the pope. Are there any others?

The bigger point is there are differences and you split over them 1000 years ago. The papicy thing is pretty major in itself would not you agree? So who is right you or them.

 

[GaryTaylor]

No I’m not but I know when someone is being condescending to another and Bazant feels that way…

No your assuming.

I form my beleifs around the word of God…

Good, and I don’t believe your “opinions”. Thats my point. Could you elaborate??

I merely want to learn about the truth of God and intellectual debate. I’m not interested in making people feel bad just because I can or because I cannot present a reasoned defense of my beleifs. All ideas should be able to be defended in the public square of ideas. Because someone says so is not an answer. Arguements are won by building upon defendable truths and demonstrating their reality. IE the way the gospel was presented to the world with tangagle evidences of its reality. That’s all I’m saying.

I hear what you saying. Listen , the feeling aspect. You yourself are feeling however your feeling. No-one “makes” anyone feel anyway. How you arrive at how you feel. I do not know. If someone told you they felt someway. I do not know, I wasn’t there. Do you want to relate to your feelings or something?

And yes, I agree, “all ideas” should be defended, yours are not being “defended” just presented, then I contronted you. You have refused to draw out YOUR opinions any further. As has your friend, you chose to speak for, and on the side with I assume?? I don’t read your mind, you do. Are you always so confusing to talk to?

 

[jericho777]

Now, if you’re proposing that since the Jews trusted in their bloodlines and Catholics trust in the apostolic succession, well, there’s nothing wrong with Catholics accepting apostolic succession, even if Jewish trust in their lineage was ineffectual.

That is what I was refering to the “just because they were…” holds no water with God. Everything of theirs was lost because of their attitude. If it happened to them it can happen to anyone is my point despite of any lineage.

 

[PRmerger]

So then who is your final authority the bible or someone/thing else?

Catholics’ final authority is Jesus.

I form my beleifs around the word of God.

As do Catholics. Except that you limit the word of God to only that which is written.

This is ironic, as there is nothing in the written word of God which declares this. Thus, you are following a man-made tradition–you believe this because someone else taught you that, who heard it from someone else, who heard it from another person…but not a single person read it in the Sacred Scriptures.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s what I learned when I was younger.

Well, to use a phrase you wrote: “Because someone says so is not an answer.”

But the bigger question is you both can’t be right but both still have the same apostolic lineage (which is what you all say is the proof of the true church).

Perhaps you were unaware that the EO and the Catholic Church do indeed claim the same apostolic succession? (I don’t like to use the term “lineage” because it implies a bloodline, which, of course, is not part of the deposit of faith.)

I’ve been told there can’t be two true churches. So who is right? You or them.

Who is right about what? Regarding what doctrine? That Jesus is present in the Eucharist? We both profess that. That there are 7 sacraments? We both profess that. That Mary was ever-virgin? We both profess that.

The only difference is the supremacy of the pope, whom they declare to be “first among equals”, no?

 

[PRmerger]

That is what I was refering to the “just because they were…” holds no water with God. Everything of theirs was lost because of their attitude. If it happened to them it can happen to anyone is my point despite of any lineage.

No disagreement with you here.

But no one can deny the truth of history. The Church that existed in the 3rd century was the Catholic Church. The Church that existed in the 14th century was the CC. And the Church that exists today is the same Church now.

 

[jericho777]

No your assuming.

Good, and I don’t believe your “opinions”. Thats my point. Could you elaborate??

I hear what you saying. Listen , the feeling aspect. You yourself are feeling however your feeling. No-one “makes” anyone feel anyway. How you arrive at how you feel. I do not know. If someone told you they felt someway. I do not know, I wasn’t there. Do you want to relate to your feelings or something?

And yes, I agree, “all ideas” should be defended, yours are not being “defended” just presented, then I contronted you. You have refused to draw out YOUR opinions any further. As has your friend, you chose to speak for, and on the side with I assume?? I don’t read your mind, you do. Are you always so confusing to talk to?

He was very thankful for the support I gave him just read his post.

I’m not asking you to beleive my opinions but merely intelectually consider your position for your sake. I’m not going to lose sleep if you don’t beleive me.

But we can be hurtful with our words.

I never knew Bezant till now and was merely coming to his defense. I cannot tell you how many times I have given multiple bible references only to be told catholics hold sacred tradition above what the bible says.

 

[PRmerger]

I have given multiple bible references only to be told catholics hold sacred tradition above what the bible says.

Perhaps you misunderstood. “What the bible says” is the same thing as “Sacred Tradition”–it’s just that which has been written down. So it cannot be one or the other in Catholic theology.

It’s like saying Protestants hold “what the Bible says” above what God says. They are one and the same, no?

Tradition is what brought you the Scriptures, jericho. You cannot deny that. Without the Sacred Tradition of the CC you would not know what is God’s word and what is merely ancient Christian writings.

Thus, each and every time you quote from the Scriptures you are giving tacit approval to Sacred Tradition.

 

[jericho777]

Catholics’ final authority is Jesus.

As do Catholics. Except that you limit the word of God to only that which is written.

This is ironic, as there is nothing in the written word of God which declares this. Thus, you are following a man-made tradition–you believe this because someone else taught you that, who heard it from someone else, who heard it from another person…but not a single person read it in the Sacred Scriptures.

The bible is the unchangable and verifiable word of God. You are relying on people who came after the fact and hold this sacred tradition above the written word. Now who is following man made traditions. Besides when the ECF’s do not follow current catholic thought they are dismissed as mistaken in their thoughts.

 

[GaryTaylor]

He was very thankful for the support I gave him just read his post…

Sounds like solid Love, I hear you.

I’m not asking you to beleive my opinions but merely intelectually consider your position for your sake. I’m not going to lose sleep if you don’t beleive me…

I fine, I’m not sure I could be any better. Thanks for the concern though. I don’t want you to lose sleep.

But we can be hurtful with our words…

I’m just very direct, I believe we spoke once before, don’t you follow Calvin? I have no issue with that. I believe I remember speaking to you before. Maybe I’m wrong?

I never knew Bezant till now and was merely coming to his defense. I cannot tell you how many times I have given multiple bible references only to be told catholics hold sacred tradition above what the bible says.

Yes, I kinda get that. Its fine, your misreading me being direct. I believe I get where your coming from with the scripture now though. However, Listen, if scripture makes music in its context, personally I look at it.

Often times people post scripture verse, which then looks just like a bowl of notes, that creates no-music. Follow-me? That which I can’t see context/comprehension though makes it more difficult. I see many who have solid textual understanding. However I believe I have a better understanding of where your at now.

 

[PRmerger]

The bible is the unchangable and verifiable word of God.

What do you mean by it’s “verifiable”?

 

[PRmerger]

You are relying on people who came after the fact and hold this sacred tradition above the written word.

Now sure what “people” you mean. Are you talking about CAFs members who allegedly hold sacred tradition above the written word?

Or are you talking about the “people” in the Catholic Church who discerned for you that the Shepherd of Hermas is not inspired but that Titus is?

 

[Telstar]

That is what I was refering to the “just because they were…” holds no water with God. Everything of theirs was lost because of their attitude. If it happened to them it can happen to anyone is my point despite of any lineage.

Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus told us that even the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. In other words, no matter what may happen, or who would ever try to destroy it, His Church would always remain faithful and true to Him, and no one would ever be able to destroy it. It was built on the “Rock” (Peter) and will remain intact until Jesus comes, again. Even if only a ‘few’ remain truly faithful, the Church itself will still be His Church, forever. It’s quite obvious that He spoke those words directly to Peter. Those who follow Peter and his successors would seem to be the obvious ones that Jesus was referring to as “His Church”. Maybe I’m just naive, but that’s the way that I see it, as plain as day.