How does a Catholic increase the chance of getting into Heaven?

[Tanner9188]

**CONTINUED

How does this happen? Take on verse, Matthew 16:18 and twist it just enough; and look what has become of it. 18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

If you look at the passage in context, which is versus 13-20; and note that Jesus, not Peter, but on Peter and the rest of His disciples; He builds the church, which is the one I belong to, which started on the day of Pentecost.
In the beginning of verse 13 "He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” ; notice it was addressed to all the disciples, then look at verse 20 and the warning “Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.”

Why did Jesus warn the apostles/disciples and not just Peter? Why did He single Peter out in verse 18; because Peter is the one who spoke out first as he usually did, but the point is that it is Christ who builds His church based on the gospel, which Peter just revealed in part by His divinely revealed confession; and the messengers of this church are the tools used to deliver the gospel. A few versus later Jesus rebukes Peter and says get behind thee Satan. Peter was also the first true disciple to deny Christ 3 times, which is why in John he restores Peter by asking him 3 times; do you love me? Off course by twisting that passage; rather than looking at the whole of Scripture, you have a succession and King Peter taking the place of Christ. It is no coincidence that Peter denied the Lord 3 times and the Lord asked him 3 times “do you love me”; nothing more than total restoration on the Lords part. Were not all the disciples called to “feed the sheep” and isn’t that what they did?

Where does purgatory, immaculate conception, perpetual virginity come into play in the gospel? It doesn’t; just another distraction away from the true redeemer IMO.

Anyone can loose and bind; that was a rabbinical teaching that went like this “if you obey the law, then you are free from your sins, but if you do not obey the law, then you remain in your sin” OT Now NT “if you reject the gospel, then you remain in your sin, but if you accept the gospel than you are loosed from your sins”…nothing very complicated and all of heaven is in agreement because the message is from heaven; we can all be messengers and should be.

God bless you and hope you see the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.**

 

[Tanner9188]

The truth is most each of the 40,000+ protestant sects will point to the other 39,999+ Protestant sects and claim the others are unregenerate apostates when the truth is they all are heretical sects with bare minimum of Christian teachings. If not for water baptism the only Christians would be Catholic, Orthodox, Coptics and a few other schismatic apostolic Churches.

I would say that anyone that makes judgment on the souls of others is probably in big trouble; since it is reserved for God. You don’t seem to have a problem playing God. that’s why it is better to present the truth of the Word; rather than all the man-made stuff.

Here are dozens of scripture verses that prove that works of law are useless but works of grace are essential to one’s salvation. Let me know if you don’t agree with any of it and be able to back up your objections with scripture.

scripturecatholic.com/justification.html

**What exactly are “works of grace”; the Catholic definition please. I can’t find a definition in Scripture.
Romans 3 "21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,a through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
To justify is to declare righteous, to make one right with God. Justification is God’s declaring those who receive Christ to be righteous, based on Christ’s righteousness being *imputed *to the accounts of those who receive Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21). Romans 5:1 makes it crystal clear; even to some who are blind. “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ”
Once we are declared righteous; then we are set apart for God (sanctification) “But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and 1)righteousness and 2) sanctification(holiness-set apart) and 3)redemption” (1 Corinthians 1:30)
If one dies at 1), then go straight to 3); else go to 2), then 3), but the result is 3) Again; notice nothing about water baptism.

Sanctification is the same Greek word as holiness, “hagios,” meaning a separation. First, a once-for-all positional separation unto Christ at our salvation. Second, a practical progressive holiness in a believer’s life while awaiting the return of Christ. Third, we will be changed into His perfect likeness—holy, sanctified, and completely separated from the presence of evil.

Your Church denies the imputation of Christs righteousness to a believer in order to co-join 2 separate events IMO; which in essence twists the gospel just enough to change the message.

You are giving me back one of the same references I give Protestants that proves that Protestants scarcely worship God to the same level that Catholics venerate her saints since without the Holy Mass one is giving God only prayers and thanks and not giving God what He wants most - His Son’s obedience on the cross.

I’m sure He will be pleased to know there is a contest. I guess the more intelligent you believe you are the better higher level of worship???**

I have not met any Catholics that agree with you here. Can you give names of members here at CAF that agree with you?

** Now you have been here a very very very long time and perhaps your memory is fading in this regard. I have met but a few. I don’t believe I mentioned anyone in CAF; the more devout, the more dogmatic about defending the Roman Catholic Church. But when I come across one; I’ll try to remember to let you know; so you can rebuke them.** **

Catholics do not believe we can work our way into heaven;

You are right that talk is cheap; for actions speak louder than words IMO.** -

but just for argument sakes how is believing oneself into heaven any different of a work?

** I don’t know; I don’t think you can believe yourself into heaven; but when God gives you a heart of repentance and you are called by Him into repentance; then you respond because “who can resist His will”?**

How many Protestants flapped their lips into heaven by sayin over and over real fast “I believe” “I do believe” “I really truly believe” “This time for sure Lord I believe!” etc. etc. ad nasuem Do you have any evidence that a single Protestant ever made it to heaven by “just believing”? Any post-death miracles confirmed by witnesses and investigated? Any at all in 500 years of Protestant belief? No? I didn’t think so…
James

**
No I cannot see faith; I can only observe the results of that faith; it is easier to discern the false from the true. I do expect to speak with Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, John Calvin, Martin Luther, John MacArthur and others and look forward to their fellowship in heaven. I don’t expect to see any dead Popes; however that is between them and God and whatever God does is just and good. I would like to see everyone in heaven.**

 

[holy_moly]

QUOTE=Tanner
God bless you and hope you see the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Tanner, You are rambling & trying to rationalize your misbeliefs. You seem unable to keep to one topic & are tossing out straw men faster than I can set them afire! Try sticking to one topic, instead of using the shotgun heresy approach. Even if I had the time to address them (might as well just say, “read the Catechism!”), it would do no good as you’d ignore the logic & citations behind them & then throw out another bunch of arguments off topic. As to your last comment, try looking in the mirror…
:compcoff:

 

[CentralFLJames]

What do you know about Satan? Let me tell you something about him. His goal is to damn men and womens souls; therefore we can assume he spends much of his time in church…

Tanner I really mean this - YOU take the cake for the most contorted scripture-spin I have ever ever seen here at CAF from a Protestant. Where DO YOU COME UP WITH “STUFF”?
Are you a layed off Jack Chik comic book author?

Satan is playing you like a fiddle to spew this craziness in here. What part of Matthew 16:18-19 don’t you get? Jesus is speaking in front of all the apostles as witnesses but DIRECTLY to Peter when He appoints HIM the rock (the leader) of the Church. LOOK at the plain words of scripture for Pete’s sake (pun intended).

Matthew 16:18-19
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give* you **the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." *

NO OTHER APOSTLE IS GIVEN THE KEYS TO HEAVEN - NONE.
This phraseology was very clear to the apostles. Jesus made Peter the Stewart of HIS KINGDOM. In the Jewish traditions the Steward/Prime Minister was the one who had the SAME authority as the KING in his absence. Jesus was facing eminent persecution and was making a succession plan and PETER was HIS MAN. Get it??

You make one correct statement in all your comments - the Holy Spirit was originally called among other titles The Vicar of Christ. Peter and his authority as it was passed on till around Constantine’s time was called* The Vicar of St. Peter * or sometimes *The Vicar of the Prince of the Apostles * or even Vicar of the Apostolic See. But notice NO OTHER Apostle’s successor ever HAD THIS TITLE like Peter did. PETER was SPECIAL - and everyone in the early church and modern Church acknowledges this except the Johnny Come Lately Protestant-Christians who come 1400 hundred years too late to the party to have a clue about what the early Church actually did or believed since they use the bible as their history book.

Just because The Catholic Church changed its title for the Bishop of Rome does not mean that the Catholic Church is trying to usurp the role of The Holy Spirit. Remember the Holy Spirit was promised to The Church & Jesus promised that the Church was infallable (the gates of hell would not prevail). And who is the head of the church? The POPE! So in essence the Holy Spirit speaks through the instrument of the Pope and the title originally given by early church tradition to the Holy Spirit is also PERFECTLY FITTING to be given to the POPE as spokesperson. There is a de facto-equivalence when the pope speaks on official dogma between the Holy Spirit and The Pope. This is elementary logic and it as right to give the pope this title.

FUNDAMENTALISTS have always responded to the claim that the pope is the Vicar of Christ by stating, “There is no vicar of Christ on earth except the Holy Spirit!” They fail to understand that the Holy Spirit is A vicar of Christ (John 15:26, 16:12-15), but this does not mean that there are not others also - the very fact that God sent angels to announce the virgin birth proves that God has used various spokespersons from time to time. But the pope is special and is the earthly representative of Christ. The term “vicar” means “a substitute; esp. an under-servant [who substitutes].”

This pattern of Christ permitting others to speak for Him is seen in various scriptural places.

Notice in the following where He permitted 70 appointed disciples to speak for Him on a particular preaching mission to prepare the way:

After this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come. And he said to them . . . `He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me’" (Luke 10:1-2, 16).

We see it again in Paul’s letters:

"So we are* ambassadors for Christ**, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God" (2 Corinthians 5:20).

“[A]nd though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus” (Gal. 4:14).*

Here below see Peter telling Ananias that he lied not to Peter but to Peter acting as God’s representative and confirms that authority by killing Ananias before witnesses:
*
“[Ananias] sold a piece of property, and . . . kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, `Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? . . . You have not lied to men but to God.’ When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear came upon all who heard of it” (Acts 5:1-5). *

The above verse proves Peter’s unique authoritative role - the power to bind one in sin in God’s name and even execute people in God’s own divine power and autority (pssst - don’t tick-off the pope ).

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

So, by propagating this nonsence you are falling right into the paranoid conspiracy-spinners who play the typical Protestant’s overly suspicious and paranoid mind against all authority to take this old con job hook line and sinker. Protestants being very insecure in their illegitimacy are always trying to demonize the Catholic Church or the Pope to justify their rebellion against Christ’s Church - but this will only condemn them deeper into eternal punishment for calumny. This whole “the Pope is Satan” nonsence is a many times warmed over false Protestant polemic that comes from mentally tortured minds desperate to try to prove that the pope is “Satan incarnate” (266 times now and still counting ). These same nut jobs that want to attack the pope’s authority have even invented a fake Latin title (VICARIVS FILII DEI ) for the pope. This title that has never before been used by a single Catholic pope but it works for their purposes. The invented a fake document called the Donation of Constantine and used the title here in a desperate move to slander the papal office. This title along with fake documents to show its use forms a gematria representation (numerical equivalent) from the Roman Numerals to produce the much feared among Protestant number 666. Oh dear - another anti-christ…

But this kind of ignorance and idiocy proves for certain that Satan is in fact alive and well living in the mental illness of these nut jobs who play these pathetically armature games to try to slander the papal office and lead more souls to their ruin in false Protestant faiths. These are the same people who turn their back on the Holy Eucharist just like St. John identified the lip-service Christians in Jesus’ day who rejected real-presence in ironically JOHN 6:66. Oops - there’s anti-Christ again.

Protestants are desperate to paint the Catholic Church as satanic since they have NOTHING historically to stand on to justify their existence and they know it. Read this snippet:
Snippet from "Anti-Christ" (Jimmy Akin):

Original Material: catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0304bt.asp

Thus the Lutheran Book of Concord states, “The pope is the real Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ . . . Accordingly, just as we cannot adore the devil himself as our lord or God, so we cannot suffer his apostle, the pope or Antichrist, to govern us as our head or lord” (Smalcald Articles 2:4:10, 14).

The Presbyterian and Anglican Westminster Confession states, “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be the head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and that son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God” (25:6).

The difficulty with the papal Antichrist theory is that while it may have provided psychological comfort to early Protestant leaders, it does not fit the facts as they are presented in Scripture.

Even given the identification of the Antichrist with the beast, the pope is the last person who would fit the biblical requirements for being the individual Antichrist (or any Antichrist). The epistles of John clearly indicate that the Antichrist is one who denies that Christ has come in the flesh. However, the basis for the pope’s position in the Church is that Christ has come in the flesh and has ascended to heaven, leaving the successor of Peter as his vicar or representative on earth.

Gelasius I (492–496) “is the first pope to have been called ‘Vicar of Christ.’” Even if Gelasius had been the first pope to use “Vicar of Christ” as a title, one should not falsely infer that the essence behind that title was not appreciated until his time.

But again theologically and ecclesiologically speaking the title is implicit in apostolic times since Christ appointed Peter as head of the church and assured Peter that the gates of hell would not prevail then later assured that the Holy Spirit would lead The Church to all truth. It is elementary logic to then project that the office of Peter is infallable and the Holy Spirit speaks through Christ’s Church and so Peter’s office becomes the human voice of The Holy Spirit or The Vicar of Christ in an equivalence with the original ecclesial title of the Holy Spirit. The title makes perfect logical sense.

James

 

[Tanner9188]

Let me know if you don’t agree with any of it and be able to back up your objections with scripture.
scripturecatholic.com/justification.html
James

**JUSTIFICATION
Scripture

1. Faith and Works Together Lead to Justification
2. Works of Law Versus Good Works
3. Justification = Real Inner Change of Person (Infusion); Not Just a Declaration (Imputation)
4. Some Examples of Justification as Ongoing (not a one-time event)
5. Jesus and the Apostles Teach that Works are Necessary for Justification
   Tradition / Church Fathers
6. Justification Brings About Infused Righteousness
7. We are Justified by Grace Through Faith and Works

James,

I have been looking at these in some detail and even the writings of Augustine, Origen (a ladies real man) & Irenaeus “And since many saints participate in the Holy Spirit, He cannot therefore be understood to be a body, which being divided into corporeal parts, is partaken of by each one of the saints; but He is manifestly a sanctifying power, in which all are said to have a share who have deserved to be sanctified by His grace.” Origen, First Principles, I:I,3 (A.D. 230). This is a description of the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit; not justification. He has it correct.

Anyway, it is impossible to refute this because it is based on the premise that justification is not “declared to be righteous”, which contradicts the word justification or justified (dikaioō) and means “to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be” Luke 18:14 Jesus declared the Publican justified.

The word righteous is (dikaios) and means “approved of or acceptable of God”
Galatians 3:11 "Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” " uses both terms in this single passage.

The word sanctify (hagiazō) is the same word used for holiness and mean “to separate from profane things and dedicate to God” or to “purify”.

This is part of the problem why it is impossible to refute the Catholic definition co-joins both into one as opposed to the truth, which is they are separate events. Justification is God declaring the believer right before God and if that person died on the spot, before any sanctifying work could begin; that person would be in heaven. Thief on the cross is the Biblical example. The Publican in Luke 18:4 could be another example; since we do not know anything else after he was declared righteous.

Once declared righteous or justified before God; then the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit begins, this is where we are set apart to do the works that God prepared beforehand that we would walk in them. A process of learning and growing into the love of God, which can, by our own free-will (sin only) slow the progress of this work by grieving the Holy Spirit Ephesians 4:30-31 “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.” Notice verse 31 gives a nice sin-filled list of things we might choose to do; that hinder our progress and will assuredly bring chastisement upon the son of God.

Redemption; the final glorification; where those who were/are the elect, will receive the promises of salvation.

Salvation (sōtēria), which means to be delivered from something, which in a Biblical sense A.W. Pink put it this way: “Fourfold salvation: saved from the penalty, power, presence and most importantly the pleasure of sin.”

Once you are declared righteous, justification, are you not delivered from the penalty of sin? Yes The sanctifying work includes perseverance, whcih is reaching the prize; running the race, sanctification towards the goal, which is the full promises of that salvation. They, justification, sanctification & glorification, are all part of the salvation plan, but each is a separate event on its own merit. However the sanctification can not begin until one is first made right before God through the imputation of Christs righteousness, thus justified, not infusion.

It is the devils deception; IMO, since his best work is done at twisting Scripture just enough to change the message and hand over part of the divine merits to man. He has done this since the beginning and has infiltrated almost all churches. This is why it is so important to get it right; to avoid these deceptions that damn us.**

 

[Church_Militant]

It is the devils deception; IMO, since his best work is done at twisting Scripture just enough to change the message and hand over part of the divine merits to man. He has done this since the beginning and has infiltrated almost all churches. This is why it is so important to get it right; to avoid these deceptions that damn us.

Tanner, I think you have started at the presumption of error in Catholic theology and then proceeded to confirm that to your own thinking because you allege that we faithful Catholics and the Catholic Church are saying that we gain salvation by merit of good works, and that is totally untrue,

It appears to me that you have completely misunderstood Catholic teachings on this. I have studied this and as with so many of these arguments in opposition to the Catholic faith, what you have here is the errant allegation that what you are opposing is authentic Catholic teaching when in fact it is not.

Nowhere in Catholic teaching does the Church even infer what I have highlighted in red above. It’s just not there. There is no devil’s deception in Catholic teaching, but then the same cannot be said for the modern post reformation new winds of doctrines of men in the myriad of n-C Christian faith communities.

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner I really mean this - YOU take the cake for the most contorted scripture-spin I have ever ever seen here at CAF from a Protestant. Where DO YOU COME UP WITH “STUFF”? Satan is playing you like a fiddle to spew this craziness in here. What part of Matthew 16:18-19 don’t you get? witnesses but DIRECTLY to Peter when He appoints HIM the rock (the leader) of the Church. LOOK at the plain words of scripture for Pete’s sake (pun intended).Matthew 16:18-19And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give** you *the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." NO OTHER APOSTLE IS GIVEN THE KEYS TO HEAVEN - NONE.
This phraseology was very clear to the apostles. Jesus made Peter the Stewart of HIS KINGDOM. In the Jewish traditions the Steward/Prime Minister was the one who had the SAME authority as the KING in his absence. Jesus was facing eminent persecution and was making a succession plan and PETER was HIS MAN. Get it??
You make one correct statement in all your comments - the Holy Spirit was originally called among other titles The Vicar of Christ. Peter and his authority as it was passed on till around Constantine’s time was called The Vicar of St. Peter * or sometimes *The Vicar of the Prince of the Apostles * or even Vicar of the Apostolic See. But notice NO OTHER Apostle’s successor ever HAD THIS TITLE like Peter did. PETER was SPECIAL -EDITED

I can’t believe; well yes I can, that you cannot see the usurping of the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t bother you as you rationalized away; like you do all of the truth of Scripture.

EDITED FOR SPACE
FUNDAMENTALISTS have always responded to the claim that the pope is the Vicar of Christ by stating, “There is no vicar of Christ on earth except the Holy Spirit!” They fail to understand that the Holy Spirit is A vicar of Christ (John 15:26, 16:12-15), but this does not mean that there are not others also - the very fact that God sent angels to announce the virgin birth proves that God has used various spokespersons from time to time. But the pope is special and is the earthly representative of Christ. The term “vicar” means “a substitute; esp. an under-servant [who substitutes].”
This pattern of Christ permitting others to speak for Him is seen in various scriptural places.Notice in the following where He permitted 70 appointed disciples to speak for Him on a particular preaching mission to prepare the way:
After this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come. And he said to them . . . `He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me’" (Luke 10:1-2, 16).
We see it again in Paul’s letters:
“[A]nd though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus” (Gal. 4:14).

Here below see Peter telling Ananias that he lied not to Peter but to Peter acting as God’s representative and confirms that authority by killing Ananias before witnesses:
*"[Ananias] sold a piece of property, and . . . kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, `Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? . . . You have not lied to men but to God.’ When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear came upon all who heard of it" (Acts 5:1-5). *The above verse proves Peter’s unique authoritative role - the power to bind one in sin in God’s name and even execute people in God’s own divine power and autority (pssst - don’t tick-off the pope ).[continued] James
Doesn’t it bother you that the Pope is called “Holy Father”; a title only for God the Father? Who else wanted that title?
**I feel very sorry that you cannot see that over time the Pope’s authority and rule over Catholics Church only; has expanded and expanded till it evolved to the same authority and greater than Holy Spirit. I say greater because the Pope speaks “ex cathedra” and thus has the “imagined” ability to add to what God chose to reveal IMO.
****The word “appoint” is not used in those passages; and we know Christ is the rock bed foundation on which the real church of Christ is built upon; Scripture verifies this in numerous passages, including Matt 16:18. But you have been mislead by focusing on one play on words rather than what Scripture actually teaches. All believers are rocks that make up the spiritual building, which Jesus is the chief cornerstone, known as the household of God, where we, true believers along with our High Priest, are the pillar and support of the truth, which is the gospel, that God has revealed from heaven to all men. you further error on focusing on one word “key”, which is just that a key, which either allows or prevents one from entering a door. People bound in their sins by rejecting the gospel will not be able to enter the door of heaven and vice versa. In Revelation, Jesus has the key; did He take it away from Peter? You really need to change your focus in light of all of Scripture.

Peter is no more or less greater than any of the other apostles as your Church makes him out to be. If their was a chief apostle; it would be Paul, not Peter, but God is not a respecter of persons and choose all of them to accomplish His will. Just as He continue to use the “elect” to further reach His “elect” through the gospel of Jesus Christ.**

 

[Tanner9188]

So, by propagating this nonsence you are falling right into the paranoid conspiracy-spinners who play the typical Protestant’s overly suspicious and paranoid mind against all authority to take this old con job hook line and sinker. Protestants being very insecure in their illegitimacy are always trying to demonize the Catholic Church or the Pope to justify their rebellion against Christ’s Church - but this will only condemn them deeper into eternal punishment for calumny. This whole “the Pope is Satan” nonsence is a many times warmed over false Protestant polemic that comes from mentally tortured minds desperate to try to prove that the pope is “Satan incarnate” (266 times now and still counting ). These same nut jobs that want to attack the pope’s authority have even invented a fake Latin title (VICARIVS FILII DEI ) for the pope. This title that has never before been used by a single Catholic pope but it works for their purposes. The invented a fake document called the Donation of Constantine and used the title here in a desperate move to slander the papal office. This title along with fake documents to show its use forms a gematria representation (numerical equivalent) from the Roman Numerals to produce the much feared among Protestant number 666. Oh dear - another anti-christ…

But this kind of ignorance and idiocy proves for certain that Satan is in fact alive and well living in the mental illness of these nut jobs who play these pathetically armature games to try to slander the papal office and lead more souls to their ruin in false Protestant faiths. These are the same people who turn their back on the Holy Eucharist just like St. John identified the lip-service Christians in Jesus’ day who rejected real-presence in ironically JOHN 6:66. Oops - there’s anti-Christ again.

Protestants are desperate to paint the Catholic Church as satanic since they have NOTHING historically to stand on to justify their existence and they know it. Read this snippet:

Gelasius I (492–496) “is the first pope to have been called ‘Vicar of Christ.’” Even if Gelasius had been the first pope to use “Vicar of Christ” as a title, one should not falsely infer that the essence behind that title was not appreciated until his time.

But again theologically and ecclesiologically speaking the title is implicit in apostolic times since Christ appointed Peter as head of the church and assured Peter that the gates of hell would not prevail then later assured that the Holy Spirit would lead The Church to all truth. It is elementary logic to then project that the office of Peter is infallable and the Holy Spirit speaks through Christ’s Church and so Peter’s office becomes the human voice of The Holy Spirit or The Vicar of Christ in an equivalence with the original ecclesial title of the Holy Spirit. The title makes perfect logical sense.

James

First; I did not SAY THE POPE IS SATAN as you asserted. Second; another big and Huge error is that the Holy Spirit leads an institutional Church; as opposed to the body of believers to which He, the Holy Spirit, leads to truth. But one can only know this truth by practical experience in the regenerative life of the true believer.

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner, You are rambling & trying to rationalize your misbeliefs. You seem unable to keep to one topic & are tossing out straw men faster than I can set them afire! Try sticking to one topic, instead of using the shotgun heresy approach. Even if I had the time to address them (might as well just say, “read the Catechism!”), it would do no good as you’d ignore the logic & citations behind them & then throw out another bunch of arguments off topic. As to your last comment, try looking in the mirror…
:compcoff:

What are you doing here? Are you just young and in your early teens or twenties? I ask because you have no depth in your responses whatsoever. You say read the catechism; I say read the Bible. You have not refuted anything and need James and now Church Militant to assist you; so why are you here? Maybe to learn? Then it would be better to observe rather than to throw out whatever it is you throw out w/o any attempt of support. I’m sure you can lean much about the Roman way if you observe these two and i might also add Guanophore to the list as well.

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner, I think you have started at the presumption of error in Catholic theology and then proceeded to confirm that to your own thinking because you allege that we faithful Catholics and the Catholic Church are saying that we gain salvation by merit of good works, and that is totally untrue,

It appears to me that you have completely misunderstood Catholic teachings on this. I have studied this and as with so many of these arguments in opposition to the Catholic faith, what you have here is the errant allegation that what you are opposing is authentic Catholic teaching when in fact it is not.

Nowhere in Catholic teaching does the Church even infer what I have highlighted in red above. It’s just not there. There is no devil’s deception in Catholic teaching, but then the same cannot be said for the modern post reformation new winds of doctrines of men in the myriad of n-C Christian faith communities.

**Using the link James gave me here is a little proof of Catholic thinking.
*14. Are we saved by works?

Chris: Dear to whom this concerns,

I have some questions on what you wrote about salvation. You said you need works, and supplies some verses to back it up. So I went and looked up those verses, since you didn’t actually put what they said, just all in general. So anyway, I looked them up, and it never said you need works for salvation. I read ahead and past on them and alot of them talked about wars and what they would get for punishment, and getting treasure in heaven for our good deeds, not salvation. If you could please contact me as soon as possible.

Thank you for your time.

J. Salza: There are many passages in Scripture where Jesus and the sacred writers teach that works are required for salvation.*

This is from: www.defendingthecatholicfaith.com
Do Catholics believe that the good works they do will get them into Heaven? Catholics do believe that works will get them to Heaven accompanied by faith and God’s grace.

Contradicts what you were so dogmatic about; it is like the finger nails on the board for Catholics when someone says you are earning your way to heaven.

This is my favorite from the Catholic Encyclopedia “The Catholic certainly must rely on the merits of Christ, and, far from boasting of his own self-righteousness, he must acknowledge in all humility that even his merits, acquired with the help of grace, are full of imperfections, and that his justification is uncertain”

This is that cojoining of justification with sanctification and the meritoriousness of the believer in earning/meriting “saving” grace; which in effect nullifies justification. The work or fruit of righteousness does not justify before God; but good works, which god prepared that we should walk in them is for bringing glory to God and in the end; some will be rewarded, not with redemption, but with His praise. We are already redeemed at justification by mere definition of the word.

I think it is a fitting statement; If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. or in the vernacular “If it looks like my works, I believe my works will gain “saving” grace, the it is works salvation.”

James is refuting the belief that a person can have faith without producing any good works (James 2:17-18). James is emphasizing the point that real and true faith in Christ will produce a changed life and good works. James is not saying that justification is by faith plus works, but rather that a person who is truly justified by faith will have good works in his/her life. The works, which God prepared, will be the result of true justification; therefore justification is separate component and are not cojoined as the Church has made it; twisting just enough to give men some merit for their salvation.

Here is the difference as I see it:
Catholics and Protestants agree that bare, sterile faith cannot save. We agree that true faith is always accompanied by good works. However we part company when it comes to the purpose of such works. For Evangelicals, good works are the necessary fruit and proof of genuine faith, for which Christ will reward believers at His return.

For Catholics, good works preserve and increase their personal righteousness for their final justification.
To address this important question, consider the following three propositions:

1. Good works are not necessary at all.
2. Good works are necessary to increase merit.
3. Good works always accompany true faith.

Which of these three statements is true and biblical? What is the role of good works in salvation?

Each one of us must take a look at his own heart and life. Am I trying to gain heaven by my efforts, by religious works and penance? If so, then cast away these obstacles, so you may trust completely in the Lord Jesus Christ alone for salvation, knowing that God would be merciful to us and forgive all our sins because His Son died on the cross to bear the sins of His people.

If I profess to believe in the Lord Jesus for salvation, is there tangible evidence in one’s life that our faith is for real? The true believer hates sin, lives righteously, loves God and his neighbor, and has the glory of God as his greatest desire.

On the other hand, the professor has some sort of religion but he does not really love or know God, and his life is characterized by vice and his selfish ambitions. So, is one’s faith real or counterfeit?

May God help each one of us to examine ourselves, and to grant us the grace of salvation, which is by faith in Christ Jesus, and unto good works.

God bless you; got to go and Lord willing; we will talk again soon.**

 

[Detales]

“Detales - you finally reveal your true agenda - portraying a new secular neo-Catholicism with NO apostolic authority and committed to deceiving others into believing it is Catholic and of course teaches EXACTLY opposite the Catholic Church in matters relating to homosexuals, ordination of women, abortion and so on. You sir are are at direct cross-purposes to the Catholic Church & Jesus Christ and are here to deceive and recruit others into your false church against forum rules. I will refute you point by point to expose you for the fraud that you are.”

James, That, as they used to say on a kiddie show, is “Kowa-dunga.” I count it one of my greatest honors on here to be at odds with you. Your scriptural dependence belies “who” you are, (Jesus used the name of their sect as an epithet.) Some day perhaps you will be fortunate enough to understand What you are. Untill then, like a couple of others on here, the best I can do for you is to encourage you to practice your “faith” with every ounce of available energy and conviction unto exhaustion. It may be your only way out. Bon chance.

 

[Mick_Taylor]

Why would he need an apostolic priest when the High Priest was there listening his repentance?

Hi w_stewart,

Excellent point. And to continue in your logic, why do we need to confess any of our sins to a priest? And why do we need a pope?

 

[CentralFLJames]

James,

I have been looking at these in some detail and even the writings of Augustine, Origen (a ladies real man) & Irenaeus "… He [Origin] has it correct.

Thanks for taking the time to finally read some of the material I have been giving you. Now we have a basis for further dialog.

That said, you can’t go too far listening to all of what Oregin says. What makes you think he is right? Is it because he was deemed a heretic by Catholics? You do know that his works are speculative and some are pagan don’t you? If you blindly agree with him then you have to take on all his gnostic and christian-pagan hybridized philosophies too - so be careful. FYI - Oregin had an unapproved ordination around his bishop and was taught gnostic ideals by his master - Titus Flavius Clemens. Origin did some good things for the church (fixing some LXX translation errors) but was later deemed a heretic for his unorthodox belief in the preexistence of souls, universal salvation and a hierarchical concept of the Trinity. In fact Oregin was a Neo-Pythagorean/Neo-Platonist who believed in successive stages of incarnation before eventually reaching God; imagining even demons being reunited with God.

Still want to say Origin “has it right”?

I think I am seeing a pattern here for who you want to always advocate and support - always pick the mavericks who disagree with the Catholic Church.

Anyway, it is impossible to refute this because it is based on the premise that justification is not “declared to be righteous”, which contradicts the word justification or justified (dikaioō) and means “to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be” Luke 18:14 Jesus declared the Publican justified.

You are correct it is impossible to refute us since Catholics were the first to develop the justification/sanctification theology early on and Luther and the reformers came back centuries later and tried to redefine it to be a Pharisaical like legal thing that Jesus himself always criticized for not being in the spirit of God. In fact Luther was not even original he had to go way back to heretical ideas like the repugnant Antinomianistic beliefs to have a quick alternative to Catholicism for HIS new religion. Don’t be deceived Luther intended to start a whole new Christian religion from his own warped theories – that came out very fast as the man’s ego popped out of his monk’s habit faster than illicit thoughts of boy walking in a brothel . The man wanted a secular priesthood - follow the ancient motives and Luther is painted red in sin.

And you can’t go by protestant language dictionaries (Noah Webster was a neo-Christian protestant who used exclusively protestant ideas for biblical words) to decode the semantics of justify and sanctify. These english lexicons are irrelevant to the ancient Catholic Church since we use the Latin word forms and have a fixed semantic of our own that precedes and is in front of American English by over 1.5 millenium! Our theology is not limited to scripture any more so than The Reformers limited theif false doctrines such as the concept of Total Depravity to scripture. You see its hard for a Johnny Come Lately religious club to usurp the wisdom of the Christian Nation (Catholics) that has been around for a lot longer than their country or new religion was even in existence by hijacking the semantics and redefining the lexical elements - yet another wise reason for the Latin being the official Church language (that few Protestants can ever read ).

This is part of the problem why it is impossible to refute the Catholic definition co-joins both into one as opposed to the truth, which is they are separate events. Justification is God declaring the believer right before God and if that person died on the spot, before any sanctifying work could begin; that person would be in heaven. Thief on the cross is the Biblical example. The Publican in Luke 18:4 could be another example; since we do not know anything else after he was declared righteous.

It is only a problem for Satan. Catholics have had it right for 2,000 years. Protestants can only try to reinvent the wheel or improvise what The Catholics have taught and NEVER be certain that it has anything worthwhile to add. Why can’t you all leave the theology alone and stop trying to innovate in endless regression? Why do Protestants think they have a licence to re-make Christianity and improve God’s Church? I never understood this attitude.

[cont]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

[from prior]

Once declared righteous or justified before God; then the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit begins, this is where we are set apart to do the works that God prepared beforehand that we would walk in them…

This is just preaching the Protestant theory of how God works but it can’t be proven in anyway by experience. If you all could prove that you have even one single soul that ever made it to heaven using Protestant theology we Catholics might listen. As it is Catholics have thousands of saints with post-death miracles highly ratified and confirmed.

Once you are declared righteous, justification, are you not delivered from the penalty of sin? Yes The sanctifying work includes perseverance, which is reaching the prize; running the race, sanctification towards the goal, which is the full promises of that salvation. They, justification, sanctification & glorification, are all part of the salvation plan, but each is a separate event on its own merit. However the sanctification can not begin until one is first made right before God through the imputation of Christs righteousness, thus justified, not infusion.

God is authentic He does not call a snow covered dung hill “righteous” by an action of the gavel. It fails the sniff test and God still sees it as corrupt. No, one must be REALLY transformed into a pure soul that is really pure - not just corruption covered over with a thin veneer. One is delivered from the penalty of sin by being literally transformed into a new sinless creature that is pure and holy as God is Holy - this IS the power of God - the ability to recreate us through Grace. Salvation is NOT quantized in processes like you suggest. There is a notion of a continuous process that is more analog like a growing plant undergoing seasons (dormation, growth, testing, feeding, pruning, bearing fruit [supernatural works] etc.). The only real event is the event of being born into Christ at baptism - this is like planting the seed of faith and letting it grow. If one dies before they are fully sanctified it is made up in purgatory. But bear in mind not all the fruit trees in God’s grove attain their full potential and are not the same size. There is a concept of least and greatest in heaven. Be all you can be in service to God is the operative word.

It is the devils deception; IMO, since his best work is done at twisting Scripture just enough to change the message and hand over part of the divine merits to man. He has done this since the beginning and has infiltrated almost all churches. This is why it is so important to get it right; to avoid these deceptions that damn us.

This is why Catholics will anathematize and condemn Protestant teaching until this scourge of error is eradicated from the face of the earth since at its core its pride and promotes anarchy and is a corrupt teaching that leads to destruction for many. Protestantism has born no good fruit for 500 years - unless we want to consider endless Christian mutations and divisions a fruit. But that sounds more like a cancer than a thing that contributes to advancing God’s Kingdom.

Bottom Line: Justification & Sanctification are two sides of the same coin and are inseparable. But this spiritual coin must be brought all the way to heaven to be spent and be crowned in glory.

James

 

[Tomster]

Hi w_stewart,

Excellent point. And to continue in your logic, why do we need to confess any of our sins to a priest? And why do we need a pope?

As to question # 1, its the normative way of receiving absolution. Read the words of Jesus in John 20:21-23.

As to question # 2, again, read the words of Our Lord in Matthew 16:13-19.

 

[Mick_Taylor]

Everybody else is overcomplicating this. To be saved, one simply must be a baptized Catholic and be in a state of grace at the time of his/her death. That simple.

Sure scapulars and rosaries and all that stuff have their merits, but they will not save you if you are unbaptized or in mortal sin.

The OP asked what would “increase your chances” of going to Heaven. While we do not know when exactly our time on earth will end, if you are in a state of grace, than you can be assured 100% that you will see Heaven when you die (well, Purgatory first, then Heaven).

Going to confession promptly when you commit a mortal sin will raise your “chances” to near 100%.

Hello, IrishYanksFan,

I’m curious about your comment::

Going to confession promptly when you commit a mortal sin will raise your “chances” to near 100%.

In your view, is God sovereign over some things, all things, or nothing?

To clarify, if salvation is a matter of CHANCE, then from a purely human viewpoint, salvation is a lot like playing the lottery–no one has a clue what the outcome will be.

 

[CentralFLJames]

James, That, as they used to say on a kiddie show, is “Kowa-dunga.” I count it one of my greatest honors on here to be at odds with you.

[sign]

 _______              __                __                     
|       \            |  \              |  \                    
| $$$$$$$\  ______  _| $$_     ______  | $$  ______    _______ 
| $$  | $$ /      \|   $$ \   |      \ | $$ /      \  /       \
| $$  | $$|  $$$$$$\\$$$$$$    \$$$$$$\| $$|  $$$$$$\|  $$$$$$$
| $$  | $$| $$    $$ | $$ __  /      $$| $$| $$    $$ \$$    \ 
| $$__/ $$| $$$$$$$$ | $$|  \|  $$$$$$$| $$| $$$$$$$$ _\$$$$$$\
| $$    $$ \$$     \  \$$  $$ \$$    $$| $$ \$$     \|       $$
 \$$$$$$$   \$$$$$$$   \$$$$   \$$$$$$$ \$$  \$$$$$$$ \$$$$$$$ 
                                                               
                                                               

 /      \                                               |      \                        
|  $$$$$$\  ______  __     __   ______    _______        \$$$$$$ _______    _______     
| $$___\$$ |      \|  \   /  \ /      \  /       \        | $$  |       \  /       \    
 \$$    \   \$$$$$$\\$$\ /  $$|  $$$$$$\|  $$$$$$$        | $$  | $$$$$$$\|  $$$$$$$    
 _\$$$$$$\ /      $$ \$$\  $$ | $$    $$ \$$    \         | $$  | $$  | $$| $$          
|  \__| $$|  $$$$$$$  \$$ $$  | $$$$$$$$ _\$$$$$$\       _| $$_ | $$  | $$| $$_____  __ 
 \$$    $$ \$$    $$   \$$$    \$$     \|       $$      |   $$ \| $$  | $$ \$$     \|  \
  \$$$$$$   \$$$$$$$    \$      \$$$$$$$ \$$$$$$$        \$$$$$$ \$$   \$$  \$$$$$$$ \$$

**Apostolic Ordinations for Excommunicated Catholics/Females/Gays
Divinity Diploma Via Mail • Create Custom MLM Franchise
Repairing Bad Salivations • Easy Payment Terms/Credit Cards **

[/sign]

Love and Peace Brother Detales,
James

 

[Tanner9188]

Thanks for taking the time to finally read some of the material I have been giving you. Now we have a basis for further dialog.

That said, you can’t go too far listening to all of what Oregin says. What makes you think he is right? Is it because he was deemed a heretic by Catholics? You do know that his works are speculative and some are pagan don’t you? If you blindly agree with him then you have to take on all his gnostic and christian-pagan hybridized philosophies too - so be careful. FYI - Oregin had an unapproved ordination around his bishop and was taught gnostic ideals by his master - Titus Flavius Clemens. Origin did some good things for the church (fixing some LXX translation errors) but was later deemed a heretic for his unorthodox belief in the preexistence of souls, universal salvation and a hierarchical concept of the Trinity. In fact Oregin was a Neo-Pythagorean/Neo-Platonist who believed in successive stages of incarnation before eventually reaching God; imagining even demons being reunited with God.

Still want to say Origin “has it right”?

**I was speaking of a single statement the person made. Catholics site him from time to time in a positive light; this is the first I can recall in my short life here of someone bashing him. I understand it depends on the statement and whether it supports your point or not; which is a problem sometimes. I did not know he was booted; that is the first I have heard of that.
**

You are correct it is impossible to refute us since Catholics were the first to develop the justification/sanctification theology early on and Luther and the reformers came back centuries later and tried to redefine it to be a Pharisaical like legal thing that Jesus himself always criticized for not being in the spirit of God. In fact Luther was not even original he had to go way back to heretical ideas like the repugnant Antinomianistic beliefs to have a quick alternative to Catholicism for HIS new religion. Don’t be deceived Luther intended to start a whole new Christian religion from his own warped theories – that came out very fast as the man’s ego popped out of his monk’s habit faster than illicit thoughts of boy walking in a brothel . The man wanted a secular priesthood - follow the ancient motives and Luther is painted red in sin.

It is impossible to refute something to which the premise is based on error. All you have to do is find the words in the NT and you can plainly see, not only by word, but by definition. Apply a little common sense and one can easily see these are separate positions in the life of a believer, but you are not willing to look at the facts and I don’t expect you to; you are a very devout Roman Catholic.

And you can’t go by protestant language dictionaries (Noah Webster was a neo-Christian protestant who used exclusively protestant ideas for biblical words) to decode the semantics of justify and sanctify. These english lexicons are irrelevant to the ancient Catholic Church since we use the Latin word forms and have a fixed semantic of our own that precedes and is in front of American English by over 1.5 millenium! Our theology is not limited to scripture any more so than The Reformers limited theif false doctrines such as the concept of Total Depravity to scripture. You see its hard for a Johnny Come Lately religious club to usurp the wisdom of the Christian Nation (Catholics) that has been around for a lot longer than their country or new religion was even in existence by hijacking the semantics and redefining the lexical elements - yet another wise reason for the Latin being the official Church language (that few Protestants can ever read ).

** Irrelevant when it doesn’t gel to James Catholic Theology; but very convenient when it does. **

It is only a problem for Satan. Catholics have had it right for 2,000 years. Protestants can only try to reinvent the wheel or improvise what The Catholics have taught and NEVER be certain that it has anything worthwhile to add. Why can’t you all leave the theology alone and stop trying to innovate in endless regression? Why do Protestants think they have a licence to re-make Christianity and improve God’s Church? I never understood this attitude.

I can only speak for myself; I’m a Christian, not Protestant. I’m sorry the Word of God is not enough for you; but it is for me. Call it satanic if you will, but I believe it to be heavenly. Do you honestly believe that Catholic; Roman Catholics are the only creatures in heaven? If not; who else might be according to the King James Central Standard? Sounds like a new version of the Bible; kind of catchy; don’t you think?..got to run and will talk later to finish up; Lord willing.

[cont]

James

 

[maplesyrp]

Hi Eclipse,
The only thing that you need for salvation is belief and acceptance of Jesus Christ as your Savior. It is not through our own works that we are saved, but only through Jesus Christ’s perfect sacrifice. If we had any control over our salvation as far as “being good” or confessing our sins, then Jesus would not have had to die on the cross. Jesus bore all of our sins for us. As long as you believe and accept you are saved and will enter the Kingdom of God.