I'm not a Catholic because

[PJM]

=joe370;8490211]When I was a protestants the reasons were:

The teachings of the CC clashed with my church’s teachings. For many it’s as simple as: the CC’s understanding of scripture clashes with their understanding of scripture.

I doubted that the CC was the one true church founded by Christ at least until I did my own research and stopped relying other non-Catholics.

I was told that the man-made CC fell by the wayside, doctrinally speaking. What I couldn’t understand was the protestant obsession with that notion if in fact the CC was nothing more than another man-made church.

Inquisitions no doubt for many, but that was never an issue for me because Jesus predicted such things and the propaganda was largely and glaringly exaggerated.

I had been taught that the word of God was the foundation of truth, that was until I discovered that it was in fact the church, at which point I started my search for the historical church founded by God. My protestant friends had always (still do) - largely ignored that passage.

My misunderstanding of the Pope’s infallibility. Boy did I, as so many, really miss the mark on that one. Sadly, many simply rely on what they are told. I certainly don’t blame them; I blame the pastors in charge. Most know better. This is a biggie as you can see from reading the posts on this thread.

I had come to believe that all communions, regardless of denomination, even those of the future, comprised the one church founded by God in Jerusalem on Pentecost, only tenuously though, for it appeared on the surface, logically incongruous which was that idea short lived. I was big time in denial.

Finally, I thought, how could one church, out of a bevy of churches in the world today, have the audacity to claim that only their church is the one church of Acts 1 and 2, Matthew 28:20, Matthew 16, John 16:13, John 14:16, Ephesians 3:10, Matthew 18, 1 Timothy 3:15.

Of course, even after only a cursory reading the ECF’s, historical data and scripture from an unbiased standpoint - all fell into place. The CC did in fact have the right to make that claim. No one had a problem with that claim until the reformation.

Conversely, if a non-Catholic has, what they believe to be a legitimate reason(s) for not belong to the CC, I would ask them to read what the early church fathers had to say about the Holy Eucharist and reconsider. Who wouldn’t be willing to overlook a few tough catholic doctrines if they thought that they could actually partake of our Saviors very Being, everyday?

The bible speaks of eternal life only a few times and of those few time the only one that is ignored by protestants, is the last one in red:

• Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believes in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this? – John 11:25-26 *

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. – John 3:16

And this is the promise that He has promised us, even eternal life. – 1 John 2:25

For he that sows to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that sows to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. – Galatians 6:8*

*“Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my flood, hath eternal life.” *

WOW Awesome post. THANK YOU Joe.

My friend, if you have any questions please feel free to PM me and we can discuss them.

On the Pope: If you go to my BLOG [below] you’ll find tons of GREAT information. I just redid it a few days ago and am slowly adding to it.

WELCOME HOME my friend!

God Bless,
Pat

 

[PJM]

We ARE doing it God’s way. Not modified to suit me, you, or anyone BUT God [by PJM]

[Really]The way Catholics interact with Protestants seems to have improved to some extent, but it’s still not the kind of thing that suits God.

And this is based on or because?

The RCC is the Only Church and Faith founded by God Himself; as evideniced by holding the ONE “key to the kingdom” of heaven given to it personally by Jesus.[PJM]

There is one Key to the House of David, and this is different from the Keys to the Kingdom (plural). You are most incorrect in equating the two. Look up all the places where the Key to the House of David is talked about, and you’ll find out exactly where that key is. It’s only mentioned two or three times, but those references should make it clear

.

No dear friend; the CC is the house of David, and space permitted I can prove it to you.

The RCC is the original Bible Church and the entire NT is authored by men known today to be Catholics.[PJM]

I don’t think either of these things are entirely accurate. The RCC isn’t even the oldest of the apostolic churches, and it’s certainly not the only one. Also, you have to differentiate between Jewish Christians who favor the Tanakh as the basis for canonicity and Greek/Roman Christians who favor the Septuagint in some way, don’t you? Or do you just refer to all of them as catholic?

No they are NOT “catholics” PJM

I just found out one other thing, too- the disgruntled king to whom you refer, along with Edward VI, broke away from Rome temporarily. It was Queen Elizabeth I that broke away permanently,

It was decision Of King Henry and his second marriage that cause the RCC to in effect boot henry out of the RCC. Henry is the one who statred it all. [BUt that needs to be a seperate topic].

There is one body [WHICH MEANS ONE CHURCH]

It’s one body (or CHURCH) made up of Christians. Could you act a little bit more like it is actually one body? That means focusing more on unity with all Christians (THE WHOLE BODY) and less on trying to make everyone think you’re extra-special. When you do that, you’re not really acting in the best interest of unity. You’re doing the exact opposite.

My friend your wrong! Using your logic there was "no church and no christianity prior to the REVOLT led by Luther. 1600 years after Christ death. IMPOSSSIBLE… Again beliefe what you want BUT its not biblically supportable. Or logical either.

The REPLY
My salvation is doing just fine, but since you ask, that is of primary importance. God has done a wonderful job taking care of that, though, so that allows me to focus on other things.

REALLY and you beleive that why? [It’s NOT biblical] PJM

How’s your salvation doing? If you were able to find some way to enjoy full Christian unity with Protestants without anyone being forced to convert from one denomination to another, do you think that would threaten your salvation in any way?

I am saved AND in the process of being saved. Thank you.

What your missing is that what we catholics teach is what Christ taught and expects. Show me please anywhere in the bible where God ever allows belief in more than Himself; of His [singular… not revided ny men] Faith-beliefs; or more than Christ ONE CHURCH. [which by the way there are over 100 references for in the NT alone] PJM

No Caholic is permited “to force anyone” into belief. Its prohibited by canon Law. We do and **we must **howver share the truth that Yahweh and Christ always and everywhere isnisted ONLY on one church and ONE set of faith beliefs. Space limits my responce so PM me and we can talk further.

John.10: 16 “And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. **So there shall be one flock, one shepherd” **

Eph. 2:19-20 “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, singular] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [singular] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

**Phil.2: 2 ** “complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.”

GB you,
Pat

 

[geoformeo]

Geoformeo----

Likewise, thank you from me. Though we have come to different conclusions regarding the evidence available (and, in truth I’m still in place where I need to reserve judgment but be actively obedient to what I do understand to be from God), I don’t feel we are talking past each other, and that’s refreshing.

Thank you as well! The fact of the matter is, our faith is continuously in a state of flux, either closer to God or away from Him. We are all learning. Regardless of the outcome, I believe discussions of this nature draw those involved closer to God.

I’ll come back later with more of a reply on where I’m getting puzzled by what appears to be conflicting evidence regarding the early church…but meanwhile, the paragraph I quoted above from Dingodile is something I can relate to. And, though I’m often circumspect before coming to firm conclusions about most things, that is not to be confused with not having faith.

And by no means is it to be considered not having faith. One of the best pieces of spiritual advice ever given me was that “a faith without question is a weak faith”. What my friend meant was that stagnation in faith is not growth toward God; if we question what we truly believe in, we will seek answers to our questions which will either confirm or discredit what we originally believed to be true. In that sense, we follow St. Paul: “Test everything; retain what is good.”

Any replies from you, Geoformeo, will be looked forward to with patience…I know we all often have alot going on in our “real” lives, and I personally place internet reply duties among things that are important but usually not urgent.

Amen, brother (or sister)! Finally, someone who understands that as much I love this forum, I A) Do not get paid to be on here; and B) Have a wife, four small children, a job, and all the rest that comes with it to worry about before my self-interest in these forums (which is why this is the first thread I’ve actually posted on in 8 months!).

I too will patiently await a response to your questions when you get around to them. Till then, have a blessed day!

 

[geoformeo]

catholic.com/quickquestions/can-the-catholic-church-list-all-the-teachings-given-to-the-apostles-by-divine-revela

Tradition is implicit and Explicit.

A good example of why this is so can be found in the Monothelite controversy. The Monothelites were seventh-century heretics who claimed that Jesus had only one will, the divine. The orthodox position is that Jesus also has a human will which is distinct from but never in conflict with his divine will. This position was infallibly defined at the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681).

Neither the Bible nor the writings of the earliest Church Fathers explicitly stated that Christ has a human will distinct from but in harmony with his divine will. That doctrine was not handed on from the apostles in explicit form, but it was handed on in implicit form.

The apostles taught, as the Bible and the Fathers indicate, that Jesus was fully human and fully divine. This contains the implicit teaching of two wills, because if Christ is fully human, he must have a human will, and if he is fully divine, he must have a divine will. For Christ to lack one or the other would make him either not be fully human or not be fully divine. Because of Christ’s supreme holiness and the unity of his Person, his human and divine wills are never in conflict.

All of this is recognized even by Protestants. They acknowledge that the doctrine of the two wills of Christ must be accepted as something coming to us from the apostles, even though it did not come in explicit form. It was a legitimate doctrinal development that emerged when a heresy struck and the Church was sought a deeper, more explicit understanding of what it already implicitly knew.

Well said!

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I’m not Catholic because I had a personal experience which indicated to me that it’s a false religion. I’m also not Catholic because I enjoy thinking for myself, and not having to resort to what the Pope (i.e. the amorphous “Church”) has to say on a given matter. I was given a brain, so I believe I should use it.

Hope that helps

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

I’m not Catholic because I had a personal experience which indicated to me that it’s a false religion. I’m also not Catholic because I enjoy thinking for myself, and not having to resort to what the Pope (i.e. the amorphous “Church”) has to say on a given matter.** I was given a brain**, so I believe I should use it.

Hope that helps

God gave me a brain too!

 

[domandcarols]

I’m not a Catholic because the Easter Vigil hasn’t arrived yet

Aww, God bless you. I’ll pray for you

 

[geoformeo]

As I said, I don’t believe in infallibility at all, so I don’t believe that the Bible is the infallible record of anything.

But aren’t you apparently “infallibly” declaring that there is no such thing as infallibility when humans are involved?

Jn 16:13 says only that the Spirit of Truth would come to guide people into the truth. It doesn’t say that they would follow, or how long it would take to get there. After all, even according to the fallible Gospels, the result of the in-person teaching of Jesus was anything but the ability to teach infallibly. He didn’t produce that effect in the flesh, so why would anyone expect him to produce it by means of the Spirit of Truth?

My friend, here I believe you are incorrect on a couple levels. First, Scripture does indeed teach that the Church would have the truth (1 Tim 3:15), and that it would also be able to teach infallibly. Here is where careful analysis of the Mt 16 text comes into play. Jesus declares that Simon’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah was not of man (Mt 16:17). Next, Jesus declares Peter “the Rock” upon whom He will build His Church, and promises that the gates of the netherworld will never prevail against said Church (Mt 16:18). Finally, Peter is given the keys to the kingdom and the ability to bind and loose on Earth which will concurrently bind and loose in heaven (Mt 16:19). Now, we all know Peter became the first pope of the CC, and that heaven is perfect. Therefore, if Peter (or any of his successors as pope) ever taught error or bound or loosed anything that were anything less than perfect, then error and imperfection would then exist in heaven because the gates of the netherworld would have prevailed against the Church. In which case Christ becomes not Lord, but a liar, for He promised this truth.

As for the 2nd point: just because Jesus’ words did not affect everyone He spoke to does not mean that He was not teaching infallibly. Just because my students don’t believe that the universe is 13.7 billion years old doesn’t mean that it is not that old. Just because a person doesn’t believe having sex will conceive a child doesn’t mean that a child will not be conceived. Just because a child goes off and is a hooligan doesn’t mean that his parents didn’t do everything in their power to raise him well. Sometimes results bear little resemblance to the truth.

As I see it, all arguments from scripture and Tradition for the infallibility of the Church are circular. The only non-circular argument is the theological argument that God wouldn’t leave his people without an infallible guide to truth. I find little merit in that argument, since God clearly did leave his people without an infallible guide to truth for eons and in places scattered around the world where there was no access to scripture. And in any case, I am deeply skeptical of any argument from premises about what God would or wouldn’t do. If we knew that much about God’s intentions and methods, I suppose we wouldn’t need scripture or Church.

Ah, your last sentence there is key. It is precisely because God wouldn’t leave His people without an infallible guide that there is need for a Church (who could infallibly dictate what belongs in Scripture) in the first place. I guess I don’t see how all you can see is circular reasoning. From my vantage point: Jesus–>Peter–>rest of Apostles (bishops in union with the pope)—>successors. If Jesus is who He said He was (and I’m curious, do you accept the claims of Christ as God or not?), then this conferring of His ultimate infallible authority is not circular by any means.

I’m not saying that we know nothing of what Jesus taught. I am saying that what we know is fallible and incomplete and we should never forget that fact. It makes a difference.

What we know of what Jesus taught is limited, not necessarily fallible. I will grant that it may be fallible, if the Church is fallible. But if the Church were truly granted Christ’s infallibility, then what we know of Jesus, though limited (as specifically stated in John 20:30, 21:25), would still be infallible. Though difficult for humans to comprehend, “for God all things are possible”.

 

[geoformeo]

I’m not Catholic because I had a personal experience which indicated to me that it’s a false religion.

Care to explain?

I’m also not Catholic because I enjoy thinking for myself, and not having to resort to what the Pope (i.e. the amorphous “Church”) has to say on a given matter. I was given a brain, so I believe I should use it.

Where in Catholicism does it say you can’t think for yourself? The key is the assent of the will. You may have reason to intellectually question an article of faith (free thinking), but the ultimate requirement is the assent of the will to accept the Church’s teaching (with the humility to admit that we don’t know everything) whether you agree with it or not.

And I know you of all people know that some of the greatest minds in the history of the world were Catholic thinkers. Were they not allowed the ability to use their brains? The “I was given a brain…” line of thinking in disagreement with Church authority is equivalent to an 8-year old who was just given a gun for Christmas thinking he can just go out and use it without proper guidance and/or direction “because he was given it, so he should use it”.

You’re better than that, Bohm!

 

[dingodile]

But aren’t you apparently “infallibly” declaring that there is no such thing as infallibility when humans are involved?

No, I’m not, unless you believe that all assertions are implicitly infallible. I certainly don’t believe that. The fact that I recognize my own beliefs to be fallible doesn’t make me cease having those beliefs.

My friend, here I believe you are incorrect on a couple levels. First, Scripture does indeed teach that the Church would have the truth (1 Tim 3:15), and that it would also be able to teach infallibly.

" But, if I am delayed, you should know the manner in which it is necessary to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and the foundation of truth."

This passage, as translated (Catholic Public Domain Version) is ambiguous. The foundation of truth could be God, or it could be the Church. Either way, there is no implication of infallibility unless you add a lot more theological assumptions.

Here is where careful analysis of the Mt 16 text comes into play. Jesus declares that Simon’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah was not of man (Mt 16:17). Next, Jesus declares Peter “the Rock” upon whom He will build His Church, and promises that the gates of the netherworld will never prevail against said Church (Mt 16:18). Finally, Peter is given the keys to the kingdom and the ability to bind and loose on Earth which will concurrently bind and loose in heaven (Mt 16:19). Now, we all know Peter became the first pope of the CC, and that heaven is perfect.

Here come the theological assumptions! I don’t know a thing about heaven, or even whether it exists. I also don’t know that these passages are an accurate record of the words of Jesus, or that your interpretation of them is accurate. For example, I don’t know if “binding and loosing” implies that Peter is given the authority to teach in heaven.

As for the 2nd point: just because Jesus’ words did not affect everyone He spoke to does not mean that He was not teaching infallibly.

That’s correct. But even if he was teaching infallibly, it doesn’t follow that his teaching was recorded, preserved, understood, and transmitted infallibly.

Ah, your last sentence there is key. It is precisely because God wouldn’t leave His people without an infallible guide that there is need for a Church (who could infallibly dictate what belongs in Scripture) in the first place.

And that’s precisely what I mean by the whole exegetical process being guided by added theological assumptions. Outside of scripture, you and I don’t have a clue what God would and wouldn’t do, and even within scripture we are reminded that His ways can’t be expected to make sense to us. So we can’t just help ourselves to this premise that God wouldn’t leave us without infallible teachings.

Not only that, we have to take into consideration the fact that humanity is much, much older than the Church, and widely dispersed. An inescapable consequence of this fact is that for eons before the Church, and even since the time of Jesus, vast numbers of people have been allowed by God to live and die without a hint of these infallible teachings that God supposedly want his people to be without. A plausible inference from this is that God isn’t all that concerned about infallible teaching after all.

I guess I don’t see how all you can see is circular reasoning. From my vantage point: Jesus–>Peter–>rest of Apostles (bishops in union with the pope)—>successors. If Jesus is who He said He was (and I’m curious, do you accept the claims of Christ as God or not?), then this conferring of His ultimate infallible authority is not circular by any means.

It’s circular because it is based on (a) certain texts and traditions; and (b) interpretation of those texts and traditions. But we have (and can have) no independent basis for believing in the infallibility of (a) and (b), so the best we can say is that we have certain texts and traditions that may be an accurate record of the life and teachings of Jesus, and they may not omit any important teachings, and we may have a correct interpretation of them. But it’s also possible that the texts are not entirely accurate, and that important teachings have been lost, and that we are not correctly interpreting everything that we do have. There’s simply no way to know. And all that does not add up to a case for infallibility.

What we know of what Jesus taught is limited, not necessarily fallible.

I wouldn’t argue that our knowledge is necessarily fallible. But based on solid inductive evidence, rather than deductive necessity, the case for fallibility is strong.

I will grant that it may be fallible, if the Church is fallible. But if the Church were truly granted Christ’s infallibility, then what we know of Jesus, though limited (as specifically stated in John 20:30, 21:25), would still be infallible. Though difficult for humans to comprehend, “for God all things are possible”./QUOTE

Well yes, if the Church were granted Christ’s infallibility then it would be infallible. My point is simply that the claim that the Church was granted Christ’s infallibility is itself based on a skein of entirely fallible assumptions.

 

[truthordeath]

Interesting TOD. Can I ask a few questions please? Did you baptise yourself? Do you consecrate the Holy Eucharist and then give yourself communion? Did you know the very word communion implies more than one?

Or maybe you just don’t care about such things?

What you say is not unheard off, there are a lot of people now who consider themselves to be “free agent” Christians.

Of course to me we are all in this together.

Do you belong to a denomination that calls itself Church ofChrist, COC?

I have been baptized yes of course. And as far as consecration by holy eucharist, no such thing existed with the first century Christians. Something man made up no doubt. And yes I do serve myself communion. You really don’t think that anyone will be there standing with you before God in judgement do you? In the future, please ask sensible questions.

 

[Big_Dummy]

maybe, lt looks to much like unitarianism.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Thank you as well! The fact of the matter is, our faith is continuously in a state of flux, either closer to God or away from Him. We are all learning. Regardless of the outcome, I believe discussions of this nature draw those involved closer to God.

And by no means is it to be considered not having faith. One of the best pieces of spiritual advice ever given me was that “a faith without question is a weak faith”. What my friend meant was that stagnation in faith is not growth toward God; if we question what we truly believe in, we will seek answers to our questions which will either confirm or discredit what we originally believed to be true. In that sense, we follow St. Paul: “Test everything; retain what is good.”

Amen, brother (or sister)! Finally, someone who understands that as much I love this forum, I A) Do not get paid to be on here; and B) Have a wife, four small children, a job, and all the rest that comes with it to worry about before my self-interest in these forums (which is why this is the first thread I’ve actually posted on in 8 months!).

I too will patiently await a response to your questions when you get around to them. Till then, have a blessed day!

Hi Geoformeo—

It’s sister. I’ll step back into this discussion later. I did have a blessed day!—thanks.

 

[Ahimsa]

maybe, lt looks to much like unitarianism.

You’re not Catholic because Catholicism looks too much like Unitarianism?

 

[exjwmjd]

This is a good discussion. …

I’m not a Catholic because when I read the OT stories, specifically, I feel like I’m reading a story from Sumeria or something like that. I see similarities between the stories from the Mesopotamian religions.
Without the literalist text of the OT it almost falls completely apart for me.

The problem is that for me, even when I look at things from something of a figurative way, the culmination of Jesus on the cross still has a ring of truth to it. There’s something about it that I can’t seem to shake off completely.

I find that I constantly return to the Bible for advice on living… but that’s another discussion.

 

[joe370]

Hey Pat…

My friend, if you have any questions please feel free to PM me and we can discuss them.

Absolutely.

On the Pope: If you go to my BLOG [below] you’ll find tons of GREAT information. I just redid it a few days ago and am slowly adding to it.

I’m gonna check out your blog tonight.

 

[joe370]

Hey dingodile, I am not sure what “unchurched” means but anyway…:

dingodile;8493154]No, I’m not, unless you believe that all assertions are implicitly infallible. I certainly don’t believe that. The fact that I recognize my own beliefs to be fallible doesn’t make me cease having those beliefs.

I wasn’t a catholic for the longest time because I too did not believe the CC could inerrantly discern revealed apostolic doctrinal truth, and like you I knew I also could not trust my fallible discernment vis-a-vis doctrinal truth when it clearly conflicted with the discernment of other individual protestant and catholic views of the same teaching, or the fallible protestant teaching office of any protestant church either, when it came to inerrantly discerning revealed apostolic doctrinal truth.

Forgetting about the CC and all PCs for a second:

Do you believe that Jesus left His church, on Pentecost (which ever church you believe that to be) - with the means to inerrantly discern doctrinal truth and interpret sacred scripture when conflicts arise, until His return - via the perpetual guidance of the holy spirit?

" But, if I am delayed, you should know the manner in which it is necessary to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and the foundation of truth."

This passage, as translated (Catholic Public Domain Version) is ambiguous. The foundation of truth could be God, or it could be the Church. Either way, there is no implication of infallibility unless you add a lot more theological assumptions.

So Jesus’ church is the pillar and foundation of truth but Jesus’ church cannot necessarily be trusted to maintain, safeguard and discern truth via the guidance of the holy spirit, until Jesus’ return?

 

[joe370]

This is a good discussion. …

I’m not a Catholic because when I read the OT stories, specifically, I feel like I’m reading a story from Sumeria or something like that. I see similarities between the stories from the Mesopotamian religions.
Without the literalist text of the OT it almost falls completely apart for me.

The problem is that for me, even when I look at things from something of a figurative way, the culmination of Jesus on the cross still has a ring of truth to it. There’s something about it that I can’t seem to shake off completely.

I find that I constantly return to the Bible for advice on living… but that’s another discussion.

I used to have the same kinds of doubts as a former agnostic, long ago, (specifically Noah’s ark) - that was until I realized:

To doubt is the greatest insult to God’s divinity.

If God can create the infinite universe (at least from our perspective) - out of absolutely nothing, then anything is possible for God, which includes preserving truth when similar stories (Sumerian stories) - compete with God’s truth. It’s impossible to know who borrowed from whom but remember, Sumeria is nothing more than a historical footnote while Judaism which culminated with Jesus’ church (Christianity) - has continued to preserve, since the time of Sumeria, and maintain one of the greatest miracles:

Biblical unity. Consider the following:

The bible was not written all at once; far from it. The bible was written by people who lived on different continents,employing at least 3 different languages, over a period of about 1500 years, by about 40 different authors who did not even know one another, all of which had different educations, backgrounds, and professions e.g. kings, shepherds, scientists, attorneys, a general, fishermen, priests, and a physician - and miraculously their teachings, as a whole, amazingly remain in harmony with one another. That’s pretty cool and something Sumeria cannot even compare to brother! The Bible reads as if it was written by one great mind:

The Mind of God, the creator of all that is visible, from NOTHING. Phew…

Good luck on your journey my friend…

 

[krahnicles]

(me)The way Catholics interact with Protestants seems to have improved to some extent, but it’s still not the kind of thing that suits God.
(PJM)And this is based on or because?
Because we’re supposed to be unified. How would you say our unity is doing?

The RCC is the Only Church and Faith founded by God Himself; as evideniced by holding the ONE “key to the kingdom” of heaven given to it personally by Jesus.

Once again, the Keys to the Kingdom are plural whereas the Key to the House of David is singular. Did you look up the references to the singular key yet? If you did, you should know who has that key and where it is.

No dear friend; the CC is the house of David, and space permitted I can prove it to you.

No dear friend, you’re losing focus and you’re confused. In the quote immediately preceding this one, you say the CC holds the ONE key to the Kingdom, despite the fact that the Keys to the Kingdom are always plural. There is no biblical basis for ONE key to the Kingdom. And here- after conflating the Keys to the Kingdom and the singular Key to the House of David- you are now saying the CC is the House of David. Insofar as the House of David does refer to Christianity, I assure you it refers to all Christians and you cannot demonstrate that it refers exclusively to Roman Catholics. Also, it makes very little sense for you to have a key to a kingdom which you, yourself, are. What are you going to do, unlock yourself? Come on.

No they are NOT “catholics” PJM

This was primarily in reference to early Christians who favored the Tanakh as the basis for the OT, especially the early Jewish converts to Christianity. So PJM, when Jerome spent a good deal of his early adulthood near Jerusalem studying Hebrew and living with a group of Jewish converts to Christianity (and in the process, joining them in favor of the Tanakh as the basis for the OT canon), what label would you affix to those Christians if not “catholics”?

It was decision Of King Henry and his second marriage that cause the RCC to in effect boot henry out of the RCC. Henry is the one who statred it all. [BUt that needs to be a seperate topic].

Last I checked, kings never had the right to unilaterally jerk an archbishop around and force him to break communion with Rome. Seriously, that would be something like a situation where a king could, in effect, excommunicate an archbishop and everyone else he’s responsible for just 'cause he’s disgruntled and that’s what he wants to do. Clearly, however, the situation was a little different (and a bit more complicated) than that. So, space permitting, could you include the pertinent information about the archbishop of Canterbury and outline his role in that situation? You can start by telling me if he was disgruntled or not. I’d also like to know why that was a temporary break from Rome rather than a permanent one. Thanks!

There is one body [WHICH MEANS ONE CHURCH]

And since all Christians belong to that one body (and also that ONE CHURCH), this clearly means Christ’s One Body and Christ’s One Church extend WAAAAAY beyond Roman Catholicism.

Again. WAAAAAAAY beyond. Are we in perfect unity with each other? Of course not, and I wouldn’t say that either- you should have picked up on that based on earlier parts of this post. But the point of immediate importance still stands:

WAAAAAAY beyond.

My friend your wrong! Using your logic there was "no church and no christianity prior to the REVOLT led by Luther.

No, that’s absolutely not what you get when using my logic. You have no business saying “your wrong!” when you’re this far off base about what my logic is.

Tell you what. Ask me what my logic is and ask me where it takes me. It’s not your business to tell me what those things are. You don’t know me. And until you know who I am and what I’m talking about, it’s very foolish of you to jump to these “your wrong!” exclamations.

I am saved AND in the process of being saved. Thank you.

Hey, that’s cool, assuming it’s true. I am saved too, and I am being saved, and because God is causing me to persevere, I will be saved as well. You want to know how I know that’s happening? Here’s how: I know that God initially saved me when He regenerated me, causing me to become a Christian. I know God did that because…well, because He did it, silly. It’s a reality thing. I know this is something God did simply because God did it. At that point, God began indwelling me and He has continued to indwell (and convict and sanctify and a few other things) ever since. By and through God’s presence within me, I am being saved, and I’m also assured of the fact that He’s there. How do I know God indwells me? Because I’m making a reality-based assessment of what’s happening. One of the reasons God indwells me (among several) is for this purpose: So that I know I’m a child of God. If the Spirit of God dwells within me, I know that’s what I am. It’s biblical. I know that God regenerated me because there was this time when He regenerated me, and I know He indwells me because there’s this person called the Holy Spirit who indwells me. That’s how I know these things. There’s also a future promise that I will be saved in the life to come by the same God who is saving me, and I haven’t experienced that reality yet, but I know it will happen because this is a promise that God has made to those who are His children.

So PJM. How do you know God has saved and is saving you? Is this based on something that God actually did, or is it based on something that you believe is supposed to happen but you never had any reality-based assurance that God did something, apart from your implicit belief in the infallible efficacy of Catholic sacraments?

 

[domandcarols]

maybe, lt looks to much like unitarianism.

What are you talking about? o.0