Infinite Regress: the one pathway to salvation

[Mick_Taylor]

can you show me any other than the CC from the beginning datitng all the way back to the Apostles?

No. And Catholics can’t either. Buildings and people are visible but the bride of Christ here on earth is invisible. I can’t do things that are, by definition, impossible for people to do.

can you go back in history and show me the Church found by Christ that tought different from what the CC teaches today?

The most reliable history of the early church is found in some of the NT books. You will find no hint of such things as a papacy, indulgences, purgatory, and an infallible magisterium in the early church. The early church knew nothing of the false claim that, there is no salvation outside the Catholic church. The bride of Christ is focused on importance Jesus, not on herself. I hope that helps!

 

[wisdomseeker]

No. And Catholics can’t either. Buildings and people are visible but the bride of Christ here on earth is invisible. I can’t do things that are, by definition, impossible for people to do.

The most reliable history of the early church is found in some of the NT books. You will find no hint of such things as a papacy, indulgences, purgatory, and an infallible magisterium in the early church. The early church knew nothing of the false claim that, there is no salvation outside the Catholic church. The bride of Christ is focused on importance Jesus, not on herself. I hope that helps!

have you read the history of the CC?

when did the Bride of Christ, the Church went invisible? do you know?

so, you are one of those who believe that the Church that started wiht the Apostles died with the death of the last Apostle? i mean, the Church Jesus said He would be with until the end of times, only last about fifty years or so?

tell me, how do you think the Sacred Book came into existence if there was no more of the Church Jesus found?

what do you mean by early Church?

 

[Mick_Taylor]

have you read the history of the CC?

Hi wisdomseeker,

Yes, I’ve read some of the history of the CC.

when did the Bride of Christ, the Church went invisible? do you know?

As I said, buildings and people are visible, but the bride of Christ, which consists only of saved people, can’t be discerned by our sight. The souls within us are visible to God, but not to us mere humans. God can see into us and He knows who belongs to Him. We humans can’t do that while we’re here in this mortal life.

so, you are one of those who believe that the Church that started wiht the Apostles died with the death of the last Apostle? i mean, the Church Jesus said He would be with until the end of times, only last about fifty years or so?

No, the church that was built upon Jesus as the foundation still exists, and has continued to survive even after the death of the apostles. God keeps all of His promises.

tell me, how do you think the Sacred Book came into existence if there was no more of the Church Jesus found?

The church didn’t die, and the bible came to the church from God.

what do you mean by early Church?

In most cases, when I refer to the early church, I’m referring to the very first generation of the church.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hi wisdomseeker,

Yes, I’ve read some of the history of the CC.

As I said, buildings and people are visible, but the bride of Christ, which consists only of saved people, can’t be discerned by our sight. The souls within us are visible to God, but not to us mere humans. God can see into us and He knows who belongs to Him. We humans can’t do that while we’re here in this mortal life.

No, the church that was built upon Jesus as the foundation still exists, and has continued to survive even after the death of the apostles. God keeps all of His promises.

The church didn’t die, and the bible came to the church from God.

In most cases, when I refer to the early church, I’m referring to the very first generation of the church.

Some history is not enough.

as you said it? is this true just because you said it?

and what Church has survived since the times of the Apostles? what Church is that?

where is the early Church?

Peace.

 

[Mick_Taylor]

Some history is not enough.

Some history is not enough for what?

as you said it? is this true just because you said it?

No, nothing I say is true just because I said it. I’m not sure what part of what I said you are referring to here, but I’m NOT infallible. I could be wrong on lots of things.

and what Church has survived since the times of the Apostles? what Church is that?

The universal church, comprised of the sheep throughout the world, who hear the voice of Jesus and follow Him. That church, is the only legitimate church, which is the bride of Christ, the body of believers in Jesus, who worship Him and Him only, and who do not worship the church. The bride of Christ worships Christ and not itself.

where is the early Church?

All of the people of the early church are now at home in the presence of Jesus in Heaven. To some people who do not know Jesus, Rome is home. For the children of God, home is where Jesus is. Rome is not our home. We worship Him only, and we want to live with Him forever.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Some history is not enough for what?

No, nothing I say is true just because I said it. I’m not sure what part of what I said you are referring to here, but I’m NOT infallible. I could be wrong on lots of things.

The universal church, comprised of the sheep throughout the world, who hear the voice of Jesus and follow Him. That church, is the only legitimate church, which is the bride of Christ, the body of believers in Jesus, who worship Him and Him only, and who do not worship the church. The bride of Christ worships Christ and not itself.

All of the people of the early church are now at home in the presence of Jesus in Heaven. To some people who do not know Jesus, Rome is home. For the children of God, home is where Jesus is. Rome is not our home. We worship Him only, and we want to live with Him forever.

Just study the history of the Church, the Catholic Church, if you are serious about Jesus and His Teachings. " to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant." Cardinal Newman.

zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m3/4mrko.html

 

[paul_c]

Quote: Originally Posted by paul c
I don’t know that your chain analogy is very helpful in understanding salvation.

You’ve created this paradigm that everything has to be in a chain of events and somehow seem to think that these must be infinite. That is not correct. There are at most only a few steps involved.

1. God sent Jesus to teach and ultimately die for our redemption
2. Jesus set up the Catholic church to spread the gospel and to administer the sacraments through which his graces flow

You seem to believe step one but not step 2.

Quote: Originally Posted by paul c
If eternal life is what you desire, then you need to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and that Holy Spirit, which gives you new life, free of prior sin, entrance into the Catholic Church and sufficient grace to gain Eternal life. However, you need to stay in the state of Grace by doing God’s will and avoiding Mortal sin. If you do fall from Grace through sin, by God’s mercy you can be reconcile sacramentally. This is what the Catholic church has always taught.

I have explained this. And I will answer your objections in the next post.

 

[Mick_Taylor]

Just study the history of the Church, the Catholic Church, if you are serious about Jesus and His Teachings. " to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant." Cardinal Newman.

Hi wisdomseeker,

That is all utter futility. Salvation isn’t about being Catholic or Protestant, or believing Cardinal Newman. Lots of people, even great scholars like Cardinal Newman wanted to argue and fight over silly religions. God probably doesn’t take any delight in such dead-end projects. Can you be saved by being in the “right” religion? Nope! It is all futile. Jesus is the only way!

 

[Mick_Taylor]

You’ve created this paradigm that everything has to be in a chain of events and somehow seem to think that these must be infinite.

I’ve said that, following YOUR logic, it most definitely IS A CHAIN of “one ways” to salvation and that chain could be infinitely long… since no one would be capable of demonstrating that it isn’t! That’s what happens when man’s traditions are held up above the word of God. The result is that NO ONE can have any way of knowing if they are saved, or even if they are on the right path. It certainly isn’t GOOD NEWS, so it can’t possibly be the biblical gospel. It came from men who do not know God.

That is not correct. There are at most only a few steps involved.

1. God sent Jesus to teach and ultimately die for our redemption
2. Jesus set up the Catholic church to spread the gospel and to administer the sacraments through which his graces flow

You seem to believe step one but not step 2.

Yes, I agree with #1, and I disagree with #2. If God intended that the CC and its sacraments were to be His means of saving people, then we would certainly find that teaching in the bible. For one example, John 10:1-10 would read something like this if the CC really is the ark of salvation as it claims:

“I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them. Therefore Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, the Catholic church is the gate for the sheep. All who ever came after Luther were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. The Catholic church is the gate; whoever enters through it will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.”

 

[paul_c]

Quote:Originally Posted by paul c
No, the succession of Catholic Popes just demonstrates the continuity of Church leadership. No reputable scholar debates that this is true. There is one basic way to gain eternal life, which I described above. There are exceptions if you are truly ignorant of the Chruch’s teachings but still live a life of love or if you are physically denied baptism despite your desire to be baptized.

Of course the Papacy is biblical.
Here is Matthew 16:18-19: And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
And Luke 22: 31-32: Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."
And John 21: 15-17: When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.
And of course, the entire first half of Acts describes Peter’s leadership and in the course of it plus his epistles , he completed most of the roles of the Popes through history. He names a replacement apostle (Matthias in Acts 1), He evangelizes and defines what someone needs to be saved (baptism) in Acts 2-4. He defines scripture (sanctioning Paul’s letters as scripture in 2Peter 3). He excommunicates Simon Magnus. He condemns Anias and Sapphira for lying to the holy spirit. He heals many starting with the paralyzed man in Acts 3 and by Acts 6 has also raised Tabitha from the dead.

To say that the Papacy in not biblical is to simply ignore what the new testament says. And if you are concerned with the succession, that is outside the scope of the new testament, which was defined as only covering the Apostolic age and not their successors.

Quote:Originally Posted by paul c
Perhaps the way to think about this is God leads those who are willing to the truth and the truth will set you free. It doesn’t take much investigation, by the way to understand that the Catholic Church has a continuity of doctrine and leadership that no other church can demonstrate (with the exception of the Orthodox, who split from us in 1054.)

Do you not believe this very basic Christian truth that those that believe in Christ can be saved?

Quote:Originally Posted by paul c God definitely uses multiple paths to guide his sheep to Jesus.

No, it is not a contradiction to what we said. See the next comment.

Quote:Originally Posted by paul c
But all of them evenutally end up at the Catholic Church. It always ends up there, because Jesus set up the Church for that purpose

Yes, indeed. There are many ways to find the Catholic Church if you are going to reach eternal life, you will do so by following the truths that the Catholic church teaches, whether you know it or not.

Quote:Originally Posted by paul c
Where you deviate from the Catholic Church, you deviate from the truth. Can you get to heaven without the whole truth? Perhaps, by God’s mercy. but the surest way is to follow the path that Jesus set out and that is through the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church would agree that Jesus is the way. And Jesus set up the Catholic Church to teach his way.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:Originally Posted by paul c Let me ask you two questions:

So what do you really do when trusting only in Jesus? Is it really as simple as this? You trust him and you don’t do anything else? You don’t pray? You don’t do works of mercy? You don’t try to follow his examply of Holiness? You don’t evangelize? all you do is Trust him? Get real. You know we trust him as well. But we also follow his lead. He did say, follow me, did he not? The fact is, you do less than we do. Isn’t that right?

Quote:Originally Posted by paul c Do you think that Catholics do anything extra that you don’t do and can you prove that anything we do extra is harmful to the soul? I’ve asked this dozens of times on many different threads and no one has ever demonstrated one thing they do that Catholics don’t also do in serving God. On the other hand, they have identified many things that Catholics do that they don’t do, including most of the sacraments, and yet they have never been able to demonstrate that any of the extras could be in any way harmful to the soul. What does that tell you?

Well. lets go through that event in totallity:
17 As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before him, and asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
18 Jesus answered him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.
19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.’”
20 He replied and said to him, “Teacher, all of these I have observed from my youth.”
21 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him, “You are lacking in one thing. Go, sell what you have, and give to (the) poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”
First of all, When asked what to do to gain eternal life, notice that Jesus said you must do more than trust. You must do works of love and mercy and you must follow him. It takes far more than trust or faith that you define as sufficient.

22 At that statement his face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.
23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!”
24 The disciples were amazed at his words. So Jesus again said to them in reply, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!
25 It is easier for a camel to pass through (the) eye of (a) needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Note, in this part of the story, Jesus says that it is difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven because as he states in the Sermon on the Mount, you can’t serve both God and Money, you will love one and despise the other.

26 They were exceedingly astonished and said among themselves, “Then who can be saved?”
27 Jesus looked at them and said, “For human beings it is impossible, but not for God. All things are possible for God.”
28 Peter began to say to him, “We have given up everything and followed you.”
29 Jesus said, "Amen, I say to you, there is no one who has given up house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands for my sake and for the sake of the gospel
30 who will not receive a hundred times more now in this present age: houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and eternal life in the age to come.
He ends this teaching episode by noting that persecution and sacrifice are required to gain eternal life. Again, it takes much more than just faith and trust in God to gain eternal life. you must follow Christ’s lead. The Gospel you teach is incomplete and insufficient to gain eternal life, can’t you see that? This is why we say salvation comes through the church, because it teaches the entire truth…

 

[Mick_Taylor]

Of course the Papacy is biblical.

Where in the bible can we find ANY hint of a papal office? is it here?

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

You forgot the context, which tells us what (or in this case WHO) the topic is about. So, here is the context, and I’ll let you decide for yourself WHO’s identity Jesus was establishing in the passage. Hint: it wasn’t Peter’s identity!

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

And Luke 22: 31-32: Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."

I don’t see any hint of a papacy here either. Not even close.

And John 21: 15-17: When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep

I don’t see any hint of a papacy here either. Not even close.

And of course, the entire first half of Acts describes Peter’s leadership and in the course of it plus his epistles , he completed most of the roles of the Popes through history. He names a replacement apostle (Matthias in Acts 1), He evangelizes and defines what someone needs to be saved (baptism) in Acts 2-4. He defines scripture (sanctioning Paul’s letters as scripture in 2Peter 3). He excommunicates Simon Magnus. He condemns Anias and Sapphira for lying to the holy spirit. He heals many starting with the paralyzed man in Acts 3 and by Acts 6 has also raised Tabitha from the dead.

Nope. The other apostles never called Peter “holy Father” or treated Peter as if he was the leader. You are simply reading between the lines because you desperately want to see the papal system in the bible.

To say that the Papacy in not biblical is to simply ignore what the new testament says. And if you are concerned with the succession, that is outside the scope of the new testament, which was defined as only covering the Apostolic age and not their successors.

Then why don’t you show us where in the NT it says ANYTHING about a papacy? Is this asking too much?

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Mick,

I’m not sure how productive continuing this conversation is. I think it’s clear that you haven’t changed anyone’s minds, and it doesn’t seem you’re open to having your own mind changed. You started out trying to claim that Jesus and the Catholic Church can’t both be the way to Heaven. When we showed that there’s nothing inconsistent there (and that, indeed, *you *think that Jesus and Christianity are both the way to Heaven), you argued that Church doesn’t equal Catholic Church. Then you jumped to spurious stuff about the papacy. The claims you’re making about the papacy have literally been answered hundreds of times or more on this forum - often by the same people.

Beyond this, you’ve made some assertions which I haven’t heard any explanation for. For example:

(1) The Catholic Church isn’t the Church set up by Christ.
It’s been shown by others that Apostolic succession can be traced back to Peter. This seems to disprove #1. And in any case, your argument is just that we can’t prove everything 100% infallibly, which isn’t really an argument against us at all. You can always set the bar unreasonably high for your opponents, but it doesn’t prove your case.

If the Catholic Church isn’t the Church established by Christ, when *was *She established? Who was the first pope, if not Peter?

(2) The Church is the invisible collection of the saved.
I showed from Scripture that this isn’t true, and yet you just keep repeating this as if it were true. This is an anti-biblical assumption introduced at the Reformation. None of the early Christians take this view, none of the Apostolic Churches take this view, and the view runs entirely counter to the notion that the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth contains both wheat and weeds, and that it won’t be purified until the Second Coming.

Besides that fact, Christ builds His Church upon Peter - is He building a “collection of the saved”? Paul tells Timothy to look to the Church in 1 Timothy 3:15. You claim that this is impossible, because the Church, the Bride of Christ, is Invisible. You keep banging your head against Scripture on this point.

(3) The Papacy isn’t Biblical
Your arguments here rest on an assumption that for Peter to be pope, he must lord his authority over his brother Apostles. In fact, this assumption goes against what we know from the New Testament. Peter uses his authority (in 1 Peter 5:3) to ensure that the other Apostles, bishops, and priests don’t lord their authority over one another. In addition, he refers to Peter refers to himself simply as a “fellow presbyter” (1 Peter 5:1), even though we know he’s more than simply a presbyter. I mean, even you would have to acknowledge that Apostles are of a different degree and kind than the rank-and-file Christian, right? In other words, Peter governs with humility, and instructs those beneath him to do the same.

His primacy is recognized throughout. For starters, in every list of the Apostles, he’s listed first and Judas (while still alive) is listed last. Just as we know Judas’ last place is one of dishonor, Peter’s being named in a position on honor. There’s also the numerous verses already provided to you. Why bestow a blessing on Peter (and only Peter) when establishing the Church? And why rename him? That’s got huge covenant implications. Read up on the renaming of Abram to Abraham in the Old Covenant, and it’ll leap out off the page if you’ll let it. And why in Luke’s Gospel should Christ say “Satan has desired to sift you [plural] like wheat,” but then “I have prayed for you [singular], Peter…” And why commission one Apostle, Peter, to “confirm thy brethren”? Where do any of the other Apostles get this level of individualized treatment from Jesus?

In John 21:15, Jesus makes a point of mentioning that Peter loves Him more than the rest, before commissioning Peter (and only Peter) to feed His Sheep. In John 10:1-10, He prophesied that He (Jesus) was the Gate, and that He would let in a shepherd to tend His Flock. John 21 sees that prophesy fulfilled in Jesus’ blessing upon Peter.

Certainly, some of the trappings of office evolved over time. The CEO of a small business leads a very different existence than the CEO of a mega-corporation. Growth brings about changes organically. Microsoft in 1986 didn’t look much like it does today, but it’s the same company, you know? So I can understand that you’re not seeing the modern papacy as you understand it in Scripture. But surely, you can at least see Petrine primacy, right?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hi wisdomseeker,

That is all utter futility. Salvation isn’t about being Catholic or Protestant, or believing Cardinal Newman. Lots of people, even great scholars like Cardinal Newman wanted to argue and fight over silly religions. God probably doesn’t take any delight in such dead-end projects. Can you be saved by being in the “right” religion? Nope! It is all futile. Jesus is the only way!

Jesus is the Way. everything He tought is the Way. you seem to believe in Jesus but not what He has tought and done. are you saying that is a silly thing that Jesus built a Church?
when did you learn that?

 

[paul_c]

Quote:Originally Posted by paul c
Of course the Papacy is biblical.

Mick, we can explain the scripture to you, but if you aren’t open to considering what we say, there isn’t anything more we can do for you.

Quote:Originally Posted by paul c And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

You conveniently left off verse 17, where Jesus changes the subject from who he is to who Peter is:
16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
Look, you obviously have a lot invested in denying the role of the Catholic church. That does NOT make your view the truth, however.

Quote:Originally Posted by paul c And Luke 22: 31-32: Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."

You need to think about this a little harder before answering like this. This statement in Luke 22 comes directly after this one:

24 Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest.
25 He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as ‘Benefactors’;
26 but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant.
27 For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves.
So here Jesus settles the argument about who was to be the leader by saying that the leader must be the servant of all and that Peter must therefore serve his brothers. This lesson may have been lost on you but it was not lost on the Apostles, who defer to Peter throughout Acts, nor on Peter, who teaches in 1Peter that the leaders must not lord it over their subordinates and reenforces the point by referring to himself as a fellow Presbyter.

Quote:Originally Posted by paul c And John 21: 15-17: When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep

Jesus is the Good shepard and he tells Peter three times to feed/tend to his flock and yet you see no hint of his giving Peter the leadership of the Church? What would it take?

 

[paul_c]

Quote:Originally Posted by paul c And of course, the entire first half of Acts describes Peter’s leadership and in the course of it plus his epistles , he completed most of the roles of the Popes through history. He names a replacement apostle (Matthias in Acts 1), He evangelizes and defines what someone needs to be saved (baptism) in Acts 2-4. He defines scripture (sanctioning Paul’s letters as scripture in 2Peter 3). He excommunicates Simon Magnus. He condemns Anias and Sapphira for lying to the holy spirit. He heals many starting with the paralyzed man in Acts 3 and by Acts 6 has also raised Tabitha from the dead

Do you think that because they didn’t call Peter the Holy Father or the Pope, that he wasn’t their leader? How do you explain the fact that they continually defer to him throughout Acts? When he claims his primacy in dealing with the Gentiles in Acts 15, does any one dispute it? And when Paul calls Peter the Apostle to the Jews, in Galatians, does anyone dispute that? And when Peter declares that Judas must be replaced in Acts 1, does anyone dispute that or when he defines the doctrine that Gentile Christians don’t need to be circumcized, is there any debate? Who speaks for the Apostles at Pentecost? Do you think that this point is insignificant. Who is mentioned 10 times more than any other Apostle in the New Testaments and is always first in any listing? Is that an accident? Again, you can deny all this, but it seems pretty empty to do so, doesn’t it?

Quote:Originally Posted by paul c To say that the Papacy in not biblical is to simply ignore what the new testament says. And if you are concerned with the succession, that is outside the scope of the new testament, which was defined as only covering the Apostolic age and not their successors.

Again, the terminology evolved over time, but the actions of the Papacy as demonstrated by Peter are there for all to see. The Holy Spirit brought you here to learn the truth, but he doesn not force you to accept it. We must all cooperate with the Spirit within us to gain eternal life. You might explore your motivations for entering this website. Was it to learn about Catholicism or to try to lead people away from it?

 

[brb2]

Vatican 2 addresses your question. From GUIDE TO THE DOCUMENTS OF VAT. 2
Decree on Ecumenism [Unitatis Redintegratio]

The decree does not just speak about individuals, it afirms the value of other Christian churches and communities as such. There are elements of what it takes to constitute a ‘church’ that exist outside of the Catholic church: Scripture, baptism, the life of grace, faith, hope, charity, the gifts of the Spirit, even certain church institutions. Other communities many lack some of the structures that Catholics see as essential to being a church (such as the apostolic succestion of bishops or a valid Eucharist), but God nonetheless works through these communities to bring their members to salvation. Non-Catholic Christians are brought to salvation not ‘despite’ their churches, but ‘because’ of them.

All of this, does not abandon the Catholic belief that only the Catholic church contains “the fullness of the means of salvation”. But no longer is ecumenism envisioned as a process in which the Catholic church simply waits for non-Catholics to ‘return’ to it. Instead, ecumenism becomes a task or ‘restoring’ unity, a unity that all churches – including the Catholic church — have to work toward.

All Catholics are to participate, in some way, in the ecumenical movement. This movement proceeds in a series of steps: 1. avoiding negative stereotypes or false assumptions about other Christians 2. dialogue between experts from different churches 3. joint projects or initiatives that serve the needy 4. common prayer when appropriate and 5. self-reform and renewal. Participation in ecumenism demands that the Catholic church get its own household in order. Genuine reform and renewal is necessary to move forward toward the Christian unity.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hi wisdomseeker,

That is all utter futility. Salvation isn’t about being Catholic or Protestant, or believing Cardinal Newman. Lots of people, even great scholars like Cardinal Newman wanted to argue and fight over silly religions. God probably doesn’t take any delight in such dead-end projects. Can you be saved by being in the “right” religion? Nope! It is all futile. Jesus is the only way!

Mick,

it all comes down to who Jesus left in charge of His Teachings. was the Bible? was the Church? what Church? were the Teachings of Jesus supposed to be protect from heresies? was there opposition to the Teachings of Jesus from the beginning? did Jesus left without making a provision to protect His Teachings? did God leave us to confusion? we Catholics know He didnt. but non Catholics choose to remain in confusion and so let it be so.

 

[Mick_Taylor]

You started out trying to claim that Jesus and the Catholic Church can’t both be the way to Heaven. When we showed that there’s nothing inconsistent there

Hi Belloc Fan,

Not so fast! You need to demonstrate (if you can) that there is no inconsistency in saying:

A) Jesus is the one way.

AND,

B) The Catholic church is the one way.

Please don’t try to claim that you’ve “showed that there’s nothing inconsistent there” when you KNOW that you’ve done nothing of the kind. It is extremely dishonest. No one is going to be fooled by it.

(and that, indeed, *you *think that Jesus and Christianity are both the way to Heaven),

Again, you are being very dishonest. I have NEVER said that I think that Jesus and Christianity are both the way to Heaven. I have instead consistently DENIED that anyone is saved by being in the “right” religion. Do you have to distort what both sides in this discussion are saying to feel good about how YOUR side is doing? It is very dishonest. Do you think no one can see what you’re doing?

you argued that Church doesn’t equal Catholic Church. Then you jumped to spurious stuff about the papacy. The claims you’re making about the papacy have literally been answered hundreds of times or more on this forum - often by the same people.

What was the spurious stuff I “jumped to” about the papacy? Are you going to prove that the bible mentions a papal office even ONE TIME in Scripture?

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Hi Belloc Fan,

Not so fast! You need to demonstrate (if you can) that there is no inconsistency in saying:

A) Jesus is the one way.

AND,

B) The Catholic church is the one way.

I, and numerous others, have already done this. The Catholic position is that there is no salvation outside of the Church. But like I mentioned before, the Church isn’t just the collection of the saved, a you erroneously hold. So we don’t hold it’s simply sufficient to be in the Church to be saved. There are baptized Catholics in Hell, almost certainly. We also don’t hold that the Church is an instrument of salvation outside of, in addition to, or in place of, Christ. You would hold, I believe, that everyone who is to be saved by Christ must be a Christian (in some form) - right? That doesn’t mean you’re saved either by Christ OR Christianity. A follower of Christ is a Christian. No contradiction. A follower of Christ is a member of His Mystical Body. No contradition.

Please don’t try to claim that you’ve “showed that there’s nothing inconsistent there” when you KNOW that you’ve done nothing of the kind. It is extremely dishonest. No one is going to be fooled by it.

Numerous people have explained this to you in various ways. You’re just being bizarre, imputing bad faith here. We’ve laid out a solid case, and you’ve done nothing to disprove it. Remember, your original claim is that our view is logically impossible, given John 14:6. Even if you still think we’re wrong, I don’t think you can sat with a straight face that our position is logically impossible.

Again, you are being very dishonest.

Again, with the assuming bad faith. For shame!

I have NEVER said that I think that Jesus and Christianity are both the way to Heaven. I have instead consistently DENIED that anyone is saved by being in the “right” religion. Do you have to distort what both sides in this discussion are saying to feel good about how YOUR side is doing? It is very dishonest. Do you think no one can see what you’re doing?

First, learn to treat others with charity if you’re going to carry the title of Christian. Second, you claimed that all the saved are members of the Bride of Christ earlier. Do you now recant this? Again, you seem to be confusing membership in the Churh as a condition of salvation v. it being the CAUSE of salvation.

What was the spurious stuff I “jumped to” about the papacy? Are you going to prove that the bible mentions a papal office even ONE TIME in Scripture?

First, I already did, and you yet again ignore the evidence. Second, whether the papacy is in the Bible or not has literally no bearing on the topic at hand.