Is Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church the only way to salvation?

[guanophore]

Where in the NT do we see any apostle or bishop hearing confessions and giving absolution?

Public confession of sins was practiced since the Baptism of John. “Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan, 6 and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” Matt 3:4-6

It was a baptism of repentance, for the forgiveness of sins. When Jesus entered the waters of baptism, He sanctified them, so that the HS could be given at the time of baptism. He later commissioned the Apostles to forgive sins. How did you expect this was going to happen, if people did not confess?

"Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices. 19 And a number of those who practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all; and they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver. 20 So the word of the Lord grew and prevailed mightily."Acts 19:18-20

Public confession of sins was practiced for centuries until allowances were made for it to be done privately.

 

[guanophore]

Perhaps speculating is too weak a word. The Church does extensive research on a prospective saint’s life before beginning the sainthood process. Obviously, by documenting how that person went the “extra mile” in living God’s word, the most likely assumption is that person is indeed in Heaven. However, only God makes that final judgment, and only he truly knows for sure.

It is not a good word to use when having dialogue with ja4, because he applies this word to Catholic doctrines that he believes are the traditions of men, mostly false teachings and doctrines of demons that have crept into the church from paganism and other sources.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t think it is. It is impossible to know and the tragic thing with this doctrine is that it is based on speculations since there really is no way to know. This kind of thing is unnecessary since we know Jesus Himself is our great intercessor before the Father.

When you say things like this, ja4 (“there is really no way to know”) it seems like you are denying Divine Revelation. It is as if you do not believe God is capable of revealing HImself to mankind in any way outside of the scriptures.

It can do all the research it wants on the individual but it can never arrive at any certainity.

Oh, I agree! Research and study cannot compare with Divine Revelation. They are important, but what God discloses abouat Himself is much more relevant than what man can acquire with his meager mind.

When a catholic prays to a saint they cannot have any confidence that this saint can hear them while they can have certainity the Lord Jesus hears them because He promised in Scripture that He could.

Yes, and all those who are “in Christ” will do greater things than He did while He was on the earth. They can hear whatever God allows them to hear. Just as God allowed Samuel to appear to Saul. God is able!

 

[submittedjoy]

Public confession of sins was practiced since the Baptism of John. “Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan, 6 and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” Matt 3:4-6

It was a baptism of repentance, for the forgiveness of sins. When Jesus entered the waters of baptism, He sanctified them, so that the HS could be given at the time of baptism. He later commissioned the Apostles to forgive sins. How did you expect this was going to happen, if people did not confess?

"Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices. 19 And a number of those who practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all; and they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver. 20 So the word of the Lord grew and prevailed mightily."Acts 19:18-20

Public confession of sins was practiced for centuries until allowances were made for it to be done privately.

You can *confess *your sins publicly (where people can hear) **but **you are still confessing your sins to Jesus in reality. It is God that forgives. You can confess your sins in church or in the privacy of your own home… The key is that you are sincerely repentant. (meaning you are truly sorry and have a desire to turn from those sins) If you are truly repentant then Jesus (as our advocate- 1 John 2:1) will wash away those sins (**with his blood - Praise the Lord) If you were the only person left alive on this earth, no priest, no church people, if it was only you and God, then you could believe in your heart that Christ died for your sins, you could repent of those sins (in sincerity) Believe what God’s Word says and act upon it, and have assurance that you would go to Heaven. {I John 5:13, Romans 10:9, Romans 3:22-24, John 20:30, John 1:12}Have *you *believed and repented?

 

[submittedjoy]

When you say things like this, ja4 (“there is really no way to know”) it seems like you are denying Divine Revelation. It is as if you do not believe God is capable of revealing HImself to mankind in any way outside of the scriptures.

Oh, I agree! Research and study cannot compare with Divine Revelation. They are important, but what God discloses abouat Himself is much more relevant than what man can acquire with his meager mind.

Yes, and all those who are “in Christ” will do greater things than He did while He was on the earth. They can hear whatever God allows them to hear. Just as God allowed Samuel to appear to Saul. God is able!

Divine Revelation is all well and good as long as it agrees with God’s Holy Word. As long as it doesn’t disagree, change, corrupt, add to, or **take away **from what has already been written in God’s word. {Revelations 22:18-19}

 

[guanophore]

You can *confess *your sins publicly (where people can hear) **but **you are still confessing your sins to Jesus in reality. It is God that forgives. You can confess your sins in church or in the privacy of your own home… The key is that you are sincerely repentant. (meaning you are truly sorry and have a desire to turn from those sins) If you are truly repentant then Jesus (as our advocate- 1 John 2:1) will wash away those sins (**with his blood - Praise the Lord) If you were the only person left alive on this earth, no priest, no church people, if it was only you and God, then you could believe in your heart that Christ died for your sins, you could repent of those sins (in sincerity) Believe what God’s Word says and act upon it, and have assurance that you would go to Heaven. {I John 5:13, Romans 10:9, Romans 3:22-24, John 20:30, John 1:12}Have *you *believed and repented?

I agree, but Jesus set it up so that we confess our sins one to another. This is part of the healing process that He works through to save our souls. Why would I not want to confess them to the person He has empowered to forgive them in His name? Those who have not experienced the grace of the sacrament I think cannot truly appreciate it’s power.

 

[jmcrae]

Public confession of sins was practiced for centuries until allowances were made for it to be done privately.

You are right that in the first century, public confession (and really long penances) were the norm, but by the time of Origen, private confessions were already part of the process - in his time, one of the penances that could be given in private confession was to make a public confession of sins and do a public penance. (Wear sack cloth and ashes for seven years, etc.)

 

[submittedjoy]

Yes, and all those who are “in Christ” will do greater things than He did while He was on the earth. They can hear whatever God allows them to hear. Just as God allowed Samuel to appear to Saul. God is able!

Yes… but… if one studies the scriptures out here in 1 Samuel chapter 28, one will find that God nor Samuel endorsed what Saul did. Saul contacted a woman who had a “familiar spirit” (a channeler, a spiritist, a witch in other words) this was plainly against God! {Lev. 20:27, II Chr. 33:6,} In another place it says that the dead know not {Ecc. 9:5} God might have allowed it in this one instance, (but he was **not happy **about it) but this doesn’t mean that we may all go around praying (talking) to dead people, no matter who they are or were when they were alive. Now Jesus on the other hand is always ready to hear our praise and are petitions. Glory be to Jesus!

 

[submittedjoy]

I agree, but Jesus set it up so that we confess our sins one to another. This is part of the healing process that He works through to save our souls. Why would I not want to confess them to the person He has empowered to forgive them in His name? Those who have not experienced the grace of the sacrament I think cannot truly appreciate it’s power.

Yes… It is good for the soul to confess and be under some sort of accountability but… The point I was making is simply this… we don’t “Have to ask man to forgive us” we can go directly to the Father through Jesus himself. We have a God-given Biblical right to do so. I think it is a mistake to put our trust “solely” in man. There is a place for instruction and leadership obviously {Romans 10:14 - I Co. 11:1 - Php. 2:12} Some people don’t pray or read their bible at all they just lean on man for their understanding. They don’t talk to God and have a personal relationship with Jesus at all!

 

[jmcrae]

Yes… It is good for the soul to confess and be under some sort of accountability but… The point I was making is simply this… we don’t “Have to ask man to forgive us” we can go directly to the Father through Jesus himself. We have a God-given Biblical right to do so. I think it is a mistake to put our trust “solely” in man.

No Catholic ever puts his trust “solely” in man. Jesus is also to be found in the Confessional, and He uses the priest as His spokesman. This is what is meant by the term “in persona Christi” - that the priest, for all intents and purposes, images the person of Christ when he is hearing Confessions. (He also does this when he is saying Mass; that’s why he says, “My body and blood” rather than “Christ’s body and blood.”)

There is a place for instruction and leadership obviously {Romans 10:14 - I Co. 11:1 - Php. 2:12} Some people don’t pray or read their bible at all they just lean on man for their understanding. They don’t talk to God and have a personal relationship with Jesus at all!

Well educated Catholics would certainly agree with you on this - it is not good to rely entirely on other people to do your spirituality for you. But at the same time, we are meant to do our spirituality together, in community. This is precisely why Jesus established a Church in the first place, rather than just saying, “Okay, all you have to do is believe in Me as an individual, and it’s all good.”

 

[reteeks21]

No Catholic ever puts his trust “solely” in man. Jesus is also to be found in the Confessional, and He uses the priest as His spokesman. This is what is meant by the term “in persona Christi” - that the priest, for all intents and purposes, images the person of Christ when he is hearing Confessions. (He also does this when he is saying Mass; that’s why he says, “My body and blood” rather than “Christ’s body and blood.”)

Well educated Catholics would certainly agree with you on this - it is not good to rely entirely on other people to do your spirituality for you. But at the same time, we are meant to do our spirituality together, in community. This is precisely why Jesus established a Church in the first place, *rather than just saying, “Okay, all you have to do is believe in Me as an individual, and it’s all good.”/*QUOTE]

But He did say that, many more times than He referenced Communion. Please note this is not an attack or a rebuff of your beliefs. It is just someone adding their two cents worth. No harm or fould meant.

 

[jmcrae]

But He did say that, many more times than He referenced Communion. Please note this is not an attack or a rebuff of your beliefs. It is just someone adding their two cents worth. No harm or fould meant.

The “you” was always in the plural. There was never any sense of “lone ranger” Christianity in any of Christ’s teachings. Even when they were doing individual evangelism, He sent them out in twos. Nobody was ever expected to operate alone.

 

[reteeks21]

The “you” was always in the plural. There was never any sense of “lone ranger” Christianity in any of Christ’s teachings. Even when they were doing individual evangelism, He sent them out in twos. Nobody was ever expected to operate alone.

I agree 100%. But can you help me understand the idea and practice of monasticism as it relates to the “you”?

 

[jmcrae]

I agree 100%. But can you help me understand the idea and practice of monasticism as it relates to the “you”?

Monks live in communities, usually five or six men living in the same house, or if it’s a larger monastery, then it could be anything from twenty to even hundreds of men all living in the same building or group of buildings.

They pray five times a day as a group, they go to Mass every day as a group, and they go to Confession once a week. They also pray alone in their cells, but that’s not all that they do - most of their prayer is public prayer.

Even hermits interact with the public to do spiritual direction and stuff like that, and they pray with their communities at least once a week. They just don’t go to parties, or interact with other people socially.

 

[sodak]

Divine Revelation is all well and good as long as it agrees with God’s Holy Word. As long as it doesn’t disagree, change, corrupt, add to, or **take away **from what has already been written in God’s word. {Revelations 22:18-19}

On what basis do you accept the Bible as God’s Holy Word?

 

[moondweller]

The reason that Rome was given primacy is because Peter and Paul both preached an taught there for years before they were put to death by the Roman Authorities. Rome had the benefit of the very best doctrinal teaching from the two.

This is conjecture. We know for certain that Paul ministed there for two years during his imprisonment. But there is no historical proof that Peter ever ministered there for a duration of time. Tradition states that both Peter and Paul died there, but even there we have no documents contemporary to the events.

I believe you will find that the primacy of Rome is not based upon either Peter or Paul “founding” the church,but building it up in the truth.

The “primacy” of Rome is a western boast only. Church history teaches us that the “bishop” of Rome was given a sort of honorary respect because Rome was the ancient Capital of the empire, but never a position of “primacy.” Primacy became the boastful claim of the Roman “bishop” himself. But it was never accepted unanimously in the east. In fact, it’s partly what keeps the RCC and the EO separated today (as well as the Protestants).

The book of Acts clearly shows where Paul, in his journeys, constantly came upon groups of Christians that had been meeting for some time before he arrived.

Oh, guanophore, this statement is not true at all. Paul’s journeys were just that - “missionary.” He planted churches where none were prior to his arrival. There were often Jewish synagogues, which he entered, but it was his gospel message they heard for the first time.

Now it is unlikely that Paul ever visited the cities of Laodicea, Colossae and Hierapolis (see Col. 2:1). He connects them to a person named “Epaphras” who seems to be one of those who labored in establishing churches in those cities (Col. 4:12-13). But if you follow Paul in the historical book of Acts, he did not constantly come across groups of Christians that had already been meeting. This was, however, as you correctly point out, the case by the time he personally arrived at Rome. That’s why his desire was to eventually go on to Spain (Rom. 15:24, 28).

 

[submittedjoy]

jmcrae;3383224:

This is what is meant by the term “in persona Christi” - that the priest, for all intents and purposes, images the person of Christ when he is hearing Confessions. (He also does this when he is saying Mass; that’s why he says, “My body and blood” rather than “Christ’s body and blood.”)

/

QUOTE]Ok… please don’t take this in the wrong spirit but are you saying that “essentially” the priest or the pope “becomes” Christ for the moment necessary during Mass or Confession?

jmcrae;3383224:

But He did say that, many more times than He referenced Communion. Please note this is not an attack or a rebuff of your beliefs. It is just someone adding their two cents worth. No harm or fould meant.

I agree… and I think you meant “foul”

 

[reteeks21]

reteeks21;3383233:

jmcrae;3383224:

This is what is meant by the term “in persona Christi” - that the priest, for all intents and purposes, images the person of Christ when he is hearing Confessions. (He also does this when he is saying Mass; that’s why he says, “My body and blood” rather than “Christ’s body and blood.”)

/

QUOTE]Ok… please don’t take this in the wrong spirit but are you saying that “essentially” the priest or the pope “becomes” Christ for the moment necessary during Mass or Confession?

I agree… and I think you meant “foul”

Thanks for the correction. Though I am a teacher, I still struggle with my native tongue.

 

[jmcrae]

]Ok… please don’t take this in the wrong spirit but are you saying that “essentially” the priest or the pope “becomes” Christ for the moment necessary during Mass or Confession?

He becomes kind of like a transparent window through which we can see and hear Christ, in the sense that, when you look at a window, you normally don’t see the window, but whatever is beyond the window, and when the priest is celebrating the Sacraments, we don’t see the priest, as such (although of course he is there) but rather we see Christ through him.

And of course the priest is a human being like ourselves, and prone to flaws. The flaws we see are not flaws in Christ, but flaws in the priest himself, just as, if the window is dirty or cracked, it doesn’t mean that the landscape is dirty and cracked; it’s just the window that needs to be cleaned or repaired.

 

[submittedjoy]

On what basis do you accept the Bible as God’s Holy Word?

The Bible has proven itself many times over.

1: I consider the Bible to be God’s Holy Word on a Historical Basis.

It has proven to be historically accurate. There are no revelations of a historical nature that disprove the Bible’s account of history. In fact, new historical findings continue to verify the accuracy of the Bible.

2: I consider the Bible to be God’s Holy Word on an archaeological Basis.

It has proven to be archaeologically accurate. There is no archaeological evidence that has ever been unearthed that disproves the Bible’s account of civilizations and cultures that have existed on earth since the very beginning of man.

3: I consider the Bible to be God’s Holy Word on a Prophetical Basis.

It has proven itself prophetically accurate. Hundreds of prophesies recorded in the Bible have been fulfilled to the letter, even centuries after they were recorded. Only those pertaining to the return of Jesus Christ to establish His reign on earth, etc. have yet to be fulfilled!

4: I consider the Bible to be God’s Holy Word based on Jesus himself. Jesus bears witness to the Bible’s inerrancy where He emphasizes that the actual written words of Scripture can be trusted, not just the ideas they contain. Jesus demonstrated the power of the words of Scripture to defeat Satan when he tempted Him. We have that same weapon available to us today - the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Eph. 6:17).

5: I know the Bible to be the Word of God on the Basis that Jesus appeared to me in a dream of utmost clarity and aweinspiring power. This was over 10 years ago but it is still just as real as if it happened yesterday. If you knew what It was that I had to face less than a year after that dream you would understand without a doubt that the dream had to be directly from God. I’ll share the dream on here if I’m asked. I believe that it would be a blessing and an uplift to all.

Thank you.