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

[sodak]

The only way i could change my mind is by facts. You evidently don’t need to facts to support your beliefs but rely on your authority whether there are facts or not.

Correct. God given authority that we have the promise of Jesus for. Good enough for me. If the Church declares it as dogma, it’s a fact.
.
The church that you claim is the author of scripture (which they are not) warns of false teachers who will come into the church itself and decieve many.

Correct (on the false teachers). You’ve just defined Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. Not to mention Swaggert, et. al. Look at all the evil these people have caused.

As for not being the author, yes, God was the original author, but he used men to write the bible, and he used the Church to decide what went into the bible.

To not care if a pracitice is biblical or not is to allow false teachers into your church.

Actually, my Church has been consistent for 2000 years, the pillar and foundation of Truth. And that’s another fact.

If what you say is true what am i to make of Romans 10:9-10 which says-
-9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Context. Picking one verse out of the bible and basing your theology on it is not a good thing to do. You have to understand how it fits into the overall picture.

This would be one passage in Scripture that i would think even most catholics would agree that Christ is Lord and Savior.

Absolutely he is. But the quote was “my personal Lord and Savior”. Please give me that chapter and verse.

 

[guanophore]

The only way i could change my mind is by facts. You evidently don’t need to facts to support your beliefs but rely on your authority whether there are facts or not.

Catholics have plenty of facts to support the faith, ja4. As far as confession is concerned, this has been practiced since the Baptism of John. All those coming to the Church for baptism made a confession of sins, and that is how it is practiced to this day. However, persons of Apostolic faiths don’t rely only on facts, but on Divine Revelation - God’s disclosure to us about Himself. There are times when such revelation defies reason.

.

The church that you claim is the author of scripture (which they are not) warns of false teachers who will come into the church itself and decieve many.

Scripture itself testifies to authorship, ja4. Men, inspired by God, wrote what God intended. This is what makes the scripture inerrant, because it comes from God. The men God used to write the NT were all Catholics. I am sorry that you have been deceived about the faith of Jesus Christ, ja4. Perhaps if you keep coming here, that can all be corrected?

To not care if a pracitice is biblical or not is to allow false teachers into your church.

You are right, the teaching of Jesus is not based on the Bible, but on God’s revelation of Himself to us. Some of this is recorded in scripture, but some is not. The Apostolic faiths hold to the Sacred Tradition that Jesus taught, which includes the Scriptures. The Scriptures were produced from the Sacred Tradition, that is why none of them contradict the Teaching of the Church.

If what you say is true what am i to make of Romans 10:9-10 which says-
-9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

This would be one passage in Scripture that i would think even most catholics would agree that Christ is Lord and Savior.

Yes, Catholics wrote this, so of course it is consistent with Catholic Teaching.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3396467]

Originally Posted by justasking4
The only way i could change my mind is by facts. You evidently don’t need to facts to support your beliefs but rely on your authority whether there are facts or not.

guanophore
Catholics have plenty of facts to support the faith, ja4.

In somethings but not in others. When it doesn’t have facts it uses speculations.

As far as confession is concerned, this has been practiced since the Baptism of John.

That may be but what what you don’t have in Scripture is absoltion and penance given to be forgiven by someone.

All those coming to the Church for baptism made a confession of sins, and that is how it is practiced to this day.

Interesting point her. How does this apply to infant baptisms? You well know infants cannot do this and yet your church baptizes them.

However, persons of Apostolic faiths don’t rely only on facts, but on Divine Revelation - God’s disclosure to us about Himself. There are times when such revelation defies reason.

I thought i could not be shocked again– but this statement has certainly made the grade. Does Divine Revelation - God’s disclosure to us about Himself, be based on facts that are true?

.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The church that you claim is the author of scripture (which they are not) warns of false teachers who will come into the church itself and decieve many.

guanophore
Scripture itself testifies to authorship, ja4. Men, inspired by God, wrote what God intended. This is what makes the scripture inerrant, because it comes from God. The men God used to write the NT were all Catholics.

What do you mean by Catholics? Do you mean these were men believed and practiced all the things that catholics do today?

guanophore
I am sorry that you have been deceived about the faith of Jesus Christ, ja4. Perhaps if you keep coming here, that can all be corrected?

Actually the deception is in your church. That is not to say there is not some in protestant churches. There is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
To not care if a pracitice is biblical or not is to allow false teachers into your church.

guanophore
You are right, the teaching of Jesus is not based on the Bible, but on God’s revelation of Himself to us. Some of this is recorded in scripture, but some is not.

Do you have some offical kind of statement that says esentially what you say—“the teaching of Jesus is not based on the Bible”?

The Apostolic faiths hold to the Sacred Tradition that Jesus taught, which includes the Scriptures. The Scriptures were produced from the Sacred Tradition, that is why none of them contradict the Teaching of the Church.

I’m aware that Jesus came to fulfill the OT prophecies but i’m not sure what you mean by “Sacred Tradition” unless you mean the OT itself. Is this what you mean?

Quote:

Originally Posted by justasking4
If what you say is true what am i to make of Romans 10:9-10 which says-
-9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

This would be one passage in Scripture that i would think even most catholics would agree that Christ is Lord and Savior.

Sacred Tradition
Yes, Catholics wrote this, so of course it is consistent with Catholic Teaching.

So catholics believe that Jesus is Lord and Savior then?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Sorry for the delay - but other obligations demand precedence. If anyone’s question to me hasn’t been answered, just re-post and hopefully I’ll get to it before the next onslaught of obligations comes on.

 

[jmcrae]

That may be but what what you don’t have in Scripture is absoltion and penance given to be forgiven by someone.

It says, what you bind is bound and what you loose is loosed. How do they know which sins to bind, and which sins to loose, unless the sins are being confessed to them?

Also, in James 5:13-18, how much plainer does he have to make it, that the sick person is confessing his sins to the presbyter (priest)?

Interesting point her. How does this apply to infant baptisms? You well know infants cannot do this and yet your church baptizes them.

Infants don’t have any sins to confess.

I thought i could not be shocked again– but this statement has certainly made the grade. Does Divine Revelation - God’s disclosure to us about Himself, be based on facts that are true?

God unfailingly reveals to the Church that which is true.

Do you have some offical kind of statement that says esentially what you say—“the teaching of Jesus is not based on the Bible”?

I have some news that may shock you: Jesus was not sitting on the mountain top reading the Sermon on the Mount out of the King James Bible. He was making it up out of his head. It wasn’t written down until several decades later, and wasn’t included in the Bible until a few centuries later.

I’m aware that Jesus came to fulfill the OT prophecies but i’m not sure what you mean by “Sacred Tradition” unless you mean the OT itself. Is this what you mean?

The Old Testament was passed by word of mouth from the creation of Adam and Eve until the time of Moses, when Moses began to write the Book of Genesis. Even if you are a Creation literalist, this is a period of four thousand years of nothing but oral tradition. And if the Evolutionists are right, we are looking at millions of years.

So catholics believe that Jesus is Lord and Savior then?

Lord and Saviour, absolutely. “My personal” - no. We don’t believe that we can own God.

 

[sodak]

Do you have some offical kind of statement that says esentially what you say—“the teaching of Jesus is not based on the Bible”?

We believe that the bible (NT) is based upon the teaching of Jesus. You have it backwards. We worship Jesus, not a book.

So catholics believe that Jesus is Lord and Savior then?

Of course. It’s the implications of the non-biblical word “personal” that I have problems with.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3397854]

Originally Posted by justasking4
That may be but what what you don’t have in Scripture is absoltion and penance given to be forgiven by someone.

jmcrae
It says, what you bind is bound and what you loose is loosed. How do they know which sins to bind, and which sins to loose, unless the sins are being confessed to them?

Also, in James 5:13-18, how much plainer does he have to make it, that the sick person is confessing his sins to the presbyter (priest)?

Where in these passages you quote do we see absolution and a penance given?

Quote:
Interesting point her. How does this apply to infant baptisms? You well know infants cannot do this and yet your church baptizes them.

jmcrae
Infants don’t have any sins to confess.

Are they not sinners though? Secondly, can a 4 year old sin?

Quote:justasking4
I thought i could not be shocked again-- but this statement has certainly made the grade. Does Divine Revelation - God’s disclosure to us about Himself, be based on facts that are true?

jmcrae
God unfailingly reveals to the Church that which is true.

That which “God unfailingly reveals to the Church that which is true” are facts. Correct?

Quote:justasking4
Do you have some offical kind of statement that says esentially what you say—“the teaching of Jesus is not based on the Bible”?

jmcrae
I have some news that may shock you: Jesus was not sitting on the mountain top reading the Sermon on the Mount out of the King James Bible. He was making it up out of his head.

Not sure what you mean when you say --“He was making it up out of his head”. Can you clarify?

It wasn’t written down until several decades later, and wasn’t included in the Bible until a few centuries later.

We know He already had a written OT. Secondly there is good reason to think that much of His teachings was committed to memory and this was also a literate culture which could have been written down as soon as it was spoken. Couple this with His miracles which would have also reinforced what He taught to the people’ memories.

Quote:justasking4

I’m aware that Jesus came to fulfill the OT prophecies but i’m not sure what you mean by “Sacred Tradition” unless you mean the OT itself. Is this what you mean?

jmcrae
The Old Testament was passed by word of mouth from the creation of Adam and Eve until the time of Moses, when Moses began to write the Book of Genesis. Even if you are a Creation literalist, this is a period of four thousand years of nothing but oral tradition. And if the Evolutionists are right, we are looking at millions of years.

Quote:justasking4
So catholics believe that Jesus is Lord and Savior then?

jmcrae
Lord and Saviour, absolutely. “My personal” - no. We don’t believe that we can own God.

How then would you decribe your relationship with Christ if its not “personal”?

 

[justasking4]

sodak;3397946]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Do you have some offical kind of statement that says esentially what you say—“the teaching of Jesus is not based on the Bible”?

sodak;
We believe that the bible (NT) is based upon the teaching of Jesus. You have it backwards. We worship Jesus, not a book.

What does “We worship Jesus, not a book” have to do with asking to see some offical statement from the catholic church that says something to the effect------“the teaching of Jesus is not based on the Bible”?

justasking4
So catholics believe that Jesus is Lord and Savior then?

sodak;
Of course. It’s the implications of the non-biblical word “personal” that I have problems with.

Then what kind of relationship do you claim to have with Christ? How would you describe it in non-personal terms?

 

[sodak]

What does “We worship Jesus, not a book” have to do with asking to see some offical statement from the catholic church that says something to the effect------“the teaching of Jesus is not based on the Bible”?

Then what kind of relationship do you claim to have with Christ? How would you describe it in non-personal terms?

Read the first sentence of my answer - the teaching of Jesus is based on the nature of God. The bible is simply a record of that.

Jesus it the Savior of the whole world, not just me!

 

[guanophore]

In somethings but not in others. When it doesn’t have facts it uses speculations.

It sounds like there is no room in your understanding of God for Divine Revelation. Do you believe that God can only communicate with humankind through “facts”?

That may be but what what you don’t have in Scripture is absoltion and penance given to be forgiven by someone.

Actually, there is, but maybe that is grist for another thread? However, I wonder, why does absolution and penance bother you? do you think it is wrong to say to someone who has repented and asked forgiveness “your sins are forgiven, go in peace”? Do you think it is wrong to try to make amends for ones wrongdoing?

Interesting point her. How does this apply to infant baptisms? You well know infants cannot do this and yet your church baptizes them.

The adults who bring them make a confession on their behalf. At every baptism, infant or not, there is a public prayer of repentance and a profession of faith.

I thought i could not be shocked again– but this statement has certainly made the grade. Does Divine Revelation - God’s disclosure to us about Himself, be based on facts that are true?

Our puny little minds cannot possibly fathom the nature of God. We do our best, but our conception of “facts” just really cannot reach to God. That is like trying to get to heaven by way of the tower of Babel! Instead, God has reached out to us, within the context of our limitations, and shown His nature to us. Think about it, ja4. What are the “facts” about God calling Moses? How can a burning bush “be” in fact, God?

What do you mean by Catholics? Do you mean these were men believed and practiced all the things that catholics do today?

No, I mean that Catholics of today believe and practiced what they did.

Actually the deception is in your church. That is not to say there is not some in protestant churches. There is.

When you say things like this, ja4, you are basically saying that Jesus is either too weak to preserve HIs church as He promised, or that he lied when He promised to do so. What happens with wrong teaching is that the Church becomes more solidified in the truth. Falsehoods are defined, and separated with clarity from the Apostolic faith.

Do you have some offical kind of statement that says esentially what you say—“the teaching of Jesus is not based on the Bible”?

Well, common sense can tell you that, can’t it? the NT was not written when Jesus taught, right? Jesus existed long before the creation of the OT, right? The source of Truth is in Jesus, a Person, not a book. Some of the Truth He taught can be found in the Bible.

I’m aware that Jesus came to fulfill the OT prophecies but i’m not sure what you mean by “Sacred Tradition” unless you mean the OT itself. Is this what you mean?

Both the OT and the NT are products of Sacred Tradition.

So catholics believe that Jesus is Lord and Savior then?

Indeed! :extrahappy:

Did you think otherwise?

 

[steve_b]

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.

Now you know differently

catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9012frs.asp
moon:

Tradition states that both Peter and Paul died there, but even there we have no documents contemporary to the events.

Already refuted
moon:

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.”

• The Church has its primacy and honor because of Jesus, and the keys Jesus gave Peter.** NOT** because Rome was the capital.
• When Constantine moved the capital from Rome to Byzantium and renamed it Constantinople, Rome was still primary ecclesiastically. Constantinople didn’t move into 1st place ecclestically just because it was now the capital…

moon:

Primacy became the **boastful **claim of the Roman “bishop” himself.

boastful?

It’s Jesus who established all this. NOT a vote, NOT usurping power, etc etc.

Rome is the apostolic see of Peter. And THAT’S what the Church recogniized throughout the ages…
moon:

But it was never accepted unanimously in the** east**.

Consider this quote from an ECF whose origin is in the EAST.

Irenaeus writes (emphasis mine)

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches,we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Now regarding his quote,

• Given where Irenaeus is from, where do you suppose Irenaeus learned what he wrote here? Who in the East taught him this?
  Irenaeus
• was from Smyrna (in the East) born c 125 a.d., and later became bishop of Lyons.
• Irenaeus in his youth heard his predesessor also from Smyrna, Bishop Polycarp speak. ( Polycarp d 155 a.d., was a disciple of St John the apostle) therefore Irenaeus
• a) was only 1 man away from an apostle,
• b)Irenaeus learned from Polycarp, who was taught directly from an apostle…

St John the apostle died c 100 a.d. some say in Ephesus, which if true, is not far from Smyrna (40 miles). Others say it was Patmos, where John wrote the book of Revelation, that is also close by. Irenaeus wrote his defense "against heresies", in 189 a.d. 89 years after the last apostle John, died.

BTW, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, wrote to 6 Churches on his way to Rome to be martyred. 5 are shown on this map Rome (not shown) being the 6th. To only Rome did Ignatius say is the Church that holds the presidency. That was in the year 107 a.d. 7 years after St John dies.

 

[moondweller]

Irenaeus writes (emphasis mine)

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches,we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Now regarding his quote,

• Given where Irenaeus is from, where do you suppose Irenaeus learned what he wrote here? Who in the East taught him this?
  Irenaeus
• was from Smyrna (in the East) born c 125 a.d., and later became bishop of Lyons.
• Irenaeus in his youth heard his predesessor also from Smyrna, Bishop Polycarp speak. ( Polycarp d 155 a.d., was a disciple of St John the apostle) therefore Irenaeus
• a) was only 1 man away from an apostle,
• b)Irenaeus learned from Polycarp, who was taught directly from an apostle…

St John the apostle died c 100 a.d. some say in Ephesus, which if true, is not far from Smyrna (40 miles). Others say it was Patmos, where John wrote the book of Revelation, that is also close by. Irenaeus wrote his defense "against heresies", in 189 a.d. 89 years after the last apostle John, died.

BTW, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, wrote to 6 Churches on his way to Rome to be martyred. 5 are shown on this map Rome (not shown) being the 6th. To only Rome did Ignatius say is the Church that holds the presidency. That was in the year 107 a.d. 7 years after St John dies.

Are either of the writings theopneustos (God-breathed)? No! What you quote above is only the expressed opinion of ONE man. Plus, his comment about the church at Rome can apply only up to his day. But again, it’s his opinion, it’s not dogma. The truth is, in regards to “the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 1:3), his writing holds no more authority than this message of mine.

There is still no proof that Peter ministered for any duration of time in Rome. Irenaeus was not contemporary with Peter. What is his source?

 

[sodak]

Unbelieveable. I’ve made up my mind, don’t confuse me with the facts!!!

At this point, I can see it’s useless to continue the discussion. People have pre-conceived beliefs, and will not change them for anything…

 

[moondweller]

Unbelieveable. I’ve made up my mind, don’t confuse me with the facts!!!

The FACT is you pour the whole RC doctrine of the RCC into that one statement by Irenaeus. You in fact magically pull “facts” out of it that just aren’t there. Does he state anything about the supremacy of Peter and his supposed “successor?” Does he state anything about the “infallibility” of the RC “magisterium”? Does he state there that salvation is through Jesus Christ AND the RCC? Did Irenaeus know anything about the RCC as it developed after his death?

At this point, I can see it’s useless to continue the discussion. People have pre-conceived beliefs, and will not change them for anything…

Would that not include you?

 

[c659smith]

The FACT is you pour the whole RC doctrine of the RCC into that one statement by Irenaeus. You in fact magically pull “facts” out of it that just aren’t there. Does he state anything about the supremacy of Peter and his supposed “successor?” Does he state anything about the “infallibility” of the RC “magisterium”? Does he state there that salvation is through Jesus Christ AND the RCC? Did Irenaeus know anything about the RCC as it developed after his death?Would that not include you?

If Christ did not give Peter and the Apostles a final say then how would you translate :

“[Jesus] said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.’ And then he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained’” (John 20:21-23).

“Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

I do not wish to hear additional scripture on your part just how you would translate these scriptures in saying that Jesus did not leave His church to the care of Peter and the Apostles? (successors)

Also Paul was not an Apostle so to deny succession would be to deny Paul his place as a successor. Do you deny Paul his place as a successor?

That is a final say in my book

 

[justasking4]

If Christ did not give Peter and the Apostles a final say then how would you translate :

“[Jesus] said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.’ And then he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained’” (John 20:21-23).

“Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

I do not wish to hear additional scripture on your part just how you would translate these scriptures in saying that Jesus did not leave His church to the care of Peter and the Apostles? (successors)

Also Paul was not an Apostle so to deny succession would be to deny Paul his place as a successor. Do you deny Paul his place as a successor?

That is a final say in my book

Why do you think Paul was not an apostle when the Scriptures clear teach he was? See for example–Galatians 1:1.

 

[steve_b]

Are either of the writings theopneustos (God-breathed)? No!

You seem to be rather hypocritical in your judgement. If YOU followed only what is God breathed, you couldn’t be Protestant.
moon:

What you quote above is only the expressed opinion of ONE man.

This is so hypocritcal. Protestantism is entirely based on personal opinions from a long line of dissenters…

Irenaeus OTOH,

• was taught by Bishop Polycarp who was a disciple of St John the apostle.
• he is a bishop in the Church of scripture.

moon:

Plus, his comment about the church at Rome can apply only up to his day.

Who is teaching you this nonsense?

when Irenaeus says the following, he is being faithful to the teachings of Paul.

:

“all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul**, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles**. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition”

If you read what Paul wrote to the Church of Rome, (Rm 16: quoted below) you’ll see the similarities.
moon:

But again, it’s his opinion, it’s not dogma.

Let me refresh your memory.

• You asked for contemporaries. I’m giving you names of contemporaries. You don’t like the answer so now you’re discounting what THEY say as “their” opinion!!.
  you’re not making a defense of your position, you’re just denying evidence against your opinion.

Paul complements the Church of Rome for its obedience to what is taught. And it passes it on faithfully as witnessed by Paul, then Irenaeus points this out as well from the quote given.
moon:

The truth is, in regards to “the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 1:3),

I’m glad you mention this passage. when St Paul says the following, it’s NOT just for his day.

Paul’s closing remarks to the Church of Rome (emphasis mine)

:
Rm 16:17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.
20The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.
The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

Now I don’t know who’s teaching you your polemics but they aren’t doing you any favors. A disobedient and divisive spirit, is what you’re being taught. It’s condemned by Paul.
moon:

There is still no proof that Peter ministered for any duration of time in Rome. Irenaeus was not contemporary with Peter. What is his source?

• No ECF denies Peter ministered in Rome. Your argument only comes up by johnny come lately fundamentalists.
• Irenaeus learned from Polycarp who was a disciple of St John. There is the direct “contemporary” link.

 

[steve_b]

The FACT is you pour the whole RC doctrine of the RCC into that one statement by Irenaeus.

You asked for supporting evidence. Now when you’re given that, and it WAS a powerful statement of Irenaeus, you have a problem.
moon:

Does he state anything about the supremacy of Peter and his supposed “successor?”

That link was given, but you apparantly didn’t read it.
moon:

Does he state anything about the “infallibility” of the RC “magisterium”? Does he state there that salvation is through Jesus Christ AND the RCC?

looking at that statement in steps.

1. 
   *]Rm 16:17-20 Paul says obedience to the Church of Rome is good, and division/dissension from the Church of Rome is evil. If division and dissension occurs, what did Paul say is the consequence?
   *]The Greek word used for division/dissension in Rm 16: 17 is the same word used in 1 Cor 3:3 and Gal 5:20
   *]The result for the dissenter is summarized in
   1. 
      *]Gal 5:19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
      
      Catch that? Paul says being a dissenter and remaining in that sin, is deadly to one’s soul,. They will not inherit heaven.
      
      BTW, this is an example of a mortal sin.
      
      Does that answer your question?
      moon:
      

      Did Irenaeus know anything about the RCC as it developed after his death?

      Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in the 1st century preceeded Irenaeus, said the Church of Rome held the presidency, and he was also the first to use the “Catholic Church” in writing.
      
      therefore, when Irenaeus said all must agree with the Church of Rome, it wasn’t a shock.

 

[c659smith]

Why do you think Paul was not an apostle when the Scriptures clear teach he was? See for example–Galatians 1:1.

OK then you agree with Apostolic succession as if there was none then Paul could not have been an Apostle for he was not part of the original twelve. Thus the Church and it’s Bishops along with the Pope --The Catholic Church–we can follow the succession from the time of Christ.

No Protestant Religion can do that without giving authority to the Catholic Church.

Plus if you would kindly answer my questions,

Thanks and God Bless.

 

[c659smith]

Moon,

You are like a dog chasing it’s tail. Scripture from Paul, the Church Fathers, and other scripture was given you yet you fight it. Why.

Read, use the mind, and think.

Ask God to be in your mind,mouth, and heart when scripture is read and given for the truth will flow.

Ask your minister to reply to these answers. It may surprise you he will not, but to tell you to stay away from the truth. The Catholic Church.