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

[c659smith]

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

The question was brought to Moondweeler by me for he does not believe in Apostolic Succession. A question was put forth to him that if there was no Apoststolic succession then Paul was never an Apostle.

I wanted his answer to this.

 

[t68ware]

Islam teaches that throughout human history, there were many Prophets (peace be upon them all) sent to many nations and all of them brought the Message of God with them.

During the time of Prophet Noah (pbuh), he was the only way to salvation.

During the time of Prophet Abraham (pbuh), he was the only way to salvation.

During the time of Prophet Moses (pbuh), he was the only way to salvation.

During the time of Prophet Jesus (pbuh), he was the only way to salvation.

And did Prophet Jesus (pbuh) say that someone would come after him bringing again the Message of the Lord showing the only way to salvation from then on?

youtube.com/watch?v=Ui71HaLm-2M

The answer to your last question is no, Jesus did not say someone else would come after Him…He was the final revelation of God to man, and He is the only Judge of mankind. The Bible teaches all will bow before Jesus, and there is salvation in no other than Him. If Islam teaches another prophet will come after Jesus to teach the way of salvation, Islam is mistaken.

 

[rikkk1958]

I voted yes because I want to follow all righteousness. However, it is not our will but God’s. God alone will judge. Roman Catholics believe that being righteous to the truth is the way, and the truth comes from the mouth of the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ. Do good deeds, love your neighbor as yourself, and above all, love Thy God with all your heart, mind, and strenght…Salvation is not an easy task even if you are a Roman Catholic.

 

[c659smith]

The answer to your last question is no, Jesus did not say someone else would come after Him…He was the final revelation of God to man, and He is the only Judge of mankind. The Bible teaches all will bow before Jesus, and there is salvation in no other than Him. If Islam teaches another prophet will come after Jesus to teach the way of salvation, Islam is mistaken.

All the prophets mentioned in no way talk of salvation but righteousness. Even Abraham a righteous man could not stand in the judgement of God for God’s judgement must be perfect and as man we are far from perfect esspecially where sin is concerned.
So where judgement is concerned we are all guilty as charged including all the prophets.

Jesus takes those sins upon Himself and allows us through repentance, faith, and love not to be judged but to receive mercy.
If I was judged I would suely be removed from any possibiity of Eternal life.

 

[moondweller]

The question was brought to Moondweeler by me for he does not believe in Apostolic Succession. A question was put forth to him that if there was no Apoststolic succession then Paul was never an Apostle.

I wanted his answer to this.

Paul wasn’t a “successor,” he was an original. He was appointed by Christ Himself.

There’s your answer.

 

[c659smith]

Paul wasn’t a “successor,” he was an original. He was appointed by Christ Himself.

There’s your answer.

Paul was not one of the original and was a persecutor of Christians before, during, and after Christ’s ressurection.
Paul also had been involved in the death of the first martyr of the Apostles (Stephen)

Saul why do you persecute me?

Paul was converted when a bright light and the voice of Christ was heard by him and he was blinded while in route to persecute the Greek Christians. Paul was later accepted and given creedence by the Apostles and had to be baptised by them.

Paul also goes into depth on this in many of his letters.

Please read your bible.

 

[moondweller]

Paul was not one of the original and was a persecutor of Christians before, during, and after Christ’s ressurection.
Paul also had been involved in the death of the first martyr of the Apostles (Stephen)

Saul why do you persecute me?

Paul was converted when a bright light and the voice of Christ was heard by him and he was blinded while in route to persecute the Greek Christians. Paul was later accepted and given creedence by the Apostles and had to be baptised by them.

Paul also goes into depth on this in many of his letters.

Please read your bible.

I’m very familiar with Paul’s story. It doesn’t matter when He received his commission, the point is he wasn’t an appointed “elder.” He was chosen by Christ Himself to be one of the Apostles:2 Cor 11:5 “For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.”

2 Cor 12:11 "I have become foolish; you yourselves compelled me. Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody"No other Apostle labored as much as he:2 Cor 11:22-23 "Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I. Are they servants of Christ?–I speak as if insane–I more so; in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death…"You, like the Corinthians try to down grade his position as an Apostle, but you, like the Corinthians, are indebted to Paul’s Apostleship, more than any of the others who were appointed prior to him.

 

[c659smith]

I’m very familiar with Paul’s story. It doesn’t matter when He received his commission, the point is he wasn’t an appointed “elder.” He was chosen by Christ Himself to be one of the Apostles:2 Cor 11:5 “For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.”

2 Cor 12:11 "I have become foolish; you yourselves compelled me. Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody"No other Apostle labored as much as he:2 Cor 11:22-23 "Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I. Are they servants of Christ?–I speak as if insane–I more so; in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death…"You, like the Corinthians try to down grade his position as an Apostle, but you, like the Corinthians, are indebted to Paul’s Apostleship, more than any of the others who were appointed prior to him.

See below-

Even here Paul discusses how foolish he was and the importance of being commended by the Apostles at the time as the Apostles compelled him to do so.

"I have become foolish; you yourselves compelled me. Actually I should have been commended by you, **for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles

4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. ( Baptism)

He was given a mission and that led to him becoming an Apostle by baptism. I agree Paul was made an Apostle through Christ but was not even a deciple till he was baptised and accepted by the Apostles.

“they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.” (Epistle to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]).

Hegesippus
When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs 4:22:1 [ca. A.D. 180]).

“[In Philippians 1:1 Paul says,] ‘To the co-bishops and deacons.’ What does this mean? Were there plural bishops of some city? Certainly not! It is the presbyters that [Paul] calls by this title; for these titles were then interchangeable, and the bishop is even called a deacon. That is why, when writing to Timothy, he says, ‘Fulfill your diaconate’ [2 Tim. 4:5], although Timothy was then a bishop. That he was in fact a bishop is clear when Paul says to him, ‘Lay hands on no man lightly’ [1 Tim. 5:22], and again, ‘Which was given you with the laying on of hands of the presbytery’ [1 Tim. 4:14], and presbyters would not have ordained a bishop” (Homilies on the Epistle to the Philippians 1:1 [A.D. 398]).

Then the reverence of the law is chanted, and the grace of the prophets is known, and the faith of the Gospels is established, and the Tradition of the apostles is preserved, and the grace of the Church exults. (Letter to the Corinthians 11 [A.D. 80])

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.
Among the apostles there were two groups. The first consisted of the Twelve, who witnessed the whole of Christ’s earthly ministry from his baptism to his Ascension (Acts 1:21-26). The second group of apostles, including Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14), was not bound by this condition. Thus Paul had seen and been commissioned as an apostle by the risen Christ (1 Cor. 9:1, Gal. 1:1), though he had not been a disciple of Jesus during his earthly ministry (Acts 9, 1 Cor. 15:8).

Till Baptism and acceptance by the Apostles otherwise No one would listen to him.

Paul is part of the 2nd generation of Apostles not of the original 12

6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me.

Romans 6:4 Paul writes

4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
(baptism)
Paul was baptised and made new through the Holy Spirit by the Apostles it is in your own findings that you can see this.

though he had not been a disciple of Jesus during his earthly ministry (Acts 9, 1 Cor. 15:8).

For it was not sanctioned and he was not baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.**

 

[c659smith]

I’m very familiar with Paul’s story. It doesn’t matter when He received his commission, the point is he wasn’t an appointed “elder.” He was chosen by Christ Himself to be one of the Apostles:2 Cor 11:5 “For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.”

2 Cor 12:11 "I have become foolish; you yourselves compelled me. Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody"No other Apostle labored as much as he:2 Cor 11:22-23 "Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I. Are they servants of Christ?–I speak as if insane–I more so; in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death…"You, like the Corinthians try to down grade his position as an Apostle, but you, like the Corinthians, are indebted to Paul’s Apostleship, more than any of the others who were appointed prior to him.

The question here though is Apostolic succession and Paul was one who wrote extesively about the importance of the Roman Church (Catholism) and Apostolic Succession.
I have given many sources from scripture and the early Church you gave nothing to prove your case aganist Apostolic succession and the early Church as it relates to this subject.

 

[justasking4]

c659smith;3402750]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Why do you think Paul was not an apostle when the Scriptures clear teach he was? See for example–Galatians 1:1.

c659smith
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.

I agree that Paul was an apostle even though he was not part of the original 12. Jesus “picked” him specifically under a unique cirmcumstance and he derived his apostleship directly from Christ. One of the requirements for being an apostle was to see the risen Christ. See Acts 1:22.
The idea that the pope is an apostle in the NT sense would be false since no man has seen the risen Christ as the apostles did.

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.

I don’t know what this gains you i.e. succession from the time of the apostles. Just because you can trace your history to this time does not mean its been always true in its teachings. Secondly, there is no evidence anyway that Peter was the supreme head of the entire church. We don’t see such a thing in the Scriptures. We don’t see it even in Rome.

Plus if you would kindly answer my questions,

Thanks and God Bless.

What questions? Can you rephrase?

 

[justasking4]

c659smith;3404547]The question here though is Apostolic succession and Paul was one who wrote extesively about the importance of the Roman Church (Catholism)

Where does Paul write about the Roman Catholic church in his letters? Where does he even come close to mentioning praying to Mary and the saints? Where does he write that church leadership requirement should be celibate men for example?

and Apostolic Succession.

Where does Paul write about Apostolic succession in his letters?

I have given many sources from scripture and the early Church you gave nothing to prove your case aganist Apostolic succession and the early Church as it relates to this subject.

What makes you think that Peter was ruling from Rome the entire church? What evidence is there for this?

 

[c659smith]

Where does Paul write about the Roman Catholic church in his letters? Where does he even come close to mentioning praying to Mary and the saints? Where does he write that church leadership requirement should be celibate men for example?

Where does Paul write about Apostolic succession in his letters?

What makes you think that Peter was ruling from Rome the entire church? What evidence is there for this?

“[In Philippians 1:1 Paul says,] ‘To the co-bishops and deacons.’ What does this mean? Were there plural bishops of some city? Certainly not! It is the presbyters that [Paul] calls by this title; for these titles were then interchangeable, and the bishop is even called a deacon. That is why, when writing to Timothy, he says, ‘Fulfill your diaconate’ [2 Tim. 4:5], although Timothy was then a bishop. That he was in fact a bishop is clear when Paul says to him, ‘Lay hands on no man lightly’ [1 Tim. 5:22], and again, ‘Which was given you with the laying on of hands of the presbytery’ [1 Tim. 4:14], and presbyters would not have ordained a bishop” (Homilies on the Epistle to the Philippians 1:1 [A.D. 398]).

What is done here? and who wrote this?

 

[c659smith]

Where does Paul write about the Roman Catholic church in his letters? Where does he even come close to mentioning praying to Mary and the saints? Where does he write that church leadership requirement should be celibate men for example?

Where does Paul write about Apostolic succession in his letters?

What makes you think that Peter was ruling from Rome the entire church? What evidence is there for this?

Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier… Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry." (Epistle to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]).

note the year above and what are we talking about here?

 

[c659smith]

Where does Paul write about the Roman Catholic church in his letters? Where does he even come close to mentioning praying to Mary and the saints? Where does he write that church leadership requirement should be celibate men for example?

Where does Paul write about Apostolic succession in his letters?

What makes you think that Peter was ruling from Rome the entire church? What evidence is there for this?

Peter headed the meeting which elected Matthias as replacement for Judas (Acts 1:13-26).

Peter led the apostles in preaching on Pentecost (Acts 2:14).

Peter led the meeting which decided on which terms Gentiles would be allowed into the Church (Acts 15).

Peter was the judge of Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11).

Jesus entrusted Peter with his flock, making him too a Good Shepherd (John 21:15-17).

Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3).

After his conversion Paul went to see Peter, the chief apostle (Gal. 1:18).

Throughout the New Testament, when the apostles are listed as a group, Peter’s name is always first. Sometimes it’s just "Peter and the twelve. "

Peter’s name is mentioned more often than the names of all the other apostles put together.

Where was he ruling from then?

Also in Rome at the time was controlled by the Romans. The Church did not control Rome till the year 300 or so. Peter was long dead. I’m confused by tour question?

 

[justasking4]

c659smith;3405671]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Where does Paul write about the Roman Catholic church in his letters? Where does he even come close to mentioning praying to Mary and the saints? Where does he write that church leadership requirement should be celibate men for example?

Where does Paul write about Apostolic succession in his letters?

What makes you think that Peter was ruling from Rome the entire church? What evidence is there for this?

c659smith
Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier… Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry." (Epistle to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]).

note the year above and what are we talking about here?

Even in this reference i don’t see anything about bishops being the same thing as an apostle. It is one thing to “succeed to their ministry” and another thing that they “succeed to their office”.

 

[c659smith]

Where does Paul write about the Roman Catholic church in his letters? Where does he even come close to mentioning praying to Mary and the saints? Where does he write that church leadership requirement should be celibate men for example?

Biblical evidence for the discipline of celibacy can be found in both the Old and the New Testaments. In the Old, Jeremiah was forbidden by God to take a wife in order to enable him to fulfill his ministry better. “The word of the Lord came to me: ‘You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place’” (Jer. 16:1-2).

Paul recognized the wisdom in this, and encouraged celibacy in order to free a man to be anxious about the things of the Lord and to serve him undividedly (1 Cor 7:8,32-35). In his words, “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. . . . I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. . . . he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (1 Cor. 7:8, 32-35, 38).

Do you want more?

But marriage is not condemned in the Catholic Church from the Clergy there are many as Roman Catholics that have received waivers esspecially convert Ministers.

Also the Eastern Rite in step with Rome and good standings allows priests to get married.

No one is breaking anyones arms the choice is theirs.

 

[justasking4]

c659smith;3405690]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Where does Paul write about the Roman Catholic church in his letters? Where does he even come close to mentioning praying to Mary and the saints? Where does he write that church leadership requirement should be celibate men for example?

Where does Paul write about Apostolic succession in his letters?

What makes you think that Peter was ruling from Rome the entire church? What evidence is there for this?

c659smith
Peter headed the meeting which elected Matthias as replacement for Judas (Acts 1:13-26).

Peter led the apostles in preaching on Pentecost (Acts 2:14).

Peter led the meeting which decided on which terms Gentiles would be allowed into the Church (Acts 15).

Peter was the judge of Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11).

Jesus entrusted Peter with his flock, making him too a Good Shepherd (John 21:15-17).

Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3

).
No doubt he played a leadership role and a significant one.

After his conversion Paul went to see Peter, the chief apostle (Gal. 1:18).

True. However in Galatians 2:7-9 Paul goes to meet not only Peter but James and John with Peter who were the “pillars” i.e. persons of authority and influence in the church. This counts heavily against the idea that Peter alone was the supreme leader of the NT church.

Throughout the New Testament, when the apostles are listed as a group, Peter’s name is always first. Sometimes it’s just "Peter and the twelve. "

Peter’s name is mentioned more often than the names of all the other apostles put together.

No doubt he was significant. It does not prove he was the supreme leader though.

Where was he ruling from then?

I don’t know. No indication of it in the NT.

Also in Rome at the time was controlled by the Romans. The Church did not control Rome till the year 300 or so. Peter was long dead. I’m confused by tour question?

Does not the catholic church claim that Peter was the first pope who founded Rome and was its first leader there?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Where does Paul write about the Roman Catholic church in his letters?

Many places - for example 1 Timothy 3:15.

Where does he even come close to mentioning praying to Mary and the saints?

Many places - for example Ephesians 6:18-19; if we can ask our earthly friends to pray for us, how much more can we ask those who have entered into Heaven.

Where does he write that church leadership requirement should be celibate men for example?

An example of this is in 1 Corinthians 7:8,32-35. Please keep in mind that this is NOT doctrine, but discipline (but a discipline that is extremely unlikely to change in the Latin Rite in the foreseeable future).

Where does Paul write about Apostolic succession in his letters?

Many places - for example 1 Timothy 4:14.

What makes you think that Peter was ruling from Rome the entire church? What evidence is there for this?

Pope Saint Clement of Rome, who was the third successor of Saint Peter wrote to the Church in Corinth. He was Pope about 15-30 years after Peter was martyred. He was Pope when Saint John the Apostle was still alive. A problem arose in Corinth. Corinth was in Greece, not Rome. Corinth was closer to Ephesus, where Saint John - an Apostle - was Bishop. But Pope Saint Clement responded. In his letter he wrote:

If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him [Jesus] through us [Pope], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin, and, instant in prayer and supplication, shall desire that the Creator of all preserve unbroken the computed number of His elect in the whole world through His beloved Son Jesus Christ, through whom He called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to knowledge of the glory of His name, our hope resting on Your name which is primal cause of every creature… (Clement of Rome, First Letter to the Corinthians - 59)

 

[panoikei]

Jimmy,
I had to vot “NO” because your wording is off.

It should say, Is the Church of Christ the only way to salvation. Subtitled that the Church of Christ subsists within the Catholic Church. Not the Roman Catholic Church. The term “Roman” is actually an anti-Catholic stur that originated in disputing the authority of Rome. I get into trouble from time to time on another board about this. I am reluctant to show the thread for good reasons so I apologize for not giving the links. I may get brave in the future but for now it’s to hide identities.

Technically there’s no such thing as an official name for the Catholic Church. It’s simply “the Church” but since that’s not precise enough in most cultures that have other religions it was referred as the “Church of Christ” or “Catholic Church” (that’s why you don’t see the latter term in writings until much later since most people knew what “the Church” was).

Sorry …, gotta be nitpicky there and disagree with that. http://coctocatholic.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif You won’t find “Roman Catholic Church” in any official documents of the Church when referring to the entire thing…it is always Catholic Church, period. The whole Roman thing started as a pejorative slam against Catholics from the Anglicans. I don’t mind it when referring to the Latin rite alone, but I do think it’s incorrect when referring to the whole Catholic Church, despite what some of our Orthodox friends insist upon claiming. Call a Byzantine Rite Catholic “Roman Catholic” and see the strange look he gives you, lol.

And certainly the Orthodox consider themselves catholic, just as we consider ourselves orthodox.

 

[c659smith]

Where does Paul write about the Roman Catholic church in his letters? Where does he even come close to mentioning praying to Mary and the saints? Where does he write that church leadership requirement should be celibate men for example?

Where does Paul write about Apostolic succession in his letters?

What makes you think that Peter was ruling from Rome the entire church? What evidence is there for this?

Where does he even come close to mentioning praying to Mary and the saints?

Because he is the only God-man and the mediator of the New Covenant, Jesus is the only mediator between man and God (1 Tim. 2:5). But this in no way means we cannot or should not ask our fellow Christians to pray with us and for us (1 Tim. 2:1–4), including those Christians in heaven, who have already had their sanctification completed, for “[t]he prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (Jas. 5:16).

As the following passages show, the Church Fathers and the bible clearly recognized the biblical teaching that those in heaven can and do intercede for us, and they applied this teaching in their practice.

For even common sense will tell you that those in heaven with Christ are alive as promised by Jesus for those that believe in Him shall have eternal life.

What’s your problem with that?

As far as MARY and the Church
You must have an illogical faith, because in every other aspect of our faith our devotions are inspired by and united to the doctrines we profess. How can one grant Mary the title Mother of God and yet refrain from using the ancient prayer in which we say, “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us now and at the hour of our death”?

Worship of Jesus Christ as “God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father” is therefore a unity with prayerful devotion to his mother. With her and through her we affirm and bow before the one who is God made man.

What did the angel Gabriel say to Mary?

Blessed are thou amongst Women – All women – say what you want but I for one would not want to disrespect God’s human Mother by not giving her the devotion deserved.