Peter as the Rock

[benedictus2]

Many non-Catholics preserve the gospel message and some do a better job of it. Are they also successors of Peter?

Non-Catholic do not preserve the Gospel message or they would be Catholic.

At some point, there was a facet of the Gospel that they did not preserve that is why there are not Catholic.

 

[PRmerger]

Many non-Catholics preserve the gospel message and some do a better job of it. Are they also successors of Peter?

To the degree that what they teach is consonant with what the visible successor of Peter teaches and has taught is the degree that they are proclaiming the truth. And in* that *sense, they are indeed successors of Peter.

They simply do not have the authority to depart from this deposit of faith. So when a non-Catholic claims that he is “preserving the gospel message” and professing that baptism doesn’t save, then he is not acting as a successor of Peter.

When a non-Catholic claims that he is “preserving the gospel message” and proclaiming that the Lord’s Supper is merely a symbolic ritual, then he is not acting as a successor of Peter.

When a non-Catholic claims that he is “preserving the gospel message” and proclaims that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away our sins, then they are indeed a “successor of Peter.”

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

No… You can’t prove it period… Everytime I ask for the proof from Scripture I get a different excuse and a different beat around the bush answer but never any proof.

1)I proved it here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8299637&postcount=227 i gave you the proof. You ignored and deflected it. You didn’t even bother to address the citations. You just continue to insist that its not there.

Hence my first remark to you: what is asserted without reason may be rejected without reason.

2)You don’t like the proof so you’d rather adopt the image of the person sticking his fingers in his ears screaming, “la,la,la,la, I can’t hear you.”

If your argument is that I’m not interpreting scripture correctly then you are violating one of the main tenents of your own philosophy. IOW sola scriptura is true and everyone can interpret the Bible as they feel the Spirit guiding them, that is so long as they agree with your interpretation.

pritchard85:

How do you know what my pastor has told me?? Is it your position that all Protestants fit the same mold or is it that you are so arrogant in your own self absorbed opinions that you don’t care?

1. I know how it works in most evangelical/fundamentalist circles because I used to be one. They’re not my “opinions”, they’re my experiences. Doctrine come from the pastor or your favorite missionary. They tell you what they believe, and you believe it because you admire them, you like their rhetorical style, and their words comfort and sustain all your preconceived beliefs and prejudices; and believe that they speak in good faith and would not deceive you. And everything they tell you they “support” with scripture.

So you do no work to test if what they are telling you is true, you just accept it as “gospel”, as I did. Then I woke up. I questioned inconsistencies, and was ridiculed out of my “church”. So spare me. Assumptions made in ignorance is arrogance. Knowledge based in fact and experience is what it is, the truth. But I will forgive yours.

1. Again, your emotional response betrays you. It shows your nervousness and that I hit a little too close to the mark.

pritchard85:

Contested in what ways though?? It’s never been under the scrutiny that the papacy has and rightfully so.

Wow. If you don’t know in what ways Christianity has been contested then how can you insist on anything about the Papacy? Your remarks admit an amazing lack of reference.

pritchard85:

Don’t rant at me. I’m not interested in it.

1. Coming from one who has been doing a lot of “ranting”…pot, meet kettle.
2. I’m pointing out your overwhelming inconsistencies. They’re your inconsistencies. I’m sorry if historical facts are a little too much for you.

pritchard85:

Says who or what?? You?

It’s called logic. It’s a syllogism. If a, then b, then c, etc.

pritchard85:

It suggests just what Jesus said to Peter. Nothing more and nothing less. Read the Scripture if you are unfamiliar.

You’re deflecting again. Peter saying “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” has nothing to do with what I asked you. I asked you what does it suggest to you that the Twelve chose Peter to be their mediator between them and Christ?

We can also talk about Matt 16:15-19 if you’d like but I wonder if you’ll also dodge my questions there as well.

 

[PRmerger]

Doctrine come from the pastor or your favorite missionary. They tell you what they believe, and you believe it because you admire them, you like their rhetorical style, and their words comfort and sustain all your preconceived beliefs and prejudices; and believe that they speak in good faith and would not deceive you.

This is a trenchant point and one I will provide a few examples for:

If I have heard a non-Catholic Christian say this once, I’ve heard him say it a dozen times: “scripture interprets itself”.

**Yet this is something found nowhere in the pages of the Bible. **

It is something that they heard their pastor or favorite missionary preach, and they believed it and in turn spread this non-Scriptural tradition…until it becomes a mantra in some non-Catholic circles.

Another is this mantra: doctrine must be supported by 2 or 3 Scripture verses.

Again, this is something found nowhere in the pages of the Bible.

It is something that they heard their pastor or favorite missionary preach, and they believed it and in turn spread this non-Scriptural tradition…until it becomes a mantra in some non-Catholic circles.

Finally, one oft quoted in objection to purgatory: they hear their preacher say, “Paul said that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.”

Yet, this is NOT FOUND IN ANY PAGES OF Scripture. They simply have taken the word of their pastor or favorite missionary, believed it and spread this non-Scriptural mantra.

(Heh. As I was doing a search for something else I found this thread which is a nice demo of the truth of my statement above:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6556567

It would behoove any non-Catholic Christian who quotes St. Paul to actually read what St. Paul says. 2 Cor 5:8)

And everything they tell you they “support” with scripture.

Except when they* don’t* support it with Scripture
and simply repeat these oft-told, man-made, fallible, non-Scriptural tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

This is a trenchant point and one I will provide a few examples for:

If I have heard a non-Catholic Christian say this once, I’ve heard him say it a dozen times: “scripture interprets itself”.

**Yet this is something found nowhere in the pages of the Bible. **

It is something that they heard their pastor or favorite missionary preach, and they believed it and in turn spread this non-Scriptural tradition…until it becomes a mantra in some non-Catholic circles.

Another is this mantra: doctrine must be supported by 2 or 3 Scripture verses.

Again, this is something found nowhere in the pages of the Bible.

It is something that they heard their pastor or favorite missionary preach, and they believed it and in turn spread this non-Scriptural tradition…until it becomes a mantra in some non-Catholic circles.

Finally, one oft quoted in objection to purgatory: they hear their preacher say, “Paul said that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.”

Yet, this is NOT FOUND IN ANY PAGES OF Scripture. They simply have taken the word of their pastor or favorite missionary, believed it and spread this non-Scriptural mantra.

(Heh. As I was doing a search for something else I found this thread which is a nice demo of the truth of my statement above:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6556567

It would behoove any non-Catholic Christian who quotes St. Paul to actually read what St. Paul says. 2 Cor 5:8)

Except when they* don’t* support it with Scripture
and simply repeat these oft-told, man-made, fallible, non-Scriptural tradition.

Oh, and one more: the oft repeated mantra that it’s okay to “disagree on non-essentials as long as Christians agree on essentials.”

This is something they heard their favorite preacher or missionary profess, yet there is not a single verse in the Bible that proclaims this, nor are there any verses that Scripture proclaims to be an essential verse vs a non-essential verse.

It is a man-made tradition that they’ve been duped into believing because they trusted and admired the fallible preacher who stood at the pulpit and proclaimed those non-Biblical witticisms.

 

[ron77nyc]

They simply do not have the authority to depart from this deposit of faith. So when a non-Catholic claims that he is “preserving the gospel message” and professing that baptism doesn’t save, then he is not acting as a successor of Peter.

How do you deal with popes of an earlier era teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation when today they are teaching what was quoted in post #249 which says you can be saved without being baptized.

That is, if the person knew the Truth of the Church and rejected it. It has also been taught that those through no fault of their own follow the law written on their hearts, to the best of their ability, may obtain salvation.

Which pope would be departing from the deposit of faith? The one who teaches baptism is necessary or the one who teaches it is not?

When a non-Catholic claims that he is “preserving the gospel message” and proclaiming that the Lord’s Supper is merely a symbolic ritual, then he is not acting as a successor of Peter.

We don’t know for certain if Peter taught that or if all first century Christians’ salvation depended on believing in the real presence of Christ. That was made clear much later on.

 

[ron77nyc]

I think you are misrepresenting the teaching here. Can you please give the exact doctrine as it was exactly stated?

post #250

 

[ron77nyc]

Non-Catholic do not preserve the Gospel message or they would be Catholic.

At some point, there was a facet of the Gospel that they did not preserve that is why there are not Catholic.

It wasn’t until I heard the gospel preached by protestant ministers that I understood that my salvation was a gift and not something I deserved for doing good deeds such as going to mass and confession and trying not to sin.

 

[guanophore]

ron77nyc:

From the beginning of the Church until the 20th century it was infallibly declared that everyone not subject to the Roman Pontiff could not have salvation. How could all popes be infallible when they do not all agree with this long held teaching?

Indeed, all who are members of the Church Militant are subject to the successor of Peter. He was charged with the care and feeding of the flock. This charge excluded none.

The fact that they are not aware he was appointed to care for them changes nothing.

ron77nyc:

Many non-Catholics preserve the gospel message and some do a better job of it. Are they also successors of Peter?

Not in the sense of ordained apostolic successors, no. But, all who cling to the One Faith entrusted to the Church benefit from Apostolic Succession. That succession is not limited to Peter, but is shared by all the Bishops of the world, and by extension, the priests, deacons, and priesthood of all believers.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

At some point here, can we stop pretending that all Protestants are stupid and that they make statements which they do not know the meaning of?

At some point, can you actually define your terms, posit your premises, and provide proof for your premises and come up with solid concluisons based on those premises? Instead of posting vague responses, resorting to appeals to emotion and baseless assertions? You keep insisting on us to provide “proof”, yet you give none but your own opinion and post is as if its “infallible” truth. Spare me.

pritchard85:

I’m growing really tired of your exclusive behavior.

This just smacks of desperation. I’ll address it in a second…

pritchard85:

That Scripture doesn’t prove Supremacy which all of the RCC titles of pope add up to.

1. I gave you multiple Scriptures.
   2)Answer this simple question: If Jesus, the Son of God, who the Father just chose by giveing Peter that revelation(Acts 15:7), gives Simon the name “Kepha”(rock), a name traditionally reserved for God alone, and gives this “Kepha” the “keys to the kingdom of heaven”(Isa 22:20-25), what does THAT suggest?

If Jesus-“the Rock”(1 Cor 10:4) calls this man “the rock”, what does that suggest? What is Jesus conferring on Peter?

pritchard85:

Now you are redirecting the argument. Nobody ever said that every waking thing that happened was included in Scripture.

Then your argument that the Papacy and all that it entails has to be taken directly and explicitly from the Bible is moot. It’s called a contradiction.

pritchard85:

This is a very old and overplayed argument that proves nothing.

Again, what is asserted without reason may be rejected without reason.

To me it proves another inconsistency, if not an outright contradiction, on your part. The dodge on your part is hardly unexpected.

pritchard85:

All Protestant?? Anglicans, Lutherans, Quakers, 7th Day Adventists? Everybody??

This is what I know. I have yet to meet a protestant who has shown me that they interpet the Bible without violating even the basic rules of hermeneutics. Instead of letting Scripture speak for itself, they ALWAYS tell you what Scripture says in their words, and give(or rather wrench) Scripture out of context to support their opinions. They created their own traditions or just adopt the opinions and traditions of others who created them. Yet nowhere do I find any of these traditions in the documents of the Christians either in the sub-apostolic generation, or ANY of the generations that followed.

But I’m also a fair guy. I’ll give you the same challenge that I have given other protestants. It’s simple. You prove to me that the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Christ and which existed from the day of Pentecost up to today, and prove to me that your “church” is, and I will convert to whatever denomination you are right now.

I’m dead serious. But if you don’t feel up to it, I understand.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

pritchard:

Nothing in Scripture proves papal infallibility. Peter was not infallible.

Now you are begging the question. How do you know?
pritchard:

I personally don’t care what you think. It’s irrelavent.

Thank you for proving my point for me.
pritchard:

You can’t prove a lick of it.

1. Again, what is asserted without reason may be rejected without reason.
2. Can’t prove a lick of what? That there was never an office of “queen mother”? That Mary wasn’t Jesus’ mother? That Jesus wasn’t a Davidic king? That bodily assumption is not Biblical? Or that Mary wasn’t assumed?
3. You haven’t been shown to be intellectually honest when it come to “proof”, so if I give it will it even be fruitful in this discussion(yes that might be a rhetorical question).

pritchard85:

I would watch what you say about Protestants. Some of us were Catholic for many years and were devout practicing Catholics who adhered to holy days of obligation, adoration, confession and didn’t miss a single Sunday mass for years on end. Watch who you proclaim to be ignorant.

No, I won’t. Because ignorance is why they left. They didn’t know what they had. You hate what you don’t understand. I love God, and I love His Church. I love His Church as he loves His Church, despite her failings. There is no other church but this one, there is no other faith but this Faith which the Church received from the apostles.

You accuse me of being “exclusivist”? So what? I am excluding truth from non-truth and fact from misinformation. I could feed you the same sunbjectivist BS of you being “exclusivist” or “intolerant” as I have heard from other protestants when they run out of good reasons to continue in thier obstinance. We are all “exclusivist”. We exclude that which we discover as false and include that which is true and good and beautiful.

What is obvious to me is that you know that your arguments have been shown to be full of vulnerabilities. Your arguments are merely regurgitations of what you have heard other professional anti-catholics argue. And you have been told by these people that Catholics neither read nor know the Bible. You have now encountered Catholics who not only know the Bible, but also know theology, philosophy, and history. And who have questions of their own. Questions you can’t-or won’t-answer.

Everything that you have said is nothing that I haven’t already heard a dozen times before in my short 4 years as a convert.

pritchard85:

Ultimately you will say that I could not believe anything about Scripture that wasn’t previously proclaimed as so by the magisterium. That’s not an equal authority in the RCC. Your three legged stool is short on one leg, that being Scripture. That is one of the biggest problems with Catholicism.

That makes no sense. I would no more argue with you by appealing to the Magisterium than I would argue with my atheist friends by appealing to the Bible.

You don’t believe in the Magisterium so why would I argue with their works? Just as you shouldn’t appeal to your subjective religious experiences as “proof” of protestantism. You don’t even believe in Peter’s primacy, so to appeal to the fruit of that revelation is pointless. (Even though you can see the “Magisterium” in action in Acts 15 in the Council of Jerusalem.)

You believe in the Bible, so I argue from the Bible. That’s the data we have. The difference is that I see the Church, you do not.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

This is a trenchant point and one I will provide a few examples for:

If I have heard a non-Catholic Christian say this once, I’ve heard him say it a dozen times: “scripture interprets itself”.

**Yet this is something found nowhere in the pages of the Bible. **

It is something that they heard their pastor or favorite missionary preach, and they believed it and in turn spread this non-Scriptural tradition…until it becomes a mantra in some non-Catholic circles.

Another is this mantra: doctrine must be supported by 2 or 3 Scripture verses.

Again, this is something found nowhere in the pages of the Bible.

It is something that they heard their pastor or favorite missionary preach, and they believed it and in turn spread this non-Scriptural tradition…until it becomes a mantra in some non-Catholic circles.

Finally, one oft quoted in objection to purgatory: they hear their preacher say, “Paul said that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.”

Yet, this is NOT FOUND IN ANY PAGES OF Scripture. They simply have taken the word of their pastor or favorite missionary, believed it and spread this non-Scriptural mantra.

(Heh. As I was doing a search for something else I found this thread which is a nice demo of the truth of my statement above:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6556567

It would behoove any non-Catholic Christian who quotes St. Paul to actually read what St. Paul says. 2 Cor 5:8)

Except when they* don’t* support it with Scripture
and simply repeat these oft-told, man-made, fallible, non-Scriptural tradition.

What I highlighted is also one of my favorites. As if quantity equals-or in this case is greater-than quality. That the Lord, when giving a command, needed to repeat it half-a-dozen times and then its true.

As if Him saying, “you must eat my flesh and drink my blood or you do not have life in you” for that last time would have suddenly flipped that switch in their head and they would suddeny believe in the Eucharist.

 

[benedictus2]

Oh, and one more: the oft repeated mantra that it’s okay to “disagree on non-essentials as long as Christians agree on essentials.”

This is something they heard their favorite preacher or missionary profess, yet there is not a single verse in the Bible that proclaims this, nor are there any verses that Scripture proclaims to be an essential verse vs a non-essential verse.

It is a man-made tradition that they’ve been duped into believing because they trusted and admired the fallible preacher who stood at the pulpit and proclaimed those non-Biblical witticisms.

A PR so true.

I was on a debate just recently with another Catholic who was insisting on this even to the point that the Eucharist is NOT essential. So not just other Christians say this but even Catholics - shock horror.

 

[benedictus2]

It wasn’t until I heard the gospel preached by protestant ministers that I understood that my salvation was a gift and not something I deserved for doing good deeds such as going to mass and confession and trying not to sin.

You have a very deficient understanding of salvation. I’ll dig up the post I made that highlights the difference and the flaw in the protestant belief.

 

[benedictus2]

It wasn’t until I heard the gospel preached by protestant ministers that I understood that my salvation was a gift and not something I deserved for doing good deeds such as going to mass and confession and trying not to sin.

Okay here is the follow up to my earlier post

I’ll repost here a summary of difference between Protestant and Catholic understanding of salvation which I did on another thread.

JUSTIFICATON
**
**Are we saved by Faith Alone (as per Protestants) or by Faith working in love (Catholics).

I think the sticking points here are on how we understand the following:

1.   What are we saved from?

2.   What are we saved for?

3.   How are we saved?

I will present first what I believe are the Protestant answers to these, show where the errors are and explain why the Catholic view is the correct one.

1) What are we saved from.

The obvious answer is sin. Both Luther and (and would assume Zwingli) believed in total depravity i.e. we are so totally vile and corrupt that we are not capable of even the tiniest movement towards the good.

It is very important to get a clear understanding of what we are being saved from since the how will also depend on this.

2) What are we saved for? Simple answer is heaven.

Protestants can correct me on this but I think they believe heaven is the place of bliss that you go to if you are lucky enough to be “saved”.

Just as important as getting the “saved from” aspect of salvation right, it is equally important to get this one right as well as this will matter a lot in determining the HOW.

**3)      So now we come to the How – How are we saved**

Protestants claim by Imputed Justification or Forensic Justification.

This is the idea that justification is imputed on the person, I.e. one is declared just on account of one’s faith in Christ. But, this doctrine also says that one is merely declared just while one actually remains a sinner.

To put this simply, it would be like saying that your clothes are clean even though they are still dirty.

God covers you with the righteousness of Christ and this righteousness is what He sees, though underneath you are still the same miserable sinner as before.

If we conceive of heaven as just a place where we are deposited after being plucked from the clutches of death on earth, then a forensic view of justification will suffice especially since being totally corrupt we are unable to cooperate in our own salvation.

PROBLEMS WITH THE FOREGOING VIEW.
The questions we need to ask are:

1.  are we really totally depraved,

2.  is justification really merely forensic and

3.  is heaven only a place to go to after death (just so you are not suffering the torment of hell).

Reality disproves the doctrine of total depravity. A quick tour of our friends, acquaintances and even people we don’t personally know show that there are many non-Christians who do good deeds and who love their neighbours. We know that not every single non-Christian is an out and out morally depraved person. They are capable of natural goodness.

Catholics believe that we are not totally depraved but that sanctifying grace has been snuffed out of us. An apologist compared this to a car without petrol as against the totally unrecognizable wreck that the reformers portrayed. Both cars are not going anywhere but they are in different states of immobility.

The second difference is in the concept of heaven. Catholics call this beatific vision. But beatific vision is not merely just beholding God face to face. It presupposes that we have the ability to behold God face to face. Since only the holy can behold God, then it presupposes that we been made holy. Since nothing unclean will enter heaven, ( and covered up sins are still sins), then what needs to be done is for sins to be completely removed. Like can only behold like and to see God we must be made Holy as He is.

As Fr Robert Barron put it, our goal in life is to become saints.
*
If our end is not merely a place called heaven but more a state of being divine, then the “how “ of salvation must be a process of becoming divine, of becoming holy as the Father is. It is the process of transformation into the image of Christ, the Father’s Son.* Therefore the how is not just a matter of us getting into heaven but of getting heaven into us (as Beckwith and Kreeft put it) .

This process of transformation into Christ’s image is the Catholic doctrine of deification or as the Orthodox put it – Theosis.

**Therefore a mere declaration that we are righteous is not enough. We have to become righteous. **

And this is where grace, faith and work come together. God first offers the grace and we respond to this grace. But here is where work comes in. We have to respond to this grace, and the response is love. Only love can answer Love. And love is WORK.

If we remain faithful and always respond with a yes, then we increasingly image Christ.

But even when we say no to God and thus sin, His grace is never far away for as St Paul says, where sin abounds, grace abounds even more.

(continued on next post)

 

[benedictus2]

• continuation of reply to Roy77nyc-

When we have been completely transformed into this image of Christ, then we can say we have reached heaven, we’ve become saints, we have finally become that, which we have been created for.

That is why the Catholic doctrine of purgatory is so important. Very few complete this process of divinization here on earth. The majority of us will die with some stain of sin left and whatever bit of leftover self-love must be purged away even after death to complete our transformation into the image of Christ who is totally sinless, totally holy.

Christ gave us the process by which this is done – faith to be sure; but indeed also work - for whatever is done to the least of His brethren is done to Him. A growth in humility is also important and this is classified more as work than as faith. Jesus said: learn of me for I am meek and humble of heart.

It must also be stressed that works is transformative. When we do good works, it changes us. The same when we do bad woks and thus sin. It changes us too.

Our choices make us and our choices are reflected in our works. Obedience (a positive choice for God) is works. Obedience is transformative and works in general is transformative. So too disobedence which transforms us negatively or more precisely disfigures us, corrupts us.

So where does the Church figure in all this?

The Church and her sacraments are the means by which God effects this transformation, for all the sacraments (most particularly the Eucharist) are the avenues of grace – that Divine Life of God in us. By these sacraments, Christ increases our faith, hope and our love (which is work) till in the end there is nothing but love.

At St Paul said in the oft quoted verse: Faith, Hope and Love, these three remain but the greatest of this is Love.

** And why?**

Because in heaven we will no longer need faith – that which we use to perceive only through faith we will then see clearly.

In heaven there is no need for hope – for that which we hoped for we have already attained.

But love? This indeed remain – for God is Love.

 

[PRmerger]

As if Him saying, “you must eat my flesh and drink my blood or you do not have life in you” for that last time would have suddenly flipped that switch in their head and they would suddeny believe in the Eucharist.

And the great irony in this is that the Scriptures devote an entire CHAPTER, not just 2 or 3 verses, to supporting this command. (Not to mention the multiple other verses in the Bible that support the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist.)

 

[PRmerger]

A PR so true.

I was on a debate just recently with another Catholic who was insisting on this even to the point that the Eucharist is NOT essential. So not just other Christians say this but even Catholics - shock horror.

Now, to be sure there are essentials–what the Catholic Church calls a “hierarchy of truths”, but for Protestants to claim that that all truth is found only in Scripture and also claim this essentials vs non-essentials is bemusing. For when they claim something is an essential it is NOT because the Scripture declares it to be, but because the Catholic Church declared it to be.

And methinks that the dogma of the Eucharist is an essential, despite what that Catholic poster may be proposing.

 

[PRmerger]

It wasn’t until I heard the gospel preached by protestant ministers that I understood that my salvation was a gift

You are under the misapprehension that Catholicism proclaims that our salvation is not a gift. Perhaps if you understood the teachings of your faith better you would not be so enamored with the teaching of Protestant ministers.

See this from the CCC:
It is not easy for man, wounded by sin, to maintain moral balance. **Christ’s gift of salvation **offers us the grace necessary to persevere in the pursuit of the virtues. Everyone should always ask for this grace of light and strength, frequent the sacraments, cooperate with the Holy Spirit, and follow his calls to love what is good and shun evil.

and not something I deserved for doing good deeds such as going to mass and confession and trying not to sin.

No Catholic teaching proposes that salvation is something we “deserve”. We do not preach that “doing good deeds such as going to Mass and confession” earn our salvation. Perhaps you have been listening to some uninformed Protestant preachers trying to tell you what the Catholic Church teaches? I suggest you actually learn what the Church proclaims first before providing expository on how the Church is wrong. It is good that you are here! You will learn much about what your Church actually proclaims!

 

[PRmerger]

How do you deal with popes of an earlier era teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation when today they are teaching what was quoted in post #249 which says you can be saved without being baptized.

No teaching was cited in post #249, ron. It was a poster’s own words.

Here is what the post said:

That is, if the person knew the Truth of the Church and rejected it. It has also been taught that those through no fault of their own follow the law written on their hearts, to the best of their ability, may obtain salvation.

So if you’d like to provide the Magisterial document which says that baptism is necessary for salvation, and then the Magisterial document which says that baptism is un-necessary for salvation, then we can chat!

Which pope would be departing from the deposit of faith? The one who teaches baptism is necessary or the one who teaches it is not?

Again, please stop listening to anti-Catholic rhetoric from Protestant preachers and actually go to the source. Please provide the pope who said that baptism is necessary. (Well, ok, it was St. Peter)

And now please provide the pope that says that baptism is un-necessary. And cite your source, please.