Peter as the Rock

[PRmerger]

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.

Not sure what you’re proposing here, ron. It seems to be a non-sequitur, but if you could expound that would be great.

 

[ron77nyc]

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.

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 knew someone get on the “not by faith alone” argument. I am not a Lutheran and I do not believe in faith alone.

 

[ron77nyc]

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

Here is what the post said:

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!

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
Lumen Gentium
.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

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.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
Lumen Gentium
.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

The above says God can save the unbaptized. This is a new teaching.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that **those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament. **
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Compare the above to the following. Not the same message.
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

 

[ron77nyc]

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.

Not sure what you’re proposing here, ron. It seems to be a non-sequitur, but if you could expound that would be great.

The Church added requirements for salvation that Peter never taught. The message of the apostles was believe and be baptized. Other requirements for salvation were added later on such as believing in the real presence and believing in the assumption. No one accused the 1st century Christians of cannibalism. That came later which means it was not an issue with Peter.

I just had a thought. We should not be eating the flesh of Christ on a holy day when abstaining from meat is required.

Hesychios made a good point: “your church has distanced itself further and further from the church of the Fathers, the Apostolic churches, raising new obstacles to church unity where there should be none.”

 

[benedictus2]

I knew someone get on the “not by faith alone” argument. I am not a Lutheran and I do not believe in faith alone.

I think you completely missed the whole point of that 2 post reply.

You said that you only found out that salvation is a gift and we are not saved by works.

I showed in that post why we are indeed “saved by work”. I suggest you re-read it because it clears up the misconception on importance of works in salvaiton.

Work is transformative and salvation consists of our transformation.

 

[uydguy]

God! Do some much! God bless you! 351100.tk/38

 

[ron77nyc]

I believe in the real presence of Christ so that’s not a problem. I don’t know too much about the Orthodox but if they claim to be infallible and the pillar and bulwark of truth and then change their teachings then that’s a problem.
Do you think we could stick to the subject matter? I’m bringing up these issues to show the differences in teachings from different times in church history.

 

[ron77nyc]

I think you completely missed the whole point of that 2 post reply.

You said that you only found out that salvation is a gift and we are not saved by works.

I showed in that post why we are indeed “saved by work”. I suggest you re-read it because it clears up the misconception on importance of works in salvaiton.

Work is transformative and salvation consists of our transformation.

You are actually confirming that we are saved by work when the apostles did not teach that.

Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.

2 Timothy 1:9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life–not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,

 

[benedictus2]

You are actually confirming that we are saved by work when the apostles did not teach that.

Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.

2 Timothy 1:9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life–not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,

Did you even read what I wrote and did you understand it?

If you want me to quote Bible passages I can do that. And it all comes from the mouth of Jesus himself.

But what I am trying to do is explain why work is salvific, why Jesus said whatever you did to the least of My brethren you do to me, and why He said it is not those who call him Lord, Lord who will enter the Kingdom. It all has to do with theosis and how we understand heaven. Heaven is not just a place that you get to when you are “saved”.

Catholic theology is so much more robust, coherennt and intelligent than protestant theology - more than what you make it to be.

You say you are Catholic but your understanding is very protestant. Even the way you converse is very protestant. You quote from the epistles but you don’t mention the gospels.

Please read my two part post and then comment. What is the point of engaging in a conversation if you are not prepared to listen to what the other has to say?

 

[ron77nyc]

Did you even read what I wrote and did you understand it?

Yes I read everything you wrote. Our works play an important part in our sanctification.

If you want me to quote Bible passages I can do that. And it all comes from the mouth of Jesus himself.

Not necessary-----I know the words of Jesus.

But what I am trying to do is explain why work is salvific, why Jesus said whatever you did to the least of My brethren you do to me, and why He said it is not those who call him Lord, Lord who will enter the Kingdom. It all has to do with theosis and how we understand heaven. Heaven is not just a place that you get to when you are “saved”.

Catholic theology is so much more robust, coherennt and intelligent than protestant theology - more than what you make it to be.
You say you are Catholic but your understanding is very protestant. Even the way you converse is very protestant. You quote from the epistles but you don’t mention the gospels.
Please read my two part post and then comment. What is the point of engaging in a conversation if you are not prepared to listen to what the other has to say?

This is not the thread for faith vs works, Catholic vs Protestant, Luther vs the pope or any of that stuff. I’m following forum rules by trying to give concise questions and answers without getting into pages of detail. I know and understand everything you are saying and I appreciate your concern for my full understanding of the plan of salvation.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

I often hear Protestanta speak of the gospel. Tell me what you heard the gospel message to be that you heard that caused you understand.

 

[vsedriver]

Originally Posted by vsedriver View Post
If you guys don’t know that a counsel has put itself in judgement of the orthodoxy of popes, then you are the ones that need to read more history.

I have to wonder what you mean by this.

oops, that was Bluegoat’s original statement. Not mine. I failed to quote properly.

 

[vsedriver]

There seems to be no good and reasonable platform for the RCC to wish for unity with others. It seems only interested in division in its further exclusion. This is one of the main reasons I left 8 years ago.

then why aren’t you orthodox?

 

[CopticChristian]

The theory of ‘development of doctrine’ is a nineteenth century rationalization (and an admission really) for the fact that Roman Catholic doctrine has been added to in the last ten centuries, as if that has been necessary.

That is not ‘development’, it is more like ‘accumulation’ of doctrine. The church has no business doing that. Stick with the original deposit of Apostolic Faith and leave the ‘opinions’ out of dogma, and stop making new doctrines out of ideas that the Apostolic churches have never known to be doctrines.

It weakens the general credibility of the church in the public mind, divides Christians for no good purpose and abets the critical rejection of Christianity by modern sceptics.

We can see at least two new ones coming down the pike, and no one knows how many more you guys will declare in time. Your particular church couldn’t do that in the first millennium, because the bishop of Rome [indeed, no individual bishop anywhere, not even the real saint Peter]did not have such authority to proclaim dogmas in the first 18 centuries, and the western churches couldn’t dominate the Councils in the first ten.

I realize that you have no choice but to defend it, it is your church and you want it to be perceived in as good a light as possible. But it’s still wrong, and over the last few centuries your church has distanced itself further and further from the church of the Fathers, the Apostolic churches, raising new obstacles to church unity where there should be none.

You make it much harder for us to restore communion with you, for no good reason. It fills us with sorrow.

Then you have not heard of Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century.

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/1048/Development_of_Doctrine_Vincent_of_Lerins.html

 

[ron77nyc]

I often hear Protestanta speak of the gospel. Tell me what you heard the gospel message to be that you heard that caused you understand.

It was learning about the life of Paul. He was trying to please God by following everything the Jewish religion taught him and he did it perfectly but it didn’t please God. Read any epistle by Paul and that theme is in it repeatedly.

It was learning about the role of Jesus in our salvation and his commitment to not lose any that the Father gave him.

 

[CopticChristian]

It was learning about the life of Paul. He was trying to please God by following everything the Jewish religion taught him and he did it perfectly but it didn’t please God. Read any epistle by Paul and that theme is in it repeatedly.

It was learning about the role of Jesus in our salvation and his commitment to not lose any that the Father gave him.

I suppose that is an answer. I often hear this.

Convict them of their sin.
Convict them the Christ died for their sin.
Have them hear the word.
Faith comes by hearing.
Confess and be saved.

I understand what you are saying. I learned about the life of Paul in the Catholic Church. I learned about the role of Jesus in our salvation. I don’t understand that you did not hear what I heard in the Catholic Church. You say you heard that from Protestants.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by pritchard85
There seems to be no good and reasonable platform for the RCC to wish for unity with others. It seems only interested in division in its further exclusion. This is one of the main reasons I left 8 years ago.

Then you had a false faith base on something else other than Jesus. The CC has always had problems and always will. And why? Because Jesus founded His church for sinners,not perfectionist. And the fact that you left also adds to problem because you do not help the situation by simply picking up and leaving Dodge City.

 

[RTully]

In reading the New Testement it seems painfully clear that we are saved by faith in Christ. However if you want some victory and peace in this life, you better have works to go with it. However I highly doubt any with true faith don’t also have works. They complement each other.

 

[ron77nyc]

I understand what you are saying. I learned about the life of Paul in the Catholic Church. I learned about the role of Jesus in our salvation. I don’t understand that you did not hear what I heard in the Catholic Church. You say you heard that from Protestants.

It could be a difference in our age. I am 59 and I was in high school in the 1960’s. Catholic education was much different then.

 

[PRmerger]

It could be a difference in our age. I am 59 and I was in high school in the 1960’s. Catholic education was much different then.

Yes, the CC has done a dismal job in the past providing nourishing catechesis for her flock.

Thankfully, this is changing.