Proof that sola scriptura is not true

  • Thread starter Thread starter jennyhay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You started well, acknowledging that we need the Spirit, Truth, and God’s Grace, all of which we agree on.
But remember that the Sola Scriptura debate does not disagree on that point, it is Tradition and the Magesterium that are at issue. The “sufficiency” relates to those areas. One could well expand into other areas of sufficiency but they don’t address the issues at hand. It does seem that you have changed the definition of sufficiency during the discussion, moving the goal posts so to speak.
You then wandered into the fallacy of the notion that the RCC represents Jesus’ One Church, preventing us from falling into error by erroneous interpretation of Scripture.
Haha! Yes, they are many “tangents” we can go off on we need to stay on SS and scripture sufficiency.

So I ask everyone here again, where in scripture does it say explicitly or implicitly that the NT Scriptures alone is sufficient for salvation? We don’t need any other “god breathed things”…since you believe that “Some God-breathed things are sufficient”. Can a bible alone christian prove this using “deductive reasoning” and verses?
 
the good thing there, Protestant sola scriptura thingy is unbiblical…

until now, they can’t support it…I just summarized those issues into 8 so that it will be categorized and no one will be confused…hehehe

“Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine.” (2 Timothy 4:2)

👍
 
If by intercession you are meaning how that Jesus intercedes for us by His grace and creates a channel directly to the Father then the Saints don’t add to that at least in the way that I think you’re thinking of it.

The Saints are not additional barriers between us and the Father. Nor do they generate the divine graces that are Christ’s alone. Nor do they grant the gifts of the Spirit that are unique to The Holy Spirit.

The Saints pray for us and can be involved in spiritual lives just like our earthly brothers and sisters can. In the Catholic’s spiritual journey we gain the benefit of not only fellow Christians here on earth but those that are victorious in Heaven as well.
Thanks for that, but let me try this again, as I am obviously not explaining myself in an intelligible fashion.
What I was trying to understand is why one should pray to Mary, Mother of Jesus, to intercede on our behalf with God.
That is Catholic teaching is it not?
If not, I apologise for having it wrong, but I did think that I had read that one is to pray to Mary to intercede for us.
My question then is why?
Since Scripture clearly tells us that Jesus, seated at the right hand of The Father, is our intercessor, and the Holy Spirit intercedes on our behalf (Scripture passages quoted previously), I don’t see why I would go through an intermediary when I can speak with God directly?
Does God not listen to me, but Mary will?
If everyone on the planet, all 7 billion (is that the right number?) can pray to Mary and the Saints, that says that when we get to heaven, we are omnipresent.
I thought that only God was omnipresent, how did we get the theology that others have that Divine attribute also?
In passing, having raised the issue of Divine attributes, the Church also claims that Mary is omnipotent. That I find particularly intriguing. How many God attributes can one have and still not be God?
All very strange to this seeker after truth.
 
Thanks for that, but let me try this again, as I am obviously not explaining myself in an intelligible fashion.
What I was trying to understand is why one should pray to Mary, Mother of Jesus, to intercede on our behalf with God.
That is Catholic teaching is it not?
If not, I apologise for having it wrong, but I did think that I had read that one is to pray to Mary to intercede for us.
My question then is why?
Since Scripture clearly tells us that Jesus, seated at the right hand of The Father, is our intercessor, and the Holy Spirit intercedes on our behalf (Scripture passages quoted previously), I don’t see why I would go through an intermediary when I can speak with God directly?
Does God not listen to me, but Mary will?
If everyone on the planet, all 7 billion (is that the right number?) can pray to Mary and the Saints, that says that when we get to heaven, we are omnipresent.
I thought that only God was omnipresent, how did we get the theology that others have that Divine attribute also?
In passing, having raised the issue of Divine attributes, the Church also claims that Mary is omnipotent. That I find particularly intriguing. How many God attributes can one have and still not be God?
All very strange to this seeker after truth.
Mary intercedes… just like in the wedding of Cana… she just knew that the wine is gone… but she didn’t knew what to do… but to intercede and go to her Son to do something about it.You may think that having Mary understand and hear millions of people praying to her to intercede makes here “anywhere”

but just think about this logic:

Every prayer goes to heaven… regardless of the source in geographic location… it will always go to heaven…

and where is Mary? in heaven…

Just think about it…

“The eternal life given by God to those who died in his grace is not subjected to time.”

You’re just confused… needs lot of gentle catechism and understanding of the Catholic faith (emphasis on gentleness there)
 
Fruit of Luther’s testimony of the Holy Spirit → Greatest division within Christianity and much bloodshed.
 
The reason a sola scripturist (and I am not one) can say that he/she only needs certain parts of the Bible is because he/she has read and studied all parts of the Bible, and thus understands which parts are relevant to salvation directly, and which are for general guidance only.
Do they really truly understand? According to their own interpretation…Maybe, maybe not…they are fallible…so it is possible.
Do we need them all to understand? Now I’ll admit that I may be wrong here, but I don’t see that repetition as essential for understanding salvation, one recounting would be sufficient.
Repetition is needed if someone truly doesn’t understand salvation…or is having a hard time learning. Whether they are teaching themselves by reading scriptures or being a disciple of a teacher who “truly knows”.
Using Jesus own selection of Scripture, we could reasonably assume that these are the important bits, and maybe the other bits are useful but not essential. If I was a follower of Jesus with the Apostles, I would assume that it was what Jesus told me that was essential for salvation, not all the other stuff that was in Mosaic Law that He didn’t even talk about.
reasonably assume… as a bible christian you have no way of knowing…unless the SPIRIT reveals it to you one of these days…and gotta be careful…could be a false SPIRIT. But Jesus established his Church which is the “pillar of truth” which can also reveal and teach us the truth. And this is not a mystery like the Trinity…that is beyond all comprehension. By the way, the TRUTH without doubt is only the catholic dogmas (long list).
Thus, I conclude, and quite reasonably I think, and I would encourage you to demonstrate otherwise, that a study of ALL Scripture will reveal which parts are relevant to understanding the essentials of salvation, and which parts are just plain useful.
2nd Timothy: 15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

“the holy scriptures” here are the OT…“all of it” can instruct…notice it doesn’t say “all of it” will instruct. So all OT is not essential. Many protestants include the NT for these “holy scritptures”…fine, So all OT/NT scriptures are not essential.

So you need to demonstrate which is sufficient and insufficient …since you believe “Some God-breathed things are sufficient”

You need to determine from scripture “which parts are relevant to understanding the essentials of salvation, and which parts are just plain useful.”
Incidentally, can you demonstrate concrete examples of truths, not found in Scripture, but essential for salvation, and demonstrate their provenance as coming from Jesus, or the Holy Spirit?
Essential for salvation is “believing in Jesus”… And again, what does it mean to believe? Many things…and this is another thread…“Believing in Jesus…what is does it mean?”

Sacred Tradition doesn’t contradict scripture…according to Catholic interpretation. Jesus breathed upon the apostles and he gave his Church the advocate which will reveal all things

Jesus had much more to reveal the apostles but he know they could not bear them all…and these are the “things” that are not written. I know you mentioned that they are only miracles…but John leaves it open to anything…and that anything includes teachings/truths.

John14 : 26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

“Teach you all things”… Here the Holy Ghost is promised to the apostles and their successors, particularly, in order to teach them all truth, and to preserve them from error.
 
If you believe that sola scriptura must be inherently false because it divides God’'s people, then by the same logic, you must accept that the Catholic Church is inherently false - it was doing much to divide people long before the Reformation.
Go back through Church history and consider the Holy Roman Empire, the unfortunate behaviour of many Popes, and the Inquisition. All along the way, there have been people turning away from the Church, not over some theological point, but over the un-Christian behaviour of the Church of Rome. Sure, the Inquisition was a battle against heresies, but *the way *it was conducted turned many people away from the Church: they simply could not accept the authority of a Church that behaved in such a barbaric fashion for nearly three hundred years.
The Reformation was a schism caused by the behaviour of the Catholic Church. Certainly, one may argue that it went too far, but it is difficult to ignore the causes of the Reformation. Rome had an opportunity to reform, but it chose not to, so some Christians decided to go another way. Were they no longer God’s people because they disagreed with Rome, even though Rome was wrong and has subsequently recognised the error?
It is easy to look at the Catholic Church of today and declare on its unity, and pronounce all splits to be the cause of others, but history provides a different view.
In times past, the Roman Catholic Church has driven people away by its behaviour; in times present, it similarly drives people away by its very dubious appeal to Tradition when a theology clearly contradicts Scripture, and the Church provides a weak argument as to why it doesn’t.
So who is it that is doing the dividing?
So you want to revisit the Reformation ?? Let’s do so
After the Thiry Year war , that was fought , the Concordance allowed the ruling monarch to pick the Christian affiliation
for his people,He /she had 3 choices . the Roman Catholic faith,
the Lutherans or the Calvinists . There were clearly 2 protestant
churches at that time , now fast forward to the present day and time. There are 30,000 plus protestant churches and denominations and still one Catholic Church . This is the divisive result of sola scriptura.

Clearly the Holy Spirit does not inspire people to have 30,000
different versions of Scripture. How can one pick which one
among these churches is the true one . , which one is inspired by the Holy Spirit ? If there is only one inspired church among the multitude ,that has to mean that a majority of them are wrong and therefore might not lead their followers in the right path to salvation .

Sola scriptura has divided the people of God
since its introduction. It is a man-made priciple ,and as such it is
not perfect . How can it be used to interpret the words of God
who is a perfect Being.

May you and yours Have a very Merry Christmas .
 
Thanks for that, but let me try this again, as I am obviously not explaining myself in an intelligible fashion.
What I was trying to understand is why one should pray to Mary, Mother of Jesus, to intercede on our behalf with God.
That is Catholic teaching is it not?
If not, I apologise for having it wrong, but I did think that I had read that one is to pray to Mary to intercede for us.
My question then is why?
Since Scripture clearly tells us that Jesus, seated at the right hand of The Father, is our intercessor, and the Holy Spirit intercedes on our behalf (Scripture passages quoted previously), I don’t see why I would go through an intermediary when I can speak with God directly?
Does God not listen to me, but Mary will?
If everyone on the planet, all 7 billion (is that the right number?) can pray to Mary and the Saints, that says that when we get to heaven, we are omnipresent.
I thought that only God was omnipresent, how did we get the theology that others have that Divine attribute also?
In passing, having raised the issue of Divine attributes, the Church also claims that Mary is omnipotent. That I find particularly intriguing. How many God attributes can one have and still not be God?
All very strange to this seeker after truth.
OK, I think that you are misunderstanding Mary’s role here. I don’t say that as a bash, the entire principle of Communion of the Saints (which includes Mary) is a practice that Protestants stopped following so it would be alien to you.

First off I think it needs to be understood that one need not ever ask Mary (or any Saint) to intercede for them. It is simply an option. I got the impression from your post that you are under the idea that Catholics must pray to Mary in order for God to hear them. If I’m wrong please correct me. If that is correct then rest assurred no Catholic thinks that. Mary prays to her Son for us but that doesn’t stop us from praying to Him directly. Asking Mary to pray for us is in addition to asking Jesus ourselves.

Also just to clarify Mary possess no “powers” on her own. She like us is completely dependant on God. Nor is she the intercessor between God and man. That title is unique to Jesus. However, just like you can pray to Jesus so can she. It’s just that when you ask Mary to pray for you you gain the added benefit of the first and best Christian praying for you to.

Now you had mentioned that it seems odd to you that Mary can hear all those prayers. Since she is only a human then how can she do that? Well Abraham heard the Rich Man’s prayer. I think it is fair to say that the rules in the after life are not as linear as they are here.

As to the point? Well to be completely pragmatic there should be no point in you praying either much less have someone at your church prayer for you yet God wants you to.
 
flewen;3119438]Mary intercedes… just like in the wedding of Cana… she just knew that the wine is gone… but she didn’t knew what to do… but to intercede and go to her Son to do something about it.You may think that having Mary understand and hear millions of people praying to her to intercede makes here “anywhere”
but just think about this logic:
Where in Scripture is there any evidence for what you say here? None of the apostles ever taught such a thing and was totally unknown by the church for centuries.
flewen
Every prayer goes to heaven… regardless of the source in geographic location… it will always go to heaven…
Do pagan prayers reach heaven if prayed to their gods?
flewen
and where is Mary? in heaven…
Even if this were true it would not mean she could hear anything prayed her.
flewen
Just think about it…
“The eternal life given by God to those who died in his grace is not subjected to time.”
How do you know this to be the case?
flewen
You’re just confused… needs lot of gentle catechism and understanding of the Catholic faith (emphasis on gentleness there)
What you are asserting here is what happens when a person goes beyond what the scriptures teach. What you say may sound logical and reasonable but it has no basis in Scripture and was never taught by Christ or His apostles.
 
First off I think it needs to be understood that one need not ever ask Mary (or any Saint) to intercede for them. It is simply an option. I got the impression from your post that you are under the idea that Catholics must pray to Mary in order for God to hear them. If I’m wrong please correct me. If that is correct then rest assurred no Catholic thinks that. Mary prays to her Son for us but that doesn’t stop us from praying to Him directly. Asking Mary to pray for us is in addition to asking Jesus ourselves.
.
No, I do not think that one MUST pray to Mary, but the Catholic theology of Mary as Intercessor goes considerably beyond the general understanding of intercessory prayer, and I believe that it would misrepresent the Church’s position to say that asking Mary to pray for us is just like asking any other saint to pray for us. We could discuss this at length here, but perhaps to no avail.
There are numerous references, particularly from Pope John Paul, of Mary as Intercessor, whereas no other saint is spoken of in this way, certainly not to the same extent, if at all.
Mary is placed in a very special position, even to the extent of the Church calling her Co-Redemptrix.
The clear impression conveyed by this title is that Mary shared in the redemption of the world, shared in Christ’s sacrifice, participated in an act that only God could perform.
Acts 4:11-12 makes it very clear: “This is the stone which you, the builders, rejected but which has become the cornerstone. Only in him is there salvation; for of all the names in the world given to men, this is the only one by which we can be saved.” There is no room for misinterpretation here, no room for someone to share in redemption.
If the Church doesn’t really mean what the term conveys, why use the term in the full knowledge that it will create misunderstanding?
Similarly, the Church reasons that Mary was without sin, but this directly refutes Paul’s words in Romans 3:9,23, and other similar passages.
The Catholic Church has elevated Mary to the point where some now point to the Church as that of “Jesus and Mary”, rather than simply Jesus. I agree that this is a derisory term, and is not the Church’s intention.
However, the extent to which the Church, and particularly recent Popes like John Paul, have espoused and advanced the Marian doctrine has led many, both within and without, to see Mary as placed well above what can reasonably be interpreted from Scripture. Though again I acknowledge that the Church is against it, the zeal of the Church to elevate Mary above all other saints has led many Catholics into error, actually to the point of worshipping her.
There are many who pray more to Mary than directly to Jesus, whose prayer litany is almost entirely the rosary.
I often used to wonder why the priest in confession would assign numerous recitations of the rosary as penance, in apparent contradiction of Matthew 6:7.
How do I know this?
Though you think me a Protestant, I was in fact raised and schooled in the Catholic faith, my extended family is Catholic, and I am intimately aware of how they practice their faith.
If the Church has the wisdom it claims to have, it should know that the advocacy of Mary, the bestowing of some 50 titles, would inevitably lead to misunderstanding. A wise church would have handled it differently, but then again, maybe some Church leaders are deliberate in their attempt to have Mary placed where many erroneously see her.
Reading “The Glories of Mary” by St Alphonsus de Liguori, I am overwhelmed by where this theology has taken people.
So back to the original point.
Though your response conveys a conservative tone and perhaps your more accurate and temperate understanding of Mary, the frequent emphasis given by many within the Church conveys to most that Mary is more than just a mere saint, albeit the mother of Jesus as Man, she is the Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Remptrix, our Intercessor with God.
I’m sorry, of Mary Scripture says “Of all women you are the most blessed, and blessed is the fruit of your womb” (Luke 1:42). Beyond that, what the Catholic Church says of Mary is mostly read into Scripture, not derived from Scripture, and appeal to Tradition is unconvincing so far as I have been able to ascertain, with no prejudice or personal preference as to what to believe.
 
What about the communion of saints (including Mary) in God’s presence–the “assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven” and the “spirits of the just made perfect.” We can’t ignore them when we seek and approach God since they are with Him:
No, you have approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and countless angels in festal gathering, and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all, and the spirits of the just made perfect, and Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood that speaks more eloquently than that of Abel. Hebrews 12:22-24
 
So you want to revisit the Reformation ?? Let’s do so
After the Thiry Year war , that was fought , the Concordance allowed the ruling monarch to pick the Christian affiliation
for his people,He /she had 3 choices . the Roman Catholic faith,
the Lutherans or the Calvinists . There were clearly 2 protestant
churches at that time , now fast forward to the present day and time. There are 30,000 plus protestant churches and denominations and still one Catholic Church . This is the divisive result of sola scriptura.

Clearly the Holy Spirit does not inspire people to have 30,000
different versions of Scripture. How can one pick which one
among these churches is the true one . , which one is inspired by the Holy Spirit ? If there is only one inspired church among the multitude ,that has to mean that a majority of them are wrong and therefore might not lead their followers in the right path to salvation .

Sola scriptura has divided the people of God
since its introduction. It is a man-made priciple ,and as such it is
not perfect . How can it be used to interpret the words of God
who is a perfect Being.

May you and yours Have a very Merry Christmas .
All of which you say above can be accepted as true, I would not dispute that.
But none of the above refutes the point that it was the behaviour of the Catholic Church that caused the rebellion and split in the first place.
As to sola scriptura being a “man-made principle”, you could well be right, but there are many who believe that it is based on scripture, and there are just as many who believe that the Catholic Church as the one true, inspired Church of Jesus Christ is a “man-made principle” based on a false interpretation of scripture.
I have long studied the proof texts, the works of the early Church Fathers, the Catholic Catechism, all 1500 (or thereabouts) canon laws, read the heresies of the various sects, both Catholic and secular histories of the Papacy, have prayed much on the subject, and have come more and more to an understanding that the church that Jesus founded is simply the community of people who believe on Him, as error prone as they may be. That they may misinterpret His Word, form their own sects, lead others into error, these are all things for which they will answer in the final judgement, but He gives us all we need for salvation through His Word, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and our conscience. We need only place our faith in Him entirely, trusting in Him completely, loving God with all our heart, mind, and strength, and our lives will be transformed. If the transformation does not happen, maybe we haven’t submitted to Him to the extent that we think we have.
Though many reason that Jesus MUST have established a secular process and mechanism here on earth whereby His Truth can be guarded and His people guided, protected from error, the more I study the complete history of His Word in the OT and NT, the more I am convinced that it is not so.
Likewise, the more I study the history of the various Churches, of all denominations, and the more I ponder their behaviours, the more I come to the belief that the biggest error we can make is to place our faith in such organizations instead of in Jesus Christ directly.
Many will ask, how can I know I am not misinterpreting Scripture, how can I know that I am being guided by the Holy Spirit, how can I know that I am not terribly wrong and jeopardising my own salvation?
The only answer I can give is the love of God, prayer, faith, acceptance of Jesus Christ and His Promises, complete submission to His Will, and the direction that there is only one name under heaven by which we are saved, Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus said simply, “Come”.
That is what I am attempting to do, rejecting anything which conflicts with His Word as conveyed by Scripture. Anything which is not in Scripture but which does not conflict with it, I am prepared to accept if its provenance can reasonably be proven. Anything which I am not sure of, I resort to a general understanding of Romans 14:23 “But anyone who eats with qualms of conscience is condemned, because this eating does not spring from faith - and every action which does not spring from faith is sin”.
 
The only one that caused the split in the first place was Satan!

No matter what any individual in the Catholic Church did that might have been wrong it does not mean that Jesus’ catholic church was wrong and that it should be abandoned.

Judas was picked by Jesus himself to be one of his disciples and Judas’ behavior does not invalidate Jesus.

Why should the behavior of any in the Catholic Church invalidate His church?
 
***Hi, Nick Jones!

Firstly, I personally do not know the exact number of Christian denominations in existence (I use the number quoted by various sources including online groups.); and, I have not visited many of the ones known to me.

Secondly, my experience is based on both local (reginal: NY, NJ, DL) and online Bible groups:
  • One group suggested that if I did not speak in tongues I was lacking in faith and understanding.
  • Another group insisted that I be healed (both temporal and spiritual healing) and if there would be no healing my faith was lacking and I was a mere infant in understanding.
  • One more group schooled me in the “once saved” doctrine–here only those who are of the world (a person that has not accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior) have to account for their sins; the “always saved” can go on with their choices in life because Jesus has taken care of their past, present and future sins once an for all.
  • Yet another group invited me in taking part of a baptism–since the Catholic Church is not Christian my baptism was void; they reason that an infant cannot choose to be saved so infant baptism is taboo.
  • A member of yet one other group informed an acquaintance that he had a devil in him–apparently, since he refused to join their church, and theirs is the one true church of Christ, he could only be resisting because of some evil possession.
  • And this one other group was convinced that the Catholic Church was leading me to hell and that through their intervention I could be saved; all I needed to do was read their prayer where I beg Jesus to save me and ask him to take full control of my life as I was now ready to come to His church.
  • There are several other experiences as the ones above… additionally, I have come to know the view of several non-Catholic Christians from online exchanges in various Bible sites. They agree in some things but they differ in at least as many points as they agree upon: Salvation, Baptism; Eucharist; keeping the Sabbath or the Day of the Lord; tithing; phisical church (building vs. interfaith gatherings, etc.); celebrating Christmas or not; number of Sacraments; and so many diverse Biblical interpretations (including: being permissible or not to commit suicide; female pastors; wealth as a true sign of being in the Lord; health as an indication of being saved–sin being the cause of ailment; mixed marriages–Christian and non-Christians; contraception; pornography; masturbation; homosexuality, etc. There are major discrepancies when it comes to what constitutes humility, arrogance, debasement, intellectualism, egocentrism, liberalism, superiority, the almost invisible: racism, etc.–all within the Christian scope of civil exchange in love and understanding.
Granted, my experience is mostly at an individual level and since I am Catholic I really do not seek to know the exact differences between Protestants, Lutherans, Baptists, Anglicans, Non-denomenationalists, etc. I can only speak to you from my direct experience with the many people that have represented their denominational church. It is from that experience that I have made my statements.

If anyone feels that I have ill-represented their particular denomination, I apologize. But I cannot but reiterate: my understanding has been gained from the exchanges (live and online) with non-Catholic Christians.

Maran atha!

Angel***
You wisely avoided the church whose members handle poisonous snakes during worship because the Bible " instructs" them to do so.
 
The only one that caused the split in the first place was Satan!

No matter what any individual in the Catholic Church did that might have been wrong it does not mean that Jesus’ catholic church was wrong and that it should be abandoned.
Let us accept that we can ignore the wrongful acts of individuals, I still don’t see how that correlates with systemic wrongs by a succession of Popes over many centuries. An error by one Pope, ok I can ignore that, even the same error by two Popes, or even two successive Popes, but dozens ???
Judas was picked by Jesus himself to be one of his disciples and Judas’ behavior does not invalidate Jesus.
Why should the behavior of any in the Catholic Church invalidate His church?
I have never contended that behaviour of any individuals invalidates the Church, but the systemic behaviour of the leaders of the Church, i.e. the Popes, and their published un-Christian policies.
There is a difference, and I don’t understand why you don’t understand that.
 
And I don’t understand how you can not tell the difference between any individual immoral act that any pope might do and the teaching of the catholic Chjurch which no pope has ever contradicted.

Just because you don’t believe the teaching of the catholic church and don’t want to accept it does not mean that it has been inconsistent or wrong or that satan would have prevailed.

He hasn’t!
 
I’m a late-comer to this party, but hat’s off to Jenny! :tiphat:
 
That they may misinterpret His Word, form their own sects, lead others into error, these are all things for which they will answer in the final judgement, but He gives us all we need for salvation through His Word, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and our conscience. We need only place our faith in Him entirely, trusting in Him completely, loving God with all our heart, mind, and strength, and our lives will be transformed.
Question: Is the final judgment a simple process of identifying whether or not a person was a “faithful” Christian or not regardless of their different and sometimes horribly incorrect doctrinal beliefs?
 
And I don’t understand how you can not tell the difference between any individual immoral act that any pope might do and the teaching of the catholic Chjurch which no pope has ever contradicted.
The Popes taught hatred of the Jews - that is directly contrary to Jesus’ commandment to love one another, which the Church also teaches, thus the Pope contradicted Church teachings.

The Popes allowed and supported the torture and murder of heretics, again contrary to the teachings to love one another. While they may not have specifically taught this as a doctrine, their practice can reasonably be accepted as “teachings”, just as Jesus’ practices are interpreted as teachings, there is no difference in reality, only semantics.
 
Question: Is the final judgment a simple process of identifying whether or not a person was a “faithful” Christian or not regardless of their different and sometimes horribly incorrect doctrinal beliefs?
I don’t know, you will have to ask God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top