Protestants spend more time in Purgatory than Catholics

[Mickey]

I like that expression!

I stole it from Fr Ambrose.

 

[JonNC]

Christ also calls us to separate from false teaching. Since we believe Rome teaches false doctrine on any number of points, we must separate.

Separated, yes. But not isolated. Do you think we as confessional Lutherans are doing our part to bring unity?
Jon

 

[sola_scriptura]

I am not a huge fan of Hahn, but I would say that there is much to be gleaned by the early Church Fathers. There is something to be said for being taught by the Apostles (or disciples of the Apostles). Certainly I would put much more stock in the writngs and interpretations of these early Church Fathers than someone–say–like Calvin–who came along 1500 years later and re-interprets many things.

The deepest wells have the clearest water.

You know I love to read the early church fathers (I’m in the process of reading Ignatius’ work now – who we know was anointed by Peter as the bishop of Antioch). However, as much as I respect these early fathers I also respect the evolution of theology.

Take for instance Augustine. I might not agree with him 100% but by any account he was a brilliant theologian. Most of the time when I hear people denigrate John Calvin it’s because they’ve never read his institutes.

The popular view is that Calvin has mankind as puppets on a string & we’re moved by God like robots. This is simply not true.

The first thing Calvin noted was our depravity. In order to understand we require God to save us – we have to believe not only in God but also that we need saving. Then Calvin simply acknowledged what Augustine acknowledged – God predestined an elect in Christ before the foundation of the world, which is explained in numerous verses by all the Apostles and Christ.

Then Calvin, remaining in harmony with Augustine and the overwhelming preponderance of scripture, noted that we are saved by grace. Not only is God the initiator of our faith but He is also the perfecter of our faith. However, many think we (Calvinists) believe man should walk around entranced waiting for the next divine instruction to do anything at all – which is preposterous.

What we believe is simple. When one is in faith then their desires are given to him or her by God. Certainly we will continue to be tempted. However, grace also gives us the ability to distinguish good from bad. As long as we remain intimately connected to God we can walk through the valley of the shadow of death and fear no evil.

Let me try to provide a practical example. Assume one is a faithful Christian of a denomination that at least accepts the basic truths, which all Christians universally agree with. He is devout. Attends church on Sunday’s, prays daily, studies scripture. and always views life through the prism of his faith – in other words always hoping to glorify God with anything he does (though he is less than perfect). Now assume he really wants to find a new job or start a business. He wants to take some risks with his career that may be unsettling to even his family. He wants to earn more money so he can really bear fruit. Perhaps he has a dream of starting a homeless shelter in his home town, or a workshop to teach the poor or homeless how to become more marketable to employers.

He can know that God is driving his train of thought. In other words all of our good dreams and aspirations are given by God, all of our lusts and anger come from the devil. By grace we know the difference and we can boldly pursue our good dreams.

When many people read verses like walk through the valley of the shadow of death there is a mixed reaction. Some think we’re supposed to stay in the valley of the shadow of death – when God only said walk through it (He just wants us to know He will be their with us – helping get through the valley if we’re in faith). Others ignore the passage altogether because they have absolutely no understanding of Christianity. They attend church because their parents attended that church, or they just had kids so they bring their kids to church thinking it might make them better people. Others might attend church out of sheer ethnic loyalty (probably the worse reason I can think of).

Although I came to see through the fog and acquire what I view is a deeper understanding of grace, I still hold some mores of my old Methodist persuasion. For example, Methodists actually preach modesty in apparel. I’ve been in some (non-Methodist) churches where the congregation comes in with gaudy gold chains, gold watches, where Sunday worship is more like a fashion show. People judge each other according to their worldly material wealth. They define good as the world defines good, which has nothing in common with the life and words of our Savior.

Some might say that we should wear our “Sunday” finest when going to church. The only way God would care about such things is if we took that golden watch or gaudy gold chain and donated it to the poor. He would even be more pleased if we did this anonymously.

Anyway … I’ll stop blabbering

 

[Mickey]

You know I love to read the early church fathers (I’m in the process of reading Ignatius’ work now – who we know was anointed by Peter as the bishop of Antioch). However, as much as I respect these early fathers I also respect the evolution of theology.

Interesting. When the Roman Catholics try to set forth their theory of “development of doctrine” (or evolution of theology as you call it), the Orthodox usually see it as innovation.

Take for instance Augustine. I might not agree with him 100% but by any account he was a brilliant theologian. Most of the time when I hear people denigrate John Calvin it’s because they’ve never read his institutes.

I think some people denigrate Calvin because he took many of Augustine’s ideas to extreme places.

The popular view is that Calvin has mankind as puppets on a string & we’re moved by God like robots. This is simply not true.

Calvin was disobedient, but he was a brilliant man. I can understand why people thought he turned humanity into mindless puppets–I think he is misunderstood. But I also disagree with much of his work.

He can know that God is driving his train of thought. In other words all of our good dreams and aspirations are given by God, all of our lusts and anger come from the devil. By grace we know the difference and we can boldly pursue our good dreams.

If Calvin had stopped there, then much fighting and violence could have been avoided.

Others ignore the passage altogether because they have absolutely no understanding of Christianity. They attend church because their parents attended that church, or they just had kids so they bring their kids to church thinking it might make them better people. Others might attend church out of sheer ethnic loyalty (probably the worse reason I can think of).

It is not your place to judge the reasons why people go to Church. God has a plan for them.

Some might say that we should wear our “Sunday” finest when going to church. The only way God would care about such things is if we took that golden watch or gaudy gold chain and donated it to the poor. He would even be more pleased if we did this anonymously.

I am always so moved when I see an elderly woman with a babushka covering her head dressed in peasant clothes (dress to the ankles) deep in prayer. You can feel her prayers!

 

[sola_scriptura]

Interesting. When the Roman Catholics try to set forth their theory of “development of doctrine” (or evolution of theology as you call it), the Orthodox usually see it as innovation.

The fact is the evolution of theology is inevitable. Not that God changes, but we change. We learn more about the universe, we’ve discovered new never before seen ancient documents, our understanding of our own biology and psychology evolves, our own sense of liberty, justice, and equality has evolved (light years), we have space stations, satellites exploring the stretches of our solar system, super-colliders, quantum mechanics, string theory, nano-technology, and the list goes on. We can look back at history and see patterns that have developed, so I think it’s a mistake to think we cannot learn new things about God as we learn more about His creation. In fact it’s almost absurd to think otherwise.

I think some people denigrate Calvin because he took many of Augustine’s ideas to extreme places.
Calvin was disobedient, but he was a brilliant man. I can understand why people thought he turned humanity into mindless puppets–I think he is misunderstood. But I also disagree with much of his work.

I wouldn’t necessarily fault Calvin for disobedience. One mans rebel is another mans freedom fighter. George Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and Franklin were all disobedient – now we call them hero’s.

If Calvin had stopped there, then much fighting and violence could have been avoided.

Calvin wasn’t really responsible for much fighting or violence – except the Servitus controversy, but even in that case Calvin merely had a heretic arrested who was already convicted and sentenced to death by the Catholic inquisition – he even asked the Geneva council for a less harsh sentence, however, Calvin never held a political position & wielded no authority over the council – they denied his request and burned Servitus at the stake – ugly yes, but the Catholics had the same fate waiting for him, just a different bundle of wood to burn him with.

It is not your place to judge the reasons why people go to Church. God has a plan for them.

God even has a plan for the devil – so that in itself doesn’t help them much. I agree we cannot reach in the minds of others and discern their motives – but we can rebuke poor practices.

We are to reproof in love always – but reproof we must. Therefore, I stand by my statements.

I am always so moved when I see an elderly woman with a babushka covering her head dressed in peasant clothes (dress to the ankles) deep in prayer. You can feel her prayers!

 

[Mickey]

The fact is the evolution of theology is inevitable. Not that God changes, but we change.

We seem to fall further and further into secular humanism and relativism as time goes by—this does not change what God revealed to us in the early Christian Church.

so I think it’s a mistake to think we cannot learn new things about God as we learn more about His creation. In fact it’s almost absurd to think otherwise.

I am certain that the new agers will agree 100%.

I wouldn’t necessarily fault Calvin for disobedience. One mans rebel is another mans freedom fighter. George Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and Franklin were all disobedient – now we call them hero’s.

They were secular heros. Calvin came along and tried to proclaim that many of his theological understandings were more correct than the Church had been teaching for more than one thousand years. It does not wash with me. Sorry.

Calvin wasn’t really responsible for much fighting or violence –

I will not debate regarding any violence or murder Calvin’s teachings or actions may or may not have been responsible for–it is a useless excercise.

We are to reproof in love always – but reproof we must.

Love is the operative word. Sometimes rebuking someone’s “poor practices” will turn them away. Speak gently with care and love and all charity. God will do the rest.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I am not a huge fan of Hahn, but I would say that there is much to be gleaned by the early Church Fathers. There is something to be said for being taught by the Apostles (or disciples of the Apostles). Certainly I would put much more stock in the writngs and interpretations of these early Church Fathers than someone–say–like Calvin–who came along 1500 years later and re-interprets many things.

The deepest wells have the clearest water.

I’m not sure I agree with the deepest well maxim in this context

However, I do have a high level of respect for the Orthodox Church. As far as I know you guys have not adopted the immaculate conception as doctrine (I could be wrong but I thought I read this somewhere). At any rate I also think many people confuse the maturity of Greek society as a reason to take a more favorable view toward Orthodox theology – which is fallacious. I will say there’s far less I disagree with the EOC on as compared to the RCC – but I do think Calvin did an excellent job with predestination and perseverance.

That being said I also think he failed to leave open certain possibilities that are hinted at in scripture – and he was too ready to toss the reprobate in hell.

This is shrouded in mystery. The concept of hell is ambiguous. At one point Jesus states unbelievers will be destroyed; and in many other verses the Apostles state there will be eternal torment for the reprobate.

The meaning of the word eternal in Greek is also a matter of debate. It means age or ages. It was also used to say eternal – but apparently not always. Moreover, Revelation 20 and certain other verses (i.e. God wants all men to be saved and come to knowledge of the truth, Jesus is the Savior of all men – especially those who believe, all knees will bow, etc.) have a universalist twist.

What we can know is that the elect are special to God. For instance we will be resurrected first (which I believe means brought back from heaven into a new – sort of ambiguous super-human state, perhaps analogous to the form of angels) and we will co-rule with Christ and the other saints before us.

There is rank in heaven (it’s not a communist utopia ). Jesus and God are at the head, then the Apostles, martyrs and great saints, and all the elect (those saved in Christ). This is the short explanation anyway. The ultimate kingdom is a two state process (as N.T. Wright discusses in “Surprised by Hope”). First we go to the first heaven (the one that exists now). Then there will be a millennial kingdom, the New Jerusalem will come down from heaven, forming a new heaven and new earth.

It is very ambiguous though. Might it be after the resurrection of all people that all are given another chance at Christ?

This is why I take the passage that tells us we should pray for all people because God wants to save them all – seriously. I think God had His reasons for shrouding these questions in mystery. However, when it becomes clear to me that something is a divine mystery, I take Paul’s advice and do not endeavor to read the mind of God. He tells us pray for all to come to Christ so that’s what I do.

The value of Calvin to me is really in the area of perseverance of the saints. It is here where I find Calvin more persuasive than most (if not all) other theologians.

However, unconditional election, irresistible grace, and total depravity all form the foundation for perseverance, so I also strongly agree with them. With regard to limited atonement, I would consider myself a four point Calvinist (not a “hyper-Calvinist”) so I agree when scripture states Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the world He is the propitiation for the sins of the world. It seems God will do this in a two stage process.

Remember our calling and election were done by God for His purposes. So there is no reason to view this in terms of divine justice or a lack thereof. I will never dispute the fact that the negative component of Calvin’s predestination theory was harsh & failed to consider other more subtle hints in Scripture at something else.

However, Calvin was not alone in this area. This reflects an overall lack of understanding of the ultimate kingdom among our medieval and ancient predecessors (Catholics of all stripes and Protestants included). They failed to understand reconciliation of all things to God is a two stage process. Again, N.T. Wright does an excellent job with this topic. Most people think we die and go to heaven and that’s the end of it – but that’s not right. We do die, go to heaven, and come back. Those who do not die in Christ go elsewhere, but that’s more ambiguous. However, even they come back. We are judged by Christ. In other words if we endure to the end we will circumvent the judgment of mankind generally. We will never be put to shame (there is no purgatory or anything like that in store for us). We are completely washed by Christ in other ways; but not in a bad way.

Ultimately if God wants to save everyone He will. He tells us to pray for that and I do. That’s pretty much all I need to know.

 

[Mickey]

I’m not sure I agree with the deepest well maxim in this context

Man, your posts are long. I’ll bet you were good at writing research papers in school.

As far as I know you guys have not adopted the immaculate conception as doctrine

Correct. And we also do not accept the Roman Catholic doctrines of purgatory and papal infallibility/supremacy. Our understanding of original sin is also not in line with the RCC.
Also you may have heard of that little controversy called the Filioque.

and he was too ready to toss the reprobate in hell.

Yes. That always disturbed me.

The meaning of the word eternal in Greek is also a matter of debate. It means age or ages.

Now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

I take the passage that tells us we should pray for all people because God wants to save them all – seriously.

Amen, brother.

I think God had His reasons for shrouding these questions in mystery. However, when it becomes clear to me that something is a divine mystery, I take Paul’s advice and do not endeavor to read the mind of God. He tells us pray for all to come to Christ so that’s what I do.

Amen, brother.

Ultimately if God wants to save everyone He will. He tells us to pray for that and I do. That’s pretty much all I need to know.

Amen, amen, amen.

 

[sola_scriptura]

We seem to fall further and further into secular humanism and relativism as time goes by—this does not change what God revealed to us in the early Christian Church.

I am certain that the new agers will agree 100%.

I tread this area carefully – because I absolutely agree with you that the idea that theology can evolve is abused often and violently. For instance, gay marriage, anointing gay clergy, no fault divorce, etc. are aberrations before God.

However, God will always ensure His elect live by right understanding of truth. God doesn’t download His entire mind into ours, however, we can discern outright heresy when we see it. Some other changes occur more slowly and are more subtle and harder to discern, but outright heresy like changing the definition of what is clearly sinful will be rebuked by all who are truly in Christ.

Dealing with homosexuality is a tough topic I admit. Thankfully I’ve never been so inclined so I haven’t ever focused much on this issue – until the day the Episcopalian Church decided to make a homosexual minister a bishop (before then I didn’t even realize they knowingly had a gay minister).

The argument is that homosexuality is partly due to biology. However, overall I don’t find the nature versus nurture argument completely persuasive (I remember a case in law school dealing with this issue – so I know a little about it). I think it’s a combination of both. That being said – we know addiction may very well a biological component, however, no one will argue it’s a good idea to allow addiction to go unabated. The argument with regard to homosexuals is that it’s not harmful to society at large, which in a secular context is true. However, it’s only not harmful to those who don’t consider God into the equation. I for one am happy enough with secular governments allowing us the freedom of worship; I don’t think it’s up to the state to do our job for us (in other words to legislate morality). However, when a church anoints gay clergy that is clearly an aberration & a different question all together.

They were secular heros. Calvin came along and tried to proclaim that many of his theological understandings were more correct than the Church had been teaching for more than one thousand years. It does not wash with me. Sorry.

I strongly disagree here for a variety of reason. First we are outright told we will see false doctrine & we are told to test the spirits. So we are charged to challenge bad doctrine by God. Whereas with the case of secular governments, Romans 13 tells us we should be obedient. So Calvin probably had a better scriptural basis for rebelling from poor RCC doctrine than our founders did? That being said everything is decreed by God, the American revolution and Protestant reformation included. God causes calamity and He is not a respecter of persons. He cares about our souls not so much our bodies. His most beloved saints faced the most horrible deaths. So even where we see rebellions that resulted in death – providence is still behind it one way or the other.

I will not debate regarding any violence or murder Calvin’s teachings or actions may or may not have been responsible for–it is a useless excercise.

I agree

Love is the operative word. Sometimes rebuking someone’s “poor practices” will turn them away. Speak gently with care and love and all charity. God will do the rest.

And I agree again – in the highest way. Frankly I’m not one who likes to reproof (I’ve never really had occasion to do it in the church). I think to some extent reproof should be led by the pastor (at least in most cases).

For instance a church member cannot unilaterally go up to someone and chastise their apparel. Perhaps in the context of a Bible study session or some other function he or she may bring up such a point – but in a general context (not personalized to any person or group within the church). We might say I think humble dress is more pleasing to God and if we extra money to buy expensive jewelery we should probably donate it to the poor or our less fortunate brothers. If we already donate to the poor then okay.

I wouldn’t seek to impose my own sort of waspy clothing preferences on all people I admit I do find wearing bling to be, I don’t know, sort of cheap. It’s vanity pure & simple, which I have a distaste for. However, I’m sort of strange in this regard. If everyone were like me the gold chain business (and silver chain business) would be out of business – because I won’t wear a chain around my neck. If I had enough money to buy a Rolex I would rather give it to my church for one of our charities and by a nice Citizen or something. I mean I’m a lawyer so you know we do okay. However, I would never own an Armani suit. Give me a nice Jones New York from Macy’s for a few hundred bucks (actually much less these days) and I’m fine. I only wear a suit when I have to. Other than that give me a pair of Dockers, Wranglers, Levi’s, and sneakers (a good sneaker is important for the gym & foot health – but to spend two or three hundred dollars on sneakers is ridiculous beyond words).

It’s the left over Methodist in me. I loved their preaching about the modesty and humility of Christian life. I still appreciate that aspect of Wesleyan teaching.

 

[Mickey]

However, God will always ensure His elect live by right understanding of truth.

Yes. And as the Holy Orthodox Church believes: That truth was revealed to us in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition including the first seven Ecumenical Councils which identified and eliminated many heresies. When West split from East, Rome began Her innovations. Protestantism split from Rome and threw the baby out with the bath water. There are no new truths.

Some other changes occur more slowly and are more subtle and harder to discern

Roman Catholics call this “development of doctrine”.

However, when a church anoints gay clergy that is clearly an aberration & a different question all together.

Yes. tis’ a pity.

That being said everything is decreed by God, the American revolution and Protestant reformation included. God causes calamity and He is not a respecter of persons. He cares about our souls not so much our bodies. His most beloved saints faced the most horrible deaths. So even where we see rebellions that resulted in death – providence is still behind it one way or the other.

It is obvious that the reformation and anything else that happened in history was ordained by God for the mere fact that God allowed it to happen. But why did God let the reformation occur? I have a theory:

To one day bring all Roman Catholics and protestants back to the Holy Orthodox Church.

I think to some extent reproof should be led by the pastor (at least in most cases).

Amen.

For instance a church member cannot unilaterally go up to someone and chastise their apparel. Perhaps in the context of a Bible study session or some other function he or she may bring up such a point – but in a general context (not personalized to any person or group within the church). We might say I think humble dress is more pleasing to God and if we extra money to buy expensive jewelery we should probably donate it to the poor or our less fortunate brothers. If we already donate to the poor then okay.

I agree whole heartedly.

I wouldn’t seek to impose my own sort of waspy clothing preferences on all people I admit I do find wearing bling to be, I don’t know, sort of cheap. It’s vanity pure & simple, which I have a distaste for. However, I’m sort of strange in this regard.

Then I suppose it means I am strange also.

If everyone were like me the gold chain business (and silver chain business) would be out of business – because I won’t wear a chain around my neck.

I wear a wooden 3-bar (Orthodox) cross held by a shoe lace around my neck.

I only wear a suit when I have to.

Me too! Man, we are much alike.

Other than that give me a pair of Dockers, Wranglers, Levi’s, and sneakers (a good sneaker is important for the gym & foot health – but to spend two or three hundred dollars on sneakers is ridiculous beyond words).

This is uncanny! It is as if I have written this!

It’s the left over Methodist in me. I loved their preaching about the modesty and humility of Christian life. I still appreciate that aspect of Wesleyan teaching.

I am going to have to visit the Methodists to shake their hands!

You sound like a genuinely good and devout man.

God bless you!

 

[distracted]

The funny thing is with Hahn, before he became Catholic he would have been just another protestant heretic. Now that he’s Catholic he’s a “scholar” (and making a bunch of money selling books).

do i detect a note of jealousy?

 

[distracted]

do you think there is an anti-Catholic bias among secular historians?

**Do i think the pope is Catholic??? **

 

[distracted]

Why should we give equal time to Luther? WHY? Does the Bible somewhere state that we are to give equal time to anyone who picks up a Bible and interprets support for their personal agenda from within it’s pages? .

good post… even thouhg i don’t have time to read the last part…

i just know its good anyway

The Bible says to shun someone who walks in a disorderly way…

and i believe that passage refers to persistence in heresy… I will look it up … but maybe i don’t have to … heresy is definitely disorderly… esp when the truth is plain to see. I think all people recognize truth when they hear it… it is just that some pretend that they don’t see it… so as to appear to have an excuse…

 

[sola_scriptura]

do i detect a note of jealousy?

No jealousy – money is not my personal focus in life (does it surprise you to learn all people don’t worship money?).

 

[sola_scriptura]

**Do i think the pope is Catholic??? **

Huh? What’s that all about …

Distracted … you must have been distracted when you read my post

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

No.

An Ecumenical council does not have to authority to reverse previously defined Catholic dogma. To say that a heretic can go to purgatory is to say that he can go to heaven, which is directly contrary to the Church’s doctrine. Purgatory is simply the ante-chamber of heaven - the place of purification.

Protestants are indeed our brethren in Christ insofar as they are baptised. But having received the grace of baptism is not a guarantee of salvation if one does not have faith in Christ and his Church, or is guilty of grave sin.

In that case, the less they hear of either, the better - this makes the Gospel a message of damnation, unless one joins the CC. A better reason for any faith* but* the Christian is hard to imagine.​

As for baptism - that is to make it a cruel mockery, a complete sham. If the grace of baptism is such a fine ticket to Hell unless they become RC, it’s better to be an unbaptised heathen. The won’t be any worse off, & at least they will be free of Catholicism. They might actually be better human beings & better neighbours in consequence.

And people are surprised that Catholicism is feared & hated…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

A baptized infant is technically Catholic, even if that infant were baptized by a heretical Protestant minister. That child is a part of the Catholic Church until he reaches the age of reason and can actively choose Protestantism over Catholicism…secondly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not an infallible document, whereas the quote Dauphin provided IS an infallible declaration from a Pope…

Nonetheless, it expresses the authentic teaching of the Church for today. Its infallibility (or lack of it) is beside the point.​

It would be most ironic if the defenders of the past who reject the present were the people outside the Church.

if there is a question whether they are saying different things, it’s adviseable to stick with what has been infallibly defined, no?

No. That is inadequate as a means for discerning what the Church teaches​

And no, “Lil_Cat”, there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.

God may not agree. In fact, in my experience, Protestants are generally much more Christian than RCs. The most attractive Christians I’ve ever had the privilege of knowing have with very few exceptions been Protestant.​

Still, I now know that most of the Ugandan Martyrs, because they were Anglican & not RC, went to Hell. Nice for the 22 Catholics. Why are some Catholics so dead set on making the Universal Church sound like some tiny little secticule in the back of beyond ?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Umm, how can someone be a Protestant and NOT know about the Catholic Church?

With the greatest of ease. I didn’t. All this argumentative churchy stuff was of no importance to this Protestant, not for a very long time. One accepted that nasty things had been done in the dim past by some terrible old men called Popes, & that was about it.​

Catholicism is simply not an issue for a lot of people - they couldn’t care less about Anglican Orders, the Investiture Controversy, the restoration of the hierarchy to England in 1850, the Sixtine Vulgate, the legitimacy of Vatican I, the Oviedo Cloth, or what-have-you: if they have even heard of them; they have better things to do than trawl through the Raccolta or Denzinger - like bring up their families, do their jobs, pay their bills, educate their children, & generally make ends meet

The definition of Protestantism is that they “protest” the Catholic religion…duh! Stop trying to twist infallibly defined dogmas into something that suits your taste, LilCat, and just accept it…you actually seem to be bordering on heresy.

I didn’t; how could I ? I half-knew that Catholics existed - & that was it. They might as well have been Venusians for all the difference it made. A lot of Protestants get on very well loving God & serving their neighbour for His Name’s sake in their own form of Christianity, without bothering about the CC; & that is a lot more than a lot of Catholics do.​

You’re treating human being beings as abstractions, and all because of what they are called

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You are a heretic and your claim is not supported by authoritative Church teaching.

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.)​

There are a lot of folks that honestly don’t believe the Catholic Church is true…and they are honestly WRONG. Ignorance is not a ticket to heaven.

No mention of charity/love in that - why not ? I couldn’t care less what the CC says, if it is as exclusive & narrow & pitiless as that.​

If you are right, a Protestant who receives grace to love his neighbour in Christ is damned for failing to become RC. What happens if he never received the grace to become Catholic ? That is really mucked-up. IOW, love your neighbour - & be damned. What sort of “Gospel” is that ? That is to make the institution more important than its message - a typical form of Catholic idolatry. (Other Churches have theirs…)

The foundations of this doctrine are rotten - it is entirely man-centred. If people join the CC without being led by grace, their motives are inadequate.

Quite apart from the fact that society is not in the position it was in 1441 - it is far more fractured & confused than then. For a start, atheism is extremely common today - then, it was far less so.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Show me a Scripture where he said he was Jewish? Show me a Scripture that says you have to have a personal relationship with Christ to get into Heaven.

To love Him, is to have a PR with Him - He’s not some rotting, stinking, bag of bones from 1970 years ago. But that is what is is left, if we are to be impersonal - we are left with some useless dead guy of no obvious importance; & with a mere head-religion, & not one that fills the heart as well.​

Show me a Scripture taht says we are to go by Scirpture alone… Until you answer the aforementioned question & find me those scriptures no one has ever been able to find, i am going to think that many Crhistians outside the True Church look very silly…

that’s presumptous… it doesn’t bother me that Jesus WAS Jewish… but saying Jesus was Jewish is kinda like saying an apple tree is an apple seed…

He was never anything but a Jew.​

His disciples attended the Temple

Paul kept a Nazirite vow - he was ending it when arrested.

The “Jesus Movement” was a Jewish sect, as Jewish as the Essenes.

In no sense was He a Christian