"Sola Scriptura"

[Church_Militant]

There’s nothing ambiguous here - all salvation comes through Christ’s Church because of His meritorious death on the Cross. But those who, through no fault of their own

(i.e. didn’t reject Christ), didn’t have a chance to know Christ in their lives can still be saved. But they are still saved through His Church. This is trying to point out that there are no alternate routes.

And no, this does not mean that all those who were never exposed to Christ **will **be saved. Only that they can be (which makes complete sense). God can work grace in any soul He chooses.

Ambiguity is clearly in the eyes of the beholder Agreed!

 

[foundthelight]

I disagree.You’re wrong about the Douay-Rheims, as the following quote shows.The Greek translates as 'The church throughout all" = universal by definition.Really? Then why is ekklesia used here in Matthew 16:18 So that when Our Lord speaks of the church He uses that word and not in the meaning of some vague assembly.

In fact, I don’t think you’re even looking at the right passage.

Just to help, here is the KJV with Strong’s numbers;

Act 9:31 Then3767 (3303) had2192 the3588 churches1577 rest1515 throughout2596 all3650 Judea2449 and2532 Galilee1056 and2532 Samaria,4540 and were edified;3618 and2532 walking4198 in the3588 fear5401 of the3588 Lord,2962 and2532 in the3588 comfort3874 of the3588 Holy40 Ghost,4151 were multiplied.4129

1577 = ecclesia
2596 = kata
3650 = holos

In the Greek

Act 9:31 η3588 T-NSF μεν3303 PRT ουν3767 CONJ εκκλησια1577 N-NSF καθ2596 PREP ολης3650 A-GSF της3588 T-GSF ιουδαιας2449 N-GSF και2532 CONJ γαλιλαιας1056 N-GSF και2532 CONJ σαμαρειας4540 N-GSF ειχεν2192 V-IAI-3S ειρηνην1515 N-ASF οικοδομουμενη3618 V-PPP-NSF και2532 CONJ πορευομενη4198 V-PNP-NSF τω3588 T-DSM φοβω5401 N-DSM του3588 T-GSM κυριου2962 N-GSM και2532 CONJ τη3588 T-DSF παρακλησει3874 N-DSF του3588 T-GSN αγιου40 A-GSN πνευματος4151 N-GSN επληθυνετο4129 V-IPI-3S

 

[Mannyfit75]

I vote no because Christianity itself is not the religion of the book.

I think the Catechism makes a summer against Bible Alone.

CCC states,

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”. If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."

 

[po18guy]

I don’t think you really read my post, at least not carefully since what you posted above has absolutely zero to do with my earlier post, which you took exception to.

Earlier I posted in response to po18guy:

I then posted the section fromt he catechism:

Now, please tell me where I went wrong?

Your own catechism says that it is possible for those who do not know Christ to be saved. I said your church teaches one need not recognize Christ to be saved which is exactly what your catechism says. If you don’t know Christ it’s kind of hard to recognize him as the saviour.

How can you take exception to what I posted when it echoes what your own catechism teaches?

I applied my comments to those who claim to be “Christian”, have hijacked the bible and warped its meaning all the while rejecting the very authority that provided them with the book that they seem to worship. Oh, some clearly do.

Dig the difference: Those who have never heard of Christ, but live according to the natural law, with love of neighbor, can be saved, because God can do anything. Contrast this to those who have heard of Christ, of His Church, and who, out of ego, reject His church. Those will have a problem, and not of this earth.

 

[Ad_Deum]

Good arguments and sources of defense, but please keep in mind that we should be humble when answering the opinions of other mates.

Thanks

May the peace of the Word of God, Jesus Christ, be with you all!

 

[Mailman]

Originally Posted by Mailman
The Greek word for Catholic is “Katholikos.” The RCC says “Catholic” comes from a combination of two Greek words kath holou, “according to the totality” or “in keeping with the whole.” I don’t see any of that in the verse above.
I disagree.

Hey, you’re right. I wasn’t looking at the passage that you were referring to! Sorry! I should have looked more closely and – you should have given me the correct verse. You said “Acts 9:32,” not 9:31. I looked at that passage and it wasn’t there, so I thought maybe you meant 19:32. I saw the word “ekklesia” there so I thought that was the passage you were referring to! Talking about coincidences!

And you know what? The words you had in bold after “Ekklhsiai” is indeed “kath holou” just spelled differently from the Greek you gave me. So, indeed, we have the three words to make up “Catholic Church” on that Greek text you provided: “ekklesia kath holou.” My traditional Greek NT says: “ekklesia kata holos” which must be the same thing.

I do not know anything about the Greek language [except for the fact that it doesn’t use punctuations in its sentences], so I can only comment on the TRANSLATIONS made by the Bible translators who are supposed to be experts in Greek. You have provided the one from the Douay-Rheims and it says: “The church had peace throughout all Judea, and Galilee…” The KJV renders it similarly, “… the churches rest throughout all Judea and Galilee…”

I do not see here any reference to the church being called “catholic” or universal, or any such thing there. You mentioned that “The Greek translates ‘the church throughout all’= universal by definition.” That may be the case when you translate the three Greek words by themselves. However, when you consider the context on which the words were used [taking the sentence as a whole], “throughout all” does not describe WHAT the church is but WHERE the church was having peace.

Let’s say we replace “throughout all” with “Catholic” and rephrase the text using the words “Catholic Church,” how would we do it so that the text makes sense? I’ll try: “Now the Catholic Church had peace Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria; and was edified…” That doesn’t make sense. The words “kath holou” or “throughout all” have to be placed before the word “Judea” because it tells us WHERE, or to what extent, the church had peace. It cannot be used here to describe what the church is – whether it is universal, local, regional, etc. If the referenced text were an answer to a question, the question would be: “WHERE did the church have peace?” And the answer: “Throughout all Judea…” If you take it out of context then it could mean the church is universal, if that’s what “kath holou” means. The Catholic translators would have translated it as “Universal Church” or “Catholic Church” if that was the proper translation, but they did not.

 

[Mailman]

There’s nothing ambiguous here - all salvation comes through Christ’s Church because of His meritorious death on the Cross. But those who, through no fault of their own (i.e. didn’t reject Christ), didn’t have a chance to know Christ in their lives can still be saved. But they are still saved through His Church. This is trying to point out that there are no alternate routes.

And no, this does not mean that all those who were never exposed to Christ **will **be saved. Only that they can be (which makes complete sense). God can work grace in any soul He chooses.

Ambiguity is clearly in the eyes of the beholder

“Those who do not know the Church can still be saved through the church because salvation comes through the church.” This must be it in plain language, right?

But how can one be saved through the church when one does not know anything about God, Jesus or the church? Answer: By God’s grace. Am I correct here so far?

 

[mattkubes]

“Those who do not know the Church can still be saved through the church because salvation comes through the church.” This must be it in plain language, right?

I’d say it would be “Those who were not given a chance to truly know the Church (and so Christ) can be saved, but they are still saved through the Church since God’s grace flows through it.”

But how can one be saved through the church when one does not know anything about God, Jesus or the church? Answer: By God’s grace. Am I correct here so far?

Yep, and our position is that those graces still come to us through Christ’s Bride, His Mystical Body (the Church). As long as the person cooperates with the grace that God gives them, and follows the natural law written on their hearts, they can still be saved.

(Someone please correct me if I’m missing anything!)

 

[Ignatius]

Laudater Jesus Christus!

Peace to all who read this thread.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Can we base our beliefs (faith) and practice solely/only in the Holy Scripture?

I voted both yes and no because it wasn’t a mutually exclusive poll.

 

[Church_Militant]

Hey, you’re right. I wasn’t looking at the passage that you were referring to! Sorry! I should have looked more closely and – you should have given me the correct verse. You said “Acts 9:32,” not 9:31. I looked at that passage and it wasn’t there, so I thought maybe you meant 19:32. I saw the word “ekklesia” there so I thought that was the passage you were referring to! Talking about coincidences!

And you know what? The words you had in bold after “Ekklhsiai” is indeed “kath holou” just spelled differently from the Greek you gave me. So, indeed, we have the three words to make up “Catholic Church” on that Greek text you provided: “ekklesia kath holou.” My traditional Greek NT says: “ekklesia kata holos” which must be the same thing.

I do not know anything about the Greek language [except for the fact that it doesn’t use punctuations in its sentences], so I can only comment on the TRANSLATIONS made by the Bible translators who are supposed to be experts in Greek. You have provided the one from the Douay-Rheims and it says: “The church had peace throughout all Judea, and Galilee…” The KJV renders it similarly, “… the churches rest throughout all Judea and Galilee…”

I do not see here any reference to the church being called “catholic” or universal, or any such thing there. You mentioned that “The Greek translates ‘the church throughout all’= universal by definition.” That may be the case when you translate the three Greek words by themselves. However, when you consider the context on which the words were used [taking the sentence as a whole], “throughout all” does not describe WHAT the church is but WHERE the church was having peace.

Let’s say we replace “throughout all” with “Catholic” and rephrase the text using the words “Catholic Church,” how would we do it so that the text makes sense? I’ll try: “Now the Catholic Church had peace Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria; and was edified…” That doesn’t make sense. The words “kath holou” or “throughout all” have to be placed before the word “Judea” because it tells us WHERE, or to what extent, the church had peace. It cannot be used here to describe what the church is – whether it is universal, local, regional, etc. If the referenced text were an answer to a question, the question would be: “WHERE did the church have peace?” And the answer: “Throughout all Judea…” If you take it out of context then it could mean the church is universal, if that’s what “kath holou” means. The Catholic translators would have translated it as “Universal Church” or “Catholic Church” if that was the proper translation, but they did not.

Sorry for the confusion.

While we’re worrying about how it translates into English maybe you can tell me just which of the apostles spoke it?

Think about it.

BTW, I think the rendering " “Now the Catholic Church had peace [in] Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria; and was edified…” actually does make better sense than you realize.

 

[Church_Militant]

“Those who do not know the Church can still be saved through the church because salvation comes through the church.” This must be it in plain language, right?

But how can one be saved through the church when one does not know anything about God, Jesus or the church? Answer: By God’s grace. Am I correct here so far?

That’s the gist of what St. Paul is saying in Romans 1:19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

 

[onenow1]

HI,All
Vote= NO. Why place limits on the word of God . Makes no sense ! I think if I were God I would laugh.

Peace, onenow1

 

[Mailman]

The conclusion is that what is necessary for salvation is in the Bible. One needs Tradition to properly interpret what the Bible is telling us.

You know what, there has been a lot of discussion on this one issue, but all along we really do not have any disagreement on this. I think the problem is that you [Catholics] become very defensive when someone says the Bible is “the final authority” or is “necessary for salvation.” You immediately suppose that this comes with it the free interpretation of Scripture. But that is not so. When we say the Bible is the final authority, does it not follow that it must also be properly interpreted? If it is not properly understood then that teaching could not be Scriptural because it is not what the Scriptures meant. And if it is not Scriptural, then it is not the final authority.

Here is how a situation would play out. Suppose you accept that the Bible is the final authority and that it is necessary for salvation. Then someone questions the validity of some belief of yours citing a text from Scripture. Would the guy prove you wrong by his interpretation of the text because you have conceded that the Bible is the final authority? Of course not. You can tell him your own interpretation (based on what your church taught) and show him where he got it wrong and why your belief is the one that must prevail. It is that simple. You don’t have to go through all that stuff about church “Tradition” being the source of your interpretation because everyone knows that is what the RCC teaches.

We, being all Christians, take our beliefs from the Bible. The fact that everyone here on this forum cites a verse from the Bible to prove his or her point is already a tacit acceptance that the Bible is the final authority. In fact, the RCC, by appealing to Mathew 16:18 to prove it is the true church, has already accepted that the Scriptures are the final authority (at least on matters of faith) and so others should use that same authority to prove their own claim. There is no point in referring to the Scriptures if we do not believe it to be the final authority.

 

[Mailman]

Originally Posted by Mailman:
I think you need to read more of church history before making such a sweeping claim.(Huh?) If all you’ve read were written by the Catholic “fathers”, you’ve only heard one side of the story. The Bible (We read scripture! And, we hear more scripture at mass than any other “church”) also records the history of the early church, as well as its teachings, so you need to read that as well. (I accept your insult and joyfully provide you my beard to pluck)

I wonder… what is so difficult on the teachings of the Catholic Church to accept? (Well, you don’t accept them!) Sunday is the world’s rest day. Everyone celebrates Christmas. (Better check with the Adventists on that) Everyone celebrates New Year’s.(Huh?) There’s lots of Catholic Churches around. (That’s because it’s the universal church, covering the earth) You only go to the church for one hour every Sunday. (Not quite!) You’d have plenty of company. Where lies the difficulty of accepting such a worldly (Please, no insults) faith may I ask?

Originally Posted by po18guy:
Regarding your unfounded assertions, I have and I have. Continuity is the key. Denial of self means the acceptance of church teachings. Have you not read the various threads here? Many Catholics have struggled for years with church teaching, all of which is consistent with its own writings - canonized or not. Don’t you flat out refuse to deny yourself and yield to the Holy Spirit as He has taught His one Church. You have just described a communal gathering of like believers, who struggle with holiness.

Is a church supposed to whip and beat you before its genuine?

Sorry. I think I didn’t express myself well and also left out the details, and so maybe you have misunderstood me. What I was trying to say is that there are many other church history books not written by Catholics and reading those would give you another viewpoint. And also, the Bible itself records of the early history of the church, the most notable of which is the problem it had [that early] with heresy and false teachers. I should not have said you need to read those, because being a devout Christian [as I’m sure you are], you must have already read all the Scriptures. What I should have said was that you need to examine the Scriptures more closely on its record of the history of the church, especially on the problems they were having.

That is no insult. That is my view of the Catholic faith. I am really convinced that the Catholic faith is “worldly.” By that I mean it is opposed to the teachings of Christ when He commanded His Church: “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate…” (2 Co 6:17). The RCC has been, and still is today, involved in matters of the world – in its politics and wars. Even its festivals are observed by the vast majority of the world – its Sunday, its Christmas, New Year’s, Easter’s. It is not difficult to accept Catholicism because you would tend to BELONG, and not be separate.

 

[Mailman]

Did you not realize that the Catholic Church wrote the NT?
The Catholic Church did not write the NT.

Are you saying that Catholics observe the Sabbath on the wrong day?
Yes.

Are you saying that it is wrong to celebrate the day of Jesus’ birth?
Yes.

New Year is a secular holiday. Catholics go to Mass because we like to start it out right.
Yes, and by doing so, you acknowledge that the year starts on Jan.1. God’s year does not start on Jan. 1.

 

[Mailman]

The Church allows us to hold several interpretations, as long as the essence of the passage is not destroyed. Since the Creation accounts may have been written as allegories, it allows us to hold to this belief. We’re also allowed to believe that the author was being literal. Either way, the spiritual truth of the passage is that God created everything, everything was good, and creation was separated from God by original sin. Surely you believe that there are multiple levels of meaning that can be ascribed to scripture?

But there is only one truth, not two or many. Either the literal understanding is the truth or it is not. If it is not the truth, then those in the RCC believing in it hold a false belief. But one cannot be in God’s Church if one does not have the truth. God’s Church could not believe in opposing doctrines, because God is not the author of confusion but of oneness in belief and understanding.

Nihil obstats and imprimaturs are great, but this is not official Church teaching. It is, and always will be, an opinion. I’ve never heard it, but you can’t use this to say what the Church does or does not teach.

Now, you are denying your priest’s statement that the RCC never teaches that Noah and Abraham actually existed because he contradicts your claim? Could you at least look up the material he referenced (that’s in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church), and see what it says? Maybe he’s not lying, you know.

But really, I don’t think you can claim to have more authority to speak for the church than this John Redford guy, unless you are a priest yourself. His book is an attempt to teach people like you how to “defend your faith without becoming tongue-tied or vacillating” so that “you feel adequately prepared to explain Church teaching to anyone who asks” (taken from his book). That is why the complete title of his work is: What Is Catholicism, Hard Questions – Straight Answers. The Foreword is written by Avery Dulles, S.J. (I won’t be surprised if you don’t know that guy either but I have to mention him because he’s another RCC priest who must know something about what his church teaches), and he says that Redford’s book is “a defense of normative Christianity against modern infidelity… Father Redford does not shrink from giving solid reasons for holding that God is real, that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, and that he remains in his Church, which subsists in the Roman Catholic communion…”

You know, I’m not that surprised by your rejection of Redford’s statement. I know for a fact that Catholics seldom agree with each other even on matters of faith and salvation. I find that rather frustrating because you can’t discuss anything with a Catholic unless you ask him first if he believes in this thing and that. Have you noticed that my initial threads have mostly been just asking questions? I’m always careful to ascertain first what that particular Catholic believes before I comment on the issue. I’ve learned my lesson from living in a predominantly Catholic community (90%) all my life.

Knowing whether or not Adolf Hitler is in Hell is one of the most basic questions of faith? That’s bizzare…we can’t know who has gone to Hell, because anyone that has true repentance before they breathe their last will not be denied mercy. The Church does not claim to be psychic.

Salvation and damnation – heaven and hell – to know what that is, who can get there, how we get there, are the most basic questions of faith. Is heaven the reward of the saved? What do we need to do to go there if that is the reward of the saved? Can a person who does not know Christ enter heaven? Will the unsaved go to hell? What is hell, is it real or just a state of mind? What will cause us to lose salvation and go to hell? Will all the unsaved go to hell? Will they be there forever? These are questions the true Church should be able to answer with a categorical statement, “no running around the bush.” If the RCC believes that hell is real and that one’s soul, if unsaved, will go to hell after death, then there must be many who are now in hell. To say that it cannot tell if even one soul is in hell while preaching the doctrine of eternal damnation in hell after death is rather ridiculous, don’t you think? It has been about 6,000 years since man walked the earth (or millions of years if you believe in evolution rather than the story in the Bible), and there is not even one soul who has gone to hell?

That quote I gave continues: “Some theologians, including the great Church Father Origen, believed that in the end everyone would go to heaven, even the devil himself.” I believe you know of “the great Church Father Origen.” Does his teaching jibe with that of the RCC? Now, what about you, do you agree with Origen? And what, may I ask, is the OFFICIAL teaching of the RCC?

This quote says the exact opposite of what you’re trying to use it to prove. Limbo has always been a theological speculation. It was widely believed at one point, but it was never taught as dogma. We’re still allowed to believe it, but no Catholic is obliged o believe that unbaptised babies go there.

Read your statement again: “Limbo is not an official doctrine taught by the Church; it is merely a hypothetical place suggested by some theologians.” My quote says, “the Church [note, not “some theologians”]…” It was THE CHURCH, not some theologians, who wrestled with the problem and proposed the possibility of limbo.

 

[Mailman]

Who were Catholic in their doctrine based upon what they wrote and what we verifiably know they passed on to their own disciples. See the writings of Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch for example.

Let’s take the case of Polycarp. You will agree with me that the observance of Easter is a Catholic practice. However, Polycarp did not observe Easter. He observed instead the Passover of the Jews, in keeping with the practice of the apostle John. Talking about the differences Polycarp had with Anicetus in Rome on his observance of the Passover as against Rome’s observance of Easter Sunday, Irenaeus wrote: “For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe it [the Passover] because he had always observed it with John the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the apostles, with whom he associated; and neither did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, who said that he was bound to follow the customs of the presbyters before him” (Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, quoted in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, p.244).

Can Polycarp be considered a Catholic? He could not be. He did not practice the Catholic faith but that of John the apostle. The Catholic faith (the one that sprouted in Rome) called for him to celebrate Easter Sunday, but he did not.

No argument from faithful Catholics there…However, creationism has a problem in that it makes religion speak outside the bounds of it’s competence, trying to assert as science something that is set down in the Bible, a religious collection of writings, never intended by it’s author to function as a science text.

Are you serious here? The Bible better be accurate in everything that it says – and that includes science – otherwise we can throw it away for it cannot be the Word of God! How can God not know something about science? We say God created the whole vast universe, including our planet earth and all life we see around us. All of these creations require physical laws of science to function. And it was the Creator God who set those laws in motion. It would be ridiculous to even entertain the idea that science is outside the bounds of competence of the Bible, for the Bible is Creator’s very own words.

Where scripture is clear, the church speaks accordingly, where it uses midrash and parables we refrain rather than “go beyond what is written”.

The Scripture is clear about Noah and Abraham. It does not speak in midrash or parables when relating their stories. And speaking of parables, the true Church of God knows what the parables of Christ mean. It is sure of its interpretation. Why do I know that? Christ already explained these to His disciples.

and which of those alleged Catholic friends calls himself Benedict XVI? Or even bishop or cardinal? What?! Not even a single priest? The church has always taught, still teaches, and will always teach that hell is literal. Some of your alleged Catholic friends need to carefully study to present themselves approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

Where do you think they got their ideas from? They have Bible studies and priests conduct those Bible studies. And by the way, when I told them that the RCC is open to both evolution and direct creation (meaning the laity can believe what they wish as long as the truth is maintained that God created everything) they would not believe me because that is not what they learned from their Bible study. And just like you, they said it is just the author’s opinion, not official church teaching.

So? Do you have a better answer?

There is no limbo. It is a product of man’s imagination as a result of misunderstanding the Scriptures.

 

[Mailman]

I vote no because Christianity itself is not the religion of the book.

I think the Catechism makes a summer against Bible Alone.

CCC states,

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”. If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."

C’mon, what’s this? “The book” must be the Bible. The RCC claims the Bible is the Word of God. If so, then the 2 statements contradict (or am I missing something?).

1. “The Christian faith is not a religion of the book.”
2. “Christianity is the religion of the Word of God…”
   If “the book” is the Bible and the Bible is the Word of God, then statement 2 becomes:
   “Christianity is the religion of the book.” And it contradicts the first statement.

 

[mattkubes]

But there is only one truth, not two or many. Either the literal understanding is the truth or it is not. If it is not the truth, then those in the RCC believing in it hold a false belief. But one cannot be in God’s Church if one does not have the truth. God’s Church could not believe in opposing doctrines, because God is not the author of confusion but of oneness in belief and understanding.

Again, that’s great, but neither interpretation denies that basic truth. The truth of the passage is that God created everything, that it was good, and that we fell from His friendship. Neither the literal or allegorical interpretation denies the truth of the passage. You’re creating a strawman here.

But really, I don’t think you can claim to have more authority to speak for the church than this John Redford guy, unless you are a priest yourself.

Unfortunately, this is where your line of reasoning fails. This man, although I’m sure he was well-intentioned, was wrong to say that the Church teaches that some of the major prophets don’t exist. In fact, even if it IS in an edition of the catechism, ask anyone - the catechism, although it contains some infallible teachings, is NOT an infallible document.

You know, I’m not that surprised by your rejection of Redford’s statement. I know for a fact that Catholics seldom agree with each other even on matters of faith and salvation. I find that rather frustrating because you can’t discuss anything with a Catholic unless you ask him first if he believes in this thing and that. Have you noticed that my initial threads have mostly been just asking questions? I’m always careful to ascertain first what that particular Catholic believes before I comment on the issue. I’ve learned my lesson from living in a predominantly Catholic community (90%) all my life.

I know it can be frustrating, but there is a lot of garbage out there. You can’t just find a reference by a Catholic author and assume that it is 100% Catholic teaching (I’ll be the first to admit that catechesis has been lacking in this generation). Unless it’s an official Church document, you just have no assurance that what the author says, even if just in his nuances, is correct. Luckily, Catholic Answers backs everything up with Church documents, or at least derives its tracts from them. All of your questions can be answered by them - just do a search or ask someone here to direct you to some resources if you’d like!

If the RCC believes that hell is real and that one’s soul, if unsaved, will go to hell after death, then there must be many who are now in hell. To say that it cannot tell if even one soul is in hell while preaching the doctrine of eternal damnation in hell after death is rather ridiculous, don’t you think? It has been about 6,000 years since man walked the earth (or millions of years if you believe in evolution rather than the story in the Bible), and there is not even one soul who has gone to hell?

Again, you’ve created a strawman - the Church doesn’t teach that there is no one in hell…so there goes that point. The Church simply doesn’t make statement on anyone who is in hell because we can’t know - if you know anything about the canonization process, that shouldn’t be surprising. The Church doesn’t just proclaim someone to be a Saint for fun - it’s a long, involved process, that requires at least two miracles to be verified. How on earth could the opposite process work? How do we know someone didn’t repent before death? What benefit could there be to proclaiming a soul to be “damned”?

That quote I gave continues: “Some theologians, including the great Church Father Origen, believed that in the end everyone would go to heaven, even the devil himself.” I believe you know of “the great Church Father Origen.” Does his teaching jibe with that of the RCC? Now, what about you, do you agree with Origen? And what, may I ask, is the OFFICIAL teaching of the RCC?

I’d like to see the actual quotes from Origen, but even if he said it, that wouldn’t phase me - only St. Peter and his successors are given the charism of infallibility when teaching to the universal Church. As for what the Church teaches: hell is real, Satan and the fallen angels made an irrevocable decision, and those who die outside of God’s friendship will have their wills fixed against God - in other words, the Church teaches that no one is getting out of hell This is in part because God respects their decision to spend eternity separate from Him, and also as a matter of Divine Justice.

Read your statement again: “Limbo is not an official doctrine taught by the Church; it is merely a hypothetical place suggested by some theologians.” My quote says, “the Church [note, not “some theologians”]…” It was THE CHURCH, not some theologians, who wrestled with the problem and proposed the possibility of limbo.

Then I’m sorry, but your quote is wrong Catholic answers has lots of information on limbo - even though it was widely believed (maybe even by popes), it was never taught as doctrine. We’re still free to believe in it, but it was never necessary for belief to be a Catholic in good standing. Limbo was a suggestion by theologians for a difficult question - now, the Catechism tells us that we entrust those unbaptised souls to the God’s Mercy. Could this change in the future? Sure. There hasn’t been a dogmatic proclamation either way.

 

[mattkubes]

If “the book” is the Bible and the Bible is the Word of God, then statement 2 becomes:
“Christianity is the religion of the book.” And it contradicts the first statement.

Since the Bible didn’t fall out of the sky (i.e. it was compiled by the Church), the Bible can’t, logically, supersede the Church. If you read the quote again, the Church teaches that the Word of God is not limited to a static book - although the Bible does contain God’s written word, and although it is immeasurably important, the Church is also open to the action of the Holy Spirit through the Magisterium. Unless you presuppose the validity of sola scriptura (or at least the invalidity of the Catholic position), the quote makes perfect sense!