The Pope?

[Genesis315]

Originally Posted by ml1957
*It is difficult to discuss anything when referenes to history of the church are mixed with idolitry. Where in the Gospels are the mass?
*

Others have posted where the Mass is in the Gospels. It is also prophecied in the OT. Read Malachi 1:10-11. What do you think that’s referring to?

 

[EA_Man]

deb1:

Just for the record, Catholics do read the bible, including the Gospels.

Well it’s good to meet some Catholics that do read the Bible.
I was raised Catholic in Rhode Island, and now live in Massachusetts.

We were never encouraged to read the Bible in any of the parishes I attended. My wife’s family is Catholic, none of them read the Bible. My mother-in-law believes in reincaranation. None of the Catholic churches I’ve ever attended has had a Bible study. The priest in my wife’s church (RCC) is constantly harping about attendance. The primary theme of his Easter morning homily was on how many people attended Holy Thursday, Good Friday, etc…services - give me a break.

I had to go to “Protestant” churches to attend Bible studies and continue to do so.

I have come to the conclusion that salvation is not contingent on membership in a particular denomination. I consider myself a Christian. I’ve long stopped being a Roman Catholic. I have one good friend that is a “born again” Catholic (he was an unbeliever that was attending a Catholic church) and he is the only Catholic I’ve known that speaks openly about what Jesus Christ has done in his life. Maybe Catholics in this part of the country are just more reserved. Maybe they like their worship to be quiet and reverential. My preference is for a more enthusiastic style of worship.

This is my experience. If you find that you are drawn closer to Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church - more power to you. I still have a problem with some of the doctrines of the RCC. Just as I have a issues with Calvinism.

 

[EA_Man]

Genesis315:

He would fall under the invincible ignorance umbrella. If he was able to be baptized, attend Mass, and receive communion, he would have.

Was he or was he not saved?

Yes, he was.

 

[Genesis315]

EA_Man:

Well it’s good to meet some Catholics that do read the Bible.
I was raised Catholic in Rhode Island, and now live in Massachusetts.

We were never encouraged to read the Bible in any of the parishes I attended. My wife’s family is Catholic, none of them read the Bible. My mother-in-law believes in reincaranation. None of the Catholic churches I’ve ever attended has had a Bible study. The priest in my wife’s church (RCC) is constantly harping about attendance. The primary theme of his Easter morning homily was on how many people attended Holy Thursday, Good Friday, etc…services - give me a break.

I had to go to “Protestant” churches to attend Bible studies and continue to do so.

You must not have gone to Mass often. If you go when you’re supposed to you’ll hear the whole thing in three years.

 

[Genesis315]

EA_Man:

Was he or was he not saved?

Yes, he was.

Right. What’s your point? If through no fault of their own, someone is unable to do these things, God does not punish them for it. It’s kind of like how the American Indians could have been saved before the new world was discovered. Except in this case, the thief actually heard of Jesus and repented. It’s the same concept as the guy who jumps off the building to kill himself, but on the way down he repents. He couldn’t get baptized at that point, so God doesn’t hold it against Him. Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salus is more nuanced than the Feeneyite interpretation.

 

[Tim_Hayes]

ML and EA, think aobut what you are saying with everything.

Every single faith of some sort of Christian denomination has different meanings for scripture in many different places, and in fact in many places it is not just a minor veiw, it is major complete opposite view.

Is the Holy Spirit speaking to all these different faiths and telling them different things. I am sure you would agree that he is not.

Yet many of these different Christian faiths have people in it whom we would call “saintly” type people. Hell I have met lots of jehovas witnesses, and if you disregard doctrinal differences many of them certainly outwardly appear to be very Christian in behaviour and deeds.

Yet the vast majority of main stream Christians woould say that the Jehovas witnessea ren’t actually Christians, even though the JW’S claim to be.

The one sure fire thing with all these different doctines etc is that they all claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit and that all they have learnt is straite out of scripture.

So we can say with absolute objectivity that reading the scripture alone and coming out with correct understandings, without guidance by some sort of guaranteed infalliable teaching, is nigh on impossible.

God actually demands infalliable teaching/guidance by men on earth, His teaching followers on earth must with absoluteness have the ability to explain scripture infalliably.

Whats the other option, everyone decide for themselves supposedly guided byt he Holy Spirit, yes you can choose this option but realise that only leaves you with one conclusion. It is impossible to corrrect anyone else in their biblical/scriptural understanding becasue you have nothing to base your correcition on other than your own falliable interpreatatin of scripture.

What gives any protestant type faith person the right to come here and say catholics are wrong or for that matter any one else. If catholics don’t have infalliable teaching behind them then they are welcome to interprint scripture according to their own reasons.

It all comes down to infalliability and the absolute rquirmeent for it.

In Christ

Tim

 

[EA_Man]

Genesis315:

Right. What’s your point? If through no fault of their own, someone is unable to do these things, God does not punish them for it.

The point is this:

Attending services, baptism, communion, etc… don’t confer salvation.

They aren’t requirements, they don’t add anything to salvation, they are evidence of salvation shown in the grateful, worshipful attitude of the regenerated man.

The story of the thief is not the story of how God doesn’t punish those that haven’t heard the Gospel. It’s the story reduced to it’s barest essentials of every man’s salvation.

 

[Milliardo]

Right on, Tim. Here’s another thing for these nay sayers to reflect on, sort of like what Tim just said: now, Protestants say we only need the Bible alone. If that is so, and as an echo to Tim’s post, then why is it that Protestants come and say Catholic interpretation is wrong? What is the basis of this Protestant allegation? Scripture? We use the same Scripture then. By what authority does the Protestant have in saying this thing?

 

[Genesis315]

EA_Man:

The point is this:

Attending services, baptism, communion, etc… don’t confer salvation.

They aren’t requirements, they don’t add anything to salvation, they are evidence of salvation shown in the grateful, worshipful attitude of the regenerated man.

The story of the thief is not the story of how God doesn’t punish those that haven’t heard the Gospel. It’s the story reduced to it’s barest essentials of every man’s salvation.

If you knowingly reject the Eucharist, baptism, and confession with full consent, you will be held accountable.

 

[Milliardo]

EA, you do realize that the thief on the Cross is a special case, right? What makes you think Jesus wouldn’t let him do those if he’s not on the cross?

 

[EA_Man]

Tim Hayes:

ML and EA, think aobut what you are saying with everything.

Every single faith of some sort of Christian denomination has different meanings for scripture in many different places, and in fact in many places it is not just a minor veiw, it is major complete opposite view.

Is the Holy Spirit speaking to all these different faiths and telling them different things. I am sure you would agree that he is not.

Yet many of these different Christian faiths have people in it whom we would call “saintly” type people. Hell I have met lots of jehovas witnesses, and if you disregard doctrinal differences many of them certainly outwardly appear to be very Christian in behaviour and deeds.

Yet the vast majority of main stream Christians woould say that the Jehovas witnessea ren’t actually Christians, even though the JW’S claim to be.

The one sure fire thing with all these different doctines etc is that they all claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit and that all they have learnt is straite out of scripture.

So we can say with absolute objectivity that reading the scripture alone and coming out with correct understandings, without guidance by some sort of guaranteed infalliable teaching, is nigh on impossible.

God actually demands infalliable teaching/guidance by men on earth, His teaching followers on earth must with absoluteness have the ability to explain scripture infalliably.

Whats the other option, everyone decide for themselves supposedly guided byt he Holy Spirit, yes you can choose this option but realise that only leaves you with one conclusion. It is impossible to corrrect anyone else in their biblical/scriptural understanding becasue you have nothing to base your correcition on other than your own falliable interpreatatin of scripture.

What gives any protestant type faith person the right to come here and say catholics are wrong or for that matter any one else. If catholics don’t have infalliable teaching behind them then they are welcome to interprint scripture according to their own reasons.

It all comes down to infalliability and the absolute rquirmeent for it.

In Christ

Tim

Tim,

Think about what you’re saying.

You say that the Bible is the infallible Word of God.
But then you say that the infallible Word of God needs a further unveiling by an infalilible teaching magesterium.

How is an infallible interpretation any better than the infallible revelation? Divine revelation is a disclosure or unveiling by God. But to claim, as Catholics do, that God’s infallible unveiling in the Bible needs further infallible unveiling by God is to say that it was not unveiled properly to begin with.

Sorry, no sale.

there is a difference between objective disclosure (revelation) and subjective discovery (understanding). But the central problem in this regard is not in the perception of God’s truth. Even His special revelation is “evident” and “able to be understood” (Rom. 1:19-20). The biggest problem with regard to the truth of God’s revelation is reception. Paul declared that “the natural person does not accept [Gk: *dekomai, welcome, receive] what pertains to the Spirit of God…” (1 Cor. 2:14). He cannot “know” (ginosko: know by experience) them because he does not receive them into his life, even though he understands them in his mind. So even though there is a difference between objective disclosure and subjective understanding, humans are “without excuse” for failing to understand the objective revelation of God, whether in nature or in Scripture (Rom. 1:20).

It is interesting that Catholic theology itself maintains that unbelievers should and can understand the truth of natural law apart from the teaching magisterium. Why then should they need an infallible teaching magisterium in order to properly understand the more explicit divine law?

It is inconsistent for Catholics to claim they need another mind to interpret Scripture correctly for them when the mind God gave them is sufficient to interpret everything else, including some things much more difficult than Scripture. Many Catholic scholars, for example, are experts in interpreting classical literature, involving both the moral and religious meaning of those texts. Yet these same educated minds are said to be inadequate to obtain a reliable religious and moral interpretation of the texts of their own Scriptures.

Baloney.

 

[jjwilkman]

i have read about halfway through thread and i can’t take any more.

i’m not going to be so charitable. ml 1957. you have a closed mind. why are you here? obviously not to inquire or learn. are you phishing for catholics to convert? this is the wrong place. we are already converted. to catholicism. where do you think the bible came from? the Holy Spirit acting through men (early catholic christians). remember there was nothing else.

think about this. how could an organization made by us stupid humans have survived the dark ages. 400 to about 1000 with it’s torture, dungeons, fire, sword, burning at the stake? the church is not a manmade institutiion. actually, including our jewish antecedants, the church has survived, maybe 6000 years plus. it’s still here!

normally i don’t talk to closed minds, i just walk away

another thought, the bible is a seamless garment. the message is the same from cover to cover (I will be your God and you will be my people). think about that.

if i have offended anybody, i apologize.

 

[EA_Man]

Milliardo:

EA, you do realize that the thief on the Cross is a special case, right? What makes you think Jesus wouldn’t let him do those if he’s not on the cross?

Oh right special case.

Not according to Paul;
Romans 10:8-10
But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For **it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. **

According to Paul that case was NOT special.
Next.

 

[EA_Man]

Genesis315:

If you knowingly reject the Eucharist, baptism, and confession with full consent, you will be held accountable.

Bringing back the Inquisition?

 

[Genesis315]

EA_Man:

Bringing back the Inquisition?

Hey, I’m just sayin’, if Jesus institutes sacraments, one might do well to participate in them. To tell Jesus that you think the sacraments He instituted are worthless, might get you into some trouble.

 

[Milliardo]

EA_Man:

According to Paul that case was NOT special.

Right. Paul. What was Paul again next to Christ?

 

[EA_Man]

Genesis315:

Hey, I’m just sayin’, if Jesus institutes sacraments, one might do well to participate in them. To tell Jesus that you think the sacraments He instituted are worthless, might get you into some trouble.

I never said that they are worthless.

I said that do not confer salvation, in my opinion.

This is one of the distinct differences between Catholics and Protestants and I don’t expect that we are going to iron it out here.

That being said I know that there are and have been godly Catholics.
A point I make to my Protestant friends often.

I apologize for the Inquisition remark - I couldn’t resist.

 

[EA_Man]

Milliardo:

Right. Paul. What was Paul again next to Christ?

Are you inferring that Paul was not one of God’s chosen spokesmen.

If nothing else this represents an opportunity for some Catholics on this thread to object.

Anyone?

 

[Milliardo]

EA_Man:

Are you inferring that Paul was not one of God’s chosen spokesmen.

If nothing else this represents an opportunity for some Catholics on this thread to object.

Anyone?

No, I am not inferring that, but then you seem to take Paul’s words against Jesus’ words, and not take them as a harmony. Correct?

 

[Genesis315]

EA_Man:

I apologize for the Inquisition remark - I couldn’t resist.

Hahaha, well, that post of mine did sound like something the grand inquisitor would say.

We all agree we a re saved by grace, we just differ on how that grace comes to us. So to a Catholic, rejecting the sacraments is rejecting grace. I think we can both agree that in general rejecting God’s grace is a big no-no.