To Be in Heaven, You Must Be Catholic

[Randy_Carson]

Ephesians 2:19-20
19 Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God,
20 Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

2 Samuel 22:2
2 And he said: The Lord is my rock, and my strength, and my saviour.

The LORD is my rock!Hes the cheif cornerstone!Not Saint Peter!Matthew 16:18-19 is what Catholics cling to. If only they had more scriptures to back up this claim.

Amen! Catholics love those verses as we do all 73 books of the complete Word of God.

However, they don’t apply to our discussion. here’s why:

Matthew 16:18 – Peter the Rock
Understanding the Use of Metaphor in the New Testament

Matthew 16:18-20 (NIV)
18And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

[a] Peter means rock.

Many non-Catholics object to the idea that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus promised to build the Church, and they offer various alternative interpretations of the rock as being Jesus himself, Peter’s confession of faith, and the curious hybrid Peter and his confession. To support their denial of Jesus’ establishment of Peter as the head of the Church, non-Catholics frequently cite other scripture passages in which Jesus is called the “chief cornerstone” and the apostles collectively being described as foundation stones. These arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of the use of metaphors within the pages of scripture. Author Stephen Ray, himself a former Evangelical and convert to Catholicism, addressed this problem in his book, Upon This Rock:

“In this metaphorical description, Jesus himself could not be the foundation, because in this illustration he presents himself as the builder. The following is very important. In Scripture Jesus is variously depicted as the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the builder (Mt. 16:18), the cornerstone (Acts 4:11), and the temple itself (Rev. 21:22). We also see the apostles and/or believers as the foundation (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), the builders (1 Cor. 3:10), the stones, lithos, not petra (1 Pet. 2:5), the building (1 Cor. 3:9), and the temple (Eph. 2:21). Many illustrations are used to explain various aspects of the Church. One cannot simply substitute one descriptive figure of speech for another in any one illustration thereby mixing metaphors. It does great violence to the textual illustration itself and is a good example of roughshod “proof-texting”, wrongly “dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). The Bible does not set up a dichotomy—either Jesus or Peter; rather, it presents us with both Jesus and Peter as foundation stones. Jesus is establishing the man who will be the focal point of unity within the Church, the foundation. He who builds upon sand has a structure that crumbles (Mt. 7:24-27). Jesus builds his Church upon the rock of his choice, and, by his protection, the Church has stood the test of time. The powers of hell have failed to destroy or corrupt her” (Stephen Ray, Upon this Rock, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 36.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

The LORD is my rock! Hes the chief cornerstone!

Amen!

Not Saint Peter! Matthew 16:18-19 is what Catholics cling to. If only they had more scriptures to back up this claim.

We do. But let’s see what non-Catholic Scholars have to say about Matthew 16:18-19.

Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock

Here are five of the more than two dozen quotes I have from heavyweight Protestant scholars regarding the identity of “the rock” in Matthew 16:18.

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann

“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. “To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter,” Albright says, "among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles." (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter. (Ibid.)

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)

“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . **Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter **. . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

Oscar Cullman (Protestant Scholar)

“But what does Jesus mean when He says: ‘On this rock I will build my church’? The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in vew of the probably different setting of the story. For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia [church]. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich), [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968], 6:108).

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)

"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

David Hill (Presbyterian)

“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Oh I’m sorry, if you dont know what the Gospel is then go ask your Priest he will be happy to inform you

I’m glad you acknowledge that Catholic priests do know the gospel.

They also share it with the rest of us from time to time.

 

[steve_b]

Funny you say this while many other Catholics would disagree with you on that, weres the Unity there?

I didn’t give you my opinion. You say Jesus talked to you and said it’s okay to be a protestant. Protestants are seperted from His Church that He gave all His promises to, and died for. I quoted what Jesus said about perfect unity that He wants, not only in the hierarchy of His Church but those who are in the rank and file.

To remind you, Jesus says He wants PERFECT unity in His Church, at the hierarchy level as well as the rank and file. John 17:20-23 . From His mouth to your ears…so to speak
y:

My relationship with God has nothing to do with a Church. If going to a Church makes you feel safe, then so be it. I put my trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, not a building with a guy who sits in a golden chair.

Wait a minute. You quoted a line from Romans to use as your evidence for what you think applies to you.

Well…THE Catholic Church you rail against, and won’t trust, and say you want no part of, is THE Catholic Church that gave you the book that line was taken from. It’s a rather disjointed idea, to believe and trust a line in a book THE Catholic Church gave you, but not believe and trust in the Catholic Church. And Paul said one was not to divide from the Catholic Churtch or there are diasterous consequence for one’s soul. Jesus builds HIS Church, the Catholic Church on Peter and the apostles Matthew 16:16-19 . The same Church 2000 years later, Pope Francis, 266th successor to St Peter, presides over.

 

[dronald]

I don’t believe that, “on this rock” is the most compelling argument because Jesus could have simply been using a play on words as He states that He will build His Church on Peter’s statement of Faith.

However, He then proceeds to tell Peter that He is giving him the keys to Heaven… that one I can’t really figure out as a Protestant.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh I’m sorry, if you dont know what the Gospel is then go ask your Priest he will be happy to inform you

Not sure what the point of that comment above is…

But how about I’d you just answer this: who do you think it was who discerned for us what belongs in the NT?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t believe that, “on this rock” is the most compelling argument because Jesus could have simply been using a play on words as He states that He will build His Church on Peter’s statement of Faith.

However, He then proceeds to tell Peter that He is giving him the keys to Heaven… that one I can’t really figure out as a Protestant.

No, you can’t because it is loaded with Catholic implications! :dancing:

However, Jesus was NOT referring to Peter’s statement of faith…He was referring to Peter.

All of the Protestant scholars I posted earlier attest to this. This is one area of Catholic-Protestant relations that should be finally concluded.

Peter is the rock.

 

[steve_b]

Education is great, but we have to educate based on the whole subject with clarity. A quick few lines from a letter in the bible is not in the entire context of the teaching and can confuse.

For instance, if I wasn’t Catholic, I might not know what you mean by soul in a state with those sins. Thus if I did any of them, I might not qualify for the state of mortal sin as I might not ‘KNOW they were wrong and do them anyway’ (Obviously, they are grave matter).

To educate on this point would be to educate with the definition of a mortal sin in hand (grave, know, do).

Even if you weren’t Catholic I would have said the same thing. I usually give references in advance for what I write in anticipation of someone wanting them.

Example [http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11164633&postcount=898 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11164633&postcount=898)

If a person is Protestant, they’ve got the bible to reference. Even if terminology is not the same between Protestant and Catholic, regarding grave vs mortal etc, the concept is the same. Die in those sins and one won’t be going to heaven. That’s what he said. Too many people IMV try and make this into something only a rocket scientist can understand. It’s not difficult.

• Is society collectively dumber today than they were 2000 years ago when Paul wrote those warnings? I don’t think so.
• Are people craftier today than they were 2000 years ago when it comes to making excuses for their bad behavior? Or more imaginative today than 2000 years ago, in dumbing down serious faults and reducing them in their own minds to misdemeanors or no fault at all? I don’t think so.

In the example I used, Paul gave his warning more than once to the Galatians. Not because they were too ignorant to understand what he meant the first time, but because they weren’t heeding the warning the first time and continued to commit those sins. Since no one knows the moment they will die, one doesn’t want to die with anyone of those sins on their soul.
f:

going back to your example, if there was rejection of the Church, to know if the sin is mortal is God’s to know, above our pay grade.

Here’s why that’s wrong.

open this link.[John 16:12-15 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 16)

When Paul taught this in **Galatians 5:19-**21 , The HS inspired Paul to teach that about those sins, which as Jesus said it ultimately came from Him. That means Jesus the judge of ALL souls, wants us to know in advance , how He will judge a soul who dies in those sins. Is this above everybody’s pay grade to understand? A protestant can call these sins what they want. They can’t escape the consequence of those sins being gravely serious, and they can’t argue against, if they die in any of those sins they won’t be going to heaven. Jesus isn’t interested in anybody’s arguments to the contrary.

In my example, I picked one of thoses sins (dissension / division) from that group of sins, to make my point. By showing people the truth, just like you’ve been shown the truth, and I’ve been shown the truith, means we can’t claim ignorance down the road because we didn’t know the truth, or were never told the truth… And we have the obligation to pass the truth on.
f:

Therefore, if the person is breathing they have the ability to repent.

I never said anything differently.

 

[tskrobacz]

If we are still attached to our religion, our color, or the country we were born in, then we still don’t know who we are…

 

[ffg]

Continues to be a great thread.

A note earlier brought up the great debate of works again, but I would like to pose it a bit differently to tie it into the thread.

Why does preparation have to be equal to ‘earn’ in some eyes?

We prepare for things all the time, in sports, interviews, etc. that don’t show fruit and give us a sense we ‘earned’ something.

In sports we are preparing for a win, doesn’t mean it’s going to come our way.

In interviews, we are preparing for an offer as an end result, doesn’t mean it’s going to come our way.

Why then is it assumed Catholics are working to earn something? The CC doesn’t teach ‘earning’ Heaven. It does teach ‘be prepared’. Being prepared is all over the Bible.

Preparation (in the grand scheme) is about being ready for judgement day, that’s it in the simplest.

I might burn, I might not, it’s not my call, what is my call is the effort I give today in understanding how the judge thinks and striving to do that which He has clued me in on.

By extention, a part of that preparation (through instruction) is striving for others to notice the clues. I can’t make up their minds, but I can be sure my contacts are not ignorant.

At the end of the day we are looking for the words “Welcome home Good and Faithful SERVANT”.

A good servant knows his boss well, has a great relationship, and prepares appropriately to cover any request.

A good servant is also a happy person as it is much more fulfilling to give than receive.

 

[ffg]

.

Steve, I don’t really understand the need to keep washing what we’ve cleaned. There is little I disagree with you on this point.

I didn’t say it was out of anyone’s paygrade to understand a teaching.

One of the keys is understanding the audience too, and being able to teach in a manner that might provide fruit.

The ? (and where I won’t go) is assuming I know the specificity of a person to tell them they are going to hell. Even knowing sins that drive one to hell, I’m never going to under-estimate the Mercy of God or the power of prayer.

A sinner might have an army of prayer warriors in heaven and on earth that sway the Mercy their way.

People should know the clear path to hell, that’s fine. Dying in the state of mortal sin is a clear path to hell (examples from the Bible previous in our back and forth), but the power and influence of prayer for the sinner might save them.

I don’t know, that’s above my pay grade to know (vs understand a teaching).

I wouldn’t recommend laying your eternal hope on the prayers of others as you Mortal sin your life away.

If we do the least and expect the most, we shouldn’t be surprised by an unfavorable judgement.

 

[steve_b]

I don’t believe that, “on this rock” is the most compelling argument because Jesus could have simply been using a play on words as He states that He will build His Church on Peter’s statement of Faith.

However, He then proceeds to tell Peter that He is giving him the keys to Heaven… that one I can’t really figure out as a Protestant.

This topic gets alot of action on these forums.

I found the following post to be really amusing for those focusing on “Rock” being Jesus.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8550748&postcount=16

Then there is the following idea

Is Peter’s statement to Jesus **Mt 16:16 “**Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God” the 1st time anything like this has ever been said to Jesus by the apostles?

2 chapters earlier

Matthew 14:32-33: "And when they [Jesus and Peter] got into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, 'Truly you are the Son of God.’”

Okay, that’s not exact to Mt 16:16 but it’s close

Did Jesus at that point [Mt 14:32-33] stop and say to the apostles, hey guys do you know what you just said? “your confession was a revelation from the Father” and so as a result, I’m going to change everybody’s name to Rock as your a new name, and give everyone the keys to the kingdom, and power to bind and loose? Nope!

Ya have to admit, the 2 confessions are close. But close isn’t enough. Point is, it happened In Mt 16:16…. and specifically for Peter.

• blessed are you Simon bar Jona, flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my heavenly Father. even though the apostles said something similar in Mt 14:32-33 it’s the Father’s choice to pick Peter.
• And when Jesus gives Simon a new name (Rock), gives him the keys to the kingdom of God, and the power to bind and loose, it’s Jesus 1st person singular talking to Peter 2nd person “singular”. Jesus is NOT talking in the plural. iow, it goes like this. I Jesus give you Peter…

I’ve been to Ceserea Philippi where this conversation took place.

• There is a huge rock here as the backdrop. It’s a shrine to the pagan god pan, who is god of the shepherds.
• Jesus God the son, the Good shepherd, who will build His Church on Peter the rock, asks the question here, who do people say that I am?

 

[ProdigalSun]

This is a non issue. You all seem to be overlooking traditional Catholic teaching on this point. The following statements on Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation are from the highest teaching authority of the Catholic Church. They are ex cathedra Papal decrees (decrees from the Chair of St. Peter). Therefore, they constitute the teaching given to the Catholic Church by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Such teachings are unchangeable and are classified as part of the solemn magisterium (the extraordinary teaching authority of the Catholic Church).

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice."

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation no remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311‐1312, ex cathedra: “Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non‐exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439,ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.” Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, alms giving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra: “For regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non‐exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, “Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”

All of the above infallible, (ex cathedra), Papal decrees can not ever be changed and will remain valid until the end of the world.

I would be interested to know why you left out the what our more modern popes had to say on this issue.

Hmmm… very interesting indeed.

Peasce!

 

[JonNC]

I would be interested to know why you left out the what our more modern popes had to say on this issue.

Hmmm… very interesting indeed.

Peasce!

It seems to me that contate domino, which was issued in 1439?, 80 years before the Reformation, apparently was aimed at Orthodoxy. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

I would be interested to know why the Catholic Church gives permission to its members to receive the Eucharist in those “schismatic churches” who** “cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives;…”**

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

I put my trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, not a building with a guy who sits in a golden chair.

Well, without the Catholic Church, the Body of Christ, all you have is Jesus, the Head, without any means of communicating His Revelation to you.

You need the Body of Christ, the Catholic Church, in order to know what Jesus, your Head, said.

 

[PRmerger]

And now you are into defining (for yourself) what the “bare essentials” or “minimum daily requirements” are.

Well, I think he gave himself a way out with his generic “gospel” being an essential.

That’s like a parent saying, “I told you you had to be ‘good’.” What, exactly, does this parent mean by being “good”? It could mean anything to the child.

Similarly, what, exactly, does yogo mean when he says the “gospel” is part of the essentials?

Well the essiental doctrines of the Christian Faith.

1. the Deity of Christ, 2) Salvation by Grace, and 3) Resurrection of Christ, 4)** the gospel,** and 5) monotheism. These are the doctrines the Bible says are necessary. Though there are many other important doctrines, these five are the ones that are declared by Scripture to be essential (I call them primary essentials since the Bible declares them as essential). A non-regenerate person (i.e., Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness, atheist, Muslim), will deny one or more of these essential doctrines. Please note that there are other derivative doctrines of scripture that become necessary also, the Trinity being one.

 

[steve_b]

It seems to me that contate domino, which was issued in 1439?, 80 years before the Reformation, apparently was aimed at Orthodoxy. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

the 2nd link (ewtn) takes the groups mentioned in order, and gives a short explanation why each is there

1. 
   *]pagans
   *]Jews
   *]heretics
   *]schismatics
   
   It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
   
   catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html
   
   ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=316548&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=
   J:
   

   I would be interested to know why the Catholic Church gives permission to its members to receive the Eucharist in those “schismatic churches” who** “cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives;…”**
   
   Jon

   Can. 844
   §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone.
   § 2 Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-
   Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
   
   to summarize then addressing your question
   
   4 NECESSARY QUALIFICATIONS are MENTIONED
   
   1. 
      *]Must be a necessity i.e a Catholic is dieing or will die
      *]Catholic must avoid danger of error or of indifferentism
      *]it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister
      *]a non-Catholic minister must be from a Church where sacraments are valid.
      
      Those qualifications (not suggestions) must be met. This for example is not liscense by the Church for a Catholic to willy nilly receive sacraments from an EO priest. It’s permission only in extraordinary circumstances, providing those qualifications are met…

 

[PRmerger]

So the fact that you know Jesus died and rose from the dead for you…is because the CC told you this.

I don’t know that He did, but I believe that He did (if it was a matter of knowing, faith would have no role in the religious life).

As to Mark, again I don’t know, I believe, and I believed it was inspired before any formal education from the CC.

Know/believe…whatever, as it applies in this discussion.

The point is that you know/believe these things ONLY because the Catholic Church told you this is the gospel message.

The fact that you did not receive this gospel message directly from the mouth of a priest is irrelevant, Alizarin.

Whoever you received this truth from, received it from someone else, who received it from someone else…<snip 1000 years> and this person received it from the Catholic Church, which was the ONLY Christian Church around…and which discerned for you and me that the Gospel of Mark is inspired…and the Epistle of Barnabas is not.

You would not know it any other way.

 

[jmcrae]

Well the essiental doctrines of the Christian Faith.

1. the Deity of Christ, 2) Salvation by Grace, and 3) Resurrection of Christ, 4) the gospel, and 5) monotheism. These are the doctrines the Bible says are necessary. Though there are many other important doctrines, these five are the ones that are declared by Scripture to be essential (I call them primary essentials since the Bible declares them as essential). A non-regenerate person (i.e., Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness, atheist, Muslim), will deny one or more of these essential doctrines. Please note that there are other derivative doctrines of scripture that become necessary also, the Trinity being one.

Everything that we find in the Bible is essential, or else the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage would not have included it in the Bible.

 

[PRmerger]

And when I look at what it gave me over the years, my heart doesn’t grow fond. It grows cold. Which is why I left the CC. But if it works for others, good for them. We’re all brothers (and sisters) in Christ, right?

Perhaps you are confusing orthopraxy with orthodoxy.

If there is some teaching from the CC that you believe comes from man and not God, could you provide it here?

If there are practices that Catholics have done, such as have snubbed you or your loved ones, or demanded money from you unjustly, or gossiped about your wife, then you ought not have left the CC because of poor praxis.