Very confused on "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church."

[paul_c]

It depends on the Catholic just as it depends on the non-Catholic for all Christians enter the same way. By grace through faith in Christ alone and not of works least anyone should boast about cooperating in ones salvation. He only accepts thoses that come with a genuine heart of repentance. It is why there will be people from every tribe and tongue in the Kingdom, for some will struggle and be successful by His grace to enter into the Kingdom as Lord tells us in Luke.

You misunderstand scripture. Sure, you can’t earn your way to heaven. Its all about love, which is doing things for others without expecting anything in return. (Charity = love). You must love to get into heaven. You must do these things out of love of
God not for the reward of heaven. But you must act. Faith alone is worth nothing if you don’t put it into action by doing the will of God, which is after all, to love…

 

[Beth_Martin]

this is what John says in 1John2: let’s use a little color coding. The Green is what Evangelical’s / protestants focus on. the Red is the rest of the story. Catholic Theology includes both parts,

1 My children, I am writing this to you so that you may not commit sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one.
2 He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world. 3 The way we may be sure that we know him is to keep his command ments.
4Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoever keeps his word, the love of God is truly perfected in him. This is the way we may know that we are in union with him:
6 whoever claims to abide in him ought to live (just) as he lived.
7 Beloved, I am writing no new commandment to you but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard.
8 And yet I do write a new commandment to you, which holds true in him and among you, for the darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining.
and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

12 I am writing to you, children, because your sins have been forgiven for his name’s sake.
13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have conquered the evil one.
14 I write to you, children, because you know the Father. I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong and the word of God remains in you, and you have conquered the evil one.
15 Do not love the world or the things of the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, sensual lust, 8 enticement for the eyes, and a pretentious life, is not from the Father but is from the world.
17 Yet the world and its enticement are passing away. But whoever does the will of God remains forever.
18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the last hour.
19 They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number.
20 But you have the anointing that comes from the holy one, and you all have knowledge. 21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth.
22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist.
23 No one who denies the Son has the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well. 24 Let what you heard from the beginning remain in you. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, then you will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he made us: eternal life. 26 I write you these things about those who would deceive you.
27 As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyone to teach you. But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain in him.
28 And now, children, remain in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not be put to shame by him at his coming.
29 If you consider that he is righteous, you also know that everyone who acts in righteousness is begotten by him.

Notice the red lines, which are generally not understood by Protestants include refutations of sola Fide: You must not commit sin and you must keep the commandments and do the will of God.

It condemns those that have left the church as being unannointed.

It also condemns the concept of OSAS, calling on us to remain in Christ

Paul, the two commandments given by the Lord are the summary of the OT law which how many were able to keep? Zero, nothing has changed in that regard, which is why we need a Savior and why God sent us a Savior to save of from what? Sin, and lawlessness is sin. Why do we need and advocate? To help us against the accusations of the evil one and why is there but one intersessor between man and God? Because God purposed it that way.

"Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a grace, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" ------ Rom. 4:4-5 Sola Fide

The same mistake the nation of Israel made in abandoning Soal Fide
"For not knowing about God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God" ------- Romans 10:3

What about Jesus?
“Your faith has made you well” Matt. 9:22; Mk. 5:34; 10:52; Lk. 8:48; 17:19; 18:42. These are all object lessons on the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Whenever and wherever justification is fused or intertwined with sanctification, then righteousness by works become an essential part of the salvation process. Faith is thus debased with works & is no longer genuine by His standard. This was the error Paul addressed with the legalists in Galatia (Gal. 2:16; 5:4) Paul called it “a different gospel” Gal. 1:6, 9. Anything that Paul calls a different gospel is not a good thing!

 

[inkaneer]

You’ve missed out: The Book of Machabees teaches that “It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins.” (2 Mac 12:46)

But the NT has: “Not all sin is deadly.” (1 Jn 5:17), and “Nothing defiled shall enter heaven.” (Rev 21:27).

So what is missing in the confusion is the doctrine of Purgatory, which is why Catholics pray for the departed.

Well that is not all that is missing. There is the NT reference made by Paul in 1 Cor 3:11-15:

“11 For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw-- 13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”

Here is a saved man going through a purifying fire. A perfect scriptural reference for purgation. Protestantism has no explanation for this because the only fire in protrestantism is hell fire and saved men do not experience it.

 

[Beth_Martin]

John 2:23-25 Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing. 24 But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, 25 and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.

Was it not precisely this claiming of salvation by faith (alone), that prompted **Jesus **to say:
*“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but **he ***that **doeth **the will of my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt 7:21)?

Again:
*“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’” *

echoed by

**James **(“Jimmy”, with his “epistle of straw”):

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?" (James 2:14)?

Again:
*“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?” *(James 2:19-21)

And again:
*“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and **not ***by faith only.” (James 2:24)

And again:
*“For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” *(James 2:26)

John:
*"…the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." *(Rev 20:12)

Matthew:
*"… the Son of man shall… reward every man according to his works.” *(Matt 16:27)

Paul:
“…every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor.”(1 Cor 3:8)

Q: Hey, Martin! Is “faith alone” a valid doctrine based on the **authentic **scriptures which the sacred writers composed?

A: “I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text …” Martin Luther (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102

Martin, old boy, looks like you’ve attracted an army of staunch followers and defenders of your fabricated, easy-as-pie-no-worries doctrines which are diametrically opposed to the intent and original meaning of scripture, but do remember this:

“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2)

“… even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!” (Gal 1:8)"

But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith --can’t get much clearer can it? All the works to please God that Paul did he counted it a “dung” because it was so simple it was on the basis of faith. On the basis of faith, yes on that basis, which is faith. ALONE!!

You have not added anything to what I have said no not said; easy belieism is a false faith just as faith by cooperative works is “a different gospel” as Paul stated to the Galatians. There is but one genuine faith which one receives by having a true heart of repentance from sin and toward the Savior and on the basis of faith in His work on the cross, not anyone eles’s; least one should boast before the Lord.

Beth (woman) You should not store anger in your heart it will cause you to sin more; please if you would like for me to leave I will most gladly leave.

 

[Tomb54]

Yes and you?

How do you know? Thought the Holy spirit would not let you be wrong if you were a believer.

 

[JustaServant]

How do you know? Thought the Holy spirit would not let you be wrong if you were a believer.

Depends on the preacher.

 

[Tomb54]

I think these arguments are circular when you are dealing with non-Catholics. There are many teachings of the Church. Very few of them are actually dogma, which a Catholic is required to believe.

Although there are many things taught that are not in the Bible, none of these things should conflict with the Bible. Take, for example, Matthew 7:21-23,

“Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, and cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? And then will I declare to them, I never knew you, depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness”.

The only point I am trying to make here is that doing miracles (from Saint’s or otherwise, is not proof that these people are in heaven). People mention the fact of the infallible Church Jesus left. Jesus never said that leaders in his Church would be infallible in their teachings. He said that the Gates of Hades would not prevail against his church. That is not the same thing. Infallibility of the Pope was not declared dogma until 1713 by Pope Clement XI. Even Catholics were free to dispute this point until then.

The Eastern Orthodox church split with the RCC over this and other matters. They do not recognize the infallibility of the Pope. However, their 7 sacraments are recognized by the Roman Catholic Church because their Bishops are viewed as having valid Apostolic Succession.

Many people on this board have criticized Protestants as Heretics because, among other things, they do not agree with the infallibility of the Pope. They argue that the RCC is the one Jesus established because it is the oldest, going back to the first century. Well arguably, the Eatern Orthodox could make the same claim. In the Book of Acts, the Churches that were established first, were in the east. This would put the Eastern Orthodox as the oldest.

Peter, certainly was fallible. He denied Christ 3 times subsequent to his confession, where Christ responded that the gates of Hades would not prevail against his Church. Peter and the apostles were pretty pathetic, prior to Pentecost. After Pentecost, Peter and the rest were bold and unstoppable, totally changed. It was the Holy Spirit that made this difference. If you want a view of what the earliest Church really looked like, read the book of Acts.

I see you really do not understand the meaning of infallibility as used by the CC. Did Peter know and teach what Jesus taught? if he did he was infallible in all things to do with faith and moral. Infallibility says nothing about anything else he did. You must realize also before Pentecost the Church had not received the Holy Spirit so they did not have His guidance before that time. Your logic that Eastern Orthodox is oldest does not work either because they were not separate at the beginning and the CC has just as many churches in these areas as the Orthodox Church and without the leader of the Church many Orthodox churches are having the same problems as the Protestants with split offs. Maybe not as bad but it is still happening. Also if you read you will see even the Eastern churhces call the bishop of Rome the First among equals. If you think about it if you are the first amoung equal you are still the leader even though you seek the others advise which is what the Pope does with the help of the bishops.
Read Act let us see – Bishops, Priests, Deacons, laypeople, the Eucharist (that people most discern as the Body and Blood of Christ), Peter as the leader, counsels to help decide church issues, persecution by the Church and many heretics against the Church that feel their understanding, even if it is against the Apostles, is the right one, and one Universal (Catholic) Church. Sound allot like the CC.

 

[inkaneer]

I think these arguments are circular when you are dealing with non-Catholics. There are many teachings of the Church. Very few of them are actually dogma, which a Catholic is required to believe.

Although there are many things taught that are not in the Bible, none of these things should conflict with the Bible. Take, for example, Matthew 7:21-23,

“Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, and cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? And then will I declare to them, I never knew you, depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness”.

The only point I am trying to make here is that doing miracles (from Saint’s or otherwise, is not proof that these people are in heaven). People mention the fact of the infallible Church Jesus left. Jesus never said that leaders in his Church would be infallible in their teachings. He said that the Gates of Hades would not prevail against his church. That is not the same thing. Infallibility of the Pope was not declared dogma until 1713 by Pope Clement XI. Even Catholics were free to dispute this point until then.

I’m sorry but you are not correct. Jesus said to Peter:

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [Mt 16:19]

How many men do you know who can bind something on earth and have it also bound in heaven at the same time? The president of the USA , with all the power he has, cannot do that. But a fisherman from Galilee could. That, my friend, is infallibility. Bear in Mind that Peter is not going to go off binding and loosening to his little hearts content. Why? Because the Spirit of Truth would lead him into all truth. For the last 500 years protestants have been trying to prove that in 2,000 years some pope taught error. The mainline protestants, for the most part, have given up on it. The newer fundie-enangelical sects have taken up the cause but have not proven one example of a pope teaching error. And let’s be frank here, we have had some popes who were real scoundrels, popes who sinned greviously in fact. Yet despite their rogue personal lives not one of them taught false doctrine. How could they when Jesus said that hell would not prevail over his church. The only way hell could prevail was if the church taught error. But Jesus said that would never happen.

P.S. The doctrine of papalinfallibiility was formally defined in 1870 not 1713 at the Vatican I council. Note that it was formally defined. But it existed as long as the church has been around. I already gave you the scriptural reference [Mt 16:19]. Most doctrines have not been formally defined. Others have been defined over time. The Doctrine of the Trinity for instance was not defined until the fifth century. The canon of the Bible, although in use since the late fourth century was not formally defined until 1547. So formal definition of a doctrine does not mean that is when the doctrine began. Formal definition occurs when there is a controversy on a doctrine which the church then clarifies. A good example is in the book of Acts chapter 15. The church settled the doctrinal issue in Antioch when the Judiacizers wanted to impose OT doctrine on the Gentile converts.

The Eastern Orthodox church split with the RCC over this and other matters. They do not recognize the infallibility of the Pope. However, their 7 sacraments are recognized by the Roman Catholic Church because their Bishops are viewed as having valid Apostolic Succession.

The Orthodox recognize the pope as the Patriarch of the West and also recognize that he has a “primacy of honor” over the other Patriarchs. So what is this “primacy of honor” based on if not authority? The Orthodox have valid Apostolic Succession and as a result they possess valid sacraments, a valid priesthood and a valid liturgy. However, They also possess a pride that borders on sinful. The schism between east and west is political not theological. I point out that the Byzantine Catholic church [Greek Catholic] has the very same liturgy as the Greek Orthodox, the only exception is that the Byzantines have reunited with the pope and the Orthodox have not.

Many people on this board have criticized Protestants as Heretics because, among other things, they do not agree with the infallibility of the Pope. They argue that the RCC is the one Jesus established because it is the oldest, going back to the first century. Well arguably, the Eatern Orthodox could make the same claim. In the Book of Acts, the Churches that were established first, were in the east. This would put the Eastern Orthodox as the oldest.

And that would be a false claim. May I point out to you that the church at Rome was established three centuries before Constantinople was even a city. No Apostle ever preached in Constantinople because it didn’t exist until 325 AD when Constantine move the capital of the empire there. And let’s look at the four original Patriarchs. Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome and Alexandria. All of them are based on Peter. Peter was the first Bishop of Jerusalem. He did after all give the first sermon and the first altar call on Pentecost. James becomes bishop after Peter goes to Antioch and becomes its first bishop. Peter then ordains Elvodius to the episcopcy of Antioch and goes on to Rome. There he ordains John Mark [the Evangelist] and sends him to Alexandria. Peter dies in Rome in 67 AD. He is martyred on Vatican Hill.

 

[inkaneer]

Peter, certainly was fallible. He denied Christ 3 times subsequent to his confession, where Christ responded that the gates of Hades would not prevail against his Church. Peter and the apostles were pretty pathetic, prior to Pentecost. After Pentecost, Peter and the rest were bold and unstoppable, totally changed. It was the Holy Spirit that made this difference. If you want a view of what the earliest Church really looked like, read the book of Acts.

Peter was quite fallible before Pentecost. But after the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. He was infallible. Look at the Council of Jerusalem. Scripture says there was much debate [Acts 15:7] until Peter stood up and spoke. Then what does scripture say? It says everyone shut up [Acts 15:12] Why? Because the BOSS was speaking that’s why and they knew it. After Peter speaks there is no more debate. The matter is settled James formulates the response on behalf of the council. The date of this council is generally given as about 50 AD. Now fast forward a couple of decades. Peter is dead as is Paul and almost all of the Apostles with the exception of John who is in Ephesus. A problem arises in Corinth which cannot be resolved there. Corinth by the way is in Greece, you know, the East. Where do the Corinthians go to resolve their problem? Do they go to John the Apostle who is in Ephesus? No, they go to Clement. Who is Clement? He is the bishop of Rome and third in succession from Peter. So the Eastern Church did recognize the Bishop of Rome’s authority just as the council of Jerusalem did.

 

[paul_c]

Paul, the two commandments given by the Lord are the summary of the OT law which how many were able to keep? Zero, nothing has changed in that regard, which is why we need a Savior and why God sent us a Savior to save of from what? Sin, and lawlessness is sin. Why do we need and advocate? To help us against the accusations of the evil one and why is there but one intersessor between man and God? Because God purposed it that way.

"Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a grace, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" ------ Rom. 4:4-5 Sola Fide

The same mistake the nation of Israel made in abandoning Soal Fide
"For not knowing about God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God" ------- Romans 10:3

What about Jesus?
“Your faith has made you well” Matt. 9:22; Mk. 5:34; 10:52; Lk. 8:48; 17:19; 18:42. These are all object lessons on the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Whenever and wherever justification is fused or intertwined with sanctification, then righteousness by works become an essential part of the salvation process. Faith is thus debased with works & is no longer genuine by His standard. This was the error Paul addressed with the legalists in Galatia (Gal. 2:16; 5:4) Paul called it “a different gospel” Gal. 1:6, 9. Anything that Paul calls a different gospel is not a good thing!

Stop. you are quoting Romans selectively. Sure you need Faith but you also need works:

Here’s Romans 2:
5 By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God,
6 who will repay everyone according to his works:
7 eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,
8 but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.
9 Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek.
10 But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek

 

[EDWARDJL]

I see you really do not understand the meaning of infallibility as used by the CC. Did Peter know and teach what Jesus taught? if he did he was infallible in all things to do with faith and moral. Infallibility says nothing about anything else he did. You must realize also before Pentecost the Church had not received the Holy Spirit so they did not have His guidance before that time. Your logic that Eastern Orthodox is oldest does not work either because they were not separate at the beginning and the CC has just as many churches in these areas as the Orthodox Church and without the leader of the Church many Orthodox churches are having the same problems as the Protestants with split offs. Maybe not as bad but it is still happening. Also if you read you will see even the Eastern churhces call the bishop of Rome the First among equals. If you think about it if you are the first amoung equal you are still the leader even though you seek the others advise which is what the Pope does with the help of the bishops.
Read Act let us see – Bishops, Priests, Deacons, laypeople, the Eucharist (that people most discern as the Body and Blood of Christ), Peter as the leader, counsels to help decide church issues, persecution by the Church and many heretics against the Church that feel their understanding, even if it is against the Apostles, is the right one, and one Universal (Catholic) Church. Sound allot like the CC.

The Eastern Orthodox church does not recognize the supremacy and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome. That is one of the main differences. The point is that they go back to the Apostles, and differ on many points of the RC Church.

Peter and the apostles were out establishing new churches and proclaiming the Gospel (the good news of Jesus Christ). Peter never claimed to be infallible on any offical teachings. In Acts 15, the Council at Jerusalem, Peter was first to speak. Then Paul spoke, and the James. They all agreed upon the decision. Peter did not hold any official primacy.

The word Presbyter can mean priest, pastor, elder, or minister. The word that can refer to a Bishop is episkopos. It is an overseer. It is used to describe a clergyman who is in charge of a religious community. These terms are also used in the Presbyterian and Episcopol church. There is nothing uniquely Roman Catholic about these terms.

They Apostles listened to the word preached in the synagogues and then broke bread together in home churches. Not one word was spoken about the apostles hearing confession and granting absolution. Nothing was mentioned about the sacrifice of the Mass being performed.

In chapter 7, when Stephen was about to die from stoning, he saw a glimpse of heaven, and Jesus, sitting at the right hand of the Father. Hebrews ch 10 vs 12-14 state

12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
13 then to wait until his enemies should be made a stool for his feet.
14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

This seems to directly contradict the “Sacrifice of the Mass”. Many Catholic apologists such as Scott Hahn will say that the sacrifice in the Mass is a re-presentation of the one time sacrifice, or that it is a perpetual sacrifice. This makes sense. However, I believe that the Catholic church teaches that each sacrifice at the Mass is propitiatory, an expiation for sins. It is necessary to apply the merits of Christ’s original sacrifice. However, if each Mass is a separate expiation, it would need to include a separate atonement, which seems to indicate a new sacrifice, not just a re-presentation of the orignial sacrifice, in a non-bloody manner.

 

[paul_c]

The Eastern Orthodox church does not recognize the supremacy and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome. That is one of the main differences. The point is that they go back to the Apostles, and differ on many points of the RC Church.

The eastern church recognized the Bishop of Rome as the first among equals, but not his supremecy. This stance was political as much as anything. In fact, 23 Eastern churches then rejoined Rome and are called The Eastern Catholic Churches. There are very few differences between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Peter and the apostles were out establishing new churches and proclaiming the Gospel (the good news of Jesus Christ). Peter never claimed to be infallible on any offical teachings. In Acts 15, the Council at Jerusalem, Peter was first to speak. Then Paul spoke, and the James. They all agreed upon the decision. Peter did not hold any official primacy.

read Acts 15 again. You will see that Peter claimed to be the apostle to the Gentiles and he was not disputed. He was the one who took the position that Gentiles did not have to follow the Jewish law to be Christians. Paul merely talked about his work among the Gentiles. James told his own followers, who instigated the issue to begin with that they should follow what Peter said.

The word Presbyter can mean priest, pastor, elder, or minister. The word that can refer to a Bishop is episkopos. It is an overseer. It is used to describe a clergyman who is in charge of a religious community. These terms are also used in the Presbyterian and Episcopol church. There is nothing uniquely Roman Catholic about these terms.

True, except you reallize the Catholic Church used those terms for 1500 years before the other chruches even existed.

They Apostles listened to the word preached in the synagogues and then broke bread together in home churches. Not one word was spoken about the apostles hearing confession and granting absolution. Nothing was mentioned about the sacrifice of the Mass being performed.

Justin Martyr, writing in 150 AD describes the mass in terms that would be completely recognizeable today. And in John 20, Jesus tells the Apostles they can forgive sins.

In chapter 7, when Stephen was about to die from stoning, he saw a glimpse of heaven, and Jesus, sitting at the right hand of the Father. Hebrews ch 10 vs 12-14 state

12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
13 then to wait until his enemies should be made a stool for his feet.
14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

This seems to directly contradict the “Sacrifice of the Mass”. Many Catholic apologists such as Scott Hahn will say that the sacrifice in the Mass is a re-presentation of the one time sacrifice, or that it is a perpetual sacrifice. This makes sense. However, I believe that the Catholic church teaches that each sacrifice at the Mass is propitiatory, an expiation for sins. It is necessary to apply the merits of Christ’s original sacrifice. However, if each Mass is a separate expiation, it would need to include a separate atonement, which seems to indicate a new sacrifice, not just a re-presentation of the orignial sacrifice, in a non-bloody manner.

Scott Hahn has it correct. Jesus exists out of time. The mass is a re-presentation of the one time sacrifice. This is official church teaching. You can read the Catechism, by the way to find what the church teaches : scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm

 

[Abu]

QuikCat
The keys indicate real authority in the coming kingdom that our Lord speaks of in Matthew 19:28. This is when the “keys” will be used.

EDWARDJL
Peter, certainly was fallible. He denied Christ 3 times

You are both woefully unfamiliar with Christ’s teaching.
To Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Pope St. Clement died about 80 A.D., some 20 years before the last Apostle, St. John, died. Although St. John was still alive in Ephesus, which was much closer to Corinth than was Rome, the Corinthians appealed to the Bishop of Rome because he had the “keys” of authority. Pope Clement wrote to the Church at Corinth: “You, there who laid the foundation of the rebellion, submit to the presbyters and be chastened to repentance, bending your knees in a spirit of humility.” (First Letter To The Corinthians, 57, 1; Jurgens, p. 12.) And again, “If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” (First Letter To The Corinthians, 59, 1; Jurgens, p. 12.)

“Christians must adhere to the pope not because he is infallible; but since they must, on divine command, adhere to the pope, he has to be infallible." (Fr Stanley Jaki, The Keys of the Kingdom, Franciscan Herald Press, 1986, p 170).

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the arch-liberal Protestant theologian Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

EDWARDJL
Hebrews ch 10 vs 12-14 state
12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
13 then to wait until his enemies should be made a stool for his feet.
14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
This seems to directly contradict the “Sacrifice of the Mass”.

Of course not – after all we’ve seen on the authority of Peter? Christ holds His priesthood permanently (Heb 7:24), and at the Last Supper made His apostles priests at the first Mass commanding “Do this in memory of Me.” Don’t you trust St Paul either? “So it is the Lord’s death you are heralding, whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, until He comes.” (1 Cor 11:26).

While the blessings of redemption were merited to us on the Cross the merits of salvation have to be applied principally through the Sacrifice of the Mass – the priest is in persona Christi. The one sacrifice of Calvary is made present to us so that we can do what is lacking in Christ’s Sacrifice – St Paul: “I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of His Body which is the Church.” (Col. 1:24). What is lacking in Christ’s suffering is precisely what only we can do – worship, repent, ask forgiveness, petition and partake of His Body and His Blood as Christ commanded at Holy Mass. That’s how Catholics keep holy the Sabbath day – on Sunday.

 

[EDWARDJL]

read Acts 15 again. You will see that Peter claimed to be the apostle to the Gentiles and he was not disputed. He was the one who took the position that Gentiles did not have to follow the Jewish law to be Christians. Paul merely talked about his work among the Gentiles. James told his own followers, who instigated the issue to begin with that they should follow what Peter said.

Peter was actually the apostle to the Jews. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. I believe an honest exegesis of the scripture shows that Peter was the leader of the Apostles. That is different than being the infallible vicar of Christ.

Justin Martyr, writing in 150 AD describes the mass in terms that would be completely recognizeable today. And in John 20, Jesus tells the Apostles they can forgive sins.

Although Justin Martyr’s opinions are to be considered, he was not an Apostle, and not in the book of Acts. The Mass simply was not addressed in the book of Acts.

Scott Hahn has it correct. Jesus exists out of time. The mass is a re-presentation of the one time sacrifice. This is official church teaching. You can read the Catechism, by the way to find what the church teaches : scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm

Catechism paragraph 1367 -

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190

Maybe (hopefully) I do not understand this correctly. If the mass is “truly propitiatory”, wouldn’t that imply that it is more than just a re-presentation of the original sacrifice on Calvary?

propitiatory - having power to atone for or offered by way of expiation or propitiation; “expiatory (or propitiatory) sacrifice”
expiative, expiatory
2. propitiatory - intended to reconcile or appease; “sent flowers as a propitiatory gesture”

 

[EDWARDJL]

While the blessings of redemption were merited to us on the Cross the merits of salvation have to be applied principally through the Sacrifice of the Mass – the priest is in persona Christi. The one sacrifice of Calvary is made present to us so that we can do what is lacking in Christ’s Sacrifice – St Paul: “I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of His Body which is the Church.” (Col. 1:24). What is lacking in Christ’s suffering is precisely what only we can do – worship, repent, ask forgiveness, petition and partake of His Body and His Blood as Christ commanded at Holy Mass. That’s how Catholics keep holy the Sabbath day – on Sunday.

Do you realize what you are saying. I don’t believe your interpretation is even the Catholic interpretation. The following quote you gave

I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of His Body which is the Church.” (Col. 1:24). What is lacking in Christ’s suffering is precisely what only we can do – worship, repent, ask forgiveness, petition and partake of His Body and His Blood as Christ commanded at Holy Mass.

You are saying that was Christ did on the cross is not enough. However, what Christ could not accomplish on the Cross, you can accomplish through participating in the Mass. In Hebrews, Christ sat down at the right hand of the Father because his one time sacrifice was accomplished.

The Colossian reference

I am filling up (Gk. antanaplēroō) what is lacking (Gk. hysterēma) in Christ’s afflictions does not imply that there is a deficiency in Christ’s atoning death and suffering on the cross, which would contradict the central message of this letter and all the rest of Scripture as well. Christ’s sufferings are in fact sufficient, and nothing of one’s own can be added to secure salvation. What was “lacking” in Christ’s afflictions was the future suffering of all who (like Paul) will experience great affliction for the sake of the gospel, as Paul described, e.g., in 2 Cor. 1:8–10. (Cf. Phil. 2:30, where Paul tells the Philippians that Epaphroditus risked his life “to complete what was lacking [Gk. hysterēma] in your service to me”.)

 

[mpjw2]

Greetings, brother!

If you reject anything revealed by God through His Church, you are rejecting God. If you reject, for example, the fact that Mary remained a virgin her whole life, then you are rejecting God’s great work of grace in her. If you do this with obstinacy, then you will be culpable of heresy and place yourself outside the Church, and outside the hope of salvation.

If you are not celebrating the sacrament of our Lord’s Body and Blood at Mass, either in the Catholic Church or in one of the Orthodox Churches, then you are not receiving His Body and Blood. You are not partaking of this Sacrament of our Salvation. You are partaking of a piece of bread and some juice or wine, and that is all. This is all the difference in the world: the difference between Jesus, our Creator-King, and a piece of bread. I hope you will come celebrate with us!

In Christ,
Pete

wow Pete strong belief …and if I do not come and celebrate with you…do you believe I am doomed ?

 

[fxcc]

But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.

Paul is writing here in response to disturbing news he has just heard about a threat to the faith of the Philippians in the form of false teachers, who are preaching reliance on works of the flesh - or more precisely, circumcision.

So Paul, using personal and autobiographical references, is highlighting the futility of his own earlier works, including circumcision, which were not accompanied by faith in Christ.

This becomes clear when the preceding verses (2-6) of the passage are taken into account. Also, the KJV translation of the passage is much clearer on this:

2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
4. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ,
9. And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

In simple terms, Paul is saying here is that works/circumcision **without faith **are futile for justification. He is presenting his own experience in coming to know Christ in terms of righteousness or justification, contrasting the righteousness from God through faith and that of one’s own based on the law as two exclusive ways of pleasing God.

Nowhere is he suggesting in this passage that works are **not **necessary for justification. Nor is he preaching that salvation comes from faith alone. He is simply highlighting the futility of works that are of the law but are not accompanied by faith in Christ.

Interestingly, in this very passage Paul uses the expressions “fellowship of his sufferings” and “being made conformable unto his death” - two powerful references to works which are driven by faith.

So… to paraphrase… St Paul says “works without faith is dead”, while St James says “faith without works is dead”. (2:26)

How elegant, balanced and prudent is that? Exactly the Catholic position.

 

[davidv]

wow Pete strong belief …and if I do not come and celebrate with you…do you believe I am doomed ?

Why do you insist on asking us a question only God can answer?

 

[mpjw2]

Well that is not all that is missing. There is the NT reference made by Paul in 1 Cor 3:11-15:

“11 For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw-- 13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”

Here is a saved man going through a purifying fire. A perfect scriptural reference for purgation. Protestantism has no explanation for this because the only fire in protrestantism is hell fire and saved men do not experience it.

Inkaneer…
"fire"is the fire of God and this event happens in heaven not purgatory.

we will be rewarded in heaven for all the works we did which honor God and His Kingdom

consider this

God does not care that you earn a paycheck for a living…

God cares about while you are at work…how many employees did you offere a helping hand too, How many did you let know you appreciate them, how many lunches did you buy for them, how many employees did you invite to church, did you invite to church that one employee that gets on your nerve all the time

that is why God says …

and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done

God does not care that I bowl in a league but if I pay for a teammates dues without him knowing who did it …there will be an award for me in heaven

If I share the gospel message to a stranger there will be an award

many things we can do in which there will not be an award …in that there is a loss sufffered because we are not awarded for work which are not in honor of God.

hope that helps

mpjw

 

[Pete_Holter]

wow Pete strong belief …and if I do not come and celebrate with you…do you believe I am doomed ?

Hello, brother!

If I could, I’d like to help you overcome obstacles to desiring the worship of God in the Catholic Church. What would you say is holding you back? Is there any particular doctrine revealed by God through His Church that you feel unable to faithfully embrace at this point? Please let me know if you think I can help.

I see you writing about purgatory. I have collected some information about purgatory here.

In Christ,
Pete