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

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bengoshi

Ex Cathedra means from the chair. It is only one of the requirements for a statement to be infallible. You prots really like to muck things up. Why not look up Catholic doctrine from a Catholic source instead of those liars you call ministers who have their own butts to cover?

inkaneer;6507118:

Uhmm… we did get it from Catholic sources. I have Catholic textbooks used in Catholic seminaries, including the CCC, among others. Anyway, wouldn’t it be so convenient to deny the so-called “infallibility” of a papal document when it seems to contradict others or cause confusion in the Church? So there really is no sure way of determining whether or not a papal document, even though it bears the mark “ex cathedra”, is infallible according to the Magisterium of the RCC.

Actually no. A document does not necessarily have to be marked “ex cathedra” in order to be infallible although I think that of late they have been. Also the requirements for a teaching to be infallible are sufficiently clear that there is no need for a definitive statement as to its infallibility. The problem arises only with protestants who want to make every statement uttered by the pope an infallible statement. And when they are told that a certain statement is not then they rant and rave and post comments like yours.

 

[QuickCat]

The “seal” may be broken by disobedience to the commandments. Paul warns the gentile Christians that they may be cut off from salvation if they do not obey God. Even though God is true to his promise of salvation,man makes the promise void when he disobeys and does not repent. God sets before us life and death for our choosing. To obey the commandments is to choose life. God will not allow the hard-hearted and the impure into heaven. As Jesus says in the gospel of Matthew,he will reject those who had the opportunity to show mercy on the poor and needy and did not do it,and he will accept those who did show mercy. And in when Jesus was questioned by a wealthy man what he must do to attain eternal life,Jesus referred to the commandments. So good works do lead to salvation. You’re making a false dichotomy between the gospel religion. Jesus never said that sticking with religion means that one is lost. The Jewish and Christian religions were both founded by God. It is disobedience to God and hard-hearted rejection of God that makes one lost. Jesus founded a religion for us to participate in. We do not belong to a book but to a community of faith and sacrament.

What? The seal can be broken??? Hardly! It would not be much of a seal if I can break it. No, it can’t be broken by me and God will not break it. Paul states with absolute certainty that the believer is sealed until the day of redemption of his body. He doesn’t say that we are sealed until we sin. Now, when our LORD Jesus Christ was on earth ministering to Israel [Mt. 15:24] He was speaking to a people still under the Law. That is why He told them to keep the commandments.
QC

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthony022071
The “seal” may be broken by disobedience to the commandments. Paul warns the gentile Christians that they may be cut off from salvation if they do not obey God. Even though God is true to his promise of salvation,man makes the promise void when he disobeys and does not repent. God sets before us life and death for our choosing. To obey the commandments is to choose life. God will not allow the hard-hearted and the impure into heaven. As Jesus says in the gospel of Matthew,he will reject those who had the opportunity to show mercy on the poor and needy and did not do it,and he will accept those who did show mercy. And in when Jesus was questioned by a wealthy man what he must do to attain eternal life,Jesus referred to the commandments. So good works do lead to salvation. You’re making a false dichotomy between the gospel religion. Jesus never said that sticking with religion means that one is lost. The Jewish and Christian religions were both founded by God. It is disobedience to God and hard-hearted rejection of God that makes one lost. Jesus founded a religion for us to participate in. We do not belong to a book but to a community of faith and sacrament.

What? The seal can be broken??? Hardly! It would not be much of a seal if I can break it. No, it can’t be broken by me and God will not break it. Paul states with absolute certainty that the believer is sealed until the day of redemption of his body. He doesn’t say that we are sealed until we sin. Now, when our LORD Jesus Christ was on earth ministering to Israel [Mt. 15:24] He was speaking to a people still under the Law. That is why He told them to keep the commandments.
QC

Seals are made to be broken. The purpose of a seal whether it be on an old letter [before envelopes] or on a sealed container is to show that it has not been tampered with and the designated recipient is the first to open it. It appears to me that you are espousing the OSAS line [Once Saved Always Saved]. Salvation cannot be lost [as in misplacing it] or taken away but it can be lost by forfeiting it. The way we do that is by sin. We are saved as long as we continue in the grace of God.

 

[mardukm]

Dear inkaneer and Anthony,

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthony022071
The “seal” may be broken by disobedience to the commandments. Paul warns the gentile Christians that they may be cut off from salvation if they do not obey God. Even though God is true to his promise of salvation,man makes the promise void when he disobeys and does not repent. God sets before us life and death for our choosing. To obey the commandments is to choose life. God will not allow the hard-hearted and the impure into heaven. As Jesus says in the gospel of Matthew,he will reject those who had the opportunity to show mercy on the poor and needy and did not do it,and he will accept those who did show mercy. And in when Jesus was questioned by a wealthy man what he must do to attain eternal life,Jesus referred to the commandments. So good works do lead to salvation. You’re making a false dichotomy between the gospel religion. Jesus never said that sticking with religion means that one is lost. The Jewish and Christian religions were both founded by God. It is disobedience to God and hard-hearted rejection of God that makes one lost. Jesus founded a religion for us to participate in. We do not belong to a book but to a community of faith and sacrament.

Seals are made to be broken. The purpose of a seal whether it be on an old letter [before envelopes] or on a sealed container is to show that it has not been tampered with and the designated recipient is the first to open it. It appears to me that you are espousing the OSAS line [Once Saved Always Saved]. Salvation cannot be lost [as in misplacing it] or taken away but it can be lost by forfeiting it. The way we do that is by sin. We are saved as long as we continue in the grace of God.

I believe Quickcat is right (though certainly not in the sense of OSAS). Baptism leaves an indelible mark on our soul. That is the seal. It makes us God’s. Mortal sin does not break the seal. Our Faith as Catholics teaches us that even mortal sin does not destroy the Grace of Faith, so it is impossible that the seal is broken by mortal sin.

My personal belief is that not even final impenitence can break the seal. For those who die in the faith, the seal is a mark unto salvation. For those who die unrepentant, the seal is a mark unto condemnation, marking those for a punishment much greater than those who did not believe because they did not hear, as the Scripture states.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[inkaneer]

Dear inkaneer and Anthony,

I believe Quickcat is right (though certainly not in the sense of OSAS). Baptism leaves an indelible mark on our soul. That is the seal. It makes us God’s. Mortal sin does not break the seal. Our Faith as Catholics teaches us that even mortal sin does not destroy the Grace of Faith, so it is impossible that the seal is broken by mortal sin.

My personal belief is that not even final impenitence can break the seal. For those who die in the faith, the seal is a mark unto salvation. For those who die unrepentant, the seal is a mark unto condemnation, marking those for a punishment much greater than those who did not believe because they did not hear, as the Scripture states.

Blessings,
Marduk

I agree with you but it was my impression that the poster I responded to had a different idea of what being sealed was. I understood him to be saying that if we are sealed then nothing can change us. Sort of like a closed container is sealed against any outside contamination so since we are thus ‘sealed’ we do not sin. That is how I understood the post that I responded to. My understanding of the seal is that of a mark identifying us as followers of Christ. It is by no means an airtight seal against committing sin.

 

[Janet1983]

Ex Cathedra means from the chair. It is only one of the requirements for a statement to be infallible. You prots really like to muck things up. Why not look up Catholic doctrine from a Catholic source instead of those liars you call ministers who have their own butts to cover?

Just a comment on the side…
Discussion Forum Rules:

CONDUCT RULES

1. 
   *]Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.
   *]Do not use abbreviated terms such as “Prots” or “radtrad” etc. that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best.
   *]Do not use character substitutions in proper names, such as “Amerikkkans” or “Demonrats” or “Repubicans” etc.
   *]Inappropriate or offensive graphics, links, or profile entries are not permitted.
   *]Messages should be short. Do not post lengthy replies (especially replies that consist largely of quotes from an earlier message).
   *]Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.
   *]Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

 

[anthony022071]

“keep the commandments”. Jesus is not teaching that good works can earn eternal life, for in vv. 21–22 he will show the man how far short he falls of keeping the first commandment (cf. Ex. 20:3) and the first of the two greatest commandments (cf. Deut. 6:5; Matt. 22:36–40). But obedience to the law is also an expression of belief in the truly good God who is the source of all good, including eternal life. Scripture elsewhere clearly affirms that salvation is a gift of God’s grace received through faith, and not by works (see Eph. 2:8; 2:9–10).

To keep the commandments is to do good works. There’s no dichotomy between them.
The commandments are given by God for our eternal salvation,not just for the sake of proper behavior. Grace does not mean just unmerited favor as protestants seem to think. It also means divine assistance for perseverence in holiness. And we become holy by following the commandments,which are good works. And grace is the Holy Spirit in person,who purifies us from within and strengthens us to do God’s will. It is not a judicial decision. Whatever God does,he does in person,by his own power.

 

[EDWARDJL]

I agree with you but it was my impression that the poster I responded to had a different idea of what being sealed was. I understood him to be saying that if we are sealed then nothing can change us. Sort of like a closed container is sealed against any outside contamination so since we are thus ‘sealed’ we do not sin. That is how I understood the post that I responded to. My understanding of the seal is that of a mark identifying us as followers of Christ. It is by no means an airtight seal against committing sin.

Ephesians 1:11-14
11In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked inhim with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession–to the praise of his glory

We are sealed with the Holy Spirit which is the guarantor of our inheritance. If we have the Holy Spirit indwelling us, this is how we know we are part of the elect, who will receive eternal life. This is why the only unforgiveable sin is to reject the Holy Spirit. We have the free will to do this. If you have the spirit of God in you, you will follow his commandments and act in obedience.

First Corinthians state “The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us”

We will understand the Bible and other spiritual truths only by having God’s own spirit in us.

 

[Bengoshi]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bengoshi

Ex Cathedra means from the chair. It is only one of the requirements for a statement to be infallible. You prots really like to muck things up. Why not look up Catholic doctrine from a Catholic source instead of those liars you call ministers who have their own butts to cover?
Bengoshi;6514593:

Actually no. A document does not necessarily have to be marked “ex cathedra” in order to be infallible although I think that of late they have been. Also the requirements for a teaching to be infallible are sufficiently clear that there is no need for a definitive statement as to its infallibility. The problem arises only with protestants who want to make every statement uttered by the pope an infallible statement. And when they are told that a certain statement is not then they rant and rave and post comments like yours.

If it is really sufficiently clear, then I wonder why there are a lot of people, such as the OP, who are so confused as to the seemingly contradictory pronouncements by popes and councils…

 

[Bengoshi]

To keep the commandments is to do good works. There’s no dichotomy between them.
The commandments are given by God for our eternal salvation,not just for the sake of proper behavior. Grace does not mean just unmerited favor as protestants seem to think. It also means divine assistance for perseverence in holiness. And we become holy by following the commandments,which are good works. And grace is the Holy Spirit in person,who purifies us from within and strengthens us to do God’s will. It is not a judicial decision. Whatever God does,he does in person,by his own power.

Yes, I agree. There are different kinds of grace. The one you mentioned are saving grace and sanctifying grace. The commandments were indeed ostensibly given by God for our salvation…that is, IF we can perfectly obey all of them, which we cannot. That was what St. Paul discussed in his letter to the Romans. We recognized our imperfection because of the Law. The Law, which was supposed to be observed for our salvation, condemned us. That is why Jesus was sent to die on the cross for our ultimate salvation. It is by grace we are saved, not by works, so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:8-9) How much more clearer can you get than that?

 

[Hereswith]

When you read the writings of the Church Fathers, you have to remember that prior to the early 16th century there was no distinction between Catholic and Christian. If you were Christian you were Catholic. There was no Protestant. So to be outside the faith of Catholicism was to be outside of Christian thought. So for example, St. Augustine knew nothing else. Even St. Theresa of Avila, although she lived as a contemporty with Protestant reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin, she was living in Spain - the Reformation hadn’t reached into Spain.

The traditional meaning of “catholic” in terms of church wisdom and writings is “universal”. So to be outside of the catholic church, was simply to be outside the community of Christian believers.

 

[Bengoshi]

When you read the writings of the Church Fathers, you have to remember that prior to the early 16th century there was no distinction between Catholic and Christian. If you were Christian you were Catholic. There was no Protestant. So to be outside the faith of Catholicism was to be outside of Christian thought. So for example, St. Augustine knew nothing else. Even St. Theresa of Avila, although she lived as a contemporty with Protestant reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin, she was living in Spain - the Reformation hadn’t reached into Spain.

The traditional meaning of “catholic” in terms of church wisdom and writings is “universal”. So to be outside of the catholic church, was simply to be outside the community of Christian believers.

Now, that’s a good way of putting it! I really have no issue with the “dogma” itself but only with the seemingly contradictory statements/pronouncements made by the popes and the Magisterium. As quoted by other posters in this thread, the strict interpretation of the dogma was still apparent even in the 1800s, more than 2 centuries after the Reformation.

 

[EDWARDJL]

And we become holy by following the commandments,which are good works. And grace is the Holy Spirit in person,who purifies us from within and strengthens us to do God’s will. It is not a judicial decision. Whatever God does,he does in person,by his own power.

I think we keep the commandments because we have been made holy by God’s grace. As Romans states, the problem was not the law, the law was good. The problem is our sinful nature (concupiscences), we could not keep the law by our best efforts. By God’s grace through faith, we are able to keep the law (not perfectly).

The notion of us trying our best to keep the law on our own is a futile effort. It is like the tail wagging the dog. It is only by the power of the Holy Sprit indwelling and working in us that we can do any good. Although we have free choice, we can not take any credit for our good works. They are only accomplished by the Holy Spirit in us.

 

[Abu]

Bengoshi

1. I wonder why there are a lot of people, such as the OP, who are so confused as to the seemingly contradictory pronouncements by popes and councils.
2. It is by grace we are saved, not by works, so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:8-9) How much more clearer can you get than that?
3. As quoted by other posters in this thread, the strict interpretation of the dogma was still apparent even in the 1800s, more than 2 centuries after the Reformation.

1. Who could have been clearer than Jesus to His Apostles? Yet to His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 6:51).

Some people, centuries later, make their own confusion by not understanding the historical context of a decree; not understanding the meaning in translation and not taking the trouble to find out. The rock bottom for doubt is not accepting that Jesus built His Church on Peter with primacy and infallibility, to teach, sanctify and govern. Anyone in doubt after seeing this reality is like His Apostles at that time. Her teaching is in Her Sacred Scriptures, Her Tradition, dogma and doctrine, protected from error by the Holy Spirit through Christ’s Magisterium.

1. You may know that we are totally dependent on grace from God to do anything, yet if you persist in implying that without good works we can be saved (See posts #217, 222), you act like the Apostles when Jesus rebuked them. The error of feeling that Salvation is just by “taking Christ as their personal saviour” is not from Christ or Paul.
   If anyone was to be saved that way it would have been Paul! But he clearly showed the error of that: “But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.” (1Cor 9:27). And again: “Wherefore he who thinks that he stands, let him take heed lest he fall.” (1 Cor 10:12). Yet again, “And we exhort you not to receive the grace of God in vain.” (2 Cor 6:1).
2. Repetitive error – see post #176:
   The Council of Trent, 1545-1563, defined the dogma of baptism by desire.
   She has always regarded the baptism of non-Catholics as valid – and a valid baptism means you are, in some sense, in union with Christ through His Church. Further, Pope Clement (circa A.D… 95) affirmed that “those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God."

 

[Bengoshi]

1. Who could have been clearer than Jesus to His Apostles? Yet to His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 6:51).

You were the one who said the papal encyclicals/pronouncements are clear, not I.

Some people, centuries later, make their own confusion by not understanding the historical context of a decree; not understanding the meaning in translation and not taking the trouble to find out. The rock bottom for doubt is not accepting that Jesus built His Church on Peter with primacy and infallibility, to teach, sanctify and govern. Anyone in doubt after seeing this reality is like His Apostles at that time. Her teaching is in Her Sacred Scriptures, Her Tradition, dogma and doctrine, protected from error by the Holy Spirit through Christ’s Magisterium.

The Papacy is not biblical. It is but a man-made office so as to consolidate the political power of Rome. The Eastern Orthodox churches would not agree. They have their own patriarchs and bishops.

1. You may know that we are totally dependent on grace from God to do anything, yet if you persist in implying that without good works we can be saved (See posts #217, 222), you act like the Apostles when Jesus rebuked them. The error of feeling that Salvation is just by “taking Christ as their personal saviour” is not from Christ or Paul.
   If anyone was to be saved that way it would have been Paul! But he clearly showed the error of that: “But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.” (1Cor 9:27). And again: “Wherefore he who thinks that he stands, let him take heed lest he fall.” (1 Cor 10:12). Yet again, “And we exhort you not to receive the grace of God in vain.” (2 Cor 6:1).
2. Repetitive error – see post #176:
   The Council of Trent, 1545-1563, defined the dogma of baptism by desire.
   She has always regarded the baptism of non-Catholics as valid – and a valid baptism means you are, in some sense, in union with Christ through His Church. Further, Pope Clement (circa A.D… 95) affirmed that “those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God."

ESV Study Bible Commentary (Also see the context of the passages as provided below):

1 Cor. 9:27. This verse has a long history of misinterpretation in terms of punishing one’s own body as a means of spiritual discipline. Paul’s language, however, is governed both by the athletic metaphor of the previous two verses and by the physical demands of his apostolic work (4:9, 11–13; 2 Cor. 4:8–12; 6:3–10; 11:23–12:10; 1 Thess. 2:1–2, 9; 3:7–8). Just as an athlete goes through physical training that is sometimes uncomfortable in order to attain the goal of victory, so Paul endures physical and emotional hardship, and gives up his right to material support, for the gospel’s advancement. (See 1 Cor. 9:12 and 2 Cor. 6:1–10.) Disqualified (Gk. adokimos, “not approved, not standing the test”) in this context means “disqualified from receiving rewards” (see 1 Cor. 9:24–26).

1 Cor. 8:1–11:1. Food Offered to Idols. Because pagan temples offered parts of animals in sacrifice to the gods, they also often functioned as butcher shops and banqueting halls. Sometimes meals for trade guilds, clubs, and private dinner parties were held in a temple dining room. Often meat from a temple was sold to the public in the marketplace. This section of 1 Corinthians gives clear guidance about the use of such food. Paul first urges the Corinthians not to eat in pagan temples (8:10) because it might lead to the destruction of a weaker brother or sister (ch. 8). He then offers himself as an example of giving up something one is convinced is a right for the spiritual edification of others (ch. 9). He urges the Corinthians not to eat in pagan temples because doing so is idolatry (10:1–22). Finally, he says that eating meat purchased in the marketplace (which may have come from a pagan temple) is not wrong unless it hinders the advancement of the gospel (10:23–11:1).

1 Cor. 10:12. thinks that he stands. Perhaps a reference to the Corinthians’ mistaken “knowledge” that they have the right to eat in an idol’s temple (8:9–10).

2 Cor. 6:1. The grace of God comes about solely through the death of Christ (5:14–19). Those who turn back from Christ show that their initial, apparent reception of God’s grace was not real but in vain.

 

[Abu]

Bengoshi
The Papacy is not biblical. It is but a man-made office so as to consolidate the political power of Rome.

Tell that to the marines! If you can so deny Christ, you can deny anything. Time to take off the blinkers.

**Jesus founded His Church on Peter:
All four promises 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).

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

One of the foremost theologians at Vatican I, Giovanni Perrone, expresses what we have seen well for he “was on most biblical grounds when he pointed out that 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.” (The Keys of the Kingdom, Franciscan Herald Press, 1986, p 170).

Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece: “If any disobey what He (Christ) says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offence and danger, but we shall be innocent of this sin.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1).

It’s interesting also that Arnold Lunn in Now I See, Sheed & Ward, 1955, could quote from the Anglican Vicar of Oddington, Rev S Herbert Scott (in The Eastern Churches and the Papacy, – approved for a research doctorate at the University of Oxford), that St Peter and his successors were recognised as the supreme judges in matters of faith by a long succession of great Eastern saints, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Denys, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and others.

Scott quotes from the Graeco-Slav Liturgy at the Council of Nicea (325) addressing the Pope, St Sylvester, who was not himself present: “…thou didst appear as a pillar of fire, snatching the faithful from Egyptian error (sc. Arius) and continually leading them with unerring teachings to divine light.” [Op. cit. Lunn, p 218-9]. Sir Arnold remarks that “This unwilling tribute from the Greek Church…to the “unerring teaching” of the Roman Pope is most impressive.”

 

[Bengoshi]

Tell that to the marines! If you can so deny Christ, you can deny anything. Time to take off the blinkers.

**Jesus founded His Church on Peter:
All four promises 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).

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

One of the foremost theologians at Vatican I, Giovanni Perrone, expresses what we have seen well for he “was on most biblical grounds when he pointed out that 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.” (The Keys of the Kingdom, Franciscan Herald Press, 1986, p 170).

Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece: “If any disobey what He (Christ) says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offence and danger, but we shall be innocent of this sin.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1).

It’s interesting also that Arnold Lunn in Now I See, Sheed & Ward, 1955, could quote from the Anglican Vicar of Oddington, Rev S Herbert Scott (in The Eastern Churches and the Papacy, – approved for a research doctorate at the University of Oxford), that St Peter and his successors were recognised as the supreme judges in matters of faith by a long succession of great Eastern saints, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Denys, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and others.

Scott quotes from the Graeco-Slav Liturgy at the Council of Nicea (325) addressing the Pope, St Sylvester, who was not himself present: “…thou didst appear as a pillar of fire, snatching the faithful from Egyptian error (sc. Arius) and continually leading them with unerring teachings to divine light.” [Op. cit. Lunn, p 218-9]. Sir Arnold remarks that “This unwilling tribute from the Greek Church…to the “unerring teaching” of the Roman Pope is most impressive.”

Check out this sermon(?) by Dr. John McArthur at:

biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-291.htm

 

[Abu]

There is no question that the primacy of Peter and the Bishops of Rome was recognised from the beginning of Christ’s Church and infallibility in doctrine was accepted from the beginning also – possessed by His Church – “He who hears you, hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Lk 10:16). [See Mt 28:20; Jn 14:16-17, 26; Jn 16:13].

Having commissioned Peter as His first Vicar, Jesus instructed the eleven and proclaimed: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations….teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you…” (Mt 28:18-20)

Those who know nothing of history can now learn from history. The infallibility and primacy of the Vicar of Christ has never been disputed in Christ’s Church, from the beginning. Breakaways came 1000 and 1600 years later, and never will have authenticity.

Fr Jaki shows that the reality of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome was expressed even by Protestant theologian Adolph von Harnack, with reference to the first century! “Harnack was indeed too much of a liberal to have sympathy for even traditional Protestantism. Thus we may reasonably assume that only respect for the historical record prompted him to write in his famed History of Dogma that the first letter of Clement, bishop of Rome, written to the Corinthians, ‘proves that, by the end of the first century, the Roman Church had already drawn up fixed rules for her own guidance, that she watched with motherly care over outlying communities, and that she then knew how to use language that was at once an expression of duty, love, and authority.’ “ [Vol 2, p 155-56. (See *And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki)].

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 Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (Op.cit. p 118).

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?”

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
I agree with you but it was my impression that the poster I responded to had a different idea of what being sealed was. I understood him to be saying that if we are sealed then nothing can change us. Sort of like a closed container is sealed against any outside contamination so since we are thus ‘sealed’ we do not sin. That is how I understood the post that I responded to. My understanding of the seal is that of a mark identifying us as followers of Christ. It is by no means an airtight seal against committing sin.

Ephesians 1:11-14
11In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked inhim with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession–to the praise of his glory

We are sealed with the Holy Spirit which is the guarantor of our inheritance. If we have the Holy Spirit indwelling us, this is how we know we are part of the elect, who will receive eternal life. This is why the only unforgiveable sin is to reject the Holy Spirit. We have the free will to do this. If you have the spirit of God in you, you will follow his commandments and act in obedience.

First Corinthians state “The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us”

We will understand the Bible and other spiritual truths only by having God’s own spirit in us.

And what about sin? Revelation says of heaven that nothing unclean will enter it. Sin is definitely unclean. Your guarantee is good as long as you continue in the grace of God. But sin removes you from that grace and must be dealt with first. Fortunately God granted authority to His Church to remit or retain sin [John 20:23]. Unfortunately protestants deny having this authority. So does that present a problem for them? Yeah, it does.

 

[anthony022071]

The Law, which was supposed to be observed for our salvation, condemned us.

Paul was talking to Jews who had converted. The Jewish law applied only to Jews.
It did not work wrath upon the rest of humanity because the rest of humanity did not live under it.

That is why Jesus was sent to die on the cross for our ultimate salvation. It is by grace we are saved, not by works, so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:8-9) How much more clearer can you get than that?