WHY do you [if you do?] think the RCC is not the One true Church founded by Christ?

[steve_b]

Hello Stephen,
I will again offer some responses to your post. It seems to me that this thread was an invitation to explain what within Catholicism was WRONG, but contrary to what you claim I did that is not my main thrust in this thread. I am not a Catholic because I believe the CoJCoLDS is God’s church.

:tiphat:Howdy TOm

I’m another steve

As to your point. EVERY body knows who started the CoJCoLDS, IOW the Mormons.

"It was established April 6, 1830, by Joseph Smith, the first president of the Church… "
That quote is from mormon.org/about-us

The Catholic Church otoh, goes back to Jesus, the one who established His Church. THAT can be proven “in writing” , historically, and “properly referenced” here #34

As an aside, the internal links in 34 quote historical documents, as well as scripture. The links are ALL operational in that link.

That said, what one believes

• ought to have SOME proof and evidence properly referenced, other than someone who pops up out of the blue claiming to be a prophet from God.
• by definition, since Jesus is God the Son, and prayed not for just His people to be one as some idea of squishy unity, but He prayed for perfect unity as He and His Father are ONE, IOW there is no chance the Church Jesus established in the first century divided and/or disappeared and therefore needed a new leader, or in any way re-established under a different system

 

[MartinJordan]

:tiphat:Howdy TOm

I’m another steve

As to your point. EVERY body knows who started the CoJCoLDS, IOW the Mormons.

"It was established April 6, 1830, by Joseph Smith, the first president of the Church… "
That quote is from mormon.org/about-us

The Catholic Church otoh, goes back to Jesus, the one who established His Church. THAT can be proven “in writing” , historically, and “properly referenced” here #34

As an aside, the internal links in 34 quote historical documents, as well as scripture. The links are ALL operational in that link.

That said, what one believes

• ought to have SOME proof and evidence properly referenced, other than someone who pops up out of the blue claiming to be a prophet from God.
• by definition, since Jesus is God the Son, and prayed not for just His people to be one as some idea of squishy unity, but He prayed for perfect unity as He and His Father are ONE, IOW there is no chance the Church Jesus established in the first century divided and/or disappeared and therefore needed a new leader, or in any way re-established under a different system

Clearly deserving of a reply.

MJ

 

[LatinRight]

**

CCC 818 **"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.

**CCC 819 **“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity.

CCC 1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: “For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ;** they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.**” “Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.”

THANK YOU No surprise here

NOW please relate this to numbers 1261, 846, 847, & 848

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

THANKS,

If you’d care to READ my post #'s 194, 197, 198, 199 & 205 & 206 you; GOD WILLING will see WHY I cannot do that.

God Bless you, I truly appreciate you participation

Patrick

God bless Patrick,

I READ carefully the above numbers and your posts.

I can see your reason that you believe the RCC is the Only One True Church.

From your post Patrick seems to me you agree there are salvation in the other Christian denominations as well.

**Meaning: **

As every TRUE Catholic is God’s elect, predestined to heaven and they all end up in

heaven and in the same way, every TRUE Christian in the other Christian denominations

are also God’s elect, predestined to heaven and they all end up in heaven as well.

Am I correct?

Do you believe Patrick, there are TRUE Christians in the other Christian denominations as well (Protestant, etc.) and they are also end up in heaven?

God bless,

LatinRight

 

[TOmNossor]

I can very much agrree here! The Dark Night, or Holy Darkness as I call it, is very real. I have experienced it myself.

Thanks!
Here is an article from OSV with links to a lot of other content.
osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/ArtMID/13636/ArticleID/17512/Understanding-the-%E2%80%98dark-night-of-the-soul%E2%80%99-.aspx
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

:tiphat:Howdy TOm

I’m another steve

As to your point. EVERY body knows who started the CoJCoLDS, IOW the Mormons.

"It was established April 6, 1830, by Joseph Smith, the first president of the Church… "
That quote is from mormon.org/about-us

The Catholic Church otoh, goes back to Jesus

Hello other Steve
I did read through your entire post, most of your link, and then links … , but I thought I would START with this and see where we are.
Did you read the link you quoted from? Did you try to understand what the LDS author was trying to say?
The LDS author on that page (the one you linked too) said:
"We believe he was called by God to be a prophet in this modern era, just as Moses and Abraham were called in biblical times. Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in a vision after praying to know which church to join. They called on him to restore the church Christ had organized when He was on the earth, with the proper organization and priesthood authority that had been lost shortly after the Savior’s death. "
That quote is from mormon.org/about-us
With this more full quote from the link you offered and from our brief exchange I might frame our discussion like this.

Steve, you said, “The Catholic Church goes back to Jesus” and from your linked content you are clearly referring to the 1st century earthly ministry of Jesus Christ. On the Other Hand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (CoJCoLDS) goes back to the interaction of God the Father and God the Son with Moses, Abraham, and even before. We are a restoration of God’s church in the Old Testament and New Testament. We are the Church of Jesus Christ
…

Of course, I too am a “Cradle Catholic” (or was), but more importantly I have been a serious student of Catholicism for quite some time. I have read Catholic documents to glean Catholic self-understanding not only to understand what I might pull out of the Catholic documents to make points in debates (I have and will err in this). So, I know that Catholicism does not believe that it STARTED at Christ’s 1st century ministry. Instead, Catholicism believes that it was a continuation of Judaism and thus my otoh is not quite as it might be.

Should I make points neglecting what I have come to understand of Catholicism or what I might understand if I read links? Or should I instead pull out quotes and make points I know are not a good representation of what I have read and understand? Should I only read links until I find a nugget quote?

I hope that question makes sense.

I agree evidence is important, but in dialogue it must be presented in context not in “gotcha.”

Charity, TOm

 

[PJM]

Hello Patrick,

The apostles creed does not say, “co-equal.” It is my point that the Bible and the church didn’t say co-equal until the 4th acentury. My rejection of “co-equal” does not make me at odds with the Bible or the early ECFs

TOM, find me the word BIBLE in the bible & I’ll share where “Co-Equal” is

Have you considered the possibility that the head may be blocking true FAITH?

Isa. 55:6-9
Seek ye the Lord, while he may be found: call upon him, while he is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unjust man his thoughts, and let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God: for he is bountiful to forgive. For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.** For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.**
.

Second, I believe that my interactions with God, “heart knowledge” are not available to you. Only your interactions with God are available to you. So on message boards, I offer logic and reasons based on “head knowledge.” I do not deny that I have interacted with God and would not deny that you have. I use this “heart knowledge” to suggest that God exists, but I do not use this “heart knowledge” to tell others their concept of God is wrong and mine is right (though I would argue against deism). For whatever reason, God has entered the lives of millions of people and these people do not emerge from their divine encounters in perfect agreement about all theological questions. Many (most) of them leave behind atheism forever, and this I find to be part of God’s plan. I refuse to say, “my spiritual experiences are better than yours.” I merely say, “I have had them, and they are mine. I know it and God knows it.”

And that TOm is because I have an obligation to do as a Marian Catechist, I take VOWS every-year to Know, share and defend my Catholic Faith; and this IS a CATHOLIC FORUM, so I am obligated to share God’s- Truth. Whether you accept or not is between you and God.

This is also why I avoid the argument you gave me previously, that I am “not granted the grace to rightly understand.” It can help with “boundary maintenance,” (we are right and those guys should be ignored because they are lacking), but it does not invite others to “come and see” God

Sure it does TOM, it begins with a humble search for TRUTH which I have repeatedly shared can only be singular per defined issue. And we have yet to get pass that evident
roadblock

I have heard folks who claim that they have spiritual experiences that indicate they should be part of one church, but their head tells them they should not. I do not think I have ever been in this situation. My “dark night of the soul” was mercifully short and had to do with CERTAINTY not head and heart conflict.
Charity, TOm

Good for you TOm,

Continued Blessings

Patrick

[/QUOTE]

 

[PJM]

God bless Patrick,

I READ carefully the above numbers and your posts.

I can see your reason that you believe the RCC is the Only One True Church.

From your post Patrick seems to me you agree there are salvation in the other Christian denominations as well.

Two points:

1. All salvation does flow THROUGH the CC as it is the ONLY Church & the holder of ALL of the Key;s to heaven gate by Christ design & desire.
2. As the CCC references I shared 1260. 846-848 clearly salvation is POSSIBLE; conditionally. That condition being they do not know of Christ One True Church; & have not been given the opportunity to know that.

God will, because as GOD He must pass Judgment on each of us based upon NOT what we choose to know, live, believe or practice; RATHER it wi l be based on what He GOD has made POSSIBLE to know, live, believe & practice.

**Meaning: **

NO my friend

Simply being identified as either a “Catholic” or a “Christian” by itself is insufficient .

Mt 7: 14-24
How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.** A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. **Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock. SEE Mt 16:18

Heb.6: 10 “For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do.”

Rev.2: 23 “and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches shall know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.”

1 Peter 1: 17 “Now if you invoke** as Father him who judges impartially according to each one’s works, **conduct yourselves with reverence during the time of your sojourning“

My friend, GOD can neither deceive or BE deceived

Do you believe Patrick, there are TRUE Christians in the other Christian denominations as well (Protestant, etc.) and they are also end up in heaven?

God bless,

LatinRight

ABSOUTELY:thumbsup: BUT it is HIGHLY conditional based on these factors

1 WHAT HAS GOD made possible for that Soul to know, believe and practice

2 Was the life of that Soul lived as best and as well as it could have been in charity and obeying what that Soul understood God expected of it?

3 was that Soul OPEN to God’s graces and the opportunities that God OFFERED to actually learn and know; and then accept HIS truths? Isaiah 43: 7 & 21

THAT my friend is the teaching of Mt 7: 14-24 quoted above.

God Bless you
Patrick

 

[PJM]

I can very much agrree here! The Dark Night, or Holy Darkness as I call it, is very real. I have experienced it myself.

It’s a common experience with HUGE varying degrees in Christianity

GBY

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I will respond to your main ideas Tom.
You keep pointing me to this book called Early Christian disarray as proof of a disarray so pervasive that it affected the church and prevented it from keeping the truth and lead to apostasy. I would much rather prefer an argument that demonstrates there was such a disarray in the first place that shows defections from the Apostolic theology and praxis. There are facts that both of us recognise, there were different multiple groups of Gnostics, Jewish Christians and what I would call the Orthodox (represented by the ante Nicene fathers). Based on the literature we can see, the influence of the Ante Nicene fathers extends all over the church, especially in the main centres of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria (not to mention the smaller church communities they wrote to or considered themselves brothers and sisters of). My belief is that these Orthodox constitute a clear theological link to the Apostles despite the challenges of Gnosticism and Judaising groups.

Now as far as a lack of leadership is concerned what is the argument here? That there was a lack of Apostles after the original twelve? We all grant that. That’s not the real question. The question is whether or not the Apostles intended what Mormons believe, that there should be a succession of Apostles continuing down forever. To suggest that the “lights went out” is an assumption on behalf of the author of this book rather than an actual argument. When we read the New Testament we find out what leadership looked like in the New Testament, that the Apostles appointed Deacons and leaders of local churches (bishops). We find no hint of a Mormon ecclesiology which is at most inferred from certain assumptions about the New Testament. There are no instructions offered for appointing Apostles except in the case of the replacement of Judas but that replacement is defined as one who saw the Lord from the beginning. Despite saying that lights went out, there were prophetic elements in the Church which continued. There have been many throughout church history who have received Spiritual insight from God, so in what sense did the lights go out? These exist in the Orthodox communities and they did not repudiate these communities’. The communities founded by Apostles, especially Rome and Antioch were to respond to the false ideas of Docetism or Gnosticism which confronted them. There is no “disarray” that has been demonstrated only the assumption that we need Apostles and since the Church has done so well I suggest that position is false. This is of course unless you reject the original Church established as containing legitimacy.

Returning to the idea of God abandoning his people, we could present a hypothetical. Suppose all the first presidency, the Quorum of the twelve and the seventy and presiding Bishopric of the LDS Church all disappear and or are killed. Mormons have no leaders nor means of appointing successors. Has God abandoned the LDS Church if such an event were to happen? I would say yes. Now evidently you believe this to be what happened in the Church of the Apostles, not only did the first president die, but the twelve died and the Seventy died and successors were unable to be chosen, perhaps because there were no faithful people left in the entire church (this contradicts a point you made about there being faithful people). You place the blame of men, that they failed to live up to what God expected of them, yet I would ask that since the LDS believe men don’t appoint themselves Apostles or first presidents but rather that God does, does the lack of such a person the fault of the people or the fault of God for failing to provide a successor? Is it man’s responsibility to appoint leadership in the Church or is it God’s? Likewise if there were faithful men, as I think history demonstrates in men like Ignatius of Antioch (who received revelation in a Church context mind you and used it as evidence for his position of the Bishop) what excuse is there for there being no Apostles? Either God abandoned the faithful to a Church which would develop into believing the abominations it did or God abandoned the heterodox and false Church in which there was no believing person. You want to have it both ways. You want to Justify God letting go of a corrupt body but you also want to maintain that the faithful were not abandoned. There is only one choice here.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Cont

You keep making this argument that God didn’t abandon them to hell. I don’t know why you continue to make this point. My point is saying that God abandoned his people by not supplying them with what they needed while they still constituted a Church. You say God didn’t abandon “believing people” this means there were still faithful people who needed ministering to. In the absence of Apostles not supplied by God, these faithful had no choice but to rely on the Bishops that the Apostles had appointed or those who had been appointed Bishops in those communities established by Apostles. So yes, my point still stands and it remains Valid, God abandoned faithful believers, men and women who were willing to die for him as Christian history shows. He deprived them (for no reason as of yet offered) of the fullest experience of a divine life (celestial marriage and living with twelve apostles and Prophets). This has nothing to do with hell, which I know Mormons so graciously let us out of (though I suspect even in your theology I am doomed to hell since I really do abhor everything about Mormonism).

I do not see how you can say there is an unbroken line of faith. Take in mind that under Mormon teaching what the Church began to teach in its creeds (Nicaea and Constantinople) are utter abominations and were so ingrained in Church life and teaching that they constitute part of the most ancient of liturgies. You know I am Orthodox and not Roman Catholic so I assume you would compare my Orthodox Church to that of Caiaphas and the unbelieving Jews yet I do not think that parallel works. Joseph Smith only appeared in the 1800s, the Orthodox Church has been around since the first century when Christ established it. Now for 1700 years there has been an utter lack of a Prophetic presence to call the Church back to belief in things which is true. When Christ came he brought new revelation which clarified things in the Old. The Orthodox Church has simply had no one to call it out until Joseph Smith and in the meantime our faith was built upon abominations. So when you say that history (I suppose my Church history) isn’t an abomination I am left confused.

What isn’t it abominable about the church’s history which builds its ideas concerning theology on not only the bible but the fathers and great men of faith throughout history? It’s a situation which has led to one abomination being built upon another, being built upon another. This situation was started with Jesus and is ultimately the fruit of the efforts of his Apostles. It’s a rotten fruit which they have introduced into the world which has kept many from embracing the true saving faith of Mormonism. Thanks to this ministry there will be many, like myself who freely and utterly repudiate Mormonism (thus I think I am damned according to Mormonism), preferring to believe the original ministry didn’t fail. You can’t have it both ways. You claim yours is a restoration, yet you cannot say that the original ministry, the oLd Israel as it were (being the church today which is not Mormonism) is in some way successful. It is an utter failure which needed a new Start up and a totally separate entity. We are either the Jewish people who rejected Jesus or we are gentiles who never knew the truth.

 

[Stephen168]

In Post #48 You claimed to believe the Catholic Church is not the one true Church, because the Mormon Church, the restored church, is the one true Church.

In Post #88, you claimed a sign of the restored Church is that it can still write scripture. And in post #111, you claim public revelation as a sign of the restored church. You repeated these claims in post #114 and #191.

Mormon scripture, Book of Abraham, translated by Joseph Smith created many of the unique Mormon teachings: the nature of the priesthood (no blacks), God is near the star Kolob, the exaltation of humanity, a pre-mortal existence, rejection of creation ex nihilo, the first and second estates, and the plurality of gods. All of these teachings come from a translation by Joseph Smith declared scripture by the Mormon Church, which science established to be an Egyptian funeral text. This is not a restoration of lost Christian believes, it is something Joseph Smith made up.

The Book of Mormon should not be a “uniquely Mormon” book because Joseph Smith’s claim was that the Book of Mormon is a non-fiction history of all the American Indians and their origin in the near east.

Almost zero unique Mormon beliefs and practices come from the Book of Mormon, so believing the Book of Mormon was true history would not demand a person convert to Mormonism. I read non-fiction books all the time with no inclination to convert to the religious beliefs of the author.

Therefore, it would not be irrational to expect non-Mormon scholars in the field to believe the Book of Mormon is true, if it was. But not one non-Mormon scholar in the field believes the Book of Mormon is what Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church claim it to be.

Listing non-Mormons who you claim “supported LDS truth claims” is not the same as listing non-Mormon scholars in the field who believe the Book of Mormon is an ancient work of non-fiction about the source of all the American Indians.

6Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?
A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

Mormon scripture written by Joseph Smith says the earth is 7000 years old. This is not true.

So much of Joseph Smith’s “scripture” is not. And add the fact that the Mormon prophet no long prophesizes or writes scripture.

A rational person can not believe Joseph Smith received revelation or wrote scripture.

 

[steve_b]

Hello other Steve
I did read through your entire post, most of your link, and then links … , but I thought I would START with this and see where we are.

Joseph Smith started the Mormons in 1830.

The Catholic Church goes back to Jesus, #34
T:

Did you read the link you quoted from? Did you try to understand what the LDS author was trying to say?
The LDS author on that page (the one you linked too) said:
"We believe he was called by God to be a prophet in this modern era, just as Moses and Abraham were called in biblical times. Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in a vision after praying to know which church to join. They called on him to restore the church Christ had organized when He was on the earth, with the proper organization and priesthood authority that had been lost shortly after the Savior’s death. "
That quote is from mormon.org/about-us
With this more full quote from the link you offered and from our brief exchange I might frame our discussion like this.

Tom,

I read the link. I know what you believe. Now I want to see you prove (properly referenced) that what you believe is true
T:

Steve, you said, “The Catholic Church goes back to Jesus” and from your linked content you are clearly referring to the 1st century earthly ministry of Jesus Christ. On the Other Hand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (CoJCoLDS) goes back to the interaction of God the Father and God the Son with Moses, Abraham, and even before. We are a restoration of God’s church in the Old Testament and New Testament. We are the Church of Jesus Christ

Tom
Here’s your chance, provide the proof properly referenced …that you are the Church of Jesus Christ.
T:

Of course, I too am a “Cradle Catholic” (or was), but more importantly I have been a serious student of Catholicism for quite some time.

Then you know that by leaving the Catholic Church you left Jesus just like many of His disciples did in John 6:51-67 after Jesus taught them about the Eucharist

Tom,

I’m taking you at your word that you have done much study. Therefore you know already what I’m going to say on this subject.

I say this in all charity,

You aren’t seeing the supernatural realities and consequences of your choice. Look at the section on Heb 10, AND the consequences in place for deliberately missing mass on Sunday #20
T:

I have read Catholic documents to glean Catholic self-understanding not only to understand what I might pull out of the Catholic documents to make points in debates (I have and will err in this). So, I know that Catholicism does not believe that it STARTED at Christ’s 1st century ministry. Instead, Catholicism believes that it was a continuation of Judaism and thus my otoh is not quite as it might be.

Should I make points neglecting what I have come to understand of Catholicism or what I might understand if I read links? Or should I instead pull out quotes and make points I know are not a good representation of what I have read and understand? Should I only read links until I find a nugget quote?

I hope that question makes sense.

I agree evidence is important, but in dialogue it must be presented in context not in “gotcha.”

Charity, TOm

If you are searching for truth you need evidence to prove it

 

[LatinRight]

NO my friend

Simply being identified as either a “Catholic” or a “Christian” by itself is insufficient .

Mt 7: 14-24
How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.** A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. **Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock. SEE Mt 16:18

Heb.6: 10 “For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do.”

Rev.2: 23 “and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches shall know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.”

1 Peter 1: 17 “Now if you invoke** as Father him who judges impartially according to each one’s works, **conduct yourselves with reverence during the time of your sojourning“

My friend, GOD can neither deceive or BE deceived

Do you believe Patrick, there are TRUE Christians in the other Christian denominations as well (Protestant, etc.) and they are also end up in heaven?

God bless,

LatinRight

God bless Patrick,

In general I agree with your post but need to clear up certain theological facts.

For example: Is the RCC The One True Church?

I’m sorry for in my post # 222 I didn’t do a fine detailed demonstration so you couldn’t understand what I meant.

In this post I correct my mistake and I do a detailed demonstration of salvation in the RCC, Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox Churches.

CONDITIONS OF SALVATION

According to CCC 818, 819, 1271, some of those who are not members of the RCC **still

able to fulfill all conditions need to be saved,** being an elect of God and predestined to heaven.

In the following teachings, the RCC goes further than in CCC 818, 819, 1271:

**Ignorance—Invincible and Vincible by James Akin **

Quote: **The teaching of the Church, which acknowledges that there are “righteous people in all religions” (CCC 2569). **End quote.

Of course, those righteous people will be saved, regardless of their religion.

Among other things the task of God is to save the people, **our great commission by our

co-operation with the grace of God is to convert everyone into Christianity.**

THE TRUE AND FAILED CRISTIANS IN THE FOLLOWING DEMONSTRATION

TRUE (Roman Catholic, Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox) Christian means, he/she have been fulfilled every conditions of salvation.

As the result, he/she is an elect of God, predestined to heaven and end up in heaven.

FAILED (Catholic, Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox) Christian means, he/she have been failed to fulfill every conditions of salvation.

As the results, he/she is a reprobate and end up in hell.

In my demonstration the following numbers are not real numbers.

The numbers are for demonstration purpose only and for easy understanding of the composite of the Catholic (Universal) Church/Body of Christ.

Continue

 

[LatinRight]

Continuation

THE PART OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE BODY OF CRIST

According to the Roman Catholic administration 1,000,000 members made up the Roman Catholic Church.

In reality 10 members are FAILED Catholics. – Reprobates. All end up in hell.

In reality 999,990 members are TRUE Catholics. – God’s elect. All end up in heaven.

**The contribution of the Roman Catholic Church to the Body of Christ is 999,990 Roman Catholic elect of God. **

THE PART OF THE PROTESTANT CHURCH IN THE BODY OF CHRIT

According to the Protestant administration 1,000,000 members made up the Protestant Church.

In reality 10 members are FAILED Protestants. – Reprobates. All end up in hell.

In reality 999,990 members are TRUE Protestants. – God’s elect. All end up in heaven.

The contribution of the Protestant Church to the Body of Christ is 999,990 Protestant elect of God.

THE PART OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH IN THE BODY OF CHRIST

According to the Anglican administration 1,000,000 members made up the Anglican Church.

In reality 10 members are FAILED Anglicans. – Reprobates. All end up in hell.

In reality 999,990 members are TRUE Anglicans. – God’s elect. All end up in heaven.

The contribution of the Anglican Church to the Body of Christ is 999,990 Anglican elect of God.

THE PART OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN THE BODY OF CHRIST

According to the Orthodox administration 1,000,000 members made up the Orthodox Church.

In reality 10 members are FAILED Orthodox. – Reprobates. All end up in hell.

In reality 999,990 members are TRUE Orthodox. – God’s elect. All end up in heaven.

The contribution of the Orthodox Church to the Body of Christ is 999,990 Orthodox elect of God.

**SUMMARY

IN REALITY**

The 999,990 True Roman Catholic elect is The True Roman Catholic Church.

The 999,990 True Protestant elect is The True Protestant Church.

The 999,990 True Anglican elect is The True Anglican Church.

The 999,990 True Orthodox elect is The True Orthodox Church.

**The above 3,999,960 members of the elect MADE UP The One True Catholic (Universal) Church. – All end up in heaven.

All 3,999,960 have been baptized into the body of Christ.

They are all one in Christ, even as not in a perfect union in their earthly administration. – Yet they are perfectly one in union with Christ.**

Now do you see Patrick that the Catholic (Universal) Church is The One True Catholic Church.

The True Roman Catholic Church is a Part of The One True Catholic (Universal) Church. – There is no other way.

The same way as the True Protestant, True Anglican and True Orthodox Churches are parts of The One True Catholic (Universal) Church.

**It would be serious lack of knowledge to say; the Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox

Churches are not true Churches when the True elect of God makes up the True

Churches. – This True Churches with the True RCC makes up The One True Catholic (Universal) Church.**

Do you see Patrick the above important Theological Facts?

Do you see Patrick the reason the RCC can be only The True Roman Catholic Church but NOT The One True Roman Catholic Church?

That title (The One True) belongs to The One True Catholic (Universal) Church.

**Christ founded the Catholic (Universal) Church/Body of Christ and Christ promised

(addressed to the Catholic (Universal) Church): The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.**

As God’s elect are the Churches, and if the members of the RCC would claim, we are The One True Church, that would make every other elect of God heretics and their Churches heretical Churches.

Do you see the above theological facts Patrick?

God bless Patrick,

LatinRight

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Golly gee LR. You seem to have all the answers and know all things.
When were you elected Pope?

 

[LatinRight]

Golly gee LR. You seem to have all the answers and know all things.
When were you elected Pope?

God bless Son of Niall,

Phil.2:13;
“For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.”

Blessings,

LatinRight

 

[Son_of_Niall]

God bless Son of Niall,

Phil.2:13;
“For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.”

Blessings,

LatinRight

So basically you are your own pope.
Got it.

 

[LatinRight]

So basically you are your own pope.
Got it.

God bless Son of Niall,

My faith is in the Lord Jesus Christ, in the Word of God and in the teachings of the RCC.

God bless,

LatinRight

 

[LatinRight]

God bless Son of Niall,

I’m sorry if my posts offended you.

I didn’t mean any offence.

God bless,

LatinRight

 

[LatinRight]

God bless Son of Niall,

I’m sorry if my posts offended you.

I didn’t mean any offence.

God bless,

LatinRight