Will you be in heaven?

[MariaG]

Just a note.

Once again, my words were misrepresented by 12 volt. When he said he rejected all the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, I responded that since the Church taught that Christ died for our sins he must be going to hell if he rejects that teaching.

Foolishly, I thought this would get him to admit that the Catholic Church is right about at least one thing. Instead, I had those words constantly and falsely used by him.

The mindset it takes to not admit that the Catholic Church is right about that ONE teaching, that Christ died for our sins, a teaching that is found in every Christian denomination there is, is truly mind boggling.

Ah. I see. I just figured out a possible answer myself. One cannot give Catholics the curtesy of being called Christian. If Catholics are Christians, then you may have to honestly look at the practices instead of denoucing them out of hand?

Truly, may God bless and keep all who have left the Catholic Church safe. May God soften their hearts and help them to see the truth of that which they left.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Robert_in_SD]

BrianH:

Irenaues,
Lets go there. Why does he say about Rome let me quote a person from another site, because this is good;

When’s the last time you heard a Catholic appeal to the authority and infallibility of Smyrna or Ephesus? They [Catholics] only follow the portions of Irenaeus that seem to support Roman Catholicism, while rejecting the rest."

direct quote [from a web-site entitled “Catholic but not Roman Catholic” - and NOT the entirety of St. Irenaeus either.]:

""Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; we do this, I say, by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [emphasis added] – that is, the faithful everywhere – inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.
ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_roman_catholic_01.htm

BH

Brian H;

I can see from some of your other posts that your beliefs lie in opposition to the Church. But you need not attack me personally by implying that I have been less than sincere in my presentation of the teachings of the Early Church Fathers. Since it would indeed be tedious of me to cut and paste the entirety of “Against Heresies” I summarized the position from my understanding - the Catholic understanding.

The text clearly shows that Irenaeus exhorts all christians to acknowledge the authority that lies in Rome for the sake of maintaining the truths in Apostolic Tradition. This logic assumes that the primacy of Peter remains with the Roman See established by Peter. The decision to choose Rome as the center of authority does not arise from some temporal or cultural reason as you propose, but from a theological rationale - that it was in Rome that Peter and Paul laid the *foundations * for the Church and its authority.

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while **Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. ** [Empahsis added.] After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter… (Against Heresies, Bk 3, Chap. I)

Your argument operates from the assumption that the Primacy of Peter and Succession of Peter’s Apostolic office cannot be the truth, therefore, another interpretation must be given to the early writings; writings which seem to naturally assume a theological basis for the authority of Peter’s successors in Rome. The historical evidence, however, does not support your Protestant revisionist point of view. The opposite was true. Writers at the time of the early Church presumed that the primacy of Peter’s authority resided in his successor - established by Peter who laid the foundations of the Church - at the center of the early christians’ world - Rome. It was in Rome that the foundations were laid (see Irenaeus quote, above.) It almost goes without saying.

Peace,

 

[Robert_in_SD]

[The Catholic Church’s]
teachings have long strayed from what he taught.
BH

No, my friend. It is the Reformation that has caused christianity to fracture into thousands of separate pieces, in which each person thinks that they hold the “truth.” Sadly, the doctrines that launched the Reformation (sola fide, sola scriptura) leave no path for a return to the authority that Christ left to his visible Church. At best, we are all imperfectly united in Christ’s Church as a result of the Reformation, and the Great Schism that preceded it. Oh, that we might all be one fully, as Christ wishes.

Peace,

 

[Eden]

MariaG:

Just a note.

Once again, my words were misrepresented by 12 volt. When he said he rejected all the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, I responded that since the Church taught that Christ died for our sins he must be going to hell if he rejects that teaching.

Foolishly, I thought this would get him to admit that the Catholic Church is right about at least one thing. Instead, I had those words constantly and falsely used by him.

The mindset it takes to not admit that the Catholic Church is right about that ONE teaching, that Christ died for our sins, a teaching that is found in every Christian denomination there is, is truly mind boggling.

Ah. I see. I just figured out a possible answer myself. One cannot give Catholics the curtesy of being called Christian. If Catholics are Christians, then you may have to honestly look at the practices instead of denoucing them out of hand?

Truly, may God bless and keep all who have left the Catholic Church safe. May God soften their hearts and help them to see the truth of that which they left.

God Bless,
Maria

MariaG - Your words were definitely misrepresented by 12volt. I went back to try to find where you told him he was going to hell and it’s not there. Unfortunately, you became the focus of his sleight of hand when there was nothing more to be said about our “Catholic errors”. I would imagine that there were other non-Catholic visitors who read all of the posts and learned a lot about what Catholics really believe despite the diversions.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Robert in SD:

First, I don’t know where you will end up so don’t start your argument by assuming that the church is condemning you to Hell. Second, the Church cannot condemn you to Hell, only God can condemn you to Hell.

This statement is filled with presumptions about salvation doctrine that are simply not accepted by the Catholic Church. It would take a whole thread discussion to fully unpack the reasons why I disagree with you. But let me just state: Under the Catholic understanding, salvation is only determined at the point of death. If one dies in a state of grace (in a right relationship with God), then one goes to Heaven. If one is not in a state of grace at the time of death, one goes to Hell. The sacraments infuse us with God’s grace (no, we do not merit it) and strengthen us to live lives of faith in Christ. So, yes, the sacraments do assist us on the road to salvation.

Because you reject this concept of salvation and have adopted a very fundamentalist sola fide position that also includes OSAS you believe your salvation was secured by some act of faith that occurred in your past. If you believe that, then you are logically correct to reject the Catholic sacraments as adding nothing to your salvation. Because I think your position (sola fide) is logically, biblically and theologically unsound, however, I believe that your decision to reject the sacraments exposes you to the risk of great mortal peril. But, again, I do not know if you will go to Heaven or Hell.

Your response assumes a false dichotomy - i.e. that the Church’s teachings are not supported by Scripture. As many have already tried to explain to you, Catholic doctrines are scriptural. They simply do not comport with the interpretations of Scripture that you have been taught in your Protestant church. Each of the sacraments of the church is supported by scripture, and each was instituted by Christ.

Actually, I am a lawyer as well as a *very *amateur apologist. Plese don’t hold my professions against me.

I disagree with your unsupported conclusion and dismissal. Please tell me why you have come to this conclusion and give citations to authority for your position.

Two comments:

First, the early church writngs are relevant if you believe that the early church - the church in existence while St. John was still alive - had it right with respect to doctrine. If you think that it did, then it is persuasive evidence of the primacy of the see of Rome - the successor of Peter the Apostle.

Second, where in scripture does the bible say that the bible is the final authority. Let me ask you a question… What do you believe to be the pillar and foundational authority for your faith?

But the teachings summarized in the CCC are supported by the citations to scripture that you crave. That was the point in my prior post.

Because it IS your interpretation that you are relying upon, and it is NOT a straw man.

Again, you are operating from the assumption that the scriptures alone are sufficient for teaching doctrine.

Catholics believe Christ gave us a Church founded on Peter and the other Apostles, that He sent the teaching authority of the Holy Spirit to His Church, and that His Church later established the canon of the Scriptures.

Your position assumes the Church’s authority is temporal or human. That it is equivalent to the interpretive abilities of any man. It is not. The teaching authority of the Church is the teaching authority of the Holy Spirit given by Christ to the Apostles and their successors.

That is why I believe you should begin exploring the issue of authority - is it scripture alone or is it Church and scripture.

Great post!

(Vivat Jesus, brother!)

 

[Robert_in_SD]

E.E.N.S.:

Great post!

(Vivat Jesus, brother!)

Thanks brother knight.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Originally Posted by Robert in SD
First, I don’t know where you will end up so don’t start your argument by assuming that the church is condemning you to Hell. Second, the Church cannot condemn you to Hell, only God can condemn you to Hell

Actually God does not condemn anyone to hell. The individual condemns himself to hell by his own rejection of God and all that he teaches. God just sends you there because of your self-conviction and self-incrimination. God does not want us in Eternal Condemanation, but if that is one’s ultimate fate, that fate was chosen by the individual.

 

[MariaG]

Eden:

MariaG - Your words were definitely misrepresented by 12volt. I went back to try to find where you told him he was going to hell and it’s not there. Unfortunately, you became the focus of his sleight of hand when there was nothing more to be said about our “Catholic errors”. I would imagine that there were other non-Catholic visitors who read all of the posts and learned a lot about what Catholics really believe despite the diversions.

I pray so. But mostly, I truly grieve for those who have left the Catholic Church and earnestly pray that God will find them invincibly ignorant.

God bless.

 

[BrianH]

Robert in SD:

Brian H;

I can see from some of your other posts that your beliefs lie in opposition to the Church. But you need not **attack me personally **

by implying that I have been less than sincere in my presentation of the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.
what are you talking about?
Brian