Is Catholicism Christian? Are Catholics Saved?
- Thread starter MessageOfTheCross
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Hi Ernie, thanks for your respon, this prayer is from Indonesian catholic web, the word master, is form Google translation of Kuasailah or dominate or rule or control
to me only To Jesus we ask that kind of request.
I ask Jesus to be my ruler in my life not other.
And the way they believe that Mary able to hear billion people, is Stange for me, I believe only God is omnipresent.
thanks for respon.
to me only To Jesus we ask that kind of request.
I ask Jesus to be my ruler in my life not other.
And the way they believe that Mary able to hear billion people, is Stange for me, I believe only God is omnipresent.
thanks for respon.
Hi Roger,
Who definitively determines whether the 7 books were inspired by the Holy Spirit? Who gave them that authority to make that decision? Regardless of how or who, the fact is that the Church between approximately 400 A.D. to 1400 A.D. read from the Latin Vulgate which included the 7 books as part of divine scripture.
I believe primarily because of 2 Mach 12:46 where it specifically states that it is a good and wholesome thought to pray for the dead the Protestants needed the 7 books removed so that their new belief system wouldn't have to deal with Purgatory. One way to do that was to side with the Hebrew Jews who rejected the 7 books prior to the 2nd century. The problem with that though is that the Greek speaking Jews disagreed with the Hebrew speaking Jews and believed the 7 books were inspired. The key to this whole story though is that the early Church sided with the Greek speaking Jews and at the same council that formally decreed the 27 books in the NT they decreed the 46 books in the OT.
And when Latin became the language of the people around 400 A.D. Jerome was commissioned to translate the full Bible into Latin. The amazing thing is that Jerome personally sided with the 39 book OT believed by the Hebrew Jews, but submitted to the authority of the Church and translated all 73 books. That is why the Vulgate, described as the Bible of the Church for 1000 years, included the books that the Catholic Church uses today. If you considered yourself to be a Christian between 400 and 1400 A.D. you would have read from a 73 book Bible. It's tragic that in order to create a new belief system the very Word of God was tampered with...
I'll address your other topics in a separate reply...
-Ernie-
Who definitively determines whether the 7 books were inspired by the Holy Spirit? Who gave them that authority to make that decision? Regardless of how or who, the fact is that the Church between approximately 400 A.D. to 1400 A.D. read from the Latin Vulgate which included the 7 books as part of divine scripture.
I believe primarily because of 2 Mach 12:46 where it specifically states that it is a good and wholesome thought to pray for the dead the Protestants needed the 7 books removed so that their new belief system wouldn't have to deal with Purgatory. One way to do that was to side with the Hebrew Jews who rejected the 7 books prior to the 2nd century. The problem with that though is that the Greek speaking Jews disagreed with the Hebrew speaking Jews and believed the 7 books were inspired. The key to this whole story though is that the early Church sided with the Greek speaking Jews and at the same council that formally decreed the 27 books in the NT they decreed the 46 books in the OT.
And when Latin became the language of the people around 400 A.D. Jerome was commissioned to translate the full Bible into Latin. The amazing thing is that Jerome personally sided with the 39 book OT believed by the Hebrew Jews, but submitted to the authority of the Church and translated all 73 books. That is why the Vulgate, described as the Bible of the Church for 1000 years, included the books that the Catholic Church uses today. If you considered yourself to be a Christian between 400 and 1400 A.D. you would have read from a 73 book Bible. It's tragic that in order to create a new belief system the very Word of God was tampered with...
I'll address your other topics in a separate reply...
-Ernie-
But what basis from the word of God do we have to give us the idea that Mary, the woman who bore Jesus can hear us from the beyond? I can't accept a church council from Gangra ruling I'm afraid. The evidence has to be scriptural.
Isaiah 8:20
" To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
Isaiah 8:20
" To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
Let's see if I can help with this!
Luke 16:19 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and ...[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="class: s, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]... Jesus said, "There was a certain rich man who was splendidly clothed in
purple and fine linen and who lived each day in luxury. ...
After the two men DIED ... did both still have CONSCIOUSNESS, according to that scripture ,,, or were they just "dead men?"[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Last edited:
Hello again,
I do agree that there were some in the Catholic Church that were abusing indulgences and the Church, as for most of her time, needed reforming. The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus which is also grace as a gift from God. "Works" are those as described by Jesus Himself when He said that although there are those that believe yet will be thrown into an eternal fire due to not feeding the poor, clothing the naked, and visiting those in prison (MT 25:35-40). These "works" do not save us, God saves us.
Rome does place equal value on Tradition because of Jesus' words in MT 18:18 when He said to His Church, "whatever you bound on earth shall be bound in heaven. loosed on earth loosed in heaven". Jesus and His Church are inseparable and that's why Jesus said that He would protect it from error (MT 16:18). The 5 solas are plausible scripturally if you interpret scripture a particular way. It's just that the early Church never interpreted scripture in this way and never believed in the 5 solas.
Let's forget about Peter for a moment and agree that Jesus built His Church on truth and that He would protect it from the clutches of the devil. That means the truth as professed by His Church in 300, 500, 800 A.D. is the truth today. I can find evidence of that universal apostolic church believing in the Eucharist, Mary ever virgin and Mother of God, a 73 book Bible, praying for the dead, infant baptism among others. Do you have evidence of the early Church believing as you believe?
Thanks.
-Ernie-
I do agree that there were some in the Catholic Church that were abusing indulgences and the Church, as for most of her time, needed reforming. The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus which is also grace as a gift from God. "Works" are those as described by Jesus Himself when He said that although there are those that believe yet will be thrown into an eternal fire due to not feeding the poor, clothing the naked, and visiting those in prison (MT 25:35-40). These "works" do not save us, God saves us.
Rome does place equal value on Tradition because of Jesus' words in MT 18:18 when He said to His Church, "whatever you bound on earth shall be bound in heaven. loosed on earth loosed in heaven". Jesus and His Church are inseparable and that's why Jesus said that He would protect it from error (MT 16:18). The 5 solas are plausible scripturally if you interpret scripture a particular way. It's just that the early Church never interpreted scripture in this way and never believed in the 5 solas.
Let's forget about Peter for a moment and agree that Jesus built His Church on truth and that He would protect it from the clutches of the devil. That means the truth as professed by His Church in 300, 500, 800 A.D. is the truth today. I can find evidence of that universal apostolic church believing in the Eucharist, Mary ever virgin and Mother of God, a 73 book Bible, praying for the dead, infant baptism among others. Do you have evidence of the early Church believing as you believe?
Thanks.
-Ernie-
https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM
[TABLE="width: 550"]
[TR]
[TD]DEFENDING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]James Akin[HR][/HR][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]When Catholics and Protestants talk about "the Bible," the two groups actually have two different books in mind. In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the Old Testament that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title "Apocrypha."
Catholics refer to them as the "deuterocanonical" books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest), while the rest are known as the "protocanonical" books (since their canonicity was established first).
Following the Protestant attack on the integrity of the Bible, the Catholic Church infallibly reaffirmed the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing this, it reaffirmed what had been believed since the time of Christ.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 550"]
[TR]
[TD]DEFENDING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]James Akin[HR][/HR][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]When Catholics and Protestants talk about "the Bible," the two groups actually have two different books in mind. In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the Old Testament that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title "Apocrypha."
Catholics refer to them as the "deuterocanonical" books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest), while the rest are known as the "protocanonical" books (since their canonicity was established first).
Following the Protestant attack on the integrity of the Bible, the Catholic Church infallibly reaffirmed the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing this, it reaffirmed what had been believed since the time of Christ.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Hi again,
I do believe in the Catholic Church teaching on the Eucharist including transubstantiation. I believe all that the Church teaches because it is the only faith that enables me to prove Jesus kept His promise in MT 16:18. I'm not a Catholic because of my own interpretation of scripture or how it makes me feel, but rather my submission to Jesus. Jesus said He would build and protect His Church and we should all as Christians strive to be a part of that Church.
Whether you believe in the church as an organization or a living organism doesn't take away from what His Church was truly built on...the preaching, teaching, and promoting the truth. If the furthest in history that you can find Christians believing in your "truths" is the 15th century then what happened to the truth for 1500 years?
I can back up my beliefs with the early teachings of His Church in its first 800-1000 years when it was a single universal church. Can you?
-Ernie-
I do believe in the Catholic Church teaching on the Eucharist including transubstantiation. I believe all that the Church teaches because it is the only faith that enables me to prove Jesus kept His promise in MT 16:18. I'm not a Catholic because of my own interpretation of scripture or how it makes me feel, but rather my submission to Jesus. Jesus said He would build and protect His Church and we should all as Christians strive to be a part of that Church.
Whether you believe in the church as an organization or a living organism doesn't take away from what His Church was truly built on...the preaching, teaching, and promoting the truth. If the furthest in history that you can find Christians believing in your "truths" is the 15th century then what happened to the truth for 1500 years?
I can back up my beliefs with the early teachings of His Church in its first 800-1000 years when it was a single universal church. Can you?
-Ernie-
Interesting the Gerome knew that the apocrypha should not be included because the books lacked inspiration. Reading them it is quite evident that the Holy Spirit did not author them. They have been used by the church to promote self serving traditions that are quite unbiblical.
One must possess the Holy Spirit to know that the Holy Spirit did not author the apocrypha. The history of the Jews predates the history of the church. The Jews rejected the apocryphal books as historically inaccurate, contradictory and just filled with silliness.
I have an old bible with the offending books for study purposes. I do agree that it is terrible that Gods word was tampered with I just see the offending party as the church not the reformers. If we allow the apocrypha then must we also add the gnostic gospels?
Gerome translated the scriptures into Latin so only the church could read them. Luther translated them into German so the people could read them. Rome has a long history of withholding the word from the people. Even telling them when they could read the scriptures they could not understand them and to consult with the priest for the approved interpretation.
There is no nobility in the Roman Catholic church nor those who defend her atrocities.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
One must possess the Holy Spirit to know that the Holy Spirit did not author the apocrypha. The history of the Jews predates the history of the church. The Jews rejected the apocryphal books as historically inaccurate, contradictory and just filled with silliness.
I have an old bible with the offending books for study purposes. I do agree that it is terrible that Gods word was tampered with I just see the offending party as the church not the reformers. If we allow the apocrypha then must we also add the gnostic gospels?
Gerome translated the scriptures into Latin so only the church could read them. Luther translated them into German so the people could read them. Rome has a long history of withholding the word from the people. Even telling them when they could read the scriptures they could not understand them and to consult with the priest for the approved interpretation.
There is no nobility in the Roman Catholic church nor those who defend her atrocities.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Jesus would never teach eating of blood as eating of blood was strictly prohibited. Jesus taught a symbolic receiving of His blood to remember the atonement He alone provided. What a gory scene created in the re-crucifixion of Christ. As scripture says it puts the Lord to open shame.
You are teaching a false premise upon false premise.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
You are teaching a false premise upon false premise.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Hi Shrume,
In 2 Tim 1:16-18 Paul prays for Onesiphorus who is dead. And what the early Church believed should be very important. How else can we validate that Jesus kept His promise to build and protect His Church? Jesus' truth never changes and so truth today must have been truth yesterday and vice versa. If what you believe today can't be shown to be the truth yesterday then how can you say that you have the truth? You can't serve as your own witness.
-Ernie-
In 2 Tim 1:16-18 Paul prays for Onesiphorus who is dead. And what the early Church believed should be very important. How else can we validate that Jesus kept His promise to build and protect His Church? Jesus' truth never changes and so truth today must have been truth yesterday and vice versa. If what you believe today can't be shown to be the truth yesterday then how can you say that you have the truth? You can't serve as your own witness.
-Ernie-
Hi Magenta,
With all due respect the biggest issue you have is not reading the true Bible. I've addressed the history of the Bible in previous posts so I won't go through it here, but your beliefs are based on a false 66 book bible that omits 2 Mach 12:46 that says to pray for the dead is a wholesome thought. If you were to include that verse your arguments go away, hence why Luther needed to remove the 7 books.
The Church has believed Mary as the Mother of God formally since 431 A.D. My faith is based on if I would have been called a heretic and excommunicated from the single universal Church of the first 800 years then I'm a heretic today as truth never changes. People's opinions and interpretations of scripture blow to and fro as personal whims persist, but the truth never changes. When did the Church ever say that Mary is NOT the Mother of God?
As for "one must be Catholic to be saved" it is probably better stated that there is no salvation outside the Church as that was proclaimed by Augustine in the council of Cirta in 412 A.D. And remember this was before the Catholic Church (capital C) and rather just the catholic (small c) Church. Do you have anything to the contrary where the Church didn't believe this?
You must think beyond the Christian world of today and remember that your beliefs ("truths") must apply to all Christians today and back 1000, 1500, 1900 years ago. If what you believe to be true today can't be found to be believed by the early Church then how can you prove that Jesus protected His Church? If truth today wasn't truth yesterday then surely the gates of hell prevailed for that time period. How do you reconcile that with many of your beliefs?
-Ernie-
With all due respect the biggest issue you have is not reading the true Bible. I've addressed the history of the Bible in previous posts so I won't go through it here, but your beliefs are based on a false 66 book bible that omits 2 Mach 12:46 that says to pray for the dead is a wholesome thought. If you were to include that verse your arguments go away, hence why Luther needed to remove the 7 books.
The Church has believed Mary as the Mother of God formally since 431 A.D. My faith is based on if I would have been called a heretic and excommunicated from the single universal Church of the first 800 years then I'm a heretic today as truth never changes. People's opinions and interpretations of scripture blow to and fro as personal whims persist, but the truth never changes. When did the Church ever say that Mary is NOT the Mother of God?
As for "one must be Catholic to be saved" it is probably better stated that there is no salvation outside the Church as that was proclaimed by Augustine in the council of Cirta in 412 A.D. And remember this was before the Catholic Church (capital C) and rather just the catholic (small c) Church. Do you have anything to the contrary where the Church didn't believe this?
You must think beyond the Christian world of today and remember that your beliefs ("truths") must apply to all Christians today and back 1000, 1500, 1900 years ago. If what you believe to be true today can't be found to be believed by the early Church then how can you prove that Jesus protected His Church? If truth today wasn't truth yesterday then surely the gates of hell prevailed for that time period. How do you reconcile that with many of your beliefs?
-Ernie-
16 The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain:
17 But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me.
18 The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well.
I do not know If Onesiporus dead, and I do not know that It is a pray or a wish
17 But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me.
18 The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well.
I do not know If Onesiporus dead, and I do not know that It is a pray or a wish
Lazarus and the Rich man parable is not about communicating with earth from either heaven or hell. In fact, the point (or one point) of the parable is that we are to listen to Moses and the prophets because people we know who have died won't be allowed to communicate with us or come back to uys. Why won't they be allowed to come back and warn us, you ask? Because ...
If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone* rises from the dead. (Luke 16:31) (* The "someone" rising from the dead is in answer to a request to have Lazaraus go from heaven and warn the rich man's brothers.)
If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone* rises from the dead. (Luke 16:31) (* The "someone" rising from the dead is in answer to a request to have Lazaraus go from heaven and warn the rich man's brothers.)
Last edited:
I have those books. They were not so much "removed" as they were always grouped together.
They are of a later date than the Hebrew Tanakh. And as with with Talmud they are Babylonian in origin. Use caution.
I have The Book of Enoch and various other early Jewish and Christian writings as well but that doesn't make them The Word of God.
They are of a later date than the Hebrew Tanakh. And as with with Talmud they are Babylonian in origin. Use caution.
I have The Book of Enoch and various other early Jewish and Christian writings as well but that doesn't make them The Word of God.