The Catholics and my conclusion

[P1LGR1M]

You seem to be quite hostile towards Catholicism. You remind me of the some Christian cults (such as Jehovah’s witnesses) that are quite hostile towards Christianity - that’s quite alarming actually.

May I remind you that if there were no Catholicism around your denomination (which is most probably “Baptists”) would not even exist since Baptism and all the other denominations sprang out of Catholicism in 1600 AD.

Catholicism created a platform or a springboard for protestant-evangelical movement in 1600 AD. If instead of Catholicism the official religion was say Islam or Buddhism then no evangelical movement would occur in 1600. You would then be a Muslim by now or a Krishna follower or someone of that sort.

Your denomination is infantile or babyish in comparison to Catholicism. You should always remember that.

Catholicism has been around for 1600 years. Of course some shaky or weird traditions have crept in. But if Baptists or Methodists have been around for that long the same would’ve happened to them. You can travel to UK and visit some Baptist churches to see for yourself that the process has actually begun – most Baptist churches in UK are deserted

It is because of Catholic and Orthodox churches that Western and Eastern Europe became Christian. You can’t deny the extraordinary workings of the Holy Spirit through these oldest churches.

The Christian moral truths (conveyed via Catholicism) have influenced the law, art and morality of Western and Eastern Europe

Catholics and Orthodox churches are the pillars of Christian movement. You should have an overwhelming awe and respect to these two oldest Christian organizations.

So much good has been done through Catholics missionary activities

May I also remind you the cardinal truths of Catholics church as you seem to be oblivious to that. Here they are:

We worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence. For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit still another. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is immeasurable, the Son is immeasurable, the Holy Spirit is immeasurable. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal.

And yet there are not three eternal beings; there is but one eternal being. So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings; there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

Similarly, the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, the Holy Spirit is almighty. Yet there are not three almighty beings; there is but one almighty being. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Yet there are not three gods; there is but one God. Thus the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy Spirit is Lord

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone. The Son was neither made nor created; he was begotten from the Father alone. The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten; he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers; there is one Son, not three sons; there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits. Nothing in this trinity is before or after, nothing is greater or smaller; in their entirety the three persons are coeternal and coequal with each other. So in everything we must worship their trinity in their unity and their unity in their trinity.

So we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son, is both God and human, equally. He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time; and he is human from the essence of his mother, born in time; completely God, completely human, with a rational soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as regards divinity, less than the Father as regards humanity

Although he is God and human, yet Christ is not two, but one. He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity to himself. He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person. For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh, so too the one Christ is both God and human.

How can you possibly be hostile towards Catholicism after all of that? There are many people who found Jesus in their life because of attending Catholic church

Holy Spirit did work through Catholicism for 1600 years and Holy spirit still working through Catholicism. YOU SHOULD NOT BLASPHEME THE WORKINGS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT OR IT WILL NEVER BE FORGIVEN TO YOU NEITHER IN THIS WORLD OR IN THE WORLD TO COME

I agree with the sentiment because it is true there are a number of Catholics we owe a great debt of gratitude to, such as Jerome, or Martin Luther, not to mention the many Catholics who have in sincere love of God devoted their lives to helping people.

One thing I will disagree with you about, but this is a Protestant issue as well, and that is this:

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone. The Son was neither made nor created; he was begotten from the Father alone. The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten; he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Just as I reject the Protestant Creeds that profess that the Son is the eternally begotten Son, so too this presents an erroneous concept, for the Son is Eternal, not begotten, except for that divine moment of the Incarnation, wherein GOd Himself declares the day in which this took place.

God veiled His Glory in human flesh that He might literally "provide Himself a lamb" for mankind.

We cannot confuse that "begetting" with the Eternal nature of Sovereign God, or we impose a concept of created being on He Who is the Creator.


God bless.

 

[KennethC]

Tik nobody is blaspheming the Holy Spirit here so that is a false assumption, as pointing out the wrong teachings within the Catholic church is not blasphemy but trying to show them correction from God's word.

Instead though most seem to believe what their church has told them instead of believe what clear cut scripture says, and use excuses such as blaming sola-scriptural and such or try to give the scriptures a hidden meaning they don't have.

The Holy Spirit can not teach differently, will not change, nor will He add or take away from God's word. He will only confirm the truth in the Word of God.

As for defiling of other churches that has already taken place at a all time high now days, and if you ever researched OSAS and eternal security you will see what I mean. As people in these two doctrines do the same as some Catholic's, deny clear scripture to go with what they were told by their churches.

Then they try to say this is what the Holy Spirit taught them !!!

Lord Jesus said those who endure to end will be saved, not those who are saved will endure to the end !!!

 

[KennethC]

I agree with the sentiment because it is true there are a number of Catholics we owe a great debt of gratitude to, such as Jerome, or Martin Luther, not to mention the many Catholics who have in sincere love of God devoted their lives to helping people.

One thing I will disagree with you about, but this is a Protestant issue as well, and that is this:

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone. The Son was neither made nor created; he was begotten from the Father alone. The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten; he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Just as I reject the Protestant Creeds that profess that the Son is the eternally begotten Son, so too this presents an erroneous concept, for the Son is Eternal, not begotten, except for that divine moment of the Incarnation, wherein GOd Himself declares the day in which this took place.

God veiled His Glory in human flesh that He might literally "provide Himself a lamb" for mankind.

We cannot confuse that "begetting" with the Eternal nature of Sovereign God, or we impose a concept of created being on He Who is the Creator.


God bless.

Funny to give credit to Martin Luther and then start talking about rejecting Protestant creeds.

You do realize that Martin Luther is one of the one's who started the Protestant reformation and rejected a number of the RCC's teachings ???

 

[P1LGR1M]

Funny to give credit to Martin Luther and then start talking about rejecting Protestant creeds.

You do realize that Martin Luther is one of the one's who started the Protestant reformation and rejected a number of the RCC's teachings ???

No kidding?

lol

Do you realize Martin Luther had a Reformation in mind...not a Revolution?

So how many RCC teachings did Luther not reject? You might start with THE 95 THESES.

And what does that have to do with my view of the teaching of "the eternally begotten Son?"


God bless.

 

[epostle]

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone. The Son was neither made nor created; he was begotten from the Father alone. The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten; he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

No kidding?

lol

Do you realize Martin Luther had a Reformation in mind...not a Revolution?

So how many RCC teachings did Luther not reject? You might start with THE 95 THESES.

And what does that have to do with my view of the teaching of "the eternally begotten Son?"


God bless.

Funny if Protestantism teaches this, it's fine.
But if a Catholic says the same thing, there must be something wrong with it.
There is no common ground.

 

[epostle]

Yes I understand that those things are wrong, but what I was pointing out that not all people realize is that not all Catholic's do that. Like I said there are some (very small group) that do not hold to all those things in the Catholic church, as I have seen some that even come out and speak out against the Pope at times.

Even the Protestant church still adheres to some of their teachings even though they are the one's who you see more then others speaking against the Catholic church. I have even seen some of them speak on and adhere to the same apostate teachers that the Catholic church holds to.

The other thing I see all the time is the false history teaching of the church, as the term catholic was not used tell the 2nd century (101-200 A.D.). Apostle Peter died around 67 A.D. before the term catholic was even used, so how can Peter be the first Pope of a church that didn't exist ???

Not to mention the term catholic was not a denominational term then in the 2nd century as it is now, that change was done around the 4th century !!!

CATHOLIC comes from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized into Catholicus.
It means 'Universal', which in itself means, 'of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein'. It means, ALL encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing ALL that is necessary. In summation, it means ALL people in ALL places,having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time.

Is it biblical?

It is inferred in Matthew 28:19-20, "Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations...teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world." That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.

Rom.1:8 ….and you belong to that Church whose faith St. Paul describesas being "proclaimed (KATanggeletai) in the whole universe (enHOLO to kosmo)”

Thus the word KATAHOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures- Romans 1:8

"Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
St.Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Smyrneans, paragraph 8, of 106A.D.,

Undoubtedly the word was in use before the time of this writing over 250 years before Constantine was born.

Q.Some say the Catholic Church ended with Constantine (285-337), with the "Edict of Milan" which he issued in 313, which allowed the Church to practice openly. Others say that is when the Church began. Who is right?

A.Neither is right. The Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Jesus Christ and He guaranteed its perpetuality, Matthew 28:20, and its unfaltering truth, 1Timothy 3:15. Now if either of the arguments in the question were true, then don't you think the Church Fathers would have mentioned it somewhere? Instead, the Church Fathers mention the Catholic Church by Name in hundreds of their writings and spanning many centuries. Those who say these things have zero (0) documented proof.

Written records of the term "CATHOLIC" describing a character ofthe Christian Church:
Ignatius,Letter to the Smyrneans 106AD;
Martyrdomof St. Polycarp 155AD;
Clementof Alexandria, Stromateis 202AD;
Cyprian,Unity of the Catholic Church 251AD;
Cyprian,Letter to Florentius, 254AD

"Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while theother makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart... When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name."
Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D.

Dr.Carroll, author of the Baptist tract entitled “TheTrail of Blood,”makes the claim that Constantine called a council in 313 AD, the same year he issued the Edict of Milan, and this council first formed the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. This theory breaks down,though, when one begins to read the history books and discovers that no Church council was held in 313.

But the main problem with all of these theories is that, if they were true, one would expect to be able to find all of the doctrines thatare specifically “Catholic” coming about only after the“invention” of the Catholic Church. Whatever year one proposes as the beginning of Catholicism, one should expect to seen one of these Catholic doctrines before it. Even a cursory reading of the Church Fathers from the first, second, and third centuries shows that this is not the case.

 

[epostle]

Tik nobody is blaspheming the Holy Spirit here so that is a false assumption, as pointing out the wrong teachings within the Catholic church is not blasphemy but trying to show them correction from God's word.

First, "God's word" is not confined to the written word alone anywhere in the Bible. Second, which of the tens of thousands of conflicting Protestant churches has the authority to do the correcting?

Instead though most seem to believe what their church has told them instead of believe what clear cut scripture says, and use excuses such as blaming sola scriptural and such or try to give the scriptures a hidden meaning they don't have.

The consequences of "sola scriptura" have been disastrous, so yes, it is to blame and you refuse to admit it.

The Bible is indeed more often than not quite clear when approached open-mindedly and with a moral willingness to accept its teachings. I assume this myself, even as a Catholic. But in actual fact many Christians (and also heretics or "cultists") distort and misunderstand the Bible, or at the very least, arrive at contradictory, sincerely-held convictions.

This is the whole point from the Catholic perspective. Error is necessarily present wherever disagreements exist - clearly not a desirable situation, as all falsehood is harmful (for example, John 8:44, 16:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12, 1 John 4:6). Perspicuity (clearness) (much like Protestantism as a whole) might theoretically be a good thing in principle, and on paper, but in practice it is unworkable and untenable.

Yet Protestant freedom of conscience is valued more than unity and the certainty of doctrinal truth in all matters (not just the core issues alone). The inquirer with new found zeal for Christ is in trouble if he expects to easily attain any comprehensive certainty within Protestantism. All he can do is take a "head count" of scholars and pastors and evangelists and Bible Dictionaries and see who lines up where on the various sides of the numerous disagreements.

Or else he can just uncritically accept the word of whatever denomination he is associated with. In effect, then, he is no better off than a beginning philosophy student who prefers Kierkegaard to Kant - the whole procedure (however well-intentioned) is arbitrary and destined to produce further confusion.

The usual Protestant reply to this critique is that denominations differ mostly over secondary issues, not fundamental or central doctrines. This is often and casually stated, but when scrutinized, it collapses under its own weight. Right from the beginning, the fault lines of Protestantism appeared when Zwingli and Oecolampadius (two lesser Reformers) differed with Luther on the Real Presence, and the Anabaptists dissented on the Eucharist, infant baptism, ordination, and the function of civil authority..."

"...The doctrine of baptism in particular, as well as other doctrinal disputes mentioned above, illustrate the irresolvable Protestant dilemma with regard to its fallacious notion of "what clear cut scripture says..."

"...The conclusion is inescapable: either biblical perspicuity is a falsehood or one or more of the doctrines of regeneration, justification, sanctification, salvation, election, free will, predestination, perseverance, eternal security, the Atonement, original sin, the Eucharist, and baptism, all "five points" of Calvinism (TULIP) and issues affecting the very gospel itself - are not central. Protestants can't have it both ways..."
"...Since most Protestants are unwilling to anathematize other Protestants, perspicuity dissolves into a boiling cauldron of incomprehensible contradictions, and as such, must be discarded or at the very least seriously reformulated in order to harmonize with the Bible and logic.

Whether one accepts the Tradition and teachings of the Catholic Church or not, at least it courageously takes a stand on any given doctrine and refuses to leave whole areas of theology and practice perpetually up for grabs and at the mercy of the "priesthood of scholars" and the individual's private judgment, which in turn often reduces to mere whim, fancy, or subjective preference, usually divorced from considerations of Christian history and consensus. For this so-called "dogmatism" and lack of "flexibility," the Catholic Church is often reviled and despised. But for those of us who are seeking to be faithful to Christ within its fold, this is regarded, to the contrary, as its unique glory and majesty, much preferable to the morass of competing truth-claims (i.e., relativism) which prevail within Protestantism (even among the subgroup of evangelicals).​

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: The Perspicuity ("Clearness") of Scripture

The Holy Spirit can not teach differently, will not change, nor will He add or take away from God's word. He will only confirm the truth in the Word of God.

Jesus founded a church, not a book club. Nowhere in scripture does the Holy Spirit guide individuals to settle doctrinal disputes, declare anathemas or heresies apart from divinely established authority.

As for defiling of other churches that has already taken place at a all time high now days, and if you ever researched OSAS and eternal security you will see what I mean.

If you researched OSAS and eternal security objectively you will not find them anywhere before Martin Luther invented them. That's proof enough they are man made traditions.

. As people in these two doctrines do the same as some Catholic's, deny clear scripture to go with what they were told by their churches.

Yea, and you don't?

Then they try to say this is what the Holy Spirit taught them !!!

No, we say the Holy Spirit prevents teaching error on matters of faith and morals. Before 1930, every church on the planet taught that contraception is sinful. Within 50 years, they all changed their tune, except for one. Are you saying the Holy Spirit guided all of Protestantism to endorse a practice that ultimately destroys many families? At least it's something you guys agree on.

Lord Jesus said those who endure to end will be saved, not those who are saved will endure to the end !!!

I see no point in "enduring" if you already have your ticket.

 

[tik]

One thing I will disagree with you about, but this is a Protestant issue as well, and that is this:

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone. The Son was neither made nor created; he was begotten from the Father alone. The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten; he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Just as I reject the Protestant Creeds that profess that the Son is the eternally begotten Son, so too this presents an erroneous concept, for the Son is Eternal, not begotten, except for that divine moment of the Incarnation, wherein GOd Himself declares the day in which this took place.

I think you have a bit of confusion with the word “begotten”.

The word “begotten” does not mean “created”.

Just as kittens are begotten by cats, dogs by dogs, cows by cows, so the Son, being begotten by the Father, shares the same nature as the Father. He is not something that was made; he is someone who is begotten from eternity without beginning.

Let me give you an analogy. Think about the SUN. The plasma is like God the Father and the Son is like the sun’s rays coming down to Earth and the photons that have an effect on the plants and trees is kind of like the Holy Spirit. They are kind of like the three different facets all in one

The idea of the sunbeam from the sun is one that the church fathers often used to try to illustrate how the Son is begotten from the Father – eternally begotten from the Father, just as the beam of light is always radiated by the sun. The sun never exists without its radiance.

 

[P1LGR1M]

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone. The Son was neither made nor created; he was begotten from the Father alone. The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten; he proceeds from the Father and the Son. Funny if Protestantism teaches this, it's fine.
But if a Catholic says the same thing, there must be something wrong with it.
There is no common ground.

And what do we call that? lol


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

I think you have a bit of confusion with the word “begotten”.

The word “begotten” does not mean “created”.

No confusion on my part, you are the one likening the Son to a kitten being born. lol

Just as kittens are begotten by cats, dogs by dogs, cows by cows, so the Son, being begotten by the Father, shares the same nature as the Father.

And unlike the kitten, who is not the daddy kitty, and not the mommy kitty, the Son is still the Creator God, not the product of procreation.

That is the problem I have with the creed: it erroneously implies a beginning in time, which is true of Christ...but is not true of the Son of God.

The Son of God came from Heaven and in no way "emptied Himself" of Deity, but veiled His Glory in human flesh.

You illustrate the very erroneous result of the terminology used which I initially said I have a disagreement with.

And as Epostle points out, it's okay for the Protestant to espouse such error, but if the Catholic does so...they are to be burned at the stake.

And this is the humorous aspect of considering the Trinity: many will say "I believe in the Trinity, though I don't really understand it, and I don't think anyone can." Then they question someone else's salvation because they don't understand it either.

Hilarious.

He is not something that was made; he is someone who is begotten from eternity without beginning.

Not according to your teaching:

Just as kittens are begotten by cats, dogs by dogs, cows by cows, so the Son, being begotten by the Father, shares the same nature as the Father.

The Son of God is God, Who is Eternal, in fact the Only Eternal. He has no beginning, no end, but is the Alpha (beginning) and the Omega (end).

We only recognize a beginning in the Christ, Who "began" in this temporal sphere when He stepped down from Heaven into the Body He created in the womb of Mary.

Nothing whatsoever like cats begetting cats and dogs begetting dogs.

Let me give you an analogy. Think about the SUN. The plasma is like God the Father and the Son is like the sun’s rays coming down to Earth and the photons that have an effect on the plants and trees is kind of like the Holy Spirit. They are kind of like the three different facets all in one

The idea of the sunbeam from the sun is one that the church fathers often used to try to illustrate how the Son is begotten from the Father – eternally begotten from the Father, just as the beam of light is always radiated by the sun. The sun never exists without its radiance.

The analogy might be reasonable if we could see the sun brought down to earth.

No man has seen God at any time, but the Son has revealed Him. We have to distinguish between God in His Eternality as opposed to God interacting with man. No man can look upon God in His glory, hence the need for God to veil that glory in human form, that He might effect salvation for men.

Christ is the First and the Last, the Alpha and Omega, and when we imply a beginning to the Son of God that is not specific to the Incarnation, we do the Word of God an injustice.

This is why we have so many cults and "isms" that diminish the Glory of God as expressed through Jesus Christ. They impose something that is not Eternal which Scripture at no time ever does in regards to the Son of God.


God bless.

 

[Budman]

An utter fabrication. It's ONE AND THE SAME SACRIFICE

Then you disagree with your own Catechism which states:

(1414) As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God. (Page 395)

(1365) Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: “This is my body which is given for you” and “This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood.” In the Eucharist Christ gives us the VERY body which he gave up for us on the cross, the VERY blood which he “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Page 380)


(1367) The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the SAME: the SAME now offers through the ministry of priest, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the SAME Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross IS CONTAINED and offered in an unbloody manner.” (Page 381)

As quoted, in the RCC, Christ is sacrificed over and over again for remission of the sins of the living and the dead.

Misrepresentation. She is a subordinate mediator

Again, the Bible says there is only one mediator. One means exactly one. Your "church" teaches people must go through Mary to get to Christ. A damnable heresy.

Mary never takes on that role, not in one single official Catholic document in a 2000 year period

From your Catechism:

(969) “This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this SAVING OFFICE but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us gifts of eternal salvation. . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”(Page 275)

By the teaching of your "church", one must go through Mary to get to Christ to obtain salvation.

"All" does not mean "every single one.

Except for that pesky "not even one" part.

That just proves she obeyed the law. So did Jesus. She didn't offer a lamb and there is nothing in scripture that says Joseph and her were too poor for one. I'm sure you can figure out why doves and not a lamb.

If she was sinless, there was no reason to obey the Law. The Law does not apply to a sinless person. The only reason Jesus did, is because He had to fulfill the Law's requirements in order to satisfy divine justice. If you claim Mary did the same, then you could rightly say Mary could have gone to the cross in the place of Christ.

And yes, the Bible indicates Mary was too poor to afford a lamb sacrifice. In Leviticus 12:6-8, it says if one cannot afford to bring a year old lamb for the sin offering, then a young pigeon or a dove may be offered. Mary brought one dove for her atonement offering and one for her sin offering. (Luke 2:22-24)

And if Mary was sinless, there was also no need for her to go through the purification period following the birth of Jesus - which she did.

There was also no need for Mary to call Jesus her "savior". Sinless people need no savior - only sinners do.

Wrong. This just proves you are no expert in Catholic teaching. An expert in misrepresenting and creating falsehoods maybe. Your "church" cannot reconcile God's justice and mercy.That's why you worship "faith" alone. The doctrine of purgatory originated with the Jews in primitive form, but you don't attack them, that would be politically incorrect.

Once again, your own Catechism destroys your claims:

(1030) All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation, but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. (Page 291)

(1031) The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect..." "The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent" (Pg. 268-269)

(954) "But at the present time some of his disciples are pilgrims on earth. Others have died and are being purified, while still others are in glory..." (Page 249)

It looks like you are the one not familiar with your own "churches" teachings.

Wrong. see 817, 818, 819,

Catechism:

(#816) The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: 'For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained'

(#846) ..all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church , a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation. (Page 224)

So, once again, your statement is false.

During fornication or after?

Salvation is offered as a free gift at any time. One is a sinner before, during, and after any sinful act. Salvation is a free gift that is not based on our works - either good or bad.

Hate speech. No scholarly documentation

History is replete with documentation on the murderous rampages of the RCC. So much so, I'm surprised you dared to comment.















Catec

 

[Mec99]

Like i said before, until the Catholics like epostle turn away from Satan and his teachings and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior they will never know the Truth and will never enter into Heaven.

Scriptures only is a Doctrine from God. Scriptures and Doctrines from Satan is the teaching of Catholicism.

God clearly says in the Scripture that nobody was righteous, that none were righteous. Catholicism teaches Mary was righteous.

Romans 3:10
[SUP]10 [/SUP] As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one;


No one is righteous according to God. Mary is righteous according to Catholicism. So tell me epostle who is lying? Is God lying?

NO!

Its Catholicism that is lying!

God clearly says in Scriptures that no one is sinless, that everyone is a sinner.

Romans 3:23 (NKJV)
[SUP]23 [/SUP] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 5:12 (NKJV)
[SUP]12 [/SUP] Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--

God clearly says Mary was born with sin. Catholicism says Mary was born without sin. Tell me epostle who is lying? Is God lying?

NO!

Its Catholicism that is lying!

No one is sinless, ALL have sinned, even Mary was born a sinner.

This proves the Catholic Church is following Satan and his teachings, not God and His Truths.

Epostle until you reject Satan as your God you will never see the Truth and will never enter into Heaven. Why is it so hard for you epostle to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?

All who call upon the Lord WILL be Saved!

Romans 10:9-11
[SUP]9 [/SUP] that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
[SUP]10 [/SUP] For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
[SUP]11 [/SUP] For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."

 

[diggerbill]

The protestants, myself, have enough problems in our own beliefs. Although I don't consider myself a Baptist, I attend a Baptist church. A lady, who attended a "Catholic" church and I were in a biblical discussion on works. She told me that I was not a Catholic and that I was a Baptist and did not understand.

I told her that I was more Catholic than she as she attended a "Roman Catholic" church. After explain my comments, brought on by my character flaw, the conversation became civil and the scriptures were discussed

We should all remember that most protestant beliefs and traditions were inherited from the Roman Catholic church. We celebrate Easter Hmmm. Ishtar, the pagan bare breasted goddess of fertility. Christmas "Christ's Mass", on December 25, the birthday of the majority of the pagan gods. We go to church on Sunday and not the prescribed Sabbath, etc.

Jeremiah 16:19 (NASB95)
19 O Lord, my strength and my stronghold, And my refuge in the day of distress, To You the nations will come From the ends of the earth and say, “Our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood, Futility and things of no profit.”

Neither Roman Catholics nor Protestants are the Jews. Therefore Roman Catholics and Protestants are the "Nations". I am afraid that both groups have inherited lies, futility and things of no profit.

The Roman Catholics have had 1700 years to develop a system of control, based on religion. We Protestants have not had that long, but are slowly catching up.

2 Timothy 3:1–17 (NASB95)
1 But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come.
2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy,
3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good,
4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
5 holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.
6 For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses,
7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith.
9 But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes’s and Jambres’s folly was also.
10 Now you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance,
11 persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium and at Lystra; what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord rescued me!
12 Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.
13 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.
14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

 

[tik]

The analogy might be reasonable if we could see the sun brought down to earth.

I think the analogy is very reasonable
The sunbeam is on earth. Jesus was on earth.
Jesus is the word of God. Sunbeam is the "word" of Sun
The sunbeam is not the Sun. Jesus is not the Father. Both Father and Jesus are two distinct persons
The sunbeam is begotten by the Sun. Jesus is begotten by the Father
Jesus is eternally begotten from the Father, just as the beam of light is always radiated by the sun. The sun never exists without its radiance. So Father never existed without Jesus

 

[tik]

...as pointing out the wrong teachings within the Catholic church is not blasphemy but trying to show them correction from God's word...

well you picked the most formidable Christian organization that’s been around for ages through which God done mighty things, through which Christian values spread all over the world and you are criticising it

why don’t you pick your own puny infantile denomination that’s been around for a tiny fraction of time and begin to criticise your denomination instead?

you remind me of a puppy barking at the truck haha

 

[P1LGR1M]

Like i said before, until the Catholics like epostle turn away from Satan and his teachings and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior they will never know the Truth and will never enter into Heaven.

He is a follower of Satan?

A denier of Christ?

What church are you a part of, Mec99?


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

I think the analogy is very reasonable
The sunbeam is on earth. Jesus was on earth.
Jesus is the word of God. Sunbeam is the "word" of Sun
The sunbeam is not the Sun. Jesus is not the Father. Both Father and Jesus are two distinct persons
The sunbeam is begotten by the Sun. Jesus is begotten by the Father
Jesus is eternally begotten from the Father, just as the beam of light is always radiated by the sun. The sun never exists without its radiance. So Father never existed without Jesus

And it breaks down right here...

The sunbeam is not the Sun. Jesus is not the Father. Both Father and Jesus are two distinct persons

Jesus is the Father in Eternity, He made that very clear, as does John...


John 1

King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[SUP]2 [/SUP]The same was in the beginning with God.

[SUP]3 [/SUP]All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.


Christ made it clear that He and the Fatter were One. When we are indwelt by God, we are indwelt by the One God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost:


John 14:16-17; 20, 23

King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]16 [/SUP]And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

[SUP]17 [/SUP]Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.



[SUP]20 [/SUP]At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

[SUP]23 [/SUP]Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.


The analogies such a you present in regards to the sun would be more suitable in representing the "virtue" which came from the Son when the woman touched Him.

Again, I am not saying they cannot be used, I am just saying that I don't think they properly represent God in His Eternal quality. Some use the egg, some speak of flame, which is like your own analogy, which ha flame, heat, and light, but, when we really get down to it we have to be careful that illustrations do not detract from Who the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are.

God bless.

 

[tik]

...Jesus is the Father in Eternity, He made that very clear, as does John...

Just so you know Pilgrim your views are heretical and very similar to heresy called “Modalism”.

During the third century, a heresy arose which is called “Modalism” or “Sabellianism” or “Monarchianism.” According to this heresy, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all divine, but they are not distinct persons. It is really a form of Unitarianism – there is one person who is God, but this one person plays three different roles or is expressed toward us with three different faces, as it were, and we call them the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But really there is only one person that God is

Well, if you believe that Jesus is the Father and that there is no distinction between Father and Jesus then you are denying the doctrine of the Holy Trinity

Well, it is the doctrine of the Trinity that distinguishes Christianity from other great monotheistic faiths like Judaism and Islam. Judaism and Islam are forms of Unitarianism with respect to their doctrine of God. They believe that God is a person – there is one person who is God. By contrast, Christianity is trinitarian, not unitarian. This same doctrine also serves to distinguish Christianity from all of the various cults that claim to be Christian. I am thinking here of cults like Mormonism (or the Church of Latter Day Saints) or Christian Science or Jehovah’s Witnesses. When you look at the various cults, the doctrine of the Trinity is almost like a yardstick that will measure whether or not a group is a legitimate Christian denomination and whether or not it has veered into some sort of a cultic heresy. Virtually every one of these cults will deny the doctrine of the Trinity. So the doctrine of the Trinity is extremely important in distinguishing Christianity from other monotheisms and also from Christian cults

 

[P1LGR1M]

Just so you know Pilgrim your views are heretical and very similar to heresy called “Modalism”.

During the third century, a heresy arose which is called “Modalism” or “Sabellianism” or “Monarchianism.” According to this heresy, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all divine, but they are not distinct persons. It is really a form of Unitarianism – there is one person who is God, but this one person plays three different roles or is expressed toward us with three different faces, as it were, and we call them the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But really there is only one person that God is

Well, if you believe that Jesus is the Father and that there is no distinction between Father and Jesus then you are denying the doctrine of the Holy Trinity

Well, it is the doctrine of the Trinity that distinguishes Christianity from other great monotheistic faiths like Judaism and Islam. Judaism and Islam are forms of Unitarianism with respect to their doctrine of God. They believe that God is a person – there is one person who is God. By contrast, Christianity is trinitarian, not unitarian. This same doctrine also serves to distinguish Christianity from all of the various cults that claim to be Christian. I am thinking here of cults like Mormonism (or the Church of Latter Day Saints) or Christian Science or Jehovah’s Witnesses. When you look at the various cults, the doctrine of the Trinity is almost like a yardstick that will measure whether or not a group is a legitimate Christian denomination and whether or not it has veered into some sort of a cultic heresy. Virtually every one of these cults will deny the doctrine of the Trinity. So the doctrine of the Trinity is extremely important in distinguishing Christianity from other monotheisms and also from Christian cults

Imagine that, someone calling me a heretic for my Trinitarian views, lol.

So you are saying that a proper way to teach Trinitarian Theology is to liken Christ to the birth of kittens?

Originally Posted by tik

Just as kittens are begotten by cats, dogs by dogs, cows by cows, so the Son, being begotten by the Father, shares the same nature as the Father.

If you could, please point out where my Trinitarian views can be defined as “Modalism” or “Sabellianism” or “Monarchianism.”

And while you are at it, please present the Scripture that teaches the Son of God was begotten like a cat or a dog.

If you disagree that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are One, then it is not me you disagree with, but Christ Himself. You can show how I am in error in posting the verses I posted and the context in which they were posted.


God bless.

 

[tik]

Pilgrim

I think you seriously misunderstand the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

Let’s get to the bottom of it shall we?

The doctrine of the Trinity is not the doctrine that three Gods are somehow one God. That would be clearly self-contradictory – to say there are three Gods, and these are one God.

In other words the doctrine of the Trinity does not say that

GOD=GOD+GOD+GOD

Neither do Christians claim that there are three persons who are somehow one person. That, again, would be self-contradictory – to assert that there are three persons who are all one person.

In other words the doctrine of the Trinity does not assert that

PERSON= PERSON + PERSON + PERSON

The doctrine of the Trinity does not assert that there are three Gods that are one God or three persons that are one person, but

In other words the doctrine of the Trinity does not say that

GOD=GOD+GOD+GOD

and it does not say that

PERSON= PERSON + PERSON + PERSON

What does the doctrine of the Trinity say then?

The doctrine of the Trinity says that there is one God who is TRI-PERSONAL

In other words the doctrine of the Trinity claims that

GOD= PERSON + PERSON + PERSON

Let me give you analogy often used by Russian Orthodox Church. Think about a chicken Egg for a moment. What chicken Egg consists of? Well it’s consists of three bits namely Shell + Egg white + Yolk. But Egg is not three. Egg is 1. Exactly the same is with God. God is Father + Son + Holy Spirit. But God is not three. God is 1. I hope you get the idea.

Let me give you another analogy (which is slightly more complex)

Think about the soul. What is soul? The soul, or the mind, is not a physical thing – it is an immaterial or spiritual thing, an immaterial substance. What makes the human soul a person? It would seem that the human soul is equipped with rational faculties of intellect and volition which enables it to self-reflect. So the human soul is a person, or is personal, because it is endowed with rational faculties of intellect and volition which enable it to have free will.

Well God is very much like an unembodied soul. When you die and your soul is separated from the body, you go to be with the Lord until the resurrection at the end of history – and you are at that time a disembodied soul. God seem to be very much like an unembodied soul. In fact, as a mental or spiritual substance, God just is, an unembodied soul. He is a soul. We naturally equate a rational soul with a person, since the human souls that we are familiar with in our intercourse with one another are all persons. But the reason that human souls are individual persons is because each soul is equipped with one set of rational faculties which are sufficient for personhood. Each one of us has a set of rational faculties and volitional faculties that are sufficient for being an individual person. But suppose that God is a soul who is endowed with three complete sets of rational cognitive faculties, each of which is sufficient for personhood. Then God – even though he is one soul – would not be one person, but he would be three persons. For God would have three centers of self-consciousness, three centers of intentionality (thinking about things), three centers of volition (freely willing to do things). So God, if he has three complete sets of rational faculties, will have three centers of self-consciousness, intentionality, and will, which seems to be exactly what the doctrine of the Trinity would maintain. God would clearly not be three distinct souls because the cognitive faculties that we are talking about are all properties of the same soul. There is one immaterial substance which is so richly endowed with cognitive faculties that it is sufficient for three persons. So God would be a spiritual substance, or soul, which is tri-personal, in contrast to us, who are individual souls, or beings, each of which is one person.

The idea is that we should start by thinking of God as a soul, just as you are a soul; and when you die, you are a disembodied soul. You are at that time an unembodied consciousness, so you are one thing – you are one immaterial substance. That is what I am inviting you to think about God as. God is an immaterial substance, a mind, just like you are when you are an unembodied soul. But this soul is much more richly endowed with cognitive faculties than you are. You just have one set of cognitive faculties, and therefore you are one person. But I want you to try to imagine a soul that is endowed with three sets of cognitive faculties, each of which is sufficient for personhood – rationality, self-consciousness, and freedom of the will. I think that gets you this idea of one thing, one substance, namely, this soul, that is so richly endowed that it is tri-personal.

So Christians never ever believed that Jesus is the Father or that Father is Jesus. Christians always believed that Jesus and Father are two distinct persons just like Sun and sun-Rays are two distinct things. That’s why Jesus is Father’s Son and that’s why Jesus could pray to Father

Let me read you the creedal statement again:

…we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence....