whats Does The RCC mass/Eucherist Add To lacking of the Cross?

[Yeshua1]

I'm not even bother reading it as you've already demonstrated a lack of understanding regarding how we view sacraments.

he understands that the RCC teaches that one is saved by Grace of God, but that is NOT fully sufficient from the Cross of christ, but we MUST co operate with God in the salvation process, by taking the sacraments in faith, and THAT finally saves us!

denies the blood of jesus full propitiation of sins, and that God can freely justify us by faith alone in that work of Christ!

 

[The Biblicist]

he understands that the RCC teaches that one is saved by Grace of God, but that is NOT fully sufficient from the Cross of christ, but we MUST co operate with God in the salvation process, by taking the sacraments in faith, and THAT finally saves us!

denies the blood of jesus full propitiation of sins, and that God can freely justify us by faith alone in that work of Christ!

He knows full well I understand the Catholic position of "sacramental salvation" but he refuses to acknowledge for one good simple reason - he cannot respond to the position I set forth in this OP that repudiates that teaching.

 

[WestminsterMan]

he understands that the RCC teaches that one is saved by Grace of God, but that is NOT fully sufficient from the Cross of christ, but we MUST co operate with God in the salvation process, by taking the sacraments in faith, and THAT finally saves us!

denies the blood of jesus full propitiation of sins, and that God can freely justify us by faith alone in that work of Christ!

It is by God's grace that He sent is Son to die on the cross in atonement of our sins. Without His grace there could be no salvation.

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

It is by God's grace that He sent is Son to die on the cross in atonement of our sins. Without His grace there could be no salvation.

WM

That is true! But that is simply avoiding the issue. The issue is defining what is "grace" how that grace is received.

 

[DHK]

The fact is upon belief and baptism you are saved in that you belong to God.

Baptism doesn't save; it simply gets you wet. To believe that a little water can save a person is a silly superstition--one of many of the RCC.

All you have to do is remain in Jesus until the end of your physical life. We don't merit for ourselves salvation.

You are not being honest here. This teaching is called OSAS, and the RCC does not teach it, but considers it to be anathema. In fact the RCC does believe one must merit their salvation. That is why you said you must be baptized. Baptism is a work, just like all the sacraments are works. Confession is a work, and so is prayer (the rosary), partaking in the Communion or the Mass...those are all works that a Catholic must do. Of course you merit for yourself salvation. Your entire religion is based on merit.
Only an evangelical will say that salvation is based on faith. The RCC does not believe that, and Trent denounced it.

but once we enter into the Kingdom we can merit God's pleasure by being obedient Children following God's will and laying down our lives and picking up our crosses and following him. Let me give you a common prayer Catholics say to help you understand what I am saying.

O my God, relying on Your almighty power and infinite mercy and promises, I hope to obtain pardon of my sins, the help of Your grace and life everlasting, through the merits of Jesus Christ, my Lord and Redeemer. Amen

That prayer is a confident hope in the promise of Jesus Christ. It his Merits that 1)saves me and 2) gives me the graces to live as he wants me to. The word hope in this prayer isn't a "hope I make it" view its the Hope Hebrews speaks of in faith. I have a sure hope that in the merits of Jesus Christ I will obtain pardon of my sins, the help of Jesus' grace, and life everlasting. Not on our ability but on his.

That is your Protestant background speaking, not what the RCC teaches.
"I hope to obtain pardon..." The prayer expresses a lack of assurance. There is absolutely no assurance in the RCC of eternal life. Catholic after Catholic after Catholic does not know for sure if they are going to heaven or not. Their answers are either: "I don't know," "No one can know," "I will only find out when that day comes," "If I have done good enough in this lifetime I hope I will make it." Those are the typical answers of Catholics. I know; I ask them.
The "I hope" in the prayer you quoted is a sincere hope that he will obtain pardon in the end. He doesn't know for sure that he will. There is no assurance.

However, as I've said before we must remain in Jesus. Its not probational but there is nothing keeping us from throwing away that gift. And some people do choose themselves over the gift of God.

You can't know for sure if you will remain in Jesus. No Catholic can. They don't have that assurance. Only those who believe in eternal security have that assurance.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Baptism doesn't save; it simply gets you wet. To believe that a little water can save a person is a silly superstition--one of many of the RCC.

Peter thought a bit differently

37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit

So lets break it down a bit further because you are having some comprehension problems when it comes to baptism and the Catholic view. And to make it simple I will be speaking about baptism of Adults. I will pull directly from the catachism.

the faithful are initiated into the riches this sacrament

Notice that before the initiation of Baptism the Catachumins are called Faithful. Which means they 1st have faith already. At this point to use your word for you to understand they are saved. This is even before baptism.

Baptism is the sacrament of faith...The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop

So in the Catholic Sense I am saved has taken place at faith. However, with baptism. How do I know the catholic church teaches this?

For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them... salvation

so how does the catholic view the participation in the baptism. Well se start with faith and at the moment of faith we are saved. Yet Catholics view faith this way First that

Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him

Do you believe Faith is infused or inputed? secondly

By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God.2 With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls this human response to God, the author of revelation, "the obedience of faith".3

Faith requires a response and obedience to God.

To obey (from the Latin ob-audire, to "hear or listen to") in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, because its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself. Abraham is the model of such obedience offered us by Sacred Scripture.The Letter to the Hebrews, in its great eulogy of the faith of Israel's ancestors, lays special emphasis on Abraham's faith: "By faith, Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go."4 By faith, he lived as a stranger and pilgrim in the promised land.5 By faith, Sarah was given to conceive the son of the promise. And by faith Abraham offered his only son in sacrifice

so we see that

Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act. Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed is contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason.

so seeing this in what way does baptism save? As in I'm saved, and I'm being saved?

From the time of the apostles, becoming a Christian has been accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This journey can be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential elements will always have to be present: proclamation of the Word, acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith, Baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to Eucharistic communion.

Peter said "repent and be baptised and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." I've already noted that our salvation journey begins at faith but its not developed yet and that faith requires a response baptism is that first response after a proclimation of faith

The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary

and

He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.

So as I'm being saved baptism provides

Immersion in water symbolizes not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit.65

also it

Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefore . . . we are members one of another."72 Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body."73

and finally it

Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.83 Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

That is the Catholic view of baptism. You're view of salvation is limited to belief but not belief that leads obedience. I find that problematic.

 

[The Biblicist]

Peter thought a bit differently

That depends upon the meaning of "eis" does it not? One must assume that "eis" means "in order to" and not "because of" or "in reference to" or else your whole system fails at this point. Peter himself better explains this in Acts 10:43 and 1 Pet. 3;21. The former mentions no baptism whatsoever but "remission of sins" due to faith in Christ alone. The latter denies baptism literally saves but only saves as a "figure" and does not literally cleanse the flesh from its defilement but rather is the response of an already cleansed = good conscience.

Your condescending tone to DHK is rather dispicable. Your "break it down" step by step logic is full of holes that require a certain set of presumptions that are really irrational. For example, you argue that you are "saved" at the point of faith prior to baptism but only conditioned upon something preventing baptism which means you are arguing on the basis of the exception of the rule in order to establish the rule that one is "saved" at the point of faith - hence irrational nonsense!

Furthermore, you argue:

So as I'm being saved baptism provides
Quote:
Immersion in water symbolizes not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit.65

Immersion is not the common mode used by the Catholic Church. So again you argue on the basis of the exception to the rule in order to establish the rule. Irrational again!

It is obvious that you are so immersed into Catholic dogma that outside a direct act of God you could not see, comprehend, perceive the truth of the Scriptures if they stared you in the face.

 

[Yeshua1]

Peter thought a bit differently

So lets break it down a bit further because you are having some comprehension problems when it comes to baptism and the Catholic view. And to make it simple I will be speaking about baptism of Adults. I will pull directly from the catachism.
Notice that before the initiation of Baptism the Catachumins are called Faithful. Which means they 1st have faith already. At this point to use your word for you to understand they are saved. This is even before baptism. So in the Catholic Sense I am saved has taken place at faith. However, with baptism. How do I know the catholic church teaches this? so how does the catholic view the participation in the baptism. Well se start with faith and at the moment of faith we are saved. Yet Catholics view faith this way First that Do you believe Faith is infused or inputed? secondly
Faith requires a response and obedience to God. so we see that so seeing this in what way does baptism save? As in I'm saved, and I'm being saved? Peter said "repent and be baptised and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." I've already noted that our salvation journey begins at faith but its not developed yet and that faith requires a response baptism is that first response after a proclimation of faith and So as I'm being saved baptism provides also it and finally it

That is the Catholic view of baptism. You're view of salvation is limited to belief but not belief that leads obedience. I find that problematic.

So the sacrament of baptism causes an :unbreakable" seal to christ, what if the person is an Atheist once adult?

So baptism saves you , as it washed away oroginal sin stae, links you to jesus...

what does faith in him actual give you the batism didn't?

 

[DHK]

Peter thought a bit differently

So lets break it down a bit further because you are having some comprehension problems when it comes to baptism and the Catholic view. And to make it simple I will be speaking about baptism of Adults. I will pull directly from the catachism.

When it comes to Biblical exposition the RCC (Catechism) is clueless. They are ignorant and butcher more Scripture than any cult I have ever seen.

Notice that before the initiation of Baptism the Catachumins are called Faithful.

A self-defeating argument. Look it up in your Catechism. Baptism means (according to the RCC) "born again." You can't have faith until you are born again. You can't be faithful until you are born again. It is a contradictory position. The RCC teaches that at baptism, given at infancy, the infant is born again. Explain how an 8 day old infant then has faith. That is absurd! How is that infant faithful to the RCC faith. Like I said, the RCC is ignorant at Bible exposition.

Which means they 1st have faith already.

1. A baptized infant has no more faith than a psychic pig!
Read: http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2012/06/21/topless-protest-shocks-euro-2012-psychic-pig/

At this point to use your word for you to understand they are saved.

Baptism doesn't save; it gets people wet. How long must I endure this superstition. Let the pig wallow in his mud. He is still a pig. Water doesn't change him.

This is even before baptism. So in the Catholic Sense I am saved has taken place at faith.

Faith has an object. What was the object of your faith before you were saved? Was it the RCC. The RCC teaching is that you cannot be born again unless you are baptized, and that baptism is the new birth experience. The object of my faith is Christ and his atoning sacrifice, which BTW, puts me in Christ and gives me eternal life which no man can take away, hence eternal security.

However, with baptism. How do I know the catholic church teaches this? so how does the catholic view the participation in the baptism. Well se start with faith and at the moment of faith we are saved. Yet Catholics view faith this way First that

Faith is not a supernatural gift infused into you. That is hogwash.
The Bible teaches "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the "Word of God." Most Catholics only hear a little of the Word of God at the Mass they attend once a week. And even then it is not likely they pay attention and even less likely they understand it. No Biblical exposition is ever given. No understanding = no faith. Faith comes from the Word of God. It is not infused directly by God. Catholics can believe the moon is made of green cheese (and at one time did so), but that didn't make it true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_is_made_of_green_cheese
Simpletons also believe that water saves them but it doesn't make it true,
or that faith is somehow magically infused into them by God when they are infants, but that doesn't make it true.

Do you believe Faith is infused or inputed? secondly

Faith comes from hearing the Word of God.
Righteousness is imputed by faith (Rom.4:3).
Faith requires a response and obedience to God.[/quote]
Faith requires an object. That object is Jesus Christ.
By faith and faith alone a person is saved. It is faith in Jesus Christ and his atoning work in Christ that a person is saved.
After that a person walks by faith, lives the Christian life by faith. Faith is not mystical, supernatural, esoterical, existential, and in the realm of the meta-physical as you are describing it.

so we see that so seeing this in what way does baptism save?

No, baptism is a work. Works don't save. Water doesn't save. Hindus believe water forgives sin. What makes your religion any different? It is completely superstitious, just like the psychic pig.

As in I'm saved, and I'm being saved?

Wrong again.
Paul said in Romans 5:1
Being justified by faith we have peace with God. It is a one time action.

Peter said "repent and be baptised and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

The RCC are ignorant at Biblical exposition. I will not take the time to expound this to you as it has been done by Biblicist already. Study the word "eis" in the Greek, and then compare its use to Matthew 3:11.

I've already noted that our salvation journey begins at faith

It begins and ends at faith in Christ. It is a one time act never to be repeated again. If you don't grasp that Biblical concept there is no hope for you in heaven.

but its not developed yet and that faith requires a response baptism is that first response after a proclimation of faith and So as I'm being saved baptism provides also it and finally it

And this proclamation is heresy.

That is the Catholic view of baptism. You're view of salvation is limited to belief but not belief that leads obedience. I find that problematic.

Of course you find it problematic. You have forsaken the teachings of the Bible for the teachings of the Catechism which has pitted itself against the Word of God. It is contrary step by step to the Word of God. It is a book of heretical teaching leading people to hell.

 

[Yeshua1]

When it comes to Biblical exposition the RCC (Catechism) is clueless. They are ignorant and butcher more Scripture than any cult I have ever seen.

A self-defeating argument. Look it up in your Catechism. Baptism means (according to the RCC) "born again." You can't have faith until you are born again. You can't be faithful until you are born again. It is a contradictory position. The RCC teaches that at baptism, given at infancy, the infant is born again. Explain how an 8 day old infant then has faith. That is absurd! How is that infant faithful to the RCC faith. Like I said, the RCC is ignorant at Bible exposition.

1. A baptized infant has no more faith than a psychic pig!
Read: http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2012/06/21/topless-protest-shocks-euro-2012-psychic-pig/

Baptism doesn't save; it gets people wet. How long must I endure this superstition. Let the pig wallow in his mud. He is still a pig. Water doesn't change him.

Faith has an object. What was the object of your faith before you were saved? Was it the RCC. The RCC teaching is that you cannot be born again unless you are baptized, and that baptism is the new birth experience. The object of my faith is Christ and his atoning sacrifice, which BTW, puts me in Christ and gives me eternal life which no man can take away, hence eternal security.

Faith is not a supernatural gift infused into you. That is hogwash.
The Bible teaches "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the "Word of God." Most Catholics only hear a little of the Word of God at the Mass they attend once a week. And even then it is not likely they pay attention and even less likely they understand it. No Biblical exposition is ever given. No understanding = no faith. Faith comes from the Word of God. It is not infused directly by God. Catholics can believe the moon is made of green cheese (and at one time did so), but that didn't make it true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_is_made_of_green_cheese
Simpletons also believe that water saves them but it doesn't make it true,
or that faith is somehow magically infused into them by God when they are infants, but that doesn't make it true.

Faith comes from hearing the Word of God.
Righteousness is imputed by faith (Rom.4:3).
Faith requires a response and obedience to God.

Faith requires an object. That object is Jesus Christ.
By faith and faith alone a person is saved. It is faith in Jesus Christ and his atoning work in Christ that a person is saved.
After that a person walks by faith, lives the Christian life by faith. Faith is not mystical, supernatural, esoterical, existential, and in the realm of the meta-physical as you are describing it.

No, baptism is a work. Works don't save. Water doesn't save. Hindus believe water forgives sin. What makes your religion any different? It is completely superstitious, just like the psychic pig.

Wrong again.
Paul said in Romans 5:1
Being justified by faith we have peace with God. It is a one time action.

The RCC are ignorant at Biblical exposition. I will not take the time to expound this to you as it has been done by Biblicist already. Study the word "eis" in the Greek, and then compare its use to Matthew 3:11.

It begins and ends at faith in Christ. It is a one time act never to be repeated again. If you don't grasp that Biblical concept there is no hope for you in heaven.

And this proclamation is heresy.

Of course you find it problematic. You have forsaken the teachings of the Bible for the teachings of the Catechism which has pitted itself against the Word of God. It is contrary step by step to the Word of God. It is a book of heretical teaching leading people to hell.[/QUOTE]

Actually, ALL of us are born ending down that path, its just the official RCC teachings have NO hope provided to get them off the "Highway to hell"

 

[DHK]

Does the Catholic Church change?
It changed in the 1960's with Vatican II.
It changes as it encounters different cultures.
It changes every times it makes a "mistake" and tries to cover it up.

Some mistakes are very difficult to cover up, and apologies and changes are very late in coming. Take for example:

[FONT=&quot]Galileo was frustrated. A web of deceit and hatred had closed around him. As the sixty-nine year old man faced the Inquisition on this day, June 22, 1633, he hoped to get at least two changes in the statement his judges insisted he sign. "Do not make me say I have not been a good Catholic," he pleaded, "for I have been one and will remain one no matter what my enemies say. And I will not say that I intended to deceive anyone, especially with the publication of my book. I submitted it in good faith to the church censors and printed it only after legally obtaining a license."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The judges agreed. They rewrote the words of his "confession"--as they should have been. For, as Galileo knew, most of the men who were sentencing him held his same opinions--that the earth spun on its axis and orbited the sun.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]With the new injunction before him, Galileo knelt and repeated the words demanded of him. He was strongly "suspected of heresy." He had "held and believed that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth is not the center and moves..."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Galileo then signed another statement. "I, the said Galileo Galilei, have abjured [renounced], sworn, promised and bound myself as above; and in witness of the truth thereof I have with my own hand subscribed the present document of my abjuration and recited it word for word at Rome, in the convent of the Minerva, this twenty-second day of June, 1633."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is one of the most famous trials in history. The church often takes all the blame for the fiasco of justice that took place that day in Rome. It had the unfortunate effect of branding the Roman Catholic Church as anti-science, when in fact famous Catholics of the Middle Ages (Grosseteste, Bradwardine, Oresme and others) had done much to advance and promote science. Galileo himself was a staunch Catholic.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There is no doubt the church was in the wrong. A commission formed by Pope John Paul II in the 1980s admitted as much.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.christianity.com/ChurchH...com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=06/22/2012/[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]However Jesus Christ never changes. He is the same, yesterday, today and forever.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]His Word never changes. It is our only rule of faith and practice. Thankfully we don't have to depend on an ever-changing RCC theology.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[Yeshua1]

Does the Catholic Church change?
It changed in the 1960's with Vatican II.
It changes as it encounters different cultures.
It changes every times it makes a "mistake" and tries to cover it up.

Some mistakes are very difficult to cover up, and apologies and changes are very late in coming. Take for example:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.christianity.com/ChurchH...com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=06/22/2012/[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]However Jesus Christ never changes. He is the same, yesterday, today and forever.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]His Word never changes. It is our only rule of faith and practice. Thankfully we don't have to depend on an ever-changing RCC theology.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

Sounds quite a bit like the JW/Mormons, as both o fthem had spiritual leadership changed "eternal doctrines" over the years!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

When it comes to Biblical exposition the RCC (Catechism) is clueless. They are ignorant and butcher more Scripture than any cult I have ever seen.

Thats just an accusation its not real.

A self-defeating argument. Look it up in your Catechism. Baptism means (according to the RCC) "born again."

You don't pay attention do you? As can be clearly seen from this quote of yours.

You can't have faith until you are born again.

You're using your adaption to that word. The actual greek means to be born from above. And what you really mean is you can't have faith until your regenerated but to you "born again" and "regeneration" are one and the same. That is not how the early church looked at it. Jesus certainly inlcuded baptism when speaking of being born again. So in actuality one certainly can have faith before being baptized. So your argument falls flat.

You can't be faithful until you are born again. It is a contradictory position.

As I've just shown you; you absolutely can.

The RCC teaches that at baptism, given at infancy, the infant is born again.

You don't even know what Catholic believe about baptising infants! Why don't you understand the easy thing first like baptism of adults before you get to children. Or You'll just start making ridiculous accusations when you do.

Baptism doesn't save; it gets people wet. How long must I endure this superstition. Let the pig wallow in his mud. He is still a pig. Water doesn't change him.

It is clear you didn't even read my comment. You arn't making a sensible come back.

Faith has an object.

Of course what kind of silly statement is that?

What was the object of your faith before you were saved?

there you going and mixing up terms. Do you mean what was the object of your faith before you are regenerated? Let me ask you this can you give an object of faith to someone else?

Was it the RCC. The RCC teaching is that you cannot be born again unless you are baptized, and that baptism is the new birth experience. The object of my faith is Christ and his atoning sacrifice, which BTW, puts me in Christ and gives me eternal life which no man can take away, hence eternal security.

It is very clear from this statement you didn't even read what I wrote. That question was answered already.

Faith is not a supernatural gift infused into you. That is hogwash.

Really now?

The Bible teaches "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the "Word of God." Most Catholics only hear a little of the Word of God at the Mass they attend once a week. And even then it is not likely they pay attention and even less likely they understand it. No Biblical exposition is ever given. No understanding = no faith. Faith comes from the Word of God.

LOL!!!! Talk about hogwash. So it is your view that everyone who hears the scriptures has faith? But something is very clear and sad from your statement faith to you is no more than understanding.

No understanding = no faith

Faith to you isn't about how you live your life but what you understand. It is no more than intellectual assent. And that is not biblical.

It is not infused directly by God

Really now? So God doesn't regenerate you either? God doesn't make you able to believe his word? You can believe of your own volition and have faith even though you are a sinner and have not been regenerated. I'm sorry DHK I can't imagine many baptist agreeing with you on this.

Catholics can believe the moon is made of green cheese (and at one time did so), but that didn't make it true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_is_made_of_green_cheese
Simpletons also believe that water saves them but it doesn't make it true,
or that faith is somehow magically infused into them by God when they are infants, but that doesn't make it true

.
The bible says its true. You just want to disagree with the bible.

No, baptism is a work. Works don't save. Water doesn't save. Hindus believe water forgives sin. What makes your religion any different?

Baptism is no more a work that reading scripture.

Wrong again.
Paul said in Romans 5:1
Being justified by faith we have peace with God. It is a one time action.

NO you are wrong Galatians 4:4-5, Ephesians 1:5 Hebrews 12:6, Proverbs 3:11, 13:24 Matthew 6:4-6, 16, 18, 2 John 8, Revelation 22:12

The RCC are ignorant at Biblical exposition. I will not take the time to expound this to you as it has been done by Biblicist already. Study the word "eis" in the Greek, and then compare its use to Matthew 3:11.

I know how the word eis is used. Do you?

Of course you find it problematic. You have forsaken the teachings of the Bible for the teachings of the Catechism which has pitted itself against the Word of God. It is contrary step by step to the Word of God. It is a book of heretical teaching leading people to hell.

Typical tripe. Consistent in accusations with no reall support save how you "feel" about it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Does the Catholic Church change?

The deposit of faith never changes.

It changed in the 1960's with Vatican II.

Not the deposit of faith. So in essense it didn't really change. Vatican II is only a clarification on certain matters. The faith hadn't changed.

It changes as it encounters different cultures.

Not the deposit of faith. Keep in mind you may use a mud hut in africa as a church and a stone one in the States but the faith doesn't change. Baptist change when anyone has a disagreement. They just split and start a new baptist group. The Catholic Church is the same.

It changes every times it makes a "mistake" and tries to cover it up.

The deposit of faith never changes ever.

Some mistakes are very difficult to cover up, and apologies and changes are very late in coming. Take for example:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.christianity.com/ChurchH...com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=06/22/2012/[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]However Jesus Christ never changes. He is the same, yesterday, today and forever.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]His Word never changes. It is our only rule of faith and practice. Thankfully we don't have to depend on an ever-changing RCC theology.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

Galileo had nothing to do with the deposit of faith.

 

[Yeshua1]

The deposit of faith never changes.

Not the deposit of faith. So in essense it didn't really change. Vatican II is only a clarification on certain matters. The faith hadn't changed.


Not the deposit of faith. Keep in mind you may use a mud hut in africa as a church and a stone one in the States but the faith doesn't change. Baptist change when anyone has a disagreement. They just split and start a new baptist group. The Catholic Church is the same.

The deposit of faith never changes ever.

Galileo had nothing to do with the deposit of faith.

The catholic Church never changed in vatican 1/2?

Never when the Popes/Cardinals declared "new revelation" on Mry, as being immaculate conceived and assumption?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The catholic Church never changed in vatican 1/2?

Never when the Popes/Cardinals declared "new revelation" on Mry, as being immaculate conceived and assumption?

The deposit of faith never changed. Administratively it might have changed but that is in anything even baptist churches change administratively. However the deposit never changes. Catholics can't easily change we have 2,000 years of history and writings to really change. No new doctrine can ever be taught because it must stand up to the passage of what has always been believed. The new revision of the liturgy is a interpretation issued between english and latin. It didn't change our faith.
Also there is no new revelation. The popes never said there was a new revelation with marian dogmas. They have always been believed and there are documents and proofs I can show you that verify that.

 

[DHK]

The deposit of faith never changed. Administratively it might have changed but that is in anything even baptist churches change administratively. However the deposit never changes. Catholics can't easily change we have 2,000 years of history and writings to really change. No new doctrine can ever be taught because it must stand up to the passage of what has always been believed. The new revision of the liturgy is a interpretation issued between english and latin. It didn't change our faith.
Also there is no new revelation. The popes never said there was a new revelation with marian dogmas. They have always been believed and there are documents and proofs I can show you that verify that.

This is all very humorous. Proof can be given of all the gradual changes to the RCC.
The Assumption of Mary was not an official doctrine of the RCC until as recently as 1950, and you say it never changes. This absurd doctrine was not believed until that late date.

Purgatory, when did that become official? With Augustine?
The Apocrypha did not become official until 1532.
The RCC changed and changed and changed.
All the popes had to speak "ex cathedra," and each added their little doctrines into that body of faith you speak of. It keeps on changing.

 

[Yeshua1]

This is all very humorous. Proof can be given of all the gradual changes to the RCC.
The Assumption of Mary was not an official doctrine of the RCC until as recently as 1950, and you say it never changes. This absurd doctrine was not believed until that late date.

Purgatory, when did that become official? With Augustine?
The Apocrypha did not become official until 1532.
The RCC changed and changed and changed.
All the popes had to speak "ex cathedra," and each added their little doctrines into that body of faith you speak of. It keeps on changing.

the question here did the Holy spirit change the doctrines or not?
Did he even give the original doctrines or not?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is all very humorous. Proof can be given of all the gradual changes to the RCC.
The Assumption of Mary was not an official doctrine of the RCC until as recently as 1950, and you say it never changes. This absurd doctrine was not believed until that late date.

Purgatory, when did that become official? With Augustine?
The Apocrypha did not become official until 1532.
The RCC changed and changed and changed.
All the popes had to speak "ex cathedra," and each added their little doctrines into that body of faith you speak of. It keeps on changing.

It was defined in the late 1800's. But it has always been believed as can be seen by multitude of Documents long before the reformation. It was never a new belief. It was an old belief defined and became dogmatic. Like the trinity. It was always believed but wasn't defined or dogmatic until 325. And it clear you have no understanding of what ex-cathedra actaully means.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

the question here did the Holy spirit change the doctrines or not?
Did he even give the original doctrines or not?

Jesus taught the disciples. The disciples (apostles) passed on this deposit of faith. It has always been the same. However, as time passed the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth clarified what things meant. For instance. The Apostles always believed in the Trinity but they never taught the "trinity" primarily but certainly alluded to the view of the Trinity. For 300 years people struggled with how Jesus divinity interacted with the father and the holy spirit. There were all sorts of heresy because of this speculation that wasn't cleared up for them in the scriptures. So much like at Jerusalem in Acts 15 the Church held a council in 325 AD and defined the doctrine of the Trinity. Not that it wasn't always believed but it became a formalized Doctrine at that time.