Does Church of Rome Hold the The True Gospel?

American Catholics do not know that Rome teaches that there is no Salvation outside the walls of the Catholic Church. From a Protestant perspective, Catholics have added a lot of custom and tradition to the gospel. Nevertheless, my personal opinion is that Catholics are Christians because the believe the essential doctrines of Christianity such as those outlined in the Nicene Creed, for example.

 

The Church of Rome would/could give you an apologetic of salvation by faith through grace alone.

 

Yes. I tried to concede that they have added custom and tradition.

 

You missed the point completely Y. It was a facetious statement.

The Church of Rome is the master of doublethink logic.

In Orwell's 1984, what is doublethink?

A perfect example of Church of Rome doublethink is the dogma of Transubstantiation versus the dogma of the Bloodless Sacrifice of the Mass.

Transubstantiation is the RCC dogma that at the consecration of the wine it is changed into the ACTUAL BLOOD of Jesus Christ which must be believed upon pain of excommunication.

ibid - the "Bloodless" sacrifice of the mass. That is - the mass is a "bloodless" re-enactment/extension of the sacrifice at Calvary.

They both cannot be true.

However you must believe both upon pain of excommunication.

So do you see what I meant? Though the Church of Rome is the epitome of salvation by works the Jesuits in their craft of doublethink can give a perfect apologetic of salvation by grace through faith and then go celebrate the mass.

 

The One Universal (Catholic) Church preaches Christ crucified just as the Scriptures say. This is exemplified by the Holy Mass in which the Church listens to Our Lord when He says to re-enact the memorial to Him as his preferred form of worship. We do this, as our Eastern Orthodox brothers also do, the question is do you?

 

"Doublethink logic"? Brother, it can be said that the Scriptures themselves are guilty of the very same thing.

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast" are the words most quoted by non-orthodox Christians. But what about "What dos it profit my brethren, if a man says he has faith but not works"? Or "He that believes and is baptized will be saved" along with "He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have eternal life"? How about "If I have all faith; if I give away all I have to the poor, and I have not charity, I gain nothing" - so which one is it? The Scriptures seem to be all over the place here, no?

St. Augustine said the following in response to the question of whether man is justified solely by faith and not by observance of the law. He said: "What he (Saint Paul) means rather and wants us to understand is that man is justified by faith, even if he has not previously performed any works of the law". (St. Augustine on Faith and Works)

So we can readily see that the other recommendations in the Scriptures for salvation also apply. Not just faith, but also works, charity, baptism, etc. - they all have their place in the salvation process.

 

A predictable response.

 

Not so, you continue on with your false witnessing. How sad, how very sad.

 

As all you folks say that is also highly predictable. Please, tell me where I err? Am I wrong in pointing out the many different things the Scriptures say concerning salvation?

 

I do not shed His blood over and over and over again.

Hebrews 7
26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

 

No.

 

And neither do we who follow orthodox Christianity. He died but once, shed His blood for us but one time, what we now have is a re-presentation of that great sacrifice, the permanent memorial of what He did for us.

"Do this in memory of me" He said. "This is my body" and "This is my blood" was His claim and that is what the Universal Church has taught all these many centuries. Your new interpretation is wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

And if you are Catholic you are in danger of excommunicating yourself by denying transubstantiation at each and every "sacrifice of the mass".

Although it does get confusing when the Church officially calls the mass "the unbloody sacrifice".

So, "under the appearance of bread and wine"... this is Jesuit casuistry " The historical use of 'whatever means necessary' to promote the truth of Catholicism and the supremacy of the Pope", to use double-talk to promote the illogical. (Not that Protestantism is devoid of the illogical).

The Ex-Catholic Journal

Either the Eucharist is His blood or mere wine, there is no in between no matter what that supposed in between is called (e.g. "appearance").

As was mentioned, Transubstantiation and The Unbloody Sacrifice of The Mass are mutually exclusive.

Look Adonia, I am a former Catholic. Your Church wears many grave cloths, so many that people who are saved (like yourself it seems) are saved in spite of the RCC teachings.

There was and ever will be only one holy blood sacrifice for sins and it is not extended in perpetuity.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

 

Yes, I know. Just because you have switched and now embrace an alternate version of the Christian experience does not mean you are now right.

I look at people like former Protestant Pastor Dr. Scott Hahn and Dr. David Anders, himself a former Calvinist, who both now embrace wholeheartedly the One Holy Catholic faith tradition. Their apologetics are top rate and further reinforce my Christian journey as part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.