Just Wondering? Do you think Catholic Priests Are Saved?

[Cathode]

Well, you are basically saying that you know which tradition is "legit" because the Roman Catholic Church said so!

The Protestants reevaluated some of these "traditions" and checked them against the scriptures and from there ditched many of them. Most of these so-called "traditions" evolved over the years and were completely non-existent during the apostolic era - especially those pertaining to Mary's immaculate conception, assumption, and so forth.

Baptists admittedly have their own traditions that creep in such as 10AM Sunday School, 11AM Main Service, singing out of a hymnal and always skipping the second to last stanza, etc. Some of these traditions can become quite "Sacred" to certain Baptists especially if you are found sitting in their seat!

The books that make up the Bible were received by the Church. I have already stated that we have two completely different views pertaining to what the Church is but needless to say, it was not a bunch of bishops and cardinals sitting in a room sorting out what books did and what books did not belong in the canon. The church instinctively knew which were authentic, which were not, and which were inspired and canonical and this happened over the course of time. When someone actually compiled the 27 books of the NT, they were simply acknowledging what the church had already received. Nothing more, nothing less. The content of the Apocrypha was always debated among the Jews as well as the Christians and even today, they (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, etc.) cannot agree on which books of the apocrypha are canononical or should be included.

The Roman Catholic Church as we know it today did not exist during apostolic times. It evolved into what it is over the centuries - especially during the medieval era.

The Catholic Church did exist in Apostolic times otherwise it would not have been able to canonise the Bible scriptures.

All 73 books of Scripture in 382 ad. The Council of Rome. By Pope Damasus

“Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.” Pope Damasus (regn. A.D. 366-384), Decree of the Council of Rome, The Canon of Scripture (A.D. 382).

Catholics had the scriptures because they are the Apostolic Church.

 

[JonC]

I'm not trying to "gang up" on Cathode, I just can't believe some of the stuff he writes. Just trying to help him out in his theology, but that is a lost cause. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want to believe.

You cannot help Cathode. He has had his opportunity and has chosen to follow men. When faced with God's words he has chosen to follow an organization's doctrine about what God's words really mean.

This is not a theological issue. It is a spiritual issue. He deserves our pity, but not our "pearls". He is not alone as Catholicism is far from the only sect that rejects God for what men say God really teaches.

 

[Cathode]

You cannot help Cathode. He has had his opportunity and has chosen to follow men. When faced with God's words he has chosen to follow an organization's doctrine about what God's words really mean.

This is not a theological issue. It is a spiritual issue. He deserves our pity, but not our "pearls". He is not alone as Catholicism is far from the only sect that rejects God for what men say God really teaches.

What makes your interpretation of scripture of greater authority than Catholic Apostolic interpretation of Scripture. Superior Breeding? Intelligence?

Bible aloners don’t even agree amongst themselves what the Bible means.

The fact is Catholics are the Biblical Church that canonised the Bible in the first place, and retain the same interpretation of it from the Apostles.

Bible aloners however, have interpreted anything they wanted to read into scripture. Countless conflicting interpretations and doctrines.

 

[Novelist]

What makes your interpretation of scripture of greater authority than Catholic Apostolic interpretation of Scripture. Superior Breeding? Intelligence?

Bible aloners don’t even agree amongst themselves what the Bible means.

The fact is Catholics are the Biblical Church that canonised the Bible in the first place, and retain the same interpretation of it from the Apostles.

Bible aloners however, have interpreted anything they wanted to read into scripture. Countless conflicting interpretations and doctrines.

Catholics believe that the Bible contains 73 books when in actuality, it contains 66 books.

 

[JonC]

What makes your interpretation of scripture of greater authority than Catholic Apostolic interpretation of Scripture. Superior Breeding? Intelligence?

My view of Scripture is not dependent on the Catholic Church (or Landmarkists, or Mormons) claim to the Apostles. All such claims are power grabs from evil men seeking to control people.

Instead my view is that God's words mean exactly what is stated. When I have to apply my own understanding I know it is my own understanding (it could be wrong). BUT this only applies to few passages and doctrines. Essentual and foundational doctrines are stated in God's words and require acceptance/ obefience rather than "interpretation".

Look at your theology. Biblically it is a mess. It is not held together by God's own words but by the men you have chosen to follow (just like Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and SDA doctrine. It is demonic.

Does this kean no Catholics are Christian? No. Many Catholics are Christian by faith and Catholic by tradition.

Does this mean you are not a Christian? Yes. At this point in time it is safe to say you are not saved. Can you be saved? Maybe, I do not know. My opinion is you cannot, that you have rejected the faith to adopt demonic doctrines. But only God knows. We can only speak of the present and at this point in time your faith is deliberately misplaced.

 

[Cathode]

Catholics believe that the Bible contains 73 books when in actuality, it contains 66 books.

The Bible contained 73 books for over a thousand years before Protestants walked the earth. Still does.

“The authority of our books [Scriptures], which is confirmed by agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you.” Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichean, 13:5 (c. A.D. 400).

“If any one shall say, or shall believe, that other Scriptures, besides those which the Catholic Church has received, are to be esteemed of authority, or to be venerated, let him be anathema.” Council of Toledo, Canon 12 (A.D. 400).

“A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the desiderata of which you wished to be informed verbally: of Moses five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Josue, of Judges one book, of Kings four books, also Ruth, of the Prophets sixteen books, of Solomon five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job one book, of Tobias one book, Esther one, Judith one, of the Machabees two, of Esdras two, Paralipomenon two books. Likewise of the New Testament: of the Gospels four books, of Paul the Apostle fourteen epistles, of John three, epistles of Peter two, an epistle of Jude, an epistle of James, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John.” Pope Innocent (regn. A.D. 401-417), Epistle to Exsuperius Bishop of Toulose, 6:7,13 (A.D. 405).

 

[Novelist]

The Bible contained 73 books for over a thousand years before Protestants walked the earth. Still does.

“The authority of our books [Scriptures], which is confirmed by agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you.” Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichean, 13:5 (c. A.D. 400).

“If any one shall say, or shall believe, that other Scriptures, besides those which the Catholic Church has received, are to be esteemed of authority, or to be venerated, let him be anathema.” Council of Toledo, Canon 12 (A.D. 400).

“A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the desiderata of which you wished to be informed verbally: of Moses five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Josue, of Judges one book, of Kings four books, also Ruth, of the Prophets sixteen books, of Solomon five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job one book, of Tobias one book, Esther one, Judith one, of the Machabees two, of Esdras two, Paralipomenon two books. Likewise of the New Testament: of the Gospels four books, of Paul the Apostle fourteen epistles, of John three, epistles of Peter two, an epistle of Jude, an epistle of James, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John.” Pope Innocent (regn. A.D. 401-417), Epistle to Exsuperius Bishop of Toulose, 6:7,13 (A.D. 405).

God did not inspire those extra books.

 

[Cathode]

My view of Scripture is not dependent on the Catholic Church (or Landmarkists, or Mormons) claim to the Apostles. All such claims are power grabs from evil men seeking to control people.

Instead my view is that God's words mean exactly what is stated. When I have to apply my own understanding I know it is my own understanding (it could be wrong).

Every Bible aloners view is that God’s word means exactly what is stated. They disagree with the meaning of what is stated.

If your understanding and interpretation of scripture could be wrong, then which of your beliefs are error?
You could be wrong on any or everything?

See Catholics don’t make themselves the arbiters of scripture’s interpretation.
This is what makes twisting the scripture to ones own destruction possible and even probable.

Catholics follow the singular inspired Apostles interpretation of scripture handed down, not the “ I could be wrong “ personal fly by the seat of my pants interpretation of scripture.

Scripture is Infallible, it needs infallible interpretation, not fallible “ I could be wrong “ human interpretation.
Since Bible aloners all rejected infallible guidance as a doctrine, all they have is fallible human understanding and fallible interpretations of scripture.
And that carries no authority to rely on, it’s shaky ground, and Bible aloners all disagree with each other anyway.

If the Catholic Church was inspired enough to preserve scriptures and Canonise the Bible itself, then it is inspired enough to tell us what it means.

 

[Cathode]

God did not inspire those extra books.

Says you. And who are you to declare anything?

The canon of scripture has been settled long before Protestants or baptists, by Councils of the Catholic Church.

 

[Cathode]

Essentual and foundational doctrines are stated in God's words and require acceptance/ obefience rather than "interpretation".

This is nonsensical Jon.

If you can’t interpret it correctly, then you can’t obey it.

And if your understanding could be wrong, then why should you or anyone else trust that understanding of scripture.

Catholics require an infallible interpretation of scripture, not fallible human interpretations of scripture that could be wrong.

As far as I see Bible alonism is fallible human interpretations of scripture.

Catholicism is inspired Apostolic interpretation of scripture handed down.

 

[rockytopva]

What about the Orthodox? You know there are Orthodox Christians out there with independent bodies in places like Ethiopia, Egypt, and Armenia just as saved as everyone else!

 

[Novelist]

Says you. And who are you to declare anything?

The canon of scripture has been settled long before Protestants or baptists, by Councils of the Catholic Church.

Who am I? I'm just a sinner saved by grace through Christ.

As for those other books of Bible; if they were divinely inspired, they would be in all the bibles, not just a select few, like the Catholic Bible.

 

[Novelist]

Every Bible aloners view is that God’s word means exactly what is stated. They disagree with the meaning of what is stated.

If your understanding and interpretation of scripture could be wrong, then which of your beliefs are error?
You could be wrong on any or everything?

See Catholics don’t make themselves the arbiters of scripture’s interpretation.
This is what makes twisting the scripture to ones own destruction possible and even probable.

Catholics follow the singular inspired Apostles interpretation of scripture handed down, not the “ I could be wrong “ personal fly by the seat of my pants interpretation of scripture.

Scripture is Infallible, it needs infallible interpretation, not fallible “ I could be wrong “ human interpretation.
Since Bible aloners all rejected infallible guidance as a doctrine, all they have is fallible human understanding and fallible interpretations of scripture.
And that carries no authority to rely on, it’s shaky ground, and Bible aloners all disagree with each other anyway.

If the Catholic Church was inspired enough to preserve scriptures and Canonise the Bible itself, then it is inspired enough to tell us what it means.

Bible "aloners" as you call them do not disagree on what the Bible says. I have been involved in several Baptist churches and I don't remember any disagreements between the members of scripture meanings. Do you have any personal experience with Bible aloners in order to make your claim? Yes, scripture is infallible and it is the catholic church that has twisted scripture to make it mean what they want it to mean and the premise of the Catholic church is that the Bible is not that important anyway and church doctrine, tradition, and other teachings that are not scriptural are more important. Once again, I am NOT a protestant. I am a Baptist.

 

[Mike B]

Catholics require an infallible interpretation of scripture

Just who has determined that the CC has an infallible interpretation of scripture?
And, how did they determine it to be so?