Are Catholics saved or even christians?

[JohnDeereFan]

I think you only want to see things your way rather than objectively. I will go no further as I have made my point about this.

Yeah, kind of like the way I quoted the CCC ver batem and the Catholics denied that it said that.

 

[DHK]

He's saying that you haven't distinguished between the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Reading early writings the one church which you mention above was called the Catholic church. Agnus Dei differentiantes between the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church so as far as that goes he agrees with you if you make that distinction. however, reading that post you haven't. you called it a Catholic lie which would include Modern Roman Catholics and Orthodox for both came out of that Catholic Tradition. And it was this Catholic Church that held the councils. Yet that Church is different than the Roman Catholic church in the Sense that it has since split into east and west distinctive churches. Yet both East and West have closer ties to it than the modern protestant movement. Understand?

The Roman Catholic Church began "hundreds of years later," beginning with the advent of Constantine.
The Orthodox made its official presence known in the year 1054.
What then was before the fourth century?
There wasn't a Church; there were many churches. There was no centralized church. Paul wrote letters to: Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, to churches in Galatia, to pastors of churches, etc. There was no centralized church until Constantine came along. There was no centralized church for many reasons:
1. They were under intense persecution, were scattered everywhere preaching the Word.
2. Paul went on three missionary journeys, and established over 100 churches, each one being independent of the other.
3. The Church polity that Paul taught in the Bible does not give credence to a centralized church, but rather to a local church and congregational church polity where the entire local church is involved in the operation of the church. Look at Mat. 18 and 1Cor.5.
4. History is totally against any kind of centralized church in the early centuries.
5. The very word ekklesia in the Bible which is translated church, means assembly, that is local assembly, going against all forms of denominationalism.

All of the above goes against any theory of there being A Church before the fourth century. There were churches, not a church.

 

[lori4dogs]

Lori states they don't resacrifice Christ at the Mass and yet she, herself, quoted the CCC stating that Christ is resacrificed at the mass.


They say that Purgatory is not for the expiation of sins and yet, DHK, Reformed Baptist, and I have all quoted directly from the CCC where we're told that Purgatory is for the expiation of sins.

Likewise, they say that they believe in salvation by grace alone and yet, we've quoted the Council of Trent stating that anyone who believes in the doctrine of grace alone is to be considered anathema.

So we have three conclusions:

1. The Catholics are lying.
2. The Catholics are ignorant about what their religion teaches.
3. The CCC and the Council of Trent proclamations are wrong.

Matt explained the difference between 're-sacrifice' and 're-present' and I explained it. You don't want to believe that is Catholic teaching.

As far as Purgatory, you say it is because 'Christ sacrifice on the cross is not sufficient to take away all sin'. When I tell you Catholics believe the cross is sufficient. When I explain 'expiation' as part of the sanctification process in purgatory, you say it is not Catholic teaching.

. . . and so on and so on.

Beam me up . . . there is no intelligent life here. :BangHead:

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Well this is what the CCC says about Purgatory
This is what is taught about the Eucharist
Do you see your points mentioned in these?

Yes, actually, I do. I will underline them for you:

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.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607


As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608
To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.84

What's more, I will once again repeat the paragraph I cited from that piece of "anti-Catholic propaganda", the CCC:

In the communion of saints, "a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things."86 In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Matt explained the difference between 're-sacrifice' and 're-present' and I explained it. You don't want to believe that is Catholic teaching.

Yeah, forgive me if I continue to believe that the CCC is a better authority on Catholic doctrine than you.

Beam me up . . . there is no intelligent life here. :BangHead:

Boy, there's some irony for you.

 

[DHK]

Matt explained the difference between 're-sacrifice' and 're-present' and I explained it. You don't want to believe that is Catholic teaching.

As far as Purgatory, you say it is because 'Christ sacrifice on the cross is not sufficient to take away all sin'. When I tell you Catholics believe the cross is sufficient. When I explain 'expiation' as part of the sanctification process in purgatory, you say it is not Catholic teaching.

. . . and so on and so on.

Beam me up . . . there is no intelligent life here. :BangHead:

Lori, if the blood of Christ was sufficient to forgive all of our sins, there would be no need for Purgatory. If the blood of Christ was sufficient to purge us from all our sins, then why believe that one has to be purged further for sin. Obviously the blood of Christ wasn't sufficient enough to purge one from all their sins. It fell short. It wasn't enough. Jesus failed in his mission. When he said "IT is finished." He lied.

Those are the implications of belief in purgatory.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Lori, if the blood of Christ was sufficient to forgive all of our sins, there would be no need for Purgatory. If the blood of Christ was sufficient to purge us from all our sins, then why believe that one has to be purged further for sin. Obviously the blood of Christ wasn't sufficient enough to purge one from all their sins. It fell short. It wasn't enough. Jesus failed in his mission. When he said "IT is finished." He lied.

Those are the implications of belief in purgatory.

As usual, I agree, DHK.

Either we're made perfect and Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, like the Bible says, or we're not, it isn't, and we must go to Purgatory like the Catholics say.

Can't be both.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Roman Catholic Church began "hundreds of years later," beginning with the advent of Constantine.
The Orthodox made its official presence known in the year 1054.
What then was before the fourth century?
There wasn't a Church; there were many churches. There was no centralized church. Paul wrote letters to: Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, to churches in Galatia, to pastors of churches, etc. There was no centralized church until Constantine came along. There was no centralized church for many reasons:
1. They were under intense persecution, were scattered everywhere preaching the Word.
2. Paul went on three missionary journeys, and established over 100 churches, each one being independent of the other.
3. The Church polity that Paul taught in the Bible does not give credence to a centralized church, but rather to a local church and congregational church polity where the entire local church is involved in the operation of the church. Look at Mat. 18 and 1Cor.5.
4. History is totally against any kind of centralized church in the early centuries.
5. The very word ekklesia in the Bible which is translated church, means assembly, that is local assembly, going against all forms of denominationalism.

All of the above goes against any theory of there being A Church before the fourth century. There were churches, not a church.

You are wrong DHK. The Roman Catholic Church did not exist until 1054 Agnus Dei is correct about that. The Catholic Church in the sense of universal existed long before Constantine as can be seen in Ignatius letters as well as 1 Clement and Irenaus. You are right about the monarchial episcopate that was developed over time however you did have serious leadership from the Metropolis area's that Agnus Dei mentioned. You had your Bishops at Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, later Constantinople these were the main Metropolis though there were many churches under their authority and in their area of influence. Though as you say Paul did establish those churches but despite you're perspective it seems Paul tried to keep them all on the same page rather than being truelly independent. Note how he makes them responsible for each other and especially Jerusalem. So in a sence Paul could be part of the Universalness of the Early church. Yet as time went on the two primary areas of faith were between Antioch and Alexandria. Then as time continued on it was between Rome and Constantinople. The church evolved. And they weren't distinctively baptist. Go figure.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes, actually, I do. I will underline them for you:



What's more, I will once again repeat the paragraph I cited from that piece of "anti-Catholic propaganda", the CCC:

Whats interesting to note in the above is that the last paragraph I quoted from the CCC is the 1475 as you claim your quote is from. Reading the underlined part I would say has in mind Theosis rather than what you are implying.

 

[annsni]

The Catholic church teaches a false gospel. Those who affirm Catholic teaching affirm this false gospel.

Who said that all of them affirm the Catholic church's teaching? As I said, there are people who attend my own church who don't agree with everything that is taught by our church and I know there are those who attend and are members of the Catholic church who don't agree with all of their teaching either.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Who said that all of them affirm the Catholic church's teaching? As I said, there are people who attend my own church who don't agree with everything that is taught by our church and I know there are those who attend and are members of the Catholic church who don't agree with all of their teaching either.

agree. my grandfather would smirk at my uncle for being a devoted Marian, while my father thought both were loonies for kissing those statues' feet.

didn't mean anything as far as their eternal destinies were concerned but it gave me hope that maybe, just maybe......

 

[DHK]

You are wrong DHK. The Roman Catholic Church did not exist until 1054 Agnus Dei is correct about that.

According to who? Just who are you reading?
History according to the Orthodox church?
History according to the RCC?
History according to the Landmark Baptists?
History according to the Mormons?

You are very biased aren't you. You yourself are looking at history through rose-colored glasses. Try looking at things more objectively. History looked at through the eyes of the Bible is the most objective.

The Catholic Church in the sense of universal existed long before Constantine as can be seen in Ignatius letters as well as 1 Clement and Irenaus.

Not true. It wasn't a "universal church." There was no such thing. They were churches, not The Church. There was no centralized government governing all the churches before the fourth churches. Why propagate a myth?

You are right about the monarchial episcopate that was developed over time however you did have serious leadership from the Metropolis area's that Agnus Dei mentioned. You had your Bishops at Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, later Constantinople these were the main Metropolis though there were many churches under their authority and in their area of influence.

Read the KJV which was translated about 400 years ago, and still the most common translation used today. We find verses like:

"He that desires the office of a bishop desires a good thing..." (1Tim.3:1)
The word "bishop" simply means overseer, and is one of the descriptions of the pastor. Every pastor is a bishop. A bishop is not an elevated office over a priest or a pastor. He has no more power than any other pastor. Don't read into things any more than is there. Only in recent time did the word "bishop" come to mean an elevated office above a priest.
So, no, there were not churches which had bishops which had authority over other churches. That is pure nonsense.

Though as you say Paul did establish those churches but despite you're perspective it seems Paul tried to keep them all on the same page rather than being truelly independent.

Of course he did. Here is an example:

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

He taught Timothy to teach others the same things that he had taught to him. That is to keep everyone on the same page, lest error should creep in. That has nothing to do with denominationalism, but rather with the purity of the churches that were established. Paul was concerned with pure doctrine.

Note how he makes them responsible for each other and especially Jerusalem.

Chapter and verse please. I don't find this in the Scriptures.

So in a sence Paul could be part of the Universalness of the Early church.

There was no such thing--ever!

Yet as time went on the two primary areas of faith were between Antioch and Alexandria. Then as time continued on it was between Rome and Constantinople. The church evolved. And they weren't distinctively baptist. Go figure.

Is this RCC revised history?
There was a "university" or a learning center at Alexandria.
Constantinople became a political center, as did Rome.
The Bible says: "And they were first called Christians at Antioch."

 

[Soulman]

Who said that all of them affirm the Catholic church's teaching? As I said, there are people who attend my own church who don't agree with everything that is taught by our church and I know there are those who attend and are members of the Catholic church who don't agree with all of their teaching either.

I wrote a tract called : "It Doesn't Matter What You Believe. It's What God Says That Counts". While we may not agree with every nuance of what a church teaches, (especially baptists as we are all independant and not part of a denomination) we usually hold to the major doctrines of whom we are associated with. If you don't believe baptistically why be a baptist? I believe most people fall in line with their churches main teachings and may disagree or vary only slightly on polity.f you are totally at odds with what your church teaches and you feel they are in error you should leave.

That being said, I believe that if a person is a catholic they will fall in line with most of it's major doctrines. Once taught a false doctrine, it would be easy to continue the process. If you are a catholic and believe everything but purgatory you are still in bondage to that system from a number of different directions.

 

[Johnv]

And yet, here I am to tell everyone that Catholics didn't really mean what they say.

How true

 

[JohnDeereFan]

How true

What's the number of the post you're quoting?

 

[Johnv]

What's the number of the post you're quoting?

I quoted the same way you quoted me:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=63140&page=28

 

[Darron Steele]

[ Deleted by me.]

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I quoted the same way you quoted me:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=63140&page=28

In other words, I never said that.

 

[Johnv]

In other words, I never said that.

Just like I never said what you claimed I did.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Just like I never said what you claimed I did.

John, you're an obnoxious and snotty little troll. I don't know why your latest round of lies and personal attacks come as a surprise. They certainly shouldn't at this point.

No wonder you spend so much time defending a false religion and attacking Christianity.