Criticizing Roman Catholicism

[Walter]

Nice try, but you undoubtedly stand behind the anathemas of Trent and behind Dominus Iesus, which I just quoted as saying that there is only one church and churches that do not retain the episcopate and the mystery of the Eucharist are not churches in the proper sense. Not only did Luther walk out of Catholicism but Pope Leo X wanted him executed like Hus and others and Trent issued a statement that Luther and Protestants were cursed to eternal hell--that still stands since Catholicsm has not withdrawn it. So Catholicism says that I do not belong to a proper church and that I am cursed to eternal hell for various reasons including taking literally that the just shall live by faith and don't have to join Catholicism to be justified but that I have Salvation? How can I have Salvation and not be justified? That is illogical.

For the record, I cannot agree with Catholicism that the Eucharist is a sacrament and that transubstantiation occurs, the latter being a doctrine unique to Catholicism like the immaculate conception of Mary, the ascension of Mary into Heaven, Purgatory and Limbo.

Correct me if I'm wrong but taken from the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification, this would seem to contradict what you have claimed: 'Catholicsm has not withdrawn it'.

'5.The present Joint Declaration has this intention: namely, to show that on the basis of their dialogue the subscribing Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church[9] are now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God's grace through faith in Christ. It does not cover all that either church teaches about justification; it does encompass a consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification and shows that the remaining differences in its explication are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations'.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

 

[church mouse guy]

There is nothing new in that paper from the conference with certain Lutherans and Catholics. The RCC has been backpedalling from Trent all my life but they just don't repeal it. It still stands.

Anyway, the Catholic doctrine of Justification says that I have to be a baptized and practicing Catholic, meeting all the obligations of donations, confessions, and attendance at Masses in order to be Justified.

There is no such thing in Catholicism as the Just Shall Live By Faith. Under Catholicism, the Just shall live by becoming Catholics and doing their duty to merit Salvation and Justification. Eastern Orthodox and Protestant are not the same as Catholic and Catholics do not say that we are.

Meanwhile Trent still stands and has not been rescinded. The Vatican archives holds tons of papers and documents but official policy was made at the Council of Trent, which Catholicism said dealt with the heresies of the Protestants:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

 

[Yeshua1]

Since I don't believe scripture teaches any of the petals of TULIP, should I consider all denominations that hold to this to be teaching a false Gospel?

What is the criteria that determines what is a false gospel?

paul did in Romans/galatians!

Either we are saved by grace alone, thru faith alone, or its a false Gospel!

 

[Yeshua1]

No, because that is what scriptures teach if you would just read the verses showed you. However, and this is an important point, its not because of the water that makes it so but because its done in faith. You see this kind of thing all through out scripture. Who saved Jericho? God. But didn't God ask Joshua and Israel to walk around seven times then blow the trumpet? Didn't Samuel anoint David but it was only when David was anointed with Oil that the Holy Spirit came upon him? Didn't God save Israel from the Egyptians? But he told Moses that as long as Moses Kept his arms up the waters would be separated? Didn't Jesus tell the lepers to wash in the river but it was only after they did that they were cured? I could go on. Baptism is the mode by which Jesus asks us to enter into a life of faith with him. If there was nothing to baptism apart from proclamation, Jesus would never have COMMANDED us to baptize. After all we are commanded to proclaim then to make disciples which begins by baptizing people. So the proclamation is already done.

yes, water baptism was given by the Lord to be done to those ALREADY had received Him by faith!

Its to be given to those already having been saved, as it symbolising that they already died in Christ to their old way of life, and raised with him in newness of life, but as paul said, we received the Holy spireit when we heard and believed, not when baptised as an infant, how can they hear and believe?

And the ONLY thing that cleanses from Sin is blood of Christ, and that cleansing happens instant one received jesus as Lord/saviour/Messiah by faith!

 

[Yeshua1]

Nice try, but you undoubtedly stand behind the anathemas of Trent and behind Dominus Iesus, which I just quoted as saying that there is only one church and churches that do not retain the episcopate and the mystery of the Eucharist are not churches in the proper sense. Not only did Luther walk out of Catholicism but Pope Leo X wanted him executed like Hus and others and Trent issued a statement that Luther and Protestants were cursed to eternal hell--that still stands since Catholicsm has not withdrawn it. So Catholicism says that I do not belong to a proper church and that I am cursed to eternal hell for various reasons including taking literally that the just shall live by faith and don't have to join Catholicism to be justified but that I have Salvation? How can I have Salvation and not be justified? That is illogical.

For the record, I cannot agree with Catholicism that the Eucharist is a sacrament and that transubstantiation occurs, the latter being a doctrine unique to Catholicism like the immaculate conception of Mary, the ascension of Mary into Heaven, Purgatory and Limbo.

My best friend was a catholic, and in his early 20's, rteceived jesus by faith, andbecame a Christian, left the RCC, and became today a baptist...

He asked his priest if official catholic teaching is that he lost his salvation, the priest beat around the bush and finally told him that IF he would have not gotten rebaprized chance OK still, but when he rebaptized as a baptist, he officially repudiate the Church and is now seen as comdemned!

non catholics ignornat of official catholic teachings/doctrines/dogmas can get saved thru the RCC by their teaching, as can those of non christians religions, but IF they know official RCC teaching and refuse to endorse it, that makes them lost!

 

[Yeshua1]

Would it be fair for the non-cal to say the Calvinist just doesn't clearly understand the grace of God? I think we both clearly understand the grace of God. In fact, I will absolutely agree with everything you say about the grace of God. God giving people a choice does not negate any aspect of grace.

You might have misread me!

I meant that a cal would see the Arm brother as being saved in the lord, but not fully understanding DoG....

Both would agree saved by grace alone, thru faith alone...

Unlike the Church of rome!

 

[Yeshua1]

Correct me if I'm wrong but taken from the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification, this would seem to contradict what you have claimed: 'Catholicsm has not withdrawn it'.

'5.The present Joint Declaration has this intention: namely, to show that on the basis of their dialogue the subscribing Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church[9] are now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God's grace through faith in Christ. It does not cover all that either church teaches about justification; it does encompass a consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification and shows that the remaining differences in its explication are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations'.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

the RCC holds that the Sacramnets of Grace are part of the salvation process, and they must be taken in faith, to have that grace applied to them, so in THAT sense RCC holds to saved by faith... faith+sacraments+works!

 

[Yeshua1]

There is nothing new in that paper from the conference with certain Lutherans and Catholics. The RCC has been backpedalling from Trent all my life but they just don't repeal it. It still stands.

Anyway, the Catholic doctrine of Justification says that I have to be a baptized and practicing Catholic, meeting all the obligations of donations, confessions, and attendance at Masses in order to be Justified.

There is no such thing in Catholicism as the Just Shall Live By Faith. Under Catholicism, the Just shall live by becoming Catholics and doing their duty to merit Salvation and Justification. Eastern Orthodox and Protestant are not the same as Catholic and Catholics do not say that we are.

Meanwhile Trent still stands and has not been rescinded. The Vatican archives holds tons of papers and documents but official policy was made at the Council of Trent, which Catholicism said dealt with the heresies of the Protestants:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

yes, the Church STILL holds that if ANY say that we are fully/freely justifed before God on basis of faith alone/grace alone, let them be comdemned!

the Church still cannot stand Luther remarking that one saved id BOTH sinner/saint!

For to rome, God cannot call one a saint until they actually are one!

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Well, it has been explained over and over on this board what 'No salvation outside of the Church' means. Please notice that the same Church that declares the normative necessity of being Catholic also declares there is salvation for some who are not Catholics. However, 'for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity'.


Ignatius of Antioch (who sat at John's feet and was taught by the Apostle)



"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).

A bishop in the time of Ignatius was simply a senior pastor, as the monarchical bishop as a third order had not developed yet.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

paul did in Romans/galatians!

Either we are saved by grace alone, thru faith alone, or its a false Gospel!

I don't see TULIP anywhere in the Bible, and neither did the early Christians. If they did, they did not write about it or teach it.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't see TULIP anywhere in the Bible, and neither did the early Christians. If they did, they did not write about it or teach it.

Its discussed in Gospel of John by the Lord Jesus, and expressed explained by paul in Romans and his other Epistles, but lets stay focused on the heresies/errors of rome, eh?

 

[Zenas]

A bishop in the time of Ignatius was simply a senior pastor, as the monarchical bishop as a third order had not developed yet.

Uh, yes it had. Timothy and Titus are the best examples. They were not apostles, yet they had authority over other churches. Titus was given authority to appoint elders (pastors) throughout Crete. That is what bishops do. They are not called bishops in the N.T. but when you look at what they were doing they were exercising the role of a bishop. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

 

[Yeshua1]

Uh, yes it had. Timothy and Titus are the best examples. They were not apostles, yet they had authority over other churches. Titus was given authority to appoint elders (pastors) throughout Crete. That is what bishops do. They are not called bishops in the N.T. but when you look at what they were doing they were exercising the role of a bishop. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Bishop/overseer/pastor/elder all describing same person in the NT times though!

It was the Pastor/teaching Elder of a local assembly, and it did NOT get vested with catrholic meaning until well later, when the RCC started to get "formally organized!"

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Its discussed in Gospel of John by the Lord Jesus, and expressed explained by paul in Romans and his other Epistles, but lets stay focused on the heresies/errors of rome, eh?

Not the way I read it.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Uh, yes it had. Timothy and Titus are the best examples. They were not apostles, yet they had authority over other churches. Titus was given authority to appoint elders (pastors) throughout Crete. That is what bishops do. They are not called bishops in the N.T. but when you look at what they were doing they were exercising the role of a bishop. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

In the NT bishop/elder/pastor/overseer/presbyter are used interchangeably. They were synonyms for the same office. That's a fact, regardless of any "fowl" analogy.

 

[Yeshua1]

In the NT bishop/elder/pastor/overseer/presbyter are used interchangeably. They were synonyms for the same office. That's a fact, regardless of any "fowl" analogy.

yes, and it took rome to add those extar vested meanings to it, in order to have a rationale for their multi layering of 'spiritual authority!"

 

[Zenas]

In the NT bishop/elder/pastor/overseer/presbyter are used interchangeably. They were synonyms for the same office. That's a fact, regardless of any "fowl" analogy.

Overseer (NASB; HCSB; ESV); bishop (RSV; KJV). Perhaps "pastor" in some other translation. The nomenclature isn't important. What they did is what counts, and it is undeniable that Timothy and Titus had more authority than other pastors. They were permitted to appoint pastors in numerous churches and go to other churches to settle disputes and apply discipline. If you will read carefully these two were not given any vocational title at all. But their status was above pastor and beneath apostle. In today's vernacular, that kind of guy is a "BISHOP". And it isn't just the Catholic Church who has them. You will find them in the Methodist, Episcopal and Lutheran churches as well. And their roots are firmly grounded in the New Testament. When studying scripture you can't just consider what they said. You must also regard what they were doing.

Sorry I don't have a good pun to end this statement like you did. :thumbsup:

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Overseer (NASB; HCSB; ESV); bishop (RSV; KJV). Perhaps "pastor" in some other translation. The nomenclature isn't important. What they did is what counts, and it is undeniable that Timothy and Titus had more authority than other pastors. They were permitted to appoint pastors in numerous churches and go to other churches to settle disputes and apply discipline. If you will read carefully these two were not given any vocational title at all. But their status was above pastor and beneath apostle. In today's vernacular, that kind of guy is a "BISHOP". And it isn't just the Catholic Church who has them. You will find them in the Methodist, Episcopal and Lutheran churches as well. And their roots are firmly grounded in the New Testament. When studying scripture you can't just consider what they said. You must also regard what they were doing.

Sorry I don't have a good pun to end this statement like you did. :thumbsup:

Don't worry. You'll probably have other chances.

 

[steaver]

Steve, that tells me allot...that they are probably not born again. Seriously, how could you not care about your salvation? Cause they dont have it is why!

Not caring about Calvinism or Arminianism has nothing to do with salvation. By grace are ye saved through faith in Jesus Christ, not a theology.

What is your own testimony? Did someone present TULIP to you? Or did they present the good news of Jesus Christ? Theologies are formed later, much later for some and even never for most.

 

[church mouse guy]

My best friend was a catholic, and in his early 20's, rteceived jesus by faith, andbecame a Christian, left the RCC, and became today a baptist...

He asked his priest if official catholic teaching is that he lost his salvation, the priest beat around the bush and finally told him that IF he would have not gotten rebaprized chance OK still, but when he rebaptized as a baptist, he officially repudiate the Church and is now seen as comdemned!

non catholics ignornat of official catholic teachings/doctrines/dogmas can get saved thru the RCC by their teaching, as can those of non christians religions, but IF they know official RCC teaching and refuse to endorse it, that makes them lost!

Thanks! Catholicism is milder here in America than in all other Catholic countries where the condemnation of Protestants is in full force and no Salvation outside the walls of the Catholic Church is repeated always. Someone pointed out the chameleon nature of the Catholic Church.

It might be useful to start a thread about the Council of Trent and what it did or even a thread on the doctrine of Justification, but I myself am working on an article about the Tower of Babel, which I hope to post soon. It seems that God actually did confound language there and now linguists are agreeing that today's languages did not have a common ancestor. I like Catholics but I think that their denomination is floundering in a theological mess of their own doing. Think of it--the Eastern Orthodox denominations left Rome almost a thousand years ago.