John 17.20-23

Yelsew comment, when I last said:


Yelsew, you have completely sidestepped my quandry over your acceptance of scripture without question, yet reject the very authority that compiled it for you! By all rights, you should dismiss the bible (or at least the New Testament) as some "suspicious Catholic publication" that bears watching with a jaundiced eye!

And you replied:

Let me get this straight, Yelsew: Do you distrust the dogmatic pronouncements of the Catholic Church down through the ages? Do you deny her teachings as being in error from the git go, and thus being in error, that you will continue to consider her very work as divinely inspired "God breathed" as the Church found it to be? You consider the New Testament this way, without once considering the "insidious nature" of the very agency that is responsible for you having a copy in your hot little hands!

How do you know that the Catholic Church did not "alter" the contents of the New Tesetament to conform to her "erronious" doctrines? If the Catholic Church is the "Whore of Babylon" as many claim (and no, I don't recall nor accuse you of saying that) then how in the world do you reject all of her enclycals, papal bulls, decrees, dogmatic pronouncements, etc., but accept without question the very "product" of her diligence over the hundreds of years?

Who wrote the New Testament, Yelsew? Do you deny that Christ ordained the 12 (reduced to 1l with the but betrayal and death of Judas; increased to 13 with the election of Mathias and the inclusion of Paul). Who are these men but the actual "Charter Clergy" of the Church Christ founded? Therefore, in a sense, the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament!

How do you know that "it is those books of the bible that contain the truth, and not the organization that complied them" if not for the declaration of the Church and her various councils? Who told you, Yelsew? Did the "Dove of the Holy Spirit" alight upon your shoulders and whisper into your ear" to tell you?

God bless,

PAX

Rome has spoken, the case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

There was no Roman Catholic Church when the Last of the Books of the bible was written! Rome was still in power as an empire. The gods of Rome still held sway over the people.

The Authors of the Books were not members of the NON-EXISTANT Roman Catholic Church, they were Christian Apostles busy carrying out the great commission. "Christian" because of the one in whom they believed.

Though I have not had the opportunity to read any of the "books" on the list you posted, perhaps many of them should have been included in the Canon of Scripture. By the Way, where can one get translated copies of those books on the list? Are they available electronically? if so where?

Since I am a 20th century product, there is nothing I can do about what the 3rd through the early 20th century church has produced as dogma. I do not however have to bow down to it, any of it! I am under no compulsion to accept the teaching of the Catholic church. That said, I have been given no incentive to change my mind. By that I mean all that has been forthcoming in answer to questions is more dogma, and spin. Sooner or later there will be someone who can offer logic and reason in addition to scripture and dogma. But that hasn't happened to me in the last 12 years, and frankly I don't see it happening here, even though Carson Weber and you have been a bit more objective than most.

The fact that the Bible that we have today was preserved through that organization is totally to the credit of the Holy Spirit, and not the church. The fact that the church has survived is credited to the Holy Spirit, the fact that there was a huge split in the church creating Catholics and Protestants it to the credit of the Holy Spirit.

The church claims to possess the early manuscripts. Scribes of the time would have jeopardized their very existance if they had altared the text from the originals. There are two branches of the church, each having early manuscripts. For what reason would the church altar the text when they can put the spin on the existing text that changes its modern meaning from its original meaning? After all look what modern universities and special interest groups are attempting to do to the United States Constitution. Spin! spin! spin!

Thank you for not accusing me of the WoB thought. I do not reject ALL of the encyclicals, or decrees; I do not understand the term papal bull, but most of the dogmatic pronouncements appear to be spin to me. I answered the question about "the very product".

Since no Catholic Church existed in their time, they were not part of the Catholic Church. I said it before but it is worth saying it again, The Apostles are the Charter members of the Christian Church, The Bride of Christ, and the Body of Christ. It is my opinion that the Roman church hijacked the Christian church somewhere along the line I don't know the history well enough to make a specific event or time on a timeline that "special time" when it happened, It may have been moved out of Israel during severe stressful conditions in Israel, "to protect the church" and moving it back was not practical. Nevertheless, I do not believe the Current Catholic Church is the model of the Christian Church of the Apostles. Now I'm sure that you can offer me much documentation to refute my belief, but then I'd have to ask myself the question, "how do I know the church did not fabricate the documents?"

Could be!

Cute, But God don't live in Rome!

 

Jason replied, where I last said:


Yelsew, you have completely sidestepped my quandary over your acceptance of scripture without question, yet reject the very authority that compiled it for you! By all rights, you should dismiss the bible (or at least the New Testament) as some "suspicious Catholic publication" that bears watching with a jaundiced eye!

And you replied:

OK, accepting your premise at face value for now…

I use analogies myself, and they can be dangerous because there are variables that do not apply. The premise here is, of course, that GE is compared with the Catholic Church in that she has produced documents, decrees, pronouncements that are at least "in error" as metaphorically alluded to as "pornographic."

So, lets see how this leads you so a conclusion here…

But we charge on…

What "absurdity, as shown"?

What we have as historically recorded, both in scripture and in the extra-scriptural writings that are extant, Christ establishing a church with awesome authority per Matthew 16:18-19., and you, expounding with eagerness, your insistence that to "wholeheartedly" agree with Christ's church is the wrong thing to do?

Have you really and truly examined the Catholic Church, sir? **** remarks removed***I did, back in 1972 and became a Catholic in 1973!

Indeed! The only "Christian organization" around that could do it!

No, it was the ONLY Christian organization around!

 

WPutnam:

 

Yelsew replied:

quote]There was no Roman Catholic Church when the Last of the Books of the bible was written! Rome was still in power as an empire. The gods of Rome still held sway over the people.[/quote]

Yelsew, was there a Christian Community in Rome when the Book of Revelation was written? It is my understanding that John, it's august human author, was exiled on the island of Patmos by the Romans when he wrote that. And it is my understanding the not only was the church in existence in Rome, they were the fodder that fuel the cruel pleasures of the emperor in his coliseum. Would it be too much to call band of persecuted Christians the Church in Rome?

Now, go back to my last message and see if you can answer the questions I have put forth to you and stop diverting the subject to your desperate idea that attaching the name "Catholic" to the title of the church (the only church around at the time) somehow makes it a non-church that has no relationship to the True Church as established by Christ!

<Sigh!> What was it called before Ignatius attached the name "Catholic" to it, Yelsew?

I have only read some of them and not completely. I do not know personally where you may find them to read, but I suggest any Seminary or University that may have a web site to carry them.

Yelsew, you have a free will of choice that you can do whatever your hearts desire! And that includes paying any attention to the only church around that can trace her origins back to Christ Himself, having the name "Catholic" applied to her or not.

I can only suggest you look inwardly into yourself and examine what it means to "do what ever he commands you" in obedience to Christ. And that includes a respect and even obedience to the very church he not only established, but also a church onto which he attached great authority.

Carson and I can only do so much; the rest is between you and the Holy Spirit. But I see a compliment here that I appreciate and I think Carson appreciates it as well. Thank you for that! I am a poor instrument that I place myself into the hands of God, that I do the best way I can in logic, faith and common sense. Again, the Holy Spirit must do the rest…if he finds an open heart that can be impressed upon.

Of course I give credit to the Holy Spirit at well, Yelsew! But I see the Holy Spirit working through the very church Christ established! Why can't you take that last logical step? Why does it seemingly stick in your craw that it was the Church that the Holy Spirit worked upon. And if you say, it was the men whom the Holy Spirit inspired, then good for you! - Those same men were bishops of the Church!

Look, the Church survives because of the Holy Spirit and nothing else! Fallible men in the Church, had it been left up to their devices, would have had the church fail centuries ago! That is the amazing miracle about the Church! Fallible men cannot destroy an infallible Church even if they tried, and all the while they are the ruling members of that Church!

Name me one human organization that is older then the Catholic Church and is still in existence, Yelsew. I know of none. The old Roman Empire is no more; Babylon (the real one) is dust and debris; The glory of Egypt has faded away, leaving behind her artifacts of a great civilization and not one human organization I can think of, still in existence, is older then the Catholic Church!

I attribute that to the work of the Holy Spirit…

I last said:

How do you know that the Catholic Church did not "alter" the contents of the New Testament to conform to her "erroneous" doctrines?

You come very close to agreeing with me here, Yelsew! And by the way, those early manuscripts are not the original autographs, but rather copies of a copy, which is a copy of a copy…down the line. And also, there are other old manuscripts that are not in possession by the Catholic Church. The British has at least one in her museums, I believe.

But again you fail to answer my question, responding to what would happen if the monks (scribes) attempted to alter the manuscripts on purpose. Why would anything happen to them if they were instructed to alter the texts to comply with the "latest fashion in doctrine"? How would you ever know if it were done skillfully?

There is evidence that some alteration was done, not in malice but in "pius inflation." There is a claim that the concluding phrase "..and thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever, amen" was a pius reflection by a monk, writing in the margins of his manuscript, that later got included in the body of the Lord's Prayer.

And there are other "differences" or omissions that scholars in recent times have been able to find and correct. The King James Bible was a very fine translation for it's time. But it was written by scholars using what was extant in old manuscripts of the time. Today, there is a greater background of ancient manuscripts and other data that has allowed a more up to date version of what scripture really said - closer to the original autographs even while we do not have them.

Most of this points to the fact that the Catholic Church, in her monks and scribes, were most scrupulous in the preservation of the Bible, yet in matter of faith, doctrine and beliefs, the Catholic Church is looked upon with great suspicion if not out and out derision, to the point that most of her pronouncements are considered to be lies or error.

But if this is so, how is it that the scriptures escaped? The Holy Spirit working on the church at the time? Of course! But then I would maintain that the Holy Spirit always works with the same church Christ established that she would continue without error in her decrees, pronouncements doctrine and faith.

After all, The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church Christ established, therefore it is no wonder the Holy Spirit continues by her side.

But now that I have added the handle "Apostolic" to her title, does that suddenly make her the apostate church, Yelsew?

I last said:

If the Catholic Church is the "Whore of Babylon" as many claim (and no, I don't recall nor accuse you of saying that) then how in the world do you reject all of her encyclicals, papal bulls, decrees, dogmatic pronouncements, etc., but accept without question the very "product" of her diligence over the hundreds of years?

The "very product" being the definition and scope of holy scripture, of course. And yes, you did answer that "the Holy Spirit did it" in so many words, and of course, you are right! The Holy Spirit works through Christ's Church, as he always have, and always will, else, "…the gates of hell will prevail against it" (From Matthew 16:18)

I last said:

Who are these men but the actual "Charter Clergy" of the Church Christ founded? Therefore, in a sense, the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament!

<Sigh!> Here we go again! The name "Catholic" attached by Ignatius about AD 100, changes everything. Bingo! Attach that name and the Church is a different Church! I wish I could crawl into your head and see how it is that you can come to such a conclusion!

Many of your friends will claim it was during the emperor Constantine's reign that this happened. The problem is, it can be demonstrated that the doctrines, beliefs and teachings prior to about A.D. 300 exactly matches what the church teaches today! Someone please document for me, the bad things Constantine did for the Church! And please, no quotes from Jack Chick will do!

Selsew, it is my opinion that "your opinion" was formed by who you have associated with in Protestantism/Fundamentalism in your growing-up. And that is quite natural, which also alludes to the stress when one breaks-out of this belief system and finds truth for him or herself. You cannot know how distressed my mother was when she found out I was to become a Catholic. You see, as a child, I distinctly remember her telling me, "Son, when you grow up, join any church you want, but please, stay away from the Catholic Church." Bless her heart, she meant well, but the truth will out if you let it, Yelsew!

I previously said:

Did the "Dove of the Holy Spirit" alight upon your shoulders and whisper into your ear" to tell you?

But your reply also reveals your non-assurance that it actually happened!

David Korish and Jim Jones may have been more assurred then that, Yelsew! (No offense intended.)

My "tagline" got your attention"

Rome has spoken, the case is closed.

God lives everywhere, Rome, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and in my heart!

And I am sure He is in your heart as well!


But specifically God did not make the decision St. Augustine speaks of here, but the successor to his chosen human leader did!

And like Peter, he exercised the authority of the "keys" and what ever he pronounced here on earth was ratified in heaven! (Check out Matthew 16:19)

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15

 

Frank replied, where I last said:

Yet the authenticity of the (written) word seems to have been disputed, which are the reasons for the church councils that convened to settle the matter. Paul's Romans, Hebrews and John's revelation was disputed and rejected by some of the local churches, I understand, but other books not contained in the New Testament today (and I gave a long list of them somewhere in this conference) were considered inspired. The Didache is the outstanding example.

You are "preaching to the choir" Here, I think, Frank, and indeed, in those early times, especially in the apostolic period, spectacular miracle were performed to prove exactly what you say here. It is also true that this continued for a while into succeeding centuries, especially during times of great persecutions, even to the present time...(another subject we can get into sometimes.)

Yes, speaking in the apostolic era, when spiritual and supernatural things was hot as can be! (And during a time when what was to become the New Testament was being written.)

We were talking about discernment of what is to be included in the New Testament and what was to be rejected? Something that came into question in the 3rd century, well after the apostolic era was closed?

I agree with you here! Our century has known a few!

I think you have lost me here...

What I need from you is, how are your previous statements here applicable to the discernment of which books are divinely inspired and which are not? What must a given writing have, "miracle-wise," that would prove it to be divinely inspired and easily noted for inclusion into the New Testament?

I am thankful that we have an authoritive Church who could separate the "wheat from the chaff," the evidence of "miracles" not withstanding, that we have the New Testament as it is today!

And that includes the acceptance of the deuterocanonicals in the Old Testament - A total of 73 books!

God bless,

PAX

Rome has spoken, the case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

W Putnam:
Those books of which you speak cannot be inspired. Why?

They do not meet the crieria for inspiration. One, there were no miracles to confirm them as authentic messages from God. Two, there are no reliable witness to testify of the divine evidence for their inspiration. No one witnessed the miraculous confirmation. By the way, miraculous confirmation was done in the presence of those who did not believe. John 20:30,31.


If the pope or magisterium claim to receive continuing revelation from God, THEY MUST MEET THE CRITERIA AND BURDEN OF PROOF. Mark 16:17-20, II Cor. 12: 12. The Catechism of the Catholic church claims they receive revelation from the Holy Spirit. If true, they could do what the apostles did. However, they cannot do what the apostles did because they do not have what they had. Therefore, the rational conclusion is they are not inspired, and do not reveal any message by the authority of Christ. John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13, Luke 24:44-51, Acts 2;1-4,17; 8:18.

If you claim the pope and magisterium do not have the same abiltiy or credentials as the apostles, I would like to know WHO CHANGED THE CRITERIA? Mark 16:17-20, II Cor.12:12. Second, by what AUTHORITY did he do these things? Mat. 28:18-20.

 

Are you saying that there was miraculous confirmation for each Book of the New Testament?

What was the miraculous confirmation for the Book of Jude for instance?

If you cannot cite the specific miraculous confirmation, how do you know that your premise is correct?

Ron

 

Wputnam,
Why then do you revile the protestant church? It has the same common root and the same common core beliefs, though there is disagreement with interpretation and application. The Protestants retain the same common Holy Scriptures, so well preserved, thank you, and knows where the source manuscripts are; and perhaps, protestant scholars have been priveleged by the Roman Church to have sufficient access from time to time to those "copies of the original" manuscripts as to verify that modern scriptures are accurate representatives.

Frankly, I see very little difference between the protestant and Catholic churches, except the protestants reject the dogmas of the Catholics which include:</font>

• The raising of the mother of Jesus' status beyond what is normal for humans, including attributes not common to man.</font>
• Praying to departed saints including the mother of Jesus</font>
• The graven images and icons,</font>
• Repititious memorized prayers,</font>
• The rosary,</font>
• The priesthood,</font>
• The extravagant waste of resources on extremely overdone church properties,including the Vatican, while the poor remain engulfed in poverty, disease, hunger, etc.</font>
• Various false beliefs about things, bread and wine, etc.</font>
• General methods and procedures.</font>

Off the top, meaning incomplete list, this is what came to mind.

 

Ron:
The book of Jude is inspired because of the following:
1. It is in harmony with the other books of inspiration.
2. It is historically linked with the other books of inspiration.
3. Jude was a comtemporary of Jesus and the other inspired apostles.
4. The contents of his letter are incontrovertible.
5. The contents of the letter are accurate in every way. ( historically, geographically, harmonious content).

Therefore, one must conclude Jude had hands placed on him by an apostle and imparted the ability to write by inspiration. Acts 8:18. Furthermore, his message was confirmed by the same criteria as other writings. If not, Jude would have been numbered with those of Rev. 2:2. He would have been a LIAR. Therefore, one must rationally conclude the letter of Jude was inspired.

Furthermore, not all miracles were recorded in the pages of inspiration. John 20:30,31. Language does not require all things be declared. Some things are known because of approved examples. Others may be known by implication of the totality of the harmonious evidence.

For example, there is no declarative record of any of the congregations of the church having hands placed on them so as to receive miraculous spiritual gifts. However, by implication, we know this happened. I Cor.12 13,14, Eph. 4:12-18, Acts 8:18.

I know that the letter of Jude is inspired because the totality of the harmonious evidence demands that conclusion. Therefore, it is implied that Jude had hands placed on him so as to receive, and by manifestation of miraculous power, prove or confirm his letter was from God.

 

Oops, you failed to follow-through with your euphemistic statement that puts the Catholic in a bad light, yet failing to give examples!
</font>[/QUOTE]You presume to much! I never was going to give examples of the Catholic church's mistakes...those are well documented. What I was stating is that any Christian can use the bible without bowing to the catholic church. It is that simple.

In plain english, what I alluded to was that Christians that do not recognize the CC as "the" church can still use the bible and see it as inspired. There is no confliction or inconsistency.

You have to prove (it is called "burden of proof") that the CC is the same church established in Matthew 16:18-19. And then you have to prove the CC incarnation we have today is still the very same church.

I love it when someone who knows nothing of me asks me these questions. Let me lay it out for you:

1. I was born and raised catholic and was catholic for over half my life.
2. After years of searching, reading and studying, I finally was saved.
3. Since then, I have continued to do nothing but read, study, think and search for truth.

Just so you know so you will not make the same mistake that some other catholics on this board have, my role and concern on this board is truth, consistent and logical argument and honesty. I will not lie, I will not banter and I will not bend from what fits logicically. I am as straight as they come. Other than that, I leave most of my information out of this board as to not cloud someones mind.

I went the opposite way.

Actually, I went Catholic -&gt; Agnostic -&gt; Christian. My catholic upbringing all but shoved me into agnosticism.

Really? How do we know that? There is documentation of independant churches, small groups and jewish converts that were not part of the catholic church.

This has yet to be proven.

1. You must prove to me that the CC is the church in matthew, not the other way around (burden of proof). Though, I have disproved the catholic church before on this board, you might find the threads in the archives.

2. I can claim the bible is divinely inspired just as you do by saying the apostles were good and sincere men who sinned, yet penned an error free bible.

I do not have to accept the catholic church as the church to accept the bible as divinely inspired and it is absurd of you to say I must.

Who said I was a fundamentalist?

I do not. I believe God used sinful men to write down His inspired word and he used a sinful church to organize and preserve it.


As you can see, one can believe the bible is inspired and devine without believing the CC is "the" church.

In Christ,
jason

 

This is inconsistent with what you previously wrote.

So how do you decide what is "miraculously confirmed"?

Is it not possible for other writings of the Apostles not included in Scripture to meet your new qualifications as you set them forth for the book of Jude?

Ron

 

JasonW commented:

How do you know that, Frank? What "miracles" are you talking about, when there are books in the bible that do not address the subject of miracles (from memory). So I have no idea where you are going here.

First of all, I know of no pope who has ever claimed a "continuing revelation from God." But I am aware of the doctrine that when the pope declares a doctrine "ex cathedra" (something that is quite rare today) it is infallible, simply because Christ declared His church would be so, by his own words, "...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt 16:18) Now, you probably will not accept that, but us Catholics believe this is so.

I don't think I said anything about it one way or the other. I may have implied that the charisma for writing scripture ceased with the death of the last apostle, but for the Church to continue, the charisma of infallibility had to continue, else the Church would easily fail without the help of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, you think (I think) that the Church has indeed, failed. Therefore, I question your assertion that your bible, especially the New Testament, is divinely inspired and as declared so by a fallible Church!

Look at it this way: For the Bible to be infallible, the outside authority who declared it so must also be infallible!

That sure does make good sense to me!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

Singer, please show me a distinct line between the doctrines and faith
practices of the Church before Ignatius planted that famous "Catholic"
onto the title of the Church and afterwards. Also, please show me the
"true church" before and after, in parallel with that very same church.

Now, if you want to add a heresy or two, and there were numerious ones
that popped up, then do so, but if you think they were the "true church,"
give my your accounting on them and let's see.

Hi Pacman.......
Let's put all doctrine and practices aside and deal with salvation only.
The rest IS and will continue to be disputable.
It is upon your shoulders to prove that saving grace and believing faith
were not operable or in operation before the late arrival of your pet
church.

As for me thinking they (pre Catholic Church beleivers) were the "true church",
what else could they have been...? They were formed at the time of the
Apostles (pre Catholic Church), had Jesus' blessings (pre Catholic Church),
were filled with individuals who were said to be saved (pre Catholic Church),
and did not have a name and were also not the ''charter members'' of the
Catholic Church.

There was life before the Catholic Church.......Pacman..!!!

And, that early church had no name except the "Church at Corinth" etc.
To say it was the predecessor of the Catholic Church is about as intelligent
as saying the Caveman's cart was the predecessor of a Ford instead of the
predecessor of any and all vehicles of transportation.

Oh...sorry, you've heard that before


And with the help of the Holy Spirit, may this inadequate servant some how, some way,
get the scales to fall from your eyes that you may indeed, see the truth!

 

Then go back and learn how to speak for yourself instead of parading a circus of scholors who agree with your position and then I am more inclined to listen.

 

C.S.Murphy,

Don't grieve over losing the audience of the one Carson Weber.
He doesn't respond to me either and it's more or less the fact that
he has no answers and makes it look like we're not worthy of his time.

You must have put him on the spot over some issue that was not in the
"How to Respond to Protestants when they Overwhelm You" ....book !

I had only asked why the Apostles didn't actually eat Jesus' arm and suck his
blood when He was with them if it is so important to eat his ACTUAL
flesh and drink his ACTUAL blood now.

That question suddenly made me "unable to see the light and not worthy of
comment". (Plus someone gave birth to some new terms to explain ''why''.....
that I very much doubt is even in their own Catholic Dictionary".

Singer

 

Ron:

The letter of Jude is authentic because it was confirmed by miraculous power. Mark 16:17-20. I can know it because of the IMPLICATION OF THE HARMONIOUS EVIDENCE OF SCRIPTURE. The same way I know the church at Corinth had miraculous spiritual gifts through the laying on of the apostles hands. It is called in the english language IMPLICATION. Acts 8:18, I Cor. 12,13,14.

Furthermore, any student of the scripture, or anyone who studies any document of antiquity, knows what I previously posted is essential to prove the contents of a document are authentic.

Just because you are ignorant of them, does not make them "NEW." Rather, it simply shows you had no knowledge of them prior to them being posted.

If one claims he wrote for Abraham Lincoln, he would be subject to the same litmus. Is the writer contemporary with Lincoln? Is the document in harmony with other things documents by others on the same subject?( Incontrovertible evidence). Are the contents historically and geographically correct? Are the contents harmonious with other documents on the same subject?

These are very basic principles used in establishing the validity of any document of antiquity. What other rational way could be used to prove the authenticity of a document?

 

To all you good people here:

Due to circumstances I will not discuss, I am departing this conference to "take a good rest."

God bless all of you this day!

PAX

Bill+†+


Lord, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things that I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time,
enjoying one moment at a time;
accepting hardship as a pathway to peace;
taking, as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is,
not as I would have it;
trusting that you will make all things right
if I surrender to Your will;
so that I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with You forever in the next.
Amen.

 

(JasonW)

1. I was born and raised catholic and was catholic for over half my life.
2. After years of searching, reading and studying, I finally was saved.
3. Since then, I have continued to do nothing but read, study, think
and search for truth.

Let me reflect on what I've learned of Catholicism.............

According to Catholic doctrine, Jason was right in the eyes of God (although not
saved..but having a good chance at passing judgement) because he was
practicing in the correct church; while he was a Catholic. Thus, his actions (works)
and perseverance were keeping him in the status of "Savable". (This is their
Faith By Works).

His Catholic Baptism had put the Holy Spirit in him and thus he "had the Son".
He had never "accepted the Lord" as that's unheard of in Catholicism.
He felt secure being in the church that ''christ established'' and his local priest
had forgiven all his sins via the power to do so delegated to Peter.

Now that he's left the RCC, he's STILL not saved in the eyes of the RCC
(as all CAtholics) but is still going to heaven ( in an incomplete way). I've never
read about such a theory in the bible.

Again.....to come back into favor with God, the RCC would insist that Jason
has to join (again) the Catholic Church and make mass weekly. I wonder
if his original RCC baptism means that he still has the Holy Spirit or does that
leave upon leaving the church (and does that have scripture backup).

Works seem to be a big factor here with faith being second.

Still that ''favor'' would not include assurance of salvation so I don't see the
point in rejoining the Cath. Ch. or for that matter; for joining it in the first place.

Jason, could you expand on this some more.

Thanks
Singer