The Changing Face Of Catholicism

[mrtumnus]

I think the reason for this phenomena is that it is so clear that many simply will not change their position no matter how strong the arguments for an opposing position are. You see it all the time. So, in the rare event where someone changes positions, you can at least be sure that they are open to having their worldview challenged. And this naturally adds to their credibility.

Show me someone over 40 who hasn't revised their "theology" at least in some respect in the last 20 years and I guarantee that person is either not interested or is simply unwilling to be taught.

I agree that as we grow in faith our understanding about many things will change, or at least be viewed somewhat differently.

Your answer is probably correct as to why they are seen as more credible, but in my mind that assumption creates a paradox.

 

[DHK]

DHK, believe it or not the Catholic Church my husband attends, The Church of St Paul in Ham Lake, Minnesota believes in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and some even speak in tongues. Most of the Parishoners bring the Bible to Church with them for Mass. The music is fantastic. Their Bible studies have well over 600 in attendance.

The time they are a changing.

grace56

Not to be too crude, but one can dress a pig in tie, hat, and shirt, but it won't change the nature of the pig any. The pig will still be a pig no matter how well you dress. Its nature cannot be changed.

One can put window dressing on the RCC, but the window dressing doesn't change the doctrine, the Magesterium, the Catechism, etc. It was a matter of months ago that the present pope said that no one outside of the RCC could be saved. He said that every other religion had a "fatal flaw". The only religion, of course, that one could be saved by is the RCC. The RCC has been teaching that for years. It has never changed its doctrine. Its doctine is wrapped up in a false gospel; a gospel of works. It is not based on the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Though they may think that they believe that Jesus died for their sins, in practice they don't. For if they truly did believe that Christ died for their sins, why would they believe in Purgatory--a place where they themselves have to be purged from the penalty of their sins. I guess the payment of the blood of Jesus wasn't good enough!!

 

[Zenas]

Not to be too crude, but one can dress a pig in tie, hat, and shirt, but it won't change the nature of the pig any. The pig will still be a pig no matter how well you dress. Its nature cannot be changed.

One can put window dressing on the RCC, but the window dressing doesn't change the doctrine, the Magesterium, the Catechism, etc. It was a matter of months ago that the present pope said that no one outside of the RCC could be saved. He said that every other religion had a "fatal flaw". The only religion, of course, that one could be saved by is the RCC. The RCC has been teaching that for years. It has never changed its doctrine. Its doctine is wrapped up in a false gospel; a gospel of works. It is not based on the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Though they may think that they believe that Jesus died for their sins, in practice they don't. For if they truly did believe that Christ died for their sins, why would they believe in Purgatory--a place where they themselves have to be purged from the penalty of their sins. I guess the payment of the blood of Jesus wasn't good enough!!

DHK, I don't think that is what was said. First, it wasn't the pope, it was the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Second, there was no reference to a "fatal flaw", only to the separated communities being defective. Third, there was no reference to the Roman Catolic Church being the only pathway to salvation. In fact, it says just the opposite. Here is the controversial paragraph:

It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church

You can read the whole document here:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Not to be too crude, but one can dress a pig in tie, hat, and shirt, but it won't change the nature of the pig any. The pig will still be a pig no matter how well you dress. Its nature cannot be changed.

One can put window dressing on the RCC, but the window dressing doesn't change the doctrine, the Magesterium, the Catechism, etc. It was a matter of months ago that the present pope said that no one outside of the RCC could be saved. He said that every other religion had a "fatal flaw". The only religion, of course, that one could be saved by is the RCC. The RCC has been teaching that for years. It has never changed its doctrine. Its doctine is wrapped up in a false gospel; a gospel of works. It is not based on the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Though they may think that they believe that Jesus died for their sins, in practice they don't. For if they truly did believe that Christ died for their sins, why would they believe in Purgatory--a place where they themselves have to be purged from the penalty of their sins. I guess the payment of the blood of Jesus wasn't good enough!!

Also note that you misunderstand the catholic view of purgatory. It is not a place where you pay for your sins but are renewed to be more christlike. So in essense when we die we've for lack of a better term are brainwashed into sin through a lifetime of it. Not forgiven for sin that has occured but we still struggle with sin. It becomes a place therefore that we are renewed to have the mind of christ free as well as a perfected body. This is closer to the actual doctine then paying for sins.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines purgatory as a "purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven," which is experienced by those "who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified" (CCC 1030). It notes that "this final purification of the elect . . . is entirely different from the punishment of the damned" (CCC 1031).

I don't know of any scriptural supports for this outside of the apocryphal texts.

 

[mrtumnus]

Not to be too crude, but one can dress a pig in tie, hat, and shirt, but it won't change the nature of the pig any. The pig will still be a pig no matter how well you dress. Its nature cannot be changed.

One can put window dressing on the RCC, but the window dressing doesn't change the doctrine, the Magesterium, the Catechism, etc. It was a matter of months ago that the present pope said that no one outside of the RCC could be saved. He said that every other religion had a "fatal flaw". The only religion, of course, that one could be saved by is the RCC. The RCC has been teaching that for years. It has never changed its doctrine. Its doctine is wrapped up in a false gospel; a gospel of works. It is not based on the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Though they may think that they believe that Jesus died for their sins, in practice they don't. For if they truly did believe that Christ died for their sins, why would they believe in Purgatory--a place where they themselves have to be purged from the penalty of their sins. I guess the payment of the blood of Jesus wasn't good enough!!

I see Zenas already provided you with the document here DHK, but this is a perfect example of making something the Catholic church has said into something you want it to say, not what it actually says.

Did the church affirm it claim to be the church established by Christ? Yep. Did it say it considers churches outside the church to suffer from certain defects? Yep? Seems from your post to be rather a mutual thing, don't you think?

Yet the article quite clearly affirms that "the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them." and "It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.

So could you please point out in the document where you find evidence for your claim that the church has said that only those in the Catholic church can be saved?

 

[mrtumnus]

Not to be too crude, but one can dress a pig in tie, hat, and shirt, but it won't change the nature of the pig any. The pig will still be a pig no matter how well you dress. Its nature cannot be changed.

One can put window dressing on the RCC, but the window dressing doesn't change the doctrine, the Magesterium, the Catechism, etc. It was a matter of months ago that the present pope said that no one outside of the RCC could be saved. He said that every other religion had a "fatal flaw". The only religion, of course, that one could be saved by is the RCC. The RCC has been teaching that for years. It has never changed its doctrine. Its doctine is wrapped up in a false gospel; a gospel of works. It is not based on the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Though they may think that they believe that Jesus died for their sins, in practice they don't. For if they truly did believe that Christ died for their sins, why would they believe in Purgatory--a place where they themselves have to be purged from the penalty of their sins. I guess the payment of the blood of Jesus wasn't good enough!!

Regarding Purgatory, the church teaches that the blood of Jesus completely removed the eternal penalty of sin -- spiritual death.

I guess I'm still not sure what part of "because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son" you guys do not understand or accept? The idea that because the eternal consequences of sin are gone means that there is no longer punishment for sin is not scriptural.

Luke 12:47-48
47*"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48*But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.


1 Thessalonians 4:1-8
1*Finally, brothers, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. 2*For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. 3*It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4*that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, 5*not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; 6*and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. 7 For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. 8*Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.


Hebrews 12:4-11
4*In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. 5*And you have forgotten that word of encouragement that addresses you as sons: "My son, do not make light of the Lord's discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, 6 because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son." 7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? 8 If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. 9*Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! 10*Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. 11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit works within us to completely sanctify us -- this is the ultimate result of salvation. Not that God through eternity sees us through "Jesus colored glasses" that hides our imperfection from Him. That the power of the Holy Spirit does indeed complete His work and we truly become "righteous men made perfect". I can give you about 15 scriptures that support the belief that we are indeed to be purified by the working of the Holy Spirit. Do you disagree with that concept?

Since few of us are 'perfect' at the time we die, how is this work that is begun within us here then completed? This is what the doctrine of Purgatory addresses. Not a 'second chance'. At the moment of death a person is judged for heaven or hell. Those whom Jesus lives within and the Holy Spirit is present working -- heaven. Yet for those who are to enter heaven but are not yet perfect -- how to you propose this occurs? Does you believe it does not occur -- that we are allowed to enter heaven with imperfections? Do you believe we are never really made perfect, but eternally sit under the cover of Christ? Do you believe God simply 'snaps his fingers' and it's done?

Catholics would say that the Holy Spirit completes his work of sanctification in us. As John Paul II said regarding Purgatory, "Every trace of attachment to evil must be eliminated, every imperfection of the soul corrected. Purification must be complete, and indeed this is precisely what is meant by the Church's teaching on purgatory. The term does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence. Those who, after death, exist in a state of purification, are already in the love of Christ who removes from them the remnants of imperfection."

 

[DHK]

DHK, I don't think that is what was said. First, it wasn't the pope, it was the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Second, there was no reference to a "fatal flaw", only to the separated communities being defective. Third, there was no reference to the Roman Catolic Church being the only pathway to salvation. In fact, it says just the opposite. Here is the controversial paragraph: You can read the whole document here:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

I can only remember what I heard. It may not have been a direct quote, for it came from the media. I heard it from the news. I don't have it written down, unfortunately. But I do remember the pope saying something to that effect. That is why I didn't put everything in quotes.

That be the case, I can prove both from the Catechism and Vatican II documents that the Catholic Church has, still does to this day, believe only that those within the RCC will be saved. Those without will not be saved. There is plenty of documentation for that.

 

[DHK]

Also note that you misunderstand the catholic view of purgatory. It is not a place where you pay for your sins but are renewed to be more christlike. So in essense when we die we've for lack of a better term are brainwashed into sin through a lifetime of it. Not forgiven for sin that has occured but we still struggle with sin. It becomes a place therefore that we are renewed to have the mind of christ free as well as a perfected body. This is closer to the actual doctine then paying for sins.

I don't know of any scriptural supports for this outside of the apocryphal texts.

In essence we agee. The word purgatory comes from the word "to be purged.
It is a place where one is purged from there sins. Contrary to the modern Catholic apologist thinking who will try to tell you that it is a state of the mind, Augustine and others affirmed that it was an actual state of torment--a secondary hell, if you will. You are right--no such concept is found in Scripture. Jesus paid it all. He paid the price for all our sin.

 

[DHK]

I see Zenas already provided you with the document here DHK, but this is a perfect example of making something the Catholic church has said into something you want it to say, not what it actually says.

I may have paraphrased the quote, the truth of it is still there. The teaching of it has never changed.

Did the church affirm it claim to be the church established by Christ? Yep.

So have the Mormons. That doesn't mean a thing. Thus I go back to my illustration. Dress a pig up. It doesn't change the pig. It is still a pig. You can't change its nature. It is what it is. Just because it claims to be something it is not, does not make its claim true. Surely you can come up with something better than that.

Did it say it considers churches outside the church to suffer from certain defects? Yep? Seems from your post to be rather a mutual thing, don't you think?

And thus its exclusivity. It is the only one through which salvation comes. Go to the catechism. Look up "born again" What does the Catechism say about it? Only those that receive the RCC baptism can be born again or saved.

Yet the article quite clearly affirms that "the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them." and "It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation.

A clear contradiction in the Catholic Church. If we are nnot in full communion with the Catholic Church (read born again), then accordingly we are not born again. The rest of the ambiguous wording is moot.

In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.

In light of all its past wickedness and cruelty to others I seriously doubt if the Catholic Church knows what the Holy Spirit is.

So could you please point out in the document where you find evidence for your claim that the church has said that only those in the Catholic church can be saved?

I have done that on this board many times. So has Bob Ryan and others. The Catechism says it, as well as Vatican II documents. It affirms it over and over.
Go back and reread what was affirmed at the Council of Trent.
Now explain to me why the proclamations (the curses) made at the Council of Trent have never been rescinded.

 

[Zenas]

I can only remember what I heard. It may not have been a direct quote, for it came from the media. I heard it from the news. I don't have it written down, unfortunately. But I do remember the pope saying something to that effect. That is why I didn't put everything in quotes.

That be the case, I can prove both from the Catechism and Vatican II documents that the Catholic Church has, still does to this day, believe only that those within the RCC will be saved. Those without will not be saved. There is plenty of documentation for that.

I heard the same media reports and you are correct about what they said. I found them rather shocking so I went to the source and found that the media reports being put out by both the secular press and the Baptist press were very wrong.

 

[mrtumnus]

I may have paraphrased the quote, the truth of it is still there. The teaching of it has never changed.

Then you need to please provide where the document says that, because paraphrasing or not, there is no context wherein it says what you have stated that I can find.

So have the Mormons. That doesn't mean a thing. Thus I go back to my illustration. Dress a pig up. It doesn't change the pig. It is still a pig. You can't change its nature. It is what it is. Just because it claims to be something it is not, does not make its claim true. Surely you can come up with something better than that.

We are not discussing at this point whether or not this claim is true. Obviously you believe it's not -- perfectly fine with me. A totally different discussion though if you would like to move that direction. At this point we are discussing whether or not the Catholic church teaches that one must be Catholic to be saved.

And thus its exclusivity. It is the only one through which salvation comes. Go to the catechism. Look up "born again" What does the Catechism say about it? Only those that receive the RCC baptism can be born again or saved.

Provide the quote from the catechism that says this please. What I read says this:

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."

For this reason, we do not rebaptize those Christians who are entering into full communion with the church.

A clear contradiction in the Catholic Church. If we are nnot in full communion with the Catholic Church (read born again), then accordingly we are not born again. The rest of the ambiguous wording is moot.

What part of “are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation” isn’t clear?

Not being "in communion with" in the Catholic view is not the same thing as not being "born again".

In light of all its past wickedness and cruelty to others I seriously doubt if the Catholic Church knows what the Holy Spirit is.

The Holy Spirit knows His own and that knowledge is not our privilege.

I have done that on this board many times. So has Bob Ryan and others. The Catechism says it, as well as Vatican II documents. It affirms it over and over.
Go back and reread what was affirmed at the Council of Trent.
Now explain to me why the proclamations (the curses) made at the Council of Trent have never been rescinded.

The oft-quoted phrase “There is no salvation outside the Catholic church” exists from at least the 3rd century. Please keep in mind that there were not other Christian churches at the time. This was an affirmation that Christ is indeed the way to salvation.

The church holds yet today that those who have rejected it with an understanding that they are rejecting the church which Christ founded are indeed anathema and outside it walls and those of salvation. The church also holds that those Christians who are outside of its visible boundaries for whatever other reason are still indeed within its boundaries, although not in perfect communion.

For this reason, unless one has a knowledge and understanding that the Catholic church is indeed the church founded by Christ and has nonetheless chosen to reject and leave it – they may indeed be saved without being within the visible walls of the church.

There are certainly those who disagree that the Catholic church is not what she claims to be, and certainly a topic worthy of discussion.

But holding to a position that ‘the Catholic church says only Catholics are saved’ when this is not in fact what the church teaches at all can only be from a position of ignorance, deliberate deception, or blinding hatred. Ultimately when people do the research for themselves instead of just blindly accepting another’s word, they discover this truth and it ultimately serves only to weaken the position of those who are intent upon standing with it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I heard the same media reports and you are correct about what they said. I found them rather shocking so I went to the source and found that the media reports being put out by both the secular press and the Baptist press were very wrong.

what did his holiness tell you? (JK) what did the Pope actually say?

 

[Zenas]

what did his holiness tell you? (JK) what did the Pope actually say?

I'm not completely sure. The phone connection was bad and so was his English. :laugh:

 

[HankD]

Yes, I am very much aware of the role of the Teaching Magisterium of the church.

I am also aware that the church teaches that the primary authority a person must answer to is God, and this occurs through the exercise of an individual's conscience.

1795 "Conscience is man's most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths"

1796 Conscience is a judgment of reason by which the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act.

1797 For the man who has committed evil, the verdict of his conscience remains a pledge of conversion and of hope.

1798 A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. Everyone must avail himself of the means to form his conscience.

1799 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

1802 The Word of God is a light for our path. We must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. This is how moral conscience is formed.


Regarding the forming of one's conscience,

1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.

Guided by the teaching of the church, yes indeed. However, not in place of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

The church also cautions that a person can make incorrect judgments of conscience due to ignorance. Hence one must be very careful in that which they determine, and for what reasons. Rejection of the church's authority is certainly one of several thing that could cause an error in judgment. Not will, could.

But the bottom line teaching is this ... "A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. "

According to Catholic teaching, the only question any person has to answer in order to reject a church teaching is if they are fully informed and are convicted by the Holy Spirit their position is true and are willing to stand before God with their decision.

And multitudes lost their lives at the hands of the Inquisitors of the Church of Rome for obeying their conscience.

It would be one thing if they had taken a human life but these martyrs lost their lives because they chose to worship God in the "sanctuary" of their conscience.

HankD

 

[mrtumnus]

And multitudes lost their lives at the hands of the Inquisitors of the Church of Rome for obeying their conscience.

It would be one thing if they had taken a human life but these martyrs lost their lives because they chose to worship God in the "sanctuary" of their conscience.

HankD

Yes, the Inquisitions. The standard proof of the evils of the church of Rome.

We are all aware that heresy was considered a crime against the state not the church, correct? The state charged people, tried people, executed people. For a somewhat different perspective of the role of the church, please review

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

No martyrs ever lost their lives at the hands of Protestants for their views? Michael Servetus comes to mind.

Also, please let's not forget Protestant persecutions of Anabaptists for the crime of heresy in believing in a "Believer's baptism", the massive witch-hunts resulting in thousands of deaths in Europe especially in heavily controlled Protestant areas such as Germany, Luther's support of the use of violence by the ruling class against peasants, torture and execution that occurred under Calvin, the oppressive laws against Catholics in Protestant England and the roots of slavery in the origins of the Southern Baptists.

Are the numbers greater in the Catholic church? Most certainly. The history of the Catholic church is quite frankly longer for one thing, and as a result is more deeply ingrained with the state throughout history. Is this history exclusively Catholic and not shared with Protestants? Not by a long shot.

There are two things for us all to learn from these events. The first is that the church being separate from the state is of primary importance for the integrity of the church.

The second is that the enemy attacks from both outside and within, and will until the day the Lord comes in glory. How delighted he is when he is able to enlist us in his battle within.

 

[HankD]

Yes, the Inquisitions. The standard proof of the evils of the church of Rome.

Indeed. As well it should be. Not only the Inquisitions but scores of other atrocities over the centuries and the blood of perhaps millions.

We are all aware that heresy was considered a crime against the state not the church, correct? The state charged people, tried people, executed people. For a somewhat different perspective of the role of the church, please review

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0406181026.asp

Yes it is true. But by what right did the Church and State wed and make that unholy alliance called the Holy Roman Empire which infected even the reformation churches that it spawned. Why deflect the blame by pointing the finger at others? The Church of Rome is guilty of massive bloodshed of the innocent.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.​

No martyrs ever lost their lives at the hands of Protestants for their views? Michael Servetus comes to mind.

Also, please let's not forget Protestant persecutions of Anabaptists for the crime of heresy in believing in a "Believer's baptism", the massive witch-hunts resulting in thousands of deaths in Europe especially in heavily controlled Protestant areas such as Germany, Luther's support of the use of violence by the ruling class against peasants, torture and execution that occurred under Calvin, the oppressive laws against Catholics in Protestant England and the roots of slavery in the origins of the Southern Baptists.

Are the numbers greater in the Catholic church? Most certainly. The history of the Catholic church is quite frankly longer for one thing, and as a result is more deeply ingrained with the state throughout history. Is this history exclusively Catholic and not shared with Protestants? Not by a long shot.

Like I asked previously who spawned these "separated brethren"?

The Church of Rome is the root of almost all religious persecution of the face of the earth.

There are two things for us all to learn from these events. The first is that the church being separate from the state is of primary importance for the integrity of the church.

The second is that the enemy attacks from both outside and within, and will until the day the Lord comes in glory. How delighted he is when he is able to enlist us in his battle within.

Yes and many of his (the enemy) are the tares he sowed in the kingdom and are now cloaked in clergy robes.

2 Corinthians

13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.​

The works of the Church of Rome and its children are evident.

All who give allegiance to it (even as "protestants") will share in her condemnation of the bloodshed of the innocent. Yes, it will be in the measure of their knowledge or ignorance thereof.

Look, if you are my brother in Christ, take my advice my brother...

2 Corinthians 6

17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.​

Before you ask, I am not a protestant.
Yes, I am a member of a local Baptist Church.

As far as I know my local church as a church has never shed the blood of anyone because they disagreed with our doctrinal view and manner of worship.

It is not so with the Church of Rome which at one time was a Church blessed by God. Every Roman Catholic Church is currently an extension of the Church of Rome and will share either her condemnation or reward depending on God's judgement as to her worthiness.

HankD

 

[DHK]

Then you need to please provide where the document says that, because paraphrasing or not, there is no context wherein it says what you have stated that I can find.

Zenas has concurred with what I hear through the media, even if it may have been somewhat inaccurate.

We are not discussing at this point whether or not this claim is true. Obviously you believe it's not -- perfectly fine with me. A totally different discussion though if you would like to move that direction. At this point we are discussing whether or not the Catholic church teaches that one must be Catholic to be saved.

Agreed, we can start another topic on how cultural adaptation of the Catholic Church actually results in change of doctrine. This is actually how the real topic of this thread and the intent of the OP. I know. I am the one that started it.

Provide the quote from the catechism that says this please. What I read says this:

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."

For this reason, we do not rebaptize those Christians who are entering into full communion with the church.

I'll do you one better. I will quote from Vatican II. That should be just as authoritative, if not more so than your quote:
From the section on "The Church" Chapter II, Paragraph 17:

This sacred Synod turns its attention first to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon sacred Scripture and tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. For Christ, made present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique Way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mr.16:16; Jn.3:5) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ, would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved.

(The Documents of Vatican II)

Salvation is only through the RCC accordin to their own authorities.

Not being "in communion with" in the Catholic view is not the same thing as not being "born again".

The definition of "born again" even according to the above quote, is Catholic baptism. Without it no one can be saved.

The Holy Spirit knows His own and that knowledge is not our privilege.

The Holy Spirit is not with those who shed blood and torture. It is not with the RCC involved in the slaughter of innocent people such as the Waldenses, the Cathari and the Albigenses. The Holy Spirit was not with such a wicked evil man as Innocent III. With that it is impossible to have an unbroken succession line of popes. The Lord knows them that are His; but the RCC are not His.

The oft-quoted phrase “There is no salvation outside the Catholic church” exists from at least the 3rd century. Please keep in mind that there were not other Christian churches at the time. This was an affirmation that Christ is indeed the way to salvation.

You have your history all askew. The Catholic Church never even existed until the beginning of the fourth century. What existed before then were independent Bible believing churches. Some had gone astray, but most held to Biblical doctrine. It was not until Constantine came to the throne that the invention of the Catholic Church appeared. Christendom was recognized as a state-religion as it still is in many nations. Up until that time there was no such thing. At that time the RCC began.

The church holds yet today that those who have rejected it with an understanding that they are rejecting the church which Christ founded are indeed anathema and outside it walls and those of salvation. The church also holds that those Christians who are outside of its visible boundaries for whatever other reason are still indeed within its boundaries, although not in perfect communion.

Not according to Vatican II

For this reason, unless one has a knowledge and understanding that the Catholic church is indeed the church founded by Christ and has nonetheless chosen to reject and leave it – they may indeed be saved without being within the visible walls of the church.

The Catholic Church was founded by an unsaved man who used it for his own political means. He was a wicked man, and the RCC remains to this day an wicked institution sending people to Hell.

There are certainly those who disagree that the Catholic church is not what she claims to be, and certainly a topic worthy of discussion.

It is not, never was, and never will be a Christian institution.

But holding to a position that ‘the Catholic church says only Catholics are saved’ when this is not in fact what the church teaches at all can only be from a position of ignorance, deliberate deception, or blinding hatred. Ultimately when people do the research for themselves instead of just blindly accepting another’s word, they discover this truth and it ultimately serves only to weaken the position of those who are intent upon standing with it.

I have done my research. The RCC claims that they are the only ones that can be saved. That has been their position all throughout history. You need to do more study. The pronouncements of the Council of Trent have never yet been rescinded.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Zenas has concurred with what I hear through the media, even if it may have been somewhat inaccurate.

Agreed, we can start another topic on how cultural adaptation of the Catholic Church actually results in change of doctrine. This is actually how the real topic of this thread and the intent of the OP. I know. I am the one that started it.

I'll do you one better. I will quote from Vatican II. That should be just as authoritative, if not more so than your quote:
From the section on "The Church" Chapter II, Paragraph 17:
[/b] (The Documents of Vatican II)

Salvation is only through the RCC accordin to their own authorities.

The definition of "born again" even according to the above quote, is Catholic baptism. Without it no one can be saved.

The Holy Spirit is not with those who shed blood and torture. It is not with the RCC involved in the slaughter of innocent people such as the Waldenses, the Cathari and the Albigenses. The Holy Spirit was not with such a wicked evil man as Innocent III. With that it is impossible to have an unbroken succession line of popes. The Lord knows them that are His; but the RCC are not His.

You have your history all askew. The Catholic Church never even existed until the beginning of the fourth century. What existed before then were independent Bible believing churches. Some had gone astray, but most held to Biblical doctrine. It was not until Constantine came to the throne that the invention of the Catholic Church appeared. Christendom was recognized as a state-religion as it still is in many nations. Up until that time there was no such thing. At that time the RCC began.

Not according to Vatican II

The Catholic Church was founded by an unsaved man who used it for his own political means. He was a wicked man, and the RCC remains to this day an wicked institution sending people to Hell.

It is not, never was, and never will be a Christian institution.

I have done my research. The RCC claims that they are the only ones that can be saved. That has been their position all throughout history. You need to do more study. The pronouncements of the Council of Trent have never yet been rescinded.

What historical documents support your view that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist until Constantine. It's nonsense Ignatius refers to the Catholic Church as does Ireneaus. Being a baptist I'm conserned that some believe we came from such heresies as the Cathari, and the Albigenses. I believe that baptist have multiple beginings from groups like the puritans etc... We are a modern phenomina. All the ancient writings come from groups like the Catholics, Orthodox, and Copts. Writings other than these seem pretty sure to have come from other sects like the gnostics. Baptist churches (the multitudes of them from independent to free will to SBC) are a modern phenominon in Christianity. I don't see the historical evidence to prove your point. Just don't.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Indeed. As well it should be. Not only the Inquisitions but scores of other atrocities over the centuries and the blood of perhaps millions.

Yes it is true. But by what right did the Church and State wed and make that unholy alliance called the Holy Roman Empire which infected even the reformation churches that it spawned. Why deflect the blame by pointing the finger at others? The Church of Rome is guilty of massive bloodshed of the innocent.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.​

Like I asked previously who spawned these "separated brethren"?

The Church of Rome is the root of almost all religious persecution of the face of the earth.

Yes and many of his (the enemy) are the tares he sowed in the kingdom and are now cloaked in clergy robes.

2 Corinthians

13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.​

The works of the Church of Rome and its children are evident.

All who give allegiance to it (even as "protestants") will share in her condemnation of the bloodshed of the innocent. Yes, it will be in the measure of their knowledge or ignorance thereof.

Look, if you are my brother in Christ, take my advice my brother...

2 Corinthians 6

17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.​

Before you ask, I am not a protestant.
Yes, I am a member of a local Baptist Church.

As far as I know my local church as a church has never shed the blood of anyone because they disagreed with our doctrinal view and manner of worship.

It is not so with the Church of Rome which at one time was a Church blessed by God. Every Roman Catholic Church is currently an extension of the Church of Rome and will share either her condemnation or reward depending on God's judgement as to her worthiness.

HankD

Yeah and Oliver Cromwell didn't kill a bunch of Catholics in England and Ireland unjustly! Sure. Elizabeth the I didn't kill any Catholics either. King Henry VIII didn't confiscate land from the Catholics! Yeah. Protestant Americans didn't butcher a bunch of american natives either! Yeah sell me some more snake oil. Unfortunately, every one is guilty of atrocities. Except the early anabaptist (again baptizers) Jacob Amans or Simon Menno and their followers.

 

[mrtumnus]

DHK, please read again the quote you provided from Vatican II

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ, would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved.

If a person "knows" that the Catholic church is the true church and refuses to enter it, they cannot be saved.

It is speaking about those who have been convicted by the Holy Spirit that the church is the true church and choose to ignore that conviction.

It is not speaking about people who do not "know" this truth. It is speaking as it says "to the Catholic faithful".

Which is why they very next paragraph in this very authoritative Vatican II document says this:

15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.


So why take things out of context and twist the words, ignore and fail to present other things in the same document that obviously contradict what you're saying, and try to present this as "truth"? For what purpose please?