do you believe it is necessary to be in Communion with the See of Rome in order to have Salvation? Would you be surprised if I could produce statements from the late 1800's from the Roman Catholic Church that made this very statement? If they believed that then and you don't believe that no, would you consider that a 'doctrine' which they have broken away from in the past 200 years?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What do Baptists and Catholics have in common?
- Thread starter Peggy
- Start date
- Status
do you believe it is necessary to be in Communion with the See of Rome in order to have Salvation? Would you be surprised if I could produce statements from the late 1800's from the Roman Catholic Church that made this very statement? If they believed that then and you don't believe that no, would you consider that a 'doctrine' which they have broken away from in the past 200 years?
Here is the difference.
I belong to an IFB church. It is completely autonomous and doesn't belong to any denomination. We realize the urgency of the hour and believe that Christ is coming soon. And thus we do evangelize, but not for the purpose of "padding our church," but that souls may be won to Christ.
In this world today there are two major religions: the RCC and Islam, both of which number about a billion, and both of which have the goal of being the one world-wide church on this planet. Rome would like nothing more than to dominate this world. The same is true of Islam. They vie with each other.
Go back and check Protestant commentaries dating from the 20th century right back to the time of the Reformation. Their view of who "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH (Rev.17:5), is has been identified as the RCC, the pope in particular. Commentaries dating right back to the Reformation seem to be in one accord with this view.
Now as we view the political and religious landscape one doesn't know for sure. Most still believe it is the pope. But many believe it will be the leader of the Muslim religion. Whoever it will be, he is identified as the world leader of a one-world church. His word is law; his doctrine law. There will be no freedom of religion any longer. Evangelization into the RCC is no evangelization at all, for it is the spreading of a false gospel which Paul calls accursed. It is a message of works and not of grace, and those who follow it will certainly end up in Hell for salvation is by grace not by works.
But both the antichrist and the false prophet spoken of in Revelation 13 have no use for Jesus Christ and his gospel of grace. There will be no gospel at that time, only an intense hatred against Israel.
The RCC has been trying to bring the world under her umbrella for centuries. That is what the anti-christ will eventually do. She is playing the part well. Jesus is coming soon.
No doubt they are.
And the Jesuits are as well.
No other person on earth has entertained more political figures than the Pope, particularly the previous pope.
how about producing for the class statements from the Catechism of the Catholic Church...i'm sure you can produce some obscure 'soundbite' from the late 1800's, but let's just cut to the chase...
In XC
-
A simple search makes it very easy:
According to the RCC salvation is through the RCC and the RCC alone. It always has been.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist, in fact it doesn't take an elementary student to know that when the Catholic Church says "Church" it automatically means the Roman Catholic Church. Your lame rebuttal makes me :laugh: It is the RCC Catechism. Do you think it is speaking of the Protestant Church? Come now Agnus, surely you can do better than that?
No Baptist would ever say: My church is my mother!
again DHK post for the class what CCC 838 & 846 states...your good at coping and pasting or is that David Cloud doesn't have anything regarding CCC 838 & 846 for you to post...It doesn't take a rocket scientist, in fact it doesn't take an elementary student to know that when the Catholic Church says "Church" it automatically means the Roman Catholic Church. Your lame rebuttal makes me :laugh: It is the RCC Catechism. Do you think it is speaking of the Protestant Church? Come now Agnus, surely you can do better than that?
No Baptist would ever say: My church is my mother!
remember i'm catholic, but not 'Roman'...lol
In XC
-
Well, here is CCC 838
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/838.htm
and here is 846
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/846.htm
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/838.htm
and here is 846
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/846.htm
No, according to the RCC no one can be saved unless they are a part of the RCC. There is no salvation outside of the RCC. That is plainly written in the RCC Catechism just as it is written in every other statement of faith of every other cult.
1. There is no salvation outside of the J.W.'s according to them.
2. There is no salvation outside of the Mormon's according to them.
Most cults are very exclusive. There is no salvation outside of their cult, and the RCC is no different.
The key statement in that paragraph is this:
Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.
Key words:
--properly baptized.
--believed in Christ (what exactly is meant by this phrase, as the Muslims believe in Christ as well, and so do the J.W.'s)
History tells us that the RCC held a crusade against and massacred the Albigenses even though they believed in Christ and were "properly baptized."
They persecuted the Waldenses even unto death, for the same reasons.
And especially the Anabaptists, they put to death. Why? Because Ana-Baptist means to re-baptize or baptize again. The ire of the Catholics was great because others would dare to re-baptize converted Catholics, stating that their infant baptism was not valid because an infant cannot believe or repent. Of course they are correct. Many anabaptists were thus put to death.
So what does the RCC mean by "proper Baptism". No doubt it means "RCC baptism."
History demonstrates that it can't mean anything else but RCC baptism.
If that is the case, it seems strange that Catholics accept virtually all forms of Trinitarian baptism. If you have been baptized in the Baptist church, the Methodist church, the Church of Christ, the Presbyterian church, the Episcopal church, etc., etc., you may join the Catholic church without being rebaptized. They believe baptism is effective only once and that all these forms of baptism are valid. Thereforre, it would be futile and redundant to rebaptize anyone who has already been baptized. They will not accept the baptism of Mormans and J.W.'s, but they will accept just about every other form of baptism--sprinkling, pouring, immersion, believer's baptism or paedobaptism--as long as it is in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. So, just what do you mean by "RCC baptism?"
First, you would have to ask a RCC authority on the Catechism what their Catechism means by "properly baptized." I didn't write the Catechism; they did.
Secondly, if one goes by history "properly baptized" means only RCC baptism. Thousands, if not millions, were killed, murdered, because they were not properly baptized. Properly baptized, according to Catholic history, meant by the RCC only.
However, if that has changed, then the RCC has become ecumenical. It has dropped its doctrine, changed its doctrine on baptism. This is what I was referring to before in my discussion before on ecumenical doctrine. Doctrine must be sacrificed in order to accommodate the unity of other denominations. It is obvious then that the RCC has compromised its doctrine of baptism. It has become ecumenical in recent years in its attempt to draw all religions underneath its umbrella. That is its ultimate goal.
Their approach to baptism hasn't changed since antiquity. This has always been a part of Catholic doctrine, that baptism and holy matrimony are the only sacraments that don't need to be administered by a priest. I would direct your attention to the Original Catholic Encyclopaedia, published in 1913 (before Vatacan II). http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Baptism It is only Baptists, the Church of Christ and a few others who are suspicious of alien immersion. The Catholics did persecute the Anabaptists, but not because of their baptism outside the Catholic Church. It was rather because they attempted to reject their original baptism and, more significantly, because they were viewed to be spreading heresy and leading people away from the truth. Whether they actually were spreading heresy is open to debate but that is how Catholics viewed the Anabaptists.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Catholic Catechism must always be viewed through the eyes of the Catholic Church. Look at the quote and realize that every time "church" is used it is always in reference to her own church, that is the RCC.
There is no salvation outside the RCC.
There is no baptism but the RCC baptism.
The RCC baptism is the door to the church (salvation).
RCC baptism is equivalent to the new birth.
Without RCC baptism one cannot be born again.
With RCC baptism one is made a member of Christ and is incorporated into the Catholic Church. This last point is very clear in the above statement.
"There is no salvation outside the RCC.
There is no baptism but the RCC baptism.
The RCC baptism is the door to the church (salvation).
RCC baptism is equivalent to the new birth.
Without RCC baptism one cannot be born again."
You have been proven to be wrong, you just won't admit it. That is sad.
If, as you say, "there is no baptism but the RCC baptism", why was I not required to be re-baptized when I became Catholic?
The Catholic Church accepted my Baptist baptism as proper. Care to re-consider?
There is no baptism but the RCC baptism.
The RCC baptism is the door to the church (salvation).
RCC baptism is equivalent to the new birth.
Without RCC baptism one cannot be born again."
You have been proven to be wrong, you just won't admit it. That is sad.
If, as you say, "there is no baptism but the RCC baptism", why was I not required to be re-baptized when I became Catholic?
The Catholic Church accepted my Baptist baptism as proper. Care to re-consider?
Last edited by a moderator:
This quote is from The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, published by the Vatican on March 25, 19993. So DHK, you need to reevaluate your conclusion but you won't because you are a fundamentalist and fundamentalists know they are right about everything, notwithstanding overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
- Status