Roman Catholicism Does Not Hinder the Gospel

[D.R.R.]

Re: “Roman Catholicism Hinders the Gospel” by Greg Koukl (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/rc_hindr.htm)

Hello! The reasoning in Mr. Koukl’s article is extremely faulty.

I am not sure what Mr. Koukl used as his resources when he stated that the Church’s teaching before Vatican II was that all non-Catholics were damned to hell, for the Church’s teaching on salvation has always been the same. This teaching is that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, but this does not mean that all non-Catholics and non-Christians are destined for hell.

“And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way” (Ephesians 1: 22-23). Which church can this passage mean but the one which Christ founded himself, namely, the Catholic Church (“You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church”)? Since the Catholic Church, then, is the Body of Christ (this is undeniable), it must be the only way to Jesus Christ, and since Jesus Christ is the only way to God and therefore to salvation, it follows that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. The Church is universal (hence she is called Catholic), “the Church,” as Father John Laux, M.A., says in Catholic Apologetics, “ of Humanity.” This same book says:

“ ‘One God, one Christ, one Baptism, one Church.’ Just as there can be no second Christ, so there can be no second Body of Christ, no second manifestation of the Spirit of Christ. The exclusiveness of the Church is rooted in the exclusiveness of Christ, in His claim to be the Bringer of the New Life, the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”

As Christ Himself said, “If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”

As stated, this does not mean that non-Catholics and non-Christians cannot attain salvation. The non-Catholic Christian religions are not completely un-Catholic or anti-Catholic, for when they broke away from Rome they took with them some of the treasure of Catholic doctrine and some means of grace, especially the Sacrament of Baptism. According to Catholic teaching, when Baptism is administered by heretics (those who dissent with the Church on one or more articles of the Catholic faith) in the name of the Trinity, it is valid and meets the necessity of Baptism for salvation. “It is the Catholic element in these churches that enables them to be a means of grace and salvation” (Catholic Apologetics).

As for the non-Christian religions, such as Judaism and Islam, the Church teaches that, when non-Christians, through no fault of their own, do not know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, Baptism of Desire may replace the Baptism of Water that is available in the Catholic Church (and the other Christian religions). “A person who does not know the necessity of Baptism, but wishes to do all that is required for salvation, is said to have an implicit desire of Baptism. ‘Every one that loveth is born of God’ (1 John 4: 7)” (Catholic Apologetics).

Non-Catholics and non-Christians who, through no fault of their own, are unaware that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, belong invisibly to the Church and thus are saved through her.

This does not mean, however, that the Church teaches other religions are in accord with objective truth and that Catholics have no duty to evangelize non-Catholics and non-Christians. I regret that the priest on the talk show to which Mr. Koukl refers was not demonstrating the spirit of the Church when he told the Protestant caller not to speak to the Jewish rabbi about Jesus Christ. Neither was the nun when she spoke of learning about meditation from those in the East and in India. Those who know the Catholic Church to be the true Church to which God wills all men to belong cannot be saved: “All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it cannot be saved” (Baltimore Catechism No. 2). Non-Catholics and non-Christians must be in good faith in order to be saved.

Further, although non-Catholics and non-Christians may be saved, “yet they are deprived of the inestimable advantages enjoyed by Catholics. We must never forget that the Spirit of Christ, the practices which spring out of that spirit, the means appointed by Christ for the regeneration and salvation of mankind, are found in all their original purity, fullness and power in the Catholic Church, and in her alone.” Thus, Catholics are obligated to do all within their power to evangelize non-Catholics and non-Christians.

The Dalai Lama was wrong about a variety of religions being better than one religion. Truth is not relative. It is one and unchangeable, and anything contrary to it is contrary to the good of mankind. Mr. Koukl uses a brilliant analogy by comparing religion to a medicine rather than a food.

I hope this helps to clear up any misconceptions entertained by Mr. Koukl or his readers. I also recommend that Mr. Koukl read the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s “Declaration Dominus Iesus on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church,” which discusses the Catholic Church and salvation.

Also, when Mr. Koukl refers to the Church claiming to have the authority to interpret what the Scriptures mean, is it not only reasonable that Christ should grant the Church which he founded this infallible authority? We can no longer converse with Christ as the apostles could two thousand years ago. How else, then, can Christ teach us, now that he has ascended into heaven, save through a medium on this earth? And how could this medium be any other medium than the Church which he founded? To say that Christ would not leave the very Church which he founded with infallibility in teaching matters of faith and morals and in interpreting the Scriptures would be to accuse God of unreasonableness and thus of imperfection. To say that Christ does not have the power to endow his Body with infallibility is to accuse him of not being all-powerful and all-perfect and to deny one of his attributes. It merely makes sense, then, that the Catholic Church should be infallible in interpreting the Scriptures.

May God bless you all,
Derek Remus

Note: Catholic Apologetics and the Baltimore Catechism No. 2 were written before Vatican II. These books are a witness to the fact that the Church’s teaching on salvation did not change after the Second Vatican Council.

[ChrisChillin]

Welcome to TWeb, Derek!

This here Baptist always enjoys the company of his brother Catholics! Keep contending for the faith, and I'm glad that you're sticking to your guns about the RCC. That's a much better position, IMO, then wishy-washy Catholics who sidestep the fundamentals of their tradition.

[D.R.R.]

Thanks, ChrisChillin. I'll keep you in my prayers.

[Wesley's son]

DRR

Does the Catholic church teach universal salvation, that is everyone will be saved regardless of their relationship to Christ?

Is the purpose of evangelism, rather than saving folks from a road to hell, one of giving people earthly advantages or benefits?

Also, how did you refute the article? What I see in your post, presently, is an articulation, in Catholic jargon, of the present RCC position on universal salvation...basically a repeat of the material presented and condemmed in the article.

If I have misconstrued your message, please clue me in fully.

[D.R.R.]

I've been corresponding with others on Catholicism and Protestantism in the TheologyWeb Christianity 201 forum and on the Stand to Reason BBS. I don't know how many times I've apologized for my lack of promptness in replying to other messages. I'm extremely busy at the moment with two heavy duty courses. Anyway, you get the same apology from me. :haha:

1) No, the Catholic Church does not teach universal salvation. She teaches that a person must live a virtuous life, marked by faith and good works, and die in a state of sanctifying grace to attain salvation. Those who die in a state of mortal sin (which deprives us of sanctifying grace) merit hell.

Baltimore Catechism No. 2:

56. Q. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?

A. To make a sin mortal three things are necessary: a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will. . .

105. Q. What is sanctifying grace?

A. Sanctifying grace is that grace which makes the soul holy and pleasing to God.



2) The purpose of evangelizing non-Catholics to the Catholic faith is to give them the full truth. The Catholic Church alone possesses the fullness of the truth, being the Church that God founded. The Church is the missionary of truth to the world, but God alone judges who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Non-Catholics may be saved if they live a virtuous life by following their conscience (which must be a good conscience and which will inform them that there is a God and an after life). Even so, God still wishes all men to have the full truth. The Church teaches two truths which the human mind cannot completely fit together but which God can. These two TRUTHS are 1) that non-Catholics of good will can be saved and 2) that God wishes all men to be converted to the Catholic faith so that they may have the fullness of the TRUTH (pardon the pun, but it’s TRUE!). This is a mystery, just as the Trinity is a mystery, which man must believe through faith.

3) This is how I refuted the article.

“The second serious difference is the issue of authority. It underlies everything else because any theological view--like the doctrine of justification--is undergirded by a prior commitment to a certain authority. It isn't enough for a Protestant to quote Scripture on an issue. The trump card that Rome holds--this is their claim--is that they have the authority to tell you what the Scriptures actually mean” (“Roman Catholicism Hinders the Gospel). My original post contained proof of why the Church must possess an infallible authority in interpreting the Scriptures. The following biblical quotes also support the Church’s infallibility.

“Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Matt. 28, 20).

“I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth…But when He, the Spirit of truth is come, He will teach you all truth” (John 14, 16; 16, 13).

“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the CHURCH of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3, 15).

“When I was a kid I was taught that, without question, Protestants needed to become Catholics in order to be saved. Protestants didn't seem to qualify for the baptism of desire. They followed a false and damnable interpretation of Christianity. This was the case with the other world religions as well.” I pointed out that this was never the teaching of the Catholic Church. If this was a view held by some Catholics, it was a false view that did not represent the Church’s actual teaching.

Baptism of Desire is certainly not contrary to Scripture: ‘Every one that loveth is born of God’ (1 John 4: 7). This quote was used in my post.

“For example, the L.A. Times says, "The Dalai Lama's talks have been a high point of the conference. Deliberately avoiding debates on arcane doctrine, he asserted in sketchy but plain-spoken English that members of different religions should not try to convert one another, but rather exchange ideas, study each other's traditions and conduct pilgrimages to each other's shrines. 'I feel the variety of religion is much better,' said he. 'Look at the requirement of the body. More variety of food, much healthier.'" ” My post said that the Dalai Lama was wrong. Catholics have a duty to evangelize non-Catholics.

“This Roman Catholic teaching that other people are saved through their own religions--this teaching that Protestants must be silent and not annoy our Jewish friends with the gospel of Jesus Christ--is hindering us from spreading the gospel we've been commanded to communicate” (Roman Catholicism Hinders the Gospel). The Catholic Church does not teach “that other people are saved through their own religions.” She teaches that people from other religions can be saved, but through the Catholic Church, as articulated in my post.

“When Catholics discourage us from speaking this message, then they're enemies to the cross of Christ at that particular point. And if they're enemies to the cross of Christ, they cannot be the authoritative spokespersons for Christ on this earth at that particular point. They cannot be infallible, which is the most foundational teaching of Roman Catholic theology.” But the Catholic Church is not and will never be an enemy to the cross of Christ. Individual Catholics may be enemies to “the cross of Christ,” but the Church herself is not, for Christ founded her and is with her “all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Matt. 28, 20).

If you would like to know when the Church speaks infallibly, please see http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=292402&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=365&Author=&Keyword=Infallibility&pgnu=2&groupnum=0

I’ll add one point that I didn’t mention in my other post: I Thessalonians 2:15-16 does not mean that those without the fullness of the truth are damned to hell. Those whom Paul rebukes are rebuked for their sinful conduct (“…thus constantly filling up the measure of their sins…”), not for lacking the fullness of the truth. If a person, through no fault of his own, does not have access to the full truth, but leads a virtuous life by following his conscience (which must be a good conscience), he will be saved.

My post was not an articulation of universal salvation. In it I said, “Those who know the Catholic Church to be the true Church to which God wills all men to belong cannot be saved: ‘All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it cannot be saved’ (Baltimore Catechism No. 2). Non-Catholics and non-Christians must be in good faith in order to be saved.”

To summarize, the Catholic Church teaches that non-Catholics may be saved through the Catholic Church, but only if they live virtuously and do not die in a state of mortal sin. This teaching has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church. Mr. Koukl’s article presented the Church’s teaching as being something different and as being a new teaching.

I will pray for your conversion to the Catholic Church.

D.R.R.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

How can someone be saved through the Catholic Church?

It is the sacrifice of Jesus that saves someone.

dlw

[D.R.R.]

Love-Warrior,

Without doubt, Christ died on the cross for our sins and reopened the gates of heaven that had been shut because of the sin of our first parents. He is our Savior and Redeemer.

But He left us with the Catholic Church to continue His work of salvation amongst men, for the Church is His Mystical Body: “And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way” (Ephesians 1: 22-23). Thus, Christ saves us through the Catholic Church. How are non-Catholics and non-Christians saved through the Catholic Church and consequently through Christ?

The non-Catholic Christian religions are not completely un-Catholic or anti-Catholic, for when they broke away from Rome they took with them some of the treasure of Catholic doctrine and some means of grace, especially the Sacrament of Baptism. According to Catholic teaching, when Baptism is administered by heretics (those who dissent with the Church on one or more articles of the Catholic faith) in the name of the Trinity, it is valid and meets the necessity of Baptism for salvation. “It is the Catholic element in these churches that enables them to be a means of grace and salvation” (Catholic Apologetics).

As for the non-Christian religions, such as Judaism and Islam, the Church teaches that, when non-Christians, through no fault of their own, do not know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, Baptism of Desire may replace the Baptism of Water that is available in the Catholic Church (and the other Christian religions). “A person who does not know the necessity of Baptism, but wishes to do all that is required for salvation, is said to have an implicit desire of Baptism. ‘Every one that loveth is born of God’ (1 John 4: 7)” (Catholic Apologetics).

Non-Catholics and non-Christians who, through no fault of their own, are unaware that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, belong invisibly to the Church and thus are saved through her.

Thanks for your message.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

D.R.R.:
But He left us with the Catholic Church to continue His work of salvation amongst men, for the Church is His Mystical Body: “And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way” (Ephesians 1: 22-23). Thus, Christ saves us through the Catholic Church. How are non-Catholics and non-Christians saved through the Catholic Church and consequently through Christ?

I'm not sure I would interpret the developments of the Christian Church in a teleological fashion. Think about the institutionalization of anti-semitism. Think about how the rise of Islam reduced the centers of Christianity from four to one. Think about how Christianity has been nigh decimated in countries where Roman Catholic Christianity has been predominant. Of course, one could say similar things about countries where Lutheranism has been predominant, like Scandinavia or Germany.

The Church Catholic need not be associated with any particular ecclesiastical body.

The non-Catholic Christian religions are not completely un-Catholic or anti-Catholic, for when they broke away from Rome they took with them some of the treasure of Catholic doctrine and some means of grace, especially the Sacrament of Baptism. According to Catholic teaching, when Baptism is administered by heretics (those who dissent with the Church on one or more articles of the Catholic faith) in the name of the Trinity, it is valid and meets the necessity of Baptism for salvation. “It is the Catholic element in these churches that enables them to be a means of grace and salvation” (Catholic Apologetics).

Well, I imagine it would be the Christian element in these churches that enable them to be a means of grace and salvation, since the meaning of Catholic as taken from scripture and used by you can be argued as having shifted.

As for the non-Christian religions, such as Judaism and Islam, the Church teaches that, when non-Christians, through no fault of their own, do not know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, Baptism of Desire may replace the Baptism of Water that is available in the Catholic Church (and the other Christian religions). “A person who does not know the necessity of Baptism, but wishes to do all that is required for salvation, is said to have an implicit desire of Baptism. ‘Every one that loveth is born of God’ (1 John 4: 7)” (Catholic Apologetics).

Yes, I hold to a similar inclusivist position, though I would hold that one's relationship with God does not depend on having "right theology". However, we are still called to make disciples of all nations(though, this doesn't mean Swedish-Baptist-Pietists or Roman Catholic Christians of all nations) and it is only because of Jesus' atoning sacrifice that all can be reconciled to God.

However, theology and praxy are two different sides of the same coin and so reasoning about God is fundamental for us in reconsidering our received notions of how we should serve God in establishing the Kingdom of God. But theological reasoning has historically for Christianity been a means of trying to reconcile a faith in Aristotle with a faith in the Church. Theological reasoning has been or should be a reconciling of two world-views our received one with that of Yeshua of Nazareth. In this view, theology isn't the base for Christian Unity, since there are different possible received world-views that can be attempted to reconcile with the world-view of Yeshua.

Non-Catholics and non-Christians who, through no fault of their own, are unaware that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, belong invisibly to the Church and thus are saved through her.

Thanks for your message.

I am aware of the Catholic Church you are speaking of and I do not accept its ecclesiastical and soteriological claims. Does that mean I cannot be saved through her as you claim?

dlw

[Paul]

Let me make this simple.

The reason why everyone who is saved in the age of the Church is saved through her is because the ministry of reconciliation was entrusted to her and to her alone. It was not given to Islam. It was not given to any but Christ's one and only Bride and one and only mystical Body.

So when a non-Catholic Christian such as a Presbyterian is baptized as an infant or perhaps when she is an adult after hearing God's word, she is benefiting from the ministry of reconciliation which has been entrusted to the Church. This fact is reflected in the commentary on the ruling of the Holy See on Mormon "baptisms":

Even non-Catholics can validly administer Baptism. In every case, however, it is the Baptism of the Catholic Church, which does not belong to those who separate themselves from her but to the Church from which they have separated themselves (cf. Augustine, On Baptism 1, 12,9). This validity is possible because Christ is the true minister of the sacrament: Christ is the one who truly baptizes, whether it is Peter or Paul or Judas who baptizes (cf. Augustine, Treatise on the Gospel of John VI, 1,7; cf. CCC n. 1127). The Council of Trent, confirming this tradition, defined that Baptism administered by heretics in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does is true Baptism (cf. DH 1617).

So if a non-Catholic is saved through a ministry, it is by a ministry which belongs to the Church since Jesus Christ entrusted the Church with that ministry, the ministry of reconciliation -- which includes not just baptism and other sacraments but also things like the preaching of God's word.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Yes, but when you use "the Church", you refer to the RCChurch. A protestant would view "the Church" as the community of believers.

I agree that there has always been a need for hierarchy of some sort in Christianity, but I do not hold our traditions at the same level as scriptures, even though I affirm that we need both tradition and scriptures to inform how we let our lights shine in this world.

dlw

[Paul]

Today @ 08:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=332088#post332088)
Love-Warrior:

Yes, but when you use "the Church", you refer to the RCChurch. A protestant would view "the Church" as the community of believers.

I agree that there has always been a need for hierarchy of some sort in Christianity, but I do not hold our traditions at the same level as scriptures, even though I affirm that we need both tradition and scriptures to inform how we let our lights shine in this world.

dlw


The Church is the community or assembly -- but it cannot be reduced to that. The Church is the Bride and mystical Body of Christ. We act not separate from Him but in union with Him as extensions of His Body through time and space. We are the branches and He is the vine. And so if seek to separate ourselves from the vine, then we are separated from both Him and His Body. Jesus said to the apostles: he who hears you, hears me. The Word of God was preached. The Apostle Paul says to adhere to the traditions you have been taught whether by word of mouth or by letter. The supreme authority in the Church is nothing other than the Word of God Himself Who is Jesus Christ. According to the 1st chapter in the Gospel of John Jesus is the eternal Word. Also the same John teaches us that he who denies that Jesus is the Word made flesh is antichrist.

The Word of God is not something that can be circumscribed. It is not limited to a physical book. It is living; it is an encounter in the Spirit of God with the Word of God from the Father. Scripture says that the word of God does not return a void -- that it either melts the heart or causes it to harden.

We hold that what the Apostles taught -- whether in preaching or in writing -- is authoritative and is the Word of God. They were filled with the Holy Spirit and their words were the very words of Him. Some of this was committed to writing, but everything that we inherit from them -- whether passed down in written form or through preaching or liturgy -- is to be received with the reverence due to the Word of God -- even though only the bible is the written word of God in an inspired form.

When examining a "tradition" present in the Church Fathers, it is examined in light of the Word of God. No man-made tradition or opinion is held to be equal to the Word of God for no creature can be equal to the Father or his Eternal Word. And epistemologically, nothing can be trusted more than his Word. But the Council of Trent teaches that when there is a unanimous consent of the Fathers that this is a sure sign that what they are teaching is indeed something they have received from the Apostles and thus to be received as the Word of God.

Sometimes we confuse actual metaphysical authority with epistemolgical authority. The Word of God has a metaphysical authority which is infinitely greater than the authority of any creature -- even an angel from Heaven as St. Paul says -- even though we know angels from Heaven cannot lie. So you see there is a distinction made in the scriptures between epistemological authority and metaphysical authority. That distinction is invariably lost when discussions of the authority of the Church to proclaim the Word of God are discussed. The authority of the Church is not greater than the authority of the Word of God, but when the Church as Christ's Body proclaims the Word, then to the extent that she does so, it is the Father Himself who proclaims the Word and thus it is on His metaphysical authority that the proclamation of the Church gains epistemological authority as well as metaphysical authority in an instrumental way. Jesus says that the authority He has is from the Father and that the authority the Spirit has is from the Father.

[D.R.R.]

Thanks a heap, Paul. Good to run into you again.

Love-warrior, do you mean that there IS a church, founded by Christ, which is the only means of grace and salvation, and which possesses the complete Word of God in the forms of both Tradition and Scripture, but that this church is not the Catholic Church but the Christian church, composed of both the Catholic religion and the Protestant religions? Is this Protestant-Catholic church the Body of Christ referred to in the Bible?

D.R.R.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Paul:

The Church is the community or assembly -- but it cannot be reduced to that. The Church is the Bride and mystical Body of Christ. We act not separate from Him but in union with Him as extensions of His Body through time and space. We are the branches and He is the vine. And so if seek to separate ourselves from the vine, then we are separated from both Him and His Body. Jesus said to the apostles: he who hears you, hears me. The Word of God was preached. The Apostle Paul says to adhere to the traditions you have been taught whether by word of mouth or by letter. The supreme authority in the Church is nothing other than the Word of God Himself Who is Jesus Christ. According to the 1st chapter in the Gospel of John Jesus is the eternal Word. Also the same John teaches us that he who denies that Jesus is the Word made flesh is antichrist.

The Word of God is not something that can be circumscribed. It is not limited to a physical book. It is living; it is an encounter in the Spirit of God with the Word of God from the Father. Scripture says that the word of God does not return a void -- that it either melts the heart or causes it to harden.

We hold that what the Apostles taught -- whether in preaching or in writing -- is authoritative and is the Word of God. They were filled with the Holy Spirit and their words were the very words of Him. Some of this was committed to writing, but everything that we inherit from them -- whether passed down in written form or through preaching or liturgy -- is to be received with the reverence due to the Word of God -- even though only the bible is the written word of God in an inspired form.

When examining a "tradition" present in the Church Fathers, it is examined in light of the Word of God. No man-made tradition or opinion is held to be equal to the Word of God for no creature can be equal to the Father or his Eternal Word. And epistemologically, nothing can be trusted more than his Word. But the Council of Trent teaches that when there is a unanimous consent of the Fathers that this is a sure sign that what they are teaching is indeed something they have received from the Apostles and thus to be received as the Word of God.

Sometimes we confuse actual metaphysical authority with epistemolgical authority. The Word of God has a metaphysical authority which is infinitely greater than the authority of any creature -- even an angel from Heaven as St. Paul says -- even though we know angels from Heaven cannot lie. So you see there is a distinction made in the scriptures between epistemological authority and metaphysical authority. That distinction is invariably lost when discussions of the authority of the Church to proclaim the Word of God are discussed. The authority of the Church is not greater than the authority of the Word of God, but when the Church as Christ's Body proclaims the Word, then to the extent that she does so, it is the Father Himself who proclaims the Word and thus it is on His metaphysical authority that the proclamation of the Church gains epistemological authority as well as metaphysical authority in an instrumental way. Jesus says that the authority He has is from the Father and that the authority the Spirit has is from the Father.

That was very metaphysical.

I'm afraid that I am a rather empirically-oriented person by training and the above fails to account for the failure of the RCChurch where it has been predominant. Its continued vivancy in your life has been based on its role that it played helping Catholics here in the US where they arrived with nothing and faced discrimination due to their non-Protestant beliefs.

It fails to account for how the RCChurch operates in practice with a very tight control of the positions of most influence and Church leaders tragically protecting child-abusing priests and discouraging the inter-mixing of more democratic ways of making decisions or allowing for priests to marry, as is allowed in Eastern Catholicism, since the vow of celibacy was mandated during a time when nepotism was endemic within Church leadership.

Here's my account, I think that the precise manner in which we as communities of believers should organizer ourselves is not given to us as a blue-print and depends upon our experiences. I believe we were totally unprepared for having the demands of government thrown upon us not too long after Constantine's conversion. When Christianity became the official religion of Rome, too many not-so-sincere-types converted and how we should proceed became less-clear. Too many potential Church-leaders, missing the straight forward days of martyrdom under the Roman Empire, went off to become White Martyrs.

The failure of Church Leadership, permitted anti-semitism to be institutionalized in the Church, particular its Byzantine branch. This antisemitism turned off a young new theist named Mohammed from Christianity. Mohammed then ended up starting his own religion(although based on the records of Jews from when he arrive triumphant in Jerusalem it seems likely that he did not intend to start a new religion, but rather advocated a Judaism for Arabs!). In the process of doing so, he reduced the centers of Christianity from four to one, Rome. The Donation of Constantine was a forgery and the doctrine of Petrine Supremacy is contested, since as I understand it Peter is associated with pebble, while this rock upon which the Church was built was more likely referring to himself.

At any rate, the concentration of ecclesiastical leadership of Rome over Christianity stems in part from the rise of Islam. If Mohammed had become a Christian evangelist then the history of Christianity would have been quite different.

For as a Catholic, Lord Acton, said, "Power tends to Corrupt, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely."

The Protestant-Catholic Schism, IMU, started off not that radically different from the cyclical behavior of Christianity. I.e., there would be stagnation from corruption and then from somewhere there would come a movement for reform from within, which would prevail and then with passing generations itself be corrupted causing further attempts at reform to arise.

The biggest difference was that the Protestant-Catholic Schism arose at the same time as there was an economic divergence between Northern and Southern Europe. And, so it got coupled with a movement for tax-reform and, of course, northern nobles/kiings wanted to appropriate Church lands, while the Pope wanted to keep on building more gold-ceiling layered Churches and paying for more systine ceilings, even though the tithe-raising system for paying for all that was extremely corrupt.

As a result, we get the schism, ravaging wars and much appropriation of Church lands and, very importantly, a sever loss of Church autonomy from the State.

As I mentioned before, I think, many Protestants then came to conflate their traditions with scripture, while IMO the RCChurch raised their traditions to being on par with scripture. This led to much divisiveness among Protestants, which was mitigated some in the US from the 19th Ctry revivals. It also led to the RCChurch becoming a force against progress in many RCCountries. After all, traditions being on par with scripture couldn't change, otherwise, they would have to admit that Protestant Churches were also Christian Churches despite their rather different traditions.

At any rate, in both Protestant and Catholic situations, you got a loss of autonomy. Protestants by supporting the translation of scriptures into the vernacular helped encourage a renaissance of sorts, whereby the languages were developed more and a wider range of the population acquired some literacy. In England, somewhat more autonomy for the Church was preserved, in part due to the sacrifice of Catholics like Thomas More.

But my point is that how we structure ecclesiastical governance in our Churches matters since that is how we decide collectively how we will let our lights shine in this world. Individually, we are fallible in this regard, just a John-Paul was fallible, IMO, in his opposition to GWII or the liberation theologians here in Latin-America were fallible in their endorsement of radical, destabiling political/economic changes. However, collectively, we are more likely to decide on actions that are right. Hence, the need to seek out ways to reconcile the need for hierarchy and democracy in how we make decisions.

Anyways, that's how I see things. The loss of autonomy between Church(es) and State(s) following the 30 year war led to the decline of Christianity in Europe. Christianity remained alive in the US because there was autonomy in the past. However, with the cultural wars looming so large nowadays, religious conservatives have become aligned too closely to the Republican Party, which is for the most part dominated by economic conservatives like Arnold Schwarzenegger who tend to be social libertarians. Our failure to reconsider/ongoingly deliberate regarding how best we should spend our political capital has impugned our public witness and encouraged a significant sector of the US to fall away from Christianity altogether.

To deal with this situation, the answer isn't to revert to the pre-Protestant-Catholic-Schism ecclesiastical governance structures.
dlw

[Paul]

Today @ 03:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=337946#post337946)
Love-Warrior:

It fails to account for how the RCChurch operates in practice with a very tight control of the positions of most influence

Could you be more specific? Do you know how many theologians have been publically excommunicated by the Church in say the last 20 years? Given that number, how do you maintain that the control is "very tight." What I hear from Catholics (from those who are faithful to the magisterium) is that the "control" is not "tight" enough

and Church leaders tragically protecting child-abusing priests

Which Church leaders are you referring to? Please name them and document your charges.

and discouraging the inter-mixing of more democratic ways of making decisions

Jesus Christ did not establish a democracy. Listening to what members of the Church have to say is supported by the hiearchy. In the CIC it actually speaks of not only the right of the faithful but the duty of the faithful to make known to their pastors what they understand to be God's will. Lay persons are often included in various meetings of the pope and bishops. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the teachings of St Benedict or the role of St Catherine in convincing the pope to go back to Rome.

or allowing for priests to marry, as is allowed in Eastern Catholicism, since the vow of celibacy was mandated during a time when nepotism was endemic within Church leadership.

Your interpretation of history is wrong. And you have your facts wrong about Eastern Catholicism. Priests are not permitted to marry in Eastern Catholic Churches. What is a permitted is for the already married to be ordained priests.

since as I understand it Peter is associated with pebble, while this rock upon which the Church was built was more likely referring to himself.

Your understanding is wrong. I know of no translation wich translates Peter as "pebble" or which has a textual note which identifies Peter as "pebble." But perhaps they are out there. The ESV, an evangelical Protestant translation has this footnote:

Peter sounds like the Greek word for rock

Can you even imagine Jesus saying to Simon: "You are Pebble, and on this rock, I will build my Church"? Maybe from your perpsective this makes perfect sense.

For as a Catholic, Lord Acton, said, "Power tends to Corrupt, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely."

The pope does not have absolute power.

Individually, we are fallible in this regard, just a John-Paul was fallible, IMO, in his opposition to GWII or the liberation theologians here in Latin-America were fallible in their endorsement of radical, destabiling political/economic changes.

The doctrine of papal infallibilty does not entail that JPII is infallible wrt to his "opppostion to GWII."

[D.R.R.]

Love-warrior, could you answer my above question when you get a chance? Thanks.

D.R.R.

[Director of Homeland Security Ryan Dallion]

Paul when you say Eastern Catholicism do you mean Eastern Orthodoxy or do you mean Uniates?:offtopic:

[spl_cadet]

Uniates.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I will reply sometime this coming week.

I gotta finish some grading now.

dlw

[D.R.R.]

OK. Thanks.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

D.R.R.:

Love-warrior, do you mean that there IS a church, founded by Christ, which is the only means of grace and salvation, and which possesses the complete Word of God in the forms of both Tradition and Scripture, but that this church is not the Catholic Church but the Christian church, composed of both the Catholic religion and the Protestant religions? Is this Protestant-Catholic church the Body of Christ referred to in the Bible?

D.R.R.

I think the only means of Grace and Salvation is from God. I think that the temporal ecclesiastical authorities, both protestant and catholic, are meant to serve that God, but do so fallibly and that communion with them is not necessary or sufficient to have the relationship with God that provides assent to accepting Jesus' atoning sacrifice for our sins. I do also believe that the traditions and scriptures of Christianity provide a fuller truth that is of value in our cultivation of how we choose to let our lights shine in this world in a creative manner that serves to glorify God. The Church exists and it does serve as the Body of Christ on this planet, but our history of failure confirms that we are not teleologically led by the holy spirit in choosing how we let our lights shine. All this, despite having the word of God shared with us.

IMO, RCCatholicism and others have generally done a better job of holding on to the importance of tradition and maintaining continuity with past teachings of the past clouds of witnesses and institutions that encapsulate meaningful religious experiences such as the Catholic ceremony of mass. They also have generally maintained more intellectual capital that has helped them avoid intellectual quagmires like YECvsEvolution that poorer, divided protestant groups have fallen into in the past.

Protestants have done a better job of maintaining more autonomy from the State, historically, and encouraging a less hierarchical structure of its ecclesiastical governance. It has encourage all of its believers to seek to try and study and understand the scriptures better. The concept of priesthood of the believers has long been a faith-statement in the ability of all believers to make normative judgements as to what is right conduct. In this view, it is the role of the intellectual to set out the range of possible options as simply and completely as is feasible to facilitate governance and leadership serves to maintain solidarity in chosen courses and civility and transparency in discussions over how we might do things differently.

I hope this answers your question.

dlw

[D.R.R.]

Re Mary: Catholics do not worship Mary (that would be idolatry, which the Catholic Church firmly condemns) and they are not obligated to pray to her.

Catholics merely honor Mary just as Christ honored her by allowing Himself to be conceived in her womb and by His filial obedience to her unto His death. When we honor Mary, we are merely imitating Christ and upholding Scripture, which calls her blessed:

Luke 1:41-42
"When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And she cried out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!"

"And coming to her, [Gabriel] said, 'Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you . . . Do not be afraid Mary, for you have found favor with God" (Luke 1: 28, 30).

We honor Mary because of our greater honor for Christ. She is Christ's Mother and through her holiness she reflects Christ's holiness.

We don't have to pray to Mary, but we should. It is extremely wise to do so. Because she was the mother of God, God allowed her to be conceived without original sin and to avoid actual sin completely throughout her life. In other words, she was entirely sinless; she is therefore the perfect imitation of Christ and the perfect model of holiness. Through devotion to her, we may become holier and may imitate her profound love of Christ. As the Mother of Christ, she intercedes between us and God and can gain for us innumerable blessings. Note that all blessings which we receive through Mary's intercession come from God.

Re "Sola Scriptura": If Sola Scriptura is true, where does it say "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible?

God bless you. I will pray that all of you convert to the Catholic Church.

Yours in Christ,
D.R.R.

[D.R.R.]

Sorry, I accidentally posted this last message in the wrong forum.

[D.R.R.]

Your argument, then, is

1) that the Body of Christ is all of the Christian religions, but that this Body of Christ is not a means of grace and salvation. God Himself is the only means of grace and salvation. The Catholic Church and the Protestant religions cannot be a means of grace and salvation because of the persecution they have suffered and because of the corruption of some of their members. Although it does not possess the fullness of the truth, Christianity helps us to understand the truth more fully to a certain extent. This is the purpose of Christianity, the Body of Christ.

2) The Catholic Church needs to be more democratic and less hierarchical in order to be doing what God really wants her to be doing. History has proved the failure of the Catholic Church's hierarchical structure.

Have I understood your argument correctly?

D.R.R.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

D.R.R.:
1) that the Body of Christ is all of the Christian religions, but that this Body of Christ is not a means of grace and salvation. God Himself is the only means of grace and salvation. The Catholic Church and the Protestant religions cannot be a means of grace and salvation because of the persecution they have suffered and because of the corruption of some of their members. Although it does not possess the fullness of the truth, Christianity helps us to understand the truth more fully to a certain extent. This is the purpose of Christianity, the Body of Christ.

That's a different way of putting it. Catholic and Protestant Church(es) cannot be a means of grace and salvation because it is Jesus' death and resurrection that make these possible. The latter are fallible ecclesiastical institutions through which we organize how we worship, preach and teach and how we collectively seek to let our lights shine for the world. They are also through which we cultivate our traditions which are repositories of insights of believers from the past on what is right conduct and theological deliberation.

2) The Catholic Church needs to be more democratic and less hierarchical in order to be doing what God really wants her to be doing. History has proved the failure of the Catholic Church's hierarchical structure.

IMO, the RCChurch's hierarchical ecclesiastical structure is more likely a cultural accumulation from the Roman Empire rather than based on principles passed down from Jesus through the disciples in an oral tradition that should be held on par with scripture. How we organize our decision-making, whether our Church is Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox or the Christianities starting in Asia and Africa or elsewhere in the world, is open to learning from experience, whether it be secular or sacred institutions. There are some important principles and guidelines set down by Paul for the early Churches, but they are not exhaustive.

But yeah, you probably condensed down my points better than I did. I may think I'm being more nuanced but I'm probably just being more verbose. :doh:

Merry Christmas,

dlw

[D.R.R.]

By the way, the Roman Catholic Church is not the same as the Catholic Church. The RCC Church is a rite of the Catholic Church, along with other rites, such as the Byzantine rite. All of these rites have the same beliefs. They are not different churches, but different rites of the same Church. Thus, all possess the fullness of the truth and all are the same instrument of grace and salvation.

12-08-2003 @ 10:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=331298#post331298)
Love-Warrior:

Well, I imagine it would be the Christian element in these churches that enable them to be a means of grace and salvation, since the meaning of Catholic as taken from scripture and used by you can be argued as having shifted.



Here you seemed to be saying that some churches are instruments of grace and salvation. This contradicts what you have said, however, about no church being a means of grace and salvation.

But to continue from where we left off with our last two posts:

1) So if neither the Catholic Church nor the Protestant churches are instruments of grace and salvation because of the suffering and persecution they have endured throughout history, then if they WERE instruments of grace and salvation they would be free from all suffering and persecution and would be accepted by all mankind. It follows from this argument that if Christ is the means of grace and salvation, then His life was free from all suffering and persecution and He was accepted by all mankind. But that was not the case. He was tortured, ridiculed, abandoned, and killed. So if Christ is the means of grace and salvation and he suffered, then there is now reason why His Church should not be the means of grace and salvation if it suffers. Please note that it IS Christ who accomplishes the work of grace and salvation amongst humankind; the Catholic Church is merely His INSTRUMENT in doing so. And that's what we mean when we say that the Catholic Church is the only means of grace and salvation. (And of course, it must be the Catholic Church and not any other Christian church that is the only means of grace and salvation since Christ founded the Catholic Church and no other Christian church.)

Christ showed us that suffering has a higher purpose than we think. Since He suffered, we can unite our suffering to His suffering and serve His greater glory. Christ's act of allowing Himself to suffer for our sake was an act of complete selflessness and love (why else would He suffer so much?). So when we suffer (not for the sake of suffering itself, but for the sake of Christ), we are returning His selflessness and love. As Mother Teresa said, "Suffering brings us closer to Christ." St. Paul saw value in suffering: "Not only that, but we even boast of our afflictions, knowing that affliction produces endurance, and endurance, proven character, and proven character, hope, and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy Spirit that has been given to us" (Romans 5: 3-5).

As for the corruption of some of the Catholic Church's members, please read this:

"The Catholic Church here on earth is not a company of celestial beings, but a society of mortal men, struggling amid the storm and stress of life...

"Divine grace and human weakness--here are the materials out of which the Christian life is built up in this world...

"With a favoring wind and a stout-hearted crew, with well-trimmed sails, and skillful hands at the helm, the ship glides smoothly enough over the waves. But if the seas run high, and a gale is blowing, if the crew turns mutinous, and the rudder snaps, and yet, in spite of it all, the vessel comes safely into port at last, then indeed men hail it as a miracle.

"The fact that the Catholic Church has survived the storms of the centuries, that she lives on despite the human infirmities of her rulers and her members, is the clearest proof that her origin is divine" (Tilmann Pesch, S.J., Christian Philosophy of Life, St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., p. 616).

The Catholic Church has two elements: human and divine. It is because of her divine element that she is able to be God's instrument of grace and salvation. Also, the Catholic Church is composed not only of the souls here on earth (the pilgrim church), but also of the suffering souls in purgatory (the suffering church) and the triumphant souls in heaven (the triumphant church). Heaven is the reward of those who bear their suffering patiently and unite it to that of Christ.

St. Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." Good has and will come out of the evil which the Catholic Church has suffered and will suffer. God has a divine plan for the whole world, His Church being the means of salvation for the whole world. This is salvation history.

2) Even if it seems that nothing good has come out of the Church's hierarchical structure, we must accept her hierarchy as what Christ wants because that's what Christ instituted, not a democracy. The Holy Spirit guides the Church and allows good to come out of the evil she endures. Christ did not have the apostles elected; He appointed them. He instituded the Church as a collegial body. All of the apostles were bishops. Peter, Bishop of Rome, was head over all of them. Christ instituted Peter as the first pope, as His vicar, as the visible Head of the Church on earth. "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16: 18-19). Hence, Christ instituted His Church with a hierarchical structure.

To conclude, Christ suffered; therefore it is only normal for His Church to suffer. The suffering of the Church does not mean that she is not God's only means of grace and salvation, however. Christ did not institute a democracy; He instituted a hierarchy, and a hierarchy is what we have to accept.

12-08-2003 @ 10:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=331298#post331298)
Love-Warrior:

I am aware of the Catholic Church you are speaking of and I do not accept its ecclesiastical and soteriological claims. Does that mean I cannot be saved through her as you claim?

dlw

If you die in a state of sanctifying grace and are saved, then you will be saved through the Catholic Church. Even if, through no fault of your own, you do not believe this Church to be the true church, and even if, in good faith, you fight against her, you will still be saved through her. You will belong INVISIBLY to the Catholic Church.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! May God fill you with blessings during this holy season. I will pray for your conversion to the Catholic Church.

D.R.R.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

D.R.R.:

By the way, the Roman Catholic Church is not the same as the Catholic Church. The RCC Church is a rite of the Catholic Church, along with other rites, such as the Byzantine rite. All of these rites have the same beliefs. They are not different churches, but different rites of the same Church. Thus, all possess the fullness of the truth and all are the same instrument of grace and salvation.

What is a rite? I would never call the organization of ecclesiastical governance something like that...

Here you seemed to be saying that some churches are instruments of grace and salvation. This contradicts what you have said, however, about no church being a means of grace and salvation.

I did not say that no church was a means of grace and salvation. I said that Grace and Salvation are possible due to Christ's sacrifice and no church has the franchise in this regard and that how we should let our light shine for the world should be based on our experiences, not just scripture or received traditions, which themselves embody, ideally-speaking, past experiences.

But to continue from where we left off with our last two posts:

1) So if neither the Catholic Church nor the Protestant churches are instruments of grace and salvation because of the suffering and persecution they have endured[read caused!] throughout history, then if they WERE instruments of grace and salvation they would be free from all suffering and persecution and would be accepted by all mankind.

I'm sorry but this is convoluted.

It follows from this argument that if Christ is the means of grace and salvation, then His life was free from all suffering and persecution and He was accepted by all mankind. But that was not the case. He was tortured, ridiculed, abandoned, and killed. So if Christ is the means of grace and salvation and he suffered, then there is now reason why His Church should not be the means of grace and salvation if it suffers. Please note that it IS Christ who accomplishes the work of grace and salvation amongst humankind; the Catholic Church is merely His INSTRUMENT in doing so. And that's what we mean when we say that the Catholic Church is the only means of grace and salvation. (And of course, it must be the Catholic Church and not any other Christian church that is the only means of grace and salvation since Christ founded the Catholic Church and no other Christian church.)

Christ is the rock on which the Church Catholic is founded. I think you are confounding how our disagreement stems over what you have termed above as "rites".

You also have obfuscated how my previous arguments stem more from how the Catholic Church(and its various rites) have historically been the direct perpetrators of suffering on the account of others. I have said nothing to the account that we shouldn't suffered, but I'll tell you this, my French Huguenot ancestors suffered more than the Catholics that massacred them on St Bartholomew's day.

Christ showed us that suffering has a higher purpose than we think. Since He suffered, we can unite our suffering to His suffering and serve His greater glory. Christ's act of allowing Himself to suffer for our sake was an act of complete selflessness and love (why else would He suffer so much?). So when we suffer (not for the sake of suffering itself, but for the sake of Christ), we are returning His selflessness and love. As Mother Teresa said, "Suffering brings us closer to Christ." St. Paul saw value in suffering: "Not only that, but we even boast of our afflictions, knowing that affliction produces endurance, and endurance, proven character, and proven character, hope, and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy Spirit that has been given to us" (Romans 5: 3-5).

Fine, but this is totally besides the point I was making.

As for the corruption of some of the Catholic Church's members, please read this:

"The Catholic Church here on earth is not a company of celestial beings, but a society of mortal men, struggling amid the storm and stress of life...

"Divine grace and human weakness--here are the materials out of which the Christian life is built up in this world...

"With a favoring wind and a stout-hearted crew, with well-trimmed sails, and skillful hands at the helm, the ship glides smoothly enough over the waves. But if the seas run high, and a gale is blowing, if the crew turns mutinous, and the rudder snaps, and yet, in spite of it all, the vessel comes safely into port at last, then indeed men hail it as a miracle.

"The fact that the Catholic Church has survived the storms of the centuries, that she lives on despite the human infirmities of her rulers and her members, is the clearest proof that her origin is divine" (Tilmann Pesch, S.J., Christian Philosophy of Life, St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., p. 616).

The fact that the Catholic Church is strongest where it is a minority or politically persecuted and denied its historic bed-sharing with those in power is evidence that the "human infirmities" that have so corrupted its rulers and members shows the importance of not being dogmatic with regard to ecclesiology. There may be economies of scale in the preservation, transmission and creative interpretation of tradition, but the "rites" by which we govern ourselves are subject to change and different approaches.

The Catholic Church has two elements: human and divine. It is because of her divine element that she is able to be God's instrument of grace and salvation. Also, the Catholic Church is composed not only of the souls here on earth (the pilgrim church), but also of the suffering souls in purgatory (the suffering church) and the triumphant souls in heaven (the triumphant church). Heaven is the reward of those who bear their suffering patiently and unite it to that of Christ.

these divine elements also exist in denominations other than those you listed...

St. Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." Good has and will come out of the evil which the Catholic Church has suffered and will suffer. God has a divine plan for the whole world, His Church being the means of salvation for the whole world. This is salvation history.

Which is why this is the best of all possible worlds!
Sure, God can use sinners, but so can Satan! We do have free-will and the future is not predetermined and our past-choices have had an impact on the development of Christianity. The failures of the Church Catholic stem from the failures of its governance. An important aspect of that free-will is how we go about choosing our leaders and making decisions that affect us, both in the secular and ecclesiastical decision-making bodies.

2) Even if it seems that nothing good has come out of the Church's hierarchical structure, we must accept her hierarchy as what Christ wants because that's what Christ instituted, not a democracy.

Christ did not institute how we should govern ourselves. Willy-nilly, it will combine aspects of hierarchy and democracy, but the right combination will be a product of our experiences and deliberations on the relevant passages and traditions/experiences.

The Holy Spirit guides the Church and allows good to come out of the evil she endures. Christ did not have the apostles elected; He appointed them. He instituded the Church as a collegial body. All of the apostles were bishops. Peter, Bishop of Rome, was head over all of them. Christ instituted Peter as the first pope, as His vicar, as the visible Head of the Church on earth. "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16: 18-19). Hence, Christ instituted His Church with a hierarchical structure.

No ecclesiastical governance-body is teleologically guided by the Holy Spirit.

The exact meaning of the above passage is subject to contention. Was the you singular or plural? Was the rock(peter) the same as the rock on which the Church would be built?

There also is the historical fact that the rite of the RCC's leadership fabricated the donation of Constantine to grab secular power for itself. It must have been one of those sinful acts meaning to serve the greater good to lie with such fraud in order to amass so much political power within the Church.

To conclude, Christ suffered; therefore it is only normal for His Church to suffer. The suffering of the Church does not mean that she is not God's only means of grace and salvation, however. Christ did not institute a democracy; He instituted a hierarchy, and a hierarchy is what we have to accept.

The Church has suffered, but the issue is the suffering it caused, not endured. Christ did not institute either a pure democracy or a pure hierarchy. Ecclesiology is open to learning from experience, not a way to rationalize the existing forms of governance.

If you die in a state of sanctifying grace and are saved, then you will be saved through the Catholic Church. Even if, through no fault of your own, you do not believe this Church to be the true church, and even if, in good faith, you fight against her, you will still be saved through her. You will belong INVISIBLY to the Catholic Church.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! May God fill you with blessings during this holy season. I will pray for your conversion to the Catholic Church.

D.R.R.

I do not know how precisely you define the Catholic Church, since you are vague as such and how it is distinct from the rites mentioned earlier, but I do believe I am already a member of the Church Catholic and will pray that we can both exert our energies on constructively critiquing the existing ecclesiastical institutions of our respective rites we belong to.

dlw

[Jude3b]

The teaching that the Roman Catholic Religion has existed since the time of Jesus, that the line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession to Peter himself and that Romanism is the one true church is all a lie.
This "one true church" doctrine is traced by Roman Catholicism to one verse of Scripture, which, when compared with other Scriptures, is found not to teach these false doctrines at all. When Jesus asked his disciples who He was, Peter responded: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." (Matthew 16:16). The first time the church is mentioned in the Bible is in Matthew 16:18, where Jesus said to Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Roman Catholicism contends that the Lord was referring to Peterr as the rock, and has since built the entire Roman Catholic religion upon that premise. But all other pertinent Scriptures declare that Jesus was referring to Himself as the rock, not Peter: "And did all drink the same spiritual drin: for they drank of that spiritiual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (I Corinthians 10:4). See also Ephesians 2:20, Psalm 118:22, Acts 4:10-11, I Peter 2:7, Psalm 18:31, Deuteronomy 32:3-4, Psalm 62:1-2, Psalm 94:22, Col. 1:18, Eph. 1:22 and Eph. 4:15.
Of course Roman Catholics and most other denominations are in error about the nature of the church, because they confuse denominationalism with the Bible church of God. The biblical "church" is not a denomination or a religion at all. The Greek word for church is "ekklesia" (which is used 114 times in the New Testament) and it means "the called out assembly (Ek= out of, Kaleo= to call). The word church is never used as a building or denomination or to describe Roman Catholicism in the Bible. The church is a living spiritual organism, composed of all believers on earth and in heaven. Every truly born-again believer in Christ is part of the church. So the church is literally "a called out assembly" of believers in Jesus Christ.
My friends, according to Scripture, it doesn't matter if the Roman Catholic Religion or any other group for that matter, has accepted you or not. If your faith is in the true Jesus Christ alone, then He has already accepted you. Should we be a Roman Catholic or a Christian? The answer to this question will be determined by which we choose to believe...the traditions of men, or God's Holy Word. Jesus asked the Pharisees a question, which all Roman Catholics should ponder: "Whydo ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" (Matthew 15:3)
In Christian Love, I remain, yours in the Master's Service,
John P. Hansen, The Christian Contender at Jude 3b

[spl_cadet]

Roman Catholicism contends that the Lord was referring to Peterr as the rock, and has since built the entire Roman Catholic religion upon that premise. But all other pertinent Scriptures declare that Jesus was referring to Himself as the rock, not Peter: "And did all drink the same spiritual drin: for they drank of that spiritiual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (I Corinthians 10:4). See also Ephesians 2:20, Psalm 118:22, Acts 4:10-11, I Peter 2:7, Psalm 18:31, Deuteronomy 32:3-4, Psalm 62:1-2, Psalm 94:22, Col. 1:18, Eph. 1:22 and Eph. 4:15.

1. Peter, both in Aramaic (what Jesus and the apostles spoke) and in Koine Greek (what the NT was written in), means rock.
2. It is completely ungrammatical to assume that Christ was referring to Himself, when He had just named Peter "rock."



Of course Roman Catholics and most other denominations are in error about the nature of the church, because they confuse denominationalism with the Bible church of God. The biblical "church" is not a denomination or a religion at all. The Greek word for church is "ekklesia" (which is used 114 times in the New Testament) and it means "the called out assembly (Ek= out of, Kaleo= to call). The word church is never used as a building or denomination or to describe Roman Catholicism in the Bible. The church is a living spiritual organism, composed of all believers on earth and in heaven. Every truly born-again believer in Christ is part of the church. So the church is literally "a called out assembly" of believers in Jesus Christ.

Completely correct, but you are ignorant of Catholic theology. The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ.

[Jude3b]

Dear Friend: You might consider me completely ignorant of Roman Catholic Theology. However, I did pay attention a little bit, all those years that Roman Catholocism attempted to brainwash me with their false theology - while I attended their schools. That is not the important issue. Pray tel, what makes you think that your Roman Catholic religion is "the body of Christ?" There is no Roman Catholic religion in the Bible. In the Bible the church is called "church of God" seven times; twice it is called "the churches of God," once "the church of the firstborn," and once "the churches of Christ." It is never called "Roman Catholic!" Are you ignorant of these Bible facts? How about:
The followers of Christ being called "Christians" (Acts 11:26b), "Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5), "saints" (Philippians 1:1), "believers" (I Tim. 4:12), and so on? The followers of Christ, the body of Christ, are never called Roman Catholics in the Bible.
If you believe what God says in His Word, you'll have to agree that the Roman Catholic Religion is not the body of Christ and it is not the Biblical church of God. Now, some Roman Catholics do place their trust in Christ alone (just like I did) and they become members of the church of God, the body of Christ by virtue of the new birth (see Acts 2:47). On the other hand if you prefer not to believe God and His Word and prefer to trust your Roman Catholic leaders and their theology, then God must be wrong. Are you really willing to accept that God is wrong and your popes and bishops are right? As for me and my house, we will servie the Lord! In Christian love, I remain, yours in the Master's service, John P. Hansen, The Christian Contender at Jude 3b

[spl_cadet]

Dear Friend: You might consider me completely ignorant of Roman Catholic Theology. However, I did pay attention a little bit, all those years that Roman Catholocism attempted to brainwash me with their false theology - while I attended their schools. That is not the important issue. Pray tel, what makes you think that your Roman Catholic religion is "the body of Christ?" There is no Roman Catholic religion in the Bible. In the Bible the church is called "church of God" seven times; twice it is called "the churches of God," once "the church of the firstborn," and once "the churches of Christ." It is never called "Roman Catholic!" Are you ignorant of these Bible facts? How about:

1. Debating completely by semantics is sheer idiocy.
2. It is called Roman Catholic for two reasons:
a. It is catholic. Catholic is greek for universal, this is the universal Church of Christ.
b. Roman in that Rome is the seat of St. Peter, whom papal authority is traced from.



If you believe what God says in His Word, you'll have to agree that the Roman Catholic Religion is not the body of Christ and it is not the Biblical church of God.

If you have a sense of logic and how to debate, you'll never make such a fallacious argument again.


Are you really willing to accept that God is wrong and your popes and bishops are right?

Are you really willing to accept that you have not a clue how to argue?

[Ben Franklin]

A right...! And then another right...! Oh no, fans... It looks like Jude3b is going down for the count...! One...! Two...! Three...! Get up...! Get up, Jude3b...! :fight:

[Jude3b]

I guess I don't know how to argue like you and your way. I simply accept the Word of God as true! Not your Roman traditions. You obviously prefer what your Roman teachers have taught you. I of course already knew that "Catholic" meant universal and that Rome is the seat of Romanism. So what! That does not address the fact that Roman Catholicism is not the Bible church of God and that the church is not built on Peter, but on Jesus Christ, the ROCK and cornerstone of the church. Peter did receive a revelation of who Jesus Christ was in Matthew 16 and that revelation is the rock and Jesus Christ himself is the Rock. Peter was a small stone and so were the rest of the apostles and prophets small stones, but Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone and the Rock of my salvation. God Bless you man! In Christian love, I remain yours in the Master's service, John P. Hansen, the Christian Contender at Jude 3b

[spl_cadet]

I guess I don't know how to argue like you and your way.

Logically and coherently?


I simply accept the Word of God as true!

As do I.


Not your Roman traditions.

Well, we accept the Apostolic traditions.


You obviously prefer what your Roman teachers have taught you.

No, because they didn't teach me anything. My knowledge of Catholicism is almost completely self-taught.


That does not address the fact that Roman Catholicism is not the Bible church of God and that the church is not built on Peter, but on Jesus Christ, the ROCK and cornerstone of the church.

And your evidence for this would be....?


Peter did receive a revelation of who Jesus Christ was in Matthew 16 and that revelation is the rock and Jesus Christ himself is the Rock.

Let me guess: You had a miserable time when it came to grammar, didn't you?


Peter was a small stone

In Classical Greek, yes, but not in Koine Greek, which is what the NT was written in.


but Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone and the Rock of my salvation.

Yes, but we are talking about the rock that the Church was founded on.

[D.R.R.]

Today @ 06:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=360442#post360442)
Jude3b:

Are you really willing to accept that God is wrong and your popes and bishops are right?

When the Catholic Church speaks infallibly, it is God speaking through her. The teachings of the Church are the teachings of Christ.

The Ordinary Magisterium and the Extraordinary Magisterium constitute the Catholic Church's infallible teaching authority:

Ordinary Magisterium:

“The bishops, in communion with the pope, propose a teaching that leads to a better understanding of Revelation in a matter of faith and morals” (Introduction to Catholicism, Midwest Theological Forum, 2003)

"The Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church in moral matters is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, with the help of the works of theologians and spiritual authors. Thus from generation to generation, under the aegis and vigilance of the pastors, the 'deposit' of Christian moral teaching has been handed on, a deposit composed of a characteristic body of rules, commandments, and virtues proceeding from faith in Christ and animated by charity. Alongside the Creed and the Our Father, the basis for this catechesis has traditionally been the Decalogue which sets out the principles of moral life valid for all men” (Catechism of the Catholic Church §2033).

Extraordinary Magisterium:

1. The Pope speaks ex cathedra.
“The Pope speaking ex cathedra must speak:

1. not as a private theologian, but as the supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians
2. in virtue of his apostolic authority as the successor of Peter
3. in matters of faith or morals
4. proposing something to be held by the universal Church.” (EWTN Global Catholic Network, http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=292402&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=365&Author=&Keyword=Infallibility&pgnu=2&groupnum=0

2. Ecumenical Councils: "When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine 'for belief as being divinely revealed,' and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions 'must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.' This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself" (Catechism of the Catholic Church §891).

How do we know that the Church is infallible? Let's begin with a question: Were not the apostles infallible in all that they taught, whether orally or in writing ("Brethren, hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by WORD or by our epistle" (2 Thess. 2, 14)?

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Today @ 03:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=361002#post361002)
D.R.R.:

How do we know that the Church is infallible? Let's begin with a question: Were not the apostles infallible in all that they taught, whether orally or in writing ("Brethren, hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by WORD or by our epistle" (2 Thess. 2, 14)?

Actually, no. Paul had to correct Peter publically, did he not?

[spl_cadet]

Bill the Cat:

Actually, no. Paul had to correct Peter publically, did he not?

In a matter of what St. Peter was practicing, not what he preached.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Today @ 03:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=361021#post361021)
spl_cadet:



In a matter of what St. Peter was practicing, not what he preached.

That is false. He was TEACHING Gentiles that they had to be circumcised

Gal 2
13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

[spl_cadet]

Sorry, but the two verses prior show you wrong



12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.
13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Today @ 03:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=361037#post361037)
spl_cadet:

Sorry, but the two verses prior show you wrong



12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.
13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

how? True he had to practice it before he preached it. But apparently he did teach it. Paul asked him publicly why he COMPELLED Gentiles to live as Jews. This is teaching.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

One can also raise the question of whether through scripture and oral tradition, a blue-print was laid down for how Christians should deal with a wide variety of ethical dilemmas.

There is evidence of much accretion/change in how the Church has governed itself over the course of history. For example, there is some evidence that females held positions of church leadership in the early church. Also, we see that the original disciples abolished property in the Jerusalem church and then the church went broke, so that Paul had to raise money for it. Other early churches didn't emulate this practice, and so it seems that learning from experience did play a role in how the churches organized themselves from day one.

dlw

[spl_cadet]

By his example and his role as chief apostle. Notice how they are called hypocrites, which is "not practicing what you preach."

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I think we're splitting hairs here, now.

Some good films that illustrate my problems with the historical RCChurch are "Amen" and "The Mission".
dlw

[Jude3b]

The Rock of True Faith is Jesus Christ, not the popes. Romanism is built on the broad way that leads to destruction and is all sand. The narrow road is built on rock. The rock is God and Christ is God. Peter called Him the chief cornerstone (I Peter 2:6). Paul said He is the Rock (I Cor. 10:4). My Roman Catholic friend, are you building your life on Christ? Or, are you building it on the quicksand of religion? Jesus said "whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them." He did not say to hear the sayings of the Roman Catholic religion. The rock is true faith in the Word of God, resulting in an obedient heart and the end of religious self righteousness. Yes, God is the rock, yes, Christ is the chief cornerstone. And our Lord is saying "These sayings of Mine become the bedrock foundation of the true church of God, the redeemed church, the church of the true believers."
Concerning your greek lessons: "And I also say to you that you are Peter" --petros, you are a boulder, a rock -- "and on this rock" -- petra, bedrock foundation -- "I (Jesus) will build My church (the church of God, the church of Jesus - not any Roman Catholic religion) (Matthew 16:18). And what was the petra, the bedrock of Christianity (not Romanism)? It was the Word of God, the Christ, the Son of the living God.
In Christian love, I remain yours in the Master's service,
John P. Hansen, the Christian Contender at Jude 3b

[spl_cadet]

1. There is no difference in meaning between petros and petras in Koine Greek.
2. Would you actually address my posts other than simply spouting off the same stuff over and over again?

[themuzicman]

Umm... Petros and Petras would be very different, since they are not only a different gender, but a different gramatical form, as well.

Petros is masculine, nominative singular.

Petras is feminine, and either genative singular or accusative plural.

Michael

[D.R.R.]

Yesterday @ 10:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=361227#post361227)
Jude3b:

The Rock of True Faith is Jesus Christ, not the popes. Romanism is built on the broad way that leads to destruction and is all sand. The narrow road is built on rock. The rock is God and Christ is God. Peter called Him the chief cornerstone (I Peter 2:6). Paul said He is the Rock (I Cor. 10:4). My Roman Catholic friend, are you building your life on Christ? Or, are you building it on the quicksand of religion? Jesus said "whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them." He did not say to hear the sayings of the Roman Catholic religion. The rock is true faith in the Word of God, resulting in an obedient heart and the end of religious self righteousness. Yes, God is the rock, yes, Christ is the chief cornerstone. And our Lord is saying "These sayings of Mine become the bedrock foundation of the true church of God, the redeemed church, the church of the true believers."
Concerning your greek lessons: "And I also say to you that you are Peter" --petros, you are a boulder, a rock -- "and on this rock" -- petra, bedrock foundation -- "I (Jesus) will build My church (the church of God, the church of Jesus - not any Roman Catholic religion) (Matthew 16:18). And what was the petra, the bedrock of Christianity (not Romanism)? It was the Word of God, the Christ, the Son of the living God.
In Christian love, I remain yours in the Master's service,
John P. Hansen, the Christian Contender at Jude 3b

Could you please answer my question?

[spl_cadet]

themuzicman:

Umm... Petros and Petras would be very different, since they are not only a different gender, but a different gramatical form, as well.

Petros is masculine, nominative singular.

Petras is feminine, and either genative singular or accusative plural.

Michael

In Koine Greek, they have the same meaning: Rock.
http://www.geocities.com/okc_catholic/articles/cephas.html

Includes documentation from Protestant scholars and has some nice additional factoids.

[D.R.R.]

Today @ 12:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=361351#post361351)
spl_cadet:



In Koine Greek, they have the same meaning: Rock.
http://www.geocities.com/okc_catholic/articles/cephas.html

Exactly.

[D.R.R.]

Yesterday @ 08:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=361044#post361044)
Bill the Cat:



how? True he had to practice it before he preached it. But apparently he did teach it. Paul asked him publicly why he COMPELLED Gentiles to live as Jews. This is teaching.

Compelling does not mean teaching in matters of faith and morals.
It is clear that it was Peter's actions that Paul was correcting, not his teachings. Infalliblity should not be confused with sinlessness. So can we all accept that the apostles were infallible in what they taught, both orally and in writing ("Brethren, hold the TRADITIONS which you have learned, whether by WORD or by our EPISTLE" (2 Thess. 2, 14) )?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

With all due respect, I don't think that clear a distinction can be made between doxy and praxy. What can be said is that Peter did accept the governance of Paul and change his flawed teaching/practice.

So DRR, you going to deal with some of the stuff I brought up or what?

dlw

[Jude3b]

Dear Paul: The church of God is of divine origin. She is part and parcel in the mind of God with the plan of salvation. She is God's building, chosen of him for his own dwelling-place. Her creed is the pure Word of God. Her government is divine: "The government shall be upon his shoulder (speaking of Christ)." (Isa. 9:6).
The church of God is the body of Christ. It is not a religion. "Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?" (I Cor. 6:15). It is in our physical bodies that we compose the assembly of God. "Christ is the head of the body, the church."
Sincerely, Jude 3b

[Da Lone-Warrior]

bump :eek:

[Jude3b]

Roman Catholicism does hinder the Gospel, by teaching a false gospel, which is not good news at all. Faith plus works as Rome teaches hinders many world wide from knowing the truth that Christians are saved by Grace.
Sincerely, Jude 3b

[John Reece]

If anyone wishes to know exactly what the Roman Catholic Church does and does not teach, the Catechism should be consulted in context. The entire Catechisim is on this page:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

[D.R.R.]

If anyone wishes to know exactly what the Roman Catholic Church does and does not teach, the Catechism should be consulted in context. The entire Catechisim is on this page:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

Thank you for posting this.

[John Reece]

Thank you for posting this.

:thumb:

It's a pleasure be in fellowship with you on TWeb.

Blessings,

John

[Solly]

[gratuitous super spiritual comment]I wonder how far I hinder the Gospel?[/gssc]

[Jude3b]

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtility, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." (2 Cor. 11:3)

[D.R.R.]

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtility, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." (2 Cor. 11:3)

Yeah, looks like we're in for a hot time in hell. :smile:

Sincerely,
A Romish reprobate

[Jude3b]

"Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'" (John 3:7)

[D.R.R.]

"Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'" (John 3:7)

I have been born again through baptism. You disagree that the "born again" Scriptural passages refer to baptism, however. From which denominational tradition are you getting your interpretation, not only of the "born again" passages but of all other Scriptural passages?

[Jude3b]

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" (John 1:12)

The Bible teaches that only Christ can forgive our sins, performing a "religious good work" like baptism will never do it:
"In whom we have redemption through his (Christ's) blood, the forgiveness of sins..." (Ephesians 1:7)

Is water baptism necessary for salvation? The Word of God says "no." Will you believe the Word of God, or will you stick with traditions of men?

[D.R.R.]

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" (John 1:12)

The Bible teaches that only Christ can forgive our sins, performing a "religious good work" like baptism will never do it:
"In whom we have redemption through his (Christ's) blood, the forgiveness of sins..." (Ephesians 1:7)

Is water baptism necessary for salvation? The Word of God says "no." Will you believe the Word of God, or will you stick with traditions of men?

You're not answering my question. That's what your interpretation IS. But from which denominational tradition are you getting that interpretation?

[Jude3b]

Since I left Romanism, I have not joined any denomination. Upon being saved, that is born-again by grace through faith - I was placed into the body of Christ by Christ himself (Acts 2:47). Why would I ever want to join man made religion, when I am automatically part of God's church? God has millions of children in the world today who have come out of her (Religion - Romanism, Protestantism) and are not divided by man made denominational differences and I am one of them. The non denominational fellowship that I attend accepts me as a member of the church of God, the body of Christ because I am a Christian because of my profession of faith in Christ and his finished work on calvary. We have sweet unity and don't want to be divided by denominationalism, which would violate John chapter 17 and the will of God.

[D.R.R.]

Since I left Romanism, I have not joined any denomination. Upon being saved, that is born-again by grace through faith - I was placed into the body of Christ by Christ himself (Acts 2:47). Why would I ever want to join man made religion, when I am automatically part of God's church? God has millions of children in the world today who have come out of her (Religion - Romanism, Protestantism) and are not divided by man made denominational differences and I am one of them. The non denominational fellowship that I attend accepts me as a member of the church of God, the body of Christ because I am a Christian because of my profession of faith in Christ and his finished work on calvary. We have sweet unity and don't want to be divided by denominationalism, which would violate John chapter 17 and the will of God.

So your interpretation is that of your non denominational fellowship?

[Jude3b]

Begging your pardon... but "...no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20).

One does not interpret scripture. When I read "knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from you aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." (I Peter 1:18 & 19) - I don't "interpret" it, I believe it!
or say, "having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever." (I Peter 1:23) - I don't interpret it, I believe it!

Try believing this passage of scripture, instead of interpreting it by your man made traditions. It just might get you saved: "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Romans 10: 9 & 10).

What is your denominational affiliation?

[D.R.R.]

Begging your pardon... but "...no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20).

One does not interpret scripture. When I read "knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from you aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." (I Peter 1:18 & 19) - I don't "interpret" it, I believe it!
or say, "having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever." (I Peter 1:23) - I don't interpret it, I believe it!

Try believing this passage of scripture, instead of interpreting it by your man made traditions. It just might get you saved: "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Romans 10: 9 & 10).

The point is: there are so many passages in Scripture which different persons interpret differently. How do you know whose interpretation is true and whose interpretation is false?

interpret (from my trusty, tattered, old dictionary with the covers torn off) - v.t. 1. To give the meaning of; explain or make clear; especially, to restate in clear language; construe.

[Jude3b]

Scripture is not difficult when you believe it and accept it as truth. I'll bet you noticed He did not call them the "ten suggestions!"

[Christy]

Re: “Roman Catholicism Hinders the Gospel” by Greg Koukl (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/rc_hindr.htm)

Hello! The reasoning in Mr. Koukl’s article is extremely faulty.

I am not sure what Mr. Koukl used as his resources when he stated that the Church’s teaching before Vatican II was that all non-Catholics were damned to hell, for the Church’s teaching on salvation has always been the same. This teaching is that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, but this does not mean that all non-Catholics and non-Christians are destined for hell.

“And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way” (Ephesians 1: 22-23). Which church can this passage mean but the one which Christ founded himself, namely, the Catholic Church (“You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church”)? Since the Catholic Church, then, is the Body of Christ (this is undeniable), it must be the only way to Jesus Christ, and since Jesus Christ is the only way to God and therefore to salvation, it follows that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. The Church is universal (hence she is called Catholic), “the Church,” as Father John Laux, M.A., says in Catholic Apologetics, “ of Humanity.” This same book says:

“ ‘One God, one Christ, one Baptism, one Church.’ Just as there can be no second Christ, so there can be no second Body of Christ, no second manifestation of the Spirit of Christ. The exclusiveness of the Church is rooted in the exclusiveness of Christ, in His claim to be the Bringer of the New Life, the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”

As Christ Himself said, “If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”

As stated, this does not mean that non-Catholics and non-Christians cannot attain salvation. The non-Catholic Christian religions are not completely un-Catholic or anti-Catholic, for when they broke away from Rome they took with them some of the treasure of Catholic doctrine and some means of grace, especially the Sacrament of Baptism. According to Catholic teaching, when Baptism is administered by heretics (those who dissent with the Church on one or more articles of the Catholic faith) in the name of the Trinity, it is valid and meets the necessity of Baptism for salvation. “It is the Catholic element in these churches that enables them to be a means of grace and salvation” (Catholic Apologetics).

As for the non-Christian religions, such as Judaism and Islam, the Church teaches that, when non-Christians, through no fault of their own, do not know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, Baptism of Desire may replace the Baptism of Water that is available in the Catholic Church (and the other Christian religions). “A person who does not know the necessity of Baptism, but wishes to do all that is required for salvation, is said to have an implicit desire of Baptism. ‘Every one that loveth is born of God’ (1 John 4: 7)” (Catholic Apologetics).

Non-Catholics and non-Christians who, through no fault of their own, are unaware that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, belong invisibly to the Church and thus are saved through her.

This does not mean, however, that the Church teaches other religions are in accord with objective truth and that Catholics have no duty to evangelize non-Catholics and non-Christians. I regret that the priest on the talk show to which Mr. Koukl refers was not demonstrating the spirit of the Church when he told the Protestant caller not to speak to the Jewish rabbi about Jesus Christ. Neither was the nun when she spoke of learning about meditation from those in the East and in India. Those who know the Catholic Church to be the true Church to which God wills all men to belong cannot be saved: “All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it cannot be saved” (Baltimore Catechism No. 2). Non-Catholics and non-Christians must be in good faith in order to be saved.

Further, although non-Catholics and non-Christians may be saved, “yet they are deprived of the inestimable advantages enjoyed by Catholics. We must never forget that the Spirit of Christ, the practices which spring out of that spirit, the means appointed by Christ for the regeneration and salvation of mankind, are found in all their original purity, fullness and power in the Catholic Church, and in her alone.” Thus, Catholics are obligated to do all within their power to evangelize non-Catholics and non-Christians.

The Dalai Lama was wrong about a variety of religions being better than one religion. Truth is not relative. It is one and unchangeable, and anything contrary to it is contrary to the good of mankind. Mr. Koukl uses a brilliant analogy by comparing religion to a medicine rather than a food.

I hope this helps to clear up any misconceptions entertained by Mr. Koukl or his readers. I also recommend that Mr. Koukl read the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s “Declaration Dominus Iesus on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church,” which discusses the Catholic Church and salvation.

Also, when Mr. Koukl refers to the Church claiming to have the authority to interpret what the Scriptures mean, is it not only reasonable that Christ should grant the Church which he founded this infallible authority? We can no longer converse with Christ as the apostles could two thousand years ago. How else, then, can Christ teach us, now that he has ascended into heaven, save through a medium on this earth? And how could this medium be any other medium than the Church which he founded? To say that Christ would not leave the very Church which he founded with infallibility in teaching matters of faith and morals and in interpreting the Scriptures would be to accuse God of unreasonableness and thus of imperfection. To say that Christ does not have the power to endow his Body with infallibility is to accuse him of not being all-powerful and all-perfect and to deny one of his attributes. It merely makes sense, then, that the Catholic Church should be infallible in interpreting the Scriptures.

May God bless you all,
Derek Remus

Note: Catholic Apologetics and the Baltimore Catechism No. 2 were written before Vatican II. These books are a witness to the fact that the Church’s teaching on salvation did not change after the Second Vatican Council.

What you are basically saying though is the same thing. If you die outside of the Catholic Church, or never join, you are going to hell. Isn't it?

[Christy]

Has the Catholic Church done more good or bad? Why has it let all of these molestors off, and protect them. I heard on the news that it was like 10s of thousands of kids who were molested by the church. Why wasn't anything done to stop this?

[D.R.R.]

Scripture is not difficult when you believe it and accept it as truth. I'll bet you noticed He did not call them the "ten suggestions!"

When I read the Bible, how do I know what certain passages mean?

[D.R.R.]

What you are basically saying though is the same thing.
If you die outside of the Catholic Church, or never join, you are going to hell. Isn't it?

Do you mean the Catholic Church in the strictest sense, i.e. composed of "those who have been baptized and profess faith in Christ and obedience to the Roman Catholic Church" (Introduction to Catholicism, Midwest Theological Forum, 2003), or the Catholic Church in a broader sense, i.e., composed of "all those who love and fear God and strive to do what is right and acceptable to him" (Ibid.)?

[Christy]

Do you mean the Catholic Church in the strictest sense, i.e. composed of "those who have been baptized and profess faith in Christ and obedience to the Roman Catholic Church" (Introduction to Catholicism, Midwest Theological Forum, 2003), or the Catholic Church in a broader sense, i.e., composed of "all those who love and fear God and strive to do what is right and acceptable to him" (Ibid.)?


The stricest.

[Christy]

strictest :blush:

[Jude3b]

Can you read English? If not get a Bible in whatever language you read. How far did you get in school?

[D.R.R.]

Can you read English? If not get a Bible in whatever language you read. How far did you get in school?

So if I read the Bible I'll know what it means?

[D.R.R.]

strictest :blush:

Then please re-read my first post on this thread, which states that persons who do not belong to the Catholic Church in its strictest sense are not necessarily going to hell.

[Jude3b]

Well, maybe for you Not. But most people who read the Bible understand it. Maybe you have a PhD or something like that, which might prevent you from knowing what it means! If you can't read, maybe get someone to read it to you.

Let us try a verse, read this: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him." (John 3:16 & 17) Were you able to read these two verses? Do you understand what they are saying?

[D.R.R.]

Well, maybe for you Not. But most people who read the Bible understand it. Maybe you have a PhD or something like that, which might prevent you from knowing what it means! If you can't read, maybe get someone to read it to you.

I guess that means that I should be able to discern the Bible's meaning if I read it. And I do read it. Why is it, then, that I find certain doctrines in the Bible which you claim are not found there (see some of our discussions on other threads)?


Let us try a verse, read this: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him." (John 3:16 & 17) Were you able to read these two verses? Do you understand what they are saying?

Yes.

[D.R.R.]

Can you read English? If not get a Bible in whatever language you read. How far did you get in school?

Please see my profile.

[Jude3b]

I guess that means that I should be able to discern the Bible's meaning if I read it. And I do read it. Why is it, then, that I find certain doctrines in the Bible which you claim are not found there (see some of our discussions on other threads)?



Yes.

Perhaps you are reading your Bible through a "Religous filter" - I mean you were raised in a certain denomination, taught a certain theology and all your reading or understanding comes through that "religious filter." My suggestion would be for you to go direct to God and ask him to help you read His Word. Pray something like this:
"Dear God, I know that you are real and I know that your Word is true. Help me to read it and understand it. Cleanse my mind of any religious preconceived ideas. I promise to believe your Word, to full trust you, and to make it my final authority, instead of relgious ideas that I currently hold. God, reveal yourself to me, as I read and study it, in the mighty name of Jesus I pray, Amen."

[D.R.R.]

Perhaps you are reading your Bible through a "Religous filter" - I mean you were raised in a certain denomination, taught a certain theology and all your reading or understanding comes through that "religious filter." My suggestion would be for you to go direct to God and ask him to help you read His Word. Pray something like this:
"Dear God, I know that you are real and I know that your Word is true. Help me to read it and understand it. Cleanse my mind of any religious preconceived ideas. I promise to believe your Word, to full trust you, and to make it my final authority, instead of relgious ideas that I currently hold. God, reveal yourself to me, as I read and study it, in the mighty name of Jesus I pray, Amen."

So I claim to find doctrines in the Bible that are not really there because I am reading my Bible through a "Religious filter." How do you know I am reading it through a "Religious filter"?

[D.R.R.]

By the way, the Catholic Church is not a denomination.

[Jude3b]

I do not even know if your read your Bible. If the Roman Catholic church is not a denomination - than it is a cult. One thing for sure, it is not the Bible church of God that we read about in the Bible. Show me one verse in the whole Bible in support of the Roman Catholic Religion. There is none. We read about the church of God, the church of the Living God, the churces of Christ. All these are Bible names of churches that made up the body of Christ, the church of God during the Apostolic age. There is no Roman Catholic church spoken of by name in the Bible. We do see verses that talk about an apostate church - that would be prophecy of the Roman Catholic church, but you do not find any Roman Catholic church that anyone was a part of during the apostolic age.

[D.R.R.]

I do not even know if your read your Bible. If the Roman Catholic church is not a denomination - than it is a cult. One thing for sure, it is not the Bible church of God that we read about in the Bible. Show me one verse in the whole Bible in support of the Roman Catholic Religion. There is none. We read about the church of God, the church of the Living God, the churces of Christ. All these are Bible names of churches that made up the body of Christ, the church of God during the Apostolic age. There is no Roman Catholic church spoken of by name in the Bible. We do see verses that talk about an apostate church - that would be prophecy of the Roman Catholic church, but you do not find any Roman Catholic church that anyone was a part of during the apostolic age.

1) Please answer my question: So I claim to find doctrines in the Bible that are not really there because I am perhaps reading my Bible through a "Religious filter." How do you know I am perhaps reading it through a "Religious filter"?

2) The word Catholic means "universal," and Christ certainly desires all men to belong to His Church, i.e. it is universal. The term "Catholic Church" was first used by St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 115), used to designate all Christians. Though it was first called Catholic by St. Ignatius, the Christian Catholic Church had existed since the time of Christ, its founder (that is a historical fact). It is greatly probable that St. Ignatius, along with St. Polycarp and others, was a disciple of St. John the Apostle. The Catholic Church in the strictest sense is composed of "those who have been baptized and profess faith in Ch