Was the Reformation an Experiment gone wrong?

[Root of Jesse]

It's right there in Unam Sanctam. I could also point to Tridentinum.



You said I had to do what God says. I already do, so you must mean "The bishop of Rome" instead, or assume that said bishop is God.



No, that's what it means, and what it was taken to mean from its inception until Vatican II decided it'd better loosen up a little.

I will, on principle, not engage in a battle of copy-paste. Please come back when you have something to say yourself, and not just copy-paste from a webpage.



This

Again, this is your interpretation of what the Bull says, not the Catholic interpretation, regardless of how you see the next 400 years after the Bull was written. Vatican II did not change anything about the Catholic Church, other than to move the Church into the 21st century, and complete what Vatican I had started.
I didn't refer to the pope, didn't mean the pope. I said God, you thought I said pope. This leads me to question your skills of interpretation, or lack thereof.
The truth is that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ instituted, and the scriptures that I copied and pasted, along with our understanding of them, are the proof to show that what we believe is true.
FWIW, Jews don't think that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of the Passion of Jesus Christ, so it's clear that, if you see it you see it, if you don't, you don't. But again, as always, that's not my problem.
The Catholic Church has always had her doors open to anyone who wants to believe what she teaches. The doors have always been open even to those who don't accept what she teaches, only the sacraments are not available to them. The Bull warned that those who did not were endangering their souls, even if the language was harsher, saying the exact same thing. The Catholic Church has never claimed to know who God permits to go to Hell, only to know some of those who God accepts into heaven.
So, again, God gives people what they love the most, even if it's not Him. What you love the most is shown by how you live your life. If you love football or rock more than you love Him, by your actions, you will live eternity outside of His grace. But it's between you and God where you live eternity.

 

[UnamSanctam]

Again, this is your interpretation of what the Bull says, not the Catholic interpretation, regardless of how you see the next 400 years after the Bull was written.

What?
So....basically you're saying: "It means what we at any given point says it means, regardless of what it meant when it was written and 500+ years on".
I'm talking to a brick wall here.....

Vatican II did not change anything about the Catholic Church, other than to move the Church into the 21st century, and complete what Vatican I had started.

Yes it did. The fact that you either can't see it, or won't admit to it because you obsess with trying to claim to be right, doesn't change that.

I didn't refer to the pope, didn't mean the pope. I said God, you thought I said pope. This leads me to question your skills of interpretation, or lack thereof.

No, my interpretation was valid. Because the post I responded to, basically said that unless one joins the RCC, one isn't doing what God says.

The truth is that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ instituted,

No it isn't. That's the RC opinion.

and the scriptures that I copied and pasted, along with our understanding of them, are the proof to show that what we believe is true.

Which makes your case all the more weak: You have to rely on mindlessly copy-pasting something from the web, hoping that the "tl;dr-value" of it makes your opponents retire from the field. It isn't working, and you have yet to make any kind of case for your claims.

FWIW, Jews don't think that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of the Passion of Jesus Christ, so it's clear that, if you see it you see it, if you don't, you don't. But again, as always, that's not my problem.

What was your point here?

So, again, God gives people what they love the most, even if it's not Him. What you love the most is shown by how you live your life. If you love football or rock more than you love Him, by your actions, you will live eternity outside of His grace. But it's between you and God where you live eternity.

Agreed here. And it's not me who has a problem in this respect.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What?
So....basically you're saying: "It means what we at any given point says it means, regardless of what it meant when it was written and 500+ years on".
I'm talking to a brick wall here.....



Yes it did. The fact that you either can't see it, or won't admit to it because you obsess with trying to claim to be right, doesn't change that.



No, my interpretation was valid. Because the post I responded to, basically said that unless one joins the RCC, one isn't doing what God says.



No it isn't. That's the RC opinion.



Which makes your case all the more weak: You have to rely on mindlessly copy-pasting something from the web, hoping that the "tl;dr-value" of it makes your opponents retire from the field. It isn't working, and you have yet to make any kind of case for your claims.




What was your point here?



Agreed here. And it's not me who has a problem in this respect.

So let's summarize. The Catholic Church says X, Catholics know it says X, you and many protestants don't think that's what it says, and you're sticking to your guns. Well. Good for you. I guess we have nothing further to say then. The door is open, and always has been. To EVERYONE.

My point is that people interpret scripture the way they want. Catholics have a body with authority to rely on. The one that Jesus gave authority to. The Magisterium, which consists of the bishops, as I noted in scripture passages, which, while cut and pasted, are still valid.

There's an old saying that applies here...you can lead a horse to water, but it's up to him to drink it. And the horse might just die of thirst...

 

[UnamSanctam]

My point is that people interpret scripture the way they want. Catholics have a body with authority to rely on. The one that Jesus gave authority to.

The one YOU CLAIM Jesus gave authority to.
I could just as easily and validly claim that Jesus says I'm infallible, and back it up with "I say so!" just as you have (I'm not GOING to, though!)

The Magisterium, which consists of the bishops, as I noted in scripture passages, which, while cut and pasted, are still valid.

The Scriptures are valid - your interpretation of them isn't necessarily!

There's an old saying that applies here...you can lead a horse to water, but it's up to him to drink it. And the horse might just die of thirst...

True. I hope you decide to drink before it comes to that.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The one YOU CLAIM Jesus gave authority to.
I could just as easily and validly claim that Jesus says I'm infallible, and back it up with "I say so!" just as you have (I'm not GOING to, though!)



The Scriptures are valid - your interpretation of them isn't necessarily!



True. I hope you decide to drink before it comes to that.

I've shown you scripturally, you're the one who just dismisses it. The interpretation is the one that was held from the earliest of times. They're not my opinion, they're those of the folks who sat at the feet of Jesus, and those they taught infallibly. If it was just me talking, I'd understand your questioning of my authority.

I've already drunk, and like the woman at the well, I still thirst. I will keep drinking.

 

[blackstrawberry]

Yes, I "in all honesty, have the guts to say that the Roman Catholic Church's pope is infalliable", not because of what was left by his predecessor, but because of the gift of the Holy Spirit granted Peter by Jesus.

Regarding the rest of your statement, those of us baptized have had the blindness removed by the cleansing spittle and mud of Christ's saving actions. We know what the Bible says about Peter being infallible.

Regarding the gift of infallibility, and the transfer of authority:

Matt. 10:1,40 - Jesus declares to His apostles, "he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me." Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.
Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - the apostles are given Christ's authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all. Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos (as there is in Protestantism).
Luke 9:1; 10:19 - Jesus gives the apostles authority over the natural and the supernatural (diseases, demons, serpents, and scorpions).
Luke 10:16 - Jesus tells His apostles, "he who hears you, hears Me." When we hear the bishops' teaching on the faith, we hear Christ Himself.
Luke 22:29 - the Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the apostles. The gift is transferred from the Father to the Son to the apostles.
Num 16:28 - the Father's authority is transferred to Moses. Moses does not speak on his own. This is a real transfer of authority.
John 5:30 - similarly, Jesus as man does nothing of His own authority, but He acts under the authority of the Father.
John 7:16-17 - Jesus as man states that His authority is not His own, but from God. He will transfer this authority to other men.
John 8:28 - Jesus says He does nothing on His own authority. Similarly, the apostles will do nothing on their own authority. Their authority comes from God.
John 12:49 - The father's authority is transferred to the Son. The Son does not speak on his own. This is a transfer of divine authority. John 13:20 - Jesus says, "he who receives anyone who I send, receives Me." He who receives the apostles, receives Christ Himself. He who rejects the apostles and their successors, rejects Christ.
Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.

Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his "bishopric") is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own."
Acts 1:22 - literally, "one must be ordained" to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ's authority.
Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown. Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

Regarding the different Churches, they have different traditions of worship, they speak different prayers, kneel at different times, etc. But they all have the exact same Jesus. Why? Because of the authority and infallibility of the apostles.

Yes, Jesus, indeed, said such things to Peter and the rest of his disciples. Paul in turn gave a word in regards to his own authority as well as those who are being labelled as, 'us,' however.

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" -Galatians 1:8- (NIV)

"and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." -2 Timothy 3:15-17- (NIV)

The Roman Catholicism teaches that, in order for one to be assured of his salvation in Christ, he/she must follow the rituals as well as traditions of the Roman Catholic church. The Bible teaches otherwise; if you believe in Jesus Christ you will be saved. You only need to believe in Jesus for you to be saved and that your works reflect the changes brought to your life by God.

 

[blackstrawberry]

Exactly. The Universal Christian Church. Catholic. Keep in mind that it's you folks who exclude yourselves from being part of the one Church Jesus founded, not us.
The head is not separated from the feet. Christ is truly present in every Catholic Church.

Actually, there are two "Catholic" Churches, not one: 1) Orthodox Catholic church 2) Roman Catholic church. Both of your claims are to be made void, because there are, in fact, two "Catholic" churches.

I think you're mistaking that "the Church" consists of only buildings. It does not. This does not give groups license to change the doctrines Christ laid down. There are not two separate Catholic Churches. There are several rites. Each worships Christ, though they follow local practices.
There's no riddle in "Truly, Truly, I say to you..." It's not a metaphor, it's not an allusion, it's not an allegory, and it's not been believed to be any of those things from the day of Pentecost to today by the Catholic Church.
But I will be with you always until the end of the age means that His church would be there from his Resurrection until he returns. Other than the Catholic Church, none of you fits that prophecy.

Really?

According to you guys:

-The pope is not only the replacement of Jesus Christ, but Christ himself under the veil of flesh.
-Faith is one of the things that are required for one's salvation, but one must go through rituals and traditions of the Roman Catholicism to truly be assured of his salvation.
-Mary is the co-redemtrix of mankind's salvation, as opposed to what the Bible is saying, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men--the testimony given in its proper time."

You say we venerate Mary, but that's your interpretation, and your problem. Jesus told us that we should not try to judge others' hearts, and yet you do. You see someone kneeling, you interpret that as worship, you think that, when we give special meaning to Mary, it means we're worshipping. But there's several forms of veneration. There's that which is due only to God (latria), there's that which is proper for man (dulia). Mary has signature veneration, which is called hyer-dulia. More than man, less than God. We know where Mary stands, obviously, you don't. You're ready to trot her out at Christmas, sing "Round yon virgin mother, and child" then lock her up in the closet again. The issues with Marian devotion are yours, not ours.

The target of Jesus' words was our personal relationships with other people, not each and every kind of situations a Christian may have to tolerate. The Bible says a Christian must love a sinner, but as God hates sin we are to hate sin as well. The Bible also says not to make an image of any creation. You are clearly in violation of that law. And before you go on to say, "Well, you may be right, but how do you explain those cute little cherubim accessories on the alter of God, where Jews used to do all kind of veneration at?" The cherubims were there, for the purpose of showing the God's might. It is said that during the worship of God, God's presence would fill the temple of God, the cherubims would seemingly come to life, and the alter would become the footstool of God, thus signifying the fact that to God, the likes of cherubims would become decorations of his footstool. As opposed to such display of God's authority, you place the image of saints, Mary, and/or angels in the God's site of worship for the sole purpose of venerating them.

It's funny how you mistake Satan for God. It was God who used Constantine to preserve the Bible. Had he not, you wouldn't have it. It's like when the Pharisees accused Jesus of being Satan: Luke 11:17 ff:
Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and a house divided against itself falls. 18 If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. 19 And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? So they will be your judges. 20 But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed. 22 But when someone stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away from him all his armor on which he had relied and distributes his plunder. 23 He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me, scatters. By the way, did you know that Constantine converted??? So regardless of what he was before, he was Christian after.

Did you not hear me saying the thing about Constantine being the sun-god worshipper? Being a Christian means following the teachings of Christ, not pagan-gods. Despite his status as "converted king," the emperor still kept idols in his palace as well as his worship for those false-gods. It is my belief that Christianity has been tainted by the emperor's love for pagan-worship and that God had used the devil's actions of corrupting the Christianity by preserving the Bible through Constantine, the devil worshipper.

 

[blackstrawberry]

to be clear...You separate yourselves. We didn't separate you. As is apparent from your judgement of 1.2 billion hearts. We all believe that Jesus created one Church. We believe that all baptized Christians are part of the Body of Christ. Whether you do too, or not, is your own problem. Our arms are open and welcoming. You just have to learn to obey God. Not Calvin/Luther/Hubbard/Osteen.

I think this is where the problem lies. For some reason, you people hold some cheap pride, which makes you think that you don't need to add any reason/logic/proof as to why your faith is the genuine one as long as you assert the magical phrase, "Hey, don't look at me. Peter the Apostle is the one who gave us the authority. I mean, it is THE Peter, the rock." Clearly, any Protestant with a right mind of his own would have engaged in a discussion with a member of Roman Catholic church for the purpose of opposing such "fact." I think this would be a great time for you to come to a realization of that fact. The authority comes with a responsibility to keep the commandments pure and safe for lost sheeps. The way we, Protestants, see it, you are not doing your jobs as well as you should be.

Where was it ever said that "only Catholics will be saved"?
Well, we believe that anyone who seeks Jesus will not be turned away...
The pope is the Vicar of Christ-his representative on Earth. Then where does that leave Jesus' prophecy that His Church would last until he returns???

"Those who, through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation." -CCC Paragraph 847-

Unless you were born both deaf and blind, and were trapped in a Protestant-dominant island, where all communication with the RCC is forbidden and cut off OR put in a situation of equal degree to the aforementioned circumstance, you will not get a chance to achieve eternal salvation. The chance to such case, therefore, would be 0 to none, I believe.

Well we agree on two things then.
Yes, there is. The difference is that Mary is the Mother of God. She was the new Ark of the Covenant. By the way, who are you to criticize how we choose to respect Mary? I think you need to repent of your sin.

Was Mary the Mother of Jesus? Was Jesus God when he was conceived in Mary's womb?


No man on earth ever succeeds completely in anything.

Where is this coming from? Never once has such emphasis been put unto Mary, signifying the fulfillment of salvation of the mankind, in the Bible. All credit went to God, literally, with none left for Mary to take. Why would such veneration be a necessity in attaining salvation in the first place? It's like saying, "Although it was God who had died on the cross and made a ransom for our sins, we still thank you for allowing everything to be sorted out."

 

[blackstrawberry]

Where is the doctrine of the Trinity in scripture?

"I and the Father are one." {John 10:30 (ESV)}= Both Jesus and Father are God/God comprising three persons in One.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." {Revelation 1:8 (ESV)}=Father is God.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." {Revelation 22:13 (ESV)}= Jesus is God/The Son is God.

"But Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.'" {Acts 5:3~4)}= The Holy Spirit is God.

"Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." {Genesis 1:26 (ESV)}= Though God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the distinctiveness of their respective natures still stands.

 

[blackstrawberry]

That's not what the Church decreed. The title of the Bull is "Outside the Church there is no salvation". I don't believe Urban defined what "the Church" means...
Again, I think you exclude yourself from the Church of Christ, not the other way around.
The interpretation of John Chapter 6 has been believed by the Universal Church from the day of Easter.
No, to see them as non-Christian.

So you're saying that Jesus is not God? Let me ask you this. Does a woman give birth to a nature? Or to a person?

There are couple of ways to describe a person who's affiliated with God, but telling a person that Mary is the mother of God is not one of those ways. The Father cannot be Jesus and the Holy Spirit, too, cannot be Jesus. The separate persons of the Trinity makes it possible for me to make such an argument without having to form a contradiction by saying that Jesus is not God. By saying Mary is the mother of God, you'd be indirectly saying that she's the mother of Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, which is a falsified truth. Like I said before, the Son existed outside of time before the birth of Mary, thus the Son's flesh had been created later than the Son Himself.

 

[tz620q]

What?
So....basically you're saying: "It means what we at any given point says it means, regardless of what it meant when it was written and 500+ years on".
I'm talking to a brick wall here.....

UnamSanctam,
Did you take up my challenge and study the history of the papal bull, Unam Sanctam? I found the history to be very illuminating on the true intent of the bull. If you have time, please do this. Wikipedia has a decent article on it as a starter. Let me know what you think or maybe we are both just putting another brick in the wall.
God's Blessings be upon you today,
Byron

 

[UnamSanctam]

UnamSanctam,
Did you take up my challenge and study the history of the papal bull, Unam Sanctam? I found the history to be very illuminating on the true intent of the bull. If you have time, please do this. Wikipedia has a decent article on it as a starter. Let me know what you think or maybe we are both just putting another brick in the wall.
God's Blessings be upon you today,
Byron

I must've missed your challenge in all the nonsense I was forced to deal with. I'm sorry!
I'll get to it when I have enough time

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes, Jesus, indeed, said such things to Peter and the rest of his disciples. Paul in turn gave a word in regards to his own authority as well as those who are being labelled as, 'us,' however.

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" -Galatians 1:8- (NIV)

"and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." -2 Timothy 3:15-17- (NIV)

The Roman Catholicism teaches that, in order for one to be assured of his salvation in Christ, he/she must follow the rituals as well as traditions of the Roman Catholic church. The Bible teaches otherwise; if you believe in Jesus Christ you will be saved. You only need to believe in Jesus for you to be saved and that your works reflect the changes brought to your life by God.

2 Timothy 3:15-17, you tend to de-emphasize or re-interpret the word "useful" It does not say that it is the only thing, it says that it's useful. That suggests that there's other things. Jesus told his apostles "Who hears you, hears me." Jesus could not teach error, and this confers the same charism on the apostles. The apostles, as a body, are speaking Jesus' teaching. Infallible, like Jesus. He confers a special infallibility on Peter in Matt 16:18. I've already shown how their authority is transferred, and where that comes from in the Bible.

The Latin Catholic Church does not teach that you must follow rituals and traditions to be saved. She does say you need the Sacraments, especially baptism, Eucharist and Reconciliation. But the Bible does not say that you can't follow tradition. In fact, Paul encourages Timothy to carry on the traditions Paul had passed on to him.

 

[athenken]

2 Timothy 3:15-17, you tend to de-emphasize or re-interpret the word "useful" It does not say that it is the only thing, it says that it's useful. That suggests that there's other things. Jesus told his apostles "Who hears you, hears me." Jesus could not teach error, and this confers the same charism on the apostles. The apostles, as a body, are speaking Jesus' teaching. Infallible, like Jesus. He confers a special infallibility on Peter in Matt 16:18. I've already shown how their authority is transferred, and where that comes from in the Bible.

The Latin Catholic Church does not teach that you must follow rituals and traditions to be saved. She does say you need the Sacraments, especially baptism, Eucharist and Reconciliation. But the Bible does not say that you can't follow tradition. In fact, Paul encourages Timothy to carry on the traditions Paul had passed on to him.

Have you ever tried repeating something you heard someone say to another person? Have you gotten the message exactly right every time? I don't think so. To assume that the apostles, who were human, were completely avoid of the "grapevine syndrome" is rather naive.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Actually, there are two "Catholic" Churches, not one: 1) Orthodox Catholic church 2) Roman Catholic church. Both of your claims are to be made void, because there are, in fact, two "Catholic" churches.

No, there's the Orthodox Church, which is separated from the Catholic Church, though very close to being back in communion, and the Catholic Church. There's no such thing as the "Roman Catholic Church". There is the Latin Rite Catholic Church and the Eastern Rite, which is in communion with the Pope. So no, there's not two Catholic Churches.

Really?

According to you guys:

-The pope is not only the replacement of Jesus Christ, but Christ himself under the veil of flesh.
-Faith is one of the things that are required for one's salvation, but one must go through rituals and traditions of the Roman Catholicism to truly be assured of his salvation.
-Mary is the co-redemtrix of mankind's salvation, as opposed to what the Bible is saying, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men--the testimony given in its proper time."

No, this is your interpretation, or someone's. It's not what the Church teaches. The pope is Christ's vicar, faith and the demonstration of that faith are required for salvation, there is no contradiction regarding Mary as co-Redeemer. Had she not cooperated in God's plan, by saying Yes to God, Christianity would not have begun the way it did. "Co" means with, not "equal to".

The target of Jesus' words was our personal relationships with other people, not each and every kind of situations a Christian may have to tolerate. The Bible says a Christian must love a sinner, but as God hates sin we are to hate sin as well. The Bible also says not to make an image of any creation. You are clearly in violation of that law. And before you go on to say, "Well, you may be right, but how do you explain those cute little cherubim accessories on the alter of God, where Jews used to do all kind of veneration at?" The cherubims were there, for the purpose of showing the God's might. It is said that during the worship of God, God's presence would fill the temple of God, the cherubims would seemingly come to life, and the alter would become the footstool of God, thus signifying the fact that to God, the likes of cherubims would become decorations of his footstool. As opposed to such display of God's authority, you place the image of saints, Mary, and/or angels in the God's site of worship for the sole purpose of venerating them.

Good rationalization on your part. We don't worship Mary. The Bible says don't make an idol and worship it. Otherwise, you're saying that God contradicts himself, because he gave the Hebrews the 10 Commandments, saying don't make idols, then he tells Moses to make a snake to cure the bites of the seraph serpents. But anyway, you contradict yourself. If it's ok to make a cherubim, it's ok to make a statue, as long as you don't worship it.

Did you not hear me saying the thing about Constantine being the sun-god worshipper? Being a Christian means following the teachings of Christ, not pagan-gods. Despite his status as "converted king," the emperor still kept idols in his palace as well as his worship for those false-gods. It is my belief that Christianity has been tainted by the emperor's love for pagan-worship and that God had used the devil's actions of corrupting the Christianity by preserving the Bible through Constantine, the devil worshipper.

You have any documentation that he worshipped the sun? Anything credible? Even if it's true, what's the point? Constantine did one thing-he legalized the Catholic Church, making martyrdom no longer an issue, and letting Christianity survive.
Your condemnation of the Church since then is misguided. I know it's your opinion, but it's not a widely held belief. Constantine's influence on the Catholic Church was minimal.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I think this is where the problem lies. For some reason, you people hold some cheap pride, which makes you think that you don't need to add any reason/logic/proof as to why your faith is the genuine one as long as you assert the magical phrase, "Hey, don't look at me. Peter the Apostle is the one who gave us the authority. I mean, it is THE Peter, the rock." Clearly, any Protestant with a right mind of his own would have engaged in a discussion with a member of Roman Catholic church for the purpose of opposing such "fact." I think this would be a great time for you to come to a realization of that fact. The authority comes with a responsibility to keep the commandments pure and safe for lost sheeps. The way we, Protestants, see it, you are not doing your jobs as well as you should be.

Well, we take the Bible as a fact, and the fact is that Jesus instituted a Church. Just like when God spoke the universe into existance, and it immediately was so, when Jesus instituted his church, it was so. And he made Peter the head of his Church using language found in Isaiah 22, and promised the Holy Spirit to protect the Church from teaching heresy. That's all Biblical. You folks try to explain it away, but that's what it says.

"Those who, through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation." -CCC Paragraph 847-

This says nothing about anyone being excluded from salvation, which is what the criticism of Unam Sanctum (the Bull), is all about.

Unless you were born both deaf and blind, and were trapped in a Protestant-dominant island, where all communication with the RCC is forbidden and cut off OR put in a situation of equal degree to the aforementioned circumstance, you will not get a chance to achieve eternal salvation. The chance to such case, therefore, would be 0 to none, I believe.

That's not what it says at all. You're the one who puts a limitation on the definition of "the Church". Apart from that, what island, or any other body of land, is 'protestant-dominant'?

Where is this coming from? Never once has such emphasis been put unto Mary, signifying the fulfillment of salvation of the mankind, in the Bible. All credit went to God, literally, with none left for Mary to take. Why would such veneration be a necessity in attaining salvation in the first place? It's like saying, "Although it was God who had died on the cross and made a ransom for our sins, we still thank you for allowing everything to be sorted out."

Ah, there's your problem. First off, we don't limit ourselves to the Bible, secondly, our belief does not contradict anything in the Bible. Thirdly, Mary does not take away ANYTHING from God. As she says "My soul magnifies the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God, my savior." By her own words, she's humble, and takes nothing from God.
Let me ask you a question: Do you not aspire to do as Jesus does? Direct answer, yes or no, please.

 

[Root of Jesse]

"I and the Father are one." {John 10:30 (ESV)}= Both Jesus and Father are God/God comprising three persons in One.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." {Revelation 1:8 (ESV)}=Father is God.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." {Revelation 22:13 (ESV)}= Jesus is God/The Son is God.

"But Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.'" {Acts 5:3~4)}= The Holy Spirit is God.

"Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." {Genesis 1:26 (ESV)}= Though God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the distinctiveness of their respective natures still stands.

None of this explains the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine is not explicit in scripture. We take a piece from here and a piece from there, and another piece from somewhere else and put together that doctrine. It's not Biblical. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Root of Jesse]

There are couple of ways to describe a person who's affiliated with God, but telling a person that Mary is the mother of God is not one of those ways. The Father cannot be Jesus and the Holy Spirit, too, cannot be Jesus. The separate persons of the Trinity makes it possible for me to make such an argument without having to form a contradiction by saying that Jesus is not God. By saying Mary is the mother of God, you'd be indirectly saying that she's the mother of Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, which is a falsified truth. Like I said before, the Son existed outside of time before the birth of Mary, thus the Son's flesh had been created later than the Son Himself.

Ah, but you believe in the Trinity, yes? The Trinity, simply put, is God in three persons. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Mary gave birth to the person of the Son, who is, by definition, God. Mary is the Mother of God. Jesus had two natures human and divine. She gave birth to the person.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Have you ever tried repeating something you heard someone say to another person? Have you gotten the message exactly right every time? I don't think so. To assume that the apostles, who were human, were completely avoid of the "grapevine syndrome" is rather naive.

I'm not an apostle or bishop with the charism of infallibility. You trust that the scriptures are accurate? Why? They were written decades after Christ died, or millenia after the event, in the case of the OT. God promised his apostles, and their successors that the Holy Spirit would guide them, protecting them from teaching error.

 

[blackstrawberry]

2 Timothy 3:15-17, you tend to de-emphasize or re-interpret the word "useful" It does not say that it is the only thing, it says that it's useful. That suggests that there's other things. Jesus told his apostles "Who hears you, hears me." Jesus could not teach error, and this confers the same charism on the apostles. The apostles, as a body, are speaking Jesus' teaching. Infallible, like Jesus. He confers a special infallibility on Peter in Matt 16:18. I've already shown how their authority is transferred, and where that comes from in the Bible.

The Latin Catholic Church does not teach that you must follow rituals and traditions to be saved. She does say you need the Sacraments, especially baptism, Eucharist and Reconciliation. But the Bible does not say that you can't follow tradition. In fact, Paul encourages Timothy to carry on the traditions Paul had passed on to him.

The problem is that you are taking one favorable verse out of the Bible to justify the RCC's errors by building a hollow theory concerning its dense history. You cannot do that. Paul clearly spoke of the possibility that even an apostle of God may speak of different gospel than the genuine gospel of God.

P.S. I will try to reply to your replies on my posts on the forum by this Saturday.