Bp. Schneider: Open letter accusing Pope Francis of heresy ‘went too far’

GodsGrace101 said:

I see that @thecolorsblend does not agree with you.

The reason the CC teaches that Mary is sinless is due to the fact that it feels Jesus could not be a part of a sinful creature. Thus, the Immaculate Conception.

The Jews were awaiting the Messiah who would take away their sins...so it would be normal for Mary to also be waiting for the Savior of the world.

I'm still not sure, after studying this a bit, that Mary really understood who Jesus was. I think she became more and more aware of it as time went on.
By the Wedding at Cana she surely understood she was the mother of a miracle-maker.

Of course the I.C. brings up some problems:
WHEN was Mary decided to be immaculate?
Before she was born...
After...

If before, did God predestine her to be Jesus' mother? If so, what good did her "YES" do? She would have been predestined to say yes. And yet the CC teaches this great YES even to children of catechism.

I think sometimes we go beyond what scripture intends us to.

And I'm not too worried about the cow pasture...
I do believe God is loving and merciful and just and we'll be judged on our faith in Jesus and not on our doctrine.

Click to expand...

The colorsblend not agreeing with a Protestant believer is nothing new. That is all he does.

Actually, if you study the Jews a little I think that you will see that the Messiah they were looking for was one who would rescue them from Roman rule.

The reason why the Immaculate Conception is a false doctrine is because it is not found anywhere in the Bible.

I would say and agree completely that every true Christian has the deepest respect for the mother of the Lord, but we pay Mary no genuine honor by attributing to her qualities that are not supported in the revealed Scriptures.

Mary’s “immaculate conception” is a RCC ONLY dogma that asserts that at the moment Mary’s soul was infused into her body, she was “sanctified by God’s grace” so that she was not “stained with original sin,” i.e., “Adam’s sin as transferred to us”.
(Bertrand Conway, The Question Box, San Francisco: Catholic Truth Society, 1929, p. 358-59).

“The immaculate conception is the doctrine that our Lady ‘in the first instant of her conception was, by a unique singular grace and privilege of Almighty God in view of the merits of Jesus Christ the Saviour of the human race, preserved exempt from all stain of original’” (Donald Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary, New York: Macmillan, 1961, p. 246).

However, the RCC doctrine of “the immaculate conception” is plagued by real life Biblical stubborn facts. Of course, if anyone does not accept the Bible as the final Word Of God to man then it really makes no difference what The Bible Actually says.

First real life Bible fact is there is no evidence that Mary was conceived differently from any other Hebrew maiden or for that matter any other human in history.

Second, the concept of Mary’s immaculate conception was wholly unknown to the early church.

To that 2nd point please consider "A Handbook of the Catholic Faith" (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1956).

The work was authored by N.G.M. Van Doornik, S. Jelsma, & A. Van De Lisdonk. The book has the Imprimatur (official endorsement) of the Roman Church. What is rather amazing is the fact that these authorities happily admit that there is no biblical authority for this curious dogma. Note the following:

“This point of doctrine [the immaculate conception] is not expressly dealt with anywhere in the Bible, nor was it preached by the Apostles, and for many centuries it was not mentioned at all by the Church. Gradually, however, as the idea of the future dogma began to develop among the faithful, theologians submitted the point to the closest examination, and finally, the view then generally prevailing was formally pronounced as a dogma of the Church by His Holiness Pope Pius IX in 1854” (p. 238).

It is hard to spin or twist those words but it will happen and "colorsblend" no doubt will be the 1st to try and do so.

Major1 said:

The colorsblend not agreeing with a Protestant believer is nothing new. That is all he does.

Actually, if you study the Jews a little I think that you will see that the Messiah they were looking for was one who would rescue them from Roman rule.

The reason why the Immaculate Conception is a false doctrine is because it is not found anywhere in the Bible.

I would say and agree completely that every true Christian has the deepest respect for the mother of the Lord, but we pay Mary no genuine honor by attributing to her qualities that are not supported in the revealed Scriptures.

Mary’s “immaculate conception” is a RCC ONLY dogma that asserts that at the moment Mary’s soul was infused into her body, she was “sanctified by God’s grace” so that she was not “stained with original sin,” i.e., “Adam’s sin as transferred to us”.
(Bertrand Conway, The Question Box, San Francisco: Catholic Truth Society, 1929, p. 358-59).

“The immaculate conception is the doctrine that our Lady ‘in the first instant of her conception was, by a unique singular grace and privilege of Almighty God in view of the merits of Jesus Christ the Saviour of the human race, preserved exempt from all stain of original’” (Donald Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary, New York: Macmillan, 1961, p. 246).

However, the RCC doctrine of “the immaculate conception” is plagued by real life Biblical stubborn facts. Of course, if anyone does not accept the Bible as the final Word Of God to man then it really makes no difference what The Bible Actually says.

First real life Bible fact is there is no evidence that Mary was conceived differently from any other Hebrew maiden or for that matter any other human in history.

Second, the concept of Mary’s immaculate conception was wholly unknown to the early church.

To that 2nd point please consider "A Handbook of the Catholic Faith" (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1956).

The work was authored by N.G.M. Van Doornik, S. Jelsma, & A. Van De Lisdonk. The book has the Imprimatur (official endorsement) of the Roman Church. What is rather amazing is the fact that these authorities happily admit that there is no biblical authority for this curious dogma. Note the following:

“This point of doctrine [the immaculate conception] is not expressly dealt with anywhere in the Bible, nor was it preached by the Apostles, and for many centuries it was not mentioned at all by the Church. Gradually, however, as the idea of the future dogma began to develop among the faithful, theologians submitted the point to the closest examination, and finally, the view then generally prevailing was formally pronounced as a dogma of the Church by His Holiness Pope Pius IX in 1854” (p. 238).

It is hard to spin or twist those words but it will happen and "colorsblend" no doubt will be the 1st to try and do so.

Click to expand...

OK
I agree with all you've said...
Just two points:

An imprimatur only means that there is nothing written that is in error doctrinally. Different authors are allowed to have an opinion on different matters.

Of course the IC is DOCTRINE...so the author would have to agree with the catholic doctrine.

The other point is that nothing would be in the N.T.
It wasn't written about Mary but about Jesus.
There are documents that do speak about Mary, I think I've already noted this, that the church does accept as true because they were written by a church father that the CC trusts.

I don't know of any written doc that claims Mary is without sin. If any catholic could post something, I'd be very interested in seeing it.

@Major1

Just for your curiosity...

You said that the IC happened at the point of Mary's soul entering her body...or similar.

I have heard debates on exactly WHEN this happened by catholic theologians.

Some believe it happened BEFORE conception.
Some believe it happened AT conception.
And some after conception.

The POINT at which this happened seems to be important to catholic theologians.

I can't remember why.

Again, if any catholic is reading along and knows,
it would be nice to be reminded.

GodsGrace101 said:

I understand your point...
but it's an unnecessary point when speaking to Christians that know the scriptures pretty well....
JESUS did not sin.
According to the CC, MARY did not sin.
ALL others have.

Click to expand...

Very good. So this “all have sinned” bit is a little hyperbolic but broadly (though not absolutely) true then.

The reality is that the Church teaches that Our Lady was conceived free of the stain of sin. This was a special grace that she was offered. She herself acknowledged that she had a savior. But in her case, her savior’s redemptive work was applied preemptively.

As you know, Our Lord’s sacrifice was made on the cross once and for all. The 4D nature of His sacrifice means that it could be applied to people born prior to His own birth. And it was applied to His mother before her own birth.

thecolorsblend said:

Very good. So this “all have sinned” bit is a little hyperbolic but broadly (though not absolutely) true then.

The reality is that the Church teaches that Our Lady was conceived free of the stain of sin. This was a special grace that she was offered. She herself acknowledged that she had a savior. But in her case, her savior’s redemptive work was applied preemptively.

As you know, Our Lord’s sacrifice was made on the cross once and for all. The 4D nature of His sacrifice means that it could be applied to people born prior to His own birth. And it was applied to His mother before her own birth.

Click to expand...

Yes, it was applied preemptively, as it was for all those that came before the resurrection.

I can accept the IC to some degree...I can understand that God would want a superior human to be the mother of Jesus...

Here's the problem:

When you leave the authority of the bible (I know it was put together by the Church Fathers) and begin to use man kind's thought or even extra biblical writing...we get carried to other doctrine that does NOT makes sense.

For instance...the IC brings us to the Ascension of Mary.

Now that, I cannot accept. No matter what the reasoning is.

I like the ECFs.
I think we should make some kind of effort to go back to their teachings. I mean even we Protestants.

GodsGrace101 said:

Yes, it was applied preemptively, as it was for all those that came before the resurrection.

Click to expand...

Not so. It was applied preemptively for Our Lady.

It was applied retroactively to the rest.

GodsGrace101 said:

When you leave the authority of the bible (I know it was put together by the Church Fathers) and begin to use man kind's thought or even extra biblical writing...we get carried to other doctrine that does NOT makes sense.

For instance...the IC brings us to the Ascension of Mary.

Now that, I cannot accept. No matter what the reasoning is.

Click to expand...

Of all the Catholic teachings I thought I'd struggle with, I figured the ones about Our Lady would be the most challenging. Oddly enough, they're so flawlessly logical that even now it's a little amazing.

Her Assumption was something I originally just kind of accepted. I figured if the Church was right about her other teachings about Our Lady, I could roll with this Ascension business. I suppose Elizabeth Scalia was coming from a similar viewpoint. But she found a pretty good reason to believe in the Assumption. It was like finding serendipity even when she wasn't ever looking for serendipity.

How Does Science Back Up a Theological Dogma? Like This:

GodsGrace101 said:

I like the ECFs.

Click to expand...

Including the ones who believed in Our Lady's Assumption into Heaven?

GodsGrace101 said:

I think we should make some kind of effort to go back to their teachings. I mean even we Protestants.

Click to expand...

Are you sure?

Major1 said:

The colorsblend not agreeing with a Protestant believer is nothing new. That is all he does.

Click to expand...

Not true.

Major1 said:

First real life Bible fact is there is no evidence that Mary was conceived differently from any other Hebrew maiden or for that matter any other human in history.

Click to expand...

Eh.

Major1 said:

Second, the concept of Mary’s immaculate conception was wholly unknown to the early church.

Click to expand...

As true as that may or may not be, how does it belong on your list of "Bible facts"?

EDIT- Oh, should've known. 1 Major Plagiarist strikes again: False Teaching Regarding Mary

Major1 said:

The work was authored by N.G.M. Van Doornik, S. Jelsma, & A. Van De Lisdonk. The book has the Imprimatur (official endorsement) of the Roman Church. What is rather amazing is the fact that these authorities happily admit that there is no biblical authority for this curious dogma.

Click to expand...

Golly, it's almost like the Church doesn't believe in or teach Sola Scriptura.

Major1 said:

“This point of doctrine [the immaculate conception] is not expressly dealt with anywhere in the Bible, nor was it preached by the Apostles, and for many centuries it was not mentioned at all by the Church. Gradually, however, as the idea of the future dogma began to develop among the faithful, theologians submitted the point to the closest examination, and finally, the view then generally prevailing was formally pronounced as a dogma of the Church by His Holiness Pope Pius IX in 1854” (p. 238).

Click to expand...

That sounds fairly accurate.

Major1 said:

It is hard to spin or twist those words but it will happen and "colorsblend" no doubt will be the 1st to try and do so.

Click to expand...

Looks like somebody else replied before I did. So yeah.

To "your" point, however...

"Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a virgin not only undefiled, but a virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin."
-- Ambrose Of Milan (Commentary on Psalm 118:22–30 [A.D. 387])

I mean, speaking of things that are pretty clear (and pretty early in the Church's history)...

thecolorsblend said:

Not so. It was applied preemptively for Our Lady.

It was applied retroactively to the rest.

Of all the Catholic teachings I thought I'd struggle with, I figured the ones about Our Lady would be the most challenging. Oddly enough, they're so flawlessly logical that even now it's a little amazing.

Her Assumption was something I originally just kind of accepted. I figured if the Church was right about her other teachings about Our Lady, I could roll with this Ascension business. I suppose Elizabeth Scalia was coming from a similar viewpoint. But she found a pretty good reason to believe in the Assumption. It was like finding serendipity even when she wasn't ever looking for serendipity.

How Does Science Back Up a Theological Dogma? Like This:

Including the ones who believed in Our Lady's Assumption into Heaven?

Are you sure?

Click to expand...

Which ECF believed in Mary's ascension?
I don't know of one.
Could you post something please?

I didn't know at the DNA left in the mother's body,
but I knew about the body not decaying.
I don't believe this should be a DOGMA.
What difference does it make if I can believe it or not? Too much dogma.

I left the catholic church...exactly because I saw too much dogma. What about purgatory? You see purgatory in 1 Corinthians 3:11-----?
It's talking about Paul and Apollos.

AND, I can't be a catholic UNLESS I believe each and every dogma because the church states it.

And I know what I'm supposed to do IF I don't believe one....but I have a problem with too many.

Now--it may turn out that the CC is right on everything. We'll know soon enough as for each one of us the end does come sooner or later.

Why do YOU think it's so necessary to believe EVERYTHING?

thecolorsblend said:

Not so. It was applied preemptively for Our Lady.

It was applied retroactively to the rest.

Of all the Catholic teachings I thought I'd struggle with, I figured the ones about Our Lady would be the most challenging. Oddly enough, they're so flawlessly logical that even now it's a little amazing.

Her Assumption was something I originally just kind of accepted. I figured if the Church was right about her other teachings about Our Lady, I could roll with this Ascension business. I suppose Elizabeth Scalia was coming from a similar viewpoint. But she found a pretty good reason to believe in the Assumption. It was like finding serendipity even when she wasn't ever looking for serendipity.

How Does Science Back Up a Theological Dogma? Like This:

Including the ones who believed in Our Lady's Assumption into Heaven?

Are you sure?

Click to expand...

P.S.
Yes, I'm sure that we should go back there.
A priest friend of mine says we know more today and he doesn't want to go back there.

I do. pure,,,not too much theology.

Oh. And I consider the ECFs to be till 325 AD.

GodsGrace101 said:

@Major1

Just for your curiosity...

You said that the IC happened at the point of Mary's soul entering her body...or similar.

I have heard debates on exactly WHEN this happened by catholic theologians.

Some believe it happened BEFORE conception.
Some believe it happened AT conception.
And some after conception.

The POINT at which this happened seems to be important to catholic theologians.

I can't remember why.

Again, if any catholic is reading along and knows,
it would be nice to be reminded.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood what I said.

I do not believe in any way that the Immaculate Conception is a valid doctrine.

It is expressly a RCC teaching and is NOT Biblical. It can not be found or suggested or even alluded to in the Bible.

With just a little effort we can see that Pope Pius IX declared the Immaculate Conception of Mary an article of faith on this day, December 8, 1854. According to his pronouncement in Ineffabilis Deus, Mary was given grace to be sinless at the instant of her conception. Sin was shut out of her. The teaching was controversial among Christians at large. Neither Protestant nor Orthodox accept it.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia admits: ………...
"No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture." Edward O'Connor, compiling a massive defense of the belief went even further, acknowledging that the idea was not even a tradition of the early church, coming to the fore about only 1100 AD.

According to O'Connor, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was "handicapped by the lack of any clear Scriptural evidence (or, even...any explicit patristic tradition) in its favor, but it even seemed to go counter to the clear teaching of St. Paul...and Christ's own declaration...".
Immaculate Conception Became Catholic Doctrine

Although the early church recognized that God chose Mary for a special place in His plan, countless sources both east and west show that she was not considered sinless. However, in the eastern part of the church, some theologians did write of Mary as pure and holy. Mary was called the "Mother of God" and, in passing, some remarked that she had a special flawless holiness. Gradually, in the western church, this belief became the assertion of an unfallen nature.

By the twelfth century, the idea of the Immaculate Conception of Mary was widely accepted in the Roman Church, although there was still strong opposition to the belief. St. Thomas Aquinas especially objected that, "If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never been stained with the contagion of original sin, this would have detracted from Christ's dignity as the savior of all men." Many others stood with him. Thomas recognized that if Mary were without sin, she would not need a Savior; the Bible would then be wrong in saying Jesus was the Savior of all men and that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; there is none righteous, no not one."

The thirteenth century philosopher Duns Scotus tried to sidestep Aquinas' argument by saying that Mary's freedom from sin was a privilege given to her on the basis of Christ's future merits.
Immaculate Conception Became Catholic Doctrine

Major1 said:

Neither Protestant nor Orthodox accept it.

Click to expand...

Bear in mind that the primary reason the Orthodox reject it (other than it comes from the hated Catholics) is that the Orthodox reject Original Sin as western Christians conceive it.

GodsGrace101 said:

OK
I agree with all you've said...
Just two points:

An imprimatur only means that there is nothing written that is in error doctrinally. Different authors are allowed to have an opinion on different matters.

Of course the IC is DOCTRINE...so the author would have to agree with the catholic doctrine.

The other point is that nothing would be in the N.T.
It wasn't written about Mary but about Jesus.
There are documents that do speak about Mary, I think I've already noted this, that the church does accept as true because they were written by a church father that the CC trusts.

I don't know of any written doc that claims Mary is without sin. If any catholic could post something, I'd be very interested in seeing it.

Click to expand...

1.)
Commentators or Theologians can have an opinion on anything.....However they can not institute something as a doctrine when that something does not exist in the Scriptures.

If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will

Then on top of that, it was NOT an author or commentator but instead was ONE MAN,
Pope Pius IX who declared the Immaculate Conception of Mary in an article of faith on December 8, 1854. According to his pronouncement in Ineffabilis Deus, Mary was given grace to be sinless at the instant of her conception. Sin was shut out of her.

That made the IC "strictly" a RCC doctrine as the Orthodox and Protestants rejected it out right.

2).
Again, the written document is from …….
Pope Pius IX who declared the Immaculate Conception of Mary in an article of faith on December 8, 1854.

I agree...….."It wasn't written about Mary but about Jesus."

That being the case then the question has to be WHY is it then a RCC doctrine????

The IC is just ONE example of RCC doctrine which is NOT found in the Scriptures.

Another example would be Salvation:...…..
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace.

Now, is that what the Bible actually says? NO!
The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith in Ephesians 2:8-9. The Scriptures then teach us that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation in Ephesians 2:10, 2 Corth. 5:17 and the fruit of that new life in Christ in John 15.

I am not arguing with any Catholic believer as you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. I am simply saying and showing you what the Bible says as compared to the RCC teachings.

GodsGrace101 said:

Which ECF believed in Mary's ascension?
I don't know of one.
Could you post something please?

I didn't know at the DNA left in the mother's body,
but I knew about the body not decaying.
I don't believe this should be a DOGMA.
What difference does it make if I can believe it or not? Too much dogma.

I left the catholic church...exactly because I saw too much dogma. What about purgatory? You see purgatory in 1 Corinthians 3:11-----?
It's talking about Paul and Apollos.

AND, I can't be a catholic UNLESS I believe each and every dogma because the church states it.

And I know what I'm supposed to do IF I don't believe one....but I have a problem with too many.

Now--it may turn out that the CC is right on everything. We'll know soon enough as for each one of us the end does come sooner or later.

Why do YOU think it's so necessary to believe EVERYTHING?

Click to expand...

Again my sister, PURGATORY is not a Bible doctrine!!!

The basis for it is only found in the Apocrypha in the Book of Maccabees in a prayer said for the dead. The Apocrypha has NO books which can be considered as "inspired".

1 Corth. 3:10-15 has nothing to do with Purgatory.

Because so many Protestants appeal so much to the Bible, the Catholics have sought to find the doctrine of Purgatory within its pages. One such verse is 1 Cor. 3:15.

Paul is simply using the terms that are familiar to the people of the time. Fire was the tool used to purify metals and to get rid of that which was unwanted--the dross. So, too, on the day when our works are examined, the fire of judgment will both purify and remove. This will not affect our salvation, but it will affect our rewards. The theme of fire used as purification is also found in 2 Pet. 3:10-13. But this is not talking about becoming saved or staying saved.

Major1 said:

I think you misunderstood what I said.

I do not believe in any way that the Immaculate Conception is a valid doctrine.

It is expressly a RCC teaching and is NOT Biblical. It can not be found or suggested or even alluded to in the Bible.

With just a little effort we can see that Pope Pius IX declared the Immaculate Conception of Mary an article of faith on this day, December 8, 1854. According to his pronouncement in Ineffabilis Deus, Mary was given grace to be sinless at the instant of her conception. Sin was shut out of her. The teaching was controversial among Christians at large. Neither Protestant nor Orthodox accept it.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia admits: ………...
"No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture." Edward O'Connor, compiling a massive defense of the belief went even further, acknowledging that the idea was not even a tradition of the early church, coming to the fore about only 1100 AD.

According to O'Connor, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was "handicapped by the lack of any clear Scriptural evidence (or, even...any explicit patristic tradition) in its favor, but it even seemed to go counter to the clear teaching of St. Paul...and Christ's own declaration...".
Immaculate Conception Became Catholic Doctrine

Although the early church recognized that God chose Mary for a special place in His plan, countless sources both east and west show that she was not considered sinless. However, in the eastern part of the church, some theologians did write of Mary as pure and holy. Mary was called the "Mother of God" and, in passing, some remarked that she had a special flawless holiness. Gradually, in the western church, this belief became the assertion of an unfallen nature.

By the twelfth century, the idea of the Immaculate Conception of Mary was widely accepted in the Roman Church, although there was still strong opposition to the belief. St. Thomas Aquinas especially objected that, "If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never been stained with the contagion of original sin, this would have detracted from Christ's dignity as the savior of all men." Many others stood with him. Thomas recognized that if Mary were without sin, she would not need a Savior; the Bible would then be wrong in saying Jesus was the Savior of all men and that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; there is none righteous, no not one."

The thirteenth century philosopher Duns Scotus tried to sidestep Aquinas' argument by saying that Mary's freedom from sin was a privilege given to her on the basis of Christ's future merits.
Immaculate Conception Became Catholic Doctrine

Click to expand...

I understood you 100% M. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I didn't.

It's good, however, that you posted the above. It's chock full of information which is very interesting indeed....history is good, even if you don't agree with the doctrine being discussed.

Major1 said:

1.)
Commentators or Theologians can have an opinion on anything.....However they can not institute something as a doctrine when that something does not exist in the Scriptures.

If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will

Then on top of that, it was NOT an author or commentator but instead was ONE MAN,
Pope Pius IX who declared the Immaculate Conception of Mary in an article of faith on December 8, 1854. According to his pronouncement in Ineffabilis Deus, Mary was given grace to be sinless at the instant of her conception. Sin was shut out of her.

That made the IC "strictly" a RCC doctrine as the Orthodox and Protestants rejected it out right.

2).
Again, the written document is from …….
Pope Pius IX who declared the Immaculate Conception of Mary in an article of faith on December 8, 1854.

I agree...….."It wasn't written about Mary but about Jesus."

That being the case then the question has to be WHY is it then a RCC doctrine????

The IC is just ONE example of RCC doctrine which is NOT found in the Scriptures.

Another example would be Salvation:...…..
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace.

Now, is that what the Bible actually says? NO!
The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith in Ephesians 2:8-9. The Scriptures then teach us that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation in Ephesians 2:10, 2 Corth. 5:17 and the fruit of that new life in Christ in John 15.

I am not arguing with any Catholic believer as you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. I am simply saying and showing you what the Bible says as compared to the RCC teachings.

Click to expand...

First of all, I need to remind you that I'm Protestant.
Because I know catholic doctrine does not mean I agree with it or I WOULD be catholic.

I hate to be put in the position of protecting the CC at times, but I also dislike incorrect statement.

The CC does not teach salvation the way you've stated above. If you're interested in knowing WHAT it teaches...I'm willing.

If not, that's fine too. Many protestants have this idea of catholic salvation...I don't know why.

Major1 said:

Again my sister, PURGATORY is not a Bible doctrine!!!

The basis for it is only found in the Apocrypha in the Book of Maccabees in a prayer said for the dead. The Apocrypha has NO books which can be considered as "inspired".

1 Corth. 3:10-15 has nothing to do with Purgatory.

Because so many Protestants appeal so much to the Bible, the Catholics have sought to find the doctrine of Purgatory within its pages. One such verse is 1 Cor. 3:15.

Paul is simply using the terms that are familiar to the people of the time. Fire was the tool used to purify metals and to get rid of that which was unwanted--the dross. So, too, on the day when our works are examined, the fire of judgment will both purify and remove. This will not affect our salvation, but it will affect our rewards. The theme of fire used as purification is also found in 2 Pet. 3:10-13. But this is not talking about becoming saved or staying saved.

Click to expand...

I don't believe 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 is speaking about our rewards. I believe it's speaking about the work of Paul and Apollos.

Verses 9 and 10 state that P and A are God's fellow workers and WE are the field. Verse 10 states that EACH MAN who BUILDS on the foundation which Paul h as laid should be CAREFUL HOW he builds on it.

Verse 12 If a man adds to the foundation with gold, silver and prec. stones the day will reveal it with fire. Wood hay and straw will be burned up....the man who does not build properly on the foundation will be spared, but his works will be burned up.

Check it out.

GodsGrace101 said:

First of all, I need to remind you that I'm Protestant.
Because I know catholic doctrine does not mean I agree with it or I WOULD be catholic.

I hate to be put in the position of protecting the CC at times, but I also dislike incorrect statement.

The CC does not teach salvation the way you've stated above. If you're interested in knowing WHAT it teaches...I'm willing.

If not, that's fine too. Many protestants have this idea of catholic salvation...I don't know why.

Click to expand...

I do not argue the point, however, did you read the material from the RCC on its salvation doctrine.

1).
". . . Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that 'we too might walk in newness of life,'" (CCC 977).

2),
“Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude . . . " (CCC 1257).

3).
"Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God's mercy," (CCC 2020).

Now, in light of the ACTUAL words of the Catholic Catacism, would you like to explain to me from YOUR own words of...….
"but I also dislike incorrect statement.The CC does not teach salvation the way you've stated above."

What did I say that was not factually correct with exactly what the RCC says????

GodsGrace101 said:

I don't believe 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 is speaking about our rewards. I believe it's speaking about the work of Paul and Apollos.

Verses 9 and 10 state that P and A are God's fellow workers and WE are the field. Verse 10 states that EACH MAN who BUILDS on the foundation which Paul h as laid should be CAREFUL HOW he builds on it.

Verse 12 If a man adds to the foundation with gold, silver and prec. stones the day will reveal it with fire. Wood hay and straw will be burned up....the man who does not build properly on the foundation will be spared, but his works will be burned up.

Check it out.

Click to expand...

With all due respect to you, I have to disagree with your interpretation.

Pauls and Apollos will certainly have their works included with all other men.

The context of 1 Corinthians 3 clearly refers to reward.

Paul states...……..
“Each will receive his own reward according to his own labor” (v.8).

Later, Paul writes, “He will receive a reward” (v.14).

Moreover, the rest of the NT comments on the eternal rewards that will be given for faithfulness in1 Pet. 5:4; 1 Cor. 9:24; Jas. 1:12; Lk. 14:14; 1 Tim. 6:18-19; Mt. 6:20.

If this passage of Scripture is NOT about rewards at the Bema Seat Judgment, can you then explain why there would even be a Bema Seat Judgment????

Major1 said:

I do not argue the point, however, did you read the material from the RCC on its salvation doctrine.

1).
". . . Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that 'we too might walk in newness of life,'" (CCC 977).

2),
“Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude . . . " (CCC 1257).

3).
"Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God's mercy," (CCC 2020).

Now, in light of the ACTUAL words of the Catholic Catacism, would you like to explain to me from YOUR own words of...….
"but I also dislike incorrect statement.The CC does not teach salvation the way you've stated above."

What did I say that was not factually correct with exactly what the RCC says????

Click to expand...

The CCC was written back in the late 80's and early 90's.

I don't need to read the CCC because I actually know doctrine from other sources...You could either trust me on this or not...I DO know what the church teaches today.

So this is what the CC teaches about salvation.
We are saved by grace through faith and not through any work of our own.
Ephesians 2:8 sound familiar?
Also Galatians 2:16 is used.

When a baby is baptized he is welcomed into the Christian community and receives the Holy Spirit. How they explain it is that the Holy Spirit is asleep in this baby and AT SOME POINT in that baby's life, he has to ACCEPT his baptism and live it...IOW,,,the Holy Spirit in him wakes us so to speak.

A problem I find in catholic teaching is that they mix up justificiation with sanctification. They call it progressive justification. The two happen, really, simultaneously, and so sometimes it seems from their writings that works are needed for JUSTIFICATION. NO! Works are needed for Progressive Justification.

Our Sanctification is a cooperative effort between us and God. I also believe this is true as a Protestant.

THIS is what is taught.
Catholics are not saved by baptism...that is an old idea. If they don't ACCEPT their baptism, they are not saved.

Major1 said:

With all due respect to you, I have to disagree with your interpretation.

Pauls and Apollos will certainly have their works included with all other men.

The context of 1 Corinthians 3 clearly refers to reward.

Paul states...……..
“Each will receive his own reward according to his own labor” (v.8).

Later, Paul writes, “He will receive a reward” (v.14).

Moreover, the rest of the NT comments on the eternal rewards that will be given for faithfulness in1 Pet. 5:4; 1 Cor. 9:24; Jas. 1:12; Lk. 14:14; 1 Tim. 6:18-19; Mt. 6:20.

If this passage of Scripture is NOT about rewards at the Bema Seat Judgment, can you then explain why there would even be a Bema Seat Judgment????

Click to expand...

It is about rewards.
1 Corinthians 3:14-15

I won't go back and check what I said,,,apparently something I did NOT say.

My point was that what is being burned up is the WORKER'S work,,,those that build on the foundation which Jesus laid...NOT OUR works,,,as works unto the Lord.