Be honest!!

[racer]

[/font]

The Church is the mystical Body of Christ, and before her inception, Christ said and promised, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it." When He sent the Apostles out, He sent them out telling them, "He who listens to you, listens to me. He who rejects you, rejects me." These weren't idle points they were preaching, topics of conversation that could be disagreed upon, these were the very "words of eternal life." The Church is the "Pillar and Foundation of truth" becase she is the Body of Christ and she preaches those same "words of eternal life," and it is because she teaches those words of eternal life through the successors of the Apostles that Christ still says to her, "He who listens to you, listens to me. He who rejects you, rejects me." If a single word that the Church teaches is not the truth, then the Church cannot be the "Pillar and Foundation of truth:" The Body of Christ.

Neal,

Thank you so much for your explanation. I am familiar with the Catholic teaching and belief on the subject.

Therefore, when I see those words of Christ's, I see great comfort, I see truth divinely upheld, and I see eternal life within my reach.

God Bless,

Neal

I see great comfort in Christ's words, also. But, I also have faith and confidence in my understanding of those words. If my understanding was unique and unqualified, then I certainly would question my ability to understand. However, there are many, many non-Catholic biblical scholars who seem to have come to the same understandings.

Understand, I'm not arguing right or wrong doctrine here. I'm simply explaining what I believe. Nor, am I stating my beliefs as facts.

 

[Michelina]

Is there no difference between debating and discussing? I have attempted to carefully word my remarks so that they could not be construed as debating.

There is a fine line, Lisa, between the two. And I think you manage to venture across it swiftly and gracefully and return to the safe side artfully.

But it is still in my judgment Debating. I didn't put my Moderator Hat on deliberately but I want you to know that the fact that you are very articulate, polite and careful in your tactics does not blind us to what you are doing. There are other fora available for debates.

 

[racer]

There is a fine line, Lisa, between the two. And I think you manage to venture across it swiftly and gracefully and return to the safe side artfully.

But it is still in my judgement Debating. I didn't put my Moderator Hat on deliberately but I want you to know that the fact that you are very articulate, polite and careful in your tactics does not blind us to what you are doing. There are other fora available for debates.

Are you articulately and gracefully accusing me of being dishonest? I don't think being a moderator allows you that judgement. But, that's just my humble opinion. So, I will excuse myself from this thread.

If it were my intent to attempt to disprove or discredit your faith I would simply take it to the General Theology thread and do so.

 

[isshinwhat]

I see great comfort in Christ's words, also. But, I also have faith and confidence in my understanding of those words. If my understanding was unique and unqualified, then I certainly would question my ability to understand. However, there are many, many non-Catholic biblical scholars who seem to have come to the same understandings.

Agreed. I think enough of you to believe that you wouldn't follow somthing you thought was suspect. The problem I ran into as a non-Catholic was this: though I share many things in common with all Christians, how does that fact that I differ with every other Bible-believing Christian in some major point of belief mesh with the fact that there is absolute truth in God? For things dealing directly with faith and salvation, do you disagree with some of those other scholars who "seem to have come to the same understandings" that you have? If so, what confidence can you have in agreeing with someone who you already admit is wrong in some part of the ways of salvation.

God bless,

Neal

 

[Ann M]

Neal,

Thank you so much for your explanation. I am familiar with the Catholic teaching and belief on the subject.

I see great comfort in Christ's words, also. But, I also have faith and confidence in my understanding of those words. If my understanding was unique and unqualified, then I certainly would question my ability to understand. However, there are many, many non-Catholic biblical scholars who seem to have come to the same understandings.

Understand, I'm not arguing right or wrong doctrine here. I'm simply explaining what I believe. Nor, am I stating my beliefs as facts.

Many who come and ask questions here do so to learn. Your above post seems to indicate that you already know and therefore have no intention of learning.

Whilst you've also put that very nice disclaimer on the bottom, it's difficult to believe it, as you have an answer for every explaination.

 

[racer]

Many who come and ask questions here do so to learn. Your above post seems to indicate that you already know and therefore have no intention of learning.

Whilst you've also put that very nice disclaimer on the bottom, it's difficult to believe it, as you have an answer for every explaination.

Oh, I continue to learn daily. However, that particular subject is one I've been over a time or two. But, I never discount the possibility that something newly relevant may jump out at me that's either never been brought to my attention before, or if it was, I missed it. I wouldn't ever assume that I have encountered every argument or point-of-fact.

 

[InnerPhyre]

Neal,

Thank you so much for your explanation. I am familiar with the Catholic teaching and belief on the subject.



I see great comfort in Christ's words, also. But, I also have faith and confidence in my understanding of those words. If my understanding was unique and unqualified, then I certainly would question my ability to understand. However, there are many, many non-Catholic biblical scholars who seem to have come to the same understandings.

Understand, I'm not arguing right or wrong doctrine here. I'm simply explaining what I believe. Nor, am I stating my beliefs as facts.

There are many non-Christian Bible scholars who know scripture like the back of their hand and have come to the conclusion that the resurrection never literally happened. This is the trouble with relying on our own interpretation of scripture. Only one interpretation can be correct, and that is why Christ left us His church, which is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

 

[racer]

[/font]

Agreed. I think enough of you to believe that you wouldn't follow somthing you thought was suspect. The problem I ran into as a non-Catholic was this: though I share many things in common with all Christians, how does that fact that I differ with every other Bible-believing Christian in some major point of belief mesh with the fact that there is absolute truth in God? For things dealing directly with faith and salvation, do you disagree with some of those other scholars who "seem to have come to the same understandings" that you have? If so, what confidence can you have in agreeing with someone who you already admit is wrong in some part of the ways of salvation.

God bless,

Neal

Since you asked a question, I'm going to answer it quickly, then leave the thread as I said I would.

I couldn't say that I 100% agree with anybody, because simply put, I'm 100% sure about some things myself. Within my particular faith, I agree with the essentials. And who says that we must be 100% certain regarding our faith? If that were a requirement or even a possibility, I think I'd be Baptist.

 

[Michelina]

Are you articulately and gracefully accusing me of being dishonest? I don't think being a moderator allows you that judgement.

It is sometimes the duty of Moderators to make such a call. I did it as mildly as possible.

 

[racer]

It is sometimes the duty of Moderators to make such a call. I did it as mildly as possible.

You were very tactful. Few people possess that skill.

 

[Michelina]

You were very tactful. Few people possess that skill.

You are very kind, as always, Lisa.

 

[Benedicta00]

Very interesting remarks folks and I appreciate the honesty. I have always been under the impression that if one did not follow all the dictates of the Roman Catholic church and obey the Pope and go through all the form and fashion you guys go through that you could not be saved.

I think jesus was pretty clear, salvation comes through doing the word of God, not just hearing it and going through the motions, but livmng our faith.

I guess I am asking why you go through all the form and fashion, if this is not neccesary for salvation. I believe that all one has to do is ask Jesus into your heart, repent of your sins then you are saved forever and baptism has nothing to do with salvation but it is important none the less because we are commanded to do so as a show that we have buried our sins in Christ and raised up as new in Christ.

I understand that Protestants tend to over simplify the process of salvation but it is that- a process, we must be born again, that's the first step and then we must work it out put like Paul says with a holy fear of not ever offending God but if we do, we know we have a mediator who is Jesus.

There is more to it then 'just' accept Christ and you shall be saved.

I though Catholics baptised babies and other by sprinkling but we believe that we have to be immersed as Jesus was. In short it seems you folks have to work hard for your salvation but we have the simple plan of salvation that works by faith thru faith for us.

We don't work for anything and neither do you have anything easy. There is but one way to heaven and that is Jesus- all of us saved by grace alone but there is more to it than that, reading the gospels says a s much.

 

[Benedicta00]

Well, I would say most faithful, devout Catholics are in general honest. But, not all Catholics all the time. Same goes for Christians of all faiths.



I'm not arguing salvation here, but I have to ask something. Can you direct me to where Christ instructs us that in order to join Him in the hereafter, we must accept His Church?



Really? God's kingdom is fully "Catholic?" Michelle, define "catholic," please. The Church was catholic as in universal. Just because you capitalize Catholic when distinguishing your faith from other Christian denominations, is the meaning of the word different? Catholic means "universal." To refer to God's kingdom as fully Catholic is a little confining or belittling isn't it?

I believe His kingdom exceeds universal by a long shot.

Hey racer, I think you proved my point- You can love Jesus and accept that he died for you sins until all the cows come home but if you are repulsed by or deny His Church which is the Catholic Church, it isn’t Protestantism, but the Catholic Church in union with the bishop of Rome, you will not want to be in heaven- this is my point.

Accepting the Church as in Catholic Church in union with the bishop of Rome ia synonymous with accepting Christ. My whole point- you can’t accept one and not the other. So are prots saved? I dunno- if they UNTO death reject Christ’s Church it will be a rejection of Him.

Just because you say Lord, Lord it doesn’t mean you will enter.

 

[Benedicta00]

yep, they are good Catholics (the ones in heaven anyway)

You know I never thought about it but you are right the angles in heaven are good Catholics, and the fallen ones, dissenting Catholics. Wow, fallen humans apples do not fall very far from that tree.

 

[Benedicta00]

It seems you folks are indeed saying that salvation is only possible through the Roman Catholic church and obeying the sacremants of your church and this brings me back to my initial question.

You have this thing with if we obey... how do you obey a sacrament anyway? It is NOT and I repeat NOT if we just go and receive them we’ll be saved. We can not just revive them but it must be a relationship with Christ that comes from the heart or all the grace from the sacraments that they do objectively give will not be operative n our life, IOW, we must cooperate with grace.

I do not believe in the Catholic sacraments and will never attend a Catholic church because I do not believe in what you believe so as a Protestant that believes that we are saved according to the Faith in Christ atoning blood by grace plus nothing then do you think I am saved.and will be in paradise with u.

All anyone is saying is that what you believe in only half the story and if unto death when you meet the Lord and find out that what you believe is just half the story but you still reject like you do now ,the full truth, how can you be in haven?? You are going to want to go where they believe and require you to believe in something you don’t/won’t?

By the way we believe also in works but we believe when we are saved the works will follow but works in itself will not save anyone. Also baptism does not save us and one proof is the thief on the tree beside Jesus was saved and he was not Baptised. And what happens if you ask Jesus into your life and you die on the way to the Baptism. I am not trying to be contrary, but seeking to know what you folks really believe.

We believe that it is both, not one or the other but both. Both works and faith t-o-g-e-t-h-e-r save but first we must come to God through Christ and that is what baptism is/does, it is the free unmerited grace that saves us from the fall where we are reconciled to God. After we must live it out through faith and works now that we are born again.

 

[SolomonVII]

I am not a Catholic but I believe individuals in the Catholic church can be saved and go to heaven but like everyone else they must be born again. My question to the Catholics here is ,do you honor the salvation of all believers i.e prostestants and do u believe that we will be with you all in paradise wheather Baptist, Pentacostal, or whatever if we confess Jesus as Lord but do not believe in the Catholic way. Thanks

Well the minority position would be that even Judas may be mercifully saved, but perhaps that is not your position, so it likely might not be much comfort for the many.

Consider then the metaphor of the Church being the Body of Christ, with our Lord as the Head of this Church.

Now consider this body being merilessly scourged, as it was on that fateful good Friday. Imagine the whip slicing through the flesh and tearing pieces of flesh away from Jesus' body.

As a matter of discernment and reasoning, should the flesh and blood rent asunder from the body be considered damned, or unworthy? ...

The reasonable conclusion would be no, this would not be the case. Even the tiniest splatter of the Lord's precious blood would be considered pleasing to the Lord, and will be found worthy of restoration.

Going up the level of responsibility through the individuals that dealt the blows, and the soldiers that drove the nails; on through to the frenzied mob would cried for his blood, through the conniving Pilate, and the Saduccees masterminds, and even onto Judas himself, the friend that betrayed Him, we can discern the shadows of evil ever increasing until all that remains is the blackness of the heart of the Father of Lies himself.

As it is for the Body of Christ, so it is for the Church. The sheep driven away for the fold and scattered yet will not be lost. Through the eyes of His suffering Son, the Father gazes upon their suffering with compassion and is pleased. It has always been the desire of the Father that not one will be lost.

For those who have scattered the flock with hatred and intent, however, and for those who have created dissension and spread lies against the Church, even to the extent of slandering the papacy itself as the seat of the anti-Christ, and the Mother Church as the harlot of Babylon, is it not reasonable to consider that there will be judgment?

 

[Skripper]

Very interesting remarks folks and I appreciate the honesty. I have always been under the impression that if one did not follow all the dictates of the Roman Catholic church and obey the Pope and go through all the form and fashion you guys go through that you could not be saved.

I guess I am asking why you go through all the form and fashion, if this is not neccesary for salvation. I believe that all one has to do is ask Jesus into your heart, repent of your sins then you are saved forever and baptism has nothing to do with salvation but it is important none the less because we are commanded to do so as a show that we have buried our sins in Christ and raised up as new in Christ.
I though Catholics baptised babies and other by sprinkling but we believe that we have to be immersed as Jesus was. In short it seems you folks have to work hard for your salvation but we have the simple plan of salvation that works by faith thru faith for us.

There is no evidence to definitely claim that Jesus was immersed, or that immersion is the only valid form of baptism. Even early Christian art work depicts Jesus being baptized by pouring, never by immersion (that I've seen). Moreover, there is no historical evidence to suggest that baptism is either not required or must be by immersion. There is, however, considerable historical Christian evidence to the contrary, demonstrating both the necessity of baptism and that methods other than immersion are acceptable and valid.



There is also no historical Christian evidence to support the belief that all one need do to be “saved forever” is to “ask Jesus into your heart and repent of your sins and baptism has nothing to do with salvation.” You are free to believe this, of course, but it’s not historic Christian teaching, and is in fact rather new in Christian belief.

 

[SolomonVII]

.....
There is also no historical Christian evidence to support the belief that all one need do to be “saved forever” is to “ask Jesus into your heart and repent of your sins and baptism has nothing to do with salvation.” You are free to believe this, of course, but it’s not historic Christian teaching, and is in fact rather new in Christian belief.

It is very possible that this 'saved forever' phenomena of modern Christian theology is directly connected to the denigration of thee sacramental system of historical Christianity.
Without the assurances that the sacramental system can provide, Calvinist theology in particular had the tendancy to lead its Christian believers into an almost intolerable psycholigical state of uncertainty. There was very little in the way of assurance wheter you were predestined to be among the elect, or among the eternally damned.
More so that against Catholicism itself, perhaps this theology is the equal and opposite reaction against this (overly) severe state of affairs that mainstream Protestant theologies could often lead their believers into?

 

[Ann M]

Well the minority position would be that even Judas may be mercifully saved, but perhaps that is not your position, so it likely might not be much comfort for the many.

I must be in the minority then, because I do believe that Judas was saved. Whilst we can always paint him as the villian, think of the pain and anguish that it caused him to do what he did. For if he hadn't done his bit would the scene have played out as it did? Would the apostles have fought back and died for Christ, thus killing the Church in its infancy? Would Christ have even been crucified without Judas? So personally I do believe that Judas followed God instructions, for God put His Son on this earth to die for us, and the way He died is fundamental to our belief in him.

 

[Wild_Fan4Christ]

Racer, I am not sure if you are still reading this thread. But here are a few observations to what you have argued about throughout this thread. I have tried to include all original quotes that you had questions to. Your replies are in blue, all replies from others are in original color. I am not the best to answer these. But since others missed them I thought I would bring them back up and reply to them. Think about the things you were saying and try to think how it may contradict what is the truth (Catholic doctrine) and what is taught in Protestant denominations as error to the Catholic Church.

Racer, YOU said...

I don't reject His Church. But, your question did not answer mine.

and...

You know what, I'm sure what I'm going to say will offend you. But, when we get into heaven, whatever your Church or my church has taught during our earthly tenure will be moot points. What church you belong to means squat to God. His requirements and expectations of us are spelled out very simply and explicitly in Scripture.

You say "you don't reject His Church." But yet you contradict yourself in saying, "...will be moot points. "What church you belong to means squat to God." Oh really? How can you say one thing and contradict by saying the other. It apears to me that you may indeed reject "His Church." Try telling God these things that it will be "moot points and mean squat to him." And what scripture requires of us may be "spelled out very simply and explicitly," it does not mean "To each their own in personal interpretation" of that holy scripture many Protestants hold dearly. I have seen it time and time again in my recent experiences with some Baptists. They will sit there and argue for hours on end what each one believes and NO ONE knows the truth in the end. This is where the Catholic Church and the Holy Magisterium with the Pope as Christ's head here on Earth comes into play.

Now on to this...

SO, YOU'VE FINALLY BECOME A CATHOLIC !!!

Change your icon.

You said this...

I'm Christian!!

And so are Catholics

Too all of these I recommend starting here and then reading the others if you wish...
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/reply.htm

Christ said a house divided can not stand.

Has the Church went anywhere? No. Therefore, it must not be as divided as some tend to believe.

​

What PeterPaul is referring to can be found here on this webpage (I don't know which link to start with since they all refer to the same thing)...



http://http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/amputate.htm
"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." - Matthew 12:30

"So now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone.
For if this plan or work is of men, it will be overthrown;
but if it is of GOD, you will not be able to overthrow it.
Else perhaps you may find yourselves fighting even against GOD."
Acts 5:38-39
Strong words right there. Also, check out [size=+0]Dan 2:44[/size]

Then he calls the Church the pillar of truth.

What exactly does that mean to you?

​

http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/found.htm

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." 1Timothy 3:15
See...
Which is the only Church that stands alone
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/stand.htm
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/thread.htm
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/pillar.htm

A divided pillar will not hold a house or anything for that matter.

Well, then since the Church is still standing, is that pillar divided?

​

"For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid down, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 3:11

"Unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labor in vain...."
Psalms 127:1
Notice, scripture says house (Church) singular not plural. What part of "one" isn't making sense?
So Yes, it is all the Protestant 33,000+ denominations that have broken away from and dividing the true Church of Christ since the reformation (aka revolt, protest, and anarchy NOT Hierarchy which is the Catholic Church). And they continue to break away from each other and create new sects of their OWN beliefes NOT those of Christ. Since when is it ok in God's eyes to believe in some things but NOT ALL? And since when is it ok to come up with new doctrines from the "will of the people," personal interpretation, perversion of the truth, etc...which are more like errors. It has happened for 2,000 years, and the infamous reformation of Luther only compounded the problem(s) we see today.
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/rock.htm
Also, the Catholic church has stood for 2,000 years despite the constant attacks in every century from heretics who wish to destroy her. But yet, she is still here and is growing stronger and stronger with each attack. Is that of man's will? Or is it from the divine presence of God ?
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/inside.htm

God cannot and will not ever change. It is us humans that need the change.

Again, I understand you view scripture as self-revealing, however if it reveals one thing to you and another to me, it isn't.

Just because Scripture can be self-revealing, doesn’t mean that all who read it are infallible and will come away with the correct understanding of it.

​

Exactly, so why then did you say this? "His requirements and expectations of us are spelled out very simply and explicitly in Scripture." Does personal opinion mean anything here? More below from you on this very same thing...

I understand your POV, because I once held it also, however as intelligent as you are, you know that ommission does not conclude truth. Because I don't tell you specifically you can do something, does not ipso facto commend what you are doing nor reflect what you are doing as correct.

Nor do I base my beliefs on what is omitted.

​

You say you don't your beliefs on what is omitted. But if you have been taught errors about the Catholic Church and haven't heard of the truth how can you make any arguments to your claims?

On the other hand, scripture, as a document post Early Church, does tell us where to look for official teaching.

Where is that? And where does Scripture direct us to this source?

​

​

​

​

You are failing to remember (or just don't know) that the Bible came after the Church that Christ started. There are thousands of things Jesus commanded his Apostles to do, but did not write them in the bible.
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/teach.htm
It is not Sola-Scripture but history that carried on the early Church
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/scrip2.htm



John Cardinal Newman said it best...http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/see.htm

"TO BE DEEP IN HISTORY IS TO CEASE TO BE PROTESTANT."

John Cardinal Newman, an Anglican convert to the Catholic Church, said that after he had done an intense study of the Church Fathers. Sadly, many Protestant ministers tell their flocks not to read the Church Fathers*, as they might be corrupted by doing so. This could not be further from the truth. Everyone reads the history of their own country, or of the world, and of the people in it. How then, can anyone be prevented from reading the history of Christianity? By reading these historical writings for yourselves, you will gain a better understanding of the truth, and knowledge of the truth will set you free, John 8:32. However, if you deny the truth, you will perish, 2Thess 2:9-12. Rom 1:18, "For the wrath of GOD is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those men WHO IN WICKEDNESS HOLD BACK THE TRUTH OF GOD."
​

So, to answer your question of where it is and what/who directs us, may be found here.
"His-Story" Who? God's
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/history.htm
The Didache...
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/didache.htm
Also from some of the early Church Fathers
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/today.htm
Want to see what Church Father(s) wrote about certain subjects. It just has a list, but can download from the two links at the top.
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/ref.htm
See the writings of St Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrneans(35-107 AD).
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/ign.htm
And, Saint Athanasius (295-373)
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/athan.htm
To see more from early Church Fathers, click the home button at the bottom and go to "What Church Fathers Had to Say..."

PP, of course you and I don't argue what Scripture says. What we argue is the meaning of what is said. Yes, Scripture says the church is the "pillar and bulwark of truth." You and those of your faith see it as meaning the Church only can interpret correctly Scripture. I and many others understand it to mean that Jesus charged the church with supporting, fulfilling, and upholding Scripture, to protect the truth. We see no assurance in those words that the Church will unerringly do so.

We disagree in some instances of what truth actually is. I would never be so bold as to say with any amount of pride or arrogance that your faith is wrong and mine is absolutely right. Because I don't believe that. You may see that as a weakness, I see it as being honest. There are simply things about the Catholic faith with which I do not concur. You may call that being wishywashy or "picking-and-choosing" what I personally want to agree with. I disagree. I believe that I'm not "picking and choosing," I believe that my understandings fall in line with what Scripture reveals to me. You most likely believe that I should not trust in my own ability to do so. However, I've found in Scripture that I should be able to do so, and have nowhere found where Scripture says I am incapable of doing so.

Look above at the links I have provided for you. You would neve be so bold to say it, but yet you did. To not concur with the Catholic faith by personally agreeing with or not (beggers can't be choosers) is to disasgree with God himself. Scripture can reveal to you things which is good. But to take personal interpretation and throw away the history at the same time leaves a lot left to be desired in what can and should be revealed in truth to what hasn't due to false teachings. Should of, Would of, Could of is not something I want to be saying to God on judgement day as I wonder why it doesn't say this or that in the Bible.

I don't believe the truth disappeared. I do believe it became distorted and changed by some.

You could not be further from the truth in this statement (for which I agree with). How sad sad it is too...

So, does it really matter what Church you or anyone else belongs to? I will let you decide for yourself.

And to the topic of can Protestants be saved. Of course, we just have differing beliefs on how to get there.
For non-Catholics it is either-or one of these,
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/fides.htm
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/saved.htm
But for Catholics it is all of the above of "and"
ht[url="http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/works.htm"]tp://home.inreach.com/bstanley/works.htm[/url]