I would never intend to put words in your mouth. There is very little that separates what we believe in this area, my brother in Christ. Please accept my apologies for any offence caused, it was most definitely not my intent.You are trying to turn my post into something akin to the opposite of what I meant. And I don't appreciate that.
The Catholic Church teaches more or less what I wrote in my post. Those in Heaven may or may not have been Catholic in life. But they are Catholic in eternity.
Others are welcome to believe whatever they want. But I'd prefer you not try forcing words into my mouth. (A) It won't work and (B) it will annoy me.
I did, which is why I am asking for greater specificity.Did you read what I wrote in that post?
I did, which is why I am asking for greater specificity.
Where specifically in Scripture does Jesus or the Apostles list Protestant doctrines/beliefs as essential, and others as secondary or non-essential ?
And what Church was that?
I can appreciate your honestly by agreeing that it is fair to say that everything you post here, outside of quoting Scripture, are the words of a fallible person who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yourself? in other words, not on the Word of God, but on your fallible, non-authoritative opinion......... the word of A_thinker, as it were, and "is" subject to error?
Thanks
According to Scripture, without an infallible church you really cannot have faith in the sense that God wills for us; because, if you don’t have an infallible church, then you are trusting in some man’s private interpretation rather than God’s spokesmen who speak infallibly.
In I Thess. 2:13, St. Paul put it this way: “And we thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.”
Notice that St. Paul did not say he was communicating his own fallible opinion of what he thought the gospel was saying. He spoke “the word of God” to the Thessalonians. This is why Scripture and the Catholic Church never command what the Church calls “divine faith” to be placed in anything other than definitive teaching of the magisterium. To place “divine faith” in anything else would be to accept “as doctrines the precepts of men.” Jesus did not have nice things to say about that (cf. Mark 7:6-8).
The Protestant idea—that we are to get our Bibles out and argue verses, come to our varying non-infallible opinions, and then start our own churches—as has been the case for well over 500 years of the Protestant Reformation, ultimately undermines faith and is alien to the New Testament. The New Testament refers to that as “private interpretation” and condemns the practice. Now, mind you, this is the very practice upon which the doctrine of sola scriptura rests.
(source: Catholicanswers.com)
First off, after finding the truth, and converting to the Catholic Church after many many years of being a member of every non-Catholic church/sect, I no longer adhere to the the unbiblical belief of sola scriptura.
Secondly, fellow former Protestant and current Catholic Apologists at Catholicanswers.com Tim Staples explains it best:
"What Does the Bible Have to Say?
Matt. 5:19:
Whoever then relaxes (breaks) one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Our Lord here teaches that there are “least commandments” a person can break and even teach others to do so yet still remain “in the kingdom of heaven.” That is both a good definition of venial sin and perfectly in line with paragraph 1863 of the Catechism. Then, Jesus goes on to warn us in no uncertain terms that there are other sins that will take us to hell—if we do not repent, of course. For example, in Matt. 5: 22, Jesus says, “… whoever says ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire.” In verses 28-29, he says:
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.
Clearly Jesus teaches there are some sins that will separate us from God for all eternity and some that will not–mortal and venial sin.
Matt. 12:32:
And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come (Matthew 12:32, emphasis added).
This statement of our Lord implies there are at least some sins that can be forgiven in the next life and some that cannot to a people who already believed it to be so. That sounds awful Catholic, doesn’t it?
II Maccabees 12:39-46, which was written ca. 125 BC, gives us an excellent historical backdrop that can shed light on the importance of our Lord’s words in Matt. 12:32. As the story goes, Judas Maccabeus and his army collected the bodies of some fallen comrades killed in battle. When they discovered these men were carrying “sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear” (vs. 40), Judas and his companions discerned they had died as a punishment for sin.
Therefore, Judas and his men turned to prayer beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out… He also took up a collection… and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably… Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.
Whether one accepts the canonicity of I and II Maccabees really doesn’t matter. Whether a person accepts the inspiration of these books or not does not change the fact that they give us crucial information about the faith and practice of the Jews shortly before the time of Christ from a purely historical perspective. The Jews believed there were some sins that could be forgiven in the next life (analogous to what Catholics call venial sins), and that there were some sins that could not be so forgiven (analogous to what Catholics call mortal sins). That’s the historical record."
To see article in it's entirety, go to Catholicanswers.com and type in: Mortal and Venial Sin?
Also, could you show in Scripture where it says the bible is sufficient as a sole rule of faith?
Fidelibus: "First off, after finding the truth, and converting to the Catholic Church after many many years of being a member of every non-Catholic church/sect, I no longer adhere to the the unbiblical belief of sola scriptura."
Congratulations, you have joined the church that is collapsing for lack of priests!
The last time I went to a Roman Catholic baptism, on the east coast of Florida, the priest was from Ireland. The last time I went to a Roman Catholic funeral, in the hinterlands of Florida, the priest was from Ireland. If they couldn't import priests from Ireland, the RCC would already have collapsed.
There are parishes where a woman--a nun--gives an, er, message (since she can't give a sermon), and supervises the passing out of bread and wine blessed by a real priest at another service at a different location.
I'm sure you've seen the headlines where American Archbishops have ordered the closing of dozens of urban Catholic churches. Either they don't have enough priests to keep them open or those parishes weren't bringing in enough money.
By the 1970's, monasteries only had half as many monks as they had in the 1930's.
What is your exact objection to those pictures?
I did, which is why I am asking for greater specificity.
I understand the point you are trying to make, and what you are suggesting is that the contemporary expression of the office of the Pope is one of an authority figure. One gets the feeling that Pope Francis would shy away from such an inference. We raise up leaders in order that they may see the way more clearly for us, and help us in the right direction. Of course this goes wrong when those whom have been raised in leadership see their role to bear down upon those who are lifting them us. This is the difference between leadership and being in charge. I believe that there is ample evidence to show that Pope Francis clearly sees his role as leadership, and indeed he sets a great example of how the role might be exercised in a way that may indeed change the world. He is amongst us as one who serves.Jesus warned His disciples that the church is not supposed to have "rulers," lords, or "high officials" over it. Jesus calls himself a "servant" and says that anyone would be prominent in the church must be the same, a servant, not a "ruler."
A pope in fancy robes and whatever you call that thing on his head being carried through a crowd certainly looks more like a monarch than a servant.
25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
--Matthew 20:25-28 NIV
42 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
--Mark 10: 42-45 NIV
25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.
-- Luke 22:25-27 NIV
This point is found in all three synoptic Gospels.
I understand the point you are trying to make, and what you are suggesting is that the contemporary expression of the office of the Pope is one of an authority figure. One gets the feeling that Pope Francis would shy away from such and inference. We raise up leaders in order that they may see the way more clearly for us, and help us in the right direction. Of course this goes wrong when those whom have been raised in leadership see their role to bear down upon those who are lifting them us. This is the difference between leadership and being in charge. I believe that there is ample evidence to show that Pope Francis clearly sees his role as leadership, and indeed he sets a great example of how the role might be exercised in a way that may indeed change the world. He is amongst us as one who serves.
An organisation with 1.2 billion members needs leadership. I am well aware that not everyone agrees with everything, and sometimes it feels like he resonates more with non-catholic christians and non-christians than he does with some powerful elements inside his community of faith. Perhaps he is a sacrament pointing us to service, and the need for us all to turn to Christ.Not everyone shares your rosy view of Pope Francis. Some say that he is personally abrasive to the people under him. Some are concerned about things from his past, under the Argentine dictatorship. Some say that he is watering down doctrine.
Why is there any need for an office like the papacy? Why do millions of Catholics around the world have no say about who leads the church or how it spends its money?
An organisation with 1.2 billion members needs leadership. I am well aware that not everyone agrees with everything, and sometimes it feels like he resonates more with non-catholic christians and non-christians than he does with some powerful elements inside his community of faith. Perhaps he is a sacrament pointing us to service, and the need for us all to turn to Christ.
An organisation with 1.2 billion members needs leadership. I am well aware that not everyone agrees with everything, and sometimes it feels like he resonates more with non-catholic christians and non-christians than he does with some powerful elements inside his community of faith. Perhaps he is a sacrament pointing us to service, and the need for us all to turn to Christ.
I understand the point you are trying to make, and what you are suggesting is that the contemporary expression of the office of the Pope is one of an authority figure. One gets the feeling that Pope Francis would shy away from such and inference. We raise up leaders in order that they may see the way more clearly for us, and help us in the right direction. Of course this goes wrong when those whom have been raised in leadership see their role to bear down upon those who are lifting them us. This is the difference between leadership and being in charge. I believe that there is ample evidence to show that Pope Francis clearly sees his role as leadership, and indeed he sets a great example of how the role might be exercised in a way that may indeed change the world. He is amongst us as one who serves.
The papacy guards against the Protestant dilemma of every Tom, Dick and Harry having his own body of doctrine.Not everyone shares your rosy view of Pope Francis. Some say that he is personally abrasive to the people under him. Some are concerned about things from his past, under the Argentine dictatorship. Some say that he is watering down doctrine.
Why is there any need for an office like the papacy? Why do millions of Catholics around the world have no say about who leads the church or how it spends its money?
I wonder if Fidelibus will be along shortly to ask you if...
"it is fair to say that everything you post outside of quoting Scripture, are the words of a fallible person who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yourself? Yes or no?"
...and how you would respond.
The papacy guards against the Protestant dilemma of every Tom, Dick and Harry having his own body of doctrine.
Someone has to be in the leadership role. Catholics believe it’s the Pope and Protestants generally believe that the individual should do it for himself.
The need for authority exists for all Christians, Catholic or not.
The laity don’t participate in choosing the leadership of the Church because this isn’t a democracy. In that sense, I suppose it’s rather a more republican model.
The papacy guards against the Protestant dilemma of every Tom, Dick and Harry having his own body of doctrine.
Someone has to be in the leadership role. Catholics believe it’s the Pope and Protestants generally believe that the individual should do it for himself.
The need for authority exists for all Christians, Catholic or not.
Is there a reason you do this? I've noticed this sort of thing from you in the past where you quote somebody's post and then paste a snippet of said post anyway. It's a bit unusual.
I believe only Catholics are in Heaven. They may or may not have been Catholic in their earthly lives. But most assuredly they will be Catholic in eternity.
We have a topic. Can you try sticking to it? I don't see the relevance of soteriology to this discussion.
An organisation with 1.2 billion members needs leadership. I am well aware that not everyone agrees with everything, and sometimes it feels like he resonates more with non-catholic christians and non-christians than he does with some powerful elements inside his community of faith. Perhaps he is a sacrament pointing us to service, and the need for us all to turn to Christ.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?