When do you think the Church got corrupted?

daydreamer40

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2018
419
118
inverness
✟17,968.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Infants don't need to repent, because they've nothing yet to repent of. They are humble and simply believe God. In order for us to receive the Kingdom of God, we must convert and become as they already are - believing and humble. We should not hinder our babies, who by their humility are already predisposed to believe God, from growing up in the ways taught by their Lord and Savior.
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Psalm 51:5
 
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,208
2,548
57
Home
Visit site
✟234,667.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Psalm 51:5
Thank you, we know this Psalm by heart. But being conceived and born into a sinful world does not make one guilty of sin, no. You were conceived and born into a world that is not right, and afflicted damage on you as you grew and developed within it. That damage led to your becoming guilty of sinful thoughts, feelings, and actions while you matured. You were not born guilty of any intentional rebellion against the goodness of God, and by the grace of God, you are also able to avoid sinning, even as a child.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Once again you resort posting propaganda. As told you before, comparing one church with whatever is relegated as Protestantism is not a valid comparison, nor is the Scriptural basis for what one believes based on official paper professions. Instead, as James said, "I will shew thee my faith by my works," (James 2:18) and the Lord said "by their fruits ye shall know them," Mt. 7:20) and the reality is that trad. evangelicals have consistently testified to being far more unified in basic beliefs (and thus opposed by both liberals and trad. Caths alike) in word and deed than Catholics.

Behind the veneer of unity Catholicism exists in schism and sects, even more so with V2 and other modernist contradictions and now Frank the so-called "hippie pope." And rather than the RC magisterium effecting unity, as one poster wryly observed,
The sects in the Catholic Church have, really, nothing to do with the faith. They're all over worldly issues.
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, Against The Grain
Nice opinion.
Also, Partial List Of Divergent Beliefs Between Catholics
  • Within official teachings:
  1. Where unbaptized babies go if and when they die.
  1. There is no official teaching, other than that children under the age of reason cannot go to hell. Therefore, they go to heaven.
    [*]Geocentricity or Heliocentricity
    There is no such official teaching. Neither the Earth nor the sun is the center of the universe.
    [*]Whether Trent closed the canon or not
    Well, of course it did. Otherwise, it would have been Trent II and III, not Vatican I and II.
    [*]Whether canonizations are or always infallible.
    There is no denying they are infallible.
    [*]Who all the [so-called] “church fathers” are.
    This is not a matter of faith. The world wants to bicker, but the Church doesn't.
    [*]What the church Fathers meant in many cases.
    Same thing. The Church knows what they meant.
    [*]How many Scripture verses have been infallibly or officially interpreted.
    Again, a worldly concern.
    [*]What multitudes of Scripture verses surely mean.
    The Church knows. Just because it may not be written means nothing
    [*]The meaning and scope of the inerrancy of Scripture (“for our salvation” or more).
    No doubt scripture is inerrant. What's at question, to the world, is what constitutes God's Word.
    [*]The official immutable position on many theological issues.
    Such as?
    [*]The reconciliation of the efficacy of grace with human freedom.
    Human freedom is God-given. God uses our imperfection to perfect His creation.
    [*]The relationship between Scripture and Tradition: partim-partim or not.
    Huh? Sacred Tradition is part of God's Word.
    [*]How many infallible teachings there are, and what they all are
    Why does the world care about this stuff?
    [*]What magisterial level multitudes of teachings belong to, and thus the manner of assent required.
    Again, why does the world care?
    [*]What required assent to non-infallible official teachings all entails.
    Huh?
    [*]The meaning of official Catholic teaching to varying degrees.
    Huh?
    [*]How to reconcile Extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Lumen Gentium,and if former Catholics who die as faithful evangelical-type Protestants are lost.
    Depends on how you define "the Church". We define it as "all baptized Christians". Are Protestants lost? We leave that to God.
    [*]Whether the anathemas of Trent apply to Protestants today and what they entail.
    Were the anathemas of Trent ratified by the Pope?
    [*]Whether or not a pope can be deposed.
    No, but an anti-pope can.
    [*]How many bishops are necessary for this Collegial infallibility to be ensured?
    When the bishops say it is ensured, we believe it.
    [*]Whether the Virgin Mary died and then was assumed or whether she was assumed before death
    I don't think there's a question about this. The doctrine doesn't state one way or the other.
    [*]Whether Roman Catholicism promoted slavery
    The Church didn't, though some in the Church did.
Thus, based upon facts and the Biblical criteria for determining belief, the RCC cannot be one in belief, while as for being the one true NT church, Catholic distinctives are simply not manifest in the the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

Therefore the Catholic may argue that in any conflict, Scripture, history and tradition only consist of and mean what she says, if she does say so herself.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I suggest you actually READ iranaeus.
You seemingly don't know the content,
Discover the earliest references to the gospels and reference to who wrote them, and the resounding silence on other documents claiming apostolic origin, which without iraneaeus and the church could lay similar claim to apostolic origin. Without the church you have no New Testament.

Indeed without such as iraneus , you must treat the gospels of such as Thomas, Peter and James the same!

And as Iranaues and many other fathers state true doctrine is that handed down by bishops in apostolic succession , (primacy at Rome ) which is the meaning of tradition.

So not " whoever" You may choose. We follow those who Jesus chose , the ones they appointed, and the one who Jesus gave the office of keys, with power to "bind and loose" on doctrine.


Wrong: both the premise that info by Iraneus is essential and must be right, and that all else such says also must be right and binding as wholly inspired words of the apostles were (Accept him ,and not only accept Paul, but alos you must accept tradition "stay true to tradtion we taught you" and the church as the vehicle of passage ie "the foundation of truth is the church"), is fallacious. Or do you want to contend that that we must follow whoever provides us such tradition, and or that Iraneus and the like were wholly inspired of God, and popes likewise are when they speak what is tradition. If so, go ahead.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ripheus27
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Ok I’ll bite. Which traditions did Irenaeus mean when he mentioned traditions? I asked a Roman Catholic the same question but they declined to answer.

Please quote and note the relevant work.
The oral tradition.
 
Upvote 0

Kaon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2018
5,676
2,349
Los Angeles
✟111,507.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
I used to think only Muslims and Mormons thought that but I realized some Christians have this idea. Even I used to think the reason for the Reformation was that the Church became corrupted. So I want to know the date and reason that damaged the Church.

When the original disciples were murdered, and political science exploited faith. So, a little bit after resurrection. Also, when man decided to choose which words of the Most High were important for the spirit of other men (canon). That all happened around the same time (give or take a century).

Ecumenical power has accelerated the effects.
 
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
When the original disciples were murdered, and political science exploited faith. So, a little bit after resurrection. Also, when man decided to choose which words of the Most High were important for the spirit of other men (canon). That all happened around the same time (give or take a century).

Ecumenical power has accelerated the effects.
So how can you trust Christianity?
 
Upvote 0

lismore

Maranatha
Oct 28, 2004
20,671
4,354
Scotland
✟242,456.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I used to think only Muslims and Mormons thought that but I realized some Christians have this idea. Even I used to think the reason for the Reformation was that the Church became corrupted. So I want to know the date and reason that damaged the Church.

Hello. In the NT letters to the churches we find churches that have been bewitched, for example:

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? (Gal 3:1)

The date- can happen anytime. The reason, Galatians 1:6-8, another gospel.

God Bless :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joan Lamb
Upvote 0

Kaon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2018
5,676
2,349
Los Angeles
✟111,507.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
So how can you trust Christianity?

I don't. I trust the Most High God.

I had to go through decades of failure and being strung along by other men before I decided this day Who to follow. The God of gods has a plethora of ways to communicate His Word to His People - including, but not limited to selections of texts that are not in and of themselves the actual Word of God. The Word of God is an actual Living Entity, and He makes Himself known to us on an hourly basis. He already sacrificed Himself for us, and saved the entire world. We have just been taught by the world to be spiritually degenerate under the guise of prosperity and self-esteem.

The Most High God told us that we would have the Word of God written on our hearts. He also told us that we have to have a fleshy heart, and that He would give us that in exchange of a stony heart. I heard of the Most High God through humans and literature; I found my Father through mathematics (and a bunch of trials for which I am grateful for now) and through my parents.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Then why did your Eastern bishops break away from the supreme pontiff of the West? Does that not make the East the first Protestants?
^_^
The EOC believes the RCC broke away from it, so that would make the RCC the first Protestants.....:)
However, as my bro Jesus points out:
[I guess the North and South represents the Protestants ehehe]

Matthew 8:11
“And I say to you that many will come from East and West, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of the heavens.


What would it take for Orthodoxs to come under Pope
What would it take for Orthodoxs to come under Pope

. . . . Or what would it take for the Pope to come back to the Faith where he is "first among equals"?
Although we share 1000 years, we have also been estranged for another 1000. We are very different. You are closer to Catholicism, as a Protestant, than is the Orthodox Church. Your separation is not as wide.
Love,
Christina
The Pope would renounce his Roman Catholicism and become Orthodox. There is nothing that would cause the Church as a whole to join with him.
There are such things as uniate churches, which are basically Byzantine Catholic churches and the like, but they are no longer Orthodox.

pope vs Jesus cartoon.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
. Without the church you have no New Testament.
And your argument is that you must accept this tradition and thus on that basis you also conclude that then we must "stay true to tradtion we taught you" as in whatever else Rome sanctions, which fallacy I addressed and your ignored in order to simply reiterate your fallacy. Which refutation is that, besides the names of the unnamed writers not being essential (and many RCs disagree on who the unnamed writer of Hebrews was), based upon your logic 1st century souls should have submitted to the Jews and its magisterium.

For they did occupy the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

Yet the church actually began in dissent from them, and instead they followed an itinerant Preacher and preachers, whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Indeed without such as iraneus , you must treat the gospels of such as Thomas, Peter and James the same!
Which is another fallacy, that of the Catholic belief that one cannot discover the contents of Scripture and discern the difference apart from her, even faith in her.

However, long before an autocratic church presumed this, common souls assuredly ascertained both men and writings of God as being so. And so by the time of Christ a canon of authoritative writings has been established. Which is why the itinerant Preacher and preachers of the "sect of the Nazarenes" could so abundantly invoke them.

Therefore contrary to how the NT church began, then a said, consistent to your logic 1st century century souls should have submitted to the Jews and its magisterium who passed traditions and Scripture onto others. Which means you have effectively nuked the NT church.
giphy.gif

And as Iranaues and many other fathers state true doctrine is that handed down by bishops in apostolic succession , (primacy at Rome ) which is the meaning of tradition.
If they do say so themselves. Which includes the tradition that whatever they say is tradition/the word of God, is so. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

However, the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome is novel and unScriptural, never being essential to provide Truth or preserve it or faith. Instead, God actually often raised up wholly inspired men from without it in correction, and to provide Truth and help preserve faith. Which is why the church was built upon apostles and prophets, not the valid historical magisterium, who they opposed. (All valid authority has a claim for submission, but it is always conditional apart from God, and never is to require implicit obedience as Rome presumes.)
So not " whoever" You may choose. We follow those who Jesus chose , the ones they appointed, and the one who Jesus gave the office of keys, with power to "bind and loose" on doctrine.
Then you should read what this means in the light of the the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, including how they understood the OT and gospels, which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

In which Catholic distinctives are not manifest , and the power to "bind and loose" spiritually applied to all believers of fervent holy faith, apart from judicial judgments in union with them, but flowed from the OT magisterium.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
The answer I'm given is "at the time of Constantine".
There was a rather good discussion on Constantine and his white horse on another thread.
The member "interpreter" is a Catholic btw.

[I would be lying if I said there wasn't some humor interjected into it:]

Full Preterist Safe House

I have been labeled a preterist by cf because I say the second coming was in 312 AD when the sign of the Son of Man appeared in the clouds, and Jesus came into power through St. Constantine who rode a white horse and conquered with a bow. And he sent his messengers with a trumpet and gathered the elect of all the Church together, to Nicea.
If Jesus came back then the world would be destroyed by know.
The prophecy in Revelations shows NO ARROWS, so Constantine couldn't have fulfilled it
The second coming is the coming of the sign of the Son of Man in the clouds coupled with Jesus coming into power (through St Constantine who rode a white horse and conquered with a bow).
You are so ridiculous in saying the first horseman conquered with a bow and no arrows. That is impossible.
Did "St." Constantine conquer with a bow, but no arrows?
The prophecy states that the white horse rider had a bow but no arrows. In prophecy, everything is in symbols. It doesn't mean that some one will be on a LITERAL white horse with a LITERAL bow. Animals in prophecy throughout the entire Bible always represent a power. Besides, this was just the first seal (I believe) there were still 6 left, so it couldn't have been the coming of the Son of Man
LOL. What good is a bow with no arrows? Of course the first horseman (St. Constantine) used arrows!
The Revelation can only be opened by the second coming of Jesus, which was in 312AD.
Rev 6:2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.

It makes no reference to arrows. Your idea of the second coming of Christ is warped
The only purpose for a bow is to shoot arrows. Your idea of a bow without arrows is warped. Constantine is the only logical candidate for the first horseman largely because bows and arrows are no longer used in warfare.
A bow is also used to play violins and other stringed instruments.
Why would Constantine be an archer in his own army?

That's silly.
You can't conquer with a violin bow. Now that's silly.
Yeah.
I guess you would have to be one tough dude to conquer with a violin bow.
That is pretty silly.
I'm trying to think of what in the world any of this has to do with preterism -- oh yeah - there are 312 AD preterists - "Constantine Preterists" - bow-huntin' preterists...
The second coming was in 312AD when the sign of the Son of Man appeared in the clouds, and Jesus came into power through St. Constantine who rode a white horse and conquered with a bow.. The day the sign appeared is known as the turning point of history because ever since that day, Christian nations have been the dominant force on earth. And Constantine sent his messengers with a trumpet, and gathered the elect of all the Church together, to Nicea.
Bow and arrows.
One of the funniest dialogues I have ever seen on CF.....^_^
But could Constantine do this?


 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There was a rather good discussion on Constantine and his white horse on another thread.
The member "interpreter" is a Catholic btw.

[I would be lying if I said there wasn't some humor interjected into it:]

Full Preterist Safe House




Bow and arrows.
One of the funniest dialogues I have ever seen on CF.....^_^
But could Constantine do this?


He’s actually Anglican and a very rare offshoot of Anglican.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The sects in the Catholic Church have, really, nothing to do with the faith. They're all over worldly issues. Nice opinion.
Which is absurd! Tell that to them. And you expect me to take your replies seriously?!
There is no official teaching, other than that children under the age of reason cannot go to hell. Therefore, they go to heaven.
Which is simply an opinion, and contrary to such weighty Catholics as Augustine of Hippo.

Thus my point is valid, since it is a matter of RCs can disagree on within the bounds of RC doctrine.

Your view would also mean that innocence will get you in, while others must
attain to the "level of spiritual excellence needed to experience the full-force presence of God," (Jimmy Akin, How to Explain Purgatory to Protestants), and thus have "every imperfection of the soul corrected." - John Paul II, Audiences, 1999. become "good as to be entitled to immediate happiness," (City of God XXI.24) and so "go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." (Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224)
There is no such official teaching. Neither the Earth nor the sun is the center of the universe.
Thus my point is valid, since it is a matter of RCs can disagree on within the bounds of RC doctrine.

[*]Whether Trent closed the canon or not
Well, of course it did. Otherwise, it would have been Trent II and III, not Vatican I and II.
Not so. Trent defined what the books had to be accepted , but did not say no more could be added. Thus whether Trent closed the canon or not is indeed a matter discussed among RCs.
Is the Canon of Scripture closed?

And thus my point is valid, since it is a matter of RCs can disagree on within the bounds of RC doctrine.
[*]Whether canonizations are or always infallible.
There is no denying they are infallible.
Which is simply an opinion. Other Catholics say, "The short answer is no, or at least not yet. The reason is that the decisions emanating from the consistory are juridical and not theological in nature." http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur373.htm

Others debate it. Are Canonizations Infallible? Thus my point is valid, since it is a matter of RCs can disagree on within the bounds of RC doctrine.

[*]Who all the [so-called] “church fathers” are.
This is not a matter of faith. The world wants to bicker, but the Church doesn't.
Doctrine is about faith, and if “church fathers” are invoked in that interest, then whether one is or not is important, as is the what books are in the canon of Scripture.

[*]What the church Fathers meant in many cases.
Same thing. The Church knows what they meant.
Not in all cases, at least she has not officially explained with all they said, nor without excluding any interpretation. Which Catholics engage in, even in debate with EOs.
Thus my point is valid, since it is a matter of RCs can disagree on within the bounds of RC doctrine.

[*]How many Scripture verses have been infallibly or officially interpreted.

Again, a worldly concern.The Church knows. Just because it may not be written means nothing
Obedience is a matter of faith, and knowing what the word of God says and means is required, and is not a "worldly concern," which is absurd.

Thus my point is valid, since it is a matter of RCs can disagree on within the bounds of RC doctrine.

[*]The meaning and scope of the inerrancy of Scripture (“for our salvation” or more).
No doubt scripture is inerrant. What's at question, to the world, is what constitutes God's Word.
Wrong again. The much debated issue is whether inerrancy was limited to
"that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation," as seen in distinction to every detail. As one of your apologists admits, "Basically, there was a huge, behind-the-scenes fight at Vatican II about inerrancy...While the final formula didn’t exclude the unrestricted inerrancy of Scripture, it didn’t mandate it, either." - Compendium On Inerrancy

Subsequent teaching by Rome has basically affirmed the conservative position, but then we have the issue of what magisterial level such belongs to.

[*]The official immutable position on many theological issues.
Have you been reading? Read the next one.

[*]The reconciliation of the efficacy of grace with human freedom.
Human freedom is God-given. God uses our imperfection to perfect His creation.
Which is ignoring the debate which was linked to.

[*]The relationship between Scripture and Tradition: partim-partim or not.
Huh? Sacred Tradition is part of God's Word.
Huh? This again is ignoring the debate which was linked to.

[*]How many infallible teachings there are, and what they all are
Why does the world care about this stuff?
The world does not, but your church does, thus it says it provides such and distinguishes btwn this magisterial class and others.

[*]What magisterial level multitudes of teachings belong to, and thus the manner of assent required.
Again, why does the world care?
Again the world does not, but your church does, as should you, unless you think everything that was said in every bull, etc. is binding.

[*]What required assent to non-infallible official teachings all entails.

Whether your response is feigned ignorance or real, the fact is that this is debated. At one time the likes of your were forbidden to engage in public debate

“We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium

[*]The meaning of official Catholic teaching to varying degrees.
I find it hard to believe you can be this ignorant. Here is an example of one that is not: Can a Pope Commit Heresy? (“Heresy” Defined)

[*]How to reconcile Extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Lumen Gentium,and if former Catholics who die as faithful evangelical-type Protestants are lost.
Depends on how you define "the Church". We define it as "all baptized Christians". Are Protestants lost? We leave that to God.
"We" is not all, past or present. After years of papal and conciliar teaching such as states, “We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, "the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing," "in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors," "whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church," "subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful," "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church;”
Sources .

[*]Whether the anathemas of Trent apply to Protestants today and what they entail.
Were the anathemas of Trent ratified by the Pope? [/QUOTE
Others disagree. And can.
Are YOU "Anathema"? How about Your Protestant Friend?

[*]Whether or not a pope can be deposed.
No, but an anti-pope can.
I agree, but it has been and is debated. St. Robert Bellarmine answers the question "What if a pope were to fall into heresy?"

[*]How many bishops are necessary for this Collegial infallibility to be ensured?
When the bishops say it is ensured, we believe it.
The point remains that faithful RCs can disagree on this.

[*]Whether the Virgin Mary died and then was assumed or whether she was assumed before death
I don't think there's a question about this. The doctrine doesn't state one way or the other.
The point remains that faithful RCs can disagree on this.

[*]Whether Roman Catholicism promoted slavery

The Church didn't, though some in the Church did.
Other RCs disagree . The point remains that faithful RCs can disagree on this.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Infants don't need to repent, because they've nothing yet to repent of. They are humble and simply believe God. In order for us to receive the Kingdom of God, we must convert and become as they already are - believing and humble. We should not hinder our babies, who by their humility are already predisposed to believe God, from growing up in the ways taught by their Lord and Savior.
You are reading into
Scripture what it does not say in orer to support a teaching Scripture does not record.

And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:3-4)

This does not say infants can comprehend who they need to believe in as an object of faith for their salvation, or why, nor is the Lord saying one must become as a little child in any way except humility.

That you must resort to eisegesis in order to support what Catholicism holds to be of cardinal importance, but is never described in the the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, is an argument against it.
 
Upvote 0

salt-n-light

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 8, 2017
2,607
2,526
32
Rosedale
✟165,859.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
I used to think only Muslims and Mormons thought that but I realized some Christians have this idea. Even I used to think the reason for the Reformation was that the Church became corrupted. So I want to know the date and reason that damaged the Church.

Anything involving people will have corruption. Because people are corrupted by nature.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,208
2,548
57
Home
Visit site
✟234,667.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
You are reading into
Scripture what it does not say in orer to support a teaching Scripture does not record.

And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:3-4)

This does not say infants can comprehend who they need to believe in as an object of faith for their salvation, or why, nor is the Lord saying one must become as a little child in any way except humility.

That you must resort to eisegesis in order to support what Catholicism holds to be of cardinal importance, but is never described in the the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, is an argument against it.
There isn't anything being read into Christ's words that isn't in fact contained within them. You're choosing to overlook the fact that Christ Himself, by these very words about children, testified of the existence of the presence of the virtue of humility in the young children. If the children are humble, and we know that Jesus does not lie, then they are believers, because the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to the "poor in spirit" (that is, the truly humble).

This is the truth: They don't need to comprehend Who they need to believe in, because God is incomprehensible to all anyhow. Knowing God occurs when we become, by grace, what God is by nature. It is not about intellectual comprehension, it is about becoming. God is humble. The Child is humble. The child knows God in the child's very own being, and the child believes, without question.

It is not Scripture that forbids the baptism of infants. It is misguided grown ups, lacking in poverty of spirit and therefor the knowledge of God, who do this.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums