NationStates Jolt Archive

I have nothing against catholics, in fact, several of my good friends are. However, what's the deal with this whole attitude that some of them give that anybody who is a protestant is a heretic and not really a christian? I really dont get that. It gives the rest of them a bad name.

I have nothing against catholics, in fact, several of my good friends are. However, what's the deal with this whole attitude that some of them give that anybody who is a protestant is a heretic and not really a christian? I really dont get that. It gives the rest of them a bad name.

What about the Protestants who claim that the Pope is the anti-christ and that Catholics are servants of the devil?!

They're both superficial...

Do we really need to have some kind of Spanish Inquisition on NS too.
This is too much. Religion is personal after all there are enough to choose from.

P.S. I have a comfy chair and know the three.........err.......four reasons.

NO ONE EXPECTS THE NS INQUISITION!

I have nothing against catholics, in fact, several of my good friends are. However, what's the deal with this whole attitude that some of them give that anybody who is a protestant is a heretic and not really a christian? I really dont get that. It gives the rest of them a bad name.

Um.. I am a Catholic, and I don't know any of my faith that feel this way. But I don't doubt they exist, and if they do, they are really giving our faith a bad name...as you said.

But I think no matter what faith you look at, you will find a group of people like that. Many times we feel that our way is better than someone else's, and we get really mean.

Catholic Europe, you haven't answered his question...

And in reply to your question, I guess the reason why a very small minority of Protestants claim the Pope is the antichrist (thats a 17th Century view, not too popular these days!) is because the Pope (and the Bishops etc) would seem to put themselves between the leity and God. Also, much of the Pope's edicts would seem to have no backing in the scripture.

A Catholic would be able to tell you, but its always seemed to me that a feature of the Catholic religion is their belief that only Catholics will go to heaven, hence their proselyting of other faiths etc.

<--- not a theological expert, but I suppose it boils down to Protestants taking their authority from the Bible, and Catholics from the Pope.

Catholic Europe, you haven't answered his question...

And in reply to your question, I guess the reason why a very small minority of Protestants claim the Pope is the antichrist (thats a 17th Century view, not too popular these days!) is because the Pope (and the Bishops etc) would seem to put themselves between the leity and God. Also, much of the Pope's edicts would seem to have no backing in the scripture.

A Catholic would be able to tell you, but its always seemed to me that a feature of the Catholic religion is their belief that only Catholics will go to heaven, hence their proselyting of other faiths etc.

<--- not a theological expert, but I suppose it boils down to Protestants taking their authority from the Bible, and Catholics from the Pope.

No... Maybe you should read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We've become very euchiminical. Also, the pope is a good man, kind of old fashioned, but he does have some good stuff to say.

The reason that REAL Catholics still preach this doctrine is that it is Truth revealed by God. All are subject to it. Those who preach this doctrine are practicing the greatest charity, for they wish, above all other things, the salvation of the souls to whom they are preaching. Please read my comments, as they took a long time to prepare. Thank you and God bless.

N.B. If you are a protestant or anyone else who has pre-conceived ideas about what the Bible teaches, please disregard those for a minute while you read this. If the Bible doesn't contradict itself (which, of course, it doesn't because Truth cannot contradict Truth), then all these verses must be read apart from others that may supposedly "disprove" them, for as long as the Bible does not contradict, then these verses are all just as true as any others. Read it with an open mind, and you will see that unless you try very hard to twist the words, it is impossible to make it say something other than what my explanations state.

15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

St. Matthew xvi (It is clear what happens here. Our Lord says that God has revealed this Truth to St. Peter. He continues to say that His Church will be founded on St. Peter. He says that Hell shall not overcome or win victory over His Church; therefore, Her teachings will always be true. Finally, Our Lord gives St. Peter the keys to Heaven. He goes even further to say that anything that St. Peter states as true here on earth shall be true, and anything he states as false on earth shall be false. This is the promise of infallibility. St. Peter thought it right to pass this authority to his Successors, the Popes. According to Our Lord, this is also bound in Heaven, for St. Peter has spoken it as such. Therefore, this authority is passed to each Pope. Each Pope is infallible in Faith and Morals, in interpreting Scripture--which we will deal with later--and in forming Dogma. Infallibility does not extend to opinions, which are not of these categories. Also, discipline is not infallible. e.g. fasting before receiving Communion used to be from midnight until one received, but now it is merely one hour before one receives. Also, women were never permitted near the altar, let alone as altar boys or "lectors", "Eucharistic ministers", etc. until just recently. However, these are disciplines and are not infallible declarations. Therefore, one can openly disagree with these practices and not be a schismatic or apostate.)

15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty):

16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus:

17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

18 And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out.

19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

21 Wherefore of these men who have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us,

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection.

23 And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the heart of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Acts i (This is a very important passage which is so easily overlooked by all protestants. Here the Apostles have actually shown that they pass on their authority. Judas, having killed himself, left a hiatus which needed to be filled. To do so, they called a proto-conclave. In this, many aspects of choosing a Pope are seen. Although St. Matthias was not the Pope, certain aspects accompany how any Bishop is to be chosen. They call upon Out Lord to choose who He wanted as a Bishop of His Church. St. Peter does this remembering the promise of His guidance and that of the Holy Ghost. This passage is used to illustrate how the Apostles had the ability to pass on their authority, which was confirmed by Our Lord when He chose Matthias as His Bishop.)

13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall shew you.

St. John xvi (Here Our Lord promises the Holy Ghost shall guide the Church to Her infallibility, for the Holy Ghost could never allow falsity.)

26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

St. John xiv (The Holy Ghost will teach all things; therefore, not only is the Church free from all error, but She is also knowledgeable of all Truth. The Church possesses the fullness of Truth. Any other religion posses only partial, if any, Truth.)

16 He that heareth you [Apsotles and their successors: Bishops] heareth me [Our Lord]: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me [God].

St. Luke x (Our Lord says that anyone who hears the Apostles and their chosen successors hears Him. Therefore, if we follow the Church, then we truly are following Our Lord, and, conversely, anyone who does not listen to the Church despises Our Lord and His Father! Our Lord Himself says this very clearly.)

15 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.

I Timothy iii (St. Paul here refers to the Church as "the pillar and ground of the truth." Our Lord called Himself the "Son of the living God." [If you have seen The Passion of the Christ, you should know that. He was called or accused of calling Himself this many times in the movie.] St. Paul reflects this by calling the Church the Church of the living God; hence, the Catholic Church truly is Our Lord's Church.)

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

St. Matthew xxviii (Our Lord did not say that He would be with His Church for 1500 years when someone "more enlightened" would come bringing a new and better "truth." Nay, He said that He would be with His Church to guide Her until the end of the world.)

3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

4 One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling.

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.

St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians iv (Here St. Paul reminds the Ephesians that there is but one Truth and one Faith just as there is but one God. To believe that 33,000 different protestant heresies all believe the "essential" parts of the Truth is absurd, according to St. Paul. He says that the Church must be of one body and keep unity. The Holy Roman Catholic Church is the only Church that can even claim to have been around since the first century and has never disagreed within Herself about Dogma or any point of infallibility. To change what is correct by Faith and Morals is a clear measure of if a Church can even claim infallibility. No protestant religion can claim such, for they all opposed contraception before 1930. However, in the 1930s women wanted more "rights." Because of this, the first of all being the anglican religion, many protestant religions changed their views. Eventually it has come to the fact that only the Catholic Church still opposes this evil practice. It is clear, then, that these religions could never be infallible, for they have now completely changed from something being wrong to there being no problem with it. Infallible means that something can never be incorrect. Clearly these religions were either incorrect then or incorrect now. Hence, none can claim infallibility.)

8 Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today: and the same for ever.

St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews xiii (It is clear that Our Lord never changes. Therefore, His beliefs could never change. Any change in a moral belief, doctrine, etc. shows a lack of a belief in Our Lord, for Our Lord never changes. Any religion that changes doctrine clearly is not of Our Lord. Rather, it is a "church of devils" as, I think, St. Paul put it.)

St. Athanasius supported St. Paul's teaching by saying such: "let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preached by the Fathers [Popes]. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian…" This was written in AD 360! Even in the earliest days of the Church it was clear that no one but those true Christians in Our Lord's Church could merit eternal life. St. Alphonsus Ligori reiterates this after the lutheran and other protestant heresies were first revealed: "Innovators say that the Lord gives each of the faithful a clear knowledge of Scripture. Behold, the 'private interpretation' of the heretics which has produced such a variety of creeds! Hence, after all the Congresses and Synods they have held, they have never been able to draw up a formula of uniform belief; hence, everyone knows that among the Reformers there are as many formulas of faith as there are individuals. This alone is sufficient to show that they are in error and do not have the true faith. God arranged that the true faith would be preserved in the Roman Church alone, so that, there being but one Church, there would be but one faith and one doctrine for all the faithful."

20 Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

II Peter i (The "private interpretation" of Scripture is completely un-Scriptural! Is this not by what the protestant heresy lives and dies, personal interpretation? Here St. Peter, in his second Epistle, makes it clear that absolutely no prophesy [interpretation, understanding, etc.] of Scripture comes from one's own private interpretation. Only the Church has authority to make such a statement. Therefore, we must look to the infallible Church for guidance as to what is and what is not Truth.) We will now examine what She and Her Saints say about those existing outside of Her bosom:

"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that NONE of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that THEY WILL GO INTO THE ETERNAL FIRE which was prepared for the devil and his angels, UNLESS BEFORE DEATH THEY ARE JOINED WITH HER; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, NO ONE, EVEN IF HE POUR OUT HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441

Athanasian Creed (One of the three major Creeds of the Church, along with the Apostles' Creed and the Nicaen Creed, both of which some protestants still "profess"): "Whosoever will be saved, BEFORE ALL THINGS it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep WHOLE AND UNDEFILED, WITHOUT DOUBT HE SHALL PERISH EVERLASTINGLY. ... This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he CANNOT be saved."

"To be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation." St. Thomas Aquinas

"No man can find salvation save in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church he can have dignities, he can have the Sacraments, can sing 'Alleluia', answer 'Amen', accept the Gospels, have faith in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and preach it, too, but never except in the Catholic Church can he find salvation." St. Augustine

"Know, my son, and make all others know, that it is a probable and proximate sign of eternal damnation to have an aversion, a lukewarmness, or a negligence in saying the Angelic Salutation (Hail Mary), which has repaired the whole world." Apparition of Our Lady

"Outside of this communion--as outside the Ark of Noah--there is ABSOLUTELY NO salvation for mortals; not to Jews or Pagans who never received the faith of the Church; not to heretics who, having received it, forsook or corrupted it; not to schismatics who left the peace and unity of the Church; finally, neither to excommunicates who for any other serious cause deserved to be put away and separated from the body of the Church like pernicious members...For the rule of Cyprian and Augustine is certain: he will NOT have God for his Father who would not have the CHURCH for his Mother." St. Peter Canisius

"A man is no true Christian if he has not devotion to the Mother of Jesus Christ." St. John Eudes

If you merely take a logical standpoint, it is clear that the protestant religion is not Christian. To be Christian is to follow Christ. Christ made teachings and handed them down to the Apostles. The Apostles preserved these teachings for 1500 years when the "enlightened" Luther came along and completely changed what the Church and all Christians believed for that 1500-year period of time. Would not the Apostles, taught directly by Christ, know and practice what He taught better than a man 1500 years later who changed the words of the Bible, omitted books that contradicted him, ignored the practice of the first Christians, and coined the motto "Sin Vigorously!"? Merely historical proof sufficies to disprove protestantism. The Apostles believed, of course, what Christ taught. Protestants must admit this, for the Apostles wrote the Bible. Yet, the Apostles were all Bishops of the Catholic Church. The infallibility of the Pope and his excercise of authority over all Christians was seen in the FIRST century. The requirement for submission to him was defined by Unam Sanctam in 1302. Christians always believed this truth until Luther thought it too difficult and created his own relgion in which everyone is his "own pope" and can interpret the Bible infallibly all by himself, creating thousands upon thousands of "popes" of over 35,000 different religions. It is absolutely clear, then, why true Catholics prech this doctrine: the Church teaches it. It is clear that no man can be saved unless he remains in the Church. God bless you, and may our Mother protect us.

JMJ,
Matthew

Gaude Maria Virgo, cunctas heresis sola intermisti!
(Rejoice O Virgine Mary, Thou alone hast destroyed all heresies)

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation)

St. Basil, pray for us!

Don't you just love it when someone ctrl+c's something and then acts all superior about it, especially when it's their very first post?

Don't you just love it when someone ctrl+c's something and then acts all superior about it, especially when it's their very first post?

Agreed and ctrl+c was written especially for those with electronic Bibles.

It is the tool of the commited follower of.......anything.

No, actually I wrote all that. The reason I have had but one post is that anytime I try to get on this forum I either get an error message or it sits and loads for about 5 minutes. Therefore, I have never actually logged in and posted. However, when I saw "Catholics" in the overview bar as I checked my nation, I was happy to wait for it to load, for I have the Religion of Christ, the Catholic Faith and am willing to defend It always. Clearly, however, just because you have many posts does not mean you know the first thing about debate or argumentation. Instead of making a comment that does not at all deal with the topic, you should address the questions posed. I would challenge you do so, but surely it will be to no avail as the Catholic Church is infallible and guided by Christ. God bless.

St. Basil, pray for us.

Ianua Caeli, ora pro nobis.

Matthew

So you eternally have 0 posts...

Sounds like something out of a Poe Poem.

NO ONE EXPECTS THE NS INQUISITION!Only a n00b doesn't expect the NS inquisition, also known as the General Forum.

No, actually I wrote all that. The reason I have had but one post is that anytime I try to get on this forum I either get an error message or it sits and loads for about 5 minutes. Therefore, I have never actually logged in and posted. However, when I saw "Catholics" in the overview bar as I checked my nation, I was happy to wait for it to load, for I have the Religion of Christ, the Catholic Faith and am willing to defend It always. Clearly, however, just because you have many posts does not mean you know the first thing about debate or argumentation. Instead of making a comment that does not at all deal with the topic, you should address the questions posed. I would challenge you do so, but surely it will be to no avail as the Catholic Church is infallible and guided by Christ. God bless.

St. Basil, pray for us.

So your willingness to fight back is creditable and your faith is a credit to you. But does that not put you in a position to respect the views of others rather than convert them against their wills ? You may feel at the top of the pile from a religious point of view but others do also. Would you bring back the age of intolerance?

Ianua Caeli, ora pro nobis.

Matthew

Any Catholic who does believe that all Protestants are heretics and going to hell is rather confused about what the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church teaches no such thing, teaching rather that all Christians are brothers and sisters in Christ, and all seeking the same goal. It does say that within the Catholic Church the fullness of Truth is found. However, there is still truth within all denominations of Christianity, there just may be less than the fullness of truth (ex. no sacraments).

I would challenge you do so, but surely it will be to no avail as the Catholic Church is infallible and guided by Christ.So Hitler's pet Pope (piety was the dirty schmuck's namesake, you know) was guided by Christ?

So your willingness to fight back is creditable and your faith is a credit to you. But does that not put you in a position to respect the views of others rather than convert them against their wills ? You may feel at the top of the pile from a religious point of view but others do also. Would you bring back the age of intolerance?

You treat religion as an "opinion." There is no opinion. There is truth and falsity. The Catholic Church is Truth. What She teaches is true. Therefore, we must all convert to Her in order to be saved. What I am doing is doing what I can to show what the Truth is so that others can possibly save their souls. By the way, I think tolerance makes no sense. Why would we tolerate something that is wrong? Being a heretic is wrong. Why would we tolerate that? It would be the same to say: "Murder is wrong, but we need to be tolerant of others." The soul is infintely more important than the body. Therefore, heretics who kill the soul are infinitely worse than murderers who kill merely the body. Why then should we tolerate the murder of the soul but not the murder of the body. That makes no sense. God bless you.

Matthew

So your willingness to fight back is creditable and your faith is a credit to you. But does that not put you in a position to respect the views of others rather than convert them against their wills ? You may feel at the top of the pile from a religious point of view but others do also. Would you bring back the age of intolerance?

You treat religion as an "opinion." There is no opinion. There is truth and falsity. The Catholic Church is Truth. What She teaches is true. Therefore, we must all convert to Her in order to be saved. What I am doing is doing what I can to show what the Truth is so that others can possibly save their souls. By the way, I think tolerance makes no sense. Why would we tolerate something that is wrong? Being a heretic is wrong. Why would we tolerate that? It would be the same to say: "Murder is wrong, but we need to be tolerant of others." The soul is infintely more important than the body. Therefore, heretics who kill the soul are infinitely worse than murderers who kill merely the body. Why then should we tolerate the murder of the soul but not the murder of the body. That makes no sense. God bless you.

Matthew

you're cute. i hope you stick around here.

please show me how you can prove the bible to be fact since all facts have supporting evidence

also, "because the bible says so", isnt a legitimate argument. there are much older texts than the bible, which havent been rewritten, which speak of spiritual matters. Are those not also fact or truth because they say so? I mean, they claim to be divinely inspired - so then we should not question them right?

Any Catholic who does believe that all Protestants are heretics and going to hell is rather confused about what the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church teaches no such thing, teaching rather that all Christians are brothers and sisters in Christ, and all seeking the same goal. It does say that within the Catholic Church the fullness of Truth is found. However, there is still truth within all denominations of Christianity, there just may be less than the fullness of truth (ex. no sacraments).

I think what you should do is read what St. John Vianney actually wrote on the subject. Further, I just quoted INFALLIBLE Church dogma, not a Pope's opinion (as we commonly see with JPII). How, then, can you call yourself Catholic yet reject the Church's teaching merely because the current Pope has a false opinion? The Pope is not infallible in everything he says--only when speaking "ex Cathedra" (from the Chair of St. Peter) and defines Faith and morals.

I would challenge you do so, but surely it will be to no avail as the Catholic Church is infallible and guided by Christ.So Hitler's pet Pope was guided by Christ?

First of all, the Pope wrote an encyclical against Hitler and Nazism. Of course, you wouldn't know anything about that because you obviously no know history on this subject. Haven't you heard, "It's better to be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt?" In any event, even if Pope Pius did support Hitler, he obviously didn't during the war (once the camps came to light) because they tried to take over the Vatican... Further, even if he did support Hilter, even during the war, (neither of which happened) that still has no bearing on whether or not the Papacy is infallible. Just because someone commits a sin doesn't mean he is not the Pope. Everyone sins, including the current Pope. Just because a person commits a sin doesn't mean the Papacy is fallible. If you think you are a Christian, but you are not Catholic, then go look over the history of Christians, which will show that Christ and the Apostles taught the Papacy.

Still no one has addressed the Bible passages as well as the Church declarations I have typed. People here don't know how to debate. Debate the ISSUES, the questions posed, not off-hand, useless remarks.

Matthew

please show me how you can prove the bible to be fact since all facts have supporting evidence

I will do so; however, I cannot right now (I have to get off the computer for a bit). I expect to be able to later today. God bless.

Matthew

please show me how you can prove the bible to be fact since all facts have supporting evidence

I will do so; however, I cannot right now (I have to get off the computer for a bit). I expect to be able to later today. God bless.

Matthew

Does anyone else think he's a bit annoying?

This Mariae fellow seems a bit wierd in the head. if papal infalability is based on peter being the rock upon which christ's church was built, then why did he deny christ as the messiah twice after that???

seems mariae needs to stop reading papal dogma and start reading the bible.

if you do read the bible you will discover that it describes how the anti-christ will claim to lead the christians (the pope) and will claim infalability (the pope).

this is what the bible has to say about the peter=pope BS

"And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he (Christ) might have the preeminence." Colossians 1:18

"And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him (Christ) to be the head over all things to the church," Ephesians 1:22


"But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:" Ephesians 4:15

(sorry all, yes, the last bit was a cut 'n' paste job)

btw, am athiest :lol:

Catholic Europe, you haven't answered his question...

And in reply to your question, I guess the reason why a very small minority of Protestants claim the Pope is the antichrist (thats a 17th Century view, not too popular these days!) is because the Pope (and the Bishops etc) would seem to put themselves between the leity and God. Also, much of the Pope's edicts would seem to have no backing in the scripture.

A Catholic would be able to tell you, but its always seemed to me that a feature of the Catholic religion is their belief that only Catholics will go to heaven, hence their proselyting of other faiths etc.

<--- not a theological expert, but I suppose it boils down to Protestants taking their authority from the Bible, and Catholics from the Pope.

*putting off reading the rest of the thread*

catholics take their authority from 2000 years of careful theological thinking.

By the way, I think tolerance makes no sense. Why would we tolerate something that is wrong? Being a heretic is wrong. Why would we tolerate that?
Matthew

but protestants who follow the nicean creed ( i believe in god the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth... etc) are NOT heretics and this is why the holy father, upon reviewing the tenets of various protestant denominations has reached out to them in the spirit of christian brotherhood.

in any case, the catholic church is not in everyones "cup of tea" and it is better to have them come to jesus another way than be driven to disbelief by catholic practices that offend them.

Still no one has addressed the Bible passages as well as the Church declarations I have typed. People here don't know how to debate. Debate the ISSUES, the questions posed, not off-hand, useless remarks.

Matthew

you are not the boss of me

Still no one has addressed the Bible passages as well as the Church declarations I have typed. People here don't know how to debate. Debate the ISSUES, the questions posed, not off-hand, useless remarks.

Matthew

you are not the boss of me

Come on now, let's simmer down now. The potential for flames here is making it get hot.

St. Matthew xvi (It is clear what happens here. Our Lord says that God has revealed this Truth to St. Peter. He continues to say that His Church will be founded on St. Peter. He says that Hell shall not overcome or win victory over His Church; therefore, Her teachings will always be true.

Methinks you need another premise(s). We'll just assume for the sake of argument that this is true:

A: Hell shall not overcome or win victory over his church....

This next part is where the problem lies.

B: ...therefore, Her teachings will always be true.

Do you think a lack of victory by Hell automatically means that Church teaching is always true? That's quite a leap you made there. I would appreciate it if you would fill in a few gaps there. Maybe you could establish a relationship between "a lack of victory by Hell" and "truth". That would be nice.

God Bless
Sam

ok all of your evidence supports the catholic church, but not the Catholic Church. All of the evidence you state, from the bible, was written before the Great Schism and therefore is in refrence to the catholic (which means universal) church, not the roman catholic church. try again :wink:

my comment was in refence to mariae first post

my comment was in refence to mariae first post

if papal infalability is based on peter being the rock upon which christ's church was built, then why did he deny christ as the messiah twice after that??? ...
if you do read the bible you will discover that it describes how the anti-christ will claim to lead the christians (the pope) and will claim infalability (the pope).

First of all, as I said in the first post, the Pope is infallible NOT indefectible. That means the Pope cannot teach a belief for the Church that is contrary to Faith and Morals as Dogma. That does NOT mean that he cannot sin. Indefectible means that he cannot sin. No one is indefectible. Everyone has a free will to choose sin, such as you do when you deny God's Existence. Next, the Bible doesn't say that the anti-Christ will claim infallibility. What's the chapter and verse on that??

Anyway, everyone chose to ignore the first thing I wrote (abotu Truth not contradicting itself), which is no surprise. However, don't go off and quote other verses or bring up different points. If the verses/passages I quoted do not mean what I say they mean, then what DO they mean? Don't go quote something else...address these passages.

Also, everyone chose to ignore St. Peter's second epistle, chapter one, verse twenty: "Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." What could that mean other than that we cannot personally read the Bible to make up our beliefs. People keep saying that protestants believe by the "authority of the Bible." First of all, no where does it say in the Bible that it is a teaching authority for personal reading and making up one's own beliefs. Nay, it states the exact opposite right here. And if the Bible is all you need, then where does it say THAT in the Bible? And where in the Bible does it say which books are inspired and which are not? These are all things the Church deals with because She alone can, as St. Peter states in the very next verse (21): "For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost." The Church has a Head, the Pope, who, inspired by the Holy Ghost speaks infallibly on behalf of God to His people, the Church Militant. No other religion even claims this authority, yet without Papal Infallibility, the Church cannot function. This next part could be considered a "copy and paste" argument. I did type this; however, it is quoted from Cardinal Gibbon's "Faith of Our Fathers." Anyone who does not believe in the infallibility of the Pope ought to read this and see if he can debunk even one claim of the holy Cardinal. It is as follows:

You will tell me that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be conferred on man. I answer: Has not God, in former times, clothed His Apostles with powers far more exalted? They were endowed with the gifts of working miracles, of prophecy and inspiration; they were the mouthpiece communicating God's revelation, of which the Popes are merely the custodians. If God could make man the organ of His revealed Word, is it impossible for Him to make man its infallible guardian and interpreter? For, surely, greater is the Apostle who gives us the inspired Word than the Pope who preserves it from error.

If, indeed, our Savior had visibly remained among us, no interpreter would be needed, since He would explain His Gospel to us; but as He withdrew His visible presence from us, it was eminently reasonable that He should designate someone to expound for us the meaning of His Word.

A Protestant Bishop, in the course of a sermon against Papal Infallibility, used the following language: "For my part, I have an infallible Bible, and this is the only infallibility that I require." This assertion, though plausible at first sight, cannot for a moment stand the test of sound criticism.

Let us see, sir, whether an infallible Bible is sufficient for you. Either you are infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is correct or you are not. If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and of course for every reader of the Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny to the Pope, and which we claim only for him. You make every man his own Pope. If you are not infallibly certain that you understand the true meaning of the whole Bible--and this is a privilege you do not claim--then, I ask, of what use to you is the objective infallibility of the Bible without an infallible interpreter?

If God, as you assert, has left no infallible interpreter of His Word, do you not virtually accuse Him of acting unreasonably? For would it not be most unreasonable in Him to have revealed His truth to no man without leaving Him a means of ascertaining its precise import? Do you not reduce God's Word to a bundle of contradictions, like the leaves of the Sybil, which gave forth answers suited to the wishes of every inquirer?

Of the hundred and more Christian sects now existing in this country, does not each take the Bible as its standard of authority, and does not each member draw form it a meaning different from that of his neighbor? Now, in the mind of God the Scriptures can have but one meaning. Is not this variety of interpretations the bitter fruit of your principle: "An infallible Bible is enough for me," and does it not proclaim the absolute necessity of the water of life; but of what use is this water of to my parched lips, since you acknowledge that it may be poisoned in passing through the medium of your interpretation?

How satisfactory, on the contrary, and how reasonable is the Catholic teaching on this subject! According to that system, Christ says to every Christian: Here, My child, is the Word of God, and with it I leave you an infallible interpreter, who will expound for you its hidden meaning and make clear all its difficulties. Here are the waters of life, but I have created a channel that will communicate these waters to you in all their sweetness without sediment of error. Here is the written Constitution of My Church. But I have appointed over it a Supreme Tribunal, in the person of one "to whom I have given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven," who will preserve that Constitution inviolate, and will not permit it to be torn into shreds by the conflicting opinions of men. And thus My children will be one, as I and the Father are one.

I would encourage you all to take that to heart as well as the fact that the Bible itself says that it cannot be interpreted privately. It also has not mention in it whatsoever that we shoudl believe "Bible alone," nor does it state which books are a part of the Bible.

Here is yet another proof from Scripture (of many) that tradition (not only Bible) is necessary: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the TRADITIONS which you have learned, whether BY WORD, or by our epistle." (II Thess. II. 14) Further, St. Paul instructs "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." (Galatians I. 8 ) He states we must follows the traditions (BY WORD and epistle), and he also states that if ANYONE preach a gospel different than he has PREACHED (by WORD), let him be anathama (accuresed, damned, etc.). Martin Luther certainly preached a different gospel. Every protestant religion does, as well. Christ taught the Apostles. The Apostles taught others and were ther first Bishops of the Catholic Church. Therefore, there is no way to possibly deny that the traditions taught by the Catholic Church (the Apostles) were of God and protestants, therefore, departed from these and followed the "doctrine of demons," which St. Paul later writes about ("some among you will depart from the faith to follow doctrine of demons").

I will continue to make replies to other comments before making the "proof" for the Bible, as I was asked to do. God bless.

St. Basil, pray for us.

Mater Dei et Regina Caeli, ora pro nobis.

Matthew

ok all of your evidence supports the catholic church, but not the Catholic Church. All of the evidence you state, from the bible, was written before the Great Schism and therefore is in refrence to the catholic (which means universal) church, not the roman catholic church. try again

No that is not true. Just because there was not a large and obvious schism in the Church until AD 1050s, there were still those who called themselves "Christian" but were not following the Catholic Church. This is seen in writings from St. Ambrose, who lived in the AD 300s: "Where Peter is therefore, there is the Church [Therefore, if St. Peter is not there, there is no Church--protestants, therefore, are not Christian]. Where the Church is there is not death but life eternal. ... Although many CALL themselves Christians, they USURP the name and DO NOT HAVE THE REWARD [Heaven]." Here we see there were many people during this time who called themselves Christian but rejected the Church. Therefore, St. Ambrose said they will not go to Heaven (they are not true Christian but USURP the name and DO NOT have the reward of Heaven).

Also compiled during the time of the Council of Nicea was the Athanasian Creed, attributed to St. Athanasius who fought the Arian heresy at the time. It states what I quoted before: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. ... This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." This shows very clearly that one must keep all of the Catholic Faith if one is to be saved. You are arguing semantics anyway because the catholic Church is the Catholic Church and vice versa. That is the only Church by which one can be saved, the visible Catholic Church. There is no such thing as an invisible catholic Church. St. Ambrose says where St. PETER is, there is the Church. The Pope is the Head of the Church. "It is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human being to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." That is from Unam Sanctam in 1302 when the doctrine was defined once and for all so that no one could continue to doubt or cast dispersions. God bless.

Matthew

Still no one has addressed the Bible passages as well as the Church declarations I have typed. People here don't know how to debate. Debate the ISSUES, the questions posed, not off-hand, useless remarks.

Matthew

you are not the boss of me

You proved my point for me.

Matthew

Still no one has addressed the Bible passages as well as the Church declarations I have typed. People here don't know how to debate. Debate the ISSUES, the questions posed, not off-hand, useless remarks.

Matthew

you are not the boss of me

You proved my point for me.

Matthew

yes im right in my place

i believe my point was that you dont get to decide how a thread is done. debate is pretty useless in religious discussions and anyone can make any point in any way they feel suits them best.

By the way, I think tolerance makes no sense. Why would we tolerate something that is wrong? Being a heretic is wrong. Why would we tolerate that?
Matthew

but protestants who follow the nicean creed ( i believe in god the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth... etc) are NOT heretics and this is why the holy father, upon reviewing the tenets of various protestant denominations has reached out to them in the spirit of christian brotherhood.

in any case, the catholic church is not in everyones "cup of tea" and it is better to have them come to jesus another way than be driven to disbelief by catholic practices that offend them.

It doesn't matter if they believe the Nicean Creed. Look at the Athanasian Creed (one of the Three Major Creeds): "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. ... This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." They must keep the Faith WHOLE AND UNDEFILED, not just the Nicean Creed. They don't believe in the Eucharist. They don't believe in Confession, etc., etc. I could make a list of 1000 things, even if they do believe in the Nicaen Creed. The Athanasian Creed could not be any more clear. We must accept the cross of heresy and do all in our power to destroy it. There have been heresies in the Church since the first century. Today there are more than ever. We should, then, be all the more willing to pray and fast in order to destory and drive out these demons, as Christ Himself stated that some demons can only be expelled by these means.

As far as the Pope's ideas on ecumenism...as I have said, his every opinion/whim is not infallible. If that were so, we would probably not have even one Pope since Vatican II who is infallible. His failure to admonish their sin of heresy is a sin of omission for him. That should be no surprise that the Pope sins. We all do. If you look through the Popes of history from St. Peter. You have St. Peter, St. Linus, St. Cletus, St. Clement, St. Sixtus, Saint, Saint, Saint, and then all of a sudden you run into a Pope who is not canonized. Why? He was not tough enough on heretics. In fact, he was the Pope who oversaw the Nicean Council. He was not tough enough on the Arian heresy that had come up, whereas St. Athanasius was. That is why his Creed (or the Creed attributed to him) is a Major Creed of the Church along with the Nicaen. It is absolutely necessary to follow not only all the Creeds of the Church but also all the infallible declarations of the Popes, such as the necessity of being Catholic in 1441 at the Council of Florence.

By the way, yes, the Church is "in everyone's cup of tea." Once CANNOT come to Christ, to God, without the Church. "He will not have God for His Father who will not have the CHURCH for His Mother." I have already quoted that. Also, the Council of Trent states that "just as in Jerusalem only was sacrifice acceptible to God in the Old Law, so also in the Church of Christ (the Catholic Church) alone is found true worship that is AT ALL acceptible to God." Therefore, protestants are not pleasing to God. They must be Catholic. They must follow Christ. Christ did not say, "Believe in Me and get saved, and you go to Heaven." Rather, He made it very clear the foundation of His Church, the necessity of Her, and all the dogma of the Church through the teaching of the Apostles ("all of which if written down, the world could not contain the number of books written"--last verse of St. John's Gospel). If the whole world could not contain the books (metaphorically), then certianly not everything Christ did and taught is in the Bible. We need His Church, as St. John states explicitly in the chapter before. God bless.

Matthew

St. Matthew xvi (It is clear what happens here. Our Lord says that God has revealed this Truth to St. Peter. He continues to say that His Church will be founded on St. Peter. He says that Hell shall not overcome or win victory over His Church; therefore, Her teachings will always be true.

Methinks you need another premise(s). We'll just assume for the sake of argument that this is true:

A: Hell shall not overcome or win victory over his church....

This next part is where the problem lies.

B: ...therefore, Her teachings will always be true.

Do you think a lack of victory by Hell automatically means that Church teaching is always true? That's quite a leap you made there. I would appreciate it if you would fill in a few gaps there. Maybe you could establish a relationship between "a lack of victory by Hell" and "truth". That would be nice.

God Bless
Sam

The gates of hell--what does that mean exactly? Well, since the Bible says that we cannot personally interpret the Bible (as I quoted 2 or three times--II St. Peter I.20) we must go to those who can, the Church. The Church states that Christ means here that hell shall not corrupt the Church. This is definitely a feasible way to look at this passage. Therefore, if hell does not corrupt the teaching of the Church, She cannot commit a sin, that is the Church cannot lie about doctrine. Therefore, when She makes a statement on something, it must be true, for if it were not, the devil would have corrupted Her because lying is a sin and is from the devil. Further, if it is not a victory for Hell (the devil), then who is the victor? God (Heaven) is the Victor, of course. Therefore, all She teaches is from God. History make this clear, as well, for all men knew and believed and taught that the Church is necessary from the Church's first days. This is seen in other historical extra-biblical documents. Wherefore, if Christ taught His Apostles the Truth, and they taught and wrote it down (biblical and extra-biblical), and many of these sources recognize the necessity for the Pope for the Church and the necessity of the Church for salvation, then how can we doubt the Truth laid down by Christ? God bless.

Matthew

so you are basically saying the bible is the infallible truth because the bible says so and the church which is based on the bible backs that up, so noone can say otherwise because only the church has the authority to interpret the bible?
pure gold! lolololol :lol: :lol: :lol:

Did you respond to Sumamba Buwhan yet?

Sumamba Buwhan Wrote:


please show me how you can prove the bible to be fact since all facts have supporting evidence



and


also, "because the bible says so", isnt a legitimate argument. there are much older texts than the bible, which havent been rewritten, which speak of spiritual matters. Are those not also fact or truth because they say so? I mean, they claim to be divinely inspired - so then we should not question them right?

...

Are you Jack Chick, and did you have a puppet named "Hello How are you?" Because if you sent me that TG, I am very pissed off about it.

wow matthew, you really need to watch out for the sin of pride
you seem to think you know more than the pope
while he is not infallible, he, and his cardinals know more about theology than you or i ever will

First off the bible is not fact. The new testament was written as a political tool by Constantine the Great to quell a developing holy war between the large and growing faction of Roman Christians, and the sun cult that was Rome's official religion. It was to be used to establish Christ as a god and not as a mortal. The gospels chosen were only the four that would best aid this cause, and not portray Jesus Christ as mortal, but more of a divine figure. Thus Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Notice that none of the 12 true apostles' writings are included in this. Therefore one must take the bible as this, something compiled by an emperor who thought to ride the growing "new wave" of Christianity. It is impossible then to take the bible literally because most of it is exaggerated to make a point that would establish the dominance of the Catholic church and the Roman throne. So you cannot hold the Pope as infallible, because the documents that prove this are political tools.

(A comment, first: I acknowledge that you have a duty to speak the truth as you know it. I disagree with you on some questions of fact. Therefore, constrained by the same duty, I am replying.)



Here is yet another proof from Scripture (of many) that tradition (not only Bible) is necessary

As a protestant, I do not claim that tradition is in any way dispensible. However, I do claim that any tradition which can be seen to contradict the scriptures must be in error, corrupted by fallible men and by the Adversary. All scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16). This can not be claimed of the words and deeds of men.

No, actually I wrote all that. The reason I have had but one post is that anytime I try to get on this forum I either get an error message or it sits and loads for about 5 minutes. Therefore, I have never actually logged in and posted. However, when I saw "Catholics" in the overview bar as I checked my nation, I was happy to wait for it to load, for I have the Religion of Christ, the Catholic Faith and am willing to defend It always. Clearly, however, just because you have many posts does not mean you know the first thing about debate or argumentation. Instead of making a comment that does not at all deal with the topic, you should address the questions posed. I would challenge you do so, but surely it will be to no avail as the Catholic Church is infallible and guided by Christ. God bless.

St. Basil, pray for us.

do catholics not have broadband?
is St.Basils surname Brush?

you are wrong when you say that religion is not an opinon....
you should look the meaning of infallible up in the dictionary, nothing is infallible, even you.

ps. if you don't know what it means, it means 'incapable of erring'. i rest my case!

Ianua Caeli, ora pro nobis.

Matthew

No, actually I wrote all that. The reason I have had but one post is that anytime I try to get on this forum I either get an error message or it sits and loads for about 5 minutes. Therefore, I have never actually logged in and posted. However, when I saw "Catholics" in the overview bar as I checked my nation, I was happy to wait for it to load, for I have the Religion of Christ, the Catholic Faith and am willing to defend It always. Clearly, however, just because you have many posts does not mean you know the first thing about debate or argumentation. Instead of making a comment that does not at all deal with the topic, you should address the questions posed. I would challenge you do so, but surely it will be to no avail as the Catholic Church is infallible and guided by Christ. God bless.

St. Basil, pray for us.

do catholics not have broadband?
is St.Basils surname Brush?

you are wrong when you say that religion is not an opinon....
you should look the meaning of infallible up in the dictionary, nothing is infallible, even you.

ps. if you don't know what it means, it means 'incapable of erring'. i rest my case!

Ianua Caeli, ora pro nobis.

Matthew

ok all of your evidence supports the catholic church, but not the Catholic Church. All of the evidence you state, from the bible, was written before the Great Schism and therefore is in refrence to the catholic (which means universal) church, not the roman catholic church. try again :wink:

Before the Great Schism, the only Church that was around was the Universal Church, which was the Catholic (yes, capital-C) Church. After the Great Schism there became hte Eastern and Western Catholic Churches, of which the Eastern Catholic Churches called themselves the Orthodox Church. Later on, Catholic Churches that used the Eastern Rite became called Eastern Catholic.

And in reply to your question, I guess the reason why a very small minority of Protestants claim the Pope is the antichrist (thats a 17th Century view, not too popular these days!) is because the Pope (and the Bishops etc) would seem to put themselves between the leity and God. Also, much of the Pope's edicts would seem to have no backing in the scripture.

Incorrect. Britain for example, widely held the view from the richest noble to the poorest peasant that the Pope was the anti-Christ and that Catholics were servants of the devil.

A Catholic would be able to tell you, but its always seemed to me that a feature of the Catholic religion is their belief that only Catholics will go to heaven, hence their proselyting of other faiths etc.

Protestantism has held that belief too. And anyways, that is no longer considered to be 'true' in the Catholic Church.

<--- not a theological expert, but I suppose it boils down to Protestants taking their authority from the Bible, and Catholics from the Pope.

Yes, and we know which one you prefer. :roll:

I think what you should do is read what St. John Vianney actually wrote on the subject. Further, I just quoted INFALLIBLE Church dogma, not a Pope's opinion (as we commonly see with JPII). How, then, can you call yourself Catholic yet reject the Church's teaching merely because the current Pope has a false opinion? The Pope is not infallible in everything he says--only when speaking "ex Cathedra" (from the Chair of St. Peter) and defines Faith and morals.

Matthew

Yes, I'm aware that the Pope is not infallible in everything he says. However, there is a far broader understanding of the Catholic Church then you seem to be taking. Every reputable Catholic theologian that I'm aware of believes in a basic philosophy of inclusivism, namely that other non-Catholic Christians are actually Catholic inasmuch as they hold to the doctrines of the Catholic Church (which they obviously hold to some of, as they have truth, and there is no truth that is outside the Catholic Church). It is through this unity with Church, and thus with the Truth, that their salvation happens. (My Protestant brothers and sisters, what this means is that salvation comes through Christ, and through our common agreement on this, our salvation comes)

This can actually be found in a variety of Church documents, which DO have authoritative weight for teaching on doctrine, and should be adhered to by the faithful.

Just in case you're wondering who I am, I'm a college seminarian, so I do have a pretty decent understanding of theology, and what I'm doing.

Just as a note, I think you'll have a tough time of fulfilling our Christian duty to evangelize the world if you go around telling everybody that they're heretics and thus going to hell.

Yes, I'm aware that the Pope is not infallible in everything he says. However, there is a far broader understanding of the Catholic Church then you seem to be taking. Every reputable Catholic theologian that I'm aware of believes in a basic philosophy of inclusivism, namely that other non-Catholic Christians are actually Catholic inasmuch as they hold to the doctrines of the Catholic Church (which they obviously hold to some of, as they have truth, and there is no truth that is outside the Catholic Church). It is through this unity with Church, and thus with the Truth, that their salvation happens. (My Protestant brothers and sisters, what this means is that salvation comes through Christ, and through our common agreement on this, our salvation comes)

This can actually be found in a variety of Church documents, which DO have authoritative weight for teaching on doctrine, and should be adhered to by the faithful.

The only thing this Pope has stated infallibly is that women cannot be Priests. Vatican II was not infallible, as Paul VI said himself. Therefore, you can't go off quoting Vat. II where it goes off on some limb with "religious liberty" that is CLEARLY a HUGE break with Tradition. Do you think that is why the Inquisition was called, to defend religious liberty? No, of course that was not the reason. The Church has always unequivocally taught that not only are non-Catholics heretics but also that they deserve no toleration and when they persist in their sin of heresy and scandalize others by this heresy, they ought to be put to death. The Church has never defined INFALLIBLY any way to be saved except by Baptism by water and adherence to the Catholic Church. Of the three times when Outside the Church no Salvation was defined, not one lists an exception. Rather, the language is very firm:

Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215): "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which NO ONE AT ALL is saved..." No exceptions here...

Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for the salvation of EVERY human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Again, no exceptions with just as strong language...

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 - 1445): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that NONE of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the ETERNAL FIRE which was prepared for the devil and his angels, UNLESS BEFORE DEATH THEY ARE JOINED WITH HER; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that ONLY THOSE remaining WITHIN this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto SALVATION, and they ALONE can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." This is by far the most convincung. Read this through many times. It is VERY clear, absolutely clear that absolutely no one outside the Catholic Church can be saved.

I am sure they are teaching you a lot of things not in line with Church teaching at your seminary. That is no surprise. That is the case in basically every seminary in the world, especially in the US. What seminary do you attend? And have you ever been to a Traditional Latin Mass? Do they even present the Mass of All Times at the seminary? I know you probably think that what you are learning should certainly be in line with Church teaching; however, since Vatican II this is seldom the case. It is very unfortunate; however, just because many people (even modern-day "theologians") state that people can be saved outside the Church, that does not mean the Church teaches it. Back in the Arian heresy 70% of Bishops were Arians! Those who are teaching you are not even Bishops, so why would we assume that in this day of the modernist heresy that they would be any better than 70% belief in the true doctrine of the Church reagarding Outside the Church no salvation. We should look to the solution for the Arian heresy, one of the two Creeds produced, the Athanasian Creed. I am certain they must have at least taught you this at the seminary sicne it is one of the three Major Creeds of the Church (along with, of course, the Nicean and Apostles'):

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.

God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

We must follow what the CHURCH teaches, not what our superiors try to pass off as doctrine to appease liberals and heretics of this day. I would like to hear your reply. God bless.

Rejoice O Virgin Mary, Thou alone hast destroyed all heresies!

Matthew

N.B. For whoever asked about having Broadband....I have Bellsouth DSL, but for some reason this server does not connect properly, which usually ends with an error message. I was unable to post most of the day yesterday (after my last post). I will try to continue posting, but I don't know if it will work or not.

I am sure they are teaching you a lot of things not in line with Church teaching at your seminary. That is no surprise. That is the case in basically every seminary in the world, especially in the US. What seminary do you attend? And have you ever been to a Traditional Latin Mass? Do they even present the Mass of All Times at the seminary? I know you probably think that what you are learning should certainly be in line with Church teaching; however, since Vatican II this is seldom the case.

Debating theology with you seems to be pretty much useless, since you seem to be starting at a point that would almost qualify as schismatic. And I never said that they could be saved outside the Church, just that the problem is your definition of Church.

As for my seminary, I'd say it's one of the best college seminaries in the country. We have required daily mass and divine office every day, adoration weekly, spiritual direction is required a minimum of every two weeks, as is reconcilliation. Every seminarian takes seriously their fidelity to the teachings of the Catholic Church. And yes, I have been to a Tridentine Mass. There is a nearby community that has received an indult to celebrate the mass weekly.

And in reply to your question, I guess the reason why a very small minority of Protestants claim the Pope is the antichrist (thats a 17th Century view, not too popular these days!) is because the Pope (and the Bishops etc) would seem to put themselves between the leity and God. Also, much of the Pope's edicts would seem to have no backing in the scripture.

Incorrect. Britain for example, widely held the view from the richest noble to the poorest peasant that the Pope was the anti-Christ and that Catholics were servants of the devil.


I presume you are referring to the 17th-18th Centuries, I might not have made my point too clear there, apologies. I meant that today only a very small minority of Protestants hold the view that the Pope is the antichrist, as you say, in the 17th-18th Centuries, things were different.

However, not everyone "from the richest noble to the poorest peasant" believed that the Pope was the Antichrist and Catholics evil. During this time in Britain, evidence shows that Catholics were able to live fairly peacefully in secret. Only the Puritans, and to a degree, Presbyterians, believed this. Many of the gentry and nobility in this time were strongly Anglican. The Anglicans regarded the Catholic church as wrong, but did not regard the Pope as antichrist. Puritans were mainly drawn from the 'middling sort' - merchants, shopkeepers etc, though elections to Parliament would seem to indicate that a substantial number of English held this view at the time, though not everyone, as you claim.

Anyway, I've just gone off on a tangent. This thread seems a bit pointless, Mariae there has 'pwned' it.

Mariae, I'm beginning to think your a fundamentalist. Just a little bit :roll:

Anyway, the bible can be wrong. So can popes. Learn to live with that, and pull your head out of the inquisition.

http://www.ealasaid.com/images/si1.jpg

I have the Religion of Christ and am willing to defend it always.

Well I went to a Catholic school, at that time I converted to Russian Orthodox, when the school preist found out he quoted a lot of stuff that popes had said and it seemed pretty clear that if I didn't re-convert I would go to hell.

Well I went to a Catholic school, at that time I converted to Russian Orthodox, when the school preist found out he quoted a lot of stuff that popes had said and it seemed pretty clear that if I didn't re-convert I would go to hell.

All religions have a moronic element. You should just told him to get over Vatican II.

The British Anglican church held such a fervant hatred for Catholics that many were burned and tortured in many horrendous ways, most notable Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley, Catholic bishops in Queen Mary's England. Both of these men were burned simply for being Catholic and refusing to accept the divinity of the Anglican church. I trust you know the history of this church's conception. It was created by King Henry VIII simply so he could divorce his wife (whom he later executed) and have control over religion. I dont think that anyone should preach the purity of this church, a product of a megalomaniacal tyrant, over the Roman Catholic Church seeing as the Anglicans committed just as many attrocities as the Roman Catholics.

"Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man; We shall this day, by God's grace, light such a candle in England as I trust shall never be put out."
-Hugh Latimer to Nicholas Ridley, October 16, 1555

*shudders at the thought of having a mindset like Jack Chics's, i mean Mariae's - *

eeeek, that is some scary sh|t

thanks for warning me to stear clear of people like you

that kind of gross energy really drags my hopes for humanity down and I don't want to look at humanity that way.

It really is a shame, mariae, that you allow yourself to think like this. It seems that in your pursuit of acceptance from the Catholic Church, that you forget the teachings of the man that Catholicism revolves around: Jesus Christ. In all the years of organized religion the one thing that holds consistent is the fact that all of them allow their petty "doctrines" and "councils" to interfere with what the most influential prophet of all time said to us. The Catholic Church seems to be the guiltiest of this. Created for the sole purpose of defacing and masking the truth about Christ, it seems hardly plausible that this is the way to salvation. This "church" has killed and tortured more people, destroyed more worlds, and religions than any other dynasty or empire in the history of the Earth. I sincerely believe that if any are destined for Hell, as the Catholics would describe it, it would be the Catholics themselves who fully accept their church's assault on the world as a quest for purity. This is a paradox to me. I will give you and the others the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are simply ignorant of the events surrounding Catholicism, as so many are, and in believe that God, as Jesus Christ said oh those many years ago, will forgive everyone, even if they do not follow him the way he wanted them to. We enter a new age of reason when humanity will be forced to stop following blindly and begin to find the truth think for himself. I do not think we will find that in the Catholic Church.