it’s not my place to say anyone is lost.
we can say what Paul said to Titus about those who opposed the Apostolic Faith in his day:
1:16
they profess to know God, but they deny Him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed.
in other words, with their mouths they claim to know Jesus and believe in Him, but their deeds of attacking Him by attacking the historical orthodox Universal Church prove they don’t know Him at all and in fact are just doing the work of their true father....
these Baptists are a very good example of this, but one only has to read the FR religion forum daily to find their fellow travelers.
What sophistry! You equate us with Gnostics as being "outside the Apostolic Faith and the Church of Christ" because they refused to partake of the Eucharist, and commend "the intellectual honesty of these baptists who attack the Coptic martyrs as pagans" but when called to plainly affirm that all are lost who reject the so-called Cath. "Real Presence," then you given the plea, "it’s not my place to say anyone is lost."
Man up! Either you affirm the "verily verily" Jn. 6:53 as an unequivocal imperative to believe in the "Real Presence" (though apparently originally an Anglican term) or you do not! Why is this so difficult to do so?
we can say what Paul said to Titus about those who opposed the Apostolic Faith in his day:
What blindness!, which examples what i had just said, that your faith cannot be established upon Scriptural substantiation. For Paul is not at all dealing with reproof of a church due to its traditions, but instead he actually warns about "Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth," and of the "unruly and vain talkers and deceivers" who "subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake," who are "alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies," and for whom "is nothing pure," easily pertains to Rome in history, esp. as in leading up to the needed reformation:
• Cardinal Bellarmine:
"Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy, according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct. (Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,)
• Erasmus, in his new edition of the “Enchiridion: “What man of real piety does not perceive with sighs that this is far the most corrupt of all ages? When did iniquity abound with more licentiousness? When was charity so cold?” (“The Evolution of the English Bible: A Historical Sketch of the Successive,” p. 132 by Henry William Hamilton-Hoare)
Ratzinger:
"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196).
In addition to her forgeries
with their mouths they claim to know Jesus and believe in Him, but their deeds of attacking Him by attacking the historical orthodox Universal Church prove they don’t know Him
That is a logical fallacy, as it presumes the very thing that needs to be proved, that Rome is both the one true church and that it is above reproach so that those who reprove here must be wrong and are not Christians.
And which argument was asserting brings you right back to the very issue i stated was fundamental, which is that of the basis for your assurance of Truth.
For it seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.
Affirm or deny.