Posted on 07/02/2010 6:56:08 PM PDT by Desdemona
I’ve told you that Catholics believe that those who are not Catholic are going to hell and that that is what the church teaches. That is not a contrived anecdote but a fact demonstrated by the Catholics I knew and the FRoman Catholics on this forum.
That teaching IS what the RCC teaches so Catholics are correctly believing what their church teaches.
It is supported by the Catechism of the Catholic Church as found on the vatican.va site that you’ve before stated is the only reliable source of Roman Catholic doctrine.
Here’s the link and quotes, in the Roman Catholic Church’s own words, as copied and pasted....
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm
“Outside the Church there is no salvation”
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
There’s no room for thinking for yourself in the Catholic Church. The catechism doesn’t mean what it says, it means what the RCC hierarchy tells you what they want you to believe that it says.
And they condemn Calvinists for not believing in free will?
It’s pretty much a knee jerk reaction on their part, so conditioned into them that they don’t seem to be able to help it.
Almost without fail, when RCC history is mentioned, the first reaction is *Yeah, but......* instead of any acknowledgment of the almost 2,000 years of well documented condemning history of their church.
It would be quite a refreshing change to see a dedicated, committed Catholic admit to the wrongs that the Catholic church did and the gross moral failings of their popes, instead of excusing, deflecting, or just plain out and out ignoring of the facts that everyone already knows.
Talk about the elephant in the room.
The lack of willingness to admit the truth about their own church and its short comings is so obvious to all (but them apparently) that they don’t see that denial of something so indefensible displays a level of blindness and deception that would turn away anyone who is seeking a real relationship with God.
The ideal in question is personal responsibility, as someone quite comically said "one of the great ideals of the United States, is that of personal responsibility" (111). I can only repeat what I said already: the Catholic Church teaches that man has a free will to choose works by which he will be justified; his sanctification or depreavity is a matter of the individual choice. For the sinner we teach that he should confess and do penance. We do not teach the false doctrine that salvation is something one gets once and for all because he responded to an altar call. We don't teach falsehoods of any kind. The Catholic Church teaches personal responsibility, and has been for two thousand years.
That the modern invention of secular state has something to do with Protestantism, yeah, perhaps it does. Surely, the Catholic Church never taught that Catholicism is one religion among equally good many that people get to choose. If you like that "freedom of religion", enjoy what's left of even that.
The problem uniquely in the Catholic Church is that of homosexuality (both in abuse of minors and in abuse of the celibacy vows with consenting adult); the patterns of abuse in Protestant communities of faith seem to involve heterosexual abuse much more. (Abuse in secular organizations such as public schools is non-specific, and abuse in boy scouts is self-selectively homosexual, but neither is within our topic).
The pattern indicated in www.reformation.com correlates with independent Protestant denominations. It is very modest in more hierarchical and more traditional denominations. However, it is the independent Protestant churches that are growing demographically, so perhaps one should correlate the abuse incidents mentioned to church-going by denomination, and the typical age of the congregation. Intuitively, it makes sense that in a traditional, say, Methodist church frequented by senior citizens there would not be much sexual abuse.
I would agree that the Catholic Church because of its reach, had opportunuties to move priests about, and unfortunately did so on some well-publicized occasions to hide abuse.
The rest, I don't think you have shown anything you claim you showed. I do not see a correlation with whether free will is taught or not; I do not see how you can make that claim since the Basptist and "[Bible] Church Ministers (fundamentalist/evangelical)" can be all over the map on that, and they dominate the sample. And again, you need to norm these data by demographics before you can conclude anything.
You cannot conclude anything about the rate of abuse, because www.reformation.com is a one-time sample of newspaper reports. But the interest in the press is in reporting Catholic abuse because the press is not anti-Protestant, it is anti-Catholic; that creates a heavy bias in what is reported and what is not. Further, the Catholic Church has money to pay the victims, and records that go back years (in fact, centuries), which an independent Protestant church does not have. This creates an incentive to report abuse and then sue, whereas reporting abuse by a Baptist minister would result in a lot of shame and very little compensation.
To gauge the rate of abuse a bit better, one could look at insurance claims arising from sexual abuse. See, for example, Report: Protestant Church Insurers Handle 260 Sex Abuse Cases a Year and do your math.
Then you want to segregate abuse by ministers from abuse by other church-affiliated staff. But then you should agree with us that the present behavior of the media ganging up on Cardinal Ratzinger or Pope John Paul II for not supervising closely enough the local dioceses (from which they were separated by national, jurisdictional and geographical boundaries) is outrageous. If, however, Rome has to answer for abuse in Boston as if the cleric in Rome was facilitating it, then so much more is the minister responsible for his direct and proximate staff.
I was talking about running to the mods, Quix. How many times have I complained to the RM? How about some of your fellow travellers? What is their complaining record?
ROTFLOL!
Mark, are you making up history again???
Since I don't make up history, I cannot be making it up again. The religious intolerance of the Calvinist colonies is rather well documented. Attempting to sidetrack the discussion to Europe and Africa is ludicrous at best. You have been telling us that the Calvinist model of government is the best of what is America; I give you the history of the Calvinist colonies modeled on Geneva and their extreme religious intolerance towards even their fellow Calvinists. And most certainly towards the Quakers and Baptists. The Quakers, because they are an offshoot of Calvinism that rejected most Calvinist beliefs, and the Baptists because they were the odd man out in the Reformation.
We all have been blessed. That is not salvation, by itself.
we were sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise when we believed. Not going to be. Were. A seal cannot broken, except by the recipient, Jesus Christ. The redemption of the purchased possession. Not going to be. Have been. (BTW, that's eternal security).
Let us examine what a seal meant in Biblical times. http://www.bible-history.com/eastons/S/Seal/ says that:
"Seal commonly a ring engraved with some device (Gen. 38:18, 25). Jezebel "wrote letters in Ahab's name, and sealed them with his seal" (1 Kings 21:8). Seals are frequently mentioned in Jewish history (Deut. 32:34; Neh. 9:38; 10:1; Esther 3:12; Cant. 8:6; Isa. 8:16; Jer. 22:24; 32:44, etc.). Sealing a document was equivalent to the signature of the owner of the seal..." This is saying that the OT seal was a signature, not a ziplock baggie. To continue:
"When God is said to have sealed the Redeemer, the meaning is, that he has attested his divine mission (John 6:27). Circumcision is a seal, an attestation of the covenant (Rom. 4:11). Believers are sealed with the Spirit, as God's mark put upon them (Eph. 1:13; 4:30). Converts are by Paul styled the seal of his apostleship, i.e., they are its attestation (1 Cor. 9:2). Seals and sealing are frequently mentioned in the book of Revelation (5:1; 6:1; 7:3; 10:4; 22:10)."
Again, the use of 'seal' here is meant to be a mark or signature, and not a ziplock baggie. The use of the term 'seal' in Matthew 27:66 would have been an indicator of the position of the rock only, since a guard was set over tomb.
So what does 'seal' mean to us? It is a sign of God's promise to us. God does not break His promises, but man can and does. Therefore, when man does, then Paul tells us:
Romans 2: 5 By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, 6 who will repay everyone according to his works: 3 7 eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, 8 but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. 9 Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek. 10 But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek.
Then what are the appointed (by Timothy) presbyters (as Paul appointed Timothy) in Titus 5, or in James 5? Paul also reminds us:
Romans 15: 15 But I have written to you rather boldly in some respects to remind you, because of the grace given me by God 16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in performing the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering up of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the holy Spirit.
Paul is speaking exclusively about a priestly class here.
no apostolic succession
Matthias and Timothy are examples. Timothy appointing in Titus is an example.
no pope
There are the bishops and there is the leader among the bishops (first amongst equals) which is Peter. Even Paul goes to Peter to present his credentials and have the Apostles lay hands upon him.
no confession
1 John 1: 5 Now this is the message that we have heard from him and proclaim to you: God is light, 2 and in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we say, "We have fellowship with him," while we continue to walk in darkness, we lie and do not act in truth. 7 But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of his Son Jesus cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say, "We are without sin," we deceive ourselves, 3 and the truth is not in us. 9 If we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing. 10 If we say, "We have not sinned," we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Matthew 3:6, and Mark 1:5 also speak to confession of sins. Let us now put it together with the gift of Jesus:
John 20: 19 11 12 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you." 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. 13 The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 14 (Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." 22 15 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. 23 16 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."
2 Corinthians 5: 18 12 And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
Reconciliation with God. The forgiveness of sins.
no statues
St. Luke, Gospel writer, disciple of Paul and physician wrote the first icon that we have knowledge of. And so on. The church of Calvin is simply that - the church of Calvin and the church of men. Rejecting the Biblical roots of the Church has led the churches of Calvin to the state that they currently are now in. A majority of Christians in the 1700s in the United States were Calvinists. What is that figure now? Less than 10%? Certainly. Less than 1%? Possibly. In the world? 1%?
How many Presbyterians are not currently Calvinist in the United States? PCUSA is certainly not. The vast majority of Presbyterians and Congregationalists are not Calvinist. Calvinism was a novelty, but its day is done and it will fade into history as a novelty of men, as Zoroastrianism has.
Denying history doesn't make it go away. Perhaps the public school educated are simply ignorant of the barbaric history of the Puritans (aka Calvinists) in the New England colonies. Even if one dismisses the wholesale ethnic cleansing of the native "heathans" as standard fare the barbariety shown non-Puritan Christians was outrageous. A perfect and most notable example is the executiuon of Mary Dyer in 1660 for the crime of converting from Puritan to Quaker (another parallel to Islam).
On the 19th of May, 1658, the [Puritan] General Court of Massachusetts Bay Colony issued its decree against the Quakers, forbidding, under severe penalties, the holding of meetings or attendance at meetings. This law, also, is well flavored with the usual reviling and calumny.
On the 19th of October, 1658, the same Court enacted another harsher law, in which they incorporated Governor Endicott's threat, "take heed ye break not our ecclesiastical laws, for then ye are sure to stretch by the halter." The preamble for those interested in researching it recites list of calumnies and slanders against non-Puritans (not unlike the actions f Calvinists towards Catholics on FR). It is followed by an order banishing both visiting and resident Quakers upon pain of death if they return.
On the 22d of May, 1661, finding the hanging business had been somewhat overdone, the Court, with vindictive epithet, enacted a new statute, wherein it is ordered that Quakers, both men and women, are to "be stripped naked from the middle upwards, and tied to a cart's tail and whipped through the town;" also to "be branded with the letter R on their left shoulder," and "the constables of the several towns are empowered…to impress cart, oxen, and other assistance for the execution of this order."
Between about 1660 and 1664 in Massachusetts twenty-two Quakers had been banished on pain of death, four executed,, three had their right ear cut off, one had been burned in the hand with a letter H, three had been ordered by the court to be sent to Barbados as slaves, thirty-one had received six hundred and fifty stripes administered with extreme cruelty, £1044 of property, a fortune in the day had been taken (proving that religious oppression, as demonstrated by Henry VIII and Philip IV, can be very profitable for Church elders).
Excellent observation.. they have free will to sin , but not to seek Christ
Well, good for you. I suppose when you get your feelings hurt in your present “religious orientation” you can always take your ball and go home. again. and again. and again.
..
.Eph 4:30 — And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
2Cr 1:20 — For all the promises of God in him [are] yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.
2Cr 1:21 — Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, [is] God;
2Cr 1:22 — Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
Seal =sphragizō
to set a seal upon, mark with a seal, to seal a) for security: from Satan
b) since things sealed up are concealed (as the contents of a letter), to hide, keep in silence, keep secret
c) in order to mark a person or a thing
1) to set a mark upon by the impress of a seal or a stamp
2) angels are said to be sealed by God
d) in order to prove, confirm, or attest a thing
1) to confirm authenticate, place beyond doubt
a) of a written document
b) to prove one's testimony to a person that he is what he professes to be
FK: Care to elaborate?
Rbmillerjr: Try...”Are you smarter than a 5th Grader”
OK, I surrender. The strength of your defense of Catholicism is too strong for me to rebut. Based on the sheer power of your logic and reasoning I am strongly persuaded to convert to Catholicism right now. Well played, sir.
greek has 2 words for priest
..hiereus
1) a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with sacred rites
And the word archiereus which is the word for High Priest..
The writers knew the greek word for priest.. yet it is never listed as a role in the new church ..That is because the priesthood was a type of Christ fulfilled at the cross..there is no longer a need for a priesthood as Christ is the fulfillment of that OT type
presbyters is a specific word . one from whom my church draws its name ..it means ELDERS
The greek word is presbyteros
a term of rank or office
a) among the Jews
1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God
The word does not translate into priest..it translates into overseer
So no mark, there was never intended to be a priesthood in the new church..
no apostolic succession Matthias and Timothy are examples. Timothy appointing in Titus is an example.
No Timothy is an example of being ordained as an elder not apostolic succession
Matthias may show the church has a right to fill a vacant position.. God never gave the apostles the right to pass on the special authority Christ bestowed on them to found the church
Notice you never hear of Matthias after that one mention.. Only Christ could replace the lost apostle and He did . He had ordained Paul as the replacement for Judas ...He called Him in His time..
Matthias proves that men can not act as God ..He alone is sovereign over His church
There are the bishops and there is the leader among the bishops (first amongst equals) which is Peter. Even Paul goes to Peter to present his credentials and have the Apostles lay hands upon him.
That is no where declared in scripture . Peter never thought he had any special authority ...we never read of Peter as pope until hundreds of years after his death .
Reading scripture there seems to be a shared responsibility for the new church each with its own area of ministry.Paul refers to "pillars" not a pillar...when speaking of leadership
God assigned peter as the apostle to the Jews.. not the gentiles.. Paul was the apostle to the gentiles.. James was in charge of the home base of the new church Jerusalem and so was in a sense the chief of the apostles ..
If we say, "We are without sin," we deceive ourselves, 3 and the truth is not in us. 9 If we acknowledge our sins, HE is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing.
10 If we say, "We have not sinned," we make him a liar, and his word is not i
Who is the HE here?? If you are in doubt it is Christ.. it says nothing about a priest
There is not one mention of the apostles hearing a confession in the NT, so it is obvious that they did not believe they had any right to speak for the judge of men .
Read this closely Mark
2Cr 5:19 — To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the WORD of reconciliation.
The word of reconciliation is the gospel ....all men are separated from God, the only reconciliation is to repent and believe in Christ
There was no confession in the Catholic church until 1215...
St. Luke, Gospel writer, disciple of Paul and physician wrote the first icon that we have knowledge of.
Could I have the scriptural reference..
The one that comes to my mind is
Exd 20:4 — Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:
Calvinism may well fade into the history of men..but the Gospel of Christ will never fade but as long as the word remains and men to preach it men will continue to be saved from the false teaching of the tradition men
I was not saved by Calvinism, I was saved by the death of Jesus Christ... no by my efforts, not by my law keeping, not by my works...but by Christ
Ohh btw there is no titus 5
Perhaps your problem was that the Catholic Catechism required too much thinking and study. Unlike protestantism it does not rely on excerpted verses and pulpit driven meanings, it requires that the entire revealed word of God be considered in the context of the entire revealed word of God with an understanding of the hierarchical nature of revelation.
“Rbmillerjr: Fail... on knowledge of the Catholic faith and general logic. C- for reading comprehension.”
This would have been a good place to stop.
If one is in the mood for self-reflection, one could go back and merely look at your post...where even after your error was explained to you, you still stick to your conclusion.
What Forrest failed to grasp is that there is a significant difference in scope and responsibility between those tasked with Doctrinal responsibilities and those tasked with Enforcement and Compliance.
Calvin had people killed because they dissed him. Therefore that action was considered good and proper for Calvinist authorities in the colonies and they put it to good use.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.