The examples of the requirenments of Catholic Faith that you posted rpeceding this statement are simply description of faith such as it is. They are not prohibitions against an examination, perhaps critical, of the Catholic Faith, -- it would be a good thing if such examination is undertaken.
Of course they are prohibitions against further seeking to validate what Rome has infallible declared. “..having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all. You have sought for the Teacher sent by God, and you have secured him; what need of further speculation?”
"Your private judgment has led you into the Palace of Truth, and it leaves you there, for its task is done; the mind is at rest, the soul is satisfied, the whole being reposes in the enjoyment of Truth itself, who can neither deceive nor be deceived....”
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”
“The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned.”
“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.”
They tell us at which point the faith ceases to be Catholic. The demarkation is in itself helpful. For example, many people believe with the Catholics because of the conviction that the Catholic Church is the historical Church founded by Christ. For this historical approach is is very helpful to know what historically was held as crossing a line into heresy.
They do more than that, and while educating oneself is one thing, examining things objectively as to ascertain the validity of what Rome has officially taught is to doubt it. At one time (changeable) canon law (open to some interpretation) generally forbade lay persons from engaging in debate question of dogmatic or moral theology with “heretics.”
the primary Orthodox disagreement is a fundamental one, the very primacy and infallibility of the pope upon which Rome rises and falls
Rome does not "rise and fall" on that.
I said primary, and what i said remains true.
We are well aware that the historical developments particularly in the West (consider the feudal fragmentation not fully experienced in the East and later the Protestant heresy) -- priduced a highly centralized Roman Church, whereas the Orthodox East that had to deal with military enemy of the Islam rather than a heresy -- had to develop the precisely opposite, decentralized model in order to survive. Rome does not hold the same rigid line vis a vis the Uniate Churches who are not infected with either Protestantism or relativism. We repeatedly have said that the Eastern Orthodox Church is, as far as we are concerned, ready for reunioon as it is today, with the concept of papacy that it holds today.
On what conditions did she say that to the “defective” EO? Or will Rome reject Papal supremacy and infallibility, the Immaculate Conception , etc.?
“The Orthodox Church cannot accept the papal or institutional concept of the Church, for many reasons. Orthodoxy strives to remain faithful to the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church. As can be seen from a study of the decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Bishop of Rome did not exercise anything close to the kind of power now claimed by the Popes during this crucial period of Church history.” http://www.antiochian.org/node/17076
As regards the interesting causual theory, the papacy can also be explained as a result of the Roman church largely taking on the form and function and means of the Roman Empire. But in self-criticism (even though i am not bound to defend a monolithic communion), Protestantism itself, being of necessity (Acts 11:19) born of division, too easily resorts to such, even if it does typically work against atrophy and for continued growth in the body of Christ, resulting from such cell division versus remaining within an institutional organic entity. And without needed revivals and reformations (plural), eventually there would be no church of the living God.
“Usually wins??” Only as defined by her
Naturally. I do not get your references to some possible misconduct, but the fact remains that Rome views itself as an apostolic, that is one preserving an historical deposit, church.
If she says so. I was referring to her “natural” use of the sword and forgeries to gain or maintain power.
that is called a extrapolation, as what you see is a promise made to an individual, not to posterity [in reference to the promises of the infallible Church and papacy in Matthew 16:18 and Luke 22:31-32[
No, the text does not suggest that. First, there is nothing in the text to suggest anything less than a cosmic promise. To offer "the gates/powers of Hell shall not prevail against my Church" or "thy brethren will be sifted like wheat but I pray to thee to confirm them" in the context of a divine revelation asserted to be given to Peter and the solemnity of the Last Supper is to severely understate the gospel. Second, the person of Peter is significantly undermined in those very passage: Peter is one who will deny Christ, and one who tries to persuade Jesus to abandon His mission.
And what is not promised in formulaic assured infallibility. God preserves His church as He preserved a remnant of true Israel, using men and leaders, and in the NT church stones like Peter who also effectually confess Christ but who did not possess assured infallibility, who thus become autocratic demi-gods.
Christ being it [the Rock]
That is exactly the point. Were Christ not typified by the rock, we might say that it is one of forms of praise, like calling John an dJames the sons of Thunder. But here we have a real delegation of authority, and it is the only context in which "feed my sheep" makes sense.
The delegation and “leader among brethren” status of Peter is not what is in dispute, but its perpetuation what Rome imputes to that leadership.
when James the brother of John died (Mt. 10:2; Acts 12:2) no successor is mentioned, nor a provision made for selecting one as was made for Judas. It is incongruous that the Holy Spirit of truth would not have made that manifest if it were to be so, while the criteria for ordaining elders/bishops (same office, and not a separate class of sacerdotal priests) was faith and character, (1Tim. 3:1-7) which would exclude many papal successors from even being church members. (1Cor. 5:11-13)
St. James' martyrdom was in the context of a Church fully functioning. For example, St. Paul -- not a natural apostle -- was already active as an equeal to the apostles bishop of the Church. The Church was no longer a Hebrew institution. That must mark the time when the pivot from the Church of the Twelve to the Catholic Church of very many was accomplished.
Which does not solves the problem. If apostolic succession will use Acts 1 as a precedent then it needs to maintain 12 with the same level of credibility, chosen by lot, while the absence for a successor for James and no manifest provision being made for Peter, unlike that for Moses in the Old Testament, serves as a precedent for a local bishops in corporate leadership after the death of the apostles. Or having God sovereignly raise up a Paul, with like qualities and attendant supernatural attestation. (Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12)
The very idea that preservation of the faith requires [a magisterium] is a contradiction
Where in the scripture do we see it? I see where it is scriptural: "the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts Of Apostles 20:28).
Good verse corresponding to corporate leadership, though the word for rule/tend can also be rendered “feed” (Jn. 21:16; 1Pt. 5:2; Rev. 7:17) , but where do you simply see magisterium in my sentence and why did you replace “AIM” with magisterium? That changes the whole point. You must know by now that SS affirms the church magisterium, and the assuredly infallible status is the issue.
you won't get far in any most evangelical denominations if you disagree with fundamentals either, and historically those who have were marked as heretics
The Catholic Church allows a great lenience in interpreting of the scripture while she is quite specific as to what doctrines are Catholic. That is consistent with the Catholic method whereby it is the Church rather than the scripture which is the rule of faith.
And thus the church is autocratic, beyond reproof when she says something that she says is so.
The fault that I see here is not in the Catholics avoiding to fix an interpretation to the scripture we already hold inerrant, but with the Protestants who would allow notions that cannot at the same time be true, like whether or not there is a free will, -- to co-exist.
And which does not equate with a dead gospel, as with the latter repentance is granted, faith is gifted and souls are persuaded, though they exercise a degree of free will, and as sinners helpless to gain justification by works, they rest on Christ for salvation and respond to Him as Lord. In contrast, institutional religion is full of multitudes whose hope of eternal life is based upon them being a good person, without ever having made a conscious decision for Christ and realizing regeneration. I have talked to multitudes of them over the past 30 years, and its about how good they are and or their church affiliation.
disallowing the law being given by the hand of Moses, is contrary to how the Bible interprets itself, and this and more is contrary to her claim to be the uniquely infallible interpreter of Scripture
Certainly, if you are of the opinion that the Old Testament iterprets itself, the you should keep kosher and reject Acts 15 which contravened the Mosaic law. But if you consider Christianity to be true religion, then i=you have to understand that the law of Moses was replaced in Christianity by law of grace.
You misunderstood the argument (below), which contextually was not about what Acts decreed, but Rome's claim to be as infallible as they were, while they practice “allegorizing historical accounts, or counting them as fables, which approved Roman scholars do, and disallowing the law being given by the hand of Moses [holding to the Documentary Hypothesis theory], is contrary to how the Bible interprets itself, and this and more is contrary to her claim to be the uniquely infallible interpreter of Scripture.”
seeking to be like a Berean and continue to use their means
.. is a good thing and I am convinced that anyone who honestly examines the Holy Scripture wil end up if not Catholic of the Western mold, then Eastern Orthodox.
You may be convinced, including that study likely may lead to rejection of the Roman Catholic papacy, but the evidence among those who esteem Scripture and do not implicit trust men indicates they leave for green pastures. One must not simply look at official doctrines, but what they result in as regards faith among those within it as compared with the Scriptures.
EENS is yet disputed among Roman Catholics and Vatican Two is in contrast to the most historical understand of it, but Rome lost her secular teeth needed to carry out her animosity against men like Huss, Tyndale, etc.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is understood as it always has been, that when an dif one is saved, he is saved as a Roman Catholic.
No. The context was unity of doctrine, with the point is that it is not universally understood the same way, at least since Vatican Two.
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "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" (Matthew 25:41), 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 Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem March 17, 1856): “There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord (St. Cyprian, Epistle 43), outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church (ibid, On the Unity of the Catholic Church). ... Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control."”
Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 14: "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."
But i think the likes of Boniface 8 would cringe to read words such as in LUMEN GENTIUM: “The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (Cf. Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15-16 and 26) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities...They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood...” (15)
And then you have the closest degree of fellowship found between Roman Catholic charismatics and Pentecostals, which in modern times began within Catholics in America after influence from the latter, but which does not affirm all that may accompany either.
We don't know if Hus or Tyndale were saved. Our best effort was to ensure their salvation. If they were, they were Catholic when they died. It si not too late by the way, to pray for Hus, Luther, Tyndale, Bruno, or any other heretic.
Thus you sanction their deaths, by the sword of men no less, and damn them if they were not Roman Catholic, which is an abomination. (Prv. 17:15) Those are effectively your words, while today they likely would be “separated brethren.” And while the Jewish Scriptures nor the New Testament sanction no prayers for the dead, though the apocryphal 2 Maccabees did so for evident idolaters, seeing as real heretics even by Rome's standards are buried by her daily, then they had better see to their own house first.
Annalex: We are judged by our works (Rm 2:6-10, Mt 25:31-46).
Daniel: And rightly so, as how can faith or love be judged except by what it does?
Indeed. So works are how we are justified.
You either cannot comprehend or refuse to that the cause of works can justify one as a believer while works are shown to be a basis for judgment, because its effects manifest that he is. Jesus was God, but He said to believe Him due to His very works sake. (Jn. 4:11)
Mormons say the like
I did not know that the Mormons claimed to have the sacraments, but if they do, it should not be our criterion what they mistakenly think of themselves.
Meaning leaving their church means losing their soul, as if the body of Christ was restricted to them, a restriction Rome at least now does not make but you do. While assuming the elect would died within the visible church, Augustine stated, “Just as many sheep wander without, so many wolves lurk treacherously within.” (B.6.1.1)
What typical passes for religion in Rome is perfunctory professions
No. Professions are means to an end, but they are not "religion". It is, in fact the cornerstone Protestnat error to think that confessional faith is alone salvific. A profession of faith that is deeply held, and a profession of faith that is "perfunctory" are equally irrelevant to salvation.
Again, while that may be technically accurate, it neither has conversion being alone as apart from conviction and the means of it, which includes the working of men, nor that a faith that was of a character of would no follow Christ was salvific. “Sola” is restricted to what precisely appropriates justification, that of God-given faith versus works, though they are basically inseparable.
The saving faith does the works. The perfunctory faith feels the feel.
The former is true, but the latter is mere form.
Annalex I have not seen a verse that cannot be easily and in context explained, again, barring attempts at explainign the miraculous. Many tried, on this thread alone.
Daniel You made the assertion, now you must prove it.
Prove it how? I stated, there is no X. Prove to me by showing X.
The statement was not that there is a verse countering Rome that you would allow as valid, but that you must prove your statement that “The reason Catholics remain Catholics is that invariably the apparent contradictions are shown to not be, upon careful examination.” And as said, “They are not to doubt Rome in the first place, while your invariable conclusion is a highly presumptuous stretch.”
Catholics last in Bible reading, with one study (Rasmussen) also showing 44% of Catholics rarely or never read the Bible (apart from church)
Naturally. It is not a good thing, but it shows that Bible reading in itself is not anything salvific.
So one could not read Peter's sermon Acts 10:36-43 and be saved? “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. " (2 Timothy 1:5; 3:15)
“Any way you cut it, just going to Mass will NOT give a functional knowledge of Scripture.”
It is good to read the scripture. It is also good, in fact, critical for salvation, to go to Mass. The scripture read at Mass is essential scripture and it combines the Old and the New Testaments together so that a deeper understanding is acheived. I don't know what "functional knowldege" is; I agree that biblical apologetics among the Catholics is poor.
What a contrast to the book of Acts where souls were first saved and then they continued in the word, and the services were not that of watching a type of play every week but ranged from highly participatory meeting (1Cor. 14) to preaching service (Acts 20:7ff) to a agape feast, with the latter being about as close as you will get, but its not a mass, neither were the elders part of a separate class of priests offering up expiatory sacrifices.
the Lord and His disciples were good at proving their claims by Scripture.
It is something the Catholics need to get better at.
So they can convince souls not to look to Scripture to ascertain truth by, unlike what the Bible examples and commends.
the Immaculate Conception of Mary, her perpetual virginity, and Assumption, praying to the departed, mandated Priestly celibacy (except some converts), more resembles the work of cults. That is because these do not depend upon Biblical warrant,
No, they do not. so why do you mentin them?
Because most RCAs contend as if they did.
I diod not say, "everything the Church teaches in in the Bible". I said, "everything the Bible says, the Church also teaches". see the difference?
And the certainty of this claim, rests upon her claim to be infallible.
Rome's claim to authority rests upon self-proclamation of her supreme authority, not Biblical manifestation of the truth.
It rests on the authority you can ascertain from the Bible, such as the authority to "bind and loose" (Mt 16-18). It also rests on the continuing existence of the same church through 2 thousand years. Howeverm, no one is claiming that no interpretation of the Bible can be found that is not in a seeming contradiction to the Church. It is just not a real contradiction.
No, as the condemnation of PI and the requirement for the AIM is based upon the premise that the laity cannot derive surety of doctrine from Scripture. If order to do so one must submit to the AIM, which again, infallibly interprets Scripture and history as rendering her assuredly infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined formula.
your judgment must be dismissed as you cannot concede that anything in opposition to Rome's official teaching can be true
I do say that. But you are still at liberty to offer your opposition, and if I do not have a reasonable argument for Rome, the reader will see that. so far, I did not see anythign that would objectively be a challenge to Rome;
Thank you for your honest admission, and readers can see your commitment, and this extended argument shows mine as well, but also that if anyone is trying to be objective i think it is I.
I have seem agreement on the essential point, that works of charity and faith are necessary. I also have seen much backpedaling form that biblical fact.
From the beginning you have seen affirmation that works of charity and faith are necessary, in contrast to a largely straw version of historic Protestantism, with the “fide” aspect of “sola” being restricted to what actually procures justification.
I really would like to get that part of the argument done with, so if you have an rgument on how Matthew 25:31-46 does not teach justification by works of charity, I would like to pursue that.
That should be put to rest, as well as the latter, which is a matter of hermeneutics, and of your seeing a description of Jesus blessing souls because they had a kind of faith that works by love as making that the precise means of appropriating justification, which Paul does for faith, clearly excluding works as meriting it. We can argue that faith and works are are so inseparable that the former speaks of the other, and so an event in which faith is manifest can be seen as justifying one, but a distinction is made, with justifying faith in the heart causing the works which confirm one is saved.
We should both be able to agree that God can justify and purify hearts by faith before they were baptized (Acts 15:8,9) as baptism by desire allows. The importance again is of a soul having a poor and contrite heart that sees he is damnable and destitute of any way to escape Hell or gain Heaven except by casting all his faith in the mercy of God in Christ, and does so, trusting and thus calling upon the risen Lord to save him by His blood and righteous, and which is a type of God-given faith that is confessed, expressed in baptism (normatively) and works of faith, led by the Spirit. And that saving faith is one that continues in the faith, repenting when convicted of not doing so, which i have many times defined it as.
One is free to leave the church at any time, and many do. If one wishes to stay, he has to form his faith accordingly.
At one time (changeable) canon law (open to some interpretation) generally forbade lay persons from engaging in debate question of dogmatic or moral theology with “heretics.”
Yes, -- before one debates the Catholic doctrine it is good if one knows it himself. It is conceivable that at times only consecrated life of a priest provided sufficient education; it may come to this again. I certainly ask anyone Catholic to correct me in the event that I misrepresent the Catholic doctrine; I would not wish to speak my opinions and peddle them off as something valid. Private interpretation of scripture is something amusing and alluring, but it really should not be something the Catholic mind should busy itself with. Here, compared to the Protestant approach, a great and important division needs to be understood. The Church is not a debating society nor is it s research institution. Rather, it is a transmission belt between the historical events that occurred in the ministry of Christ on earth and us. We don’t sit around in a Bible study and wonder what we think the Bible might really mean. We simply ask, and get an answer from the mouth of the Church as she is a timeless supernatural institution divinely endowed by the gift of infallible transmission of the Truth Who is Christ. For example, with you, it might seem that I debate. I do not. I explain what the Church teaches. In the process, the facts of scripture and logic come to light that defeat the Protestant theological fantasies, and hopefully, put you and other Protestant heretics on the path of doubt. But conversion that I so much desire for my Protestant friends is not going to come about because of any debate. Note that Christ never debated with His disciples; they became disciples because He called them. This is how people come to His Church also, because they want to be taught rather than be debated with.
I said primary [disagreement with the Orthodox is primacy and infallibility of the papacy], and what i said remains true
With that, I don’t argue, although I would remark that primacy of the Bishop of Rome is not disputed but rather his infallibility outside of the Church councils. My remark was addressing your other point, that Rome “rises and falls” on the papacy. That is not so: most of Catholic theology was not shaped by popes and in fact what we argue with the Protestants for example, is mostly contained in the teachings of the seven councils of the unified Church. Even today, the Pope has a far stronger command line to the bishops of the West than of the East, and there is no doubt that in the re-unified Church the papacy will be in line with what is was in early Middle Ages, where the individual bishops had great autonomy, as the various Catholic Churches of Eastern Rites enjoy today.
will Rome reject Papal supremacy and infallibility, the Immaculate Conception , etc.?
The doctrines that Rome developed without the cooperation with the East will most likely remain an optional belief in the East, till such time that a council including the East should adopt them universally. It is just my opinion. Note that the bulk of the Orthodox objections are not to the beliefs themselves but to the unilateral adoption of them. They can be reintroduced in a council and adopted by it in some form.
without needed revivals and reformations (plural), eventually there would be no church of the living God
I agree. We have seen several reformations in the Church that were very salutary: the monastic movement in the early Middle Ages, Scholasticism, St. Francis in the West and Palamism in the East, Trent, and now we see the beginnings of some reform even though the actual implementation of the Vatican II left the Western Church nearly in ruins and will have to be backtracked. The problem with Protestant Reformation is not in its stated initially desire to reform the Church, -- that was accomplished at Trent, but with their gradual abandonment of solid scriptural theology from Trent on.
God preserves His church as He preserved a remnant of true Israel, using men and leaders, and in the NT church stones like Peter who also effectually confess Christ but who did not possess assured infallibility, who thus become autocratic demi-gods.
The scripture clearly assigned the infallibility to the Church (Mt 16:18, 18:18). Whether the prayer of Christ for specially Peter in Luke 22 amounts to actual infallibility can indeed be debated, but surely St. Peter is singled out among other apostles as a greater authority in these instances.
The delegation and “leader among brethren” status of Peter is not what is in dispute, but its perpetuation what Rome imputes to that leadership
Ah, OK, so you actually agree to the above. Now as to perpetuation. It is reasonable that the ecclesial structures set up by Christ are perpetuated as He set them up in not in some other form; note as well that we do see episcopacy being perpetuated explicitly in the scripture (the entire two letters to Timothy and the letter to Titus are on this subject). Secondly, this shows the intention of St. Peter to perpetuate his office:
[12] …I will begin to put you always in remembrance of these things: though indeed you know them, and are confirmed in the present truth. [13] But I think it meet as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance. [14] Being assured that the laying away of this my tabernacle is at hand, according as our Lord Jesus Christ also hath signified to me. [15] And I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease, whereby you may keep a memory of these things. [16] For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness (2 Peter 1)
If apostolic succession will use Acts 1 as a precedent then it needs to maintain 12 with the same level of credibility, chosen by lot, while the absence for a successor for James and no manifest provision being made for Peter, unlike that for Moses in the Old Testament, serves as a precedent for a local bishops in corporate leadership after the death of the apostles.
Were the Early Church Protestant, I am sure she would use this Protestant system of treating the scripture as a manual to be blindly followed. But since the Early Church was Catholic, she instead followed the actual needs of the growing flock rather than some rigid arithmetical scheme. We see actual apostolic succession in action in the two Timothys and Titus, based on discerning the vocation (Titus 1:5-9), education (2 Timothy 14-17), and sacrament (1 Timothy 4:14).
Or having God sovereignly raise up a Paul, with like qualities and attendant supernatural
God raised up many saints and doctors, and some of them became bishops and popes in that manner. That the Church finds talent when talent is needed is no contradiction to the sacramental system of Holy Orders. Note that St. Paul made sure to bring his extraordinary calling in conformance with the hierarchical system of the Church (Gal. 2:9)
where do you simply see magisterium in my sentence and why did you replace “AIM” with magisterium? That changes the whole point. You must know by now that SS affirms the church magisterium, and the assuredly infallible status is the issue.
Sorry, I only meant to make a short reference to your longer sentence. The assuredness of the infallibility comes from the mandate to bind and loose on earth, which is guaranteed to hold in heaven (Mt 16:19, 18:18). Thank you for focusing me on the real issue. Regarding ποιμαίνω, “to feed” is really one of those dreadful “dynamic” translations, the verb describes a relationship of a pastor to the flock of sheep.
thus the church is autocratic
She is, more precisely, monarchic. That is bad?
institutional religion is full of multitudes whose hope of eternal life is based upon them being a good person, without ever having made a conscious decision for Christ and realizing regeneration
Being a good person is a start, but no, salvation does not depend just on that if your reference is to the Catholic Church.
Rome's claim to be as infallible as they [The Jerusalem Council] were
That is because the promise to bind and loose in heaven what they bind on earth was not time-limited in any way, and we see apostolic succession in action right in the scripture (1-2 Timothy, Titus).
that study likely may lead to rejection of the Roman Catholic papacy
That it could, this is why I was careful to say “if not Catholic of the Western mold, then Eastern Orthodox. ”
Quoting Cantate Domino 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" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her
That Lumen Gentium might cause some to cringe is very true but the essence of the teaching is the same: that last chance of salvation comes from the Catholic Church at the time of one’s death, even though formal and sacramental conversion might not be available. There are no non-Catholics in heaven.
Thus you sanction their deaths
What I said was this: “Our best effort was to ensure their salvation. If they were, they were Catholic when they died. It si not too late by the way, to pray for Hus, Luther, Tyndale, Bruno, or any other heretic”. I don’t think I “sanctioned” anything. Tyndale, by the way, was executed by Protestant England, but of course we can pray for all of them even today.
the apocryphal 2 Maccabees [sanction prayers for the dead] for evident idolaters
2 Maccabees has been in every Christian Bible since Luther decided he did not like it. How is that “apocryphal”? On this subject, the Old Testament would not of course be dispositive any more than on eating of pork, -- the prayer for the dead is simply something that the Jews did as we see from the Maccabees episode. It is a good thing to do because God knows your prayers before you prayed them and can condescend to your petition at the time of the judgement, regardless of the time of the petition being offered. Besides, the souls in Purgatory depend on our prayers directly.
You either cannot comprehend or refuse to that the cause of works can justify one as a believer while works are shown to be a basis for judgment, because its effects manifest that he is. Jesus was God, but He said to believe Him due to His very works sake. (Jn. 4:11)
You are right, what you wrote is not comprehensible. If works are basis for judgement that saves you, then you are saved by your works.
leaving their church means losing their soul […] a restriction Rome at least now does not make but you do
Rome does say so now. While there is a greater appreciation that membership in the Catholic Church need not be formal when at the hour of death one converts, the conversion is necessary for salvation. However, we are saved by our works. One who attained sanctity through his works is essentially Catholic; such are for example the Orthodox whose works of piety often surpass nominal Catholics. The danger is that without formal conversion one may actually reject the Church and therefore reject Christ.
“Sola” is restricted to what precisely appropriates justification, that of God-given faith versus works, though they are basically inseparable.
Again, this is incomprehensible sophistry. If faith that “appropriates justification” (whatever that combination of words means) is inseparable from works, and indeed it is, -- then we are not saved by faith alone, exactly how the scripture teaches.
The statement was not that there is a verse countering Rome that you would allow as valid, but that you must prove your statement that “The reason Catholics remain Catholics is that invariably the apparent contradictions are shown to not be, upon careful examination.” And as said, “They are not to doubt Rome in the first place, while your invariable conclusion is a highly presumptuous stretch.”
Well, there are personal reasons for each one, but it is also true that one who carefully examines every apparent scriptural contradiction with Catholicism, the contradiction melts. Whereas “we are not saved by faith alone” or “this is my body, eat it” cannot be melted away other than by kilobytes of transparent sophistry of the sort ‘“Sola” is restricted to what precisely appropriates justification […] though [faith and works] are basically inseparable’.
So one could not read Peter's sermon Acts 10:36-43 and be saved? “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. " (2 Timothy 1:5; 3:15)
You are saved by your works of faith, not by reading anything. A life-long dedication to the virtues described in the scripture will get you saved indeed, but not familiarity with the scripture alone.
Observe, that in the Acts the conversion following a sermon is described thus:
[41] They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. [42] And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers. [43] And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all. [44] And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. [45] Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need. [46] And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart; [47] Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved.They were added to the Church and they “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread”. The process of their salvation began with the sermon; it did not end with it.(Acts 2)
Annalex: It is good to read the scripture. It is also good, in fact, critical for salvation, to go to Mass
Daniel: What a contrast to the book of Acts where souls were first saved and then they continued in the word, and the services were not that of watching a type of play every week but ranged from highly participatory meeting (1Cor. 14) to preaching service (Acts 20:7ff) to a agape feast, with the latter being about as close as you will get, but its not a mass
They continued the scripture tells us not only in the word but rather they “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread”. In other words, the Holy Mass was a part of the perseverance. Yes, abuses of the Holy Mass existed (1 Cor. 11), and probably will continue to exist. However, for the modern abuses of the Holy Mass I would blame the ill spirit of the Reformation that continues to infect the Western Church
neither were the elders part of a separate class of priests offering up expiatory sacrifices.
This is a bizarre change of words, as scriptural “presbyter” is translated by Protestants as “elders” and by authentic Christians as “priests”; in the authentic Churches the classes of priests do exist: priests and bishops (from “episcopos”), but both can offer the sacrifice of the Mass. In fact, the priest is enabled by his bishop and offers Mass upon his authorization. The laity and deacons cannot do it, but for that reason they are not called “priests”.
Is the separation of priests as an order than can offer the Sacrifice of the Mass scriptural? Surely it is: the model for the Mass is the Last Supper at which Jesus as Priest offered the sacrifice of His Body and Blood to the Apostles. He did not say “let us offer one another the sacrifice of By Body and Blood” but rather he offered it Himself. Then He told them to “do this”, so at that point He consecrated them to do what He did and be priests. In fact, when the Protestant system impersonates true priesthood it also separates those who offer the breads and the grape juice from those who partake in that ritual.
Is, finally, the sacramental nature of the Holy Orders scriptural? In Titus 1:5 we read
For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee
And in 1 Timothy 4:14:
Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood
So, yes, presbytery (however translated into English) is a sacramentally consecrated order and not merely an occupation like for example a Protestant minister is an occupation or an electrician is an occupation.
So they [Catholic] can convince souls not to look to Scripture
When the Catholic doctrine is discussed in the Scripture, it is easy to see that what the scripture teaches is Catholic. For example, our distinctive beliefs, in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the necessity of works alongside faith for salvation, the ability of true priests to forgive sin, the monastic life being the highest form of discipleship – are all directly visible in the scripture, whereas the Protestant notions of scripture alone, faith alone, the Last Supper desacralized into a memorial snack – all are mental convolutions far distant from the plain text of the scripture.
Annalex: I said, "everything the Bible says, the Church also teaches". see the difference?
Daniel: And the certainty of this claim, rests upon her claim to be infallible […] the laity [according to that claim] cannot derive surety of doctrine from Scripture. If order to do so one must submit to the AIM, which again, infallibly interprets Scripture and history
No it does not rest on the infallibility at all. Where did I on this thread, for example, tell you to agree with me because I speak in defense of the infallible Church? It is me, Catholic, who reads “this is my body” and believes it. It is me, Catholic who reads “you are not saved by faith alone” and believes it. You invent theories intended to contradict these simple statements, and to bring your theories to some phony compliance with the Holy Scripture you need page upon page of mental contortion. That the Church is infallible is very true, but in order to ascertain for yourself that what the Church teaches is true and what Protestantism teaches is counterscriptural nonsense one only needs to read the scripture with an honest eye.
Annalex: if you have an rgument on how Matthew 25:31-46 does not teach justification by works of charity, I would like to pursue that.
Daniel: That should be put to rest, as well as the latter, which is a matter of hermeneutics, and of your seeing a description of Jesus blessing souls because they had a kind of faith that works by love as making that the precise means of appropriating justification, which Paul does for faith, clearly excluding works as meriting it
In Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus blesses souls who did works of love and condemns souls who did not. So, we are judged by our works and therefore are not saved by faith alone, as Protestantism falsely teaches. Nowhere does St. Paul draw the distinction between “appropriating justification” and being continually justified, and nowhere does he exclude all kinds of works from that initial appropriation, but merely works done for a temporal reward.
We should both be able to agree that God can justify and purify hearts by faith before they were baptized (Acts 15:8,9) as baptism by desire allows. The importance again is of a soul having a poor and contrite heart that sees he is damnable and destitute of any way to escape Hell or gain Heaven except by casting all his faith in the mercy of God in Christ, and does so, trusting and thus calling upon the risen Lord to save him by His blood and righteous, and which is a type of God-given faith that is confessed, expressed in baptism (normatively) and works of faith, led by the Spirit. And that saving faith is one that continues in the faith, repenting when convicted of not doing so, which i have many times defined it as.
Yes, that describes Catholic faith quite well. I don’t think it describes a Protestant faith well, because Protestantism is built upon resisting plain scripture and often plain words of Christ, in favor of deceptive and artificial constructs.