The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]

We let them become prots officially since they are already violating several Church laws.

On the contrary, I do believe they were shuffled from parish to parish, or promoted to positions of higher authority within the church. There have been plenty of threads on FR about that for everyone to know that. And we have been repeatedly told, once a priest, always a priest. No defrocking of them or pulling of their credentials. Instead they are permitted to continue to serve as priests because, hey, nobody is perfect. The sacraments they perform are still valid if their intent is good, even with blatant, gross sin in their lives.

It is very easy for two to play at that game, are you sure you really want to go down that road?

Then why'd you start?

But, that is a prime example of how the Holy Spirit works within the authority of the Church. The deeper understanding of the earlier theology and doctrines is of the mercy of God, the NATURE of God, as I said.

So in these latter times, God gave your religion more information, more detail...

I'd like to see some evidence of this information...Got any to share with us???

If that’s “saved,” I’m a Buddhist.Snarky comments begat snarky responses. BTW does metmom know you don't believe that she is saved and you are now Buddhist?

This prot investigated what the Scriptures plainly teach and believed in the Saviour by Grace Alone through Faith Alone in Christ Alone.

It seems you might be missing a few verses in your Bible.

The saddest thing i have found is the once Gospel proclaiming church at Rome has become apostate and no longer preaches the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ, but a faith AND Works path to heaven, which is no path at all.

My KJV says something a bit different. Romans 2:5-6

5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

I forget is this one of the books you guys took out /sarc

You asked.And I apprecaite you giving me one to knock out of the park. Now If you have any that actually prove your theory I would be glad to look at those as well.

"Such then, as we have above described, is the madness and daring of those men. But our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles and tradition of the fathers, being confirmed both by the New Testament and the Old.

Hey, wasn't Athanasius a Catholic (according to Catholics)??? He says tradition is confirmed by the scriptures...

That's what the Protestants claim...Sounds like Athan was a Protestant before Protestants were Kool...

I'm thinkin' the real fact is that the Catholic religion hadn't yet been conceived so Athanasius was just a regualar Christian...

And later on when Martin Luther tried to turn the Catholic religion back to the ways of Athanasius and his crew, it opened the door for hundreds of millions of Catholics and and non religious to follow in the footsteps of Athanasius and those before him into the real Body of Christ...

Then why'd you start?

I am sure that you will remember that YOU were the one that brought it up since it had nothing to do witht he thread.

BTW still wating for you to point a couple of fingers at your own church.

But hey your church does't have any sinners

"Athanasius, for example said:"

There is too often on these threads a tendency to present the teachings and writings of any institution, denomination or individual as easily and completely summarized in a single line or paragraph. That line of thinking converts the truth into a malleable commodity void of any integrity. Unless the discussion is within the context of a group of equally learned persons these exercises are nothing better than the poster putting their own words into the mouths of the saints and the Early Church Fathers. This is such a case.

The attempts to present St. Athanasius as a proto-Protestant or to portray his works as having never addressed the Church or Tradition by only presenting quotes carefully chosen for the Protestant ear is dishonest. Equally dishonest is the attempts to then impeach these same Saints when their further writings are shown to Paint Ptrotestantism in a bad light.

Lets explore what St. Athanasius said about the exclusive of Scripture over Tradition and about the Church to see if you still want to champion him:

But after him (the devil) and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power" Athanasius, Festal Letter 2 (c. A.D. 350).

'...and it is seemingly and most irreligious when Scripture contains such images, to form ideas concerning our Lord from others which are neither in Scripture, nor have any religious bearing. Therefore let them tell us from what teacher or by what tradition they derived these notions concerning the Saviour?...But they seem to me to have a wrong understanding of this passage also; for it has a religious and very orthodox sense, which had they understood, they would not have blasphemed the Lord of glory.' Athanasius, De Decretis 13 (c. A.D. 350).

'Of course, the holy Scriptures, divinely inspired are self-sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. But there are also numerous works composed for this purpose by blessed teachers. The one who reads them will understand the interpretation of the Scriptures and will be able to gain knowledge he desrires.' Athanasius, Gentes 1 (c. A.D. 350).

'But what is also to the point, let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian.' Athanasius, Ad Serapion 1,28 (c. A.D. 350).

"Wherefore keep yourselves all the more untainted by them, and observe the traditions of the Fathers, and chiefly the holy faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, which you have learned from the Scripture, and of which you have often been put in mind by me." Anthony of Egypt, Vita S. Antoni 89, (c. A.D. 350).

"Not a year goes by when they do not invent new creeds, which they are the first to condemn by replacing then with others that are no more acceptable. Their entire plan is to destroy Catholic truth while seeming to defend it. They are Pilate sending Jesus Christ to be tortured while seeming to spare Him. The only thing they fear is that they will be recognized for what they are, formal enemies of Jesus Christ."

"Only one or the other of the following can be true: Either [1] they think as we do; and if so, why write so much? This vast number of writings serves only to perpetuate disputes, hamper the faith of simple men, create difficulties over well-established principles, and make us conjecture on things we had never thought about. Or [2] they think otherwise; and if that is the case, why not say so? It would be better to declare frankly that they adopt the doctrine of Arius and his impiety; at least we would not be taken in by them, and recognizing the venom, we would flee at the sight of the serpent."

"But that is precisely what they avoid saying. They are afraid to touch the question; deliberately changing the subject, they will speak to you about everything except whatever directly concerns the heresy. Why, then do they affect a way of speaking that is different from their teacher's? Why do they eternally wrap themselves in ambiguities and deceitful interpretations, if not because it is impossible to defend him? Therefore, by deliberately suppressing the words of Arius, they show by that fact alone that they are convinced of the impiety of his doctrine."

"The time has come to fight for the truth against heresy. Our enemy does not always attack us in the same manner. Martyrdom does not consist only in refusing to offer incense to idols. There is also a martyrdom of the conscience, which consists in not violating the Faith." - Warning by Saint Athanasius (Cf. Encyclical Letter to the Bishops of Egypt and Lybia)

Peace be with you

"I forget is this one of the books you guys took out /sarc

Here is one, not removed just ignored:

"Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.” - 2 Timothy 2:14-19

My KJV says something a bit different. Romans 2:5-6

5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

You are quite right...At one time, Roman 2 was the rule...

But I don't really believe you own a KJV...I know for a fact that a KJV in Romans has a chapter 3...And apparently, you haven't read that chapter, or the ones following it...

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Rom 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Now that just blew your theology of Romans 2 right out of the water...

There is clearly a transition from Romans 2 to Romans 3...And if you guys can't see it, it's because you don't want to, or,

2Co 4:1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2Co 4:2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

You can't fool a bible believer by pulling a snippet of scripture out of the hat...

Everything Athanasius wrote that you posted is in harmony with what we posted...

While Athanasius applauds tradition, it is still the same tradition which was taught in the scriptures, according to Athanasius...

The only thing Catholic in your post was your insertertion of the capital 'C' on the word catholic to make it look like good ole Athan was one of your boys...

There is nothing in your post that shows Athanasius leaning toward your religion...But quite the contrary...

"Wherefore keep yourselves all the more untainted by them, and observe the traditions of the Fathers, and chiefly the holy faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, which you have learned from the Scripture, and of which you have often been put in mind by me." Anthony of Egypt, Vita S. Antoni 89, (c. A.D. 350).

"There is nothing in your post that shows Athanasius leaning toward your religion..."

If that is what you took away from the Warning by Saint Athanasius (Cf. Encyclical Letter to the Bishops of Egypt and Lybia) then your reading compression skills need some work. Your research skills appear to be equally lacking. A wise person does not read a subject until he finds a clause that supports his preconceptions, he reads until he has read it all before concluding.

St. Athanasius is best remembered for his defense of Catholic doctrine against the Arian heresy that was defended by many because it was thought to be Scripturally based. This fight lead directly to the Council of Nicea, the documentation of Creeds that preceded the Canon of Scripture and ultimately to the production of a formal Canon.

'We are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father, but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can ye assign to your phrases? Not one of the understandings and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council, for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy...' Athanasius, De Decretis 27 (c. A.D. 350).

“It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere.” - François-Marie d'Arouet ( better known by his pen name Voltaire)

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

The key clause is "deeds of the law" I think you will understand there is a difference between "works of the Law" and works of charity.

And I will see your verse and raise you another.

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

And for the record I have three copies of the complete KJV, one a reprint with the Duetrocanonicals. I also have a KJV interlinear NT Parallel Greek edited by Dr. Spiros Zodihiates (Sp?).

Romans 2:5-6 5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

And since Christ's righteousness has been imputed to us who put our faith in Him, then we're good to go because God sees us as having done the righteous deeds necessary to enter heaven.

Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Philippians 3:8-9 8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—

Galatians 3:23-27 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

"And I will see your verse and raise you another.

I think we all ought to zoom out for a moment and stop looking at individual versus and books under a microscope. Arguing over archaic Greek cognates and idioms accomplishes nothing and when it leads to rancor it is worse than nothing.

Faith is the starting point. God calls us to seek him, to know him, to love him with all our strength. The Catechism teaches that faith is our response to God's call. God gives more than enough Grace for all to he saved. Faith is our cooperation with this Grace. Responding in faith requires we trust in the authority of God as the cause of our belief. As Blessed John Henry Newman said; “Faith is not a conclusion from premises, but an act of the will following on the conviction that to believe is a duty”. Neither is it an upwelling of emotion. Intellect, education, and reason can assist, but they cannot substitute for faith. We ultimately must choose to believe.

Works, not the observance of the Old Testament Laws, but Spiritual and Corporeal Works of Mercy are but evidence of our faith and more importantly the evidence of our our love. Love is the greatest commandment. If we do not love God above all and do not love our neighbor as ourselves we will not be saved. It is love that unites us with God who is love.

All you need is love.

But, that was my point. That Catholics can disagree on many things which are not essential doctrine or dogma. It does not make Catholicism any less true.

I was not arguing that disagreements themselves invalidate the supremacy of a source of Doctrine, which was indirectly in response to your argument that this does so as regards Bible churches.

For that post was in response to metmom's post but which was in response to your list which was in response to her request for specifics after you argued (unseen by me) that “Bible” churches differ on so much due the not being enough for some to know the truth of God. As regards that premise, truth also brings division, while your insufficiency premise presupposes that SS refers simply to formal sufficiency, and does not include the material sufficiency of Scripture, which provides for the church which helps explain the word. But i affirm that while “all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all, what is necessary is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, and Scripture is such that “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means [in which the church is a part], may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

And that “there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”

And also, “It belongeth to synods and councils [not as assuredly infallible but as a help in grace], ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word. (WESTMINSTER, cp. 1, VI. VII; Cp. XXXI, III)

Such men may and have erred, but as Scripture shows, God was able to establish writings as Scripture and preserve Truth and keep His promises before there was a church of Rome and without an assuredly infallible magisterium of men, often raising up men from without the formal magisterium to rebuke its errors, and thus the church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel as the steward of Scripture and Divine revelation,(Mt. 23:2; Rm. 3:2; 9:4) and who thus challenged the authority of the itinerant Preacher (Mk. 11:28-33) who established His claims upon Scripture and the power of God it attests to. And by the same preservative means as before, the church as the body of Christ has continued and will, to the glory of God.

My comparison was between those who hold Scripture to be the supreme authority as the assuredly infallible Word of God versus those who effectively hold that the church is that authority. And what my response showed was that under sola ecclesia, though they may have common consent to core teachings, yet they also have formal divisions, and churches therein also differ much, even as in regards to their understanding of essential doctrines, including internally among their members (as well as the parameters of allowed disagreement). Due to the judgment involved, your interpretation of allowed disagreement “on many things which are not essential doctrine or dogma” can be different from that of other Roman Catholics, as well as regarding what all the infallible teachings are, and what degree of dissent may be given to papal Encyclicals and Bulls etc.

And among Catholics in general, papal infallibility is rejected by the Orthodox, besides the purgatory of Rome and her indulgences, the IC of Mary, etc., while Traditional Catholics reject your interpretation of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and Lumen Gentium.

In addition, under sola ecclesia in its broader scope (which includes Mormons, etc.) are the greatest aberrations, as the church effectively presumes to be the supreme infallible-type authority, which defines itself as being so, as does Rome.

So, it is not irrelevant, especially in light of the fact that your list was posted as a sort of counter measure to what I said in the first place. As if the sheer number of points made about the Church somehow discounts the very real points of essential doctrine on which Protestants disagree.

Showing a few core truths that Roman Catholics concur on is irrelevant as to your premise that disagreement invalidates a source, or that sola ecclesia prevents such, as that does not solve the problem of the multitude of disagreements under Catholicism and her sola ecclesia model, which extends to essential doctrines in their meaning, and not just all the points related to them.

As for Protestant disagreeing on essential doctrine, that is actually one of the core essentials that SS type churches overall concur on in its basic sense, that men are saved as damned and destitute sinners by faith in the Lord Jesus to save them on His credit and expense, versus good deeds outweighing bad, or through progressive postmortem expiation and sanctification, and the power of the church. predestination is a divisive issue (and Rome has unresolved disputes about that, while some Catholics reject baptism by desire), but as Whitfield and Wesley (among many others) showed by their sharing each others pulpits while yet contending on the predestination issue as sincere holy men of God, one does not need to know the details of such in order to be saved by grace through faith, a faith that effects obedience by the Spirit to the Lord Jesus.

Thus the different understandings of how Prots may be saved according to extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and Lumen Gentium. Etc.****

But, that is a prime example of how the Holy Spirit works within the authority of the Church. The deeper understanding of the earlier theology and doctrines is of the mercy of God, the NATURE of God, as I said.

See below. That illustrates what i said about Rome's consistency being based upon her autocratically defining such, like as defining the required unanimous consent of the fathers.”

The doctrine of “outside the Church” there is no salvation has not changed because the Church is the Body of Christ, united to Him, therefore the statement, “outside the Church there is no salvation” is the same as saying outside Jesus, there is no salvation.

The Church just understands better...,

I am aware of the “Re-formulated positively” (CCC 846) explanation of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, but in light of the weight of historical support renders it more like like the modern “better understanding” by if the establishment Clause, and thus it was a primary reason for the traditional Catholic schism that Vatican Two wrought. — http://www.romancatholicism.org/reply-to-a-liberal-part2.htm)

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Satis Cognitum (# 9): June 29, 1896: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus: “There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and Roman Pontiff." Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (On The Care Of The Churches), Encyclical promulgated on April 8, 1862, # 3. http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P9AMANT2.HTM

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, 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. (On the Unity of the Catholic Church) http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9singul.htm

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam:

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

Fifth Lateran Council: Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore...renew and give our approval to that constitution... Fifth Lateran CouncilSession 11, 19 December 1516, http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm

• Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius [the eastern “Orthodox” schismatics] and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?...Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned...” Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, PTC:873) The Promotion of True Religious Unity), 11, Encyclical promulgated on January 6, 1928, #11; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

• "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life..unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." — Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), proclaimed “ex cathedra” (infallible).

• Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. — Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1

"subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful..."(Fifth Lateran Council Session 11, 19 December 1516)

The COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE under Pope John XXIII condemned the proposition of Wycliff that “It is not necessary for salvation to believe that the Roman church is supreme among the other churches.” [inasmuch as it would deny the primacy of the supreme pontiff over the other individual churches.] (Session 8—4 May 1415; http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/CONSTANC.HTM)

“Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff..” http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm

St. Thomas Aquinas: It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: “Therefore, brethren, if we imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve.” And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals [Greeks] says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks, Pt. 2, ch. 36 http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b38

St. Frances Xavier Cabrini: "Many Protestants have almost the same practices as we, only they do not submit to the Holy Father and attach themselves to the true Ark of Salvation. They do not want to become Catholics and unite themselves under the banner of truth wherein alone there is true salvation. Of what avail is it, children, if Protestants lead naturally pure, honest lives, yet lack the Holy Ghost? They may well say: 'We do no harm; we lead good lives'; but, if they do not enter the true fold of Christ, all their protestations are in vain." St. Frances Xavier Cabrini, "Travels", Chicago: 1944, pp. 84, 71.

St. Ambrose, "Expl. of Luke: "The Lord severed the Jewish people from His kingdom, and heretics and schismatics are also severed from the kingdom of God and from the Church. Our Lord makes it perfectly clear that every assembly of heretics and schismatics belongs not to God, but to the unclean spirit." St. Ambrose, "Expl. of Luke", ch.7, 91-95; PL 15; SS, vol. II, p. 85, (quoted in The Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 4: "The Book of Christians", Chapter 2: "Those Who Reject Christ's Church are Anti-Christian").

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/6480/catholics/apostolic4chp2.html

There should be no doubt that what is being required is formal submission to the Pope, or at least an exclusion of those you call brothers in Christ.

Modern interpretation:

CCC #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:.. 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.

818 All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

The Church just understands better, given the sincere Christian belief of so many people, that Jesus’ (God’)providence and judgement is His alone in regards to eternal life.

Rather, i think what it understands better is that it has no more secular sword, and cannot keep her membership counts except by giving in to the liberals.

Furthermore, Catholics who allow that Protestants can be saved outside Rome disagree as to what the conditions mean, as to what “knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it” means. Or how “the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”” (LUMEN GENTIUM 16)

And here an apologetic against the charge of contradiction is that the magisterium has not provided a dogmatic and infallible teaching on where the Muslims stand in relation to God. Thus the sure guidance of the magisterium is invoked as a defense against false doctrine, as is its failure to provide sure guidance, largely leaving lay apologists to interpret what it means.

Got it, God just imagines we did good works and that is enough for him.

Seriously that is your best arguement?

No, it's not my best argument because that's not what I was saying at all. It's not my argument at all.

God told us in Scripture what He did. He's not imagining anything. He's CHOOSING to not remember our sins or credit them to our account.

When we repent and ask for forgiveness, God gives it to us. We die to self and become crucified in Christ, dead to sin, and are given new life in Christ. It is all IN Christ.

Colossians 3:3-4 3 For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

If God is going to tell me He sees me with Christ's righteousness on me, I am not going to call Him a liar and tell Him he's wrong.

Thus the sure guidance of the magisterium is invoked as a defense against false doctrine, as is its failure to provide sure guidance, largely leaving lay apologists to interpret what it means.

Would that be YOPIOTCCC?

Thanks for all the hard work involved in that.

"Got it, God just imagines we did good works and that is enough for him."

Some are living in an alternate reality of their own construct in which love is never a governing Christian principle and the Second Greatest Commandment is not applicable to the elect.

In it, since God decided from before the beginning of time which of us is saved and which of us isn't, good works are superfluous for the saved and inefficacious for the damned. Those aided by the good works are irrelevant and those not are inconsequential.

We certainly see the effects of this mindset in the everyday conduct of those influenced by Calvin on these threads. We cannot educate anyone against their will. All we can hope to do is to, and all we need to do is present them with the examples of Christian love.

"We love because he first loved us. Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister. - 1 John 4:19-21

Bless you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Big Discovery