Posted on 01/06/2013 3:56:49 PM PST by NYer
Sure I can with Scripture compared to this......
Catholicism teaches that salvation is through the church.
"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
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
And some examples of papal pronouncements reiterated repeatedly over the years.
Here's the link and just SOME of the quotes from the popes.
Fourth Lateran Council (1215): "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved."
Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam (1302): "We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her' (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Pope 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."
Meanwhile, Scripture teaches that it's through Jesus and Him alone that there is salvation.
Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Romans 10:8-13 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Acts 16:30-31 30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
Even Jesus says it's by believing....
John 3:14-18 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. 16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
John 6:28-29 28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 7:38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” John 11:25-26 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
So there's a clear contradiction right here between Scripture and Catholic teaching. Therefore the Catholic chruch is in error.
Our last mainframe was an IBM 370 that we bought used from Wells Fargo in 1981 for about $10,000. Used it for simple reformatting of print jobs to be run on the Xerox 9700 Laser printer.
We had four Israeli’s from Stanford working on the problem of the day...merging text and graphics.
1980-1984 When all things changed in that world.
you cannot...point out even one example of where the Catholic Church was in error on any matter of the faith or moral teaching....impossible.Christ promised that it would not happen and for 2,013 yeaqrs, it has not.If that is true, there will be scripture to back it up.
If scripture doesn't confirm these points, they are invalid.
Your computer has always been right side up????
Well maybe now that it is upside down, your spiritual "insights" will be correct.
Different strokes for different folks.
Catholics have to believe that he is the same as the God of the Bible or be excommunicated.Your Pope doesn't believe that Islam is totally evil otherwise he would not have morphed the satanic evil fake "God" of Islam with the true God of the Bible.no we don't...I think that islam is totally evil....the ceremonial things
that the Pope indlged in, in my useless opinion were wrong, but there must have
been a reason for them or he wouldn't have done them
In accepting their god he is by that act also accepting their prophet, and also sanctioning that prophet's marriage to a 6 year old girl. So a pope theoretically could do the same.
No big deal, Popes have done FAR worse things and it's no big deal to Catholics.
Otherwize they would condemn them and the Catholic belief system
That "ceremonial" excuse doesn't cut it, the Pope said what he said and it is an abomination to God.
Popes also said praying to Mary is ok, and have done it themselves.
They also have said that salvation can come from Mary with no mention of Jesus being involved.
Blindly following these MEN can lead to spending eternity seperated from God.
We all make that choice, for God or in dispute with him and His word.
It's clear what side the Catholic church chooses, seeing what their leaders preach.
Started with a 386 myself, and remember when 10gig hardrives came out rushing to the computer show to put out big bucks for one.
I have an old Osborne computer, like a suitcase, “portable” it may even qualify for a carry on.
May take it with me to freak out the other passengers with their slick little laptops and ipad type thingies.
Have to be one of the planes with 110 power source.
d1212””For the fact is that i do not want to present error, and labor to research””
Here is an example of error from your peacebyjesus site in how you present something as fact without doing enough research or purposely leaving out other information
From your site it says..”Origen didn’t believe in transubstantiation”... and than went on to post a writing as if that was final belief.
http://www.peacebyjesus.net/ancients_on_eucharist.html#Origen
Here is writings from Origen that state otherwise.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.’13 – Origen Homilies on Numbers 7:2
We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it. – Origen Against Celsus 8:33
You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish-Origen Homilies on Exodus 13:3
Origen clearly made other comments consistent with transubstantiation
transubstantiation
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=transubstantiation&searchmode=none
The reality is that the Church Fathers took for granted The Real Presence . Some of them occasionally could have used better words to explain, but this is very rare and we usually find other writings that make things very clear
If I had the time, I’m sure I could find other errors like this one on how you present Catholicism incorrectly.I have more important things to do than this
D1212-”for as my home page itself states “At present, about half of the pages here are “original” (evident by no other source being given for them), and it is well evidenced that i am committed to attribution, not plagiarism “
Fair enough. I did not see that before ,so I apologize for what I said about you plagiarizing
I covered the topic already with CB earlier on this thread. Go back and find it for yourself.
I'm not going to waste time going over the same things again and again.
I asked you a couple of questions up thread a bit.Oh good. I looked back over 450 posts and could not find your answers.I covered the topic already with CB earlier on this thread. Go back and find it for yourself.
I'm not going to waste time going over the same things again and again.
Here is one of the questions:
I posted above that it is Catholic doctrine (from a Pope) that the Muslims have the same God that Catholics have. Their god is called Allah.The other one is if it you believe that Mary can be prayed to (as the Popes do) and if you believe that salvation comes from Mary without the help of Jesus as Popes have stated as truth.Do you believe that is true?
Perhaps you can answer that question for me.
Looking forward to seeing your answers.
Cynicalbear, can you direct me to where on this thread that stfassisi posted the answers to these questions to you? Thanks.
My prayers have been answered, in part.
But final lopsided insults added as parting shots? Yeah, right. Blind to their own offenses, writing them in dust, while taking personal & chisiling into stone any "offense" against their own sensibilities, presumptions, and beliefs, including even those challenges which narrowly stuck with "the issues", using sourced & documentable information. The answers? ...too frequently flame-baiting ad hominem of others, when not simply rejecting any and all argument any and every which-a-way possible, since facing the music head-on (and actually honestly addressing the information presented) is too difficult. Either that, or we get repetion of specious claims concerning the RCC and it's own history, regardless of how many times such claims have been clearly enough shown to be soomething other than the real truth of the matter. Call it selective amnesia... Remembering only the good (or claims of goodness) while totally INGNORING certain historical horrors, if not excusing and even JUSTIFYING the same horrors.
You are correct. Personal attack towards yourself, has become part of the set response around here. I wonder... can *some* of these people hear themselves talk?
I am truly amazed at the blindness towards and concerning "self" which I see exhibited in mankind. It doesn't end, simply due to being member of a church, including the RCC...
I know the posting history of many, only too well. Firing off yet another distortion and false representation of the true record, right to the END... How fitting for that poster!
Good-BYE and good RIDDANCE.
MM: Sure I can with Scripture compared to this......
But as Rome defines what it right and wrong (and thus what a contradiction is) thus she cannot be wrong when she says she is right.
As i often have stated, she has infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares .
She may invoke Scripture, but the only meaning that has real authority is the one she gives it. (And again, preservation of Truth in Scripture and its establishment as attested therein did not require an assuredly infallible magisterium as per Rome, and the church began in disent from those who presumed too much assured veracity.)
Likewise history, for as expressed in the oft quoted statement by the Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, (which is not out of context here),
"It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...Historical evidence and biblical criticism are human after all, and amount to no more than opinion, probability, human judgment, human tradition." (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-2280; www.archive.org/stream/a592004400mannuoft/a592004400mannuoft_djvu.txt)
And thus "it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff," and "remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church,"can be "re-formulated positively" to include baptized Protestants as saints, with qualifying language being open to interpretation. And thus you have Traditional RC sects or schisms which see inconsistency here.
And which attests the fact that RCs themselves cannot escape the problem of different interpretations of their interpreter.
As one critic states,
Let us not forget that almost all the changes in the post-Conciliar Church are either "blamed" on the [V2] Council, or said to derive from it as a "mandate from the Holy Spirit". Conservative Novus Ordo Catholics who object to the drastic changes call them "abuses" that result from the "misinterpretation" of Conciliar teachings. They point to many fine and orthodox statements in support of their contention. Those on the other hand who are on the forefront of the Revolution - the Liberal post-Conciliar Catholic - can justify almost anything they wish by recourse to the same documents. - http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html
Likewise your above example of a contradiction is also rejected by Rome, as "believe on the Lord Jesus" is extrapolated to mean believe in the Catholic church and all its teachings. Which amounts to sanctioning such things as Jesus teaching us, "after this manner pray ye, our mother who art in Heaven;" "to be absent from the body is to be present in Purgatory;" "ordain priests in every city;" and "Thanks to the Eucharist, the seed of eternal life and the power of resurrection, the Bread made by Mary from the flour of her immaculate flesh, kneaded with her virginal milk." Etc.
I have seen no answers to those questions. Catholics don’t typically give straight answers to those types of questions because they would either be in conflict with the RCC or they would outright deny scripture. They are afraid of contradicting the RCC because their salvation they believe is tied to that organization and they don’t dare outright contradict scripture. They end up in a bind.
First off I do believe it considered a courtesy to ping someone when you include them in a post. Second, I haven’t seen an answer to my question only a run around.
bttt
No matter how you might answer the question of error in Catholic teaching and morals no Catholic could possibly accept your answer and be true to the teaching of infallibility on the part of the church.
If by definition the Catholic church is infallible in its teaching on faith and morals what sort of invitation is it to anyone to find what the questioner cannot accept exists?
Not expecting an honest straight forward answer from any Catholics.
While you allege plagiarism, you ignore the attribution given here, and which states, "The following compilations and commentary below are from the [apparently an early] work of Jason Engwer (who is not me, though I supplement his work at the end of this page, and by minute additions seen in [brackets])" And that "I myself am not versed in all counter arguments, but Engwer can be reached through his blogger page...)
I also state on the index page for quotes from church fathers that "Please note however that offering this work or links cannot mean I may affirm all that is on a site, with all its conclusions..." For some things are supplied as helpful research or other resources, but it is impossible to sanction all that may accompany them.
"Origen didn’t believe in transubstantiation" is not my statement, which would be in brackets or under the Supplement section, but those of Engwer, which come with the quotes i am supplying. And i seek to direct objectors to him, for while i am supplying these useful quotes, yet as my own comments on the so-called "church fathers" express, i do not hold them as determinative of doctrine or as exceptional exegetes much less of superior perspicuity, and rarely invoke them myself, and even then it should be as "for what its worth" type supplements as regards doctrine.
Secondly, the quote that Engwer bases his assertion on is a real quote in which one can see a denial of "transubstantiation,"
"it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. (Origen, Commentary on Mathew 11:14)
In fuller context,
And so neither by not eating, I mean by the very fact that we do not eat of the bread which has been sanctified by the word of God and prayer, are we deprived of any good thing, nor by eating are we the better by any good thing; for the cause of our lacking is wickedness and sins, and the cause of our abounding is righteousness and right actions; so that such is the meaning of what is said by Paul, "For neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse." [5475] Now, if "everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought," [5476] even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, [5477] and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that "every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever." [5478] (http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/fathers/origen/matthew-commentary.asp?pg=75)
You may comprehend this as not being contrary to transubstantiation, and i think Engwer should have noted if other statements seems to support it, yet what you also need to allow for is that CFs were not always consistent with themselves, as they were in the process of theological development (as was Luther later, despite RCs treating every statement they find useful as if it were written in stone). And a literal understanding of the Lord's table was one of the few theological things they seemed to be in unity on, and the “stipulated “unanimous consent ” of the fathers required defining nonunanimous to mean unanimous.
If I had the time, I’m sure I could find other errors like this one on how you present Catholicism incorrectly.I have more important things to do than this
This is not much if it is anything, but i appreciate showing the need for more clarification on my part, and i added that the conclusions of Engwer (provided as part of his compilation) are his, but i welcoming bringing to my attention any true errors, as i honestly do not want to truly misrepresent RC beliefs, although as said, often RCs present some teachings as absolute when in fact different interpretations are allowed, as in laws on excommunication, or manifest unfamiliarity themselves with what Rome says on a subject.
Even the mod called some of his responses “spitballs,” but we all have our faults and the Lord’s mercy, and it is the absolute absence of any acknowledgment of error or apology that places us in a different class.
I forgot about your last part, and thanks, as i really do try to be diligent in attribution of copied material, and almost 50 pages of the site is my own writing or compilations containing attributed material, though to some degree we all are expressing what we have learned from others. But "The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. " (Matthew 10:24)
You Know, D1212, I believe you're being sincere.
I wrongfully misjudged you and look forward to honest debate with you from now on.
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.