Posted on 05/28/2014 5:50:04 AM PDT by WVKayaker
Can Roman Catholics be saved? Yes they can but not if they adhere to Roman Catholic theology. Like anyone else, salvation is found only through faith in Christ alone. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at carm.org ...
Does your statement hold true for all Popes or just the current one? How about Pope Alexander VI? He took over much of Italy by force with the help of his son Cesare (yes, his son), a racy relationship with his daughter Lucrezia (some say her son was his), and his affinity for throwing large parties, bordering on orgies, that usually culminated with little naked boys jumping out of large cakes.
How about Pope Innocent IV? He introduced the use of torture to extract confessions of heresy. It is shocking to learn about the deranged instruments of torture that were used on so many innocent people. One of the most famous people to suffer at the hands of Roman inquisitors was Galileo. The church condemned Galileo for claiming that the earth revolved around the sun.
How about Pope John XV? He split the church's finances among his relatives and was described as "covetous of filthy lucre and corrupt in all his acts."
How about Pope John XII? He converted the Lateran Palace into a brothel, raped female pilgrims in St. Peter's, stolen church offerings, drank toasts to the devil, and invoked the aid of Jove, Venus, and other pagan gods when playing dice. He was deposed, but returned as pope when Otto left Rome, maiming and mutilating all who had opposed him. On 964, he was apparently beaten by the husband of a woman with which he was having an affair, dying three days later without receiving confession or the sacraments.
Shall I go on? History bears witness to the fact that Rome's Popes have no special handle on "matters of faith and morals"..... in fact sometimes quite the opposite!
I don’t know if you’ve been told before but the personal sins of a pope don’t effect his ability (or inability) to teach infallibly on faith and morals. To say otherwise is exactly saying God can’t use a donkey to speak.
And we don’t even say the Pope’s words are God’s words. Only that whenever they teach to the Church universal about faith and morals, they don’t contradict previous teaching they merely expand our knowledge of the original deposit of faith.
Your task is to show any of the Popes you mentioned taught error (not demonstrated sin) to the Church Universal. That they taught something that contradicted a previous Pope. That’s your task, if you wish to demonstrate an error in the office of Pope.
Because no serious Catholic denies there have been some real stinkers as Pope. That’s nothing new there, because the Church is full of sinful men.
You mean the James that says faith without works is dead?
Or is there another James??????????????????????
Marian doctrine is wonderful and very spiritual. But not believing in it would not bar you from being saved. I believe that a great many people do not truly understand what the Catholic Church teaches. After all there is a great deal to know.
But then who is the Catholic Church??? Many of your church fathers claim Mary is necessary for salvation...
Damascene, St. Anselm, St. Bernard, St. Bernardine, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure - that devotion to Our Most Blessed Virgin is necessary for salvation, and that it is an infallible mark of reprobation to have no esteem or love for the Holy Virgin while, on the other hand, it is an infallible mark of predestination to be entirely and truly devoted to her." ST. LOUIS MARIE DE MONTFORT
"Mary is the whole hope of our salvation." ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
While some such as you say veneration to Mary is not necessary I've never seen a proclamation from you church claiming that...You have anything official on that???
Oh, the Catholic Church has had sinners in her presence before? I’m shocked, shocked!!
You gotta quit smokin' that stuff...Look what it's done to your mind...
“While some such as you say veneration to Mary is not necessary I’ve never seen a proclamation from you church claiming that”
Any Catholic knows you can to the son a lot easier by going through His mother. Why are you concerning yourself with Mary. Did you convert?
John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
That is Chapter 2. I was thinking more along the lines of Chapter 4
Because I am a Catholic and have the fullness of the faith.
I did flunk CCD class my last quarter at Hudson Catholic High.
All i had to do was right 1 paper, but i blew it off. The nuns did not believe in “grace”. :)
Yes, the Lords brother, leader of the Jerusalem church.
Then your point is wholly lost on me.
The instinct is to favor a philosophical preference that is secular and comports with sound economics. Certainly nothing wrong with that from a conservative political perspective. However, the “charity” doesn’t begin until after an evaluation is done by those in a position to offer charity. That is what I’m objecting to.
So, as an instance, you would seem to object to food or clothing being given to a bum who is obviously a drunkard - You would prefer that he is given money directly so that he could contentedly pour it down his throat? In what way is that charitable? It is participation in, and enabling, the very thing that is keeping him down and out...
And in what way is taking him out and buying him a good coat and a good meal not charitable? Is it not meeting a need? Is he not warm? is his belly not full?
And it is not a matter of 'philosophical preference and sound economics'- It is 'teach a man to fish' vs. 'feed a man a fish' - and I would submit that the former is charity in it's truest form... A hand up is better than a hand-out. The Book of Ruth is very instructive in this matter, and in the obverse, so is the history of Cabrini Greens in Chicago, Illinois.
Bear in mind that I (my house) received BOTH. First 'feeding the man' - unquestioning provision - And later, 'teaching the man' in the form of opportunity and assistance in my wife's business. In that, whichever way you might argue, the good Christian folks who helped me administered charity regardless (packed down, baker's dozen), and by that I declared that your criticism 'held no water'.
The question being asked is not, “Can I...” but, “Should I...”
Not at all! The question being asked is 'How can I'... 'Should I' has already been determined. Of course one should, or no act of kindness would be forthcoming at all.
As an example, I had the occasion to help a family whose husband/father was a drunkard and a gambler. The children were in desperate need, and the woman was under tremendous stress. But these are proud folks, and would resist a gift, and any money given directly would either be turned down or wind up in the old man's pocket for his nightly reverie. There is no 'Should I'. These folks need help. The question is 'How can I'...
The resolution was to befriend the man in order to begin working upon the direct and obvious problem, and at the same time, I surreptitiously began a program of hiding money in the kitchen where the wife would be sure to find it in her cleaning. Now, would you criticize me for these machinations? Had I given the money directly, I would have only been feeding the man's addictions. As it was, there was a notable increase in the house, and an easing of the lines in the woman's face.
I see nothing wrong in what I did, with the exception of promoting a certain dishonesty between the wife and her husband, I suppose... but no doubt she would agree that was of a necessity. As it was the 'bang for buck' went right where it was most needed.
That's because God put it somewhere else causing people to study (2Tim 2:15) so they could work out their own salvation (Php 2:12)
God didn't write the book like a novel...So when you read footnotes and catechisms written by people who try to decipher the bible trying to read it like a novel, you are led into serious error...
John 6:28,29 are pretty simple to understand...And for those who wouldn't believe the simplicity (2Cor 11:3), God added to it in Romans 4...Now, it's very clear that belief alone is the answer to salvation...
Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
So the next question may be, 'what exactly is belief'??? That requires further study in the scriptures but it is in there...
Saving faith *starts* with accepting Jesus as one’s savior but it doesn’t *end* there.
Sure it doesn...What you are referring to is called 'sanctification'...When one understands what 'belief' is and believes the scriptures, then one realizes that belief is sufficient...
However, one will have a desire to lead a Christian life and and God will work thru us to achieve that (Php 2:13), again being sanctification...
Haven't converted yet...If you can come up with some evidence that I would be better off than I am now it's a possibility...But with odds like that, I have a better chance of catching the next shuttle to Jupiter after I am elected pope...
Jesus didn’t have a brother, he had cousins.
“Haven’t converted yet...If you can come up with some evidence that I would be better off than I am now it’s a possibility”
If you going to be a Christian don’t you think you might be better off in the Christian faith started by Christ himself some 2,000 years ago instead of an off-shoot faith started by a mortal man?
Actually, I do. As a former Catholic and a sinner who has been forgiven by Jesus and given Life thru Him, I really want everyone to Trust in Jesus alone for salvation, not in men, organizations or their own "good" works.
It does pain me to see the Gospel of Gods Good News being lost among the rules, regulations and "good works" of the Roman Catholic Church Jesus came to save SINNERS not good people by ransoming the Lost, having paid for us with His blood. Trying to add to His perfect work with our own attempts insults Him. He calls Salvation a gift, will He then add an additional "good works" clause after His work on the Cross? Those who experience His forgiveness WILL do good works out of Love and thanks (Fig trees produce figs).
Romans 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness
Take some Tums. You'll feel better.
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.