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 ...
Baloney! I keep getting the impressing that Catholics are a cult. It’s my way or the highway. No where in the Bible does it say people have to belong to that cult to be saved. Try reading John 3:16.
Ok
So now you are also an expert on what Protestants read or ignore, huh?
Every Sunday service in the Presbyterian church there is a reading from the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. Both will pertain to the Bible lesson which is the topic of the sermon (or teaching.
Also in our weekly Bible study group, where we study the Bible precept-by-precept, there are constantly references to Old Testament verses or chapters which must be studied along with in order to fully understand the New Testament.
Total BS.
We know what we know about Jesus through the OT. It contained enough prophecy for anyone to be able to recognize Him when He came.
The Catholic church is NOT responsible for the entire OT, and it is not responsible for writing the NT. The Holy Spirit inspired Scripture.
Any person can learn all they need to know about Jesus and be saved without one iota of help or influence from the Roman church.
Double standards never impressed me and I never trusted anyone who used them.
MamaMia!, Jesus Christ started that “cult” you speak of.
Time you turn off Joel the Grinning Horse Osteen and get right with the Lord. Your immortal soul is at stake!! Repent now!!
“We don’t need no stinkeen Bible”. We ben saved senior!
Not this Catholic.
When Jimmy Swaggert Who attacked the Catholic church on a daily basis was caught with a prostitute I thought,what a shame.
For your info, I do not watch him. He is a feel good teacher. I asked forgiveness for my sins.. Have you? If not why not? The Bble does not mention becoming a Catholic saves you. A cult says stuff like what you say. No religion should say, “it is my way or else”. I have been halfway listening to a show about religious cults. You and others fit that mold.
“I have been halfway listening to a show about religious cults. You and others fit that mold”
Please refrain from making personal attacks.
“I was speaking of the NT bringing the Word of Jesus to us all.”
Yet you did not say that in your post. I am not a mindreader NK. I can only respond to the actual words you post.
“The name Jesus was not mentioned in the Old Testament.”
Oh, now you’ve named Him too? Jesus is a contraction of Jehovah-sus, meaning Jehovah Saves.
“The Catholic Church also canonized the Old Testament, which the majority of protestants ignore.”
They are wise to do so. They took what the Jews had collected and started halfway to home base, claiming they’ve hit a home run.
Protestants have reexamined it all and come up with a canon of Scripture that gets rid of Rome’s errors. We are not using your canon, friend.
“Please refrain from making personal attacks.”
Pot, meet kettle.
But once you decide you submit to Rome, the RC is not to objectively examine the Scriptures and evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, but is to implicitly assent to infallible teaching with "assent of faith," and even those from the ordinary Magisterium cannot be disbelieved by a faithful RCs, but "a Catholic must maintain such beliefs as though they were true, granting them unadulterated intellectual assent." (http://www.academia.edu/1982786/Religious_Assent_in_Roman_Catholicism)
"He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason, like a lantern, at the door."
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children...to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers." — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
“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.”
“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”
“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.” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]
St. Ignatius once said that should the Pope command him to undertake a voyage by sea in a ship without a mast, without oars or sails, he would blindly obey the precept. And when he was told that it would be imprudent to expose his life to danger, he answered that prudence is necessary in Superiors; but in subjects the perfection of prudence is to obey without prudence. - St. Alphonsus De Liguori, True Spouse of Christ, p. 68 http://wallmell.webs.com/LiguoriTrueSpouseChristVol1.pdf
Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.(Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)
“Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
This seems cultic to us who find assurance based upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation. The question is, did the church begin under the premise of the assured veracity of the magisterium that was the steward of Scripture, or on the basis of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and testifying to Scripture being the supreme transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God?
For as previously asked of you, it seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith. (Jn. 14:16; 16:13; Mt. 16:18)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ??
That's IT! That's the quote I was looking for.
NO where in Scripture do we ever see any indication that faith is to be blind faith or that we are not to use our reason or intellect.
I doubt that you need worry...
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Tell that to the atheists, whose definition of faith standard dictionaries parrot (as did WP till recently), but a clarification is that Scripture does show implicit faith in God/Christ, but which is first based upon some degree of warrant.
The problem is that like cults, Rome presumes she is worthy of the same, which no man is, and she has provided much warrant for just the opposite.
My question concerns the great masses of Roman Catholics who traditionally support the Democrats, even though the Democrat Party advocates things that the RC is stated apposed to, such as abortion and erosion of the definition of marriage and other family values.
The Vatican has made it clear that, "Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law......" Reference: Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html
And you have repeatedly said here that irregardless of human sins of the Pope, he is still the the supreme teacher of morals and faith.
So my question is.... Why does the overwhelming majority of the RC church population vote Democrat. How is it so easy for them to ignore the Popes' teachings on abortion and family values? That has always been a conundrum to me.
I realize that YOU are not personally responsible for what other RC's do, but if you have any insight into the answer to this puzzle, I would love to hear it.
This kind of goes back to some of my previous posts. The basis for this common sense is experience. If there’s a disagreement between two parties then it obviously necessitates a third to resolve this difference.
I say as a Catholic, God the Holy Spirit choses (normally) to resolve such differences, to guide people to truth and protect them from error via other people. Via a tangible visible magisterium.
I don’t have much time to explain this as much as I probably should so I’ll leave it there. It just seems to me though there is no way to determine truth from Scripture alone as opinions are like noses, to use an old euphemism.
If one doesn’t accept as a matter of faith that not only has God chosen to use humanity to teach humanity, but that no one single individual is perfect all the time and therefore everyone needs correction...if one doesn’t accept these two as plainly obvious through reason and experience then there really isn’t much left to say anyway.
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.