I reject the Rcc, its pope, its marian dogmas, its claim to be the one, true church..

balshan

Well-known member
For the one millionth time: I agree that in matters of salvation it is absolutely necessary that every human creature be subjected to the pope.

What Boniface is asserting in other words is: "The pope, not the secular ruler is the visible head of the Church on earth." As the Church was founded to bring the graves of salvation to the world, and as the pope is the visible head of the Church on earth, it is necessary for salvation for everyone to be subject to the Roman Pontiff---and not the secular ruler.

I do not understand what you aren't getting here.
That is not scriptural at all.
 

mica

Well-known member
romishpopishorganist said: - No, it isn't at all analogous. MF has broken Communion with the RCC--and for all intents and purposes is just as Protestant as you are. I know it is hard to believe that--given how Catholic he sounds and writes. Catholic trappings do not make someone a Catholic.

Essential to Catholicism is unity with the Bishop of Rome. We do not get to invalidate popes because we don't like them, their pastoral priorities are not what we want them to be, we disagree with them, etc. That is what the reformers did. They invalidated the authority of the pope and bishops and went off and founded their own sects.

I can't stand Pope Francis. I think he has been an absolute disaster for the Church. That being said--he is still the pope. I can't stand many of the bishops today. I think they are arrogant, self-important, and poor teachers and leaders of our Church, The bishops today act more like politicians than bishops. But they are still bishops.

Nondenom40 said:
The point is that when a person is born again they are a new creation; 2 Cor 5:17, our citizenship is now in heaven; Phil 3:20 and we are sealed in the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption. Now, when a person is born again they will probably seek a local assembly to worship in, study with, learn and serve. If that local assembly is; Baptist, Lutheran, methodist....they will learn those particular teachings.
Yes, they will. The question is--are they learning BIBLICAL teachings? That is what I am asking--and THAT is what no one seems to want to answer.

If that is the case, why can't you apply that same logic to Catholics--who ALSO believe Jesus is LORD, GOD, and SAVIOR? Fine. If we are wrong about Mary, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, etc, we will find out about it then!

Fine. But this exact same logic applies to Catholics. If we got some things wrong, God will correct us on Judgment Day.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
that's been answered many, many times on here - and here you are again with your standard reply. It isn't that no one answers, but that YOU don't read what is posted, understand it and / or reject it. that's on you - it's your problem. posters answer but YOU don't want to hear the answers, the truth.
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
For the one millionth time: I agree that in matters of salvation it is absolutely necessary that every human creature be subjected to the pope.

What Boniface is asserting in other words is: "The pope, not the secular ruler is the visible head of the Church on earth." As the Church was founded to bring the graves of salvation to the world, and as the pope is the visible head of the Church on earth, it is necessary for salvation for everyone to be subject to the Roman Pontiff---and not the secular ruler.

I do not understand what you aren't getting here.
Acts 4:11 Jesus is “’the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone. 12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

Being subject to, submitting to any created being, any institution, any belief system, any one, other than Jesus is foolishness and you have proved the rcc holds its laity hostage by the threat of damnation if they don't submit to the pope. Again, the rcc believes IT is necessary for salvation, not Jesus, the only name by which we must be saved. That the pope is necessary for salvation, not Jesus, the only name by which we must be saved. That the marian dogmas are necessary for salvation, not Jesus, the only name by which we must be saved. That baptism is necessary for salvation, not Jesus, the only name by which we must be saved. That the eucharist is necessary for salvation, not Jesus, the only name by which we must be saved. Such rules, dogmas and traditions have made the rcc apostate, idolatrous and the haven of false teachers that have led billions to their destruction by their false teachings and this should pierce the heart of every rc here.
 

mica

Well-known member
romishpopishorganist said:
For the one millionth time: I agree that in matters of salvation it is absolutely necessary that every human creature be subjected to the pope.

What Boniface is asserting in other words is: "The pope, not the secular ruler is the visible head of the Church on earth." As the Church was founded to bring the graves of salvation to the world, and as the pope is the visible head of the Church on earth, it is necessary for salvation for everyone to be subject to the Roman Pontiff---and not the secular ruler.

I do not understand what you aren't getting here.
are you subjected to this pope that you verbally degrade?
 

Mysterium Fidei

Well-known member
For the one millionth time: I agree that in matters of salvation it is absolutely necessary that every human creature be subjected to the pope.

What Boniface is asserting in other words is: "The pope, not the secular ruler is the visible head of the Church on earth." As the Church was founded to bring the graves of salvation to the world, and as the pope is the visible head of the Church on earth, it is necessary for salvation for everyone to be subject to the Roman Pontiff---and not the secular ruler.

I do not understand what you aren't getting here.
Yes, in matters of salvation one absolutely must be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved. Boniface uses the analogy of the Ark of Noah, outside of which all perished, and the Church being the Ark, outside of which no one can be saved.

So then you acknowledge the contradiction between the De fide definition of Boniface VIII of the absolute necessity for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff and the Vatican II religion which states that schismatic and heretic sects, which are not subject to the Roman Pontiff, but reject the Roman Pontiff, are a means of salvation?
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Yes, in matters of salvation one absolutely must be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved. Boniface uses the analogy of the Ark of Noah, outside of which all perished, and the Church being the Ark, outside of which no one can be saved.
Right: and while one cannot be saved outside the Ark, one could be tethered to the Ark, still in the water, but, nevertheless, somewhat safe being tethered to the Ark. This is by exception, of course. The ordinary way and the best way is to simply be on the Ark.

One might suggest that Protestants while not in the Ark, are tethered to the Ark through our Common Baptism?
So then you acknowledge the contradiction between the De fide definition of Boniface VIII of the absolute necessity for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff and the Vatican II religion which states that schismatic and heretic sects, which are not subject to the Roman Pontiff, but reject the Roman Pontiff, are a means of salvation?
1) The Protestant Reformation had not happened yet. Thus, to attempt to use Boniface's statement to answer questions like "What is the relationship of the Protestant sects to the RCC" goes beyond the text. How can we use Boniface's text to answer questions---that were not being asked? How can we use Boniface's text to answer questions Boniface did not have in mind when he authored the text? Boniface had never heard of a Protestant!

See--this is what I mean by context. You rad trads apparently do not care about context. You just see something written in Latin, see it is from a pope before Vatican II, and then assume it teaches rad trad 1950's Catholicism. You then chant with glee and claim victory.

What DID Boniface have in mind when he authored that text? He had in mind and was answering who is the ultimate authority in the Church: the king or the pope? Answer? The pope. We do not look to the king/emperor to define doctrine or otherwise answer questions about matters of salvation. But none of this matters to you. What you WANT Boniface to be saying is "All Non-Catholics are going directly to Hell. Only Catholics go to heaven. That means every Protestant on this site better convert or they will go directly to jail when they die, not pass go, and not collect $200."

2) There is no contradiction between Vatican II and Boniface. Vatican II did not say "The Church has now decided that in matters of salvation, the king/emperor/secular authority is competent to answer theological questions and define doctrine, the pope is a secondary authority and answers to the state." Can you find where Vatican II DID say that? Where did Vatican II revoke papal authority and put the state in charge? I mean--if that happened, I am sure Biden and Pelosi would love to refashion the Church after their leftist image.

You are just mad because Vatican II does not say "We define, assert, and declare infallibility that all non-Catholics are going to Hell. If you want to go to Heaven, you better join the Catholic Church. Otherwise, you are doomed."

3) Is it "Outside the Church no salvation" or "Without the Church no salvation?" "Extra" can be translates "without" especially when speaking in the abstract. This is an argument you have not yet answered, by the way.
 

mica

Well-known member
Yes, in matters of salvation one absolutely must be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved. Boniface uses the analogy of the Ark of Noah, outside of which all perished, and the Church being the Ark, outside of which no one can be saved.

So then you acknowledge the contradiction between the De fide definition of Boniface VIII of the absolute necessity for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff and the Vatican II religion which states that schismatic and heretic sects, which are not subject to the Roman Pontiff, but reject the Roman Pontiff, are a means of salvation?
where does it say that - in scripture?
 

Mysterium Fidei

Well-known member
where does it say that - in scripture?
The establishment of the Catholic Church by Christ is in the Bible.
The establishment of Peter as head of the apostles and Vicar of Christ is in the Bible.
Apostolic succession and Christ building His Church upon the foundation of the Apostles is established in the Bible.
The Holy Eucharist is established in the Bible.
The Sacrament of confession is established in the Bible.
The sacrament of confirmation is established in the Bible.
Holy Orders are established in the Bible.
Papal infallibility is established in the Bible.
Ecclesiastical hierarchy is established in the Bible.
Legislative power is established in the Bible.
The Church being infallible is established in the Bible.
Praying for the dead is in scripture. (In a book removed by Protestants)
The Church suffering in Purgatory is in the Bible.
The Marian doctrines are at least implicitly implied in the Bible.

Now I am not going to list scriptures because the most pointless thing in the world is debating scripture with a Protestant because each one of them has their own infallible interpretations of scripture. It would be a giant waste of my time and it would be summarily dismissed .
 

Mysterium Fidei

Well-known member
Right: and while one cannot be saved outside the Ark, one could be tethered to the Ark, still in the water, but, nevertheless, somewhat safe being tethered to the Ark. This is by exception, of course. The ordinary way and the best way is to simply be on the Ark.

One might suggest that Protestants while not in the Ark, are tethered to the Ark through our Common Baptism?
Where did you get this idea of being "tethered" to the Ark? Is that in one of the Protestant commentaries that you read?

Infant baptism in Protestant sects that perform them would be valid, assuming correct matter and form are used. Those infants would therefore be validly baptized into the Catholic Church and would go to heaven if they died before the age of reason. Once they have reached the age of reason and believe the errors of their Protestant sects, they become separated from the Church.

1) The Protestant Reformation had not happened yet. Thus, to attempt to use Boniface's statement to answer questions like "What is the relationship of the Protestant sects to the RCC" goes beyond the text. How can we use Boniface's text to answer questions---that were not being asked? How can we use Boniface's text to answer questions Boniface did not have in mind when he authored the text? Boniface had never heard of a Protestant!
How ridiculous. There have been many many similar statements since the Protestant Revolution, you so admire. Here is just one by Leo XIII in 1896. I mean, I know you've probably never heard of him because he's just some obscure pope that did things and stuff.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “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.

Is that clear enough, or do we have to examine the "historical context" of what he really meant by that? What do you think Leo XIII means by that?

See--this is what I mean by context. You rad trads apparently do not care about context. You just see something written in Latin, see it is from a pope before Vatican II, and then assume it teaches rad trad 1950's Catholicism. You then chant with glee and claim victory.

What DID Boniface have in mind when he authored that text? He had in mind and was answering who is the ultimate authority in the Church: the king or the pope? Answer? The pope. We do not look to the king/emperor to define doctrine or otherwise answer questions about matters of salvation. But none of this matters to you. What you WANT Boniface to be saying is "All Non-Catholics are going directly to Hell. Only Catholics go to heaven. That means every Protestant on this site better convert or they will go directly to jail when they die, not pass go, and not collect $200."
Unam Sanctam is not a long or complicated document. There's really not a lot to "interpret", unless you're a modernist whose motive is to subjectivise something so clear.

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we DEFINE that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

This is the same language used in the solemn declarations of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. There's no way to subjectivise it.
The Bull was not directed at the king. It is general in nature. It is listed as a De fide statement.
2) There is no contradiction between Vatican II and Boniface. Vatican II did not say "The Church has now decided that in matters of salvation, the king/emperor/secular authority is competent to answer theological questions and define doctrine, the pope is a secondary authority and answers to the state." Can you find where Vatican II DID say that? Where did Vatican II revoke papal authority and put the state in charge? I mean--if that happened, I am sure Biden and Pelosi would love to refashion the Church after their leftist image.
That's not what the defining statement of Unam Sanctam meant. You read something simple and have to twist it using your own words to try to change its clear meaning. Unam Sanctam did not say the king has no authority in matters concerning salvation. It says what it says; that it is "absolutely necessary for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. "

You are just mad because Vatican II does not say "We define, assert, and declare infallibility that all non-Catholics are going to Hell. If you want to go to Heaven, you better join the Catholic Church. Otherwise, you are doomed."

3) Is it "Outside the Church no salvation" or "Without the Church no salvation?" "Extra" can be translates "without" especially when speaking in the abstract. This is an argument you have not yet answered, by the way.
More subjectivism and obfuscation. Someone is either inside or outside, they are either within or without, the meaning is the same. The doctrine of the absolute necessity of union with the Church was taught in explicit terms over and over again in the history of the Catholic Church. The heretical Vatican II ecclesiology has been condemned by multiple "obscure" popes in history.
 

mica

Well-known member
mica said:
where does it say that - in scripture?
The establishment of the Catholic Church by Christ is in the Bible.
The establishment of Peter as head of the apostles and Vicar of Christ is in the Bible.
Apostolic succession and Christ building His Church upon the foundation of the Apostles is established in the Bible.
The Holy Eucharist is established in the Bible.
The Sacrament of confession is established in the Bible.
The sacrament of confirmation is established in the Bible.
Holy Orders are established in the Bible.
Papal infallibility is established in the Bible.
Ecclesiastical hierarchy is established in the Bible.
Legislative power is established in the Bible.
The Church being infallible is established in the Bible.
Praying for the dead is in scripture. (In a book removed by Protestants)
The Church suffering in Purgatory is in the Bible.
The Marian doctrines are at least implicitly implied in the Bible.
none of those, as taught by the rcc, are found in scripture.

Now I am not going to list scriptures
of course you aren't - they don't exist in it.

because the most pointless thing in the world is debating scripture with a Protestant
that's not a problem for you with many believers here because many of us aren't Protestant. I'm one that isn't.

because each one of them has their own infallible interpretations of scripture.
a whole lot of those that you label as Protestant have no interpretations of scripture at all (so they are no different than catholics here).
It would be a giant waste of my time and it would be summarily dismissed.
yes, catholics do consider reading, understanding and studying scripture to be a waste of their time. catholics don't believe what scripture teaches anyway, they only believe what the rcc (their sect of it) teaches them. tho they so often pick 'n choose which of their rcc sect beliefs they will believe and follow.

But Christians do have the desire to read, understand and study His word (scripture). catholics aren't armed with His word and have no desire to be, nor does the rcc want them to be. catholics only have (and desire) the false teachings of the rcc.

Heb 4.12 kjv
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
 

balshan

Well-known member
none of those, as taught by the rcc, are found in scripture.


of course you aren't - they don't exist in it.


that's not a problem for you with many believers here because many of us aren't Protestant. I'm one that isn't.


a whole lot of those that you label as Protestant have no interpretations of scripture at all (so they are no different than catholics here).

yes, catholics do consider reading, understanding and studying scripture to be a waste of their time. catholics don't believe what scripture teaches anyway, they only believe what the rcc (their sect of it) teaches them. tho they so often pick 'n choose which of their rcc sect beliefs they will believe and follow.

But Christians do have the desire to read, understand and study His word (scripture). catholics aren't armed with His word and have no desire to be, nor does the rcc want them to be. catholics only have (and desire) the false teachings of the rcc.

Heb 4.12 kjv
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Amen
 

dingoling.

Well-known member
Acts 4:11 Jesus is “’the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone. 12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

Being subject to, submitting to any created being, any institution, any belief system, any one, other than Jesus is foolishness and you have proved the rcc holds its laity hostage by the threat of damnation if they don't submit to the pope. Again, the rcc believes IT is necessary for salvation, not Jesus, the only name by which we must be saved. That the pope is necessary for salvation, not Jesus, the only name by which we must be saved. That the marian dogmas are necessary for salvation, not Jesus, the only name by which we must be saved. That baptism is necessary for salvation, not Jesus, the only name by which we must be saved. That the eucharist is necessary for salvation, not Jesus, the only name by which we must be saved. Such rules, dogmas and traditions have made the rcc apostate, idolatrous and the haven of false teachers that have led billions to their destruction by their false teachings and this should pierce the heart of every rc here.
Why do you think that it doesn't "pierce" our hearts?
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Where did you get this idea of being "tethered" to the Ark? Is that in one of the Protestant commentaries that you read?

Infant baptism in Protestant sects that perform them would be valid, assuming correct matter and form are used. Those infants would therefore be validly baptized into the Catholic Church and would go to heaven if they died before the age of reason. Once they have reached the age of reason and believe the errors of their Protestant sects, they become separated from the Church.
Oh, I see now. You consider anyone under the age of reason who is validly baptized, even if they are Protestant to be Catholic. Fine. I agree.

My problem is with your once they have reached the age of reason bit. During the Reformation itself, I would have agreed with you. But we are over 500 years removed from the reformation. To assume that someone hasn't done the research, or is lazy, or whatever----who are you to judge? The Protestant believes in his or her heart--that they have embraced the Truth as strongly as WE do, sir.
How ridiculous. There have been many many similar statements since the Protestant Revolution, you so admire. Here is just one by Leo XIII in 1896. I mean, I know you've probably never heard of him because he's just some obscure pope that did things and stuff.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “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.

Is that clear enough, or do we have to examine the "historical context" of what he really meant by that? What do you think Leo XIII means by that?
No, that is strong enough. I agree. Those who are vincibly ignorant have no excuse.
Unam Sanctam is not a long or complicated document. There's really not a lot to "interpret", unless you're a modernist whose motive is to subjectivise something so clear.

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we DEFINE that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

This is the same language used in the solemn declarations of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. There's no way to subjectivise it.
The Bull was not directed at the king. It is general in nature. It is listed as a De fide statement.

That's not what the defining statement of Unam Sanctam meant. You read something simple and have to twist it using your own words to try to change its clear meaning. Unam Sanctam did not say the king has no authority in matters concerning salvation. It says what it says; that it is "absolutely necessary for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. "


More subjectivism and obfuscation. Someone is either inside or outside, they are either within or without, the meaning is the same. The doctrine of the absolute necessity of union with the Church was taught in explicit terms over and over again in the history of the Catholic Church. The heretical Vatican II ecclesiology has been condemned by multiple "obscure" popes in history.
Who is subjectivising it? I told you that I agree with it 100%.

When did I attempt to assert that the secular ruler can define doctrine, or that the secular ruler, not the pope is the supreme heard of the Church on earth?

What nonsense are you chanting at me?
 
Last edited:

RayneBeau

Well-known member
What complete nonsense. You show an almost complete ignorance of the entire body of teaching of the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II, and I don't think you even know what Vatican II says.

I'm the Protestant? - when the only work or authors I've ever seen you reference in any of our correspondence are all Protestants? You're the most Protestant poster on this forum.

Pre-Vatican II Catholicism was all just irrelevant stuff taught by some "obscure" popes or somebody that says some things that don't apply anymore. We can just subjectivise everything because of "historical context."

When Pope Boniface VIII defines; "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we DEFINE that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff", we can't be sure what he meant by that because of "context"?

It's one of the most definitive, clear, unambiguous, and dogmatic statements on the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church made by a pope. Unlike the mush that is the writing of the post Vatican II "popes", the writing by the Church before Vatican II was clear and concise.
And so then Roman Catholicism is a perfect fit for those who sense 'danger' lurking in a 'faith' that points people to Jesus Christ alone. They can rest easy now by "belonging" to a 'religion' that emphasizes external ceremonies and claims dogmatic hierarchical authority.
A "religion" where they can be indoctrinated with the RC teachings of purgatory, the perpetual virginity of Mary, transubstantiation, and prayers to Mary and the saints, etc., and a religion which concludes that the Bible alone is not a sufficient rule of faith. And so they blindly put their 'faith' in papal authority and Roman Catholic church traditions..... the kind of "faith" that makes extra-biblical religious tradition the object of one's 'faith'.
 
Last edited:

Blessings8

Active member
...its claimed "history" of having apostolic succession from Peter until today...well, I just reject everything that is the Rcc but I claim Jesus as my Lord, God and Savior. I repented of my sins, truly turned from my past sins, accepted Jesus, believed on Him that He died and was resurrected for the forgiveness of my sins and was later baptized as a public display of the old man dying and the new creation being risen. Still the Rcc teaches I am anathema. But do you, as a Rc believe I saved?
Do you believe in apostolic succession?
 
Top