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

[balshan]

They each think they are "the one true church" yet they can't agree. Isn't that the very thing they level against us all the time? And here it is in black and white.

Yep

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Yep

Not quite.

The substance of the argument may APPEAR on the surface to be "See? Protestants cannot agree."

The actual argument is that an authoritative Church takes away justification for disunity. The argument is not "An authoritative Church takes away disunity."

Within Protestantism, there is no one unified voice that speaks for Protestants. Heck in one class I had---was inter-college. It was a course where Protestants representing a variety of sects and Catholics united to learn about each other. One of the Baptists said, "The number one rule of the Baptists is that we never speak for another Baptist." I was too polite to ask--what kind of rule is that--and point out that they should be able to speak for each other on what their Church believes and teaches.

In any case--there is always justification for disunity in Protestantism because Protestants themselves do not speak with one voice. There is no authoritative mechanism for resolving disputes and speaking for the Church as a whole in Protestantism to say "This is what we believe." If the Protestant sect DOES attempt to do that---the people who disagree just run out and found a sect, appointing themselves the leaders.

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

Not quite.

The substance of the argument may APPEAR on the surface to be "See? Protestants cannot agree."

The actual argument is that an authoritative Church takes away justification for disunity. The argument is not "An authoritative Church takes away disunity."

Within Protestantism, there is no one unified voice that speaks for Protestants. Heck in one class I had---was inter-college. It was a course where Protestants representing a variety of sects and Catholics united to learn about each other. One of the Baptists said, "The number one rule of the Baptists is that we never speak for another Baptist." I was too polite to ask--what kind of rule is that--and point out that they should be able to speak for each other on what their Church believes and teaches.

In any case--there is always justification for disunity in Protestantism because Protestants themselves do not speak with one voice. There is no authoritative mechanism for resolving disputes and speaking for the Church as a whole in Protestantism to say "This is what we believe." If the Protestant sect DOES attempt to do that---the people who disagree just run out and found a sect, appointing themselves the leaders.

This in no way, whether accurate in your claim, diminishes the lack of unity in the rcc, not only as we see publicly, but on this forum too. There is no true unity in the rcc as rc's pick and choose what they will accept, or not accept, based on their own, fallible interpretation of dogma, papal declarations to include when one of these popes speaks ex cathedra, etc. Add to that you are placing your faith in these men, self-appointed by themselves, and demand everyone submit to your pope, your rcc dogmas and theology upon which hill you will die for. As for me and my house, we serve the Lord, not an institution.

 

[balshan]

Not quite.

The substance of the argument may APPEAR on the surface to be "See? Protestants cannot agree."

The actual argument is that an authoritative Church takes away justification for disunity. The argument is not "An authoritative Church takes away disunity."

Within Protestantism, there is no one unified voice that speaks for Protestants. Heck in one class I had---was inter-college. It was a course where Protestants representing a variety of sects and Catholics united to learn about each other. One of the Baptists said, "The number one rule of the Baptists is that we never speak for another Baptist." I was too polite to ask--what kind of rule is that--and point out that they should be able to speak for each other on what their Church believes and teaches.

In any case--there is always justification for disunity in Protestantism because Protestants themselves do not speak with one voice. There is no authoritative mechanism for resolving disputes and speaking for the Church as a whole in Protestantism to say "This is what we believe." If the Protestant sect DOES attempt to do that---the people who disagree just run out and found a sect, appointing themselves the leaders.

You as normal have proved nothing but disunity among RCs, we can read the posts so much disunity. You even have RCs who say they do not have to believe all RC doctrines? Yep carry on as if non RCs are in disunity we are not on matters of salvation. RCs are showing their hypocrisy on the matter of unity. Saying you are united means nothing, actions speak.

 

[mica]

Not quite.

The substance of the argument may APPEAR on the surface to be "See? Protestants cannot agree."

The actual argument is that an authoritative Church takes away justification for disunity. The argument is not "An authoritative Church takes away disunity."

so it claims - as the catholics 'spiritual' dictator. he proclaims how the followers should believe and what they should do, but then they all believe and do what they want to believe and do - picking and choosing from the pope menu.

Within Protestantism, there is no one unified voice that speaks for Protestants.

why do you think there should be?

Heck in one class I had---was inter-college. It was a course where Protestants representing a variety of sects and Catholics united to learn about each other. One of the Baptists said, "The number one rule of the Baptists is that we never speak for another Baptist." I was too polite to ask--what kind of rule is that--and point out that they should be able to speak for each other on what their Church believes and teaches.

why do you think they should all agree? - you don't speak for all catholics on here, or do you think that you do?

In any case--there is always justification for disunity in Protestantism because Protestants themselves do not speak with one voice.

of course there is! not all that you label as Protestant are believers.

There is no authoritative mechanism for resolving disputes and speaking for the Church as a whole in Protestantism to say "This is what we believe."

right - see post above. otoh, believers do - scripture does that.

If the Protestant sect DOES attempt to do that---the people who disagree just run out and found a sect, appointing themselves the leaders.

sure a lot of them do. are they believers or unbelievers? some split over the color of new carpeting, yet others split because the majority are unbelievers and don't want His truth to be taught, some want to support same sex marriages, hire a gay minister etc. believers won't stay in groups like that, but they also won't become an atheist because of it.

 

[Mysterium Fidei]

I would like to see the quote in context and not just a quote of a quote. I cannot find any document by Aquinas that contains that statement. What I did find in the Summa is this: Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin.
(Summa, first part of the second part, Q76 Article 2).

I understand the difference between sin and punishment for sin but I'd still like to see MF's quote in context too.

@Stella1000 I've been trying to find the source of this quote Fr. Muller attributed to St. Thomas. The reference he gave, De Infid. q. x., art. 1, didn't make any sense. I thought maybe he was referring to Summa Contra Gentiles, which the full title is: "Liber de veritate Catholicæ fidei contra errores infidelium: qui dicitur Summa contra gentiles" (Book on the truth of the Catholic faith against the errors of the infidels, which is called the Summary against the gentiles). But that book is not divided by articles and questions, like the Summa, but simply into chapters.

The closest thing I was able to find was something from his work entitled: "Compendium Theologiae, or the Compendium of Theology"

"Unfortunately the punishments which keep man back from God continue to stand in the way of such recall. No one offers satisfaction to God by being deprived of grace, or by being ignorant of God, or by the fact that his soul is in a state of disorder, even though such afflictions are punishment for sin; man can satisfy only by enduring some pain in himself and by undergoing loss in external goods."

Now this is very similar, but the quote of Fr. Muller was that "invincible" ignorance is a punishment for sin. So I readily acknowledge St. Thomas may not be specifically talking about that in this passage.

 

[Mysterium Fidei]

Yes; the people who BELONG TO THE CHURCH. "Belong to the Church" being the key word. The statement is not directed at Muslims or Jews. The statement is directed to Catholics. There were no Protestants to contend with at this time. How could Boniface be answering a question about Protestantism---when Protestantism didn't exist yet? This statement, therefore is directed to Catholics--and what the statements MEANS is that the Pope, not the king or emperor is the final authority in spiritual matters. Catholics look to the pope not the king or emperor when it comes to the final authority in spiritual matters. Does historical context mean nothing to you? So I agree that the scope is UNIVERSAL. It remains true today--that the pope, not the government or secular rulers is the final authority on spiritual matters. Catholics look to the pope, not the queen, not the president, not the king when it comes to spiritual matters/matters pertaining to salvation. What I DISAGREE with is what YOU are attempting to twist the statement to say.

Can you point out where in the Bull Unam Sanctam it states that it is only being directed at those who "belong to the Church?" You are making that up. You are adding things in the text that don't exist. The defining sentence of the Bull is the last one which dogmatically states: "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Have you ever even actually read the Bull, because it seems you haven't?

This is an ex cathedra pronouncement. That means that it’s an infallible proclamation from the Chair of St. Peter. Therefore, it’s absolutely certain that no man can be saved without being subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and therefore that no man can be saved without being subject to the authority of the Catholic Church. This dogma allows no exceptions.

Yes, the Catholic Church also infallibly teaches that it cannot exercise spiritual jurisdiction or authority over anyone who has not received the sacrament of baptism. No one can be subject to the Church without baptism; and you must be a subject of the Church to be saved, as is dogmatically pronounced in Unam Sanctam. To enter into the Church, one must receive baptism. Therefore, the Church affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Boniface, obviously, was not addressing Protestants. But the same dogma was pronounced many times after the Protestant Reformation. Here is one of the more explicit examples. I'm pretty sure 1896 was after the Protestant Reformation. 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."

You are taking a statement that comes in a specific historical context---talking about a specific question, namely the authority of the pope in the Church vs. the emperor or king--and making it say "Everyone, Jew, Muslim, atheist, Protestant, whoever, has to either submit to the pope or go to Hell." Even IF the Church DOES teach that -----that wasn't what Boniface was saying.

The Bull is a dogmatic proclamation and is general in its character. The pope lays down general principles in regard to the relationship between Church and state. It does not address specific issues or particular individuals (Phillip the Fair).

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." - Does "every human creature" include Jews, Muslims, atheists and Protestants?

I do not deny this. Again, I do not twist the statement to mean something it does not say. Contextually statements like this tended to be directed to heretics--that is--Catholics who left the Church or broke Communion with her. Statements were not directed to people who were never Catholic.

Secondly, again, the Latin "extra" (which you left out of the quote above) should be translated "without" not "outside." In Latin, the word "extra" is translated "outside" when referring to specific physical objects. For example: "It is raining outside" or "Beyond the road is a ditch." When referring to the abstract, the word should be translated as "without." For example: "Without a text book it is difficult to teach." "Without the Church there is no salvation."

Every Latin/English dictionary I've tried shows the Latin word "extra" to mean "outside" in English. The phrase is an axion used as a kind of shorthand for the doctrine that the Catholic Church is absolutely necessary for salvation. You are trying to change the meaning to try to conform it to the heretical teaching of Vatican II. The phrase, "Salus extra ecclesiam non est", comes from a letter by St. Cyprian in 258.

I believe and profess that there is no salvation without the Church. I can even agree there is no salvation outside the Church--the Church of Christ which subsists in the RCC but is not synonymous with the RCC. The Church of Christ is broader and larger than the visible boundaries or aspects of the RCC.

Yeah, you can agree to it as it is in the perverted heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II in which the "Church of Christ" is comprised of contradicting schismatic and heretic non-Catholic sects with contrasting doctrines, worship, disciplines, morality and government, none of which submit to the Roman Pontiff which Unam Sanctam, and other magisterium says is necessary for salvation.

Of course you, Mr. Answer man, the man who has an answer and a quote for everything, will claim that "Invincible ignorance does not apply" then you will line up obscure quote after obscure quote from obscure pope after obscure pope and then go "I win." Of course you will ignore the historical context in which those quotes appear, and you will ignore the specific point they are addressing--and assume they apply to modern day Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc.

Invincible ignorance doesn't have anything to do with the dogma of the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church. It is not a "means of salvation." No one is saved by invincible ignorance. I'm not a Feeneyite, I don't deny the possibility of some people being invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church, who honestly observe the Natural Law and commit no mortal sin. God will not punish those who are not guilty of deliberate sin.

Their situation is different from that of people who reject the Catholic Church or do not do due diligence in investigating the claims of the Catholic Church. The ability to do this has never been easier in our age of instant access to information.

No, what Vatican II did was rephrase the teachings in a positive way. Instead of using the old "If anyone says...let them be anathema" Vatican II attempted to re-phrase Church teaching according to modern language. People do not speak or think in terms of "let them be anathema" anymore. People do not think in Scholastic and Neo-Scholastic categories anymore. I do happen to fancy Scholasticism and Neo-Scholasticism, but for the modern person---they do not understand them.

No, Vatican II contradicted previously defined dogmas of the Catholic Church, examples of which I have posted on this sub-forum many times. Your new tactic is to try to obscure clear teachings of the Church by trying to cloud them with labels of "historical context."

No, the Scriptures are the standard and Rule of Faith. Even the Neo-Scholastic theologians after Trent would have agreed with that. The Neo-Scholastic theologians made a distinction between the "Proximate Rule of Faith" and the "Remote Rule of Faith." I am surprised you are not aware of this. I would think you of all people would know this---you are the master of obscurity after all.

Well, as a Protestant you would believe that scripture alone is the rule of faith, but that's not what the Catholic Church teaches. Sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition mutually form the Deposit of Faith in the Catholic Church. The deposit of Faith is the body of revealed truth contained in the Scriptures and sacred Tradition that is proposed by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

This is not limited only to solemnly defined dogmas but also to the universal and ordinary magisterium as well

Besides---how is the pope the "standard and rule of Faith" when you and you rad-trad cohorts dismiss papal teaching you disagree with? By this you show that you do not believe the pope is the standard and rule of Faith--as--for you to dismiss popes as heretics, there must be some other standard you are using in order to do that. Thus, you refute your own statement by your example! So is the pope the standard or not? If the pope is the standard, submit!

Your fake "pope" hates the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith. I am in schism with his paganism, his blasphemy, his perversion and apostasy. I am in schism with the religiously indifferent, perverted, naturalistic, humanist, false Novus Ordo sect, which is collapsing upon itself.

 

[Mysterium Fidei]

Not just solemn pronouncements but also the ordinary magisterium are obligatory for Catholics to believe.

"In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the Vatican Council declared are to be believed "with Catholic and divine faith."(27) But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the apostolic see." Sapientiae Christianae, Pope Leo XIII

The Pope and the Catholic Church are the rule of Faith, not scripture alone. Sacred Scripture and Tradition as proposed by the Catholic Church.

"So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: ‘The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [Mt 16:18], cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion." - Pius IX. Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is the consistently taught dogma of the Catholic Church, both before and after the Protestant Reformation.

Here is one of the more explicit examples. I'm pretty sure 1896 was after the Protestant Reformation. 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."

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Can you point out where in the Bull Unam Sanctam it states that it is only being directed at those who "belong to the Church?" You are making that up. You are adding things in the text that don't exist. The defining sentence of the Bull is the last one which dogmatically states: "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Have you ever even actually read the Bull, because it seems you haven't?

This is an ex cathedra pronouncement. That means that it’s an infallible proclamation from the Chair of St. Peter. Therefore, it’s absolutely certain that no man can be saved without being subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and therefore that no man can be saved without being subject to the authority of the Catholic Church. This dogma allows no exceptions.

That is by no means an "ex-cathedra" pronouncement! My gosh! Talk about ultra-montane!

I have only ever heard that two things have been considered to have been pronounced "Ex-Cathedra" and both of those are the Marian doctrines. And this is from theologians prior to the evil second Vatican Council. In fact, the definition of the IC by Pius IX was allegedly a "test case" of whether the pope can define doctrine.

In the second place, again, even IF it is "ex-Cathedra" the historical context in which that statement appears tells you what Boniface is attempting to do. Matters of salvation--mean--that the pope, not the king is the ultimate authority in the Church. I am growing tired of explaining this to you.

I was talking about statements from the ECF being directed to heretics.

Yes, the Catholic Church also infallibly teaches that it cannot exercise spiritual jurisdiction or authority over anyone who has not received the sacrament of baptism. No one can be subject to the Church without baptism; and you must be a subject of the Church to be saved, as is dogmatically pronounced in Unam Sanctam. To enter into the Church, one must receive baptism. Therefore, the Church affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Boniface, obviously, was not addressing Protestants. But the same dogma was pronounced many times after the Protestant Reformation. Here is one of the more explicit examples. I'm pretty sure 1896 was after the Protestant Reformation. 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."

Correct; but this statement assumes that Protestants are vincibly ignorant--that is--willfully and patently obtuse and perfidious. Indeed, in such circumstances this is true.

The Bull is a dogmatic proclamation and is general in its character. The pope lays down general principles in regard to the relationship between Church and state. It does not address specific issues or particular individuals (Phillip the Fair).

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." - Does "every human creature" include Jews, Muslims, atheists and Protestants?

When it comes to the authority of the pope in the Church, vs. the king, yes. That is--all human creatures look to the pope, not the king--as the head of the Church, the mouthpiece of the Church, the one with ultimate authority in the Church.

Every Latin/English dictionary I've tried shows the Latin word "extra" to mean "outside" in English.

Read what I wrote. I have already answered this.

The phrase is an axion used as a kind of shorthand for the doctrine that the Catholic Church is absolutely necessary for salvation. You are trying to change the meaning to try to conform it to the heretical teaching of Vatican II. The phrase, "Salus extra ecclesiam non est", comes from a letter by St. Cyprian in 258.

Again, read what I wrote.

Invincible ignorance doesn't have anything to do with the dogma of the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church. It is not a "means of salvation." No one is saved by invincible ignorance. I'm not a Feeneyite, I don't deny the possibility of some people being invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church, who honestly observe the Natural Law and commit no mortal sin. God will not punish those who are not guilty of deliberate sin.

Their situation is different from that of people who reject the Catholic Church or do not do due diligence in investigating the claims of the Catholic Church. The ability to do this has never been easier in our age of instant access to information.

Here is the problem as I see it: today, there is simply TOO much information, TOO much data. A good argument can be made for anything, no matter how absurd. What information and arguments do you trust, what don't you trust? This refers to anything from vaccines, to gender theory, to biblical teaching on homosexuality, to God, to the Church to anything.

So the Protestant who does "due diligence" and "research" (whatever that means in your mind) goes to Catholic Answers, say, and finds refutations of the standard Protestant arguments. Then they get to thinking "Maybe there is something to Catholicism." Then they go to a Protestant website that refutes those arguments--and--does so quite well. Tit for tat kind of a thing.

My point? With all the data--how is someone who is uncertain, or, even Protestant---supposed to navigate all this data?

I believe the RCC is the Church of Christ. That does not mean I think all of the Protestant arguments have been sufficiently answered or that Protestants have nothing intelligent in the way of defending some of their position. Sure---some of their assertions are patently absurd--the "Catholics worship Mary" nonsense, or "Catholics worship statues." As if we are stupid. But that is more from the fundamentalist end of things that clearly have no idea what they are talking about.

But I have read some powerful defenses of Sola Scriptura and intelligent interactions with Catholic arguments from Protestants who actually have researched Catholicism and attempt to interact with it in a meaningful and intelligent way. What is my point? My mind is made up. At some point you have to make up your mind--becasue there is just too much data out there. As I said, you can find a good argument for ANY position, no matter how absurd. At some point you have to make a leap of Faith--which I have done.

You just seem to think you have all the answers for everything. The reality is, sir, you don't--you just think you do. Sometimes we have to be comfortable with gray areas-----and content to find out when we die. I am willing to grant Protestants of good will and good hearts the benefit of the doubt. You, with an answer for everything are not.

 

[Kirby]

That is by no means an "ex-cathedra" pronouncement! My gosh! Talk about ultra-montane!

I have only ever heard that two things have been considered to have been pronounced "Ex-Cathedra" and both of those are the Marian doctrines. And this is from theologians prior to the evil second Vatican Council. In fact, the definition of the IC by Pius IX was allegedly a "test case" of whether the pope can define doctrine.

In the second place, again, even IF it is "ex-Cathedra" the historical context in which that statement appears tells you what Boniface is attempting to do. Matters of salvation--mean--that the pope, not the king is the ultimate authority in the Church. I am growing tired of explaining this to you.

I was talking about statements from the ECF being directed to heretics.

Correct; but this statement assumes that Protestants are vincibly ignorant--that is--willfully and patently obtuse and perfidious. Indeed, in such circumstances this is true.

When it comes to the authority of the pope in the Church, vs. the king, yes. That is--all human creatures look to the pope, not the king--as the head of the Church, the mouthpiece of the Church, the one with ultimate authority in the Church.

Read what I wrote. I have already answered this.

Again, read what I wrote.

Here is the problem as I see it: today, there is simply TOO much information, TOO much data. A good argument can be made for anything, no matter how absurd. What information and arguments do you trust, what don't you trust? This refers to anything from vaccines, to gender theory, to biblical teaching on homosexuality, to God, to the Church to anything.

So the Protestant who does "due diligence" and "research" (whatever that means in your mind) goes to Catholic Answers, say, and finds refutations of the standard Protestant arguments. Then they get to thinking "Maybe there is something to Catholicism." Then they go to a Protestant website that refutes those arguments--and--does so quite well. Tit for tat kind of a thing.

My point? With all the data--how is someone who is uncertain, or, even Protestant---supposed to navigate all this data?

I believe the RCC is the Church of Christ. That does not mean I think all of the Protestant arguments have been sufficiently answered or that Protestants have nothing intelligent in the way of defending some of their position. Sure---some of their assertions are patently absurd--the "Catholics worship Mary" nonsense, or "Catholics worship statues." As if we are stupid. But that is more from the fundamentalist end of things that clearly have no idea what they are talking about.

But I have read some powerful defenses of Sola Scriptura and intelligent interactions with Catholic arguments from Protestants who actually have researched Catholicism and attempt to interact with it in a meaningful and intelligent way. What is my point? My mind is made up. At some point you have to make up your mind--becasue there is just too much data out there. As I said, you can find a good argument for ANY position, no matter how absurd. At some point you have to make a leap of Faith--which I have done.

You just seem to think you have all the answers for everything. The reality is, sir, you don't--you just think you do. Sometimes we have to be comfortable with gray areas-----and content to find out when we die. I am willing to grant Protestants of good will and good hearts the benefit of the doubt. You, with an answer for everything are not.

In the end, it comes down to faith, not study. The idea that one can come to know the Divine Revelation through study of academics and people of academia is Modernism. And the idea that one can read Scripture (and Church Fathers and Councils for that matter) and come up with a list of ‘teachings’ of the church, and then search out people who believe those same things is wholly unbiblical, and for Christians, unreasonable. If one believes that there is a Church given to us by Christ and headed by Him then one much look for that Church, not a set of beliefs.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

In the end, it comes down to faith, not study. The idea that one can come to know the Divine Revelation through study of academics and people of academia is Modernism. And the idea that one can read Scripture (and Church Fathers and Councils for that matter) and come up with a list of ‘teachings’ of the church, and then search out people who believe those same things is wholly unbiblical, and for Christians, unreasonable. If one believes that there is a Church given to us by Christ and headed by Him then one much look for that Church, not a set of beliefs.

I will agree with that---but that doesn't solve anything for the Protestant or for the Catholic.

Which of the competing sects is the Church? The person is left to have to figure out---which of all the sects is the Church.

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

I will agree with that---but that doesn't solve anything for the Protestant or for the Catholic.

Which of the competing sects is the Church? The person is left to have to figure out---which of all the sects is the Church.

This is the rub. We are not in a competition romish.

The church is the body of Christ, of which He is the head. Ephesians 1:22-23 says, “And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.” The body of Christ is made up of all believers in Jesus Christ from the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) until Christ’s return. Biblically, we may regard the church in two ways, as the universal church or as the local church.

The universal church consists of everyone, everywhere, who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink” (1 Corinthians 12:13). This verse says that anyone who believes is part of the body of Christ and has received the Spirit of Christ as evidence. All those who have received salvation through faith in Jesus Christ comprise the universal church.

The local church is described in Galatians 1:1-2: “Paul, an apostle . . . and all the brothers with me, to the churches in Galatia.” Here we see that in the province of Galatia there were many churches—they had a localized ministry and were scattered throughout the province. They were local churches. A Baptist church, a Lutheran church, an E-Free church, etc., is not the church, as in the universal church; rather, it is a local church, a local body of believers. The universal church is comprised of everyone who belongs to Christ. Members of the universal church should seek fellowship and edification in a local church.

In summary, the church is not a building or a denomination. According to the Bible, the church is the body of Christ—all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation (John 3:16; 1 Corinthians 12:13). Local churches are gatherings of people who claim the name of Christ. Members of a local church may or may not be members of the universal church, depending on the genuineness of their faith. The local church is where believers can fully apply the “body” principles of 1 Corinthians chapter 12—encouraging, teaching, and building one another up in the knowledge and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

excerpt from Gotquestions. org

 

[mica]

This is the rub. We are not in a competition romish.

The church is the body of Christ, of which He is the head. Ephesians 1:22-23 says, “And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.” The body of Christ is made up of all believers in Jesus Christ from the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) until Christ’s return. Biblically, we may regard the church in two ways, as the universal church or as the local church.

The universal church consists of everyone, everywhere, who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink” (1 Corinthians 12:13). This verse says that anyone who believes is part of the body of Christ and has received the Spirit of Christ as evidence. All those who have received salvation through faith in Jesus Christ comprise the universal church.

The local church is described in Galatians 1:1-2: “Paul, an apostle . . . and all the brothers with me, to the churches in Galatia.” Here we see that in the province of Galatia there were many churches—they had a localized ministry and were scattered throughout the province. They were local churches. A Baptist church, a Lutheran church, an E-Free church, etc., is not the church, as in the universal church; rather, it is a local church, a local body of believers. The universal church is comprised of everyone who belongs to Christ. Members of the universal church should seek fellowship and edification in a local church.

In summary, the church is not a building or a denomination. According to the Bible, the church is the body of Christ—all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation (John 3:16; 1 Corinthians 12:13). Local churches are gatherings of people who claim the name of Christ. Members of a local church may or may not be members of the universal church, depending on the genuineness of their faith. The local church is where believers can fully apply the “body” principles of 1 Corinthians chapter 12—encouraging, teaching, and building one another up in the knowledge and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

excerpt from Gotquestions. org

I agree. 1 is God's word which those who are His read, study and believe. the other is made up by rcc men, taught by them and catholics believe it is from God. It isn't from God.

 

[Ric]

...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?

As one who almost joined the RCC, but thankfully was shown that the RCC was not at all Biblical... I believe your profession as truthful and are in the Grace of God!

 

[mica]

Not just solemn pronouncements but also the ordinary magisterium are obligatory for Catholics to believe.

"In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the Vatican Council declared are to be believed "with Catholic and divine faith."(27) But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the apostolic see." Sapientiae Christianae, Pope Leo XIII

The Pope and the Catholic Church are the rule of Faith, not scripture alone. Sacred Scripture and Tradition as proposed by the Catholic Church.

"So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: ‘The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [Mt 16:18], cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion." - Pius IX. Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is the consistently taught dogma of the Catholic Church, both before and after the Protestant Reformation.

Here is one of the more explicit examples. I'm pretty sure 1896 was after the Protestant Reformation. 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."

The Pope and the Catholic Church are the rule of Faith, not scripture alone. Sacred Scripture and Tradition as proposed by the Catholic Church.

none of those are for Christians.

 

[mica]

I will agree with that---but that doesn't solve anything for the Protestant or for the Catholic.

Which of the competing sects is the Church? The person is left to have to figure out---which of all the sects is the Church.

If they are His, then they'll 'figure it out' over some time by reading His word, having the guidance of the Holy Spirit, good biblical teachers, bible study groups and some new Christian friends.

 

[Kirby]

I will agree with that---but that doesn't solve anything for the Protestant or for the Catholic.

Which of the competing sects is the Church? The person is left to have to figure out---which of all the sects is the Church.

It solves the problem for Catholics. We’re looking for the Church, a visible and tangible Church, that can trace itself back to Jesus. It won’t help Protestants, though because that’s a moving target that deliberately excludes the Catholic Church. Any other church with the searching Protestant’s belief set was started by a man.

 

[mica]

It solves the problem for Catholics. We’re looking for the Church, a visible and tangible Church, that can trace itself back to Jesus. It won’t help Protestants, though because that’s a moving target that deliberately excludes the Catholic Church. Any other church with the searching Protestant’s belief set was started by a man.

the rcc can't do that.

 

[balshan]

It solves the problem for Catholics. We’re looking for the Church, a visible and tangible Church, that can trace itself back to Jesus. It won’t help Protestants, though because that’s a moving target that deliberately excludes the Catholic Church. Any other church with the searching Protestant’s belief set was started by a man.

The problem for RCs is that His church has a look and your institution doesn't have that look.

The look:

eph 5:

26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless

It is holy, clean, radiant, without stain, wrinkle, blemish, holy and blameless. That does not describe your institution and nothing about being infallible. Your institution is stained, wrinkled and blemished etc. If ignores what should be done to leaders as set down in 1 Cor 5:11.

Eph 2:20+

Built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit

Your institution is built on a foundation of wolves, false teachers and liars. The HS will never dwell where children are sexually assaulted.

Heb 10:24+

And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

Yes we saw the love and good works and encouragement shown to the victims of your institution. They were treated like criminals and when they went to court they had no support from your institution.

I could post more verse of what Jesus' church looks like but the one thing for sure is it does not have leaders who hide sin and allow the sheep to be harmed. That is your institution and not one verse that says it is infallible. Also it teaches the true gospel.

Also the RCC fails every scriptural test.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

If they are His, then they'll 'figure it out' over some time by reading His word, having the guidance of the Holy Spirit, good biblical teachers, bible study groups and some new Christian friends.

Do I presume, then, that you have done this, correct?

That means whatever sect you joined---you believe to be the one true Church? You believe your sect is the most biblically accurate of all the sects?

If so, why aren't you evangelizing people in to your sect and encouraging them to leave their sects and join yours?