Perpetual Virgin?

our assurance is what the Jesus says: to persevere in faith and love, Matt10:22, “He who perseveres unto the end will be saved.”

RC's get baptized, fall from grace, confess, receive communion and 'hope' they are on the upside before they die. It is a vicious cycle that is unending. As Atemi said, in another thread;

You don't know if you are saved, if you are in Christ, if you have eternal life, or if you are right with God. Knowing nothing of importance is the Catholic condition.
If you died this very hour, you do not even know if you have continued in God's kindness and will definitely go to Heaven. You preach about that which you know nothing about when it even comes to yourself!
 
your faith has save you does not mean salvation in the end apart from God's grace.
Jesus told the woman "your FAITH HAS SAVED YOU, go in peace." That is what Jesus said. Was He wrong?

What Catholics fail to realize is that BOTH faith and grace are gifts from God. NEITHER can be earned.

So, you are wrong that faith does not save us. Also, didn't Jesus say in John 3:16 that those who BELIEVE IN HIM will not perish but have eternal life? BELIEVE IN means to HAVE FAITH IN.

So, again, you are in error that faith doesn't save us.
 
Be honest, the early Church was all over the place on many of the doctrines that have been dogmatized years later by the Catholic Church. There is simply no historicity behind the fantasy of Tradition justifying all the idiosyncrasies of the Rome.

FYI, if someone wasn't orthodox, then they are not a Church Father because they wouldn't even be part of the Church. Be more careful with your wording.
the understanding of what God has revealed grows and develops over time but if there are what seems as changes, it does not contradict earlier past doctrines.

This response emphasizes the fact that there is simply no historicity behind the fantasy of Tradition classically justifying all the idiosyncrasies of the Rome. According to your statement, the Roman position is revelatory: the Church is still receiving new revelations from God. Yet, your church already said that wasn't happening. Why do you guys keep on contradicting yourselves?

After 1500 years of the Church functioning perfectly well without a dogmatic definition for the canon.
decisions of regional or general council once approved by Rome becomes binding on the whole church.

If the Church didn't need that dogmatic definition for 1500 years, it didn't need it at Trent either.

God Bless
 
This response emphasizes the fact that there is simply no historicity behind the fantasy of Tradition classically justifying all the idiosyncrasies of the Rome. According to your statement, the Roman position is revelatory: the Church is still receiving new revelations from God. Yet, your church already said that wasn't happening. Why do you guys keep on contradicting yourselves?



If the Church didn't need that dogmatic definition for 1500 years, it didn't need it at Trent either.

God Bless
 
This response emphasizes the fact that there is simply no historicity behind the fantasy of Tradition classically justifying all the idiosyncrasies of the Rome. According to your statement, the Roman position is revelatory: the Church is still receiving new revelations from God. Yet, your church already said that wasn't happening. Why do you guys keep on contradicting yourselves?
I think it is your paradigm that says there are no revelations to mankind except that written in Scriptures, contrary to Scripture itself. The Church has always said that the Holy Spirit will always guide the Church. [Cf. John 14:26]. To my knowledge there was no time limit on those revelations.

JoeT
 
I think it is your paradigm that says there are no revelations to mankind except that written in Scriptures, contrary to Scripture itself. The Church has always said that the Holy Spirit will always guide the Church. [Cf. John 14:26]. To my knowledge there was no time limit on those revelations.

JoeT
So you're saying the Holy Spirit gives new revelation? Your sectarian masters disagree with you. Catholicism is a very self-contradicting institution so I understand why you just contradicted the teachings of your own masters.

Catholicism tries to have it both ways and relies on the foolish to believe them. They claim no new revelation as they continue to churn out new revelation.
 
The Church has always said that the Holy Spirit will always guide the Church. [Cf. John 14:26]. To my knowledge there was no time limit on those revelations.
You are conflating (mixing up) guidance and revelation.
guidance:
advice or information aimed at resolving a problem or difficulty
revelation:
a surprising and previously unknown fact, especially one that is made known in a dramatic way
from Oxford Languages

So, while God does promise to guide His church, He nowhere promises to do so via new revelations.
 
You are conflating (mixing up) guidance and revelation.
guidance:
advice or information aimed at resolving a problem or difficulty
not exactly, He "will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever" [John 14:26].
revelation:
a surprising and previously unknown fact, especially one that is made known in a dramatic way
from Oxford Languages

So, while God does promise to guide His church, He nowhere promises to do so via new revelations.
He will bring all things to mind, whatsoever. Whatsoever, has been a legal term since the invention of words meaning 'of any kind or amount at all'. So, the verse leaves us with specificity as to what is being conveyed to the Church. You never know, the Holy Spirit might advise the Pope to build the next cathedral below sea level, because the level of the sea will fall.

So, God's promises are 'guidelines'?

JoeT
 
not exactly, He "will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever" [John 14:26].

He will bring all things to mind, whatsoever. Whatsoever, has been a legal term since the invention of words meaning 'of any kind or amount at all'. So, the verse leaves us with specificity as to what is being conveyed to the Church. You never know, the Holy Spirit might advise the Pope to build the next cathedral below sea level, because the level of the sea will fall.

So, God's promises are 'guidelines'?

JoeT
God gave us the Scriptures. There are no "other words from God". God did not pass down some words "orally" and other's in writing.

Your pope is a heretic who stands in open defiance of God and all who support and defend him also defy God!
 
God gave us the Scriptures. There are no "other words from God". God did not pass down some words "orally" and other's in writing.

Your pope is a heretic who stands in open defiance of God and all who support and defend him also defy God!
So you say. I say otherwise, as do all the Saints.

JoeT
 
This response emphasizes the fact that there is simply no historicity behind the fantasy of Tradition classically justifying all the idiosyncrasies of the Rome. According to your statement, the Roman position is revelatory: the Church is still receiving new revelations from God. Yet, your church already said that wasn't happening. Why do you guys keep on contradicting yourselves?
I think it is your paradigm that says there are no revelations to mankind except that written in Scriptures, contrary to Scripture itself. The Church has always said that the Holy Spirit will always guide the Church. [Cf. John 14:26]. To my knowledge there was no time limit on those revelations.

Did I say "there are no revelations to mankind except that written in Scriptures"? The point is that neither the Reformed nor Catholics hold to a regular continual revelations to the Church as a whole for faith and practice. There being a vision or the like is not categorically denied by either side. What's always been affirmed is that Church doctrine never changes via new revelation. The Catholic Church has always held we believe and act the way we do because that is how we've always believed and acted. Catholics claim they hold to the assumption of Mary because the Church has always believed in the assumption of Mary. It might not have been unanimous in the past, but the belief existed and over time the Church only came to recognize it as Dogma, as opposed to the doctrine being revealed in time.

In short, Roman Catholics are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Are their uniqued doctrines revealed after the age of the Apostles, or are their unique doctrines found in the Early Church. History denies the later on many points, and the Church has historically denied the former. Cardinal Newman tried to parse this paradox, but I think his attempt ultimately failed. You on the other hand refuse to even recognize the concerns which drove Rome to categorically deny that Church doctrine ever changed via new revelation. To do that would require another Apostle in order to remain apostolic..

God Bless
 
not exactly, He "will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever" [John 14:26].
Nice example of perverting God's word. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will suggest to you e1verything whatsoever that I have said to you. And that's Joh 14:26 in the Catholic Public Domain Version. To whom is Jesus speaking? To His disciples. So, no, that does not support new doctrines revealed to your church,no matter how much you wish it was so.
He will bring all things to mind, whatsoever. Whatsoever, has been a legal term since the invention of words meaning 'of any kind or amount at all'.
Since the invention of words? 🤣 I hadn't realized an English word was used by the Greek and Latin languages. Let alone their predecessors. 🙄

FWIW, "whatsoever" is translated in the KJV from "α" (G3739).

Thayer Definition:
who, which, what, that
Origin: probably a primary word (or perhaps a form of the article G3588)
Strong's Definition:
Probably a primary word (or perhaps a form of the article G3588); the relative (sometimes demonstrative) pronoun, who, which, what, that : - one, (an-, the) other, some, that, what, which, who (-m, -se), etc.

Steee-rike!
So, the verse leaves us with specificity as to what is being conveyed to the Church. You never know, the Holy Spirit might advise the Pope to build the next cathedral below sea level, because the level of the sea will fall.
Well, some spirit might. But conjecture is, when you come down to it, nothing more than, ummm, suppositions.
So, God's promises are 'guidelines'?

JoeT
Well, considering the way the RCC treats Scripture, yeah, that's all they are to youse.
 
Back
Top