Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by DISRAELI
Which reminds me- has the Roman Catholic community given up the teaching EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS?

Yes.

The most recent Catholic Catechism interpreted this to mean that "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body."

The church teaches that only those who intentionally reject Christ are doomed (barring God's mercy, of course -- it's ultimately up to him) -- one does not need to be Roman Catholic to be saved.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

reply to post by adjensen

I'm very glad to hear it.
That's a definite improvement on the past, then.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Teaching and authority are two different things. If a woman is preaching the Word of God that is the authority, not the person vocalizing the text. Jesus is the head of the church.

I think it goes as follows...


1 Corinthians 11:3 KJV
[3] But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
I am not Protestant. The Church began in 29 AD, around 200 - 300 years before Catholicism. We are not new.

The marks of a cult:

Exclusivity from/Denunciation of Other Group: Each cult group, regardless of what other doctrines are taught, will all have this one common idea -- "The Only True Church Syndrome." The members of each specific organization have been taught that their church, organization, or community, is the only true group and that all other groups are false. The group's leaders will explain that it is impossible to serve God without being a member of the specific group. Moreover, when the cult leader announces himself as the true "Messiah," all others are declared to be dishonest, deceitful, and deluded, and must be put down; alternative views are denounced as being satanic and corrupt. Persecution is welcomed, and even glorified in, as "evidence" that they are being persecuted for righteousness sake. (Source)

In other words... Paul and the other apostles were in a cult according to your underlined parts.

Originally posted by truejew
In other words... Paul and the other apostles were in a cult according to your underlined parts.

The term did not exist as a sociological term until the 1930s, and by definition, most "emerging" religions would have similar characteristics. As I am not a sociologist, I don't know whether or not First Century Christianity would be defined as a cult in the same fashion that groups with those characteristics are defined now, though the commonly held terminology is that Christianity was a sect of Judaism, at least initially.

reply to post by adjensen

Dear adjensen,

Two things. First, and most important, I owe you an apology. I was wrong and you were right. It is necessary for an apologist to combat error and not allow it to stand unanswered. The impression that unanswered error creates in outsiders was not something I had considered sufficiently. Go to it!

Second, may I comment on extra ecclesiam nulla salus? My understanding is that the Church has only added a clarifying clause, but that the principle remains.

From your source:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church

That may just be a repetition of your point, but it seems that nulla salus is still good teaching, it just doesn't apply to those in invincible ignorance.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

What about those who do not accept the identity of "the Church" and the Roman Catholic community?
You see, the paragraph which you quote slides effortlessly from "the church founded by Christ" to "the Catholic Church", as though they were the same thing.
But they are not the same thing. The Roman Catholic Church (which is what that document means) is not, by itself, the Church founded by Christ, just one of the fragments of the Church founded by Christ..
I am in the Church, but I do not belong to the body called "the Roman Catholic Church".
Is the Catholic community, all the way up to the Pope, prepared to accept that I am a bona fide member of the Church? That's all I ask from them.

If you want Protestants to admit that Catholics are Christians, then Catholics must be prepared to admit that Protestants are already members of the Church. Deal?

reply to post by truejew


You're completely wrong about women and the 5-fold ministry. Many are outstanding teachers and evangelists.

Do you think women should never try and win souls to Christ with Evangelism?

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by charles1952

 

What about those who do not accept the identity of "the Church" and the Roman Catholic community?
You see, the paragraph which you quote slides effortlessly from "the church founded by Christ" to "the Catholic Church", as though they were the same thing.
But they are not the same thing. The Roman Catholic Church (which is what that document means) is not, by itself, the Church founded by Christ, just one of the fragments of the Church founded by Christ..
I am in the Church, but I do not belong to the body called "the Roman Catholic Church".
Is the Catholic community, all the way up to the Pope, prepared to accept that I am a bona fide member of the Church? That's all I ask from them.

If you want Protestants to admit that Catholics are Christians, then Catholics must be prepared to admit that Protestants are already members of the Church. Deal?

edit on 29-4-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

DISRAELI,

Prophecy says what it says, come to believe.

Originally posted by colbe
The fact is, for almost 15 years of my reading the messages from Heaven, the Protestant and Catholic:

Our Lord has never said He is returning to confirm you can believe what you wish. He has never said He is returning to reveal to the world a particular Protestant community is His Church.

Satan has infiltrated THE Church not because she is evil, "of Satan", it is because the RCC is the true faith. The evil one desires to destroy the faith, Roman Catholicism.

Come to accept Jesus' presence in the most Holy Eucharist and you will make it through the Great Tribulation except if we're martyred (all in God's Will). Believe in the Eucharist, your other misuderstandings about Catholicism will be no more.

Ask God in prayer to give you the "grace" to believe if you say "no" now.


love,

colbe

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

You're completely wrong about women and the 5-fold ministry. Many are outstanding teachers and evangelists.

Do you think women should never try and win souls to Christ with Evangelism?

The question is not whether or not they are good at it, it's whether or not God has called them or not.

Originally posted by colbe
DISRAELI,

come to believe.

I believe already. That is my point.
I am a member of the body of Christ, and therefore a member of the Church.

reply to post by DISRAELI

Dear DISRAELI,

Thanks, an excellent point. I see I was getting sloppy with the word "Church." Allow me to first give the Catechism's thoughts on that question.

"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."

You make two points which are both very important. The first is which church was founded by Christ? Not surprisingly, the Catholic Church thinks it is. They point to the unbroken succession of Popes and writings from the early days of Christianity. Every other church I know of claims to be the true one based on their interpretation of what the Bible really means. The "true" interpretation has been discovered many times in the last 500 years.

I think the Bible teaches that Jesus founded a single church. I can't reach any conclusion other than either the Church exists today as was His intention, or that there is no church which Jesus founded. It's difficult for me to accept the idea that His Church is gone. Equally difficult is the idea that His Church has just now been discovered.

What about those who do not accept the identity of "the Church" and the Roman Catholic community?
I am in the Church, but I do not belong to the body called "the Roman Catholic Church".
Is the Catholic community, all the way up to the Pope, prepared to accept that I am a bona fide member of the Church? That's all I ask from them.

If you want Protestants to admit that Catholics are Christians, then Catholics must be prepared to admit that Protestants are already members of the Church. Deal?

This is where the confusion over the word "Church" comes in. I believe that a Christian brother is, excepting the Host, the holiest thing on Earth. I am proud to associate with them and call them "Brother." The body of Christian believers is sometimes called "the Church." By definition, any believer is a member of that Church. Catholics usually refer to "the Church" as the Roman Catholic Church, and it's members.

It shouldn't be hard for all believers to accept each other as Christians and members of "the Church" of believers. In the quoted material above, the point being made is that all believers are "Brothers in the Lord" and share some aspects of the Catholic Church, but not all. Certainly that position is not objectionable.

I get the feeling that I haven't quite answered you, please ask for clarification if I've missed the point. I enjoy talking with you. (Talking? That would be fun.)

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

Yes, there has been a lot of confusion about the word "church", and for that I blame the modern usage of applying the word to the organisational structures also known as denominations.
I deliberately avoid using the word in that sense.
I think the Church in God's eyes is a much more amorphous body, spreading through many denominations.
It seems to me that we're thinking along the same lines.

However, that paragraph you first quoted- from a Council document, wasn't it? I have a suspicion that a document of that nature would still be using the word in the more traditional Roman Catholic sense, to mean the Roman Catholic Church specifically. It seems to want me to be a part of the Church in that more limited sense, and that's where I don't see the necessity.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

You're completely wrong about women and the 5-fold ministry. Many are outstanding teachers and evangelists.

Do you think women should never try and win souls to Christ with Evangelism?

The question is not whether or not they are good at it, it's whether or not God has called them or not.

Well where do you think that gift comes from?

And do you think women should never try to win souls to Christ?

reply to post by DISRAELI

Dear DISRAELI,

You're right, I think our thinking is similar. It surprises me a little to realize how close believers are when hatred and animosity are let out of the discussion. Christ wants unity and seems to draw us in that direction.

However, that paragraph you first quoted- from a Council document, wasn't it? I have a suspicion that a document of that nature would still be using the word in the more traditional Roman Catholic sense, to mean the Roman Catholic Church specifically.

My preference is to go to The Catechism of the Catholic Church for reference material. I think it is more comprehensive and designed to speak to the learner, as I am. But you're right, it was referring to the RCC.

It seems to want me to be a part of the Church in that more limited sense, and that's where I don't see the necessity.

Right, again. It does desire that you become a "full member," so to speak. I'm not sure where to go from here. I suspect you don't want the reasons, based on Scripture and Tradition, for such membership, although I'd be happy to oblige. I'd be glad to point you down that path, but everyone is responsible for their own choices.

I think the Church in God's eyes is a much more amorphous body, spreading through many denominations.

Certainly, becoming a believer is the first, and fundamental, step. I worry, though, about the disunity and animosity among the various denominations. Where there is direct contradiction, I suspect only one is correct. The various denominations seem to share that view. I would prefer greater unity based on belief in Jesus, and the teachings of those closest to Him in time and spirit.

If I haven't already, thanks again for your posts. Nice work.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by colbe
DISRAELI,

come to believe.

I believe already. That is my point.
I am a member of the body of Christ, and therefore a member of the Church.

It is not enough brother, Jesus established a VISIBLE Church not Churches, with a hierarchy and a Sacramental system, the means to receive His greatest graces. "The Church" is the Roman Catholic Church.

Protestantism denies this Truth so follow up with an excuse, they try to justify by saying they belong to a big general "body of Christ." That way you can believe as you wish, whichever of 40,000 Protestant sects you happen to agree with.... Or, start your own church.

The Remnant is Roman Catholic. Please believe, start reading Catholic writings. Ask Our Lord in prayer.


Remember, remember, remember.....


love,

colbe

Originally posted by colbe
"The Church" is the Roman Catholic Church.

Originally posted by adjensen

The marks of a cult:

Exclusivity from/Denunciation of Other Group: Each cult group, regardless of what other doctrines are taught, will all have this one common idea -- "The Only True Church Syndrome." The members of each specific organization have been taught that their church, organization, or community, is the only true group and that all other groups are false. The group's leaders will explain that it is impossible to serve God without being a member of the specific group.

A help, dear brothers and sisters in Christ, you gotta start believing in the Eucharist. Our Lord is gently stating this truth to Protestant messengers. I can name two, Amanda Leonard and Chris Williams.

I replied today at Amanda's blog because of her most recent message. Again, Jesus says it, eat My Body and drink My Blood. Jesus is preparing Protestants to accept the Eucharist. an excerpt of my comment today. I'll post her message next...

Oh, I signed my comment "Mary" but I go by colbe here at ATS.

+ + +

www.timeinhispresence.wordpress.com...

April 29, 2013

....Amanda,

You keep hearing from Our Lord about the Eucharist as you did in your latest message “I am the Door Come Abide” because Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist is what satisfies. History shows for 2000 years, Christians believed in the Eucharist, then came a group of men in the 16th century who said no, first rejecting the Church and the New Covenant ministerial priesthood. They could not confect the Eucharist so came up with their own doctrine, saying the Eucharist is only a remembrance, a symbol of Our Lord. Do not believe them any longer. Jesus tells us how, you “abide” * in Him and He in you when you eat His body and drink His blood.

God is going to show the entire world in the coming “awakening” (Rev 6:15-17, 1 Cor 3:13) the most Holy Eucharist is true. Sharing an older message to you, please, you can’t follow those men any longer, become Roman Catholic, if not now, I pray when God shows the world.

See…

Glory Carriers (Jan 10, 2013)

“I heard the Lord saying, “I want to show you My garden, come and walk with Me, I want to show you my table, there will always be enough, I want to show you My glory, so much you can’t contain it! Just one taste and you will never thirst again, My body your bread, My blood your wine.”…

Mary

* I think the reason you heard the word “abide” repeatedly, over and over in your latest message because in the original Bible, the Latin Vulgate, the word is “abideth” in John 6:57. The KJV Bible, it is a different verse, John 6:56 AND the word “abideth” is changed to “dwelleth.”

From the English translation of the Latin Vulgate – the Douay-Rheims Bible
www.drbo.org...
John 6:57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him

Amanda's message is too many characters to share because of Scripture references, so go to her blog
and read it. I noticed just now in her Scripture references, she posted "abide" instead of the KJV's "dwelleth."

Makes sense, Our Lord said it so many times in Amanda's message. The correct word is "abide"...abideth
not "dwelleth." John 6:57 in the Douay-Rheims www.drbo.org... and it is verse 6:56 in the KJV Bible.

timeinhispresence.wordpress.com...

reply to post by DISRAELI

Dear DISRAELI,

I'm a little surprised and confused by your post which quotes one sign of a cult with the emphasis on:

The members of each specific organization have been taught that their church, organization, or community, is the only true group and that all other groups are false.

I do hope you don't mean to imply that the Catholic Church is a cult, but what other explanation is there? If that is your position, I think you've taken one incredibly difficult to defend.

Even from adjensen's source we find:

From the theological position, then, a cult can be best defined as:

A system of religious beliefs and rituals with a body of adherents deeply devoted to an extrabiblical person, idea, or thing; it cultivates worship in a religion that, with reference to its basis for man's salvation, is considered to be unorthodox, spurious, or false, thereby insulating its members against true salvation in Christ. And inasmuch as the central doctrine of Biblical Christianity is the sacrificial death of Christ for man's sin (Eph. 2:8,9), all cultic deviations tend to downplay the finished work of Christ and emphasize the importance of earning moral acceptance before God through one's own religious works.

To be classified as a cult, not all of the following characteristics have to be present, but in most cases, in one form or another, all of them will be:

They then list 14 characteristics. I can't imagine that the Catholic Church could be accused of them under any fair reading.

But since I am sure you didn't mean to say that the Catholic Church is a cult, I will assume I misunderstood your purpose. What were you trying to say?

With respect,
Charles1952