[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You didn’t listen =[
[/quote]That’s because it doesn’t make sense that you can do anything humanly possible (have faith or do works) to have salvation. Are you saying once saved alawys saved, because that makes more sense than saying if you have faith you’ll be saved. I’m sure there are a lot of demons that have faith in Jesus dying for their sins, know his name, &c. I don’t really think the Angel of Light’s fallen angels will be going to Heaven.[/quote]How do you know it doesn’t make sense if you didn’t listen? Trust me when I tell you that neither he nor I nor any other true Calvinist believes that a person not ultimately bearing the testimony of a transformed life belongs to Christ. Maybe I’m not clearly understanding your difficulty so far.
[/quote]
Because I used to be the same way, I believe that if you just have faith you will be saved. I have heard all the arguments listened to it preached by some of the best seminarians, preachers, scholars of Calvinism.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Pat may not have answered this, but I did. I may not have directly answered it but I did address it to either you or blacksheep. There is a difference between formal heresy and material heresy. I can’t really say which one you would fall in but likely material heresy since you were never in the Church and believed in her being the true church. Calvin on the other hand did know that she was the true church, and he would be in the area of formal heresy and of course schism which is probably an automatic sin, now whether it is mortal or venial or not, no one can say although I am sure someone could figure out through his writings before and after leaving the Church.
[/quote]I was baptized, took first communion, went to CCD and was confirmed in St. Robert Bellermine parish. strobertbellarmine.com I said I was raised catholic in the other misconceptions thread. I thought you knew that. Now you’re really worried huh?
[/quote]No, because if you knew exactly what it meant then you wouldn’t have said those things, as I am sure your yearning for Jesus would prevent you.[quote]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< It is kind of like 6 degrees of separation, but even cooler! It involves Jesus. Go shake a priests hand, touch his shoulder, whatever. Now! think about the fact that you just shook the had of a man that shook hands or was touched by other men that were touched by other men that eventually leads to men that were touched by Jesus personally! Gets me everytime.[/quote]Or I can just touch Him myself like I do all the time.
[/quote]Let’s not be dumb Tirib, Jesus as human form is not sitting in your living room right now, there is a difference when I say touched as in the AS and touched as in by the hand of God. >>>[/quote]Here’s where I’ll be accused of being hateful for being honest because you see, I do know exactly what it means and I’m sure it is precisely my yearning for Jesus that has motivated my saying them. I can go to the decrees of Trent and instantly find a dozen “anathemas” sitting squarely on my head.
You know what that means. Pat, despite posting a wall from the CCC that doesn’t address it, knows what that means(or maybe he doesn’t?) and I have to think Sloth knows what that means, but I can’t get anybody to own it and everybody on both sides knows why.
Of course I knew what you meant =] Jesus did after all say that it was better for Him to go away that the Paraclete may come and teach us all things (John 16)(yes, I know you think this is through apostolic succession). He’s here and through Him “20-I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.” (Galatians 2:20)
How am I supposed to be impressed with ANY man when He “2-whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3-And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” lives IN ME. I don’t get it? Even if the dubious at very best unbroken succession were true. I am married to the glorified exalted bridegroom, we have intimate relations (Ephesians 5) (I know, you think that means "THEE only true apostolic earthly church emanating from the holy see in Rome without which such divine intimacy is not possible). I know better.
You see the church as a sort of singularly authorized giant transit bus with Jesus as the driver. In order to really know Jesus one must get on that bus. However, if one strives correctly and with enough sincerity so that Jesus can still see you in the rear view mirror he’ll put you in the cargo compartment so at least you get to come along. (roughly)
I see Jesus as the bus, the Spirit as the engine and the Father as the driver. The church is all the passengers, everybody either knows they’ve gotten on that bus or not and nobody who isn’t gets home. I believe ANY person who surrenders their autonomous mind, will AND emotions to God and goes to the bible will reach that conclusion[/quote]
No you do not understand, you understand what the Church says, but you don’t understand the meaning of it. You do not grasp the seriousness of the situation. Otherwise you wouldn’t say it.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You didn’t listen =[
[/quote]That’s because it doesn’t make sense that you can do anything humanly possible (have faith or do works) to have salvation. Are you saying once saved alawys saved, because that makes more sense than saying if you have faith you’ll be saved. I’m sure there are a lot of demons that have faith in Jesus dying for their sins, know his name, &c. I don’t really think the Angel of Light’s fallen angels will be going to Heaven.[/quote]How do you know it doesn’t make sense if you didn’t listen? Trust me when I tell you that neither he nor I nor any other true Calvinist believes that a person not ultimately bearing the testimony of a transformed life belongs to Christ. Maybe I’m not clearly understanding your difficulty so far.
[/quote]
Because I used to be the same way, I believe that if you just have faith you will be saved. I have heard all the arguments listened to it preached by some of the best seminarians, preachers, scholars of Calvinism. [/quote]Alright, I see what happened here. Contrary to what you no doubt fervently believe, I did not link that sermon for any specific purpose of persuading you with regard to any specific point. I just was curious what you would think since you seemed dismissive of a black Detroit Calvinist. Maybe I misunderstood.
Let me clear this up for you once and for all. Faith without works IS dead. Faith is shown by works. Faith WILL produce works. Hearers who do not do the Word are deceived. We got that now? =] However, “works” does not primarily mean feeding the poor, widows, charity etc. Works = personal obedience and holiness of word, thought AND deed to the revealed will of God. Works =, not being conformed to this world, but being transformed by the renewing of your mind (Romans 12). Works = strengthening the new man in Christ, the last Adam, so as to be equipped for war (Romans 7) against the flesh born in the first because “the mind set on the flesh is death” (Romans 8).
Works = recognizing "<<< that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us? (James 4)
Works = personal obedience and holiness in a nutshell, which testifies before the world to His power and righteousness. If the world can’t tell the difference between you and them there isn’t any. The Detroit Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang has soup kitchens and buys clothes and school supplies for poor children. It proves nothing by itself. Of course if the witness of Gospel of Christ is married to the works of charity then they are righteous and good, but somebody who’s bangin the secretary, pilfering from the company, and talks and acts just like the pagans in their life, but does charity work thinking that means a thing to God is in for a very tragic, but very just, rude awakening.
That won’t fix it. I would have popped you one if it did too LOL! I spent like 15 minutes playing around with that post and I couldn’t find the stray tagging either.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You didn’t listen =[
[/quote]That’s because it doesn’t make sense that you can do anything humanly possible (have faith or do works) to have salvation. Are you saying once saved alawys saved, because that makes more sense than saying if you have faith you’ll be saved. I’m sure there are a lot of demons that have faith in Jesus dying for their sins, know his name, &c. I don’t really think the Angel of Light’s fallen angels will be going to Heaven.[/quote]How do you know it doesn’t make sense if you didn’t listen? Trust me when I tell you that neither he nor I nor any other true Calvinist believes that a person not ultimately bearing the testimony of a transformed life belongs to Christ. Maybe I’m not clearly understanding your difficulty so far.
[/quote]
Because I used to be the same way, I believe that if you just have faith you will be saved. I have heard all the arguments listened to it preached by some of the best seminarians, preachers, scholars of Calvinism. [/quote]Alright, I see what happened here. Contrary to what you no doubt fervently believe, I did not link that sermon for any specific purpose of persuading you with regard to any specific point. I just was curious what you would think since you seemed dismissive of a black Detroit Calvinist. Maybe I misunderstood.[/quote]
I’ve dealt with many black preachers, Calvinist, Luthern, Baptist, Southern Baptist, &c. I will listen and I will also share, but the idea of assumption of salavtion is still not biblical to me. Just because I or you have faith or a testamony of repentence does not mean either one of us are going to Heaven. Catholics do not do the things we do because it will save us, we do these things because if we do not do these things it will distance ourselves from God, yes some people do it because they are scared of Hell. However, none of these things that we are supposed to do will save us if we die.
Never said they weren’t but works also = charity, we are called to have Faith, Hope, and Charity. Charity is above all those and Obedience is above Charity. That doesn’t mean we don’t have Charity which Charity is love for God! That is why there is a lot of charities in the Catholic Church, because we know there is something in charity that is very important, because every hungry child that gets fed is like feed Jesus himself.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Assurance, properly understood, is thoroughly biblical. Even Arminians hold to a doctrine of assurance. I’ll get to this as soon as I can. [/quote]
Well, I’ll be waiting for your biblical proof, and if you are speaking Arminianism, it is definitely considered a heresy from the reformation.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Dawkins says in a nutshell that we are made religious and in relation to our specific religion though childhood indoctrination.
Ephrem asks:
…for instance, “Jesus Camp”. Thoughts?[/quote]I must honestly say that I find this to be generally untrue as a premise, but also add that I find it to be a beautiful thing as far as it might actually BE true among Christians.
I find it to be untrue among serious Christians anyway. I’ve known quite a few and the vast majority were not raised that way. The church I go to now has a couple thousand members is about 80% thoroughly (I mean thoroughly) redeemed street people of every scarred and tattooed variety. That doesn’t represent the world, but it’s an example. If we’re talking about nominal church goers for whom the gospel is little more than a social habit then Dawkins is closer to the mark. These people will more often do what they’re raised as because it doesn’t REALLY make any difference to them.
Also, you may have noticed that I have been rather vehemently polemicizing against the very religion I was raised in and have been accused of hateful and deliberate deception in the process which couldn’t be further from the truth and makes me very sad.
[quote]pat wrote:
<<< I have address the anathemas twice, with backup, yet again you refuse to listen, or read. You simply want to hold to your biases. The Catechism is what is going on now…Apparently you did not read the wall, because it addresses your questions.[/quote]I promise you I read every word. It does not address what I am talking about. Also, it clearly matters IF “anathema” meant something different before Vatican II. Were those so anathematized in times past condemned to the hell of Satan while God has since decided that it now should mean simply outside the church? What of those previously anathematized? Do they get to go to heaven now? What of their time already spent in hell? Purgatory? Perhaps the old way stands and it’s eternal damnation for having been born too early in history? Or, God forbid maybe the mother church was very mistaken about the precious souls over which she alone has been given charge? IFIF
I used to own a hyoooj white Douay-Rheims bible and in the back was a very extensive authorized encyclopedia that I spent untold hours reading. I think the one you keep linking to may be the same one.
In any case, from your catholic encyclopedia.
[quote]Anathema
<<< Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity. >>><<< by the Pope. >>><<< assisted by twelve priests clad in their surplices and holding lighted candles. >>><<< He takes his seat in front of the altar or in some other suitable place, amid pronounces the formula of anathema which ends with these words: “Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.”[/quote]I am very familiar with the passage from 1 Corinthians 5 where this comes from. I have cited it here myself. I’ve been hanging on to this quote from your own encyclopedia for days after you linked to it before, but apparently you stopped reading before this part. Pat, I have really prayed to be given a right spirit if I am to continue in these conversations and clear indication if I should bow out. You have called me a liar. I am sorry you feel that way. I must take assurance in the fact that there is a God who knows my heart and that I have been wrongly accused of lying and hatred.
[quote]Trent 13 Canon 1: CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.[/quote]I denieth
I could literally post 30 or 40 more.
I know you can’t formally do it, only the church can, but one more time. According to these principles should I or should I not be"condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as I will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church;"?
I read that whole entry on that page 3 times. I will humbly submit that while certainly an imperfect fallen man I have been blessed with an extraordinary command of the English language and I am fully capable of grasping your encyclopedia. Nonetheless I could, in my nefariousness, have still misapprehended what I have here reported. If so I will recant.
[/quote]
First things first. " You have called me a liar." ← Damn strait. One who has said the hateful crap you said, cannot and does not mean it with heavy heart sadness or any of the other emotions you described. The spirit it was intended was meanness and hatefulness. You don’t say mean nasty shit to people and then tell them it pains you to say it. I was born on a Sunday, but it wasn’t last Sunday. If you truly believe you meant it in a good way, then you are lying to two people, yourself and me.
Next, you are obsessed with the counsel of Trent for some odd reason… My only guess is that you are hung up on complete and utter misunderstand of what you think Papal Infallibility actually is or means. Am I right? You think that this carried the weight of infallibility?
If that’s what is causing you not to allow this to sink in, then learn about it. I have already explained it once, but I will give you the brief synopsis.
Infallibility refers to church dogma. For something to be infallible, it must be declared so ex cathedra
It is seldom used. Most dogmas are in place, I don’t see ex cathadra being used anytime soon, unless it is divinely revealed. Only the most basic tenants of the church are declared infallible. Everything else is malleable.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You didn’t listen =[
[/quote]That’s because it doesn’t make sense that you can do anything humanly possible (have faith or do works) to have salvation. Are you saying once saved alawys saved, because that makes more sense than saying if you have faith you’ll be saved. I’m sure there are a lot of demons that have faith in Jesus dying for their sins, know his name, &c. I don’t really think the Angel of Light’s fallen angels will be going to Heaven.[/quote]How do you know it doesn’t make sense if you didn’t listen? Trust me when I tell you that neither he nor I nor any other true Calvinist believes that a person not ultimately bearing the testimony of a transformed life belongs to Christ. Maybe I’m not clearly understanding your difficulty so far.
[/quote]
Because I used to be the same way, I believe that if you just have faith you will be saved. I have heard all the arguments listened to it preached by some of the best seminarians, preachers, scholars of Calvinism. [/quote]Alright, I see what happened here. Contrary to what you no doubt fervently believe, I did not link that sermon for any specific purpose of persuading you with regard to any specific point. I just was curious what you would think since you seemed dismissive of a black Detroit Calvinist. Maybe I misunderstood.
Let me clear this up for you once and for all. Faith without works IS dead. Faith is shown by works. Faith WILL produce works. Hearers who do not do the Word are deceived. We got that now? =] However, “works” does not primarily mean feeding the poor, widows, charity etc. Works = personal obedience and holiness of word, thought AND deed to the revealed will of God. Works =, not being conformed to this world, but being transformed by the renewing of your mind (Romans 12). Works = strengthening the new man in Christ, the last Adam, so as to be equipped for war (Romans 7) against the flesh born in the first because “the mind set on the flesh is death” (Romans 8).
Works = recognizing "<<< that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us? (James 4)
Works = personal obedience and holiness in a nutshell, which testifies before the world to His power and righteousness. If the world can’t tell the difference between you and them there isn’t any. The Detroit Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang has soup kitchens and buys clothes and school supplies for poor children. It proves nothing by itself. Of course if the witness of Gospel of Christ is married to the works of charity then they are righteous and good, but somebody who’s bangin the secretary, pilfering from the company, and talks and acts just like the pagans in their life, but does charity work thinking that means a thing to God is in for a very tragic, but very just, rude awakening.
[/quote]
Right. God calls us to serve ourselves in faith…Ug, the agony. Taking care of number one isn’t an act of work in faith.
The Hell’s Angel feeding poor is far more holy than the person serving himself in faith…
[quote]pat wrote:
<<< First things first. " You have called me a liar." ← Damn strait. One who has said the hateful crap you said, cannot and does not mean it with heavy heart sadness or any of the other emotions you described. The spirit it was intended was meanness and hatefulness. You don’t say mean nasty shit to people and then tell them it pains you to say it. I was born on a Sunday, but it wasn’t last Sunday. If you truly believe you meant it in a good way, then you are lying to two people, yourself and me.>>>[/quote]Again. God knows my heart and I take solace in that fact is it appears you are wholly unable to distinguish my hatred for an institution and my love for it’s members. I regret that, but recognize that nothing I say will dissuade you from this unfortunate view. [quote]pat wrote:
Next, you are obsessed with the counsel of Trent for some odd reason… My only guess is that you are hung up on complete and utter misunderstand of what you think Papal Infallibility actually is or means. Am I right? You think that this carried the weight of infallibility?
If that’s what is causing you not to allow this to sink in, then learn about it. I have already explained it once, but I will give you the brief synopsis. >>>[/quote]No, you are not right and this has sunk in for me long long ago. I am talking the canons and decrees of a mighty church council which authority either still stands today or it does not. We both know it does. Therefore the many many “anathemes” are still binding and as quoted from your own encyclopedia those so anathematized are condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church You called me a liar for saying this when it is simply a quote from a page YOU linked me to.
The point is your church condemns me to eternal fire with Satan and his Angels. A thing though utterly fraudulent, I genuinely applaud her for as that would demonstrate consistency and conviction. UNLESS, not ever having been officially anathematized by name according to the “formula” I still get to go to heaven even while willfully affirming dozens of presently binding “anathemas” upon myself. If that be the case then the God of catholicism is no more to be feared than Pee Wee Herman.[quote]pat wrote:
Infallibility refers to church dogma. For something to be infallible, it must be declared so ex cathedra It is seldom used. Most dogmas are in place, I don’t see ex cathadra being used anytime soon, unless it is divinely revealed. Only the most basic tenants of the church are declared infallible. Everything else is malleable. www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm[/quote] I know all about “ex cathedra” Pat. I know it’s rarely used. This is not about “ex cathedra”. It’s (this part anyway) about You guys, especially you, going off in an apocalyptic fit for me saying about your church no worse than she says about me. She says I’m damned. I respect that. It’s a satanic lie, but I respect it. What I don’t respect is all this wishy washy modernism that refuses to simply publicly own your own church’s teaching. OR if you CAN show me that someone like me, IS eligible for heaven then the RCC is a hilariously contemptible joke. I’m giving her more credit than you appear to be.[quote]pat wrote:
Only the most basic tenants of the church are declared infallible. Everything else is malleable.[/quote]Is my eternal destination as a man who denies apostolic succession in the RCC, the papacy, the mass, the Eucharist, the mother of God, and a very long list of other “basic” church doctrines itself “basic” or malleable"? That is my concern with Trent or any other previously authoritative source and how much that has changed today. That is not a devious or illegitimate question. The souls of untold millions of people are at stake.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
<<< Let me clear this up for you once and for all. Faith without works IS dead. Faith is shown by works. Faith WILL produce works. Hearers who do not do the Word are deceived. We got that now? =] However, “works” does not primarily mean feeding the poor, widows, charity etc. Works = personal obedience and holiness of word, thought AND deed to the revealed will of God. Works =, not being conformed to this world, but being transformed by the renewing of your mind (Romans 12). Works = strengthening the new man in Christ, the last Adam, so as to be equipped for war (Romans 7) against the flesh born in the first because “the mind set on the flesh is death” (Romans 8).
Works = recognizing "<<< that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us? (James 4)
Works = personal obedience and holiness in a nutshell, which testifies before the world to His power and righteousness. If the world can’t tell the difference between you and them there isn’t any. The Detroit Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang has soup kitchens and buys clothes and school supplies for poor children. It proves nothing by itself. Of course if the witness of Gospel of Christ is married to the works of charity then they are righteous and good, but somebody who’s bangin the secretary, pilfering from the company, and talks and acts just like the pagans in their life, but does charity work thinking that means a thing to God is in for a very tragic, but very just, rude awakening.
[/quote]
Right. God calls us to serve ourselves in faith…Ug, the agony. Taking care of number one isn’t an act of work in faith.
The Hell’s Angel feeding poor is far more holy than the person serving himself in faith…[/quote]It’s almost impossible for me to believe that having read the several bible passages that I simply quoted wherein believers are exhorted to willingly submit to a loving God who <<< yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us? (James 4)… in self denial and holiness, that you somehow came away with “God calls us to serve ourselves in faith…Ug, the agony. Taking care of number one”. I am at a loss for any further response to this post Pat. I assure you Brother Chris did not get this out of what I said nor would any other person not presently blinded by anger. Calm down my friend. I have not been angry or hateful to you.
[quote]pat wrote:
<<< First things first. " You have called me a liar." ← Damn strait. One who has said the hateful crap you said, cannot and does not mean it with heavy heart sadness or any of the other emotions you described. The spirit it was intended was meanness and hatefulness. You don’t say mean nasty shit to people and then tell them it pains you to say it. I was born on a Sunday, but it wasn’t last Sunday. If you truly believe you meant it in a good way, then you are lying to two people, yourself and me.>>>[/quote]Again. God knows my heart and I take solace in that fact is it appears you are wholly unable to distinguish my hatred for an institution and my love for it’s members. I regret that, but recognize that nothing I say will dissuade you from this unfortunate view. [quote]pat wrote:
Next, you are obsessed with the counsel of Trent for some odd reason… My only guess is that you are hung up on complete and utter misunderstand of what you think Papal Infallibility actually is or means. Am I right? You think that this carried the weight of infallibility?
If that’s what is causing you not to allow this to sink in, then learn about it. I have already explained it once, but I will give you the brief synopsis. >>>[/quote]No, you are not right and this has sunk in for me long long ago. I am talking the canons and decrees of a mighty church council which authority either still stands today or it does not. We both know it does. Therefore the many many “anathemes” are still binding and as quoted from your own encyclopedia those so anathematized are condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church You called me a liar for saying this when it is simply a quote from a page YOU linked me to.
The point is your church condemns me to eternal fire with Satan and his Angels. A thing though utterly fraudulent, I genuinely applaud her for as that would demonstrate consistency and conviction. UNLESS, not ever having been officially anathematized by name according to the “formula” I still get to go to heaven even while willfully affirming dozens of presently binding “anathemas” upon myself. If that be the case then the God of catholicism is no more to be feared than Pee Wee Herman.[quote]pat wrote:
Infallibility refers to church dogma. For something to be infallible, it must be declared so ex cathedra It is seldom used. Most dogmas are in place, I don’t see ex cathadra being used anytime soon, unless it is divinely revealed. Only the most basic tenants of the church are declared infallible. Everything else is malleable. www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm[/quote] I know all about “ex cathedra” Pat. I know it’s rarely used. This is not about “ex cathedra”. It’s (this part anyway) about You guys, especially you, going off in an apocalyptic fit for me saying about your church no worse than she says about me. She says I’m damned. I respect that. It’s a satanic lie, but I respect it. What I don’t respect is all this wishy washy modernism that refuses to simply publicly own your own church’s teaching. OR if you CAN show me that someone like me, IS eligible for heaven then the RCC is a hilariously contemptible joke. I’m giving her more credit than you appear to be.[quote]pat wrote:
Only the most basic tenants of the church are declared infallible. Everything else is malleable.[/quote]Is my eternal destination as a man who denies apostolic succession in the RCC, the papacy, the mass, the Eucharist, the mother of God, and a very long list of other “basic” church doctrines itself “basic” or malleable"? That is my concern with Trent or any other previously authoritative source and how much that has changed today. That is not a devious or illegitimate question. The souls of untold millions of people are at stake.[/quote]
Then forget about the Counsel of Trent from the year 1560 and look at the current Catechism for which I lovingly copied and pasted for you. This is what the official, unvarnished stance of the Church on the topics you are inquiring. This isn’t that hard.
I don’t know what your eternal destination is, that’s between you and the Good Lord. I am sure God loves people with extremely hard heads too.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
<<< Let me clear this up for you once and for all. Faith without works IS dead. Faith is shown by works. Faith WILL produce works. Hearers who do not do the Word are deceived. We got that now? =] However, “works” does not primarily mean feeding the poor, widows, charity etc. Works = personal obedience and holiness of word, thought AND deed to the revealed will of God. Works =, not being conformed to this world, but being transformed by the renewing of your mind (Romans 12). Works = strengthening the new man in Christ, the last Adam, so as to be equipped for war (Romans 7) against the flesh born in the first because “the mind set on the flesh is death” (Romans 8).
Works = recognizing "<<< that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us? (James 4)
Works = personal obedience and holiness in a nutshell, which testifies before the world to His power and righteousness. If the world can’t tell the difference between you and them there isn’t any. The Detroit Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang has soup kitchens and buys clothes and school supplies for poor children. It proves nothing by itself. Of course if the witness of Gospel of Christ is married to the works of charity then they are righteous and good, but somebody who’s bangin the secretary, pilfering from the company, and talks and acts just like the pagans in their life, but does charity work thinking that means a thing to God is in for a very tragic, but very just, rude awakening.
[/quote]
Right. God calls us to serve ourselves in faith…Ug, the agony. Taking care of number one isn’t an act of work in faith.
The Hell’s Angel feeding poor is far more holy than the person serving himself in faith…[/quote]It’s almost impossible for me to believe that having read the several bible passages that I simply quoted wherein believers are exhorted to willingly submit to a loving God who <<< yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us? (James 4)… in self denial and holiness, that you somehow came away with “God calls us to serve ourselves in faith…Ug, the agony. Taking care of number one”. I am at a loss for any further response to this post Pat. I assure you Brother Chris did not get this out of what I said nor would any other person not presently blinded by anger. Calm down my friend. I have not been angry or hateful to you.
[/quote]
Again, reading the bible and understanding it are to different things. Jesus called us to do service to others, not just have faith in him. Satan believes in Jesus and his ability to save soul.
You have been both angry and hateful, to say otherwise is a lie. You have maliciously and willfully insulted my faith and my church of which you have no knowledge, yet you claim to do this with the purest intentions, which makes it even more insulting. If you really had purest intentions at heart your behavior would have been different. Don’t pass this bullshit off on me. Do you really need me to cut and paste for you, the things you have said or are you capable of reading them on your own?
“I have not been angry or hateful to you.” ← Bullshit. Sadly, the atheists on this here board have been more civil…I would and should expect better for someone who “claims Christ”.
[quote]pat wrote:
Then forget about the Counsel of Trent from the year 1560 and look at the current Catechism for which I lovingly copied and pasted for you. This is what the official, unvarnished stance of the Church on the topics you are inquiring. This isn’t that hard.
I don’t know what your eternal destination is, that’s between you and the Good Lord. I am sure God loves people with extremely hard heads too.[/quote]So Trent doesn’t count anymore? Meaning for 400 years “the church” was in error? You didn’t answer my question whether my eternal state was “basic” or “malleable”? That’s pretty important and could be different acording to Rome if it’s 1560 or 1960. Though I also didn’t get an answer to why your encyclopedia gives the STILL CURRENT verbatim “formula” for anathematizing obstinate heretics which includes eternal damnation with Satan and his angels. They say I’m damned. If your church is THEE church I wholeheartedly agree… I am. I just still can’t get you to do it.
You’re right it isn’t that hard. Apostolic succession if true goes back beyond the CCC which I BTW linked to first in the last thread. A church claiming divine authority traceable directly back to the first century should have no problem looking at what was taught all along. I have no problem looking at anything all the way back to the 1st of Genesis. In fact I insist. Why are you so afraid of looking at the past. Succession is all about he past. I honestly can’t believe nobody’s brought out the big guns against Calvin and Luther yet.
I don’t know what your future holds and never said I did, but I most assuredly do know mine. Whatever you may think, I really wish the same for you.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Again, reading the bible and understanding it are to different things. Jesus called us to do service to others, not just have faith in him. Satan believes in Jesus and his ability to save soul.[/quote]I agree completely on all counts. I have said all 3 of these points myself.
[quote]pat wrote: >>>You have been both angry and hateful, to say otherwise is a lie. You have maliciously and willfully insulted my faith and my church of which you have no knowledge, yet you claim to do this with the purest intentions, which makes it even more insulting. If you really had purest intentions at heart your behavior would have been different. Don’t pass this bullshit off on me. Do you really need me to cut and paste for you, the things you have said or are you capable of reading them on your own?
“I have not been angry or hateful to you.” ← Bullshit. Sadly, the atheists on this here board have been more civil…I would and should expect better for someone who “claims Christ”.[/quote]Why don’t you go ahead since you offered. Show everybody where I was angry and hateful to PAT.
I will state outright… again… as I said in my very first post where I mentioned the RCC a few months ago. I do not believe and haven’t for a long time that the RCC is a Christian church. I hate it. It angers me that something so overtly opposed to the Savior I meet in the pages of scripture has deceived so many, probably billions of people into the bondage of it’s dead sacerdotal chains. That IS hateful and angry, but not directed at you and if you can’t see the difference God help you.
Why are you so upset? Who cares what I think? Am I that persuasive? Has the mighty most holy one true apostolic mother church not withstood more formidable opponents than I? BTW, yes it’s true, Luther and Calvin, Luther even more so, made me look like a catholic apologist. I mean I am a giving the papacy warm wet kisses and cuddling compared to Martin Luther and he was much more capable than I will ever be. Calvin was a better student of the scriptures, but he wasn’t quite as hard on the church.
