Quoted:
Servants don't refer to themselves as "Pontifex Maximus".

Then there's the whole issue of having people slobber on his toe:

http://i1.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/PopeKissing_Feet.JPG?resize=338%2C350

http://www.soundwords.net/images/wronghere.jpg
 

Quoted:


Actually posts a Chick tract!!  

Quoted:

I'll be the first to say that most Chick tract material is totally nuts and probably causes more harm than good.

However in this example, it does pose a good question, and one of the things I'm uncomfortable with in the RCC.

Quoted:

What a mess, how is it anyone is saved?



Yet Jesus said, "Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life." John 6:47



So what the church is saying is that Jesus never gave the whole truth on how to be saved to any individual he encountered; essentially lying by omission.





http://www.raptureforums.com/RomanCatholicism/catholicsalvationplan.jpg

Quoted:

What a mess, how is it anyone is saved?



Yet Jesus said, "Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life." John 6:47



So what the church is saying is that Jesus never gave the whole truth on how to be saved to any individual he encountered in the Gospels; essentially lying by omission.

Quoted:


Servants don't refer to themselves as "Pontifex Maximus".





Then there's the whole issue of having people slobber on his toe:





http://i1.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/PopeKissing_Feet.JPG?resize=338%2C350





http://www.soundwords.net/images/wronghere.jpg


 

Quoted:

What a mess, how is it anyone is saved?



Yet Jesus said, "Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life." John 6:47



So what the church is saying is that Jesus never gave the whole truth on how to be saved to any individual he encountered in the Gospels; essentially lying by omission.





http://www.raptureforums.com/RomanCatholicism/catholicsalvationplan.jpg



 

Quoted:


Actually posts a Chick tract!!  

Quoted:







I'll be the first to say that most Chick tract material is totally nuts and probably causes more harm than good.





However in this example, it does pose a good question, and one of the things I'm uncomfortable with in the RCC.

Quoted:

Christ promised the Holy Spirit to the Church, not you.

Quoted:


My point has nothing to do with the failure of individual sinners to meet the teachings of their faith.  My point is that Protestantism believes in private interpretation of the bible, Catholicism does not. When you open that door, every man is his own pope, and it leads to disunity and a breakdown of the Christian faith. Again, who can Protestants point to  as the authoritative interpreter of Scripture? Does the Lutheran view of the Eucharist hold sway (consubstantiality)? Or are the Baptists right (symbolic)?  This is no small doctrinal difference, the first followers of Christ left him when He said you must "Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood"

Quoted:







What is your biblical support for this statement?

Quoted:


Most? Probably? Really? What 'good' comes from rabid defamation of other Christians?

 

Quoted:



It isn't a matter of lying by "omission."

It's a matter of focus.

The whole fixation and nitpicking on salvation is very much a product of the Protestant movement. Nothing pre-dating it shows an attempt to distill the whole message of Christ into such a concept. Salvation was accepted as a given, the focus was then on other theological nuances, trying to understand what Christ wanted people to do, etc.

To have it like some here would, every one of Christ's sermons would simply like like the last panel of a Chick Tract. But He had so much more to say, and do, before he ultimately established the Eucharist with His perfect sacrifice... and then He still said and did more, having resurrected himself and all.

Quoted:








Is this the  "doctrinal bomb"?



John 16:5–13 - Jesus’ Departure; Coming of the Advocate.

"I did not tell you this from the beginning, because I was with you. 5 But now I am going to the one who sent me, and not one of you asks me,* ‘Where are you going?’ 6 But because I told you this, grief has filled your hearts. 7 But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes he will convict the world in regard to sin and righteousness and condemnation: 9 sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see me; 11condemnation, because the ruler of this world has been condemned. 12 "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. 13  But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.





Clearly Christ is speaking only to the Apostles, who would lead His Church after he departed. If the Holy Spirit was equally promised to guide everyone, we'd all be on the same page... which Protestantism alone clearly reveals not to be the case.

Quoted:




Ask the Inquisition.    





Or better yet, Pope Gregory IX.

Quoted:


Chick Tract's last panel actually gets it wrong; it actually over complicates it with the instruction to "turn from sin" before belief. Romans 7:19 and 1 John 1:8 logically imply this is not required nor possible, respectively.



It seems your problem is that salvation is too easy if it's just by "belief", yet that's what Christ told Nicodemus in John 3 several times. It's also what he told Martha in John 11.



Remember, "you must have the faith of little children" (Matthew 18:3), not of theologians, or priests.



It is a given when the church preaches the Word. It's when people started adding to it that it became a jumbled mess.  

Quoted:


Problem is, Romans 8:9:



9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.



1 Corinthians 12:13:



13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.



And let's not forget what Jesus laid-out to Nicodemus:



 

Quoted:


Jesus does. We just don't exclude his other statements but view them as a whole work. Baptism, forgiveness of sins, it's all in there. Does Jesus sit down and lay everything out at once to a single person? Dunno, but it wasn't recorded in the Bible that way. But we were given the entire book. We were given the whole thing (including the Epistle of James) to utilize.

To us it seems that Protestants just like to focus on the easy stuff, where all you have to do is sit around and say, "Welp, I believe in Jesus so I'm good. Lord, Lord!" It's very passive. We don't consider it passive, but active. As in full belief requires more than just that, to mean active and full participation. After all, even Satan and his demons believe in Christ. We say belief requires more than just a passive intellectual exercise but a full life changing lived experience doing the things that Jesus said to do.

Like when you look at Matthew 25:44 "They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?  "He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”" Notice those folks are being condemned because they didn't do things. He's not saying they didn't believe in him. Jesus says there that the righteous are going to eternal life because "Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."

Not everybody who says, "Lord, Lord!" after all.

Quoted:



Is this the  "doctrinal bomb"?

John 16:5–13 - Jesus’ Departure; Coming of the Advocate.
"I did not tell you this from the beginning, because I was with you. 5 But now I am going to the one who sent me, and not one of you asks me,* ‘Where are you going?’ 6 But because I told you this, grief has filled your hearts. 7 But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes he will convict the world in regard to sin and righteousness and condemnation: 9 sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see me; 11condemnation, because the ruler of this world has been condemned. 12 "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. 13  But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.


Clearly Christ is speaking only to the Apostles, who would lead His Church after he departed. If the Holy Spirit was equally promised to guide everyone, we'd all be on the same page... which Protestantism alone clearly reveals not to be the case.

First, Matthew 25:31-46 is in regards to nations (see v31). Second, we are justified through faith, i.e. pronounced innocent through belief in the promise of Christ.



Second your allusion to Matthew 7:21-23 actually counters your point, because there we have false teachers (see v.15) trying to persuade Christ to give them eternal life based on their deeds. However, Christ doesn't deny they did theose deeds, but bases His rejection of them on, "I never knew you". Which tells us our works, even impressive ones that these guys boasted about, means zilch.



  Third, your point is contradicted by Romans 4:



"2 For IF Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, BUT NOT BEFORE GOD. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now TO HIM WHO WORKS, the wages are NOT COUNTED AS GRACE but as debt. 5 But TO HIM WHO DOES NOT WORK BUT BELIEVES ON HIM who justifies the ungodly, HIS FAITH IS ACCOUNTED FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness APART from works"



So either we aren't justified by works and you are misunderstanding Matthew 25, or Paul is a heretic; because this verse is pretty clear.

All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only..

Quoted:





Problem is, Romans 8:9:





9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.





1 Corinthians 12:13:





13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.





And let's not forget what Jesus laid-out to Nicodemus:





4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.


6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.


7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’


8 The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”


9 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can these things be?”


10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?


11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony.


12 If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?


13 No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.


14 As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;


15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.


16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.


17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.


18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God





In other words, unless you individually have the Spirit in you (born again), then you aren't saved. There's no corporate language here.    


 

Quoted:


I misunderstood then.. I have heard this argument before and I will ask you.  How many verses has the Catholic Church Authoritativly interpreted? I may be using the wrong phrase, correct me if I am.  I have heard anywhere from 8-12.  Seriously.  Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places.  Can you show me a list?  If we are told not to trust our interpretation, which I think is a bad term, what should we trust? The RCC? Then show me where they have a list of scripture that has been divinely interpreted.  Here is an easy one.  Shortest verse in the bible.  Jesus wept.  What does it mean?

Can you answer my questions first, instead of replying with more questions?
Again, who can Protestants point to  as the authoritative interpreter of Scripture? Does the Lutheran view of the Eucharist hold sway (consubstantiality)? Or are the Baptists right (symbolic)?  This is no small doctrinal difference, the first followers of Christ left him when He said you must "Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood"

Quoted:


So far you've called upon every resource and diatribe except a reference to Hitler, which if done succinctly might win the entire internet.



I think I'll ask the English Reformation or the Scottish Reformation the Philadelphia Bible riots or Henry the Eighth or Queen Elizabeth, or I suppose Jack Chick would know, etc...

 

Quoted:

So when a fundamentalist uses his own interpretation of a quote attributed to Jesus in the gospel, it trumps all other scriptural references which might be used in support of Catholic doctrine, but when the words from the epistles are needed to disprove or modify an entirely consistent with Catholic thought quote from Jesus, then that's OK. I just want to get the rules straight since there is an emerging, flagrant double standard at work.

Quoted:


My "problem" is there is far more to being a Christian than "being saved." Acknowledging that is just the beginning.

Quoted:


And that somehow removes you from the responsibility of your own hypocrisy here?



 

Quoted:

Quoted:





Yet that's the subject of our discussion. No one has a problem with discipleship. It's when people confuse salvation with discipleship and teach that they are the same thing.  

Quoted:

Callout thread, IBTL.

Quoted:
abrogate                  
                       
                               [ab-ruh-geyt]                                                      
                       

Quoted:










   1. to abolish by formal or official means; annul by an authoritative act; repeal: to abrogate a law.



               
                                               2.to put aside; put an end to.
How about an example of 'abrogating' since you elected to use a fancy word that doesn't really even apply here.
Whether you care to acknowledge history or not does not change it. For the first 10 centuries of Christianity, if you called yourself Christian, then you were Catholic. For the next 5 centuries, if you called yourself Christian, you were either Catholic or Orthodox. From Luther onward its been a free for all. Rome has the claim because, if for no other reason (and they are many), it was the only Church in existence from the time Pentecost onward. And, please, drop the 'Peter was not the rock,' canard. I can dig up multiple scholars, protestant scholars that will state that indeed he was (Hint: they spoke aramaic, the original language of Matthew).
Yes, unity. If the Church is the Body of Christ, how many bodies does he have? One or 30,000? Or will you have counter-prooftext for that too?




                                                       



 



Do you mean catholic or Catholic? We know "catholic" is Latin for "universal" so trying to say that the first Christians were Roman Catholics is like the Mormons saying they're the true 'church of Jesus Christ' because the name on the building says so. Simply calling yourself something doesn't make you that thing.
The fact is that there were many doctrines introduced by Rome over the course of the last 1600 years. The church in Rome is a far cry from the early Christian church established in the Book of Acts.
That's the rub here, it doesn't matter how authoritative people try to make their church out to be, if it disagrees with the Bible (or flat-out ignores it) then it really can't claim to be the One True Church, can it? The same goes for any church.
The RCC has introduced several doctrines that lay aside (i.e. abrogate) the words of the Bible it claims to have constructed (a tentative claim at best). And that's what the purpose of this thread is, is it not?
So please let's lay aside the smug sense of superiority, because unless you can prove that it is superior in keeping with the written word of God (the Bible) then it's all smoke and mirrors.
So again, we can agree that at least 66 books of the Bible are divinely inspired, correct? That should be enough to prove what you claim.



 

Quoted:



And here we have left the Gospel you were so intent to teach.  

Catholics wrote the bible. You wouldn't have one at all if not for that.



 

Quoted:
I stopped reading there. For one, the Bible was written by Jews, both Old and New Testaments.
Second, even if it were true that the bible came from Rome (which it didn't), it doesn't prove that Rome 1600 years later is consistent with the bible and has not departed from it, which is a tough thing for you to prove that it hasn't, when Rome does all it can to remove the authority of known inspired writing in order to replace it with whatever the lastest guy on the golden throne claims is the latest truth, and hopefully he won't tee-off to many people to cause another schism like Vatican II did.
Really, claiming that the early church was the same as the modern Roman Catholic Church, is like claiming Bruce Jenner was always a woman.
 

When certain books didn't jibe with the  novel opinions of men 11 centuries later, they tossed those books out of the bible. Luther even called the Epistle of James an "epistle of straw" b/c it didn't support his view of justification.



Ignatius of Antioch first used the term catholic church around 100 AD. And where did one find this Church? "Where you find the bishop, there you will find the catholic church." Protestantism only works if you ignore the first 15 centuries of Christianity. Again, here is a book by an honest Protestant: Oxford Dictionary of Popes

Quoted:



And here we have left the Gospel you were so intent to teach.  

Catholics wrote the bible. You wouldn't have one at all if not for that.