Is it wrong not to believe all Church teachings even if you follow them in action? Let's say, a person attends Mass regularly, and follows all outward Church laws, but does not believe the doctrine that "there is no salvation outside the Church." That's just one example, it could be Virgin birth, contraception, bodily resurection, missing Mass=mortal sin...etc. The person doesn't preach, act on, or outwardly discuss the doubts,... but has them. Jim

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), April 05, 2003

Answers

Jmj
Hello, Jim.

Don't ever think that you are alone in your dilemma. It is a very common one.

The truth is that we are indeed expected to believe all teachings/doctrines of the Catholic Church (both on faith matters and morality), and we are expected to be obedient to all disciplinary laws by which the Church binds us (e.g., fasting, abstinence, marriage regulations). Because the Holy Spirit is the "soul" of the Church, animating her and preserving her from error, the virtue of faith should give us complete assurance that the Church cannot teach erroneously.

It really is a sin to persist in a disbelief of a Catholic doctrine -- and it is even a sin to persist in intentional doubt. However ...
I can't recall who first said it, but there is a common Catholic adage that says, "One thousand difficulties do not constitute one doubt." Everyone, at some time or another, has experienced "difficulties" in understanding a doctrine. There is no sin in this.

Two of the most important things you can do right now are (1) pray for an increase of faith and (2) read the entire Catechism -- a little bit each day. You may well find that the areas of difficulty that you now experience can be cleared up. For example, the chances are good that what the Church actually teaches about salvation for non-Catholics is not what you currently think she teaches. [Some people wrongly think that all non-Catholics who die go to hell.]

If, after reading the Catechism, you still have a difficulty, just keep praying, asking God to help you to understand the subject better and to have faith that the Holy Spirit never misleads the Church.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 05, 2003.

I want to clarify something I just wrote -- namely, "Some people wrongly think that all non-Catholics who die go to hell."

What I meant was this:
1. Some Catholic people wrongly think that all non-Catholics go to hell when they die ... and ...
2. Some people (both Catholics and non-Catholics) wrongly think that the Church teaches that all non-Catholics go to hell when they die. The Church does not teach this. [I'm guessing that this may have been your problem, Jim. If so, it need not be a problem any longer.]

JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 05, 2003.

Yeah, I believe there is somewhere a statement about internally and externally accepting all the teaching of the church. Remember who it is we are talking about...the one who can neither decieve nor be decieved--Jesus himself who founded his church. I have found that with a little work to understand the teaching of the church, things can be cleared up. For example, "no salvation outside the church" teaching has never meant only catholics can be saved, but that all salvation flows though the church. Once you accept and understand the authority of the church, every thing else follows.

-- JR (none@nothere.net), April 05, 2003.

The terrible schism brought forward by Martin Luther has sadly confused to this day all followers of Christ who maintain themselves by following the Roman Church.

Having in my possession a most marvelous book regarding a non- catholic history of missionary works in far off lands of the past 50 years - we truly pale by comparision in the modern age.

What some may term modernism I feel in part are growing pains for the church of Rome. We are all brothers and sisters in and through Christ.

As to the " new " catechism the efforts to rectify 500 years of schism is a taunting task. Our parents and grandparents are reluctant to accept change in many areas of developing religio/social societies.

For example I had a conversation with a lady last evenng who had gone to a Dutch Reformist Weddin. No dancing no modern music to speak of - huggin was allowed but no kisses.

We as Catholics at least allow some venues of life to be expressed. thank God.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), April 06, 2003.

Jim I believe the Holy Spirit is trying to make you aware of something! We should listen to what God tells us and not man. In Romans 3:4 "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged." Let me ask you a question? Isn't the BIBLE the complete prophecy of our LORD Jesus Christ? John 1:14" And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." The constant concern of the child of God who dearly loves the Lord is to know and to do the will of God. We must remember that the Bible, in its entirety, is the Holy Word of God. Every word, every phrase, is God-breathed. "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (Peter 1:21). It is imperative that we remember that the Old Testament is just as holy and important and uniquely the Word of God as the New Testament. The Bible is its own interpreter. We compare spiritual things with spiritual (I Corinthians 2). To understand a word or phrase or a concept in the Bible, we must determine how that same word, phrase, or concept is used everywhere else in the Bible. Thus the Bible becomes its own dictionary; it becomes its own commentary. While such diligent comparison requires much work on the part of the student of the Bible, is the only way to come to a true understanding of the biblical message. (Young’s Analytical Concordance and Strongs Exhaustive Concordance help immeasurably in this respect because they give every word used in the original languages and where the words are found in the English King James Bible). This is the only way I know how to test the translation. So when you follow doctrine and is contrary to the Bible we must obediently stop following these false teachings and obey the Bible! I say this hummbly. I am not trying to step on peoples' toes. I myself was brought up Catholic and I was convicted in my heart so I began to research many teachings. You will see any response I give you will come out of the BIBLE alone. I will not tell you to look at such and such teaching because God's WORD is the final authority. I fear God too much, and not man! Let me ask you another question, If the church(any physical exteral) has the final authority and truth, why do we need the Bible then? Or better yet, why does God tells us so much information in the destruction of the Church? Read Revelations chapters 1 thru 3: God talks about how he destoyed the 7 churches. Read the language, God was so angry because of its teachings, I believe one of the churches, He spit it out of his mouth! When we follow false teachings, God refers this as "high places". If we carefully examine Old Testament Israel. They, without any question, typify the New Testament church which the Bible speaks of as the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). As we discover how God related to national Israel, we will learn how God interrelates with the churches of the New Testament. Israel continued for hundreds of years under the patient guidance of God. Again and again when they went astray God sent judges or prophets or priests or kings to bring them back to a more obedient faithfulness to God. One problem did persist and became a continuous problem. That was the problem of high places. High places were places outside of Jerusalem where false God's were worshipped. It was already a serious problem when Moses received the law at Mt. Sinai. The golden calf worship was similar to later high place worship. However, until the temple was constructed by Solomon the correct worship of Jehovah God was also observed at high places. But once the temple was built any worship at high places was always the worship of false gods. The division of the kingdom upon the death of Solomon in 931 B.C. stimulated the worship of false gods. The first king of the nation of Israel, which consisted of ten tribes of Israel, built worship centers in Dan and Bethel that featured the worship of calves. This sad condition never changed throughout the history of the ten tribes of Israel. In the nation of Judah, which consisted of the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, the situation was somewhat better in that many of the kings who reigned were God fearing. Even so with the exception of two kings, Hezekiah and Josiah, to some degree high places were always in evidence in the land. These high places were obviously an act of rebellion against the law of God. Yet for hundreds of years, God tolerated them and especially blessed Judah in spite of them. But they were not unnoticed by God. In Leviticus 26:27-31, God solemnly warned: And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you. And I will make your cities waste, and bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, and I will not smell the savour of your sweet odours. Note in this warning God is specifically talking about the high places. This warning was given before Israel entered the land of Canaan. God had said I will make your cities waste and bring your sanctuaries unto desolation. Would God really do this. Yes, He would. And He did do that. In the year 709 B.C., disaster struck the ten tribes of Israel. This nation that God loved was entirely destroyed by the Assyrians. Fact is, except for the city of Jerusalem, at the same time the ten tribes were destroyed, much of the nation of Judah was also destroyed. Only because Hezekiah the king of Judah removed all of the high places was Jerusalem spared. How could God bring this horrible disaster on the people to whom He had pledged His love. JUst remember something the Bible clearly distiguishies the church as a spiritual church ( which is all the true believers with Christ the foundation) and an external church that is just a representation of the eternal church. We mus be specific when we sy church. GOD BLESS bro ..Peace

-- Paolo (vze3ffrz@verizon.net), April 06, 2003.

Dear Paolo,

You tell us we must "listen to what God tells us and not man". Of course, Catholics would most heartily agree with that statement! But then you go on to tell us how YOU personally figure out the meaning of scripture, and then present YOUR personal interpretations as truth. Are you not a man? Does not listening to you constitute "listening to man"? Do you consider yourself one of the "Holy men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"? If not, then why would we put any more weight on your ideas, your words, than on those of any other man? If your system of Biblical interpretation does qualify you as "a holy man of God, moved by the Holy Ghost", then how do you account for the innumerable conflicting Protestant beliefs which were developed by other "holy men of God", using exactly the same system of private scriptural interpretation that you use? It would seem to me that the tremendous diversity of beliefs created through that method would necessarily indicate a basic flaw in the method.

Jesus told the appointed leaders of His Church "the Holy Spirit will guide you to all truth". He said of His Church "that they may all be ONE, even as you Father and I are ONE". I look at the widespread fragmentation and doctrinal chaos of Protestantism, and I ask myself - can this be what Jesus was speaking of? How can there be truth in such flagrant contradiction? How can there be oneness in a manmade system of doctrinally conflicting sects? How can personal interpretation of the Bible, which is largely responsible for this ungodly situation, be of God? Then I look at the Catholic Church, with its constancy and unity of teaching throughout the world and across the centuries, and compare it to those same promises made by Jesus. Here I see no denominations, no conflicting doctrines. Yes. This is what Jesus said His Church would look like. One. Holy. Universal. Apostolic. This clearly is "the only way to come to a true understanding of the Biblical message". Here the Bible can be interpreted in Spirit and in truth, because it can be interpreted in God-given authority.

No written work can interpret itself, and the evidence of that fact lies in the glaring doctrinal confusion among those who subscribe to such a tradition. Personal interpretations of the Bible are teachings of men, since men are the authors of such interpretations; and conflicting interpretations are always of human origin, since the Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself. The Bible makes it clear that the Holy Spirit provides unity in belief precisely by revealing the truth, including Biblical truth, to those He placed in positions of authority in His Church. If there is one thing more dangerous than following the teachings of men, it is BEING the man whose teachings I will follow. Personal Biblical interpretation makes each man his own teacher, his own authority. The truth - the one universal fullness of truth - is available to all men through the Church Jesus founded for that purpose, the Church which the Bible calls "the pillar and foundation of truth". When you remove the pillars, the foundation, the truth simply collapses. That's why the Biblical writer used that imagery. The fullness of truth is not available to anyone through any other means, least of all to those who attempt to find their truth through personal guesses regarding the meaning of the text of the Holy Bible.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 06, 2003.

I wasn't very specific about my "not in good taste" quote, I was actually referring to the impiety and irreverence of the new mass. St Thomas Aquinas equates irreverence with sacrilege and blasphemy. Objectively speaking, I believe that it is a mortal sin to attend and participate in the services of the new religion.

-- Robin (devout@truemass.com), April 06, 2003.

Dear Robin,

To say there is a "new religion" is to call Jesus Christ a liar. He said the one and only Church He founded would endure until the end of time, that He would be with it until the end of time, and that the gates of hell would never prevail against it.

"Objectively speaking, I believe"?? Just what does that mean? "I believe" makes your statement subjective, not objective. And the words of Jesus Christ make your statement objectively false.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 06, 2003.

Paul You keep missing my point. I do not give my interpretations. First of all I don't trust my humanly thinking because it is tainted by sin. I do not know why God saved me Bro! I am no better than anybody else. I deserve to go to hell! I am not afraid to admit this truth because God tells us this. I only turned to Christ because He gave me this irresistable drawing towards him. You kidding me the Bible is very hard to understand. If I do know a little something about the scriptures, it is only that the Holy spirit guides me to truth. My point is I give you verse after verse from God's WORD to answer certain issues. If I am wrong I am delighted to be corrected, BUT give me verses that contradict what I get from the BIBLE. Remember God's Book is a spiritual Book. And He tells us to compare spiritual things to spiritual. You notice how the scriptures I gave harmonizes. It flows. I do not isolate one or two verses and come up with oppinions. That's dangerous. I can't answer for other denominational groups for erroneous doctrines. But I tell you one thing they are in the same predicament. It doesn't matter who it is, if people truely feared God, the moment they discover scriptures that contradicts their favorite doctrine which they hold with their lives, they would drop it in a heartbeat. But they don't! This could be evidence that they are still under the wrath of God. Bro I am just looking out for a brother, I can't convince anyone. We are all spiritually dead so we can't understand spiritual things unless the Holy spirit opens our eyes! I admit I do not know everything. But I rather read the Bible a hundred times before listening to doctrine that totally contradicts the Bible. Ask yourself a question. Do you honestly believe that the Bible in its entirety , and i mean every single word, is God's breathed word? If so, then why do you put so much trust in the churches and their doctrines. Let me tell you what the real problem is. You see the Bible is supernatural. God has His time table to when He reveals prophecy. The Bible is prgressive. So the things we learned 50 years ago may not be very clearly taught because the Holy Spirit was not making us understand certain verses. But as we get closer and closer to the end of time many scriptures totally start opening up to us. Therefore as an obedient child of Christ I hummbly say, ok I understand this better so let me not follow these doctrines anymore. But because of the pride of man who thinks they are smarter than God will never throw away their doctrines which were held for years, even though in their hearts they know that their doctrine conflict with many scriptures of the Bible. Now I made some statements and I will back them up with scripture only because the Bible is God's Word. For example : Jesus clearly told his disciples at that time would come when He would be killed and after three days, He would rise again. Mark 8:31 declares: "And he began to teach them, that the son of man must suffer many things, and he'd be rejected of the elders, into the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again." Even though this is a plain, clear statement, it was not understood at all by disciples. It was only after His resurrection, as the disciples were reminded by the two men in shining garments, who stood outside the empty sepulcher, that they understood. Luke 24:6 - 8 informs us: "He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, can be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered his Word, God had given them the revelation that Christ was to be killed and rise again, but it was not a revelation that became a part of their understanding until Christ had risen." Likewise, we read in Ephesians 3:3-5: "How that by revelation he made known unto the mystery; (as I wrote afore in a few words, whereby, when we read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and profits by the Spirit;" God is indicating that mystery was made known to the Apostle Paul, "that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and at the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel" (verse 6)This principle of progressive revelation is especially emphasized in Daniel 12:8, 9: "And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end." In God's revelation, which is the Bible, God has a great many things to say about the end of the world and the details that lead up to the end of the world. But God has a timetable for the giving of the understanding of those truths. Paul I think I know where the problem is. I am speaking hummbly because I care. I am also grateful to be proven wrong because I am willing to drop any false conclusion. As long as you prove any truth through the Biblical scriptures. You said that "The truth - the one universal fullness of truth - is available to all men through the Church Jesus founded for that purpose, the Church which the Bible calls "the pillar and foundation of truth". This is very very dangerous thinking! First of all you contradicted yourself when you stated "Personal interpretations of the Bible are teachings of men, since men are the authors of such interpretations; and conflicting interpretations are always of human origin..." The church is made up of men. That means you are still following the techings of men. Look all I am trying to say is test any teachings with the scriptures for contradictions. You must take all verses that apply with the topic and your conclusion must harmonize with all the scriptures because the Bible has no contradictions, no not one! As we harmonize all the scriptures we get closer and closer to truth. We keep reading the Bible and if the Lord wills, he will keep revealing to us that our conclusion is correct. What happens is we continually find more and more verses that harmonize with our conclusion. The fear of the Lord is the Begining of wisdom. If we do not fear God then your eyes will stay shut and you will continue to believe a lie. I follow no church or denominations. But there are many faithful doctrines out their that came from churches, but we must sift them out. Getting back with "the Church which the Bible calls "the pillar and foundation of truth". Let's prove thru scripture if this is a biblical statement! The verse is in 1 Timothy: 3:15" But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." Is the church the pillar and ground of the truth? Or is God the pillar and ground of truth? If the church is the pillar and ground of truth, how can it be that one church holds the doctrine that Jesus died for everyone while another church teaches that Christ died only for the elect. How can one church teach baptism by immersion and another teaches baptism by sprinkling. Differences between church beliefs are concerned with a host of doctrines. So how can the church be the foundation of truth. Only God can be that foundation. The Bible says it very plainly in I Corinthians 3:11: "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Under no circumstance can the church be the pillar and ground of truth. It is true that the believers during the church age are living stones in the temple (the churches). They will even be called a pillar in the eternal spiritual temple (Revelation 3:12), but they can never be the foundation of truth. Only Christ who is God can be the pillar and foundation of truth. Suppose I am a pastor or a preist, and I suspect that a doctrine our church or denomination holds is not altogether faithful to the Bible. My church theologians assure me this doctrine, about which I am concerned, is faithful to the Bible. After all, doesn't the Bible teach in I Timothy 3:15, "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." Doesn't God clearly teach in this verse that the church is the pillar and ground of truth? Isn't that a sufficient teaching of the Bible to arrest any concerns I might have regarding faithfulness to God's Word? This conclusion is widely held amongst churches. It produces the notion that if a church acts in solemn assembly concerning any doctrine, they can be sure the conclusions arrived at in this solemn assembly are altogether faithful to God's desires. To further substantiate this notion, the council in Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 15, is frequently offered as an example of how God interacts with solemn ecclesiastical assemblies. These theologians fail to realize that the council recorded in Acts was meeting at a time when God was still writing the Bible. To make sure we do not misunderstand, God records in Acts 15:28: "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;" God is instructing us by this language that God the Holy Spirit is guiding this council so that what was concluded could become a part of God's Word. This is so because God used this incident as a further means of producing the Bible. Holy men in this council in Jerusalem spoke as God the Holy Spirit moved them. This does not for a moment suggest that any time there is a solemn meeting of church pastors or priests that the conclusions arrived at in that meeting are necessarily true to the Bible. Whether they are true or not must be tested by the Bible. The principle of Romans 3:4, "let God be true, but every man a liar," must always be kept in mind. This wrong understanding of I Timothy 3:15 has set a great many churches up to neatly come out from being under the authority of the Bible. They have become the authority that rules over the Bible. The corporate external church can never be the pillar and ground of truth. The foundation upon which truth is built is Jesus Christ. I Corinthians 3:11 declares: "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." The pillar and ground of truth can not modify the word "church." These words must modify the word "God." The church of "God the pillar and ground of truth." Christ is the Word, He is the truth. His name is True. How could it be that faulty sinful men meeting in some solemn ecclesiastical meeting can be the foundation of truth? But this audacious conclusion has served the churches so that many began to believe that their confessions, their particular church doctrines, are sacrosanct. Thus, as they preach they feel secure in their faithfulness to God as long as they faithfully declare what their church doctrines and confessions teach. I am afraid that it is this kind of thinking that has fostered an intense lack of fear of God. After all, as long as we carefully follow the doctrines our church holds recognizing that the church is the pillar and ground of truth, then we know we are being faithful to all that God would have us believe. Unfortunately, this attitude must sadly be considered to be dreadful arrogance and pride. No wonder God's wrath has come against the churches. We could even wonder, Why did God take so long to bring judgment on the churches. Isn't it interesting the way God has designed this verse. Remember, God is the author of the Bible. Holy men of old spoke as the Holy Spirit moved them. God could have easily phrased this verse so that there would be no question at all concerning who or what is the pillar and ground of the truth. But the way it is written allows either possibility. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth or God is the pillar and ground of the truth. We must remember that God has constantly set up testing programs. Adam and Eve were tested in the Garden of Eden. Abram was tested when he was told to sacrifice his son Isaac. Israel was tested when Moses remained on Mount Sinai for 40 days. Jesus was tested for 40 days immediately after He was baptized. Indeed, testing is an important aspect of God's dealing with mankind. By this verse, the churches are being tested. Which conclusion will they adopt? If God is the pillar and ground of the truth, then the churches must remain very humble, looking only to the Bible as the authority. If the church is to be understood as the pillar and ground of truth, then immediately, the church has been given vast spiritual authority. A similar test is introduced in the Bible by a verse in I Peter 5. In this chapter, God gives instruction to the overseers of the congregation. He instructs them that they are to feed the flock, that is, they are to carefully teach the congregation the truths of the Bible. God further instructs in I Peter 5, verse 3: "Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock." But then the Bible declares in verse 4: "And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." Is this verse teaching that those who feed the flock will receive a special crown as a glorious reward for their work of shepherding the congregation? It would surely appear that this could be the situation. No where else in the Bible does God speak of anyone receiving a crown of glory. All believers are given a crown of righteousness (II Timothy 4:8) and a crown of life (James 1:12), but this passage is particularly speaking of the elders, those who have the spiritual oversight of the congregation. Doesn't this agree with the statement of I Timothy 5:17, where we read: "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." Indeed, it would appear that pastors have a special relationship with God. When these verses are tied into Ephesians 2:20, for example, which appears to teach that the foundation of the house of God is the apostles and prophets, it is very easy to come to the conclusion that pastors have a great spiritual authority, even as those who contend that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth have taken on a great spiritual authority. Furthermore, this makes the office of the pastor or priest exciting and wonderful. Throughout eternity future, they, and only they, will wear the special crown of glory. But there is another side to this test. Do the foregoing conclusions agree with the immediate context in which this statement of the crown of glory is found? Doesn't the previous verse teach that these shepherds are to be examples? And isn't the supreme and most trustworthy example we are to follow Christ Himself? Doesn't He say in Matthew 11:29: "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls." Wasn't Moses a great type of Christ and don't we read of him in Numbers 12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth." How do these statements correlate with the idea of special glory to the pastor or priest? True, he is to be honored, that is, respected as a servant of God, but this in no sense gives him special spiritual authority. The only spiritual authority is the Bible. Moreover, the Bible neatly puts to rest any grandiose ideas of some special glory that awaits pastors or priests in eternity future. In Luke 17:10, God lays down this principle: "So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do." As if that is not enough, in Luke 18:28- 30, God makes sure we understand that all future blessings are encompassed in the fact that we have been given eternal life. We read in this passage: "Then And Peter said, ‘Lo, we left all, and did follow thee;’and he said to them, ‘Verily I say to you, that there is not one who left house, or parents, or brothers, or wife, or children, for the sake of the reign of God, Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting." How interesting and significant that it is the Apostle Peter who is concerned about this subject. If any of the apostles were singled out for special recognizance, it was Peter. Therefore, we can be certain that the principle God is stating in these verses apply to every believer, regardless of what their task might be. And what was the principle that God set forth? In this life, we will receive many blessings as we serve God in the kingdom of God, but in eternity future, we receive eternal life. But eternal life is given by God's grace to each and every believer. Every blessing of salvation is included in the gift of eternal life. Therefore, the crown of glory is included in the gift of eternal life. Thus, we can be sure that every true believer is given a crown of glory. Therefore, if a pastor or priest concludes on the basis of I Peter 5:4 that he has some spiritual authority, he has failed the test. He has failed the test just like those who believe the church is the pillar and ground of the truth have failed the test. That brings us to the second passage, Ephesians 2:20, 21:"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:" The apostles and prophets cannot be the foundation of the holy temple. The foundation of the apostles and prophets is the Word of God, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone. As a matter of fact, Jesus is the Word that became flesh and dwelt among us. Thus, Christ is the foundation even as we learned from I Corinthians 3:11. We could paraphrase this verse to read, "And are built upon the Word of God which is the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone." It is true that we read in Revelation 21:14 about the holy city, new Jerusalem having "twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb," but we must understand that the foundations represent Christ. Throughout eternity future in the new heaven and new earth, the fullness of the believers represented by the twelve apostles are His body. They are forever intimately identified with Him. This verse, too, is designed by God to be a test for the church. Unfortunately, a great many pastors, priests and Bible teachers have failed the test. How then are we to understand Matthew 16:19, where we read: "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." What are the keys that are given to the church. The keys can only be the Bible. God uses the key which is the Bible to open the gates of hell to free men from the wrath of God. God uses the key of the Bible to open the door (Christ) into the kingdom of God. That is why we read in II Corinthians 2:15, 16:" For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?" We are this fragrance because we as true believers are custodians of the keys, the Bible. But who opens and shuts these gigantic spiritual doors. We read in Revelations 3:7:" And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;" This verse clearly teaches that it is Christ who opens and shuts. Significantly, God wrote Matthew 16:19 very carefully. Unfortunately, something of this care was lost when the Greek words were translated into English. The verse should read: "... whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall having been bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall having been loosed in heaven."By use of the past perfect tense, God is assuring us that the prior action was God's action. He has elected and saved a person because the church which was made custodian of the keys, the Bible, has faithfully declared the Gospel. There are many pastors, priests and teachers who take comfort in these words of Matthew 16:19 as well as the words of Matthew 18:18, which reads: "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. " They wrongly believe that when the pastor and elders or deacons conclude and tell an individual they had become saved, it is guaranteed that the person has indeed become saved. They fail to realize that the verb tenses in this verse, as was true with the verbs in Matthew 16:19, which describe salvation, are in the past perfect tense. "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall having been bound in heaven," and "Whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall having been loosed in heaven." The action of saving is God's action. The external church functions as God's servant to send out the Gospel. It functions as God's servant to welcome those who appear to have become saved into the congregation. It functions as God's servants to teach and guide, by means of the Bible, those who appear to have become saved. But no pastor and no church can cause someone being ministered to within the congregation to become saved. No human has an insight as to who is elect of God. That is God's work entirely. Therefore, the best the church leaders can do is assume that some within the congregation may have become saved. On the other hand, there may be those who appear to have become saved but in actuality, they have not become saved. Therefore, the preaching to the congregation and the guidance of the congregation during the church age must always have included within it warnings concerning God's judgment on the unsaved, as well as the warning to the whole congregation to make sure of their salvation. This is so, as II Corinthians 13:5 admonishes:"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? " Those who search their own hearts and know they are saved can know they are a part of the bride of Christ, the eternal invisible church over which the gates of hell cannot prevail because Christ has paid for all of their sins. On the other hand, we can know that the corporate external church known as congregations and denominations have no assurance that they are safe from the wrath of God. Since the true believers within a congregation cannot come under God's wrath, this warning was particularly leveled against the external body, which consists of all the churches and congregations that exist today. Even as the seven churches of Revelation 2 and 3 were judged and were completely removed, so any and every congregation can come under the judgment of God. Because there does not exist at any time in history a perfect church, it is a testimony to the patience and mercy of God that congregations and denominations continue to flourish throughout the New Testament era. In spite of their flaws and defects, God has used the churches during the last more than 1950 years to bring the Gospel to the world. These churches from many different denominations have been the vehicle, the instrument by which the Gospel of salvation has gone into virtually every country of the world. We know, of course, that only God can forgive sins (Mark 2:7). Therefore, we must understand this verse to teach that it is God who does the forgiving. The church acknowledges the person's forgiveness (salvation) by welcoming him into the congregation as a saved person. Under no circumstance may the church believe that those who follow the rules of the church and become members are definitely those who were elected to salvation. Only God can know who the elect are. We must consider, for example, the Old Testament nation of Israel which was the church (Acts 7:38) until the season of the New Testament church. We read of them in Hebrews 3:17-19:"But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?" So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief. Again in Romans 9:31, 32, God makes reference to them: "But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;" Indeed, these verses should tell us that a church can be used of God to further His kingdom and yet have very few true believers within it. We also have the information on the church of Sardis (Revelation 3:6). It had already become a dead church (verse 1) although it still had a few names (verse 4) of true believers. As we have looked more carefully at these first three verses we have found no indication that the pastor and church rulers have great spiritual authority. Nor do we find that the church doctrines are necessarily to be trusted as true and trustworthy. The elders are overseers who care for the church. They rule over the church to make sure the preached Gospel is as accurate as possible. They are to be sure that everything is done decently and in good order. They must make sure that the elders and deacons meet the qualification set forth in I Timothy 3. But the only authority that saves people is God Himself. God is the only one who knows who the elect are. God is the only one who decides when He will apply His Word to life of the individual He plans to save. The elders can welcome that person into the church membership. Confessions or other doctrines held by a church are necessarily pleasing to God. The Bible alone and in its entirety is the only authority that rules as truth. That is, every doctrine held by a church must always be subject to the authority of the Bible. Fact is, in I Peter 5:2, 3, God admonishes the spiritual rulers of the church: "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock." It is the pastor and the elders who should as humble examples to the congregation be the first to depart out of the local congregation. As spiritual rulers they are overseers who tenderly care for the flock. As we just read, they are not Lords over the congregation. In Jeremiah 2:8 we read: "The priests said not, Where is the LORD? and they that handle the law knew me not: the pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit." The plain implication of these statements is that those who have the spiritual oversight in the churches do not need God to further God's plan of salvation. True, they pay lip service to the idea that they need God, but in reality, all that is necessary to further God's salvation plan is under the control of the church. In the church all the necessary activities are going on to guarantee the salvation of the unsaved. Whatsoever is loosed by the activity of the church will be loosed in heaven. Whatsoever is bound or excommunicated by the church has been excommunicated by the edict of the church. Those who have made confession of faith are certainly believers. In other words, the church does not need God to get people saved. According to their incorrect understanding of the Bible, they have in place. By now I must sound like a monster but you know what this is all coming from the Bible! I am possitive that the church age is over and if that don't scare you nothing will. Please I am not saying I am mr. perfect, I am far from perfect. Just look over all these verses. Matter of fact read the book of Jeremiah, it is today's newspaper! The entire book has to do with the churches and congregations. I could keep writing but I can't convince anybody. There are so many verses in the Bible where God tells us He destoys the church(the physical external representation) because of un faithfullness. The only church which the gates of hell can't prevail is the spiritual eternal church. The elect of God who are scattered all over the world. They are the ones who are secured in Christ. I don't know who they are. I can guarentee you that in any church where the people have completed every sacrament, or follows his church's doctrines perfectly, are not all saved! They may think so because of false teachings. Don't let this response get you mad. Prove me wrong through scriptures alone and i will gladly look them over. Peace and God Bless!!!

-- Paolo (vze3ffrz@verizon.net), April 06, 2003.

Pope John XXIII:

"And you, venerable brothers, will not fail, in your teaching, to recall to the flocks entrusted to you these grand and salutary truths; we cannot render to God the devotion that is due Him and that is pleasing to Him nor is it possible to be united to Him except through Jesus Christ; and it is not possible to be united to Jesus Christ except in the Church and through the Church, His Mystical Body, and, finally, it is not possible to belong to the Church except through the bishops, successors of the Apostles, united to the Supreme Pastor, the successor of Peter." (Pope John XXIII, Address on the creation of three new dioceses on Taiwan, L'Osseratore Romano, June 29, 1961).

"The Saviour Himself is the door of the sheepfold: 'I am the door of the sheep.' Into this fold of Jesus Christ, no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff; and only if they be united to him can men be saved, for the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and His personal representative on earth." (Pope John XXIII in his homily to the Bishops and faithful assisting at his coronation on November 4, 1958).

Pope John 23rd says that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. He agrees with past popes ,unlike the popes who followed him.

The dogma has changed after his death, to include "those who have some truth" Dogma cannot change so someone is wrong!

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 06, 2003.

Vatican I "This true Catholic faith, outside which no one can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, I do promise and swear that I will most constantly keep and confess whole and inviolate with the help of God until the last breath of my life, and that I will take great care that it be held, taught, and preached by my inferiors and by those who are placed under my charge." - Papal Oath

Saint

-- Ed Richards (lozt@yahoo.com), April 06, 2003.

> "there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church."

The Church has always meant that to be that salvation comes from the teachings of the Church, and not necessary "membership" in the Church.

Ed is providing his own FALLIBLE interpretation, which is in contradiction with what the Church says in other documents.

Anyway, Ed completely rejects the modern Catholic Church, and is a schismatic, so based on his own interpretation, he has condemned himself to hell, which makes no sense!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 06, 2003.

Anyway, Ed completely rejects the modern Catholic Church, and is a schismatic, so based on his own interpretation, he has condemned himself to hell, which makes no sense!

Either that Gordon, or you are the sole proprietor of the absurdity itself. Think about it for a while.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 07, 2003.

Gordon,

The Church has always meant that to be that salvation comes from the teachings of the Church, and not necessary "membership" in the Church.

Please show me, by official statements, infallible statements and/or official Church documents (encyclicals, etc.), where the Church has ever taught that in the past. And don't be afraid to go way back, since the Church is teaching nothing 'new' and you say they have 'always' meant what you have claimed.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 07, 2003.

Thank You John, Jean, Paul and to all who have contributed. The thread has wandered abit from where it started. Paolo, that was an incredibly researched answer, thank you for the time spent... Keep in mind, I'm trying to get clear with the Catholic faith, I know where you are coming from and appreciate your intentions but I don't want to go it alone. I'm too far off already. If I'm going to develop faith, get right with God etc, I think the basic Catholic orientation from which I came, and am most familiar with, will be my best chance. Thank All! Jim

-- James F. Furst (furst@flash.net), April 07, 2003.

Dear Paolo,

I don't have time to respond to every point of your post (you must be an accomplished typist - I'm not), but I will comment on a few key ideas ...

You said: "Paul You keep missing my point. I do not give my interpretations. First of all I don't trust my humanly thinking because it is tainted by sin"

A: It is precisely because of our tainted, weak, sinful, fallible human nature that God has given us a pure, strong, holy, and infallible Church to be our guide. I don't doubt your sincerity in seeking the truth in the Bible; but the clear, observable fact, which you are avoiding for obvious reasons, is that Protestants of every denomination use exactly the same approach to scriptural exegesis that you use, and they are just as sincere as you are, yet the doctrinal ideas that each of them "finds" in the Bible are in conflict with those of every other group - and with you! And you are in conflict with them! By what authority can you claim that you are right and all of them are wrong? You cannot claim the authority of the Holy Spirit here, for each of them makes that claim. It is painfully apparent to anyone outside your tradition that all of these conflicting beliefs canbnot be the work of the Holy Spirit; and even though each denomination, or in some cases each individual, claims to be hearing the Spirit accurately, the plain fact is that they cannot be, or they would all be hearing the same truth. The only logical explanation I can see is that the system used in your tradition is ineffective. It simply doesn't do what it claims to do, namely, receive truth from the Holy Spirit. When you consider that no Christian on earth would ever have accepted a "Bible only" tradition until a few hundred years ago, such a system cannot rightfully be considered Christian. Jesus said "by their fruits shall ye know them". The fruits of 450 years of "Bible only" Christianity is exactly the opposite of what Jesus wanted for His Church - division, dissention, confusion. Your personal interpretations of the Bible - and that is indeed what you are offering us - are just one small fragment of the whole fragmented scene, and are not supported by any real authority, surely not by the Holy Spirit, who is "a Spirit of order, not of confusion".

"But I rather read the Bible a hundred times before listening to doctrine that totally contradicts the Bible"

A: You cannot judge what contradicts the Bible unless you first have an infallible way of knowing what the Bible means. As I indicated above, the system you are using is totally fallible, since it yields many conflicting and false beliefs. Therefore, the best you can do is to determine which teachings of Catholicism conflict with your personal interpretation of the Bible. What good is that? Many teachings of other Protestant groups also conflict with your personal interpretations. Since personal interpretations are very often wrong, the fact that a doctrine conflicts with a personal interpretation cannot be used as a measure of the truth of that doctrine. That's why the Buible tells us the Church is the foundation of truth - not the source of truth, but the foundation, which supports the truth and gives it form, and without which the truth crumbles into personal interpretations. This is also why the Bible itself tells us that it is not for personal interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20)

"Ask yourself a question. Do you honestly believe that the Bible in its entirety , and I mean every single word, is God's breathed word? If so, then why do you put so much trust in the churches and their doctrines"

A: Yes, I most certainly do believe that, and I have good reason for believing it. I wonder Paolo, what is your reason for believing that? How do you KNOW for certain that the Bible is God's breathed Word? I know it says that in the Bible, but a book cannot confirm itself. That would be circular reasoning. So, by what authority outside of the Bible do you know that the Bible is the Word of God? And, by what authority do you know that the books included in the Bible are the right ones? How do you know that those very books, and no others, constitute God's written Word? I don't put trust in "churches", because Jesus never intended "churches" to exist. But I do put my trust in The Church, because Jesus said I should, and the Bible says I should.

"as we get closer and closer to the end of time many scriptures totally start opening up to us. Therefore as an obedient child of Christ I hummbly say, ok I understand this better so let me not follow these doctrines anymore. But because of the pride of man who thinks they are smarter than God will never throw away their doctrines which were held for years, even though in their hearts they know that their doctrine conflict with many scriptures of the Bible"

A: I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit previously led men to false doctrines through the Bible, but now is correcting Himself through that same Bible? Or are you saying that certain doctrines found in the Bible were once true, but are no longer true today? The Catholic Church compiled the Bible. That's a historical fact you just have to face. Therefore, the only way the Bible could contain anything that conflicts with Catholic teaching is if the Catholic Church intentionally included such contradictory writings when it compiled the Bible. Do you think that is likely? You see, what is happening here is that you are finding Catholic teachings that conflict with your personal interpretations. You take this as evidence of the invalidity of Catholic teachings. Actually such conflict is clear evidence of the fallicy of private interpretation, and the reason why the Bible itself forbids personal interpretation.

"This wrong understanding of I Timothy 3:15 has set a great many churches up to neatly come out from being under the authority of the Bible. They have become the authority that rules over the Bible"

A: No. The Church does not rule over the Bible. Rather, it ensures that its members know the true meaning of the Bible, so that they may be subject to that genuine truth, and not be confused by conflicting human interpretations of God's Word, so characteristic of denominational deligion.

"The corporate external church can never be the pillar and ground of truth. The foundation upon which truth is built is Jesus Christ"

A: That's your interpretation, but it is not what the Word of God plainly says. Paul says that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, straight out, no hidden agenda. Jesus Christ is not merely the support of the truth. He is the source of the truth. He gave the truth to the Church, whose mission it is to protect it, keep it pure, interpret it accurately, and profess it in unity to the world.

"How do these statements correlate with the idea of special glory to the pastor or priest? True, he is to be honored, that is, respected as a servant of God, but this in no sense gives him special spiritual authority. The only spiritual authority is the Bible"

A: A pastor or priest does not have any special "glory", but he does have special authority. It was to the first priests of His Church that Jesus said "whatsoever YOU bind on earth is bound in heaven"; he who hears YOU hears Me". It was to the first appointed Vicar of Christ that He gave the keys to the kingdom, the universal symbol of complete authority! The Bible shows us the authority of the Church over and over again. "He who has ears, let him hear." Nowhere does the Bible claim to be a spiritual authority. The only claim the Bible makes about itself is that it is USEFUL - a long way from being the sole source of Christian truth!

"Moreover, the Bible neatly puts to rest any grandiose ideas of some special glory that awaits pastors or priests in eternity future"

A: So does the Church. It makes no such claim about pastors or priests, or even Popes.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 07, 2003.

Paul I am sorry that I write so much, but I try to back up all my claims through scripture and sometimes my measage becomes lenghty. Well I hear exactly how you feel and I can't argue with you because I hate to debate. One question though, Isn't the CHURCH made up of human flesh. They are all humans. You make it seem like the Church is so perfect in wisdom. I believe God is putting his judgement on all the churches. Please do not get offended. Look how he expossed all the dirt with the Catholic Priests. God is trying to tell us something. I agree with everything you said about the other denominations and that includes the Catholic churches too. The only church I belong to is the Spiritual eternal Church of Christ. I was brought up Catholic but I never learned anything from other denominations. I also agree with you that the Bible is not for self interpretations. But I also explained to you and proved to you the the Bible has progressive revelations. God has a time table to letting us understand prophecies. I also explained that all churches, self interpretors or who ever, do not remove these doctrines(man's teachings) which are contrary to a truth in the Bible that is understood today. It is the Holy Spirit who opens our eyes. And yes there a possitive way to find truth in the Bible and test man's or church's teachings if they are erroneous. This is not self interpretations. The Bible teaches us to compare scripture with scripture. I do not pick and choose my favorite verses and come up with my own interpretations. I believe you are scared to face all the verses I give you. Can you harmonize these verses to your claim "the church is the pillar and ground of truth." We can't ignore them. They all totally contradict what you claim.

First, we read in I Peter 4:17-18:"For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?"

God speaks about this same judgment in Jeremiah 25:16-26: "For thus saith the LORD God of Israel unto me; Take the wine cup of this fury at my hand, and cause all the nations, to whom I send thee, to drink it. And they shall drink, and be moved, and be mad, because of the sword that I will send among them. Then took I the cup at the LORD’S hand, and made all the nations to drink, unto whom the LORD had sent me: To wit, Jerusalem, and the cities of Judah, and the kings thereof, and the princes thereof, to make them a desolation, an astonishment, an hissing, and a curse; as it is this day; Pharaoh king of Egypt, and his servants, and his princes, and all his people; And all the mingled people, and all the kings of the land of Uz, and all the kings of the land of the Philistines, and Ashkelon, and Azzah, and Ekron, and the remnant of Ashdod, Edom, and Moab, and the children of Ammon, And all the kings of Tyrus, and all the kings of Zidon, and the kings of the isles which are beyond the sea, Dedan, and Tema, and Buz, and all that are in the utmost corners, And all the kings of Arabia, and all the kings of the mingled people that dwell in the desert, And all the kings of Zimri, and all the kings of Elam, and all the kings of the Medes, And all the kings of the north, far and near, one with another, and all the kingdoms of the world, which are upon the face of the earth: and the king of Sheshach shall drink after them."

If we examine this language carefully, we see that it must be talking about Judgment Day. Notice how God emphasizes judgment upon all of the nations of the world. He lists many known nations at that time and then transitions to speaking about all of the nations that are upon the face of the earth. This can only be the final judgment, Judgment Day at the last day. Notice also where this judgment begins. It begins at Jerusalem and Judah. This parallels I Peter 4:17. Also, look at verses 28 and 29: "And it shall be, if they refuse to take the cup at thine hand to drink, then shalt thou say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ye shall certainly drink. For, lo, I begin to bring evil on the city which is called by my name, and should ye be utterly unpunished? Ye shall not be unpunished: for I will call for a sword upon all the inhabitants of the earth, saith the LORD of hosts."

Notice God’s response if the peoples of the world complain that judgment has come for them. God declares that those in the world who have had no connection with the churches of God will be judged because God has first begun with His own house. God is insisting that He is not a respecter of persons. His judgment upon the unsaved in the churches is not less severe than those outside. We see the exact parallel between Jeremiah 25 and I Peter 4:17-18. Judgment begins first with the corporate body, the people of God, the churches and congregations, then it transitions to the whole world. No one will be able to complain that God is unfair because He began with His own people.

The Bible definitely predicts that this falling away would come. In Matthew 24 as well as many other passages are definitely discussing this time. We read in verses 21 and 24 of Matthew 24: "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. " Verse 21 tells us of a future time of great tribulation. It is a tribulation that is so great that there has never been such a tribulation in the history of the world. Then verse 24 tells us the character of this tribulation. It is a spiritual tribulation that plagues the churches. Notice that false christs are arising.

Since Christ has worked in the churches, these false christs, of whom Satan is the chief, will work in the church. That is why they are called false christs. These false christs are coming with all of their false doctrines, which is what we see in the churches today.

Notice the signpost that God gives us. Namely, they come with signs and wonders. As mentioned above, gospels of signs and wonders, including tongues, are prevalent in the church today, like no other time in history. This is a big evidence.

God also indicates that there will come a time in history in which Satan will be victorious over the body of believers. We read in Revelation 13:7:" And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations." The saints are those in the churches and congregations. It was given to Satan to make war with the corporate body and to overcome it. Notice that it was “given unto him.” God has given him this victory. We read in Revelation 9:1-3:" And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit. And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. "

The “star” here is a reference to the Lord Jesus Christ, He is the only one with the key to the bottomless pit. The bottomless pit is a reference to hell. Christ is the one that loosed Satan to come against the church. This explains what were read in

2 Thessalonians 2:1-4, which tells us that the man of sin (Satan) will take his seat in the temple. From I Corinthians 3, we know that the temple is a reference to the corporate body; the churches and congregations, and the man of sin is Satan, and finally to take ones “seat” is to rule.

The Old Testament Book of Daniel also speaks of this time. We know this because God has directed us to look back into the book of Daniel in Matthew 24:15. We read in Daniel 7:21 and 25:" I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. Verse 21 is very similar to Revelation 13:7. Satan is the “little horn” who will make war with the churches and will prevail. The changing of “times and laws” refers to Satan working in the churches to change the rules of the Bible. This identifies exactly with what we have seen. We can see many areas today in which the churches have changed the laws of the Bible to suit their own desires.

Here are a few more on what God tells our priests, and pastors: By the way, the book of Jerimiah is like todays newspaper! But here are a few verses:

Jer 2:8"The priests said not, Where is the LORD? and they that handle the law knew me not: the pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit."

Jer 10:21"For the pastors are become brutish, and have not sought the LORD: therefore they shall not prosper, and all their flocks shall be scattered."

Jer 12:10"Many pastors have destroyed my vineyard, they have trodden my portion under foot, they have made my pleasant portion a desolate wilderness."

Jer 22:22"The wind shall eat up all thy pastors, and thy lovers shall go into captivity: surely then shalt thou be ashamed and confounded for all thy wickedness. "

Jer 23:1"Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD."

Jer 23:2"Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the LORD."

Finally if you read Revelation first 3 chapters, God speaks about the 7 churches He destroys because of unfaithfullnes.

Paul how can you say the church is the pillar and ground of truth? I am looking out for a brother. I don't know everything. The Bible teaches us to compare scripture with scripture to find truth. Can't you see how all these verses harmonize. they flow with one another. This is how we come to truth. By rightly dividing the Word. You can't ignore them, but God has to open our eyes BRO. PEACE!

-- Paolo (vze3ffrz@verizon.net), April 07, 2003.

to treat the dogmas of the Catholic Church in such a way, however, is to strip them of all their value. The ecumenist abandons all the dogmas of the Catholic Church, since he gives the assent of faith to none of them.

Faith is an adherence to a dogma based on the authority of God revealing. Hence what we believe by the virtue of faith is absolute and unchanging. Martyrs profess their adherence to these unchanging dogmas by giving up their lives, sometimes after having borne atrocious torture. Hence the virtue of faith cannot tolerate ecumenism. Ecumenism is directly contrary to the assent of faith, and therefore is a serious violation of the First Commandment of God: I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt not have strange gods before me.

The ecumenist, it must be remembered, is constructing the great ecumenical religion, a great ecumenical temple, in which all religions will be able to co-exist, no matter what their internal beliefs, as long as none of them holds that its beliefs are absolutely true, and exclusive of beliefs which are opposed to it.

This fact explains why John Paul II occasionally speaks about Catholic doctrine: for him it is to speak about our internal affairs, our religious experience, our dogmas. But for him these dogmas are held and taught in the context of ecumenism, that is, where they are stripped of any absolute meaning. It cannot be too wrong not to believe all the teachings of the Catholic Church, as Pope John Paul II does not believe them all himself.

-- Al (Albert 23@pacbell.com), April 07, 2003.

Ecumenism - TRUE ecumenism, not the simplistic "mere Christianity" that some try to pass off as ecumenism - is the divinely ordained mission of the Church. Jesus prayed "Father, that they all may be one, even as you and I are one". Jesus commanded the Church He founded to "Go forth and make disciples of all peoples", thereby bringing all mankind into the state of unity which was and is His divine will for the Church and the human race. True ecumenism is directed to that very end, fulfilling the mission of the Church to seek unity among all peoples by bringing them to the fullness of truth.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 07, 2003.

Our Lord ordered the Apostles to go and preach the gospel to all.

He did not say ,go and dialogue with all.He also said to be in the world, but not of it.. The church today teaches "Bring the church into the modern world. I think the word is Aggiornamento.

-- Ed Richards (lozt@yahoo.com), April 08, 2003.

> "He did not say ,go and dialogue with all."

Dialogue does not necessaryly mean we have to be open to false ideals from others. It means if we are to help others find Christ, we must communicate with them. Christ many times listened to what people had to say, and corrected them when they were wrong. We must do that same.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 08, 2003.

Let me post that again, since you must have missed it, Gordon. Because surely, if you have the truth, you should be willing to die for it, and I am not asking you to die.....only to defend it.

The Church has always meant that to be that salvation comes from the teachings of the Church, and not necessary "membership" in the Church.

Please show me, by official statements, infallible statements and/or official Church documents (encyclicals, etc.), where the Church has ever taught that in the past. And don't be afraid to go way back, since the Church is teaching nothing 'new' and you say they have 'always' meant what you have claimed.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 08, 2003.

Isabel, it's right before your eyes, in this thread! Ed posted it:

> "This true Catholic faith, outside which no one can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, I do promise and swear that I will most constantly keep and confess whole and inviolate with the help of God until the last breath of my life, and that I will take great care that it be held, taught, and preached by my inferiors and by those who are placed under my charge." - Papal Oath"

The Popes never implied membership in the faith, as they would have said so. They have always indicated that you saved by the teachings of the Catholic faith. You cannot deny this, or you are not a Catholic yourself. It by the teachings of the faith that we are saved, for all the teachings are correct and come from God.

God decides who follows the teachings of the Catholic Church, and not you. For who can read man's heart better than our Lord?

Isabel, if you have a problem with this, then take it up with God.

You people are hung up on membership but I have yet to see a single statement by your people showing any indication of membership, except when you apply your interpretation. Maybe you did not notice, but we do not get membership cards in our religion.

You can bring up baptism again, but God recognizes baptism by desire, fire, blood, etc., which you people agree to.

By the way, I did not miss your post above, I ignored it, as I don't see any point in arguing with you over the same matter over and over again. I don't agree with your intrepretation.

I know now, you are now going to accuse me of modernism, humanism, liberalism, etc., and that is fine by me. I don't agree with any of those heresies, anymore than I agree with schismatics who do not recogize today's Church, with John Paul II as our Pope.

Ed, is using new threads, and threads which having nothing to do with the topic, to BROADCAST the same message over and over again.

Ed has made it quite clear, that he does not agree with today's Church, and cuts down the Pope repeatedly. He is a schismatic, and therefore not following all the teachings of the Church. Obedience to the Pope is something he does not agree with, as he picks and choose which Popes to follow. Classic schismatic!

I asked you guys in the other thread to condemn Archbishop Lefbvre's disobedience to the Pope in consecration of those four bishops, and not one of you did it, but you condemn liberals all the time. That clearly shows you to be schismatic, and not in union with the Church which excommunicated Archbishop Lefbvre.

Obedience to the Pope is a tradition of the Catholic faith, so prove to me you are not schismatic, and condemn Archbishop Lefbvre's actions of disobedience to the Pope.

Getting back to the topic at hand, yes you have to obey all the teachings of the Church. You cannot pick and choose what to believe in, like the liberals and schismatics do.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 08, 2003.

In my hypothetical question, the person obeys all Church laws, but has doubts about, or perhaps doesn't believe certain teachings. He doesn't preach about them, he keeps them to himself, but has them and just tries to work around them the best he can. At some level, believing something seems to be out of ones control. You can't just believe something simply because you want to,... or you should,...or someone said to. Belief I think comes from realization, which I suppose might, or might never come. Jim

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), April 08, 2003.

Brothers and sisters in Christ: Forgive me if I offended anybody. I am not here to insult anybody or change people's minds on their beliefs. All I know is that the Bible is God's word. If I am pointing out to you scriptures that God wants us to see, maybe we should study some of them and let God talk to our hearts. I respect the church to try to put order and help us to hear the word so we might have a chance in salvation. God also tells us in:

Romans 3:4"God forbid yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

He say every man. Not some or just the people who are not the church, God say every man a liar. And in this vers God tell us:

Romans:3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. 19 ¶ Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

Here too God tells us "There is none righteous, no, not one:" He doesn't say the church are the only ones, no He say not one."There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way" God continues to make sure that we understand the true heart of a man. If there was some exceptions, God would have said except such and such.

In this verse of the Bible we should look very carefully: 2Timithy: 1:9 "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began "

Do you notice how God tells us our works will not get us saved. God does all the work in salvation. The church is acting like God. They tell us you will not be saved unless you follow our doctrine! NO, God tells us NO, there is no work that we can do to get save!

God Bless.

-- Paolo (vze3ffrz@verizon.net), April 08, 2003.

Gordon, you posted:

Isabel, it's right before your eyes, in this thread! Ed posted it: "This true Catholic faith, outside which no one can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, I do promise and swear that I will most constantly keep and confess whole and inviolate with the help of God until the last breath of my life, and that I will take great care that it be held, taught, and preached by my inferiors and by those who are placed under my charge." - Papal Oath

First, let me point out that the papal oath says: "outside which no one can be saved" not "without which no one can be saved." Then let me point out that a papal oath is not an infallible statement. [Although, don't get me wrong, the above papal oath is a wonderful one.]

The Popes never implied membership in the faith, as they would have said so.

Should I post those infallible statements again? Because those infallible statements very much say that membership in the Church is necessary to salvation. You're right though, they didn't imply it, they straight out said it.

They have always indicated that you saved by the teachings of the Catholic faith.

Once again, you have stated this, but you have not shown proof. I have shown you proof (infallible statements) saying otherwise. Will you continue to deny those dogmatic statements?

You cannot deny this, or you are not a Catholic yourself.

If it is contrary to declared doctrine, I can very much deny it. In fact, to remain a Catholic, I must deny it.

It by the teachings of the faith that we are saved, for all the teachings are correct and come from God.

First part of that sentence: Wrong! It is by the Church and God's grace that we are saved. Read the Syllabus of Errors. Second part of the sentence: Correct! And God's teaching (i.e. infallible dogma) says that one must be Catholic to be saved.

God decides who follows the teachings of the Catholic Church, and not you. For who can read man's heart better than our Lord?

Correct again! You're on a roll! But common sense would tell you that if one is not a Catholic, then how can he possibly be following Its' teachings? And if one denies any dogma of the Faith, they are not following the teachings of the Church, are they?

Isabel, if you have a problem with this, then take it up with God.

I already did. That is how I have come to my conclusion.

You can bring up baptism again, but God recognizes baptism by desire, fire, blood, etc., which you people agree to.

Uh, actually, no I don't. This is also a fairly new teaching. Something that was never taught in the past. Again, dogma says baptism is necessary for salvation, and water is necessary for baptism.

By the way, I did not miss your post above, I ignored it,

Oh! And all along I thought it was because you couldn't find any teachings before 1960 to back up your statement.

as I don't see any point in arguing with you over the same matter over and over again.

I hear ya'! You just refuse to admit the truth of what I'm saying. :)

I don't agree with your intrepretation.

Uh, I didn't interpret. The Church proclaimed.

I asked you guys in the other thread to condemn Archbishop Lefbvre's disobedience to the Pope in consecration of those four bishops, and not one of you did it, but you condemn liberals all the time.

So, I am supposed to denounce an Archbishop whose only 'crime' was consecrating bishops to carry on Catholic Tradition and keep doctrine undefiled (because the Pope, for no good reason, would not give him permission), and not denounce extreme liberal Cardinals (put in place by the same Pope), who speak open heresy without so much as a slap on the wrist? All just to please you? Sorry, not feeling very ecumenical today. Besides St. Catherine of Sienna quotes Our Lord as saying that if a Pope does not punish unworthy priests and prelates (liberals included), "his sin will not go unpunished when it is his turn to give Me an account of his little sheep."

Jim,

One way to solve your dilemna is to pray constantly for the grace of true faith. If you do your best to increase your sanctity and live as God commands in His Catholic Church, and you are sincere about wanting to accept all the truths of the Catholic Church, then God will give you the gift of faith. It is a gift, given only to those of good will. But you must be sinere. Because, yes, it is wrong not to accept all the truths of the Catholic Church. It shows a lack of faith and trust in God.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 08, 2003.

"Romans 3:4 "God forbid yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged." He say every man. Not some or just the people who are not the church, God say every man a liar."

A: This passage is a comparison of the infinite God to finite men. It does not mean that men cannot speak the truth. It means that compared to God, who is truth itself, every man is a liar. In the same way, compared to God, who is holiness itself, no man is holy (yet God commands us to be holy). Compared to God, who is omnicient, every man is ignorant; compared to God, who is purity itself, every man is impure; compared to God, who is love, no man is loving. Your simplistic interpretation misses the whole point of the passage. Even though no man is holy or knowledgeable or pure or loving or truthful compared to God, men are still capable of expressing all these virtues in imperfect, finite ways, and some men express them more imperfectly than others. Jesus clearly stated that the leaders of His Church would speak His truth with greater authority than other men, when He told them, and no-one else, "he that heareth you heareth Me" (Luke 10:16)

"Here too God tells us "There is none righteous, no, not one:" He doesn't say the church are the only ones, no He say not one"

A: That's right - compared to God, who is righteousness itself, no man can be called righteous. And yet, the Bible repeatedly speaks of some men as righteous (Matt 5:20; Matt 13:17; Matt 13:43; Matt 25:46; Luke 1:6; Rom 5:19; Eph 4:24; Heb 11:4; etc., etc.). The obvious meaning is that the righteousness of men is a reflection of the infinite righteousness of God. But the righteousness of men still exists. Your quoting of scripture is both extremely selective, and overly literal, both common defects of Protestant exegesis.

"Do you notice how God tells us our works will not get us saved. God does all the work in salvation. The church is acting like God. They tell us you will not be saved unless you follow our doctrine! NO, God tells us NO, there is no work that we can do to get save!"

A: No offense intended, but this teaching is only in the Bible because it was taught by the Church first. Nothing was put into the Bible during its compilation at the end of the 4th century except writings which fully supported and enforced the teaching of the Church. Catholics are very well aware that works do not save us. We have a Savior, who founded one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church to guide all men to salvation by presenting them with the fullness of truth. He is the one who saves us. But His Word repeatedly tells us that we will not be saved unless we respond to His offer of salvation in faith and works. (Matt 16:27; Matt 25:45-46; Acts 26:20; 2 Cor 11:15; 1 Tim 6:18; 2 Tim 3:17; Titus 2:7; James 2:14; James 2:20; James 2:24; James 2:26; Rev 2:23; Rev 3:15: Rev 20:12-13)

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 08, 2003.

> ""outside which no one can be saved" not "without which no one can be saved.""

And you're here to tell us were the Church begins and ends, so as to know what is the outside, as opposed to the inside?

> "Should I post those infallible statements again? Because those infallible statements very much say that membership in the Church is necessary to salvation. You're right though, they didn't imply it, they straight out said it."

Why? I already posted an infallible statement. Do you want me to post it again?

> "Will you continue to deny those dogmatic statements?"

How can I deny something I am posting and agreeing to?

> "If it is contrary to declared doctrine, I can very much deny it. In fact, to remain a Catholic, I must deny it."

What are you denying?

> "First part of that sentence: Wrong! It is by the Church and God's grace that we are saved."

That funny considering I just finished saying we are saved by the teachings of the faith, which tells us we are saved by the Church and grace!!!

> "But common sense would tell you that if one is not a Catholic, then how can he possibly be following Its' teachings? And if one denies any dogma of the Faith, they are not following the teachings of the Church, are they?"

So you are going to tell us who are not Catholic? Remember we have been over this before. It's not up to you, it's actually up to God, but you seem to be having a hard time with this.

> "Uh, actually, no I don't. This is also a fairly new teaching. Something that was never taught in the past. Again, dogma says baptism is necessary for salvation, and water is necessary for baptism."

Isabel, you a flat out wrong on this, as the early martyrs in the Church that were not baptised by water, where said to be baptised by fire, blood, desire, etc. This was claimed in the early Church, and is not a modern teaching! I know, now post those early Church documents saying baptism by water only. How pure does that water have to be there Isabel?

> "So, I am supposed to denounce an Archbishop whose only 'crime' was consecrating bishops to carry on Catholic Tradition and keep doctrine undefiled (because the Pope, for no good reason, would not give him permission), and not denounce extreme liberal Cardinals (put in place by the same Pope), who speak open heresy without so much as a slap on the wrist? All just to please you?"

I knew it, you are a schismatic. That's proof right there, that you do not respect the authority of the Pope, and you pick and choose what you want to believe in. You call yourself a traditionislist, but you keep on forgetting that the authority to the Pope is one of the strongest traditions in the Church. You simply don't make sense, and that the reason why I reject you SSPXers.

> "Sorry, not feeling very ecumenical today."

That has nothing to do with ecumenumism, and you know it! That's just another lie you people keep on repeating.

> "Besides St. Catherine of Sienna quotes Our Lord as saying that if a Pope does not punish unworthy priests and prelates (liberals included), "his sin will not go unpunished when it is his turn to give Me an account of his little sheep.""

You love condemenation when it comes to anyone who disagress with you, but not your excommunicated archbishop. How dare anyone ever criticize him! A man so proud, that he wanted to play Pope! I'm sure if Archbishop Lefbvre became Pope, he would insisted on obedience to him, and would punish anyone who disobeyed him. He would have made a very good hypocrite. Yes, lets only obey the Pope when we think he is right. You think the Church would have lasted 2000 years if everyone thought that way? What's the point of infallible statements, if we don't obey the Pope?

You so hung up on repeating over and over again infallible statements, yet you don't even agree to obey the Pope!!! You don't make sense. When is a statement infallible to you, when the Pope says so? This is getting so ridiculous it's laughable!

Isabel, are we going to go around here in circles forever? I respect the authority of the Pope, and you don't. We will never agree on that issue, so no point in discussing things anymore.

Don't bother posting infallible statements anymore, until you agree that the Pope was right in excommunicating THAT French Archbishop.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003.

Isabel, they need to answer the question about the nature of, and the principle behind, the excercise of the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church; it still remains undone or even unattempted. The answer true to it will be the apostolic Faith of the Roman Catholic Church and the key to solving many questions and controversies.

That's the missing bolt in the equation. Once it everyone takes upon themselves the task of actually learning about it, then this opposition you are suffering in the name of Christ and the defense of His Church will begin to fade away.

For hints, "ordinary" doesn't mean standard or normal; it has the same root as does ordained. It pertains to the orders. Those orders, in turn, are bound up in the apostolic preservation of the Faith in succession.

The opponents of the Church as the only way of salvation, whether intentionally or unwittingly, harm the Church. May the Blood of Christ not be shed in vain. That being said, I'm not questioning the desire and intent of these people to do right and hold to loyalty and truth, because we actually fight the princes of darkness and not men.

V.R.S.N.S.M.V. S.M.Q.L.I.V.B.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 09, 2003.

You are very correct, Emerald. Unless people have a good understanding of what proper assent really is, nothing can be said to them. They will cry *obedience* and *disobedience* at every turn.

Gordon,

Study and research on what proper assent to the magisterium means, and maybe then we can talk. Until then, you don't really have a case to lay before me, and the case I lay before you makes no sense to you unless you properly (or at least basically) understand this.

Why? I already posted an infallible statement. Do you want me to post it again?

Actually, yes I would love you to post it again, because I must have missed it. Scrolling up through the thread I couldn't find it.

Thank you, and with many prayers.....

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003.

> "This true Catholic faith, outside which no one can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, I do promise and swear that I will most constantly keep and confess whole and inviolate with the help of God until the last breath of my life, and that I will take great care that it be held, taught, and preached by my inferiors and by those who are placed under my charge." - Papal Oath"

I assume this is a infallible statement?

> "Thank you, and with many prayers."

Great forum, if so many are praying for me. Thank you very much for that, and God bless you! Sorry if my words come across harsh, and I'm sure if we discussed this over coffee, we would both be more agreeable to each other.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003.

That fallible, or infallible oath does not matter very much....Because John Paul NEVER TOOK IT.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003.

An oath is not infallible, because it is not a doctrinal teaching binding on the universal Church. On the other hand, infallibility is not dependent on any oath, or anything else the Pope may or may not do. The moment a man becomes Pope, he has the charism of infallibility, even if he "doesn't want it".

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 09, 2003.

Help me understand this better Paul, I always thought that infallibility, is when the Pope is speaking on behave of the faith, and is providing us an interpretation of the Bible, that we must follow, as he cannot err in that regard.

I have heard of entire encyclicals, that had only two lines declared an infallible teaching.

I mean, you got a group of Catholics here, who are so hung up on doctrine, infallible statements, oaths, etc., but I want to know what is binding on us Catholics? For example they claim Vatican 2 is not binding, but there are other Catholics who say it is. I mean, these same Catholics who are also so hung up on old rituals make the whole thing confusing! Old rituals over obedience to the Pope! Universal condemnation, of those who are not in the "Catholic club", or in other words, salvation by being a member of an exclusive club!. No dialogue with people of other faiths, just condemnation, and they will come running into the faith! What am I missing here?

Not interested in hearing from Ed, Isabel, and Jake on this one, as I want to hear the truth from Catholics who believe in the authority of the Pope, through the Apostolic Succession.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003.

Gordon,

Thank you very much for that, and God bless you!

You're welcome, and thank you!

Sorry if my words come across harsh, and I'm sure if we discussed this over coffee, we would both be more agreeable to each other.

You don't sound harsh, just determined. Almost as determined as me. :) I think, too, that if we were discussing this over coffee, that we would be able to get our points across better, hence less frustrated and more agreeable.

Since you asked us not to respond to your last post, I will respect that and not do so. At least not yet. :) I will wait and see how it is answered by others. But I will say, that it appears to me you do not have a clear understanding of infallibility and assent. There is much information out there, even on the web, that you can read and study.

I do want to say, that while it appears to you that I am not obedient to the Pope, I think it is because of your misunderstanding of infallibility. I completely respect his authority over me, and providing what he says is not contrary to the Deposit of Faith, I can totally submit to his authority. But my Faith, as I have learned and studied it, comes first.

More prayers. :)

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003.

I do not think that it is out of line to say... The pope obeys God. we obey the pope. Simple enough.

However, The pope does not obey God, we do not obey the pope.

This pope is, at times, doing his own thing. Therefore we are not obliged to listen.

Praying with heretics, kissing the Koran, letting dung be put on his head, etc, does not inspire much confidence. There is much more if anyone cares to look.

-- Ed Richards (loztr@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003.

> "letting dung be put on his head"

Ed, you continue to spead this lie about the Holy Father, and I want you to answer this question: Why?

Proof is right here, that the Holy Father was never annointed by the sign of tilak.

How would feel if someone said lies about you? If you cause is so just, why do you have to lie?

Ed, if you continue in this lie, in the face of proof, then I think the moderator should take action against you, and I will request that he do so. It's wrong to lie about anyone, but to lie against the Holy Father, is terrible!

I think Isabel, should say some prayers for you also, as you really need it.

> "I do want to say, that while it appears to you that I am not obedient to the Pope, I think it is because of your misunderstanding of infallibility. I completely respect his authority over me, and providing what he says is not contrary to the Deposit of Faith, I can totally submit to his authority. But my Faith, as I have learned and studied it, comes first."

Isabel, I understand that we all have to follow our consciences, but you are guilty of the very same condemnation that you make of people of other religions. What's the difference?

You're more or less saying "I have to follow my conscience", but that's what other people say for following false religions, yet I believe you claimed they are going to hell?

Thanks again for the prayers, and God bless you for that. I can always use prayers. I will pray that a friendship can develop between us, so we can discuss things in peace, without any ill feeling.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 10, 2003.

Gordon,

What's the difference?

Here is the difference: proper understanding of infallibility and assent to the magisterium.

God Bless.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 10, 2003.

> "Here is the difference: proper understanding of infallibility and assent to the magisterium."

I don't understand that response based on what I asked.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 10, 2003.

Gordon,

I don't understand that response based on what I asked.

Because I think that if you had a clearer understanding of this, you would see I am being faithful to Holy Mother Church.

Isabel

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 10, 2003.

Gordon, here's some articles which might help clear up your....confusion. It's my first time posting links. Wish me luck! :-0

Respect For Other Religions

and

No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 11, 2003.

“I do not speak rashly, but as I feel and think. I do not think that many priests are saved, but that those who perish are far more numerous. The reason is that the office requires a great soul. For there are many things to make a priest swerve from rectitude, and he requires great vigilance on every side. Do you not perceive how many qualities a bishop must have that he may be apt to teach; patient towards the wicked, firm and faithful in teaching the word? How many difficulties herein. Moreover the loss of others is imputed to him. I need say no more. If even one dies without baptism, does it not entirely endanger his salvation? For the loss of one soul is so great an evil as no man can understand. If the salvation of one soul is of such importance that, for its sake, the Son of God became man and suffered so much, think of the penalty the loss of one soul will entail. If he who kills a man in this life deserves death, how much more the others?” (Homilies on Acts of the Apostles, 3)

Yours Faithfully, Thomas Sparks

Gordon, Like Isabel and Jake I take the teachings of the church literally. Not current enlightenments etc. I am even more hard lne than my own trditional societies on"Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" The popes declared it with no loopholes and thats it!

By the way Isabel, Wasn't that a great article in the CFN paper on the Masonic plan to destroy the Church?

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 11, 2003.

This pope is, at times, doing his own thing. Therefore we are not obliged to listen.

Exactly. See? What's so hard about that?

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 13, 2003.

> "Gordon, Like Isabel and Jake I take the teachings of the church literally."

You sound exactly like a Protestant, who claims they are following a literal interpretation of the Bible, but with you, it's Church documents instead, except having to submit to the Pope's authority! I guess documents on the Pope's authority is not literal enough for you?

> "Not current enlightenments etc."

More misinformation from you, which cements your conspiracy theories of today's Church.

The Church is not following modern enlightments today, and most of the Church is conservative, and thriving. Just because the American Church is full of liberals, and the faith of the people is being lost, mean that you are right. If you were right, it would also be happening in the third world and it's not. You can't explain away that major hole in your THEORY, and I'm sure that bugs the hell out of you. No pun intended! :)

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 13, 2003.

most of the Church is conservative, and thriving.

*(in my best Vinnie Barbarino voice)*

What. Where.

Just because the American Church is full of liberals, and the faith of the people is being lost, mean that you are right.

Psst. Vink. Yes it does, bro.

If you were right, it would also be happening in the third world and it's not.

Yeah? I suppose you have some evidence beyond some crackpot Geocities page or the distant and fading memory of an old phone call? We'll be here when you're ready to post it.

I'm sure that bugs the hell out of you. No pun intended! :)

Vulgar language is still vulgar when you're trying to be cute; and you didn't even accomplish that.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 13, 2003.

By the way Isabel, Wasn't that a great article in the CFN paper on the Masonic plan to destroy the Church?

Sorry for not answering sooner Ed. I have been swamped at work, and did not get on the computer all weekend, because I was swamped at home. I read all their articles, and have not found one yet that I have not liked and/or found interesting.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.