is the Catholic Church officially now Apostate?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Yeshua1, May 24, 2013.

  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,080
    Likes Received:
    49
    Based upon the pronouncelents of latest Pope?

    When he proclaimed that all who do good would be redeemed, even Athiests?


    When did Rob bell become a catholic theologian?
     
  2. Walter

    Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    2
    Could you please provide your source?


    Yeshua1, my understanding of this is that he said that everyone is redeemed, not that everyone receives salvation; these are two different things. The Church does teach that everyone is redeemed by Christ, but not that there is universal salvation. Christ redeemed us all, but we still have to choose salvation, through faith, otherwise we reject the salvation that is offered to us.
     
    #2 Walter, May 24, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: May 24, 2013
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    I could list a number of areas where I differ with the Catholic church

    1. Prayers to the dead
    2. Prayers for the dead
    3. Images in church
    4. The immaculate conception.
    5. Confecting the "body and soul of Christ" in the eucharist
    6. Priest "powers" to forgive sins and confect Christ.
    7. Infallibility of the Pope (speaking ex cathedra) and ecumenical councils.
    8. Extermination of heretics.
    9. Purgatory
    10. Infinite torment in hell
    11. Claiming the right to "edit" the Ten Commandments
    12. Claiming that the New Covenant is confined to the Catholic Mass
    ...

    But name calling would solve nothing
     
  4. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Walter is correct: the Catholic Church has always taught that everyone is redeemed by the Blood of Christ (which is akin to saying that "Christ died for all", with which only a hardcore Calvinist would disagree); it has also always taught that there is a difference between redemption and salvation: all are redeemed, not all are saved. Where +++Francis seems to have additionally muddied the waters is impliedly referencing Karl Rahner's (another Jesuit!) 'anonymous Christian' concept.
     
  5. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Atonement and redemption are not the same thing. Redemption is salvation
     
  6. Walter

    Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    2
    Thank you, Matt. Redemption and salvation are two different things. I would ask board members to read this blog from an Orthodox priest. It explains that the pope isn't talking about universalism. I'm thinking that if an Orthodox priest is defending the Holy Father, the Pope must have said something really good. :laugh:

    http://orthodoxyandheterodoxy.org/20...by-doing-good/
     
  7. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace - Ephesians 1:7

    Its clear redemption and atonement are not the same thing if one is gained THROUGH the other.
     
  8. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,346
    Likes Received:
    787
    That would be a misuse of the word Redemption and could very easily be understood to mean universalism in the context it was used.
     
  9. Walter

    Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    2
    The meaning of "redeemed" does not mean "you are going to heaven," it means, frankly, you are a part of the human race, which Jesus "redeemed" to the heart of God by the cross. It means salvation is possible, there is a way of salvation for you.
     
  10. Walter

    Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    2
  11. DrJamesAch

    DrJamesAch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    When was the Catholic church ever legitimate? The question "is the Catholic church NOW apostate" is an oxymoron.
     
  12. Walter

    Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    2
    It was certainly legitimate when Jesus founded His Church on Peter. And before you start your Petros/Petra blather. The whole "Petros" thing, is that yes, it meant "small stone" when Homer used it centuries earlier, but languages develop, and "petros" didn't carry that meaning in Jesus' day. In fact, if one peruses the New Testament, when a "small stone" is being described, the term used is always "lithos" and never "petros", and the only time "Petros" is used, is as Peter's name. The obvious conclusion is that it was simply the masculinisation of the feminine word, "petra".
    Interestingly, in French, the word for rock is "pierre", so that passage reads, "Tu es Pierre, et sur la pierre..." etc. I guess that's why the Reformation never really caught on in France...:laugh:

    The Primacy of Peter
    Isaiah 22:15-25 - Prophecy of the Catholic Papacy foretold in the Old Testament
    Matthew 16:18 - Upon this rock (Peter) I will build my Church. And the gates of Hell can never overpower it
    Luke 24:34 - Risen Jesus first appeared to Peter
    Acts 1:13-26 - Peter headed meeting which elected Matthias to replace Judas
    Acts 2:14 - Peter lead Apostles in preaching on Pentecost
    Acts 2:41 - Peter received the first converts
    Acts 3:6-7 - Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost
    Acts 5:1-11 - Peter inflicted the first punishment: Ananias and Saphira
    Acts 8:21 - Peter excommunicated the first heretic, Simon Magnus
    Acts 10:44-46 - Peter received a revelation to admit the Gentles into the church.
    Acts 15 - Peter lead the first Catholic council in Jerusalem

    Think about this:
    Peter is mentioned 191 times in the New Testament. All the other apostles names combined are mentioned only 130 times. And the most commonly referenced apostle apart from Peter is John, whose name appears 48 times.
     
  13. Walter

    Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    2
    I do believe that the link I posted from the orthodox brothers blog gives good insight into the Holy Father's remarks. And, in my opinion, the Holy Father's remarks boil down to the following:

    1. Everyone is created in God's image, and Christ died for everyone.
    2. Everyone has a duty to do good.
    3. Christians and non-Christians can collaborate in doing good, and find common ground there.

    The pope did not say that everyone is saved, that everyone has appropriated Christ's redemption. I think his point is God's universal Fatherhood, and trying to find common ground with unbelievers (as a starting point, not an end).
     
  14. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is not the definition given in Scripture. You have completely redefined the word.
     
  15. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,184
    Likes Received:
    207
    This post is not factually correct. It was used far later than Homer to mean a "small stone." It is used in 2 Maccabees 2:16; and 4:41 to mean a little stone.

    Second, we have no "Q" copy but only the Greek copies of Matthew. The Greek writer made ever possible effort to distinguish the feminine petra from petros. He used a third person pronoun to describe petra but a second person pronoun for Petros. Moreover, the contextual antecedent for this third person pronoun in Matthew 16:18 is "it" in verse 17 which has for its ancedant the confession in Matthew 16:17.

    In addition. Peter discouraged all of his readers from drawing the Roman Catholic Conclusion about petra in Matthew 16:18. In the very same context he describes all members of the church as "stones" including Jesus "stone" but then calls Jesus the "petra" - 1 Pet. 2:4-8. He then denies he has any superior position above other elders - 1 Pet. 5:1-3.

    Moreover, Matthew 16:18 is a building context.

    1. There is a designated builder - "I will build"
    2. There is a buiding project - "my church"
    3. There is a foundation to build upon "upon this rock"

    Peter is first addressed as Simon bar Jonah in verse 17 but it is in this building context he is addressed in the anarthous construct "petros" which in such a context demands characterization - he characterizes a building stone - the kind Jesus uses to build his churches out of - baptized believers - and this is precisely Peter's own analogous application in 1 Peter. 2:5. Where did Peter get the analogy in 1 Pet. 2:5?????? Of course you want to ignore that fact.
     
  16. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for presenting the facts. The Roman church is built on fables and superstition.
     
  17. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    The "Holy Father". You mean God?
     
  18. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,184
    Likes Received:
    207
    Their whole argument about Aramaic is just as erroneous. For example, we have no Aramaic copies to see exactly what Jesus said.

    Every langauge has either nouns or adjectives to distinguish between large and small things. We have no record of this discussion in Aramaic. Jesus could have just as easily used adjectives for small versus large to distinguish between the Armaic Cephas and the foundation Cephas.

    The Greek provided such distinctions.
     
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    In 1 Cor 10- long after Christ had spoken in Matt 16 - "That PETRA is Christ".

    In 1Cor 3 - " No Other Petra - That PETRA is Christ".

    In all of the NT there is no "That PETRA is Peter" - no not even once.

    In Matt 7 it is the "PETRA" that is the bedrock upon which the saints are to build and Jesus said this is HIS Word - not the word of Peter.

    In Matt 16 where Peter is called "petros" he is also called Satan.

    Jesus said to Peter in Matt 16 "get thee behind me Satan" - I don't think I would be going to Matt 16 to make the case for Peter if I were Catholic.


    In all of the texts you quote - nobody is asking Peter to render his decision on behalf of the entire church.

    But in Acts 15 - (which I notice you did not mention) after Peter and others give their views - it is James that "renders the decision" for the Group saying in conclusion "it is my decision that we ...".

    Now having said that - it would be a mistake to assume that Protestants do not think Peter was Christian or that he was not one of the 3 leading disciples--- perhaps one of the leading Apostles who knows?

    What is strongly contested however is that the distinctive doctrines of the Catholic church were taught by - or even known by - any of the Apostles so it is not just an issue with Peter it is a claim that none of them taught or knew about Purgatory, or praying to the dead as a Christian practice, or indulgences or infant baptism --

    More specifically the difference between the two groups is that the Protestant view says that the Bible is to test all doctrine and all tradition.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  20. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very good and accurate!
     

Share This Page

Loading...