Revelation's Harlot

Brother Curtis,

I severely question you. Did you copy this from a source? A nice chunk of that paragraph is missing (replaced with ...). The full paragraph reads:

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

It means quite a different thing, making Christ the object of the necessity, and not the Church.

So, where did you get the paragraph? Did you cut out the middle portion, or did they? If you did, I really question why you wold be deceiving like that. If they did, you are still pulling your sources from a third party, who are making changes to fit an agenda.

God bless,

Grant

 

How do you not understand this? Good question, but it is obvious that you do not.

"...knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ..."

Do you know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God thorugh Christ?

No, you say?

Well then, does this apply to you? (Hint - No)

Does it say then that as a Baptist you can't be saved? (Hint - No)

I must say, Curtis, it really does not appear to me that you have any real interest in understanding what the Church actually teaches. You seem to have an deliberate intent to misunderstand. After all, your quote above really isn't that hard to understand if one wants to.

Ron

 

Somebody said that being included in the plan of salvation basically just means a potential to be saved (i.e. if the person later turns to Christ), however because it says "the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator", it is therefore implied that those who do not acknowledge the Creator have no potential to be saved.

The rest of the paragraph does not shed extra light on this key sentence, rather it simply causes more confusion:

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Before the above sentence, the Catechism was talking about the Jews who also profess the faith of Abraham and have a better claim than the Muslims.

So who gets saved and who comes first?

 

Brother Curtis,

Thank you for avoiding the issue of the missing portion of the quote. I find that very dishonest of you.

Jesus said for all to believe and be baptised. The Catholic Church carries out that message. Therefore, he who denies the message of the Catholic Church denies He who sent him.

It's a simple concept, and you're deliberately using it to claim damnation for yourself so that you can call the Church evil. You have yet to read the context, and I will not argue this any further, for its a waste of my breath. There is nothing more I can say to you to make it clearer. Believe what you want to believe, Curtis; I can't change your mind. I'm arguing that you are a saved Christian, and you're telling me I'm wrong in saying that.

I suggest you pray about this.

God bless,

Grant

 

DualHunter,

Are the Jews not awaiting the Messiah, the Son of God? We as Christians know that He has already come; they have rejected Him. However, they still believe that He exists and is still to come. So, while they believe in the Creator, they also believe in the Messiah to come. That differs from the Muslims who believe that God is One in the sense that he cannot be Triune or otherwise. Their religion is fundamentally different than that of the Jews. Therefore, when speaking of the Creator only, this is a closer example of Muslims, which is why they would be named as "first." That has nothing to do with some sort of order that you might be implying, like they are more favorable. It has nothing to do with favor; it's finding common ground that we can use to bring them to know Jesus.

I'm not going to repeat myself for 20 pages about this. The answer is clear.

God bless,

Grant

 

You're the victim of a hoax, Curtis.

Gull-a-bull.

 

Of course it's not true!!!

It's hilarious that you would think that it is!

Please, tell me, Curtis, that you're only kidding!

Ron

 

Curtis,

Thank you for making all of my points so clear, that you will post anything to tear down a Church that you don't know the first thing about in reality.

Here is another story, just a few down from the one you posted:

http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news/rapturetalk.html

As you see by his commentary, this is a comedy site, where the writer makes up funny religious stories. Take this sentence, and apply it to the way you're acting:

"Many people said they didn't even care if it was true, but that it deserved to be true, just because they found it so funny."

The fact that you thought the Catholic Church would define a new dogma on "physical immortality," and then read an article that expressly makes fun of the pope, and then promulgate it here as truth, clearly shows that you have no respect for our Church (which you'll likely openly admit), and that this lack of respect is grounded on a breaking of the 8th commandment (or 9th commandment, most likely, as you recite them).

Please, Brother Curtis, open your eyes.

God bless,

Grant

 

No, Curtis, I doubt anyone is going to sue over this. It is obviously a joke.

To me the bigger joke is that anyone would actually believe it!!!

 

The story is not true.

and

Similiar to the onion site, this is a satire site.

In Christ,
jason

[ November 21, 2002, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: jasonW* ]

 

So you believe anything you find on the internet unless it's can be refuted?

I can keep you real busy with the "Landover Baptist" site.

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

 

Just out of curiosity, is there anyone else out there that thinks that these articles are real?