The Truth about the RCC

...and it's Latin for Lamb of God.

"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." - John 1:29

"And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!" - John 1:36​

 

My mistake; I corrected it.

 

Blessings peterotto, I'd be happy to elaborate further.

If you noticed in LG 13, it starts by stating: All men are called to belong to the new people of God—i.e., to the Church. Section 13 ends by stating: All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the people of God. . . . And in different ways to it belong, or are related: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, for all men are called by the grace of God to salvation.

What I take this to mean is that all mankind is called to the Catholic unity of the people of God, in other words, to become Catholics. Some have done so, and so LG 13 states that some belong to the Catholic Church while others are related to in in different ways. Those who belong to it are the Catholic faithful, while those who are related in various ways include others who believe in Christ (who are related to the Church in one way) and all mankind (who are related to the Church in a different way).

LG sections 14-16, deals with these three groups. LG 14 concerns itself with Catholics and a very careful reading of LG 14 will in itself repudiate the idea that Islam or any other religions are as good as the Catholic Church.

LG 15 turns to non-Catholics Christians and states: The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety [e.g., Protestants] or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter [e.g., Orthodox].

You should notice here that it does not say that these Christians are part of the Church, only that they are linked to it many ways, some of which it then goes on to name (Scripture, faith in Christ, baptism). While noting that God works among them, LG does not say that it is okay for them to remain where they are: In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and he prompts them to pursue this end. In other words, God’s grace leads them toward becoming Catholics too.

LG section 16 now turns to non-Christians, and this is where special attention is needed to properly understand the context. LG 16 begins by stating: Finally, those who have not yet received the gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. This section speaks of the Jewish people in the first place, for they are more closely related to the Church than any other non-Christian religion. It is only after this that the text states, But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims. Note that the subject under discussion is not everyone who is saved. The overarching theme of the passage is how various people are related to the Catholic Church, not how many paths to salvation there are. The Council has been describing people who are progressively more distant from the Church. The Council has already stated that the Church is necessary for salvation. And since it expressly places non-Jewish theists in a distant position from the Church, when we encounter the statement that the plan of salvation also includes, we should not understand it as saying that non-Jewish theists are saved.


It means that God desires their salvation and has made plans for their salvation—plans that include giving them graces that lead in the direction of salvation and the Church. But that doesn’t mean that they can be saved by being nothing more than non-Jewish theists.

Within the category of non-Jewish theists, Muslims today hold the first place in that they are the largest such group and have a number of commonalities with Judaism and Christianity, several of which the council goes on to note:

1) They profess to hold the faith of Abraham. The operative word here is profess—they claim to hold the faith of Abraham. In reality, their faith is an imperfect version of the faith that comes from Abraham, but they are trying to follow in the footsteps of Abraham, and the Council gives them credit for that.

2) Together with us they adore the one, merciful God. This statement seems to be the hang-up for many, but look at it in this context. God is aware of and acknowledges all that is good and true in the worship offered to him, however imperfect an understanding of him a worshiper may have. While Muslims, like Jews, do not accept the Trinity, they do acknowledge that God is the only true God and that he is merciful. This means that they honor things that are true about God but have a limited understanding of him.

Christians have a fuller understanding of God because he has revealed more to us about himself: specifically, that he is a Trinity. This doctrine cannot be deduced by human reason; it can only be known by revelation.

Failure to accept this revelation of the Christian age does not stop Muslims from worshiping God any more than it stops Jews. It means only that they know less about God and that they have erroneous corollary ideas (for instance, that Jesus is not the Son of God).

To make clear how this works, allow me to take an example from pop culture: Suppose that you and I both knew Peter Parker. I might know, because he revealed it to me, that he is also Spiderman. You may hear this claim and reject it, in which case you adopt the false corollary belief Spiderman is not Peter Parker. That does not mean that you don’t know and relate to either Peter Parker or Spiderman, it means only that you misunderstand the relationship between them.

In the same way, one may worship God and honor Jesus as a prophet (which he was) without understanding that Jesus is God. Indeed, many people in his own day did that: They knew the historical Jesus but had a false understanding of his identity.

3) Muslims recognize that God is mankind’s judge on the last day. This is another link they have to biblical faith. Muslims may have erroneous ideas about some of the things that will occur before, after, or around this event, but that much they have right.

Some in these religions can be saved, but not because of their religions. This is underlined in the document Dominus Jesus that was released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2000.

According to the document, It would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her (DJ 21).

Further, If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation (DJ 22).

There should be no doubt that the Church recognizes that followers of Islam have elements of truth. But while it is possible for them—as for all men—to be saved if they live up to the light God has given them, it cannot be said that Islam is a path of salvation or that Muslims do not need to become Christians.

Hope this helps.
-

 

Agnus,

How would you interpret Acts 4:10-12 and John 14:6.

I want to hear from you the profound interpretation of those verses.

 

If the Encyclicals are not Infallible, the priests of RCC should have started to search the Bible whether such Encyclicals are right or not according to the Bible, and if they have found the problems with them, they should have argued with the Infalliable Pope so that the Pope should have issued the Bulls or the Encyclicals from the Ex Cathedra which has the Magic Power turning Fallible to Infallible, right?

 

Agnus,

I am still waiting for your answer to my questions.

Do you need to discuss with the priest of RCC to get the answer?

Have you ever read the veses which I mentioned?

I want to hear your own exegesis on those verse.


Question:

Agnus,

How would you interpret Acts 4:10-12 and John 14:6.

I want to hear from you the profound interpretation of those verses.

 

Rcc

Just catching up on this thread. I've been on vacation. I took the time to re-read this entire thread carefully. It's fascinating to see how rude, accusatory, in-complete, and ignorant many of these reply's to Agnus Dei are. I'd have to say Agnus comes across as "CHRISTIAN" and many others as simply not Christian. Some of you think that you've really corrected error, and used the Bible to put the lie to Catholicism. Instead you have been revealed as fanatical, rude, un-teachabel, and pretty much brain washed. If most people on earth read this thread they'd have no trouble picking the Christian out of the mix. There's probably been more really bad Protestant leaders than bad Popes. Just on a lesser scale. There's thousands of little dictators teaching false "truth" and false conduct daily. Enslaving millions to twisted version of history, truth, and whatever their "work" is. Why don't we beat up on Protestants that have made themselves Apostles, Bishops, etc.etc. ad nauseaum? Why don't we beat up on those that "proheysy" such as Hal Lindsey, Hagee, etc. ad nauseaum and have pretty much never been right. What about LaHaye, he's written "his version" of being "caught up" that has mislead millions? I've met people (older women mostly and youth) that believe this is pretty much gospel. What's the difference? Yeh! Lets turn a blind eye to these evils and focus on evil Popes. When you are taking an ax to Catholicism your taking a ax to your own roots. Do you really think the millions of "Christians" that lived from Christ till Luther are lost? I know, I know, YOUR group has a history traceable through all these groups ie Waldenses, etc.etc. (insert group here). What you don't know is every quack and crack pot religious teacher uses the same "teaching' to show their history as "separate" from the "Church". I've led a pretty eclectic life for a few, years and every quack group I've found, all have the same general teachings on "history". If you name a Church that has a world vision and impact on this earth - there's only one and it's pretty much Catholic. Truth is there would be no "Christianity" without " Catholicism".

 

Rcc

As an aside, while re-reading this thread, there was a post about Catholics killing Catholics in opposing armies. I once had a Lutheran Minister from Germany visit. On touring Washington D.C. and Arlington National Cemetery he was astounded that the scripture at the entrance was the same as that over the German National Cemetery. It reads "Greater Love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends". He found this very moving as most all Germans in WWII were Christians and the Americans were Christian also. He was raised an orphan as his father (a tank Commander) was killed in Russia. He would visit his fathers grave at the German National Cemetery. The point I want to make of this is men by the millions have fought and died for their nations and beliefs. Christian versus Christian is not a Catholic thing. Even in Iraq there are Christians. Also bashing Catholicism for the Crusades is pretty much incorrect. One major impetus for the Crusades was Muslims enslaving and abusing Christians visiting the Holy lands. And spreading by the sword into Europe. Can you imagine the world today without the Crusades and Catholicism fighting the Muslims spread into Europe? The truth is Catholicism saved most of our ancestors rear ends. That's one thing wrong with today's immigration policies, it's accomplishing what open war did not.

 

Rcc

Oops! I posted that the visiting Minister was Lutheran, he was not. He was a Protestant from a small, legalistic, prosyletizing denomination.

 

The Biblical definition of Christian is that someone who has the Spirit of Christ.
Rom 8: 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

If anyone continue to object to the Bible Teachings, she or he disproves herself or himself as a Christian. Nobody here told Agnus is not a Christian but just acknowledged him as a Catholic.

No, Sir. Show me the evidence. Otherwise, you are making false accusation based on your bias.

Maybe your words apply to yourself and Agnus.

Maybe pagan believers may agree with you, but what do you think Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit would think about the arguments of yours and Agnus?

We believe all of them are wrong! We don't condone any wicked behavior. You may have misunderstood it.

Yah, there are many little popes inside the protestant churches.

As long as they come up, we do.

We condemned the wrong doings of Benny Hinn, John Hagee, Calvin, Martin Luther, etc. Some of the prophesies by Hal Lindsey was also condemned. Don't judge the matters without knowing the facts.

dunno this guy. There are thousands of false prophets every day. As long as we encounter them, we point out they are wrong. Nobody came here to advocate them as RCC or pro-RCC people do it here. As long as there is objection from them we can challenge them.

Not so much difference between those cults and the Roman cult!

No, Sir. My root is not from Roman Religion, because I reject almost every bit of Roman Doctrines which I listed already. Maybe your real root is from Roman Religion as you confess.

No, Sir. It seems that you don't know the True History of the True Christian believers. You may not believe the Baptist History. Why do you stay in Baptist church without believing in their own history?
Read a short history of the True Christians before 1500 here:
http://www.beaconmbc.com/In Defense of, Biblical, Historical, Christianity.htm

You sound like insane!

God's truth is not eclectic, but exclusive according as the Bible.

Why don't you join there? You are living in double minded hypocrisy.

There was Christianity even before Romish Catholic started after 300 AD, which you cannot deny.

You are pretty much biased without knowing the true history, and do not know what is wrong with RCC from the Biblical point of view.

For instance, I raised the question to Agnus Dei about the Bible Acts 4:10-12 and John 14:6, for which he presented no answer to-date.
God is the Word, and the Bible is the Words of God, Ignorance of Bible means the Ignorance about God, Contradiction to the Bible means the Disobedience to God.

Instead of condemning and bashing the True Bible believers here, read the Bible as the Berean people did, and try to point out any problem with my statements and others' based on the Bible teachings, then you will be correct.

 

No, Eliyahu I’m not avoiding you or having to consult a priest…and why should I, don’t you believe that priest’s don’t read or study the Bible?

Anyway, I’ve been out of town for a job interview since Thursday in Ohio.

In regard to your questionable verses, I’m not sure what your point is you’re trying to make. Are you suggesting that Catholics deny Christ, or that Christ’s death on a Roman Cross wasn’t sufficient for Salvation?
-

 

I asked such questions because you said or insinuated that there are salvations among the other religions such as Judaism or Muslim as long as they believe in the Creator-God.
So, I want you to clarify your stance compared to Acts 4:12 and John 14:6.