Pope Benedict denies Jesus is the Christ (Messiah), gets in line with Judaism

[G2Rad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIvbCoaRr7w

[sirgonzo420]

Well, there's JUDEO-christianity for ya!

[G2Rad]

Well, there's JUDEO-christianity for ya!


add to that
JUDEO-Marxism
JUDEO-Atheism
JUDEO-Humanism
JUDEO-Evolutionism

all of that is basically the same.
all of that is worshiping the same god Satan.

[irmatvep]

So you're taking the word of the Dimond brothers? I suggest you do better research than to take the word of these clowns.

[irmatvep]

For anyone interested, here is the official teaching of the Catholic Church for the last 450 years regarding salvation for those outside the Church. The Church teaches that salvation is possible for those in a state of invincible ignorance which is what is discussed in the book being referred to. To my knowledge the Dimond brothers embrace the teachings of Fr. Leonard Feeney who stated emphatically that there is "no salvation outside the Church." Fr. Feeney was excommunicated as a heretic for this and only later when he recanted was the excommunication lifted.


Fact 10. For the past 450 years, the Catholic Church has permitted approved theologians to teach that explicit faith in Christ is not absolutely necessary for salvation. So, Gerry is clearly out of sync with the mind of the Church when he anathematizes this position, and rejects the past several Popes as heretics because they held to it, given that Popes for the past several centuries at least have tolerated it.

Indeed, Fr. Brian Harrison mentions Albert Pigge, Domingo Soto, Juan de Lugo, and Giovanni Perrone as teaching that implicit faith in Christ can suffice for salvation.25 Perrone, in fact, went so far as to reduce the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation from a necessity of means to a mere necessity of precept. Yet, he had an illustrious career as a prestigious Roman theologian during the pontificate of Bl. Pope Pius IX. And so far from being censured by the Church for his liberal views on the salvation of non-Christians, Perrone even had a hand in drafting Pius IX's statements on this issue (so Fr. Francis A. Sullivan argues,26 based close similarities between Perrone's language and Pius IX's language in Singulari Quadam). Similarly, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, in his treatment of the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation,27 mentions Richard of Mediavilla, Turianus, Diana, and Vasquez as holding the "necessity of precept" position. He never so much as suggests that these theologians are outside of the pale of Catholic orthodoxy.

Garrigou-Lagrange himself, following Reginald Schultes, Pere Hugueny, and the Carmelites of Salmanca, maintains that explicit faith in Christ is necessary as a general principle, but that this principle admits of exceptions. He thus preserves the medial necessity of explicit faith in Christ, but acknowledges that in extraordinary circumstances God may save an invincibly ignorant soul through the instrumentality of his more rudimentary faith in God who exists and rewards those who seek Him (Heb 11:6).28 Garrigou-Lagrange vacillates, and declares his sympathy for the view that the rule admits of no exceptions.29 However, he ultimately holds to the position that some people may be saved without explicit faith in Christ, even marshaling the following text of St. Thomas in support:

Now the first thing that occurs to a man to think about then, is to deliberate about himself. And if he then direct himself to the due end, he will, by means of grace, receive the remission of original sin: whereas if he does not then direct himself to the due end, and as far as he is capable of discretion at that particular age, he will sin mortally, for through not doing that which is in his power to do.30
So, it is difficult to fathom how Gerry can seriously state on his website31 that he has not "for a single moment ever considered to be a Catholic anyone holding to this heresy" that people can be saved "in other religions." If he intends to call anyone who holds that implicit faith in Christ can suffice for salvation a heretic, he is showing utter disregard for the bounds of legitimate theological discourse set by, among others, Pius XII.

Not to mention that Gerry is being completely inconsistent. Obviously, Gerry believes that Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange is a Catholic; in a phone conversation with me he described himself as a Garrigou-Lagrangian. If Garrigou-Lagrange is a heretic, Gerry needs to stop calling himself that! God knows I certainly wouldn't call myself a Calvinist or a Lutheran. Similarly, if Fr. Denis Fahey, by Gerry's own admission, taught that Jews can be saved in Judaism, Gerry needs to stop lauding Fr. Fahey as a Catholic hero. The two propositions (a) Fr. Denis Fahey is a Catholic hero and (b) no one who holds that Jews can be saved in Judaism is a Catholic, are formally contradictory. In the interest of being a "consistent Catholic," then, Gerry needs to reject at least one of these positions.

[kregener]

http://biblebelievers.com/misc_periodical_articles/mrw_001.html
http://biblebelievers.com/daniels/babylon_religion/bab_rel_01.html
http://biblebelievers.com/tetlow/queenofall01.html
http://biblebelievers.com/bookshop/daniels_RCC/daniels_excerpt01.html
http://biblebelievers.com/bennett/bennett_true-false.html

More:

http://biblebelievers.com/FalseDoctrine.html

[Santa]

What on earth does "implicit faith in Christ" mean compared to "explicit faith in Christ?" ???

[irmatvep]

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus


Monday, June 29, 2009
Fr. Brian Harrison on Implicit Faith in Christ, Part III
Fr. Harrison now moves on to tackle the magisterial statements that are relevant to the matter. The first one is a response of the Holy Office to a bishop in 1703. Found in Denzinger, 1349, or 2380-81 in the Latin. (Incidentally, it is interesting to notice how those people who believe that explicit faith in Christ is absolutely necessary will often bring this response of the Holy Office as binding magisterial teaching, while at the same time they will do everything in their power to deny that the letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston has any magisterial authority. Fr. Harrison is not guilty of this, though.)

(DZ 1349)Whether a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb his mind. Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he may put into practice what has been commanded him.

Resp. A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.

Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and in punishing, according to this remark of the Apostle "He that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder'; [Heb . 11:23], from which it is inferred that a barbarian adult, in a certain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized although he does not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ.

Resp. A missionary should not baptize one who does not believe explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized.




Fr. Harrison draws this conclusion from these texts “For, underlying this Holy Office decision, is the premise that an adult who does not explicitly believe in Jesus Christ lacks the theological virtue of faith – the first and most basic prerequisite for justification – and so cannot be baptized, even in grave danger of death.”

This is certainly not a necessary conclusion. There is at least one alternative, which seems more probable. For adults, the intention to receive the sacrament as a sacrament is required for the validity of the sacrament. If an adult only has implicit faith in Christ or the Trinity, it is clear that he cannot understand the precise significance of what is being done, and this at least opens the door for the possibility that he does not view the sacrament truly as a sacrament, as a sacred sign. Thus, in order to insure that the sacrament is received validly, prudence seems to dictate that some brief instruction be given.

However, the text itself seems open to the possibility that if the adult is not merely in the danger of death, but also unconscious, then he could be baptized. Otherwise there would not seem to be a reason for the statement “even a dying one, who is not entirely incapacitated.” If the Holy Office wished to say absolutely that one needed knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation to receive baptism, they could have left off the phrase “who is not entirely incapacitated,” and the text would be much stronger to that effect.

Again in the second text we have a similar qualification: “in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized.” Clearly if the adult is incapacitated, he does not have the capacity to be taught the truths of the faith.

Fr. Harrison then continues on to address two statements of Pope Pius IX. The first is in the 1854 allocution Singulari Quadam:

“Certainly we must hold it as of faith that no one can be saved outside of the apostolic Roman Church, that this is the only ark of salvation, that the one who does not enter this is going to perish in the deluge. But nevertheless we must likewise hold it as certain that those who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if that ignorance be invincible, will never be charged with any guilt on this account before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as he is (see 1 John 3:2) shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice.”

Fr. Harrison says about this text, “Certainly we must hold it as of faith that no one can be saved outside of the apostolic Roman Church, that this is the only ark of salvation, that the one who does not enter this is going to perish in the deluge. But nevertheless we must likewise hold it as certain that those who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if that ignorance be invincible, will never be charged with any guilt on this account before the eyes of the Lord. In fact, this statement is perfectly compatible with the ECNS position. For Augustine, Aquinas, and the mainstream pre-Jesuit tradition had never suggested that anyone invincibly ignorant of the true religion would be charged with guilt “on this account”, that is, on account of their ignorance itself. But this did not mean they could be saved if they remained in such ignorance of the Gospel right up until death.”

Fr. Harrison goes on to say that all those who are invincibly ignorant, basically interpreting this text to say that those who are invincibly ignorant, and who persevere in seeking after truth and righteousness, these will be brought to the faith before they die. Thus, the pope's statement would come down to saying that invincibly ignorant pagans cannot be saved without an explicit knowledge of the Christian religion, but if they are invincibly ignorant, God will bring them to the faith.

Fr. Harrison fails to notice that this position implicitly contradicts the pope's statement, “Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors?” Why? Because his position comes down to saying that all those who do not come to the Catholic faith before death are not invincibly ignorant. Thus we limit the bounds of this invincible ignorance to those who are united to the Catholic Church before death.

It is true that Fr. Harrison offers a kind of solution to this later, namely, that God will reveal himself perhaps secretly at the moment of death, so that none could conclude that God had not brought them to the faith. This assertion, though, has no basis in Church teaching, and would be an additional hypthesis brought in to defend his position.

The next citation is again from Pius IX, essentially saying the same thing, but more clearly:

“Here we must again mention and reprove a most serious error in which some Catholics have unhappily fallen, thinking that men living in errors and altogether apart from the the true faith and Catholic unity can attain to eternal life. [Nevertheless] it is known to us and to you that those who labor in invincible ignorance concerning our most holy religion and who, assiduously observing the natural law and its precepts which God has inscribed in the hearts of all, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, through the working of the divine light and grace, attain eternal life; since God . . . [will] never allow anyone who has not the guilt of wilful sin to be punished by eternal sufferings.” (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore)


Fr. Harrison says, “This 1863 document, admittedly, seems to lean rather more toward Perroni’s “implicit faith” thesis than the 1853 allocution did. Nevertheless, it does not teach that thesis unequivocally. For nothing the Pope says implies that anyone who is still invincibly ignorant of Christ at the moment of death can be saved.”

Fr. Harrison is reading this essentially the same way as the 1853 allocution, namely, that God will bring all those who are invincibly ignorant and obey the natural law to an explicit faith in himself. However, again it is only possible to maintain this thesis by gratuitously asserting that God must enlighten such people at the moment of their death with a divine revelation, as we shall see.


It is quite clear that Pius IX is asserting at least this much: that, all invincibly ignorant people who have no willful sin will go to heaven. Therefore, if any one of the people who are invincibly ignorant of Christ and his Church, and follows the natural law, were to die at this moment, he would go to heaven. In order to save his position, Fr. Harrison is forced to posit that such people would receive a divine revelation of the Christian religion in their last moments. Again, no basis for this. It would seem like a more reasonable position to hold that such people are already justified and freed from sin, and thus if they die, they will go to heaven, at which point they will have explicit knowledge of Christ and His Church.

[keehah]

Benjamin Fulford looks quite healthy these days.
Its a miracle!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crP9PqlPnD0

[JohnQPublic]

Fr. Harrison is a good priest, and I respect his theological opinions.

I think the best way to look at this is to say that God CAN save someone from another religion out of mercy if he chooses. To say He actually will or will not in any specific case is not for us to say. There is some support in Trent for catechumins (those in the process of converting to the faith, but dying before baptism). To take it beyond that is possible, but also somewhat speculative.

[KingTheoden]

Fr. Harrison is a good priest, and I respect his theological opinions.

I think the best way to look at this is to say that God CAN save someone from another religion out of mercy if he chooses. To say He actually will or will not in any specific case is not for us to say. There is some support in Trent for catechumins (those in the process of converting to the faith, but dying before baptism). To take it beyond that is possible, but also somewhat speculative.


Great observation.

A trouble today is that much of the leadership of the Church simply does not have faith. Many see the Catholic faith as simply a sociological construct, similar to how one might identify as 'Italian' or 'Danish.' This stands opposed to what the Church is: the universal way.

A bizarre concoction of universalism and nihilism has swept over the world - and the Church. It is no wonder that dioceses are significantly contracting and all sorts of horrible things are being committed and protected by hierarchs.

Regarding this video in particular, the Dimond brothers are two very confused people who, despite a rich historical knowledge base, simply cannot be taken seriously in theological situations.

In my view, we are in the midst of the worst crisis ever in the history of the Church. Worse than Lutheranism (and the resulting spinoffs fracturing the West). Worse than the Great Schism. And even worse than the Arianist heresy, in which the vast majority of the Church suddenly rejected the consubstantial nature of Jesus Christ.

So, it is not only possible for a Pope to preach heresy, it has in fact been done before. What the chrism of infallibility ensures is that no pope, when solemnly teaching a theological truth, can defect from truth. Neo-Catholics tend to accept the latest statement from the pope, no matter that it explicitly is stated to be a 'private theological musing' or directly contradicts a solemnly taught principle.

For those who are aware of Fatima, La Salette, and Akita, it is clear what path we are on. And this all links in with the freemasonic tyranny of the West - and the imending economic collapse.

[G2Rad]

I think the best way to look at this is to say that God CAN save someone from another religion out of mercy if he chooses.


What will be the payment for such person's sin, for the wages of sin is death?

What about "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."?

or "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved"?

[StreetsOfGold]

I think the best way to look at this is to say that God CAN save someone from another religion out of mercy if he chooses.


What will be the payment for such person's sin, for the wages of sin is death?

What about "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."?

or "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved"?


Biblical Christianity is and always has been exclusive. ONLY Jesus Christ saves and is capable of saving. Jesus was CRYSTAL CLEAR about this and make no bones about it, ANY other "way" is a FALSE WAY And you WILL end up in hell without trusting Jesus Christ and HIM ALONE.

Joh 10:1 ¶ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
Joh 10:2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
Joh 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

[JohnQPublic]

I think the best way to look at this is to say that God CAN save someone from another religion out of mercy if he chooses.


What will be the payment for such person's sin, for the wages of sin is death?

What about "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."?

or "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved"?


I am not sure we are disagreeing. That is why I see it as speculative. In the case of cathecumins, they have professed acceptance to Christ, but just have not been baptised.

[G2Rad]

as I was driving to work I was thinking about this thread

couple more verses came to remembarance

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

and

1 John 5:12
He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

[JohnQPublic]

Yes, somehow, Christ has to be involved. In the Catholic Church the controversy is aroud the idea of "invinvcible ignorance" and God's justice. I.e., how could God condemn a man that has never heard of Christ (thus our call to evangalize)? On the other hand, we are in a fallen state, and certainly have no guarantees.

Add these verses for the importance of Jesus in salvation (John 6:20:54-60):

[54]Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. [56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. [60] These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

[KingTheoden]

JohnQ answered this well.

Revealed truth is involved and not such a simple truth as '0 or 1' 'On or Off.' With that said, it is a fact that extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Those who gain salvation must pass Christ's judgement.

Invincible ignorance is an important aspect of the magesterium and is consistant with history and other aspects of the universal faith (e.g., Old Testament figures never had the chance to accept Christ as we do, but certainly there are many great saints from this period. It is likely that non-Jews were granted salvation.)

Ultimately, it was the Sacrifice of Christ that opened the gates to Heaven, but we have free will to walk through them or resist them.

Now, back to this topic, I think a number of big issues are being shoe horned into one thread. EENS, Invincible Ignorance, and the masonic infiltration of the Catholic Church are worthy of entire subforums.

[Jewboo]

Similarly, if Fr. Denis Fahey, by Gerry's own admission, taught that Jews can be saved in Judaism, Gerry needs to stop lauding Fr. Fahey as a Catholic hero. The two propositions (a) Fr. Denis Fahey is a Catholic hero and (b) no one who holds that Jews can be saved in Judaism is a Catholic, are formally contradictory. In the interest of being a "consistent Catholic," then, Gerry needs to reject at least one of these positions.



http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/gallery/090508/GAL-09May08-2002/media/PHO-09May08-161524.jpg

http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/01082004/532946/SIN272D_wa.jpg

http://www.jpost.com/HttpHandlers/ShowImage.ashx?ID=213608

http://undutchables.com/undutch_forum/images/smiley_icons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Spectrism]

Yes, somehow, Christ has to be involved. In the Catholic Church the controversy is aroud the idea of "invinvcible ignorance" and God's justice. I.e., how could God condemn a man that has never heard of Christ (thus our call to evangalize)? On the other hand, we are in a fallen state, and certainly have no guarantees.

Add these verses for the importance of Jesus in salvation (John 6:20:54-60):

[54]Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. [56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. [60] These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.



Many will come to me saying Lord, Lord, we cast out demons and healed the sick in your name. But I will tell them to go away you workers of lawlessness for I never knew you.

Those who think they can gain salvation by eating or drinking of physical things are under delusion. The Messiah made it very clear that He spoke of things of the Spirit and the physical were representations of the greater reality.




JohnQ answered this well.

Revealed truth is involved and not such a simple truth as '0 or 1' 'On or Off.' With that said, it is a fact that extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Those who gain salvation must pass Christ's judgement.

Invincible ignorance is an important aspect of the magesterium and is consistant with history and other aspects of the universal faith (e.g., Old Testament figures never had the chance to accept Christ as we do, but certainly there are many great saints from this period. It is likely that non-Jews were granted salvation.)

Ultimately, it was the Sacrifice of Christ that opened the gates to Heaven, but we have free will to walk through them or resist them.

Now, back to this topic, I think a number of big issues are being shoe horned into one thread. EENS, Invincible Ignorance, and the masonic infiltration of the Catholic Church are worthy of entire subforums.

It is very simple. False religions make the simple realities very complex. It is like the IRS and the government making tax codes. The purpose of this complexity is selfish motives. When you cite cathechismic references, you might as well just become a talmuhdic jew.

Those washed in the blood of the Lamb are called by Him and He knows them and they know Him. The king does not lay complex rules on His children. He gives them LIBERTY.

[JohnQPublic]

Many will come to me saying Lord, Lord, we cast out demons and healed the sick in your name. But I will tell them to go away you workers of lawlessness for I never knew you.

Those who think they can gain salvation by eating or drinking of physical things are under delusion. The Messiah made it very clear that He spoke of things of the Spirit and the physical were representations of the greater reality.

I said ADD these verses to "for the importance of Jesus in salvation", not these are the requirements. Those words came from Jesus' lips.



It is very simple. False religions make the simple realities very complex. It is like the IRS and the government making tax codes. The purpose of this complexity is selfish motives. When you cite cathechismic references, you might as well just become a talmuhdic jew.

The only complexity is that there is no known way for the unbaptized to enter heaven, except for one catechisimic case, where the Church states its view that catechumins who die before baptism have sufficient grace. Other than that the scriptures nor tradition offer no solutions.


Those washed in the blood of the Lamb are called by Him and He knows them and they know Him. The king does not lay complex rules on His children. He gives them LIBERTY.

Ok. I think FREEDOM may be a better word, but LIBERTY also can work.

[Neuro]

What is catechumins?

[irmatvep]

What is catechumins?

Here is the definition from Fr. John Hardon's dictionary.

CATECHUMEN

A learner, a person being instructed preparatory to receiving baptism and being admitted into the Church.

http://www.catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=32366

[Neuro]

Here is the definition from Fr. John Hardon's dictionary.

CATECHUMEN

A learner, a person being instructed preparatory to receiving baptism and being admitted into the Church.

http://www.catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=32366So unless you are a catholic, or getting close to be baptized as one, you ain't going to heaven? Or is church referred to more widely, perhaps accepting Jesus in your heart?

[irmatvep]

So unless you are a catholic, or getting close to be baptized as one, you ain't going to heaven? Or is church referred to more widely, perhaps accepting Jesus in your heart?

Hope this answers your questions.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God.... and to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."320

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"321

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

The Church and non-Christians

839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

840 and when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "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."330

842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:

All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. the Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. the Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

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.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

[JohnQPublic]

So unless you are a catholic, or getting close to be baptized as one, you ain't going to heaven? Or is church referred to more widely, perhaps accepting Jesus in your heart?

No. The issue being discussed is do you need to be baptized (basically yes)? If you are not baptized can you go to heaven (basically no, but there is the idea of baptism of "desire")? The Church has taught (Catechism of Trent) that catechumens who in rare cases die before being baptized may have sufficient means to go to heaven due to the desire to be baptized, and active attempt to get baptized. Other than that there are no unbaptismal routes known (but one never questions the will of God in these cases).

[Spectrism]

I went back to the video and have yet to see in this thread any debunking of the facts presented in the video!! Instead, I see attacks on the messenger with NO attempt to address the points presented.


Great observation.


A trouble today is that much of the leadership of the Church simply does not have faith. Many see the Catholic faith as simply a sociological construct, similar to how one might identify as 'Italian' or 'Danish.' This stands opposed to what the Church is: the universal way. [QUOTE

Says you. The Roman church is not "the universal way" by any means. In fact, it is not the way at all. The Messiah said I am the Way.

Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

For any group of people to claim they are the way is to be false messiahs- anti-christs. Spare me the propaganda- I know you have been indoctrinated to think you are carrying on that way and you also think Peter was the first pope. You cannot see the truth.



[QUOTE]A bizarre concoction of universalism and nihilism has swept over the world - and the Church. It is no wonder that dioceses are significantly contracting and all sorts of horrible things are being committed and protected by hierarchs.


I see that entirely differently. The hierarchs are only doing what they have ever done. In this age, it cannot be hidden any longer.




Regarding this video in particular, the Dimond brothers are two very confused people who, despite a rich historical knowledge base, simply cannot be taken seriously in theological situations.


Then address the facts of the video. To just claim someone is confused without showing the message wrong is a sad attempt at character assassination. That is a very low level method of arguing for something that you cannot justify.



In my view, we are in the midst of the worst crisis ever in the history of the Church. Worse than Lutheranism (and the resulting spinoffs fracturing the West). Worse than the Great Schism. And even worse than the Arianist heresy, in which the vast majority of the Church suddenly rejected the consubstantial nature of Jesus Christ.


Martin Luther was the break-through of light into that dark place. He was the first most popular one to fight the roman beast and declare what scriptures clearly showed: salvation is by grace, not works. This was heresy to the roman church which kept control over people by keeping them ignorant and needing to knuckle under the roman priesthood for the blessings of God- life itself.

Your decrying of the opening of the true gospel to the people in their native language is indicative of your zeal to fight the commands of God! What was the Messiah's command?

Mar 16:15 And He said to them, Going into all the world, preach the gospel to all the creation.
Mar 16:16 The one believing and being baptized will be saved. And the one not believing will be condemned.



So, it is not only possible for a Pope to preach heresy, it has in fact been done before. What the chrism of infallibility ensures is that no pope, when solemnly teaching a theological truth, can defect from truth. Neo-Catholics tend to accept the latest statement from the pope, no matter that it explicitly is stated to be a 'private theological musing' or directly contradicts a solemnly taught principle.


Now to even hold such self-contradictory concepts is amazing. I look at this paragraph and find myself with mixed feelings: amusement, sadness, despair, anger. How can anyone sane even buy into that rubbish?




For those who are aware of Fatima, La Salette, and Akita, it is clear what path we are on. And this all links in with the freemasonic tyranny of the West - and the imending economic collapse.

LOL... the roman church was on a path of destruction when it first became Roman. The adulterating of the true gospel with the many pagan religions- using their very temples and statues and intermingling their myths with true christianity- THAT was the beginning of destruction.

[irmatvep]

I'm not even going to bother answering SPECTRISM and his/her anti-Catholic rant. That original video was posted by the Dimond brothers claiming that Pope Benedict was denying that Jesus is the Messiah. Everyone including their grandmother knows that these two clowns are not even real Benedictine monks. They have no theological training or authority to make the pronouncements they do.

Pope Benedict never has and never will deny that Jesus is the Messiah. His words have been taken completely out of context by some. This all boils down to the subject being discussed on this thread. Can those who are not official card carrying members of the Catholic Church have any hope of salvation? The answer to this question has already been answered. God is not a monster who will deny salvation to those who through no fault of their own (aka invincible ignorance) have never had the Gospel preached to them and do not know Jesus. God does not limit salvation to water baptism and in His infinite goodness and mercy can if He so chooses bring to salvation all those of good will who sincerely strive to follow the natural moral law written on their hearts. Perhaps in their dying moments Jesus does enlighten these souls of all the truths necessary for salvation and in some mystical way baptizes them. We simply do not know. Then again there is also the possibility that there really is a place known as limbo. The traditional teaching regarding limbo is that it is actually part of Hell. Since the reward of heaven is a gratuitous gift from God and none of us deserve it, God is not unjust if He denies some this gift. Limbo is a place where the souls of unbaptized infants and righteous unbelievers occupy after death. These souls have not been cleansed of the stain of original sin but nevertheless are not guilty of personal sin. In limbo these souls experience complete natural happiness. They do not suffer from either internal spiritual or material torments. The doctrine of Limbo, however, has never been anything more than theological speculation and were are free to believe or reject it.

The Church's teaching regarding Protestants who have undergone actual water baptism is that they really are a part of the Church whether they realize it or not. Their union is imperfect because they do no possess the fullness of revealed truth. Protestants can even deny this. However that does not negate the truth that all salvation comes from God and all grace is imparted to the world through His Church. Protestants can be saved only because of their imperfect union with God's Church. Protestants can hope for eternal salvation. Those of good will who follow the ten commandments to the best of their ability and knowledge and are not guilty of mortal sin at death will be saved. It is no different for Catholics, all of us must diligently strive to work out our salvation and as St. Paul teaches "with fear and trembling". Just because one is an official member if the Catholic Church is no guarantee of salvation. The section I posted from the Catechism explains the Church's teaching regarding salvation for Muslims and Jews.

To get a better understanding of what Pope Benedict was trying to convey in his book I provide this link.


http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr ... co_en.html


Insistence on discontinuity between both Testaments and going beyond former perspectives should not, however, lead to a one-sided spiritualisation. What has already been accomplished in Christ must yet be accomplished in us and in the world. The definitive fulfilment will be at the end with the resurrection of the dead, a new heaven and a new earth. Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain. It can become for us Christians a powerful stimulant to keep alive the eschatological dimension of our faith. Like them, we too live in expectation. The difference is that for us the One who is to come will have the traits of the Jesus who has already come and is already present and active among us.

The horror in the wake of the extermination of the Jews (the Shoah) during the Second World War has led all the Churches to rethink their relationship with Judaism and, as a result, to reconsider their interpretation of the Jewish Bible, the Old Testament. It may be asked whether Christians should be blamed for having monopolised the Jewish Bible and reading there what no Jew has found. Should not Christians henceforth read the Bible as Jews do, in order to show proper respect for its Jewish origins?

In answer to the last question, a negative response must be given for hermeneutical reasons. For to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God.

As regards the first question, the situation is different, for Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Sacred Scriptures from the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading which developed in parallel fashion. Both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths, of which the readings are the result and expression. Consequently, both are irreducible.

On the practical level of exegesis, Christians can, nonetheless, learn much from Jewish exegesis practised for more than two thousand years, and, in fact, they have learned much in the course of history. For their part, it is to be hoped that Jews themselves can derive profit from Christian exegetical research.

[Spectrism]

I'm not even going to bother answering SPECTRISM and his/her anti-Catholic rant. That original video was posted by the Dimond brothers claiming that Pope Benedict was denying that Jesus is the Messiah. Everyone including their grandmother knows that these two clowns are not even real Benedictine monks. They have no theological training or authority to make the pronouncements they do.


I have no idea who these "Dimond brothers" are. I take truths from any source. As I stated, you shot the messenger and left the message alone. And now, all you can do is say they took Benedict's (Ratzinger's) words out of context.


Pope Benedict never has and never will deny that Jesus is the Messiah. His words have been taken completely out of context by some. This all boils down to the subject being discussed on this thread. Can those who are not official card carrying members of the Catholic Church have any hope of salvation? The answer to this question has already been answered.

I didn't see the answer.



God is not a monster who will deny salvation to those who through no fault of their own (aka invincible ignorance) have never had the Gospel preached to them and do not know Jesus. God does not limit salvation to water baptism and in His infinite goodness and mercy can if He so chooses bring to salvation all those of good will who sincerely strive to follow the natural moral law written on their hearts.

I see you are not familiar with God's very own words. You pretend to know the mind of God and contradict His words at the same time. God does not owe salvation to any man. In fact, He warned Adam that the day he sinned he would die. Death is the opposite of salvation. So, yes, God did deny salvation to all of Adam's race, lest they have faith in Messiah. Only those washed in the blood of Messiah will be pure of sin.

"Invincible ignorance"? Happy theologians seem to like to complicate things and make up concepts that don't have any bearing in reality. Try this:

Mat 7:22 Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name do many works of power?
Mat 7:23 And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; "depart from Me, those working lawlessness!" Psa. 6:8

I suspect there are divine appointments for those He foreknew and yet there is no outward appearance of such.... as in abortions. But that is not mine to know or say.

What man has good will? What man has a good heart in that if he follows it will have power of God's election?

Rom 3:23 for all sinned and fall short of the glory of God,


The heart of natural man is wicked. Only when washed in the blood of the Lamb and indwellt by His Spirit is there anything good in us.



The Church's teaching regarding Protestants who have undergone actual water baptism is that they really are a part of the Church whether they realize it or not.

This is religious bigotry. It is the placement of Roman traditions above scriptural truths.



Their union is imperfect because they do no possess the fullness of revealed truth. Protestants can even deny this. However that does not negate the truth that all salvation comes from God and all grace is imparted to the world through His Church.

No! All grace is imparted through the MESSIAH!!! The evidence of that impartation is His Spirit who takes up residence within. He witnesses to us and comforts us in this foreign world. For any group to attempt to intercept this is anti-christ. Any who would get between the soul of man and God is doing a tremendous evil.

Splashing of water or dancing any jig counts as nothing before a righteous God.




Protestants can be saved only because of their imperfect union with God's Church. Protestants can hope for eternal salvation. Those of good will who follow the ten commandments to the best of their ability and knowledge and are not guilty of mortal sin at death will be saved.

Who dares to tell God what sins are "mortal" and which are ok? God said all sins are mortal! There is no sin acceptable to a perfect God.

[7th trump]

I'm not even going to bother answering SPECTRISM and his/her anti-Catholic rant. That original video was posted by the Dimond brothers claiming that Pope Benedict was denying that Jesus is the Messiah. Everyone including their grandmother knows that these two clowns are not even real Benedictine monks. They have no theological training or authority to make the pronouncements they do.

Pope Benedict never has and never will deny that Jesus is the Messiah. His words have been taken completely out of context by some. This all boils down to the subject being discussed on this thread. Can those who are not official card carrying members of the Catholic Church have any hope of salvation? The answer to this question has already been answered. God is not a monster who will deny salvation to those who through no fault of their own (aka invincible ignorance) have never had the Gospel preached to them and do not know Jesus. God does not limit salvation to water baptism and in His infinite goodness and mercy can if He so chooses bring to salvation all those of good will who sincerely strive to follow the natural moral law written on their hearts. Perhaps in their dying moments Jesus does enlighten these souls of all the truths necessary for salvation and in some mystical way baptizes them. We simply do not know. Then again there is also the possibility that there really is a place known as limbo. The traditional teaching regarding limbo is that it is actually part of Hell. Since the reward of heaven is a gratuitous gift from God and none of us deserve it, God is not unjust if He denies some this gift. Limbo is a place where the souls of unbaptized infants and righteous unbelievers occupy after death. These souls have not been cleansed of the stain of original sin but nevertheless are not guilty of personal sin. In limbo these souls experience complete natural happiness. They do not suffer from either internal spiritual or material torments. The doctrine of Limbo, however, has never been anything more than theological speculation and were are free to believe or reject it.

The Church's teaching regarding Protestants who have undergone actual water baptism is that they really are a part of the Church whether they realize it or not. Their union is imperfect because they do no possess the fullness of revealed truth. Protestants can even deny this. However that does not negate the truth that all salvation comes from God and all grace is imparted to the world through His Church. Protestants can be saved only because of their imperfect union with God's Church. Protestants can hope for eternal salvation. Those of good will who follow the ten commandments to the best of their ability and knowledge and are not guilty of mortal sin at death will be saved. It is no different for Catholics, all of us must diligently strive to work out our salvation and as St. Paul teaches "with fear and trembling". Just because one is an official member if the Catholic Church is no guarantee of salvation. The section I posted from the Catechism explains the Church's teaching regarding salvation for Muslims and Jews.

To get a better understanding of what Pope Benedict was trying to convey in his book I provide this link.


http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr ... co_en.html
Spec is right about you.
You really don't have a clue about scripture do you.

To further the scripture, God's words are anyone taking the number 666 is basically not receiving salvation come the sounding of the 7th trumpet.

I'll tell you right now unless you understand what event "666" symbolizes (yes "666" is an event, not a number, that only those who understand 666 will know how to identify the true false messiah.
As of right now I'd say most of the churches, including the catholic church, are all headed for a real disappointment. Unless the church is instructing the followers the true meaning of 666 the churches and those in them are the first to be deceived.
They are ripe for the picking as they have faith. They are more easily fooled that an atheist who has to muster up faith to believe in what they consider a fairy tale ghost.
Like Spec has said, there are many false messiah's, but the one false messiah's God wants you to watch out and steer away from is the one that appears at 666.
If you haven't figured out what 666 is I'll tell you right now!
666 is the 6th trumpet sounding at the same time the 6th seal is opened and the6th vial is poured.
Read those three important passages and you should see all three are describing the entrance of satan after being booted from Heaven by Micheal.
You can be a church pew potato all you whole life and have no sin at all. But its not going to mean a damn thing come the 7th trumpet sounding (the return of Christ). If you're fooled into worshipping the devil the moment Christ returns there is no salvation for you unless you make it through 1000 year the rule of a rod of iron which afterwards they are tested once again upon satans short release..

[irmatvep]

Who dares to tell God what sins are "mortal" and which are ok? God said all sins are mortal! There is no sin acceptable to a perfect God.

First let me state unequivocally that God detests all sin. However, sacred scripture (the infallible word of God) clearly does make a distinction between mortal and venial sin. Not all sin has the same gravity and incurs the same penalty. Do you really believe that the theft of a loaf of bread from a wealthy supermarket chain is as grievous that of willful murder? Does the person who steals the loaf of bread really deserve the same eternal punishment of Hell as the murderer? The Church calls the sin unto death mortal because is causes death to the soul.

1 John 1:16-17

He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask. All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.

http://www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html


What is a Mortal Sin?

All sin is an offense against God and a rejection of his perfect love and justice. Yet, Jesus makes a distinction between two types of sins. We call the most serious and grave sins, mortal sins. Mortal sins destroy the grace of God in the heart of the sinner. By their very grave nature, a mortal sin cuts our relationship off from God and turns man away from his creator. St. Paul’s letter to the Hebrews tell us that "if we sin willfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins" (Hebrews 10:26). The second type of sin, venial sin, that of less grave matter, does not cut us off from Christ. However, venial sin does weaken grace in the soul and damages our relationship with God. A person who frequently indulges in venial sin is very likely to collapse into mortal sin if they persist in their evil ways.

What kinds of offenses against God constitute "grave matter"?

In the Bible, St. Paul gives us a list of grave sins. He states that anyone who commits these sins shall not enter the kingdom of God. "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Galatians 5:19-20). Paul also tells the Corinthians, "know you no that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards nor railers, nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). These sins constitute grave matter, and if they are committed willingly and with full consent, constitute mortal sin.

The Church also tells us that the sins of anger, blasphemy, envy, hatred, malice, murder, neglect of Sunday obligation, sins against faith (incredulity against God or heresy), sins against hope (obstinate despair in the hope for salvation and/or presumption that oneself can live without God or be saved by one’s own power) and sins against love (indifference towards charity, ingratitude, and/or hatred of God) also constitute grave matter. This list of grave sins, is based on Jesus Christ’s interpretation of the gravity of the Ten Commandments. Grave sins can be classed as sins against God, neighbor and self, and can further be divided into carnal and spiritual sins (CCC 1853).

Four other sins are considered grave also. These sins not only offend God, but men as well. Thus these four sins are called "the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance" and are likewise mortal sins. These grave sins are:

The voluntary murder (Genesis 4:10)
The sin of impurity against nature –Sodomy and homosexual relations (Genesis 18:20)
Taking advantage of the poor (Exodus 2:23)
Defrauding the workingman of his wages (James 5:4)

[irmatvep]

Spec is right about you.
You really don't have a clue about scripture do you.

To further the scripture, God's words are anyone taking the number 666 is basically not receiving salvation come the sounding of the 7th trumpet.

I'll tell you right now unless you understand what event "666" symbolizes (yes "666" is an event, not a number, that only those who understand 666 will know how to identify the true false messiah.
As of right now I'd say most of the churches, including the catholic church, are all headed for a real disappointment. Unless the church is instructing the followers the true meaning of 666 the churches and those in them are the first to be deceived.
They are ripe for the picking as they have faith. They are more easily fooled that an atheist who has to muster up faith to believe in what they consider a fairy tale ghost.
Like Spec has said, there are many false messiah's, but the one false messiah's God wants you to watch out and steer away from is the one that appears at 666.
If you haven't figured out what 666 is I'll tell you right now!
666 is the 6th trumpet sounding at the same time the 6th seal is opened and the6th vial is poured.
Read those three important passages and you should see all three are describing the entrance of satan after being booted from Heaven by Micheal.
You can be a church pew potato all you whole life and have no sin at all. But its not going to mean a damn thing come the 7th trumpet sounding (the return of Christ). If you're fooled into worshipping the devil the moment Christ returns there is no salvation for you unless you make it through 1000 year the rule of a rod of iron which afterwards they are tested once again upon satans short release..

7th trump

Please don't misunderstand what I'm about to say because I really don't mean to offend you or anyone. However, what you have written just sounds like a lot of Protestant gibberish. God has not given everyone the gift to be able to accurately interpret scripture. God only established one Church and entrusted it with the ability and the right to interpret the true meaning of the scriptures. The problem with Protestants is that they all claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit but when they read the Bible there are as many different interpretations as there are people reading it. Why is it that Protestants can't see the contradiction in this. The Holy Spirit never contradicts Himself. I would think that you would stop and think that if I don't agree with your interpretation either you are right and I am wrong or maybe we're both wrong. Remember God did warn about twisting the meaning of scripture.

2 Peter 3:15-17

And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness.

[7th trump]

7th trump

Please don't misunderstand what I'm about to say because I really don't mean to offend you or anyone. However, what you have written just sounds like a lot of Protestant gibberish. God has not given everyone the gift to be able to accurately interpret scripture. God only established one Church and entrusted it with the ability and the right to interpret the true meaning of the scriptures. The problem with Protestants is that they all claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit but when they read the Bible there are as many different interpretations as there are people reading it. Why is it that Protestants can't see the contradiction in this. The Holy Spirit never contradicts Himself. I would think that you would stop and think that if I don't agree with your interpretation either you are right and I am wrong or maybe we're both wrong. Remember God did warn about twisting the meaning of scripture.

2 Peter 3:15-17

And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness.
Gibberish huh?
God may have established one church but Christ approved the churches of Philadelphia and Smyrna did He not?

Does God not say those with the number of the beast written on their forehead (believe) or on their hand (doing the works thereof) are not allowed into paradise?
I believe God did say this!
And did you notice there is no exemption or free rides to the number of the beast?
It applies to everyone equally including those who go to church and sit in the front row.
So with that God has put matter between our ears to think with, so those life long church pew potatoes, who maybe without sin, are also subject to Gods punishment if they are caught believing the fake messiah (satan) is the real Messiah.

To interpret Gods word is easy enough as long as you understand a fundamental core.
And at this time there are 12,000 Elect on this earth (and thousands more common people) who understand what 666 is a symbol of. The 12,000 Elect were chosen thousands of years ago to witness against satan because they fought against satan when satan rebelled. So I believe you are wrong to say:


God has not given everyone the gift to be able to accurately interpret scripture

There's no such thing as a "gift" when seeking salvation.
Salvation is not a "gift"!
You have to go through Christ to attain salvation.
God said He will provide you with everything you need including understanding the Word to attain salvation.
God doesn't hide nothing!
If you cant see it then you are either looking in the wrong direction (misled) or simple not looking at all.

Yes I'm very much aware of the warning God gave about adding and taking away the Word.
I would never do such a thing.

[Spectrism]

First let me state unequivocally that God detests all sin. However, sacred scripture (the infallible word of God) clearly does make a distinction between mortal and venial sin. Not all sin has the same gravity and incurs the same penalty. Do you really believe that the theft of a loaf of bread from a wealthy supermarket chain is as grievous that of willful murder? Does the person who steals the loaf of bread really deserve the same eternal punishment of Hell as the murderer? The Church calls the sin unto death mortal because is causes death to the soul.

I understand your position and how you were indoctrinated. The problem with that is your perspective is entirely that of fallen mankind. That is a flawed perspective. Look at it from the view of a perfect God who tolerates NO sin in His presence. All of mankind deserves separation from God eternally. None are innocent. We are offspring of a fallen race.

If that does not make sense to you, try this one. A citizen from India writes a letter to America. In it he demands to have the rights and privileges of an American citizen. The basis of his demand is that he is better than a citizen from Pakistan. This Indian fellow does not want to actually go to America or follow American laws but wants a fair share of the American wealth and protection from outside invaders. Further, his children should be given the rights of American citizens too.

Obviously a foreigner has no claim to the rights of another country. Likewise, we are all foreigners to the kingdom of God. The Messiah came to fulfill a mission of opening the way for those of faith. The gospel message is that those who would believe on the Messiah would not be restricted from heaven by the "gates of hell". There is no magic key given to Peter and supposedly the roman church.



1 John 1:16-17
He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask. All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.


Your reference is incorrect. Here is the verse in context:

1Jn 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
1Jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
1Jn 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:
1Jn 5:15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.
1Jn 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
1Jn 5:17All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
1Jn 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
1Jn 5:19And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
1Jn 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.


So how can you have eternal life and still sin unto death? It sounds like a contradiction but is a fine point to understand. Salvation is not forced upon mankind. It is a cooperation- a choice of man, to accept the washing of the Messiah. It is possible to reject God. Rejection of the Spirit or denying the Truth of the message of the Spirit is the unforgiveable sin. If one rejects the one way of salvation, he is doomed by his own choice.

Now look at the very last verse. It is the warning that explains what this death sin is- worshipping idols. The true Church is composed of those who are washed in the blood of Messiah. It is not a building, not a collection of one racial or cultural group. It is not the roman church. It is truly universal in that it breaks through all boundaries and it is invisible because it is a work of the Spirit inside of man. The true Church is the body of Messiah. It is a marriage-like relationship. There is no "mother church" as that would be an adulterer. The true Church is an unblemished bride awaiting the wedding ceremony upon the return of Messiah.

Any having idols are by choice outside that betrothed awaiting. Any who would have some man, organization, practice, doctrine, book, or anything - come between them and the Messiah is lost to an idol. If these words do not stir something up in you, there is no further talk for you.




7th trump

Please don't misunderstand what I'm about to say because I really don't mean to offend you or anyone. However, what you have written just sounds like a lot of Protestant gibberish. God has not given everyone the gift to be able to accurately interpret scripture. God only established one Church and entrusted it with the ability and the right to interpret the true meaning of the scriptures. The problem with Protestants is that they all claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit but when they read the Bible there are as many different interpretations as there are people reading it.

The roman church has MORE splinter groups than the "protestants". Where do you think the "protestants" came from?!! And to lump all non-roman groups as "protestants" shows the ignorance that veils your view. You cannot see beyond that paradigm as if there are only republicans and democrats. Frankly, I see the repub & demon parties as both owned by the devil. To claim the roman church is valid because there are false "protestants" is like saying gold coins are false because there are some counterfeits.

Not all protestants are indwellt by the Spirit. That does not condemn believers who are indwellt by God's Spirit.




Why is it that Protestants can't see the contradiction in this. The Holy Spirit never contradicts Himself. I would think that you would stop and think that if I don't agree with your interpretation either you are right and I am wrong or maybe we're both wrong. Remember God did warn about twisting the meaning of scripture.

2 Peter 3:15-17
And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness.

Twisting scripture? This verse is a warning for scoffers in the end days who forgot the truths of the gospel.

You worship a pope. Don't go into that veneration crap.... it is plain out worship. I saw at the coronation. I see it in the dogmas. I lived it in my upbringing. My family was roman catholic. You are bound to the rule of the pope who is the leader of your church "magisterium". They tell you what to believe and you think you have the only stable source of information. Let me tell you what drives you. Fear. You are afraid to step outside the roman rule and you are afraid of being "disloyal" or "unfaithful" to the roman church. You have let an idol be your god and you don't even know it.