Salavation "Apart" from Rome?

[Guest yod]

God Bless, God Bless,

Saints the Lord led me to two questions today. They applied to me yet they fit here as well.

They were this;

What did Abraham have?

I answered.

Then this came;

What did Moses have?

Peace,

Dave

Jesus saves but Moses invests?

[Tyler]

Quote:Posted by Marc

My friend do you really care?

Do you know how many cults there is that teach something similar, people are condemned unless they do what xyz organisations says?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marc, how many "cults" do you know that have 1Billion members?

Only Christ Saves

[Arthur Durnan]

1. For all practical intents & purposes, Moses cannot invest any longer. But the Lord Jesus Christ still saves today, changes lives and unites both Jew & Gentile into the one Church of the Living God (Ephesians 2)! AMEN! Thank You, Lord Jesus!

2. Beyond any doubt, the Roman Church with its unscriptural papacy and numerous self-concocted tenets over the ages is the largest non-Christian organization which still calls itself "Christian." Peter could say "Silver & gold have I none," whereas the head of the Roman organization could never utter such. Truly, the Apostle had a mother-in-law and no gold. The head of the church of Rome has no mother-in-law but plenty of the 18 and 24-karat stuff! Right on!

God bless America!

[Leonard]

Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

NOW YOU'VE HIT ON SOMETHING, TYLER! Citing the CANON. That is the official statement of the Roman Church, and as you can see, some canons are wrong. The Bulls are only papal opinion. Popes issue them when they feel very strongly about an issue, but they do not have binding force.

And God-man, it does indeed make a HUGE difference if a statement from the Pope is ex cathedra or not. One is binding in the Roman church and the other is not!

As I said there are plenty of errors in Roman Catholicism, but rather than just throwing all the mud we can think of at the wall to see what sticks, why don't we narrow our focus to where we can have actual effect?

With a blessing,

Leonard, a sinner

[Tyler]

Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

NOW YOU'VE HIT ON SOMETHING, TYLER!  Citing the CANON.  That is the official statement of the Roman Church, and as you can see, some canons are wrong.  The Bulls are only papal opinion.  Popes issue them when they feel very strongly about an issue, but they do not have binding force.

And God-man, it does indeed make a HUGE difference if a statement from the Pope is ex cathedra or not.  One is binding in the Roman church and the other is not! 

As I said there are plenty of errors in Roman Catholicism, but rather than just throwing all the mud we can think of at the wall to see what sticks, why don't we narrow our focus to where we can have actual effect?

With a blessing,

Leonard, a sinner

For you Leonard some"canons"!

After this Catholic doctrine on justification, which whosoever does not faithfully and firmly accept cannot be justified, it seemed good to the holy council to add these canons, that all may know not only what they must hold and follow, but what to avoid and shun:

Canon I: If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ: let him be anathema.

Canon III: If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspirtaion of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him: let him be anathema.

Canon VII. If any one saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more greviously he sins, let him be anathema.

Canon IX. If any one saith that by faith alone the impious is justified, in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will, let him be anathema.

Canon X. If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby he merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just: let him be anathema.

Canon XI. If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified is only the favor of God: let him be anathema.

Canon XXIV. If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof: let him be anathema.

Canon XXVI. If anyone saith that the just ought not for the good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal reward from God through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if by doing well and keeping the commandments they persevere to the end, let him be anathema.

Canon XXIX. If any one saith, that he who has fallen after baptism is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church

[Leonard]

Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

I think most or all of the canons you cite come from the Council of Trent, AND THEY ARE STILL IN FORCE in the Roman Church. These have never been abnegated, and theologically it would be very difficult for Rome to do so. You are absolutely correct here, Tyler.

THIS is one of the places where Rome has got it loused up like a soup sandwich. And the pope is considered infallible on matters of faith and morals, but in order for his pronouncements to have the force of Canon Law, it MUST be ex cathedra. Otherwise the Roman church assumes the Councils to be infallible.

Do remember, old boy, I'm not Roman!

With a blessing,

Leonard, a sinner

[Douay]

TYYYYLLUUUUUUURRRRR,

You forgot some.

[Ovedya]

And God-man, it does indeed make a HUGE difference if a statement from the Pope is ex cathedra or not. One is binding in the Roman church and the other is not!

However, it appears to me as merely a matter of semantics. The various councils have affirmed consistently that its edicts are to be interpeted as infallible and 100% compulsory to the Rc laity - in fact, to the world at large.

[Douay]

And God-man, it does indeed make a HUGE difference if a statement from the Pope is ex cathedra or not.  One is binding in the Roman church and the other is not!

However, it appears to me as merely a matter of semantics. The various councils have affirmed consistently that its edicts are to be interpeted as infallible and 100% compulsory to the Rc laity - in fact, to the world at large.

We know that they don't say that, but you say that they do. I guess that is all that counts.

[Ovedya]

And God-man, it does indeed make a HUGE difference if a statement from the Pope is ex cathedra or not.