re: Milo on Jehovah’s Witness, Christian Scientists, Mormons, etc

quote:

---

That was so stupid, if you don't become Catholic you all go to hell? Dude just verified he is a retard.

---

Well how did it work before Christ came to us.
With some exceptions, before Christ, only Jews were saved.
Why would today be any different.
Kind of scary if you ain’t Catholic.
I can see why you don’t believe what Milo said.

Fair enough, that’s not too much to ask :)

quote:

---

Ironic you say that then basically question mine because I’m not Catholic

---

I wasn’t questioning you. I was questioning FooManChoo who believes he knows everything about God and Faith and that we are all wrong.

I’m a Catholic defending our love of the Blessed Mother and our Faith!

quote:

---

Can you imagine being so arrogant as to adhere to the Protestant belief of Once saved always saved.

---

To be fair, it's not really a Protestant belief. The only denominations that believe in this doctrine are Calvinists (they invented it) and the denominations that are heavily influenced by Calvinism, primarily the southern American evangelicals (Baptists and Non-Denoms). It's one of the most unbiblical and unhistoric doctrines out there, and most Protestant denominations recognize it as such.

quote:

---

The Catholic Church has never once held a belief or committed an action questionable to God?

---

Correct on the belief part. The church has never officially taught anything which is heretical or false. However, members within the church can and have being wretched and sinful in deed, just like any other individual.

quote:

---

Indulgences

---

Were and are biblical. Members of the church DID abuse them, however. Even Luther defended the practice, he only spoke out against their abuse.

quote:

---

unjustified crusades

---

The entire world would be Muslim today if not for the Catholic church fighting the crusades. They were absolutely justified.

quote:

---

persecution

---

Examples?

quote:

---

literally burnt a man at the stake for converting the Bible in to English (William Tyndale)

---

Ah, you've drank the pseudohistory kool-aid. Several books of the Bible had already been translated into English prior to Tyndale. He was excommunicated (not killed) by the Catholic church for creating a heretical translation, one which most conservative Protestant theologians admit contain well over 1000 documented errors, many of which were intentional to paint the Catholic church in a bad light. He was persecuted by King Henry and the Church of England for speaking out against the King's divorce, and his sentence carried out by the Holy Roman Empire.

quote:

---

The son of Mary of Clopus, just like the Bible implicates. 

---

Interesting take.

Matthew 13:55 AMP
[55] Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And are not His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

quote:

---

Interesting take.

---

Yes the greek word used there is adelphos, which is also used to describe Abraham and Lot's relationship. Yet, they were uncle and nephew, not brothers.

We know that James the younger and Joseph's mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: “among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matt. 27:56)

“There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome” (Mark 15:40).

Then look at what John says: “But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas, a different Mary than Jesus' mother.

That would make them first cousins, and the same Greek word used to describe full brothers with the same mother and father (which cannot apply to Jesus since God only begot one son) would be used to describe any relationship between kin.

Watch the video below by New Orleans native and renowned New Testament scholar, Dr. Brant Pitre

Dr. Brant Pitre explains it here

quote:

---

Whoa
Your church has the authority granted to Peter as head of the Church.
To bind and to Loosen.

---

Again, that authority was granted to all the disciples/apostles, not just to Peter. I already explained this; read Matthew 18:15-20 where Jesus is addressing all His disciples, not just Peter. Go back and read my previous post where I explained this.

All faithful branches of Christ's Church have this authority. It is given to the elders/overseers of the churches in particular.

quote:

---

You claim this authority for yourself as member of your church.
Are you crazy.
Do you not understand what you are saying?
The mask has finally come off

---

I understand what I'm saying but clearly you do not. I'm sorry if I haven't been clear, but no, I'm not saying that I as an individual member of my church have the authority to bind and loose. That authority rests in the elders of the Church which act as Christ's under-shepherds, with His delegated authority.

quote:

---

quote:

---

It has the authority to bind and loose; to receive into membership and to exclude from membership. It has the authority to administer the sacraments.

---

Then you or I would have the same authority.

---

I must have been very unclear in my statement because you are the 2nd person who has misunderstood me.

Christ has given the authority to bind and to loose to the elders of each congregation of each faithful branch of Christ's one Church. The individual members do not possess this authority, but it is for the elders of the churches to receive professing and baptized Christians into membership/union in the visible Church and to discipline them as needed, including removing them from that membership/union.

quote:

---

That position is why we have so many different denominations.

---

I believe sin is the reason we have so many different denominations. Sin clouds our thinking and prevents us from believing all that God has taught us in His word. That's true for all Christians and it is why we all need to pray that God renews our minds by His Spirit and word.

quote:

---

Someone has to be correct. Ex: Jesus can’t be born of a virgin and not born of a virgin.

---

Agreed. Logically, not everyone can be right when there are different beliefs. In Heaven, all will be made perfectly clear and there will be no more denominations.

quote:

---

My position is backed by 2,000 years of doctrine and tradition that can be traced back to Jesus. Yours can be traced back to a man who thought you knew more than the Church.

---

This is a misrepresentation of the Reformation. Going back to the Scriptures takes us back 2,000+ years, not 500+. Paul was preaching against heresy and other false teachings from the beginning and yet Roman Catholics believe that Rome has been kept pure since the beginning. I'm afraid not.

It's also disingenuous to claim unity with the Church for 2,000 years because not all that Rome teaches/believes today is what the Church believed for the past 2,000 years. It wasn't until the Council of Trent that Rome apostatized, IMO, because it wasn't until 500 years ago that the gospel of Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures was deemed anathema by her. Since then in particular, there has been dogma after dogma that is wholly unknown by the early Church fathers, especially the Marian dogmas and the concept of papal infallibility. You can claim nominal unity to the Church from the beginning but the lampstand was removed from Rome centuries ago and Rome of today is much different from Rome in AD 100.

This would be akin to environmentalism today compared to 100 years ago. An environmentalist 100 years ago was primarily focused on preserving natural landscapes and conservation while environmentalists today are more concerned about social justice. An environmentalist claiming continuity across the movement for the past century would be pretty disingenuous because of the vast differences between then and now.