The Creed of St. Athanasius

[mclees8]

Romans 10:9-10
If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved.


...No mention of any Catholic church there...

Matt 16: 18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it".

Catholic means universal. Are you not of the ONE universal church started by Him, Jesus Christ Our Lord?

Matthew 16:18 is about Jesus the Rock, and about how Peter was blessed by Him for the revelation he expressed about the Lord. As for what you use the word, 'Catholic' to mean, I don't use that word, because of the connotation. I am simply a member of the Body of Christ, His Church, His Bride.

For once I must disagree with you comment. We are not members of Christ church we simply are his church. We are one in Christ. He is in you and you are in Him. Paul said I live in this flesh yet not I but Christ livith in me

[mclees8]

Something wonderful happend on the day of Pentecost. We were made New by the indewling of His Holy Spirit. Just as like new Wine skins being filled with the new wine which is Christ who now is in us. What did Jesus say to his disciples of the Holy Spirit
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; ¹⁷ Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.   Jn 14:16-17
Are you struggling to be a good christian. Stop trying to be a good Christian because the more you try the less you are able to. Not one of us can live the christian life. Jesus must do it for us. He has to not walk with us be we must be one with Him
The Holy Spirit is none other than Christ Himself who alone can make us New creatures in Christ. Behold old things have passed away behold all things have become new.

[trifecta]

Applying historical references to today is a dicey prospect that context and times are needed to correctly interpret.


The Creed of St. Athanasius was written at a time when the non-cult Christian faith was called "Catholic."  The alternatives to the Catholic Faith were gnostics, and Donatists, among others.


Having said that The Creed of St. Athanasius was written in the west and those of us in Eastern Christianity never accepted it - nor were probably even invited to read it.  Our big objection is inclusion of the filioque.  It is NOT a universal creed of the church.  Indeed, only the Nicene Creed falls into this category.


And St Athanasius is a saint in the east as well, but he did NOT write this creed. 


I don'r know why certain western churches keep this creed around.  It is not universal, nor has it ever been.

[LightHammer]

Applying historical references to today is a dicey prospect that context and times are needed to correctly interpret.


The Creed of St. Athanasius was written at a time when the non-cult Christian faith was called "Catholic."  The alternatives to the Catholic Faith were gnostics, and Donatists, among others.


Having said that The Creed of St. Athanasius was written in the west and those of us in Eastern Christianity never accepted it - nor were probably even invited to read it.  Our big objection is inclusion of the filioque.  It is NOT a universal creed of the church.  Indeed, only the Nicene Creed falls into this category.


And St Athanasius is a saint in the east as well, but he did NOT write this creed. 


I don'r know why certain western churches keep this creed around.  It is not universal, nor has it ever been.

I don't think the OP was attempting to present this creed as universal.

[FireSword]

Applying historical references to today is a dicey prospect that context and times are needed to correctly interpret.


The Creed of St. Athanasius was written at a time when the non-cult Christian faith was called "Catholic."  The alternatives to the Catholic Faith were gnostics, and Donatists, among others.


Having said that The Creed of St. Athanasius was written in the west and those of us in Eastern Christianity never accepted it - nor were probably even invited to read it.  Our big objection is inclusion of the filioque.  It is NOT a universal creed of the church.  Indeed, only the Nicene Creed falls into this category.


And St Athanasius is a saint in the east as well, but he did NOT write this creed. 


I don'r know why certain western churches keep this creed around.  It is not universal, nor has it ever been.

That is most interesting trifecta. Light hammer and me, touched upon this very subject recently.

I have a question, if this creed is not universally accepted, then as to which creed would be considered it's alternative replacement as touching upon salvation.

[trifecta]

FireSword,

Thanks for the question and sorry to take so long to respond.  The Nicene Creed is the only creed to be
universally accepted by the church. In the east, we all need to recite it when we convert or even when
once becomes a deacon, priest, or bishop.

As for the issue of salvation, those in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches are not so much into
what makes one saved.  We are more interested on the journey and living the Christian life.

It was a real blow to the faith when Rome added the Filioque since they unilaterally changed a long-held creed.

[Selene]

FireSword,

Thanks for the question and sorry to take so long to respond.  The Nicene Creed is the only creed to be
universally accepted by the church. In the east, we all need to recite it when we convert or even when
once becomes a deacon, priest, or bishop.

As for the issue of salvation, those in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches are not so much into
what makes one saved.  We are more interested on the journey and living the Christian life.

It was a real blow to the faith when Rome added the Filioque since they unilaterally changed a long-held creed.

I don't think adding "and the Son" was a real blow to the faith.  I think not consulting the eastern Church was more of the issue. 

[HRoberson]

FireSword,

Thanks for the question and sorry to take so long to respond.  The Nicene Creed is the only creed to be
universally accepted by the church. In the east, we all need to recite it when we convert or even when
once becomes a deacon, priest, or bishop.

As for the issue of salvation, those in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches are not so much into
what makes one saved.  We are more interested on the journey and living the Christian life.

It was a real blow to the faith when Rome added the Filioque since they unilaterally changed a long-held creed.

I don't think adding "and the Son" was a real blow to the faith.  I think not consulting the eastern Church was more of the issue. 

Depends on how one understands the creed's meaning of the origin of the Spirit.

[Selene]

FireSword,

Thanks for the question and sorry to take so long to respond.  The Nicene Creed is the only creed to be
universally accepted by the church. In the east, we all need to recite it when we convert or even when
once becomes a deacon, priest, or bishop.

As for the issue of salvation, those in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches are not so much into
what makes one saved.  We are more interested on the journey and living the Christian life.

It was a real blow to the faith when Rome added the Filioque since they unilaterally changed a long-held creed.

I don't think adding "and the Son" was a real blow to the faith.  I think not consulting the eastern Church was more of the issue. 

Depends on how one understands the creed's meaning of the origin of the Spirit.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.  The external relationships of the persons of the Trinity mirror their internal relationships. Just as the Father externally sent the Son into the world in time, the Son internally proceeds from the Father in the Trinity. Just as the Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), he internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20).

[HRoberson]

FireSword,

Thanks for the question and sorry to take so long to respond.  The Nicene Creed is the only creed to be
universally accepted by the church. In the east, we all need to recite it when we convert or even when
once becomes a deacon, priest, or bishop.

As for the issue of salvation, those in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches are not so much into
what makes one saved.  We are more interested on the journey and living the Christian life.

It was a real blow to the faith when Rome added the Filioque since they unilaterally changed a long-held creed.

I don't think adding "and the Son" was a real blow to the faith.  I think not consulting the eastern Church was more of the issue. 

Depends on how one understands the creed's meaning of the origin of the Spirit.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.  The external relationships of the persons of the Trinity mirror their internal relationships. Just as the Father externally sent the Son into the world in time, the Son internally proceeds from the Father in the Trinity. Just as the Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), he internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20).

Yeah, I understand the Catholic view. It certainly is one, but is not shared by (or wasn't at the time) by the EO. Their current writers also disagree with the Roman view, considering it denigrating to the Spirit. I have read more from Roman Catholic theologians who are willing to delete the filioque from the creed, than I am from EO who consider it not worth arguing over.

"And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him."

Looks like the Spirit comes from God, and is referred to as the Spirit of God.

Hmm....

[Paulus]

The Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church do not have to include the "Filioque" in their version of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed .

[HRoberson]

The Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church do not have to include the "Filioque" in their version of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed .

Here is a quote from 2010. It refers not just to Eastern Catholic, but the Roman Catholic church changing its recitation of the Creed.

"As we have suggested in our 2003 statement "The Filioque:  a Church-Dividing Issue?" the original Greek form of the Creed of 381, because of its authority and antiquity, should be used as the common form of our confession in both our Churches."

[Paulus]

www.kaldu.org/14_Reformed_ChaldeanMass/QA_NewMass.html

Reading the above link , it is clear that the Holy See is actually encouraging Eastern Rite Catholics to use the original form of the Nicene Creed , that is with the Filioque clause omitted .

[HRoberson]

Yes. The Consultation recommends that Western rite churches do the same.

[LightHammer]

I've read a few of St. Athanasius' works. I say with confidence that I believe his view of the origin of the Holy Spirit is more in line with Western double procession (that is from the patrimony of the Father through the expression of the Son).

A topic (or rather several hundred topics) about the origin of the Holy Spirit could be started by an online forum of scholars and msytics. I have provided a link to St. Athanasius' work of the Holy Spirit so that others may read for themselves. It was drafted as letter meant to reduce and focus his teachings regarding from the Holy Spirit that were first published in broader terms in his more famous work "On the Incarnation of the Word".


http://archive.org/stream/TheLettersOfSaintAthanasiusConcerningTheHolySpirit/Athanasius_Letters_to_Serapion_Shapland#page/n5/mode/2up

[Selene]

FireSword,

Thanks for the question and sorry to take so long to respond.  The Nicene Creed is the only creed to be
universally accepted by the church. In the east, we all need to recite it when we convert or even when
once becomes a deacon, priest, or bishop.

As for the issue of salvation, those in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches are not so much into
what makes one saved.  We are more interested on the journey and living the Christian life.

It was a real blow to the faith when Rome added the Filioque since they unilaterally changed a long-held creed.

I don't think adding "and the Son" was a real blow to the faith.  I think not consulting the eastern Church was more of the issue. 

Depends on how one understands the creed's meaning of the origin of the Spirit.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.  The external relationships of the persons of the Trinity mirror their internal relationships. Just as the Father externally sent the Son into the world in time, the Son internally proceeds from the Father in the Trinity. Just as the Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), he internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20).

Yeah, I understand the Catholic view. It certainly is one, but is not shared by (or wasn't at the time) by the EO. Their current writers also disagree with the Roman view, considering it denigrating to the Spirit. I have read more from Roman Catholic theologians who are willing to delete the filioque from the creed, than I am from EO who consider it not worth arguing over.

"And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him."

Looks like the Spirit comes from God, and is referred to as the Spirit of God.

Hmm....

How can they disagree when in the first place they were never given the opportunity to disagree.  The problem was never the filoque.  The real issue was the fact that Rome went ahead and added the filoque without first consulting the eastern Church. 

Furthermore, the Spirit ALSO comes from the Son and is referred to as the Spirit of the Son. 

Galatians 4:6   And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

[HRoberson]

What?

[trifecta]

How can they disagree when in the first place they were never given the opportunity to disagree.  The problem was never the filoque.  The real issue was the fact that Rome went ahead and added the filoque without first consulting the eastern Church. 

Yes, unilaterally imposing a change to a decision of an ecumenical council is troublesome, but it is not the only problem.

Firstly, changing the Creed goes against the idea of the faith was "given once for all" (Jude 3).   What was wrong with the original?

And then there's this . . .

The Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church do not have to include the "Filioque" in their version of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed .

While it's nice that the RCC accepts, in some way, the legitimacy of the original Niceao-Constantinopolitan Creed, why is it
okay for the Eastern Rite Churches of today to remove the Filioque, while in 1054, the same issue got us excommunicated?
Is the truth relative to time and place? It seems so, according to the RCC.

The addition of the Filioque was done to combat some heresy in Spain (I think), not to correct an error in the creed.  Popes of the day (St. Gregory) did not put it in the creed. 

Finally, the Filioque is bad theology.  In a crass attempt to get you to visit the EO section, I have posted a brief summary there of
why the Filioque itself is incorrect.

Thanks for reading.

[Selene]

How can they disagree when in the first place they were never given the opportunity to disagree.  The problem was never the filoque.  The real issue was the fact that Rome went ahead and added the filoque without first consulting the eastern Church. 

Yes, unilaterally imposing a change to a decision of an ecumenical council is troublesome, but it is not the only problem.

Firstly, changing the Creed goes against the idea of the faith was "given once for all" (Jude 3).   What was wrong with the original?

And then there's this . . .

The Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church do not have to include the "Filioque" in their version of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed .

While it's nice that the RCC accepts, in some way, the legitimacy of the original Niceao-Constantinopolitan Creed, why is it
okay for the Eastern Rite Churches of today to remove the Filioque, while in 1054, the same issue got us excommunicated?
Is the truth relative to time and place? It seems so, according to the RCC.

The addition of the Filioque was done to combat some heresy in Spain (I think), not to correct an error in the creed.  Popes of the day (St. Gregory) did not put it in the creed. 

Finally, the Filioque is bad theology.  In a crass attempt to get you to visit the EO section, I have posted a brief summary there of
why the Filioque itself is incorrect.

Thanks for reading.

And I already stated my reasons why it is correct and provided biblical support for it. 

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.  The external relationships of the persons of the Trinity mirror their internal relationships. Just as the Father externally sent the Son into the world in time, the Son internally proceeds from the Father in the Trinity. Just as the Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), he internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20).

[AnnaM]

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary, that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which faith, except everyone do keep entire and inviolate, without doubt he will perish everlastingly...

This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully and steadfastly, he cannot be be saved.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Outside the Catholic Church there is absolutely no salvation. Anyone who would deny this dogma is a heretic.

[AVZ]

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary, that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which faith, except everyone do keep entire and inviolate, without doubt he will perish everlastingly...

This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully and steadfastly, he cannot be be saved.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Outside the Catholic Church there is absolutely no salvation. Anyone who would deny this dogma is a heretic.

Hi Anna,

I see its the weekly computer hour in the convent again?

[Helen]

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary, that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which faith, except everyone do keep entire and inviolate, without doubt he will perish everlastingly...

This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully and steadfastly, he cannot be be saved.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Outside the Catholic Church there is absolutely no salvation. Anyone who would deny this dogma is a heretic.

Well, the Bible disagrees with that, so I'll stick to the Bible and to Jesus Christ Himself.

[FireSword]

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary, that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which faith, except everyone do keep entire and inviolate, without doubt he will perish everlastingly...

This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully and steadfastly, he cannot be be saved.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Outside the Catholic Church there is absolutely no salvation. Anyone who would deny this dogma is a heretic.

The apostles are the foundation of the Church. Their writings are found in the bible.

[Red Baker]

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary, that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which faith, except everyone do keep entire and inviolate, without doubt he will perish everlastingly...

This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully and steadfastly, he cannot be be saved.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Outside the Catholic Church there is absolutely no salvation. Anyone who would deny this dogma is a heretic.

Well, the Bible disagrees with that, so I'll stick to the Bible and to Jesus Christ Himself.

Amen Helen~One of the marks of a true believer is that they labor to live by every word that is recorded in the word of God.  They reject the words of man, so-called "church" of Jesus Christ, if it goes against the scriptures of truth. A heretic is any person who goes against thus saith the Lord God, not he that withstands those people who believe that they are part of the "true church"~for our doctrine must align with the scriptures, not the name of the outward church we attend or are part of. We must live and trust in God's testimony that is found in the word of God, the holy bible. If the Catholic church of our day is calling anyone a heretic, that within itself might just be a very good thing!  Selah.

RB

[HRoberson]

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary, that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which faith, except everyone do keep entire and inviolate, without doubt he will perish everlastingly...

This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully and steadfastly, he cannot be be saved.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Outside the Catholic Church there is absolutely no salvation. Anyone who would deny this dogma is a heretic.

The problem of course, is that this is not the practice nor teaching of the Catholic Church. It is undoubtedly the teaching of your sect, but your sect does not speak for the Catholic Church.

But, the Catholic Church accepts the Maronite Church because that church recognizes the Bishop of Rome as titular head of the church. But....the Maronites are their own church.

Similarly, the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Eastern Orthodox churches' sacraments, including baptism.

Other than your sect, and others like it, the Catholic Church today recognizes the baptisms of various Protestant denominations, with a handful of requirements.

[AnnaM]

HRoberson,

You're simply wrong. No salvation outside the Catholic Church is Catholic dogma.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: "There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice."

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
"With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin... Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
"Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism..."

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
"Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity."

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra:
"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
"For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith."

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, "Iniunctum nobis," Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: "This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved... I now profess and truly hold..."

Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: "This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold..."

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: "This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold..."

[HRoberson]

The church whose dogma you assert, practices differently, and has for a few hundred years.

So instead of simply restating some rules let's look at actual practice, which clearly indicates that regardless of dogma, the church does not and has not so believed.

[Helen]

Anna, dogma is man-made.  Salvation is of Christ.

[AnnaM]

The church whose dogma you assert, practices differently, and has for a few hundred years.

So instead of simply restating some rules let's look at actual practice, which clearly indicates that regardless of dogma, the church does not and has not so believed.

Your opinions reveal that you have no understanding of Catholic dogma. Dogmas aren't "rules," but truths revealed by Jesus Christ.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: "Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding."

[AnnaM]

Furthermore, those who deny this dogma on outside the Church are heretics.

[Helen]

I don't mind you considering me a heretic at all, Anna.  I belong to Christ Jesus, and to Him only. 

[HRoberson]

The church whose dogma you assert, practices differently, and has for a few hundred years.

So instead of simply restating some rules let's look at actual practice, which clearly indicates that regardless of dogma, the church does not and has not so believed.

Your opinions reveal that you have no understanding of Catholic dogma. Dogmas aren't "rules," but truths revealed by Jesus Christ.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: "Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding."

I understand dogma just fine, thank you. But your church accepted as brothers, those churches both who accept and those who reject Papal authority.

I know you don't like that; and that it confuses you, but reality is reality. The Maronites do not need to be Roman Catholic and never have had to be. The Eastern Orthodox churches are accepted as having valid sacraments despite not accepting Papal supremacy.

Those are realities, accepted and articulated by the Magisterium.

[Red Baker]

Furthermore, those who deny this dogma on outside the Church are heretics.

Anna,

All you can do is quote words from men, which has no authority whatsoever, like in ZERO!   True children of faith, live by every word that comes for the mouth of God, and by those words, we test the words of men, to see if they are of God, or not.  If you would use the holy scriptures and trust them, like you do the words of sinful men, then you would be a great service to other Christians.  But as it stands, your faith is in the words of men, not in the testimony of God alone!  You are helping no one, but only are serving your own ego, and self righteousness, which God hates. You are very much egocentric and do not know it! But, then again, that's what false religion does to a person!

RB

[AnnaM]

I understand dogma just fine, thank you. But your church accepted as brothers, those churches both who accept and those who reject Papal authority.

The Vatican II sect accepts as brothers those who reject the Papacy and Catholic dogma, among other abominations. The Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church. It's impossible for the Catholic Church to deny what has been revealed by Jesus Christ and infallibly declared by His Church i.e. necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation.


Red Baker,

The Bible proves the teachings of the Catholic Church.

[HRoberson]

I understand dogma just fine, thank you. But your church accepted as brothers, those churches both who accept and those who reject Papal authority.

The Vatican II sect accepts as brothers those who reject the Papacy and Catholic dogma, among other abominations. The Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church. It's impossible for the Catholic Church to deny what has been revealed by Jesus Christ and infallibly declared by His Church i.e. necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation.


Red Baker,

The Bible proves the teachings of the Catholic Church.

You're starting to sound like a Fundamentalist Protestant, Anna.