Joel Osteen purchases Catholicism in time for Easter

The Church holds that grace comes to the world ONLY through the Church, and thus salvation comes only through the Church -- extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

But like as many other magisterial teachings that RCs invoke as settling a matter, this is open to some interpretation. Some believe the only way Prots can be saved is if they repent of Protestant gospel and convert to Catholicism before death, even if not formally.

Others believe any devout Prot having a Trinitarian baptism has been born again, and there are Prot saints in Heaven now. And then you are those in btwn.

At the same time, the Church also holds that while grace comes to earth only through the Church, God dispenses it as He sees fit, so its certainly possible for those outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church to be saved.

Therefore despite all the Catholic affirmation of Jn. 6:54,54, you actually must deny that this means believing in the "Real Presence" is truly necessary to obtain spiritual and eternal life. Yet the absolute nature of this "verily verily" statement is hard to deny, as you must do if taken literally.

The Catholic Church holds that the bible is in various parts literal, allegorical, and symbolic. Most Protestants claim to biblical literalists, except, apparently, when literalism doesn't lead to the conclusion they seek... Protestants claim that the bible says what it says and you get what you see -- except when what it says doesn't jibe with Protestant dogma.

That is mere sophistry, for as i showed and will show, it manifestly and negatively applies to Rome, which despite ritually consuming human flesh being condemned,

and spiritual life never being gained by physically eating anything,

and the frequent use of figurative language for such, even stating humans were bread for them, and water was the blood of men,

while John in particular frequently uses figurative language for Christ, and that believing the gospel is the means of gaining spiritual life,

and the Holy Spirit only manifestly describes the Lord's supper once in the life of the church, and in which the focus is on the church as the body of Christ, not the elements eaten,

yet Catholicism, placing tradition over Scripture, turns the apostles into practitioners of endocannibalism!

And those who most strongly hold to the Scriptures being spirit and life, manifest much more spiritual life and commitment than those fed wafers and wine by Rome.

In addition, we can do what the noble Bereans did in objectively seeking to ascertain the veracity of truth claims, while you are bound as a faithful RC to make Scripture conform to her, if you will attempt to support her by it, even though that is not the basis for your assurance.

That's what leads to the inconsistencies of Protestantism.

Actually, besides comparing one church with a broadly-defined multiplicity that includes some who actually operate according to the RC model, the fact is that Rome abounds with inconsistencies with Scripture and the NT church, as well as interpretive disagreements, besides the dissent Rome implicitly sanctions.

Yet unity itself is not the goal, and which cults have which also operate according to the sola ecclessia model, not was comprehensive doctrinal unity ever fully realized. And the unity of the NT was under manifest apostles of God, in purity, power and probity, whose power was not that of the sword of men but of God. Which degree we do not see today.

Meanwhile, though the degree of tribal divisions in the Kingdom of Christ are regrettable, yet as one who become manifestly born again while a RC, and remained therein for 6 after after as a weekly RC, i can attest that RCs (like as institutionalized Prots, ec.) lack the basic essential unity of the Spirit, based on a common conversion and Scriptural relationship with the Lord Jesus - Christ in them and they in Christ (Jn. 17:21,23), which is so often spontaneously realized among evangelical types, and which transcends external divisions.

The Catholic Church interprets the bible and has never claimed that it is literal in every word, while Protestants claim that the bible says what it says and you get what you see

Wrong, and now you are resorting to using a straw man, as evangelical types take it literally as the word of God, but in which there exists difference literary genres.

In contrast, have stopped hindering Bible literacy, now she impugns its authority, as right in your NAB Bible you have church-sanctioned notes that for decades has taught such things as,

that Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve and creation details) and Gn. 3 (the story of the Fall), Gn. 4:1-16 (Cain and Abel), Gn. 6-8 (Noah and the Flood), and Gn. 11:1-9 (Tower of Babel: the footnotes on which state, in part, “an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth”) are “folktales,” using allegory to teach a religious lesson.

the story of Balaam and the donkey and the angel (Num. 22:1-21; 22:36-38) was a fable, while the records of Gn. (chapters) 37-50 (Joseph), 12-36 (Abraham, Issaac, Jacob), Exodus, Judges 13-16 (Samson) 1Sam. 17 (David and Goliath) and that of the Exodus are stories which are "historical at their core," but overall the author simply used mere "traditions" to teach a religious lesson.

"Think of the ‘holy wars’ of total destruction, fought by the Hebrews when they invaded Palestine. The search for meaning in those wars centuries later was inspired, but the conclusions which attributed all those atrocities to the command of God were imperfect and provisional." It also holds that such things as “cloud, angels (blasting trumpets), smoke, fire, earthquakes,lighting, thunder, war, calamities, lies and persecution are Biblical figures of speech.”

And more. Besides her fruit mainly being that of liberalism.

Thus once again arguments in support of the desired image of Rome has resulted in more exposure of what really she is.

"Some believe the only way Prots can be saved is if they repent of Protestant gospel and convert to Catholicism before death, even if not formally. Others believe any devout Prot having a Trinitarian baptism has been born again, and there are Prot saints in Heaven now. And then you are those in btwn."

The Church teaches what it teaches. What I stated is the position of the Church, regardless of what variations some members might believe. And what exactly is the "Protestant gospel"? As far as I now there is but one gospel, Divinely inspired, and identified and compiled by the Catholic Church.

"Therefore despite all the Catholic affirmation of Jn. 6:54,54, you actually must deny that this means believing in the "Real Presence" is truly necessary to obtain spiritual and eternal life. Yet the absolute nature of this "verily verily" statement is hard to deny, as you must do if taken literally."

No, I mustn't actually deny. The Church recognizes that some people, due to invincible ignorance, remote location, etc, are lacking in the ability to understand certain truths through the application of due diligence. There are some people that are simply incapable of understanding due to their situation, and I imagine many material heretics are in this camp.

"That is mere sophistry, for as i showed and will show, it manifestly and negatively applies to Rome, which despite ritually consuming human flesh being condemned, and spiritual life never being gained by physically eating anything, and the frequent use of figurative language for such, even stating humans were bread for them, and water was the blood of men,"

So you say, yet Jesus on multiple occasion stated that His flesh is food indeed, clearly instructed His apostles at the last supper and commanded that we are to "do this in memory" of Him.

"1)yet Catholicism, placing tradition over Scripture, 2)turns the apostles into practitioners of endocannibalism!"

1)The Church considers scripture and tradition to be equal pillars. It does not place tradition over scripture. 2)The apostles also at first grumbled over the fact that Christ's flesh is food indeed.

"And those who most strongly hold to the Scriptures being spirit and life, manifest much more spiritual life and commitment than those fed wafers and wine by Rome."

Prove it. By this standard, I can say -- very few people live by the rules of the Catholic Church. The remnant that do, manifest more spiritual life than Protestants. "Actually, besides comparing one church with a broadly-defined multiplicity that includes some who actually operate according to the RC model, the fact is that Rome abounds with inconsistencies with Scripture and the NT church, as well as interpretive disagreements, besides the dissent Rome implicitly sanctions. "

Again, prove it. Wrong, and now you are resorting to using a straw man, as evangelical types take it literally as the word of God, but in which there exists difference literary genres. "

Literally genres such as...Allegory? Symbolism? In which case, Protestants do not take the bible literally.

"And more. Besides her fruit mainly being that of liberalism."

Ha! Many Protestant Churches endorse gay marriage. Not the Catholic Church. Many, in fact most or all, Protestant Churches, including Evangelicals, permit the use of artificial contraceptives. Not the Catholic Church. Many (black) Protestant Churches endorse race-baiting. Not the Catholic Church. Many Protestant Churches endorse straight socialism. The Catholic Church has marked Marxism to be a heresey. I could go on. Faithful practice of Catholic teaching is more fully compatible with a MORALLY conservative society than any other Church.

The Church teaches what it teaches.

Which is a problem when restricted to official teaching, the meaning of which can vary from century to century, while according to Scripture (which you must compel to conform to Rome), what one believes is shown by what he does, or does not do. Which will get more attention below. "I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:18)

What I stated is the position of the Church, regardless of what variations some members might believe.

Not quite, for while they do not deny the possibility of salvation for those outside Catholicism, yet RCs give their interpretation of V2 regarding the details it left out. And which itself is an interpretation of past teaching, and in contrast with past infallible teaching.

Such as

We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart `into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” — Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council), Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), [considered infallible by some]

No, I mustn't actually deny.

Yes you MUST deny and do deny what you previously essentially affirmed. I stated that "nor did He preach physically consuming human flesh was the necessary means to obtain spiritual and eternal life." To which you countered, "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." [Jn. 6:56] And which in context follows,

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:53-54)

Thus if this absolute statement refers to literally consuming human flesh, than it is teaching physically consuming human flesh as the necessary means to obtain spiritual and eternal life," which is what you countered, and must exclude those who deny this is literal as being saved.

But in contrast, what is consistent with Scripture is that this refers to receiving the words of Christ, by which one is born again according to John and the rest of Scripture. (Acts 10:43; 15"7-9; Eph. 1:13) And thus they live by His word, as He interpretively said He lived by the Father: "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57) Thus man lives by every word of God, (Mt. 4:4) and thus doing the Father's will was the Lord's "meat" (Jn. 4:34) - not consuming His Father's flesh like cannibalistic Catholics.

The Church recognizes that some people, due to invincible ignorance, remote location, etc, are lacking in the ability to understand certain truths through the application of due diligence. There are some people that are simply incapable of understanding due to their situation, and I imagine many material heretics are in this camp.

What you imagine is interpretive, as is the narrow interpretation that the allowance of salvation outside being a member of one of the Catholic rites only pertains to those incapable of understanding due to their situation. For while on one hand this absolves the ignorant of being guilty of the sin of separation, and allows salvation for them, yet what is meant by "knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ," as well as a refusal "either to enter it or to remain in it," is clearly open to interpretation.

And thus on the other hand, rather than this meaning that virtually every Protestant in the West and much of the rest of the world, except kids, are excluded, for they know of the claims of Rome, but do not believe they are valid, and or that "Catholic church" means that of formally belonging to one of its recognized-by-Rome Rites, the CCC also declares that "All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church. (CCC 818)

And that "there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour....Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit,..(Lumen Gentium 16)

And Domine Jesus: “the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.”

And "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." (CCC 838)

And in so affirming the baptized, it also interprets "intends to perform what the Church performs” in baptism rather loosely, since virtually none believe baptism works ex opere operato to formally justify a soul by interior holiness. (And which leads to becoming holy enough to enter Heaven thru nonexistent Roman postmortem purgatory. Which even the EOs overall reject as being not tradition.)

So you say, yet Jesus on multiple occasion stated that His flesh is food indeed, clearly instructed His apostles at the last supper and commanded that we are to "do this in memory" of Him.

And as showed, this cannot mean consuming human flesh, as souls received life in them and eternal life by believing the gospel message, and never by physically eating. And which would be inconsistent with John in particular, as his theme is that of contrasting the physical with the spiritual. And in the 4 chapters he writes in order that "that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God," (1 John 5:13) nothing is said about partaking of the Eucharist, but of believing on the name of Christ, and its resultant fruits.

And thus as said, contrary to Rome, the Holy Spirit only manifestly describes the Lord's supper once, (1Cor. 11:17-34) and in which the church as the body of Christ which shows, declares the Lord's sacrificial death for the church by manifesting union with Him and each other by that communal "feast of charity." Thus here were coming together to eat the Lord Supper by eating independently of the others. As further detailed explained here .

The Church considers scripture and tradition to be equal pillars. It does not place tradition over scripture.

It does tradition over scripture, for despite the party line, the reality is that Rome exalts herself above Scripture, and in so doing places Tradition over scripture, or her version of Tradition. Such as by the Immaculate conception, the Assumption, and other traditions not taught of Mary, or such doctrines as PTDS .

2)The apostles also at first grumbled over the fact that Christ's flesh is food indeed.

You are also reading that into Scripture, as it only says some his disciples murmured at it, and went back, and walked no more with him, for there are some that believed not, for no man can come unto the Lord except it were given unto him of the Father. (Jn. 6:60-66)

Therefore it was not the apostles, while those who went back are those who are not saved, which is consistent with Jn. 6:53,54, and if literal, would exclude all Prots and all in the NT as being born again, thus having life within them, before they ate the Lord's supper.

"And those who most strongly hold to the Scriptures being spirit and life, manifest much more spiritual life and commitment than those fed wafers and wine by Rome."

Prove it.

I did, but like most RCs, apparently you also will not dare to follow a link . The abundant consistent testimony evidences much more spiritual life and commitment, and unity in core conservative values, among evangelicals - even in our modern declension - than in Catholicism in its modern declension.

By this standard, I can say -- very few people live by the rules of the Catholic Church. The remnant that do, manifest more spiritual life than Protestants.

Wrong. for unlike us, you preach a particular church as being the One True Church (OTC) - in competition with other sola ecclesia elitists - and cannot separate it according to what you deem are faithful and not. Rome treats liberals, being the majority of her members, as such in life and in death, thus interpreting herself, and thus so should you in following her example.

I do not preach a particular church as being the OTC, though i hold some as better than others, but preach a faith which holds Scripture as supreme as the literal word of God, after the Scriptural manner of interpretation.

Rome abounds with inconsistencies with Scripture and the NT church, as well as interpretive disagreements, besides the dissent Rome implicitly sanctions. "

Again, prove it.

That is easy but extensive. For brevity see here and here .

Wrong, and now you are resorting to using a straw man, as evangelical types take it literally as the word of God, but in which there exists difference literary genres. "

Literally genres such as...Allegory? Symbolism? In which case, Protestants do not take the bible literally.

Its "literary genres" rather than "literally genres" while this is simply absurd misrepresentation, as what i just reproved is the abundant and substantiated examples of Rome's rejection of the literal; sense, even in historical accounts, and which you avoided dealing with!

And which liberal revisionism is part of the issues which modern fundamental evangelicalism rose up in opposition against, due to a common contention to core truths.

Do you admit these examples and more are that of robbing Scripture of its literance sense? Its your church which you must promote, and which is supposed to protect the flock from such error, for which purpose even the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur employed to do, while Rome interprets herself by what she does, showing what she really believes. (Ja. 2:18)

Ha! Many Protestant Churches endorse gay marriage.

That is more desperate irrelevance! Do you really think i am defending the Episcopalians (that is most close to Rome in Protestantism) or another like church, or any particular church as you must?! Their views on Scripture are also liberal, as Rome also partly examples.

Instead, since i defend faith based upon Scripture being supreme, not a church (but which provides for it, but not that of Rome), you must condescend (since Scripture is not your basis for assurance of Truth) to attempt to validate Rome by Scripture, but which you do not since you are not to objectively examine evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of RC doctrine.

Many, in fact most or all, Protestant Churches, including Evangelicals, permit the use of artificial contraceptives.

Which is about all you have that is a valid distinguishing aspect, yet Catholics overall are but little different in practicing artificial contraceptives, and whom Rome treats as members, without any discipline. And thus shows by her actions, or lack thereof, what she really presently believes (while in another century sanctioning torture of even suspected aberrant RCs). For again, as James teaches for one, we see what one really believes by what they do.

Meanwhile we have the overall fruit of Rome, such as that

Catholics testify [2010] to showing more support (in numbers) for legal recognitions of same-sex relationships than members of any other Christian tradition, and Americans overall. Almost three-quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry or allowing them to form civil unions (43% and 31% respectively). Only 22% of Catholics said there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship. (PRRI, Pre--election American Values Survey, 9/2010; http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Catholics-and-LGBT-Issues-Survey-Report.pdf.)

This 2010 survey of more than 3,000 adults found that 41% of White American Catholics, 45% of Latino Catholics (versus 16 percent of White evangelical Christians, and 23% of Black Protestants) supported the rights of same-sex couples to marry, and 36% (22% of Latino Catholics) supported civil unions (versus 24% of White evangelicals, and 25% of Black Protestants). Among the general public the rates were 37 and 27 percent.
40% Roman Catholics vs. 41% Non-R.C. see abortion as "morally acceptable"; Sex between unmarried couples: 67% vs. 57%; Baby out of wedlock: 61% vs. 52%; Homosexual relations: 54% vs. 45%; Gambling: 72% vs. 59% http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/Catholics-Similar-Mainstream-Abortion-Stem-Cells.aspx
Committed Roman Catholics (church attendance weekly or almost) versus Non-R.C. faithful church goers (see the below as as morally acceptable): Abortion: 24% R.C. vs. 19% Non-R.C.; Sex between unmarried couples: 53% vs. 30%; Baby out of wedlock: 48% vs. 29%; Homosexual relations: 44% vs. 21%; Gambling: 67% vs. 40%; Divorce: 63 vs. 46% ^
Comparing 16 moral behaviors, Catholics were less likely to say mean things about people behind their back, and tending to engage in recycling more. However, they were also twice as likely to view pornographic content on the Internet, and were more prone to use profanity, to gamble, and to buy lottery tickets. ^
And more .
Many (black) Protestant Churches endorse race-baiting.
More irrelevance, as this tactic is resorted to due to lack of Scriptural support, while RCs are also overall liberal in voting .
Many Protestant Churches endorse straight socialism. The Catholic Church has marked Marxism to be a heresey. I
Also irrelevant, while Rome is far closer to straight socialism than evangelicals, and advocates as an urgent need a true world political authority, vested with the effective power to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties. As she would like to regain her unScriptural use of the sword of men, which early Prots had to unlearn from her.
Faithful practice of Catholic teaching is more fully compatible with a MORALLY conservative society than any other Church.
The problem is that in reality is a fantasy, an imaginary church, and which is why so many RCs get so reactionary when this cherished fantasy is disturbed by reality, and thus typically resort to charging bias by those who report it. Yet even Rome is affirming it herself.
In contrast, what evangelicals actually do support overall is more fully compatible with a MORALLY conservative society than any other Christian faith, in practice, though it also comes short of the NT church, which Rome is more critically in deviation from.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.