Maybe Tim, and Eugene and Jake can bring their discussion over here since the other posts are getting soooo long. Tim says the Church really didn't exist until 590, or least Catholocism. But the Church did exist as a cohesive, single unit from its conception. It was authoritative in interpreting scripture, like it still is.

"Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behoves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,5,20:2(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:548

"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, "as many as walk according to the rule," which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, "Who are you? When and whence did you come?" Tertullian,Prescription against the heretics,37(A.D. 200),in ANF,III:261

"Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agreeably to the mere letter. And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles. " Origen,First Principles,4,1:9(A.D. 230),in ANF,IV:357

"The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.' " Cyprian,Unity of the Church,6(A.D. 256),in ANF,V:423

"But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures....Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions[ie. The creed] which ye now receive, and write them an the table of your heart." Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,5:12(A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:32

"[T]hey who are placed without the Church, cannot attain to any understanding of the divine word. For the ship exhibits a type of Church, the word of life placed and preached within which, they who are without, and lie near like barren and useless sands, cannot understand." Hilary of Poitiers,On Matthew,Homily 13:1(A.D. 355),in FOC,I:347

"But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept." Athanasius,Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis,1:28(A.D. 360),in SHAP,133-134

"This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that, a very ecclesiasitcal sense." Athanasius,Discourse Against the Arians,1:44(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:331

"It is the church which perfect truth perfects. The church of believers is great, and its bosom most ample; it embraces the fullness of the two Testaments." Ephraem,Against Heresies(ante A.D. 373),in FOC,I:378

"Now I accept no newer creed written for me by other men, nor do I venture to propound the outcome of my own intelligence, lest I make the words of true religion merely human words; but what I have been taught by the holy Fathers, that I announce to all who question me. In my Church the creed written by the holy Fathers in synod at Nicaea is in use. I believe that it is also repeated among you; but I do not refuse to write its exact terms in my letter, lest I be accused of taking too little trouble. It is as follows: This is our faith. But no definition was given about the Holy Ghost, the Pneumatomachi not having at that date appeared. No mention was therefore made of the need of anathematizing those who say that the Holy Ghost is of a created anti ministerial nature. For nothing in the divine and blessed Trinity is created." Basil,To the Church of Antioch,Epistle 140:2(A.D. 373),in NPNF2,VIII:204

"For they [heretics] do not teach as the church does; their message does no accord with the truth." Epiphanius,Panarion,47(A.D. 377),in PAN,168

"[S]eeing, I say, that the Church teaches this in plain language, that the Only-begotten is essentially God, very God of the essence of the very God, how ought one who opposes her decisions to overthrow the preconceived opinion... And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them." Gregory of Nyssa,Against Eunomius,4:6(A.D. 384),in NPNF2,V:163

"Wherefore all other generations are strangers to truth; all the generations of heretics hold not the truth: the church alone, with pious affection, is in possession of the truth." Ambrose,Commentary of Psalm 118,19(A.D. 388),in FOC,I;171

"They teach what they themselves have learnt from their predecessors. They have received those rites which they explain from the Church's tradition. They preach only 'the dogmas of the Church' " Chrysostom,Baptismal Instruction(A.D. 389),in CON,445

"But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things." Augustine,On Christian Doctrine,3,2:2(A.D. 397),in NPNF1,II:557

" 'So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.' Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther." Chrysostom,Homily on 2nd Thessalonians,4:2(A.D. 404),in NPNF1,XIII:390

"My resolution is, to read the ancients, to try everything, to hold fast what is good, and not to recede from the fath of the Catholic Church." Jerome,To Minervius & Alexander,Epistle 119(A.D. 406),in FOC,I:73

"But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church." Augustine,On the Trinity,4,6:10(A.D. 416),in NPNF1,III:75

"But it will be said, If the words, the sentiments, the promises of Scripture, are appealed to by the Devil and his disciples, of whom some are false apostles, some false prophets and false teachers, and all without exception heretics, what are Catholics and the sons of Mother Church to do? How are they to distinguish truth from falsehood in the sacred Scriptures? They must be very careful to pursue that course which, in the beginning of this Commonitory, we said that holy and learned men had commended to us, that is to say, they must interpret the sacred Canon according to the traditions of the Universal Church and in keeping with the rules of Catholic doctrine, in which Catholic and Universal Church, moreover, they must follow universality, antiquity, consent." Vincent of Lerins,Commonitories,70(A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:152

"[H]old fast the faith in simplicity of mind; establishing the tradition of the church as a foundation, in the inmost recesses of thy heart, hold the doctrines which are well-pleasing unto God." Cyril of Alexandria,Festal Letters,Homily 8(A.D. 442),in FOC,I:446-447

This text may downloaded and viewed for private reading only. This text may not be used by another Web site or published, electronically or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Joseph A. Gallegos © 2000 All Rights Reserved.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 10, 2002

Answers

If the Catholic Church didn't exist until 590, it's a very curious thing that Ignatius of Antioch, who knew the Apostle John personally and was catechized by him, wrote of the Holy Catholic Church in 107 A.D. He did this without dwelling on the term itself, or stopping to explain it. He obviously expected that his readers were already familiar with the name, and it needed no clarification. We can safely say therefore that the Church founded by Jesus Christ on the Apostles had begun calling itself the Holy Catholic Church before the end of the first century. But then again, what's in a name? If the Holy Catholic Church changed its name tomorrow, it would still be the one true Church founded by Christ, with the same history and the same marks of unity, holiness, universality and apostolicity. Likewise, it was the same Church both before and after it adopted the name "Catholic", so it really doesn't matter when the name was first used. It was a good choice too, reflecting the expressed wishes of Jesus Himself - "Father, that they all may be one, even as you father and I are one". One Church, teaching one set of truths, to all people, in all times and places. That's what "Catholic" means.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 10, 2002.

Thanks Gail and Paul. My faith in Jesus Christ and in His Church is re-enforced and grows deeper every day (in large part due to this forum).

Thank you again.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 11, 2002.

You are welcome, Jake. It is so comforting to know that we stand with our feet firmly planted on a path blazed by the feet of our ancestors . . . Holding fast to the faith of our forefathers!

I really cannot understand why any Christian would want to abolish the faith of our forefathers, simply in order to establish their own. It defies logic, reason, and faith! I have come to believe that it is REBELLION, pure and simple. To look at the evidence, and say "I don't see." To hear the evidence, and say "I don't hear," is to look at Jesus and say, "I DON'T BELIEVE."

Interestly, the Bible says that "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft." I always wondered why! What does rebellion have to do with witchcraft? It is because witchcraft seeks to establish its own reign of power apart from God, rebelling against God's design. Likewise, those who rebel against God's church, KNOWINGLY, in order to establish their own, are in great peril!

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 11, 2002.

Dear Gail, You are so very right! It is a strange quirk of historical parlance that those who rebelled against the Catholic Church, abandoned its authority, and defected from its ranks, thereby cutting themselves off from any possibility of participating in the process of reform, have nevertheless become known as "the Reformers". A more appropriate term would be "the Rebels". The Catholic Church was, of course, badly in need of reform in the 16th century - not its doctrine certainly, which always remains pure and true - but many of its administrative practices and political connections were in disarray . The Church doesn't hide from or deny this fact; but many people today seem to think that as bad as things were at the time, Martin Luther was the only one who noticed or cared. In fact, a great many priests and Church leaders were deeply concerned about ongoing problems in the Church, and were already working for reform long before Luther rebelled. In all fairness to Father Luther, he really did love the true Church, and initially had no intention of forming a new one. He had a strong devotion to the Holy Eucharist, and wrote some moving testimony on that subject. He also had a strong devotion to the Blessed Mother. What he desired, like so many others, was the reformation of the Church he loved. Unfortunately, the resistance of Church leaders eventually prompted Luther, a proud and arrogant man with a quick temper, to break off ties with the Pope and the Magisterium; and once you separate yourself from the pillar and foundation of truth, it is only a matter of time before you wander into heresy. Many others in the Church were equally concerned about the current state of affairs, and equally frustrated about the stonewalling by some Church leaders. But still, they stayed. Like blessed Peter, they said (paraphrasing) "Where else would we go? Here are the words of everlasting life". They knew where the truth resided. They knew that the sins of Church members, including Church leaders, cannot eradicate truth from the Church. They trusted in the words of Jesus to His Church - "I will send you the Holy Spirit, and He will guide you to all truth". "Whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven". "He who hears you hears Me". They realized that truth cannot exist without unity, and that unity cannot exist without authority. And they worked for reform; and they accomplished reform. So, these faithful members of the Church were the true Reformers. Those who abandoned the God-given authority of the Church were no longer in a position to reform anything. Instead, predictably, they began to fragment into more and more conflicting sects, so that Luther himself, shortly before his death, expressed his dismay at the division and confusion which had already been caused by the system he had founded. Of course, Luther also recognized that truth could not exist without authority. People will not believe something just because "I said so". So, having rejected the Church's God-given authority, he selected as his new authority a collection of writings from that same Church, the authenticity of which rests entirely on that same Church's authority and siscernment. But, just as the Constitution of the United States possesses no authority apart from the goverment which produced it, so the writings of the Church possess no authority apart from the Church which, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gave them to the world. Let us pray that someday unity will be restored to the Body of Christ, so that fullness of truth can also be restored. But first, genuine authority has to be recognized, accepted, and honored - the authority Jesus placed in the first leaders of His Holy Catholic Church. Then, and only then, can the prayer of Jesus to His Father become the focus of His Church, as it once was - "Father, that they all may be one, even as you Father and I are one".

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 12, 2002.

Paul, that was EXCELLENT! Thank you.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 12, 2002.

"They realized that truth cannot exist without unity..."

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 12, 2002.

Ooops.

Anyways, that quote, Paul. What do you mean?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 12, 2002.

Dear Emerald, Truth cannot exist without unity because truth cannot contradict truth. Whenever conflicting beliefs are present, it is not possible that both beliefs are objectively true. Two beliefs or statements that contradict each other can both be false, but they cannot both be true. The only way a body of people can possess the fullness of truth is for each individual person within that body to accept that objective truth. If each person does accept the actual truth, then all persons believe the same, and unity of belief exists. Peace! Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 13, 2002.

Thanks for all the good apologetics, folks.

Paul, it would be helpful to my poor eyesight if you could break your long responses (such as the one above) into smaller paragraphs. You can do this in either of two ways:
1. Hit your "Enter" key twice, leaving a blank line on your screen.
2. Enter the HTML command for breaking to a new paragraph. That is a simple three-character command: the letter "p" between the less-than sign, "<", and the greaterh-than sign, ">".
I use #2, because (for some reason) I have not found #1 to be 100% dependable. To break to a new line, but without inserting a blank line, just put the letters "br" between the "<" and ">".

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 15, 2002.

"Dear Emerald, Truth cannot exist without unity because truth cannot contradict truth. Whenever conflicting beliefs are present, it is not possible that both beliefs are objectively true. Two beliefs or statements that contradict each other can both be false, but they cannot both be true. The only way a body of people can possess the fullness of truth is for each individual person within that body to accept that objective truth. If each person does accept the actual truth, then all persons believe the same, and unity of belief exists. Peace! Paul"

Well see, I think the above paragraph you wrote is exactly right. But there are quite a few modernist re-renderings or our doctrines that go flat out against what you have written above. For instance, the contradiction that one can be saved outside the Catholic Faith. That's just one.

This is the reason why we do not have unity right now; because we have compromised our unity in the truth. I keep insisting that liturgical grievances are an effect, not a cause, of disagreement, and that our current disagreements are doctrinal in nature, and one has to do with the formula of salvation.

"They realized that truth cannot exist without unity..."

Did you mean this:

"They realized that unity cannot exist without truth..."?

The first way, it sounds like if enough people get together and agree, then truth will come into being. This is similiar to what I have been pestering John here about. If people really think this, then the truth could be anything.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 15, 2002.

Dear Emerald,

The presence of unity, in and of itself, is not a certain indicator of truth. It is very possible indeed for a group of people to be unanimously wrong. In fact, many religious sects fit that description. However, while the presence of unity is not an absolute guarantee of truth, the presence of conflict and contradiction IS an absolute guarantee of untruth. Therefore, while unity alone cannot guarantee truth, it is a necessary prerequisite for truth. If unity is present, then fullness of truth MAY be present also. If unity is lacking, then so is truth.

Therefore, where the multiplicity of churches are concerned, two possibilities exist:

(1) No church has the fullness of truth, since they all conflict with one another.

(2) One Church has the fullness of truth, and all others deviate from that fullness of truth.

What is NOT possible is that more than one Church possesses the fullness of truth. Now, many today, realizing that fullness of truth cannot exist in each of the thousands of conflicting churches, would like to go with the first option above - every church has part of the truth, but none has the fullness of truth. That might seem like the most humanitarian and "Christian" thing to do - and it relieves one of the nagging thought that the true Church just might exist out there somewhere, and I might not be in it. But there is one problem with this approach - Jesus specifically said that the Holy Spirit would guide HIS Church to ALL TRUTH. That leaves us with a few other possibilities:

(1) Jesus either lied or was badly mistaken - but that doesn't fit very well with His words, "I am the Truth".

(2) The original Church did have the fullness of truth, but it died out or was swallowed up or contaminated by the Catholicism, so now no- one has the fullness - but that doesn't fit very well with His words to the original Church, "I will be with you until the end of time".

(3) The Church He originally founded is alive and well today, and still possesses the fullness of truth by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Though people go through all kinds of contortions trying to avoid or deny that third option, the fact is - it just can't be any other way. Nothing else fits with the facts known to us through history, Tradition, and Scripture.

Peace! Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 16, 2002.

Paul,
I like that clear explanation. You missed nothing.

I would only say to Emerald, he isn't all accurate in the doctrine that taught us there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. He may think this means in the unity of the faith. But it was never stated so. What the doctrine affirmed was that outside the Catholic Church --Mankind would never find another way to salvation. It meant all other religious faith was useless for salvation; it didn't mean the rejection of individual souls for the ''sin'' of not being Catholics. What salvation was to be had must come by Christ's blood. In His Holy Church the means of attaining it were abundant to faithful believers. No other avenue was available.

However there always was in the doctrine a clause which holds true; wherein Baptism of Blood (martyrdom,) or Desire gave the just soul potential for acceptance into the Church. The eventual end, salvation wouldn't be someplace other than the Church. This isn't being changed, and the doctrine isn't coming to an end at all.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 16, 2002.

Dear eugene,

That's right. And I would like to add one additional view. The idea that "salvation is only IN the Catholic Church" can be misleading. It sounds like we are condemning all non-Catholics to Hell, and that is not what the Church teaches. It is true that anyone who recognizes the Catholic Church as what it is - the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ for all mankind - and still refuses to enter it, places their salvation at risk.

But it is likewise true that a great many people, through no fault of their own, fail to recognize the true Church, and these people can be saved, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states. The matter is better stated in this way: "Salvation is only THROUGH the Catholic Church". This wording recognizes that it is the truth of Jesus Christ that sets men free. The historical fact is that the truth of Jesus Christ was brought from the first century to modern times ONLY in the Catholic Church, and the fullness of that truth today exists ONLY in the Catholic Church. Other Christian churches however do possess a portion of that saving truth - in some cases a substantial portion, in other cases a lesser portion, depending on how much of original Christian belief a particular denomination has rejected. Indeed, some sects have rejected such a large proportion of Christian truth that it is questionable whether they still qualify as Christian - but that is not for us to judge.

The point is, the portion of Christian truth another Christian church possesses can lead the members of that Church to salvation, even though their version of that truth may be incomplete, and intermixed with traditions of men. All genuine Christian truth they do possess came to them from the Catholic Church, since that was the only place such truth existed for 1,000 years after Christ ascended. Therefore, when a faithful Baptist or Lutheran or Methodist is saved by the truth of Christ which they possess, they are being saved by that which they received from the Catholic Church. And that is why it can rightly be said that salvation is only through the Church Christ founded, the Catholic Church.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 17, 2002.

Hey Paul, Eugene.

Paul, the last post before Eugene's post... all understood, but this one line stood out:

"the presence of conflict and contradiction IS an absolute guarantee of untruth."

I'm not sure about this. It is an interesting statement to ponder though.

At any rate, the no salvation outside the Church question... I do in fact believe, Paul, that your take on it, and Eugene's and others, is not the sense in which the Church has always understood it. But oooh... man, this is a load of work to commit myself to. Chris mentioned that he was working on a thread, or a treatise (lol!) that he would post at some point. I do believe the issue is in fact worthy of a treatise, and I am looking forward to it. On the other hand, I would hate to make him feel obligated, so Chris, if you see this and don't feel up to it, no problem.

If and when he does come up with this work, I'll do my level best to contribute to it in a spirit of truth. I do believe Paul, although I am not the best one to tackle the issue, that I can present the current understanding of the doctrine as being in a certain manner deviant from the Church's long standing position.

I would need the good faith of anyone participating, though, to assume a particular trust in me, and that would be this: That Emerald believes that he is presenting 1. not what Emerald wants to propose is the truth, but 2. What Emerald believes has always been the true position of the Church. In other words, I believe to the best of my knowledge that what I hold is not an obstinate refusal to submit but an attempt to keep the Faith whole and undefiled. In all things it is my heartfelt desire to conform my mind and will to the truth. On the other hand, why haven't I quit smoking yet? lol!

If and when Chris does this is up to him, and I leave the matter to his discretion.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 17, 2002.

Emerald, the matter is very simple.

You wrote: "I would need the good faith of anyone participating ... to assume a particular trust in me ...: That Emerald believes that he is presenting ... [w]hat Emerald believes has always been the true position of the Church."

As I said, the matter is very simple. The only entity capable of stating what "has always been the true position of the Church" is not Emerald or JFG or Chris B or Paul or Eugene ... but the Catholic Church herself. She has already stated what "has always been the true position of the Church" in many ways -- most recently in the documents of Vatican II and in papally-approved, post-conciliar documents, including the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Further discussion of this among Catholics, other than to reaffirm what the Catechism states, is a waste of time. No Catholic may try to persuade other Catholics that the popes have been teaching wrongly about such an important doctrine.

You then stated: "In other words, I believe to the best of my knowledge that what I hold is not an obstinate refusal to submit ..."
With all due respect, it doesn't help you if you "believe [something wrong] to the best of [your] knowledge." There is a matter of facts, not opinions, here.
It follows from what I just stated above that, if you reject (in whole or part) what the Catechism tells us has always been the Church's teaching on salvation, then your action is indeed "an obstinate refusal to submit." Your heterodox belief may even go so far as to be classified as a heresy. (I must leave a decision on that up to your bishop, though.)

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 18, 2002.

Dear Emerald,

I don't think the idea "the presence of conflict and contradiction is an absolute guarantee of untruth" is a very complex one. In simplest terms, it just means that "If you say "it is", and I say "it isn't", we cannot both be right. In such a situation, it is a logical necessity that one of us MUST be speaking the truth, and the other MUST be speaking untruth - objectively so, even if not consciously so. God exists, OR He doesn't. The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ on the Apostles, OR it isn't. If we are in agreement, then we may both be right, or we may both be wrong - so untruth is possible. But if we are in disagreement, then one of us MUST be wrong - so untruth is certain.

Of course, not all questions of a factual nature are of a simple "either-or" format. More complex factual questions leave room for a greater number of wrong answers - but still only one right answer. How many sacraments are there? If I have no idea of the correct answer, but Bill says two, Roger says three, Mary says five, and Alice says seven, then I know immediately that at least three of these answers must be untrue - possibly all four of them. The only thing I know for certain after listening to their various opinions is that it is not possible for more than one of them to be correct, because I know, as every person instictively knows, that truth cannot contradict truth, and that conflict and contradiction therefore necessarily indicate untruth.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 20, 2002.

The point of non contradiction is taken very well Paul, thanks.

About matters pertaining to what it means that there is no salvation outside the Church, It would probably be best to start a unique and intense thread on the subject.

As to the importance of the topic, I hope you are right and not wrong about the proper interpretation of it.

The reason I hope so is because of this thought: at the point of a damned man's departure from the visible realm, the entities of death scatch and claw and rip at his immortal soul based upon rights accorded to them by the immutable laws that govern the universe. In this instant, all delusions of changeable doctrines, false gods and departures from the narrow path of salvation evaporate into horrible screams of agony and despair of having willfully abondoned the narrow path of salvation forged by the blood of Christ.

So I hope you're right.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 21, 2002.