|
Post by RealistState on Mar 8, 2004 22:21:48 GMT -5
I did go to the link that realistate provided. [/color][/quote] Good for you...we're making progress. I did not see "Roman Catholic church" anywhere. I did see "Roman catechisim", and also that the Roman church refers to itself as "the holy Catholic church." [/color][/quote] Understandable since the translation of Catechismis Romanus is Roman Catechism. Again, if you read this document from the 1500's you would have see this: So, even back then, the 16th Century writers defined catholic to mean universal, and not the sinister implication you're attempting to make. While later writings claim that there are others outside of the "holy(Roman) catholic church" that are members of God's church, the catechisim claims that to belong to God's church, one must believe as the Roman catechisim explains those beliefs. If not, one is "anathma", or d**med. These are opposing statements. [/color][/quote] Again, a better reading of the document, you would have read how at that time and place, they defined their world: It is quite clear since the Reformation had no "real" name at the time, the Church felt it still had "jurisdiction" over the "heretics and schismatics". Just as a pastor feels responsible for their congregation, the council in this time and place felt they needed to do something to bring the "schismatics and heretics" back to the truth. If I deny the bread is the real body, soul and spirit of God with all Divinity as Rome dictates, then I can't belong to the "holy Catholic church", but being a SDA, I don't accept that dogma, so I'm d**med according to your "Roman" catechisim. You can't have it both ways. [/color][/quote] If you lived in the 16th century, and felt that way, you would be labeled a "heretic and/or a schismatic", but still be considered a Catholic. And as a Catholic, denying the "real" presence of Jesus would be considered a " d**mable" offense. Now, as an SDA, if you do not accept that "soul sleep" or, the papacy is the anti-christ,; would you be " d**med"?
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Mar 8, 2004 22:48:07 GMT -5
I also saw "Vicar of Christ" as referring to those after Peter. Vicar means "stand in" or in place of". Vicar of Christ is the same as "Vicarius Filii Dei" which means in place of the son of God. This is why the title wasn't removed from the Donation of Constantine and also why it is an official title of the papacy, and not just for Peter. [/color][/quote] I see your perceptions are getting in the way of reality again. Now did you find this title in the Catechimus Romanus? Also, why do you feel so strongly that Catholics interprept vicar as someone "above" God. You are so wrong about this. But let's see what they wrote in the 16th century: I added the underlines and highlights to the original. I see where they wrote of vicar, but certainly not with the implications you write of. Since when would a Ruler appoint someone to rule over them. What you're implying just does not make any sense! I didn't go all the way to completion of reading this, in fact, I just scanned it until something of interest caught my eye. It is too long and really not an interesting read. So, while I didn't see the term "Roman Catholic Church", it is obvious that this is implied precisely, and since the Rcc was in fact called the "Holy Roman Catholic church" at one time, I don't see where it is wrong or "editing" to name it that way today.
[/color][/quote] Not very good scholarship on your part, however that is your perogative. Kind of reminds me of the prosecutors of the OJ Simpson case...don't ask the question if you don't already know the answer. As far as adding to a document to "spin" it to the way you want it to read is just wrong and dishonest. If you're gong to "modify" a written document to support your position, you should notify the reader ahead of time that you've editorialized your source. That would be the honest thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 8, 2004 23:49:55 GMT -5
gene, How do you know what the catechism says, you refuse to read it? You are taking the word of someonelse as to what it says and not reading it for yourself.....isn't that what you have said to me many times about the Bible (even though I think that I have proven that is not true). That is why you spread misconceptions about the RCC, you have bad information. You really should get it first hand from the catechism. The official RCC version, not the SDA version, you have used that in the past and we pointed out the differences. Blessings, Ann I did go to the link that realistate provided. I did not see "Roman Catholic church" anywhere. I did see "Roman catechisim", and also that the Roman church refers to itself as "the holy Catholic church." While later writings claim that there are others outside of the "holy(Roman) catholic church" that are members of God's church, the catechisim claims that to belong to God's church, one must believe as the Roman catechisim explains those beliefs. If not, one is "anathma", or d**med. These are opposing statements. If I deny the bread is the real body, soul and spirit of God with all Divinity as Rome dictates, then I can't belong to the "holy Catholic church", but being a SDA, I don't accept that dogma, so I'm d**med according to your "Roman" catechisim. You can't have it both ways. I also saw "Vicar of Christ" as referring to those after Peter. Vicar means "stand in" or in place of". Vicar of Christ is the same as "Vicarius Filii Dei" which means in place of the son of God. This is why the title wasn't removed from the Donation of Constantine and also why it is an official title of the papacy, and not just for Peter. I didn't go all the way to completion of reading this, in fact, I just scanned it until something of interest caught my eye. It is too long and really not an interesting read. So, while I didn't see the term "Roman Catholic Church", it is obvious that this is implied precisely, and since the Rcc was in fact called the "Holy Roman Catholic church" at one time, I don't see where it is wrong or "editing" to name it that way today.
[/color][/quote] gene, You just won't admit that you are editing the catechism to what you think it should read, will you. In the context of the paragraph that you posted on who was included in salvation, the word Roman was not there in the official catechism and did not apply. You can not be a RC if you do not believe in the Eucharist. That is not the same thing at all. They are 2 totally different subjects concerning totally different groups of people. You once again are twisting things. My you are good at that....but I am getting much better and seeing the twists and turns that you make to further your misconceptions along. Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Mar 9, 2004 1:23:35 GMT -5
Home said Would you please explain what you just said here? Thanks! <><
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 9, 2004 2:04:46 GMT -5
Home said Would you please explain what you just said here? Thanks! <>< Jan, genesda (in a post of his) misquoted the cathechism of the RCC as stating that only RC people can be saved. (he added "Roman" to the statement). What I meant in this recent post is that yes you must believe that the Eucharist is the body of Jesus Christ in order to be RC. It does not state that only RC people are in the body of Christ, the church. Clearer? Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 9, 2004 6:04:02 GMT -5
gene, You just won't admit that you are editing the catechism to what you think it should read, will you. In the context of the paragraph that you posted on who was included in salvation, the word Roman was not there in the official catechism and did not apply. You can not be a RC if you do not believe in the Eucharist. That is not the same thing at all. They are 2 totally different subjects concerning totally different groups of people. You once again are twisting things. My you are good at that....but I am getting much better and seeing the twists and turns that you make to further your misconceptions along. Blessings, Ann I don't see a distinction between "Catholic church" and "Roman Catholic Church" although I understand the concept. I agree that the wording today seems to make a distinction, but what I read from the catachisim for priests is plain to me, that it is the Roman catholic church is considered as the only true church and that those outside of it are doomed. Maybe it is you that can't see the root of what it is saying and that's why you accuse me of twisting it around. Let's look at it this way. If I tell you that the sabbath is still a valid commandment and if anyone who really doesn't know which day it is will not be judged by God as having disobeyed Him by keeping another day in it's place. Wouldn't you say that's a fair assessment? Now, I stste that since there is no doubt today as to which day it is and that it's still the 7th day of the week and anyone who doesn't keep that day holy is d**med and can't belong to the true church of God, what would you say to that? This is exactly what your Roman catechisim says about denominations other than the Rcc where the eucharist is concerned. You are free to deny this if you wish, but read for what is really being said instead of verification for what you want to believe. The Rcc has always maintained that there is no salvation outside of itself and there is no difference today if you really look closely at what is said.
Think about this for a minute. If there are Christians other than Rc's who are going to enter heaven, then why should one believe all of what Rome says? Why should anyone observe: the eucharist as believed and taught by Rome praying to Mary popes, and all that they claim such as obeying the pope as if God Himself was speaking rosaries prayer bneads mediating priests lent and so on.
I claim that none of the above means anything to the salvation of an individual even after knowing what the Rcc claims as truth. In fact, I deny the above things as being from God and are really Satanic teachings as well, and all in my church agree.
Now, are we d**med for our beliefs or can we still attain heaven according to the Rc leadership?
That a question for you to answer. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 9, 2004 6:17:10 GMT -5
I see your perceptions are getting in the way of reality again. Now did you find this title in the Catechimus Romanus? Also, why do you feel so strongly that Catholics interprept vicar as someone "above" God. You are so wrong about this. But let's see what they wrote in the 16th century: No, it's in other plasec such as Roman canon law. The title isn't in the catechisim, nor did I notice any title of the papacy in there. This catechisim allows that the priest knows who the pope is and therefore writing his title or titles isn'tnecessary. The title was used for over 600 years and recognized by at least 10 popes and not one of them saw fit to deny it. [/color] I added the underlines and highlights to the original. I see where they wrote of vicar, but certainly not with the implications you write of. Since when would a Ruler appoint someone to rule over them. What you're implying just does not make any sense! If one attempts to change the law, they are placing themselves above the law maker. This is what your popes have done, and they claim the authority to do so. 1123. Papacy----claims made for the pope----power to modify divine laws source: Lucius Ferraris, "papa", art. 2, in his Prompta Bibliothecia ("handy library") vol. 6 (venetiis [venice] Gaspar Storti,1772) p.29. Latin.
The pope is of so great authorityand power that he can modify, explain,or interpret even divine laws.......Petrus de Ancharano [1416] very clearly asserts this in Consil.373, no.3 verso: The pope can modify (change) divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts in the place of God on Earth, with the fullest power of binding and loosing his sheep.
[/color] Not very good scholarship on your part, however that is your perogative. Kind of reminds me of the prosecutors of the OJ Simpson case...don't ask the question if you don't already know the answer. As far as adding to a document to "spin" it to the way you want it to read is just wrong and dishonest. If you're gong to "modify" a written document to support your position, you should notify the reader ahead of time that you've editorialized your source. That would be the honest thing to do. I read what I did in the context of other claims made by Rome on the same subject, not just for the words in front of me. I don't see any difference. I correctly added the word "Roman". If that's what you call modification of what is written, I'm guilty. I simply say I'm putting that in the right context because that's what is really meant, as it has for centuries. You wish to believe there is a difference in the attitude of Rome today from the past and that's your mistake. There is no difference and it will become clear in the not too distant future. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 9, 2004 6:27:46 GMT -5
Jan, genesda (in a post of his) misquoted the cathechism of the RCC as stating that only RC people can be saved. (he added "Roman" to the statement). What I meant in this recent post is that yes you must believe that the Eucharist is the body of Jesus Christ in order to be RC. It does not state that only RC people are in the body of Christ, the church. Clearer? Blessings, Ann In the Roman catholic catechisim for RC priests, there is no mention of "Roman Catholic Church", but this does say " Roman catechisim". Now this is written for Rc priests, not Baptist pastors or any other denomination. It is clear that the term "Holy Cathoilc Church" is used, but it isn't referring to other denominations because practices of the Rcc are all that is talked about and explained, so how am I wrong is stating that this is speaking of the Roman catholic church", even if Roman catholic church isn't stated as a title in this catechisim?
A summary of the eucharist is as follows. If one doesn't accept the eucharist as defined by Rome, then they are to be considered as "anathama", which is d**med. Now, who believes this except the Roman church? Certainly not the Baptists, SDA's, Pentecostal, or other non-RcC;s, so are we all d**med as the catachisim of the "holy Catholic Church" says? Are we to be considered as part of the "Holy Catholic Church" or would that term better be defined as the Roman Catholic Church? I believe the latter fits better with the intent of what is written.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 9, 2004 6:39:29 GMT -5
Good for you...we're making progress. LOL!![/color] Understandable since the translation of Catechismis Romanus is Roman Catechism. Again, if you read this document from the 1500's you would have see this: Do you really believe that Rome considered the Calvinists to be part of the "holy catholic church"? If so, why did the Rcc persecute those who believed as the Calvinists did?[/color] It is quite clear since the Reformation had no "real" name at the time, the Church felt it still had "jurisdiction" over the "heretics and schismatics". Just as a pastor feels responsible for their congregation, the council in this time and place felt they needed to do something to bring the "schismatics and heretics" back to the truth. Yes, and this jurisdiction included BURNING them at the stake for denying Rome's teachings, even though they were part of the "holy catholic church" right?[/color] If you lived in the 16th century, and felt that way, you would be labeled a "heretic and/or a schismatic", but still be considered a Catholic. And as a Catholic, denying the "real" presence of Jesus would be considered a " d**mable" offense. So, when did Rome admit their mistake and repent for their wrong doings and the murder of those who were burned, drowned and strangled to death because they refused to obey Rome as though God Himself were speaking?"[/color] Now, as an SDA, if you do not accept that "soul sleep" or, the papacy is the anti-christ,; would you be " d**med"? No, but I wouldn't be a SDA either. No one would seek to kill me because I didn't accept those teachings, by the way, which are biblical teachings, not born of man's traditions or Satanic lies.[/color]
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 9, 2004 11:34:21 GMT -5
gene, You just won't admit that you are editing the catechism to what you think it should read, will you. In the context of the paragraph that you posted on who was included in salvation, the word Roman was not there in the official catechism and did not apply. You can not be a RC if you do not believe in the Eucharist. That is not the same thing at all. They are 2 totally different subjects concerning totally different groups of people. You once again are twisting things. My you are good at that....but I am getting much better and seeing the twists and turns that you make to further your misconceptions along. Blessings, Ann I don't see a distinction between "Catholic church" and "Roman Catholic Church" although I understand the concept. I agree that the wording today seems to make a distinction, but what I read from the catachisim for priests is plain to me, that it is the Roman catholic church is considered as the only true church and that those outside of it are doomed. Maybe it is you that can't see the root of what it is saying and that's why you accuse me of twisting it around. Let's look at it this way. If I tell you that the sabbath is still a valid commandment and if anyone who really doesn't know which day it is will not be judged by God as having disobeyed Him by keeping another day in it's place. Wouldn't you say that's a fair assessment? Now, I stste that since there is no doubt today as to which day it is and that it's still the 7th day of the week and anyone who doesn't keep that day holy is d**med and can't belong to the true church of God, what would you say to that? This is exactly what your Roman catechisim says about denominations other than the Rcc where the eucharist is concerned. You are free to deny this if you wish, but read for what is really being said instead of verification for what you want to believe. The Rcc has always maintained that there is no salvation outside of itself and there is no difference today if you really look closely at what is said.
Think about this for a minute. If there are Christians other than Rc's who are going to enter heaven, then why should one believe all of what Rome says? Why should anyone observe: the eucharist as believed and taught by Rome praying to Mary popes, and all that they claim such as obeying the pope as if God Himself was speaking rosaries prayer bneads mediating priests lent and so on.
I claim that none of the above means anything to the salvation of an individual even after knowing what the Rcc claims as truth. In fact, I deny the above things as being from God and are really Satanic teachings as well, and all in my church agree.
Now, are we d**med for our beliefs or can we still attain heaven according to the Rc leadership?
That a question for you to answer. [/color][/quote] gene, If you can not read "Catholic Church" without mentally seeing "Roman" in front of it you are totally missing the point and teaching of that section of the catechism. Perhaps if you would take off your SDA gpkmtyolles you would see that the word is not there. The Catholic Church states that it is the one true church as far as it was the one that started with Jesus. All other denominations splintered off from it. It does not say that any who do not agree with the RCC is doomed, at all. As for why believe the Eucharist is the body of Christ.......because Jesus told us all that at the Last Supper. That is good enough for me. As for you last question....as long as you profess that Jesus is your saviour, you will see heaven as is stated in the catechism (without your edit). Prayers and Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Mar 9, 2004 23:59:15 GMT -5
Do you really believe that Rome considered the Calvinists to be part of the "holy catholic church"? If so, why did the Rcc persecute those who believed as the Calvinists did? [/color][/quote] Yes, they did. Part of the "strayed" flock so to speak. Persecution is the product of misguided human beings. [/color][/quote] Along with trying to teach them the errors of their way. To assume that the Roman Catholic Church only comitted murder is a gross inaccuracy that even the simplest reading of history books would confirm. [/color][/quote] You really need to get a grip. To blame all capital punishment of the Middle Ages on the RCC is so obviously biased, it really isn't worth the time in responding. So, if I show you the documents where the RCC admits it's wrong doing and has asked God for forgivenss for it's past mistakes, will you forgive the RCC? [/color][/quote] But according to the SDA doctrines, you'd be " d*amned", correct? PS: The RCC hasn't sanctioned "killing" anyone in a very long time!
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 10, 2004 5:24:00 GMT -5
gene, If you can not read "Catholic Church" without mentally seeing "Roman" in front of it you are totally missing the point and teaching of that section of the catechism. Perhaps if you would take off your SDA gpkmtyolles you would see that the word is not there. The Catholic Church states that it is the one true church as far as it was the one that started with Jesus. All other denominations splintered off from it. It does not say that any who do not agree with the RCC is doomed, at all. As for why believe the Eucharist is the body of Christ.......because Jesus told us all that at the Last Supper. That is good enough for me. Really? Let's see what some of your past officials have declared:
[/color] The Council of Trent, in response to the Reformers' doctrine of justification by faith alone, states the following: If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sin for Christ's sake alone; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified, let him be anathema (Session VI, Canon 12). If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but, that without them, men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, let him be anathema (Session 7, Canons on the Sacraments in General, 4 [italics mine]). "If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, 6th Session, Chapter XVI, Can. 30) As for you last question....as long as you profess that Jesus is your saviour, you will see heaven as is stated in the catechism (without your edit). Prayers and Blessings, Ann I deny that I must confess any sin to another human being in order to receive forgivness.
I deny the Roman catholic church is the church instituted by God
I deny the papacy as being from God, and is an instrument of Satan.
I deny that Mary is a mediatrix and that I must go through her to get to Jesus.
I deny that Mary is the "dispensor" of all graces.
I deny that Mary is a co-redemptress
I believe the Roman church is the 2nd beast of Revelation 13, the papacy is the antiChrist we are warned of by God Himself and is destined for destruction in the lake of fire.
I believe Jesus is God who became flesh and died for the sins of mankind so man doesn't have to pay the price for sin himself.
Am I considered to be "anathama" or can I attain heaven by following God's plan for man without any instruction or advise from Rome?
This question ought to be simple for you to answer
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 10, 2004 5:48:46 GMT -5
Do you really believe that Rome considered the Calvinists to be part of the "holy catholic church"? If so, why did the Rcc persecute those who believed as the Calvinists did? Yes, they did. Part of the "strayed" flock so to speak. Persecution is the product of misguided human beings. Misguided by who? They obviously weren't led by God. [/color] Quote:Yes, and this jurisdiction included BURNING them at the stake for denying Rome's teachings, even though they were part of the "holy catholic church" right? Along with trying to teach them the errors of their way. To assume that the Roman Catholic Church only comitted murder is a gross inaccuracy that even the simplest reading of history books would confirm. Which other denomination claiming to be led by God did such things? The bible does in fact teach that salvation comes by faith in Jesus, not by obeying any pope, so who was actually in error?[/color] Quote:So, when did Rome admit their mistake and repent for their wrong doings and the murder of those who were burned, drowned and strangled to death because they refused to obey Rome as though God Himself were speaking?" You really need to get a grip. To blame all capital punishment of the Middle Ages on the RCC is so obviously biased, it really isn't worth the time in responding. Biased? Since when is stating facts considered to be biased? No one's talking about all capital punishment, just what the Rcc did in the name of God.[/color] So, if I show you the documents where the RCC admits it's wrong doing and has asked God for forgivenss for it's past mistakes, will you forgive the RCC? The Rc people is the church as it has always been, and since there is no need to forgive Rc's today of past atrocites, what would be the point? The only way the Rc leadership could ever repent is to admit it has been teaching false doctrines for centuries and turn to the bible truth. That will never happen. Besides, I doubt there is any document admitting wrong doing to begin with. I heard once, that there was something saying the Rcc was sorry it had to do that which was necessary, but not admitting that what they did was wrong. Show me if that is wrong.
[/color] Quote:No, but I wouldn't be a SDA either. No one would seek to kill me because I didn't accept those teachings, by the way, which are biblical teachings, not born of man's traditions or Satanic lies. But according to the SDA doctrines, you'd be " d*amned", correct? No, only if my beliefs led me to false provisions on salvation. For instance, if I believed that I could attain salvation by keeping the commandments, I would d**m myself, because that is a false teaching. The SDA church doesn't judge anyone. That is God's area, not man's. Also, those who believe there will be an additional 7 years to repent after Jesus "raptures the church" are d**ming themselves by believing they will have a second chance to repent. If they aren't saved when Jesus returns, their fate is sealed. The same for Rc people who believe "little sins" can be purified away in purgatory. No sin will be allowed to enter heaven and anyone who believes they can have "little sins" taken away after they die are only being deceived by those they place their trust in. As much as Rc's try to make purgatory fit in the scriptures, they really can't, and your church has given you the truth in the N.C.E. that purgatory is based on tradition alone and not scripture. Satan must give the truth along with his lies so there will be no excuse for being deceived.
[/color] PS: The RCC hasn't sanctioned "killing" anyone in a very long time! Only because it doesn't have the secular power behind it as was the case in the dark ages, but prophecy tells us that the same persecutions will return again before Jesus returns, and that the second beast of Rev.13(the USA) will enforce the mark of the first beast of rev. 13( the RCC).[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 10, 2004 5:52:32 GMT -5
gene, If you can not read "Catholic Church" without mentally seeing "Roman" in front of it you are totally missing the point and teaching of that section of the catechism. Perhaps if you would take off your SDA gpkmtyolles you would see that the word is not there. The Catholic Church states that it is the one true church as far as it was the one that started with Jesus. All other denominations splintered off from it. It does not say that any who do not agree with the RCC is doomed, at all. As for why believe the Eucharist is the body of Christ.......because Jesus told us all that at the Last Supper. That is good enough for me. As for you last question....as long as you profess that Jesus is your saviour, you will see heaven as is stated in the catechism (without your edit). Prayers and Blessings, Ann I notice you've chosen to avoid the questions I asked in the post you've answered. Why?[/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Mar 10, 2004 6:15:03 GMT -5
Really? Let's see what some of your past officials have declared:
[/color] The Council of Trent, in response to the Reformers' doctrine of justification by faith alone, states the following: If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sin for Christ's sake alone; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified, let him be anathema (Session VI, Canon 12). If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but, that without them, men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, let him be anathema (Session 7, Canons on the Sacraments in General, 4 [italics mine]). "If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, 6th Session, Chapter XVI, Can. 30) As for you last question....as long as you profess that Jesus is your saviour, you will see heaven as is stated in the catechism (without your edit). Prayers and Blessings, Ann I deny that I must confess any sin to another human being in order to receive forgivness.
I deny the Roman catholic church is the church instituted by God
I deny the papacy as being from God, and is an instrument of Satan.
I deny that Mary is a mediatrix and that I must go through her to get to Jesus.
I deny that Mary is the "dispensor" of all graces.
I deny that Mary is a co-redemptress
I believe the Roman church is the 2nd beast of Revelation 13, the papacy is the antiChrist we are warned of by God Himself and is destined for destruction in the lake of fire.
I believe Jesus is God who became flesh and died for the sins of mankind so man doesn't have to pay the price for sin himself.
Am I considered to be "anathama" or can I attain heaven by following God's plan for man without any instruction or advise from Rome?
This question ought to be simple for you to answer
[/color][/quote] I think you really need to answer that for yourself. It is really not up to me or Ann or anyone else for that matter. Besides, amathema for you would have to have been declared bu the present Pope. Although I do not know for sure, I don't think he personally knows you or your beliefs. Nor has he come out with a blanket statement regarding his opinion of the SDA group. In the meantime, here's some additional reading regarding the RCC position concerning salavtion. You'll note some of it came from the very same Council of Trent:
|
|