A YouTuber who goes by “G Man” posted a video titled Are Roman Catholics saved? Fiona and Jade pay attention!!!!!.
I posted the following comment:
Plainly and simply: Catholics MUST believe in Catholic dogmas in order to be saved. For example, in 1950 Catholicism made Mary’s assumption a dogma. This means that one minute before the doctrine of the assumption became dogma, a Catholic could have been saved without believing it and yet, one minute after it became dogma, a Catholic could no longer be saved as they could have been one minute prior. Whenever Catholicism proclaims a dogma they change the gospel by adding to it. Therefore, theirs is a new and therefore, false non-gospel.
Adrijan Talić replied to me:
Ken Ammi in practices yes but there majority was convicted that that doctrine was true and proclaimed it for dogma it was only a formality, the early church was Catholic.
My reply:
Well, dogmatizing a doctrine is not “only a formality” since prior to 1950 AD you could have been saved without regard to the Assumption of Mary but after 1950 AD you cannot be saved without believing it.
Adrijan Talić:
That’s the authority of the Church.
Ken Ammi:
That is very interesting friend and I would like to learn more. Whereabouts in official Vatican declarations does it state that they have the authority to change to the gospel by adding to it? In the meanwhile, please read 2 Corinthians 11:4, Galatians 1:8 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.
Adrijan Talić:
They have the authority to define the right interpretation of the gospel. In Matthew 18:18: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Ken Ammi:
Friend, I hope you will pardon my continued questions but I am attempting to understand these issue. Apparently, there are no official Vatican declarations does it state that they have the authority to change the gospel by adding to it. Yet, it seems that 2 Corinthians 11:4, Galatians 1:8 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, etc. can never apply to the Vatican even when they change the gospel by adding to it. Now, I am concluding that what you are saying that the Vatican has “the authority to define the right interpretation of the gospel” and that authority is derived from Matthew 18:18.
This seems like a chicken and egg issue or rather, an authority and interpretation issue. It seems like the claim is that the Vatican has the authority to define the right interpretation and they derived that authority from defining the right interpretation. In other words, they claim that the Bible gives them the authority to interpret the Bible as giving them the authority to interpret the Bible.
Adrijan Talić:
No problem friend, ok there is a lot of confusion in your mind, first the Bible don’t give them the authority, God give them the authority thought the apostle , the Bible is the perfect word of God but we are not perfect being and can make errors in our interpretation the church has always define the interpretation since the first century because from a not correct interpretation come a not correct doctrine, the Bible is not the only authority that God gave to us, first he came to established a church and not a bible .
Ken Ammi:
Just to ensure that I understand: you are stating that God gave the Catholic Church the authority to define the right interpretation of the gospel thought the apostles. Is that in the Bible or subsequent tradition?
I can see how since we can make errors the church has define the interpretation since the first century—and thus for two millennia—so where can I read the correct interpretation of the Bible?
Adrijan Talić:
The apostolic tradition came before the Bible was completed and collected in a book the church by receiving first the oral tradition they know what was the correct interpretation of the Bible , yes in the church can’t came error outside yes because God promise the even the gate of hell will not prevail how can you destroy a church not by bombs but by Heresy, you can read the correct interpretation in the church fathers writhing and they commentaries of the Gospel.
Ken Ammi:
Very well then: to reiterate for the sake of clarity, I can read any church father’s interpretation of the Bible and what they say is guaranteed to be without error. It seems that what “God promise” is that “even the gate of hell will not prevail” against the church which Jesus established. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 defines the gospel thusly, “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures…” 2 Corinthians 11:4-5 states, “For if someone comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it well enough.” Galatians 1:8-9 states, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!”
Now, since we agree that the Catholic Church has dogmatically promulgated a “different gospel,” “a gospel other than the one that” the oral apostolic tradition before the Bible was completed and collected and different than the subsequent Bible states then what does the Bible tell you about the Catholic Church: how should you regard it?
Adrijan Talić:
You are twisting my words, the writings of the church fathers are not infallible only the pope or a council of te church is infallible, the oral tradition was before the Bible that doesn’t mean it’s another Gospel when the church receive the written gospel they know how to interpretate it because they receive the oral gospel before, the Bible is a perfect book but we are not perfect and we can make errors when we interprete it, some church fathers receive the directly the gospel from the apostle and when they receive also the written version they make no interpretation errors because the doctrine was clear to their mind, we are not anymore in the apostolic age many cults rised and will rise because the one who started have a different personal interpretation that came from their carnal minds, we Catholics based our interpretation on the teaching of the early church that were also in the apostolic era and the various infallible council. [sic.]
Ken Ammi:
Friend, I implore you: the reason for my reiterations are just to ensure that I am understanding correctly. Now, when I referred to “another Gospel” I was not referring to the writings of the church fathers but to the fact that the Popes and Councils have changed the gospel by adding to it and have done so in a manner which you affirm is to be taken as official, infallible, authoritative, etc. As per my example: the way to the saved, the gospel, of pre-1950 AD is different than the way to the saved, the gospel, of post-1950 AD.
And that, as they say, was the end of that as no reply was forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.