E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Lets be respectful of our traditions in this discussion.
Thank you.
Thank you.
- Status
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Because that is not all Protestantism teaches. Protestantism also teaches many damnable heresies. I’m not trying to be abrasive by my use of the word “damnable”, but instead I’m trying to be theologically accurate. Man lives on EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God. We cannot “pick and choose” the words we like, discarding the words we do not like.
For example, Protestant also teaches that the inspired Book of Esther is one that doesn’t even mention God. Their version is a Godless Esther! Unbelievable! No other book in the Protestant Bible FAILS to mention God. This should be a clue as to the non-inspired nature of this version of Esther. So why do they cling to this truncated version of the Book of Esther in their Bible?
Catholics and Orthodox–the majority of Christians–disagree with this Protestant heresy. Every ancient Christian manuscript of Sacred Scripture of other than fragmentary form testifies to a larger version of the Book of Esther which does indeed mention God, yet Protestantism rejects it. We also have a larger book of Daniel, and these were accepted by EVERY Church of Christ since the advent of Christ…and then came the Protestant heresy in the 1500s.
This is just one of the many heresy taught by Protestantism. They removed chapters and verses and even entire books from the Holy Bible. They cling to a truncated, 66-book Bible, which is unprecedented in all of Christian history, rejecting the Holy Bible that was canonized in the 4th century AD. By what authority do Protestants truncate the Holy Bible that they received?
Heresy is a serious sin. Protestantism teaches contrary to the truth of the Christian deposit of faith which was handed on in every century since the advent of Christ. It is a damnable sin to do such a thing. Where they continue to assent to authentic Christian doctrine, we have no disagreement. When they teach heresy, the Church admonishes.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
That’s not correct. The baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs in sacramental baptism or its desire.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
This is incorrect. The baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs in sacramental baptism and its desire. There are not “many” kinds of baptisms, but only one. However, the desire for the sacrament of baptism brings it effect. This desire is expressed, for example, in Act 10 when Cornelius, upon hearing the preaching of Peter, becames filled with the Holy Spirit, the moment that he and his household “desired” Baptism. Nonetheless, Peter “commanded” they be baptized sacramentally. So the desire brought about the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, but desire for baptism does not negate the need to be sacramentally baptized. The sacrament would bring a new outpouring of grace upon grace.
D
Della
Guest
Of course, the caveat to this is that 99% of Protestants have no idea their Bible is truncated or that their ecclesial bodies teach heresies. They are material heretics not formal heretics, which is a mitigating factor in the way God judges them. No one is held responsible for being taught the wrong things all their lives by people they trusted to teach them the truth. Most Protestants would be horrified to learn they are even material heretics since they never intended to be heretics of any kind. And God understands that too.
And while anyone could pick up the Catechism of the Catholic Church to read what the truth is, most would never think to do so since they have no idea they need to know anything other than what they were taught. We must be sensitive to these factors and realize that we cannot hold people accountable for what even God doesn’t. I don’t mean to imply or to say that that was your intention in posting your information, of course. I just thought it should be stated that culpability plays a big role in how God will judge each of us, especially those who were never taught the whole truth/or were taught falsehoods.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
His response pertained to what “protestant churches teach,” wondering how it could be contrary to the truth. I agree that ignorance can be “through no fault of their own.” But it is also true that ignorance can be “through fault of their own.” The culpability of individual souls I leave to God.
I agree there is a vast difference in culpability for material vs. formal sin. Yet, I don’t agree that we can know if “they are” one or the other. Ignorance can be non-culpable, partially culpable, and fully culpable, depending upon the circumstances.
It can often seems like Catholics promote “salvation by ignorance.” I think we need to be more clear on this. Ignorance does not save anybody. If that were the case then Christ should never have come to proclaim the truth, but should have simply left everyone in inculpable ignorance. Yet, Christ tells us that it is not ignorance that sets us free, but it is truth.
Ignorance itself can be a sin, as St. Thomas Aquinas affirmed, if it we are ignorant in something we are bound to know (and capable of knowing). I do not persume to know who is a formal heretic vs. a material heretic. I leave the judgment of individual souls to God. We are called to sow the seeds of truth, to dispel ignorance, not judge souls.
One thing I think even Catholics in modern times tend to promote is this erroneous notion that we are justified by following a certain yet erroneous conscience. We are not. This is not what the Church teaches. We are indeed bound to follow the certain judgment of our conscience, but doing so does not guarantee that we will go to heaven. Our certain conscience may be contrary to objective truth, and this may be due to prior sin, such as a sinful neglect to properly inform one’s conscience.
Cardinal Ratzinger put it this way: “Certainly, one must follow an erroneous conscience. But the departure from truth which took place beforehand and now takes its revenge is the actual guilt which first lulls man into false security and then abandons him in the trackless waste” (Truth and Conscience).
Cardinal Ratzinger is speaking of what Scripture calls “hardness of heart.” Ignorance of things Divine can be a damnable sin.
I agree that culpability for sin is dependent upon “voluntariness” in sinning, which is to say that it depends upon the subjective elements of “knowledge” and “intent.” However, we must be clear about what the Church teaches: we are not saved by ignorance, but by truth. Ignorance may diminish the culpability for sin, most assuredly that ignorance which is called “invincible” (i.e. unconquerable). Yet, it is also true that ignorance can be vincible (conquerable) or even “affected”, and as such carries some or even full culpability. I don’t know whether or not my Protestant friends and family suffer from invincible ignorance (involuntary), vincible ignorance (partially voluntary, therefore partially culpable), or affected ignorance (fully voluntary, therefore fully culpable). God does. Our calling as Christians is to continually inform our conscience, to seek the truth, to proclaim the truth, and let God judge the culpability of individual souls, to include our own.
D
Della
Guest
All true, of course, and it puts the onus on us who have the truth to pass it on as best we can. My point is only about culpability not that ignorance is “bliss”. We truly live in a post-Christian society in the West. Our own people are poorly catechized, and it’s even worse for those people who were brought up in indifference and “tolerance” as their main “truth”. The message of Christ’s truth must be gotten out all the more, I certainly agree.
What I am addressing is the sincere non-Catholic Christian who has never known anything but his own version of the Christian faith. He neither knows nor would be inclined to think he needs to look into the Catholic faith to find what he already believes he has right where he is. We can certainly invite him to explore the truths of the Church, but most never hear that invitation. My only concern here is that we not decide who is and who isn’t going to hell based on what we are privileged to know (once again, not that that is what you are saying), which is what the OP wanted to have answered.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I agree!All true, of course, and it puts the onus on us who have the truth to pass it on as best we can. My point is only about culpability not that ignorance is “bliss”. We truly live in a post-Christian society in the West. Our own people are poorly catechized, and it’s even worse for those people who were brought up in indifference and “tolerance” as their main “truth”. The message of Christ’s truth must be gotten out all the more, I certainly agree.
What I am addressing is the sincere non-Catholic Christian who has never known anything but his own version of the Christian faith. He neither knows nor would be inclined to think he needs to look into the Catholic faith to find what he already believes he has right where he is. We can certainly invite him to explore the truths of the Church, but most never hear that invitation. My only concern here is that we not decide who is and who isn’t going to hell based on what we are privileged to know (once again, not that that is what you are saying), which is what the OP wanted to have answered.
T
Trevor_Stamm
Guest
Got to be specific there bro, there are 30-40 thousand Protestant churches and One Catholic Church, which protestant doctrine are we going to use in this discussion?
We’ll use an example; most Protestants don’t believe Purgatory and Limbo exist, extremely dangerous grounds to stand on saying anyone who doesn’t know Christ is going to Hell. Because if there’s no Purgatory and Limbo, no one outside of Christianity can gain salvation, even if they are not at fault. Let’s see if we use our brains and logic here, by that statement they damn every single person before Christ came to Hell, they damn everyone after Christ that who didn’t know Him or his teachings to Hell, they damn unborn babies to Hell, damn children that are not of the age of awareness to Hell, they damn just about anyone who doesn’t say “Christ is my God and Savior!” By default they are judging people, according to biblical law:
Matt 7:1-2
[1] Judge not, that you may not be judged, [2] For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.
This is why I quoted the Catechism for you early when the Church teaches “no salvation out of the Church” is not aimed at those, with no fault of their own, do not truly know Christ and his Church. For one, not a lot of people don’t know the true definition of “know”. “To be aware of the truth or factuality of: be convinced or certain of”.
That’s just one example, and by that they put themselves in a very dangerous situation of judgment.
They think themselves as these moral relativists who say “faith alone” will gain you eternal life in Heaven; all you got to do is believe Jesus was the Christ and Savior, be a good person, and you will be saved! And then they deny Purgatory and Limo without knowing the extreme contradiction in their philosophy.
P
pablope
Guest
newadvent.org/cathen/04215b.htm
Confirmation:
A sacrament in which the Holy Ghost is given to those already baptized in order to make them strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Jesus Christ.
Baptism:
The Roman Catechism (Ad parochos, De bapt., 2, 2, 5) defines baptism thus: Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration by water in the word (per aquam in verbo). St. Thomas Aquinas (III:66:1) gives this definition: “Baptism is the external ablution of the body, performed with the prescribed form of words.”
P
pablope
Guest
Consider John 6: 56
He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
To remain in Christ, for us to remain in Christ, and Christ in us, it says eat His flesh and drink His Blood.
If the Eucharist is symbolic, how can this be true?
Or take the once saved, always saved belief:
Reconcile it with this:
Romans 11:
20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.
W
wwolverine
Guest
I thought that Tantum Ergo’s anacdote was a pretty good one. Well the final Judge is Jesus and He does not believe in partiality or bribes. So He will let in Heaven how has lived his life on earth in aworthy manner.
Besides if we feel that only Catholics will enter in Heaven its a great injustice and it can be a faileure, as how is it that Catholics failed in making the whole world Catholics?
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
I’ll quote my old **Protestant **pastor on this, a man whom I found very wise and prophetic, although discouraging.
Towards the end of his life, we were talking in his office. He commented,
“Protestants can be very arrogant about Catholics”.
“Protestants tell a lot of lies about Catholics and the Catholic Church”
“I sometimes wonder if Protestants get into heaven. I don’t think God accepts the divided church the way we do.”
“If there was a ‘false prophet’, I think it was Martin Luther. Some of the things Luther said and did weren’t very Christian.” He went on to say, “The Reformation was easily the most violent episode in Church history” (it left the Crusades in the shade, frankly).
Now that was from my old **Protestant **pastor.
When I responded, “Well, if you think that, why are you still Protestant?” He shrugged, and replied, “They (the Catholic Church) have done a lot of damage at times.” (We have too). And we more or less left it at that.
Considering he gave his second youngest son the middle name of “Luther”, then clearly something changed his thinking from the time he was a young pastor to the time he was a much older and wiser pastor.
There was one later occasion, when we were talking about the Pope, and he blurted out, “It’s a heresy! That’s what worries me!” I won’t go into the whole background, but he was dying of cancer at the time. The ‘heresy’ was the Protestant position on the Pope, and in particular the Westminster Confession of Faith (which he’d sworn on) which stated the Pope was “that man of perdition, the Anti-Christ”.
Sometime after he died, he appeared to me in a brief vision, if you can accept this, and said, “We’re not in heaven. We’re all in Purgatory. Oh, we’re not suffering any pain, so you don’t have to worry about that. In fact it’s pretty good around here…(and here he looked rather impressed). But we’re not in heaven.”
That’s my take on it. By the way, I did not become Catholic because of this conversation, but by a combinaton of other factors. He did predict I’d become Catholic (part of his prophetic accuracy), but at the time he said it, I wasn’t even considering it.
That’s my take on it. To be honest, I don’t think they do, and that those who have died will have to wait until the church reunifies, under the Pope. In the meantime, I suspect that like him, they’re waiting around the very upper, almost heavenly, reaches of Purgatory, if my vision was anything to go by.
I developed a great deal of respect for his insights, and I found over the nine years I knew him that he was very, very accurate with his predictions, and in his thinking.
In fact, he died in 1992. He even said then, and the internet was not really much in vogue back then, that I’d “help a few people over the internet. You won’t get much reward for that!” (and he was probably right. It doesn’t take much effort to post a few items on a forum, does it, even if they do encourage a few people?"). But as I said, he was prophetic.
D
Della
Guest
Bob Crowley:
Not to take us off topic, but this “prophecy” only strands true for those who are able to be out there doing more. Some of us are more or less house bound, so the internet is a great outlet for us. Right now I am corresponding with a woman interested in becoming Catholic who I would never have met otherwise. And I have two “pen pals” who needed encouragement in their faith lives when we first met over the internet who are now fast friends. Certainly, we should do what we are able to do and not rely on the internet alone if we can do more–I agree with him there–I just thought I should speak up for those of us for whom the internet is our most effective way of reaching out. May your former pastor and his loved ones rest in the peace of the Lord. :
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I agree that this is what confirmation and baptism is. I disagree that baptism is not an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The “regeneration” occurs only through an outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
Confirmation is also an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, to give the baptized additional gifts.
I encourage you to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
**985 **Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of the forgiveness of sins: it unites us to Christ, who died and rose, and **gives us the Holy Spirit. **
P
pablope
Guest
I agree. Maybe I should have been more specific. I meant the additional gifts of the HS are outpoured or made more manifest at Confirmation.
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
Correct, but in my case he was right. It doesn’t take much effort for me to shoot off a few paragraphs. However he wasn’t addressing anybody but me.Not to take us off topic, but this “prophecy” only strands true for those who are able to be out there doing more. Some of us are more or less house bound, so the internet is a great outlet for us. Right now I am corresponding with a woman interested in becoming Catholic who I would never have met otherwise. And I have two “pen pals” who needed encouragement in their faith lives when we first met over the internet who are now fast friends. Certainly, we should do what we are able to do and not rely on the internet alone if we can do more–I agree with him there–I just thought I should speak up for those of us for whom the internet is our most effective way of reaching out. May your former pastor and his loved ones rest in the peace of the Lord. :
On the other hand it also demonstrates his tendency to be discouraging. He admitted to me that “I tend to discourage people. I don’t mean to, but I do.”
D
Della
Guest
Still, it’s good advise for all of us because it can be all to easy to do the minimum instead of actually getting involved.
That’s too bad. Dear man, I’m sure he was just being too hard on himself, bless his soul.
I
inkaneer
Guest
This deals with the theological concept of “invinceable ignorance” which has been defined. First ignorance is defined thusly:
“Ignorance is lack of knowledge about a thing in a being capable of knowing. Fundamentally speaking and with regard to a given object ignorance is the outcome of the limitations of our intellect or of the obscurity of the matter itself.”
Ignorance can be either vinceable or invinceable. It is the invinceable ignorance that opens the door to heaven for non Catholics.
Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory.
Thus if someone thinks that the claims of the Catholic Church may have some merit then that person is bound by moral diligence to research the matter. Failing to do that means that their ignorance is not invinceable and salvation is not possible. Again in the same situation if someone did research the matter and found the claims of the Catholic Church to be true but did not join it for any reason then that person forfeits their salvation also. In vinceable ignorance is a very small parachute and thus should not be relied on by anyone.
In addition the non Catholic has the problem of personal sin and how to remit it. The popular idea of “Jesus did it all” is not scriptural. While Jesus death was efficacious it remains as to how that death is applied to us. Jesus told us how. It is through His church. See John 20:23. Jesus delegated to His Church the authority to forgive sin.
“If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” [RSV] [John 20:23]
This is different than Jesus’ response to Peter’s question in Mt 18:21,22:
"Then Peter came up and said to him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times? 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.”
The verse in John is different for at least two reasons. Firstly, Jesus speaks of the sins of any [anybody] not just whoever sins against another individual. Secondly, in John, Jesus speaks of retaining sins, that is, not forgiving them. That is far different than the verse in Matthew where there is no mention of retaining sins whatsoever. So how does the non Catholic attain salvation without the remission of sin, especially mortal sin?
E
erodelphian
Guest
I thought this question was something the Catholic Church had already addressed with a “yes it’s possible” sometime ago. I’m somewhat offended at the question in a way as I think it was possibly just a trap to argue that protestants are all going to hell.
- Status