Do Catholics believe Protestants are going to hell?

[CentralFLJames]

BTW, when and where was this “teaching authority” established? Who are they and how do you know they are teaching you the truth? I mean if the Bible isn’t that important, what do you have to go by?

Fair questions. The teaching authority was given explicitly by Christ VERBALLY and IN PERSON but happens to be witnessed in the Bible and by the blood of the apostles martyerdom in holding to that authorty in various places. One such passage is seen in the tract we call “The Great Commission”:
*
Matthew 28:16-20
But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
*

Jesus commanded the apostles to Make Disciples of all the Nations. At this time there was NO BIBLE. To make a disciple one had to be TAUGHT what then was called “The Way” and then baptised and received into the Church as a formal member. Only those ordained were given explicit apostolic authority to teach and to minister to the people. The Bible was never intended to be a primary means of teaching - but rather a book for the Christian Mass and liturgy and as means for codifying core faith traditions in written form to combat rising heresies (e.g. Marianism etc.)

How do we know they are telling the truth? By the fact that all the first 30 or so popes (lead bishop) and many bishops were all slaughtered for their faith without renouncing it with nothing whatsoever to gain by it personally other than the promises of Christ that they have passed on to us. No human is willing to die for a known lie. So we inherit that same apostolic faith as they themselves passed down to us both in written and oral traditions.

BTW, I did not say the bible is not important. It is integral with our Christian faith and our living liturgy of the mass. But the interpretation of the bible is what is most important since it contains many passages too hard for lay people to understand without a teaching framework and without knowing the context of apostolic teaching.

What we have to go by are these things:
The same original HANDED DOWN faith of the same apostles and disciples and martyers in an unbroken chain of faith that is consistent with the promise of Christ “The Gates of Hell will not prevail against My Church” and the promise “I am with you for all times” and the promise of the Holy Spirit to lead us to all truth.

James

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by rinnie
we can and must say that we do not have the authority to claim who is and who is not. We can stand up for our faith though, and confront sin. But we cannot judge others.

Like to say living in sin is a sin. Well yes it is. We cannot deny that. And can living in sin separate you from God, Yes it can. Can we say to someone you are separted from God? No we cannot not. We can just say that it is a sin…

All we can do as Christians is point out what is accepted by God, and what is not. We are to help each other not judge. There is a big difference.

Firiend I’m truly sad to have to inform you while your position is kind and chairatble, it simply is neither the truth nor can it be supported in the bible.
**
1 John 5:16-17** clearly points out that there exist TWO levels of sin; one them he identifies as “Mortal.”

The word “Mortal” then and now mean “unto death.”

This is futher supported by understanding that God is and actually has to be [has no choice but to be] fair and just.

So if you steal a dolar from me * and because you refuse to give it back to me; in anger I kill you, and we both die with these unrepented and unconfessed [see John 20:19-23] sins on our souls, and these are th ONLY sins on our soul, can God is Divine justice treat us the same way?

Of course not. You MAY get to heaven, I definately have sentenced myself to hell by my **personal choice.

While we cannot JUDGE another, we can and we must advise others how God is Going to judge them based on known facts, supported in the Bible. **

That is NOT my judgement; it is me informing you of God’s highly probable Justice being enacted. That friend, is part of teachiing the Faith.

Love and prayers,

Pat*

 

[brb3]

[/SIGN]

While I admire him I really do not know his heart. Only God truly knows that. While I can judge his works on the outside because I have seen them I would bet odds on him to enter the kingdom.

We all have special Grace to do certain things from God. Not all are called to preach, etc. Yes he was given a special calling from God to do Gods work. But the Grace was given to him from God.

Ok … so you say the God gave Billy Graham a SPECIAL CALLING. He was given GRACE from God. And, I never heard the Popes or Magisterium speak out in opposition to the Greatest Evangelist of the 2nd half of 20th Century. Perhaps they did … but, I missed it. At the very time Billy was most active in his mission … the Church was working on Vatican 2, and desirous of welcoming Protestants via Ecumenism.

Why do Protestants seem to have the better Evangelists, in the last 300 yrs anyways. Why can’t we Catholics raise up such preachers ? I know, we have some very good ones, but not like Billy.

What are the implications of the better evangelical gifts going to the Protestants ? If God was displeased with them remaining Protestant … would he not give them the grace to convert to Catholicism & thereby proclaim the True Church powerfully from the pulpits ?

 

[Brian_Culliton]

[from prior dialog]

Now in all answers that are not A or E ask yourself how rational is it to acknowledge the original Roman Catholic authority that writes and delivers the bible then arbitrarily later embrace one of the various “Johnny Come lately” German and English self appointed authorities who came to the party over a MILLENNIUM TOO LATE to save 100’s of millions of Christian souls before them? Do you think Jesus would turn his back on those who He promised He would never abandon? So Brian - Who is YOUR authority? Do you follow Rome, Germany (Wittenberg) or England (Canterbury) or perhaps Waco Texas? Do you follow Yourself? Don’t say “Christ” since He has already given His earthly Authority to The Apostles (Apostolic Succession) until He returns.

Sorry but you can’t hold your bible up as an authority without being forced to admit that you imagine yourself to be infallable and without ignoring the profoundly embarrassing and shameful history of how the Protestant Bible came to you. What ever happened to that old Protestant judicial standard of “the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God”? The Protestant Bible is not the whole truth nor by evidence of the legion of Protestant factions a self-evident truth. Truth never divides and compromises itself into factions.

James

Really? Well you make it difficult for me to answer your multiple-choice question because option A is a little confusing to me. Why don’t you first explain to me how they put fourth this canon. Did they meet together and decide which books should be included and which should not? How did they know; was it be divine revelation, oral tradition or something else?

BTW, thank you for limiting my choice of answers then telling what my answer really means. Ever thought of running for office?

 

[brb3]

was it be divine revelation, oral tradition or something else ?

D.R. begat O.T. … which begat S. Scripture

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Brian,

You must seriously take a look at the radical instability of Protestantism. The result of this inner conflict within Protestantism is a desire for change. We might expect to find alterations in a religious system whose founders themselves made the revolutionary change of leaving the Catholic faith and spent the rest of their lives opposition to their former allegiance. We have seen something of the vagaries in Protestant churches since the Reformation. Compare, if you will, the unqualified supernaturalism in Luther’s Catechism or the Journal of John Wesley with the compromising doctrine of their respective churches and we get some idea of the essential fluidity of Protestant theology.

I don’t know what to tell you Tomster; I don’t follow “Protestant theology.” I am really quite unfamiliar with the history of Protestantism; it just has not been an interest of mine. I am sure on some level you are right with regards to some (or many) Protestants, because when I look at Protestantism from a broad perspective it looks pretty screwed up to me, but then again so does Catholicism. I am in no position to debate those issues because I am not educated in them, but I am sure there are a lot of Protestant apologists that would be happy to engage you on Protestant theology.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Really? Well you make it difficult for me to answer your multiple-choice question because option A is a little confusing to me. Why don’t you first explain to me how they put fourth this canon. Did they meet together and decide which books should be included and which should not? How did they know; was it be divine revelation, oral tradition or something else?

BTW, thank you for limiting my choice of answers then telling what my answer really means. Ever thought of running for office?

You keep answering my questions with more questions.

OK - then. Put your #2 pencil down, don’t write your anwer on the multiple choice question and turn over that test. Now using plain CRT phosphor and your keyboard answer me “WHEN DID THE BIBLE GET ITS AUTHORITY?” Was it a mater of getting “Critical Mass” of readers or was it a magic calendar date etc.?

The original Catholic Bible Canon was put together after it became apparent that there were some less than 100% inspired texts being used by Christians in their assemblies and in their oral recitals and after Marcion and other heretics started a campaign to remove all reference to OT Jews from Paul’s epistles and to develop a competing heretical cannon. For example the Shepherd of Hermes and the Didache while both being highly regarded Catholic texts and forming some written tradition were never seen as 100% inspired – yet they were very popular books among Christians. The Early Church fathers each had access to some number of books and manuscripts as well as handed down traditional teachings - some had large libraries and their own private cannons that they considered “safe” and “authentic”. Pope Damasus commissioned St. Jerome to put together a cannon and to compose a comprehensive Latin Language Translation of all the texts that were to become the authoritative new Catholic Bible. Essentially, the various bishops and fathers were consulted and comparisons of private cannons were made with respect to what the Church actually collectively traditionally practiced in common. It was that Catholic tradition that was the principal critera for selecting the NT cannon books from the hundreds of spurious works and lessor authentic works. Pope Damasus promulgated the Catholic canons at the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382, and later, at the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), the Church again defined the same list of books as inspired.

In this way the canon was ratified by an assent of all the bishops (which is another of the forms of infallable ruling - collective bishop assent on an ecclesial matter in union with the pope). It did not require one large council meeting but rather a series of smaller regional meetings.

The selections were made based on much comparison of the actual traditions and much thought and prayer. The book of Revelation was a hard choice for some of the bishops and also some of the others but the Holy Spirit permit them to resolve their differences and come into a final agreement. What we have today is the same exact cannon from 382AD. But we also still hold the Didache and other works as “special” books and examples of written tradition that are useful in promulgating our ecclesial disciplines (but do not pass the test of scrutiny of the fathers to be considered 100% safe teachings).

James

 

[rinnie]

Firiend I’m truly sad to have to inform you while your position is kind and chairatble, it simply is neither the truth nor can it be supported in the bible.
**
1 John 5:16-17** clearly points out that there exist TWO levels of sin; one them he identifies as “Mortal.”

The word “Mortal” then and now mean “unto death.”

This is futher supported by understanding that God is and actually has to be [has no choice but to be] fair and just.

So if you steal a dolar from me * and because you refuse to give it back to me; in anger I kill you, and we both die with these unrepented and unconfessed [see John 20:19-23] sins on our souls, and these are th ONLY sins on our soul, can God is Divine justice treat us the same way?

Of course not. You MAY get to heaven, I definately have sentenced myself to hell by my **personal choice.

While we cannot JUDGE another, we can and we must advise others how God is Going to judge them based on known facts, supported in the Bible. ***

That is NOT my judgement; it is me informing you of God’s highly probable Justice being enacted. That friend, is part of teachiing the Faith.

Love and prayers,

Pat

If you read my earlier post I said exactly that. I said that it is our duty to stand up and not makes excuses for sin.

As I said in my earlier post living together as man and wife without marriage in the eyes of GOd is indeed a sin. And we should not ignore it and say well its up to you, I can’t judge what you are doing. I CAN JUDGE THE SIN. I can say by the word of GOd it is a sin, and puts your soul in grave danger. But I cannot condemn that person to hell.

BUt unrepented sin is something totally different. Mortal sin is indeed rejecting God and refusing to repent that sin, and indeed you sentence yourself to hell. But I believe I did state that.

BUt may I add Mortal sin is death of the soul, but can be forgiven in this life by a Priest and repenting. It does not mean you can not be forgiven in this life. A person can be alive but the soul is dead in the eyes of God because of mortal sin. That is why he gave us the Church.

But I agree that unrepented sin separates you from God forever. I have never denied that.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

“WHEN DID THE BIBLE GET ITS AUTHORITY?”

Ah, much better. Unfortunately I can’t answer that because I don’t know what authority it is supposed to have. It sounds like for you it received its authority at the council of Rome. That’s because you want to promote the idea that the true power behind the Bible lies with the Catholic Church who you believe put it all together. I, on the other hand, believe the authority is in the word of God that is contained in the Bible. The authority was given by Christ to His apostles. The New Testament contains what they committed to writing and accounts of what they witnessed.

We can trace the four Gospel accounts, the Pauline Corpus (including the letter to the Hebrews) and Acts to the very early second century. And all but 1 and 2 Peter, third John, Hebrews and James appear in the Muratorian Fragment, which is a canonical list of accepted books in the Roman church in the second century. (Hebrews was not recognized as apostolic in the west at the time but was accepted by the churches in the east. And the exclusion of 1 Peter is odd in light of Irenaeus’ use of it in his writings.)

So from my studies in church history I can be reasonably certain that 22 of the 27 canonized books are authentic apostolic teachings. It makes no difference to me what some fourth century council declares as canonical because it had no authority to add or take away from God’s word. Besides, if you look at that list of 27 books you will notice that it matches exactly with the list Athanasius (early fourth century bishop of Alexandria) produced after Nicea. Interestingly, at the time, the church in Rome still had not accepted Hebrews as authentic. It wasn’t until after Athanasius visited Rome that Hebrews was accepted as authentic. And even before Athanasius, Eusebius seemed to have narrowed the authentic books down to the same 27.

It looks like your Roman leadership had really nothing to do but keep a few spurious works out of their canon. Oh, and forbid the reading of anything they did not canonize. The real work was done much earlier by Eusebius and many others that preceded him. At least Eusebius gives us the method by which books were rejected.

It is not the canon of Scripture that is authoritative; it’s the apostle’s teachings that are authoritative. That is why I asked you to demonstrate what important teachings they passed down that are not contained in the Bible – you could not do that. Therefore, you have no legitimate case against any Christians whose beliefs are based on the written word.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Ah, much better. Unfortunately I can’t answer that because I don’t know what authority it is supposed to have. It sounds like for you it received its authority at the council of Rome. That’s because you want to promote the idea that the true power behind the Bible lies with the Catholic Church who you believe put it all together. I, on the other hand, believe the authority is in the word of God that is contained in the Bible. The authority was given by Christ to His apostles. The New Testament contains what they committed to writing and accounts of what they witnessed. …

It is not the canon of Scripture that is authoritative; it’s the apostle’s teachings that are authoritative. That is why I asked you to demonstrate what important teachings they passed down that are not contained in the Bible – you could not do that. Therefore, you have no legitimate case against any Christians whose beliefs are based on the written word.

Wrong answer and a strawman. Remember I told you that the correct answer was “E” - the BIBLE has no authority in and of itself. Catholics do not believe that the bible has a shred of authority in and of itself. It is only authoritative when it is read and taught by a person who believes in the full apostolic Catholic faith.

How can you even conceive that the apostles who to a man NEVER saw all the NT writings collectively in one place would give an endorsement to an inanimate thing which NONE of them ever saw or discussed? It is also inconceivable that the apostles or the apostolic fathers would have “laid their hands” on a short list of texts to apostolically bless a stack of parchment and said something like “we hereby give you our authority to resolve all matter of Christian dogma and affairs” and not even mention it in any of their writings or given a written endorsement letter. You dodged it again. Explain how the bible “got” its authority - did it happen magically when 4 books were agreed on? Perhaps 10 or 20? Please - give us a date so we know when to start looking for spontanious infallable biblical teachings.

Nope. You don’t even believe what you are saying and you know your position is not credible. The only reason you and other protestants/non-catholics embrace the idea that the bible is a rule of faith and is self teaching is because in your heart you can not accept the plain and conspicuous truth that the Catholic Church has always had the apostolic authority but you don’t want to trust The Church since that would mean you’d have to answer to someone except yourselves. See it for what it really is - raw naked human hubris and a desire to be independent of any other authority but self.

It’s very clear what really happened in the early church since it is recorded in part in the bible and in the ECF writings. Authority was passed down by laying on of hands and ordination of bishops who became the seat of authority from generation to generation. You even admit that there were bishops in the early church - many fundamentalist won’t even admit that there ever was a priesthood or an ecclesial authority against all evidence to the contrary. But why would anyone need a bishops unless there was a recognized apostolic authority and unless bishops could do somthing special that no one else could do? Things like establish disciplines, keep people to the authentic teachings and administer the sacraments legitimately.

Why don’t you simply admit here that protestants and non-catholics simply do not trust anyone but ther personal opinions? Why not admit that you reject any idea of an apostolic authority and simply fabricated the entire idea that the early church was anything but Catholic and that the bible was ever taught as self teaching and an authority unto itself? How do you account for the first 400 years where there was no bible? See this for what it is - a rationalization created so one need not confront the more obvious truth that The Catholic Church has always had the apostolic authority (and always will).

Does anyone here know for sure who invented the tradition of swearing on the bible?

It seems to me if the bible version used is the Protestant version than any Catholic when asked to swear to “tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth” should first demand that a Catholic Bible be used and then a priest bless it and then stand present as a legitimate authoritative witness before God to the oath. The protestant bible is NOT the whole truth to begin. Nor has it any intrinsic authority in and of itself or witness outside of the Church. Catholics should refuse to take part in Protestant secular traditions that further their mythologies and their false basis for faith.

James

 

[rinnie]

Ok … so you say the God gave Billy Graham a SPECIAL CALLING. He was given GRACE from God. And, I never heard the Popes or Magisterium speak out in opposition to the Greatest Evangelist of the 2nd half of 20th Century. Perhaps they did … but, I missed it. At the very time Billy was most active in his mission … the Church was working on Vatican 2, and desirous of welcoming Protestants via Ecumenism.

Why do Protestants seem to have the better Evangelists, in the last 300 yrs anyways. Why can’t we Catholics raise up such preachers ? I know, we have some very good ones, but not like Billy.

What are the implications of the better evangelical gifts going to the Protestants ? If God was displeased with them remaining Protestant … would he not give them the grace to convert to Catholicism & thereby proclaim the True Church powerfully from the pulpits ?

What is like your problem dude. I said that no matter how Billy Graham may have preached the word of God no one but GOd knows if he went to heaven we cannot say either way.

ANd where did I EVER say Protestants ever had better EVangelists. NO WHERE thats where because I NEVER said it. WHY because I NEVER believed it.

If you want to know my personal opinion on Mr Graham he does could not hold a handle to my Priest, alone my Bishop and that goes without saying for My Wonderful Pope.

But I admire him for preaching about God in general. SO please go back and read what I said, and do not put words in my mouth.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Ok … so you say the God gave Billy Graham a SPECIAL CALLING. He was given GRACE from God. And, I never heard the Popes or Magisterium speak out in opposition to the Greatest Evangelist of the 2nd half of 20th Century. Perhaps they did … but, I missed it. At the very time Billy was most active in his mission … the Church was working on Vatican 2, and desirous of welcoming Protestants via Ecumenism.

Why do Protestants seem to have the better Evangelists, in the last 300 yrs anyways. [SIGN]Why can’t we Catholics raise up such preachers ? I know, we have some very good ones, but not like Billy. [/SIGN]
What are the implications of the better evangelical gifts going to the Protestants ? If God was displeased with them remaining Protestant … would he not give them the grace to convert to Catholicism & thereby proclaim the True Church powerfully from the pulpits ?

Bet me, Pope Benedicts book Jesus Of Nazareth. NO ONE has ever written a book like that.

No one has ever preached or taught the word of God like the last 2 Popes we have had.

And I cannot answer to you why God did not give (protestant preachers) them the grace to become Catholic. Only GOd knows. I would never begin to answer for God.

I guess instead of wondering why I just spend my time thanking him for giving me the Grace to be Catholic.

And Please show me where I said GOD was Displease by them. Please show me where I said that.
But I will put my Pope up to any Protestant Preacher. Any time any place.

 

[brb3]

:hug1:

no one but GOd knows if he went to heaven we cannot say either way.

If you want to know my personal opinion on Mr Graham he does could not hold a handle to my Priest, alone my Bishop and that goes without saying for My Wonderful Pope.

But I admire him for preaching about God in general. SO please go back and read what I said, and do not put words in my mouth.

You missed my point. Namely, that the Popes, Bishops, and Priests … saw the good works and gifts of Billy … and wished to encourage all Christians to reunite and are working toward this goal.

But, what if JP2 had invited Billy to spend a few days together with him ? Billy would of accepted … and they could of shown the world that they were Christian brothers IN CHRIST. However, I don’t think that first generation exposed to Vat. 2 would have approved. And, I don’t think the Lordship Evangelical Protestants would of welcomed it either.

But, now … with passage of time, and a new generation growing up with Vat. 2, I think Benedict could pull it off. Lets pray that our Pope will continue to work hard towards welcoming ALL schismatic branches back into the Unity of Mother Church.

We need all those great Protestant Evangelists in the Mother Church :hug3:

 

[Sushi]

I believe that it’s not my place to say. That is for the decision of God, not me.

 

[rinnie]

:hug1:

You missed my point. Namely, that the Popes, Bishops, and Priests … saw the good works and gifts of Billy … and wished to encourage all Christians to reunite and are working toward this goal.

But, what if JP2 had invited Billy to spend a few days together with him ? Billy would of accepted … and they could of shown the world that they were Christian brothers IN CHRIST. However, I don’t think that first generation exposed to Vat. 2 would have approved. And, I don’t think the Lordship Evangelical Protestants would of welcomed it either.

But, now … with passage of time, and a new generation growing up with Vat. 2, I think Benedict could pull it off. Lets pray that our Pope will continue to work hard towards welcoming ALL schismatic branches back into the Unity of Mother Church.

We need all those great Protestant Evangelists in the Mother Church :hug3:

Boy I sure did miss your point
I thought she is comming at me with both barrels and what did I say!

But I do believe we will all come back together. But honestly do you know when I think it will happen? I believe its gonna happen when everyone can see and come to accept Authority again. I really do. And I think it takes alot of studying and sites like this can do wonders.

Because even when we say something to a Protestant they hate, and disagree with, its the truth. And they can find that truth. That wasn’t always as easy as it is today. With computers and looking things up. It so much faster and easier.

But no disrespect I really never got into the preaching of Billy because he still in my eye did not have the Authority to interpret scripture. I know call me a brainwashed Catholic. But to me its all about Authority. And when I learn something it has to be from the Church. and then I know it cannot be wrong.

Thanks for taking the time to explain. :tiphat:

 

[CentralFLJames]

Boy I sure did miss your point
I thought she is comming at me with both barrels and what did I say!

But I do believe we will all come back together. But honestly do you know when I think it will happen? I believe its gonna happen when everyone can see and come to accept Authority again. I really do. And I think it takes a lot of studying and sites like this can do wonders.

Because even when we say something to a Protestant they hate, and disagree with, its the truth. And they can find that truth. That wasn’t always as easy as it is today. With computers and looking things up. It so much faster and easier.

But no disrespect I really never got into the preaching of Billy because he still in my eye did not have the Authority to interpret scripture. I know call me a brainwashed Catholic. But to me its all about Authority. And when I learn something it has to be from the Church. and then I know it cannot be wrong.

Thanks for taking the time to explain. :tiphat:

Billy Graham I am certain thought he was doing God’s will. He gave his whole life to that.
On one hand we can say that he contributed to getting many people “on the pathway” of sanctification by getting people baptised into the Body of Christ as informal Catholics. But getting on the path is not good enough - one must keep going all their lives and finish that first step with grace still in the tank.

There can be no doubt that he taught substantially a general Christian morality and improved people’s lives as a natural consequence of being upright and good people who elected to do the “right thing” insofar as social conduct is concerned. He probably reduced a lot of crime by teaching a lot of good Christian values and kept some people off the streets and out of trouble and made people realize that they had an obligation to their fellow man.

But common human morality alone is not sufficient to gain anyone heaven. There are many “morally” inclined atheists who are outwardly very very descent individuals who seem balanced and well meaning to everyone - fair in every way. And such will often speak their opinions as “opinion” and not as fact and leave it to others to weigh the merits of what they say at face value. But none of these gained grace by being fair and morally inclined in their dealings with fellow humans. They still had the stain of original sin and unless by final supernatural baptism of desire to be part of God’s family and were joined to the Catholic Church before they died these went to hell.

Only God can assess Billy’s status and weigh if Billy caused more to leave or never consider to enter the Catholic Church to attain the fullness of the faith by the success of his personal evangelizing than were brought into a wounded relationship viz baptism. How many had a false complacency in Billy’s teaching that they were “assured of salvation” by a mere profession of faith. How many souls sinned gravely on the presumption of God’s Mercy that they were saved because Billy convinced them that it was so. How many souls were never forgiven of grave sins becuase they never fully repented and never got absolution outside of the sacrament of reconciliation. Perfect contrition is impossible without supernatural grace. Baptising people who only later fall away into grave sin only intensifies culpability and the penalty for punishment.

I also think Billy indirectly contributed to the furtherance of religious pluralism that is present within the corpus of the Protestantisms factions. This continues to wound the unity of The Catholic Church by making her appear as just another denomination among many.

Personally I would not want to be a Protestant minister. God holds teachers to the highest standards. And this too is the problem – I think God will ask Billy who gave him his authority to teach a different gospel than was taught and handed down by the apostles? Did Billy really save anyone by his teachings or did he just increase their culpability and teach people how to be “good American citizens and taxpayers”?

I hope he made it but I have my concerns…



James

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Wrong answer and a strawman. Remember I told you that the correct answer was “E” - the BIBLE has no authority in and of itself. Catholics do not believe that the bible has a shred of authority in and of itself. It is only authoritative when it is read and taught by a person who believes in the full apostolic Catholic faith.

How can you even conceive that the apostles who to a man NEVER saw all the NT writings collectively in one place would give an endorsement to an inanimate thing which NONE of them ever saw or discussed? It is also inconceivable that the apostles or the apostolic fathers would have “laid their hands” on a short list of texts to apostolically bless a stack of parchment and said something like “we hereby give you our authority to resolve all matter of Christian dogma and affairs” and not even mention it in any of their writings or given a written endorsement letter. You dodged it again. Explain how the bible “got” its authority - did it happen magically when 4 books were agreed on? Perhaps 10 or 20? Please - give us a date so we know when to start looking for spontanious infallable biblical teachings.

Nope. You don’t even believe what you are saying and you know your position is not credible. The only reason you and other protestants/non-catholics embrace the idea that the bible is a rule of faith and is self teaching is because in your heart you can not accept the plain and conspicuous truth that the Catholic Church has always had the apostolic authority but you don’t want to trust The Church since that would mean you’d have to answer to someone except yourselves. See it for what it really is - raw naked human hubris and a desire to be independent of any other authority but self.

It’s very clear what really happened in the early church since it is recorded in part in the bible and in the ECF writings. Authority was passed down by laying on of hands and ordination of bishops who became the seat of authority from generation to generation. You even admit that there were bishops in the early church - many fundamentalist won’t even admit that there ever was a priesthood or an ecclesial authority against all evidence to the contrary. But why would anyone need a bishops unless there was a recognized apostolic authority and unless bishops could do somthing special that no one else could do? Things like establish disciplines, keep people to the authentic teachings and administer the sacraments legitimately.

Why don’t you simply admit here that protestants and non-catholics simply do not trust anyone but ther personal opinions? Why not admit that you reject any idea of an apostolic authority and simply fabricated the entire idea that the early church was anything but Catholic and that the bible was ever taught as self teaching and an authority unto itself? How do you account for the first 400 years where there was no bible? See this for what it is - a rationalization created so one need not confront the more obvious truth that The Catholic Church has always had the apostolic authority (and always will).

Does anyone here know for sure who invented the tradition of swearing on the bible?

It seems to me if the bible version used is the Protestant version than any Catholic when asked to swear to “tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth” should first demand that a Catholic Bible be used and then a priest bless it and then stand present as a legitimate authoritative witness before God to the oath. The protestant bible is NOT the whole truth to begin. Nor has it any intrinsic authority in and of itself or witness outside of the Church. Catholics should refuse to take part in Protestant secular traditions that further their mythologies and their false basis for faith.

James

I ignored your ridiculous assertions and hopeless ignorance in hopes that you would begin to be reasonable, but you have once and for all proven to me that you have nothing to offer but hateful and absurd rhetoric. You know nothing and you proved it!

Good day!

 

[brb3]

I think God will ask Billy who gave him his authority to teach a different gospel than was taught and handed down by the apostles? Did Billy really save anyone by his teachings or did he just increase their culpability and teach people how to be “good American citizens and taxpayers”?

I hope he made it but I have my concerns…

james, James, JAMES !!! Come now, let us reason together …

Billy knows from whom his gift came.
Did he really save anyone you ask ? No, not he, … but, his Lord did …

He was responsible for bringing me to a knowledge of God’s Word. Which led to my Trinitarian Baptism. There are many hundreds of thousands … just like me.

Most of his Evangelical Revivals are still available on TV, TBN Network. Tune in sometime … it might surprise you how ‘Catholic’ his messages were.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I ignored your ridiculous assertions and hopeless ignorance in hopes that you would begin to be reasonable, but you have once and for all proven to me that you have nothing to offer but hateful and absurd rhetoric. You know nothing and you proved it!

Good day!

You just don’t like to be confronted with facts and rationale that you can’t answer without admitting that you have a faith based on a completely fabricated rule of faith and which has not a shred of apostolic authority. You can pull the hate card if you want to but there is also not a shred of evidence of hatred in by comments either.

You are simply frustrated that you can’t defend your faith by refuting a single thing I have said with real evidence but are too proud to admit that everything you believe is an opinion of someone else who passed down to you a collage of ideas that have been seen in the apostolic Church for 2000 years.

You can run but you can’t hide Brian. You have been exposed to too much truth now and will have to resolve it all for better or worse sometime soon.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

james, James, JAMES !!! Come now, let us reason together …

Billy knows from whom his gift came.
Did he really save anyone you ask ? No, not he, … but, his Lord did …

He was responsible for bringing me to a knowledge of God’s Word. Which led to my Trinitarian Baptism. There are many hundreds of thousands … just like me.

Most of his Evangelical Revivals are still available on TV, TBN Network. Tune in sometime … it might surprise you how ‘Catholic’ his messages were.

Brb - which account is the “real you”? I have recently seen 4 versions of BrB here at CAF.

Listen no one is reasoned into heaven. No one gained heaven except by grace.
I did not judge Billy’s soul but brought to light some very few things that he will have have to reconcile with God to attain salvation. No one gains salvation or hell without bringing people with them. Billy was probably instrumental in helping some souls gain salvation. But so too was Judas by impact of negative example (how could somone so close to Jesus in the end betray him?). But did the impact of Judas’ negative example merit him anything personally? I personally doubt it since it was God’s grace working in-spite of His non-conformance of will and disobedience. Perhaps it gained him a less harsh penalty if he was judged worthy of hell? We will know “some day”. I am not saying here or previously anything to suggest a knowledge of Billy’s disposition in particular. But I am saying what I do only to demonstrate the fallacy of human reasoning to presume to know in these matters. It is probable that Billy knew of the Catholic doctrines of “no salvation outside of the Church” and he had to have thought about it – but he never converted. Yet he was in many cases empathetic to Catholics and suffered much alienation from his Protestant “brothers” for getting to cozy with Catholics. I would give more credence to his fate by that latter estrangement from certain factions of Protestantism for Jesus held in common those who suffered for His sake and His Church.

It might indeed surprise me how Catholic Billy was - but disobedience to the Church by willfully remaining estranged from it by conscious choice and formed conscience is sufficient to nullify all his good works since they alone merit no salvation and only add to the glory of those who are found worthy of the crown.

Again, for record I hope Billy made it. I liked the guy even though his sermons were very repetitive and droned on and on and on. But I admire his perseverance and commitment.

James