Do Catholics believe Protestants are going to hell?

[Brian_Culliton]

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

Okay, one more thing. You think what you propagate is truth yet you assert the most ridiculous things and show no evidence of what you believe.

You actually believe that your teaching authority teaches truth because the first 30 or so bishops of the Roman church were slaughtered for their faith? Facts and rational? Are you serious? Care to show evidence of that?

You keep spouting about how important tradition is yet you could not answer my simple question regarding it. Instead of answering you used the tired old tactic of spinning the question around on me by asking me for proof of Protestantism from the ECFs. I never claimed anything of the sort. I am not here to defend Protestantism.

On the canon of Scripture it was as if you never read my response to your question. The things you asserted in your response didn’t address one single point I made. In fact, your conclusions were based on things I never said. It was as if you prepared your response before I even answered.

You call me a heretic out of ignorance, but the heretic is the one who hold to doctrines not delivered by the apostles, and they call their doctrine “tradition.” Not at all unlike what Irenaeus described in the second century.

“When, however, they [heretics] are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: [word of mouth].” (Against Heresies 3:2:1)

Sounds like he is describing you

 

[CentralFLJames]

Okay, one more thing. You think what you propagate is truth yet you assert the most ridiculous things and show no evidence of what you believe.

…
Sounds like he is describing you

OK let’s calm down and reset here.

You actually believe that your teaching authority teaches truth because the first 30 or so bishops of the Roman church were slaughtered for their faith? Facts and rational? Are you serious? Care to show evidence of that?

Do you doubt the historical record? What do you need forensic evidence? Are the bones of 2 of the most famous apostles good enough? We do have St Peter and St. Pauls relics if that’s what you mean. Is that good enough to convince you that we are the same original church.
Here is a list of the early popes – as you will see these were all ordained Catholic Bishops as there was no other church in all of Christendom until the Greek schism:
List of Popes (Wikepedia)
List of Popes (New Advent)

You keep spouting about how important tradition is yet you could not answer my simple question regarding it. Instead of answering you …

First of all Brian you need to understand that to a Catholic anyone who calls himself Christian who is not a Catholic or Orthodox (original apostolic faiths) is a “Protestant” - a person who came out of the Catholic Church. So we like to see proofs from the patristics that support protestant doctrines like sola scripura. You were quoting scripture so its clear that you do subscribe to these same ideas. It was a fair question to ask that you give some evidence for it from history. I thought I have answered all your questions. If not restate it.

On the canon of Scripture it was as if you never read my response to your question. The things you asserted in your response didn’t address one single point I made. In fact, your conclusions were based on things I never said. It was as if you prepared your response before I even answered.

Just because I pruned the original text to make room for a response dosn’t mean I didn’t read it. Text space is very limited in these forums. Your comments were full of very heavy biases - pretending that the fathers you referenced were not Cahtolic - in fact they were often Catholic bishops and this was all part of the effort to develop a standard canon as the church organized itself to combat heresies. How do I respond to a statement where you assert that what the Catholic Church says in the 4th century means nothing since the word of God was already substantially established “by he church” in the and or 3rd century? That is a circular argument and assumes that the 4th century church is not the same church as the 2nd centuty church. The Word Of God did not just magically appear and present itself - The Church wrote it in the fist century and then assembled it in the subsequent few centuries. Your historical comments are valid but your assumptions and your conclusions are not. For example how can you divorce Rome from the other church fathers and claim: “It looks like your Roman leadership had really nothing to do but keep a few spurious works out of their canon.?” That was a supremely important thing to do - since there were scores of spurious writings in circulation at the time. You keep trying to divorce the ECFs from the Catholic Church when they were in fact Catholic and ALL in communion with Rome.

This is the core part of your dissatisfaction wtih my comments:

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.

How do I answer this when you roll up so many invalid assumptions and fallacies here? The apostles teachings are authoritative but the the thing you don’t see is that the authority of the “apostolic office” is what is also authoritative and is where the teachings are held in sacred tradition. The important thing that they passed down in the teaching. That is reflected in our Catholic Catechism - which is external from the bible (but it does reference the bible of course). Non-Catholics lack this apostolic teaching and so we do have a legitimate case against private interpretation of scripture.

You call me a heretic out of ignorance, but the heretic is the one who hold to doctrines not delivered by the apostles, and they call their doctrine “tradition.” Not at all unlike what Irenaeus described in the second century.

Sounds like he is describing you

Listen, Irenaeus was Catholic and was in communion with Rome. He held to sacred tradition like all the ECFs did. You need to understand who he was talking to in those quotes. He was not attacking Catholic Tradition! He was attacking Gnostic Tradition. He was on “our side”. Hello? He was a Catholic Bishop - the Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, You keep debating as if the ECFs were not Catholic. How is that possible when they were bishops in the Catholic Church???

We are talking past each other.

James

 

[brb3]

Billy was probably instrumental in helping some souls gain salvation.

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.

Again, for record I hope Billy made it. I liked the guy even though his sermons were very repetitive

#1 above … ‘probably instrumental’ ----- :whacky:

#2 … ‘probable that Billy knew’ … It’s a certitude ! Don’t you realize how many letters from Protestants he got on this topic ? Surely our Popes informed him correctly on this matter, by letter or call. Perhaps not ! Well, at least those Catholics he was ‘cozy’ with did …

#3 Billy is 91, and still serving his Lord here on this Earth. Blessed with great age … far beyond the Biblical 70 of promise. He may yet to live to see the Rapture.

#4. Since you ‘like the guy’ … you might write & Evangelize him — explaining the scriptures more ‘accurately’ to him. Perhaps even being ‘instrumental’ in his salvation.

At a minimum … lets both pray to the Lord that this holy man, used mightily by God, will someday be waiting for you/me at the Pearly Gates. Him, hand-in-hand with St. Peter & Paul. :yup:

Ask Father Corapi about Billy’s Soul and Eternal Reward. His answer might surprize you.

 

[rinnie]

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

Bingo! Thats what I tried to say James, and thought I said, But guess my point was not clear enough.

I like you, admire him for bringing people to God but also admire anyone who teaches about God. We are all called to be disciples of the faith. But we are not all called to be teachers of the faith.

I guess Preacher and Teacher are two very different thing aren’t they. To me to interpret the faith is alot different then preaching the faith. We cannot teach but we can preach and even harder we can try to practice what we preach.

But you and I both I guess agree on the authority issue. You must have it before I can accept the teaching. Why? Well one reason thats how we know we are where we are to be. Scripture tells us to stick to the teachings of the Church and to not be swayed away by another teaching.

While I agree that billy played in a band, sometimes he beat a different kind of drum

 

[rinnie]

#1 above … ‘probably instrumental’ ----- :whacky:

#2 … ‘probable that Billy knew’ … It’s a certitude ! Don’t you realize how many letters from Protestants he got on this topic ? Surely our Popes informed him correctly on this matter, by letter or call. Perhaps not ! Well, at least those Catholics he was ‘cozy’ with did …

#3 Billy is 91, and still serving his Lord here on this Earth. Blessed with great age … far beyond the Biblical 70 of promise. He may yet to live to see the Rapture.

#4. Since you ‘like the guy’ … you might write & Evangelize him — explaining the scriptures more ‘accurately’ to him. Perhaps even being ‘instrumental’ in his salvation.

At a minimum … lets both pray to the Lord that this holy man, used mightily by God, will someday be waiting for you/me at the Pearly Gates. Him, hand-in-hand with St. Peter & Paul. :yup:

Ask Father Corapi about Billy’s Soul and Eternal Reward. His answer might surprize you.

brb If you do not mind, may I ask? Where do you feel that billy got his authority? Scripture says it is passed down by the laying of hands. Do you not agree with scripture?

 

[rinnie]

CFJ If he wants to make this another thread of how Billys teachings differ from the teachings of the Church, Well I would be glad to join, How about you?

 

[karoleck]

It depends if they qualify or choose to go there! This also applies to Catholics,pagans and everyone who is able to exercise their own free will.
Catholics believe everything that the Catholic Church believes and teaches-this is what I believe in answer to your specific question. Quotation from The Catholic Catechism.

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell(council of Orange II (529AD);for this,a willful turning away from God ( a mortal sin) is necessary,and persistence in it until the end.In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of the faithful.the Church implores the mercy of God,who does not want “any to perish,but all to come to repentance”(2 Pte 3:9)

1046 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny.They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion “enter by the narrow gate;for the gate is wide and the way is easy,that leads to destruction,and those who enter by it are many.For the gate is narrow and the way is hard,that leads to life,and those who find it are few.”(Mt 7:13-14)

So I conclude from what I am taught by The Catholic Church and therefore believe-a call of conversion is what is required.Jesus gave the mandate to His Apostles just before He went to Heaven **“Go therefore to all Nations and preach the Gospel(of repentance)–He who believes and is Baptised will be saved-he who does not believe will be condemned”**Was this command go and read my Bible and decide that “Jesus is the Lord of your life” or did He really mean what He said as per bold print!! So the oneous of a seeker of The Truth, is to find out who had the authority to Baptize in Jesus’Name and what Church did they belong to."May they be so completely one that the world will know it was Me(Jesus) who sent you!! I believe that The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus-Protestants need to come back home where they belong and are most welcome!

 

[PJM]

=Brian Culliton;6197655]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.

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 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.

*Hi,

I’m confused. Not a completly new experiece for me.

So the fact that at the time the bible was completely written there was only ONE Christian Church, and therefore the bible was directed to an for those within this ONE church is not to be factored in, as to its authority?

How and why, would authority exist outside of this ONE church, to interpet, when the teachings were specifically written for the communities of that One Church?

Do you hold that the authors of the NT who we know today to be Catholic, were aware that they were writing a teaching “for all time,” for all future generations? Or were they awar that there independent works would be collected [canonized] an made into book form?*

***It seems yor position must ignore;/*B] 2 Tim. 3:16, Mt. 16:19 and Eph. 2:19 “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [singular] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [singular] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit,” ***to only give a few examples./***B]

And on what Biblical basis can or does one have or assume the right to seperate the Canons from rightful authority? Te Church has to be the authority God intended as did the authors, as there were no other options at the time. So when did the Church give such authority to others?

As one can only share what one has, the CC was the only one in possession of the Bible, and the NT authors being Catholic certainly wrote only for the ONE Church; where does your authority come from?

---

Friend, The Apostles in a very real sense were “The Church.”***
Love and prayers,

Pat**

 

[Tomster]

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!

Brian,

A survey of what the Protestant Reformers taught about sola Scriptura will show that there was neither absolute agreement on what this principle meant nor how it was to be applied. It can be shown that although Scripture was often touted as the sole and sufficient rule of truth, there was invariably an appeal to something else - be it the need for the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit or the correct understanding of the Gospel. Moreover, it can be shown that Protestants did not agree among themselves as to how to interpret the Bible, and when these confilcts emerged, they often resorted to vituperative attacks and insults as easily as rational discussions.

 

[Tomster]

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.

Brian,

Well then, for your own sake, this might be the right time to take a look at what Protestantism has served up and how it has degenerated into the sad and sorry state it is in at the present time.

An historical survey of what the Protestant reformers actually taught about sola Scriptura has, I believe, established a number of valid points which must be considered by Christians today:

1. Despite the claim that Scripture was the sole sufficient rule of faith, the Protestant reformers always appealed to some type of interior illumination by the Spirit as necessary for the correct understanding of the Word of God (and also what comprised the Word of God). To put this in scholastic language, they showed that the written texts themselves were only materially sufficient as a source of truth. There was still a need for a formal principle of sufficiency (such as the inner guidance of the Holy Spirit) to make the truths of Scriptures discernable. The question of how one could know who had the guidance of the Holy Spirit was never answered to any degree of certitude and satisfaction.
2. The Protestant reformers soon discovered that the Scriptures were open to diverse interpretations. This led to tensions and divisions among the various groups of reformers. Such experience points to the difficulty with the claim that the true meaning of Scripture is clear to all “true believers,” and it shows that sola Scriptura was, and has been, a principle of disunity rather than unity among Christians. The existence of thousands of distinct Christian denominations in the world today is a direct result of the sola Scriptura doctrine.
3. Although Luther and the other Protestants saw themselves as “captive” to the Word of God, a close study shows that they often viewed the Scriptural texts through the lens of their own theological doctrines and opinions. Luther was probably the most dramatic example in this regard since he was willing to use his own interpretive framework of justification by faith alone as a rationale for disparaging and even eliminating certain biblical texts as “unevangelical.” Ultimately, the Bible could be cited as an authority only to the extent that it conformed to certain theological perspectives.

cont.

 

[Tomster]

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.

1. Despite the claim that the Bible was the sole, sufficient rule for matters of the faith, the Protestants (whether consciously or not) were always appealing to some other rule of authority. Luther came to rely on his own prophetic inspiration and, therefore, his judgments and interpretations became an authoritative rule (at least to himself and his close followers). The Calvinists and the Anglicans retained various forms of church structure and authority which provided for them with something analogous to the hierarchical structure of Catholicism (even though they claimed the Bible as the ultimate court of appeal). The Anabaptists, the Spiritualists and the Rationalists of the Radical Reformation were more subjective or “spirit-based” in their search for authority, and this led many of them to abandon the sola Scriptura doctrine altogether.
2. Whether intentionally or not, the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura launched the West into an inevitable trajectory towards subjectivism and individualism. The dangers of chaos and self-delusion are always present when there is a break from an established authority on the basis of personal claims of knowledge or illumination. Only to a limited extent, can the words of the Bible serve as a “check” against unrestrained subjectivism. While adherence to the ancient Creeds has helped maintain some semblance of unity among the major Protestant denominations, the doctrine of sola Scriptura has also opened the door to all types of aberrations. Groups like the Jehovah Witnesses who deny the Trinty and the divinity of Christ are a logical outcome of the “Bible only” philosophy. Comtemporary secular forms of individualism and relativism can likewise be understood as part of the historical fallout of subjectivism spawned by the sola Scriptura doctrine.

Some Protestants might object that no system is perfect and that, inspite of its problems, an appeal to the Bible as the ultimate doctrinal authority is the best we can do. Such observations, however, fail to come to terms with, what for Christians, must be the ultimate test: namely, the will of Christ. Did Jesus intend to establish His Church on the basis of sola Scritpura? Or did the Savior who said He would build His Church upon a certain rock and who gave to the man rock (Petros) the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:18-19) intend something other than a sola Scriptura Church (or churches)?

 

[CentralFLJames]

##3 Billy is 91, and still serving his Lord here on this Earth. Blessed with great age … far beyond the Biblical 70 of promise. He may yet to live to see the Rapture.

Now you are starting to embrace fantasies. More to the point of salvation "He may yet live to convert to the full truth of Catholicism and become a cannonized Catholic Saint!

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

CFJ If he wants to make this another thread of how Billys teachings differ from the teachings of the Church, Well I would be glad to join, How about you?

I would rather not since it would naturally gravitate toward judging his soul and become a forum for smearing him or praising him. I don’t want to participate in that kind of thing.

James

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie
CFJ If he wants to make this another thread of how Billys teachings differ from the teachings of the Church, Well I would be glad to join, How about you?

I agree with James. Evaluating Billy Graham has no place in Catholic answers forum

 

[CentralFLJames]

Brian,

A survey of what the Protestant Reformers taught about sola Scriptura will show that there was neither absolute agreement on what this principle meant nor how it was to be applied. It can be shown that although Scripture was often touted as the sole and sufficient rule of truth, there was invariably an appeal to something else - be it the need for the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit or the correct understanding of the Gospel. Moreover, it can be shown that Protestants did not agree among themselves as to how to interpret the Bible, and when these confilcts emerged, they often resorted to vituperative attacks and insults as easily as rational discussions.

Tomster - you will run into a brick wall with Brian on this. He does not think he is Protestant. He imagines he is a “true Christian” (whatever that means) and has no concept of a continuous community of believers of one single common faith that is handed down from generation to generation. I don’t think Brian has any concept of a “church relationship”, I presume he thinks one can be a sort of a “lone ranger” Christian who simply attaches himself to Christ independent of the “family of God” and can independent of The Church gain salvation. That’s my perception anyway of how I think he sees himself.

James

 

[Tomster]

Tomster - you will run into a brick wall with Brian on this. He does not think he is Protestant. He imagines he is a “true Christian” (whatever that means) and has no concept of a continuous community of believers of one single common faith that is handing down from generation to generation. He has no concept of a “church relationship” and I presume he thinks one can be a sort of “lone ranger” Christian who simply attaches himself to Christ independent of the “family of God”. That’s how I can best describe how I think he sees himself.

James

I agree with your observation James. My intention was to give Brian a brief intro into how the concept of “lone ranger” Christianity came into being and how it is directly oppossed to the will of Christ.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I agree with your observation James. My intention was to give Brian a brief intro into how the concept of “lone ranger” Christianity came into being and how it is directly oppossed to the will of Christ.

That was an excellent exposition and shows how a Christian based culture was broken asunder to loose a legion of new secular philosophies (subjectivism, rationalism etc. ) by a very few men. It all now races towards pure secularism and must eventually lead toward nihilism unless there is a radical reconversion. The west is in severe danger right now of losing all our Catholic underpinnings and completely delaminating. I really think the west’s only remaining hope to prevent a complete collapse of our society is the Catholic Church. This generation we find ourselves born into requires that we Catholics rise up and take back our country and start a new re-evangelizing of the west and the rest of the world. If we don’t we are all going to suffer and be persecuted by the secularists as we progressively fall deeper into materialism and hedonism.

Your words are very well stated and crisply define what had come out of Protestantism and what has happened in The Church. Are they your own words or are you using a reference text? I am impressed - very clear thinking that benefits me tremendously.

I really really empathize with our Protestant Brothers. They all want to do the “right thing”. But they lack the necessary objectivity to step outside of their culture to look holistically at what is happening. They just do not comprehend that Protestantism is a very diabolical and clever spiritual attack against the unity of Christians and that the Holy Spirit would have NO part in anything that divides The Church. What can be more diabolical than to attack faith itself by attaching the presumption that God MUST save anyone if he only believes it enough in a sort of mind over reality philosophy; and use a false faith as a means to remove the necessity for repentance/forgivness/obediance and lead one to hell.

Anyway enough said here as I am getting off on a tangent…

James

 

[rinnie]

I would rather not since it would naturally gravitate toward judging his soul and become a forum for smearing him or praising him. I don’t want to participate in that kind of thing.

James

Oh I would never judge anyones soul. But what my point was to never smear him or praise him either, but it was to just show that alot of his teachings did indeed go against alot of the teachings of the church.

But I respect and understand your point of view and on those grounds would never participate either. And would hope it would never become something like that. I would never in my heart try to do that to any faith.

 

[CentralFLJames]

#1 above … ‘probably instrumental’ ----- :whacky:

The words were carefully chosen. There is subtlety here.

Just as God can use the jawbone of an a_ss to slay 1000s (ref. Judges 15: Samson ), and just as God can make an a_ss speak truth (ref. Num 22: Ballam’s a_ss) and just as Jesus can ride an a_ss into his glory does not mean in any way that the instrument that God uses is saved.

I am not trying to call Billy an a_ss but only trying to teach a lesson about the instrument of grace and its distinction from grace’s object. God can apply actual grace to anything he chooses to make it His instrument. But that kind of grace only promotes Divine Providence toward God’s objective end. While actual grace can and does bring people into salvific “sanctifying grace” it is this latter kind of grace that can ONLY save a soul.

We need to be careful to never confuse the instrument of actual grace with the vessel of sanctifying grace - that is the soul.

If Billy retained his Baptismal grace, that is sanctifying grace, and never committed any grave post-baptismal sins (or perfectly repented for any he did commit) then he will be saved. But his elevated knowledge of Catholic doctrine about the need to be a formal member of the Church in communion with Christ and its members could be very problematic for Billy.

I personally will pray the Divine Mercy chaplet for him that God grants him the abundance of actual grace necessary for him to convert to Catholicism at least in his heart before he dies. This prayer is said to be so efficacious in the hour of death that God calls each soul 3 times with such a progression of grace that is just short of being irresistible by human will and hardened hubris/pride.

James

 

[Pete_Holter]

Hi Pete

Hi Brian!

I edited down a longer response to form this one. Hopefully I didn’t mangle it too much.

In the first sentence of Chapter 66 of his First Apology, Justin equates “the Eucharist” with the “food”: “And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist].” And in Chapter 41 of Trypho, he speaks of “us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist,” thereby identifying the sacrifices as the bread and the cup specifically. Since the bread and cup are the food, and are therefore rightly called the Eucharist, the Eucharist is a sacrifice for this reason. And in Chapter 117 of Trypho, Justin agrees that “prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God.” And so both (1) prayers and giving of thanks, and (2) the bread and cup are considered sacrifices by Justin.

But Chapter 117 has it that the prayers and giving of thanks referred to as “sacrifices” are not just any prayers and thanksgivings, but only those offered “in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup.” In fact, Justin says in this chapter that “all the sacrifices we offer” through Jesus are offered “in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup.” Justin seems to be saying the same thing as the Catechism: “The Eucharist is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life’”… ‘all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch’” (, 1324CCC). “[T]he Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith” (, 1327CCC), etc.

In Chapter 70, Justin refers the prophecy of Isaiah to the bread and wine and says that we eat and drink “with the giving of thanks,” reinforcing the notion that it is in the celebration of Christ’s flesh and blood that our thanksgiving is received as an acceptable sacrifice.

If you take another look at Chapter 41 of Trypho, it is “the celebration… of the bread of the Eucharist” that provides occasion for us to “thank God for having created the world, with all things therein,” etc. That is why our thanksgiving takes on a sacrificial character, because it is expressed at the offering of the elements of the Eucharist which are themselves the sacrificial offering of Christ’s Body to the Father. In Chapter 13 of the First Apology, Justin says that “we praise to the utmost of our power by the exercise of prayer and thanksgiving for all things wherewith we are supplied,” and we see that this activity becomes our sacrifice on account of its orientation towards the Eucharistic celebration. In the words of Chapter 41, the “offering of fine flour… was a type of the bread of the Eucharist,” instituted by Jesus Christ “in order that we may at the same time thank God.” This again agrees with the Catechism: “The Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Father, a blessing by which the Church expresses her gratitude to God for all his benefits, for all that he has accomplished through creation, redemption, and sanctification. Eucharist means first of all ‘thanksgiving’” (, 1360CCC).

That Justin chose to say “is” rather than “has become” is, I think, irrelevant if you consider the context and flow of his argument. “In like manner as” Jesus was made flesh by the word of God, and so “had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so… the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word… is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” The things that Justin is comparing is what Jesus possesses through the incarnation, and what the bread and wine are through the prayer of His word. The bread and wine are “common” before the prayer of His word. But after the prayer of His word, they are His “flesh and blood.” That they have “become” so is made clear by Justin’s comparison with what happened at the incarnation. Jesus didn’t have flesh and blood before, now He does. The bread and wine were not His flesh and blood before, now they are.

The context of Justin’s discussion about cannibalism shows that any concern about cannibalistic activities are about those which involve murdering people and eating them, because he moves on from there to say that Christians do not even “expose newly born children”! Much less do they kill adults and eat them. Athenagoras expresses a similar concern: “when they know that we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly; who of them can accuse us of murder or cannibalism?” (, Ch. 35A Plea for the Christians. See also Chapter 12 of Justin’s Second Apology). Eating the flesh and blood of Jesus at the Lord’s Supper does not involve cannibalism, but not because we are not eating His flesh and blood. Rather, it is because no one is being murdered and no flesh and blood of a corpse are being diminished through consumption. It is a miraculous, sacramental union.

Jesus refers to the bread and wine as “this,” Justin as “that.” Jesus calls it the “fruit of the vine.” Paul calls the consecrated bread just plain old “bread.” So it’s OK to refer to the consecrated elements in these ways, knowing the truth.

Your brother in the Lord,
Pete