Do Catholics believe Protestants are going to hell?

[Janet1983]

But what if the Catholic Church teaches error? God will not lead someone who seeks Him to a church that teaches error. God will lead people to the truth not a denomination. Getting to know God is a process that takes time. You cannot expect people to take some classes and then accept all the Catholic doctrines as truth.

The bottom line is this; your church does not allow non-Catholic Christians to participate in communion because you do not accept them as members of what you believe to be Christ’s church. So I wish you would just say that non Catholic Christians are not saved, because that is what is displayed in your religion even though you might not say it. And it really makes no difference to Christians what you think of our salvation since you obviously do not understand it and have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Just though I would throw in my 2cents.

Well the thing is that these last few posts, to which rinnie was referring are about a Catholic who turned from the CC to become a Protestant and ex-Catholic (namely me).
The question whether or not a non-Catholic who has never been Catholic can be saved is not answered that clearly in Catholic doctrine.
The results of turning from the Catholic faith to become a Protestant Christian are being displayed here. I never realized that the CC is so intense and clear in her judgement of former Catholics, but I surely can accept that position.

Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

In Him,
Janet

 

[CentralFLJames]

But what if the Catholic Church teaches error? God will not lead someone who seeks Him to a church that teaches error. God will lead people to the truth not a denomination. Getting to know God is a process that takes time. You cannot expect people to take some classes and then accept all the Catholic doctrines as truth.

Brian, I’d like to comment on some of what you have said here. I see a pragmatic problem with your altruistic premise that “God will lead people to the truth but not a denomination”. The axiom is valid in that God most certainly would never lead one into harm. But your assertion and basis is not useful to anyone unless they can be certain that it is God who leads them rather than their own disordered passions and human irrationalities. In fact if you are Protestant chances are you are one who believes in a principal called “Total Depravity” – meaning you can do nothing good at all without God’s grace How do you know you are in grace and that God is leading you in your quest for truth? How do YOU trust your own judgement and be assured you are not falling into wholesale self-deception when you seek “truth”?

In practical condemnation to this idea that a person will and must find truth is the very fact that under the big-tent of “Protestantism” there are a legion (37,000+) denominations all with differences ranging from nuanced to full contradiction. Let me ask you - how do you know which of these has THE TRUTH and not just “some” truth? It seems to me that there are better odds to go place one’s eternal soul bet in a casino at 35:1 odds against winning than to bank one’s eternity on a long shot bet at 37,000:1 odds of winning or some among the “field” against “close enough to full truth” to gain salvation.

I don’t believe for a moment that God plays roulette with His People and has given them a clear shining light of faith to distinguish it uniquely from all the other “wanna-be’s”.

What Church on the planet can trace its origins all the way back to the early church, the early church fathers and the apostles (2,000 years of continuous apostolic succession) and looks almost completely different than the new secular churches? What other church still observes the handed down traditions traceable to apostolic times? What other church still wears the SAME VESTMENTS as the did the Roman citizens and peoples that existed in the apostle’s times? The CATHOLIC Church and also the ORTHODOX (Greek and Russian). The field has just been narrowed to 2 apostolic succession churches. These are all substantially the same original faith. The Orthodox are just in a political schism over minor issues caused more by politics than by by theological differences. Given that St. Peter was in Rome and all the early church’s lead bishop’s (Vicar/Pope) were too - its clear to see that of these 2 only The Roman Catholic Church is still in spiritual and ecclesial power in the same seat it always held from the time’s of St. Peter.

As for mentioning that the process takes time - we agree here. We Catholics finds it incredibly “strange” that most Protestants admit anyone in the front door who is willing to suddenly just stand up, do an altar call or send in a registration requesting membership. Catholics require an existing Catholic to SPONSOR novitiates into the faith who have already heard God’s call and performed their first level spiritual discernment. Only after being sponsored are novitiates put thorough detailed training in the Catechism. Time can vary but generally its about 4-6 weeks for adults and can be years for children. Then after final discernment and evaluation they are baptised into the Christ and His Church. This was the the way the original early church catechumens also prepared - sponsorship, instruction and lots of prayer. No one got to see the full mysteries of the mass until after they were fully baptised and received into the Church.

"But what if the Catholic Church teaches error?" Why doubt? It is unassailable that we are the same original faith from apostolic times. Did not Christ promise us that “the gates of hell would not prevail”? If Catholics teach error then Christ was wrong and Christianity is a lie and we can all go home and “eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.”. We are not wrong. Who was wrong was the Protestants for starting all new, never before seen religions of man that have absolutely NO apostolic tradition. No early Church father believe in sola fide or sola scriptura. Not one early church historical document supports anything remotely close to Protestant’s solas except sola-gratia. But having 1 out of the 5 Protestant sola fingers sure isn’t much to get grip on Christianity with. Now that is error I’d be more concerned with.

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

The bottom line is this; your church does not allow non-Catholic Christians to participate in communion because you do not accept them as members of what you believe to be Christ’s church. So I wish you would just say that non Catholic Christians are not saved, because that is what is displayed in your religion even though you might not say it. And it really makes no difference to Christians what you think of our salvation since you obviously do not understand it and have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Just though I would throw in my 2cents.

The bottom line is that we don’t want non-Catholics or disgraced Catholics to come forward to communion so they don’t commit a sacrilege that offends God and merits them hell. We also don’t want to embarrass non-Catholics by having them be ignorant to the meaning of what they are doing. By walking out in front of the whole assembly to receive communion a person is making the statement in his “Amen” as he receives communion. It is a public proclamation that “I hold the same faith as Catholics and am in communion with God and Church and all you belive”. So basically we are trying to prevent an affront of sacrilege to God and to save non-Catholics who are oblivious to what communion means from their own ignorance. While invincible ignorance is not culpable it still brings grave offense to watch it action.

Finally, your last statement is without any merit:

And it really makes no difference to Christians what you think of our salvation since you obviously do not understand it and have absolutely nothing to do with it.

You obviously don’t know that practising Catholics are full Christians and that we are all bound together as brothers in Christ. So anyone who brings scandal to himself brings it to the whole church by association - even by those calling themselves “christian” but being seperated by their own personal ideas of what Christianity is all about.

James

 

[Tomster]

The bottom line is that we don’t want non-Catholics or disgraced Catholics to come forward to communion so they don’t commit a sacrilege that offends God and merits them hell. We also don’t want to embarrass non-Catholics by having them be ignorant to the meaning of what they are doing. By walking out in front of the whole assembly to receive communion a person is making the statement in his “Amen” as he receives communion. It is a public proclamation that “I hold the same faith as Catholics and am in communion with God and Church and all you belive”. So basically we are trying to prevent an affront of sacrilege to God and to save non-Catholics who are oblivious to what communion means from their own ignorance. While invincible ignorance is not culpable it still brings grave offense to watch it action.

Finally, your last statement is without any merit:

And it really makes no difference to Christians what you think of our salvation since you obviously do not understand it and have absolutely nothing to do with it.

You obviously don’t know that practising Catholics are full Christians and that we are all bound together as brothers in Christ. So anyone who brings scandal to himself brings it to the whole church by association - even by those calling themselves “christian” but being seperated by their own personal ideas of what Christianity is all about.

James

The melancholy possibility must be envisaged of those who may have cut themselves off from the structure of the Body by their own unhappy act or been severed therefrom, for very grave crimes, by the legitimate authority. Certain sins - viz., apostasy, heresy and schism - of their very nature cut off the guilty from the living Body of Christ. Apostasy is form of spiritual suicide, being the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian faith which one once professed. Heresy, objectively considered, is doctrinal proposition which contradicts an article of faith; from the subjective point of view it may be defined as an error concerning the Catholic faith, freely and obstinately persisted in by a professing Christian. Schism consists in a refusal of subjection to the Vicar of Christ, the Pope, in whose office the source of the Church’s visible unity is embodied, or a withdrawal from communion with the faithful subject to him. It can hardly be denied that those who take up any of these positions - most evidently in this case the deliberate apostate - sever themselves by their own act from membership of the Church.

:twocents:

 

[Tomster]

Well I actually like talking about spiritual things. As already remarked by other posters in other threads you cannot find a completely open discussion in other forums that are specifically Protestant because the anti-Catholic sentiment is simply very strong on many.
I prefer a balanced theological discussion and I appreciate that I am being accepted here. I am very intrigued to see the viewpoints of many Catholics and in some cases I even contribute to specific Catholic issues by virtue of my experience in the Catholic world.
I am saddened by the fact that I see people get banned on a regular basis, but I also know that I am a mere guest here and that I should behave in a way that is stating my opinion, being open to new things, all the while reducing offensive terms and thought processes to a minimum.
As a non-Catholic Christian on a Catholic board I am also representing Protestantism and I hope that my personal way of viewing things and reacting to controversies is showing that being a Protestant does not mean being anti-Catholic.
May we all succeed in leaving the battlefield to embrace each other as brothers and sisters in the Lord because of our love for Him.

May the LORD answer you in the day of trouble. May the name of the God of Jacob set you securely on high. May He send you help from the sanctuary and support you from Zion. May He grant you your heart’s desire and fulfill all your counsel. We will sing for joy over your victory, and in the name of our God we will set up our banners. May the LORD fulfill all your petitions.

In Him,
Janet

Just a few questions Janet:

1.) How did you come to be a representative of Protestantism?

2.) Which particular form of Protestantism do you represent?

3.) How does your personal way of viewing things square with the divisions and controversies within Protestantism?

4.) What do you mean by “a balanced theological discussion”?

 

[Janet1983]

Just a few questions Janet:

1.) How did you come to be a representative of Protestantism?

Well simply put as a Protestant I am a representative of Protestantism. I am that just as much as a U.S. soldier is a representative of the U.S. Army (and should behave accordingly and conscious of the effect his behaviour might have on the way people view the Army).
As a Catholic you are also a representative of Catholicism and your behavior might reflect on the Catholic Church in the eyes of a spectator…

2.) Which particular form of Protestantism do you represent?

I do attent a Protestant denomination, but that is not my main focus. As I rarely disclose my denomination (which is the main factor in representing something) I would just say “Protestant”.

3.) How does your personal way of viewing things square with the divisions and controversies within Protestantism?

Can you rephrase the question, please?

4.) What do you mean by “a balanced theological discussion”?

What I mean by that is that there is not exchange of verbal profanities and no intense censorship. I have been to (German) Catholic pages where there is a 0% tolerance for anybody who dares to object to anything the Church teaches. There is no balanced theological discussion in there. A balanced discussion is not swaying to either side, but being balanced. The complete lack of repercussion towards inacceptable behavior is just as bad as ruling out all controversies.

Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

In Him,
Janet

 

[CentralFLJames]

I did not renounce my faith, I still believe in Jesus Christ and I am His slave. He bought me with a price.

You did not renounce your faith?
But you did Janet - you renounced an important aspect of it. That fractured it and gravely wounded it. But it can still be repaired if you return and come back into the faith.

You turned your back on men and women who you stood shoulder to shoulder with for a good part of your life professing the Apostle’s Creed. I don’t want to be cast in the role of your accuser but I will point out that you have eviscerated the following profession from your prior view:

*I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, *

Communion of The Saints
The communion of saints is the spiritual solidarity which binds together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of supernatural offices. The participants in that solidarity are called saints by reason of their destination and of their partaking of the fruits of the Redemption (1 Corinthians 1:2 — Greek Text).

The above Creedal sentence requires faith in an indivisible unity between Holy Spirit, Holy Catholic Church and the Communion of Saints. By walking out the door of the Catholic Church you are breaking away from one of the most fundamental faith tenants of the ancient Creed and entering into a different faith. Remember the Catholic song “Faith of our Fathers” written by ex-Protestant to Catholic convert Frederick William Faber? He is talking about this old Catholic faith handed down from generation to generation. He provided a body of hymns for English Catholics to sing to encourage them to “keep the faith” against the horrid atrocities committed against them by the English Monarch and the Protestants who eventually ratted him out and had him tortured and executed for his sympathy and assistance in hiding from persecution.

Detour:
As an aside, what most Protestants don’t know is that Faber wrote this song to remind the Catholic Church of its martyrs during the days of the Protestant King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I. “Good Queen Bess,” for example, used fines, gallows, gibbets, racks, and whips against those who said Mass, honored the pope, or harbored a priest. He himself was tortured and executed by the English for converting to Catholicism and helping to hide Catholic priests and laity who were holding mass.

Anyway, back to topic. There is no possible way that you can claim that Protestantism is the “same” faith as our fathers. The unity implicit in the Creed requires an obedience to the faith and the ONE Catholic Church - not a plurality of denominations nor a willow the wisp “invisible” one church with no unity in leadership and a wild mob-rule or even democratic “majority wins” theology. Nope. The very notion of objective goodness implicit in God Himself itself gives rise to the concept of objective truth and UNITY. A Full and unified Truth is not to be found in the hydra of Protestantism that has each head at war with its other competing neighbors taht emerge from a common corpus of “protest”. Further the Communion of the Saints requires a belief that The Church as the body of Christ is mystic and spans one earthly Church Militant at war with Satan’s thralls AND the Church Triumphant in Heaven who aid us AND the Church Suffering which are those fallen Christian soldiers who have earned their crowns and are in their final finishing sanctification).

Please help me refresh my memory. I was not particularly interested in finding out about what you call apostasy when I was still within the church. Where do I find the areas that deal with apostates?

I think technically you are really more of heretic than you are an apostate. You have followed the lead of old heretics (the reformers) and innovated your own form of “Christianity” that suits your personal and private beliefs. Irrespective, heretic, apostate or schismatic are all grave matter. There is no alternative remedy except to repent, go to confession and do penance. You excommunicated yourself by embracing non-Catholic teachings. Fortunately its not a formal excommunication so you can come back at any time before you die and walk into a confessional and confess your sins.

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

No. But I actually do believe that I am a slave of the Lord and that He makes me His child. He is not going to forsake me and I will continue to serve Him.

I don’t understand this whole “slave” verbiage. God called us friends and no longer slaves. The only Chrisian slave are Christians who are enslaved to grave sin. What I fear you are doing Janet is trying to rationalize away personal responsibility for your actions by renouncing your freewill and trying to put all your personal choices on Christ’s shoulders to make it all His fault for whatever happens to you. That’s not the kind of surrender God wants from us - he wants our freewill intact, mature and well formed. But he wants us to embrace Him in love - which is impossible if one rejects freewill. The idea here is to conform our wills to Christ not to enslave ourselves to mere random events. I recommend you re-examine yourself in this area and see if you can better discern where you are at and if its healthy. God does not want a mindless robotic slave.

Well it does say in the Bible that we cannot please God if we are in the flesh and without faith.

That is why we all get baptised and cling to our faith - no one can be Catholic without faith. But faith is not all of it - we also must cooperate.

Yes I have been trained and yes I rejected the Catholic Church. I do not believe that I have rejected the Lord however and I am striving to please Him and Him alone.

It’s impossible to love Jesus without also loving His Bride/Body. The two are inseparable.

I do not cling to this idea. I rest assured that God gave me this partner to enable me to become more like Jesus Christ and to be obedient to Him.

I won’t judge here. But I will say that if God did as you hope then your husband would by now be inquiring about becoming Catholic and want you to come back into the Catholic Church – deeper than ever before. It could be just the opposite Janet - that God put you two together for YOU to be the instrument to bring your husband into the Catholic Church. Now get with the program …

James

 

[rinnie]

But what if the Catholic Church teaches error? God will not lead someone who seeks Him to a church that teaches error. God will lead people to the truth not a denomination. Getting to know God is a process that takes time. You cannot expect people to take some classes and then accept all the Catholic doctrines as truth.

The bottom line is this; your church does not allow non-Catholic Christians to participate in communion because you do not accept them as members of what you believe to be Christ’s church. So I wish you would just say that non Catholic Christians are not saved, because that is what is displayed in your religion even though you might not say it. And it really makes no difference to Christians what you think of our salvation since you obviously do not understand it and have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Just though I would throw in my 2cents.

It Can’t is impossible. Jesus promised Peter and the Apostles at Pentecost that he would send the advocate the Holy Spirit to guide them to all truth. If the CC teaches in error then the Holy SPirit led us astray. ANd the is impossible. Jesus promised.

 

[rinnie]

You are also wrong about my church. My Church will not let anyone accept the body and blood of Christ until they understand what it is, and why you cannot be in a state of sin when you receive it. When you receive the body of Christ and if you are in a state of mortal sin you have condemn yourself. My CHurch is not withholding it from you to be mean. The Priest has made a promise to God to be responsible for all he teaches. He cannot let you do this without the knowledge of what our sacraments are and mean.

That is why a person must go through RCIA so they know exactly what the sacramaments are and what the law is.

The RCC welcomes everyone and would never turn down anyone who wants to enter. They just cannot let you condemn yourself. It is for the good of your soul!

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Well the thing is that these last few posts, to which rinnie was referring are about a Catholic who turned from the CC to become a Protestant and ex-Catholic (namely me).
The question whether or not a non-Catholic who has never been [SIGN]Catholic can be saved is not answered that clearly in Catholic doctrine.[/SIGN]The results of turning from the Catholic faith to become a Protestant Christian are being displayed here. I never realized that the CC is so intense and clear in her judgement of former Catholics, but I surely can accept that position.

Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

In Him,
Janet

ACtually Janet it has. I am going to put in my words but here it is. Anyone who accepts Jesus Christ and has not had the truth revealed to them cannot be held responsible for what they do not know.

To not know and understand the Catholic faith and reject it is one thing. Kinda ignorance is bliss. But to know and understand the fullness of the truth and still reject it, now your soul is in mortal danger. Because you are aware of the faith but choose to ignore it and go your own way and turn against the Truth, Gods way.

ITs like mortal sin. If you sin and do not realize it is a sin its not mortal. You have to realize what you are doing, be in a right state of mind and still be willing to commit the sin, Now thats mortal! Beccause you with your own free will turned against God.

What the Pope is saying if you are living your life for God the only and best way you know you are ok. If the truth of the RCC has never been revealed to you, you are not held accountable by God.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

In practical condemnation to this idea that a person will and must find truth is the very fact that under the big-tent of “Protestantism” there are a legion (37,000+) denominations all with differences ranging from nuanced to full contradiction. Let me ask you - how do you know which of these has THE TRUTH and not just “some” truth? It seems to me that there are better odds to go place one’s eternal soul bet in a casino at 35:1 odds against winning than to bank one’s eternity on a long shot bet at 37,000:1 odds of winning or some among the “field” against “close enough to full truth” to gain salvation.

The whole problem with your argument is that you fail to see that you have placed your trust in a theology you cannot validate. What makes you different than anyone else who chooses any particular denomination to join? Just because you believe your religion holds the truth does not make it so.

What other church still observes the handed down traditions traceable to apostolic times?

Not the Catholic Church that’s for sure. And if you claim that it does you are either lying or completely careless in your assertions. I’ll assume it’s the later.

We Catholics finds it incredibly “strange” that most Protestants admit anyone in the front door who is willing to suddenly just stand up, do an altar call or send in a registration requesting membership.

Then you must also find it strange when you read in the New Testament about the countless people who believed upon hearing the word and were received into the church. Sounds like a departure from the apostolic church to me.

Not one early church historical document supports anything remotely close to Protestant’s solas except sola-gratia. But having 1 out of the 5 Protestant sola fingers sure isn’t much to get grip on Christianity with. Now that is error I’d be more concerned with.

So as you see it Christianity cannot be obtained by the written word? In other words, a person cannot become one of God’s children by reading or hearing the Gospel and believing? Are there things that one must believe that are not written in the Bible in order to be a member of Christ’s body and be saved? If so, please provide that valuable information and demonstrate that it was handed down from the apostles.

[James, since you have claimed that no early church documents support Protestant theology you should have no problem providing adequate historical documentation to support your assertions. And please do not post a borage of out-of-context quotes from Catholic Answers or some other apologetics website. You claim familiarity with the early church documents so please provide contextual references.]

Brian

 

[CentralFLJames]

The whole problem with your argument is that you fail to see that you have placed your trust in a theology you cannot validate. What makes you different than anyone else who chooses any particular denomination to join? Just because you believe your religion holds the truth does not make it so.

You are wrong. The Catholic faith can be ratified by the millions of early Chrisian martyers who died for their faith. If you were familiar with the history of the early church and the early church father writings (but you apparently are not), then you would know:

1. Early Christians believed in real-presence in the image of bread and wine;
2. Early Christians believed in the passed down authority of the Bishops and priests via what we today call the “apostolic succession” - a formal selection of spiritually ordained clergy
3. They believed in a SINGLE Church as well as the other principal tenants of Christianity under one rule of faith - the old Roman Creed.
4. That disobedience to the ecclesial leaders was to be physically and spiritually seperated from the Church and the communion of the community worship on the Lord’s Day (Sunday)
5. A priesthood who conducted all the consecration of the bread and wine to Eucharist and who lead the assembly in the sacrifice of the mass
6. Confession and forgivness of sins by the presiding apostolic authority (priest or bishop)
7. Baptism of entire households - including infants and adults
8. Etc.

We have the forensic evidence of writings, physical monuments in catacombs, hymns, painting, and of course some of the original church’s and the sustained physical presence of the Church – still seated in Rome.

Now let’s ask you the same question. Can validate YOUR new post-reformation theology against a shred of historical evidence traceable to the early church that any believed in Protestant’s new solas or worshiped without eucharist or any semblance of a liturgy? Nope - you can’t. Remember that there was NO bible for about 400 years after Christ and that the majority of Christians could not even read or write until the 1900s (very recent). The Bible is a Catholic construction and fruit of the Holy Spirit. It was assembled by the authority of the Catholic Church and her bishops and popes.

What makes me different than anyone else who chooses any particular denomination to join? ** The obvious answer is that I didn’t choose a denomination. Rather I chose the one true apostolic Catholic church. It is not a denomination but the same original church and faith as existed from the beginning. Denominations are a Protestant concept. If you know your history you would know that Protestants LEFT the Catholic Church and started their own religions and factions. It was not the other way around. There is no concept of Christian Churchess** plural. There is only One Body of Christ and therefore only One Church with One Faith. Protestantism does not reject its own notion of plurality that it must admit is present in its corpus. Clearly, ontologically speaking, there can be only ONE SINGLE AND FULL TRUTH and ONE CHURCH. Someone is in error and its clear to me that the old faith is the true faith since it never broke from itself. It is unthinkable that Christ would have let his church be corrupted immediately after Pentecost - since that is where the apostolic succession begins and where Catholic trace their origins. That is what you must claim to say that Catholics are not the same faith. But Catholics know for fact that all other so called churches are really just “ecclesial communities” that are self-styled teachings with all new innovations never before seen in the first 1500 years of Christianity. Read your early church history and see if you find any trace of Protestants ideas in the early church. You will find that Protestantism only resembles some of the heretical minor sects that were condemned by the leadership.

So, since you have already admitted that Protestantism’s beliefs and practices are radically different than Catholicism I can simply point to that glaring difference as being sufficient to differentiate Catholicism from the legion of other offerings that look nothing like it and to our historical progression to say “we are the same original Church”. Do you now want to claim that the early church had no priesthood, no bishops and did not beleive in real presence etc. ???

“Just because you want to believe” that all of history was written as a lie does not make it so.

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Not the Catholic Church that’s for sure. And if you claim that it does you are either lying or completely careless in your assertions. I’ll assume it’s the later.

“Just because you want to believe this doe not make it so”. You are not credible. Give some real historical evidence that remotely appears to be in support of Protestant claims. There is NONE. I will assume you are not lieing and just ignorant of history.

Then you must also find it strange when you read in the New Testament about the countless people who believed upon hearing the word and were received into the church. Sounds like a departure from the apostolic church to me.

I suppose that your literal fundamentalist reading of gospel means that every believer was received into the Church in the instant they heard and were baptised immediately without further instruction in the faith and in the forms of worship? The bible is not intended to be a detailed historical account of the precise means by which people were received into the Church but rather an account for how the faith was transmitted and what the faith is. The early church adapted its mores and disciplines over time and we have tremendous insight into how the early Christians lived and interacted from the early church father writings. You have no way to know from the biblical text how long it actually was before people were physically received into the church after hearing the word.

So as you see it Christianity cannot be obtained by the written word? In other words, a person cannot become one of God’s children by reading or hearing the Gospel and believing? Are there things that one must believe that are not written in the Bible in order to be a member of Christ’s body and be saved? If so, please provide that valuable information and demonstrate that it was handed down from the apostles.

Are babies and mentally ill or handicapped people who can’t read condemned to hell for not being able to read or hear?

An adult must normatively be taught the word and sponsored into the church when they are accepting the word that they have heard or read and inquired about. The bible itself is not self teaching but the message of salvation is plain enough for anyone to read and then come to desire to enter into the faith. Hearing CORRECTLY is what is important. For example Simon Magus herd the words of the apostles but he wanted to hear it in his own way and to profit by it in ways that God did not intend. So no there is no new salvation sola called “by hearing alone”. What we must do is respond to what we hear and investigate and then when we understand what is offered and what is required accept it and be received into the faith and commit to it all our lives. No one is made into God’s children by reading “magic words and formulas” on paper. Rather one is made into a child of God by being radically transformed by Grace through Christ and through His Church. There is no way to gain salvation by trying to go around God’s instrument of His Church.

What you need is proper instruction just as the bible says. The bible does not self teach itself but can give sufficient insight to an adult to spark the desire to receive proper instruction.

[James, since you have claimed that no early church documents support Protestant theology you should have no problem providing adequate historical documentation to support your assertions. And please do not post a borage of out-of-context quotes from Catholic Answers or some other apologetics website. You claim familiarity with the early church documents so please provide contextual references.]
Brian

I can’t point to evidence that does not exist in support of Protestantism since it does not exist except in some heretical writings that have some minor elements of Protestantism that had no wide following. Protesting the authority of the church was simply met with banishment from the Church. But I can point you to volumes of early church fathers who were all Catholics. You can read these at your leisure and see if anything they wrote sounds remotely Protestant to you.

Early Church Father Writings (New Advent)

After reading all these let me know if you can with a straight face and small nose call a single one of them anything but Catholic.

James

 

[Tomster]

Well simply put as a Protestant I am a representative of Protestantism. I am that just as much as a U.S. soldier is a representative of the U.S. Army (and should behave accordingly and conscious of the effect his behaviour might have on the way people view the Army).
As a Catholic you are also a representative of Catholicism and your behavior might reflect on the Catholic Church in the eyes of a spectator…

I do attent a Protestant denomination, but that is not my main focus. As I rarely disclose my denomination (which is the main factor in representing something) I would just say “Protestant”.

Can you rephrase the question, please?

What I mean by that is that there is not exchange of verbal profanities and no intense censorship. I have been to (German) Catholic pages where there is a 0% tolerance for anybody who dares to object to anything the Church teaches. There is no balanced theological discussion in there. A balanced discussion is not swaying to either side, but being balanced. The complete lack of repercussion towards inacceptable behavior is just as bad as ruling out all controversies.

Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

In Him,
Janet

In regards to #4, I will address # 's 1, 2, and 3 later, it is an intersting phenomenon of religious history that the heresy of Luther, taking its rise in a proud rebellion against the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, issued in a pessimistic theology which, exaggerating the effects of original sin, presented human nature as intrinsically corrupt. The human will, bereft of freedom, was incapable of pursuing the good, the human reason was powerless to know the truth.

My questions to you are you a representative of this fundamental Protestant teaching?

Does your denomination subscribe to this basic Protestant teaching or has your denomination changed it’s position from Luther’s?

Since you will not disclose which Protestant denomination you attend, could you give us at least a brief outline of how your Protestant denomination, of which you are a representative, differs from other Protestant denominations of which you are a not a representative? Surely, you must admit, there are theological differences between the different Protestant demonimations.

 

[CentralFLJames]

In regards to #4, I will address # 's 1, 2, and 3 later, it is an intersting phenomenon of religious history that the heresy of Luther, taking its rise in a proud rebellion against the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, issued in a pessimistic theology which, exaggerating the effects of original sin, presented human nature as intrinsically corrupt. The human will, bereft of freedom, was incapable of pursuing the good, the human reason was powerless to know the truth.

My questions to you are you a representative of this fundamental Protestant teaching?

Does your denomination subscribe to this basic Protestant teaching or has your denomination changed it’s position from Luther’s?

Since you will not disclose which Protestant denomination you attend, could you give us at least a brief outline of how your Protestant denomination, of which you are a representative, differs from other Protestant denominations of which you are a not a representative? Surely, you must admit, there are theological differences between the different Protestant demonimations.

I’d just like for ANY protestant to stand up and explain the logic behind the assumption that totally depraved men who are so defective by effect of sin can suddenly overcome their defects to give us infallable and new teachings that “reform” the Church perfectly? The logic is so repulsive to reason that I can’t believe anyone with a stable mind could accept the most basic concepts of Protestantism. How does one escape the irrationality? How can anyone with a logical mind hold this absurd idea and rationally be a Protestant?

Protestants undermine the entire rational basis for Christianity and push intelligent and rational people away from Christianity by the blatant affront to reason. This is sad because the common misperception in the secular world is that Catholics and Protestants are all just variations on the same “philosophy” of Christ. So, a rational person investigating the faith will quickly see the blatant irrationality of Protestantism; then, by association the Catholic faith need not be examined since they assume all the “denominations” come from the same spoiled apples in the same bushel of corrupted ideas. The “philosophy” is categorically discarded after only a cursory review of just a few bad samples.

Protestantism is a bane to Christian credibility world wide.

James

 

[Brian_Culliton]

If you know your history you would know that Protestants LEFT the Catholic Church and started their own religions and factions.

You keep trying to put me in a box by telling me what I must believe because I am Protestant. You are building straw men so you can knock them down. I have not told you anything about what I believe. I really am not too interested in the Reformation, which was not a reformation at all, but rather an attempted reformation. And Protestants did not leave the Catholic Church, Catholics left the Catholic Church because of corruption.

Even though I am “apparently not familiar” with the early church, I will attempt to answer your points. I hope then that you will be courteous enough to answer my question.

Early Christians believed in real-presence in the image of bread and wine.

I see no evidence of that in the Ante-Nicene church. In fact Clement of Alexandria was very explicit in saying that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said, “Eat my flesh and drink my blood” in the bread of life discourse. I don’t need to give you the reference because I am sure you have come across that in your own studies. I would be interested in your opinion of it though.

Origen also was explicit in denying your belief; would you like me to share that with you? There is also an interesting fragment from Irenaeus that demonstrates the fallacy of your doctrine. I can show that too if you want.

Aside from the more explicit references, in my 10 plus years of early church study I have never come across any evidence that supports your assertion. It is true, however, that if one wants to push their belief on those not so acquainted with the ancient church they can find ways to discard the context and arrange numerous quotes to give the impression that they believed your doctrine. Can you point me to any evidence of Eucharistic worship in the early church? Since you claim that all your doctrines came from the apostles I am sure you must have evidence of Eucharistic worship, right?

Early Christians believed in the passed down authority of the Bishops and priests via what we today call the “apostolic succession” - a formal selection of spiritually ordained clergy.

It is true that the bishop of Rome can trace his office back to the apostles, but what is this authority thing you are talking about? What does that mean? Does that mean he can proclaim new doctrines and demand that all believers adhere to them or else…?

They believed in a SINGLE Church as well as the other principal tenants of Christianity under one rule of faith - the old Roman Creed.

Yes, and wouldn’t it have been nice if that “visible” church would have remained uncorrupted and true to the apostle’s teachings. The truth is that the body of Christ is not contained in a visible church body. You have tried to contain me in a box and now it appears you are trying to do the same to God.

That disobedience to the ecclesial leaders was to be physically and spiritually seperated from the Church and the communion of the community worship on the Lord’s Day (Sunday)

The church in its infancy was pure and so heresy was easily recognized. But once the church brought in it’s own heresies what then? Believe me, there have been many fractions in the church well before the reformation; the third and fourth centuries being arguably the worst.

A priesthood who conducted all the consecration of the bread and wine to Eucharist and who lead the assembly in the sacrifice of the mass.

Sacrifice of the mass? How does one consecrate bread and wine to Eucharist? Do you know what Eucharist means? And what is “sacrifice” in the context of Christian worship? Is it not as Justin Martyr said?

“Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind…” (Dialog with Trypho 117)

Sounds like a good exegesis on Malachi 1:11. Justin’s understanding is scriptural while yours is not.

“Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.” (Heb. 13:15)

Confession and forgivness of sins by the presiding apostolic authority (priest or bishop)

Ante-Nicene reference please? I have not come across that in my studies but apparently you have, so please educate me on the history of this practice.

Baptism of entire households - including infants and adults.

It defiantly happened, but Tertullian makes an excellent argument against that practice. I agree with Tertullian.

Etc.

I hope “etc.” includes the Marion doctrines; I would love to hear how the apostles handed them down.

Now my turn: I want to ask the same question I asked before but you did not answer:

Are there things that one must believe that are not written in the Bible in order to be a member of Christ’s body and be saved? If so, please provide that valuable information and demonstrate that it was handed down from the apostles.

I’ll wait.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Originally Posted by CentralFLJames:

If you know your history you would know that Protestants LEFT the Catholic Church and started their own religions and factions.

You keep trying to put ME in a box by telling me what I must believe because I am Protestant. You are building straw men so you can knock them down. I have not told you anything about what I believe. I really am not too interested in the Reformation, which was not a reformation at all, but rather an attempted reformation. And Protestants did not leave the Catholic Church, Catholics left the Catholic Church because of corruption.

First of all let me say that we are getting off OP here and run the risk of having this discussion closed as “off topic”. Since you bring up some interesting questions I will address them here but recommend you go open up a new thread.

This comment itself is a strawman of your own. Show me explicitly in the above where I said anything at all about YOUR beliefs. I made an appeal to history. There was NO other Christian religion in existence outside of Catholicism and The Orthodox prior to the failed Protestant breakaway. The only assumption I made is from your own self-declaration to being “Christian” in your profile banner. Since you don’t claim to be Catholic or Orthodox ( an apostolic Christian) then by definition you are one of the many “protestant” varieties of so called Christians in the down-line breakaway.

Listen, rather than play rope a dope and waste my time why don’t you just plainly state your particular faith since I really don’t have the time nor the inclination to run through the billions of combinatorial samplings from 37,000+ “christian” variations that are possible by cherry picking each denomination’s confessions and core tenants of belief.

I see no evidence of that in the Ante-Nicene church. In fact Clement of Alexandria was very explicit in saying that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said, “Eat my flesh and drink my blood” in the bread of life discourse. I don’t need to give you the reference because I am sure you have come across that in your own studies. I would be interested in your opinion of it though.

There are a isolated cases of individual ECFs speaking contrary to the norms of the other ECFs from time to time. But there is never more than 1-2 ECFs out of the many who go against the held Catholic beleif that we still retain today as handed down to us from the ECFs. I am not going to spend the energy looking up these individual cases for you and doing your work. If you have specific evidence present it and I will address it point by point and counter it with at least 2 other ECFs that refute it. But you and I know how easy it is for me to do this since this has all been hashed over centuries ago before the Protestants even came into existence. How else do you think Catholics developed our theology? We are our own worst historical critics and never went against the early Church Fathers.

Origen also was explicit in denying your belief; would you like me to share that with you? There is also an interesting fragment from Irenaeus that demonstrates the fallacy of your doctrine. I can show that too if you want.

There’s the problem: Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, or Origin while being excellent historical references that often are quoted in support of Catholic doctrine do not meet the full criteria for being “Church Fathers” and are not formally classified as ECFs.

Requirement to be Considered an ECF Writing

1. He must be an author whose works are extent, or have left us writings that we can quote from. 2) Secondly they must have been in communion with the Church and whose writings are correct and orthodox. 3) They must be a character of eminent sanctity as well as learning (This refers to the status of Sainthood). 4) Writings from antiquity (generally before the middle-ages e.g. ending with Saint Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) in the east and Saint Gregory (d. 604) in the west).

We can generally break the Fathers up into 5 groups (1. Apostolic, 2. Apologists, 3. Greek Fathers, 4. Latin Fathers, and 5. The Eastern Fathers (Syrian, etc).)

The apostolic fathers such as St. Ignatius of Antioch, or Saint Polycarp, who date back to the apostles themselves have more weight than the latter categories.

Origen was initially revered and was influential in forming Christian thought. But he became corrupted by heretical ideas in his latter life and became heretical. Only some of his early writings are considered to be consistent with Catholic belief and the rest of the early Fathers.

Again, this is all standard fare we see in Catholic apologetics. You need to demonstrate that there was wide and early following in the ECFs against present day Catholic belief to make any progress into the well worn theory that Catholics became corrupt in their faith. This was the same argument that the Protestants attempted but all they did was replace Catholic belief with prior apostolic era heresies (such asAntinomianism) and then add in new variations of the old (e.g. sola fide, sola scriptura etc.) that were never taught in the early church.

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Aside from the more explicit references, in my 10 plus years of early church study I have never come across any evidence that supports your assertion. It is true, however, that if one wants to push their belief on those not so acquainted with the ancient church they can find ways to discard the context and arrange numerous quotes to give the impression that they believed your doctrine. Can you point me to any evidence of Eucharistic worship in the early church? Since you claim that all your doctrines came from the apostles I am sure you must have evidence of Eucharistic worship, right?

You are speaking as if you are an authority on ECFs and have yet to demonstrate that you even know what an ECF is.

Per your reasonable request for ECF writings for evidence for Eucharistic belief:
We have dozens of such references. Here are a few and a link to a lot more.

They abstain from the* Eucharist **and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“For **not as common bread and common drink **do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

More Here: scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#tradition-I
*

It is true that the bishop of Rome can trace his office back to the apostles, but what is this authority thing you are talking about? What does that mean? Does that mean he can proclaim new doctrines and demand that all believers adhere to them or else…?

Thank you for that admission - that is something most non-Catholics reject out of lack of historical understanding. Apostolic authority means the pope speaks for Christ’s Church and may proclaim dogmatic teachings on faith and morals and to “loose and bind” sin and bestow apostolic authority by authorizing the ordination of new bishops & clergy (who also have the authority to loose and bind sin). It means that new and deeper spiritual insights into the same original transmitted faith handed down by the apostles and retained in the Deposit of Faith (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition) can be proclaimed in the same way the St. Peter infallibly declared the universal (e.g. Catholic) salvation mission of the Church by decisively stating that Gentiles could also be baptised along with Jews (ref. Baptism of Cornelius Acts 10:34-48).

The bottom line is “yes, it means the pope has the God given authority to teach divine truth and hold it as binding on all of Christendom”. That said, he also has the authority to accept The Church members petitions for a ruling on a particular aspect of held belief among the faithful. The Marian dogmas came forth FROM THE MEMBERSHIP who requested that the pope make a ruling on the legitimacy of long held Christian beliefs about Mary: A Divine Motherhood, B Perpetual Virginity, C Immaculate Conception, D Bodily Assumption into Heaven. The pope thus conferred with the college of bishops, the Deposit of Faith, theologians and granted these sacred traditions as dogmatic and infallable truths. All Christians are held bound to accepting these teachings that can forensically trace their origins back to around the 200 AD time frame (and which must have been sooner to be as developed as they were then).

Yes, and wouldn’t it have been nice if that “visible” church would have remained uncorrupted and true to the apostle’s teachings. The truth is that the body of Christ is not contained in a visible church body. You have tried to contain me in a box and now it appears you are trying to do the same to God.

Just because you claim the church was corrupted does not make it so. Wouldn’t it be nice if your thinking had not become corrupted by polemics that have infected you? There has never been a single teaching of the Catholic Church that has ever been changed or deleted. What evidence do you have that any prior teaching was corrupted? There is no evidence. Don’t confuse the illicit personal behaviors of individual clergy with “corruption” since the Church never made any claim that its members or clergy are impeccable - only that no official dogma can be taught in error (God protects His Church from teaching error).

The Truth is you are inventing things out of thin air that you can not see or point to. Scripture says definitively that “The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth” and to ‘take up issues with The Church’. Ergo - the Church has a physical existence and a street address that we can go to for instruction. It is the Vatican, the Chair of Peter as it has always been.

You are trying to put God and His church into the confines of your own skull. That’s just self absorbed thinking. Christ told Peter “on this Rock” I build my Church. He did not say “on this invisible cloud I build my Church”. Get some foundation and come back to earth.

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

The church in its infancy was pure and so heresy was easily recognized. But once the church brought in it’s own heresies what then? Believe me, there have been many fractions in the church well before the reformation; the third and fourth centuries being arguably the worst.

Interesting theory but without evidence. You have no standard by which to judge since with this theory you have to assume that “the gates of hell prevailed against Christ’s Church” and make Jesus into a liar. Either you believe Jesus or you don’t. No one can call himself Christian unless he believes in ALL Christ said about himself and His Church. The earlier factions all died out to make good on Jesus’ promise that “no house would stand that is divided against itself”. This is why Protestantism is being pulverized into thousands of shards of “sects” that can not long sustain themselves. This is probably the last century for Protestantism’s slow death. The 2,000 year old Catholic Church has always outlived its enemies and its heretics just as Jesus promised. Protestantism brought nihilism and mob rule into its ranks and to the nations that have embraced its precepts. Because there are some Catholic principals in its core those have brought various blessings - but the handwriting is on the wall now as we watch it fall away every day now.

Sacrifice of the mass? How does one consecrate bread and wine to Eucharist? Do you know what Eucharist means? And what is “sacrifice” in the context of Christian worship? Is it not as Justin Martyr said?

You don’t know that Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ?
The mass is both a sacrifice and and sacrament. We offer up to God our prayers, petitions, gifts and most importantly His Son in the mass. How can you be critical of the Catholic church if you don’t even understand what is going on in the Holy Mass? It was the same thing done in the early Church - though then it less organized around the well defined rubrics we have today thanks to centuries of refinement.
If you want to spin off a new discussion about the Catholic Mass please start a new discussion.

“Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind…” (Dialog with Trypho 117)

You quote Justin Martyr but only a snippet of what he says. Look to my prior reference to him for a better insight into what he believed. There can no credible denial that he believe in real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Nice try.

Sounds like a good exegesis on Malachi 1:11. Justin’s understanding is scriptural while yours is not.

“Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.” (Heb. 13:15)

You are beating a dad horse Justin Martyr is Catholic in his Eucharistic beliefs. We often read him in our Divine Office Readings before daily mass as part of the Liturgy of the Hour Prayers. Prayer is a vital discipline of a Catholic but Eucharist is core to Catholic belief. You can’t hijack Justin Martyr and make him take on Protestant beliefs without looking completly foolish.

Ante-Nicene reference please? I have not come across that in my studies but apparently you have, so please educate me on the history of this practice.

Before 325 AD? Sure.

*Do not come to prayer with a guilty conscience." Epistle of Barnabas, 19:12 (A.D. 74).

“In church confess your sins, and do not come to your prayer with a guilt conscience. Such is the Way of Life…On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure." Didache, 4:14,14:1 (c. A.D. 90).

“Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness[of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop.” Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyraeans, 9 (c. A.D. 110).

Lots more here: scripturecatholic.com/confession.html#tradition-I
[continued]

James