I can't shake my Protestantism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nabooru
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think “his understanding of it” means his understanding of Christ’s commandments without the Christian context. For example, Christians need to be selfless, but not all selfless people are Christians. They have their understanding of selflessness. Of course Catholicism holds the fullness of truth, but those people who do not know Catholicism or even the Gospel while living a selfless life, based on their limited knowledge and belief, have no problem being in communion with Catholic Church and the body of Christ. God’s saving grace simply opens to all people. Whoever accepts it, even just partially, and makes use of it will have a chance to be saved. 🙂
Maybe, but I doubt it. The evidence just isn’t there.
 
To be obedient to Christ’s Commandments = to be obedient to Christ and to God. As I said, many people do not commit murder or adultery or selfish acts because of their non-Christian reasons and faiths. These reasons and faiths are good since they produce “good fruits”. And remember, all good things are from the grace of God. Of course, since these reasons and faiths are very weak and incomplete compared to the strength and fullness of Catholic faith, they are often defeated by Satan. Nevertheless, salvation through them is not impossible.

Therefore, one does not need to explicitly accept Christ in order to be accepted by Christ, as long as they are obedient to Christ’s Commandment. Jesus Christ says “whoever is not against us is for us” (Mk 9:38-41). Does it make things clearer? Thank you!
 
…you’re welcome?

I suppose this will be something I will not be able to privately reconcile myself with. It doesn’t mean I can’t be a good Catholic.
 
…you’re welcome?

I suppose this will be something I will not be able to privately reconcile myself with. It doesn’t mean I can’t be a good Catholic.
Haha I believe in you! You are / will be a good Catholic. But what is the point that you cannot reconcile with? Would you mind sharing it with us? Questions usually ought not to be privately reconciled. That’s why we have CAF!
 
Timothy 2:5

Tells us who is a mediator between man and God.
Answer me first, who is the only Savior? Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Yet at the same time you can save a soul? James 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
Is not your intercession for the saints not a work of mediation? Are you not just playing a game of semantics?
 
I was going to quote you, but it put me over the limit … so … in a reply …

John 3:14-16 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Did God use types and symbols in the Old Testament to prefigure or represent Christ?
Was something like the serpent in the wilderness violate the commandment to not worship idols?
Did the Temple, Ark of the Covenant and all the items of the Temple distract from the worship of God alone or is it only the Statues and relics that aren’t sacred?

Ephesians 5:21-24 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

How can we fulfill this scripture if submitting to a human being is impossible or not a responsibility?
Can a wife be unsubmissive because her husband is a mere human being?

Romans 10:13-18 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

If there is no one to preach the gospel, how can faith come?
How do you know what is the word of God from which faith comes if not by the testimony of some human being?

Second Peter 1:19-21 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Are you the only infallible determinator of what is the meaning of scripture? Or did God give you a Bible with no way to be certain that you properly understand it?

1 John 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

If you reject the papacy on the grounds you stated, are you showing the fruit of having a spirit of error?

Matthew 23:1-3 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

If Jesus commanded that his disciples be obedient to the religious leaders of His day -who crucified Him - How can you justify disobedience to men whom hold the office of Bishop in the Church, especially the Pope?

Where does the Church ask you to accept every “mystic”?
The reported apparitions at Fátima were officially declared “worthy of belief” by the Catholic Church. By there are many more that are not.
But Medjugorje is Not Approved by the Church.
It is the duty of the local bishop of the diocese in which supposed supernatural events take place to study and confirm or deny the legitimacy of the claims being made.
In 1986, the Bishop of Medjugorje issued a statement in 1986 proclaiming that these apparitions are not made by the most Holy Virgin Mary and he forbade the pilgrimages set up from the beginning without ecclesiastical approval by the pastor of Mostar.

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Are you confusing the traditions of men that Jesus spoke agaist with the Tradition, oral and Biblically written Epistles, That are commanded in the name of Jesus Christ?

Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Is the washing of pots and cups, basically doing dishes, a commandment of moral equality with attending Mass?

Mark 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

Did the Pharisees challenge Jesus with a Biblical issue or a matter of taking a daily bath?

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

A tradition that is not moral, like an Easter Bunny or Thanksgiving, is not on par with the Bible … But, arent there Sacred Traditions, like how a Mass is said that is also important and not Chapter and verse directed?
 
That’s really confusing.

Anyway, the thing I can’t reconcile myself with is the saving of non-Christians. It’s been explained to me, but I was once a non-Christian, and I know now that if I had died in that state, I would have been damned. It’s easy for someone who has always been in the church to say that followers of other faiths and no faith can be saved. But my experience, which I cannot deny as I have lived it, says otherwise.
 
That’s really confusing.

Anyway, the thing I can’t reconcile myself with is the saving of non-Christians. It’s been explained to me, but I was once a non-Christian, and I know now that if I had died in that state, I would have been damned. It’s easy for someone who has always been in the church to say that followers of other faiths and no faith can be saved. But my experience, which I cannot deny as I have lived it, says otherwise.
I see what you are saying. The key is to understand that unbelievers are not all the same. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. Most unbelievers are fallen and have done many evil things. But if there is someone who does not know Christ but practice true obedience and refrain from selfishness and does many great works and walks blamelessly, why he can’t be saved just because he cannot yell out Christ’s name?

Think about it: All people in the Old Testaments do not know Christ at all. Are they all going to Hell? No, since some of them, by their obedience under the grace of the Lord, truly followed the Lord. Why don’t we think that they will ascend to Heaven after Christ’s eternal sacrifice was done.

Luke 1:6 says “And they (Zechariah and Elizabeth) were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.”
 
That’s really confusing.

Anyway, the thing I can’t reconcile myself with is the saving of non-Christians. It’s been explained to me, but I was once a non-Christian, and I know now that if I had died in that state, I would have been damned. It’s easy for someone who has always been in the church to say that followers of other faiths and no faith can be saved. But my experience, which I cannot deny as I have lived it, says otherwise.
Ok, Let me break it down this way:

In your original post you said, “I would like to be a member of the RCC, but I’ve noticed there are some things I can’t reconcile myself to.

For example, relics. I can see a relic and think, “Hey, that’s cool, it touched a holy person.” Like the way you feel when you see Abraham Lincoln’s hat. But I don’t associate anything special in particular with them. I don’t feel that praying in front of them has any more effect than using any other object as a focus of prayer.”

To this I replied:
John 3:14-16 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Did God use types and symbols in the Old Testament to prefigure or represent Christ?
Was something like the serpent in the wilderness violate the commandment to not worship idols?
Did the Temple, Ark of the Covenant and all the items of the Temple distract from the worship of God alone or is it only the Statues and relics that aren’t sacred?
 
That’s really confusing.

Anyway, the thing I can’t reconcile myself with is the saving of non-Christians. It’s been explained to me, but I was once a non-Christian, and I know now that if I had died in that state, I would have been damned. It’s easy for someone who has always been in the church to say that followers of other faiths and no faith can be saved. But my experience, which I cannot deny as I have lived it, says otherwise.
Also, In your original post you said, “I also can’t submit myself entirely to a human being, even if he is the Vicar of Christ. I can’t stop reminding myself that the church is run by humans, and humans make a lot of mistakes, even when the Holy Spirit is within them. Jesus said the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against His church; He didn’t say it would be always be right on every issue. I guess I just can’t buy the concept of infallibility. To me it seems to be rather fishy to claim that the Mormons’ prophets are liars who demand obedience, claiming to be the voice of God, while the Pope makes more or less the same claim. Sure, he is th successor of the church and the popes all the way back to Peter, but I don’t believe that makes him infallible. Not at all. God doesn’t grant constant infallibility to humans, even important ones.”

To this I replied:
Ephesians 5:21-24 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
How can we fulfill this scripture if submitting to a human being is impossible or not a responsibility?
Can a wife be unsubmissive because her husband is a mere human being?

Also: Have you not read?
Romans 10:13-18 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

If there is no one to preach the gospel, how can faith come?
How do you know what is the word of God from which faith comes if not by the testimony of some human being?

Or have you missed
Second Peter 1:19-21 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Are you the only infallible determinator of what is the meaning of scripture? Or did God give you a Bible with no way to be certain that you properly understand it?
 
That’s really confusing.

Anyway, the thing I can’t reconcile myself with is the saving of non-Christians. It’s been explained to me, but I was once a non-Christian, and I know now that if I had died in that state, I would have been damned. It’s easy for someone who has always been in the church to say that followers of other faiths and no faith can be saved. But my experience, which I cannot deny as I have lived it, says otherwise.
What about
1 John 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

If you reject the papacy on the grounds you stated, are you showing the fruit of having a spirit of error?

What about
Matthew 23:1-3 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

If Jesus commanded that his disciples be obedient to the religious leaders of His day -who crucified Him - How can you justify disobedience to men whom hold the office of Bishop in the Church, especially the Pope?
 
That’s really confusing.

Anyway, the thing I can’t reconcile myself with is the saving of non-Christians. It’s been explained to me, but I was once a non-Christian, and I know now that if I had died in that state, I would have been damned. It’s easy for someone who has always been in the church to say that followers of other faiths and no faith can be saved. But my experience, which I cannot deny as I have lived it, says otherwise.
In your original post you said, “Also, I can’t totally convince myself of every mystic’s claims, basically because I’m a mentally ill person and I see a lot of my symptoms, and those of other patients, in them - like seeing spirits and souls rise and fall and seeing Heaven and hearing voices, etc. I’m not saying their experiences are absolutely not real, just that I’m skeptical of them.”

To this I replied:
Where does the Church ask you to accept every “mystic”?
The reported apparitions at Fátima were officially declared “worthy of belief” by the Catholic Church. By there are many more that are not. The one at Medjugorje is Not Approved by the Church.
Why? Because it is the duty of the local bishop of the diocese in which supposed supernatural events take place to study and confirm or deny the legitimacy of the claims being made.
In 1986, the Bishop of Medjugorje issued a statement proclaiming that these apparitions are not made by the most Holy Virgin Mary and he forbade the pilgrimages set up from the beginning without ecclesiastical approval by the pastor of Mostar.

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
 
That’s really confusing.

Anyway, the thing I can’t reconcile myself with is the saving of non-Christians. It’s been explained to me, but I was once a non-Christian, and I know now that if I had died in that state, I would have been damned. It’s easy for someone who has always been in the church to say that followers of other faiths and no faith can be saved. But my experience, which I cannot deny as I have lived it, says otherwise.
In your original post you said, “I don’t understand the emphasis on tradition and magisteria. The Bible is the WORD OF GOD. Period. It’s not that I think that tradition has no place in the church, or that it serves no purpose, but I could never hold it on the same level as God’s Word. And it’s not that I think the magisteria are hopelessly misguided - but I can’t accept that every conclusion they come to must as a matter of fact be the Will of God and on the same footing as the Bible.”

To this I replied:
Have you read
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
or
2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Are you confusing the traditions of men that Jesus spoke agaist with the Tradition, oral and Biblically written Epistles, That are commanded in the name of Jesus Christ?

Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Is the washing of pots and cups, basically doing dishes, a commandment of moral equality with attending Mass?

Mark 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

In your opinion did the Pharisees challenge Jesus with a Biblical issue or a matter of taking a daily bath?

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

A tradition that is not moral, like an Easter Bunny or Thanksgiving, is not on par with the Bible … But, arent there Sacred Traditions, like how a Mass is said that is also important and not Chapter and verse directed?
 
While I appreciate what you’re trying to say, the way it is typed and presented makes it hardly understandable for me. I do apologize but I can’t make much sense of it. Perhaps someone else can handle the topic a bit simpler for me?

Privately, I think the only reason that the current RCC accepts that non-Christians can attain salvation is because of pressure from modern political correctness. It makes me think of when Dominus Iesus was issued and some took offense at its declaration that other religions are gravely deficient, so a sort of appeasement was immediately shored up about how anyone who follows the Beatitudes will be saved.

In the ACNA church I currently attend, there’s no gentle stepping around the issue. We admit fully the need to evangelize others - including Muslims and Jews, even if that doesn’t make everybody comfortable. We are not hard-cord fundamentalists - we don’t threaten people with hell, although we know it’s there. We simply tell the truth.

*Romans 10:13-18 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

If there is no one to preach the gospel, how can faith come?
How do you know what is the word of God from which faith comes if not by the testimony of some human being?*

This I do agree with, so you see my problem. Paul is saying that those that who cannot believe cannot call on The Lord. It emphasizes our need to evangelize, not pretend as though all religions are the same, or should work in tandem with each other. We shouldn’t trust that someone is doing enough good or believing in the right sort of things just enough without knowledge of Christ. They would have to live an absolutely extraordinary life to survive without him.
 
While I appreciate what you’re trying to say, the way it is typed and presented makes it hardly understandable for me. I do apologize but I can’t make much sense of it. Perhaps someone else can handle the topic a bit simpler for me?

Privately, I think the only reason that the current RCC accepts that non-Christians can attain salvation is because of pressure from modern political correctness. It makes me think of when Dominus Iesus was issued and some took offense at its declaration that other religions are gravely deficient, so a sort of appeasement was immediately shored up about how anyone who follows the Beatitudes will be saved.

In the ACNA church I currently attend, there’s no gentle stepping around the issue. We admit fully the need to evangelize others - including Muslims and Jews, even if that doesn’t make everybody comfortable. We are not hard-cord fundamentalists - we don’t threaten people with hell, although we know it’s there. We simply tell the truth.

*Romans 10:13-18 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

If there is no one to preach the gospel, how can faith come?
How do you know what is the word of God from which faith comes if not by the testimony of some human being?*

This I do agree with, so you see my problem. Paul is saying that those that who cannot believe cannot call on The Lord. It emphasizes our need to evangelize, not pretend as though all religions are the same, or should work in tandem with each other. We shouldn’t trust that someone is doing enough good or believing in the right sort of things just enough without knowledge of Christ. They would have to live an absolutely extraordinary life to survive without him.
Coming in late on this topic, and I may not have it right. My understanding is that we are saved by God’s grace…faith working through His grace…His grace is transmitted through His mystical body, the Church…not by our actions, merits, etc. So whether we are Catholic, non practicingmCatholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Atheists…we are saved by His mystical body, the Church, the source of all grace.
 
We are saved through grace, but we must accept it. If someone hands you a check for a million dollars, you still won’t have the money unless you cash it or deposit it. Likewise, if you were lucky enough to get that check, you can’t just figure that everyone else knows someone who will give them that kind of money, or even assume that their chances of getting that money are as good as yours. That is to say, you can’t think, “Well, if I was lucky enough to have a buddy give me this money, surely anyone else could find someone to give it to them just as easily.” In fact, for all practical purposes, you should assume that no one else has the ability to get a million-dollar check handed to them.
 
We are saved through grace, but we must accept it. If someone hands you a check for a million dollars, you still won’t have the money unless you cash it or deposit it. Likewise, if you were lucky enough to get that check, you can’t just figure that everyone else knows someone who will give them that kind of money, or even assume that their chances of getting that money are as good as yours. That is to say, you can’t think, “Well, if I was lucky enough to have a buddy give me this money, surely anyone else could find someone to give it to them just as easily.” In fact, for all practical purposes, you should assume that no one else has the ability to get a million-dollar check handed to them.
So what’s your remaining obstacle?
 
If I am given that “check” of salvation, I only got the opportunity by being in Christ’s Church, and I only gained it by accepting it. If I am not in the Church, am not aware of the check being offered or do not care to have it, perhaps thinking I do not need it, then obviously I can’t accept that gift of salvation.

Think of it this way: salvation is sort of like a paycheck you get from Christ’s company (the church) for working for them. No one can work for a company without realizing it, and no one can gain a paycheck from a company without being in its employment. I can’t look at someone and think, “Well, even though he works for the Buddhist or Muslim or atheist corporations, he can still receive a check from mine.” Because it wouldn’t be right to pay people for work they didn’t do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top