Protestanism: a great heresy

[Missa]

sherilo:

This is so true! It is no secret that we are all products of our own environments. **There is no way that someone who is brought up Protestant can understand Catholicism without the promptings of the Holy Spirit, a genuine longing for truth and a lot of study and prayer. **
**It is also true that there are many Christian protestants who love our Lord Jesus Christ,and try to lead holy lives filled with good works. They do not have the sacraments and the fullness of the Catholic church, but they are as holy as they can be wrt what they have been taught from birth. That is why I love the term “separated brethen” ;IMO the emphasis should be on the “brethren.” **
Just one more thing. As some have mentioned, using his present tactics, Marineboy will win no one to the Catholic faith. This reminds of something that happened to me about 20 years ago that I will never forget. I was attending an independant fundamentalist Baptist church. That was about the time that I began my search for God. At that time, I knew nothing about the Catholic church except for the fact that I would not even have considered searching for God there. The preacher was giving one in a series of sermons on the problems with different faiths. I thought that to be a strange concept for a sermon. That week, he was discussing the errors of Catholicism. I don’t remember anything about the sermon except for when he shouted “Catholics have Christ on the cross; I say get him down from the cross, he is risen!” I did not know what he meant by that. I only knew that he was using his authority to be extremely uncharitable to another religion, and it put me off. It undermined my trust in him because that did not sound like the love of God. I left that church shortly afterward, and wandered around for 20 years before finally understanding where God wanted me to be–in the Catholic church where I was baptized as an infant. But, I guarantee that had I ever run across a Catholic with the same bully tactics as that Baptist preacher, I would have run in the other direction.
Just my two cents.

Peace,
Sherilo

I did the bolding and the underlining in the quote from Sherilo because that is SO true - and Sherilo did a beautiful job putting those thoughts down.

Missa

 

[JKirkLVNV]

jimmy:

I think everyone is misunderstanding marineboy. He is not spouting hatred. He is just explaining that the Catholic Church is the only true church, and he is correct. It is far harder to be saved from outside the church than it is from inside the church.

Modern Catholics have been teaching basicly that it doesn’t matter whether you are in the church or not. I think they down play the role of the church in salvation. All grace is passed from Christ to the Church. It is through the Church that you recieve grace. Non-Catholics may recieve grace, but it is always through the Church that they recieve it. They are hindered in there abillity to recieve grace though. There maybe invincible ignorance sometimes, but I would say that that is over played sometimes. They make it sound like everyone will be in heaven.

Christ can give people grace who are not in the Church, but he desires everyone to be in that one church. There is one Christ, one flock, one church, and one faith. We are all one.

I think that the Ben Franklin quote, We must hang together, or surely we shall hang separately".

I would say that the first hang refers to unity of the people, the second hang refers to death by hanging. We are all part of the church and it is most desirable that we remain part of the Church.

This does not mean that I think all protestants are going to hell, I just think that it is much tougher for them. I believe the church when it says that there is invincible ignorance, but I also believe “extra eclesium nulla salus”.
The warden on The Shawhank Redemption said, “Salvation is from within”, he was correct when he said this. It is through the church that you recieve salvation.

But the above is not what Marineboy said. Read his original post. Then read 817-819 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. EENS is not nullified, but it is expanded upon. Also, I’ve never heard a priest teach “basicly that it doesn’t matter whether you are in the church or not.” (Sic) I’ve heard them teach that Protestants are in the Church whether they want to be or not, but not that you can just pick any old creed/confession/denomination or that your religion didn’t matter.

 

[RNRobert]

josiah:

If all authentic Christian doctrine isn’t contained in Scripture what becomes your source of Truth? Do you agree that Scripture is infallible?

Josiah

And just how do you know what is Scripture and what isn’t? There is no “inspired table of contents” to tell us what belongs. The New Testament you hold in your hands was compiled and (preserved) by the Catholic Church, which had been preaching and teaching for long before there was a New Testament. If you accept the NT canon, then you accept the authority of the Catholic Church in regard to Scripture.

Yes, Scripture is infallible (or, more correctly, inerrant, as Karl Keating pointed out in an e-letter), but without an infallible interpreter, Scripture can be twisted to support all sorts of interpretations (see 2 Peter 3:16).

 

[josiah]

Sean O L:

For example?

Like the practice of infant baptism versus what the early church practiced in ACTS.

(Act 2:38) Then Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

(Act 2:41) Then those who gladly received his word were baptized. And the same day there were added about three thousand souls.

(Act 8:12) But when they believed Philip preaching the gospel, the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women .(no children mentioned here).

(Act 8:13) Then Simon himself believed also, and being baptized, he continued with Philip. And seeing miracles and mighty works happening, he was amazed.

Act 8:36-38 (36) And as they passed along the way, they came on some water. And the eunuch said, See, here is water, what hinders me from being baptized?(37) Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, it is lawful. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.(38) And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch. And he baptized him.

I see a pattern here. Belief seems to be a prerequisite here. Phillip explicitly said belief needs to come first. Acts is a historical account of went on in the early church. I see this a contradiction between Tradition and Scripture.

Peace
Josiah

 

[adnauseum]

josiah:

Like the practice of infant baptism versus what the early church practiced in ACTS.

You quoted many passages which [in your mind] prove that there were no infants baptized in the early Church.

 Is it your position that you have presented all of the facts of scripture on this matter?
 
 If not, why have you limited the passages you quoted to these specific ones? Shouldn't we see all the evidence?

**Acts 16:14-15

**“One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home.”

Acts 16:30-34

“‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-- you and your household.’ Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God-he and his whole family.”

**Acts 18:8

** “Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him [Paul] believed and were baptized.”

I think any fair minded person can see there is reason to believe that *families were taken in to the Christian Community as a whole*. Which is exactly what the Catholic Church does today.

Come on back to the true Church, my friend. We miss you and we want you back.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

josiah:

Like the practice of infant baptism versus what the early church practiced in ACTS.

(Act 2:38) Then Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

(Act 2:41) Then those who gladly received his word were baptized. And the same day there were added about three thousand souls.

(Act 8:12) But when they believed Philip preaching the gospel, the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women .(no children mentioned here).

(Act 8:13) Then Simon himself believed also, and being baptized, he continued with Philip. And seeing miracles and mighty works happening, he was amazed.

Act 8:36-38 (36) And as they passed along the way, they came on some water. And the eunuch said, See, here is water, what hinders me from being baptized?(37) Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, it is lawful. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.(38) And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch. And he baptized him.

I see a pattern here. Belief seems to be a prerequisite here. Phillip explicitly said belief needs to come first. Acts is a historical account of went on in the early church. I see this a contradiction between Tradition and Scripture.

Peace
Josiah

Let me ask you a question.Do you think babtism has any power in itself or do you feel it is merely a symbolic act?

 

[Sean_O_L]

Josiah wrote re conflict between Scripture and Tradition

Like the practice of infant baptism versus what the early church practiced in ACTS.

Thanks Josiah.

There is NO conflict!

Whole households (including infants) were baptized. The following post (by Nomad0223 will explain better:

Hello xxxx,

As you probably already know, the Sola Scriptura based churches of Lutheranism (from Martin Luther), and Presbyterianism/Reform (from John Calvin) both practice and teach that infant baptism is necessary.

Your own statements, on the other hand, appear to say that one must first believe through his/her own efforts prior to salvation. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that salvation is from God alone, and not from the works of human beings.

As you point out yourself, 1 Peter 3:21 specifically tells us that “baptism now saves you”, and these words could not be plainer. Moreover, Christ commanded us to “baptize all nations” (Matt 28:19), and without question the Bible considers infants to be a part of those nations. Likewise, Paul speaks of baptizing whole households (1 Corinthians 1:16), and we see no reason at all to consider small children as not being a part of those households. Finally, Paul tells us that we are “buried with Him (Jesus) through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” (Romans 6:4) In other words, if we are not baptized, we do not share in Christ’s death, and His Resurrection (Romans 6:5). No where in this do I see an exception for children. Do you?

In Colossians 2:11-13 we are told that baptism is the new circumcision (Paul calls bpatism the “circumcision done by Christ”) , and we know from Genesis 17:11-14 that uncircumcized 9 day old infant “…will be cut off from his people; he has broken my (God’s) covenant.”

Now, from earliest records we see the Church baptizing its children. To this day the Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and Calvinists all do this. I would encourage you to read Martin Luther’s explanation on the purpose of baptism as is found in Small Catechism,[1] where he tells us truly that baptism is the work of God for the forgiveness of our sins, and for our salvation. Likewise I would point you to the Defence of the Augsburg Confession,[2] one of the founding documents of the Reformation where we are told under Article IX: Of Baptism:

"…that in our Churches no Anabaptists have arisen (have not gained ground in our Churches), because the people have been fortified by God’s Word (the Bible) against the wicked and seditious faction of these robbers. And as we condemn quite a number of other errors of the Anabaptists, we condemn this also, that they dispute the baptism of little children as profitable…

Biblical proofs for this condenation are then provided.

The Calvinist view on infant baptism is given in an article in the Reform newspaper, The Forerunner: A Summary of John Calvin’s Defense of Paedobaptism.[3] The author details each of Calvin’s replies to those who deny the need for infant baptism (paedobaptism), together with references to Calvin’s works, and the Scriptural supports he uses.

Based on this evidence it is clear that even the first Sola Scriptura believers agree with the need for infant baptism, and did so based entirely upon Scripture alone. Moreover, those who deny it are condemned in the strongest possible terms. Thus, your belief that this practice is not supported by Scripture appears to be in error. I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with the arguments of the first Reformers, since they offer some of the best Scripture based responses on this subject.

Peace, in Christ Jesus, our Lord.

Nomad
Footnotes:

1. lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/smallcatechism.pdf
2. lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/augsburgdefense.pdf
3. forerunner.com/puritan/PS.Calvin_baptism.html

You will also see the matter treated at CATHOLIC ANSWERS at
catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp

Hope this helps

 

[MarkInOregon]

jphilapy:

I second this. I am exploring RC for similar reasons and people like Marineboy have already given me some very bad impressions.

Not trying to be mean Marineboy, just telling you like it is. You make me think that if you were in charge then you would come after me {heretic that I am} with a sword. And there are many “protestants” who are sick of protestants and catholics. All they want is to see Jesus.

Jeff

Jeff,

You can find people like this any any denomination, in any church and in religion or lack of religion. That shouldn’t be why you embrace Catholicism or any belief. You should be searching for the truth and it is my sincere belief that if you pursue the truth you will eventually end up in the Catholic Church–where you will find many good people as well as well not so good people. I don’t get hung up on the people–all I can do is try to follow Christ as best I can, love others and leave the rest in Gods capable hands–but I would never leave what I believe to be the true Church with the true teaching just because some people don’t practice what they preach or don’t preach what the Church truely teaches.

I would encourage you to keep seeking the truth and not let people bother you. You will meet many wonderfull faithfull people.
I will pray for you on your journey.

The peace of Christ be with you,
Mark

 

[Exporter]

marineboy http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register(“postmenu_353025”, true);
Junior Member
Join Date: November 8, 2004
Posts: 7

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon1.gif Protestanism: a great heresy
When u think about Protestanism and other Religions you have to say that the truths of there religions are correct in so far as they agree with Catholisicm…Protestants have no truth apart form the Catholic church…i find it remarkable that just because the new catechism uses “nice” language towards Protestanism that many Catholics, including those on this forum, want to turn a blind eye to Protestanism as a heresy… Protestanism has led many souls away from Christ and needs to be destroyed… Outside the Church there is no salvation absolutely applys to Protestants… I also would like to remind u that someone has the morla obligation to seek out the truth…simply because a particular Protestant does not ““see”” that the Catholic church is the true Church doesnt mean he is invincibly ignorant…he may be culpible because he may shut his heart down and not want to see the truth

I agree with all you just said, except I back off of Pat Madrid since I have not studies him. Yes, yes some of the Vatican II “ecumenicalism” does make the uneducated think that Protestantism is just as good a Catholocism. Why they did that, I do not know. It looks like they were very interested in playing kissy face with other religions. It surely didn’t help us Catholics. I actually have heard teenaged Catholics say they could drop out and join a Protestant church - it doesn’t make any difference.

 

[Contarini]

:I know that this anomoly is not a norm of Methodism.:

The prayer of consecration is a norm of Methodism, quite literally. It’s found in the Methodist hymnal. It’s part of the official liturgical texts of the UMC. You may have been misinformed as to the nature of Methodism. The rank and file tend to be more low-church (as well as more conservative) than the folks who put out the liturgical materials, so you get many churches (such as the one my wife and I attend) where the pastor either does not use the official liturgy or only uses it sometimes. Many Methodists believe that the bread and wine are only symbolic, but this was not the view of John and Charles Wesley and it is not the view of the official documents of the United Methodist denomination (and yes; there are such documents; they recently adopted a new one on the Eucharist called “This Holy Mystery,” which you can read here).

Sorry to derail the thread, but my point is not irrelevant. Catholics persistently and understandably (given the prevalence of Baptist-like views among American Protestants) underestimate the strength of sacramental piety among Protestants.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[josiah]

adnauseum:

You quoted many passages which [in your mind] prove that there were no infants baptized in the early Church.

Is it your position that you have presented all of the facts of scripture on this matter?

If not, why have you limited the passages you quoted to these specific ones? Shouldn’t we see all the evidence?

Acts 16:14-15

****“One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home.”

Acts 16:30-34

“‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-- you and your household.’ Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God-he and his whole family.”

Acts 18:8

****“Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him [Paul] believed and were baptized.”

I think any fair minded person can see there is reason to believe that families were taken in to the Christian Community as a whole. Which is exactly what the Catholic Church does today.

Come on back to the true Church, my friend. We miss you and we want you back.

I’m focusing the fact that the book of ACTS stresses belief first then baptism, not which family members were baptized. The implication is that infants don’t have the mental capabilities to believe in the gospel.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

josiah:

I’m focusing the fact that the book of ACTS stresses belief first then baptism, not which family members were baptized. The implication is that infants don’t have the mental capabilities to believe in the gospel.

Infants didn’t have the mental capability to understand stand circumsision either. God Bless

 

[josiah]

Lisa4Catholics:

Let me ask you a question.Do you think babtism has any power in itself or do you feel it is merely a symbolic act?

I believe that baptism is the ordinance that Christ commanded for identification into the body. I don’t believe that baptism in itself has any salvific power. When did the thief on the cross have the opportunity to be baptized?

Baptism is an Outward act that symbolizes an inward belief. It proclaims death to our old life - and our resurrection to a new life in Christ.

Baptism by immersion symbolizes the gospel of death, burial and resurrection.

 

[josiah]

Lisa4Catholics:

Infants didn’t have the mental capability to understand stand circumsision either. God Bless

I agree

 

[JGC]

Exporter:

I agree with all you just said, except I back off of Pat Madrid since I have not studies him. Yes, yes some of the Vatican II “ecumenicalism” does make the uneducated think that Protestantism is just as good a Catholocism. Why they did that, I do not know. It looks like they were very interested in playing kissy face with other religions. It surely didn’t help us Catholics. I actually have heard teenaged Catholics say they could drop out and join a Protestant church - it doesn’t make any difference.

Well that’s just poor catechesis, not the fault of the actual truth. Unless you are suggesting the actual truth should be changed so it is not misinterpreted

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

josiah:

I believe that baptism is the ordinance that Christ commanded for identification into the body. I don’t believe that baptism in itself has any salvific power. When did the thief on the cross have the opportunity to be baptized?

Baptism is an Outward act that symbolizes an inward belief. It proclaims death to our old life - and our resurrection to a new life in Christ.

Baptism by immersion symbolizes the gospel of death, burial and resurrection.

So in your oppinion it is really not needed in salvation?

 

[adnauseum]

josiah:

I’m focusing the fact that the book of ACTS stresses belief first then baptism, not which family members were baptized. The implication is that infants don’t have the mental capabilities to believe in the gospel.

I think you’re missing what I was focusing on. I was focusing on your avoidance of what are classic Catholic passages in favor of infant baptism.

Either your exclusion of them was out of ignorance of the Bible, or there was a reason you acted as if these passages did not exist. Just like astrologers focus only on things that tend to prove their prediction and ignore things that directly contradict it.

I’m sure there are many passages describing baptism as you conceive it. However, all I need is ONE to show you that infant baptism was not prohibited in the early Church. I believe I found at least one.

I hope others here with an open mind will read the passages I cited. They clearly indicate that the entire family was baptized by the Church when one member was converted.

Come on back to the Church, my friend. We’ve been at this whole scripture interpretation thing far longer than you, and we’re a little better at it because we entrust it to saints like Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Leo, and many, many others.

 

[JGC]

The Catholic Church makes claims about herself that are easily misunderstood, especially in the modern atmosphere of pluralism and ecumenism. Among these claims, the most fundamental is the doctrine of the Church’s necessity for salvation. Not unlike other dogmas of the faith, this one has seen some remarkable development, and the dogmatic progress has been especially marked since the definition of papal infallibility. It seems that as the Church further clarified her own identity as regards the papacy and collegiality, she also deepened (without changing) her self-understanding as the mediator of salvation to mankind…

Those who are privileged to share in the fullness of the Church’s riches of revealed wisdom, sacramental power, divinely assured guidance, and blessings of community life cannot pride themselves on having deserved what they possess. Rather they should humbly recognize their chosen position and gratefully live up to the covenant to which they have been called. Otherwise what began as a sign of God’s special favor on earth may end as a witness to his justice in the life to come.

Fr John Hardon SJ
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ315.HTM

 

[marineboy]

i am not advocating father feeney’s position… feeney taught that water baptism and explicit faith was absolutley necessary for salvation… i beleive that the Church has rejected that notion…one is aloowed to hold the opinion that only baptized Catholics will go to heaven aslong as they acknowledge the possibility of implicit faith… my opinion is that (my opinion) it is possible for protestants and other religions to be save if they are invincibly ignorant, but very few if any will… but my main point in my earlier post was to state Protestanism is a false form of Christinity and saves no one…and i don’t always take a hard approach when i am tlaking to Protestants. especially if i have more then one chance of talking to them… but i always make them aware that their salvation is a t stake… i want to praise Pat madrid for having the courage to say thaT “protestants run the risk of going to hell” in his deabate with james white—listen to the deabte–he says it at the end—

 

[JGC]

marineboy:

…one is aloowed to hold the opinion that only baptized Catholics will go to heaven

aslong as they acknowledge the possibility of implicit faith…-

Contradictory statments!?!?!?!?