Protestant Communion?

[steve_b]

And the Catechism does not say that “all particular Churches” are Catholic, it says,

834 Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome “which presides in charity.” “For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord.” Indeed, “from the incarnate Word’s descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior’s promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her.”

Thanks Elizium. You beat me to it.

It also shows KjetilK forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif that Dominus Iesus, §17 and Communionis notio, § 17 aren’t in contradiction to paragraph 834 in the CCC.

That particular paragraph 834 refers to the language Irenaeus used in “Against Heresies”

Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 1-3

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

 

[steve_b]

in my experience – from the 1960 and the charismatic movement-- it is easy to find a catholic church or a protestant church – that fits the description of what saint paul wrote to timothy

2 Timothy 3:5

King James Bible
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
holding to the form of godliness but denying its power. Avoid these people!

International Standard Version
They will hold to an outward form of godliness but deny its power. Stay away from such people.

NET Bible
They will maintain the outward appearance of religion but will have repudiated its power. So avoid people like these.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Who have a form of God-worship and are far from his power; remove from you those who are such.

GOD’S WORD® Translation
They will appear to have a godly life, but they will not let its power change them. Stay away from such people.

New American Standard 1977
holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; and avoid such men as these.

Jubilee Bible 2000
having the appearance of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

King James 2000 Bible
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

American King James Version
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

American Standard Version
holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof. From these also turn away.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid.

The passage you quote from, refers contextually, to the last days and the nonsense that will come in those times. As an aside, (we’re always in the last days for there are always many people who die every day on this planet, not to mention the 2nd coming that will come someday to finish it ) . This section is warning about heresies of all kinds, false teachers of all kinds, who cause all kinds of evil, and in particular, those men & women of weak mind who on their own or by following these follys and heretical fools into their own distruction. There’s no surprise here.

2 Tim 3: 3-9

“3 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress. 2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, 4 treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people. 6 For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses, 7 who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. 8 As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith; 9 but they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.”

And what point are you making?

 

[Nyika]

I’m still not sure what you are trying to say? When you say ‘seeing miracles and visions is not a Catholic teaching’ I agree.
The point I was trying to make was that although miracles and visions are frequently mentioned in the Bible, it seems nowadays, it is mostly Catholics who report experiencing them.

 

[JonNC]

I see, relativism and indifferentism is alive and well in your answer

Actually, it isn’t, Steve. We’ve both been around here long enough that you know quite well that I never promote anything of the sort. I’m a confessional Lutheran, after all. What I don’t do is say that one has to be a confessional Lutheran to be saved. And while I think that doctrinal heterodoxy can be dangerous, I am willing to accept the fact that who is or is not saved is based on God’s mercy and grace.
I am willing to accept with joy that Catholics can be in God’s grace, as can Independent Fundamentalist Baptists, and even Calvinists D).

You believe what you think your communion teaches, Steve. And if that belief includes the notion that one must be in communion with the Bishop of Rome in order to be saved, then you must believe it. Some protestants I have heard reciprocate, claiming that Catholics cannot be saved. As I said, neither position is particularly convincing.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Quote:
Originally Posted by KjetilK View Post

Traditionally, and by that I do not mean ‘in the olden days,’ a sacrament is deemed valid if it is performed by a valid valid minister (in the case of Eucharist, a properly ordained or consecrated priest or bishop), using valid matter (in the case of Eucharist, grape wine and wheat bread), with valid intent (facere quod facit ecclesia, ‘to do what the Church does’), using a valid form (a valid liturgy). Note that the intent is not that the priest or bishop must intend what the Church intends, or believe what the Church believes, just intend to do what the Church does. This is assumed valid by what he does (the valid form) and what he does it with (the valid matter).

Somehow, I have a hard time believing that Jesus would have cared about all this. He doesn’t say,

“This is my body, but only if done by a valid minister with apostolic succession and with valid intent and using valid form.”

Every time I read these kinds of conversations, it seems to be about why church X has valid this and valid that and therefore really has Jesus whereas church Y doesn’t have Jesus (even if they think they do) because they don’t have valid ministers and valid forms, etc. It’s an argument about who’s better than whom, who’s in and who’s out.

thanks-- this is certainly a good summation- of the counsal of TRENT – decision -on a 125 reasons – but

in my experience – from the 1960 and the charismatic movement-- it is easy to find a catholic church or a protestant church – that fits the description of what saint paul wrote to timothy

2 Timothy 3:5

King James Bible
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
holding to the form of godliness but denying its power. Avoid these people!

International Standard Version
They will hold to an outward form of godliness but deny its power. Stay away from such people.

NET Bible
They will maintain the outward appearance of religion but will have repudiated its power. So avoid people like these.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Who have a form of God-worship and are far from his power; remove from you those who are such.

GOD’S WORD® Translation
They will appear to have a godly life, but they will not let its power change them. Stay away from such people.

New American Standard 1977
holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; and avoid such men as these.

Jubilee Bible 2000
having the appearance of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

King James 2000 Bible
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

American King James Version
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

American Standard Version
holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof. From these also turn away.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid.

Thanks for your thoughts, but I as a Christian am inclined to believe that Christ did intend for there to be called and ordained (“receive you the Holy Spirit. What you bind on Earth…”)
While Catholics will argue that our orders and sacraments are invalid, we don’t reciprocate. I actually think their interpretation on the matter is far more accurate than those who reject the office of the ordained ministry.

EDIT: Let me add one more thing. I have been on this forum for years. One thing my time here has confirmed, is my long-time belief that Catholics, by and large, lve the Christian faith well. The CC is a world leader in charity and giving, caring for the least of God’s children. Yes, I have had heated debates with folks here. steve b is a good example. But steve, from all I can tell, is a good, Christian man who fervently believes in Christ our Lord. If you’re implying something other than that, I will strongly disagree, and challenge you on it.

Jon

 

[commenter]

Thanks for your thoughts, but I as a Christian am inclined to believe that Christ did intend for there to be called and ordained (“receive you the Holy Spirit. What you bind on Earth…”)
While Catholics will argue that our orders and sacraments are invalid, we don’t reciprocate. I actually think their interpretation on the matter is far more accurate than those who reject the office of the ordained ministry.

EDIT: Let me add one more thing. I have been on this forum for years. One thing my time here has confirmed, is my long-time belief that Catholics, by and large, lve the Christian faith well. The CC is a world leader in charity and giving, caring for the least of God’s children. Yes, I have had heated debates with folks here. steve b is a good example. But steve, from all I can tell, is a good, Christian man who fervently believes in Christ our Lord.

Jon

I for one will try to live up to your kind expectations!

 

[MaryT777]

I for one will try to live up to your kind expectations!

I for one will try to live up to the expectations of the Lord.

Mary.

 

[KjetilK]

What nonsense. Hard to take seriously.

Now that your blatant personal attack is out of the way, you might want to answer my points instead.

 

[KjetilK]

Apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist according to Catholic teaching, not to be self-determined by whatever sect broke off and wants to remain relevant.

According to Roman Catholic teaching, you have apostolic succession if you have been validly consecrated bishop by a validly consecrated bishop, or if you have been validly ordained priest by a validly consecrated bishop. And you have a valid Eucharist if it is performed by a validly ordained priest (or bishop), using valid matter (bread and wine), using a valid form, and with valid intent (which does’t refer to his beliefs, but is assumed from his actions, where he does what the Church does). You don’t loose this by breaking off.

And the Catechism does not say that “all particular Churches” are Catholic

Yes, that is exactly what it does. The heading of paragraphs 832-835 is this:

Each particular Church is “catholic”

834 Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome “which presides in charity.” “For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord.” Indeed, “from the incarnate Word’s descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior’s promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her.”

No, what we see here is a distinction between being ‘Catholic’ and being ‘fully Catholic.’ I believe that Pentacostals are Christians. But they aren’t ‘fully Christians’ before they change their views on, say, baptism.

The Catholic Church does not apply this label even to the Orthodox. See, for example, Canon Law:

Can. 216 Since they share the Church’s mission, all Christ’s faithful have the right to promote and support apostolic action, by their own initiative, undertaken according to their state and condition. No initiative, however, can lay claim to the title ‘catholic’ without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority.

What this Canon says is that, according to Roman Catholic teaching, no Church may claim the right to call themselves ‘Catholic’ «without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority.» I don’t disagree that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that. What I do disagree with, however, is your hidden premise; that the competent ecclesiastical authority, i.e. the Roman Magisterium, with the Roman Pontiff as its leader, hasn’t consented to the use of this by the Orthodox. This consent is implied in heading of paragraphs 832-835 of the Catechism:

Each particular Church is “catholic”

Each particular Church is catholic, it says. And a particular Church is any Church – in or out of communion with Rome – which possess «apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist,» as we see in Dominus Iesus, §17 and Communionis notio, § 17. Those does not say that you have to be in communion with the Roman Pontiff to use, or be granted the use of, the term ‘Catholic.’ In the latter, it says, quite explicitly, that «in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present.»

And, as I have said before, there is no meaningful difference, at least not outside of english, between ‘catholic’ and ‘Catholic.’ In latin, the term is not usually capitalised anyway. And neither is it in Norwegian.

 

[MaryT777]

Now that your blatant personal attack is out of the way, you might want to answer my points instead.

Your points have been answered on this thread.

 

[KjetilK]

Your points have been answered on this thread.

Where?

 

[steve_b]

Actually, it isn’t, Steve. We’ve both been around here long enough that you know quite well that I never promote anything of the sort.

What I responded to was the following

Originally Posted by JonNC forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif

Frankly, if steve b wants to claim that only those in communion with the Bishop of Rome are Catholic, he’s welcome to. Then again, there are some protestants that claim we are too Catholic. In both cases, it is really irrelevant to the fact that we are. I’m a confessional Lutheran, after all.

First, it’s not my claim. Unlike protestantism, as a Catholic I don’t invent myself, I don’t set the agenda, I don’t write my own rules, I’m not the pope, nor am I the pillar and foundation of truth. And I’ve always given you evidence or can provide you with evidence for my positions all properly referenced
811 , 834

And no you are NOT Catholic, nor are you the Catholic Church.

I suggest to you that THIS is NOT irrelevant.
J:

What I don’t do is say that one has to be a confessional Lutheran to be saved.

So it begs the question, why then do you remain Lutheran?

I finish this particular thought at the end of the post.
J:

And while I think that doctrinal heterodoxy can be dangerous,

Dangerous? how about condemned

Titus 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”
J:

I am willing to accept the fact that who is or is not saved is based on God’s mercy and grace.

That’s a little too squishy. Take a look at the above quote. I could give lots more. We are told very specifically what is required for salvation. And we are told very specifically what will damn us to hell.

As a general observation,

I find the 2 greatest deficits in society today are

1. 
   *]no fear of God
   *]no fear of hell
   
   As a result Jesus said
   
   Mt 7:14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few
   
   IOW Few comparatively speaking, go to heaven the rest go to hell.
   J:
   

   I am willing to accept with joy that Catholics can be in God’s grace, as can Independent Fundamentalist Baptists, and even Calvinists D).

   Technically no one is in a state of grace before God if they are in mortal sin.
   
   So Re: the topic
   
   CCC1457
   
   Can someone who has committed a mortal sin receive … (perfect act of contrition ?)
   Who Can Receive Communion? | Catholic Answers (state of grace & mortal sin)
   
   Without valid sacraments, Protestants are going to have a tough time meeting the requirements for removing mortal sin from their soul, AND to keep mortal sin off their soul.
   J:
   

   You believe what you think your communion teaches, Steve.

   I beleive what Our Lord’s Church teaches, the only one He instituted with Peter at the helm. I’d be a galactic fool if I didn’t.
   
   You should give up the revolt and join us
   J:
   

   And if that belief includes the notion that one must be in communion with the Bishop of Rome in order to be saved, then you must believe it.

   You’ve been here long enough to know that is not a notion. After all these years Jon on CAF, You can’t claim ignorance nor hide behind ignorance, as if it is a majic bullet, a majic excuse, a get outta jail free card. It only works for a person who is truly innocently ignorant of the facts. You’ve seen the facts. You’ve seen enough evidence “in writing” all properly referenced for the Catholic Church being Our Lord’s Church to fill very large bookcase. And you know the scriptures that say you have to be in the Catholic Church **and **remain in it, or there is no salvation for that person.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

…the scriptures that say you have to be in the Catholic Church **and **remain in it, or there is no salvation for that person.

Where in the Bible does it say that someone has to be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved? So, one only has to be Catholic to be saved? Just be Catholic and one doesn’t need to do anything else? So, one can be Catholic and sin all they want and be saved?

So, what you are saying that is anyone who doesn’t belong to the Catholic Church, regardless of how much they love God, loves his neighbor as himself, and follows the Ten Commandments, cannot be saved?

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;13233973]
First, it’s not my claim. Unlike protestantism, as a Catholic I don’t invent myself, I don’t set the agenda, I don’t write my own rules, I’m not the pope, nor am I the pillar and foundation of truth. And I’ve always given you evidence or can provide you with evidence for my positions all properly referenced
811 , 834

Hi Steve,
I think if you read my post, you’d find that I submitted that it is your Church’s claim, and you must abide it.

And no you are NOT Catholic, nor are you the Catholic Church.

As I said, you are welcome to your opinion about it, and if that is the Catholic Church’s opinion, it is welcome as well. Obviously, I don’t acknowledge the CC’s jurisdiction to make that claim, but you must. This is why I told Father K that the discussion is not worth wasting time over.

So it begs the question, why then do you remain Lutheran?

A variety of reasons, including but not limited to a matter of conscience, regarding doctrine. As I said, there are some doctrines that can be dangerous. For example, withholding baptism from infants is a terribly dangerous doctrine.

Dangerous? how about condemned

Titus 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸ****ν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

Without care, that can be applied to all of us, by someone else.

That’s a little too squishy. Take a look at the above quote. I could give lots more. We are told very specifically what is required for salvation. And we are told very specifically what will damn us to hell.

That God has the final say over who is saved is a bit squishy?

As a general observation,
I find the 2 greatest deficits in society today are

1. 
   *]no fear of God
   *]no fear of hell

1. 
   As a result Jesus said
   

   Mt 7:14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few
   
   IOW Few comparatively speaking, go to heaven the rest go to hell.

   Agreed. In fact, in dialogue, our communions agreed on this.
   

   Without valid sacraments, Protestants are going to have a tough time meeting the requirements for removing mortal sin from their soul, AND to keep mortal sin off their soul.

   Again, that assumes we (I speak only of Lutherans) don’t have the sacraments. We don’t acknowledge the CC is the determiner of who has or doesn’t have valid orders. Father K makes a good point that the CC determination who has or doesn’t have valid orders seems inconsistent.
   

   I believe what Our Lord’s Church teaches, the only one He instituted with Peter at the helm. I’d be a galactic fool if I didn’t.

   Of course you do, Steve. That was the point I made about you specifically to thanksb2God. I hold you in high regard because you do believe what your church teaches. Of course, we would dispute that the CC is only and exclusively our Lord’s Church.
   

   You should give up the revolt and join us

   Well, I’m not in revolt, but I appreciate the invitation.
   

   You’ve been here long enough to know that is not a notion. After all these years Jon on CAF, You can’t claim ignorance nor hide behind ignorance, as if it is a majic bullet, a majic excuse, a get outta jail free card. It only works for a person who is truly innocently ignorant of the facts. You’ve seen the facts. You’ve seen enough evidence “in writing” all properly referenced for the Catholic Church being Our Lord’s Church to fill very large bookcase. And you know the scriptures that say you have to be in the Catholic Church **and **remain in it, or there is no salvation for that person.

   I don’t rely on “invincible ignorance”. Not even sure its a biblical concept, or one found in the early Church. But to quote the old hymn, “My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness. No merit of my own I claim, but wholly lean on Jesus’ name. On Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand.”
   
   Jon

 

[pablope]

It is very hard to discuss on this board. People keep changing tactics. I replied to a specific claim, made by steve b, that you need to be in communion with Rome to be Catholic. I have shown that this is not the case, even by Roman Catholic standards. Therefore steve b cannot say that I’m not Catholic purely

on the basis of my non-communion with Rome.

Which then begs the question…who determines who is catholic and who is not?

As you have pointed out yourself, and which I cite the distinction, the RCC has determined the catholicity of the Orthodox, but not the Lutherans.

So if you decide on your own catholicity…then you are your own pope then?

No, no, no. Some Lutherans, yes, but not others. Lutheranism is a tradition, not a Church.

 

[steve_b]

Where in the Bible does it say that someone has to be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved? So, one only has to be Catholic to be saved? Just be Catholic and one doesn’t need to do anything else? So, one can be Catholic and sin all they want and be saved?

So, what you are saying that is anyone who doesn’t belong to the Catholic Church, regardless of how much they love God, loves his neighbor as himself, and follows the Ten Commandments, cannot be saved?

Buckle your seat belt.

• the Church Jesus established is the Catholic Church #34 a snapshot of the 1st 400 years. Be sure to open all the internal links
• διχοστασίας* dichostasia =* division / dissension / factions /sedition,sects, from Our Lord’s Church is condemned as are those who do it.. That word is used in both Rom 16:17…. And Gal 5:19-20. The consequences for one who dies in that sin, they will not inherit heaven. [Gal 5:21] as in they go to hell. Note there is no expiration date to those warnings. That is why Paul is saying that a person must be in this Church and remain in it. Paul received that teaching from the Holy Spirit which means it came from Jesus John 16:12-15
• Romans 16:17-20
  [17] Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions διχοστασίας] and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. [18] For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent. [19] For your obedience is published in every place. I rejoice therefore in you. But I would have you to be wise in good, and simple in evil. [20] And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily.
• Galatians 5:19-21 [19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, [20] Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, διχοστασίας] sects, [21] Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.
• BTW, Paul’s letter to the Romans, he’s writing to the Church of Rome. The Church Luther was excommunicated from, and Luther was the author of the protestant revolt from there. And we know who Henry VIII the murderer, broke from. It was the Church of Rome. And on and on the division goes down to our day
• Jesus made Peter the leader of the Church HE established on earth Matthew 16:13-19, Upon This Rock . Making the Catholic Church divinely instituted with all the promises Jesus gave to His Church. That’s the ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς = Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.
• Arguments over primacy of Peter came up early but Jesus squashed that #616 , also said a bit differently#385
• And we know apostolic succession is necessary

Now one can see where the following comes from. 846

 

[pablope]

Hi Steve,

 

[MaryT777]

What I responded to was the following

First, it’s not my claim. Unlike protestantism, as a Catholic I don’t invent myself, I don’t set the agenda, I don’t write my own rules, I’m not the pope, nor am I the pillar and foundation of truth. And I’ve always given you evidence or can provide you with evidence for my positions all properly referenced
811 , 834

And no you are NOT Catholic, nor are you the Catholic Church.

I suggest to you that THIS is NOT irrelevant.

So it begs the question, why then do you remain Lutheran?

I finish this particular thought at the end of the post.

Dangerous? how about condemned

Titus 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸ****ν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

That’s a little too squishy. Take a look at the above quote. I could give lots more. We are told very specifically what is required for salvation. And we are told very specifically what will damn us to hell.

As a general observation,

I find the 2 greatest deficits in society today are

1. 
   *]no fear of God
   *]no fear of hell
   
   As a result Jesus said
   
   Mt 7:14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few
   
   IOW Few comparatively speaking, go to heaven the rest go to hell.
   
   Technically no one is in a state of grace before God if they are in mortal sin.
   
   So Re: the topic
   
   CCC1457
   
   Can someone who has committed a mortal sin receive … (perfect act of contrition ?)
   Who Can Receive Communion? | Catholic Answers (state of grace & mortal sin)
   
   Without valid sacraments, Protestants are going to have a tough time meeting the requirements for removing mortal sin from their soul, AND to keep mortal sin off their soul.
   
   I beleive what Our Lord’s Church teaches, the only one He instituted with Peter at the helm. I’d be a galactic fool if I didn’t.
   
   You should give up the revolt and join us
   
   You’ve been here long enough to know that is not a notion. After all these years Jon on CAF, You can’t claim ignorance nor hide behind ignorance, as if it is a majic bullet, a majic excuse, a get outta jail free card. It only works for a person who is truly innocently ignorant of the facts. You’ve seen the facts. You’ve seen enough evidence “in writing” all properly referenced for the Catholic Church being Our Lord’s Church to fill very large bookcase. And you know the scriptures that say you have to be in the Catholic Church **and **remain in it, or there is no salvation for that person.

1. 
   :clapping:

 

[steve_b]

As I said, you are welcome to your opinion about it, and if that is the Catholic Church’s opinion, it is welcome as well. Obviously, I don’t acknowledge the CC’s jurisdiction to make that claim, but you must. This is why I told Father K that the discussion is not worth wasting time over.

The opinions expressed, are not mine. I quote my sources copiously. Obviously I know you don’t acknowledge the CC authority.
J:

A variety of reasons, including but not limited to a matter of conscience, regarding doctrine. As I said, there are some doctrines that can be dangerous. For example, withholding baptism from infants is a terribly dangerous doctrine.

Are you saying Lutherans don’t baptize infants?
J:

Without care, that can be applied to all of us, by someone else.

That’s why valid authority is required. And Jesus gave that authority to His Church. You don’t acknowledge that authority now, but I’m thinking you will someday.
J:

Again, that assumes we (I speak only of Lutherans) don’t have the sacraments. We don’t acknowledge the CC is the determiner of who has or doesn’t have valid orders.

Of course, that’s what makes you Protestant.
J:

Of course, we would dispute that the CC is only and exclusively our Lord’s Church.

Make your case
J:

I don’t rely on “invincible ignorance”. Not even sure its a biblical concept, or one found in the early Church.

#14

I was in the gorcery story the other day. I saw a teacher with 2 adult special ed students. They were there to learn to take directions in the store to find certain foods. I’d say these students were mid 20’s in age. No matter how simple the directions were one student just couldn’t understand. And I could see the effort that student was putting into understanding the directions. This to me is one example understanding invincible ignorance
J:

But to quote the old hymn,

“My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness. No merit of my own I claim, but wholly lean on Jesus’ name. On Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand.”

Jon

nice words. If you really mean them why aren’t you Catholic? .

 

[Thorolfr]

Are you saying Lutherans don’t baptize infants?

Lutherans baptize infants, but Baptists (and other denominations) don’t. I was raised Baptist and wasn’t baptized until I was 13.