Protestants cannot be saved?

[Tomster]

Why must I bend the knee to Peter when I have already bowed down to the Savior?

And right you are to bow down to the Savior. The Church does not teach us to bow down to Peter.

 

[Tomster]

Why must I bend the knee to Peter when I have already bowed down to the Savior?

It is the belief of the Catholics that our Lord promised to Peter a primacy of jurisdiction over his Church (Matthew 16:18-19), a primacy which he actually conferred after his resurrection (John 21:15 ff). We hold, moreover, that it was given, not to Peter alone, but to the successors in his office and that it is vested for all time in the Roman Pontiff, who is the visible Head of the Church. No article of the Christian faith is more fully substantiated in Scripture and Tradition than this.

 

[Tomster]

Was Jesus talking to the Apostles?

Do you see the Apostles setting up confessional booths and hearing confession and handing out penance in the Acts?

To ascertain whether Christ instituted a Sacrament of Penance we must distinguish essentials from non-essential details. Many modern customs that surround the administration of the Sacrament are incidental. The one thing that matters is to show that Christ instituted a sacrament which consists essentially in an effective judgment over sinners. If he gave to his Church power to forgive sins or to refuse to forgive them, then he did institute this Sacrament. The ceremonial with which such a power is exercised is not relevant to your inquiry.

 

[jemfinch]

Well if one can go to heaven by just being a good person, without knowing the gospel, then the Christ died in vain.

No, not at all. As you quoted before, Christ came into the world to save sinners. His saving sacrifice is the means by anyone is saved, whether they know it explicitly or not.
Romans 2:

He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

Acts 10:

So Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.’

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

Nowhere in the gospel does it say that explicit knowledge of Christ’s sacrifice is necessary for salvation. Christ’s sacrifice is not at all vain if it’s applied to people who weren’t explicitly aware of it.

Preaching the Gospel then becomes a sentence of eternal hell to good people who are Muslims, Jews, Budhists, etc… and dont accept the Gospel.

The same argument could be made that God’s gift of life becomes a sentence of eternal hell to the condemned, but I’m sure you’d reject such an argument as specious.

Preaching the gospel can never cause someone to go to hell who wouldn’t otherwise. If they refuse to accept the gospel, they clearly weren’t “being good” for the right reasons.

Jeremy

 

[Harsalter]

Why must I bend the knee to Peter when I have already bowed down to the Savior?

kaycee, IMO you are dealing with self pride and arrogance, just like Adam and Eve did when they committed original sin. They don’t need to listen to God as they know better, their conscious tells them do do this or that.

Well, your conscious don’t equal to a hill of beans. Jesus gave his Church authority. And I am sure I don’t need to quote again about keys given to Peter, what he will bind will be bound in heaven etc, and the above scripture I quoted about confession. You are refusing Christ with your own free will, and that is fine and dandy until you die. Then it will be too late to stop this foolish arrogance.

You have just in a nutshell described what is wrong with sola scriptura. “By God, if the scriptures don’t spell it out in easy to understand black and white, I won’t believe it!], as I know better than the true Church who has Christ’s authority”.

You are in my prayers as with all protestants.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Jesus gave Peter authority–that’s why you have to bend your knee.

It was no different than when God let the Israelites have a King.

Jesus Transferred the authority to forgive and retain sin to the disicples After his death on the cross.

If you don’t respect that transfer of authority you don’t respect Jesus who transferred that authority.

The Reason Jesus gave Peter authority is that there has to be ultimately one person in charge if the church is to prevail.

It won’t prevail with everyone doing as they please.

If Obeying your Earthly mother and father brings God glory–why not give Jesus glory by obeying the people that He sent?

If you ask me deferring to the authority of the pope or bishops or priests is a much smaller thing than Jesus who is God emptying Himself to the point where He could obey Mary and Joseph.

If that was a good thing for Jesus to do are you going to tell me that obeying the authority of the Catholic Church is a bad thing and just too hard to do?

At many Protestant revivals they speak of surrendering your will to Christ. The real test comes when it is his flawed representatives on earth the priests, the bishops, and the pope.

When you obey them you Do Surrender your will to Christ and honor Him!

 

[jemfinch]

The RCC does not teach the biblical Gospel of Grace, unmerited favor.

The Council of Trent:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

Jeremy

 

[Kristopher]

scarlettstara:
What was God’s reply to the pope: whom are you to judge?

 

[Kristopher]

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all can be saved.” - Pope Innocent III

God’s reply to Pope Innocent III: whom are you to judge?

 

[Harsalter]

God’s reply to Pope Innocent III: whom are you to judge?

Speaking for God now, eh. Just like Martin Luther. Maybe thats why you are “seeking” a Luthern Church.

 

[kaycee]

It is the belief of the Catholics that our Lord promised to Peter a primacy of jurisdiction over his Church (Matthew 16:18-19), a primacy which he actually conferred after his resurrection (John 21:15 ff). We hold, moreover, that it was given, not to Peter alone, but to the successors in his office and that it is vested for all time in the Roman Pontiff, who is the visible Head of the Church. No article of the Christian faith is more fully substantiated in Scripture and Tradition than this.

One or 2 verses questionable verses does not a primacy make.

We dont find that argument among the church Fathers until 3 or 4 hundred years after the Cross. alas, that is another thread.

 

[kaycee]

kaycee, IMO you are dealing with self pride and arrogance, just like Adam and Eve did when they committed original sin. They don’t need to listen to God as they know better, their conscious tells them do do this or that.

Well, your conscious don’t equal to a hill of beans. Jesus gave his Church authority. And I am sure I don’t need to quote again about keys given to Peter, what he will bind will be bound in heaven etc, and the above scripture I quoted about confession. You are refusing Christ with your own free will, and that is fine and dandy until you die. Then it will be too late to stop this foolish arrogance.

You have just in a nutshell described what is wrong with sola scriptura. “By God, if the scriptures don’t spell it out in easy to understand black and white, I won’t believe it!], as I know better than the true Church who has Christ’s authority”.

You are in my prayers as with all protestants.

Thanks for the prayers.

I have humbled and thrown myself on the mercy of the Savior but His work is incomplete until I bow to the Pope?

Again one verse does not a Papacy make. Strange that the supposed charter of the papacy is based on one verse in the book you say is insufficient.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Are you asking me to comment on what you think happend to the “righteous pagans”?

“There is no one good but God” What “righteous pagans”?

Kaycee-

In post 32, you wrote:

So following the golden rule, do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Doing good, being a good person, feeding the poor, helping the sick, being honest, etc… while denying Christ will get you to heaven? AND then once in heaven you can find out the truth about Jesus?

I am asking what you think happens to people who die without ever hearing the Gospel but have lived morally.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Kaycee:

“He who receives you receives me”.

Receive not the successor to Peter and you receive not Peter who Jesus sent. Why? Because the same Peter that led the other disicples to choose Matthias to replace Judas–

The same Peter that decided what customs gentiles would have to follow

That same Peter who had that Loosing and Binding Authority given to him by Jesus–

Also had sense enough given to him by the Holy Spirit to prepare the church in Rome to appoint a successor with that same Binding and Loosing Authority for when he would die

When he died he would have to be replaced Just Like Judas was replaced.

The Holy Spirit wasn’t wrong in directing that replacement.

Why would it be wrong in directing the replacement of Peter?

The replacement was Linus.

If you don’t receive Linus or any of the replacements that came after Linus who were chosen not by mere men’s choices but by the direction of the Holy Spirit

then you don’t accept Peter.

If you don’t accept Peter then you don’t accept Jesus who sent him.

It’s that simple!

What’s so hard about accepting that authority?

It didn’t kill the other disciples who submitted to that authority.

If it didn’t kill them to submit to Peter–why does it you?

 

[Randy_Carson]

One or 2 verses questionable verses does not a primacy make.

We dont find that argument among the church Fathers until 3 or 4 hundred years after the Cross. alas, that is another thread.

If this is all that’s bothering you, I think you should be able to meet with Father to sign up for RCIA this week after reading the following testimonies:

Early Church Fathers on the Primacy of Peter

Clement of Alexandria

“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’” [Matt. 19:27, Mark 10:28] (* Who Is the Rich Man That is Saved? *21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

**Tertullian **

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to *you *the keys, not to the Church; and whatever *you *shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed" ( Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (* Letter of Clement to James 2* [A.D. 221]).

****Origen ****

"f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" ( Commentary on Matthew** 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

****Cyprian ****

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair * cathedra*], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" ( The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 **[A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

Cyril of Jerusalem (315–386), in the same breath that he speaks of Peter’s three denials, calls Peter “the chiefest and foremost of the apostles” (Catechetical Lectures, 2, 19).

“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis” [Acts 9:32–34] (* Catechetical Lectures*, 17:27 [A.D. 350]).

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

**Ephraim **

“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (* Homilies *4:1 [A.D. 351]).

**Ambrose **

“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (* The Faith* 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

**Pope Damasus I **

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (* Decree of Damasus* 3 [A.D. 382]).

John Chrysostom (347–407)

"He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to inquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and he brings forward not the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, “If you love me, preside over your brethren, and show now the warm love that you have always manifested and in which you rejoiced; and the life that you said you would lay down for me now give for my sheep” (Commentary on St. John’s Gospel, homily 88).

Later in the same homily, John Chrysostom observes that Jesus “appointed” Peter “teacher of the world.”

**Jerome **

“Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to over-throw Simon Magus and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord” (* Lives of Illustrious Men* 1 [A.D. 396]).

**Pope Innocent I **

“In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope] and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (* Letters* 29:1 [A.D. 408]).

**Augustine **

“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (* Sermons* 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (* Commentary on John* 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

**Council of Ephesus **

“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (* Acts of the Council*, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

**Pope Leo I **

“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery” (* Letters *10:1 [A.D. 445]).

“Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head” (ibid., 14:11).

“[T]he blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he understood. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that, from his being called the rock, from his being pronounced the foundation, from his being constituted the doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, from his being set as the umpire to bind and loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ” (* Sermons* 3:2–3 [A.D. 450]).

+++

That brings us to the middle of the fifth century…do you want to go on, or is this sufficient?

 

[jemfinch]

God’s reply to Pope Innocent III: whom are you to judge?

I would think that God (even the one into whose mouth you’re putting your own words), would have better grammar.

Jeremy

 

[JustaServant]

Normal circumstances, no, protestants cannot be saved.

It is a Dogma of the Church “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” Outside the Church there is no Salvation.

Only through invincible ignorance, may a Protestant, or any non-Catholic be saved, and only then, if they are in a state of Grace.

Please, lets stop with the relativism which is rampant on these boards and be frank. Protestants need to know this.

Well that pretty much paralyzes any further discussion doesn’t it? Once I consign the opposing view to Hell, I’ve won, at least in my eyes. I saw this same attitude among fundamentalist baptists. I have since grown up spiritually, so I don’t make such comments any more. One can get a lot wrong and still be right.
It was this attitude among fundamentalist Catholics that drove me away from the church as a young man right into the arms of the fundamentalist Protestants.
I no longer am so arrogant as to consign all Catholics to Hell. You seem to have no problem consigning all Protestants to Hell.
John 13:35 35 *By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. *

 

[kaycee]

To ascertain whether Christ instituted a Sacrament of Penance we must distinguish essentials from non-essential details. Many modern customs that surround the administration of the Sacrament are incidental. The one thing that matters is to show that Christ instituted a sacrament which consists essentially in an effective judgment over sinners. If he gave to his Church power to forgive sins or to refuse to forgive them, then he did institute this Sacrament. The ceremonial with which such a power is exercised is not relevant to your inquiry.

Where do you see the Apostles forgiving sins?