Protestants Rejecting Catholicism

[Darryl_B]

Once we establish that above fact, I would add that steve b’s telling me straight, in a time when I was searching for the True Faith, was an incredibly valuable contribution to my conversion. If I was seeking wishy-washy I would have remained a protestant, and boy that is wishy-washy.

So citing Ezekiel 3 for instance all steve b does is quote scripture. Why is that offensive, its scripture, but there is this “are you saying this” “are you saying that”? Umm steve b didn’t actually say anything about Ezekiel 3, all he did was state it had no expiration date.

Is it possible to be Catholic, or Protestant, and not be so sensitive? We can tell it how we see it, we each nod and understand each other, and if the time comes the time comes.

 

[rcwitness]

I am getting a little tired of this tread lightly mentality, as if it is productive. If we tread lightly, afraid of offending people, then we are probably not being like Jesus Christ, Peter, the Apostles and Paul. If I get in a discussion with an atheist friend and believe me I do do that, and we disagree like chalk and cheese, we will tell each other straight out our understandings, that is when we are friends and we remain friends through that understanding. Friends are able to do that, enemies cannot. I would like to think that here we are all friends.

This is the non-Catholic forum section. Being like Jesus and the Apostles doesn’t mean we have their authority. Some Catholics and Protestants alike seem to have an “Apostle complex”. I get tired too ya know. And If you read post 135 that was what I feel.

Once we establish that above fact, I would add that steve b’s telling me straight, in a time when I was searching for the True Faith, was an incredibly valuable contribution to my conversion. If I was seeking wishy-washy I would have remained a protestant, and boy that is wishy-washy.

So citing Ezekiel 3 for instance all steve b does is quote scripture. Why is that offensive, its scripture, but there is this “are you saying this” “are you saying that”? Umm steve b didn’t actually say anything about Ezekiel 3, all he did was state it had no expiration date.

Is it possible to be Catholic, or Protestant, and not be so sensitive? We can tell it how we see it, we each nod and understand each other, and if the time comes the time comes.

It is logical to assume that by quoting that Scripture, one is implying that the recipient is walking in condemnation, right? So my question was appropriate: “Are you saying benhur is going to die for something he has not repented of, or does not believe?”

I have discussed with benhur many times. I’m sure he would tell you that I don’t come across as wishy washy. And I would tell you that he has made very fine points in the faith before. Sometimes Protestants hold to Catholic principles better than Catholics.

 

[Wannano]

::

This is the non-Catholic forum section. Being like Jesus and the Apostles doesn’t mean we have their authority. Some Catholics and Protestants alike seem to have an “Apostle complex”. I get tired too ya know. And If you read post 135 that was what I feel.

It is logical to assume that by quoting that Scripture, one is implying that the recipient is walking in condemnation, right? So my question was appropriate: “Are you saying benhur is going to die for something he has not repented of, or does not believe?”

I have discussed with benhur many times. I’m sure he would tell you that I don’t come across as wishy washy. And I would tell you that he has made very fine points in the faith before. Sometimes Protestants hold to Catholic principles better than Catholics.

 

[Darryl_B]

It is logical to assume that by quoting that Scripture, one is implying that the recipient is walking in condemnation, right? So my question was appropriate: “Are you saying benhur is going to die for something he has not repented of, or does not believe?”

I hear scripture at Church during the Liturgy of the Word. Do I say “excuse me, are you talking to me?” Of course it is, it always is, Ezekiel 3 is talking to me too. And you, and steve b, and anyone else hearing.

That is a Catholic principle.

 

[Darryl_B]

It is when Scripture does NOT apply to me, that is when I have problems, or if you will, reform?

 

[Darryl_B]

I have discussed with benhur many times. I’m sure he would tell you that I don’t come across as wishy washy.

I did not describe you as “wishy-washy” my friend rcwitness. You might not quite see what I am saying there. I apologize if I gave the impression I was defining your words as such. I’m not.

I will tell you, you are deeper in the waters, and in order to catch a protestant you can go into the shallows.

Or in order to catch a protestant, the protestant actually needs to be lured deeper.

The first is easy and hardly works, the second is hard but my observation of every Catholic-convert I have ever read has done that, and I have read a lot.

But I am not here to convert protestants, don’t need to.

 

[steve_b]

---

Are you saying*** benhur is going to die for something he has not repented of, or does not believe?

I’m saying,

I gave information to benhur properly referenced for his benefit on this topic, (Protestants rejecting Catholicism). What a person does with such information is up to them…agreed? I can’t be afraid to give such information. The reason for that, I quoted Ezekiel.

I don’t automatically assume or presume, anyone is innocently ignorant of information they need to know. The reason I say it that way is because

“ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits”**. 1791

Therefore, no one should automatically assume or presume anyone’s ignorance on important matters is innocent. Therefore give necessary information

Besides,

None of what I wrote was my opinion. I quoted scripture and the Church. Isn’t that what evangelization by Catholics is all about? Giving faith information to others regardless of stripe, about Catholicism and the Catholic Church?

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33425

 

[benhur]

Howdy :tiphat:

actually, it is Our Lord’s position.

said another way,

• One who rejects His Church rejects Jesus. Remember His words to then Saul of Tarsus who was not only persecuting the Church but the first deacon of the Catholic Church was stoned to death at Saul’s feet.?
• “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute ME?” Acts 9:4
• Paul’s letter to the Church of Rome. Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions διχοστασίας ] and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites,**(“Rm16 RSVCE - Personal Greetings - I commend to you - Bible Gateway”)]

therefore, rejecting His Church is to reject Him

Hi steve,

Ok. Then this is what this reminds me of, for folks (P’s) have said they have found new life, born again like Nicodemus. They were blind now they see, and you say one must be in your church, the Lord’s Church.

In John 9 Jesus healed the blind man, on the Sabbath. The pharisees then had division, asking is this by the will of God, or of a man of God (Jesus)? His parents testified of the healing, but were afraid of siding with Jesus, and being kicked out of the church (synagogue). Then came the blind man and “testified” of his experience, and overcame the bite of the pharisees. They had no pull on him, and the blind man had no fear of them or being “expelled”. He did not sense he was “lost” going to hell. He was blind but now he saw. He offered his testimony again, with tongue in cheek asking if they would become disciples of this “Man”. The Pharisees refused, claiming “old church stuff”, of being of Moses, their foundation indeed…

So I don’t misunderstand, by “can not be refuted by other church type folk” do you mean Protestants can’t refute Catholicism?

So… the very fact of these sign and wonders and miracles and new birth in the P church should cause one to rethink the validity of said church, rethink just what is church, the Lord’s Church, just what is a son of Abraham, to be of Peter.

Expulsion from old viewpoint has no power to bring back folks touched by Jesus.

Please note, again, no one is doing away with foundation (Moses/blind man, who was still Jewish, of Moses also, and us- apostolic teaching /P’s… many things still “Catholic”).

Another view is attitude or primary concern. So one says look at what Jesus makes you like the blind man, while another focuses on, justifies by, where Jesus places you (“my” church, synagogue, the Lord’s church or synagogue).

P’s have found the Head of the Church. Period. Now we can quibble as to just what the arms, and legs, and hands, and feet, should look like. So a Catholic who is born again is under the Head, as is a P or O who is also born again.

Lumen gentia touches on this, but still only partly, with an elevated (containing fullness/source) CC “over” other churches rationale, an old habit hard to shake, in view of the testimonies and evidences.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

PS- I did notice the blind man did go back to Jesus, after speaking with the Pharisees. The blind man was then much more reassured that his testimony was truer than he first thought. That is, the Pharisees strict questioning, with full clout of Moses, actually made blind man seek the Lord even more, and he became even stronger in the faith.

 

[rcwitness]

PS- I did notice the blind man did go back to Jesus, after speaking with the Pharisees. The blind man was then much more reassured that his testimony was truer than he first thought. That is, the Pharisees strict questioning, with full clout of Moses, actually made blind man seek the Lord even more, and he became even stronger in the faith.

I’m not sure where all this is going… ?

But remember, the Pharisees were divided. It was not a unified judgment against Jesus, ever.

Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the sabbath.” But others said, “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?” There was a division among them.

Some claimed to be disciples of Moses, but Jesus had already said to them,

Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; it is Moses who accuses you, on whom you set your hope.*If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me.

They were trespassing against Moses. And some Catholics trespass against Peter.

 

[Darryl_B]

I’m not sure where all this is going… ?

I rest my case.

 

[steve_b]

Hi steve,

Ok. Then this is what this reminds me of, for folks (P’s) have said they have found new life, born again like Nicodemus. They were blind now they see, and you say one must be in your church, the Lord’s Church.

Hi benhur,

and I showed with references properly referenced, (it wasn’t my opinion talking) that the Catholic Church is the only Church Our Lord established with Peter as the leader. So yes, one must be in the Catholic Church
bh:

In John 9 Jesus healed the blind man, on the Sabbath. The pharisees then had division, asking is this by the will of God, or of a man of God (Jesus)? His parents testified of the healing, but were afraid of siding with Jesus, and being kicked out of the church (synagogue). Then came the blind man and “testified” of his experience, and overcame the bite of the pharisees. They had no pull on him, and the blind man had no fear of them or being “expelled”. He did not sense he was “lost” going to hell. He was blind but now he saw. He offered his testimony again, with tongue in cheek asking if they would become disciples of this “Man”. The Pharisees refused, claiming “old church stuff”, of being of Moses, their foundation indeed…
So… the very fact of these sign and wonders and miracles and new birth in the P church should cause one to rethink the validity of said church, rethink just what is church, the Lord’s Church, just what is a son of Abraham, to be of Peter.

Don’t forget Saul before he converted and changed his name to Paul, was the quintessential Pharissee. AND the Catholic Church in the beginning was 100% Jewish.

As far as Jesus saying He would cause divisions, in overall context, that had to do with those who would accept Him vs those who would NOT.

Lk 12:
49 “I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled! 50 I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished! 51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; 52 for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; 53 they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

Division He talked about had NOTHING to do with division from his Church. That kind of division was always condemned. John 17:20-23 , and #341
bh:

Expulsion from old viewpoint has no power to bring back folks touched by Jesus.

The quotes I gave have no expiration date to them
bh:

Please note, again, no one is doing away with foundation (Moses/blind man, who was still Jewish, of Moses also, and us- apostolic teaching /P’s… many things still “Catholic”).

Please note, I’m just giving information. What a person does with it is their business. The information I’m giving is the requirements (properly referenced) of what Jesus laid out in the new covenant.

Since

• all scripture is inspired, 2 Timothy 3:16

And

• the HS doesn’t speak on His own but what He hears from Jesus [John 16:12-15 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 16)

then the following, came from Jesus through the HS through Paul

1 Cor 1:10
10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions σχίσματα ] among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

σχίσματα = schism: a split, division, rent
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3:10&version=RSVCE

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.”

Great Heresies

As one can see, division from the Catholic Church as well as people in heresy, is massively serious.
bh:

Another view is attitude or primary concern. So one says look at what Jesus makes you like the blind man, while another focuses on, justifies by, where Jesus places you (“my” church, synagogue, the Lord’s church or synagogue).

P’s have found the Head of the Church. Period. Now we can quibble as to just what the arms, and legs, and hands, and feet, should look like. So a Catholic who is born again is under the Head, as is a P or O who is also born again.

With all due respect, that contradicts the passages I just quoted, and others I have been quoting.
bh:

Lumen gentiam touches on this, but still only partly, with an elevated (containing fullness/source) CC “over” other churches rationale, an old habit hard to shake, in view of the testimonies and evidences.

Blessings

From Lumen Gentium vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

1. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation…

Protestants aren’t incorporated into the Church.

 

[goout]

Protestants aren’t (fully) incorporated into the Church.

1. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith** in its entirety** or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter.

As contrasted with Sec 14:

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who,…

 

[steve_b]

As contrasted with Sec 14:

you’re reading into the text what is not there.

15. The Church recognizes that **in many ways she is linked** with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith** in its entirety** or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter.

As contrasted with Sec 14:

They are **fully** incorporated in the society of the Church who,...

Don’t just quote that alone. What follows, that you left out describes all that they don’t do nor believe. And that is what puts them in heresy and schism.

If they were in the Church they could receive the sacraments of the Church. They can’t

The following by definition because they are baptized are all Great Heresies

 

[steve_b]

you’re reading into the text what is not there.

15. The Church recognizes that **in many ways she is linked** with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith** in its entirety** or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter.

As contrasted with Sec 14:

They are **fully** incorporated in the society of the Church who,...

Don’t just quote that alone. What follows, that you left out, describes all that they don’t do nor believe. And that is what puts them in heresy and schism.

If they were in the Church they could receive the sacraments of the Church. They can’t

That’s why I posted the following. By definition because these groups are baptized they are all “christians” but are all Great Heresies

 

[steve_b]

As contrasted with Sec 14:

goout:

15. The Church recognizes that **in many ways she is linked** with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith** in its entirety** or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter.

goout:

As contrasted with Sec 14:

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who,…

Don’t just quote that part alone. What follows, that you left out, describes all that they reject/don’t do/ don’t believe. And that is what puts them in heresy and schism.

That’s why I posted the following. By definition because these groups are baptized they are all “christians”. But are all Great Heresies

 

[goout]

Don’t just quote that part alone. What follows, that you left out, describes all that they reject/don’t do/ don’t believe. And that is what puts them in heresy and schism.

That’s why I posted the following. By definition because these groups are baptized they are all “christians”. But are all Great Heresies

Modern day protestants are -not- heretics

 

[benhur]

Hi benhur,

and I showed with references properly referenced, (it wasn’t my opinion talking) that the Catholic Church is the only Church Our Lord established with Peter as the leader. So yes, one must be in the Catholic Church

Don’t forget Saul before he converted and changed his name to Paul, was the quintessential Pharissee. AND the Catholic Church in the beginning was 100% Jewish.

As far as Jesus saying He would cause divisions, in overall context, that had to do with those who would accept Him vs those who would NOT.

Lk 12:
49 “I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled! 50 I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished! 51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; 52 for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; 53 they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

Division He talked about had NOTHING to do with division from his Church. That kind of division was always condemned. John 17:20-23 , and #341

The quotes I gave have no expiration date to them

Please note, I’m just giving information. What a person does with it is their business. The information I’m giving is the requirements (properly referenced) of what Jesus laid out in the new covenant.

Since

• all scripture is inspired, 2 Timothy 3:16

And

• the HS doesn’t speak on His own but what He hears from Jesus [John 16:12-15 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 16)

then the following, came from Jesus through the HS through Paul

1 Cor 1:10
10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions σχίσματα ] among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

σχίσματα = schism: a split, division, rent
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3:10&version=RSVCE

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.”

Great Heresies

As one can see, division from the Catholic Church as well as people in heresy, is massively serious.

With all due respect, that contradicts the passages I just quoted, and others I have been quoting.

From Lumen Gentium vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

1. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation…

Protestants aren’t incorporated into the Church.

Hi steve,

As far as "schisms’’, it takes two to tango…that is, I think the Didache says it best,

“4:4 You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify them that contend;”…

Many don’t quite feel pacified by your view of HIStory.

But yes, a time for everything, pacifying and anathemizing, but may we judge righteously.

Blessings

 

[Peter_J]

Hi steve,

As far as "schisms’’, it takes two to tango…that is, I think the Didache says it best,

“4:4 You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify them that contend;”…

Many don’t quite feel pacified by your view of HIStory.

But yes, a time for everything, pacifying and anathemizing, but may we judge righteously.

Blessings

That is often enough the case, as the document *Unitatis Redintegratio *said. But don’t make it an absolute principle, because there have been cases e.g. Arianism where one side was in the wrong and the other was not.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m not sure where all this is going… ?

But remember, the Pharisees were divided. It was not a unified judgment against Jesus, ever.

Indeed.

I’m sure we could come up with innumerable latter day examples, but one that comes to my mind is Cardinal Newman. Made a lot of enemies in his day, but greatly vindicated by history.