Protestants Rejecting Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter LiamQ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
goout said:
Modern day protestants are -not- heretics
Click to expand...
“for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.”

from Salvation Outside the Church

That’s why Catholics are to correctly inform those in error, properly referenced of course, and not remain silent or timid in giving that information when opportunities present themselves. That way if one is by chance innocently ignorant of facts concerning themselves spiritually, it can then be dispelled. After that information is given, the hearer does what they will with the information.

That’s been the spirit in which I’ve posted the information
 
benhur said:
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
Click to expand...
Hi benhur, :tiphat:

Re: that section of the Didache,

“You shall not long for division, but shall bring those who contend to peace”.
  • Who are the ones who have split into 10’s of thousands of divisions after dividing from the Catholic Church? Protestants
  • has proliferation of divisions stopped or even slowed down among Protestants? No. In fact it is increasing at a rapid rate
So I have to ask, what point is it that you are trying to make with that section of the Didache?
 
goout said:
Modern day protestants are -not- heretics
Click to expand...
Depends whether you’re a “traditionalist Catholic” or not. (Likewise w.r.t. calling Orthodox the s-word.)

Heh. Not that I want this to happen, but I’m curious how Catholics here would react if a poster called us the h-word. :cool:
 
steve_b said:
Hi benhur, :tiphat:

Re: that section of the Didache,

“You shall not long for division, but shall bring those who contend to peace”.
  • Who are the ones who have split into 10’s of thousands of divisions after dividing from the Catholic Church? Protestants
  • has proliferation of divisions stopped or even slowed down among Protestants? No. In fact it is increasing at a rapid rate
So I have to ask, what point is it that you are trying to make with that section of the Didache?
Click to expand...
Hi steve,

Prefer Lightfoots translation I think…for how to you bring a contender to to “peace”… it is clear that one is to “pacify”. (" Pacify those that contend")

Schism is schism. What happens afterwards is another story. ? Yes you have the P one, with its unfortunate divisions, but you also have the O’s . So the original shicms still stands.

P’s are united in this one thing, they were not "pacified’’, brought to “peace” , with remaining, or becoming Catholic.

Blessings
 
steve_b said:
“for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.”

from Salvation Outside the Church

That’s why Catholics are to correctly inform those in error, properly referenced of course, and not remain silent or timid in giving that information when opportunities present themselves. That way if one is by chance innocently ignorant of facts concerning themselves spiritually, it can then be dispelled. After that information is given, the hearer does what they will with the information.

That’s been the spirit in which I’ve posted the information
Click to expand...
Hi steve,

found this in Unitatis Redintegratio ch 1

“For example, we now avoid calling other Christians “heretics” or “schismatics,” not because we doubt the material heresy of their doctrines or the objective fact of schism, but because we recognize that the present generation of separated Christians does not necessarily bear culpability for their errors, which are often held in good faith (bona fides). This consideration can be found in Catholic teaching well before the Council, but only now does it receive the prominence it deserves.”

Blessings
 
benhur said:
Hi steve,

found this in Unitatis Redintegratio ch 1

“For example, we now avoid calling other Christians “heretics” or “schismatics,” not because we doubt the material heresy of their doctrines or the objective fact of schism, but because we recognize that the present generation of separated Christians does not necessarily bear culpability for their errors, which are often held in good faith (bona fides). This consideration can be found in Catholic teaching well before the Council, but only now does it receive the prominence it deserves.”

Blessings
Click to expand...
👍
Still, we do not affirm that the Holy Spirit guides believers into separation from His Catholic Eucharist. Nor does He call them to remain apart.
 
benhur said:
Hi steve,

found this in Unitatis Redintegratio ch 1

“For example, we now avoid calling other Christians “heretics” or “schismatics,” not because we doubt the material heresy of their doctrines or the objective fact of schism, but because we recognize that the present generation of separated Christians does not necessarily bear culpability for their errors, which are often held in good faith (bona fides). This consideration can be found in Catholic teaching well before the Council, but only now does it receive the prominence it deserves.”

Blessings
Click to expand...
I think you mean, a commentary on Unitatis Redintegratio.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. But I’d encourage you to read Unitatis Redintegratio too.
 
Have you heard the saying, “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain about the results.”?

I think of Protestantism like this. Why do Protestants, who do not participate in the Eucharist, complain about the faults within the Catholic Church? We need the help of all the faithful, in our parishes! There are such gifted believers in separated communities, if they would only help build up the Church more fully! They already build up belief unto Baptism and good works, yet how much more would we impact the world by working together, under His One Eucharist!?
 
rcwitness said:
Have you heard the saying, “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain about the results.”?

I think of Protestantism like this. Why do Protestants, who do not participate in the Eucharist, complain about the faults within the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
I’m a pretty loyal reader of yours, but I don’t get your likening Protestants to people who didn’t vote. (Is it tongue in cheek?) Should I run for office and then say “Those of you who didn’t vote for me didn’t vote?”
 
Peter_J said:
I’m a pretty loyal reader of yours, but I don’t get your likening Protestants to people who didn’t vote. (Is it tongue in cheek?) Should I run for office and then say “Those of you who didn’t vote for me didn’t vote?”
Click to expand...
I was only sharing how I look at a particular aspect of “complaining”. And meaning abuses, and/or other legitimate faults and poor devotions. It’s my feelings, not something I expect everyone to see.

But your example, isn’t quite what I meant. If someone “votes” they can complain/criticize, even if they didn’t vote for a particular candidate. My use of voting, here, is “participating” in the Church.

It can go both ways, I suppose. Catholics can’t complain about how one community is failing, if they are not part of that community.

But that is my point; that Christians who refuse to participate at the one table of Jesus, don’t really have a right to criticize the manner of the house.

But it’s a little different than Protestant objections to doctrine, which prevents them from partaking. I only wish we would have the good help and cooperation of all Christians, in the House of God! And they would help tremendously!
 
benhur said:
Hi steve,

Prefer Lightfoots translation I think…for how to you bring a contender to to “peace”… it is clear that one is to “pacify”. (" Pacify those that contend")

Schism is schism. What happens afterwards is another story. ? Yes you have the P one, with its unfortunate divisions, but you also have the O’s . So the original shicms still stands.
Click to expand...
Greetings in return benhur:tiphat:

Regardless of translation, as you agree, schism is schism. Therefore, anyone who does it must ultimately come to peace with the Church before they die. That’s what the didache is referring to, it is what scripture teaches, and it is the ongoing teaching of the Church for 2000 years.
bh:
P’s are united in this one thing, they were not "pacified’’, brought to “peace” , with remaining, or becoming Catholic.
Click to expand...
Are you sure you want to make that point? Remember in Jn 6: when most of Jesus disciples left Him over His teaching on the bread of life discourse? They left Him and it says they didn’t return. And note, Jesus didn’t go after them. Thus there was no bringing to peace in that.
 
benhur said:
Hi steve,

found this in Unitatis Redintegratio ch 1

“For example, we now avoid calling other Christians “heretics” or “schismatics,” not because we doubt the material heresy of their doctrines or the objective fact of schism, but because we recognize that the present generation of separated Christians does not necessarily bear culpability for their errors, which are often held in good faith (bona fides). This consideration can be found in Catholic teaching well before the Council, but only now does it receive the prominence it deserves.”

Blessings
Click to expand...
:tiphat: benhur,

I don’t see that quote anywhere in the document

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
 
rcwitness said:
Have you heard the saying, “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain about the results.”?

I think of Protestantism like this. Why do Protestants, who do not participate in the Eucharist, complain about the faults within the Catholic Church? We need the help of all the faithful, in our parishes! There are such gifted believers in separated communities, if they would only help build up the Church more fully! They already build up belief unto Baptism and good works, yet how much more would we impact the world by working together, under His One Eucharist!?
Click to expand...
Are you under the impression, Michael, that we are not?

Jon
 
steve_b said:
Greetings in return benhur:tiphat:

Regardless of translation, as you agree, schism is schism. Therefore, anyone who does it must ultimately come to peace with the Church before they die.That’s what the didache is referring to, it is what scripture teaches, and it is the ongoing teaching of the Church for 2000 years.
Click to expand...
Hi steve,

Agree to the underlined with a qualification. Of course it is part of the binding loosing etc. But it is conditional in that the Church is to be in line with “heaven”. Heaven does not bend to fit the Church , but the Church is to be one with “heaven”…and ultimately we are to be at peace with our maker , who is in “heaven”.
Are you sure you want to make that point? Remember in Jn 6: when most of Jesus disciples left Him over His teaching on the bread of life discourse? They left Him and it says they didn’t return. And note, Jesus didn’t go after them. Thus there was no bringing to peace in that.
Click to expand...
First, is it a true point, of P’s not being Catholic, in full union with Rome ?

As per John 6, those that walked away, that took the eating literally, did not believe in Christ from the beginning. They were not “born of the spirit”, called of the Father. Jesus did not go after them (in their false pretenses) for it would have been sin. He still went to the cross for them, and I believe many of them may have been among the two thousand saved with Peter’s first sermon, or thereafter…but still two totally different groups, the non believers of John 6, and P’s, who are not "Catholic’’.

Blessings
 
benhur said:
**First, is it a true point, of P’s not being Catholic, in full union with Rome ?
**
As per John 6, those that walked away, that took the eating literally, did not believe in Christ from the beginning. They were not “born of the spirit”, called of the Father. Jesus did not go after them (in their false pretenses) for it would have been sin. He still went to the cross for them, and I believe many of them may have been among the two thousand saved with Peter’s first sermon, or thereafter…but still two totally different groups, the non believers of John 6, and P’s, who are not "Catholic’’.

Blessings
Click to expand...
Depends whom you ask. Many “traditionalist Catholics”, especially the hardcore (e.g. SSPX) types, are completely against ecumenism, and some past popes would probably have agreed with them (one of the Pope Piuses, but I forget which one). So for them, Protestants are very much like those who walked away in John 6.
 
rcwitness said:
Well not according to my leadership.
Click to expand...
Can you clarify who you mean? I know Protestant posters like to tell me “Jimmy Akin said this and that” and I’m always thinking to myself “Why do they assume I know who they’re talking about?”
 
Peter_J said:
Can you clarify who you mean? I know Protestant posters like to tell me “Jimmy Akin said this and that” and I’m always thinking to myself “Why do they assume I know who they’re talking about?”
Click to expand...
If someone had over 15000 posts on CARM : I would expect them to know who Matt Slick is.

If someone had over 15000 posts on Church Militant : I would expect them to know who Michael Voris is.

If someone had over 15000 posts on CAF : I would expect them to know who Jimmy Akin is.
catholic.com/about/staffprofiles
catholic.com/profiles/jimmy-akin

I think there are very realistic expectations: don’t you?
 
alwayswill said:
If someone had over 15000 posts on CARM : I would expect them to know who Matt Slick is.

If someone had over 15000 posts on Church Militant : I would expect them to know who Michael Voris is.

If someone had over 15000 posts on CAF : I would expect them to know who Jimmy Akin is.
catholic.com/about/staffprofiles
catholic.com/profiles/jimmy-akin

I think there are very realistic expectations: don’t you?
Click to expand...
Honestly, it’s hard for me to judge whether those are realistic expectations; I have very little knowledge of either CARM or Church Militant. All I can say confidently is that I don’t recall hearing anyone IRL – in church of out of church – say the name Jimmy Akin. I pretty much always hear him mentioned by Protestants on the Internet, which seems slightly ironic.

Edit: I’m speaking only of my own experience. Keep in mind that I don’t read every single Catholic poster on this forum; possibly I would know a lot more about the name Jimmy Akin if I did. (And now I guess I’ve gotten way way off the topic of this thread, but since you asked. :))
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top