Protestants Rejecting Catholicism

[benhur]

As bright as Lewis was, he couldn’t pull the trigger. I say it that way because unless he had a death bed conversion that no one knows about, as far as I know, he remained Protestant. He knew the following, and who the founders of all the divisions were.

Ok…but it is your paradigm, assumption, that he did not pull the trigger, that a trigger needed pulling, that he needed converting to CC.

I think most P’s know “the following” , the "flow chart’’ that is per CC. Incidentally did not know Orthodoxy began in 11 th century. Is that a flow chart that O’s agree with ? (by the way, no Arianism?).

Perhaps a flow chart could be made on doctrinal makeup of church, and not names of church’s per say. The chart assumes that what present CC demands doctrinally is what 33 AD church taught.

I will just add this. All that division is condemned in Scripture and Tradition. Just thinking out loud, did Lewis not know these passages are there in scripture?

I am sure he was aware , and was very sad to see the CC,O’s and P’s not budging on divisive doctrinal stands.

Many things are condemned in Writ, not just division. Obedience without love, compromise with the world, tolerance of evil within the church, lukewarmness, hypocrisy, pride and abstinence, bad doctrine, power, fame money coveting, etc etc. Yes, division is in the mix for sure.

You’re no doubt referring to

Heb 11:1
faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Yes !

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the *evidence *of things not seen.”

yet there can’t be such disagreements and oppositions on evidence that there is division.

not sure what you are getting at. No one is denying division either in unbelievers or in believers. No one denies clay is clay and wax is wax.

Blessings

 

[steve_b]

Ok…but it is your paradigm, assumption, that he did not pull the trigger, that a trigger needed pulling, that he needed converting to CC.

benhur
Objectively he did need to convert to the CC. To say he didn’t, would contradict scripture, tradition and the ongoing teaching of the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

When I gave this PDF chart
it shows the beginning of the only Church Jesus established on Peter and the apostles, then later, all the divisions from His Church, which scripture condemns.

No one can diminish the fact that all that division on that chart is condemned in the NT Scriptures, tradition and the ongoing teaching of the magisterium of the Church.

Here’s the biblical references condemning that division and those who do it. Did you open the following link?
#197
Note the consequences of one dying in division.
“they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God”[Gal 5:21] IOW, no heaven but hell for them.
bh:

I think most P’s know “the following” , the "flow chart’’ that is per CC. Incidentally did not know Orthodoxy began in 11 th century. Is that a flow chart that O’s agree with ? (by the way, no Arianism?).

The flow chart is not just “per the CC” as if the CC has a different understanding of history than actual history.
For the first 325 years, what is the Church the council of Nicea pledges in the creed? It is

“We believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.”

work back in history from 325 to the first century to see Catholic Church, from the beginning, in writing. #34
BTW, each term in that profession of faith is significant.

Re: the Orthodox

I’ve asked this question for 12 years on these forums.

"when is the first time in history, in writing, properly referenced, that we see the name “Orthodox Church”?

You’re free to answer that question as well. I think it should be the easiest of questions to answer for an Orthodox responder to answer… agreed? I’ve gotten no answer to that question … YET. But I’m waiting still.
bh:

Perhaps a flow chart could be made on doctrinal makeup of church, and not names of church’s per say. The chart assumes that what present CC demands doctrinally is what 33 AD church taught.

What do you think the Catholic Church in 33 AD taught that the Catholic Church in 2016 doesn’t teach?
bh:

I am sure he was aware , and was very sad to see the CC,O’s and P’s not budging on divisive doctrinal stands.

The point is, why didn’t he end his division.
bh:

Many things are condemned in Writ, not just division. Yes, division is in the mix for sure.

And if one dies in that sin of division, Paul says “they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God”[Gal 5:21]

Ever hear the phrase outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation? Ever wonder where that phrase came from?

 

[peter26]

Ever hear the phrase outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation? Ever wonder where that phrase came from?

Unum Sanctum I believe, an early 14th Century Encyclical that was apparently never taken seriously at the time.

 

[steve_b]

Unum Sanctum I believe, an early 14th Century Encyclical that was apparently never taken seriously at the time.

are you referring to (emphasis mine)

“Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.” Unam Sanctum, in 1302

That’s the language used for an infallible statement.

apparently that statement was taken seriously ,

It was reinforced by Vatican II, which stated: “This holy Council . . . **asing itself on Scripture and Tradition . . . teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation. . . . [Christ] himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16, John 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it” (Lumen Gentium 14).

From Vat I, definition of infallible statement

1. • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
   • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
   • that is, when,
     1. **in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, **
     2. **in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, **
     3. **he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, **
     4. he possesses,
     5. by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
     6. that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
     7. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
        
        papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm**

 

[peter26]

And the next paragraph of Lumen Gentium says

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. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

That does not sound like an affirmation of Unum Sanctum to me. It is no longer a teaching of the church that there is no salvation for non-Catholics.

 

[steve_b]

And the next paragraph of Lumen Gentium says

That does not sound like an affirmation of Unum Sanctum to me. It is no longer a teaching of the church that there is no salvation for non-Catholics.

I don’t know if that was ever an absolute statement. The Church has always left open certain circumstances where non-Catholics may be saved.