Protestants; why won't you be CATHOLIC!?

[Carlan]

I love all people. I am not putting dow Catholics. So of my best friends (employees) are Catholic.

I could never bow to a statue, image of anykind, nor the Pope. I respect him but I could not confess my sins to him and expect them to be forgiven.

I will confess only to God. I will bow only to Him…Every kne shall bow someday.
When Jesus said, “it is finisihed” the veil in the temple was rent from top to bottom allowing us access to Him directly.

No middle man except Jesus the mediator, not some some created being. I dont believe non-Cathoics will burn in hell.

Just my beliefs.

Hello Benn, Catholics do not bow to or worship statues.Pope Benedict is the Vicar of Christ for his Universal Church on earth. The risen Lord instituted the sacrament of confession the evening of Easter when he showed himself to his Apostle and said to them,“Receive the Holy Spirit, If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any they are retained”( John:20:22-23)Jesus forgives the sinner through his priest. The priest does not forgive the sinner. I hope this helps you to understand some of what Catholics believe. God Bless. Carlan also Catholics do not believe Protestants will burn in hell. C

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Protestants, what ever your denomination is, please tell me why you will not be Catholic!?

xxx jennifer xxx

I wont say I will never be catholic, but my current biggest issues are the abuse scandals and some of the catholics I have engaged with both here and in real life.

While I have no issue with the claim of the church to be the one true church, I need to do a lot more work to understand how the institutionalised abuse was allowed to go on for so long in the church that Jesus founded, and I simply cannot yet get my head around the arrogance, ignorance, lack of charity and hypocracy of many catholics here and ones I know in real life. Again, I cannot reconcile their behavior with that of belonging to the one true church, so I’m left thinking if that’s what you turn into by being a catholic, I’ll stay as I am.
Having said that, some people here are the real deal, and I’ve learned a lot from them. Similarly in real life, I’ve met some good people.
My searching continues.

 

[Janet1983]

I am sorry to go a little off-topic anyways in the end, but I need to put this in here…

also Catholics do not believe Protestants will burn in hell.

“Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”?

1302: Pope Boniface VIII wrote in the Bull “Unam Sanctam” in 1302 “We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins”

1441: Pope Eugene IV wrote in Cantate Domino (in the last paragraph)
“It (the sacrosanct Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

1824: Pope Leo XII wrote in the Encyclical Ubi Primum
“14. Certainly many remarkable authors, adherents of the true philosophy, have taken pains to attack and crush this strange view. But the matter is so self-evident that it is superfluous to give additional arguments. It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For we have a surer word of the prophet, and in writing to you We speak wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”

1832: Pope Gregory XVI wrote in the Encyclical Summo Jugiter Studio
“Moreover, Saint Augustine and the other African bishops who met in the Council of Cirta in the year 412 explained the same thing at greater length: ‘Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ’ (Epsitle 141). Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise Saint Gregory the Great, who expressly testifies that this is indeed the teaching of the Catholic Church. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved’ (Moral. in Job, 16.5). Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of the Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all is saved.’ Finally, the same dogma is expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use (Creed of the Council of Trent), but also that which the Greek Orthodox Church uses (cf. Gregory XIII, Profession ‘Sanctissimus’) and that which other Eastern Catholics use (cf. Benedict XIV, Profession ‘Nuper ad Nos’)…”

Pope Pius XII wrote in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi
“41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.”

There are quite a few others who write the same… Who denied all that? Declaring all those popes wrong and being so inconsistent? Who could do such a thing?
I mean it does not change the world for me if the Catholic Church condemns me or not… Just that I thought she was at least consistent in what she declares…

 

[estesbob]

I am sorry to go a little off-topic anyways in the end, but I need to put this in here…

“Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”?

1302: Pope Boniface VIII wrote in the Bull “Unam Sanctam” in 1302 “We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins”

1441: Pope Eugene IV wrote in Cantate Domino (in the last paragraph)
“It (the sacrosanct Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

1824: Pope Leo XII wrote in the Encyclical Ubi Primum
“14. Certainly many remarkable authors, adherents of the true philosophy, have taken pains to attack and crush this strange view. But the matter is so self-evident that it is superfluous to give additional arguments. It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For we have a surer word of the prophet, and in writing to you We speak wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”

1832: Pope Gregory XVI wrote in the Encyclical Summo Jugiter Studio
“Moreover, Saint Augustine and the other African bishops who met in the Council of Cirta in the year 412 explained the same thing at greater length: ‘Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ’ (Epsitle 141). Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise Saint Gregory the Great, who expressly testifies that this is indeed the teaching of the Catholic Church. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved’ (Moral. in Job, 16.5). Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of the Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all is saved.’ Finally, the same dogma is expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use (Creed of the Council of Trent), but also that which the Greek Orthodox Church uses (cf. Gregory XIII, Profession ‘Sanctissimus’) and that which other Eastern Catholics use (cf. Benedict XIV, Profession ‘Nuper ad Nos’)…”

Pope Pius XII wrote in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi
“41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.”

There are quite a few others who write the same… Who denied all that? Declaring all those popes wrong and being so inconsistent? Who could do such a thing?
I mean it does not change the world for me if the Catholic Church condemns me or not… Just that I thought she was at least consistent in what she declares…

I am afraid youi have a very basic misunderstanding of what no salvation outside the church means. You seem believe that the Church has has taught Feeneyism which got Fr Feeney excommunicated. I suggest you do some reasearch on “Baptism of Desire” and “Invincble Ignorance” and then get back with us. Pulling the usual out of context snippest from pages long papal decrees is not going to cut it with this group. For instance Pope Euegenes bull was directed at a very specific group of Catholic heretics-somehing you would not know if you just(as it appears you have) grabbed an out of context quote from an anti-catholic website.

 

[estesbob]

I wont say I will never be catholic, but my current biggest issues are the abuse scandals and some of the catholics I have engaged with both here and in real life

Are you really suggesting that would reject the one true Faith out of hand because a miniscule number of homosexual Priests abused their position and some anonymous posters on an internet site hurt your feelings!!!.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I am afraid youi have a very basic misunderstanding of what noslavation outside the church means. You seem to be staeing that the Church has has taught feenyism which got Fr Feeney excommunicated. I suggest you do some reasearch on “Baptism of Desire” and “Invincble Ignorance” and then get back with us. Pulling the usual out of context snippest from pages long papal decrees is not going to cut it with this group. For instance Pope Euegenes bull was directed at a very specific group of Catholic heretics-somehing you would not know if you just(as it appears you have) grabbed an out of context quote for an anti-catholic website.

She needs to look up the Catechism which clarify the statement from the earlier Popal Encylicals.

 

[Mannyfit75]

There are quite a few others who write the same… Who denied all that? Declaring all those popes wrong and being so inconsistent? Who could do such a thing?
I mean it does not change the world for me if the Catholic Church condemns me or not… Just that I thought she was at least consistent in what she declares…

These teachings of the Pope are correct. There is no salvation outside the Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms this and so does the Second Vatican Council:

**“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, 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 that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their consciencemay achieve** eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

 

[estesbob]

She needs to look up the Catechism which clarify the statement from the earlier Popal Encylicals.

The Church affirmed as far back as the 4th Century that one did not have to be a MEMBER of the Church to be saved.Claiming that one did would get one excommunicated.

Take Pope Eugene again-his Bull was written before there were not even any Protestants to deal with . He was reacting to a very specific group of Catholic herectics. The same is true of the other encyclicals/proclomations she cites-comments responding to a specific situation at a specific point in time. Without context and a knowledge of the circumstances under which they were written they are meaingless.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Church affirmed as far back as the 4th Century that one did not have to be a MEMBER of the Church to be saved.Claiming that one did would get one excommunicated.

Take Pope Eugene again-his Bull was written before there were not even any Protestants to deal with . He was reacting to a very specific group of Catholic herectics. The same is true of the other encyclicals/proclomations she cites-comments responding to a specific situation at a specific point in time. Without context and a knowledge of the circumstances under which they were written they are meaingless.

I like to added that execommunication does mean the person is condemned to hell. Rather, a Catholic who execommunicate cannot received the Sacraments until that excommunication is lifted. I think some Protestants here think that excommunication means “condemned to hell.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Church affirmed as far back as the 4th Century that one did not have to be a MEMBER of the Church to be saved.Claiming that one did would get one excommunicated.

Take Pope Eugene again-his Bull was written before there were not even any Protestants to deal with . He was reacting to a very specific group of Catholic herectics. The same is true of the other encyclicals/proclomations she cites-comments responding to a specific situation at a specific point in time. Without context and a knowledge of the circumstances under which they were written they are meaingless.

I did read Pope Eugene and his Bull is directed at Catholic heretics, as you say. It was not aim at Protestants who already left the Church. The Counter-Reformation was mainly put into place to keep the rest of the flock in place.

 

[guanophore]

I will confess only to God. I will bow only to Him…Every kne shall bow someday.
When Jesus said, “it is finisihed” the veil in the temple was rent from top to bottom allowing us access to Him directly.

No middle man except Jesus the mediator, not some some created being. I dont believe non-Cathoics will burn in hell.

Just my beliefs.

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

Did you think that Catholics do not confess to God, bow to Him or believe He alone is our mediator?

Did you think the Catholic Church teaches taht non-Catholics will “burn in hell”? You seem to have a lot of misperceptions about Catholicism.

 

[guanophore]

I wont say I will never be catholic, but my current biggest issues are the abuse scandals and some of the catholics I have engaged with both here and in real life.

While I have no issue with the claim of the church to be the one true church, I need to do a lot more work to understand how the institutionalised abuse was allowed to go on for so long in the church that Jesus founded, and I simply cannot yet get my head around the arrogance, ignorance, lack of charity and hypocracy of many catholics here and ones I know in real life. Again, I cannot reconcile their behavior with that of belonging to the one true church, so I’m left thinking if that’s what you turn into by being a catholic, I’ll stay as I am.
Having said that, some people here are the real deal, and I’ve learned a lot from them. Similarly in real life, I’ve met some good people.
My searching continues.

There might be a very simple way to solve this problem, Guy, and that is with a correct understanding of the nature of the Church. The Church, the Body of Christ, has as her Head Christ Jesus, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. It is these divine elements that make her holy and infallible. She also contains all of the saints who have gone on before us,who have been glorified. These are permanently freed from sin, and dwell in His presence, and are also holy. The other elements of the church are sometimes not holy. the imperfect members that are still on earth do sin, and create division and wounding to the Body. Yet these sins should not be laid at the feet of Christ as if He were responsible for them. Sinners are responsible for their own wrongdoing, it is not the fault of the HS who is grieved by such actions. Neither do their actions nullify the grace of God in the Church. when one understands that the Bride of Christ is larger than the members here on earth, it is easier to accept that something infallible can also reflect the shortcomings of her members.

 

[guanophore]

I am sorry to go a little off-topic anyways in the end, but I need to put this in here…

“Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”?

There are quite a few others who write the same… Who denied all that? Declaring all those popes wrong and being so inconsistent? Who could do such a thing?
I mean it does not change the world for me if the Catholic Church condemns me or not… Just that I thought she was at least consistent in what she declares…

Janet, the Catholic Church does not condemn anyone. That is God’s purview. At the same time, we recognize that Jesus only founded One Church, therefore, all who are saved are members of Jesus’ One Body, the Church. The reason there is no salvation outside the Church is because all who are members if Christ are members of His One Body. The two are not separated. The Body is not Headless, or separated from Him.

The Catholic church considers Protestant Christians to be separated brethren, imperfectly joined to His One Body.

 

[Reuben_J]

I could never bow to a statue, image of anykind, nor the Pope.

Just my beliefs.

If I am you I would be afraid for the Japanese and orientals who in their act of respect do bow a lot.

 

[imjustme]

Quite a vitriolic and vehemently anti-Catholic site. Please don’t post things like that.

You never see Catholic websites attacking other faiths , do you? You ever wonder why? Maybe its because we don’t need to actively defend our faith in words; our Church (the True Church) speaks volumes on its own with the actions of its members and intellectual defenses on morality and salvation (ala Saint Thomas Aquinas… he’s a SAINT, not just Thomas Aquinas).

I will continue to pray for our separated brothers in Christ and for all the sects and branches of Christianity to unified back to the One, True, Holy, Apostolic Church.

I don’t see the site as being vitriolic or anti-Catholic anymore than I see any Catholic site (such as the Catholic Encyclopedia) as being anti-Protestant. Furthermore, this section of the forum is to discuss non-Catholic views and the link was in direct reply to something that another member asked…so I don’t understand why you would ask me to not post things like that anymore. Are you a forum moderator?

Thank you for praying. I also pray often for those that refuse to follow scripture and the true teachings of the early church.

 

[Janet1983]

I did read Pope Eugene and his Bull is directed at Catholic heretics, as you say. It was not aim at Protestants who already left the Church. The Counter-Reformation was mainly put into place to keep the rest of the flock in place.

What about the Syllabus then?
The Syllabus mentions Protestantism directly… (I know, I’m not daft and I looked at the text that the short summary was based upon… for whatever reason I did not find the same title, but I found it by looking at the publication date.)

“… This is why they try to draw the Italian people over to Protestantism, which in their deceit they repeatedly declare to be only another form of the same true religion of Christ, thereby just as pleasing to God. Meanwhile they know full well that the chief principle of the Protestant tenets, i.e., that the holy scriptures are to be understood by the personal judgment of the individual, will greatly assist their impious cause. They are confident that they can first misuse the holy scriptures by wrong interpretation to spread their errors and claim God’s authority while doing it. Then they can cause men to call into doubt the common principles of justice and honor. …] The crafty enemies of the Church and human society attempt to seduce the people in many ways. One of their chief methods is the misuse of the new technique of book-production. They are wholly absorbed in the ceaseless daily publication and proliferation of impious pamphlets, newspapers and leaflets which are full of lies, calumnies and seduction. Furthermore, under the protection of the Bible Societies which have long since been condemned by this Holy See, they distribute to the faithful under the pretext of religion, the holy bible in vernacular translations…”

 

[imjustme]

I was surprised to read this. When I read that list of reasons it seemed to me to be a pretty inclusive list of Fundamentalist objections to Apostolic Teaching. I guess I can see how it could be related to disobedience, but more, it seemed to me to be the statement of someone who has been well versed in anti-Catholicism.

I was surprised to read “disobedience, disobedience, disobedience” too…to me it looked like “obedience, obedience, obedience” (to the Bible).

 

[imjustme]

I will tell you where I got that idea:

Because Catholics read the scripture in the light of Apostolic Teaching, so we perceive it’s meaning differently. Those who are separated from this Sacred Tradition are missing part of God’s revelation to the Church, so they understand the scripture differently.

This statement says to me that you have regret over your failure as a parent because you raised your children in “error”. You consider Catholicism to be the “wrong” path. this seems to indicate that you don’t believe they can be saved if they are Catholic.
Your words indicate that you do not believe “catholic” to be any part of the “true path”.

That is correct. Obviously if I thought it was the true path, I wouldn’t have changed.

When I joined a fundamentalist group after leaving my Catholic home I learned to read the bible for myself. I did wonder about what appeared to me to be “inconsistencies”. It took me a long time to work this out. However, I now realize that there are no “inconsistencies” between Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The entire NT is produced out of Sacred Tradition, and there can be no contradiction between them, as they come from the same Source.

I respect your opinions and experience and appreciate that you seem to respect mine.

Most of us have thoroughly researched this anti-Catholic site. We get this material around here a lot.

**You are the second person to say this was an “anti-Catholic site”…do you really think it is anti-Catholic or just non-Catholic. I honestly see it as non-Catholic Christian…aside from the specific links related to Catholic info, the site teaches Christian (Protestant) faith and does not specifically target Catholics. Sometimes when I read a Catholic site, I also cringe at what can seem anti-Protestant…be we need to be able to share such things in order to discuss our opinions and differences, right? Thanks in advance for your honest **opinion.

 

[Benn]

And how did you come by your beleifs?

He estesbob,
I came by my beliefs by just hearing God’s word and a lot of study an prayer. I know where I came from and I know where I am going. The bible tells me that the Holy Spiriit will teach me all that I need to know. Simple as that. The bible tels us that we are free moral agents…we are accountable for the way we live and treat others no mediator no vicar just Jesus…He said no man comes to the Father (God) but by me.

Benn
“Perhaps Today”

 

[estesbob]

What about the Syllabus then?
The Syllabus mentions Protestantism directly… (I know, I’m not daft and I looked at the text that the short summary was based upon… for whatever reason I did not find the same title, but I found it by looking at the publication date.)

“… This is why they try to draw the Italian people over to Protestantism, which in their deceit they repeatedly declare to be only another form of the same true religion of Christ, thereby just as pleasing to God. Meanwhile they know full well that the chief principle of the Protestant tenets, i.e., that the holy scriptures are to be understood by the personal judgment of the individual, will greatly assist their impious cause. They are confident that they can first misuse the holy scriptures by wrong interpretation to spread their errors and claim God’s authority while doing it. Then they can cause men to call into doubt the common principles of justice and honor. …] The crafty enemies of the Church and human society attempt to seduce the people in many ways. One of their chief methods is the misuse of the new technique of book-production. They are wholly absorbed in the ceaseless daily publication and proliferation of impious pamphlets, newspapers and leaflets which are full of lies, calumnies and seduction. Furthermore, under the protection of the Bible Societies which have long since been condemned by this Holy See, they distribute to the faithful under the pretext of religion, the holy bible in vernacular translations…”

Yes Janet I am familar with the sylabbus. Are you familar with the context in which it was written? For instance why does it refer specifically to the " Italian People" being drawn away from the Church? Why would this need to be mentioned if it was a blanket condemnation of all who do not BELONG to the Church?

How does invincible ignorance fit into these comments? Does the syllabus say one has to be a MEMBER of the Church to be saved ?