Question for all protestants

[Randy_Carson]

Ugh. This one drives me crazy. Sometimes Catholics use moral relativism other times they rely on an outdated teaching. Women DO speak up in The CC now and it used to be wrong for them as Paul said, right? But ordination still stays out of the question. I would say give it another 200 years and CAF will be defending the newest female Priest.

You clearly misunderstand the Church’s teaching on this subject.

There is NO chance of this happening. :nope:

 

[PRmerger]

Idk, why don’t you tell me?

You need to answer this, dronald, as it is your paradigm which results in this chaos and confusion.

Either your paradigm is correct, in which there is no understanding about the truths of salvation…

OR…

the Catholic paradigm is correct in which there is One Faith, given once for all, to the Church.

And the truths which this Church proclaims are the truths required for our salvation.

Otherwise, it appears that you have promoted a recipe of chaos and confusion regarding these ever so important issues.

 

[PRmerger]

The CC doesn’t agree on all of its beliefs from the past 450 years until now as well.

This Tu Quoque fallacy is a cop-out, dronald.

The fact remains that the Faith of Catholicism is quite clear, and where we have room for diversity of opinions is quite slim when compared to the behemoth of doctrinal confusion created by what you are espousing.

 

[Heart_Foam]

Unless you can point out a official teaching they taught, and now don’t agree on.

From Yves Congar, influential Catholic theologian, in his book Tradition and Traditions

But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical.

Yves was sometimes a controversial figure, but it nevertheless warrants attention and investigation. But if you dig around, you’ll find out that he’s right. There was no “unanimous consent of the fathers” that Matt 16:18 was taken in the pro-papal sense. Does that mean Vatican 1 lied in its claims about the papacy? Maybe. A common effort to dig out of the hole has been to acknowledge that the consent wasn’t real, but it was "moral ". Dear me. But more to the point, it goes without saying that the requirements for salvation have changed. 450 years ago God was ignorantly letting people into Heaven even though they didn’t believe the Marian dogmas, which are now required. 450 years ago, one didn’t even have to believe in papal primacy - that only came in 1870. Ideally, salvation should be through trust in Christ. Not an ever-growing list of intellectual assent. Paul says of his time in Corinth “I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” ( 1 Corinthians 2:2) To a modern Catholic that must seem like a rather thin message - no mention of the Church.

And the truths which this Church proclaims are the truths required for our salvation.

But Catholicism has developed. Despite what Vatican 1 said. The “truths required for your salvation” haven’t always been in place. I’d like the requirements for salvation to be unchanging, because God’s laws, as a reflection of His character are unchanging. But that’s not the case in the RCC. There have certainly been additions. How do you handle those? When asked, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”, Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” Didn’t Jesus know about the other required beliefs?

 

[PRmerger]

But Catholicism has developed.

Indeed.

Despite what Vatican 1 said. The “truths required for your salvation” haven’t always been in place. I’d like the requirements for salvation to be unchanging, because God’s laws, as a reflection of His character are unchanging.

So what are these “truths required for salvation”, Stephen? Can you please give us a list, with Scriptural references?

 

[dronald]

You clearly misunderstand the Church’s teaching on this subject.

There is NO chance of this happening. :nope:

Said Paul 200 years ago. Am I right?

You need to answer this, dronald, as it is your paradigm which results in this chaos and confusion.

Either your paradigm is correct, in which there is no understanding about the truths of salvation…

OR…

the Catholic paradigm is correct in which there is One Faith, given once for all, to the Church.

And the truths which this Church proclaims are the truths required for our salvation.

Otherwise, it appears that you have promoted a recipe of chaos and confusion regarding these ever so important issues.

I think that mine’s right, but I would like to read your beliefs based on the questions you provided. Let me know your official Catholic teaching on all questions you provided if you don’t mind.

This Tu Quoque fallacy is a cop-out, dronald.

The fact remains that the Faith of Catholicism is quite clear, and where we have room for diversity of opinions is quite slim when compared to the behemoth of doctrinal confusion created by what you are espousing.

Can those who do not take the Eucharist be saved? What about 1600 yrs ago?

 

[Jon_S_1]

From Yves Congar, influential Catholic theologian, in his book Tradition and Traditions

But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical.

Yves was sometimes a controversial figure, but it nevertheless warrants attention and investigation. But if you dig around, you’ll find out that he’s right. There was no “unanimous consent of the fathers” that Matt 16:18 was taken in the pro-papal sense. Does that mean Vatican 1 lied in its claims about the papacy? Maybe. A common effort to dig out of the hole has been to acknowledge that the consent wasn’t real, but it was "moral ". Dear me. But more to the point, it goes without saying that the requirements for salvation have changed. 450 years ago God was ignorantly letting people into Heaven even though they didn’t believe the Marian dogmas, which are now required. 450 years ago, one didn’t even have to believe in papal primacy - that only came in 1870. Ideally, salvation should be through trust in Christ. Not an ever-growing list of intellectual assent. Paul says of his time in Corinth “I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” ( 1 Corinthians 2:2) To a modern Catholic that must seem like a rather thin message - no mention of the Church.

But Catholicism has developed. Despite what Vatican 1 said. The “truths required for your salvation” haven’t always been in place. I’d like the requirements for salvation to be unchanging, because God’s laws, as a reflection of His character are unchanging. But that’s not the case in the RCC. There have certainly been additions. How do you handle those? When asked, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”, Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” Didn’t Jesus know about the other required beliefs?

This is nonsense.

The requirements for salvation have changed???

Where do you get this stuff. It’s absurd and almost not worth engaging.

 

[PRmerger]

Can those who do not take the Eucharist be saved? What about 1600 yrs ago?

It’s above our pay grade to state who is in hell, dronald.

 

[PRmerger]

I think that mine’s right, but I would like to read your beliefs based on the questions you provided.

So this invisible church is full of chaos and confusion?

Really?

Why would Christ establish a church that can’t make a statement on whether baptism saves or is an ordinance? And on whether divorce and re-marriage is adultery, or a second chance?

Let me know your official Catholic teaching on all questions you provided if you don’t mind.

It’s all right here, dronald:

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[Randy_Carson]

But more to the point, it goes without saying that the requirements for salvation have changed. 450 years ago God was ignorantly letting people into Heaven even though they didn’t believe the Marian dogmas, which are now required. 450 years ago, one didn’t even have to believe in papal primacy - that only came in 1870.

This is an empty argument, and you know it.

First, the Marian dogmas were not invented out of thin air; they simply formalized long-held beliefs of the people. The same could be said of papal infallibility which you have dated to 1870.

Second, please allow me to assure you that I have spent weeks in the Eastern Catholic forum arguing with Orthodox about the primacy and supremacy of the Pope, and while none of them would concede on supremacy, ALL of them would be quick to take up the argument against you concerning primacy. You are simply spouting nonsense here, and you know it.

Ideally, salvation should be through trust in Christ. Not an ever-growing list of intellectual assent. Paul says of his time in Corinth “I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” ( 1 Corinthians 2:2) To a modern Catholic that must seem like a rather thin message - no mention of the Church.

Yes, doctrine develops. Those who come later stand on the shoulders of those who went before. Some Christians lived before the development of the canon, others before the various heresies concerning the incarnation had been defeated. But once these things are firmly settled, then yes, orthodoxy requires the assent of faith to them all.

But Catholicism has developed. Despite what Vatican 1 said. The “truths required for your salvation” haven’t always been in place. I’d like the requirements for salvation to be unchanging, because God’s laws, as a reflection of His character are unchanging. But that’s not the case in the RCC. There have certainly been additions. How do you handle those? When asked, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”, Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” Didn’t Jesus know about the other required beliefs?

I suspect the Jews share your feeling that God keeps moving the goal posts.

The Church, by the time the last apostle died, had all the mass of truth the apostles had taught, the whole of it by word of mouth, a part of it in writing. She might have simply gone on, through the nineteen centuries since, repeating what had been taught, reading what had been written. In this case she would have been a preserver of truth–but scarcely a teacher. She would have been a piece of human machinery, but not a living thing, not the Mystical Body of Christ.

In fact, she not only repeated what the apostles had been taught: she thought about it, meditated on it, prayed by it, lived it. And, doing all this, the Church came to see further and further depths of truth in it. And, seeing these, she taught these too. Everything was contained in what Christ had given the apostles to give the Church: but though everything was there, it was not all seen explicitly–not all at once.

A rough comparison may make the position clear: a man brought into a dark room begins by distinguishing little: then he sees certain patches of shadow blacker than the rest: bit by bit he sees these as a table and chairs: then, as his eyes grow accustomed to the obscurity, he sees things smaller still–pictures, books, ash trays–and so on to the smallest detail. Nothing has been added to the contents of the room: but there has been an immense growth in his knowledge of the contents.

So with the Church. She has, generation by generation, seen deeper and deeper.

 

[Jon_S_1]

This is an empty argument, and you know it.

First, the Marian dogmas were not invented out of thin air; they simply formalized long-held beliefs of the people. The same could be said of papal infallibility which you have dated to 1870.

Second, please allow me to assure you that I have spent weeks in the Eastern Catholic forum arguing with Orthodox about the primacy and supremacy of the Pope, and while none of them would concede on supremacy, ALL of them would be quick to take up the argument against you concerning primacy. You are simply spouting nonsense here, and you know it.

Yes, doctrine develops. Those who come later stand on the shoulders of those who went before. Some Christians lived before the development of the canon, others before the various heresies concerning the incarnation had been defeated. But once these things are firmly settled, then yes, orthodoxy requires the assent of faith to them all.

The Church, by the time the last apostle died, had all the mass of truth the apostles had taught, the whole of it by word of mouth, a part of it in writing. She might have simply gone on, through the nineteen centuries since, repeating what had been taught, reading what had been written. In this case she would have been a preserver of truth–but scarcely a teacher. She would have been a piece of human machinery, but not a living thing, not the Mystical Body of Christ.

In fact, she not only repeated what the apostles had been taught: she thought about it, meditated on it, prayed by it, lived it. And, doing all this, the Church came to see further and further depths of truth in it. And, seeing these, she taught these too. Everything was contained in what Christ had given the apostles to give the Church: but though everything was there, it was not all seen explicitly–not all at once.

A rough comparison may make the position clear: a man brought into a dark room begins by distinguishing little: then he sees certain patches of shadow blacker than the rest: bit by bit he sees these as a table and chairs: then, as his eyes grow accustomed to the obscurity, he sees things smaller still–pictures, books, ash trays–and so on to the smallest detail. Nothing has been added to the contents of the room: but there has been an immense growth in his knowledge of the contents.

So with the Church. She has, generation by generation, seen deeper and deeper.

Using Heart Foam’s logic, the Trinity was invented in the fifth century, and the Bible Canon invented in the fourth century.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Using Heart Foam’s logic, the Trinity was invented in the fifth century, and the Bible Canon invented in the fourth century.

Now, now…be fair. The canon was not settled until Trent.

 

[rinnie]

From Yves Congar, influential Catholic theologian, in his book Tradition and Traditions

But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical.

Yves was sometimes a controversial figure, but it nevertheless warrants attention and investigation. But if you dig around, you’ll find out that he’s right. There was no “unanimous consent of the fathers” that Matt 16:18 was taken in the pro-papal sense. Does that mean Vatican 1 lied in its claims about the papacy? Maybe. A common effort to dig out of the hole has been to acknowledge that the consent wasn’t real, but it was "moral ". Dear me. But more to the point, it goes without saying that the requirements for salvation have changed. 450 years ago God was ignorantly letting people into Heaven even though they didn’t believe the Marian dogmas, which are now required. 450 years ago, one didn’t even have to believe in papal primacy - that only came in 1870. Ideally, salvation should be through trust in Christ. Not an ever-growing list of intellectual assent. Paul says of his time in Corinth “I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” ( 1 Corinthians 2:2) To a modern Catholic that must seem like a rather thin message - no mention of the Church.

But Catholicism has developed. Despite what Vatican 1 said. The “truths required for your salvation” haven’t always been in place. I’d like the requirements for salvation to be unchanging, because God’s laws, as a reflection of His character are unchanging. But that’s not the case in the RCC. There have certainly been additions. How do you handle those? When asked, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”, Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” Didn’t Jesus know about the other required beliefs?

Did you miss the except at Rome? I asked about the RCC.

And where did Jesus say the ONLY requirement wa to believe in him? Who do you think told us to love one another? Moses? How about confess our sin? Repent?

Do you think the Apostles made the rest of the commands up?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Did you miss the except at Rome? I asked about the RCC.

Nice catch. :clapping:

I have had an Orthodox priest ask me repeatedly, “Why do you think four out of five of the Pentarchy rejected papal claims?”

Well, duh. Because none of them are the one.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Heart Foam-

My question?

I have a question concerning the one, true Church as you understand it.

Would you say that:

1. Jesus established one church, but it is an invisible, abstract, “spiritual” church in which all true believers, regardless of denomination, are members. In this church, either:
   (a) Doctrine does not matter, or
   (b) Conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable.
2. Jesus established one, visible church in which doctrine matters and does not conflict. This church contains the fullness of truth as revealed by God; all others have partial truth, at best.

Thanks.

 

[dronald]

It’s above our pay grade to state who is in hell, dronald.

So someone who does not take the Eucharist “can” be saved correct? Is it possible? Was it always believed to be possible?

So this invisible church is full of chaos and confusion?

Really?

Why would Christ establish a church that can’t make a statement on whether baptism saves or is an ordinance? And on whether divorce and re-marriage is adultery, or a second chance?

Christ used His own mouth to explain the former, so it’s not worth discussing.

As far as baptism, I’m still waiting for official Catholic teachings based on the questions you provided then we can see where the confusion lies.

It’s all right here, dronald:

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

You would think so, but no it’s not. So I want to hear it from you.

Using Heart Foam’s logic, the Trinity was invented in the fifth century, and the Bible Canon invented in the fourth century.

Regardless of when it was defined, the belief was always held. Other doctrines of the CC however have not always been believed since AD33.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Regardless of when it was defined, the belief was always held. Other doctrines of the CC however have not always been believed since AD33.

Prove to me one doctrine that was not held by the church at the time if John’s death (Revelation ceased with apostles not Jesus).

 

[PRmerger]

So someone who does not take the Eucharist “can” be saved correct? Is it possible? Was it always believed to be possible?

Outside the Church there is no salvation, dronald.

Now, is it possible for someone who does not take the Eucharist but to still be within the invisible bounds of the CC, yes, it is possible. He may be saved. Not will be saved.

Was it always believed to be possible? Yes.

You will note that the CC has never declared a single soul–not a single heretic–to be in hell.

That’s because it’s outside our pay grade.

 

[Heart_Foam]

Using Heart Foam’s logic, the Trinity was invented in the fifth century, and the Bible Canon invented in the fourth century.

Heart Foam is a great name. It’s so absurd. Hi, I’m Stephen. My logic is in good order.

First, the Marian dogmas were not invented out of thin air; they simply formalized long-held beliefs of the people. The same could be said of papal infallibility which you have dated to 1870.

Even if Catholics contend that the Marian dogmas were always true, they weren’t required beliefs for salvation until relatively recently. That’s the problem. Have the requirements for salvation changed? You’re not engaging with the issue.

Can I make a crucial observation in the interest of clarity and understanding and all that. Note well the different usage of the word “faith”. Catholics tend to mean a laundry list of things, about the Church, about Mary, etc. that one must give intellectual assent of faith to. Forgive me for saying this, but it becomes almost as arbitrary as being required to believe the sky is blue. And if Rome says one must believe that to be saved then so be it because Rome has the power to bind and loose. It comes down to saying “I believe x because Rome says I must”. In formalizing the Marian dogmas it decided that believing them was a required belief - as you know. Until then, it was *not *required. And I’m not wrong about the list of things that must be believed. It is growing. You know it has grown. Someone in the NT didn’t have to believe what you have to believe now. And Mary as mediatrix and co-mediatrix will surely one day be a required belief for salvation according to Rome, and it isn’t now. When Protestants talk about “faith” we mean personal trust in Christ who paid the price of salvation. There are over 200 verses that link faith with salvation. They mean faith in Christ.

And this is easy:

Prove to me one doctrine that was not held by the church at the time if John’s death (Revelation ceased with apostles not Jesus).

There are many, but I’ll go for papal infallibility. There’s no mention of it for the first 12 centuries. Some have tried to argue for an earlier date. Some say 13th-century Franciscan priest Peter Olivi was the first person to attribute infallibility to the pope. At any rate, it would be very hard find it in the early church and early councils. Rome had some primacy being the center of the empire, but the specific idea that the bishop of Rome is* infallible* when speaking ex cathedra is certainly not there from the start.

Here’s a thought experiment: did the Apostle Paul have to believe in the Assumption of Mary - only made dogma in 1950 - to be saved? If not, why not?

 

[PRmerger]

Christ used His own mouth to explain the former, so it’s not worth discussing.

And yet there are a multitude of views on this.

No one who’s a Protestant can articulate a single viewpoint espoused by Protestants.

Can you see how monstrous this is?

As far as baptism, I’m still waiting for official Catholic teachings based on the questions you provided then we can see where the confusion lies.

I am not entertaining this–unless you want to state here for the record that you don’t know what the official Catholic teaching is?

You really don’t know what the “official Catholic teaching” on baptism is?