Question for all protestants

[PRmerger]

No, I don’t.

Some reading for you to do tonight:

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=baptism&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

And I’m not sure the Catholic Church knows either.

PR’s comment to herself: Must. Not. Be. Sarcastic.

No. I’m pretty sure that the Catholic Church knows what she teaches about baptism.

 

[dronald]

Some reading for you to do tonight:

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=baptism&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

PR’s comment to herself: Must. Not. Be. Sarcastic.

No. I’m pretty sure that the Catholic Church knows what she teaches about baptism.

Way too many links, can you just explain the last 2 questions for me please? I would like to read your immediate opinion on question 2 and question 3 below. I’m not reading 162 pages on Baptism because I have some follow up questions.

-is baptism an ordinance, or a sacrament?

-does it save? or is it merely an outward sign of conversion?

-should it be done by sprinkling? or immersion? in a river? in infancy? or adulthood?

 

[SPH1]

Nice topic. I recall recently reading the following by a Lutheran theologian. We can see that the progression of error applies not only to the church but to politics and society.

Charles Porterfield Krauth (1823-1883):

But the practical result of this principle [of the church tolerating within her bosom those who claim she is teaching error] is one on which there is no need of speculating; it works in one unvarying way. When error is admitted into the Church, it will be found that the stages of its progress are always three. It begins by asking toleration. Its friends say to the majority: You need not be afraid of us; we are few, and weak; only let us alone; we shall not disturb the faith of others. The church has her standards of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them; we ask only for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions. Indulged in this for a time, error goes on to assert equal rights. Truth and error are two balancing forces. The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental. Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential. Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the church. Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them. From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy. Truth started with tolerating, it comes to be merely tolerated, and that only for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed points. It puts men into positions, not as at first in spite of their departure from the Church’s faith, but in consequence of it. Their recommendation is that they repudiate that faith, and position is given them to teach others to repudiate it, and to make them skilful in combating it. (The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1872, pp. 195-96.)

 

[PRmerger]

Way too many links, can you just explain the last 2 questions for me please? I would like to read your immediate opinion on question 2 and question 3 below. I’m not reading 162 pages on Baptism because I have some follow up questions.

-is baptism an ordinance, or a sacrament?

-does it save? or is it merely an outward sign of conversion?

-should it be done by sprinkling? or immersion? in a river? in infancy? or adulthood?

No. I will not answer those questions.

Because…
Either you already know the answers (which I am certain that you do), or you can read what those answers are in the links provided.

 

[PRmerger]

So if I was alive during the year 347-407, I would be told that I shall not escape the fires of Hell because I do not believe a Priest is needed in order to take communion.

Who would have told you that?

 

[dronald]

No. I will not answer those questions.

Because…
Either you already know the answers (which I am certain that you do), or you can read what those answers are in the links provided.

I often get different answers about Baptism from Catholics, and I need someone to interpret what, “Baptism saves you” means. I don’t get it, and I’m wondering what your beliefs are.

The problem with documents like the CCC is even it can be misinterpreted and probably often is.

Who would have told you that?

The Archbishop of Constantinople?

 

[SPH1]

Way too many links, can you just explain the last 2 questions for me please? I would like to read your immediate opinion on question 2 and question 3 below. I’m not reading 162 pages on Baptism because I have some follow up questions.

-is baptism an ordinance, or a sacrament?

-does it save? or is it merely an outward sign of conversion?

-should it be done by sprinkling? or immersion? in a river? in infancy? or adulthood?

-is baptism an ordinance, or a sacrament?
Baptism is a sacrament, the truth of which is acknowledged by the Holy Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and some Protestant groups.

-does it save? or is it merely an outward sign of conversion?
Baptism is the way in which one is “born again of water and spirit” and regenerates. But since one is saved, being saved and hopes to be saved, the saving power of baptism can be tarnished through life. Even so, since baptism (in some form) is necessary, it is always there, supporting one throughout life.

-should it be done by sprinkling? or immersion? in a river? in infancy? or adulthood?
My first thought is why do you care? Or better yet, why do you care if one has baptism at all? In the Holy Catholic Church, God is on the other end of the sacraments, including baptism, as an active participant. In your view, I suspect that - at best - God is merely an observer. Oh my, see what just happened? In the Catholic Church baptism is a means of grace from God. In your view, baptism is merely a work…and you probably don’t really know why you have it at all but for God instituting it…for some reason.

 

[PRmerger]

Even if Catholics contend that the Marian dogmas were always true, they weren’t required beliefs for salvation until relatively recently.

Firstly, Stephen, would you mind quoting in the normative manner? You simply need to hit the “quote” icon and the response will appear quite nicely.

You are removing the original poster’s name from your responses, and that is not a good way to respond here.

Secondly, you are projecting a Protestant paradigm upon us. We do not typically talk in terms of “required beliefs for salvation”. We speak of a love relationship with Christ, and the Church as the fullness of this relationship. Thus, asking the question “what’s the minimum that is required for me to believe in order to achieve salvation” is something no Catholic ought to ask. It may be a Protestant question…I dunno.

 

[PRmerger]

I often get different answers about Baptism from Catholics,

Best is not to ask Catholics, but see what the Catholic Church teaches.

And I’ve already referred you to this sure norm for the faith.

The problem with documents like the CCC is even it can be misinterpreted and probably often is.

If it is, we have an authority to whom we can appeal.

In your paradigm, there is no authority when someone misinterprets, and thus we have the obscenity of tens of thousands of differing denominations, each claiming that their interpretation is the correct ohne.

The Archbishop of Constantinople?

Please cite your source. I’d like the name of this Archbishop, and the document where he would say what you claim. Thanks.

 

[PRmerger]

We’re all Catholic if you mean Christ’s Universal Church.

True. Some are imperfectly joined, however.

But the fact that you acknowledge the authority of Sacred Tradition is, indeed, “sweet”.

 

[rinnie]

NOOOOO hahahha

You got my two mixed up. It was okay to burn heretics and all who did not take the Eucharist would burn in hell forever.

Neither of these are beliefs held now, but they were once!

Protestants don’t believe Catholics have to be Protestant; Protestants believe that it is reasonable to have many members to the same body. That is, if one Church loses it’s way at some point in history at least every other Church can denounce it. If the CC is doing something horrible (which they don’t do anymore! ) then we can separate ourselves from the CC.

Think of how rough it must be for Muslims that there are only two denominations. Both Sunni’s and Shi’ites are blowing each other up. (And others). Now imagine they had many larger denominations that could say, “Sunni’s are not acting as true Muslims.” Or something of that sort.

I don’t believe in heretic burning that the CC practiced and the Pope condoned, nor do I believe in witch burning that Protestants took part in. So if I want to not be apart of a Church that would burn heretics and claim it’s “the will of the Spirit” and yet not be burned as a heretic myself for disagreeing, where do I go?

As I stated though; Pope Francis is a great fella and I’m really happy for the CC as it is now.

What does a sin of a Pope have to do with the truth in the RCC? I mean if you can hold Christ accountable for human sin in his Church, I guess he is accountable for the sin of Judas also then right?

But lets do it your way. If a Pope sins, and they will admit they are human and have human sin, is the only reason that takes you away from Christ in the Eucharist, and the Sacraments of his Holy Church, send me to the Protestant Church, I wanna go there where the Preacher is perfect and without sin.

Where may this Protestant Church be where this preacher has no sin? Hook me up here Brother!

 

[rinnie]

There have been many periods when different beliefs have been held that are no longer held. I’m glad that you asked:
For if no one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the** hands of the priest,** how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? Treatise on the Priesthood (excerpt)
by St. John Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407)

So if I was alive during the year 347-407, I would be told that I shall not escape the fires of Hell because I do not believe a Priest is needed in order to take communion.

Muslims don’t even take communion and yet:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

No, I don’t. And I’m not sure the Catholic Church knows either.

Sweet.

We’re all Catholic if you mean Christ’s Universal Church.

No worries. What you need to recognize is how close we truly are.

Where did the teaching in the RCC change that you DO NOT have to take communion from a Catholic Priest? Its still there. We still believe this.

Also how could the Muslims be held to the teachings of the RCC if the truth was never revealed to them? God only holds us to what we know.

By the way back then there was only one Church and it was the CC. So are you saying that you could be a Christian back then but reject the teaching of the CC?

So my question was how could you claim to acknowledge Christ and reject his Church all in the same breath?

By the way same as today, you asked how can someone reject Christ in the Eucharist, and not drink and eat of the body and blood of Christ enter heaven? I don’t know. I don’t even believe the RCC ever said they even could. The RCC teaches means of how you can have eternal life in Christ and its by the Eucharist only given by a Priest. Why? Because who can claim they can take regular bread and wine and turn it into the true blood and bread from heaven, except a Catholic Priest. Has a Protestant Preacher ever claimed this? I never heard of one claiming this?

I was told they reject Christ in the Eucharist and claim it is only a symbol?

But if you reject that only a Catholic Priest who has valid Holy Orders can do this, your problem isn’t with the Pope its with Jesus.

In the Bible the Holy Spirit is passed on to turn the bread into the true living bread has to passed on by the laying of hands. The Apostles got this from Jesus. Its in the bible by the way.

So while the Pope teaches that the only regular means we know to have eternal life in Christ is to eat and drink of the Eucharist, he still has the right to rely on the mercy of Christ to use extra-ordinary means. And just because God can do this, by no means guarantees he will.

The RCC never claimed you could enter without Communion, and does not teach this, but it does teach God is not bound even to his commands.

 

[rinnie]

dronald, now its your turn In order to have eternal life you must eat and drink. Where is this teaching against the word of God.

Please show me where you don’t have to, how do you feel you can gain eternal life outside of what Christ taught us?

 

[Porknpie]

To a modern Catholic that must seem like a rather thin message - no mention of the Church. /QUOTE] even more problematic for the Protestant is that there is no mention of a bible let alone what books should be in the bible. Which Catholic know comes from the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

To a modern Catholic that must seem like a rather thin message - no mention of the Church.

even more problematic for the Protestant is that there is no mention of a bible let alone what books should be in the bible. Which Catholic know comes from the Church.

Trenchant observation, Pork!

It is an incontrovertible position.

 

[Jon_S_1]

This thread started strong, but I’m disappointed our Protestant brothers pulled the old bait and switch.

It’s like they know they can’t answer the issue of authority and conflict resolution and sin per Matt 18.

They resign that they have no leg to stand on and them switch the topic without addressing it remotely close to satisfactorily.

Now we got heretics being burned, baptism, Eucharist and sola Scriptura and yet the question to answer all of these…the question of authority…is left floating in the wind…a too difficult subject for the Protestant to reconcile.

 

[batman1973]

This thread started strong, but I’m disappointed our Protestant brothers pulled the old bait and switch.

It’s like they know they can’t answer the issue of authority and conflict resolution and sin per Matt 18.

They resign that they have no leg to stand on and them switch the topic without addressing it remotely close to satisfactorily.

Now we got heretics being burned, baptism, Eucharist and sola Scriptura and yet the question to answer all of these…the question of authority…is left floating in the wind…a too difficult subject for the Protestant to reconcile.

Interesting, cause I see the same thing from the Catholic side. If a question is asked, refusing to answer shows a real lack of consideration.

 

[dronald]

. -is baptism an ordinance, or a sacrament?
Baptism is a sacrament, the truth of which is acknowledged by the Holy Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and some Protestant groups.

Thanks, this one I do know.

-does it save? or is it merely an outward sign of conversion?
Baptism is the way in which one is “born again of water and spirit” and regenerates. But since one is saved, being saved and hopes to be saved, the saving power of baptism can be tarnished through life. Even so, since baptism (in some form) is necessary, it is always there, supporting one throughout life.

…in some form?

-should it be done by sprinkling? or immersion? in a river? in infancy? or adulthood?
My first thought is why do you care? Or better yet, why do you care if one has baptism at all? In the Holy Catholic Church, God is on the other end of the sacraments, including baptism, as an active participant. In your view, I suspect that - at best - God is merely an observer. Oh my, see what just happened? In the Catholic Church baptism is a means of grace from God. In your view, baptism is merely a work…and you probably don’t really know why you have it at all but for God instituting it…for some reason.

You don’t know my views, and this is another dodge. Honestly I don’t get why this is so hard to answer, and I’m not even the one who originally asked it! It’s baffling that I have two people now who have posted that I should already know or don’t need to know… what is this? Lol.

Best is not to ask Catholics, but see what the Catholic Church teaches.

And I’ve already referred you to this sure norm for the faith.

If it is, we have an authority to whom we can appeal.

In your paradigm, there is no authority when someone misinterprets, and thus we have the obscenity of tens of thousands of differing denominations, each claiming that their interpretation is the correct ohne.

Please cite your source. I’d like the name of this Archbishop, and the document where he would say what you claim. Thanks.

If you’ll forgive me, I’m on my phone. It’s either one or two pages back that you’ll find where I quoted and posted the link. I also contrasted quotes with the CCC.

What does a sin of a Pope have to do with the truth in the RCC? I mean if you can hold Christ accountable for human sin in his Church, I guess he is accountable for the sin of Judas also then right?

But lets do it your way. If a Pope sins, and they will admit they are human and have human sin, is the only reason that takes you away from Christ in the Eucharist, and the Sacraments of his Holy Church, send me to the Protestant Church, I wanna go there where the Preacher is perfect and without sin.

Where may this Protestant Church be where this preacher has no sin? Hook me up here Brother!

It’s not about sinners, it’s about teaching a false belief as the head of a massive Church and people being allowed to separate themselves from such leadership.

 

[dronald]

This thread started strong, but I’m disappointed our Protestant brothers pulled the old bait and switch.

It’s like they know they can’t answer the issue of authority and conflict resolution and sin per Matt 18.

They resign that they have no leg to stand on and them switch the topic without addressing it remotely close to satisfactorily.

Now we got heretics being burned, baptism, Eucharist and sola Scriptura and yet the question to answer all of these…the question of authority…is left floating in the wind…a too difficult subject for the Protestant to reconcile.

Jon, you do realize that this discussion is always lead by Catholics bringing up differences in this that and the other thing. Then when I challenge them I’m somehow the bad guy.

Okay, so your argument is that Matthew 18 has some rules on brothers sinning against other brothers am I right? What was the final solution if a brother will not listen? What happens if the Church ignores that and resorts to horrible consequences?

This is why burning heretics gets brought up, because if the Pope does say that it’s all good to do such a thing and also says it’s not against the will of the Spirit, then we need to separate and fix it.

Christianity is now in amazing shape, we have missionaries of all denominations spreading the Gospel. If a Church condones horrific acts we can all speak out against it. Again, think of Sunni Muslims; the people who don’t believe in blowing up others are in the same denomination as those that do. Now, if we were to pretend that the good Sunni’s were right, wouldn’t it make sense for them to start a new group of Sunni’s that can remove any hateful member? Even if it’s the head honcho?

This discussion is fine, we’re just not falling for any “gotcha” moments. Protestants aren’t ignorant even though some are, we have legitimate reasons not to be Catholic. And the CC is equally legitimate.

 

[esieffe]

Agree. The irony is that many if not most non-Roman Catholics posters on CAF have a strong affinity and desire to reunite with the mother Church, especially Lutherans and Anglicans. Pope Francis is viewed by some of us as our Father also.

It is indeed irony. I grew up an Episcopalian. The Son of the Rector. I have know since I was 17 that the RCC had something that Episcopalians were close too, but just not there. I knew the further away a particular denomination got from Rome, the more “out of concert” it was with the true teachings of Christ, and may I be as bold to say, the love of Christ and the seat of God.

I think the “war drums” are beating throughout most denominations now, I think all Christians sense the peril. The atheists, who in the past, I never felt one way or the other about, are organizing and rallying. Why? Atheism was never a fellowship, it was simply the absence of belief and practice.

That has changed. Now they have websites and billboards. They post and blog everywhere, and many who share, do so with such an alarming amount of vitriol. As autonomous individuals, atheists are overall harmless. We hope that they find their way to God someday. But when they unite? It is like a bad horror movie.

I wandered away from my original point, which is, I have always felt like the RCC was the “real deal” division 1 if you will. When Pope Francis came to us, I knew the time for conversion had at last come. I look forward one day, to be able to run with the apologetics
in all of you, but my gut really works pretty well. And right now, my gut tells me it is a good time to be Christian, Roman or otherwise.