Question for all protestants

[dronald]

God will use you where he finds you. I am confident he works wherever people seek him. Whether that’s the best you can offer him is something only you can answer and something everyone of is must evaluate everyday.

In reading your comment I could not help but think of people like Scott Hahn or Dr Bergsma, or Marcus Grodi, or many others who were so active in Protestant evangelization. Who were pastors of churches, or missionaries or seminarians and involved in bringing people to Christ in amazing ways.

God used them where they were. And part of why they were effective then and now is they were open to following God even when it led to a place they least expected in The Catholic Church.

That openness to God has led to continual flourishing and for even greater expansion of the gospel ( and now they bring people into the fullness of Christs truth.) ok I just had to add that last line

Have you ever watched "the Journey Home " ? It’s archived on YouTube and is conversion stories to Catholicism from all walks of life and religions. If say it’s worth watching some episodes, particularly the ones of people from your tradition.

Goin up North this weekend, so would you be able to PM me the video so I can watch it when I get back? I’m leavin soon.

Glad we found some common ground before I left.

DRonald,

I’m not sure if you understand the Church’s position or not. They DO touch the subject.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

The debate in the early Church was whether to baptise on the day of birth, the day after or on the 8th day.

PnP

My issue is the teaching of Baptism isn’t clear enough. Does it really save? It seems like a simple question but there are far too many variables that the CC hasn’t really addressed. This brings me to believe Baptism is still a bad thing to argue about because we’re all saying the same thing in different words.

 

[Porknpie]

Have you ever watched "the Journey Home " ? It’s archived on YouTube and is conversion stories to Catholicism from all walks of life and religions. If say it’s worth watching some episodes, particularly the ones of people from your tradition.

My favorite Journey Home episode is here. Featured is Kelly Nieto, former Ms Michigan and atheist. The first 30 minutes are amazing on the existence of evil and how God can call those who are remote from him.

Well worth the time.

PNP

 

[Porknpie]

Goin up North this weekend, so would you be able to PM me the video so I can watch it when I get back? I’m leavin soon.

Glad we found some common ground before I left.

My issue is the teaching of Baptism isn’t clear enough. Does it really save? It seems like a simple question but there are far too many variables that the CC hasn’t really addressed. This brings me to believe Baptism is still a bad thing to argue about because we’re all saying the same thing in different words.

Yes as a normative means it saves. It is reflected in Tradition and scripture but God is not bound by the sacraments.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Goin up North this weekend, so would you be able to PM me the video so I can watch it when I get back? I’m leavin soon.

Glad we found some common ground before I left.

My issue is the teaching of Baptism isn’t clear enough. Does it really save? It seems like a simple question but there are far too many variables that the CC hasn’t really addressed. This brings me to believe Baptism is still a bad thing to argue about because we’re all saying the same thing in different words.

I think the teaching is clear “baptism now saves you”. Without baptism there is no salvation. This has been deeply personal for me as my kids are not baptized and my ex wife refuses. It causes me much concern.

We have to make sure baptism doesn’t become superstitious though. Like it is purely the physical water that saves. No instead it is the faith of the individual/parents and the obedience to God that allows the grace to pour down through the sacrament.

We are limited to the sacraments, but God is not. He saved the thief on the cross by his desire for baptism, I dedicated my kids to the Lord in a ceremony in my church, it was what I knew and I pray God’s grace and mercy on my kids. I only hope they choose to be baptized soon, and like me, the church prays for God to mercifully allow the children who are not baptized to enter into glory.

In a sense we hope that all children are baptized by desire of the church. And through the church’s prayers, of course this makes legitimate baptism of infants all the more important.

I will look for a good episode to share with you. There are dozens on YouTube, I will try to pick out a good one. Have a good weekend!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Protestant communities are not so much about religion or religious experiences as they are about family connections.

There is no reason for a Protestant to offend his family and become disinherited to become Catholic, if Catholicism doesn’t offer anything more or anything better than his current Protestant family already gives him, together with a place to belong, a house to live in, and an inheritance.

That was actually one of the reasons it took me 17 years to convert to the Catholic faith. I liked the Catholic Church, and I wanted to become Catholic, but as long as everything I found in the Catholic Church was pretty much the same as, or a nicer version of, what I already had in my Protestant community with my closest friends and my blood kin, then why would I become Catholic?

It was only when I realized that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ (and no other) - and that it is the Catholic Church that He saves, and no other - that I realized I needed to become Catholic - even at the risk of homelessness, loneliness, and poverty.

That’s actually the only one I’ve been able to come up with myself.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Protestant communities are not so much about religion or religious experiences as they are about family connections.

There is no reason for a Protestant to offend his family and become disinherited to become Catholic, if Catholicism doesn’t offer anything more or anything better than his current Protestant family already gives him, together with a place to belong, a house to live in, and an inheritance.

That was actually one of the reasons it took me 17 years to convert to the Catholic faith. I liked the Catholic Church, and I wanted to become Catholic, but as long as everything I found in the Catholic Church was pretty much the same as, or a nicer version of, what I already had in my Protestant community with my closest friends and my blood kin, then why would I become Catholic?

It was only when I realized that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ (and no other) - and that it is the Catholic Church that He saves, and no other - that I realized I needed to become Catholic - even at the risk of homelessness, loneliness, and poverty.

Man… this is so true. I lost many people whom I thought were good friends when I reverted to Catholicism. Even my wife and I lost whom we thought were our best family friends, really painful to lose them. We have been blessed with new friends at our Parish but the scars remain. I just can’t ignore the big white elephant in the middle of the room looking at me.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

If you were a Christian during the year 347 and you rejected the truths proclaimed by Christ and His Apostles, then the same thing would happen to you then that would happen to you now.

I don’t understand what the years 347-407 have to do with this.

The teachings are the same: the degree that you reject His Faith is the degree to which you reject Him.

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

Amen!

No one has stated that they can enter Heaven without receiving Him and His Body.

 

[PRmerger]

No one refuted my argument on burning heretics and I decided I would post another example of a commonly held belief that isn’t believed.

Are you talking about an 11-word sentence in *Ex Surge Domine, *in response to Martin Luther’s 95 Theses?

 

[jmcrae]

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.

It’s no different today.

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

John Chrysostom was the Archbishop of Antioch I believe.

As for your statement that no Pope has ever said anything contrary to CC teachings; I suppose that’s only true if you accept Spiritual Moral Relativism. I don’t accept such a Philosophy, in fact; burning heretics was never the will of the Spirit imo.

When it says, "the plan of salvation includes … " it doesn’t mean that they are already saved. Rather, it means that they are permitted, should they so wish, to become Catholics, and if they do, then they will be saved. “Can be” in the sense of, they are allowed to convert, if they want to.

Under the Old Covenant, Gentiles were not part of the plan of salvation. Now, we are. But we still have to convert to the Catholic faith. There is no salvation outside the Church.

 

[rinnie]

Thanks, this one I do know.

…in some form?

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.

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.

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.

But you continue to say this but refuse to reveal to us what this false belief is that the Pope teaches?

 

[rinnie]

There are no false beliefs that a pope, any pope, has ever taught.

Ever.

But dronald continues to accuse him of this, but refuses to show proof!

 

[rinnie]

It seems we have talked about quite a few thing’s here.

But not one person has showed me where any Protestant Preacher has ever claimed authority to speak in the name of the Holy Spirit, and proclaim the power to teach the word of God over another.

Now here is what really seems funny to me, For all the years I have been on this site Protestants themself claim to have the power to understand scripture. And have had no problem telling us what they think it says.

But yet cannot stand up for one Protestant Preacher. Whats wrong with this picture?

As I stated previously I stand by the Power of my Pope and Bishops to teach and preach, can show the word of God, and have a Pope who is the Vicar of Christ.

Isn’t it funny how only the RCC has ever claimed this.

And dronald good for you, at least you are doing your best. I can’t believe all of the Protestants here can’t stand up and show some kind of authority for their Preacher.

 

[JonNC]

It seems we have talked about quite a few thing’s here.

But not one person has showed me where any Protestant Preacher has ever claimed authority to speak in the name of the Holy Spirit, and proclaim the power to teach the word of God over another.

Now here is what really seems funny to me, For all the years I have been on this site Protestants themself claim to have the power to understand scripture. And have had no problem telling us what they think it says.

But yet cannot stand up for one Protestant Preacher. Whats wrong with this picture?

As I stated previously I stand by the Power of my Pope and Bishops to teach and preach, can show the word of God, and have a Pope who is the Vicar of Christ.

Isn’t it funny how only the RCC has ever claimed this.

And dronald good for you, at least you are doing your best. I can’t believe all of the Protestants here can’t stand up and show some kind of authority for their Preacher.

Lutherans can’t because our pastors lack the authority to teach on his own, but is bound to the teachings of scripture and the Confessions. They have the office of the priesthood to act in persona christi, to preach and administer the sacraments, but they do it within the teaching authority of the Church, in our case the Lutheran Church.

I, of course, recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome in his territory, and that of your priest through his ordination, to preach and administer the sacraments. I don’t however, recognize the Bishop of Rome as having universal jurisdiction, or a supremacy over the entire Church Militant.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Lutherans can’t because our pastors lack the authority to teach on his own, but is bound to the teachings of scripture and the Confessions. They have the office of the priesthood to act in persona christi, to preach and administer the sacraments, but they do it within the teaching authority of the Church, in our case the Lutheran Church.

I, of course, recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome in his territory, and that of your priest through his ordination, to preach and administer the sacraments. I don’t however, recognize the Bishop of Rome as having universal jurisdiction, or a supremacy over the entire Church Militant.

Jon

Weird timing. I was planning on asking you about this after thinking a bit on it last night.

Who, in your view, is the person with the highest authority in the Church?

No gotcha here…just an honest question.

 

[rinnie]

Lutherans can’t because our pastors lack the authority to teach on his own, but is bound to the teachings of scripture and the Confessions. They have the office of the priesthood to act in persona christi, to preach and administer the sacraments, but they do it within the teaching authority of the Church, in our case the Lutheran Church.

I, of course, recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome in his territory, and that of your priest through his ordination, to preach and administer the sacraments. I don’t however, recognize the Bishop of Rome as having universal jurisdiction, or a supremacy over the entire Church Militant.

Jon

Fair enough. I jave 2 questions.

Okay Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom alone. Now with that said I understand you don’t agree he has supremacy over the others, but you also recognize his authority as the Bishop of Rome.

Why do you think Jesus gave the keys to Peter and not all of them?

Secondly when the Pope speaks in the voice of God would you say he has the authority from God to do this on his own? And if you do, then how can you reject his teaching? Just curious!

I guess what I am asking in simple words if he has the right to speak in the name of God, and does indeed have this power why would jurisdiction even come into play?

 

[JonNC]

Weird timing. I was planning on asking you about this after thinking a bit on it last night.

Who, in your view, is the person with the highest authority in the Church?

No gotcha here…just an honest question.

I don’t mean this facetiously, but obviously Christ. I suspect, however, you mean in human earthly terms.

Understanding from the start that all orders of the clergy have their origin in one order - presbyter. Bishops, for the purpose of ecclesiastical order, have authority in their district or diocese. Beyond that, different communions may organize in different ways. In our view, polity is adiaphoron.
So, within our synod, the Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison is our synodical president, much like a presiding bishop. Each of our districts, which essentially correspond to a diocese, have a district president (bishop).

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=rinnie;11363473]Fair enough. I jave 2 questions.

Okay Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom alone. Now with that said I understand you don’t agree he has supremacy over the others, but you also recognize his authority as the Bishop of Rome.

Why do you think Jesus gave the keys to Peter and not all of them?

Well, while Christ may have initially given the Keys to St. Peter, He later does give them to the others. The keys belong to the Church, not one man or bishop. He gave the keys initially because of Peter’s profession of faith: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Secondly when the Pope speaks in the voice of God would you say he has the authority from God to do this on his own? And if you do, then how can you reject his teaching? Just curious!

I believe the pope’s speaking is essentially the same as any other bishop, though I recognize his primacy (not supremacy) in the Church Militant. However, I strongly believe in the authority of truly ecumenical councils.

I guess what I am asking in simple words if he has the right to speak in the name of God, and does indeed have this power why would jurisdiction even come into play?

I don’t believe he has the power to speak ex cathedra outside of the authority of a truly ecumenical council, of which there have been 7, from my POV.

Jon

 

[rinnie]

Well, while Christ may have initially given the Keys to St. Peter, He later does give them to the others. The keys belong to the Church, not one man or bishop. He gave the keys initially because of Peter’s profession of faith: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

I believe the pope’s speaking is essentially the same as any other bishop, though I recognize his primacy (not supremacy) in the Church Militant. However, I strongly believe in the authority of truly ecumenical councils.

I don’t believe he has the power to speak ex cathedra outside of the authority of a truly ecumenical council, of which there have been 7, from my POV.

Jon

Ok I understand you don’t believe he can speak on his own. Okay now as you know the RCC accepts this. Now when he speaks on his own and speaks ex-cathedra do you think he is lying. Sorry there is no other way of asking it.

Because the way I see it, he is either correct in what he is doing and has the permission may I say from God, or he would pretty much have to be lying and say he has it right?

Anotherwards there can only be one truth. And the Pope is telling the truth or his isn’t right?

So as horrible and ugly it is to say it this way, he can’t be right, and you can’t be right.

 

[JonNC]

=rinnie;11363565]Ok I understand you don’t believe he can speak on his own. Okay now as you know the RCC accepts this. Now when he speaks on his own and speaks ex-cathedra do you think he is lying. Sorry there is no other way of asking it.

Of course not!! I believe that he and you and your communion truly and honestly believe he has the authority to speak infallibly ex cathedra on faith and morals. I also believe that most of the time the Bishop of Rome represents the Universal Church well by his words and actions. Simply because I don’t believe he has this authority doesn’t make him, or me, a liar. I consider Pope John Paul II to be the greatest Christian of my lifetime, and Benedict the XVI my favorite pope. They are not liars at all. Mistaken at times? Yes.

Because the way I see it, he is either correct in what he is doing and has the permission may I say from God, or he would pretty much have to be lying and say he has it right?
Anotherwards there can only be one truth. And the Pope is telling the truth or his isn’t right?

True, but a lie involves intent to deceive. That’s what Merriam-Webster says: * to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive *. There are no attempts to deceive among these popes, these good holy men. A mistake is not a lie. A misunderstanding is not an intentional misrepresentation.
Earlier, you said that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation. You weren’t telling a lie. You were mistaken.

Jon

 

[Jon_S_1]

Well, while Christ may have initially given the Keys to St. Peter, He later does give them to the others. The keys belong to the Church, not one man or bishop. He gave the keys initially because of Peter’s profession of faith: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Jon

I could very well be missing something, but where did Jesus give all the Apostles the keys?

I understand that he gave them authority, but I don’t believe he gave them the keys of the kingdom as was given to the Chief Steward of the House of David, and to Peter as the Chief Steward of the “House of God on Earth”.

I know Matt 18:18

18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.

(No Keys)

John 20:21-23

21 Then Jesus said again, “Peace be with you. It was the Father who sent me, and I am now sending you in the same way.” 22 Then he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of anyone, their sins are forgiven. If there is anyone whose sins you don’t forgive, their sins are not forgiven.”

(no keys)

So, am I missing a verse?

Or if not, why give the keys to Peter if everyone has the same authority? Shouldn’t the keys have been given to the others as well. It seems like a detail that should be there.