Questions from a Protestant

[Kristina_P]

One of the major objections to Protestantism is that it divides the Church that Christ instituted, which survives in the modern day only in the Roman Catholic Church. While I don’t fully agree with this idea, I’m familiar with its justifications and can admit the possibility that it’s valid.
For the sake of conversation, let’s say that I accept this premise that the Catholic Church is the Christ’s historical church. I believe the Nicene and Apostle’s creeds, that scripture is divinely inspired, that Christ is wholly God and wholly Man, all of the things that Catholics and Protestants have in common. I cannot, however, intellectually or spiritually accept certain other doctrines of the Catholic Church, nor can I accept the seemingly inordinate importance placed on those doctrines. What should be my action? Is it more wrong to enter the Catholic Church, knowing that you disagree with several of its most dearly held tenets, or to remain in a Protestant Church in violation of my interpretation of Christ’s prayer for unity? As far as I know, Catholic dogma still denies the possibility of salvation for those outside the Catholic church, so where does that leave me then?
Please understand that I ask these questions only out of a respect for Catholics and Catholicism and a desire to better understand, not in an attempt to further divide us.

 

[Lazerlike42]

As far as I know, Catholic dogma still denies the possibility of salvation for those outside the Catholic church

That answers your question right there, but not for the reason you may think.

Based on that, I can tell that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of that teaching of the Church. I have little doubt that many of the teachings of the Church you cannot accept you also have a fundamental misunderstanding of. It is very likely that if you understood them, you would not be so opposed to them.

Bishop Fulton Sheen once said, "Few people in America hate the Catholic religion, but there are many who hate what they mistakenly believe is the Catholic religion— and if what they hate really were the Catholic religion, Catholics would hate it too.”

There may be many things you don’t really understand, so why don’t you ask about some of those things that you are having trouble with for starters.

 

[Kristina_P]

Lazerlike42:

I have little doubt that many of the teachings of the Church you cannot accept you also have a fundamental misunderstanding of. It is very likely that if you understood them, you would not be so opposed to them.

First, I hope that I didn’t give the impression that I hated Catholicism. If I did, I apologize. And, while I do admit that I might not fully understand some of the doctrines I have problems with, I’m not sure that understanding them would erase my problems.

On that note, I have been asking questions of Catholic friends and recently on this forum. So, here’s another question: You say that I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrine that salvation is only possible within the Church. What am I misunderstanding?

 

[jimmy]

Kristina P.:

As far as I know, Catholic dogma still denies the possibility of salvation for those outside the Catholic church, so where does that leave me then?
Please understand that I ask these questions only out of a respect for Catholics and Catholicism and a desire to better understand, not in an attempt to further divide us.

As LazerLike said, you answered your question but for a different reason than you think. The Catholic Church does not, and never has, condemned anyone to hell and never said all protestants were going to hell. The reason why you got it is because you accept the Catholic Church as the truth but remain apart from it by your own will. By remaining apart from the full truth by your own will, you keep yourself away from Christ, who is the eternal Truth. Since Christ gave the Church authority, and you realize this, it is your duty to follow it. We are to submit to the dogmas because they were revealed to the Church by God.

I would say that it would be best to come into the Church and accept the teachings on faith. Accept them because they have been revealed by God, and do what you can to learn them through RCIA and subsequent study and thought.

 

[jimmy]

Kristina P.:

First, I hope that I didn’t give the impression that I hated Catholicism. If I did, I apologize. And, while I do admit that I might not fully understand some of the doctrines I have problems with, I’m not sure that understanding them would erase my problems.

On that note, I have been asking questions of Catholic friends and recently on this forum. So, here’s another question: You say that I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrine that salvation is only possible within the Church. What am I misunderstanding?

The teaching of “no salvation outside the Church” recognizes that a person is introduced into the Church through baptism and it is through your own will that you seperated from it. They also recognize a “baptism of desire” that allows for the salvation of the unbaptized. This is mentioned in the council of Trent. St. Ambrose mentions it.

I also think protestants misunderstand what salvation is. Salvation isn’t only a person being judged to go to heaven. It is a process of becoming like Christ. We were saved yesterday, we are being saved today and we will be saved tomorrow.

You did get it right though because you accepted that the Catholic Church is true, yet you still reject its teachings and remain apart from it through your own will.

 

[Kristina_P]

jimmy:

I also think protestants misunderstand what salvation is. Salvation isn’t only a person being judged to go to heaven. It is a process of becoming like Christ. We were saved yesterday, we are being saved today and we will be saved tomorrow.

I was brought up as a Southern Baptist, and while I encountered people with a narrow viewpoint of salvation as being a “get your butt into heaven” event, it was almost always countered by pastors and teachers. I’m now Anglican, and I find that mainstream Protestantism tends to agree with Catholicism on this point. Many people just choose to ignore it and place the emphasis on the first “getting saved” experience. The only difference is that we believe in justification through grace by faith alone. I’ll admit that I’m having a little bit of trouble as to what the conflict is that Catholicism has with this doctrine, but it seems from several posts in these forums that there is one.

Also, let me make it clear that the situation I described in my original post is hypothetical. At this time, I hold a much broader view of what constitutes “one holy catholic and apostolic Church.”

 

[Lazerlike42]

No, you didn’t give the impression you hated anything

As far as salvation, this is the teaching. 1) If you have been baptized, you are a Catholic, whether you know it or like it or not. Therefore, most Protestants (other than a few here and there that don’t baptize) can be saved because they are inside the Church, even if they don’t accept the Pope or the teachings for instance. Baptism brings a person into the Body of Christ, and the Church is the body of Christ. 2) People of other religions, if they are truly seeking God with all their heart, and if they follow God’s moral commandments to the best of their knowledge, may possibly be saved. St. Paul writes a little bit about this in Romans 1-4. In fact, the Catholic Church is more ecumenical than most Protestants in this regard. Many (but not all) Protestants believe that they teach the truth, and unless you believe the truth (which is what they teach) and follow it (their way) then you are automatically on your way to Hell. The Chuch is actually MORE “open” than most Protestants in this regard.

As far as understanding leading to acceptance, I have two things to say.

First I would say that you would be surprised if how much understanding can help you accept things. This is for two reasons. Most importantly, when I say you may not understand, I mean very simply that you may not know WHAT the Church teaches, nevermind WHY. For example, you thought that the Church taught that only official Catholics can be saved. Maybe understanding that couldn’t help you accept it. However, as it turns out, your misunderstanding was with WHAT they taught, not WHY they taught it. You might be able to accept the actual teaching where the misunderstood teaching you couldn’t. Less importantly is that some of the “whys” about what the Church teaches are simply so amazing that they can make people light aflame with joy at the knowledge. Some of the “whys” are just so good they make you have a burning desire to believe the “whats” they explain.

Secondly, you have to be sure you are truly following Jesus. In other words, if you find that the Church truly is the true Church of Christ, then you must accept what She teaches or else you are rejecting Christ Himself. In other words, its pretty clear that Christ said not to have sex outside of marriage. Well, that may be something you don’t want to accept. Does that mean you are going to go ahead and sleep around anyways? Of course not, because you want to follow Christ no matter what He says. Similarly, Abraham was ready to sacrifice his son Issac even though every part of his being didn’t want to simply because God said to do so, and that was all that mattered.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Kristina P.:

I was brought up as a Southern Baptist, and while I encountered people with a narrow viewpoint of salvation as being a “get your butt into heaven” event, it was almost always countered by pastors and teachers. I’m now Anglican, and I find that mainstream Protestantism tends to agree with Catholicism on this point. Many people just choose to ignore it and place the emphasis on the first “getting saved” experience. The only difference is that we believe in justification through grace by faith alone. I’ll admit that I’m having a little bit of trouble as to what the conflict is that Catholicism has with this doctrine, but it seems from several posts in these forums that there is one.

Very very simply (and I can go deeper if you want, and its important to when you get to a certain point of needing to understand) Protestants believe that you are saved by faith alone in the sense that you only have to believe in Jesus. Catholics believe that you have to have a real faith, which means believing and obeying Jesus. It’s about believing WHAT He says (like in Matt. 19:18), not just THAT He exists. Protestants say that good works are only and always evidence that a person is saved because anyone that truly believes will always do good works, so it’s like a sign you are saved. Catholics believe that works DO come out of true belief, but that we must cooperate with God and make a concious effort to do them. In other words, to a Protestant if you have faith, you’re gonna do works. To a Catholic, if you have faith, you’re gonna be enabled by God to do works, and called by Him to do them, but you have to agree to do them because you might just be lazy or selfish and choose not to even though you do truly believe.

 

[Pax]

Kristina,

You seem like a lovely person and you need not worry about us having an impression that you hate the church. I would tend to agree with the idea that you will grow to appreciate and accept Catholic teachings as you grow in knowledge. The reasons and justifications for Catholic teachings that you disagree with are solid and profound.

If you are genuinely searching for truth, you must do a lot of reading and study. I am a cradle Catholic but did have questions and doubts about certain teachings of the Church. Finally, by God’s mercy and grace, I began digging deep into the faith. I even went so far as to take every non-Catholic challenge thrown my way. In the end the Church’s position proved itself superior to all competing ideas and objections.

You too, can go through this process of discovery if you do so with love, an open mind, and a zeal for knowledge and the truth.

So what about “no salvation outside the church?” Well, as a Christian, do you believe that a person can be saved without Jesus? Obviously, the answer is “no.” Try to understand the Catholic claim in the same way and you will begin to approach the answer to the question. Those who know the way, the truth, and the light but reject it cannot be saved. God only holds us responsible for that which we know and can be held accountable for. Those outside of the Catholic Church do not have all that Christ is offering them in their Christian walk. It is harder for them, if they do not enjoy the full benefit and relationship with Christ, to be saved.

Read John Chapter 6 and the discourse on the bread of life. Jesus promises to give us his body and blood to eat and drink and that those who eat and drink of his body and blood will be given eternal life. The real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist has been the teaching and doctrine of the faith since the time of the apostles. Protestant churches do not teach this and cannot provide the Eucharist to their members. If the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist has been in place since Pentecost and you can only receive the precious body and blood of the Lord within our Church, then it is clear that the Church is justified in making the claims that it does concerning salvation.

That having been said, it is necessary to reiterate that a person is only held responsible for what they know and do in response to God’s grace. A knowing rejection of the truth places a person in opposition to God, while knowing and accepting the truth will set you free[John8:32].

 

[Kristina_P]

Lazerlike42:

As far as salvation, this is the teaching.

…
Wow, I’ve heard it articulated like that by Protestants (substituting “Christian” for “Catholic”), but I was never aware that it was the orthodox Catholic position. Very glad to know it. That’s certainly one issue where my misunderstanding of the “what” was the source of all the problems.

Lazerlike42:

In other words, if you find that the Church truly is the true Church of Christ, then you must accept what She teaches or else you are rejecting Christ Himself.

I’m not entirely certain how it follows that disagreeing with some (for me) minor dogmas constitutes a rejection of Christ, especially if I submit and obey out of love for my brothers and sisters. While I understand the basis of apostolic succession and the importance of practical authority, I don’t understand why that necessarily confers infallibility on Church doctrinal judgments. Is it really that important whether or not I believe Mary was born without original sin, for example, and why should I believe that the Church authorities know it? If all of these things are so important, why are they not addressed in scripture?

 

[CheesusPowerKid]

Good luck and keep praying…God provides all answers in time. I would encourage you the most to try to abandon all previous possible misconceptions you may have about the Church and try to look at everything from a completely unbiased point of view…a fresh start. The thing is that the Church can be very complicate sometimes, and often things are misinterpreted or misunderstood and then spread along like gossip…in the end, the answer you get is so far from the truth that they aren’t even similar.

So maybe think of a list of all the things you have questions about, much like you’re doing here, and pose them a little differently. Instead of saying, “That Catholic Church believes that there is no salvation outside of the Church.” ask instead, “What are the Catholic Church’s views on salvation?” and tackle all of these one at a time until you completely understand them. I guarantee that the members of this board will be able to help you with almost anything you want to know about, and you’ll probably be shocked by some of the things they’re able to clear up for you.

Good luck, and keep praying!

God Bless,
in Him,
Britty

 

[Lazerlike42]

Kristina P.:

I’m not entirely certain how it follows that disagreeing with some (for me) minor dogmas constitutes a rejection of Christ, especially if I submit and obey out of love for my brothers and sisters. While I understand the basis of apostolic succession and the importance of practical authority, I don’t understand why that necessarily confers infallibility on Church doctrinal judgments. Is it really that important whether or not I believe Mary was born without original sin, for example, and why should I believe that the Church authorities know it? If all of these things are so important, why are they not addressed in scripture?

I’m personally not capable of explaining to you why the belief is necessary. Many others are, but I am A) still growing in faith and understanding, and B) more knowledgeable about Scripture then other things so far.

As far as why things like the Immaculate Conception aren’t in Scripture, two things:

1. Many of these things are in Scripture, but not explicitly. For instance, the Trinity is not in Scripture explicitly, but by taking different passages and exegeting/combining them, we can show the Trinity. Similarly, we can show things like the Immaculate Conception from Scripture if we want.

Look at it this way. If we didn’t know about the Trinity, we would probably never find it in Scripture. However, because we know about it beforehand (the Church taught us it in the early centuries), then we can go looking for evidence for it. Similarly, if we didn’t know about the Immaculate Conception, we probably wouldn’t find it. Since we know what we’re looking for though, we can.

1. Scripture was never written to be a systematic and complete teaching of the faith. Protestants believe it was, but Catholics believe it wasn’t. Here’s why. When we look at the New Testament, we see that other than the four gospels and Revelation, it consists of nothing but a bunch of letters. Most of Paul’s letters are letters of answers. In other words, the churches wrote to him and asked specific questions, and he wrote specific answers. He didn’t explain the entire faith, just the answers to the questions he was asked. The vast, vast majority of the teaching at the time the Scriptures were written was done orally, because people simply didn’t know how to read, and without a printing press it would have taken hundreds of years to compose enough Scriptures for all of the churches. That is why Paul is always referencing in his letters things that he taught the people orally before (like in 2 Thessonlonians 2:15). Some letters, like 2 and 3 John, don’t really teach anything but instead tell the people that John will be there soon to teach them by word what he wants to. The Scriptures were meant to help teach the people what they were misunderstanding or missing in their knowledge, not to teach them all of it.

 

[Mystophilus]

Kristina P.:

I cannot, however, intellectually or spiritually accept certain other doctrines of the Catholic Church, nor can I accept the seemingly inordinate importance placed on those doctrines. What should be my action? Is it more wrong to enter the Catholic Church, knowing that you disagree with several of its most dearly held tenets, or to remain in a Protestant Church in violation of my interpretation of Christ’s prayer for unity?

Having been in much the same position for some time, I’m not sure that I can offer any help, but I can provide a few relevant ideas.

First of all, the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults requires a profession of faith in all that the Catholic Church teaches. This is what ultimately prevents me from becoming Catholic. Perhaps the doctrines with which I disagree actually are right, and I am wrong, but, unless I actually believe that, I cannot profess belief in them. Thus, I cannot honestly enter the Catholic Church in the sense of becoming an official part of it. On the other hand, I can go to Mass, and I can pray in a Catholic church.

Second, I sympathise regarding unity. The splitting of the Church has been a bad idea every time it has happened. Nevertheless, it has happened, and you may be of greater service to the unity of the Body of Christ by remaining within your previous church while being sympathetic to Catholicism. There is no law against attending the services of two different churches.

Finally, and most dangerously, let me ask you a completely heretical question: do you think that it really matters to Jesus in which building you worship, or how often you have communion, or what title the preacher puts on his (or her) door?

 

[Kristina_P]

Lazerlike42:

In other words, to a Protestant if you have faith, you’re gonna do works. To a Catholic, if you have faith, you’re gonna be enabled by God to do works, and called by Him to do them, but you have to agree to do them because you might just be lazy or selfish and choose not to even though you do truly believe.

I don’t see too much of a conflict here. As James reminded us, even the demons believe. The difference is between belief as an intellectual assent to perceived fact and belief as faith which involves dependence upon the object of that belief. I was always taught that true faith was a gift of God’s grace, and that God’s grace was sufficient for salvation in that it had power to overcome our sinful natures and bring about good works in us – the fruit of the Spirit. After all, if laziness and selfishness were insurmountable obstacles to God’s grace, who could be saved?

Pax:

If the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist has been in place since Pentecost and you can only receive the precious body and blood of the Lord within our Church, then it is clear that the Church is justified in making the claims that it does concerning salvation.

This is one area in which I have done some research and see no reason to believe that Christ was referring to anything other than His person as spiritual food and spiritual drink. (Note references earlier in verse 35 to never hungering or thirsting – obviously, that part isn’t literal.) I note that often, both Catholics and Protestants base much of a teaching’s validity on whether or not they believe it was held by members of the early church. Why would the early church be any less susceptible to misinterpretations of Christ’s words than later generations?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Jesus said “I am the truth, the way, and the life.” He IS the truth. There is only one truth. Jesus cared if you are of the truth or if you are not. If you truly don’t know what the truth is, He cares that you are living up to whatever truth you have attained (Phill. 3:16). He also cares that you seek after truth, though, and if you know the truth you must follow it.

Could we ask if Jesus really cares whether we goto a synagogue or a mosque or a church to worship God? Well, if all we know of truth is Judaism, or Islam, and we truly think that’s what God wants, then He is probably pleased with us for following the truth as we think it is. However, if a Jew or Muslim came to truly know that Christ was the way, would He be pleased if they continued to worship in the synagogue or the mosque? Certainly not. Once we know what God wantswe certainly must follow it. To do otherwise is to say that either there is more than one truth or that we don’t care what the truth is. Jesus is offended by either.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Kristina P.:

This is one area in which I have done some research and see no reason to believe that Christ was referring to anything other than His person as spiritual food and spiritual drink. (Note references earlier in verse 35 to never hungering or thirsting – obviously, that part isn’t literal.) I note that often, both Catholics and Protestants base much of a teaching’s validity on whether or not they believe it was held by members of the early church. Why would the early church be any less susceptible to misinterpretations of Christ’s words than later generations?

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=-306548622&T1=

Go here. Listen to the second half of “Gospels II,” about the Eucharist. You’ll be amazed.

Listen to the whole thing, especially the rest of the second half. It will make you feel like Einstein when he first realized Relativity.

 

[jimmy]

Kristina P.:

This is one area in which I have done some research and see no reason to believe that Christ was referring to anything other than His person as spiritual food and spiritual drink. (Note references earlier in verse 35 to never hungering or thirsting – obviously, that part isn’t literal.) I note that often, both Catholics and Protestants base much of a teaching’s validity on whether or not they believe it was held by members of the early church. Why would the early church be any less susceptible to misinterpretations of Christ’s words than later generations?

Because they were taught by the apostles. Ignatius was taught by John the Apostle. He travelled with Paul a little. His opinion means more than any modern persons who reads the scriptures. They show what the apostles actually taught. They also show how their disciples took it. For example Ignatius says,

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. [Ignatius to the Smyrnians]

I would disagree with your statements and say that Christ is being very literal. Lets look at 1.Cor.11. If it is not the litteral body of Christ, then how can you be guilty of the body of Christ if you take it unworthily?

 

[Lazerlike42]

I don’t see too much of a conflict here. As James reminded us, even the demons believe. The difference is between belief as an intellectual assent to perceived fact and belief as faith which involves dependence upon the object of that belief. I was always taught that true faith was a gift of God’s grace, and that God’s grace was sufficient for salvation in that it had power to overcome our sinful natures and bring about good works in us – the fruit of the Spirit. After all, if laziness and selfishness were insurmountable obstacles to God’s grace, who could be saved?

You’re very close to the Catholic understanding. As far as the types of Protestants who believe this, there’s very little difference in understanding. As far as the once saved always saved type, there’s a world of difference. They think you can just say “I accept Jesus” and then go “commit adultery 10,000 times” (Martin Luther) and it won’t hurt you one bit.

As far as Grace, you also seem very close to Catholic teaching. You are on par with many Protestants, however you are not on par with some Protestants. Catholics (and many Protestants) believe you must cooperate with God’s Grace and you can reject it. Some Protestants (Calvanists, some once saved always saved) believe that God’s Grace is completely irresistable.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I would disagree with your statements and say that Christ is being very literal. Lets look at 1.Cor.11. If it is not the litteral body of Christ, then how can you be guilty of the body of Christ if you take it unworthily?

Because to take it unworthily would mean you are sinning or nor accepting Christ, but the symbolic interpretation says that taking the Blood and Body IS accepting Christ. Therefore, if we take it symbolically, anyone who accepts Christ is worthy to take it, so it would be impossible to take it unworthily because in taking it we would be made worthy by its nature.

 

[Pax]

Kristina P.:

…

This is one area in which I have done some research and see no reason to believe that Christ was referring to anything other than His person as spiritual food and spiritual drink. (Note references earlier in verse 35 to never hungering or thirsting – obviously, that part isn’t literal.) I note that often, both Catholics and Protestants base much of a teaching’s validity on whether or not they believe it was held by members of the early church. Why would the early church be any less susceptible to misinterpretations of Christ’s words than later generations?

An in depth study and discussion of the Eucharist requires a considerable amount of time. I can assure you that if you get the Catholic side of the scriptural foundation for the teaching you will see how persuasive our position is. In this regard I would recommend going to:bringyou.to/apologetics/num8.htm