Really having issues with this...do Protestants go to hell..Catholic view on this?

[karennascargo3]

Then you stand in contrast to 2000 years of the constant teaching of the Church on what is the pillar and foundation of truth.

I don’t care how many years of “teaching” says what it means. If they are referring to this or any other scripture other than it specifically says then they are wrong. That’s not being heretical, it’s presenting truth. We should never rely on man to tell us what something means. We need to read it ourselves and to seek God’s truth; not church truth. No man is infallible; only God has the perfect truth. Again, that’s not heresy, that’s scripture. Nor is it going against the Catholic church. I can live with what the church says I am to believe, but I don’t belong to a cult that tells me I can’t question nor seek truth on my own. I choose to seek truth in all things. God even says himself to worship Him in spirit and in truth.

It’s clear as day what it’s about. You have to actually read a scripture in context along with reading above and below it. You can’t just grab a scripture out of the air and twist it to mean what you want it to mean.

Read I Tim. 3:15 again. Read several translations (especially the King James version and it’s very clear). Timothy is not talking to those outside the church. He is speaking of internal affairs within the church – by the people leading the church. Start reading from the beginning of that chapter. It’s all about the “internal” functioning of the church (appointing deacons, etc.).

In this particular verse, Timothy is leaving for a while and he is telling his church that if there is an issue while he is away (he specifically mentions “conduct” here), then the people of the church will know what to do because it is God’s household. God’s household is the pillar and truth (being God’s truth is over the church). Which, by the way, is exactly my point.

 

[fhansen]

I don’t care how many years of “teaching” says what it means. If they are referring to this or any other scripture other than it specifically says then they are wrong. That’s not being heretical, it’s presenting truth. We should never rely on man to tell us what something means. We need to read it ourselves and to seek God’s truth; not church truth. No man is infallible; only God has the perfect truth. Again, that’s not heresy, that’s scripture. Nor is it going against the Catholic church. I can live with what the church says I am to believe, but I don’t belong to a cult that tells me I can’t question nor seek truth on my own. I choose to seek truth in all things. God even says himself to worship Him in spirit and in truth.

It’s clear as day what it’s about. You have to actually read a scripture in context along with reading above and below it. You can’t just grab a scripture out of the air and twist it to mean what you want it to mean.

Read I Tim. 3:15 again. Read several translations (especially the King James version and it’s very clear). Timothy is not talking to those outside the church. He is speaking of internal affairs within the church – by the people leading the church. Start reading from the beginning of that chapter. It’s all about the “internal” functioning of the church (appointing deacons, etc.).

In this particular verse, Timothy is leaving for a while and he is telling his church that if there is an issue while he is away (he specifically mentions “conduct” here), then the people of the church will know what to do because it is God’s household. God’s household is the pillar and truth (being God’s truth is over the church). Which, by the way, is exactly my point.

Just to add something here: Scripture can be difficult at times-not always readily understood, as Scripture, itself, attests to in 2 Pet 3:16. Those who rely on Church teachings are simply people who’ve come to *trust *the Church, much in the way that we might come to trust Scripture. They’ve come to trust the Church as the designated interpreter, so to speak, precisely because they do *not *trust fallible man, which necessarily includes *themselves. *

So while the Church teaches that we must never act against our own consciences, she also teaches that we can be wrong, that consciences must be properly formed. And that she possesses that information simply because God established her for that purpose. We, of course, must decide for ourselves whether or not his is true.

Related to this is the Church’s advice on reading the bible. She encourages Scripture reading and offers basic guidelines that help us understand it but also affirms that it needs to be read in light of her historical understanding and teachings, since she received those teachings at the beginning of Christianity and that, going by Scripture, alone, without her corollary (name removed by moderator)ut, often results in divergent views of the faith, divergence between others who go by Scripture alone IOW.

 

[guanophore]

 I don't care how many years of "teaching" says what it means.

This comes across as quite dismissive. Would it not be an exercise in arrogance to ignore 2000 years of God speaking to people? Or do you really think that God will reveal something contrary to what he has already revealed?

God gave His teaching authority to the church. Or do you not recognize that?

  If they are referring to this or any other scripture other than it specifically says then they are wrong.

I think you are saying that your interpretation of the Scripture seems contrary?

 That's not being heretical, it's presenting truth.  We should never rely on man to tell us what something means.  We need to read it ourselves and to seek God's truth; not church truth.  No man is infallible; only God has the perfect truth.  Again, that's not heresy, that's scripture.  Nor is it going against the Catholic church.

Your affiliation claims you are Catholic, but what youare presenting here is a Protestant position.

I can live with what the church says I am to believe, but I don't belong to a cult that tells me I can't question nor seek truth on my own.  I choose to seek truth in all things.  God even says himself to worship Him in spirit and in truth.

If you are Catholic, then you are obligated to seek this Truth within what God has already revealed.

It’s clear as day what it’s about. You have to actually read a scripture in context along with reading above and below it. You can’t just grab a scripture out of the air and twist it to mean what you want it to mean.

This is true, but we also interpret Scripture through the lens of Sacred Tradition. You don’t seem to have a sense of what that means.

Read I Tim. 3:15 again. Read several translations (especially the King James version and it’s very clear). Timothy is not talking to those outside the church. He is speaking of internal affairs within the church – by the people leading the church. Start reading from the beginning of that chapter. It’s all about the “internal” functioning of the church (appointing deacons, etc.).

“Timothy” is not talking at all.

There were no Christians outside the Church.

In this particular verse, Timothy is leaving for a while and he is telling his church that if there is an issue while he is away (he specifically mentions “conduct” here), then the people of the church will know what to do because it is God’s household. God’s household is the pillar and truth (being God’s truth is over the church). Which, by the way, is exactly my point.

How embarrassing!

 

[karennascargo3]

This comes across as quite dismissive. Would it not be an exercise in arrogance to ignore 2000 years of God speaking to people? Or do you really think that God will reveal something contrary to what he has already revealed?

Perhaps it was a harsh statement, and for that I apologize. But I seek truth, not doctrine. No faith or religion is 100% true and accurate because only God is the only truth and no one knows God completely.

God gave His teaching authority to the church. Or do you not recognize that?

But only to the extent is is true and correct. God does not want false teaching and gave us a brain and intelligence to read scripture for ourselves and be able to understand it. It’s one of the jobs of the Holy Spirit. No one needs the church to tell them what something means. They may need the church to give them “the church’s” view on it, but the ultimate responsibility of truth is to seek it ourselves. To check out what the church says and take issue with it if it is wrong. If you want scriptures, I can give you bunch on this one.

I think you are saying that your interpretation of the Scripture seems contrary?

It’s not my interpretation, it’s what it says. I didn’t write it and I’m not interpreting it, I’m just telling you what it says. Did you even read it yourself?

Your affiliation claims you are Catholic, but what youare presenting here is a Protestant position.

I use to be but saw the light and became a convert; however, my view on this is not a any denominaltional or religion’s view. It is common sense and the ability to actually read a scripture along with the entire chapter of that book.

If you are Catholic, then you are obligated to seek this Truth within what God has already revealed.

You are right about that, but wrong about how that is done. According to scripture, we are never to take what man tells us, rather to seek God’s truth, not mans. Again, we don’t belong to a cult in which we are told what to believe. We are encouraged by the Church itself to seek truth of its writings.

If a scripture seems to anyone to be different than what the church says it means, they have an obligation to discover the truth myself – even outside of the politics of the church, regardless of 2000 years of tradition, despite the “experts” opinion, and even despite those that have don’t get why your doing it and want to consider you heretical.

This is true, but we also interpret Scripture through the lens of Sacred Tradition. You don’t seem to have a sense of what that means.

Of course I do. But tradition doesn’t mean it’s correct. Tradition means it’s always been that way.

“Timothy” is not talking at all.

I really did mean to say Paul. Sorry about that.

There were no Christians outside the Church.

But only because there was no other Church at that time. The books of the New Testament where only written 25-30 years after Christ died. The Church was still and infant.

How embarrassing!

Why would that scripture be embarrassing? Paul’s letter to Timothy is simply stating that he will be back soon and if he is longer than expected, Timothy has resolution to church issues available to him without Paul physically being there to take care of it. A lot was going on in the individual churches at that time. Read Corinthians. People were going nuts during the worship service, as well as taking to extremes their new found faith.

It would be no different than if our own local churches were in turmoil at the time and he was the only one the people would listen to when trying to resolve it. If our Bishop had to travel to place where people of the Church are frequently arrested and jailed and his future unknown, he would also probably write too to all his priests to encourage them to keep their faith and rely on how the Church says to handle that turmoil. That’s exactly what Paul did to a very young pastor, Timothy. (BTW, I know Paul was Pope, but just using the analogy of “bishop” since the demographics/geographics where different then and would be equivalent to what our dioceses are today).

 

[karennascargo3]

Back on the topic of salvation. It’s important to remember that although Protestants may not have the full truth, they do have and practice all of it in one way or another. They simply misunderstanding the Eucharist. But they do practice communion which is a vital and important part of their lives as Christians. It is no less important and vital to them as it to us as Catholics. They have in their hearts at the time of their communion, exactly what we have on our hearts at the time we take the Eucharist. Exactly! We simply have a bigger benefit (and insight) in accepting that God can make that miracle of changing the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, plus the respect for that miracle as the body and blood. For a Protestant, it “represents” the body and blood. But it doesn’t make it less meaningful to them of what Christ did for us nor less of what his sacrifice means. It is the most important time of the service for them too. Believe me, I know first hand it’s meaning and importance both as a Protestant and as a Catholic! Did it change for me when I became a Catholic, of course, but only to the extent of witnessing a miracle. But the meaning and heartfelt appreciation to Christ and The Father for that sacrifice and what that means to me personally remains the same. In other words, it’s the transference of that love and power from Christ to us. It doesn’t have to literally become the body and blood in order for someone to understand and feel that. So if God looks at the heart to determine who is a Christian and who is not, then anyone who experiences that during communion surely must be pleasing God.

By the way, you made reference to grape juice and crackers. In the Protestant faith, you take both species. You can’t don’t take one without the other. The use of grape juice is that “we cause no man to stubble”. So if someone is an alcoholic, since they cannot sustain from the “wine”, they are never put in a situation where one taste will cause them to stubble. With the “cracker”, they aren’t really crackers. They are communion bread. Both have as much significance to them as our elements have to us. It’s the body and blood of our Lord and Savior - whether symbolic or literal.

 

[clem456]

Which canon law? Which references?

When I ask for a person’s references and I get your response, I know you have no references or you would have given them easily.

Reality much?
I posted you JR’s take on it, which happen’s to be respected. Did you see that post, or do I have to reference that now?

And I asked you about authority and competence. That points you to Canon Law. And you were being obstinate (where have I seen that word) so what good would it do to babysit you? You would just go on disputing, like you are. You can lead a horse to water…

And it’s demeaning to force people to jump through hoops when you know better. You should not demean people who are trying to help you.
Other posters also helped you so it’s all good as far as I’m concerned.

 

[clem456]

I quoted it first.

there’s only one baptism. Heresy can apply to ANYONE who is validly baptized and goes off the rails in belief…

He does NOT deny that heresy / heretic still applies, just because the charity rule is not using the name heretic.

See the highlighted text below

this involves anyone validly baptized. Where it specifically speaks of Catholics only is when excommunication is involved.

“Excommunication
When it comes to Catholics who are *formally *guilty of heresy, apostasy or schism, *the Church applies the penalty of excommunication. The 1983 *Code of Canon Law, repeating the sanctions of the earlier 1917 Code, states…,”

It’s quoted at the top in my link

Nope!

It applies to all the validly baptized. As the highlighted texts I’ve been posting say.

Canon Law is magisterial

And your interpretation contradicts Donovan’s.

It’s not my interpretation. I quoted Donovan

*"prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians *as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. **This theological distinction remains true, **though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth.

Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy*** if ***1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God."

I added my comment. [not all ignorance is innocent[/COLOR] 1791 or invincible. #14 ]

That does NOT say Catholics** only**. NON Catholics are also included even after VII. For purposes of “charity” the term is not used specifically, but “*today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. **Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy.”

That applies to Catholic & non Catholic alike.
*

Whew
I’m happy we all agree the Church does not use the word heretic in regard to modern day Protestants. Mission accomplished.

 

[steve_b]

Whew
I’m happy we all agree the Church does not use the word heretic in regard to modern day Protestants. Mission accomplished.

“*today we use the term heretic only to describe **those **who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. **Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy.”

“those” = any one validly baptized, Catholic & non Catholic alike who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Protestants are NOT excluded from that mix.*

 

[steve_b]

Reality much?
I posted you JR’s take on it, which happen’s to be respected. Did you see that post, or do I have to reference that now?

All you had to do is give that specific reference when I asked.

I read the post and the link. If I had the chance at the time to be in that conversation, I would have asked JR to provide the Church source (properly referenced of course) that says Protestants could not be guilty of heresy, only Catholics can be guilty of heresy. I want to see the specific source properly documented for those positions.

Since he’s not here to explain, I won’t go any further on that.
c:

And I asked you about authority and competence. That points you to Canon Law. And you were being obstinate (where have I seen that word) so what good would it do to babysit you? You would just go on disputing, like you are. You can lead a horse to water…

I quoted scripture, the CCC, + canon law, and Colin Donovan catholic.com/profiles/colin-donovan who wrote the piece I posted ewtn.com/expert/answers/…m_apostasy.htm
c:

And it’s demeaning to force people to jump through hoops when you know better. You should not demean people who are trying to help you.
Other posters also helped you so it’s all good as far as I’m concerned.

Be specific, what hoops did I force you to jump through? Who did I demean? What post(s) specifically are you talking about

 

[Abu]

karennascargo3 #144
No faith or religion is 100% true and accurate because only God is the only truth and no one knows God completely.

Why contradict St Paul: “The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the Truth.” [1 Tim 3:15]? Do you feel that you know better?

But I seek truth, not doctrine.

You cannot have Christ’s Truth without His Church’s doctrine as thousands of sects demonstrate through their differing teaching. It is high time to listen and learn:
DOCTRINE. **Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. **The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. This teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or ordinarily in the perennial exercise of the Church’s magisterium or teaching authority. Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God. (Etym. Latin doctrina, teaching.) [My emphasis].
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

God does not want false teaching and gave us a brain and intelligence to read scripture for ourselves and be able to understand it. It’s one of the jobs of the Holy Spirit. No one needs the church to tell them what something means

That error is precisely why God gave us His Catholic Church which defined what writings are in Sacred Scripture and no others, and is the ONLY (exclusive) authentic interpreter of the Word of God.

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION DEI VERBUM [Vatican II]
10. “But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.” [My emphasis].
Notes:
8. cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chap. 3 “On Faith:” Denzinger 1792 (3011).
9. cf. Pius XII, encyclical “Humani Generis,” Aug. 12, 1950: A.A.S. 42 (1950) pp. 568-69: Denzinger 2314 (3886).

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t care how many years of “teaching” says what it means. If they are referring to this or any other scripture other than it specifically says then they are wrong. That’s not being heretical, it’s presenting truth. We should never rely on man to tell us what something means.

Interesting.

So, firstly, you see the irony here, yes? You (a woman) are telling all of us here what Scripture means, while also telling us that we should never rely on anyone to tell us what something means.

Secondly, I’m 100% certain even you don’t believe that “we should never rely on men to tell us what something means”.

To wit: let’s say your son says that he believes the Bible says that women are inferior to men.

You are going tell him that Scripture doesn’t mean what he says it means. It actually means something else.

See? You actually DON’T believe that anyone can read the Bible and interpret it any way they think they should.

You actually believe that there’s a correct way to interpret the Bible.

But what I find curious is that you seem to reject the authority of the Magisterium to do this, while being, ironically declaring yourself to be a Magisterium for others.

 

[PRmerger]

Back on the topic of salvation. It’s important to remember that although Protestants may not have the full truth, they do have and practice all of it in one way or another.

Protestants who are engaged in their faith stand in the tradition of Apollos.

And, just like Apollos, they need to be gently corrected about their erroneous, albeit enthusiastic, beliefs.

Simply put: someone can be on fire for the Lord but can be just plain wrong about what he’s preaching and embracing.

Take, for example, these folks: enthusiastic about their Christian faith, but, oh-so-wrong:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/bHT1Me3VYMs/hqdefault.jpg

They read the Bible and believed that they were supposed to eat grass.

 

[clem456]

All you had to do is give that specific reference when I asked.

I read the post and the link. If I had the chance at the time to be in that conversation, I would have asked JR to provide the Church source (properly referenced of course) that says Protestants could not be guilty of heresy, only Catholics can be guilty of heresy. I want to see the specific source properly documented for those positions.

Since he’s not here to explain, I won’t go any further on that.

I quoted scripture, the CCC, + canon law, and Colin Donovan catholic.com/profiles/colin-donovan who wrote the piece I posted ewtn.com/expert/answers/…m_apostasy.htm

Be specific, what hoops did I force you to jump through? Who did I demean? What post(s) specifically are you talking about

You’re right Steve
You win
:bowdown:

 

[steve_b]

You’re right Steve
You win
:bowdown:

Does that mean we can be friends? :console:

 

[Gorgias]

I quoted it first.

Now, if only you had quoted it well…

there’s only one baptism.

Yes, there is, but you’re missing the point. Canon law, in terms of ecclesiastical matters, applies only to Catholics. Although there’s one baptism, the CIC talks about the baptism of Catholics. You seem to fail to see this point.

Heresy can apply to ANYONE who is validly baptized and goes off the rails in belief…

But, since the 1983 CIC talks about heresy in terms of baptism, and since the CIC is talking about Catholics here, then we’re now only talking about Catholics who have been baptized. Can’t make it any plainer than that…

Canon Law is magisterial

But your quote was from an extra-magisterial source.

“*today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. **Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy.”

That applies to Catholic & non Catholic alike.
*

No, formal heresy does *not *apply to “Catholic and non-Catholic alike.” You’re even misinterpreting your own sources, now…! :sad_yes:

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)