D
De_Maria
Guest
The Catholic Church is Christianity itself. All other denominations are inventions of man.
- Status
D
De_Maria
Guest
John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
What does it mean, “to believe”, in your opinion?
God is their judge. But here’s what God says about those who reject or deny the Mass. You tell me what it sounds like to you:
Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
I’m sure I’ll exceed the 3200 limit, so I won’t go into the rest. But please, tell me how you believe that someone who rejects the Eucharist can be saved.
A
AlNg
Guest
My understanding is that this doctrine has been changed since Vatican II so that the present teaching is that a Jew can be saved. And as well Buddhists, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, Hindus and even an atheist could be saved ? Please correct me if I am wrong.
A
AlNg
Guest
What man invented the Armenian Orthodox Church? What man invented the Greek Orthodox Church?
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Love reading Don Ruggero explaining it’s not a heresy
Last edited:
D
De_Maria
Guest
Which ever man is responsible for those Churches leaving the Catholic Church.De_Maria:
What man invented the Armenian Orthodox Church? What man invented the Greek Orthodox Church?
D
Duckling
Guest
I agree. I’m sorry if I said anything that made it sound like I disagreed with this.
D
Duckling
Guest
Exactly what I’m trying to say! Thanks @SammyRose!
K
kinghenry17
Guest
In my experience these people know what they are doing…attacking the Church. This is a schism that is designed by Satan to lead people to hell. If Lutherans had half the energy for loving God that they currently use to attack the church, they would all go to heaven. The fact is most are hell bound and this is why they tend to be angry people. Spiteful people cut their own noses off in their attempt to legitimize their sins, so they need our prayers despite their attacks on God and his Church. anybody who brings a different doctrine is not to be trusted and is not saved.
D
Duckling
Guest
Then is the sin of the men who have left the Catholic church. Not the sin of the protestants who have been misinformed and misunderstand the Church’s beliefs.
Protestants don’t reject the Eucharist because they don’t want to believe it or that they hate God. They reject it because they think it was invented by a Pope, or something of that sort. I know of protestants that believe that Popes can change Catholicism completely. Protestants actually believe that the early Catholic Church was similar to a protestant church, but because it was placed into the hands of men (Popes) it has drastically changed, and been led astray. I don’t know where they got this information but I assure you they didn’t make it up just so that they could say that the Catholic Church was full of heresies and corruption.
Like Sammy said,
A
AlNg
Guest
It was the Roman Catholic cardinal Humbertus who left a letter of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia. I don’t see how you can blame the Greek Orthodox Church which asked him not to do it.
You claim that the Greek Orthodox Church is an invention of man. But you have nothing to support that. By splitting away from the united Church, east and west, it was Cardinal Humbertus who caused the split.
P
phil19034
Guest
Doctrine was not changed. Doctrine can develop, but it can’t be changed. The Church teaches that we are bound the sacraments Jesus established, but God is not. God can make exceptions, if He decides too. Therefore, we pray that all souls are saved.
This has essentially, always been the teaching, the only differences has been what we do with this information. In centuries past, the Church was still heavily involved with the “First Evangelization ,” focused making bringing the Gospel to the nations. So our efforts and actions, were in line with bringing entire nations to the Church.
Today, the difference is that most of the world has now been Churched, so the Church now has to focus on the New Evangelization to revitalize the faith among the Baptized and Churched nations.
Last edited:
B
Boler
Guest
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88:
“The difficulty in the way of giving an answer is a profound one. Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”
“The difficulty in the way of giving an answer is a profound one. Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”
W
whyeyeman
Guest
Lol. Doctrines can’t be changed.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
So it is still true that: “The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire “which was prepared for the devil, and his angels,” ?
C
Catholicos
Guest
It’s not just Baptists, but the very core of Baptist doctrine is that Baptism does not save you. This really surprised me at first given the name of the religion is Baptist. It’s huge deal though. It is one, of if not the biggest divides between Catholics and Protestants. If you look at all the Church teaching and dogmas that have been proclaimed from the earliest days of Christianity, this belief that Baptism saves you had unanimous consent before the Reformation.
The danger of accepting one heresy, is that it often(not always) can lead to other heresies.
It is no different than a math equation that requires many parts to be absolutely correct, one wrong calculation and the entire equation/expression is incorrect, even if parts of it are perfect. The belief that baptism makes you Christian is the perfect part, the error is not believing that this sacrament imparts sanctifying grace and makes you born again.
Denying Baptismal regeneration —> justified by faith alone -------> eternal salvation, can’t lose it because Jesus washed away all our personal sins = once saved always saved.
Now add and complicate the matter further by other heretical teachings of other denominations .It’s now getting to a point where among denominations, some believe in the King James Bible, some don’t. It’s no more a doctrine of scripture alone, but which version of scripture. We can make the equation much simpler for everyone and use a formula that worked for 1516 3/4 years, come home to the Catholic Church, there are many competing opinions, but when it’s all said and done, we are united in faith.
P
pnewton
Guest
It is a shame that the good Cardinal and Pope did not have traditionalist posters here available to educate him. At least Protestants and sedevacantist are more internally consistent.
Last edited:
W
whyeyeman
Guest
No, it does not only refer to dogmas. Doctrines that have been defined by the ordinary magisterium are also infallible.
The existence of guardian angels has never been proclaimed a dogma. Someone who denies guardian angels exist is a heretic.
The existence of guardian angels has never been proclaimed a dogma. Someone who denies guardian angels exist is a heretic.
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
This is a simple one. The Catholic Church was simply wrong about the Reformation. Our Lord intended for all of His church to repent when Luther and others called them on their sins, but they would not.
B
Boler
Guest
I guess I would be considered a “traditionalist” as I’ve attended an FSSP parish for the past decade , prefer the EF, and recognize the damaging influences of modernism. These labels are useful to an extent but they also can be factious. My point in posting the quote is to add a perspective for consideration. I don’t think it’s as easy as “all protestants are heretics” or “no protestants are heretics.” Even if someone is a heretic, in many situations it’s probably not prudent to call them such. Did Jesus call the woman at the well an adulterer? Was she?
Unfortunately, we tend to be reactionary and polarize which isn’t good for open discussion.
- Status