To a Roman Catholic are Protestants good Christians?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chosen_people
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Caesar said:
I will say it again:

There is One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and outside of her is to be found no salvation. So says the Church, so says Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Your statement appears to condemn even those Catholics of the Oriental Rites, who are, , and have always being, in full communion with Rome. I mention this only to point out that being overzealous, may lead to error just as easy as being liberal or modernist.

The Creed (I quote the St Joseph’s Daily Missal of 1957 since it was on my desk as I write this) reads “And I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.” I understand the way you use ‘Roman’ to emphasize your faithfulness to the One True Church, however, the insistence that the Catechism of 1985 is not the Infallible teaching of the Church is to reject the word and work of two popes of the Church of Rome, for it was under the direction of cardinal Ratzinger (our current pope) that pope John Paul II placed the task of compiling the new Catechism, and the document I quoted before indicates the intention and scope of the Catechism.
 
Doubtless I’ll regret sticking my hand into this hornet’s nest, but here goes … “outside the church there is no salvation,” is not inconsistent with Protestants being saved. Baptism places its recipient partly within the Catholic Church, even if the baptism occurs in a Protestant Church. Only one baptism exists — we affirm each Sunday that, “We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” — and the Catholic Church presumes all Trinitarian baptisms to be valid. Every baptized person belongs at least in part to the Catholic Church, even if they are Protestant, and even if they are anti-Catholic. Yes, one still must die in a state of grace to enter heaven, but the mere fact that a person is Protestant does not place them “outside the Church” in this sense as long as they are baptized.
 
Contarini said:
Officially proclaimed as dogma by RC standards perhaps not till the 14th or even 15th century, but a central part of Christian doctrine ever since the 3rd century (Cyprian). “No one can have God for his Father who does not have the Church for his mother.” That’s one of the foundational principles of orthodox Christianity.

Edwin
Click to expand...
The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 officialy defined this as Dogma, although like you said (and as in the case of all Dogmas) it was a central doctrine since the earliest days of the Church.

See a post from yesterday- forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1865131&postcount=42

Just because something is defined as a Dogma in ___AD doesnt mean the doctrine was introduced at that time. Dogmas are defined because of confusion or disagreement over a particular Doctrine. A Council is called to examine the Doctrine, and if necessary they officialy define it to clear up the problem and make it a matter of faith. The Council of Nicea defined the nature of God because of disagreements and confusion over the nature of God, and of Christ and the Trinity. That doesnt mean that (as Dan Brown claims) the Council introduced the Trinity and Christ as Divine, but that it formally defined the beliefs of the Church regarding that issue.
 
Church_Militant said:
So then you guys all know more than the magisterium does?

This is precisely why I will not hang with you guys. You remind me of all the anti-Catholic fundamentalists that I encounter.

Same sort of prideful fundamentalist rhetoric and level of charity.

Much as I would probably enjoy the TLM , I won’t attend one for fear that someone will be scandalized into believing that I am like you.

I think it’s shameful that so many choose to cling to the past because they don’t care for some aspect of the NO or some such when they could be of real use to the body of Christ if they just lost the attitude.

The magisterium says that Nulla Salus means what the CCC says it does. I have yet to see anyone in authority assert the position that Caesar & Missa Solemnis have. Since neither of you are even priests, much less Bishops, Cardinals or the Pope, you not only err, but scandalize others with your attitudes and rhetoric.

If this is the best that “Traditionalism” has to offer, then I don’t think I need it.

IMO You do more harm than good.
Click to expand...
CM, I’m with you 99.99%! But I don’t agree with you on “Traditionalism” or at least your diffinition of it. Please,do not group all of us who are Traditionalist(sp?) together. OK?
Most of the rest of you (not all), I am ashamed to call myself a Catholic when it comes to this thread. Please go back and study your Catechism!!!😦
 
Caesar said:
What is next? The Protestant “eucharist” is really the Real Presence?

Christ did not teach us to live by our own personal opinions. Whether you want the protestants and the liberals and all classes of pagans to be saved or not, it doesnt matter. Christ teaches through the Church, and the infallible Dogma of the Church has spoken.

Dogma cannot change even if all the liberals here wanted it to. It cannot change of all the liberals in the world wanted it to. And all of you who denounce anyone with a hint of orthodox faith and say they are against the magisterium are hypocrits, for you are against dogma.

I will say it again:

There is One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and outside of her is to be found no salvation. So says the Church, so says Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
 
You said that Christ did not teach us to live by our own personal opinions. I agree, and that’s why he gave us his word, the Holy Scriptures. “My sheep hear my voice”.
To say that someone has to be a Catholic to be saved is found [nowhere] in the Bible. It might be present in Catholic dogma, but is not found anywhere in the Book of Acts, or in any of the Gospels. Any rational thinker would conclude that if the only way to heaven was by being a Catholic, God certainly would have made that important criteria available to his elect.
Our God is a God of order, and does not contradict himself. The dead sea scrolls are proof that God is capable of delivering his word to his “sheep”.
If Catholicism is the only way, why do so many of it’s teachings disagree with the Bible?
 
Robert902 said:
You said that Christ did not teach us to live by our own personal opinions. I agree, and that’s why he gave us his word, the Holy Scriptures. “My sheep hear my voice”.
To say that someone has to be a Catholic to be saved is found [nowhere] in the Bible. It might be present in Catholic dogma, but is not found anywhere in the Book of Acts, or in any of the Gospels. Any rational thinker would conclude that if the only way to heaven was by being a Catholic, God certainly would have made that important criteria available to his elect.
Our God is a God of order, and does not contradict himself. The dead sea scrolls are proof that God is capable of delivering his word to his “sheep”.
If Catholicism is the only way, why do so many of it’s teachings disagree with the Bible?
Click to expand...
Catholicism disagrees with your personal interpretations of the Holy Scriptures, which are part of the Holy Tradition of the Church. The Church is not subject to the Bible, the Bible is a product of the Church, hence a product of Christ.
 
Robert902 said:
The dead sea scrolls are proof that God is capable of delivering his word to his “sheep”.

Robert902:

I separated two points of your post for clarification.

What did the “dead sea scrolls” prove except that the parts which we have translated completely mesh with the Septuagint?

You know, the Greek version of Hebrew scriptures which the Catholic Church has always used for the OT (and which all mainstream Protestant churches now use for their translations since the 1950s).
If Catholicism is the only way, why do so many of it’s teachings disagree with the Bible?
Click to expand...
Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Light. Being Catholic is being a member of the Church he founded upon St Peter as the first among equals (the other Apostles) and started its organizational structure and life at Pentacost in 33 AD (give or take).

More importantly, what “teachings” (do you mean disciplines, like unmarried priests? or doctrines, like the Trinity? or dogma, like the Immaculate Conception? or Sacraments, like the Eucharist? or sacramentals, like the nativity scene, the rosary and the Stations of the Cross?)

What specifically concerns you, Robert?

We cannot answer general accusations with specifics.

Get a little focused here and tell us what bothers you. I am sure someone here can frame it for you or direct you to a source which presents Catholic teaching on it.

Pax Christi
Click to expand...
 
Caesar said:
Catholicism disagrees with your personal interpretations of the Holy Scriptures, which are part of the Holy Tradition of the Church. The Church is not subject to the Bible, the Bible is a product of the Church, hence a product of Christ.
Click to expand...
 
I have no "personal interpretations"of the Bible. As Christians we are told not to have private or as you call them “personal interpretations”. The Bible is not a product of the Catholic church as you have stated. The Bible stands alone, and is a product of God, and was penned by those whom He spoke through.
 
JonathanKinsman said:
Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Light. Being Catholic is being a member of the Church he founded upon St Peter as the first among equals (the other Apostles) and started its organizational structure and life at Pentacost in 33 AD (give or take).

More importantly, what “teachings” (do you mean disciplines, like unmarried priests? or doctrines, like the Trinity? or dogma, like the Immaculate Conception? or Sacraments, like the Eucharist? or sacramentals, like the nativity scene, the rosary and the Stations of the Cross?)

What specifically concerns you, Robert?

We cannot answer general accusations with specifics.

Get a little focused here and tell us what bothers you. I am sure someone here can frame it for you or direct you to a source which presents Catholic teaching on it.

Pax Christi
Click to expand...
 
I keep seeing posts about “The One True Faith” not in relation to Christianity but in relation to Roman Catholicism. How then do Roman Catholics view other branches of the Christian faith? Can non Roman Catholics also be true and good Christians?
Click to expand...
When I use the term, One True Church, or One True Faith, I mean that the Catholic Church has the fullness of Truth in her teachings.

Now, the CCC says that other religions have “rays of light” that stem from the Catholic Church. Other religions do have truths. BUT … other religions including non-Catholic denominations, have some untruths.

There is only One God. So therefore there is only One Truth. Scripture teaches us that Christ and His Church are One. Therefore, there can only be one True Church. (This reminds me of the Highlander series … “in the end there can be only one” LOL!)

Anyway, humor aside, I feel that God wants His Churches to be United under one flock and one shepherd: under the visible head of Christ on earth, the Pope. (Remembering, however, that the Church is founded upon Christ).

To be eligible for salvation, one must have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. One must be baptised either by desire or Sacrament. One must partake of the Eucharist, either by desire or by sacrament (according to Father Hardon). I think that Eucharist by desire can be defined as one’s desire to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. One must die in a State of Grace.

If one is ignorant of these things, one shall not be judged by them, but by how one co-operates with the graces God chooses to betow upon him.

I’ve come across some very good Protestant Christians.

Salvation is not easy. It is a narrow path full of thorns. I hate to give anyone false hope. Yes, Protestants can be saved, but I think it’s harder.

On the other hand, God is Infinitely Merciful and Loving. In His Justice, He takes our human weaknesses into account.

**I say to Protestants: Catholics LOVE you! If you only knew the Graces you’re depriving yourself from remaining separated from Holy Mother Church. Jesus is really, truly Present in the Eucharist, and He’s right there, patiently, waiting for you to come to him and recieve Him. **

**In recieving Him, He consumes your sins, while you consume His Love. **

Gosh, if you only knew! Words are insufficient to describe what I wish to convey. The magnitude of His Love is blinding to the heart and mind! WOW!

Just check us out.

God Bless!
 
I shouldn’t get involved here because I know it will lead to trouble but this kind of post always, to my mind, heights the weakness of Catholic forums to the max.

Every denomination has it’s loonies and I find on these kinds of forums attract a certain type of person who worships the Catholic Church and certain culture, in my opinion above the great command to love. It’s the old, “It’s not unloving to tell the truth” and then use ‘the truth’ to rail against everyone who is not a fan of the individual’s interpretation of canon law (as opposed to the Vatican’s.)

As I understand there are two principles at work here and one can err by emphasising one over the other o either way!

The first principle is that it is a requirement of Salvation to being the church that Jesus instituted though Peter. “No salvation outside the Church.”

The second principle is the individual’s level of knowledge. It was easy for the Church to excommunicate those who willing and knowingly left the Church.

But then the Church had to face generations of Protestants who were bought up solely in the faith of Protestantism. The Church (in her mercy, a attribute some seem to think is a weakness) registered that these people had no real knowledge of that which they were rejecting!

Cutting a long story out, the Church agreed that those who committed to Christ and were baptised in good faith in the name of the Trinity were Christian. Period. They were lacking the fullness of Truth but were united to the Church, be it imperfectly, through Baptism. Protestants are kinda like extended family.

Like all family we want them to come home. But the Church teaches Protestants are Christian, like it or not!!! When convicted of the need to formally join the Church then they must do so. But God alone know those who are convicted and reject and those that honestly don’t get it. Trust me (sorry, I know many won’t!) the barriers to ‘swimming the Tiber’ are greater than many acknowledge and it is not our task to pass judgement.

Frankly, if the Protestants who have prayed with me, ministered to me, supported me during the most horrendous times of trial, who have gone on the front line in evangelism and faced persecution and ridicule for the name of Christ aren’t Christian then I quit!
 
Robert902 said:
I have no "personal interpretations"of the Bible. As Christians we are told not to have private or as you call them “personal interpretations”.
Click to expand...
Whose interpretations do you follow?

You can’t help but follow your personal interpretation as guided by the Spirit. You can and should, however, allow your interpretation to be shaped by the tradition of the Universal Church. The Spirit speaks to the Church as a whole–this does not take away from the reality of the Spirit’s voice in your own heart. There is no contradiction or conflict between what the Spirit is telling you and what the Spirit is telling the Church as a whole. If there appears to be, then either you are not hearing the Spirit accurately (which is highly probable) or you are mistakenly interpreting what the Church says (which is also probable) or the Church as a whole is wrong (which if we’re really talking about a worldwide consensus through the centuries on an important topic is practially impossible).

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Whose interpretations do you follow?

You can’t help but follow your personal interpretation as guided by the Spirit. You can and should, however, allow your interpretation to be shaped by the tradition of the Universal Church. The Spirit speaks to the Church as a whole–this does not take away from the reality of the Spirit’s voice in your own heart. There is no contradiction or conflict between what the Spirit is telling you and what the Spirit is telling the Church as a whole. If there appears to be, then either you are not hearing the Spirit accurately (which is highly probable) or you are mistakenly interpreting what the Church says (which is also probable) or the Church as a whole is wrong (which if we’re really talking about a worldwide consensus through the centuries on an important topic is practially impossible).

Edwin
Click to expand...
an extremely valid and important point… we ALL approach the Scriptures (and God for that matter) with our own personal bias… there are no exceptions… only levels of sincerity/effort at trying to ignore the bias as we seek the Truth.

.
 
(continued after endless interruptions!)

Frankly, if the Protestants who have prayed with me, ministered to me, supported me during the most horrendous times of trial, who have gone on the front line in evangelism and faced persecution and ridicule for the name of Christ aren’t Christian then I quit!

Furthermore, if those I keep seeing on (American) Catholic forums who obsess about liturgy, declare everyone who isn’t exactly like them in outlook, as heretics and take delight in reading canon law for articles to condemn others for ‘liberalism’ and generally behaving like the anti-Catholics who declare to us “Telling the truth is loving so I’m loving you by saying you’re damned and going to HELL!!!” - if this is the kind of Christianity I as a Catholic must aspire to then I’m off to join the Buddhists. But I won’t because I know it ain’t. A correct reaction to liberalism is not to become a Pharisee or like the anti-Catholics.

“You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.”
“Learn it means when scripture says ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’”

If I’m wrong on this, I’d rather be wrong on the side of mercy than on phariseeism. I’d rather try and work with my Brothers in Christ who are Protestant to change the world (and hopefully win their hearts alone the way as a catholic) than hurling anathemas at everyone. I have enough enemies of the faith in the UK, I don’t need to invent more. I also know there’s no winning the discussion with ‘exclusive’ Catholics, even though Feenyism was condemned by the Church PRIOR to Vatican II. But you can’t win this discussion so I’ll choose my own path to hell, working with Protestants to try and save souls in the UK and hopefully win their hearts into the Church through the application of love and mercy. I’m probably damned but I think I’ll be able to explain myself better to Christ with words containing ‘mercy’ over ‘dogma.’

Stand by for the posts declaring me a heretic and a liberal. 🙂 (I ain’t but for some people the only non-liberals are themselves and that guy Jack they met once at the Latin Mass in Spain somewhere…)

I’m being interrupted every 30 seconds so I’m taking this as I shouldn’t post no more.
 
Caesar said:
What is next? The Protestant “eucharist” is really the Real Presence?

Christ did not teach us to live by our own personal opinions. Whether you want the protestants and the liberals and all classes of pagans to be saved or not, it doesnt matter. Christ teaches through the Church, and the infallible Dogma of the Church has spoken.

Dogma cannot change even if all the liberals here wanted it to. It cannot change of all the liberals in the world wanted it to. And all of you who denounce anyone with a hint of orthodox faith and say they are against the magisterium are hypocrits, for you are against dogma.

I will say it again:

There is One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and outside of her is to be found no salvation. So says the Church, so says Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Caesar,

Forgive me if I should know this already, but I’d like a simple yes or no answer to this question:

Do you accept the interpretation of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” offered by Vatican II? If you don’t, then how can you claim that you are following the Church and not your own personal opinions? Clearly the Fathers of Vatican II, not to speak of the post-Vatican-II Popes and the framers of the CCC, did not think that they were contradicting the traditional doctrine. If you think that in fact they have contradicted it, then clearly you are setting up your personal interpretation against theirs. This may or may not be a good thing to do (obviously as a Protestant I’m willing, however reluctantly, to do that), but it rather deflates your rhetoric about following the authority of the Church. It appears that your definition of the “Catholic Church” is just as selective as my Anglican definition. We both see the Catholic Church as an authoritative body up to a certain point in history and are more dubious about later developments–it’s just that my cutoff point is about a thousand years before yours!

BTW, thanks for the information on Fourth Lateran. I should have remembered that it spoke on this issue.

And thanks for articulating the point about how dogmas develop–that was what I was trying to say by pointing to Cyprian as the key figure in the enunciation of EENS even though his writings don’t constitute dogmatic definition.

In Christ,

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top