What is the difference in Protestants being "saved" and Catholic salvation?

[PRmerger]

Hi easyduzit, not being Catholic, you look at penance after confession as burdensome and unnecessary I suppose. First of all, we are forgiven of our sins immediately after confession, doing the penance first is not required to complete forgiveness, this is the true Catholic teaching on the matter. We are still expected to do the penance received from the priest after confession however, and should not look at it as being a burden, we should welcome it as part of our healing process from sin. Normally penance just amounts to the priest asking us to say a certain Catholic prayer or two which focuses us on spiritual things and helps us with conversion of the heart. I agree that we are forgiven of sin when we ask God with a sincere heart to do so, however we should refrain from committing the same sin and other sins in the future.

Indeed.

It is a normal human response–and a God-designed response–to want to offer reparation for what harm we’ve done.

Imagine what type of bratty child would develop if, each and every time he broke his neighbor’s window, he never had to repair it (pay for it, mow his lawn perhaps, babysit their kids, etc) and was simply forgiven each time he broke the window by playing where he was told not to play.

 

[In_His_Grace]

As for me, I would be as happy for you if you joined the EO Church as if you joined the CC.

Both have the same doctrines, save for one: papal supremacy.

So it’s essentially, ASAIAC, joining the same Body.

Ok, I wasn’t expecting this response from you. I don’t understand much about the EO so I’m not qualified to comment on the CC and EO having the same doctrines other then to agree with you about the EO not accepting papal supremacy. I would like to learn more. Thanks PRmerger.

 

[In_His_Grace]

St Optatus has an answer:calledtocommunion.com/2011/06/st-optatus-on-schism-and-the-bishop-of-rome/

He writes:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles … that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur], lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.25

I’ll read the article sometime today. Looks like the website may keep me busy for awhile and thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

Ok, I wasn’t expecting this response from you. I don’t understand much about the EO so I’m not qualified to comment on the CC and EO having the same doctrines other then to agree with you about the EO not accepting papal supremacy. I would like to learn more. Thanks PRmerger.

What separates us (the CC and the EO) is not doctrine but politics…residual from thousands of years ago.

#sad

 

[Porknpie]

Ok, I wasn’t expecting this response from you. I don’t understand much about the EO so I’m not qualified to comment on the CC and EO having the same doctrines other then to agree with you about the EO not accepting papal supremacy. I would like to learn more. Thanks PRmerger.

Grace, here’s an interesting doctrinal point, and not a small one : both the CC and EO profess 73 books in the bible (actually, the Orthodox a few more)

Interesting too that the LCMS are open to this possibility based on the Augsburg Confession not stating otherwise (per JonNC…he can help me if I’m wrong)

 

[In_His_Grace]

What separates us (the CC and the EO) is not doctrine but politics…residual from thousands of years ago.

#sad

This was interesting, from the Roman Catholic Church’s perspective …

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/steps-towards-reunited-church.cfm

 

[In_His_Grace]

Grace, here’s an interesting doctrinal point, and not a small one : both the CC and EO profess 73 books in the bible (actually, the Orthodox a few more)

Interesting too that the LCMS are open to this possibility based on the Augsburg Confession not stating otherwise (per JonNC…he can help me if I’m wrong)

Hi Porknpie,

I would be interested in hearing what JonNC has to say.

 

[PJM]

:
Originally Posted by eazyduzit
Totally true that Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world.
But our relationship is never performance based.
It is always faith based.

In **Gal.3:5 **Paul asks(after having already separated faith from works in salvation, v.2) about the one who ministers- "He therefore that ministers to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you,doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? "
V.3- “Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect in the flesh?”
I do not wish to be counted foolish.

REPLY:

I agree, our relationship is not performance based, that would indicate that works were all that were required. We do not initially respond to God’s grace by doing works, we first have faith. However, “faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” James 2:17.

As for Abraham, “faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.” James 2:22.

“See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” James 2:24

“For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.” James 2:26.

It has been argued by some that there is a contradiction between Paul and James on faith and works, however, we know that the Bible does not contradict itself and both Paul and James were inspired by the same Holy Spirit. So we must acknowledge that they both were just giving different viewpoints, not opposing viewpoints, and their points of emphasis were not exactly the same, which may have been due to individual congregational concerns.

**My comments to eazyduzit **

The above post is very good and shares God’s truth.

What I find often with our Non-Catholic friends is a tendency to seek and be satisfied with an “either OR” position; when the reality is both

As indicated above the bible cannot contradict itself; and remain faithful to God’s Teachings.

God’s infinite Wisdom is clearly evident in the number "One"

Yahweh insisted on belief in One God; One and Only one set of Faith beliefs and even choose Only One "Chosen People"

Exodus 6:7
And I will take you to myself for my people, I will be your God: and you shall know that I am the Lord your God who brought you out from the work prison of the Egyptians;

Leviticus 19:37
Keep all my precepts, and all my judgments, and do them. I am the Lord; it ought not be a surprise that Jesus; **following His own OT Tradition ALSO Choose JUST ONE:
**
One True God ; the 1st Commandment

One set of Faith beliefs: Eph 4: 1-7

And Just One Church: Mt. 16: 18-19 & 28:19-20

WHY?

Because when there is only ONE Right answer; only One TRUTH per defined issue; man ought not find it impossible to choose the right “ONE”

God Bless you, and thanks for your great reply:thumbsup:

Patrick

 

[PJM]

=In His Grace;'m wondering? Why should I believe the claims of the Catholic Church over the claims of our Eastern Orthodox brethren? What say you Patrick? Sounds like an outstanding topic for another thread?

Blessings

=In His Grace; I’m wondering? Why should I believe the claims of the Catholic Church over the claims of our Eastern Orthodox brethren? What say you Patrick? Sounds like an outstanding topic for another thread?
Blessings

That my friend is a REALLY great question. Thank you!

I’ll try to answer it here as briefly as I can make it.

Here’s what the issue boils down too: **Can God accept more than
One God?

Just one set of Faith beliefs?

And Just One Church [OT /One chosen People]?**

The answer both historically and biblically is clearly NO!

From a historical perspective today’s [Roman] Catholic Church existed as the ONLY Christian faith and church [world-wide] until the Great Eastern Schism of 1054. So much evidence exist to support this that it does not merit further discussion. Indeed, the fact that some of the Eastern Churches remained affiliated with Rome, makes clear who separated from whom.

Biblically it too is evident to those who seek God’s always singular truth per defined issue. Look very carefully at the words and terms Jesus [our Perfect God] choose to use in the accounts:

Mt 10: 1-8 And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them [some of His Godly} power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities**. And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother,…These twelve Jesus sent: commanding THEM, saying: Go YOU! not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go YOU! rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. …

Mt 16: 18-19 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter;{Jn 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter} … and upon this {YOU Peter} rock I will build my church, {singular} and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to YOU! {all of} the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever** YOU! shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever YOU!** shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. “

Next I will suggest that your read Jn.17: 11-26. The context is Jesus in His humanity praying to the Father on behalf of Peter & the Apostles before His Assension.
Here are a few quotes from this teaching:

14** I have given them thy word, and the world hath hated them**, because they are not of the world; as I also am not of the world. 15 I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from evil.

17-20** Sanctify THEM in truth.** Thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for THEM do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;

22 And the glory which thou hast given me,** I have given to them**; that they may be one, as we also are one 24 Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me; that they may see my glory which thou hast given me, because thou hast loved me before the creation of the world.
.
And then there is this FINAL command:

Mt. 28: 16-20 “And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach YOU! all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded {means both “taught” & commanded}** YOU!:** and behold** I am with YOU!** all days, even to the consummation of the world.”

Eph. 4:1-7 “I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. ONE BODY {CHURCH} and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord,** ONE FAITH**, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. But to every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the giving of Christ.”

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[benhur]

From a historical perspective today’s [Roman] Catholic Church existed as the ONLY Christian faith and church [world-wide] until the Great Eastern Schism of 1054. So much evidence exist to support this that it does not merit further discussion. Indeed, the fact that some of the Eastern Churches remained affiliated with Rome, makes clear who separated from whom.

Hi P,

Yes, but the question is how did this first church exist ? That you call it Catholic fine, but again was it with the same priesthood , episcopacy, papacy, sacraments etc etc. That one left the other, for sure the P’s left. Not sure if the O’s would say so. I mean if CC changes and the OC carries on as always, who really left who ? As PR says, all things between the two are pretty much the same except for Papacy. There is much evidence that the Papacy evolved. There is also as much evidence for the O’s type of authority structure as being from the beginning.

Blessings

 

[powerofk]

Hi P,

Yes, but the question is how did this first church exist ? That you call it Catholic fine, but again was it with the same priesthood , episcopacy, papacy, sacraments etc etc. That one left the other, for sure the P’s left. Not sure if the O’s would say so. I mean if CC changes and the OC carries on as always, who really left who ? As PR says, all things between the two are pretty much the same except for Papacy. There is much evidence that the Papacy evolved. There is also as much evidence for the O’s type of authority structure as being from the beginning.

Blessings

Okay - this has been on other threads, and is getting off-topic on this thread. It’s hard to tell whether the Orthodox split from the Catholic Church or the Catholic Church split off from the Orthodox. The Orthodox will always say that we split from them and we will always say that they split from us. What happened, really, was more like a very messy divorce in which both sides blamed each other, and both sides were at fault for allowing it to happen. And for centuries afterward, both sides continued to fester, each one demanding that the other side admit that they were wrong. Today, though, the Catholic Church considers the Orthodox to be “sister churches”, whom, though we are not in full communion, share the fullness of the faith passed down through the apostles. And though we still work toward reunification (which, theologically, should be much easier with the Orthodox than the Protestants), we understand that there has been that deep rift and centuries of pain, suffering, and trust that must be healed first. I do believe, however, that full reunification will come before Jesus’ second coming - as I believe that the two witnesses mentioned in Revelation are the Church of the West and the Church of the East.

The Protestant Reformation, though, was more like rebellious children deciding that they would no longer listen to their parents and thus do whatever they wanted to do.

 

[IGotQuestions]

So also I see the Catholic list of burdens that are required of sinners before they can be considered truly forgiven and restored.

Could you be more specific about what you are implying here?
Thank you.

 

[In_His_Grace]

Hi P,

Yes, but the question is how did this first church exist ? That you call it Catholic fine, but again was it with the same priesthood , episcopacy, papacy, sacraments etc etc. That one left the other, for sure the P’s left. Not sure if the O’s would say so. I mean if CC changes and the OC carries on as always, who really left who ? As PR says, all things between the two are pretty much the same except for Papacy. There is much evidence that the Papacy evolved. There is also as much evidence for the O’s type of authority structure as being from the beginning.

Blessings

There is much evidence that the Papacy evolved.

Hi benhur,

That’s a fact. Did you ever read John Henry Newman’s “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”?

God bless.

 

[zz912]

James did not condemn “faith alone” . He also preached it . Jms.1:21b "…receive with meekness(without merits) the engrafted word,which is able (by itself) to save your souls.
This is plainly salvation by faith alone.

Why did you add words to Scripture? Here is the passage:

James 1:21 Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls. 22 But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; 24 for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was. 25 But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.

You’ve added in “by itself” and changed Scripture to fit your personal theology. The surrounding verses clearly contradict your intended personal interpretation. James makes it clear that you must act upon the word received, or it has no effect.

He reiterates that later when he DOES condemn faith alone.

James 2:24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

Then in v.12 James says" Blessed is the man that endures trials, for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life…"

In the Bible, “crowns” are rewards that are an addition to salvation which is the gift of God.

James understands the difference.

Again, you are changing Scripture for your personal theology. James doesn’t say “crowns”, but says “crown”. And it is clearly referring to salvation, not extra rewards in heaven.

James says that for salvation, all one needs to do is receive the “word” by which he means the Gospel. Repentance would be assumed. Receive means to believe or trust.

For an illustration of what Jesus required, read the parable of the “lost son” Lk.15.

Even the lost son had to actually get up, and DO something to be saved. He had to travel back to his father. And NO, James does NOT say that all you need to do is receive the word. He EXPLICTLY says you must be DOERS of the word, as noted above.

Faith “alone” is not contradictory to Judgement of works in 1Cor.3 Here we see that" Works" are burned , not souls. All who make it here are saved, but some lose their works and receive no treasure in heaven. They are as St. Peter said, “scarcely saved.”

Again, you are changing Scripture, because Paul also says that the man whose evil works are burned up will be saved, but will suffer loss. For most of us, this will be in Purgatory as we are not perfect, but we still have saving grace within us. So our evil is purged of us before entering heaven.

I also note that you avoided my other two questions. Could you address them?

1. Are the promises of Christ unconditional? Or does he set some requirements for them?
2. Is this all that is required? No actions are required? Could you list out some of the requirements that Jesus gives?

 

[Techno2000]

Even the lost son had to actually get up, and DO something to be saved. He had to travel back to his father. And NO, James does NOT say that all you need to do is receive the word. He EXPLICTLY says you must be DOERS of the word, as noted above.

Right , and Jesus didn’t preach " Faith alone " to the young rich man.

 

[PJM]

=PRmerger;13235489]This is very Catholic!

Quote:
Originally Posted by In His Grace View Post

Any doctrine, dogma, etc. that doesn’t conform to scripture I am obliged to reject.

REPLY:
This is very Catholic!

SORRY BUT THIS IS NOT “VERY CATHOLIC!” Take for example the Marian Dogma’s

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[JMM1957]

SORRY BUT THIS IS NOT “VERY CATHOLIC!” Take for example the Marian Dogma’s

God Bless you,

Patrick

uch:

 

[PJM]

=PRmerger;13237194]As for me, I would be as happy for you if you joined the EO Church as if you joined the CC.

Both have the same doctrines, save for one: papal supremacy.

So it’s essentially, ASAIAC, joining the same Body.

EXCUSE ME; BUT!

DID or DID NOT Jesus Christ choose to and in FACT give the Keys to Heavens GATES to Peter? “MY CHURCH” singular Mt. 16:18-19] Did or did not Jesus Christ command Peter and HIS Successors to cf. Go teach the world what I taught and commanded YOU! Mt. 28:18-20…

Help me out here; what AM I MISSING?

You my friend are not reflecting accurately the teachings of the RCC and the BIBLE.

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

=PRmerger;13238076]What separates us (the CC and the EO) is not doctrine but politics…residual from thousands of years ago.

#sad

EXCUSE ME!

BUT THE PRIMACY OF PETER IS NOT POLITICIS; IT’S DOGMA:blush:

It’s both Bionically and Historically grounded

The Early Church Fathers on
The Primacy of Peter/Rome
staycatholic.com/ecf_primacy_of_rome.htm

The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church.

Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loose
and, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

One ought not state PERSONAL opinions as FACTS

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[PJM]

=benhur;13239175]Hi P,

Yes, but the question is how did this first church exist ? That you call it Catholic fine, but again was it with the same priesthood , episcopacy, papacy, sacraments etc etc. That one left the other, for sure the P’s left. Not sure if the O’s would say so. I mean if CC changes and the OC carries on as always, who really left who ? As PR says, all things between the two are pretty much the same except for Papacy. There is much evidence that the Papacy evolved. There is also as much evidence for the O’s type of authority structure as being from the beginning.

Blessings

POST #231 from benhur
Hi P,

Yes, but the question is how did this first church exist ? That you call it Catholic fine, but again was it with the same priesthood , episcopacy, papacy, sacraments etc etc. That one left the other, for sure the P’s left. Not sure if the O’s would say so. I mean if CC changes and the OC carries on as always, who really left who ? As PR says, all things between the two are pretty much the same except for Papacy. There is much evidence that the Papacy evolved. There is also as much evidence for the O’s type of authority structure as being from the beginning.

Blessings

I can’t respond to the ect, ect ,ect. BUT to the points you mentioned; the answer over-all is a RESOUNDING YES!

I just posted a reply to PRmerger on the Papacy that he seems to IN MY OPINION feel is insignificant. Check it out. POST #240

**Acts 20:28-30 **[Douay premodified by Luther]

28 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. [29] I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”

Acts 1: 26 “And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”[the Episcopacy]
The Papacy: See post 240

**Ecuharist **
Acts 2: 42 “And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of thebreaking of bread, and in prayers”

Baptism Mt. 28: 19

The Priesthood
Titus 1: 5 “For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee”
The rest my friend flows from God’s Granted Powers of the Key’s. Mt, 16:19 “And I will give to thee {all of implied} the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

IN that time and place the POWERS to “Bind and or Loose” were understood to be UNLIMITED Powers of Governance; as was common in “walled in cites” like Jerusalem. The King appointed One Man to RULE in his name and make all day to day decisions. If you’d like more in send me a private message.

NOT all of the Seven Sacraments were fully developed at the formation of the Church singular; Mt. 16: 18}; BUT that is why Christ appointed Peter as the Head; to build and develop the One True Church. Again, if you seek further evidence just send me a private message. Space is limited so I can’t provide more info here.

God Bless you,
Patrick