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

  • Thread starter Thread starter IGotQuestions
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You miss the point of what theBible Alone means. It does not mean that the Bible is an end in itself.

Scripture is there to lead one to Christ. By it we know truth from error. We know that the doctrine of Purgatory is against the Gospel along with the sale of indulgences.
Yet Jesus takes bread, breaks it, and states in clear language " THIS IS MY BODY " and takes the cup of wine, ( yes it was wine, Jesus did not turn water into grape juice at the wedding at Cana) and stated again “THIS IS MY BLOOD” and you ignore Him. You pick and choose what you want to believe in the Bible.
 
Why the rush to baptize if you trust in God’s goodness and mercy as much as we do?
Why does anyone rush to Christ?
Because we desire to
  1. bring others to know the saving power of Christ.
Infant baptism is not a panicked rush to save a lost soul. It’s a desire to bring a new life into the fold.
Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit
The Church always points us to the good, the beautiful, and the true, which is all personified in Jesus Christ himself. Baptism gives us life in Christ, Baptism is not merely an inoculation against sin, it opens the storehouse of grace to a human being. I want my child to have that.
 
Well said! The truth is not a concept, it is a person, Jesus Christ.

The so called “good theif” who died alongside Jesus probably had no knowledge of scripture, or doctrine, or gospel, but he recognized Jesus.
You really believe this? He never went to synagogue or the Temple, didn’t grow up in a Jewish home, didn’t listen to or study the OT Scriptures? Please cite your evidence for this assertion.

And do you also honestly believe that he knew nothing about Jesus until he was carrying a cross with Him up to Calvary? That he just magically knew that Jesus was not guilty of any crime and was innocent? Citation for this preposterous claim.

Obviously the Good Thief heard quite a bit about Jesus, and knew that He was innocent before the crucifixion.
 
Anything I learn must not violate scripture in any way. One does need to be very careful, although not all things are primary. Anything from the enemy tends to focus on minimising the centrality of Christ or the importance of the atonement.
Can you cite the Scripture passages that list out what is “primary” and what is “secondary”?

And also cite the Scripture passage that lists out the books of the Bible?
 
You miss the point of what theBible Alone means.
Perhaps you could give us a definition, using the Bible?

Otherwise, what you are asserting “the Bible Alone means” is just a man-made tradition.

Not to mention, your definition differs from a lot of other Bible Alone Christians.

(And there are** a multitude of definitions **of Bible Alone, and since there is no one to speak authoritatively for Bible Alone Christians, how do we Catholics know whom to go to for the final, authoritative voice for the definition of Bible Alone?)
 
The history is not as neat as you think. Jerome did not approve them. They were not in Cardinal Cagetan’s list of books. At the time they where written, they were not received as inspired.
You avoided answering the question. Please answer it.
There is no prophecy in them to compare with authentic scripture. It is like comparing coal with diamonds.
Do you use this same standard for all books of the bible? What about 3 John? There is no prophesy in it to compare with authentic scripture. Same with 2 John.

You don’t realize the logical fallacy of what you say here. You are trying to use some books to determine if other books are not scripture. And you are saying that if they have something the others don’t, then they can’t be scripture, because they have something not in scripture. Well someone had to determine those first books were scripture FIRST. And the ones who did that determined that the other books you are arguing about are ALSO scripture.

Plus, your fallacy extends another way. Take for example the book of Jude. By your standard, we must throw this book out, because it has something in it that no other book does, the fight over the body of Moses. So it must go, right?
 
Why the rush to baptize if you trust in God’s goodness and mercy as much as we do?
Let me bring you up to speed, the Catholic Church does not have a definite timetable on infant baptism as opposed to OT circumcision which had to be done on the eighth day. Most parents wait a month or two before baptizing their infants, some much longer. The Church does encourage the parents to have it done reasonably soon though. Baptism’s generally are arranged in advance with the pastor, and are done during a Mass, or can be done at a separate baptismal service. My opinion here, the fact that we don’t baptize infants at the instant they are born shows that we do trust in God that if the child should die before baptism, that they will share in eternal life. Otherwise, parents would be insisting on baptism at the instant they are born to be sure of it. Baptism can be done anywhere at any time if the situation demands it. Usually there is a priest at any hospital who could baptize newborns immediately if it was necessary.
 
You avoided answering the question. Please answer it.

Do you use this same standard for all books of the bible? What about 3 John? There is no prophesy in it to compare with authentic scripture. Same with 2 John.

You don’t realize the logical fallacy of what you say here. You are trying to use some books to determine if other books are not scripture. And you are saying that if they have something the others don’t, then they can’t be scripture, because they have something not in scripture. Well someone had to determine those first books were scripture FIRST. And the ones who did that determined that the other books you are arguing about are ALSO scripture.

Plus, your fallacy extends another way. Take for example the book of Jude. By your standard, we must throw this book out, because it has something in it that no other book does, the fight over the body of Moses. So it must go, right?
Not only that, but Jude (verses 14-15) also cites the apocryphal Book of Enoch. Was the Book of Enoch inspired Scripture?
 
You really believe this? He never went to synagogue or the Temple, didn’t grow up in a Jewish home, didn’t listen to or study the OT Scriptures? Please cite your evidence for this assertion.

And do you also honestly believe that he knew nothing about Jesus until he was carrying a cross with Him up to Calvary? That he just magically knew that Jesus was not guilty of any crime and was innocent? Citation for this preposterous claim.

Obviously the Good Thief heard quite a bit about Jesus, and knew that He was innocent before the crucifixion.
We have no idea what informed the good thief in his coming to Christ. All we know is…he came to Christ and asked for mercy. He might have known Scriptures etc…or he might not have. We don’t know.

In acknowledging Christ and asking for mercy, he comes to know him. In coming to know him, he will come to know about the Church. It will be imperative in his life to seek after communion with Christ and his Church. He will want it.

His confession of Christ is the beginning of new life for him. Same for us. As we come to know Christ we will be drawn into communion with him, which means being drawn toward his Church.
The good thief is Catholic, he is a member of the universal Church which is Christ’s Body.
 
Let me bring you up to speed, the Catholic Church does not have a definite timetable on infant baptism as opposed to OT circumcision which had to be done on the eighth day.
The early Church debated this above:

“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).
It was not a question or not whether to baptize infants. That was a given. The question was on what day after birth.
 
…History affirms that today’s CC is the One Founded by Jesus…
With Patrick’s statement above we are at the heart of the matter. Authority. This is what originally drew me to consider the Catholic Church. I’ve read many books by Catholic scholars and as of yet remain unconvinced that this is in fact true. Maybe one of our Catholic brothers or sisters at CAF will be the first, at least for me anyway, to prove that Patrick’s statement is true.

Blessings
The lurkers are eagerly awaiting, are there any Catholics up to the task of proving from scripture and/or history that “today’s CC is the One Founded by Jesus”?

pax
 
The lurkers are eagerly awaiting, are there any Catholics up to the task of proving from scripture and/or history that “today’s CC is the One Founded by Jesus”?

pax
The problem with “taking the bait”, so to speak, is that normally in these discussions the non-Catholic does not:
  1. believe that a true and continuous church exists anywhere, in any substantial way, so the point is moot. The skeptic might believe in a nebulous church-with-no-substantial-structure, but that’s not what the Church is.
    or
  2. Is not willing to acknowledge or submit to it even if he believes it could exist somewhere, anywhere, also making the discussion pointless
    or
  3. does not understand what a Church is, what it’s source is, the nature of it, etc…
In a nutshell, you are asking for a sign, or proof, of a person, Jesus Christ. Good luck finding proof that will satisfy skepticism. Proof will not satisfy, faith will.
 
We have no idea what informed the good thief in his coming to Christ. All we know is…he came to Christ and asked for mercy. He might have known Scriptures etc…or he might not have. We don’t know.

In acknowledging Christ and asking for mercy, he comes to know him. In coming to know him, he will come to know about the Church. It will be imperative in his life to seek after communion with Christ and his Church. He will want it.

His confession of Christ is the beginning of new life for him. Same for us. As we come to know Christ we will be drawn into communion with him, which means being drawn toward his Church.
The good thief is Catholic, he is a member of the universal Church which is Christ’s Body.
I believe the good thief knew who Jesus was. The good thief actually does a good work from the cross when he rebukes the other thief for disbelief.
 
The early Church debated this above:

“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).
It was not a question or not whether to baptize infants. That was a given. The question was on what day after birth.
I hope you realize that is what I meant.🙂 Not posting my whole statement could have given someone the wrong impression.
 
I believe the good thief knew who Jesus was. The good thief actually does a good work from the cross when he rebukes the other thief for disbelief.
Yes he knew who Jesus was, which is the heart of the matter. We do not know what knowledge he had of doctrine, scriptures, etc,which was the question I was responding to. .
 
The lurkers are eagerly awaiting, are there any Catholics up to the task of proving from scripture and/or history that “today’s CC is the One Founded by Jesus”?

pax
This one is easy.😉 First of all, Jesus gives Simon a new name when He meets him for the first time, He calls him Cephas (Peter), rock. (John 1:42). There is no other church but the Catholic Church that “still” believes Matt.16:18-19 is referring to Peter (rock) being put into a position of authority in the newly founded Church of Jesus. Verse 19 speaks directly to Peter alone. Then in John 21:15-17, Jesus reiterates Peter as leader of Jesus flock (Church). “Feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep.” I don’t even have to use history to prove it if I don’t want to, Scripture is more than sufficient to show what you are asking.
 
The lurkers are eagerly awaiting, are there any Catholics up to the task of proving from scripture and/or history that “today’s CC is the One Founded by Jesus”?

pax
As I said earlier; you’re asking the wrong question; whu don’t you dear friend disprove it😃

St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”
“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6**. circa 80-110 A.D**

ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN (Alt)

“You perhaps say: ‘My bread is usual.’ But the bread is bread before the words of the sacraments; when consecration has been added, from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ. So let us confirm this, how it is possible that what is bread is the body of Christ. By what words, then, is the consecration and by whose expressions? By those of the Lord Jesus. For all the rest that are said in the preceding are said by the priest: praise to God, prayer is offered, there is a petition for the people, for kings, for the rest. When it comes to performing a venerable sacrament, then the priest uses not his own expressions, but he uses the expressions of Christ. Thus the expression of Christ performs this sacrament.” The Sacraments" Book 4, Ch.4:14. Bishop of Milan from 374 to 397
contributed by Eric Ewanco
eje@world.std.com

http://www.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]).**

G B U:thumbsup:
 
=adrift;13289262]You have been asked twice not to cut the profile so that it is easy to see the post you are quoting. It takes effort to remove this so I know it is on purpose. Your post become distracting I therefore am putting you on ignore.
I have NOT the FAINTEST idea what it is that you’re asking me to do or not do. Kindly explain to this 71 year old, non technical guy, and I will gladly comply:thumbsup

God Bless you,

Patrick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top