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

[In_His_Grace]

Just so we’re clear…it is not the Catholic Church’s teaching, but ***Christ’s ***teaching on marriage.

I don’t know how all these other denominations, claiming to be Bible Christians, can get around the fact that Jesus said, “If you divorce and re-marry, you commit adultery”.

Not our words. Not our teaching.

Christ’s words. Christ’s teaching.

Hi PRmerger,

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. (Matthew 19:9)

Yes, that is what Jesus taught and I completely agree with you, but I was referring specifically to the entirety of the Catholic Church’s understanding and teachings on the Sacrament of Marriage.

In His Grace

 

[PJM]

=In His Grace;13296182]Yes Patrick, you indeed are wrong. You are equating a persons not converting to Catholicism, not having faith in a church, with having a weak faith in our Creator and Savior. As a Protestant my faith in God has never been stronger.

God bless you as well.

I didn’t go far enough in my previous post.

True Faith follows Christ HIS WAY Not in a manner founded by mere men, trying to compete with God’s One true Faith. Nowhere in the bible is their even one example of
Yahweh or Christ accepting, tolerating, overlooking or condoning competing faiths. THAT my friend is a POWERFUL testimony!:

The Holy Spirit has led to to the CAF Forum that you might through humility and prayer; discover that:

There is but One True God

That One God has just One true sets of Faith beliefs [even God can’t hold differing views, often contradictory on the same long defined issues. Jesus following His Own example of just One God, Faith and Chosen People in the OT times; only perfected the Tradition with One Church.

And no, it is not possible that God waited for Wycliffe, Henry III, Luther Calvin or Jones to make known HIS Faith and desires for but One Church.

And through just One Church [Eph. 4:1-7]

Because God permits one to do things their own way; is no guarantee that they are “God Approved.”

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[zz912]

Wow, brilliant idea. Now just one group can have absolute religious authority over all men!
No more "people of the book! Everyone must bow. Only the chosen few can hear from God!
Every mind must submit to the elite!

Well thankfully this is not what the passage in 1Jn is supposed to lead to if correctly understood, because we have just defined a cult.

Is it your claim that the very first Christians did not have to submit to the authority of Peter and the Apostles? I seem to remember them having incredible authority, even authority over life and death. They even pronounced excommunications and other punishments.

And did the books of the New Testament come from just anyone, or did they come from very specific people?

 

[In_His_Grace]

I just took this off the EWTN library website:

Only God knows with absolute certainty a person’s state of grace. The individual person can reach a reasonable moral certainty as to the present state of his soul. The priest usually has no knowledge as to a person’s state of grace. Even if a priest knows that a certain person is a habitual sinner, he cannot know if, before coming for Communion, that person has repented, confessed and is striving to remedy his ways.
Even if the priest is practically certain that a person should not receive Communion and would be committing a sacrilege by doing so, he should not publicly refuse to administer the sacrament. No person, not even a grave sinner, should be publicly exposed for hidden faults. Everybody has a right to preserve his good name unless it is lost by the sinner’s public actions or in virtue of a public penalty.

Hi JMM1957,

From the following it sounds like the priest at my wife’s parish should refuse to let my wife receive communion, also noting the point that PRmerger made “living together as husband and wife” as this is true for my wife and I, we are in fact living together as husband and wife. What are your thoughts? Thanks.

In His Grace

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS

DECLARATION

II. CONCERNING THE ADMISSION TO HOLY COMMUNION OF FAITHFUL WHO ARE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED

1. Naturally, pastoral prudence would strongly suggest the avoidance of instances of public denial of Holy Communion. Pastors must strive to explain to the concerned faithful the true ecclesial sense of the norm, in such a way that they would be able to understand it or at least respect it. In those situations, however, in which these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible, the minister of Communion must refuse to distribute it to those who are publicly unworthy. They are to do this with extreme charity, and are to look for the opportune moment to explain the reasons that required the refusal. They must, however, do this with firmness, conscious of the value that such signs of strength have for the good of the Church and of souls.

The discernment of cases in which the faithful who find themselves in the described condition are to be excluded from Eucharistic Communion is the responsibility of the Priest who is responsible for the community. They are to give precise instructions to the deacon or to any extraordinary minister regarding the mode of acting in concrete situations.

source: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html

 

[JMM1957]

Hi JMM1957,

From the following it sounds like the priest at my wife’s parish should refuse to let my wife receive communion, also noting the point that PRmerger made “living together as husband and wife” as this is true for my wife and I, we are in fact living together as husband and wife. What are your thoughts? Thanks.

In His Grace

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS

DECLARATION

II. CONCERNING THE ADMISSION TO HOLY COMMUNION OF FAITHFUL WHO ARE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED

1. Naturally, pastoral prudence would strongly suggest the avoidance of instances of public denial of Holy Communion. Pastors must strive to explain to the concerned faithful the true ecclesial sense of the norm, in such a way that they would be able to understand it or at least respect it. In those situations, however, in which these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible, the minister of Communion must refuse to distribute it to those who are publicly unworthy. They are to do this with extreme charity, and are to look for the opportune moment to explain the reasons that required the refusal. They must, however, do this with firmness, conscious of the value that such signs of strength have for the good of the Church and of souls.

The discernment of cases in which the faithful who find themselves in the described condition are to be excluded from Eucharistic Communion is the responsibility of the Priest who is responsible for the community. They are to give precise instructions to the deacon or to any extraordinary minister regarding the mode of acting in concrete situations.

source: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html

This is one of those issues in the Church that apparently gets interpreted differently by pastors, either from lack of proper understanding of Church teaching, or them just not wanting to get involved at all, I don’t know. I know this issue of denying communion to certain persons comes up for various other reasons too, not just in a situation such as yours. I honestly don’t know enough about the teaching on this myself to be giving any advice, and I would defer to someone else more knowledgeable to comment. You could even ask here on CAF in the “Ask An Apologist section” on the home page, there are priests who answer questions there, and are very helpful if you can explain the whole situation to them.

 

[Porknpie]

Hi again Porknpie,

In fairness and honesty to the Lutherans at CAF I only have a very basic understanding of what Lutherans believe. All of my time the last few years have been entirely devoted to studying and trying to get a grasp on Catholicism. I was confirmed Lutheran (LCMS) back in the late 1980’s but the only reason I became Lutheran at the time was because my ex-wife is Lutheran. I was essentially a Baptist in a Lutheran church. I haven’t been to a Lutheran service since my divorce from my first wife 17 years ago when I started attending Baptist churches again. The period of time between 2000 - 2007 I fell away from the faith, turned my back on God, though I knew deep down He was calling me to return, He was remained faithful to me even when I was so backsliden . My wife and I have been married for 8 years so I’ve been going to Mass with her. She’s Catholic and I’m not but I desire to worship God with the wife I love. I haven’t been to church at all for some time as taking care of dad is a 24/7 commitment. When I am able to start going to church again it is my intention to attend a Lutheran church (LCMS) in the small town I live in (unless I convert to Catholicism) and I’ll also go to Mass with my wife.

In His Grac

In His Grace,

Have you considered joining RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults)? This is the normative process for non-Catholic adults to join the Church at Easter. The “Class of 2016” would have just started at your local Catholic Church. With a weekly meeting (topic changes nearly every week) from now until Easter, it gives you a great chance to learn, ask questions and prayerfully discern becoming Catholic. And there is no pressure to join. In fact, your should follow your conscious: don’t become Catholic because your wife is Catholic without believing in the tenants of the faith.

Hearing of your wife’s history, it would be terrific for her to join you as even current Catholic’s can benefit. This is something to discuss with your pastor.

Wonderful, that you are joining your wife at Mass.

Your care of your father is a cross that you are carrying. Unite your sufferings in doing so, as I’m sure that are difficulties, with Christ’s suffering on the cross.

My personal experience is : Lutherans, especially LCMS, can make great Catholics! I only have to look at my wife to know. She painted my avatar … and has great love for, and appreciation for Mary.

PnP

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PRmerger,

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. (Matthew 19:9)

Yes, that is what Jesus taught and I completely agree with you, but I was referring specifically to the entirety of the Catholic Church’s understanding and teachings on the Sacrament of Marriage.

In His Grace

Firstly, even if that’s a correct translation of Matthew’s words (and it is NOT), how many denominations will permit a re-marriage ONLY if the first marriage was affected by “immorality” (that is, adultery)?

Answer: practically none.

Almost every single Christian denomination which permits re-marriage does NOT refuse if the divorce was for any other reason.

They simply permit re-marriage. Period.

Secondly, the correct translation is: “except for an unlawful marriage” (such as incest).

It does NOT say, in Greek, “except for immorality”.

Think about it. How ridiculous would it be for Jesus to say, “You can divorce each other if you commit adultery”.

That’s giving permission for any man (or woman) who wishes to divorce to say,“Hey, I’m not supposed to divorce except for adultery, so if I commit adultery with my new honey, I am permitted to divorce. Bonus! I get to have extramarital relations AND now I can divorce my wife! Awesome!”

That makes no sense.

Rather, what Jesus actually said was in reference to unlawful (or illicit) marriages, such as those listed in Leviticus 18:6-16: marriage between family members, or marriage between a Jew and a Gentile.

That’s why Matthew, who wrote to the Jews, is the only Gospel writer who includes this “exception clause”.

 

[RyanBlack]

Firstly, even if that’s a correct translation of Matthew’s words (and it is NOT), how many denominations will permit a re-marriage ONLY if the first marriage was affected by “immorality” (that is, adultery)?

Answer: practically none.

Almost every single Christian denomination which permits re-marriage does NOT refuse if the divorce was for any other reason.

They simply permit re-marriage. Period.

Secondly, the correct translation is: “except for an unlawful marriage” (such as incest).

It does NOT say, in Greek, “except for immorality”.

Think about it. How ridiculous would it be for Jesus to say, “You can divorce each other if you commit adultery”.

That’s giving permission for any man (or woman) who wishes to divorce to say,“Hey, I’m not supposed to divorce except for adultery, so if I commit adultery with my new honey, I am permitted to divorce. Bonus! I get to have extramarital relations AND now I can divorce my wife! Awesome!”

That makes no sense.

Rather, what Jesus actually said was in reference to unlawful (or illicit) marriages, such as those listed in Leviticus 18:6-16: marriage between family members, or marriage between a Jew and a Gentile.

That’s why Matthew, who wrote to the Jews, is the only Gospel writer who includes this “exception clause”.

No one who believes that adultery is an exception understands it like you’ve suggested. Rather, they understand it to permit the innocent spouse to divorce and remarry.

 

[Porknpie]

No one who believes that adultery is an exception understands it like you’ve suggested. Rather, they understand it to permit the innocent spouse to divorce and remarry.

Ryan, PR is correct. The commonly held theological understanding of divorce here is if one was married to a close relative (incest). This occurred (occurs) when non-Christian converts entered into the Christian faith.

 

[RyanBlack]

Ryan, PR is correct. The commonly held theological understanding of divorce here is if one was married to a close relative (incest). This occurred (occurs) when non-Christian converts entered into the Christian faith.

That is not the point I was addressing. Rather, I was pointing out that those who believe that the passage allows divorce and remarriage in cases of adultery understand it to apply to the innocent spouse, not the spouse who commits adultery.

 

[PRmerger]

No one who believes that adultery is an exception understands it like you’ve suggested. Rather, they understand it to permit the innocent spouse to divorce and remarry.

I know–it’s weird, isn’t it? Professed Bible Christians suddenly add something to the text that isn’t there: ONLY the cuckolded spouse gets to remarry.

That’s not in the text.

If you want to say that divorce and remarriage is allowed only if there’s adultery, then you have to say that the adulterer gets to do this as well.

There isn’t a distinction in the text.

So any Bible Believer, who thinks he can divorce himself from the Catholic Church, can “legitimately” divorce his wife by cheating on her and then being free to marry.

That’s what the Bible says, after all, right?

 

[Augustine3]

Secondly, the correct translation is: “except for an unlawful marriage” (such as incest).

It does NOT say, in Greek, “except for immorality”.

Think about it. How ridiculous would it be for Jesus to say, “You can divorce each other if you commit adultery”.

That’s giving permission for any man (or woman) who wishes to divorce to say,“Hey, I’m not supposed to divorce except for adultery, so if I commit adultery with my new honey, I am permitted to divorce. Bonus! I get to have extramarital relations AND now I can divorce my wife! Awesome!”

That makes no sense.

Rather, what Jesus actually said was in reference to unlawful (or illicit) marriages, such as those listed in Leviticus 18:6-16: marriage between family members, or marriage between a Jew and a Gentile.

That’s why Matthew, who wrote to the Jews, is the only Gospel writer who includes this “exception clause”.

Hi,

I know almost close to nothing when it comes to the Greek language but doesn’t the word πορνείᾳ in English “porneia” have a wider meaning than just unlawful marriage?

I’m assuming you’re tying it down to unlawful marriage due to the context and harmonisation with the rest of the what the bible has to say on this subject….

Peace in Christ

 

[PRmerger]

Hi,

I know almost close to nothing when it comes to the Greek language but doesn’t the word πορνείᾳ in English “porneia” have a wider meaning than just unlawful marriage?

I’m assuming you’re tying it down to unlawful marriage due to the context and harmonisation with the rest of the what the bible has to say on this subject….

Peace in Christ

Firstly, the Greek word for adultery is moicheia.

That’s not the word Matthew used.

He did use, as you say, porneia.

As far as it having a wider meaning other than unlawful marriage, I don’t know.

What other meanings are you aware of?

 

[adrift]

I would like to see where that is in the bible. Romans 4 explains that it did not save.

Col. 2:11–12
Acts 2:38
Acts 22:16
1 Peter 3:21
I do not see how you can even remotely say that Romans refers to baptism.

However Paul does say this to the Romans
4 We were buried therefore with Him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.

 

[Augustine3]

Firstly, the Greek word for adultery is moicheia.

That’s not the word Matthew used.

He did use, as you say, porneia.

As far as it having a wider meaning other than unlawful marriage, I don’t know.

What other meanings are you aware of?

Porneia has a wide scope. Basically everything that falls under the umbrella of illicit or unnatural sexual relations, it’s where we get the word pornography from. Now that I’m thinking about it, what falls outside the scope of unlawful marriage if the meaning I have given is the true meaning…

 

[benhur]

On the contrary Purgatory is in the Gospel. Although not called purgatory, the idea is there just like "Trinity is not stated in Scripture but is plainly is there.

The sale of indulgences is a myth
Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences.

One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded
And the holocaust did not happen either ? Tetzel was just misunderstood by folks of his time?

 

[benhur]

No one who believes that adultery is an exception understands it like you’ve suggested. Rather, they understand it to permit the innocent spouse to divorce and remarry.

Thank you, save me the trouble

 

[benhur]

Firstly, even if that’s a correct translation of Matthew’s words (and it is NOT), how many denominations will permit a re-marriage ONLY if the first marriage was affected by “immorality” (that is, adultery)?

Answer: practically none.

Almost every single Christian denomination which permits re-marriage does NOT refuse if the divorce was for any other reason.

They simply permit re-marriage. Period.

Secondly, the correct translation is: “except for an unlawful marriage” (such as incest).

It does NOT say, in Greek, “except for immorality”.

Think about it. How ridiculous would it be for Jesus to say, “You can divorce each other if you commit adultery”.

That’s giving permission for any man (or woman) who wishes to divorce to say,“Hey, I’m not supposed to divorce except for adultery, so if I commit adultery with my new honey, I am permitted to divorce. Bonus! I get to have extramarital relations AND now I can divorce my wife! Awesome!”

That makes no sense.

Rather, what Jesus actually said was in reference to unlawful (or illicit) marriages, such as those listed in Leviticus 18:6-16: marriage between family members, or marriage between a Jew and a Gentile.

That’s why Matthew, who wrote to the Jews, is the only Gospel writer who includes this “exception clause”.

Catholic annulments can be kind of cheesy also, that is problematic in balancing the letter of the law with the spirit of the law.

 

[eazyduzit]

Here’s a Catholic.com tract on the subject. A good read.

2 Col. below:

11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

St. Paul then relates that not only is circumcision no longer valid for Christians, neither are the other Jewish boundary markers of dietary laws, festivals/holidays and the Sabbath.

16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath.

A very confusing point above for SDAs. They dismiss St. Paul’s words on the Sabbath no longer applying for Christians. Just as the Sabbath no longer applies, replaced by the 8th day, the Lord’s Day, neither does circumcision apply, replaced by baptism.

OT to NT Prefigurements:

• The Jewish day of rest, the Sabbath on Saturday, …prefigures…The Christian Day of Rest, the Lord’s Day, Sunday.
• Circumcision…prefigures…Baptism

The point I was making is that if baptism replaces circumcision, then like circumcision, it is basically a sign of covenant, but not salvific as demonstrated in Rm4:10 “How was it then reckoned?..Not in circumcision…” and then in v.11 “And he received the SIGN of circumcision…”. And then as you quoted from v. 12, “You were also risen with Him , through faith in the working of God.” According to this we are “buried” with Him through Baptism. Why? So that we may be dead to sin. This step comes after salvation, not before, which is why in Acts 8, Philip only allowed the Ethiopian eunuch to be baptized on the condition that he believed first. Then notice that being raised with Him is on the condition of “faith in the working of God.” and not through baptism.

I firmly believe that everything we receive from God must be by faith. Mk11:24 says “Whatsoever things you desire, when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you shall have them.” Faith is saying that I already have it, even though I don’t see it, but because of God’s promise, its as good as done, so we thank Him in advance. It’s not about anything I do.

 

[Porknpie]

The point I was making is that if baptism replaces circumcision, then like circumcision, it is basically a sign of covenant, but not salvific as demonstrated in Rm4:10 “How was it then reckoned?..Not in circumcision…” and then in v.11 “And he received the SIGN of circumcision…”. And then as you quoted from v. 12, “You were also risen with Him , through faith in the working of God.” According to this we are “buried” with Him through Baptism. Why? So that we may be dead to sin. This step comes after salvation, not before, which is why in Acts 8, Philip only allowed the Ethiopian eunuch to be baptized on the condition that he believed first. Then notice that being raised with Him is on the condition of “faith in the working of God.” and not through baptism.

I firmly believe that everything we receive from God must be by faith. Mk11:24 says “Whatsoever things you desire, when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you shall have them.” Faith is saying that I already have it, even though I don’t see it, but because of God’s promise, its as good as done, so we thank Him in advance. It’s not about anything I do.

Easyduzit,

A sign yes of the New Covenant, but not just a sign. Circumcision prefigures something much greater: the salvific affects of baptism, the normative way to be saved, cleansing us from original sin and how we receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It’s how we are made members of the Body of Christ.

That is why:

St Peter says
“Baptism now saves you” (after comparing it to the saving waters of the flood for Noah and his family)
And St. Mark
"whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved.’
And Jesus says in the great commissioning
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

That’s why St. Cyprian writing in the 3rd c speaks of the regenerative affects of baptism:

“[W]hen they come to us and to the Church which is one, ought to be baptized, for the reason that it is a small matter to ‘lay hands on them that they may receive the Holy Ghost,’ unless they receive also the baptism of the Church. For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’…[O]nly baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’” Cyprian, To Stephen, 71:72 (A.D. 253).