Where were the Protestants before the 1500's?

[Nanotwerp]

Protestants do not claim to be infallible.

Here is limbo and the necessity for baptism in the Baltimore Catechism.
baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm
Q. 631. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?

A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

Well then you should remain Catholic.

The Baltimore Catechism was never an official catechism…

Doesn’t matter if you don’t claim to be infallible; it is simply unsettling.

The Bible is complex, and given humans have many ways of interpreting things, you would never know who is correct.

You could say God guided you, but nothing puts your opinion over another Protestant’s.

In the end, you’re all wrong.

 

[Dalphon]

Secondly, I don’t know why you’re so bothered by this. So maybe infallibility is a lot more limited than you thought. Why do you care? Why is it relevant to whether you become Catholic or not? Isn’t it easier to accept a very limited version of infallibility than a broader version that covers more things?
Edwin

Edwin

The Holy Spirit knows everything. If the Catholic Church claims to be protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error, then there should be no error in teaching. A limited version of infallibility is not infallibility.

 

[Dalphon]

The Baltimore Catechism was never an official catechism…

It has an imprimatur which means it was approved by the magisterium.

So - if the baltimore catechism was never official, is the present catechism official? Which catechism is official and which one isn’t and how do you know the difference?

Doesn’t matter if you don’t claim to be infallible; it is simply unsettling.

The Bible is complex, and given humans have many ways of interpreting things, you would never know who is correct.

You could say God guided you, but nothing puts your opinion over another Protestant’s.

In the end, you’re all wrong.

Who you decide to be correct is your decision - in every decision you make. Not just what church to go to.

 

[Dalphon]

I’m basically expressing the hesitation that many outside of the RCC faith have about having certain beliefs I have to confess if I’m to join the RCC, when the Catholic church claims that salvation resides in said church. When salvation is tied to church membership, and then that church says I have to believe certain things about another human other than Jesus, then salvation is tied to “another name.” You and I could confess (and do confess) all the same things about God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, yet that alone is not sufficient in the eyes of the RCC for me to be in full communion. Again, that wouldn’t be a problem if the church didn’t tie membership directly to salvation.

There is, by direct teaching, more to it than that (please someone do correct me if I have this wrong). When there is someone like me who would be considered an “armchair theologian” who has studied about God and read scripture since I was tiny, and who has a working knowledge of the CCC, the responsibility of what I confess and embrace goes up because I’m a person interested and capable in this area. The assent, if done in ignorance may be ok, but once you realize what you are assenting to, there has to be some type of agreement, even (I believe) from the perspective of the church. So I have to “fully and faithfully believe” something about Mary, such as the assumption.

… it seems like there are more and more hurdles set up over time and through the years to “make it” to the place where one is in communion with the RCC. I do believe, however, that recently we’ve seen some of the hurdles being removed (or redefined or explained differently) in the general name of ecumenism, which is really really interesting to see.

Thank you for summing up my thoughts in a few paragraphs.

 

[Porknpie]

This is what the apostles said.

1 Corinthians 3:11
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Acts 4:12
“And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

1 Corinthians 2:2
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

Dalphon,

Everyone of the verses above is very Catholic. 100% Catholic and affirmed as true by the Church.

Limbo - this was a theological speculation. It was never Church doctrine.

Outside the Church there is no salvation - this was and is a true statement. All who are saved are saved through the Church of which Christ is the head. The Catechism below:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

Notice the bolded parts above. The Church has taught and teaches that those who do not know the Gospel - may - achieve salvation. Hence the Church does not place limits on who God will save (the bible says we are not to judge, even St. Paul has “hopeful confidence” not “false assurance” of his salvation). God will judge all of humanity in fairness at the end time.

One would hope God judges fairly because Jesus says in John 6

“Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

Yet MANY protestants believe that the Lord was only speaking symbolically. Yet wherever the Apostles planted their communities of faith, they all believed in the Real Presence. This was never disputed (heretics aside) until the Reformation some 1,500 years later. The apostolic faith is that we must receive him, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist. Christ’s words are that we need to receive him in order to have life.

And St. Peter says:

21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for[a] a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Yet, many protestants believe baptism is only a symbolic act. Yet, one does not read of the apostolic Church believing this at all. Baptism, prefigured by circumcision in the OT, is much greater: it Saves whereas circumcision was only a sign.

To the point of the thread, one does not find Christians before the reformation believing in a symbolic Eucharist and a symbolic Baptism. Both are man-made traditions that depart from the apostolic faith.

PnP

 

[Nanotwerp]

It has an imprimatur which means it was approved by the magisterium.

So - if the baltimore catechism was never official, is the present catechism official? Which catechism is official and which one isn’t and how do you know the difference?

Who you decide to be correct is your decision - in every decision you make. Not just what church to go to.

Contrary to unpopular belief, the Baltimore Catechism hasn’t ever received an imprimatur from the Holy See.

Yes; the Catechism of the Catholic Church is official, obviously.

 

[clem456]

Which catechism is official and which one isn’t and how do you know the difference?

The current one perhaps???
Why would a past catechism be the current teaching document?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

But I think that line of thinking can only be taken so far and still fall within the claim that the Marian dogmas are actually about Jesus in the end. I’ve stated elsewhere I honestly do think that the fact that anyone interested in joining the RCC now has to confess things directly about someone other than Jesus or else they are not allowed to join is problematic if we believe there is no other name by which we must be saved.

I can readily call Mary Theotokos, and confess that Jesus honored her, and confess that she was and is highly favored, and blessed amongst women, that she was a virgin, that Jesus’ Father was and is God Himself. I can confess about Jesus that He is God, that He fulfilled all that was asked of Him under the law including honoring Mary. But that is now not enough to warrant entrance to the RCC.

How about Queen of Heaven? Do you confess that?

Have you studied the OT, specifically the Davidic Kingdom?

Mary is the Gebirah.
And the Ark of the New Covenant.
And the New Eve.

etc. etc.

 

[Nanotwerp]

Rejection of the Real Presence in Eucharist is actually a part of an early history known as Docetism. Ignatius was against this, too.

I can see why many Protestants don’t research early Church history; because so much of it is against what Protestants stand for.

 

[Nanotwerp]

It has an imprimatur which means it was approved by the magisterium.

So - if the baltimore catechism was never official, is the present catechism official? Which catechism is official and which one isn’t and how do you know the difference?

Who you decide to be correct is your decision - in every decision you make. Not just what church to go to.

During that time, which was before the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Roman Catechism (Catechism of Trent) was the official catechism…

There has been an English translation of it for a long time.

You know the difference of officiality if it is either by the Holy See, or if it has an imprimatur from the Holy See.

Seems like you’re at it again judging the whole Church based on some theologians’ opinions.

A more extreme version of this would be me judging your Protestant beliefs based on a Westboro Baptist church pastor.

But of course, Protestant pastors can easily stray more, since they aren’t guided.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Secondly, I don’t know why you’re so bothered by this. So maybe infallibility is a lot more limited than you thought. Why do you care? Why is it relevant to whether you become Catholic or not? Isn’t it easier to accept a very limited version of infallibility than a broader version that covers more things?

Very, very good point!

:clapping:

 

[FathersKnowBest]

It has an imprimatur which means it was approved by the magisterium.

When was the Baltimore Council held? I must’ve missed it.

You need to define your terms more closely. “approved” - what do you mean? By the magisterium? Nope. Allowed to be printed by the Archbishop of New York? Yup.

From Wikipedia:
An imprimatur (from Latin, “let it be printed”) is, in the proper sense, a declaration authorizing publication of a book.

So - if the baltimore catechism was never official, is the present catechism official?

You’d need to define what you mean by “official.”

The Church uses precise language for a specific purpose.

 

[Dalphon]

Contrary to unpopular belief, the Baltimore Catechism hasn’t ever received an imprimatur from the Holy See.

Are you saying the Third Council of Bishops in Baltimore were teaching doctrines not approved by the magisterium?
catholiccompany.com/baltimore-catechism.cfm

Baltimore Catechism
The Baltimore Catechism was the Gold Standard of Catholic education from 1885 to the 1960s. Commissioned by the Third Council of Bishops in Baltimore, it is known for its easy to read question and answer format combining solid Catholic doctrinal teaching with meaningful exposure to Scripture and practical application.

 

[adrift]

The Holy Spirit knows everything. If the Catholic Church claims to be protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error, then there should be no error in teaching. A limited version of infallibility is not infallibility.

It is obvious that you do not understand what infallibility is. The Baltimore Catechism was not infallible but your understanding is.
It is your lack of understanding that believes that what the Baltimore Catechism taught is at odds with the present Catechism. It is not. It is your understanding that is off.

Baptism is necessary for salvation. Jesus said so. However, the Church recognizes Baptism of desire, blood and water, Incidentally, this is also presented in the Baltimore Catechism.

Q. 644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?

A. There are three kinds of Baptism: 1.Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

VI. The Necessity of Baptism

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Doesn’t seem different to me. Are you sure you have read the Catechism?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Protestants do not claim to be infallible.

Here is limbo and the necessity for baptism in the Baltimore Catechism.
baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm
Q. 631. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?

A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

Did you stop reading there, or did you get your information from someone who purposefully edited out pertinent information?

Q. 644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?

A. There are three kinds of Baptism: 1.Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.

Q. 645. What is Baptism of water?

A. Baptism of water is that which is given by pouring water on the head of the person to be baptized, and saying at the same time, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

Q. 646. In how many ways was the baptism of water given in the first ages of the Church?

A. In the first ages of the Church, baptism of water was given in three ways, namely, by immersion or dipping, by aspersion or sprinkling, and by infusion or pouring. Although any of these methods would be valid, only the method of infusion or pouring is now allowed in the Church.

Q. 647. What are the chief ceremonies used in solemn baptism, and what do they signify?

A. The chief ceremonies used in solemn baptism are:

1.A profession of faith and renouncement of the devil to signify our worthiness;
2.The placing of salt in the mouth to signify the wisdom imparted by faith;
3.The holding of the priest’s stole to signify our reception into the Church;
4.The anointing to signify the strength given by the Sacrament;
5.The giving of the white garment or cloth to signify our sinless state after baptism; and
6.The giving of the lighted candle to signify the light of faith and fire of love that should dwell in our souls.

Q. 648. Should one who, in case of necessity, has been baptized with private baptism, be afterwards brought to the Church to have the ceremonies of solemn baptism completed?

A. One who, in case of necessity, has been baptized with private baptism should afterwards be brought to the Church to have the ceremonies of solemn baptism completed, because these ceremonies are commanded by the Church and bring down blessings upon us.

Q. 649. Is solemn baptism given with any special kind of water?

A. Solemn baptism is given with consecrated water; that is, water mixed with holy oil and blessed for baptism on Holy Saturday and on the Saturday before Pentecost. It is always kept in the baptismal font in the baptistry – a place near the door of the Church set apart for baptism.
Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?

A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.

Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?

A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood for the faith of Christ.

Q. 652. What is the baptism of blood most commonly called?

A. The baptism of blood is most commonly called martyrdom, and those who receive it are called martyrs. It is the death one patiently suffers from the enemies of our religion, rather than give up Catholic faith or virtue. We must not seek martyrdom, though we must endure it when it comes.

Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?

A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.

Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?

A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.

Remember, this was intended for young school-age children, as a very basic foundation, and doesn’t treat the matters in any sort of depth whatsoever.

Depending on this for your theology is akin to taking a “Children’s Bible” and trying to prove a theological point from it. It may be a fine vehicle to introduce children, but don’t expect to have a serious discussion based on that alone.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Holy Spirit knows everything. If the Catholic Church claims to be protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error, then there should be no error in teaching. A limited version of infallibility is not infallibility.

The Catholic Church has never formally taught error in matters of faith and morals. There is no limit to this.

The Baltimore Catechism was not a universal catechism for use by the Catholic Church throughout the entire world. The present Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope John Paul II is a universal catechism.

Neither of these catechisms are considered infallible documents, and while much of what is contained in them may be correct, it is possible that theological opinion and conjecture may also be included regarding matters that have not been formally defined.

 

[Dalphon]

During that time, which was before the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Roman Catechism (Catechism of Trent) was the official catechism…

There has been an English translation of it for a long time.

You know the difference of officiality if it is either by the Holy See, or if it has an imprimatur from the Holy See.

Seems like you’re at it again judging the whole Church based on some theologians’ opinions.

A more extreme version of this would be me judging your Protestant beliefs based on a Westboro Baptist church pastor.

But of course, Protestant pastors can easily stray more, since they aren’t guided.

So if the Baltimore Bishops were teaching doctrines not approved by the Holy See isn’t that Protestantism?

 

[Randy_Carson]

So if the Baltimore Bishops were teaching doctrines not approved by the Holy See isn’t that Protestantism?

Of course not. The Bishops would readily submit to the Holy See if any of their ideas were determined to be in error.

Protestants are unwilling to submit to anyone other than themselves (thought they claim to be submitted to God).

 

[Dalphon]

Did you stop reading there, or did you get your information from someone who purposefully edited out pertinent information?

No, I was only talking about limbo. Unbaptized children were assigned to limbo. This never made sense to me because Catholicism made provision for the invincibly ignorant but not invincibly ignorant babies. I’m glad they finally changed that one. How is it they didn’t know that before Vatican II? That’s the whole point of bringing that up.

 

[benhur]

How about Queen of Heaven? Do you confess that?

Have you studied the OT, specifically the Davidic Kingdom?

Mary is the Gebirah.
And the Ark of the New Covenant.
And the New Eve.

etc. etc.

yes but kings (and queens ) were not God’s perfect will and He only allowed it for Israel in their carnality( but poor Satan, for the Lord still made lemonade with it and someday the King of Kings will rule in God’s perfect will). Further, queen of heaven is found in jeremiah as something pagans (babylonians) and back slidden Jews did.