Where were the Protestants before the 1500's?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nanotwerp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But as I understand it, that’s not enough be in right standing. You can assent to a teaching, and take it on faith, but it is still required, on some level, to accept what is contained in the CCC, hence RCIA.
I’m not sure what your getting at exactly.

Whether one is a cradle Catholic or a new convert, not everybody has the will, or the competence, or the time, to study and immediately understand every doctrine and devotion.
The profession of faith requires the believer’s assent: “I do”. It requires giving your person over to Christ.

Just like a marriage. If you are married, did you know what you were getting into when you said those words “I do”? Probably not, but you make the commitment anyway. The fullness of your marriage commitment, and all the devotion required, were revealed to you over time, am I right? Y
You give your assent, your trust, to Christ, through his Church. Full understanding comes with time.
 
All catechumens make a profession of faith at the Easter Vigil:

That’s it.
A person is not required to have a deep devotion to the Blessed Mother to be Catholic, but in reality, it is difficult to believe in Christ without accepting who his mother is.
Well, you must be in union with Christ. And Christ has a mother, by definition of who he is.
How can you accept the Incarnation of Christ without accepting his mother?
I accept Mary. What’s not to accept about Mary. Of course Mary is the mother of Jesus.
I’m saying the gospel and teachings of the apostle are slightly different from that of Catholicism. They just evolved into dependence upon Mary for salvation.

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.
 
I accept Mary. What’s not to accept about Mary. Of course Mary is the mother of Jesus.
I’m saying the gospel and teachings of the apostle are slightly different from that of Catholicism. They just evolved into dependence upon Mary for salvation.

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.
This is what the Church says about salvation.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a3.htm
What folks are debating here is your mischaracterization of the writings of the saints you quoted. The scripture passages in no way contradict the quotes you posted from the saints.
 
I accept Mary. What’s not to accept about Mary. Of course Mary is the mother of Jesus.
I’m saying the gospel and teachings of the apostle are slightly different from that of Catholicism.
Your statement is untrue
They just evolved into dependence upon Mary for salvation.
No evolution occurred just a misunderstanding on your part about what the Church teaches.
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.
This is what the Catholic Church teaches. So what is your beef? Here is a link to the Catechism so you may learn what the Church really teaches.
 
Here’s why Marian devotion is valuable.

Our relationship with Christ is not exclusively personal. Yes we can say that we need a personal relationship with Christ, of course. But that relationship does not exist in a personal cocoon. Christ is the head of a body of real people. To “know” Christ is to live in unity with him, and because we are his mystical body, to be united with others.

All human beings are unique and are gifted by God in unique ways. Mary is gifted with God’s grace to the fullest extent. Can I accept that another human being is uniquely gifted in God’s eyes? Or, in my desire to have a “personal” relationship with God, do I have trouble accepting that another human being could be so incredibly gifted? Sometimes we believe that God’s grace is a “zero sum game”. There are only so many units of grace available, and if someone like Mary has lots of it, there is less for us.

Not true. God’s grace is limitless, without bounds, beyond comprehension or measure. If you look around you, he has gifted so many people in so many ways. And we honor each other as sons and daughters of God, because we are all created by him. If I cannot accept the grace that God has showered on others, especially his mother, it is difficult to be united with Him.

So we honor Mary, precisely for who she is, nothing more, and nothing less. She is gifted. We would like to emulate her for her docility to the Spirit, and all her virtues. These virtues exemplify what it means to accept God’s grace and live it.
 
This is what the Catholic Church teaches. So what is your beef? Here is a link to the Catechism so you may learn what the Church really teaches.
I’ve read the catechism. It contradicts much of what the Church taught before Vatican II. Limbo, salvation of non-catholics, necessity of baptism. Now that you mention it, that’s another beef I have with the Catholic Church.
 
I’ve read the catechism. It contradicts much of what the Church taught before Vatican II. Limbo, salvation of non-catholics, necessity of baptism. Now that you mention it, that’s another beef I have with the Catholic Church.
So what you are saying, then is…you do not want to see in heaven, those were not catholics or Christians, but nevertheless, have the law of God written in their hearts?

So you do not want to see heaven, Jews, non-Catholics, atheists, muslims-who had the law of God written in their hearts?
 
I’ve read the catechism. It contradicts much of what the Church taught before Vatican II. Limbo, salvation of non-catholics, necessity of baptism. Now that you mention it, that’s another beef I have with the Catholic Church.
Limbo never required the “I do” of faith. It is not the accepted explanation at present.
Doctrines develop. Our understanding of God develops over time. So the Church will express a truth in a different way, or express a fuller understanding of it. That doesn’t mean that the core of it has somehow changed.

How interesting you bring up pre-Vatican 2 teaching.
 
I’m not sure what your getting at exactly.
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.
Whether one is a cradle Catholic or a new convert, not everybody has the will, or the competence, or the time, to study and immediately understand every doctrine and devotion.
The profession of faith requires the believer’s assent: “I do”. It requires giving your person over to Christ.
I have given my person over to Christ… and that’s kind of what I’m getting at. I’ve been baptized, and we can stand shoulder to shoulder and recite the Nicene creed together and mean it, and yet that’s not enough from the Catholic position.

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.
Just like a marriage. If you are married, did you know what you were getting into when you said those words “I do”? Probably not, but you make the commitment anyway. The fullness of your marriage commitment, and all the devotion required, were revealed to you over time, am I right? You give your assent, your trust, to Christ, through his Church. Full understanding comes with time.
It is a good analogy. When we know something about our future spouse, when we say “I do” we are accepting it on some level. There will be things I will learn along the way, but some I already know. I’m absolutely sure there are some converts to the RCC and cradle Catholics that don’t know the Marian dogmas, but those like me, do, so we are put in the position to confess and accept something about Mary, which feels much like tacking on another human name under which I must be saved, again because salvation is tied to church membership.

I’m not trying to be difficult :o but rather to share something that I see as in issue; in essence, to get down to the point, 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.
 
So what you are saying, then is…you do not want to see in heaven, those were not catholics or Christians, but nevertheless, have the law of God written in their hearts?

So you do not want to see heaven, Jews, non-Catholics, atheists, muslims-who had the law of God written in their hearts?
Yes. I want to see non-Catholics in heaven. I am currently one of them but when you change what previous popes have said about non-Catholics then you’re admitting they were wrong.
 
Yes. I want to see non-Catholics in heaven. I am currently one of them but when you change what previous popes have said about non-Catholics then you’re admitting they were wrong.
The subject of doctrinal development has been debated in numerous threads at CAF.

It is interesting that you take a position alongside ultra Traditionalist Catholics in regards to Church teaching.
 
Limbo never required the “I do” of faith. It is not the accepted explanation at present.
Doctrines develop. Our understanding of God develops over time. So the Church will express a truth in a different way, or express a fuller understanding of it. That doesn’t mean that the core of it has somehow changed.
If limbo is not real then a lot of mothers who lost children suffered for no reason. If God can save the unbaptized then those who had non-Catholic friends and family in previous centuries also suffered for no reason.
How interesting you bring up pre-Vatican 2 teaching.
Why?
 
The subject of doctrinal development has been debated in numerous threads at CAF.

It is interesting that you take a position alongside ultra Traditionalist Catholics in regards to Church teaching.
I don’t take the side of ultra Traditionalist Catholics. I happen to side with God can save whoever He wants to. I just bring it up because adrift told me to read the catechism. If the catechism has it right, then the Church got it wrong for 1963 years. If you want to say it was development of doctrine then you can’t claim infallibility. Non-Catholics go to hell vs. non-Catholics go to heaven; that’s not development. That’s 180 degree change. The Jehovah’s Witnesses do the same thing when they revise doctrine. They call it “New Light.” You can’t get a blood transfusion. Let them die. Now you can get a blood substitute. You’re grandmother died for no reason.🤷
 
I don’t take the side of ultra Traditionalist Catholics.
Intentionally taking a side or not, what you are misunderstanding about Catholicism is the same as Ultra traditionalists. I just find it interesting.
I happen to side with God can save whoever He wants to. I just bring it up because adrift told me to read the catechism. If the catechism has it right, then the Church got it wrong for 1963 years. If you want to say it was development of doctrine then you can’t claim infallibility. Non-Catholics go to hell vs. non-Catholics go to heaven; that’s not development. That’s 180 degree change. The Jehovah’s Witnesses do the same thing when they revise doctrine. They call it “New Light.” You can’t get a blood transfusion. Let them die. Now you can get a blood substitute. You’re grandmother died for no reason.🤷
Doctrinal development is a simple thing.
Human beings are not God, therefore we do not have full sight and understanding.
We see dimly now
Our understanding and ability to express it develops or “flowers”. That doesn’t mean that Christ wasn’t the head of the Church in 1960 and now he is. He is the Church. We are his body. 🤷
 
I don’t take the side of ultra Traditionalist Catholics. I happen to side with God can save whoever He wants to. I just bring it up because adrift told me to read the catechism. If the catechism has it right, then the Church got it wrong for 1963 years. If you want to say it was development of doctrine then you can’t claim infallibility. Non-Catholics go to hell vs. non-Catholics go to heaven; that’s not development. That’s 180 degree change. The Jehovah’s Witnesses do the same thing when they revise doctrine. They call it “New Light.” You can’t get a blood transfusion. Let them die. Now you can get a blood substitute. You’re grandmother died for no reason.🤷
First of all, the idea that the “invincibly ignorant” may be saved goes back well before Vatican II. It was clearly expressed by Popes in the 19th century. Even the Council of Trent says only “people can’t be saved except through baptism or the desire for baptism.” It’s a development because the Church has gradually widened what were originally very tiny cracks in the principle of “outside the Church no salvation,” working on principles already established (baptism of desire for non-Christians, and for non-Catholic Christians the fact that baptism administered outside the Church was considered valid). It wasn’t a 180-degree turn.

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?

Sure, that may make you skeptical about confident claims by some Catholics today that certain issues (like women’s ordination) have been infallibly settled. That is my own position (but then my own theological reasoning very much leads me to favor women’s ordination–your mileage may vary).

Edwin

Edwin
 
I’ve read the catechism. It contradicts much of what the Church taught before Vatican II. Limbo, salvation of non-catholics, necessity of baptism. Now that you mention it, that’s another beef I have with the Catholic Church.
Limbo was never a doctrine of the Catholic Church.
I can’t really see how you say the Catholic Church makes contradictions, when most every Protestant has totally different beliefs.
My beef with the Protestant church is that they’re all divided with no guidance, which creates chaos.
 
Limbo was never a doctrine of the Catholic Church.
I can’t really see how you say the Catholic Church makes contradictions, when most every Protestant has totally different beliefs.
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.
My beef with the Protestant church is that they’re all divided with no guidance, which creates chaos.
Well then you should remain Catholic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top