Where were the Protestants before the 1500's?

[benhur]

Hi benhur: I understand what you are saying. There was JW who lived next to me. They were once Catholic’s and I learned much about their ways and beliefs, yet while I did not agree with them I did get along with them. The way those who came to my door asking if I was saved told me that they themselves were assured of being saved because they believed in Jesus Christ as their personal savior, and so were saved automatically and did not have to worry about going to hell because they already knew they were going to heaven because of their believing in Jesus the Christ. I also told them that the devil also believed in Jesus the Christ and in God the Father and the Holy Spirit but that did not mean that he was going to be saved since he obviously rejected God. So it takes more than just a belief in God and or Jesus the Christ to be saved and anyway it’s up to God to decide who is saved and who is not, not us.

I think it rare for xC to become JW . Actually they don’t think they are going to heaven but paradise earthonly 144,00 got to heaven and they think that number was filled with people born on before 1920 or thereabouts). They also do not believe in hell like we do but think it is “extermination” and become non-existent. There going door to door is in hopes to applying the Blood for eternal life…Also not sure but I think saving faith may have different Greek word than the “faith” word applied to the devil.

 

[Nanotwerp]

Catholics don’t specifically believe in praying to someone other than God.
Catholics believe in prayer to God with saints.
We pray with saints to build a relationship with them, as they are our family in Heaven, God the Father being our father, Jesus being our brother, and Mary being our mother.
Saints, though in eternity, aren’t omnipotent and omniscient like God, and require us to pray with them, so they can know our intent and us themselves.

 

[benhur]

What kind of Heaven would that be, where everyone is apparently bound hand and foot, gagged at the mouth, and with cotton stuffed in their ears? If the people in Heaven can’t hear us or help us, then what would be the point of becoming a Saint?

Your paradigm is needlessly superfluous. You go from Godlike to deaf and dumb. Don’t forget blind and we are back to the 3 monkeys.

 

[spina1953]

I think it rare for xC to become JW . Actually they don’t think they are going to heaven but paradise earthonly 144,00 got to heaven and they think that number was filled with people born on before 1920 or thereabouts). They also do not believe in hell like we do but think it is “extermination” and become non-existent. There going door to door is in hopes to applying the Blood for eternal life…Also not sure but I think saving faith may have different Greek word than the “faith” word applied to the devil.

Hi benhur: You are quite right about that. Christ reappeared in 1914 invisible , so not to sure how they know that but that’s what they believe anyhow. Yes, they have the 144,000 already in heaven so the rest are given some type of paradise to live when they die.

As for faith or believing as one priest told even the devil believes in God but that does not mean that he is going to be saved. he already made his choice. As I said it takes more than having faith or believing in God one has to do something with it, otherwise its a dead faith.

 

[benhur]

Hi benhur: You are quite right about that. Christ reappeared in 1914 invisible , so not to sure how they know that but that’s what they believe anyhow. Yes, they have the 144,000 already in heaven so the rest are given some type of paradise to live when they die.

As for faith or believing as one priest told even the devil believes in God but that does not mean that he is going to be saved. he already made his choice. As I said it takes more than having faith or believing in God one has to do something with it, otherwise its a dead faith.

Right, the Greek word for proper faith implies one of “action” or that it is “applied”, even effectual to it’s end.

 

[PRmerger]

Is there a Bible verse that actually uses the word “saved” that says that being saved is being born of the Spirit?

Not sure.

So where does this idea come from, that * being “saved” is being born of the Spirit, being born again, entering life from death.*

 

[PRmerger]

Come on you can do better than that. That we can all pray, and that we can all pray for one another is a given. That the departed living have same hearing and seeing qualities of the Paraclete affording them specific intercession is some folks issue.

The goalposts ALWAYS move by Protestant objectors. Always.

First your objection is: you should always go to God directly. Praying to saints puts someone else in the middle.

When it is shown that you, too, don’t always go directly to God. That you put someone else in the middle…through your prayer chains…

the objection becomes, ALWAYS: well, there’s no proof in Scripture that the dead can hear us.

So at least we have established that the objection to praying to saints ISN’T that it puts someone else in the middle…

but only that the dead can’t hear us.

Are we agreed on that, benhur? You understand that going to the saints is nothing more than a heavenly prayer chain? And you don’t see anything wrong with prayer chains, right?

 

[Dalphon]

Get on the heavenly prayer chain and pray for benhur. Pray for all Protestants. You seem angry.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Get on the heavenly prayer chain and pray for benhur. Pray for all Protestants. You seem angry.

 

[PRmerger]

comicbookkid.co.uk

 

[pablope]

All t

Y

No. I’m sure they do but I’m not commenting on those writings. I’m commenting on the biblical accounts. The recorded preaching in the bible does not include Mary.

Well using the present logic, I could say how do you know He didn’t say to ignore Mary. Everything Jesus said has not been recorded?

We know what Jesus taught the apostles, including not to ignore His mother…from the common teachings, common life, common worship and liturgies of the Catholic and Orthodox churches…since Pentecost.

So now can you answer the question instead of evading it…in your protestant world…how can you know that Jesus did not tell the Apostles to ignore His mother?

How can you know what the apostles actually taught?

 

[Dalphon]

We know what Jesus taught the apostles, including not to ignore His mother…from the common teachings, common life, common worship and liturgies of the Catholic and Orthodox churches…since Pentecost.
So now can you answer the question instead of evading it…in your protestant world…how can you know that Jesus did not tell the Apostles to ignore His mother?

Well first of all that’s a ridiculous question. Of course Jesus wouldn’t tell anyone to ignore His mother. I never heard that ridiculous idea until now on this thread, as a way of putting Protestants down.

How can you know what the apostles actually taught?

How can you be sure that everything the apostles taught is in Catholic and Orthodox churches…since Pentecost? Maybe they taught more than that. Maybe some of their writings were lost, or destroyed by their enemies. Maybe the Oriental and Egyptian churches have more to offer.

 

[MaryT777]

Get on the heavenly prayer chain and pray for benhur. Pray for all Protestants. You seem angry.

Stick to the topic not your thoughts on analyzing who is angry or not. The Poster you speak of is simply responding to questions and comments you are posting about the Catholic Faith and this is CAF.

Perhaps what you are beginning to see yourself is the illogical arguments you have made against things that you yourself practice in your own religion such as prayer chains, yet having issues about Catholics praying to saints. Could it be “projection” and you yourself are angry?

This is why we stick to the topic alone and not posters. Armchair psychiatrists are a dime a dozen …
Mary.

 

[guanophore]

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,

This is certainly a worthy endeavor, but it seems that you have been given misinformation about it.

when the Catholic church claims that salvation resides in said church.

Salvation is found in Jesus Christ, who is One with His Body, the Church. Those who are in Him are also in His Church. There is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved.

When salvation is tied to church membership,

I think some of the struggle here comes from a deficient understanding of Church. There is only one Church, and all those who are saved are part of it.

One cannot be saved without becoming a member of the Body of Christ.

and then that church says I have to believe certain things about another human other than Jesus, then salvation is tied to “another name.”

The fact that other names are involved, or “tied” to Jesus has no bearing on the fact that His name is the only one under heaven by which we may be saved. Jesus chose to enter human history through a family, a people, a nation. He “tied” other names to himself. This does not mean that salvation is found in the name of any of his 12 apostles.

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.

I guess you lost me here. I don’t know why one would be considering joining the RCC if they did not want to be in full communion.

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.

This is true. But, if you do not hold Catholic faith, or are not willing to grow in to Catholic faith (you are at the normal starting point that anyone would be) why would you consider it?

The Eucharist, for example,is a much more critical element than the role of Mary.

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.

I think this is true. The more one knows, the more responsibility one has to respond. To those whom more is given, more is required.

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.

No, but you have to have an openness to get to that point. No one has a fully formed faith at the start. What is required is an attitude of receptivity. If you believe that Christ is present through His One Body, the Church, and you want to be a part of His One Body as it is expressed on earth in the CC, then you can trust that whatever you need to be able to fully and faithfully believe, He will bring you to that point.

It would not be appropriate to enter the CC if one could not have that openness.

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 don’t see why it has to be this way. You are not at a point in your faith where you can embrace these things. If God wants you to get there, you will. This does not have to impede coming into the Church. Willingness is all that is needed. Some doctrines remain in a mystery forever, and we just accept them by faith, not understanding and maybe sometimes in defiance of our intellect.

Think of it in the same way that Peter saw the Lord on the shore in the morning. They had been fishing all night, with nothing. He told them to let down the nets and Peter knew (by intellect and experience) that it was a waste of energy. But, because he trusted Jesus, He obeyed. Jesus did the miracle to fill the nets, and Peter was moved to faith. All you need to do is be willing to let down the nets, especially when it defies your logic and sensibilities.

I’m not trying to be difficult 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.

I understand the difficulty, but it seems you are overthinking it.

 

[Dalphon]

Stick to the topic not your thoughts on analyzing who is angry or not. The Poster you speak of is simply responding to questions and comments you are posting about the Catholic Faith and this is CAF.

This is sticking to the topic?

I would be very, very surprised if Dalphon has never asked another person here on earth to pray for him.

 

[guanophore]

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.

They were not wrong, and the Teaching of the Church has not changed. There is no salvation outside the Church. Period. This is because there is no salvation outside of Christ, and He is One with His Church.

If limbo is not real then a lot of mothers who lost children suffered for no reason.

I am not sure what this means.

Limbo is categorized as a “pious speculation”. It was an attempt to conceptualize a spiritual reality based upon what information was available at the time. It was never a doctrine of the faith.

The fact of the matter is that we cannot know what happens to unbaptized infants because it has not been revealed to us. What we know is that we all are born into the world under the death penalty, and if we die without faith we go to hell. I can’t imagine any mother of an unbaptized baby who died that would not want to imagine a better outcome.

If God can save the unbaptized then those who had non-Catholic friends and family in previous centuries also suffered for no reason.

God can save whoever He wants, however He likes. The point is, He has not revealed to us that anyone unbaptized will be saved. We just don’t know. We entrust their souls to a faithful creator.

Why?

Because our understanding of how non-Catholic persons are connected with the Church improved markedly after Vatican II.

I don’t take the side of ultra Traditionalist Catholics.

You evidently don’t realize that you have.

I happen to side with God can save whoever He wants to.

Then it is even more puzzling that you are so upset about limbo, and the idea that there can be saved persons who are not members of the visible CC.

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.

You really seem to be suffering from some cognitive limiations here, Dalphon. You might be one of those people who are just unable to grasp both sides of the same coin.

If you want to say it was development of doctrine then you can’t claim infallibility.

On the contrary, the gift of infallibility is what makes it possible to have development of doctrine. But I also need to stress that it is not the doctrine that changes - only our understanding of it. Doctrine, by definition, is immutable. We grow in our ability to understand and apply it.

Non-Catholics go to hell vs. non-Catholics go to heaven; that’s not development. That’s 180 degree change.

Perhaps you are just missing one important key ? There is no salvation outside of the Church. All who are saved are members of the Church. They might not be visible in this life as such, but if they are saved, then they are part of the One Body.

The only thing that has changed is our recognition that God may save some people, thereby making them members of the Church, when we do not observe them as such.

I already stated my position on that in post #445.

Yes, it was very clear, thank you!

Protestants do not claim to be infallible.

Given what a poor catechesis you received, it is very possible that you are suffering from a misunderstanding about the gift of infallibiltiy as well.

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.

Are you suffering from some idea that this has changed?

 

[guanophore]

Well then you should remain Catholic.

Is there a chance, if you can get all this stuff straightened out in your head, that you will return to the faith into which you were baptized?

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.

I agree, and there is no error in the Teaching of the Church. However, there are individuals who teach and write whose work falls short of infallible. This often happens with the best of intentions, fully sincere persons who are just missing the mark. They may not grasp the Teachings they are trying to convey, or may not convey them accurately. Then there were some of my catechists who I think were just outright dissenters, who taught what they wanted to teach, and represented it as official. I was very angry for a long time when I figured it out.

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

An imprimatur is just a declaration authorizing publication of a book. It usually means it has been reviewed by the Bishop or his designate. An imprimatur is not an endorsement by the bishop of the contents of a book, not even of the religious opinions expressed in it, being merely a declaration about what is** not** in the book. In the published work, the imprimatur is sometimes accompanied by a declaration that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error.

In other words, the Bishop said that reading the Baltimore Catechism will not interfere with a persons’ faith.

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?

This is an excellent question, and I am not entirely sure it is fair to say that the Baltimore was not “official”, since an imprimatur is certainly official. But the new catechism comes from a much higher level of the Magesterium. Even so, it is not considered an “infallible” document, just a “sure norm” for the faith. If you are interested, there are many different levels of authority within the Magesterium. The gift of infallibility is really very narrow.

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

This is really the crux of the issue, is it not? Everyone has been given a conscience, and is responsible for informing it and following it. We must do our utmost to seek and find what God has revealed about Himself, and to walk within it.

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.

No, I don’t think one could say it was “not approved”. Clearly the council was approved by the Vatican, but it’s scope of authority was very narrow compared to the Catechism of Trent and of the current catechism. The others were not limited to geographical area, where the council of Balitimore was focused exclusively in the United States. Here is a good paper if you want to read more on the context.

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

I suppose that could be one reason. There are others. It is irrelevant to speculate, since there is nothing in the Baltimore that is contradictory to any of the broader catechisms.

No, I was only talking about limbo. Unbaptized children were assigned to limbo.

“assigned”? How can a soul be assigned by a human being anywhere? How can sould be “assigned” to a state or condition that is a pious speculation? Limbo was an attempt to understand an ineffable mystery.

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?

Invincible ignorance is not a promise of salvation, just a possibility. The same is true for unbaptized infants. The possibility is there, but we cannot know. It is up to God. We know that He desires all to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, but this does not take away the consequences of original sin.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Also not sure but I think saving faith may have different Greek word than the “faith” word applied to the devil.

No, it’s the same word as is used most everywhere else (that root word or cognates thereof).

This is significant and important.

 

[pablope]

Well first of all that’s a ridiculous question. Of course Jesus wouldn’t tell anyone to ignore His mother.

I never heard that ridiculous idea until now on this thread, as a way of putting Protestants down.

Actually, I got that perception from your posts. And it was not to put protestants down, it is to make you think and rethink and rethink.

How can you be sure that everything the apostles taught is in Catholic and Orthodox churches…since Pentecost?

Maybe they taught more than that. Maybe some of their writings were lost, or destroyed by their enemies. Maybe the Oriental and Egyptian churches have more to offer.

Through the proper succession of presbyters and bishops

From Clement of Rome, AD90:
earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html
1Clem 42:4 So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.
1Clem 44:2 For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration.

St. Ireneus also says (AD180 or so):

St. Irenaeus (d. AD 200) writes:

But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.10

Now, Dalphon…it is time for you to answer the same question…How can you be sure that everything the apostles taught is carried in your particular protestant denomination?

How can you be sure?

 

[adrift]

All that’s true but what I said is also true. No mention of Mary in any of the recorded gospel messages.

Please explain what you mean by Gospel messages. I consider the Gospel messages to be the entire New Testament which would make your statement untrue.