Why do Protestants presume to know Catholic doctrine and dogmas when they don't really know it?

[justasking4]

And do you also state that there is no possibility for salvation for the Jews as well? How about Buddhists, Hindu, etc?

Let me answer with 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.”

 

[justasking4]

AMEN! The false doctrines of “sola scriptura” and “sola fide” , both of which are unbiblical, have once again polluted Christian thought. Thank you for clearing this up. Faith, good works and scripture are our gifts from God. Grace is strictly HIS.

“sola gratia” anyone?

Grace, not works. Grace, not faith. Grace, not scripture.

What do you mean by this last sentence?

 

[justasking4]

And do you also state that there is no possibility for salvation for the Jews as well? How about Buddhists, Hindu, etc?

I did a some research on this and this is what the catholic church has said:
The Council of Florence, the 17th Ecumenical (and hence “infallible”) Council of the Roman Catholic Church, said the following:

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Denzinger 714).

 

[Teflon93]

“Some truth” is not enough to save though. To possess salvation a person must believe that Christ died for our sins and rose again according the scriptures. (ICor 15:1-4) Remember also that the demons believe but they are not saved.

I didn’t say it was enough to save; nor does the Catechism.

Rather than paraphrase Scripture, it’s good practice to quote it:

1: Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2: By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3: For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4: And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

So it’s a bit more complicated than your paraphrasing would indicate, in that what Paul is doing is demonstrating that one may not pick and choose bits out of Scripture as the whole is irreducible. Paul also emphasizes the mighty labor of the true Christian and the need to refrain from sin:

9: For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10: But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; **but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. **

and

34: Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

and

58: Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

So it’s not quite so easy as simply believing the Gospel—one must live it.

Thus the rigthteous Muslim, the righteous Hindu, the righteous Buddhist may indeed be saved; after all, did Christ not descend to pluck the righteous Jews from Sheol? If not, why was Moses at the Transfiguration? If not, why did Christ descend to the dead at all?

The Church does not claim to know precisely who is in heaven and who is not; the Church is not the judge of Man. We recognize that while the fullness of Christian truth may only be found in the Catholic Church, the rock of Christ, other communities have more or less of the Church’s fullness, and we all hope that our brothers and sisters therein who persist in righteousness will be judged worthy, as we hope we ourselves will be.

And isn’t that what Christ commanded us to do when he urged us to keep the commandments and to love our neighbors as ourselves?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Allow me to bold the REST of the story.

unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Especially as a ‘former’ Catholic, just, I find it very troubling to see how often you ‘cherry pick’ your beliefs, refuse to check for context, and generally seem to be here, not to present your beliefs as a ‘counterpoint’ to ours as many Protestants do and which is fine provided they don’t break forum rules. . .but to go even further by twisting Catholic teachings, refusal to accept documented Catholic teaching, and pretty much painting Catholics not simply as ‘misguided’ but as hypocritical liars attempting to foist pathetic delusions on ‘real Christians’.

It is really getting offensive to constantly have you, not question beliefs (questioning is fine) but ‘question’ and refuse to accept an answer, preferring instead to simply reiterate your questions–and then give what you think and say is 'real Catholic teaching’–when it contradicts those answers.

 

[po18guy]

What do you mean by this last sentence?

God’s Grace saves us. The others are our gift from God to lead us into the paths of righteousness, but the Saving Grace remiains completely with God. Faith and scripture assist us along that path. Good works is the fruit of our travels on the path, but it is not our decision if we are saved. Only God has that power.

That is why you must “work out your salvation with fear and trembling”

To assume salvation is to put the Lord, your God, to the test.

The Peace of Christ.

 

[Teflon93]

Especially as a ‘former’ Catholic, just, I find it very troubling to see how often you ‘cherry pick’ your beliefs, refuse to check for context, and generally seem to be here, not to present your beliefs as a ‘counterpoint’ to ours as many Protestants do and which is fine provided they don’t break forum rules. . .but to go even further by twisting Catholic teachings, refusal to accept documented Catholic teaching, and pretty much painting Catholics not simply as ‘misguided’ but as hypocritical liars attempting to foist pathetic delusions on ‘real Christians’.

It is really getting offensive to constantly have you, not question beliefs (questioning is fine) but ‘question’ and refuse to accept an answer, preferring instead to simply reiterate your questions–and then give what you think and say is 'real Catholic teaching’–when it contradicts those answers.

There seems to be quite a lot of this going around the boards lately—is there some sort of Q document these folks rely on to the effect of:

1. Pull a sentence out of context from any document printed on Vatican letterhead you can find.
2. Claim that the Catholic Church “teaches” that sentence is binding on ALL Catholics.
3. When refuted, pretend the question was never answered and ask again.

Now, I occasionally excerpt and link to various writings of the Reformers, but I don’t claim the Lutheran Church today teaches nor that Lutherans believe what Martin Luther wrote in tracts like “On the Jews and Their Lies.” Luther claimed to speak with the mouth of Christ, so he was claiming infallibility in various of his writings, so the situation there’s fairly analogous to the stuff we get regarding various Vatican documents. To make such an argument would be both dishonest and uncharitable.

It the Pope’s laundry list ever gets published, you can bet some Protestant will show up claiming the Catholic Church teaches we must all wear boxers.

 

[RobHom]

There seems to be quite a lot of this going around the boards lately—is there some sort of Q document these folks rely on to the effect of:

1. Pull a sentence out of context from any document printed on Vatican letterhead you can find.
2. Claim that the Catholic Church “teaches” that sentence is binding on ALL Catholics.
3. When refuted, pretend the question was never answered and ask again.

I was going to ask a question along those lines myself the other day. I have to think that they do have a “Q” document or a “playbook”…because they all seem to be working the same drills over and over and over again. Especially # 3…or they do it because of their inability to actually assimilate any information other than what is spoon fed to them.

Now, I occasionally excerpt and link to various writings of the Reformers, but I don’t claim the Lutheran Church today teaches nor that Lutherans believe what Martin Luther wrote in tracts like “On the Jews and Their Lies.” Luther claimed to speak with the mouth of Christ, so he was claiming infallibility in various of his writings, so the situation there’s fairly analogous to the stuff we get regarding various Vatican documents. To make such an argument would be both dishonest and uncharitable.

Ditto. And that is why I often only post links.

It the Pope’s laundry list ever gets published, you can bet some Protestant will show up claiming the Catholic Church teaches we must all wear boxers.

How true, how true!!!

 

[RobHom]

Maybe the words are getting in the way here.

I’m quite familiar with James; it would be my guess that I’ve read James more than I’ve read any other book in the Bible with the possible exception of Romans. I think James speaks primarily about faith and works, what it means to have faith and what relationship faith has to works. As we know, faith without works is dead (btw, I watched part of an old Billy Graham special in black and white last night on the tube…quoting James he was emphatic that a faith consisting of mere intellectual assent was no faith…a faith no better than that held by the demons…). Still, James speaks to faith and works more than to grace.

In contrast, by “grace alone” we believe that nothing we can do, no works, no faith, no good deeds, nothing can save ourselves. We are saved only by the grace of God. Absent the grace of God, we could have the faith of angels and the utmost in good works and neither would not save us.

I think your opening comment said it all And with the clarification, I agree.

To the best of my understanding, the Catholic Church does not teach otherwise. I believe that this is supported by Trent, the CCC, and recent efforts to bridge the theological gap between the Lutheran and Catholic Churches. For example, in Catholic Answers one discussion went as follows:

***Q: My Protestant friend says that the Catholic Church has finally changed its teaching on justification to line up with Luther’s interpretation. He bases this on section 15 of a document signed by the Church and the Lutherans.

A: Your friend is referring to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification that was signed in October 1999 by the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation. This is what §15 says:

“In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.”

Now let us look at what the Council of Trent said, in the decrees on justification, in the 16th century: “Canon 1. If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.”

In no way did the Catholic Church change its doctrines. After years of dialogue, the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation realized that there was a degree of agreement on justification between them that warranted a statement explaining that a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification exists between them. ***

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0301qq.asp

Where our differences lie is in how we define and talk about faith. I do not believe that we use the term in the same way you do. Terminology sometimes highlights, sometimes minimizes, our theological differences.

Your last paragraph is a pretty good summation.

 

[rr1213]

I was going to ask a question along those lines myself the other day. I have to think that they do have a “Q” document or a “playbook”…because they all seem to be working the same drills over and over and over again. Especially # 3…or they do it because of their inability to actually assimilate any information other than what is spoon fed to them.

Yeh, we Protstants cnt thnk fur rselfs. We hve to uss a cklst. Was a “Q”? We dum. Plse hlp usss.

 

[justasking4]

Teflon93;2673663

Quote:
58: Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

So it’s not quite so easy as simply believing the Gospel—one must live it.

Thus the rigthteous Muslim, the righteous Hindu, the righteous Buddhist may indeed be saved;

How can a Musim etc be righteous when the scriptures are clear that all those outside of Christ are dead in their trespasses and sins and are by nature children of wrath (see Ephesians 2:1-3)?

after all, did Christ not descend to pluck the righteous Jews from Sheol? If not, why was Moses at the Transfiguration? If not, why did Christ descend to the dead at all?

i’m aware of the passage in I Peter to Christ descending but i’m not sure what you are referring to when you say “did Christ not descend to pluck the righteous Jews from Sheol?” What is this a reference to?

The Church does not claim to know precisely who is in heaven and who is not; the Church is not the judge of Man.

I thought someone said here on this thread that only saints are in heaven. If this is true then the church does know some that are there. Correct?

We recognize that while the fullness of Christian truth may only be found in the Catholic Church, the rock of Christ, other communities have more or less of the Church’s fullness, and we all hope that our brothers and sisters therein who persist in righteousness will be judged worthy, as we hope we ourselves will be.

And isn’t that what Christ commanded us to do when he urged us to keep the commandments and to love our neighbors as ourselves?

yes

 

[RobHom]

Yeh, we Protstants cnt thnk fur rselfs. We hve to uss a cklst. Was a “Q”? We dum. Plse hlp usss.

Actually my friend…there have been times when I have been on different sites with forums…and the same series of questions or comments have been posed or made…exactly identical. SO it tends to lend credence to the hypothesis that there are playbooks out there…or some Sunday school or church school teacher is giving out “homework” assignments that are always the same.

Tell me…why is it that after 500 years of asking the same questions the same ones are still being asked and getting the same answers…y’all keep asking?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Actually my friend…there have been times when I have been on different sites with forums…and the same series of questions or comments have been posed or made…exactly identical. SO it tends to lend credence to the hypothesis that there are playbooks out there…or some Sunday school or church school teacher is giving out “homework” assignments that are always the same.

Tell me…why is it that after 500 years of asking the same questions the same ones are still being asked and getting the same answers…y’all keep asking?

Because we’re all lying Papists.

 

[po18guy]

It the Pope’s laundry list ever gets published, you can bet some Protestant will show up claiming the Catholic Church teaches we must all wear boxers.

A while back, I emailed a Jewish columnist, to correct his misperception of infallibility in a column regarding Benedict XVI’s journey to Turkey. It seems the ego causes the knee to jerk upon hearing the phrase. And, save us from “ex” Catholics! Now there’s a credible source.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Teflon93]

Yeh, we Protstants cnt thnk fur rselfs. We hve to uss a cklst. Was a “Q”? We dum. Plse hlp usss.

Well, not so fast.

I didn’t insinuate that Protestants cannot or do not think for themselves in my original post; nor do I think Rob’s response indicated the same.

I simply wondered, given the prevalence lately of the tactic employed as noted in my post above, whether there was an external source advocating for such a tactic, such as some Protestant apologetics website.

Not all of our Protestant brothers and sisters employ this tactic, and I presume that those who do do in fact think for themselves.

The drumbeat of “ask a question based on misinterpreting some obscure Catholic reference, ignore any response, ask again” presumably comes from somewhere, and is such an odd way to argue that I simply wonder if there’s a single source for it.

I also don’t recall that you have ever employed this tactic.

 

[Teflon93]

Teflon93;2673663

 

[justasking4]

Tantum ergo;2673696]Especially as a ‘former’ Catholic, just, I find it very troubling to see how often you ‘cherry pick’ your beliefs, refuse to check for context, and generally seem to be here, not to present your beliefs as a ‘counterpoint’ to ours as many Protestants do and which is fine provided they don’t break forum rules. . .but to go even further by twisting Catholic teachings, refusal to accept documented Catholic teaching, and pretty much painting Catholics not simply as ‘misguided’ but as hypocritical liars attempting to foist pathetic delusions on ‘real Christians’.

Do you have a couple of examples where i have “twisted” catholic teaching?

It is really getting offensive to constantly have you, not question beliefs (questioning is fine) but ‘question’ and refuse to accept an answer, preferring instead to simply reiterate your questions–and then give what you think and say is 'real Catholic teaching’–when it contradicts those answers.

Again, a couple of examples would help. Do you know all that the catholic church teaches and have interpreted correctly?

 

[Teflon93]

Do you have a couple of examples where i have “twisted” catholic teaching?

The use of the scapular is a good example. You initially seem to have believed that its use was required and/or that the teaching regarding its use is considered to be an infallible and dogmatic teaching of the Church rather than that it is an allowed devotional practice in much the same way praying the Rosary is allowed.

Again, a couple of examples would help. Do you know all that the catholic church teaches and have interpreted correctly?

Familiarity with the Catechism suffices; for additional questions we have the guidance of deacons, priests, and bishops in addition to Vatican pronouncements.

This is sometimes a very hard thing for non-Catholics to understand for some reason. My own feeling is that Protestants in particular struggle with such Catholic practices simply because obedience to clergy is a foreign concept to them.

 

[justasking4]

Teflon93;2676657]The use of the scapular is a good example. You initially seem to have believed that its use was required and/or that the teaching regarding its use is considered to be an infallible and dogmatic teaching of the Church rather than that it is an allowed devotional practice in much the same way praying the Rosary is allowed.

You can go back to my posts and see i never claimed it was required, infallible or dogmatic. What i did ask was it true and i don’t recall getting an answer. I also said that if the promise of the scapluar was true and endorsed by the pope himself, it would follow then to encourage all catholics to wear them since they would be out of purgatory by the Saturday after their death.

Familiarity with the Catechism suffices; for additional questions we have the guidance of deacons, priests, and bishops in addition to Vatican pronouncements.

Is this the “fullness of the truth in the catholic church”? If so, then what they say also has bearing on what church teaches.

This is sometimes a very hard thing for non-Catholics to understand for some reason. My own feeling is that Protestants in particular struggle with such Catholic practices simply because obedience to clergy is a foreign concept to them.

That may be true of some but not in my case.