Why is there not a single Protestant Understanding of the Bible?

[PRmerger]

I know orthodox Catholics believe this. But to be so absolutely 100% certain of their faith, to be able to bypass Matt 7:1 and say they know someone goes to hell if they do not repent according to the confines of the orthodox Catholic’s faith, remains something that troubles me about the faith.

This is what Jesus said–you must repent, no?

Do you have a problem with these words of Jesus?

 

[CMatt25]

It has different customs than, say, the Chaldean rite. Or the Coptic rite. Or the Ruthenian rite.

I know PR. Tomorrow I may pick up dinner at a Maronite that is having a Lebanese festival.

 

[Luvtosew]

There’s nothing at all wrong with being baptized in the Roman Catholic Church. You were baptized a Roman Catholic.

However, saying things like, “The RCC teaches…” demonstrates an improper understanding of the Catholic Church. (Unless, of course, the poster means something specific to the Latin rite of the Church, which, typically, the poster does not.) It is just a red flag to the readers that this person is uninformed.

I was just trying to help someone out, so that it doesn’t stick out like a sore thumb.

Just like when a Catholic says something like, “If I’m pregnant it must be via the Immaculate Conception!” That shows that this Catholic hasn’t a clue about why we have the Immaculate Conception as a Holy Day in the Church. She doesn’t know the doctrine. And the message readers get is: this person was not well catechized.

wording is important, I notice in the cathechism, in one line they say Church , and in the next they say Christian, and back and forth. Acutally the Cathechism is more confusing than the Bible.

 

[CMatt25]

This is what Jesus said–you must repent, no?

Do you have a problem with these words of Jesus?

No but what are considered sins to repent are different in Catholic belief than perhaps another faith. So as for the Catholic who “knew” but had a change in belief, I’m not prepared to say that they of course go to hell.

 

[PRmerger]

No but what are considered sins to repent are different in Catholic belief than perhaps another faith. So as for the Catholic who “knew” but had a change in belief, I’m not prepared to say that they of course go to hell.

Well, the Church is.

And you don’t have a problem with someone being unrepentant and going to hell, then.

It’s just what this person is being unrepentant about.

That, to me, sounds kinda like creating a god in one’s own image.

IOW: “God wouldn’t " because I have a hard time liking that type of command. Therefore, I decide that God really didn’t say that.”

 

[CMatt25]

wording is important, I notice in the cathechism, in one line they say Church , and in the next they say Christian, and back and forth. Acutally the Cathechism is more confusing than the Bible.

Wording is very important. I’m still confused about someone who knows but does not “remain” or enter. Whether “could not be saved” means “can not” and “they are going to hell of course” or if it means they “might not”. The whole idea of not “remaining” is confusing in itself. You posted the link explaining OCAC verifying what the bishop told me. So how does one not remain according to Catholic teaching and at the same time be OCAC?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Luvtosew,

You know… I do not have the CCC memorized , either - however, that is no reason to be ignorant of the teachings of the Catholic Church. I look up items - and, you can, too, Luv,
Yep! Here is the link: scborromeo.org/

Actually, there is a wealth of material at this link - and with a 2,000 year history of guidance from the Holy Spirit, it is not difficult to see that they have the correct answer for everything necessary for the salvation of your soul. And, while that is not, ‘…everything under the sun…’ as you quipped, it addresses what is truly important in a person’s life.

Check it out, Luv and you will see what I am talking about. But, honestly, for someone who claims 50 years of being a Catholic, you have certainly made some truly singular comments.

God bless

No I don’t have the RCC cathechism memorized. Darn, a well informed RC is never at a loss for answers and whats amazing is the RCC has an answer for everything under the sun.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, CMatt25,

A profoundly interesting comment.

Let’s see - just how do you, “…reason with your mind and think about…”

1.) The Trinity

2.) Creation

3.) The Virgin Birth

4.) The Real Presence

5.) The Resurrection

While there is nothing wrong with reason or with thought about the mysteries of the Catholic Faith - the basic issue is that you seem to stop right there - and these mysteries transcend reason… and if all you come with is your mind, you will come up painfully short. All of the heresies I know of are based on someone trying to be ‘reasonable’ - and losing sight of what is required: Faith in Christ through the Church He founded on Peter.

No, CMatt25 I think your response is quite inadequate for the task at hand.

God bless

I think some people have a need to be given the answers. And others perhaps just like to reason with their minds and think about them more.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, CMatt25,

The matter being discussed were the inaccurate staements being made with the preface that this is what the Catholic Church teaches. The remedy is do the research prior to making incorrect statements.

‘RCC’ is simply inaccurate slang.

God bless

Does the RCC teach something differently than the Catholic Church?

 

[CMatt25]

Well, the Church is.

And you don’t have a problem with someone being unrepentant and going to hell, then.

It’s just what this person is being unrepentant about.

That, to me, sounds kinda like creating a god in one’s own image.

IOW: “God wouldn’t " because I have a hard time liking that type of command. Therefore, I decide that God really didn’t say that.”

PR, but what of the person who in faith believed they “knew” the Catholic Church was necessary, but had a change in beliefs and as with Protestant understanding, no longer for instance believed it to be mortal sin if they don’t obey a Catholic bishop and miss what is deemed a particular weekday Holy Day of Obligation in their particular Catholic diocese? Or does not believe if they miss one weekend Mass, that they have committed mortal sin? In faith they believed they knew this. No longer do. So they don’t repent.

I imagine your answer at least in part is going to include how we are to love God, keep holy the Sabbath or Lord’s Day, and how in your faith Catholic leaders on earth were granted keys and power to define for us what this entails. And you say if such a person does not repent such things, they are of course going to hell.

Why is judging the person who knew but did not “remain” following a change in faith, not doing what Jesus taught us not to do in Matt 7:1?

 

[tqualey]

hHi CMatt25,

“Judge not…” and here is the Haydock Commentary of this verse:

*Judge not, [1] or condemn not others rashly, that you may not be judged or condemned. Wi. — S. Jerom observes, Christ does not altogether forbid judging, but directs us how to judge. Where the thing does not regard us, we should not undertake to judge. Where it will bear a favourable interpretation, we should not condemn. Magistrates and superiors, whose office and duty require them to judge faults, and for their prevention to condemn and punish them, must be guided by evidence, and always lean towards the side of mercy, where there are mitigating circumstances. Barefaced vice and notorious sinners should be condemned and reprobated by all. A. — In this place, nothing more is meant than that we should always interpret our neighbor’s actions in the most favourable light. God permits us to judge of such actions as cannot be done with a right intention, as murder. As to indifferent actions, we must always judge in the most favourable sense. There are two things in which we must be particularly on our guard: 1. With what intention such an action was done. 2. Whether the person who appears wicked will not become good. S. Jerom. *

veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Matthew_7

As I understand this matter, the real issue is that we do not know if the public and notorious mass murderer made a perfect act of contrition immediately prior to his death. We do not know what the “Good Thief” on the cross next to Christ was condemned for - but, Christ saw Faith and true contrition in this man and identified that he would be in paradise that very day.

The devils are the only ones we know of that are in Hell. Christ died so that we would not join them - our job is to cooperate with His Grace as we follow Him through the Church He founded on Peter.

God bless

I know orthodox Catholics believe this. But to be so absolutely 100% certain of their faith, to be able to bypass Matt 7:1 and say they know someone goes to hell if they do not repent according to the confines of the orthodox Catholic’s faith, remains something that troubles me about the faith.

 

[Luvtosew]

Hi, Luvtosew,

You know… I do not have the CCC memorized , either - however, that is no reason to be ignorant of the teachings of the Catholic Church. I look up items - and, you can, too, Luv,
Yep! Here is the link: scborromeo.org/

Actually, there is a wealth of material at this link - and with a 2,000 year history of guidance from the Holy Spirit, it is not difficult to see that they have the correct answer for everything necessary for the salvation of your soul. And, while that is not, ‘…everything under the sun…’ as you quipped, it addresses what is truly important in a person’s life.

Check it out, Luv and you will see what I am talking about. But, honestly, for someone who claims 50 years of being a Catholic, you have certainly made some truly singular comments.

God bless

Thank for the link but I’ve been reading all day about the early church and the early fathers, and if one wants to have doubts about everything, well that helped.

The controversy about the Real Presence and the Eucharist is suspicious to say the least,
I did read a monk came up with it and made up tales about how an angle came down to the alter and how baby Jesus appear and the angle took a sword and cut baby Jesus and his blood dripped in the cup. The Monk was Radbertus and apparently he wrote the book with those stories and got people to believe. Since he had adversaries on his opinion, it was left up to the KING and the king said we’ll go with it.

Also read a lot about Mithraism and their Eucharist. Well we know Emperor Constatine made Christianity the religion of Rome, and he has a lot of say in it.

Then another poster told me today, that the BVM is taking the place of the Priest at the alter and receives our blessed Jesus down by power of the HS?

I also know about the miracles of the Eucharist, one question after so many years why did they think it was proper to let a couple doctors disect the Eucharist? when its suppose to be handle with dignity and respect? Well that made me believe even more, no it didn’t , made me more suspicious. Why oh why did we need such a miracle?

So is all my reading getting me anywhere, just further away. Oh heard about Mother Theresa on Tv the other day, and well I’ve read about her darkness of her soul and her lack of belief of even God and that just is so upsetting, the most holy woman of the 19th century in my opinion and I"m sure she went to Mass daily and recieved the Eucharist.

Can I ask you something

Since its really Christ in the Eucharist does one need to have faith it is, to receive the benefits? does it only work if one has faith they are receiving the flesh and blood of Jesus?
or doesn’t it matter?

Oh just because I didn’t realize the Last Supper is the Last Supper I thought it was doesn’t make me ignorant , as I’m surely not alone. I know what sins are mortal and venial, although that can be a gray area , where the Church is , where the confessional is and how to use it, I know the sex rules, and the days of obligation, the rosary-yes know how to pray that!! So all I’m concerned about is that Eucharist and the sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Luvtosew,

You are more than welcome for the link. I would suggest that the apparent time you have spent in reading nonsense is further plaguing your faith. I had honestly never heard of Radbertus … but, I think you have confused him with Ratramnus - here is a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratramnus. Basically, Ratramnus had some major problems with the Catholic Faith - his idea that the Eucharist was a symbol and his belief in double predestination would have surely ranked him as the first Calvinist! Seriously, if you read about heretical monks and their ideas, and you have, what appears to me, a very weak understanding of the Catholic Faith - you are simply endangering your soul. First, get a correct understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches - and work on that for a while before looking for heretical views.

Would you mind telling the source you are using for these truly un-Catholic ideas? I can tell you that none of this came from anything I gave you.

I will move on to your question about the effect of the Eucharist on a person who believes and one who does not believe. I believe you are familiar with 1Cor 11:27-29.

27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

For the unbeliever or any Catholic in the state of mortal sin to willfully receive the Eucharist would be a terrible sin, and this person is responsible for this action. And as you read St. Paul’s words, you see that he is not mincing words - he condemns such evil actions. I really can not provide you with a better answer then what St. Paul has given.

Maybe this is just my imagination … but, your comments on these progressive posts seen to indicate that you have truly drifted from the True Faith. My wife and I will keep you in our prayers. Please use judgment before picking something to read about any aspect of the Catholic Church. What you chose is truly willful and each of us is responsible for nurturing the Faith in our hearts.

God bless

Thank for the link but I’ve been reading all day about the early church and the early fathers, and if one wants to have doubts about everything, well that helped.

The controversy about the Real Presence and the Eucharist is suspicious to say the least,
I did read a monk came up with it and made up tales about how an angle came down to the alter and how baby Jesus appear and the angle took a sword and cut baby Jesus and his blood dripped in the cup. The Monk was Radbertus and apparently he wrote the book with those stories and got people to believe. Since he had adversaries on his opinion, it was left up to the KING and the king said we’ll go with it.

Also read a lot about Mithraism and their Eucharist. Well we know Emperor Constatine made Christianity the religion of Rome, and he has a lot of say in it.

Then another poster told me today, that the BVM is taking the place of the Priest at the alter and receives our blessed Jesus down by power of the HS?

I also know about the miracles of the Eucharist, one question after so many years why did they think it was proper to let a couple doctors disect the Eucharist? when its suppose to be handle with dignity and respect? Well that made me believe even more, no it didn’t , made me more suspicious. Why oh why did we need such a miracle?

So is all my reading getting me anywhere, just further away. Oh heard about Mother Theresa on Tv the other day, and well I’ve read about her darkness of her soul and her lack of belief of even God and that just is so upsetting, the most holy woman of the 19th century in my opinion and I"m sure she went to Mass daily and recieved the Eucharist.

Can I ask you something

Since its really Christ in the Eucharist does one need to have faith it is, to receive the benefits? does it only work if one has faith they are receiving the flesh and blood of Jesus?
or doesn’t it matter?

Oh just because I didn’t realize the Last Supper is the Last Supper I thought it was doesn’t make me ignorant , as I’m surely not alone. I know what sins are mortal and venial, although that can be a gray area , where the Church is , where the confessional is and how to use it, I know the sex rules, and the days of obligation, the rosary-yes know how to pray that!! So all I’m concerned about is that Eucharist and the sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[PRmerger]

Wording is very important. I’m still confused about someone who knows but does not “remain” or enter. Whether “could not be saved” means “can not” and “they are going to hell of course” or if it means they “might not”. The whole idea of not “remaining” is confusing in itself. You posted the link explaining OCAC verifying what the bishop told me. So how does one not remain according to Catholic teaching and at the same time be OCAC?

It’s not that confusing, Matt.

IF there is someone who obstinately refuses to follow the Body of Christ, then he is going to hell.

Whether this person exists, we don’t know. The Church hasn’t said.

So you can offer all sorts of scenarios and summaries and imbroglios, and the answer will always be the same: we don’t know. Maybe he’s going to hell. Maybe not.

 

[PRmerger]

Since its really Christ in the Eucharist does one need to have faith it is, to receive the benefits? does it only work if one has faith they are receiving the flesh and blood of Jesus?
or doesn’t it matter?

I think the word you’re looking for is not “benefits”, which is not how Catholics describe what happens when we receive the Eucharist, but “grace”.

This very question was addressed here:

Every one of the sacraments is a personal encounter with Jesus. Grace is a share in his life and in his love. He never forces his love on anyone. Certainly the reality of the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist does not depend on the state of soul of the communicant. He can receive the Eucharist as an act of sacrilege. But he cannot receive the **grace of the sacrament without a proper attitude or disposition. It’s like going to the well without a bucket. The water is real. But without a bucket, he leaves without any water. **Love is two ways. A person cannot enter into a love relationship without being willing to love.

 

[CMatt25]

It’s not that confusing, Matt.

IF there is someone who obstinately refuses to follow the Body of Christ, then he is going to hell.

Whether this person exists, we don’t know. The Church hasn’t said.

So you can offer all sorts of scenarios and summaries and imbroglios, and the answer will always be the same: we don’t know. Maybe he’s going to hell. Maybe not.

PR, I understand CCC as saying if a Protestant or any other person has an understanding of the Catholic Church being necessary and still does not enter, they could not be saved in such a scenario.

And now you keep saying “so and so” would go to hell in one of my other scenarios.

So can we agree the Catholic Church also says if the Catholic who in faith once upon a time believed they knew the Catholic Church was necessary, then had a change in belief, no longer believes this, does not repent for whatever sins the Catholic Church deems them to be committing, that the Catholic Church says they are going to hell?

 

[CMatt25]

I think the word you’re looking for is not “benefits”, which is not how Catholics describe what happens when we receive the Eucharist, but “grace”.

This very question was addressed here:

Every one of the sacraments is a personal encounter with Jesus. Grace is a share in his life and in his love. He never forces his love on anyone. Certainly the reality of the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist does not depend on the state of soul of the communicant. He can receive the Eucharist as an act of sacrilege. But he cannot receive the **grace of the sacrament without a proper attitude or disposition. It’s like going to the well without a bucket. The water is real. But without a bucket, he leaves without any water. **Love is two ways. A person cannot enter into a love relationship without being willing to love.

PR, so I think your short answer to Luv’s question is no. One can not receive grace without faith in the Eucharist. How does this jive with words our Lord spoke though in
Jn 6:37 (GNT) where He said, “I will never turn away anyone who comes to me.”

 

[PRmerger]

PR, I understand CCC as saying if a Protestant or any other person has an understanding of the Catholic Church being necessary and still does not enter, they could not be saved in such a scenario.

And now you keep saying “so and so” would go to hell in one of my other scenarios.

So can we agree the Catholic Church also says if the Catholic who in faith once upon a time believed they knew the Catholic Church was necessary, then had a change in belief, no longer believes this, does not repent for whatever sins the Catholic Church deems them to be committing, that the Catholic Church says they are going to hell?

IF he does truly know that it’s His Body and then rejects Him, then yes.

You think this is not how it is?

 

[PRmerger]

PR, so I think your short answer to Luv’s question is no. One can not receive grace without faith in the Eucharist. How does this jive with words our Lord spoke though in
Jn 6:37 (GNT) where He said, “I will never turn away anyone who comes to me.”

Quite easily. We understand it in light of the entire faith given to us, once for all, to the saints.

So, as Fr. Serpa said, it’s still Him, but if you don’t bring the bucket to receive Him, you ain’t gonna get the water (to mix the metaphors a bit. )

 

[CMatt25]

IF he does truly know that it’s His Body and then rejects Him, then yes.

You think this is not how it is?

What I’m thinking in that scenario is if he/she truly believed they knew but then experienced a change in belief and no longer believes it to be true, then it’s beyond me to judge that they will go to hell if they no longer believe it.