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

  • Thread starter Thread starter couponfit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CMatt25 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yep, no one should judge this individual. He will go to hell if he knows it’s the truth but rejects it. But, of course, we can’t judge what he knows and rejects.
 
PRmerger said:
Yep, no one should judge this individual. He will go to hell if he knows it’s the truth but rejects it. But, of course, we can’t judge what he knows and rejects.
Click to expand...
Sorry for all the scenarios, PR. So many! So if he or she truly knew at one time but no longer believes it, and therefore now rejects it, never repents this because they no longer believe they have to, they won’t necessarily go to hell?
 
tqualey said:
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
Click to expand...
No I know who each monk is, in this link you can see where Charles the Bald wanted a second opinion , paragraft 3 newadvent.org/cathen/11518a.htm
 
CMatt25 said:
Sorry for all the scenarios, PR. So many! So if he or she truly knew at one time but no longer believes it, and therefore now rejects it, never repents this because they no longer believe they have to, they won’t necessarily go to hell?
Click to expand...
CMatt25, in Post 593 PRMerger already said that it was not for her to judge whether they will go to hell or not. Vincible ignorance of the faith is wrong, but whether someone who is vincibly ignorant of the faith will go to hell or not is not for us to decide. In the same manner, we can say that murder is wrong. But it is not for us to decide, for example, that this murderer will go to hell. Such judgments are better left in God’s hands.
 
CMatt25 said:
Sorry for all the scenarios, PR. So many! So if he or she truly knew at one time but no longer believes it, and therefore now rejects it, never repents this because they no longer believe they have to, they won’t necessarily go to hell?
Click to expand...
You can create all sorts of scenarios–let’s take the example that rom422 gave and fill in the blank with, “Let’s say that there was a murderer who was unrepentant, rejects the sacraments…do you believe he’ll go to hell?”

My answer: I don’t know. It would appear so, but I really can’t say. Hell seems to be the place of justice for such a man, no?

And that brings me to a story I heard of a co-worker whose grandfather was so monstrous he used to drag his wife around by her hair.. By. her. hair.

If there isn’t a place called hell for people like this who are unrepentant, then I’m going to have a word or two to say to the Big Guy when we meet. (Said, of course, tongue in cheek).

Now, of course I am anticipating your question, Matt: PR, are you really comparing someone who leaves the CC with a murderer?

And my response would be: they are alike as analogs only. Both are alike only in that they are exhibiting unrepentant behavior that the Church has declared to be wrong.

And, they are similar in that, in the end, we still don’t know where either the ex-Catholic or the murderer ends up.
 
rom422 said:
CMatt25, in Post 593 PRMerger already said that it was not for her to judge whether they will go to hell or not. Vincible ignorance of the faith is wrong, but whether someone who is vincibly ignorant of the faith will go to hell or not is not for us to decide. In the same manner, we can say that murder is wrong. But it is not for us to decide, for example, that this murderer will go to hell. Such judgments are better left in God’s hands.
Click to expand...
Indeed she did but 26 posts before that one she said this:

“They go to hell, of course, Matt”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8978343&postcount=567

🤷

But I do understand you and PR are saying we don’t know if the person ever truly knew the Catholic Church was necessary or if they repented before taking their last breath.

I was merely asking if they did know at one time but if they did not repent something which in accordance to the confines of the Catholic faith is a sin, because they no longer believed it was, whether they would go to hell.

I’m thinking though by PR’s answer in post 567 that I have the answer according to the Catholic faith.

I know though of course the judgment found in CCC 846 on who could not be saved is if the “if’'s” are so. 🙂 Peace.
 
PRmerger said:
You can create all sorts of scenarios–let’s take the example that rom422 gave and fill in the blank with, “Let’s say that there was a murderer who was unrepentant, rejects the sacraments…do you believe he’ll go to hell?”

My answer: I don’t know. It would appear so, but I really can’t say. Hell seems to be the place of justice for such a man, no?

And that brings me to a story I heard of a co-worker whose grandfather was so monstrous he used to drag his wife around by her hair.. By. her. hair.

If there isn’t a place called hell for people like this who are unrepentant, then I’m going to have a word or two to say to the Big Guy when we meet. (Said, of course, tongue in cheek).

Now, of course I am anticipating your question, Matt: PR, are you really comparing someone who leaves the CC with a murderer?

And my response would be: they are alike as analogs only. Both are alike only in that they are exhibiting unrepentant behavior that the Church has declared to be wrong.

And, they are similar in that, in the end, we still don’t know where either the ex-Catholic or the murderer ends up.
Click to expand...
PR, many faiths would call murder, sin. Many Christians though for instance do not have the same understanding of what is sin as in being all those things the Catholic Church says constitutes sin. For instance Protestants do not.

And also the “ex-Catholic” as you say, though I’m assuming you mean only idiomatically and not canonically, otherwise how can one be “ex” under OCAC, might have prior to being “ex”, for instance believed missing Mass was a mortal sin. But no longer does, so does not repent it.

And I’m just not going to judge “They go to hell of course, Matt” if they no longer believe they need to repent this. Even if at one time they knew they had to. I just believe God has the capability to understand why in their heart they may have become “ex” and not “remain”. So I’m just going to leave the call to be His with faith you will see some of them when you meet the “Big Guy”. 👍 God bless you PR and peace to you always.
 
CMatt25 said:
Indeed she did but 26 posts before that one she said this:

“They go to hell, of course, Matt”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8978343&postcount=567

🤷
Click to expand...
Just like any Christian would say that an unrepentant murderer goes to hell.

You don’t have a problem with a Christian saying this, right?

The problem is that we simply don’t know if someone’s repentant or not.

Same with the ex-Catholic*. We don’t know to what degree he’s being obdurate and turning his back on Christ. It would appear that he is, but, then again, who knows?

So, if he’s unrepentant and turns his back on Christ, then, well, sadly, he goes to hell.

We just don’t know the situation with those two little letters: I F.

*for the lurkers: a baptized Catholic is *always *a Catholic canonically, but is an ex-Catholic in all other respects when he leaves the One Faith of his own volition.
 
CMatt25 said:
I know though of course the judgment found in CCC 846 on who could not be saved is if the “if’'s” are so. 🙂 Peace.
Click to expand...
Of course. One could reason, given the millions of souls that have been baptized Catholic in our 2000 year history, that this category of obduracy in a person who left the Church has existed, no?

But who they are, and where they live, and how they lived…none of us is privy to.
 
CMatt25 said:
PR, many faiths would call murder, sin.
Click to expand...
Yup. This is true, but a non-sequitur. :eek:
Many Christians though for instance do not have the same understanding of what is sin as in being all those things the Catholic Church says constitutes sin. For instance Protestants do not.
Click to expand...
This also is true.

Do you think that if someone doesn’t believe that it’s wrong to drag his wife around by her hair–“she deserves it 'cause she didn’t get me my beer quick enough”–that it’s not a sin?
I just believe God has the capability to understand why in their heart they may have become “ex” and not “remain”.
Click to expand...
And, here, Matt, is where you sum up Catholic teaching quite nicely. 👍

God judges. Not us.

“Strive to enter” is what we need to tell our fellow man.
 
PRmerger said:
Do you think that if someone doesn’t believe that it’s wrong to drag his wife around by her hair–“she deserves it 'cause she didn’t get me my beer quick enough”–that it’s not a sin?

And, here, Matt, is where you sum up Catholic teaching quite nicely. 👍

God judges. Not us.

“Strive to enter” is what we need to tell our fellow man.
Click to expand...
No, PR, I think dragging one’s wife around by the hair because she didn’t get her husband’s beer quick enough is a sin.

So if I summed up Catholic teaching nicely and you agree only God judges us and He also has the capacity to understand why a Catholic did not “remain”, whatever that means in light of the theology/canon of OCAC, or for that matter why a Protestant with a Catholic understanding did not enter, why then does the Church put in CCC they “could not be saved”? Why use this terminology when it is a tense for “can not be saved”?

I know Lent is fast approaching so if I’m not back before you leave, a holy, blessed one to you PR . 👍
 
Hi, CMatt25,

A truly fascinating investigation you are conducting here, Matt.

I get the impression that if the American Red Cross were to advise swimmers not to strap themselves to an anvil, because “they can not swim and would drown” you would take issue with this.

Those who know evil and choose it, sin. Those who die in their sin go to Hell. Those who sincerely repent do not go to Hell. At this time, we do not know where any human being’s eternal address is. We will know everyone’s eternal address on The Last Day.

While I am confident you can try to twist this into an unrecognizable knot, I am equally confident that I did not tell you anything new about Catholic Doctrine. So, where do we go from here?

God bless
CMatt25 said:
No, PR, I think dragging one’s wife around by the hair because she didn’t get her husband’s beer quick enough is a sin.

So if I summed up Catholic teaching nicely and you agree only God judges us and He also has the capacity to understand why a Catholic did not “remain”, whatever that means in light of the theology/canon of OCAC, or for that matter why a Protestant with a Catholic understanding did not enter, why then does the Church put in CCC they “could not be saved”? Why use this terminology when it is a tense for “can not be saved”?

I know Lent is fast approaching so if I’m not back before you leave, a holy, blessed one to you PR . 👍
Click to expand...
 
CMatt25 said:
No, PR, I think dragging one’s wife around by the hair because she didn’t get her husband’s beer quick enough is a sin.
Click to expand...
Even if the man doesn’t think it is, right?

You see, now, that even if someone doesn’t view something as sinful, it certainly can be.

Now, of course, his degree of culpability is dependent upon his own knowledge/ignorance and his heart, which only God sees.
So if I summed up Catholic teaching nicely and you agree only God judges us and He also has the capacity to understand why a Catholic did not “remain”, whatever that means in light of the theology/canon of OCAC, or for that matter why a Protestant with a Catholic understanding did not enter, why then does the Church put in CCC they “could not be saved”? Why use this terminology when it is a tense for “can not be saved”?
Click to expand...
Because, Matt, IF there are souls who are unrepentant, they could not be saved.

Do you not agree with the above sentence? Just take a step back and look at it without the context of our discussion.

Do you believe that an unrepentant murderer can not be saved?
 
Hi, PRmerger,

I, too, will be taking a Lenten Break from CAF. I really enjoy this list - and, I think that such a penance would be appropriate. So, I am following your good example.

You may enjoy knowing that my wife said, “Thank God!” Can you believe that she accuses me of spending too much time on CAF posts! Imagine… 😃

God bless

Leaving the CAFs for Lent! Be back in 40!
PRmerger said:
Even if the man doesn’t think it is, right?

You see, now, that even if someone doesn’t view something as sinful, it certainly can be.

Now, of course, his degree of culpability is dependent upon his own knowledge/ignorance and his heart, which only God sees.

Because, Matt, IF there are souls who are unrepentant, they could not be saved.

Do you not agree with the above sentence? Just take a step back and look at it without the context of our discussion.

Do you believe that an unrepentant murderer can not be saved?
Click to expand...
 
tqualey said:
Hi, PRmerger,

I, too, will be taking a Lenten Break from CAF. I really enjoy this list - and, I think that such a penance would be appropriate. So, I am following your good example.

You may enjoy knowing that my wife said, “Thank God!” Can you believe that she accuses me of spending too much time on CAF posts! Imagine… 😃

God bless

Leaving the CAFs for Lent! Be back in 40!
Click to expand...
:console:

Yes, 'tis a penance to leave, but, as such, is good for the soul.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top