Would it matter in the END?

[benhur]

If this is true, Ben, then I think you must admit that Protestantism, as opposed to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, is a failure.

Only by your definition. By other definitions the catholic church is a failure. I am not convinced of all those definitions. We can call each other “failures” all we want down here. However on that glorious day when all the saints go marching in it will stop. We will recognize some orthodox,and catholics and lutherans and baptists. There might even be saints from 30,000 plus two churches, marching in side by side. * Absolutely*

Protestantism fails because at its core lie sola scriptura and the absolute right to private judgment, and these two ideas cannot lead a people to a single view of God, a single interpretation of scripture, a common frame of reference, etc.

Your quest/demand for singularity on all things **now **is almost idolatrous

 

[benhur]

If this is true, Ben, then I think you must admit that Protestantism, as opposed to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, is a failure.

Protestantism fails not because it doesn’t teach some common truths from one denomination to the next - it does. Protestantism fails because at its core lie sola scriptura and the absolute right to private judgment, and these two ideas cannot lead a people to a single view of God, a single interpretation of scripture, a common frame of reference, etc.

I’m going to re-post something here which I wrote in another thread a few days ago:

Have you ever watched any of those shows on the History Channel about the Titanic? Man, I bet I have seen them all more than once.

Do you know what ultimately led to the demise of that ship? The steel with which the ship’s hull was made was not formulated properly; it was too brittle. Thus, when the ship struck the iceberg at a slight glancing blow, the steel, which was below freezing in the salty brine of the ocean, did not give or bend; it snapped, and the ship split open along a line that was too great for all the watertight compartments to handle. Ironically, if the ship had hit the iceberg dead on, it would have survived. Turning the ship to avoid collision exposed the weakness of the bad steel to the point of impact.

Sola scriptura and private judgment are the ingredients that make up the bad formula of Protestant theology. It can’t be repaired. It can’t be patched over. And the brittle nature of Protestantism is evident as Luther’s progeny have fractured into more denominations than he would have ever thought possible.

So, Ben, if you are uncomfortable with the non-absolutist view, Protestantism cannot help you.

Again, the ship is intact, even with protestantism .You keep trying to define the ship as yours. That is where the tension and chaos begins. There is no peace for some on deck, as the Helsman patiently bides the journey.

You were once pliable, then only if others called it your ship and your helsman. You could have freedom of thought as long as you did not rock the boat. In the end, it was not pliable enough, and past universalism was lost.

 

[benhur]

If this is true, Ben, then I think you must admit that Protestantism, as opposed to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, is a failure.

“Why would it matter if you lived your life as a Protestant or a Catholic as far as your eternal destiny? Why the fuss? We will spend much more time in eternity than on earth.” as Jubilarian threads.

So again how are O,s and P’s failures(in claiming absolutist truths) ? Unless you say only Catholics go to heaven or that Catholics have better rewards your point is groundless.

 

[Jubilarian]

I am not in 30,000 churches, save one.

Salvation is salvation. Rebirth is rebirth. Endurance to the end is endurance to the end. All these by any other name is still the same sweet gracious reality.

“Inconsistencies are not God ordained.”, you properly say. We both claim each other has them, but I would add my church is not perfect, yet. Any inconsistencies are not His doing and He has perfectly guided, as the wind goes where it listeth.

The wheat and tares are together for now.

You belong to Protestantism , which represents 30,000 churches, and are therefore part of the equation. Protestantism often presents itself as “one church”, the invisible church of Jesus Christ, and you belong to this church. There is no getting around it.

“Salvation is salvation?” Not in the Protestant faith.

 

[spedteacherita]

"Salvation is salvation?" Not in the Protestant faith.

Seriously?

Romans 10:8-10New International Version (NIV)

8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”[a] that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

There are many other verses that state this as well. Salvation is salvation when you proclaim Christ is our risen Lord and Savior!

 

[benhur]

You belong to Protestantism

Yes, that is the name you have given us Catholic reformers.,

Protestantism often presents itself as “one church”,

I am a part of the often or the “not” in this ?

the invisible church of Jesus Christ, and you belong to this church. There is no getting around it.

Again, you are doing the “calling” here. You are doing the defining. I do not think that is the proper protestant definition of “church”.

Protestants are one church in this regard, per your definition: they are all not Catholic (nor Orthodox)

“Salvation is salvation?” Not in the Protestant faith.

Then not in the Catholic or Orthodox faith either.???

 

[Jubilarian]

Seriously?

Romans 10:8-10New International Version (NIV)

8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”[a] that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

There are many other verses that state this as well. Salvation is salvation when you proclaim Christ is our risen Lord and Savior!

Various denominations interpret such a verse differently. In addition, we all hopefully know what the word" salvation" means, but that is not my point. How is it attained? How long will you have it? Are you predestined to be saved? The Protestant church down the block is likely holds a different view. That’s know as being inconsistent with differing truths.

 

[Jubilarian]

Yes, that is the name you have given us Catholic reformers., I am a part of the often or the “not” in this ? Again, you are doing the “calling” here. You are doing the defining. I do not think that is the proper protestant definition of “church”.

Protestants are one church in this regard, per your definition: they are all not Catholic (nor Orthodox)

Then not in the Catholic or Orthodox faith either.???

You disagree with the term “Protestant?” Consult your elders on that. Do you not “protest” the teachings of the CC? I realize “reformer” is a softer word but take a cue from others of your ilk and be a Protest-tant. There are no sneaky definitions here

As to salvation, you must take the Protestant glasses off. Various denominations interpret salvation differently. We all hopefully know what the word" salvation" means, but that is not my point. How is it attained? How long will you have it? Are you predestined to be saved? The Protestant church down the block is likely holds a different view. That’s known as being inconsistent . Ultimately that effects truth.

I started a thread about “one church” and the Protestant faith. Some did not know what the church in Protesantism was. Therefore I used the word “often”. Only you will know for sure how to apply it.

 

[spedteacherita]

You disagree with the term “Protestant?” Consult your elders on that. Do you not “protest” the teachings of the CC? I realize “reformer” is a softer word but take a cue from others of your ilk and be a Protest-tant. There are no sneaky definitions here

As to salvation, you must take the Protestant glasses off. Various denominations interpret salvation differently. We all hopefully know what the word" salvation" means, but that is not my point. How is it attained? How long will you have it? Are you predestined to be saved? The Protestant church down the block is likely holds a different view. That’s known as being inconsistent . Ultimately that effects truth.

Hi, Jubilarian.

How do Catholics view salvation? How do you know you are saved?

I’m not trying to be facetious here at all. I just don’t think I’ve actually heard an explanation.

 

[benhur]

You disagree with the term “Protestant?”

Not in its correct historical context. We protested, but protesting your teachings is not what gave us that name. Really, historically speaking. We protested the change of an imperial edict. It was quite political, but so was the church at that time.

Consult your elders on that. Do you not “protest” the teachings of the CC?

You protest something that you are “under”. The first Protestants were under Catholicism. So yes, they did literally protest but more challenged established practices, doctrines for discussion at the university( Luther and his 95 thesis posted on a door as was the custom)

But as to pure definition, unless we state agreement, we are both expressing "protests’’.

As to salvation, you must take the Protestant glasses off. Various denominations interpret salvation differently. We all hopefully know what the word" salvation" means, but that is not my point. How is it attained? How long will you have it? Are you predestined to be saved? The Protestant church down the block is likely holds a different view. That’s known as being inconsistent . Ultimately that effects truth.

Of course there are differences in doctrine and practice, yours being just one more. Differences does not effect truth. Going beyond truth leads to inconsistencies.

 

[Jubilarian]

Not in its correct historical context. We protested, but protesting your teachings is not what gave us that name. Really, historically speaking. We protested the change of an imperial edict. It was quite political, but so was the church at that time.You protest something that you are “under”. The first Protestants were under Catholicism. So yes, they did literally protest but more challenged established practices, doctrines for discussion at the university( Luther and his 95 thesis posted on a door as was the custom)

But as to pure definition, unless we state agreement, we are both expressing "protests’’.
Of course there are differences in doctrine and practice, yours being just one more. Differences does not effect truth. Going beyond truth leads to inconsistencies.

A good deal of fudging words to no purpose is what I see in your response. Are you really that hung up on being a reformer versus a Protestant?

When you write," yours being just one more", I see a person debating foolish points just for the sake of debating. I’m sorry to say that. You must know that the inconsistencies I speak of refer to Protestant denominations. I’m addressing what is taking place within your fold. The CC stands alone with one view on the essentials of the faith. And yes, error is derived from every wind of “doctrine”.

 

[Abu]

spedteacherita #74
John 5:24: “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.

“The true believer has passed from the death of sin to the life of supernatural grace.”

Romans 10:9-13 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

“The profession of faith here demanded is the practice of faith in everyday life.”
[See *Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, General Editor Dom Bernard Orchid, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953].

The idea that the quotes from spedteachererita refute Christ’s mandate to St Peter and His Apostles and Christ’s specific warning not to go against His Church – “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican” (Mt 18:17), and do your own thing, typifies the enormity of the deception promulgated at the Revolution against Christ’s’ Church.

There is no need to further identify the misinterpretations offered by spedteachererita which try to denigrate the reality that Christ established His Church on St Peter. The perennial problem here is that this Protestant infatuation jettisons Christ’s Church, the Church He founded, for which He affirmed “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19) and again to St Peter: “Strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32), and “Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17), for a mishmash of thousands of private interpretations against which Christ warned, for He confirmed that “when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. …“He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:14-15).

 

[Abu]

spedteacherita #88
How do Catholics view salvation? How do you know you are saved?

No one is “saved” here and now, but all have been redeemed – salvation is dependant on individuals making the effort to follow their consciences and to know to the best of their ability right from wrong and what God requires of them.

Having redeemed us (opened heaven to us) through His Crucifixion, Jesus did not leave us orphans but gave us His Church to show us how to be saved (enter heaven) – through following His teaching infallibly given to us by His Church with the primacy and infallibility of Peter and his successors.

“Consider Romans 5:2: ‘We are confident in the hope of attaining glory as the sons of God.’ If we….are now sure of heaven, and know nothing can deprive us of it, then we have no reason to hope because we know that heaven is ours. But ‘our salvation is founded on the hope of something’ says Paul. ‘Hope would not be hope at all if its object were in view; how could man still hope for something which he sees?’ (Rom 8:24). We hope for heaven, however well disposed we might be spiritually, because we know we still have a chance to lose it.” [Karl Keating, *Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Ignatius 1988, p 174-5].

St Paul is very clear: “I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of His Body which is the Church.” (Col. 1:24). What is lacking in Christ’s suffering is precisely what only we can do – take up our cross and suffer, repent and ask forgiveness, following the dictates of our conscience.

Jesus redeemed us (opened Heaven), we have to play our part. If anyone was to be saved your way it would have been Paul! But he clearly showed the error of that: “But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.” (1Cor 9:27). And again: “Wherefore he who thinks that he stands, let him take heed lest he fall.” (1 Cor 10:12). Yet again, “And we exhort you not to receive the grace of God in vain.” (2 Cor 6:1).

Thus, just as without Christ there is no salvation, so without the Church there is no salvation. Catechism of the Catholic Church # 846 - # 848]. The Catholic Church, regardless of whether or not a person knows of its divine origin and founding, is the body through which ALL salvation comes to anyone whom God deems worthy to receive it.

 

[spedteacherita]

No one is “saved” here and now, but all have been redeemed – salvation is dependant on individuals making the effort to follow their consciences and to know to the best of their ability right from wrong and what God requires of them.

Having redeemed us (opened heaven to us) through His Crucifixion, Jesus did not leave us orphans but gave us His Church to show us how to be saved (enter heaven) – through following His teaching infallibly given to us by His Church with the primacy and infallibility of Peter and his successors.

“Consider Romans 5:2: ‘We are confident in the hope of attaining glory as the sons of God.’ If we….are now sure of heaven, and know nothing can deprive us of it, then we have no reason to hope because we know that heaven is ours. But ‘our salvation is founded on the hope of something’ says Paul. ‘Hope would not be hope at all if its object were in view; how could man still hope for something which he sees?’ (Rom 8:24). We hope for heaven, however well disposed we might be spiritually, because we know we still have a chance to lose it.” [Karl Keating, *Catholicism and Fundamentalism

, Ignatius 1988, p 174-5].

St Paul is very clear: “I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of His Body which is the Church.” (Col. 1:24). What is lacking in Christ’s suffering is precisely what only we can do – take up our cross and suffer, repent and ask forgiveness, following the dictates of our conscience.

Jesus redeemed us (opened Heaven), we have to play our part. If anyone was to be saved your way it would have been Paul! But he clearly showed the error of that: “But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.” (1Cor 9:27). And again: “Wherefore he who thinks that he stands, let him take heed lest he fall.” (1 Cor 10:12). Yet again, “And we exhort you not to receive the grace of God in vain.” (2 Cor 6:1).

Thus, just as without Christ there is no salvation, so without the Church there is no salvation. Catechism of the Catholic Church # 846 - # 848]. The Catholic Church, regardless of whether or not a person knows of its divine origin and founding, is the body through which ALL salvation comes to anyone whom God deems worthy to receive it.

Thank you for sharing this.

 

[spedteacherita]

spedteacherita #74 John 5:24: “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.

You stated: The true believer has passed from the death of sin to the life of supernatural grace.”

You are right. What He is saying is that with that confession of faith in Him, you are now leaving an eternity of hell behind you and are entering His glory. That does not mean one can’t lose that salvation…one needs to be in a continual relationship with Him professing that He is Lord. The Lutheran Study Bible states, " Scripture teaches two resurrections…Hence a resurrection does take place now, and man pass from a death to a life; from the death of infidelity to the life of faith; from the death of falsehood to the life of truth; from the death of iniquity to the life of righteousness…The Lord Jesus, then, was willing to make known to us a resurrection of the dead before the resurrection of the dead.", Lutheran Study Bible

** Romans 10:9-13 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
**

You stated: The profession of faith here demanded is the practice of faith in everyday life.”
[See Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, General Editor Dom Bernard Orchid, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953].

**I also agree with your comment here that this is something we need to do every day of our lives but that does not mean that we don’t have salvation. My life needs to be a conversion in progress as I am a sinner, and I will continue to sin committing sins of commission and omission. **

The idea that the quotes from spedteachererita refute Christ’s mandate to St Peter and His Apostles and Christ’s specific warning not to go against His Church – “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican” (Mt 18:17), and do your own thing, typifies the enormity of the deception promulgated at the Revolution against Christ’s’ Church.

I guess I’m not understanding here how I refuted Christ’s mandate to St. Peter and His apostles here as we both agree to what the Scripture verses say…You quoted Mt. 18:17 but my Bible says: 15 “If your brother or sister[a] sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[c] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.****

There is no need to further identify the misinterpretations offered by spedteachererita which try to denigrate the reality that Christ established His Church on St Peter. The perennial problem here is that this Protestant infatuation jettisons Christ’s Church, the Church He founded, for which He affirmed “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19) and again to St Peter: “Strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32), and “Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17), for a mishmash of thousands of private interpretations against which Christ warned, for He confirmed that “when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. …“He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:14-15).

Again, not trying to be facetious here but I do have some problems with reading and comprehension. I’m not quite understanding what you want to say here except for me misinterpreting scripture which, as we can both see, both of us understand it in the same way. Please help me understand

If I came off as haughty, or arrogant, or as a know-it-all in the earlier posts, I apologize. I’m here to learn what Catholics teach and I only have my Protestant teaching/upbringing to compare with it. We all are, or can be, passionate about what we hold dear in our hearts and my faith in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is one of the things I hold most dear.

 

[Abu]

Spedteacherita #94
Thank you for sharing this.

You’re very welcome.

 

[benhur]

A good deal of fudging words to no purpose is what I see in your response. Are you really that hung up on being a reformer versus a Protestant?

Words do have meaning and purpose, but it is in the eye of the beholder to see it this way or that .

But of course I do not see myself as a Roman Catholic, nor an Orthodox, and I fall into the Protestant category. Category is the key word.

I am not a reformer. Those were the Hess’s, Wycliffe’s, and Luther’s, and Calvin’s etc…

When you write," yours being just one more", I see a person debating foolish points just for the sake of debating.

Yes, a bit terse of me, sorry. In this fashion it is true though, that is, to an outsider, to an atheist, or Buddhist or Hindu. To them I suppose they view O’s and P’s and C’s as all “Christian” churches from which to choose from. Yes, you are one of the ones to choose form, but not " just one more ‘’ which was mathematically correct but mean. Sorry again.

I’m sorry to say that. You must know that the inconsistencies I speak of refer to Protestant denominations. I’m addressing what is taking place within your fold. The CC stands alone with one view on the essentials of the faith.

I will agree once more with this. . I will also state we are not perfect, nor say we are.

I understand that is THE biggest stumbling block for Catholics on entertaining validity of the entire Protestant movement. Serious stuff, this 30,000 perception with much reality to it .Two different paradigms. A big chasm.

For sure if any Catholics do cross over, they really must mean it. It is not like Lutheran becoming a Baptist.

And yes, error is derived from every wind of “doctrine”.

Touche…yes, it must be HS wind, not every wind

 

[Abu]

Spedteacherita $94
If I came off as haughty, or arrogant, or as a know-it-all in the earlier posts, I apologize

No need, as you were not haughty nor arrogant, but misunderstanding the reality that Christ instituted His Church, and no other, with the priesthood, seven sacraments and the infallibility which He gave to His Church, and no other, and which he warned not to dismiss. So a refutation would be a dismissal.

I guess I’m not understanding here how I refuted Christ’s mandate to St. Peter and His apostles here as we both agree to what the Scripture verses say…You quoted Mt. 18:17 but my Bible says: 15 “If your brother or sister[a] sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[c] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

The key is what the fault is and who has the authority to decide?

I’m not quite understanding what you want to say here except for me misinterpreting scripture which, as we can both see, both of us understand it in the same way. Please help me understand
I’m here to learn what Catholics teach

As Christ instituted only His Catholic Church with His Popes to teach only truth and condemn error in faith and in morals, how can interpretations of Scripture which change Her teaching be correct, whether 300 years or 1500 years later? So to the question of Holy Communion:

#69
My baptism and participating in the blessing of Holy Communion assures me that I have received God’s redeeming grace and I experience daily forgiveness for my sins both of commission and omission.

What is the definition of Holy Communion and who decides? Now, there can be no priesthood without valid ordination and this can be a reality only with valid bishops – only the Catholic Church can decide on the validity. Without a valid priesthood there can be no valid consecration of bread and wine and therefore no Holy Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearances of bread and wine, thereby, which Christ instituted.

This does not mean that there is no value at all in a sincere misunderstanding over a belief – it does mean that further questioning is worthwhile and that the reality is worthy of examination and acceptance.

 

[Randy_Carson]

“Why would it matter if you lived your life as a Protestant or a Catholic as far as your eternal destiny? Why the fuss? We will spend much more time in eternity than on earth.” as Jubilarian threads.

Why would it matter?

Two reasons come to mind:

1. The unity of the Church (which Jesus even prayed for) was supposed to be a sign to the [unbelieving] world that Jesus had come from the Father. Instead, that unity has been shattered, the witness has been diminished, and souls who might have been saved are lost forever.

Anyone who remains separated from the Catholic Church Jesus built upon Peter is perpetuating this loss of souls who are watching what Christians DO; ironically, this is true even as they preach the gospel to win souls in their own churches. You must think big picture here.

1. The Catholic Church was endowed with seven sacraments which are means of grace and helps along the difficult journey we face in this life. If ALL Christians were Catholics, then ALL Christians could avail themselves of those sacraments and that grace. Instead, some Christians have been taught that there are only two sacraments and the opportunities for the reception of grace through the others are missed by those who are not Catholic. As a result of these missed opportunities, some souls may not be saved.

Anyone who remains separated from the Catholic Church gives, by means of their involvement in other fellowships, encouragement and support to others in their estrangement from the Catholic Church and may, therefore, be contributing to their eternal loss.

 

[Jubilarian]

Words do have meaning and purpose, but it is in the eye of the beholder to see it this way or that .

But of course I do not see myself as a Roman Catholic, nor an Orthodox, and I fall into the Protestant category. Category is the key word.

I am not a reformer. Those were the Hess’s, Wycliffe’s, and Luther’s, and Calvin’s etc…
Yes, a bit terse of me, sorry. In this fashion it is true though, that is, to an outsider, to an atheist, or Buddhist or Hindu. To them I suppose they view O’s and P’s and C’s as all “Christian” churches from which to choose from. Yes, you are one of the ones to choose form, but not " just one more ‘’ which was mathematically correct but mean. Sorry again. I will agree once more with this. . I will also state we are not perfect, nor say we are.

I understand that is THE biggest stumbling block for Catholics on entertaining validity of the entire Protestant movement. Serious stuff, this 30,000 perception with much reality to it .Two different paradigms. A big chasm.

For sure if any Catholics do cross over, they really must mean it. It is not like Lutheran becoming a Baptist. Touche…yes, it must be HS wind, not every wind

Ok, that is a reasonable response . One thing though, maybe I’m having a slow day, but what does"HS" mean?"