Author Topic: Do Protestants Have Faith? (Read 19797 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #75 on:** June 02, 2021, 07:21:09 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on June 02, 2021, 06:48:02 AM

2Vermont, by the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII. The Holy Office called it a false opinion harmful to those within and outside the Church.

The Holy Office was infiltrated with the Church's enemies already in the early 1900s, proof is what you just wrote.

In your own words, what could possibly be harmful about telling people that salvation is only to be found in the Catholic Church?

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #76 on:** June 02, 2021, 08:38:00 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 02, 2021, 07:13:29 AM

St. Josaphat was described as not adhering to the schismatic error even while being among them. To that extent he was a Catholic who happened to live among the schismatics. I’ve clearly stated that it’s hypothetically possible that there are some Catholics living among Prots ... though this would be extremely rare since very few are unaware of the Catholic Church. These are invariably converted even materially to the Catholic Church, as St. Josaphat was. Those people however are NOT Protestants, but Catholics. To say that Protestants can be saved is open heresy, a denial of constant Catholic teaching. Xavier, might you be bothered to at least pay lip service to Catholic doctrine by asserting that such as these are not Prots but displaced Catholics?

You commit grave scandal and promote heresy in claiming that Prots can be saved.

I can't speak for Xavier, again, but this ultimately comes down to limitations of human language.

I remember a case where the Dimonds (to be clear, I do not conflate your position with there's) did a video on "Sedevacantist priests who deny the salvation dogma" and towards the end they say a certain independent sedevacantist priest denied the dogma "word for word" but what he actually said was that the Church doesn't teach and never would teach that "all those who are not formal and visible members of the Church are automatically excluded from eternal salvation." Now maybe you could make the argument that the idea that one can be inside the Church without being a formal and visible member is newer, that it contradicts the Church fathers, etc. but that would be a more complex argument and it wouldn't come down to word for word denial of a dogma. Furthermore, you don't seem to believe this yourself given St Josaphat.

But then I realize how complicated this all is. What does it mean that St Josaphat didn't adhere to the schismatic error? I mean at age 7, would he literally have believed something just because he was told the Roman Catholic Church held to it? And if he didn't realize he should do such a thing yet, is he outside the church? At WHAT POINT and WHAT LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE is someone now outside the Church if he doesn't at least say "I'll submit to whatever the Catholic magisterium says." Even per the Dimonds, a 7 year old child probably isn't expected to have clearly formulated that, but at what point, and why.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #77 on:** June 02, 2021, 08:39:47 AM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on June 01, 2021, 05:14:52 PM

There is no such thing as being automatically damned. Everyone in hell is there either because they committed some mortal sin or because they were not washed of original sin (Limbo). No one has ever been damned because they made a theological error. On the other hand, many people have made theological errors because they consented to mortal sins and vice versa.

As for your last sentence, do you realize that you are condemning Catholics for upholding a dogma of the faith? Do you realize that if you deny or denigrate even one dogma (which God has revealed, a truth fallen from Heaven) you are rejecting God and scorning his commandments which He has instituted specifically in order to help us to get to Heaven? By implying that the Church is not necessary for salvation, you essentially send the message that entering the Church is optional and that just as Luther taught it is possible to do whatever you want in this life as long as you presumptuously believe God will save you for your "sincerity" (the requirements of which each individual apparently gets to define). You refuse to believe what God has taught us concerning the requirements for salvation and then you expect that He will show mercy to you? No, you get what you deserve when you doubt God's words. You can be forgiven for doubting the words of men, but doubting the words of God will land you in hell every time.

You strawman me, but leaving that aside, we're discussing how God's words are properly interpreted, and you are uncharitable. Have a good day.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #78 on:** June 02, 2021, 08:56:08 AM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on June 02, 2021, 08:38:00 AM

I can't speak for Xavier, again, but this ultimately comes down to limitations of human language.

It's not a limitation. It's important to be precise. We have dogmatic definitions which state that heretics cannot be saved (many of them in fact). So to assert that heretics can be saved is contrary to Church dogma. Protestants cannot be saved. Are there some living among Protestants who are actually Catholic? Perhaps, though this is likely very rare. They would have to be in either a mental state where they are so befuddled that they don't even know they're Protestant or what Protestant vs. Catholic is. In point of fact, the vast majority of Protestants know the Church and actively (even aggressively) repudiate it. If there are such Catholics among the Protestants, then I am certain that God will ultimately bring them visibly into the Church. We hear thousands upon thousands of conversion stories. God does not generally leave Catholics among the Protestants but brings them into the Church.

Unlike the position that Xavier's pushing, where someone has to actively repudiate the faith, commit an active mortal sin against faith, supernatural faith can be absent by mere privation as well. Going back to the animist baptized in the jungle by a missionary who reaches the age of reason knowing nothing about the faith. He's committed no mortal sin against the faith, but at the age of reason, the infused supernatural faith of Baptism atrophies, as it were, and fades away. According to Xavier's principles, that active sin against the faith is required, this person could reach the age of 30 while continuing to have supernatural faith ... without so much as believing in God. That is not possible. He has not supernatural faith at that point ... even though he's not actively committed any mortal sin against faith.

THAT is the distinction here, that the presence or absence of supernatural faith doesn't necessarily required "bad faith" or "culpability". To suggest that is to flirt with Pelagianism.

Many absurdities flow from Xavier's stated principles. You can have a Protestant who believes that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, who regularly derides Our Blessed Mother, etc., who is perfectly well convinced that he's right (Salvierri's definition of "good faith"). That such person could possibly have supernatural faith is utterly preposterous. But it's a logical conclusion of the narrative being built by Xavier.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #79 on:** June 02, 2021, 09:42:56 AM »

Xavier, one other point. You can stop quoting any American theologian on the idea of salvation because most were infected with the heresy of "Americanism" in the 1800s, which includes Isaac Heckler whom the pope condemned for a form of "pelagiansim".
.
One of the few orthodox catholic writers/intellectuals from the 1800s is Orestes Brownson. I suggest you read/quote him.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #80 on:** June 02, 2021, 09:09:47 PM »

If we are going to quote Fr Michael Muller, here is a good one:

Quote

Let us mark well: To assert that acts of divine faith, hope, and charity are possible out of the Catholic Church is a direct denial of the article of faith: There is positively no salvation out of the Catholic Church; for, on account of these acts, God unites himself with the soul in time and in eternity. If these acts, then, were possible out of the Catholic Church, there would be salvation out of the Catholic Church, to say which is a direct denial of the above article of faith, and therefore the assertion is heretical.

— The Catholic Dogma: Extra Ecclesiam Nullus omnino Salvatur, pp. 226-227

2Vermont · « **Reply #81 on:** June 03, 2021, 04:33:12 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on June 02, 2021, 06:48:02 AM

2Vermont, by the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII. The Holy Office called it a false opinion harmful to those within and outside the Church.

You specifically said Dimondism was condemned as a heretical sect. Where did the Church make this declaration...that it was a sect and that it was condemned? The fact of the matter is....it did not.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #82 on:** June 03, 2021, 07:21:48 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on June 03, 2021, 04:33:12 AM

You specifically said Dimondism was condemned as a heretical sect. Where did the Church make this declaration...that it was a sect and that it was condemned? The fact of the matter is....it did not.

Xavier exaggerates when he's frustrated. As I said, you could claim that some of the positions of the Dimonds have been condemned, but not that they are a "formally condemned sect".

He's talking of course about Suprema Haec, that letter published by the heretical Cardinal Cushing ... with lots of questions about it. That was directed toward Father Feeney, not the Dimonds. Even then, it rejected a particular position held by Father Feeney and made no reference to any sects.

SH never appeared in the Acta Apostolica Sedis ... a canonical requirement to be considered authentic Magisterium. It was published only in a journal edited by Cardinal Cushing himself, in English translation ... a full three years after the Cardinal who allegedly wrote it had died. Why wait until the alleged author of the docuмent had died? It would have been more relevant at the time it was written. Cushing was being pressured by both the Boston Jews and the Kennedy family to condemn Father Feeney's simple statement of Church dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church. This was before Father Feeney said anything about Baptism of Desire, but was simply restating Church dogma. Cushing once remarked: "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense." His sister was married to a Jew, and he was one of the biggest religious indifferentists and ecuмenists out there. But the bottom line is that SH, a simple letter from a Cardinal, was never actually published by the Holy See. And, given Cushing's history and the 3-year delay in publishing it, we have no proof that it had not been tampered with. Msgr. Fenton actually said that the docuмent was consistent with the belief that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.

Stubborn · « **Reply #83 on:** June 03, 2021, 07:23:12 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on June 03, 2021, 06:26:14 AM

Stubborn, denying the justifying power of Perfect Contrition, is harmful to the Church, and dangerous for the souls of those who do so.

No one denies the possibility of justification via perfect contrition, yet such a thing is impossible outside of the Church, as Pope Boniface VIII declared (second sentence of opening paragraph): "We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins".

So again, what or where is the danger?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #84 on:** June 03, 2021, 07:48:49 AM »

Per the dogmatic teaching of Trent, perfect contrition alone does not suffice but must be combined with the votum for the Sacrament of Confession.

Perfect contrition is not even possible without supernatural faith. Supernatural charity is not possible without supernatural faith. Consequently, only Catholics can be justified through perfect contrition combined with a votum for the Sacrament.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #85 on:** June 03, 2021, 10:09:32 AM »

Quote

Stubborn, denying the justifying power of Perfect Contrition, is harmful to the Church, and dangerous for the souls of those who do so.

See, Xavier, you interpret Trent to apply to those who aren't catholic, and who have no desire to be. That's heresy.
.
A perfect act of contrition is only salvific to catholics who PROMISE/VOW to go to confession at the earliest opportunity. This can't apply to protestants because they don't even believe in priests, much less, the power of confession.
.
BOD is only salvific to catechumens, who believe in the Incarnation/Trinity (at minimum) and who desire the enter the church, which is the whole point of baptism. You falsely think that a pagan, muslim, jew or unbaptized protestant can be saved by BOD, without wanting to enter the Church, who aren't taking catechism classes or something. This is 100% against the teaching of Trent.

andy · « **Reply #86 on:** June 03, 2021, 01:25:28 PM »

So Protestantism is build on a common heresy. It is precise to say that this is essentially Gnosticism?

Stubborn · « **Reply #87 on:** June 04, 2021, 07:17:31 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on June 04, 2021, 06:14:13 AM

Stubborn and Pax Vobis, the same question I asked Ladislaus applies to both of you: "[Pope St. Pius X wrote]: "A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation"... If Pope St. Pius X were alive today, Ladislaus [or Stubborn/Pax Vobis], would you submit to [this doctrine of] H.H.?"

Pope St. Pius X never taught the above error, and if he were alive and taught the above error today, it would still be error as it is contrary to Pope Boniface's teaching as well as all the other teachings of the Church - which is how we *know* that Pope St. Pius X never taught such a thing.

Quote

Stubborn, many do deny the Justifying Power of Contrition, although as the CE explains it was clearly taught by Christ. "He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

The denial of this is gravely harmful to the Church. It has been condemned even before by the Church, when Pope St. Pius V condemned it in the Jansenist Baius, as the same article explains. The evidence that Baptism of Desire Justifies even before Baptism, and that Perfect Contrition justifies post-Baptism, is strong.

The justifying power of contrition does not apply to those outside of the Church as Pope Boniface VIII decreed.

Trent's catechism, speaking of the sacrament of confession which applies to Catholics only says:

"Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins. It, therefore, became necessary that the most merciful Lord should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He has done in His admirable wisdom, by giving to His Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

Christ, which is the Church, deems the sacrament of confession as being necessary for the forgiveness of sins, which is why He instituted the sacrament.

Because Catholics can hardly make a perfect act of contrition, non-Catholics are altogether incapable of it - which agrees with Pope Boniface VIII - as does the below truth, quoted from Fr. Feeney, Bread of Life.......

"I am not going to think it as difficult for a Catholic who has fallen into mortal sin but who, through his Faith, remembers his
Holy Communions, his Blessed Mother, his past confessions, God’s rich forgivenesses in the sacraments, to make an act of perfect love, as for a catechumen, who has not had yet the benefit of one of God’s sanctifying sacraments. But the very fact that the Church requires every mortal sin committed to be confessed, whether one is perfectly sorry for it or not, shows the Church has a maternal suspicion of this perfect act of love of God obtaining forgiveness apart from the Sacrament of forgiveness instituted by Christ".

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #88 on:** June 04, 2021, 08:51:23 AM »

Quote

Stubborn and Pax Vobis, the same question I asked Ladislaus applies to both of you: "[Pope St. Pius X wrote]: "A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism,

Ok, so the person is already baptized, which means they are a catholic. Yes, if a baptized person has good will, then Scripture tells us that God will lead them back to the Church. If they DON'T make it back to the Church, then they really didn't have good will. That's how the Church tells us we must look at it. We cannot ASSUME they entered the Church except by VISIBLE means (i.e. a public conversion).
.

Quote

or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation"... If Pope St. Pius X were alive today, Ladislaus [or Stubborn/Pax Vobis], would you submit to [this doctrine of] H.H.?"

"On the way of salvation" means that this hypothetical person will find the Truth/Church, as Scripture infallibly tells us. If they do NOT find the Church, then that means they weren't really sincere and they didn't do God's will as best as they could.
.
They cannot be saved BEFORE they VISIBLY enter the Church. That's not what St Pius X is saying.
.

Quote

Ladislaus, you misunderstood a passing explanation of good faith in Fr. Salaverri. Does the above explanation in Pope St. Pius X's Catechism clarify it for you? Someone is in good faith if he is II and if he sincerely seeks the Truth and does God's Will as best he can. If such a one has received Baptism, he can be within the Soul of the Church, and consequently on the way of salvation.

There's the key phrase, which you obviously don't understand..."on the way of salvation". It means THEY HAVEN'T GOTTEN THERE YET. They can't be saved IN THEIR CURRENT SINCERE/GOOD-WILLED STATE.
.

Quote

Also, you are mistaken about Trent, and its Catechism. They teach Contrition blots out sin: "Contrition, it is true, blots out sin". http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Penance.shtml Trent had said that, when Contrition blots out sin and reconciles man to God, that reconciliation is to be attributed to the Desire of the Sacrament included within Contrition.

Trent is a CATHOLIC council which was teaching CATHOLIC doctrines, which apply to CATHOLICS ONLY.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #89 on:** June 04, 2021, 09:36:49 AM »

Answer to the question posed by OP is quite simple and rooted in Catholic dogma.

No, Protestants don't have faith.

Are there some individuals living among the Protestants who still have the faith? Possibly. But then these are Catholics and not Protestants. End of thread.

Author Topic: Do Protestants Have Faith? (Read 19797 times)

Stubborn

Re: Do Protestants Have Faith?

ByzCat3000

Re: Do Protestants Have Faith?

ByzCat3000

Re: Do Protestants Have Faith?

Ladislaus

Re: Do Protestants Have Faith?

Pax Vobis

Re: Do Protestants Have Faith?

Clemens Maria

Re: Do Protestants Have Faith?

2Vermont

Re: Do Protestants Have Faith?

Ladislaus

Re: Do Protestants Have Faith?

Stubborn

Re: Do Protestants Have Faith?

Ladislaus

Re: Do Protestants Have Faith?

Pax Vobis

Re: Do Protestants Have Faith?

andy

Re: Do Protestants Have Faith?

Stubborn

Re: Do Protestants Have Faith?

Pax Vobis

Re: Do Protestants Have Faith?

Ladislaus

Re: Do Protestants Have Faith?