Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Your have a vidid imagination. The RCC (or maybe just you) must have lowered its "Protestntvicarhood" to Protestants. If so than there is no need for a Protestant to be confirmed into the RCC ... as SALVATION is readily available to Protestants who have been immersed in the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
I'm not sure what you were trying to get at there. Or maybe you just didn't read my post.
Didn't you men to say purgatory? Isn't that the word used by the RCC?
Have you never denounced Protestantism as a lessor religion than Catholicism? Protestants use the same sacraments mentioned in our Protestant Bibles as also mentioned in RCC Bibles. Protestants can partake of both sacraments as it is in both of our Bibles (1 Corinthians 11:26 · Luke 22:19-20 · 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 · Matthew 26:26-30) Being the congregation can partake of the "bread" why not also the "wine" instead of just the priest during commnion or is the priest the only one that is sanctified to partake also of the sacrment of wine?
Does that not appy to Catholic Charasmatic Renewal?
Perhaps you didn't agree with the last [summarizing] sentence ...
Protestants dropped the concept of the purification spoken of in the Bible from their religions, which Catholics call "purgatory," and thus dropped indulgences. We know we disagree about purgatory. Generally people speak of "indulgences," which are closely related to the effect of penance, as those practices outside of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Similar practices were in effect within the sacrament, but they really went outside of the sacrament toward the beginning of the 11th century. The Biblical basis is the same. Giving alms was considered a good work even before Jesus was on earth, so i assume it was one of the good works considered for indulgences from the beginning. There are a lot of misconceptions by Protestants, realize the Councils and papal proclamations involving correction typically occur when a problem begins to be widespread enough to be brought to the attention and significant concern of Church authorities. But the selling of indulgences or theft was always a sin from the beginning. Where there is money involved sadly it seems there is temptation and sin. Jesus and the Apostles had the problem with Judas and theft. While Jesus and his Apostles did not drop the practice of accepting donations, the Church decided to stop monetary contributions to charitable causes as a basis for indulgences. While I can't put an exact day on the first indulgence nor on the first misuse, it is established that the first full or "plenary indulgence" was for the Crusades in 1095.
I don't try to justify sin, my sin or the sin of anyone else. Popes are sinners just like the rest of us and can go to Heaven or hell. It is a position initiated by Christ. The occupation of the position doesn't make a pope better or worse than you or I. Making Peter pope did not make him a better person than the rest of the Apostles.
We're saved by faith, which effects reconciliation within us, unity with the Trinity, as the branch is now connected to the Vine. That is your salvation. As you've already demonstrated some lack of understanding of the faith, it can become obvious that the more understanding we have, the better for us all. The various divisions within Christianity are not a good thing. Either way, the surest evidence that one is saved isn't speaking in tongues, but good fruit born of love of God and neighbor, IOW. without love, we'd just be clanging gongs-1 Cor 13.
There's little to no unity among Protestants over these matters to begin with. Some have two sacraments, some more. And so what? Some seem to care less about the sacraments, increasingly so among evangelicals it seems. So much for Sola Scriptura regarding God's supernatural work and providence. And what good is baptism anyway if one rejects baptismal regeneration? Going by Scripture alone some do reject it while others believe in it. What good is Holy Communion if one fails to believe in the real presence, A few do while most do not, some even partaking of the Lord's Supper very irregularly as a memorial service only even though the early church, beginning in the bible, celebrated it at least weekly as the central part of their service and discerned the body and blood of Christ as truly in it.
Well, if they're Catholic in their beliefs they naturally won't be disagreeing with other Charismatics who likewise agree with Catholicism. The point is that Christian truth is not a free-for-all, and claiming to be Holy Spirit-led or baptized in the Spirit does not mean that one will necessarily be right in all aspects of the faith. Having said that, I do believe that, generally speaking, the longer we walk with God, while still open to growth in faith and understanding, the more we will grow in that understanding.
As I'm still trying to understand your theology here, are you saying that a person can become perfectly sinless in this life, and that you are? It's sort of ironic that I'm dialoging in another thread with another Sola Scriptura adherent who, also going by Scripture alone, denies that we can ever be truly sinless in this life and, more importantly, maintains that we don't have to triumph over sin in any capacity under the new covenant, as believers. In fact, I find at least four lines of thought on this, all differing from the ancient line to one degree or another:
Unfortunately, this is true. They invented a sort of pretend righteousness, perverting the gospel: simul justus et peccator, etc. Shades of Isaiah 5:20 are brought to mind, in fact.
In this process, good works done in faith (i.e. through penance) are more of an unessential byproduct that contribute nothing to one's own state of righteousness=(RCC); hence, in Protestant thelogy, "becoming perfect" came to be understood as an instantaneous act of God and not a process or journey of purification that continues in the afterlife=(RCC)
No, that is not RCC. Catholicism teaches that any obedience relating to salvation would be a work of grace, as we walk in the Spirit, such as those mentioned in Eph 2:10, and certainly not a work of the law.
Nope, this is naive at best. Justification, consisting of forgivness of sin and the gift of righteousness-being made just-is a free gift from God given as we turn to Him in faith. The church, east and west, from the beginning understood that overcoming sin and doing good were inseparable from being Christian, as Paul is emphatic about as well. And every time that He refers to gaining eternal life, Jesus relates it to something we do. And the selling of indulgences was never part of Catholic doctrine, but rather an abuse of doctrine for financial gain.
No, again, because this thread was never about Catholicism vs Protestantism to begin with-that's something you turned it into. Plenty of Protestants agree with the basics of the soteriological model given in the OP. In any case we certainly agree that this debate could go on and on and I, for one, am growing weary of laying out the same ol' arguments in different forms.
The Catholic Church has by some counts over a billion members. The "American Catholic Church" is a small separate religion which has one bishop and fifteen priests. That being said, EVERY religion has their own unique interpretations of doctrine and dogma. As to salvation, I agree that the idea of once saved always saved is less complicated than Catholic doctrine, which teaches that we are saved through the sacrament of Baptism and continue to be saved.
Denominations as well as individuals have their opinions on matters of the faith. I happen to agree in large part with a particular denomination, for more than one reason. We can draw the line wherever we want as to what is essential and what is not but there will always be things that are worth fighting for. And you've arguably done as much or more evangelizing here than anyone
.
