Again, how do you know this, when the links I posted say otherwise? I'm not reassuring anyone that they should remain protestant, nor have I. I wouldn't even debate this so vehemently if certain people wouldn't post blatant inaccuracies like: "Protestants don't believe in God." That is absurd and why that's okay to write, and it's not okay to state what the CCC says is baffling to me.

I will not encourage anyone to remain a Protestant, because I don't believe in doing that at all. It seems only fair to me that if it's okay to type "Protestants don't believe in God," that it's okay to debate that based on what is taught in our faith.

Right! So...are you saying the Monsignor is wrong here? This is my point. Do I believe him, or you?

But whatever....I know what you guys are saying. I get it. You want people who wander in here to believe the hard core "No salvation outside of the Catholic Church" so they don't get the wrong impression that it's "okay" to stay in their church. I understand that, but I don't understand that that is the way to do it. Because really, I don't even get that message from what I've learned, and the people I've learned from, OR the websites I've posted, and read. I don't even get that from the CCC. But if you guys get that then okay, so be it. I think certain things should be expected to be debated however, when they are preposterous.


Misha

Jack Chick is my HERO.

I would like to see a list of protestant churches that have produced saints. I'd also like to see some protestant saints.

Who is Jack Chick?

Since Protestants don't have saints, I find it interesting that there is a Methodist Church in Houston called "St. Matthew"s." Do they acknowledge the apostles and/or authors of the gospels are saints?

Misha

Please post the exact words that contradict what I said.

I'm not saying anything you said is contradictory per-se. I am wanting to know how you get this:



From what the Monsignor states above, and from the other link explaining this topic from "This Rock."

But like I said too - whatever. Meaning, I accept that you read something into all of this that I do not. I will not encourage any Protestant to remain Protestant. If I thought remaining Protestant was "good enough" I too would still be Methodist.

Misha

Misha, I am beginning to suspect that you are making this up as you go along just to be argumentative.

In the other thread you said "people can't reject what they haven't received in their hearts." The above quote, from the link you provided and now claim is what you hve been saying all along, says exactly the opposite.

I have no idea what you believe and I am not sure you know what you believe either. The only thing that is clear is that you don't like Pax.

I think it is time that we enforce the condition you had on your previous account, please avoid conversations about EENS. You are not doing anything but sewing seeds of confusion and dissent, which is not helpful in the least.

Zeno
DCF Team

Is this the part you disagree with?



Is this the part you disagree with?



How about this part?



Or is it perhaps this?



You may answer me via private message.

No, I assure you I am not trying to be argumentative, nor am I making anything up. I hate negativity of any kind. Perhaps I am just not understanding something, but I'm not doing anything on purpose other than simply trying to understand. And I do not dislike Pax either. I don't even know him. I dislike it when he makes huge blanket statements that are written as fact, with no room for discussion.

And I would PM you, but again, I have no way to do that.

Misha

You can email Siggy. Her email is in her profile.

Your post has been moved. You can email Siggy using your own email account, outside the board.

The question is not whether you believe the Mons or Zeno, but whether you believe an the Ecumenical Council of Florence or the Mons.

Can you cite something from the Ecumenical Council of Florence which you find "preposterous"?

No, not at all Pax. I understand the point you and the others are making, and it's fine. I'm not going to debate this point anymore because I don't want to get banned over splitting hairs.
Edited by Administrator
Misha

Yes, please drop it, Misha, or we will have to remove your ability to post in this forum, too.

Whenever I quote scripture to Pax to prove a point, he will come up with an obscure reference in some papal edict somewhere which suggests the contrary. I only find out months afterward when I use his passage to convince others of my change of heart that the passage was taken out of context or clarified by some later edict.

This sort of confusion is why priests are tasked with sifting through the mountains of paper and sorting it all out into something comprehensive.

Unless Pax quotes black letter scripture, I can't afford to take his opinions at face value. Which is too bad because I admire his knowledge of the Faith and the tenacity with which he evangelizes it. I admire an evangelist.

That passage is contained in a section of the Catechism entitled The Stages of Revelation. The Covenant of Noah was that God would never again destroy the world by water. The sentences following the one you bolded talk about Gentiles being venerated, not Jews.

The saints of the Old Covenant went to the Limbo of the Fathers to await the coming of Christ who would open heaven to them.

If you look farther down, you will see paragraph 72, which says:

72 God chose Abraham and made a covenant with him and his descendants. By the covenant God formed his people and revealed his law to them through Moses. Through the prophets, he prepared them to accept the salvation destined for all humanity.

Notice the words "prepared them to accept". It looks to me like they had to accept Christ to gain salvation.

Why was that edited? I can't even "drop it" right.