As an ex-Catholic do you really know what the Church teaches?

[ehscott]

This is a really thought-provoking question and I suspect the answer is fairly complex and would vary depending upon the individual. I grew up in the 70’s and attended Catholic grade school, high school and college. I can say that until I experienced a conversion and developed a strong desire to learn more about the teachings of the Church I did not understand the basics. It seemed that the emphasis was not on understanding the faith. And where I lived almost everyone was Catholic so defense of the faith was never an issue.

My children attend an independent Catholic school in Atlanta and they actually teach apologetics. My children know their faith and when they hear something goofy it is very gratifying to hear them explain the truth. I am convinced that they will be much more likely to not only maintain their faith as they grow older, they may actually practice it. My 16 year old is a daily communicant. When my middle daugther was younger we had a Jehovah’s Witness come to the door around Christmas and she actually went and got her picture Boble and showed the text where the shepherds were brought by angels to worship Christ and the three wise men bringing gifts. It was really great.

 

[macleod]

Wow, as an “ex” catholic, I am seeing all the love…Oh well, still battling the flesh it looks like…

I read a few pages of the comments here and I’d like to get some advice and maybe I can answer some of the vexing concerns from my own past.

My question is: what document or set of documents can I lay my hands on that will give the OFFICIAL Roman Catholic Teaching(s) that will be consistent through the years. I have a copy of the most recent catechism, a few for dummies books of various stripes, a couple of RCC apologists books, and a few things that have that special mark (although I have to make sure it wasnt taken back at a later date).

Now the reason I ask this question (which then ties in to why RCC and non-RCC dont know about the church) is that I will get conflicting answers (please dont try to bait me into specifics, not interested).

I made the decision to leave the RCC based on what I was hearing at mass not mixing with what I was reading (during the mass) in my bible (again, not wanting to argue this point or hear how you made the exact opposite conclusion. If anyone comes back with that you are missing the point of my post). I began asking questions of RCC “lifers” and then priests. I had never been to an “anti” catholic (btw, you have no idea how stupid this sounds to people that arent RCC) website until later on (unless any website that I go to that doesnt have .va or watever is considered anticatholic).

As I was trying to figure things out, the folks that grew up RCC and were trying to convince me to stay, didnt use rational arguments, but rather blank stares. Since then I have researched the answers and still remain unconvinced, but that is a story for a different time…just trying to lay down some history.

I guess my point here is that the reason ex-catholics dont really know what the church knows is that they would get seemingly conflicting stories. Hell, I heard my sister in law, a RCC lifer utter these phrases:

• “I know its lent, but I wanted the steak, I hope I dont go to hell for that”
• “Of course we pray to Mary” (this was in response to a claim I heard someone make and I asked her about it)
• “My priest told me that the Church never said that outside the church there is no salvation”

Now, is this confusion or was she told this (I find it hard for anyone to wiggle out of the 3rd little gem.

Through my “learnin’s” I have seen that it is important that we get trained up and able to defend our faith, but what I wanted to touch on is that for me and many other "ex"Catholics, we hear things being stated from “authorities” that are just plain wrong (or conflict with other statements). What writing(s) can I go to that will give the straightforward position of the Roman Catholic Church. I sincerely would be interested in this answer.

Sola fide
Col 2:8

 

[macleod]

ehscott

I didnt read your post when I did mine. I really enjoyed your post. It talked about something that I am currently talking to my sr pastor about now…apologetics.

I think it is sooooooo important that we train up not only ourselves, but our kids to be able to defend their faith. If people are trained to believe something that is factual and not as a tautaology, they are more likely to defend it and stay true to it. Not a “well my parents made me go to church, etc.”

The stats that I have seen (and this should be a heavy reminder for the posters here) that 75% of kids “lose” their faith when they go to college. I disagree with the statement by saying that they never had it in the first place. They did what their parents demanded.

My oldest begs me to go to church on Sunday to “learn about God and Jesus and his once, for all sacrifice”. It puts a smile on my face because I am training him on not only what to think, but HOW to think. That is our jobs as parents. Now I disagree with a lot of Roman Catholic theology, but I can respect anyone that has come to their position with good reason, not just because thats what they were told to say.

Anyway, ehscott, kudos to you for doing what I wish more parents were doing…

Sola Fide
Col 2:8

 

[With_Love]

• “My priest told me that the Church never said that outside the church there is no salvation”

Now, is this confusion or was she told this (I find it hard for anyone to wiggle out of the 3rd little gem.

As a Christian would you say that there is no Salvation in any other name than Jesus’?(Acts 4:12) This Is a Christ Centered point of view. The Church has always taught that It contains the Fullness of Truth(1Tim 3:15). In fact, the Church is the Body of Christ. To be outside of the Body of Christ is to be distant from Christ. But the Church Also teaches that Only God knows and Judges the hearts of those people who are apart from the Church by no fault of their own. Hope this helps

 

[macleod]

As a Christian would you say that there is no Salvation in any other name than Jesus’?(Acts 4:12) This Is a Christ Centered point of view.

thank you for replying. Here is the problem with the understanding. 1) the RCC that I talk to and the way it is stated is outside of the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation. 2) remember that when this phrase was uttered (council of trent), what was it meant to convey? It was understood then that if you were outside of the Roman Catholic Church, you were not saved. That was the thinking of the day. If this is not the case, why was it stated when the Roman Church was dealing with Luther?

Now I agree with the scripture. That gets me going on another of my understandings of Roman Catholicism. I believe the late pope made references to muslims and other non believers (that Jesus paid for your sins) will also go to heaven. Kind of a “noble beast” type of philosphy. That line of thinking flies in the face of Acts 4:12 and other verses that say that Jesus is the only way to heaven.

That is part of the reason I am looking for the authoritative documents that show the official RCC position on things. I dont mean this as an insult to anyone, but with all the misunderstanding of what the Roman Church teaches, I dont want to rely on what a person says the church teaches. I want to read their official stance and then do some background to make sure I am on board.

What is yours and the official position on the definition of “church”? My experience is Church = Roman Catholic Church ( name and building)

OR do you define the church as ONLY the body of believers?

Also, can you go into more detail on these comments:

To be outside of the Body of Christ is to be distant from Christ. But the Church Also teaches that Only God knows and Judges the hearts of those people who are apart from the Church by no fault of their own.

Again, thank you for replying.

Sola Fide
Col 2:8

 

[With_Love]

thank you for replying. Here is the problem with the understanding. 1) the RCC that I talk to and the way it is stated is outside of the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation. 2) remember that when this phrase was uttered (council of trent), what was it meant to convey? It was understood then that if you were outside of the Roman Catholic Church, you were not saved. That was the thinking of the day. If this is not the case, why was it stated when the Roman Church was dealing with Luther?

Now I agree with the scripture. That gets me going on another of my understandings of Roman Catholicism. I believe the late pope made references to muslims and other non believers (that Jesus paid for your sins) will also go to heaven. Kind of a “noble beast” type of philosphy. That line of thinking flies in the face of Acts 4:12 and other verses that say that Jesus is the only way to heaven.

That is part of the reason I am looking for the authoritative documents that show the official RCC position on things. I dont mean this as an insult to anyone, but with all the misunderstanding of what the Roman Church teaches, I dont want to rely on what a person says the church teaches. I want to read their official stance and then do some background to make sure I am on board.

What is yours and the official position on the definition of “church”? My experience is Church = Roman Catholic Church ( name and building)

OR do you define the church as ONLY the body of believers?

Also, can you go into more detail on these comments:

Again, thank you for replying.

Sola Fide
Col 2:8

Too the First Part, Those who are in open heresy are opposed to the Christian Unity That Christ Desired for His Church (See John 17) The Gates Of Hell cannot over come Christ’s Church therefore Satan has to divides and Conquers. Sounds like the current state of Christianity today(30,000 Denominations and growing)? Martin Luther could have reformed the Church from within, rather he chose to throw it all out and Start over. Only God knows the whats happened to Luther’s soul after he died.
Too the second part, Vatican II document Lumen Gentium is and official document that touched on the Churches role in salvation and those outside of the Church. ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/EXTRAECC.TXT
Also go to the Vatican website to see the actual document.
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[BrewMax]

Since Delraek answered most of this well, I will just repost it.

But I will also add that the Church does not in fact teach that there are “levels” of purgatory although it may be a popular thought, it is not an official teaching.

then can you explain why it is acceptible for well known Catholic apologists and such to discuss these levels of Purgatory and such indepthly on public radio waves if they are in fact not teachings of the Catholic church

 

[qui_est_ce]

thank you for replying. Here is the problem with the understanding. 1) the RCC that I talk to and the way it is stated is outside of the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation. 2) remember that when this phrase was uttered (council of Trent), what was it meant to convey? It was understood then that if you were outside of the Roman Catholic Church, you were not saved. That was the thinking of the day. If this is not the case, why was it stated when the Roman Church was dealing with Luther?

It means that the Church preserves and teaches the Truth of Christ, who died for our sins. Jesus created the Church and sent His Holy Spirit to guide her and the gates of Hell would not prevail against her.

That being said, Christian denominations, not in communion with the Catholic Christian Church, have a piece of the pie. Were it not for the Church, we would have no Bible, heritage, guardian of Truth upon which all Christianity rests, whether or not they believe in the Magesterium.

Now I agree with the scripture. That gets me going on another of my understandings of Roman Catholicism. I believe the late pope made references to Muslims and other non believers (that Jesus paid for your sins) will also go to heaven. Kind of a “noble beast” type of philosophy. That line of thinking flies in the face of Acts 4:12 and other verses that say that Jesus is the only way to heaven.

Jesus died for the whole world. Because one does not know Jesus, does not mean Jesus did not die for them.

There is baptism of desire. Muslims, and other non-Christians are not condemned because they do not have access to Christianity. We are not the judges.

That is part of the reason I am looking for the authoritative documents that show the official RCC position on things. I dint mean this as an insult to anyone, but with all the misunderstanding of what the Roman Church teaches, I dint want to rely on what a person says the church teaches. I want to read their official stance and then do some background to make sure I am on board.

And you shouldn’t rely on what a person says the CCC teaches, because there are so many misconceptions!

What is yours and the official position on the definition of “church”? My experience is Church = Roman Catholic Church ( name and building)

Church=Real Church Peter and the Rock, given the keys.

This means that revelation ended with the last book of the Bible, but our understanding of Revelation is still growing.

OR do you define the church as ONLY the body of believers?

Church=Catholic Christian. The rest are off-shoots, they contain some truth, but not FULL truth.

Also, can you go into more detail on these comments:

the comments did not follow.

This is so hard for me. My dad was not Catholic. He was Mo Synod Lutheran. Dad loved the Lord and praised Him every Sunday “Der Herr ist understanding.” Yet Daddy’s faith witness did so much for me in my faith journey in the Catholic Christian Church. My dad died in 1975. killed by burglars, I loved going to his Webster Garden’s Lutheran Church with him, and my Catholic mom allowed it. She never imposed Catholic beliefs on us kids. I miss that, but I admire our Ecumenical household.

 

[Albina]

I know catechesis for the past 30-35 years in the Catholic Church has been not very good to say the least. And there are definitely signs that it is getting better—this forum being one of them! My question, though, is why do ex-Catholics who have been to a Catholic elementary school believe that they know everything about the church? Even college graduates will pontificate about what the Church supposedly teaches because they went to Catholic elementary school. But obviously they felt the need for continued study in their secular careers— So what’s up here?

You would be surprised to know what Ex Catholics know about the rc church
please read:
Why I left the catholic church by Benny D
aomin.org/why_I_left.html

 

[LittleDeb]

I read a few pages of the comments here and I’d like to get some advice and maybe I can answer some of the vexing concerns from my own past.

My question is: what document or set of documents can I lay my hands on that will give the OFFICIAL Roman Catholic Teaching(s) that will be consistent through the years. I have a copy of the most recent catechism, a few for dummies books of various stripes, a couple of RCC apologists books, and a few things that have that special mark (although I have to make sure it wasnt taken back at a later date).

Now the reason I ask this question (which then ties in to why RCC and non-RCC dont know about the church) is that I will get conflicting answers (please dont try to bait me into specifics, not interested).

I made the decision to leave the RCC based on what I was hearing at mass not mixing with what I was reading (during the mass) in my bible (again, not wanting to argue this point or hear how you made the exact opposite conclusion. If anyone comes back with that you are missing the point of my post). I began asking questions of RCC “lifers” and then priests. I had never been to an “anti” catholic (btw, you have no idea how stupid this sounds to people that arent RCC) website until later on (unless any website that I go to that doesnt have .va or watever is considered anticatholic).

Your post is actually quite refreshing. You acknowledge that there is room for deeper communication and learning. If I can, I would like to address some of your questions and possibly point you to the resources you ask about.

We are nearly the same age and so please know I can empathize with nearly all of your concerns here. I shortened the quote for space. First off, for many years I was very ignorant to the many Rites in the Catholic Church. I too, thought that the “Roman” Catholic Church was it, although I never referred to “it” as the RCC, I certainly thought of it that way. And more importantly I thought of Her, the bride of Christ, His Church, as an “it.” She is a She and She is not only Roman.

The documents you seek do exist. But my honest question to you is that if you read the documents personally, can you understand them? We are the children of a generation of confusion after the Vatican II Council. My parents give a wonderful example of the confusion about documents and what the Church actually teaches:

After the Vat. II council closed (mid 60’s) a book was published with all the documents. It was wildly unpopular. No one read it. About a year later another book was published where some folks had gone through and interpreted all the documents and published their interpretation. This book was wildly popular, so much so that many people thought the second book was the documents from the council. The sad part was that most of their interpretations were wrong. They were basically “wishful thinking.” Many innovations and outrageous convoluted teaching came from that one group of people publishing their own personal interpretation of the council.

You say you use reason when you read. I believe you do, but whose reason do you use? Your own would be the logical guess. But really do any of us? I admit I use the reasoning skills I was taught. They are now my own but they came from my parents, teachers, and general environment first.

To make a long story short, what I am getting to is authority to interpret. If I hand you an “Official Teaching of the Catholic Church” document do I know that you will fully understand what it is you are reading? I mean a priest saying that the Church has never taught, “Outside of the Church there is no salvation” shows that there are people out there who just don’t get it. He is one who just missed the boat there. Can I trust that if I show you the deep rich history and the dire necessity of that particular statement in its full context that you will read it and more importantly that you will understand it, even if you still disagree?

One of the reasons I have stayed Catholic and been able to have a truly deep relationship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is because I don’t have to be an authority on everything. I don’t have to rethink what has already been reasoned out. I can use my own reason to rely on 2000 years of giants before me. Sure, I still have my personal pet topics on which I can be called somewhat of an authority. Want to know Church teachings on sexuality? I will give you a mountain of documentation cross referenced to Scripture. Could I always do that? No, for just as Scripture says, “someone had to teach me.”

Long winded as usual…God bless you for reading!

 

[peary]

You would be surprised to know what Ex Catholics know about the rc church
please read:
Why I left the catholic church by Benny D
aomin.org/why_I_left.html

%between%

I think the website speaks for itself. You can’t fix stupid, apparently.

 

[With_Love]

You would be surprised to know what Ex Catholics know about the rc church
please read:
Why I left the catholic church by Benny D
aomin.org/why_I_left.html

I think the website speaks for itself. You can’t fix stupid, apparently.

Peary I checked out the website. The first paragraph struck me. Mr Benny was asked if he wanted to receive Jesus into his heart. Another way of saying this is to give his heart over to Jesus. Mr. Benny felt that this concept of giving ones heart over to Jesus was foreign to Catholicism. He further described himself as Catholic for 23 years. I would have to think Mr. Benny went to Mass at least once in those 23 years. If he did go to Mass, Which is the most important part of Catholic Worship, he would have heard and said something like this:
Preface Dialogue before the Sanctus:
Priest: The Lord be with you. All: And also with you.
Priest: Lift up your hearts. All: We lift them up to the Lord.
Priest: Let us give thanks to the Lord, our God. All: It is right to give him thanks and praise.

Every time a Catholic goes to Mass, he or she is invited to offer up their heart to the Lord. And Most of the time they do.
BTY we get to intamently and personally receive Jesus into our bodies through the Eucharistic Meal.

 

[JCChick]

LittleDeb,

Your post (#129) was just excellent. I was born and raised “Catholic”, but I was too busy thinking about the doughnuts and juice in the basement of the church to pay any attention to the mass! As I got older, my parents stopped going to Church altogether, so obviously I did, too. As a parent I baptized my kids Catholic (because I was “supposed” to)–and put them all in Catholic School. I can only describe my Children’s love for Jesus Christ as beautiful and perfect. It was through their learning, that I became more interested in understanding the church myself. I attended RCIA classes and WOW- I learned so much! I remember one of the speakers one week talking about the beauty of the people in the RCIA classes as compared to many cradle Catholics–because we are wholly interested in a full understanding of the historical church…and the church post Vat II. I think there is new energy in the Catholic church that is fantastic.

Another reason for my newfound interest in my journey was several traumas in my life…and a reconnection with an old friend who witnessed to me through the Holy Spirit in such an amazing way…through the obvious peace and joy within her. She is a Christian–non-denominational. I now have a large number of friends through her and her church…and of course, my friends in my Catholic Church. I get the benefits of hearing where they come from, and we have some great conversations…and complete respect for our varying views. We all share a love for Jesus Christ–what can be wrong with that?

Anyway (I am rambling–so sorry)-my point is (yes there is a point)–that even they admit that over the years their church has gone back and forth on some issues…or that the different congregations they have attended over the years have held different beliefs about some things. Whoever it was that wrote about how we interpret things was right on. I do my best to read and understand scripture, and turn to my bible study teachers, my Deacon, my Priest for a better understanding. I will admit–sometimes I still dont get things…and I have to “wear them for a while.” But as long as we are focused on Him…I think He is thrilled that I am challenging myself and continuing to learn and grow.

BTW, the book The One Minute Apologist is a great read. It answered many questions for me and helps me answer many of the questions others have about my faith. In fact I think every question you had–whoever you were-about someone you knew who said they prayed to Mary and that there were different levels on Purgatory, etc…this would be a good read for you.

God Bless.

 

[macleod]

With Love, First off, thank you for replying to my post. I will definitely check out the links that you provided.

Too the First Part, Those who are in open heresy are opposed to the Christian Unity That Christ Desired for His Church (See John 17) The Gates Of Hell cannot over come Christ’s Church therefore Satan has to divides and Conquers.

Those who are in open heresy…. I like a saying I heard, one man’s heresy is another man’s doctrine. Seriously though, I do get a little confused on this, because my understanding is that there are many things that RCC can openly discuss and there is no final word on it as long as there is unity of faith on the essentials. That kinda leads into the next issue, the canard of 30,000 denominations. I have asked for someone to please send me a list of the 30 thousand separate on the essentials list of churches. Until that happens, y’all should stop using it. If you cant produce the list, then it is a tautology or mantra.

I read John 17, however, I am not seeing how this supports your response. Of course Jesus wants unity (which is why I felt the need to leave the RCC), but I think you are incorrectly assuming that the RCC is what he is talking about. Again, not wanting to get into this or that at this point (got a certification test that I am studying for).

Sorry if that sounded a bit rude, those things just bug me to no end (kinda like y’all being told you worship beads or the pope’s the antichrist or something).

Martin Luther could have reformed the Church from within, rather he chose to throw it all out and Start over. Only God knows the whats happened to Luther’s soul after he died.

Rather he chose… Wow. Hmm, why was he even upset with the unified church that Christ himself ordained and the holy spirit oversees? I’d really recommend you read the works of Luther from Luthor’s own hand and not a commentary. Might give you a slightly different perspective…or not.

The “only God knows…” is particularly concerning. Didn’t the 30 (don’t hold me to the number…speaking off the cuff) sum odd anathemas at least give y’all a good idea where Luthor is right now. Since these anathemas and other writings are from the one true church, you should be very confident in stating that Luthor is burning in hell right now…if I understand my RCC theology? Why would you leave this as a question?

Not sure if you posted this information later, but could you provide the official RCC teaching on its teachings? Thanks!

Qui est ce

That being said, Christian denominations, not in communion with the Catholic Christian Church, have a piece of the pie. Were it not for the Church, we would have no Bible, heritage, guardian of Truth upon which all Christianity rests, whether or not they believe in the Magesterium

Hooboy, where to start……

Can you point me to where it says what you are saying about being in communion that is the official RCC teaching. I’d like to get a list of the requirements for what this is or even give me some denominations that would be considered in communion and why?

Were it not for the Church, we would have no bible, heritage, guardian of truth, etc. . If by church, you mean community of believers, then I’d agree, however, I think you are trying to slide in the ole’ Roman Catholic Church to mean church that I was referencing in an earlier post. The history as I understand it is that the OT was pretty much a done deal from the get go at the time of the Christians (or “the way” folks if you want to keep it authentic), so you didn’t have squat to do with about ½ the bible. Now on to the 27 books of the NT. Those were completed well prior to 100 AD (trying to be very nice to any liberal that is out there). The majority of what is in the NT was accepted and was in circulation well before any councils took place. Now if you mean y’all made copies of it then I am on board, but I have a sneaking suspicion you are simply repeating the tautology of “the RCC gave the bible to everyone”.

As far as heritage and being the guardian of truth, I’d need you to really spell out what you mean because I don’t think that history is on your side taking your comments from a “broad stroke” perspective.

 

[macleod]

2nd half of my post…boy I am a yacker…

…Upon all which Christianity rests.

Come now, certainly not all. You just said that others have a slice. Comments like these give me that feeling that y’all just pay lip service to the “community of believers” that I hear from time to time.

There is baptism of desire. Muslims, and other non-Christians are not condemned because they do not have access to Christianity. We are not the judges.

Have you EVER read the muslim holy book? Anyone that knows the slightest thing about this knows that they deny that Jesus was God, that he was crucified, and that he was resurrected. The CENTRAL theme to the Christian faith. Jesus was a prophet. That does not square with the plain reading of scripture. Other “faiths” like buddihsm is atheist in nature. I admit, the late pope’s comments were good for PR, but certainly not with the teaching of Jesus or the scriptures.

We ARE called to judge. Please look up the verse that I know you will go to and read the entire section slowly. In context (and reading the entire thing) you’ll note that we are not to judge on the stuff that we are guilty on. Basically, we need to have our house clean before we go telling others they are wrong.

Also, haven’t you just made a judgment when you said that we are not to judge………

And you shouldn’t rely on what a person says the CCC teaches, because there are so many misconceptions!

Cool. I will do that with your comments and the other posters on this board. Who should I rely on then?

Church=Real Church Peter and the Rock, given the keys.

I’ll ignore my previous comment on this because this is from my readings Roman Catholic theology, LOL (trying to lighten the mood a bit)

Church=Catholic Christian. The rest are off-shoots, they contain some truth, but not FULL truth.

Then I read this…….I find this interesting, the RCC contains the FULL truth. What is the full truth, exactly? Where can I read the full truth documents so that I may be convinced of same. Why is it so hard to get to said full truth documents?

What I meant by going a little further on this quote:

To be outside of the Body of Christ is to be distant from Christ. But the Church Also teaches that Only God knows and Judges the hearts of those people who are apart from the Church by no fault of their own.

Is that it didn’t really answer the question of “outside the church there is no salvation” and what that meant. My understanding is that original sin separates us from God, the penalty for sin is death. We have all sinned and therefore God’s righteous decision is eternal separation. He extended his grace (something that we DO NOT DESERVE) and came down, became man, and took the punishment for our sin on himself. It says quite clearly that no one comes to the father except through Jesus. Jesus is the ONLY way. The bible teaches what is in the heart of man (I wont bore you with the scripture references). We ALL deserve condemnation.

So in taking with your comments, God knows our hearts (we are wicked). There is no such thing as a noble heathen? All fall short of the glory of God. Very plain, straight forward, and simple. I know its not good PR to tell people that they are going to hell, but it is what the bible teaches. It really seems that the bible speaks against what your church teaches on this matter.

Again, thank you all who replied. I apologize upfront if some of my comments sound uncharitable, they are NOT intended that way. I will respond to the other posters soon (studying for a test right now).

sola Fide
Cole 2:8

 

[With_Love]

I read John 17, however, I am not seeing how this supports your response. Of course Jesus wants unity (which is why I felt the need to leave the RCC), but I think you are incorrectly assuming that the RCC is what he is talking about. Again, not wanting to get into this or that at this point (got a certification test that I am studying for).

Sorry if that sounded a bit rude, those things just bug me to no end (kinda like y’all being told you worship beads or the pope’s the antichrist or something).

Rather he chose… Wow. Hmm, why was he even upset with the unified church that Christ himself ordained and the holy spirit oversees? I’d really recommend you read the works of Luther from Luthor’s own hand and not a commentary. Might give you a slightly different perspective…or not.

The “only God knows…” is particularly concerning. Didn’t the 30 (don’t hold me to the number…speaking off the cuff) sum odd anathemas at least give y’all a good idea where Luthor is right now. Since these anathemas and other writings are from the one true church, you should be very confident in stating that Luthor is burning in hell right now…if I understand my RCC theology? Why would you leave this as a question?

Not sure if you posted this information later, but could you provide the official RCC teaching on its teachings? Thanks!

Good Luck on your test, I’m studying for one too (A&P).
I think Ephesians 4:4-6 also expresses the oneness of the faith. The Catholic Church has thousands of canonized Saints, but it had no Canonized Sinners. Not Luther, Hitler, or even Judas Iscariot. Only God knows our heart.
The Church declares anathemas to guide Christians in the way of truth. If you saw a road sign that said slow down, you could follow the sign and safely continue driving. If you don’t you are in increased danger of getting injured or injuring others. That is the way I view anathemas.
1 Corinthians 16:22 says the following “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.”, A Christian should follow that teaching.
The Holy Spirit inspired Paul, an Apostle of the Church, to make such a declaration. If the Holy Spirit continues to inspire the church today, why shouldn’t we follow the its warnings and anathemas?

 

[iamrefreshed]

I know catechesis for the past 30-35 years in the Catholic Church has been not very good to say the least. And there are definitely signs that it is getting better—this forum being one of them! My question, though, is why do ex-Catholics who have been to a Catholic elementary school believe that they know everything about the church? Even college graduates will pontificate about what the Church supposedly teaches because they went to Catholic elementary school. But obviously they felt the need for continued study in their secular careers— So what’s up here?

Personally I think that, for many, it is a matter of choosing their sin over the church.

It is much easier to chage religions so one can contracept, abort or live a gay lifestyle.

The true battle is obedience to church teachings over our desire to live sinfully.

 

[macleod]

I am going for my Project+ certification. Been studying like mad for the last few months…unfortunately at the expense of keeping in the word as much as I would like and fellowship with other believers.

I think Ephesians 4:4-6 also expresses the oneness of the faith. The Catholic Church has thousands of canonized Saints, but it had no Canonized Sinners. Not Luther, Hitler, or even Judas Iscariot. Only God knows our heart.

I do agree with the passage and if that is the case then there should be one large group of believers not the 30k denominations that are divided by satan that was stated earlier. We are just one happy family that have some differences, none of which make anyone better than the other…we are all equal pieces of the large pie (as one poster put it). Now, if this is how the RCC acted, we’d be done, but its not. It sounds like you have a good Christian understanding of what is required to be with the father. I dont think the RCC would agree with you though. This is why I want to see the official documents.

As far as not having canonized Sinners. Couldnt disagree more. we are ALL sinners (btw, we are all saints, the RCC does nothing for that). The RCC canonized folks that were already saved by JC’s once for all sacrifice and it had no impact on anything the other side of heaven.

God knows the heart…that is why he had to come down in the person of Jesus Christ and pay for all our sins. The bible does give some good detail on what God thinks of us morally and what is in our hearts. Sad to say (for me at least) he is 110% right (as usual) on all counts.

The Church declares anathemas to guide Christians in the way of truth. If you saw a road sign that said slow down, you could follow the sign and safely continue driving. If you don’t you are in increased danger of getting injured or injuring others. That is the way I view anathemas.
1 Corinthians 16:22 says the following “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.”, A Christian should follow that teaching.

My NASB just says Anathema (doesnt include Maranatha…but anyway), but the definition of anthema is a CURSE. this is far different than how you view anathemas (which is why I want to official RCC teaching on anathemas". Most RCC today like to downplay the word “anathema”, turning it into “correcting children”, but the facts are that when the RCC makes an anathema they are cursing the person. time doesnt permit me to do a long rundown of the RCC anathema process and what it entails and means, but suffice it to say, it aint no slap on the wrist.

The Holy Spirit inspired Paul, an Apostle of the Church, to make such a declaration. If the Holy Spirit continues to inspire the church today, why shouldn’t we follow the its warnings and anathemas?

I am not sure how you can make a scripture reference and then equate it to road signs. Paul’s rare (I believe anathema is said once or at least sparingly) anathema was meant to be VERY serious, a condemnation, not what you are saying it is. Again this goes back to looking at what official RCC teachings are on the matter.

Could you tell me the official documents you are getting this information from because I have what I believe to be official documents that state otherwise.

sola Fide
Col 2:8

 

[Mannyfit75]

If those who remain faithful are correct, and also if one can be condemned to hell for an imperfection, defect, or lack he or she has no control over. I like to think the Christian portrayal of God is a little more merciful than that.

If they are imperfect and their sin is not deadly, they are saved and may spend time in Purgatory, ultimately these souls will go to heaven. This is act of God’s mercy.

Faithful Catholic Christians if they are obedient to God’s commandment and obey it with love, they will gain heaven. Why? They are living their faith.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Macleod,

I’m not sure what you are looking for to understand the RCC teaching, but you could start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

If you want a simplified version Karl Keating (of this website) has a good layman’s book called What Catholic’s Really Believe.

Good luck in your search.