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

[macleod]

I am refreshed, thank you for responding.

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.

Well, as I think I have demonstrated, people will speak as an authority for the Roman church, however, I have found seemingly contradictory statements. I have heard “no one outside the church (church meaning Roman Catholic) will be saved” as the official position and then heard “it only means people that are in full communion with the RCC” to “God only knows”. Surely, there is an officially document that says what the church’s official position is.

Here’s another example “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.”

This means that NO one is going because we all fall short…that is why we need a savior. Surely the official RCC position will state that Jesus Christ is how we will get to heaven, not by obeying God’s commandments. He paid for our sins. We did NOTHING. we DESERVE eternal separation.

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

I’ve read Karl’s stuff and I would prefer to read it from the source.

I own the most recent CCC. So there is no other equally authoritative set of documents that I would speak with that will state the Roman Church’s position on what you believe. If it is the only one then great I have what I needed all along and can disregard what folks’s personal interpretation on this site and in conversations are.

 

[Morning_Sun]

Anathema Defined:

Highlighted are what some anti-Catholics believe, and the Catholic answers follow.

1. An anathema sentenced a person to hell.
   a. This is not the case. Sentencing someone to hell is a power that is God’s alone, and the Church cannot exercise it.
2. An anathema was a sure sign that a person would go to hell.
   a. Again, not true. Anathemas were only warranted by very grave sins, but there was no reason why the offender could not repent, and those who repent aren’t damned.
3. An anathema was a sure sign that a person was not in a state of grace.
   a. This is not true for two reasons: (a) The person may have repented since the time the anathema was issued, and (b) the person may not have been in a state of mortal sin at the time the anathema was issued.

Anathemas—like penalties imposed under civil law—rest on the judgment of the court, which must make its decision based on the evidence presented. It cannot directly examine the conscience of the individual in question. Thus, while anathemas were imposed on account of gravely sinful behavior, this was not a guarantee that it was mortally sinful. For a grave sin to become mortal, it must be performed with the requisite knowledge and consent, and while an offender might have given every appearance of these conditions, they might not be there in reality—e.g., through a hidden cognitive or volitional impediment.

1. Anathemas were meant to harm the offender.
   a. No. Anathemas were simply a major excommunication performed with a special papal ceremony, and, like all excommunications, their intent was medicinal, not punitive. The goal was to protect the Christian community from the spread of evil doctrines or behaviors and to prompt the individual to recognize the nature of his actions. While being deprived of the fellowship of the Church is not pleasant, this does not change the fact that the fundamental orientation of excommunications and anathemas is medicinal, not punitive.
2. Anathemas took effect automatically.
   a. While the Church does have penalties that take effect automatically (latae sententiae), the penalty of anathema was not one of them.

This should be obvious from the fact that a special pontifical ceremony had to be performed as part of the anathema. Obviously, the mere fact that someone utters a heresy in some part of the world does not cause the pope to suddenly stop what he is doing and perform a specific ritual concerning this person.

The anathemas of Trent and other councils were like most penalties of civil law, which only take effect through the judicial process. If the civil law prescribes imprisonment for a particular offense, those who commit it do not suddenly appear in jail. Likewise, when ecclesiastical law prescribed an anathema for a particular offense, those who committed it had to wait until the judicial process was complete before the anathema took effect.

1. Anathemas applied to all Protestants.
   a. The absurdity of this charge is obvious from the fact that anathemas did not take effect automatically. The limited number of hours in the day by itself would guarantee that only a handful of Protestants ever could have been anathematized. In practice the penalty tended to be applied only to notorious Catholic offenders who made a pretense of staying within the Catholic community.
2. Anathemas are still in place today.
   a. This is the single most common falsehood one encounters regarding anathemas in the writings of anti-Catholics. They aren’t in place today. The penalty was employed so infrequently over the course of history that it is doubtful that anyone under an anathema was alive when the new Code of Canon Law came out in 1983, when even the penalty itself was abolished.
3. The Church cannot retract its anathemas.
   a. Anti-Catholics love to repeat this falsehood for rhetorical flourish. But again, it isn’t true. The Church is free to abolish any penalty of ecclesiastical law it wants to, and it did abolish this one.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I am refreshed, thank you for responding.

I own the most recent CCC. So there is no other equally authoritative set of documents that I would speak with that will state the Roman Church’s position on what you believe. If it is the only one then great I have what I needed all along and can disregard what folks’s personal interpretation on this site and in conversations are.

Much like politics people will interpret religion to fit their own agenda.

The CCC should be used as ‘official’ church teaching.

However, don’t make the mistake of trying to bend it to fit pre-conceived notions as many will do.

Obedience is a very important part of our faith and unfortunately one that is often ignored out of ‘convenience’.

Good luck in your searching.

 

[maryj]

I am refreshed, thank you for responding.

Well, as I think I have demonstrated, people will speak as an authority for the Roman church, however, I have found seemingly contradictory statements. I have heard “no one outside the church (church meaning Roman Catholic) will be saved” as the official position and then heard “it only means people that are in full communion with the RCC” to “God only knows”. Surely, there is an officially document that says what the church’s official position is.

Here’s another example “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.”

This means that NO one is going because we all fall short…that is why we need a savior. Surely the official RCC position will state that Jesus Christ is how we will get to heaven, not by obeying God’s commandments. He paid for our sins. We did NOTHING. we DESERVE eternal separation.

I’ve read Karl’s stuff and I would prefer to read it from the source.

I own the most recent CCC. So there is no other equally authoritative set of documents that I would speak with that will state the Roman Church’s position on what you believe. If it is the only one then great I have what I needed all along and can disregard what folks’s personal interpretation on this site and in conversations are.

Could be this is what you are looking for. Probably the most important document to come out of the Second Vatican Council was Lumen Gentium (the “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”) which ws promulgated in 1964. Lumen Gentium is perhaps the most comprehensive modern document on the subject. Try reading Lumen Gentium 14. If you are saved, Catholic or not, it is because of the graces that flow from the Catholic chuch, the mystical body of Christ on earth. hope that helps. good luck on your search.

 

[macleod]

If you are saved, Catholic or not, it is because of the graces that flow from the Catholic chuch, the mystical body of Christ on earth. hope that helps. good luck on your search.

No, it is because God came down in the person of Jesus Christ and paid for my sins. The Roman church had NOTHING to do with it and I hope that this is not the official RCC teaching.

Although I do admit you are now sounding the like the Roman Catholics that I am use to speaking with

 

[exoflare]

No, it is because God came down in the person of Jesus Christ and paid for my sins.

false dichotomy

 

[Mannyfit75]

No, it is because God came down in the person of Jesus Christ and paid for my sins. The Roman church had NOTHING to do with it and I hope that this is not the official RCC teaching.

Although I do admit you are now sounding the like the Roman Catholics that I am use to speaking with

In the fullness of time, God came to us. The Word became flesh born of a woman. He lived, was put to death, and rose from the dead. He also established One Church upon Peter and his Apostles.

Jesus gave us an authoritative Church. In the Church we receive the Sacraments Seven of them, baptism, confirmation, holy communion, penance, holy matrimony, holy orders, and holy orders.

The first four are important. In baptism we are saved, in confirmation, we renew and are confirm in our faith.

Baptism, like Confirmation and Holy Orders, places an indelible character or mark on the human soul that God can see, which remains visible for all eternity. In baptism we become members of the Church, the Body of Christ. Jesus as the Head. The Catholic Church has plenty to do with us being saved.

The CC does believed died for our sins. His death on the cross destroyed our death in sin, and his resurrection restored our life. However, the sins which we have not committed has not been forgiven. We have to repent and have them forgiven.

 

[macleod]

The first four are important. In baptism we are saved, in confirmation, we renew and are confirm in our faith.

So, the official RCC teaching is that the act of getting baptised is what saves you from eternal separation? I always thought that it was Jesus Christ who saved us? What part then did Jesus play in the plan?

The Catholic Church has plenty to do with us being saved.

Are you saying that the official RCC teaching is that the Catholic church is what does the saving?

However, the sins which we have not committed has not been forgiven. We have to repent and have them forgiven.

What about the whole “it is finished” that he said or the scriptural references to one sacrifice for all sin, etc.? Why do we have to repent to have them forgiven? If we dont turn from the (I assume) mortal sin, then we are doomed to eternal separation. I mean, if he died 2 thousand years ago, by this formula, how could he even pay for my present sin (at the time I got baptized), but then cant/wont handle the future ones? I am sure that when I read the Lumen Gentium 14 and the CCC, I will get those answered from the RCC perspective.

 

[iamrefreshed]

So, the official RCC teaching is that the act of getting baptised is what saves you from eternal separation? I always thought that it was Jesus Christ who saved us? What part then did Jesus play in the plan?

Are you saying that the official RCC teaching is that the Catholic church is what does the saving?

What about the whole “it is finished” that he said or the scriptural references to one sacrifice for all sin, etc.? Why do we have to repent to have them forgiven? If we dont turn from the (I assume) mortal sin, then we are doomed to eternal separation. I mean, if he died 2 thousand years ago, by this formula, how could he even pay for my present sin (at the time I got baptized), but then cant/wont handle the future ones? I am sure that when I read the Lumen Gentium 14 and the CCC, I will get those answered from the RCC perspective.

I thought you were looking for the source of RCC beliefs? It looks more like you came to provoke a debate?

My bad for taking you at face value.

 

[macleod]

Oh boy…here we go…

What I was told when I asked RCC’s in the past was that it WAS Jesus Christ who saved us. You, however, are saying that that it is the RCC that is saving us.
that is why I asked "Are you saying that the official RCC teaching is that the Catholic church is what does the saving? "

Why do you think I also wrote “I am sure that when I read the Lumen Gentium 14 and the CCC, I will get those answered from the RCC perspective.”

It looks like I do have an answer to my question (and I think y’all have an answer to “as an ex-catholic do you really know what the church teaches” )

I just printed out the document and after my cert is in my hand I will read through it as well as the CCC. Thanks to all who provided valuable (name removed by moderator)ut.

sola fide
col 2:8

 

[estesbob]

Oh boy…here we go…

What I was told when I asked RCC’s in the past was that it WAS Jesus Christ who saved us. You, however, are saying that that it is the RCC that is saving us.
that is why I asked "Are you saying that the official RCC teaching is that the Catholic church is what does the saving? "

Why do you think I also wrote “I am sure that when I read the Lumen Gentium 14 and the CCC, I will get those answered from the RCC perspective.”

It looks like I do have an answer to my question (and I think y’all have an answer to “as an ex-catholic do you really know what the church teaches” )

I just printed out the document and after my cert is in my hand I will read through it as well as the CCC. Thanks to all who provided valuable (name removed by moderator)ut.

sola fide
col 2:8

You cant seperate Jesus from his Church-they are one in the same. Thus when one says they are saved through Jesus Christ it is the same as saying the are saved thout the Church. From the Cathecism:

***830 **The word “catholic” means “universal,” in the sense of “according to the totality” or “in keeping with the whole.” The Church is catholic in a double sense: *

First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.” In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him “the fullness of the means of salvation” which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Oh boy…here we go…

What I was told when I asked RCC’s in the past was that it WAS Jesus Christ who saved us. You, however, are saying that that it is the RCC that is saving us.
that is why I asked "Are you saying that the official RCC teaching is that the Catholic church is what does the saving? "

Why do you think I also wrote “I am sure that when I read the Lumen Gentium 14 and the CCC, I will get those answered from the RCC perspective.”

It looks like I do have an answer to my question (and I think y’all have an answer to “as an ex-catholic do you really know what the church teaches” )

I just printed out the document and after my cert is in my hand I will read through it as well as the CCC. Thanks to all who provided valuable (name removed by moderator)ut.

sola fide
col 2:8

Not sure if you are speaking to me but I certainly did not answer any questions except where to get your answer (CCC).

After complaing about getting varying interpretations of RCC teachings you immediately started asking individuals again. This after you questioned where to look for the official answer (the answer I gave).

Sorry, but it seems like you are baiting.

 

[rtconstant]

So, the official RCC teaching is that the act of getting baptised is what saves you from eternal separation? I always thought that it was Jesus Christ who saved us? What part then did Jesus play in the plan?

Jesus sanctified the waters of Baptism by condescending to be baptized himself. He broke through space and time and allows us to follow Him into death and resurrection so that through His life, death and resurrection we may be born into enternal life.

Are you saying that the official RCC teaching is that the Catholic church is what does the saving?

Jesus Christ does the saving and the normative vehicle for that grace is through The Church that He established.

What about the whole “it is finished” that he said or the scriptural references to one sacrifice for all sin, etc.? Why do we have to repent to have them forgiven? If we dont turn from the (I assume) mortal sin, then we are doomed to eternal separation. I mean, if he died 2 thousand years ago, by this formula, how could he even pay for my present sin (at the time I got baptized), but then cant/wont handle the future ones? I am sure that when I read the Lumen Gentium 14 and the CCC, I will get those answered from the RCC perspective.

“It is finished” refers to the end of paschal sacrifice. It is the conclusion of the last Passover.

We repent because we are told to do so by Christ. We repent because we were further instructed by the Apostles to do so. As St. Paul instructed the Jews and Gentiles of Judea and Syria “…repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentence.” Jesus saves us and continues to save us as we try to live according to His instructions.

 

[LittleDeb]

“It is finished” refers to the end of paschal sacrifice. It is the conclusion of the last Passover.

And additionally, “It is finished” is not a very good translation in the first place. The Douay-Reims, based on the Latin Vulgate, translates it to, “It is consummated.” That word means more, ‘a completion that is also a beginning.’ I think it is more descriptive and so much more beautiful. Consummated takes it outside of time and treats it as an ‘all-consuming current relationship with Jesus’ rather than a race to the finish line.

You illustrate an important point in your post. Former Catholics seem to adopt the linear thinking perspective of the Protestant Reformation and current separated Christian communities.

 

[peary]

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

Did it ever occur to you to actually search what the Church teaches on these matters before you took anyone’s explanation ver batim, especially your sister-in-law?? LOL You did (and do) a great diservice to yourself for not searching out the Truth as to what the Church teaches and WHY She teaches what She teaches. Thank goodness the Holy Spirit has kept it pure in doctrine for the past 2,000 years, regardless of the knuckleheads who are supposed to know themselves.

 

[rtconstant]

And additionally, “It is finished” is not a very good translation in the first place. The Douay-Reims, based on the Latin Vulgate, translates it to, “It is consummated.” That word means more, ‘a completion that is also a beginning.’ I think it is more descriptive and so much more beautiful. Consummated takes it outside of time and treats it as an ‘all-consuming current relationship with Jesus’ rather than a race to the finish line.

You illustrate an important point in your post. Former Catholics seem to adopt the linear thinking perspective of the Protestant Reformation and current separated Christian communities.

Thanks for adding that. It is beautifully put.

 

[estesbob]

What about the whole “it is finished” that he said or the scriptural references to one sacrifice for all sin, etc.? e.

With all due respect this is a perfect example of the propensity of Protestants to pull a single verse out of Scripture and try and build a whole theology around it. Perhaps having spent a day being tortured beyond belief he was refering to that?

 

[macleod]

propensity of Protestants to pull a single verse out of Scripture and try and build a whole theology around it.

You have got to be kidding me. Roman Catholics are the masters at this nonsense (Matthew 16:18 ring a bell).

Ok, as I said in a post several months ago, I can only handle so much of this nonsense before I have to go away for a few months and recoup.

y’all can get the last words on all this.:banghead:

 

[exoflare]

I already told you… false dichotomy. You’re simply creating a mutually exclusive “either/or” scenario that doesn’t exist. It’s like saying “who created you - your parents or God?”

 

[maryj]

macleod:

Newman Apologetics Resource

Our redemption was not complete when He died. Paul states that “He was raised for our justification”. Christ our passover lamb has been sacrificed, let us therefore celebrate the feast" 1 Cor 5:7-8 what is this feast? I hope you will read this. God Bless.