Can Catholics Profess that it is Christ Alone Who Saves?

[guanophore]

well if you know what the cc says than why are you asking me? Do you question my faith? I am a Catholic I believe what is in the CC.

The majority of people who claim to be Catholic do not believe or practice what is in the CCC.

Cranmer2010, I see that you are relatively new to CAF, so welcome and I hope that you will be able to learn what Catholics believe by continuing to ask questions. Questions are the beginning of understanding and enlightenment. In my initial reading of this thread I get a sense that you have a preconceived attitude towards Catholics. If my assessment is incorrect then I apologize.

However the initial question does seem a little loaded. A little bit of explanation as to why you wanted to ask the question may have diverted some “defensive” responses, and as you can see it has escalated into something that is now a bit too heated.

Unless there is an open and blatant assault on the Catholic faith, Let us Catholics not get into a heated finger pointing session but rather educate our brothers in Christ in the Catholic faith with kindness. I am sure if Cranmer2010 takes a moment to step back and review how this post started and progressed, he or she will see what I am talking about.

As MarkBrown stated in post #3, there have been many assumptions taught about Catholicism and the Catholic Church that were not in the Catechism and are not what Catholic believe.

Wm is correct.

Knowing exactly how it is we are to be saved is one of the most important questions I could ever think of. That’s why…

Indeed it is, but if you take Wm.'s advice, and reread the fruits of your labor here, you can easily see that the form of your question produced a defensiveness that does not really meet your ulitmate need.

For Catholics, salvastion is much more than the fact that Christ alone saves us. So, even if everyone answers according to Catholic teaching in the affirmative in this thread, you would still not have the answer to your inquiry of “how” He does this. We believe that He does it by working salvation out within us through the good works that He has prepared before hand, for us to walk in it.

 

[guanophore]

I asked an honest question in which nobody has yet given a Catechism backed answer to

This is not true, Cranmer. I saw at least two posts that referenced the Catechism, and you responded “thanks, but I know what it says”. You asserted that you wanted individual opinions, not what the Catechism states. Now, you are complaining that you are not gettting
catechism backed answers, which is not accurate. In fact, a link to the CCC is a couple posts up from this post!

Maybe you really don’t know what you are looking for?

. Catholicism professes Mary to be co-redemptrix of souls and co-mediatrix with Christ which would make Jesus not soley the redeemer of souls and Mary a mediator with Christ. Is this not correct?

actually, no, this is not a Catholic Dogma. However, Mary’s role in salvation exists ONLY because Christ mediated salvation for us on the cross. She participated in His earthly ministry from the moment of His conception until his Ascension. She is the only human being who did this …who could do this. She participated along with HIm by His grace, through faith.

Jesus mediated salvation by giving His flesh and blood for the life of the world. He is the passover Lamb, who was slain for our sins. There is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved.

 

[guanophore]

My problem with that is that Scripture tells us that there is no other name than Christ by which we are saved, so why does Mary or anyone else have to be mentioned in this aspect. We all who are saved cooperate with Christ, not as part of our Salvation, but because of it.

Yes, it is only by His Name, and His sprinkled blood that we are saved. but we are not saved in isolation from one another. You can see in Chap. 11 of Heb. a long accounting of those who have gone before us in the faith and a summary of who it is we participate with in salvation:

Heb.12
[1] Therefore, since we are surrounded by [SIGN]so great a cloud of witnesses,[/SIGN] let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us,
[2] looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.
[3] Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted. …
[12] Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees,
[13] and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed.
[14] Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. …
[22] But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering,
[23] and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
[24] and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel.

All the assembly of the firstborn already enrolled in heaven are participants also.

And you will notice in this passage we are commanded to “strive for holiness, without which no man shall see God”. If you are honest, you will be able to recognized that just because you have been justified by faith, you have not been perfected yet in holiness. It is your good works that bring this about, which is why they are necessary for salvation.

 

[guanophore]

Yep, same as your Catholic church

So if you know that Catholics can profess beliefs that are inconsistent with the Catholic faith, what is the point of your question? You don’t seem to be satisfied with our response from the catechism that is “yes” to your question.

Are you trying to locate persons here on CAF that profess to be Catholic, but do not espouse the Catholic faith?

You are stereotyping all Anglicans to be like a small handful.  Your whole predisposition is a false one.

No, Cranmer, you seemed to misunderstand what she said:

She is talking about those fellow Anglican’s in the pew who espouse doctrines that are contrary to the faith. You have already admitted they were there in the pew, so the premise is a valid one.

Besides, predisposition is a quality of character, and hers is stellar.

 

[Cranmer2010]

She is talking about those fellow Anglican’s in the pew who espouse doctrines that are contrary to the faith. You have already admitted they were there in the pew, so the premise is a valid one.

She obviously doesn’t understand the fact that it would be quite rare given the present scenario in our particular church to have both kinds of opinions together. She seems to be thriving on the idea of there always being differing opinions and beliefs regarding church doctrine for Protestants, but not being viewed in the same fashion for Catholics. It’s a false dicotomy period.

 

[guanophore]

I am well aware of that. Why can’t that courtesy be extended to Protestants?

Did you think by being discourteous toward us you would inflame our passion for courtesy?

Why can’t Catholics acknowledge that other churches have doctrines that not all of their members adhere to as well.

It is true that many Catholics are unfamiliar with the creeds and doctrinal statements of most of our separated brethren. But there are also a myriad of “bible churches” that dont’ have any affinity, any formal doctrinal statements, or creeds. They think they believe “what the bible teaches”.

Many Catholics especially here on CAF like to portrait Protestant churches as being either wishy washy or believe as you will when the problem is actually the same as what takes place in Catholic churches.

Yes, there are certainly many protestants that have formal doctrines of the faith that they disregard, just like Catholics do.

It is not the same, however. Catholicism has a Church that cannot err in teaching, so that it becomes very clear who is in rebellion. I don’t know of any of our separated brethren who claim to have an infallible authority. They claim the bible takes that place, but this is not accurate.

Anyway, it does not really matter what other Protestants do. It matters what YOU do. Are you faithful to all that your church believes and teaches? If not, why not? You are not requred to answer these questions here, but there is some reason you are here at CAF.

**

Cranmer2010:
I went to mass once when the priest told the parishioners, and I quote,“praying to Jesus would not do you any good whatsoever.”**

This may be quite true if one is in a state of mortal sin, unless it is a prayer of repentance.

I have heard priests say all kinds of strange things during the Mass. Sometimes they don’t represent the doctrine of the faith very well either.

 

[Cranmer2010]

Did you think by being discourteous toward us you would inflame our passion for courtesy?

I wasn’t being discourteous. I was merely pointing out observations.

It is true that many Catholics are unfamiliar with the creeds and doctrinal statements of most of our separated brethren. But there are also a myriad of “bible churches” that dont’ have any affinity, any formal doctrinal statements, or creeds. They think they believe “what the bible teaches”.

 

[guanophore]

How do you know what I am assuming? I asked a question.

You said you were already familiar with the Catechism, and that you know more about Catholicism than most Catholics in the pews.

If this is the case, and I have no reason to doubt your word, then you already KNOW the answer to the question in the OP.

Therefore, your reason for asking it is other than wanting to know the answer, which you already have.

Such an approach is a perfectly servicable apologetic technique, but it contains certain assumptions.

God could have chosen an infinite number of ways for the Word to be made flesh. Why be encapsulated by the means by which he chose versus why he did it?

Becasue He did not choose any other. Therefore, we receive that the manner He chose has great significance to us. Why not be encapsulated by His means? What else is there, under the earth or over it, by which any passionate Christian would wish to be encapsulated? If we are not in God’s capsule, what is there left?

He chose to be born of a woman, of Mary. He chose her from among women, and did great things for her. How can we not appreciate that?

 

[wisdomseeker]

She obviously doesn’t understand the fact that it would be quite rare given the present scenario in our particular church to have both kinds of opinions together. She seems to be thriving on the idea of there always being differing opinions and beliefs regarding church doctrine for Protestants, but not being viewed in the same fashion for Catholics. It’s a false dicotomy period.

except that in your community it is not just differing opinions, they actually are realities. women are bishops, priestesess. gay married bishops and so forth. they actually do it. it is not just an opinion.

 

[Cranmer2010]

except that in your community it is not just differing opinions, they actually are realities. women are bishops, priestesess. gay married bishops and so forth. they actually do it. it is not just an opinion.

I think you are mistaken, I am ACNA, not Episcopal. No gay clergy in my neck of the woods.

 

[wisdomseeker]

You said you were already familiar with the Catechism, and that you know more about Catholicism than most Catholics in the pews.

If this is the case, and I have no reason to doubt your word, then you already KNOW the answer to the question in the OP.

Therefore, your reason for asking it is other than wanting to know the answer, which you already have.

Such an approach is a perfectly servicable apologetic technique, but it contains certain assumptions.

Becasue He did not choose any other. Therefore, we receive that the manner He chose has great significance to us. Why not be encapsulated by His means? What else is there, under the earth or over it, by which any passionate Christian would wish to be encapsulated? If we are not in God’s capsule, what is there left?

He chose to be born of a woman, of Mary. He chose her from among women, and did great things for her. How can we not appreciate that?

exactly. how can we not appreciate this woman? the Mother of God. how can you please God by despising His Mother?

if Elizabeth received holy Mother with such a devotion, how can we miserable people of such little faith be justified by despising this holy woman?

 

[wisdomseeker]

As an Anglican, I profess that it is by Christ alone that one is granted Salvation. Do Catholics profess this same thing?

i think the question should be. can the anglican church repent from their sins against God and return to the Faith of our Fathers in the CC?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I think you are mistaken, I am ACNA, not Episcopal. No gay clergy in my neck of the woods.

are you serious?

 

[guanophore]

That’s not what I’ve heard from the majority of Catholics I’ve spoken to.

Are you seriously wanting to determine what is Catholic by the expressions of those who fail to espouse and practice Catholic faith?

She obviously doesn’t understand the fact that it would be quite rare given the present scenario in our particular church to have both kinds of opinions together.

No, I should think not. The only Anglicans I have had dialogue with are here on CAF, adn it seems clear to me that there is a great spectrum of beliefs, and that this is tolerated.

I don’t think it is rare at all. I think people of differing opinions are in the pew next to one another every week.

What “present scenario” do you reference here?

When yo speak of yoru “particular church” you are speaking of your own parish?

She seems to be thriving on the idea of there always being differing opinions and beliefs regarding church doctrine for Protestants, but not being viewed in the same fashion for Catholics. It’s a false dicotomy period.

No, it is not a false dichotomy. It is not a dichotomy at all

She is not 'thriving" on the divisions that exist in the Body of Christ, I can assure you.

There are Catholics in the pew who have a spectrum of opinions. Some of them are very far from what the Catholic Church believes and teaches.

The same conditions exist in all ecclesial communities.

 

[KathleenGee]

Cranmer,

We don’t stress we are saved because that is a sin.

The whole of Catholicism speaks of Christ as Redeemer and Savior. But the Church makes a special emphasis on the Gospels…

This whole issue of Jesus Saves is moot unless we are dead. One who endures in the Lord to the very end is saved.

So for us to be stressing and rejoicing we are saved is a sin of presumption.

 

[guanophore]

I wasn't being discourteous. I was merely pointing out observations.

I was referring to the baiting OP.

You as many Catholics like to place all Protestants under one umbrella. I believe that you do this not out of ignorance, but out of arrogance.

You have misunderstood me, Cranmer. I do not do this. In fact, I have more extensive and varied experiences if Protestant communites than most of the Catholics here on CAF.

I think you will find that there are very few umbrellas that all of them can fit under.

However, if I do characterize them wrongly, it probably is out of ignorance, as I don’t claim to have a handle on every ecclesial community that exists. Studying them happens to be a hobby of mine.

Yes, there are certainly many protestants that have formal doctrines of the faith that they disregard, just like Catholics do.

So, what are we trying to accomplish in this thread? since we agree on this point, are you still going to attempt to define what the Catholic church professes by those who fail to do so?
"guanophore:

It is not the same, however. Catholicism has a Church that cannot err in teaching, so that it becomes very clear who is in rebellion. I don’t know of any of our separated brethren who claim to have an infallible authority. They claim the bible takes that place, but this is not accurate.

Can you prove that it is ONLY the Catholic church who is placed exclusively in this light of never being subject to error? Can you claim infallibility as well?

Jesus only founded One Church. It is to that One Church He granted the gift of infallibility. Members of that Church can benefit from the gift of infallibility to the extent they are in unity with the One Church.

It is the doctrine that is infallible, not the people.

 Again, it was not dogma of Catholicism until the late 19th century. It doesn't correlate with the entire predisposition of your faith. Sorry.

You are suffering a false premise, Cranmer. You cannot seem to shake off the idea that doctrines cannot be created by the Church. Doctrine is handed down to us from the Apostles. Later definitions do not change the doctrine that was passed down to us. Don’t you think the Apostles knew that Mary had no other children? Don’t you think they knew she was pure?

Dogma is declared in the face of rampant heresy. Take the Trinity for example. Are you really going to purport that the Apostles did not believe in the Trinity?

** I believe and adhere to the 39 Articles of Religion.

**

Then by them you will be judged, and not that only, but also that you have been informed that these are a departure to some extent to what the Apostles believed and taught, and that you have refused to enter the fullness of the faith.
Cranmer2010;6951458:

Oh come on. This is really grabbing at straws. Just admit that you suffer from the same lack of unity as other churches. You are not immune.

The unity, Cranmer, is in the doctrine. We do not define unity by those who depart from it. The majority of Modern American Catholics live in a state of mortal sin, and rebellion against the authority appointed by Christ. We do not define Truth according to the actions of those who depart from it.

SO then how do you label it? You would be quick to label Protestant churches as heretical or in a state of disunity, would you be willing to do so in your own church and if not, why not? Not being able to err is not an acceptable answer either.

I don 't generally find labels very useful, to tell you the truth. I also don’t believe that most Protestants qualify for the term “heretic”, since most of them have never known the Truth. They have received a truncated version of Christianity, and many live as precisely as they know how to what they believe is true.

There are plenty of Catholics in a state of disunity. Some don’t even realize that they are not.

If I had to label such Catholics, I would say they are actually Protestants that don’t realize they have become separated from the Church founded by Christ through mortal sin and disobedience to the authority He appointed. I used to be one of them.

Are there heretics that call themselves Catholic? Probably. I have met very few. Most of them that hold heretical beliefs do so in abject ignorance. I would call them “poorly catechized” rather than heretics.

Why is not being able to err unacceptable? Do you think it is part of God’s plan that we get off track?

 

[Cranmer2010]

Hi Cramer

Luke Chapter one details quite a bit of Mary, unfortunately we cannot ask Luke, so we must rely on the most ancient,Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Church instituted by Christ, and given the keys to the Kingdom.

 

[Cranmer2010]

While it is closer to the Apostolic teaching than some of the beliefs of our Reformed brethren, this perception is still deficient.

We are not saved on the basis of good works, but on the basis of grace, through faith. The works that He prepared beforehand, however, are part and parcel of that salvation. Salvation begins when we are justified (placed in right relationship with God) through repentance and baptism. This is the initiation or beginnning of our walk with Him, through which we are sanctified. The good works that we are to do as part of our sanctification help us to grow in holiness, and produce evangelization. These things are not separated from initial justification.

This is not far from my view.

 

[Cranmer2010]

i think the question should be. can the anglican church repent from their sins against God and return to the Faith of our Fathers in the CC?

I think that this is uncalled for. It’s uncharitable and mean. We could get into the Inquisitions and the child sex abuse by Catholic clergy and make a war out of it but why?

 

[Belloc_Fan]

are you serious?

He’s right. ACNA split off from the Episcopal Church USA and Anglican Church of Canada – they’re the North American conservative wing of the Anglican Communion. Their website is pretty blatant in its denunciation of liberal Anglicans, even in telling its own history:
anglicanchurch.net/?/main/page/about#history

Within the ACNA, as I understand, there’s a low-church (Evangelical) wing, and a high-church (Anglo-Catholic) wing. The Evangelicals desire Anglicanism as it existed under Cranmer (and given the OP’s handle, we can tell where he lies), while the Anglo-Catholics like Anglicanism under the early days of Henry VIII (Catholicism with a different leader, and more relaxed rules in particular areas), or the Anglicanism which Pusey and Newman aspired to (before Newman’s jump, of course).

As a distinct body, the ACNA’s entire history seems to an outsider to be one of trying to balance competing interests: should womenpriests be allowed? How must should to rely upon the 39 Articles? The uniting thread is an opposition to the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals, since that’s one thing which orthodox Catholics, Evangelicals, and every imitation or hybrid thereof can agree upon. But whatever internal and not-so-internal problems ACNA is having, openly gay clergy is the one we can safely conclude they’re not having.