Can Non-Catholics Be Saved?

[Randy_Carson]

Please clarify the Catholic Chuch’s position as you understand it.

Are saying that Muslims who knowingly deny the deity of Christ, and the Resurrection are “unknowingly united the the Church” and therefore capable of receiving salvation?

Muslims are monotheists and worship the same God that we do even though (like the Jews) they do not understand God to be a Trinity. Salvation is POSSIBLE; Muslims are not automatically and universally denied salvation.

Are you say the non-Catholic Protestants who knowingly reject all uniquely Catholic doctrines are “unknowingly united the the Church” and therefore capable of receiving salvation

Since Protestants share the baptism of Christ, they are united to the body of Christ and MAY be saved. Baptism does not guarantee anyone, Catholic or Protestant, entrance into heaven. I personally believe that most will be saved by their faith in Christ.

However, the scenario that you describe is more problematic since you have posed that the people in question have knowingly rejected the Catholic Church. The question probably hinges on exactly what they knew and why they rejected it.

I wouldn’t go to Vegas with these odds.

 

[RedBert]

Muslims are monotheists and worship the same God that we do even though (like the Jews) they do not understand God to be a Trinity. Salvation is POSSIBLE; Muslims are not automatically and universally denied salvation.

Since Protestants share the baptism of Christ, they are united to the body of Christ and MAY be saved. Baptism does not guarantee anyone, Catholic or Protestant, entrance into heaven. I personally believe that most will be saved by their faith in Christ.

However, the scenario that you describe is more problematic since you have posed that the people in question have knowingly rejected the Catholic Church. The question probably hinges on exactly what they knew and why they rejected it.

I wouldn’t go to Vegas with these odds.

From a salvation perspective only: what the purpose of the Catholic Church?

 

[RedBert]

Muslims are monotheists and worship the same God that we do even though (like the Jews) they do not understand God to be a Trinity. Salvation is POSSIBLE; Muslims are not automatically and universally denied salvation.

As a reference for discussion :
From the first page of
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=390318&highlight=salvation+outside

posts #2, 4,5, and 6 includes dozen and dozens of CLEARLY worded statements including many “ex cathedra” statements regarding NO salvation exists outside of the Catholic Church.

Are you in disagreement with these statemants?

 

[Randy_Carson]

As a reference for discussion :
From the first page of
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=390318&highlight=salvation+outside

posts #2, 4,5, and 6 includes dozen and dozens of CLEARLY worded statements including many “ex cathedra” statements regarding NO salvation exists outside of the Catholic Church.

Are you in disagreement with these statemants?

Of course not. I have already stated that no salvation exists outside the Church.

I have also stated that more people are connected to the Church that appears obvious. These are not contradictory statements.

The question, then, is whether you understand what it means to be outside the Church.

Try this:

NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH
By Father William G. Most**
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/EXTRAECC.TXT

The Necessity of Being Catholic
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

 

[arwenEvenstar]

insufficent data… i woiuld have to be God to know that…

a person must be Catholic to be saved… this could mean Catholic in his heart and/or Catholic formally, which is best, of course…

“catholic in his heart”? what the heck does that mean? How can a self-proclaimed Protestant be “catholic” in his heart? By Catholic, do you mean “righteous/moral”? I know many Atheists who live by a “moral code”…can they be “catholic in their hearts” too?

protesants spend more time in purgatory than Catholics…

so they should join the Church

Hey wouldn’t you HAVE to be God to know the above purgatory statement?



I wasn’t going to continue with this debate, but here i am again…

The spirit behind your words are very gavel-like, abrasive, Pharisaical and love-less. It’s very “us against them”. What i hear is this: "My faith is rattled if this code is questioned or even reconsidered. I have to accept this thing to be this way because if i don’t, other professing non-catholic Christians can possibly be right and if they are, even a little, then i am wrong and if i am wrong, this club that i belong to isn’t the only one where god presides. It is necessary for me to be right, there is no room for grey…only black and white…so, i have to be right because there’s no way God is not on MY side and my side alone.

What do we Catholics do with the thief on the cross account? The thief did simply 2 things…no good deeds, rites, or sacraments. He did 2 things of the heart which were rooted in humility: He repented and believed in his heart that this Jesus of Nazareth was the anointed messiah through whom eternal life could be had and absolution of sins attained. 1. Repented and 2. Believed.

For these 2 states of mind/heart: Christ declared: “today you will be with me in paradise”. Had this man lived, i believe he would have followed Christ, put “feet” to his repentance and changed his life of habitual sin. He would probably, through the grace of God, have lived a long life and died in Christ…i.e spent eternity with Christ in paradise. But that is not what happened: Without having the opportunity to be baptized or perform deeds, he died after merely repenting and believing…not understanding anything of doctrine, future church etc. He died and was “saved” from condemnation while still nailed to a cross.

The truth is this: “Man was not made for the sabbath, but the sabbath for man”. Nor did God make the Sabbath so that he could be locked into it himself. There are many “good” law-abiding Catholics who neither know or truly love Christ, but love the sense of righteousness they receive from belonging to a group that is “right” or in your words: “the best”. There are many inflexible protestants who know not have the love of Christ either…they spend their time militantly pointing fingers at those who are “wrong” and living in sin…spending too much time gathering up apolagetic “ammunition” rather than conveying “the good news” of Christ through word or deed. Unfortunately i see this legalistic mind set in both camps while the lost perish.

I won’t presume to know your heart since I’m not God, but, based on your tone, i get the impression you’ve never met a truly Christ-loving protestant and you seem to be looking at this from the outside in. That is, approaching it from a theoretical/intellectual point of view…From a law book, from a formula while staunchly ignoring individual hearts with unique experiences. You are not looking at individual lives and the experiences of those through whom Christ reveals himself to both in and outside the church.

In my experience, i have witnessed the following: Many self-proclaimed Christians (both catholic and protestants) fixated on the law, focused on the work and not on the reason or for whom they do what they do. They are hard workers, strict rule followers and feel it is their duty to declare the laws to those whom they deem ignorant of the TRUTH. they do not serve, wash feet, listen or show kindness as christ did, but rather pontificate and rectify the “unenlightened” as they perch on their piles of law books. They make “great” prosecutors/accusers when others fall out of line. They stand on the pillar of “righteous code” rather than on agape, grace, mercy and humility. Somehow, the person of Christ, the spirit of Christ, the fragrance of Christ is utterly missed.

Paul was one these people up until the Damascus trip pulled the rug right out from under his feet. The only group of people Christ condemned and went up against were the Pharisees and Sadducees…those who were the so called leaders/teachers/keepers of God’s law. He called them white-washed tombs among other things. Clean on the outside, dead on the inside.

 

[arwenEvenstar]

part 2

One of my favorite verses that captures the essence of the gospel are these words from our Savior: “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” (Matt.11:28)

Here he demonstrates the delicate balance and harmony between (heart) faith and (practical) works. The peaceful gentleness of humility coupled with the “light” burden of the yoke (work) through which we assist him in the “field work”. The 2 work in tandem: The “coming to him” followed by the ploughing of the field…both teacher and student, joined together by one yoke. Faith comes first, then works…work being a reflection of what the heart already treasures. It was not meant to be a mechanical work, but one that is organic and born out of the love that was revealed through the giver of love and faith. Empty words/promises are nothing, if one’s life does not change through habitual repentance which requires humility. This is called sanctification.

A protestant preacher once said these words that have stuck with me always…He said: “Ultimately, the only difference between believers and non believers is a continual state of repentance”. It made me think how humble that is…how untrue it is to think that just because we deem ourselves believers we have a monopoly on morality.

Now, in the case of the thief he attained salvation based soley on heart-felt repentance and genuine faith…he did not have the opportunity to back up that faith through works, but he was saved none the less.

 

[arwenEvenstar]

part 3

Faith without works is dead and works with out faith is dead. Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

Now, this brings me to my main point or the core area where protestants and Catholics constantly debate over and is actually the central issue that ushered in the schism in the first place. Firstly, (I’m paraphrasing), but i noticed that someone here said that Protestants think that as long as they say the “sinner’s prayer” or make that one-point-in-time proclamation of faith, they end up using it as a license to sin since the emphasis may be inevitably placed on grace/faith and not works. The once saved, always saved debate is even debated among the Protestants themselves, but that’s a whole other post.

I refer to this erroneous emphasis as “Fire insurance”. Interestingly enough, both groups tend to do this, but in opposite ways. How many Catholics have you known who live in sin, but seem to think that as long as they get absolution through confession, they can go back to their old ways until the next confession booth visit. That too is like a free ticket to continue to sin.

Now, this belief about the Protestant licence to sin thing is both right and wrong…i.e., for some, it is used as a license to sin and for others, it is not. I would say this license to sin tendency is seen more among the charismatic movements than the more conservative Protestant denominations. I’ve spent 20 yrs. among various Protestant denominations and also grew up in the Catholic Church (schools, sacraments, every Sunday masses etc). My unique point of view, I believe, gives me some ground to comment on both sides since I’ve lived and seen both sides. I often think of myself as the Catholic ambassador to the Protestants and vice versa. There is soooo much I can share, but I have to hold back and only focus on these 2 points: The faith and works debate and the issue of Salvation outside the Catholic church.

Example, I was baptized a Catholic, did my communion and confirmation. All sacred sacraments put in place for good reasons, but in my case, as it is for many young people, it was merely an empty tradition that I was forced to do by my parents. Not only did I not understand the gospel then, but I didn’t even care whether or not there was a God. It basically did nothing for my salvation. All it did was give my mother happiness and me misery for having to pose for pictures in those detestable outfits. As for baptism…well, I obviously wasn’t even conscience of what was being decided for me, which is why I’m a firm believer of adult baptism. But that’s a whole other issue. (but I do understand the catholic reasoning for it.)

Moving right along. After living a long life of sin, atheism and rebellion, in a moment of crisis, I cried out to God/Christ and he showed up. On that day, yes, on that ONE day, my journey began…a heart decision was made and literally, overnight, my life was changed. Like Paul, the scales fell off my eyes and my repentance led me to the first step of salvation. I then was drawn, by God (I believe), to a good church where I learned to put legs to my new found faith. It was a protestant church. I am convinced God drew me there for a number of reasons…that church contained a balance of very appealing ingredients that I needed at the time to nurture my faith. And guess what? It did! I learned that faith without a life of action/works was useless and vice versa. Not a perfect congregation, just as my current parish is imperfect. Anyway, once I fully understood the depths of the gospel, the cost of following Christ and the seriousness of living for god, I was then baptized. That day, that baptism, marked an important sacred decision…it was a sacrament God instituted for us and whether or not it was done in a Protestant or Catholic church mattered not to God.

Now, let me give you another example, my brother, whom I’m convinced tasted the goodness of god, understands the gospel and experienced miracles as well as having that “one day” conversion experience, unfortunately is now living in habitual sin. As a Protestant Christian, he was always going back and forth between holiness and habitual sin. I.E living like a Christian for a time, then relapsing and living like his old self. To this day, he believes the truth of the gospel, but in his heart, he is lost and far from holy living. He somehow bought the concept that grace is everything, which in turn, led him to the mind-set of fire insurance…a license to sin etc. I personally believe he used this concept as an excuse because, the mind justifies what the heart desires.

 

[arwenEvenstar]

part 4

My third example is my mother. A “Devout” Catholic since birth. Lived a very moral life, did all the right things the church expected of her. But guess what? she did not know Christ in her heart. What I mean by this is that she was so busy performing the rituals, being obedient etc, that somehow, the good news message of why Christ had to die for her, was completely missed, since the emphasis on works was so ingrained into her. She believed that she was going to heaven simply because she was catholic and lived a moral life. When I explained to her that salvation comes to us because Christ died for our sins and resurrected…and that this was the ultimate reason we are “saved”…her reaction wasn’t good. She was very self-righteous and her pride didn’t allow her to hear the truth. (I am convinced that a murderous, prostitute junkie submits to Christ faster than a devout self-righteous religious person.)Now, of course my mother knew Christ died, resurrected etc, but she somehow felt she could earn her salvation by doing good works and being part of the “right church”. “I’m already saved since I’m a Catholic" is what she said. In other words, her salvation was equivalent to belonging to the “right” group and doing the “right” things. Was she “saved”? No, she wasn’t. That’s not my conclusion, but hers later on, once she realized the fullness of the gospel story. She did spend some time in Protestant churches with me and there came to experience a more personal relationship with Christ and learned more about the bible, but now that she understands that, she has returned to Catholicism as I did.

I have known many nuns and priests who did not bear the fruits of the spirit and I have also known many protestant pastors and leaders who did not emit the fragrance of Christ. The one thing these 2 groups of people had in common was a Pharisaical mindset…a lot of works and no love…a lot of piety, sacrifice and self-righteousness, but no empathy and compassion. A lot of righteous indignation, but no mercy, grace or love. For those who think that Protestants tend to live “loosely” due to the grace/license to sin thing, they couldn’t be farther from the truth. Yes, admittedly many are, but I would say, most of the more conservative denominations actually live by a stricter moral code than most Catholics I have ever known. I’m not saying this is a good thing…on the contrary…it’s blatant legalism. When law/works are done without organic love, humility, mercy and grace, it is unchristian----contrary to Christ’s message and the very reason why Christ was so harsh on the Pharisees.

So here’s my point: Works without faith is dead and faith without works is dead. Whether Catholic or Protestant, salvation ULTIMATELY comes through both believing the gospel and living out the gospel. Both groups do this and both groups do not. The question whether who’s right and whose wrong is another matter. Can both be a little wrong and a little right on some issues? Is that possible? I pose that to both groups.

Now, the person who started this thread is basically saying (in my mind) that God is against the protestants since they rebelled/left the one true church, therefore god cannot preside among them. So his delemma is how can a Protestant-rebel be saved if God is against them and not submissive to the mother ship? His argument of salvation is based on the premise that salvation can ONLY come from belonging to the right church rather than on the bare bones gospel of christ. Christ is the head of the church, but the head has the authority to reveal his message to all people and yes, they can be saved even if they don’t return to the Catholic church. When it comes to the body, though i align myself to Catholicism, i consider my brothers and sisters in Christ to be ANYONE (within Christiandom) who genuinely believes in the core gospel, emits his fragrance and demonstrates his/her faith through their deeds. (i’m not referring to the cults such as Mormonism etc, since their definition of salvation etc is completely different)

I have returned to Catholicism for various reasons I won’t go into now, but if I happened to have died before returning to Catholicism I am certain I would have been saved. For someone to suggest that I would have gone to hell or purgatory had I died prior to entering the “one true church”, will be severely judged for that judgment. It’s presumptuous, arrogant and heartless. To say that my salvation will now be “completed” since I’ve now returned to Catholicism is obviously not understanding that it is Christ who ultimately saves. Which church’s doctrines is “true-er” or “right-er” or “best-est” is another matter and not that it’s not a worthy issue to discuss, but, for me, when it comes to the issue of salvation in this regard as started by the poster, it’s not an issue I care to waste my time with too much.

 

[arwenEvenstar]

part 5

One thing I do know with certainty is that Christ died to save my mortal soul, revealed this truth to me in a small room outside any one church, led me to repentance, organically, led me to live a habitually moral life and united me to the body of Christ That body exists in both churches…not in a building or in a book of doctrines…but in individual lives that God used to nurture my spiritual walk. My soul was resurrected 20 yrs. ago and, one day, so will my body. I am not a scholar, an intellectual or a saint, but I do know that I was created to love him and to love my neighbor as myself. For anyone to claim they were closer to salvation or to God than i, simply because they attended the “right church” while I was still a Protestant, will have to answer to god for that and I can’t wait to see the look of shock on their face when they find Christ-loving protestants sitting right next to them at the feast table in paradise. That goes for the Protestants too!

If only more true christian protestants and catholics really took the time to know one another, rather than debating doctrine, they would see how similar they really are. If they could share their love for christ with one another, a lot of minds would be changed and the world drawn to our demonstrative love and open hearts. Too much bad indoctrination and misconceptions on both sides keeps us divided. This grieves our lord sorely.

 

[Lampo]

Now, in the case of the thief he attained salvation based soley on heart-felt repentance and genuine faith…he did not have the opportunity to back up that faith through works, but he was saved none the less.

First, the good thief did do good works as he hung on the cross. He rebuked the bad thief. He expressed sorrow for his sins. He also expressed a desire to be with Jesus in His kingdom. So the good thief had a conversion of heart, and persevered in faith and good works to the end of his life, and Christ rewarded him with eternal salvation. Second, the Church has taught for 2,000 years that there are three ways to be baptized: by water, by desire and by blood. In this case, the good thief had a baptism of desire (by expressing his desire to be with Christ, even though it was presumably too late for a water baptism; this is also the reason why we can believe infants who die before baptism can go to heaven, based on the parents desire to baptize them, but for some intervening cause that prevented it). Martyrs who were not baptized in water and the Spirit, but martyred for Christ, are baptized by blood (i.e., the Holy Innocents). So water baptism is a normative, but not an absolute necessity for salvation. I hope that helps.

 

[paul_c]

part 5

One thing I do know with certainty is that Christ died to save my mortal soul, revealed this truth to me in a small room outside any one church, led me to repentance, organically, led me to live a habitually moral life and united me to the body of Christ That body exists in both churches…not in a building or in a book of doctrines…but in individual lives that God used to nurture my spiritual walk. My soul was resurrected 20 yrs. ago and, one day, so will my body. I am not a scholar, an intellectual or a saint, but I do know that I was created to love him and to love my neighbor as myself. For anyone to claim they were closer to salvation or to God than i, simply because they attended the “right church” while I was still a Protestant, will have to answer to god for that and I can’t wait to see the look of shock on their face when they find Christ-loving protestants sitting right next to them at the feast table in paradise. That goes for the Protestants too!

If only more true christian protestants and catholics really took the time to know one another, rather than debating doctrine, they would see how similar they really are. If they could share their love for christ with one another, a lot of minds would be changed and the world drawn to our demonstrative love and open hearts. Too much bad indoctrination and misconceptions on both sides keeps us divided. This grieves our lord sorely.

I agree with this in general. Devout Catholics and devout Protestants probably act in very similar fashion toward their neighbors.

How do you value the sacraments, however? Do you see their value or do you think they are inconsequential in the economy of salvation? Because that is the biggest differentiator between catholics and non-Catholics…

 

[joe370]

Please clarify the Catholic Chuch’s position as you understand it.

Are saying that Muslims who knowingly deny the deity of Christ, and the Resurrection are “unknowingly united the the Church” and therefore capable of receiving salvation?

Are you say the non-Catholic Protestants who knowingly reject all uniquely Catholic doctrines are “unknowingly united the the Church” and therefore capable of receiving salvation

Redbert, tell me, as you understand it: are all non-Christians who reject Jesus Christ based on familial upbringing and training, (such as die-hard Jews) - capable of receiving salvation?

Are Catholics who knowingly reject all uniquely Protestant teachings, eg - sola scriptura is the Christians one and only authority regarding faith and morals, faith without works is NOT dead, the bread and wine are mere symbols of Jesus’ flesh and blood and do NOT become true food and true drink of our Lord and Savior, Mary was not immaculately conceived - unknowingly united to Jesus’ one Church and therefore capable of receiving salvation?

 

[joe370]

**Redbert, would I still be saved if I started my own church and re-defined the Trinity to the point where it contravened the Protestant/Catholic church belief, just as Protestants have re-defined the Eucharist to the point where it contravenes the Catholic/Eastern orthodox church belief?

Could I rightfully claim that my 21st century man-made church was part of Jesus’ Body, the catholic church, small c, to which He is the head and Savior? **

 

[RedBert]

Redbert, would I still be saved if I started my own church and re-defined the Trinity to the point where it contravened the Protestant/Catholic church belief, just as Protestants have re-defined the Eucharist to the point where it contravenes the Catholic/Eastern orthodox church belief?

Could I rightfully claim that my 21st century man-made church was part of Jesus’ Body, the catholic church, small c, to which He is the head and Savior?

I’m sorry I thought by the title and the OP that this thread was about the CC doctrine “outside the Church, there is no salvation.” and what that means and how it applies.

And if you re read my posts they were ALL on topic

If you would like to start a thread on what Redbert believes I would be happy to reply.

but ,please Joe370 , for the good of all , can you stay on topic.?.

thanks

 

[joe370]

I’m sorry I thought by the title and the OP that this thread was about the CC doctrine “outside the Church, there is no salvation.” and what that means and how it applies.

**Redbert, the question, “Can Non-Catholics Be Saved?” - is directly related to the question: would the non-Catholic members of my newly built non-Catholic church be saved even if I re-defined the Trinity to the point where it contravened the Protestant/Catholic church belief, just as Protestants have re-defined the Eucharist to the point where it contravenes the Catholic/Eastern orthodox church belief?
**
**Could I rightfully claim that the members of my 21st century man-made non-Catholic church are saved and considered part of Jesus’ Body, the catholic church, small c, to which He is the head and Savior?
**

And if you re read my posts they were ALL on topic

**As is my post. My sister belongs to Apostle Brown’s ministry church (a non-Catholic church) - and they don’t believe in Baptism. Can those non-Catholics Be saved? I certainly hope so. What are your thoughts?

***“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” ***

**

If you would like to start a thread on what Redbert believes I would be happy to reply.

**Will do if I decide to ask you an off topic question!
**

but ,please Joe370 , for the good of all , can you stay on topic.?.

thanks

OK…

 

[joe370]

**ArwenEvenstar; you said:
**

My third example is my mother. A “Devout” Catholic since birth. Lived a very moral life, did all the right things the church expected of her. But guess what? she did not know Christ in her heart. What I mean by this is that she was so busy performing the rituals, being obedient etc, that somehow, the good news message of why Christ had to die for her, was completely missed, since the emphasis on works was so ingrained into her. She believed that she was going to heaven simply because she was catholic and lived a moral life. When I explained to her that salvation comes to us because Christ died for our sins and resurrected…and that this was the ultimate reason we are “saved”…her reaction wasn’t good.

---

So, you don’t have a problem with the rituals, or being obedient to the CC etc? I know that you believe that “faith without works is dead,” and works without faith is dead, but, does the CC to which you and your Mom now attend, teach and believe that the way to heaven is by the cross and nothing else and that works are useless without the free gift of salvation of Jesus Christ, or, was your Mom perhaps, misunderstanding the emphasis on works which were so ingrained into her by the CC?

My former Lutheran Pastor tried to convince me that the CC teaches and believes that Catholics try to earn their way into heaven by good works as opposed to the free gift of Salvation, so I read the CCC and told him that he was misinformed, to which he said: wrong, all the while refusing to prove it. My niece was taught by the same church that Catholics worship Mary. I guess my point is: if we want to know the truth about the CC perhaps it is a bad idea to ask someone who does not belong to the CC, and if someone belonging to the CC is misinformed, eg, faith and works, then we should always be obliged to correct them, with the CCC as our final benchmark.

Outside the CC/EOC, the bible (sola scriptura) - is the Christians one and only authority which means no one has any authority (including church leadership) - to correct, arbitrate or teach authoritatively. Always bothered me a former sola scriptura advocate. I believed in the Catholic Eucharistic doctrine and thought that I had the right to interpret the bible as I saw fit, as per sola scriptura, but my former Protestant church thought otherwise, thereby negating the man-made doctrine sola scriptura as the Christians only authority. They did/do what they claim the CC has no right to do…

 

[joe370]

**RedRedemption, you said:
**
This whole idea that because Jesus told the disciples to “do this in remembrance of me” at the last supper was Jesus ordaining them as priests that had special access and authority is a problem.

I guess it wouldn’t hurt to respond to this off topic post. Were the Apostles and their successors not to do exactly as Jesus did, thereby not participating in Jesus’ one priesthood, until the end of time?

To take those words and think that only an ordained Catholic priest has the ability to dispense God’s grace or to think that propitiation of sins is found in the bread and wine consecrated only by a Catholic priest during mass is a far reach.

**Do you think that men other than men chosen by the apostles and their successors, had the right to dispense God’s grace or to think that the propitiation of sins is found in the bread and wine consecrated by them as well as the apostles and their successors? In other words: did the presbyters and bishops perform this function or just anyone regardless of the presbyterial ministers or the bishopric?
**

This belief of the special order of priests in the church is what makes people think they must be in the Catholic church to have salvation because only the Catholic priest can absolve people of sins.

**I believe Baptists view the Lord’s Supper some what after the Zwinglian manner; the bread and the wine are the divinely given tokens of the Lord’s saving grace, “but the value of the service lies far more in the symbolism of the whole than in the actual elements.” If that is correct then the CC is guilty of Eucharistic idolatry and has been for almost 2000 years; is that what you believe? **

**Only Jesus has the power to forgive sin, and he chose to do so through the instrumentality of his ministers of reconciliation, and it has to do with the preparation of the Christian for the reception of the true presence of Christ’s body and blood. If I want forgiveness in general, I will just ask God and concentrate on not repeating the offence. In the early church, the forms in which the sacrament has been administered have changed, over time, In the early Church, publicly known sins (such as apostasy) were often confessed openly in church, though private confession to a priest was always an option for privately committed sins. Still, confession was not just something done in silence (only) - to God alone, but something done “in church,” as the illustrates, and these citations and they all pre-date the supposed apostasy of the CC during Constantine’s reign:

**

**The Didache

“Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas

“You shall judge righteously. You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify those that contend by bringing them together. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light” (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).

Ignatius of Antioch

“For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]).

**

 

[joe370]

**“For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop” (ibid., 8).

Irenaeus

“[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. . . . Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses” (Against Heresies 1:22 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

“[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness” (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).

Hippolytus

“[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command” (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

“[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, “To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity”’” (Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“The apostle [Paul] likewise bears witness and says: ‘ . . . Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at the hand of the priest . . . they do violence to [the Lord’s] body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied him” (The Lapsed 15:1–3 (A.D. 251]).

“Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . . confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. . . . I beseech you, brethren, let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord” (ibid., 28).

“inners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of Communion. [But now some] with their time [of penance] still unfulfilled . . . they are admitted to Communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the Eucharist is given to them; although it is written, ‘Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]” (Letters 9:2 [A.D. 253]).

“And do not think, dearest brother, that either the courage of the brethren will be lessened, or that martyrdoms will fail for this cause, that penance is relaxed to the lapsed, and that the hope of peace * is offered to the penitent. . . . For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace is given” (ibid., 51[55]:20).

“But I wonder that some are so obstinate as to think that repentance is not to be granted to the lapsed, or to suppose that pardon is to be denied to the penitent, when it is written, ‘Remember whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works’ [Rev. 2:5], which certainly is said to him who evidently has fallen, and whom the Lord exhorts to rise up again by his deeds [of penance], because it is written, ‘Alms deliver from death’ [Tob. 12:9]” (ibid., 51[55]:22).*
**

 

[joe370]

But the book of Hebrews clearly presents that Christ is our high priest and the perfect sacrifice and that we have access to God through him.

**Catholics agree with you. **

Christ is who we go to for forgiveness and propitiation of sins.

Catholics agree with you. Ask a priest or bishop who it is doing the forgiving and they will tell you that it is Jesus. Just as Protestant Pastors have no power to bring down the holy spirit during ones baptism, when they say: “I baptise you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

We do not go to human=sinful men in the form of priests to receive propitiation of sins as the church teaches happens during the Eucharist.

**Why then did Jesus say to sinful fallible people, as the Father has sent me, so I send you, and then breathe on them and say to these sinful, fallible ministers: Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained? The Apostles knew that it was Jesus speaking through them just as it was Jesus who performed miracles through them. **

**You went to human=sinful men (the apostles) - if you lived in the first century! More than a billion Christians belonging to the CC would disagree with you, along with all of the Catholics belonging to the CC for the past 2000 years. Were they all wrong?
**

(In the Eucharist, only the priest has the power to turn the bread and wine into Christ and allow the people to eat and drink which results in propitiation of sins)

**The priest possesses zero power to do anything; he simply does as Jesus did, as per Jesus’ command, at which point the holy spirit makes the change. Perhaps you should find out what the CC teaches/believes first. **

Again, this whole system is based on the idea that somehow Jesus gave this authority to only his 12 disciples and that has passed down the ages to the Catholic priests.

**To whom did the 23 Apostles give their authority? If the apostles did not pass on this authority to successors, then who had the authority to do as the Apostles did, for the first 1000 years of Christianity? Timothy and Titus were told by Paul to set up church leadership in every town; was this to be done in perpetuity? Were the bishops of Jesus’ established church to continue to shepherd the church of God, or did this authoritative succession stop with the bishops and presbyters of the NT time period, at which point the authority of the bible supplanted the authority of these successors? At what point in history was apostolic succession of Jesus’ church abrogated, thereby freeing Christians from obeying their leaders and submitting to their authority, which is clearly spelled out in the bible?
**
**

*“The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.”

“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you bishops, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” *

Why did Paul say: Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.**

I understand that this tradition has been practiced for centuries but the special order of priests was done away with when Christ was crucified just as the system of sacrifices and the need for altars was too. Heb 7:27; Heb. 9:26. We are all members of a royal priesthood which has direct access to Christ, the high priest. (Rev. 1:6 and 1 Pet. 2:9)

**What I think you are saying is that you understand that this tradition that has been practised for centuries (since the 1st century) - by presbyters and bishops, was a man-made tradition? If it was/is, then you have only the holy spirit to blame for the HS was/is the divine rudder guiding Jesus’ early church to do such things, until the end of time. Below is just a few citations from one person who was a disciple of the Apostle John; if he is wrong then John was wrong; many more can be provided:
**

**Ignatius of Antioch

“Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]).

“Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest” (ibid., 6:1).

Continued…**

 

[joe370]

**“Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit” (ibid., 13:1–2).

“Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire” (Letter to the Trallians 2:1–3 [A.D. 110]).

“In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him” (ibid., 3:1–2).

“He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clear conscience” (ibid., 7:2).

“I cried out while I was in your midst, I spoke with a loud voice, the voice of God: ‘Give heed to the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons.’ Some suspect me of saying this because I had previous knowledge of the division certain persons had caused; but he for whom I am in chains is my witness that I had no knowledge of this from any man. It was the Spirit who kept preaching these words, ‘Do nothing without the bishop, keep your body as the temple of God, love unity, flee from divisions, be imitators of Jesus Christ, as he was imitator of the Father’” (Letter to the Philadelphians 7:1–2 [A.D. 110]).
**

**Yes we are all members of the universal priesthood, but know where in the bible does Jesus tell us, as priests, to do as He did, in remembrance of Him. Jesus commanded His fledgling church leaders, ONLY, to do this. **

Just want to add that I’m not trying to insult anyone. Just looking for truth and open dialogue.

Me too.