Closer to God..... but farther from salvation?

[mcq72]

Once again you are ignoring the heart of the matter.

Disagree.

Like an old Jesuit conundrum where one comes to the priest saying he is going to commit a mortal sin and the only thing that will stop him is to only commit a separate venial sin. Is it wrong for the priest to condone (justify?) the venial sin to avert the mortal one?

It’s like asking which way to die is better, by hanging or by shooting. Both are painful, and both leave you just as dead.

Or it could be do want to die by hanging for a crime or given the choice to die doing probable suicidal mission during a war for your country( I know, seen too many movies)? You are dead both ways as you say but…

I am greatful that the CC with some of it’s recent decrees since or from Vat 2 have placed a better light on Protestant/ Orthodox “communities”. We are " brethren" though seperated, living Christian lives otherwise per duch decrees. That is huge admission, to which many Catholics embrace graciously as a wider door to charity towards such brethren (LG also says you aren’t saved if you are not charitable).

Yet I am also aware there are still loopholes (remnants of hard core doctrine of no salvation outside Church( CC)… must Eat and confess validly, sacramentally, to have etetnal life, can not knowingly (left purposefully ambiguous ?) reject CC, etc), for hardliners to dig in there heals with damnation warnings to such brethren. I am still thankful they are limited to warnings by CC.

PS…I am very, very thankful for the spiritual seeds planted in me by the CC and by loving Catholics.

 

[Inbonum]

Why wouldn’t there be blessing?
But all graces in world, anywhere in world belong to Catholic Church. All those graces are coming from and belong to Catholic Church because of presence of Blessed Sacrament.

Also:

They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power.

LG next addresses seperated brethren in a positive way , with no apparent distinction
with how you arrive there

LG clearly distincts salvation of Catholics who stay or left in Church under number 14, and non-Catholic Christians under 15.
It would be really hillarious if Church would say in one sentence that those who left Church or don’t want to join when knowing truth about her cannot be saved and then in next sentence say that those same who left are to be saved in Protestant Church or in any other. That is conradictory.

Look, this is what Church says, not me. According to your profile you are Protestant and you cannot explain catholic Teaching on your way and accuse Catholics to be wrong then.

 

[fhansen]

See the post just before yours…

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

And that’s what I’ve been saying- in more ways than one. I was told as a youth that the Church was the road to salvation, but i didn’t even know what salvation really was. Save me from what, from hell??? Big deal, what’s that other than a fear-based superstition until one knows evil for themselves. We’re here for one thing, in fact, to experience, to know, literally, good and evil; that knowledge is the fruit of the tree. It’s to touch the hot stove in order to find out why we need God, ‘apart from whom we can do nothing’. It’s the reason we’re in exile from Eden. It’s very hot here already-but it gets hotter-if we prefer things that way, if we continue to prefer ourselves to Him as the catechism teaches that Adam did. We’re here to come to know the true God whom Jesus reveals, so that by knowing Him, which is the right and just order of things for man, we may believe in Him, and by knowing and believing we may place our hope and trust in, and, most importantly, come to love Him. To fall in love with Him; to know Him is to love Him. And to love Him is to fulfill the Greatest Commandment, the definition of justice/righteousness for man.

“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” John 17:3

So excuse me I guess if I’m not impressed with platitudes, rightly based as they may be. We’re under grace now, not the law, right and perfect as the law is. And grace excludes sin and fulfills the law as it causes in us the virtue of love, God’s own nature and the very antithesis of sin. Had Adam loved in Eden he would not have disobeyed. Had Adam drawn nearer to God rather than rebelled, he would’ve experienced the union that causes justice or righteousness in man, or would’ve caused it to remain. Either way salvation is not just about skating by and not committing and persisting in some serious sin, correctly based as that is.

But it’s about more, about the reason that a believer wouldn’t commit such sin to begin with; it’s about how we become clean on the inside instead of just the outside. Properly understood it’s about coming to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves, with the help, the grace, now available to man under the New Covenant. It’s about communion with God, ‘apart from whim we can do nothing’ (John 15:5). We don’t obey in order to be nearer to God (as if we already possess righteousness on our own); rather we draw nearer to God in order to be capable of obeying. That’s the first right step for man, acknowledging his complete dependence on God, something Adam missed, something we all have to learn for ourselves. We don‘t need legalism; we need God. The Law, which we still need to hear, teaches us of our failure to obey on our own as it discloses and convicts us of sin.

 

[Inbonum]

@fhansen

He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.”(12 ) All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13 )

So yeah, we are not under Law anymore but we are still obliged to something - to response to grace which we have in Christ through Catholic Church.

 

[fhansen]

So yeah, we are not under Law anymore but we are still obliged to something - to response to grace which we have in Christ through Catholic Church.

Yep:
"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live." Rom 8:12-13

Again, we need the Spirit; we need God, communion with Him. That’s the primary difference between the old and new covenants.

“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

That New Covenant prophecy of Jer 31:33-34 speaks of a direct and personal relationship or communion, the knowledge of God which is fully consummated in the next life (1 Cor 13:12)`and within which He begins a work in us now of making us authentically righteousness, transforming us into His own image. A process, a struggle even, that requires our cooperation and striving. And we need to be on board that boat, improving overall more than we backslide as we approach the perfection that He’s created us for. We’re not, as some seem to hold, a bunch of otherwise worthless sinful wretches that He rather reluctantly saves a portion of. He’s creating something grand out of this whole effort of His creating, something much better than He began with.

 

[mcq72]

Why wouldn’t there be blessing?
But all graces in world, anywhere in world belong to Catholic Church. All those graces are coming from and belong to Catholic Church because of presence of Blessed Sacrament.

Yes thank you. A very nice yet some say sectarian understanding of implied scripture and certainly not explicit in scripture, and earliest history.

LG clearly distincts salvation of Catholics who stay or left in Church under number 14, and non-Catholic Christians under 15.

Again, 14 does not seem to say left the church for what. 15 does not seem to differentiate how you got to be non catholic ( obviously left the CC or were born in non Catholic family).

That is conradictory.

I agree it could seem to be contradictory.

My opinion is the CC has left herself open to possible contradictory understandings by Catholucs themselves, much less folks like me.

Not sure I said Catholicss are wrong, but more that you gave to look at other documents to put the whole picture together. I lbelieve my comment was strictly looking at LG (and my pardon, only rather quickly again).

 

[lanman87]

knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ

One caveat to this is what does if mean to" know the Catholic church was made necessary by Christ". It is one thing to be told something and another thing to believe it. So if someone is told something over and over again but doesn’t believe it, do they really “know” it.

 

[stpurl]

That’s rather semantic, isn’t it? Obstinate denial of something is likewise sinful.

Look, we get told, for example, that overeating is bad for us, certain foods especially. Yet people keep overeating and eating the bad foods despite being told ‘time and again’. Do you truly think they never really ‘knew’ what they were being told? Or was there an element of hearing and knowledge but a refusal to actually ‘do’ what was required, for whatever reason? Whether the ‘reason’ was say refusing to believe that overeating was bad in and of itself, or whether believing that one did not personally ‘overeat’, not trusting the nutritionist, etc. The fact is that one does hear and understand, and then one ‘chooses’ either to listen and do, or to rationalise, distort, not ‘pay attention’, etc. Etc.

 

[Inbonum]

Inbonum:

That is conradictory.

I agree it could seem to be contradictory

It is not contradictory to me at all. I just say that your explanation is contradictory to me.

There are other documents and dogmas on salvation, II. Vatican Council didn’t brought anything new of dogmas, they just explained and repeated what Church teaches from beginning.

 

[WillC]

Vatican Council didn’t brought anything new of dogmas, they just explained and repeated what Church teaches from beginning.

Eeeehhhhhh

 

[lanman87]

Mark Twain said “A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way.”

Sometimes the only way to truly learn something is to experience it.

 

[Vico]

…
I’m not gunna lie… Since my faith search really began several years ago, this is the first time I feel really uneasy. It seems so… backwards.

One idea Martin Luther had, that is a heresy, stated in the ninety-five theses, is that one could be certain that sins were forgiven by absolution. This is contrary to the necessity of contrition taught by the Catholic Church. Catholic teaching is that we cannot be absolutely certain of the state of sanctifying grace without divine revelation.

 

[WillC]

One idea Martin Luther had, that is a heresy, stated in the ninety-five theses, is that one could be certain that sins were forgiven by absolution. This is contrary to the necessity of contrition taught by the Catholic Church. Catholic teaching is that we cannot be absolutely certain of the state of sanctifying grace without divine revelation.

To be fair, I do recall watching EWTN and the priest said that a Catholic can be certain that they are forgiven in confession and absolution since the priest is acting in the stead of Christ, but a protestant can only be forgiven through perfect contrition.

I’ve also been told that by the priest that served us on Fort Bragg 10 years ago. So, either many priests believe a heresy, or its just a manner of words.

 

[Genesis315]

As the Catechism notes:

818 However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ…

This echoes St. Augustine’s interpretation of Titus 3:10.

St. Augustine:

But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm

On the other hand, the First Vatican Councils says:

Consequently, the situation of those, who by the heavenly gift of faith have embraced the Catholic truth, is by no means the same as that of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion; for those who have accepted the faith under the guidance of the Church can never have any just cause for changing this faith or for calling it into question.

This echoes the Scriptures:

2 Peter 2:21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.

All that being said, unless someone has died, no one can pass judgment–even then, it is only God who can. Only God knows what the future holds. Perhaps God has permitted a lukewarm Catholic to drift elsewhere to bring a greater good out of it. I know plenty of “re-verts” who left the Church only to return later and were better Christians for it. Plus, knowledge and culpability are ultimately in His judgment alone–we can’t even really judge ourselves (cf. 1 Cor. 4:4).

 

[Vico]

…

A dogma of faith from the Council of Trent, has “no one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.”

Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, is:

Chap. 9. Against the Vain Confidence of Heretics
802 Although it is necessary to believe that sins are neither forgiven, nor ever have been forgiven, except gratuitously by divine mercy for Christ’s sake, yet it must not be said that sins are forgiven or have been forgiven to anyone who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the forgiveness of his sins and rests on that alone, since among heretics and schismatics this vain confidence, remote from all piety [can. 12], may exist, indeed in our own troubled times does exist, and is preached against the Catholic Church with vigorous opposition. But neither is this to be asserted, that they who are truly justified without any doubt whatever should decide for themselves that they are justified, and that no one is absolved from sins and is justified, except him who believes with certainty that he is absolved and justified, and that by this faith alone are absolution and justification effected [can. 14], as if he who does not believe this is doubtful of the promises of God and of the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ. For, just as no pious person should doubt the mercy of God, the merit of Christ, and the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, so every one, when he considers himself and his own weakness and indisposition, may entertain fear and apprehension as to his own grace [can. 13], since no one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.

Absolution alone is insufficient.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1448 Beneath the changes in discipline and celebration that this sacrament has undergone over the centuries, the same fundamental structure is to be discerned. It comprises two equally essential elements: on the one hand, the acts of the man who undergoes conversion through the action of the Holy Spirit: namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction; on the other, God’s action through the intervention of the Church. The Church, who through the bishop and his priests forgives sins in the name of Jesus Christ and determines the manner of satisfaction, also prays for the sinner and does penance with him. Thus the sinner is healed and re-established in ecclesial communion.

Also valid baptism is required first, yet it is not always fruitful, as can be seen by those that fall away.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua) ,4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. …

 

[stpurl]

That is still not what we’re discussing. God does not stand against Himself. There simply is no possible way that God could will a person ‘out of the Catholic Church’, let the person truly find Him ‘in another church’, and then let the Catholic STAY in that other church. To do so would be to completely reject the entire One Catholic and Apostolic Church that He Himself taught in the Creed.

Protestant belief is a complex problem because all the denominations have some truth in them —the Truth they took from the Catholic Faith. For some of them, the Truth they took was the Trinity. For others, the Truth they took was love of the Scripture. Etc. But each and every one wound up rejecting OTHER elements of Truth which the Catholic Church teaches, so each and every one has fallen into some degree of error.

If you are looking for a way to get out of a crisis situation do you want a possible solution with 50% chance of success? 70%? 80% or do you want 100% chance of success?]

So maybe a person was lucky and got out of the crisis with 50% success rate once, or twice. Sooner or later if the crisis continues, that 50% success rate is going to fail. Sooner or later ALL the offerings of less than 100% success rate WILL fail.

Only the 100% chance of success will consistently save.

 

[lanman87]

That is still not what we’re discussing. God does not stand against Himself. There simply is no possible way that God could will a person ‘out of the Catholic Church’, let the person truly find Him ‘in another church’, and then let the Catholic STAY in that other church. To do so would be to completely reject the entire One Catholic and Apostolic Church that He Himself taught in the Creed.

Or maybe the One Catholic Apostolic church is what we Protestants say it is. Those who have been baptized by one spirit into one body (1 Corinthians 12:13). And that body is the ecclesia, the church. And the mark and evidence of being part of that body is having a living faith that produces works of righteousness and makes known the Glory of God.

With that definition of the church, there are plenty of Catholic “Christians” who are in the church (and many who are not) and plenty of Non-Catholics “Christians” who are in the church (and many who are not). Visible Christianity is made up of the wheat and the tares, the sincere and the insincere, but only those who have had a supernatural act of God in which the heart is changed from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh are truly part of the body of Christ, the ecclesia, the church.

 

[stpurl]

And God would have had His people go wrong on this for 1500 years why? Remember, God never blindsides His people. If your teaching were true, it would have been part of the early Church, then suppressed or changed by ‘Constantine’ or some such, and somehow the ‘true’ teaching carried on continuously by ‘Christians’ until triumphantly enough were ‘found’ to gather together and ‘prove’ they were the original church with the original teachings.

Instead, it’s the other way around. Our teaching was the original teaching, is still maintained as the original teaching, and hasn’t changed in spite of a contrary teaching being spread about. Every time in the Bible that we see a teaching of God challenged, it doesn’t ‘change’ to what the challenger teaches, it stands firm. The Catholic position then is more Biblical than your own.

Of course you have to think that way because if you accept that the Catholic Church was right, you would need to be part of her. The big difference though is that, again, our teaching stands firm from the time of the apostles, and your teaching is a ‘teaching of men’.

 

[lanman87]

And God would have had His people go wrong on this for 1500 years why?

Why did God have the reformers rediscover the Gospel of the Apostolic church in which faith is the cause of salvation and puts you in the Kingdom of God instead of adherence to an early kingdom, which is what the Catholic church had become?

If you are going to ask “Why did God allow” then it goes both ways.

 

[stpurl]

Excuse me? The reformers (sic) did no such thing.

I stand by this: Every single time that God’s people deviated from His teaching, He kept a remnant of believers (from Noah and his family on ‘down’) so that the original truth stayed continuously taught. There was never ever a period where God taught a truth, allowed His entire people to teach it as truth, and then centuries later had part of His people ‘discover’ a so called ‘hidden’ Truth or one that had been kept ‘under cover’. God does not ‘change’. And the Catholic teaching IS the Truth which is continuous, and it has been continuously taught.

There was no ‘rediscovered gospel’. We got it right and we continue to get it right.