What I said is what the priest says everyday in mass during the Eucharistic Prayer.
Matthew and Mark use ‘many’. Luke uses ‘you’ and Paul uses ‘all’. The point is just that the ‘many’ or the ‘all’ does not mean only Catholics.
What is perfect contrition? I first saw that in the Baltimore Catechism. It says that it is very difficult to make a perfect contrition (which is the problem Protestants face) whereas we Catholics are lucky to have the sacrament of Penance.So what are you saying? Paul is incorrect? And the Catechism, then, too?
(I suppose you’re excluding the Orthodox in your “non-Catholic” list?)
You are correct–those that do not receive Him, body, blood, soul and divinity shall not have life within them. Many indeed will be lost that do not have the Blessed Sacrament. However, those who have supernatural faith, perfect charity and perfect contrition still have the possibility of salvation.
And that is one of the things that is being changed in the revision of the English Mass. If Roman is changing “all” to “many”, they are doing it for a reason.
But past Popes, who also had the gift of infallibility, did. Including our current Pope.
I am saying that Jesus and Paul are saying the same thing–along with the Catechism, and, I might add from kelvin’s post, the Mass: *It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.
Yes. Sir Knight. That’s exactly what we’ve all been saying here. You keep arguing as if we’re saying different things. <sigh!> We’re saying the same thing: outside the Church there is no salvation. You do not need to be a Catholic to be saved. There is the POSSIBILITY of salvation for non-Catholics.
The Catechism states: “When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called ‘perfect’ (contrition of charity).”
But NOT for those who REJECT the Catholic faith. That is what I have been saying through out this entire thread. I am not saying that only Catholics can be saved. Certainly, non-Catholic can be saved but not those who reject the Catholic faith. Big difference. This is based on scripture, the CCC and the infallible teaching of multiple Popes.
Yes, but most of those who “reject” dont’ know. “Exposure” does not mean that people understand what they are rejecting. Many Protestants have been brought up to believe that theCatholic Church is wrong, so even if they go exploring, they come with the assumption that what they are hearing is wrong.
Then we are agreed, Sir Knight! :extrahappy:
and here when kelvin asked:
You responded quite definitively:
Finally, in response to your comment here:
Again, you are saying, now, exactly what we’ve been saying all along.
Ja, you seem to be softening your position. You also brought up the issue of mortal sin saying it’s a hindrance for Protestants. Ja, you made reference to the CCC.
Because the fullness of Truth is found only in the Catholic Church. Any Truth that is found in other denomintations has been preserved from Catholic Teaching. For example, the Church recognizes Protestant Trinitarian Baptism because this has been preserved from the Catholic Church.
How do you figure that? Since all persons have heads, they all qualify!
that is exactly the point. They are joined to the Church (allbeit imperfectly) in baptism, and whatever truth they have comes from the Church. That means, to the extent they accept the Christian doctrines, they accept Catholic doctrines. Most of them don’t know it.
That is because the Church has never taught this. There are some who are saved by God’s grace who are not visibly Catholic.
I would add the word “visible” here. He is right that there is no salvation outside the Church, so if they are imperfectly joined to the Church, they are “Catholic” whether they realize it, or not.
This is the salient point. Most of them have only been given part of the Truth.
I don’t know…I think the catechism of most Catholics is so poor that they are as bad off as if they were in the stone age. They would not be leaving in droves if they knew their faith.
Well done PR! :bowdown:Then, Roy, we are agreed. That’s exactly what we Catholics are doing here on the CAFs. We just draw the line differently–we hope that we “may be able to influence [you] away from…[warped] views. I would regard that as rather urgent ‘mission work’…” (in borrowing your quote I would amend the word “warped” to “distorted” or “wrong” or “misguided” to attach to your beliefs.)
I am quite satisfied that my point has been made, and understood by you. I would hope that, in your future posts, you will think twice about this particular objection to Catholicism. To do otherwise would be quite disingenuous.
Your Big Tent paradigm draws the line at what it perceives as truth, just like the Catholic Church does.
He is ignoring the context of the statements so that he can apply them differently. It is a Protesatant tactic for changing the meaning.
Yes, but in order for one to be guilty of a mortal sin, they have to meet the conditions. Many are not even aware that what they are doing is a grave matter. Some (including Catholics) are not properly catechized.
Oh I don’t know, I think the overwhelming majority of people know it when they commit a grave sin. Some one has to have a dead conscience to not know it.
I am quite certain that most Catholics do not believe it is a “grave sin” to miss Mass on Sundays. Nor do they believe it is a “grave sin” to use artificial birth control.
My understanding is that the Greek word for cousin “anepsios” is not used to describe Mary’s relative Elizabeth. Rather, “suggenes”, which, properly translated is “kinswoman”.
I have yet to get an answer to this question that makes sense.