Do you have to be Catholic to be Saved?

[guanophore]

I'll probably start a new thread, and just go through the other things that I don't understand about Catholicsm.

Glad to hear it!

Pax et Caritas: Okay, so I have got to ask… about the whole mortal/venial sin thing. Going by the same logic, if thinking about sin is a mortal sin, then is not everything a supposed mortal sin? thinking about stealing? thinking about murder? where do you draw the line? is there a line?

Excellent questions! This does deserve it’s own thread. 1 John 5:16-17
16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal."

A mortal sin pushes saving grace out of the soul. “Little” wrongdoings will eventually do the same thing, but there are some sins that will result in rejection of the HS, precluding salvation. Offenses against the 10 commandments, for starters.

Okay, so I have to “knowingly reject Catholic dogma”? so by believing that it is wrong to pray to anyone other than Jesus, (eg. Mary, saints, people in heaven etc) I would be, according to you, going to hell?

For a sin to be classified as mortal, the individual must be educated enough to understand the seriousness of the wrong. Those who are ignorant or impaired cannot be held to the same standard. Catholics don’t pronounce someone saved or unsaved. We understand that it is up to God to decide. We are firm about how a person can gain and lose salvation, but only God can look upon the heart. However, in any case, not asking others to pray for you, while it is like shooting yourself in the foot spiritually, is not a sin of any kind. You are not required to avail yourself of any of the gifts God has for you. His word says “earnestly desire the higher gifts”.

I’m going to drop this whole apostolic succession thing… I don’t really see what the problem is - believing in it or not. I mean, obviously Jesus would appoint leaders to carry on his teachings, but that doesn’t necessarily make them a stand-in for Jesus until he returns, does it? Surely the Holy Spirit would do that job well enough?

In this cse, Jesus decided that He would appoint persons to carry on His work after His ascension. He empowered them to act in His name. The HS works though people.

John 20:22-23: I don’t see how this tells us to confess sins to a priest. All it says to me is that Jesus ties personal forgiveness of others to our own forgiveness in the Lord’s Prayer.

He only said this to His Apostles in the upper room. Elsewhere, He gives them more instructions about how they are to minister to the flock. It is true that Jesus ties personal forgiveness of others to our own. However, He also wants us to call for the elders of the church for healing and confession.

So our prayer probably should be that the Lord continue to fill us, to guide us, to lead us, and to transform us by his Spirit so that we can truly be his agents of redemption, reconciliation, and grace.

Absolutely! and these are the prayers that are used before, during ,and after the sacrament of reconciliation.

• Doesn’t this just mean that we should confess and forgive our sins to each other? I maintain that ultimate forgiveness - forgiveness from God comes from God, and praying or confessing to God alone.

the priest, by virtue of his holy orders, is bound by a vow never to reveal what is told in confession. This makes it safer to confess to him than an ordinary lay person.

Check out 1Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ” (not Mary, not saints, not priests, not the pope). How does that work with Catholicism?

Catholics understand that Jesus has made us “partakers in his divine grace” and “ministers of reconciliation”. Jesus shares His divine ministry, and works in, and through the consecrated life.

 

[guanophore]

But everyone already has the chance to accept Jesus - they don't need to be baptised to be saved, and baptism doesn't save them.

According to scripture, it does.

Peter 3:21
when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience"

The Apostles taught that Baptism is the initiation into God’s Kingdom, and that it replaced circumcision:

Col 2:11-12
11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of
God, who raised him from the dead."

Infants were brought because infants of believing households were always brought, and when baptism replaced circumcision, it was understood that those who were baptized became members of the body of Christ.

1 Cor 12:13
13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

I believe that baptism is well… completed at baptism. I think the Holy Spirit is recieved then - I sure felt it then! I mean why wouldn’t it be? I fail to see what makes confirmation so necessary - or necessary at all.

You are right of course, baptism is complete in itself, and the HS is received. Confirmation is especially important for those baptized very young, so that they can have an opportunity to profess the faith on their own. The Orthodox have always done them at the same time, for infants. Originally, the initiation rites were separated because the bishop needed to be present, and sometimes he had to travel a long way.

Haha wow… thanks for putting so much time into writing to me!

Welcome to the forum.

 

[Good_Fella]

Back to Good fella: Okay, we see communion as an important part of faith - however we don’t believe that the bread and wine are actually Jesus’ flesh and blood - just a symbol of it. We say this because Jesus died once for our sins, never to be repeated. He sits on the right hand of God and does not reappear in the mass as a mass of blood and flesh, for according to Hebrews 10:12-18: “But this one offered ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS, and took his seat forever at the right hand of God; now he waits until his enemies are made his footstool. For BY ONE OFFERING HE HAS MADE PERFECT THOSE WHO ARE BEING CONSECRATED. The holy Spirit also testifies to us, for after saying: This is the covenant I will establish with them after those days, says the Lord: 'I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them upon their minds, he also says: “Their sins and their evildoing I will remember no more.”
Where there is forgiveness of these, THERE IS NO LONGER OFFERING FOR SIN.”

And in Corinthians 11:24-26 it states that communion is to be done in remembrance of Jesus.

Abbi, your citation of the scriptures as an objection against the sacrificial aspect of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist has already been satisfactorily refuted by the Catholic Church against the Protestant contention. Are you presenting your own preconceived notions or are you merely repeating what has already been asserted by Protestant theologians. In any event, you have taken thsese verses out of context to justify your own stance. And you have no idea of the full meaning of remembrance. Allow me to show you how.

The Holy Eucharist makes present Jesus’ one eternal sacrifice; it is not merely a symbolic memorial. The translation of Jesus’ words of consecration is “touoto poieite tan eman anamnasin” (Lk 22:19; 1Cor 11:24-25). Jesus literally says “offer this as my memorial sacrifice.” In Leviticus 24:7, the word “memorial” in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is ‘azkarah’ which means to actually make present. Our Lord’s instruction to offer the bread and wine (His body and blood) as a “memorial offering” shows that the offering of his body and blood is made present in time over and over again. In Numbers 10:10, “remembrance” refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus’ command to offer a memorial in remembrance of Him shows that the memorial offering is in fact a sacrifice currently offered. In Mal 1:10–11, Jesus’ command to his apostles to offer his memorial sacrifice of bread and wine, which becomes His body and blood, fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place. This pure sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally represented in “the rising of the sun to its setting” in every place.

In Hebrews 9:23, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better sacrifices. The one sacrifice is pluralized because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it comes down to earth and is sacramentally represented over and over again in churches around the world by priests who are celebrating Holy Mass. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space, because it was the sacrifice of God Himself. This is not one new sacrifice following the other.The Eucharistic sacrifice also fulfills Jeremiah 33:18, that our Lord’s kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever, and it fulfills Zechariah 9:15, that the sons of Zion will drink blood like wine and be saved. Jesus said, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in Him.” (John 6:54-56) Abbi, this promise is good only where we find Jesus really present - soul and divinity, body and blood, in the Holy Eucharist. It is only symbolic in your tradition.

Jesus in glory perpetually offers the Father his sacrifice on our behalf. In Revelation 1 to 22, Jesus is described as the sacrificial “Lamb” 28 times. (The lamb was consumed at Passover in the Old Dispensation.) Jesus is emphasizing his eternal sacrifice in heaven and in His Holy Catholic Church.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Abbi]

…lets assume he got to Heaven, saw all the Angels and Saints bowing at her throne; this would not be heaven for this personQUOTE]

anyone else see a problem here?
BOWING at Mary’s THRONE?!
I actually think that Mary will be among us, worshiping God. I hope you are not serious. Mary is not the Queen of Heaven. check out Jeremiah 7:17-19 - saying Mary is the Queen of Heaven prvokes God to anger and provokes confusion on your faces.

also: “the Bible says that the “effectual, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much” so why wouldn’t you want someone in Heaven - who has been made completely righteous - to be praying with you and for you?” You believe that a saint, who is glorified in Heaven, has more “direct access” to God than we do? Therefore, if a saint delivers a prayer to God, it is more effective than us praying to God directly? This concept is blatantly unbiblical. God does not answer prayers based on who is praying. God answers prayers based on whether they are asked according to His will (1 John 5:14-15). There is absolutely no basis or need to pray to anyone other than God alone. There is no basis for asking those who are in Heaven to pray for us. Only God can hear our prayers. Only God can answer our prayers. No one in Heaven has any greater access to God’s throne that we do through prayer (Hebrews 4:16).

In reply to Christus Totus, sorry I dont know what the Sacrament of Ordination is. But I do know that the Bible says that the Church would not be based upon a man, but on Jesus Christ alone. For that reason, I think the interpretation of when Jesus appointed Paul as a leader(Matt 16:18), that he based the Church on his statement of faith, not upon him. That is the only ground that the pope is standing on, correct? Oh dear.

“Yes the Holy Spirit would do that not only well enough, but perfectly, and the Holy Spirit has guided the people of God through the Catholic Church for nearly two thousand years.” - and protestants could just as easily say that the Holy Spirit is guiding THEM - that it was by the Holy Spirit’s guidance that they split from the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church was not holding to the Bible any longer.

James 5:16
Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. - speaks of confessing our trespasses “to one another,” but this is not the same as confessing sins to a priest as the Roman Catholic Church teaches. Priests / church leaders are nowhere mentioned in the context of James 5:16. Further, James 5:16 does not link forgiveness of sins with the confession of sins “to one another.”

John 20:23, “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." From this verse, you claim that God gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins, and that authority was passed on to the successors of the apostles, e.g. the bishops and priests of the Roman Catholic Church. There are several problems with this interpretation. (1) John 20:23 nowhere mentions confession of sin. (2) John 20:23 nowhere promises, or even hints, that the authority to forgive sins would be passed on to the successors of the apostles. Jesus’ promise was specifically directed to the apostles. (3) The New Testament nowhere states that the apostles would even have successors to their apostolic authority.

Similarly, you could point to Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 (binding and loosing) as evidence for the Catholic Church’s authority to forgive sins. The same three above points apply equally to these Scriptures.

Again, the concept of confession of sin to a priest is nowhere taught in Scripture. We are to confess our sins to God (1 John 1:9). As New Covenant believers, we do not need mediators between us and God. We can go to God directly because of Jesus’ sacrifice for us. 1 Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

 

[Abbi]

If Jesus is the ONLY mediator, that indicates Mary and saints cannot be mediators. They cannot mediate our prayer requests to God. Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father, “Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them” (Hebrews 7:25). With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints to intercede for us? Who would God listen to more closely than His Son? Romans 8:26-27 describes the Holy Spirit interceding for us. With the 2nd and 3rd members of the Trinity already interceding for us before the Father in Heaven, what possible need could there be to have Mary or the saints interceding for us?

Good Fella:
Firstly, the point on baptism:

“And if the baby or child dies before his eventual baptism? What then?” God judges the baby the same as he would have had the baby been baptised. It makes no difference. the baby has not chosen to be with God, or to not be with God.
“He dies without ever having received sanctifying grace. Without sanctifying grace we as individuals cannot be fully reunited with God and adopted as the sons of God.” Er… one of the few people Jesus said would be in heaven with him, the guy dying next to him on the cross, was not baptised. what makes you think it is necessary to be baptised to go to heaven? I think its very important, of course, a public act showing your commitment - but it is your commitment that matters the most. and a baby cannot have commitment at that stage in it’s life.

"Jesus said,“He who believes and is BAPTISED will be SAVED.” - yup yup. but it doesn’t say “whoever is NOT baptised will NOT be saved.” and I think that is more relevant to the point we are arguing. The verse actually seems to back my point-of-view rather than yours - you will notice “whoever BELIEVES and is baptised” - ok, the baby might be baptised, but it is a little early to say whether or not he/she believes.

Being forgiven ties in with being baptised - through accepting Jesus as your saviour and admitting that you are a sinner. That is all your other verses say to me, that being baptised should go along with believing. but not that being baptised is necessary to be saved.

Now… confirmation:
The idea that a person can “confirm” to another that he/she is in the faith is denied in Scripture. Each individual must determine the state of his/her soul based on several criteria. First, we are confirmed by the Holy Spirit who lives in our hearts. “The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children” (Romans 8:16) - how can I be sure that I “felt” the Holy Spirit when I was baptsied? For this arguments sake I can’t personally, but I don’t think it matters, I dont think I need to proove it to anyone, I just know - as said in the verse above. The idea that the Holy Spirit lives inside us at baptism is perfectly biblical: when we accept Christ as Lord and Savior, the Holy Spirit takes up residence in our hearts and gives us assurance the He is present and that we belong to Him, and He also teaches and explains spiritual things to us (1 Corinthians 2:13-14), thereby confirming that we are new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17).

The final “confirmation” of our salvation is, of course, in the future. Those who are true Christians, the Bible tells us, will persevere to the end, “eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will also confirm you to the end” (1 Corinthians 1:7-8 NKJV). We are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, “Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory” (Ephesians 1:13-14). This, then, is the true meaning of confirmation—salvation was purchased by the blood of Christ in whom we have faith, it is evidenced by our walk with Him, and it is confirmed to us by the Holy Spirit within.

 

[Abbi]

“…Nor did our Lord speak to them in the form of a parable. In John 6:53-58, Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation.” - You sure? Look: Jesus goes on to say that “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63-64). So, if “the flesh is of no avail,” why would we have to eat Jesus’ flesh in order to have eternal life? It does not make sense, until Jesus tells us that the words He speaks are “spirit.” Jesus is saying that this is not a literal teaching, but a spiritual one. The language ties in perfectly with the aforementioned statement of the apostle Paul: “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1).

In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and “eating of it” was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states “‘He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.’ All this is true of the book of Most High’s covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob” (Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting from Sirach here is not endorsing it as Scripture; it only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equating of bread with the Torah to appreciate Jesus’ real point.

In John 6, Jesus is actually telling the crowd that He is superior to the Torah (cf. John 6:49-51), and the entire Mosaic system of Law. In the passage from Sirach, it states that those who eat of the Law will “hunger still” and “thirst for more,” the language of which is mirrored by Jesus when He says “He who comes to Me will never be hungry, he who believes in Me will never be thirsty” (John 6:35). Jesus is not commanding people to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, He is telling them the core of all Christian doctrine: belief in Jesus Himself (“The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent,” John 6:29, emphasis added). Therefore, the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is unbiblical.

guanophore: “He also wants us to call for the elders of the church for healing and confession.” - And I can understand that, what I do not understand is how priests etc can forgive people on behalf of God. That is the objection I have.

and back to Good Fella:“Are you presenting your own preconceived notions or are you merely repeating what has already been asserted by Protestant theologians?” - My own. I am only trying to understand. I am a little worried about the Catholic Church… tis all.

there is a very clear analogy in John 6 to the days of Moses and the eating of manna. In the days of Moses, manna was God’s provision for food for the Israelites as they wandered in the wilderness. In John 6, however, Jesus claimed to be the true manna, the bread of heaven. With this statement Jesus claimed to be God’s full provision for salvation. Manna was God’s provision of deliverance from starvation. Jesus is God’s provision of deliverance from damnation. Just as the manna had to be consumed to preserve the lives of the Israelites, so Jesus has to be consumed (fully received by faith) for salvation to be received.

It is very clear that Jesus referred to Himself as the Bread of Life and encouraged his followers to eat of His flesh in John 6. But we do not need to conclude that Jesus was teaching what the Catholics have referred to as transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper / Christian communion / Holy Eucharist had not been instituted yet. Jesus did not institute the Holy Eucharist / Mass / Lord’s Supper until John chapter 13. Therefore, to read the Lord’s Supper into John 6 is unwarranted. As suggested above, it is best to understand this passage in light of coming to Jesus, in faith, for salvation. When we receive Him as Savior, placing our full trust in Him, we are “consuming His flesh” and “drinking His blood.” His body was broken (at His death) and His blood was shed to provide for our salvation. 1 Corinthians 11:26, “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”

 

[Abbi]

Whether the Catholic definition of Holy Eucharist is a “re-sacrifice” of Christ, or a “re-offering” of Christ’s sacrifice - both concepts are unbiblical. Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed. Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Hebrews 7:27 declares, “Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself.” Similarly, 1 Peter 3:18 exclaims, “For Christ died for sins ONCE for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God…” Christ’s once for all death on the cross was sufficient to atone for all of our sins (1 John 2:2). Therefore, Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Instead, Christ’s sacrifice is to be received by faith (John 1:12; 3:16). Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully receiving His sacrifice on our behalf, by grace through faith.

13,000 words!
whew!

 

[HailMary]

HailMary;2453301:

…lets assume he got to Heaven, saw all the Angels and Saints bowing at her throne; this would not be heaven for this personQUOTE]

anyone else see a problem here?
BOWING at Mary’s THRONE?!
I actually think that Mary will be among us, worshiping God. I hope you are not serious. Mary is not the Queen of Heaven. check out Jeremiah 7:17-19 - saying Mary is the Queen of Heaven prvokes God to anger and provokes confusion on your faces.

She will be worshiping God, DUH!

King David, who pre-figured Jesus Christ, had his Mother as the Queen.

Jesus Christ, who had Mary as His Mother, is the Queen, by virtue of her position.

Rev 12:1

The Church has always taught she is Queen of Heaven and She is: Thank God.

Mary: Queen of Heaven

You can believe whatever you want, but I choose to go with the Church, because its claim to being the One True Church is the strongest.

geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html

 

[Abbi]

I understand that there is a great deal of controversy over Revelations 12:1. You cannot say for sure that is is Mary. It could be Isreal - referred to as God’s Wife ,Isaiah 51:1&2. The twelve stars represent the twelve tribes of Israel. Still some say it is the pure church…

And k… good good. By saying that she had her own throne and everything it seemed that she wouldnt be among us worshipping God.

 

[Good_Fella]

I understand that there is a great deal of controversy over Revelations 12:1. You cannot say for sure that is is Mary. It could be Isreal - referred to as God’s Wife ,Isaiah 51:1&2. The twelve stars represent the twelve tribes of Israel. Still some say it is the pure church…

And k… good good. By saying that she had her own throne and everything it seemed that she wouldnt be among us worshipping God.

Abbi, please see my Reply #s 82 and 268 in the thread ‘Re:Scriptural Basis for Mary’s Assumption’.

In John’s Gospel, we find allusions to the Book of Genesis: The garden of Eden is a type of garden of Gethsemane, the tree of knowledge prefigures the Cross, Adam is a type of Jesus Christ, the new Adam, and Eve is a type of Mary, the new Eve. (This is clear in the story of the wedding feast in Cana.) The primal creation in Genesis 1 forshadows the renewal and redemption of creation by our Lord (Rev21:5). The woman in Revelation 12 fulfills the prophecy in Genesis 3:15. The same John, who draws parallels with Genesis in the Gospel, is the author of Revelation, in which he continues to make connections with the Old Testament Book. St. Ambrose, St. Ephrem of Syria, and St. Augustine believed that the “woman” of the Apocalypse signifies Mary, the Mother of Christ, but Mary is also shown as an allegorical figure of the Church. The Church itself and Israel are more or less subsidiary signs.

Let us not discuss this topic here or else the thread might be closed by a moderator. This is a different topic altogether.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella