Does being Catholic guarantee salvation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter seeking_21
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Sherlock:
Hecd,

Perhaps the problem is that you are asking for certainty where none exists. The Church does not know, with certainty, that unbaptized infants are guaranteed heaven. The Church DOES know, and thus teach, that baptized infants would be granted the Beatific Vision. Hence the urgency of infant baptism.
Click to expand...
Sherlock,

So would you say that the urgency and good reaon for infant baptism can be interpreted, to put it crudely, as an insurance policy against the posibility that God does distinguish between baptised and unbaptised infants and allocates different eternal fates to either class. I must say in passing, that I abhor the feeneyite interpretation of EENS, but I think it is the only possible logical interpretation of the meaning of the dogma promulgated by mediaeval popes. I think that the Church here, and elsewhere, is caught between the notion that dogma is unchangeable and the fact that the sprit of that dogma as originally promulgated is no longer acceptable. The consequence is an unseemly sophistry designed to change the dogma without admitting the change. I suggest that less than 200 years ago, the vast majority of Catholics would have had a strict feeneyite interpretation of EENS, and this is where the urgency for infant baptism finds its true roots.

In any case, if the insurance policy interpretation is now the accepted one, at least the possibility that God determines different fates for unbaptised and baptised infant must exist. And it is this notion that I find disturbing and perverse.

If on the other hand, we think that God finds a way to save unbaptised infants and the invincibly ignorant, well that rather runs counter to the notion of Original Sin (and good riddance, I say, to another grotesque concept).

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm
 
40.png
RBushlow:
If you are Anglo-Saxon, you go to Heaven, if Persian, to paradise (although paradise seems to be an earthly place).
Click to expand...
In the Requiem is sung:
‘In Paradisum deducant Angeli in tuo
adventu suscipiant te Martyres
et perducant te in civitatem sanctam Jerusalem’

John Milton wrote two epic poems: Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained.

Luke 23:43 in the King James translation to the good thief on the cross: ‘And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise’

Alec
 
Salvation is extended to those who have Faith in God and is not confined to Catholics but to all who do His will. I am a devout Catholic but it is ludicrous to believe that only ‘good’ Catholics have reserved seats on the 747 bound for Heaven. No matter what your relgious preference, you can not be a fair weathered friend when it comes to serving God. Regardless of ones religion the quality of life, both on earth and the life beyond is measured by our ability to follow God’s instructions.
 
No, being Catholic does not guarantee salavation, nor does being Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.

God looks at each person’s heart at his or her time of death, not whether he completed the 7 sacraments, went to church or was “a good person” as defined by our world.

We must accept Jesus Christ as our Savior and acknowledge that we, alone, cannot save ourselves. We are saved by the grace of God, but it isn’t simply stating the need for a Savior that gets us into heaven. It’s what we do after we acknowledge our need for Him.

We must repent and turn from our sinful way of life and walk with Him each day of our earthly lives. To walk with Him means to focus our lives on God - His plans for us, His way of life, not ours.

God’s plan for each one of us is different and unique, but ultimately He wants us to grow to be like His only son, Jesus. How do we do this? By daily obedience to Him, praying to Him, reading His Word and confessing to Him our sins.

I believe that sin is sin, whether big or small. If we are sincere in our desire for forgiveness, God knows our heart and will be merciful.

I believe that it is by His grace, our faith and Godly works ordained by God that we are saved. It’s not about our religion - Catholicism - but our relationship with Him.

I have received all the sacraments that I can as a married Catholic woman. I go to church weekly, follow the 10 Commandments and have never committed a “mortal sin”. If I die right now, does that mean I’m going to heaven? Not necessarily. God will look into my heart and how I used His resources and wisdom here on earth when placing His judgment upon me.
40.png
seeking_21:
I’m struggling with some protestant objections to catholicism, particularly the belief that the catholic church is based on works. I don’t mean works vs. grace as is often debated, but rather the idea that the way to heaven, including all necessary grace, is neatly laid out in the sacraments and if you just follow along and play by the rules then you’ll go to heaven.

I guess I’m wondering what the church teaches will happen to someone who is baptized, confirmed, regularly attends mass and is free from mortal sin, and perhaps is pretty much a good person, but really doesn’t have any faith. Maybe they acknowledge the existence of God but they are really only going to church etc. because that’s the way they were brought up and don’t really care to leave. But if questioned, they would say they really care less about their faith.

This idea confuses me because protestants often claim that their relationship with Jesus is much more personal and that a Catholic’s relationship is just based on some rote way of living. Of course there are many devout Catholics (and many lazy protestants too) but that reality is not taken into consideration when a protestant offers their opinion of the catholic way of life.
Click to expand...
 
Catechism of the Catholic Church

**161 **Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. “Since “without faith it is impossible to please [God]” and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘But he who endures to the end.’”
 
**I hope the following excerpts taken from the “Evangelium vitae” by ****Ioannes Paulus PP. II on March 25, 1995 to **the Bishops, Priests and Deacons , Men and Women religious lay Faithful and all People of Good Will on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life will give some futher insight into the topic of salvation.

"It is the sprinkled blood. A symbol and prophetic sign of it had been the blood of the sacrifices of the Old Covenant, whereby God expressed his will to communicate his own life to men, purifying and consecrating them (cf. Ex 24:8; Lev 17:11). Now all of this is fulfilled and comes true in Christ: his is the sprinkled blood which redeems, purifies and saves; it is the blood of the Mediator of the New Covenant “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt 26:28). This blood, which flows from the pierced side of Christ on the Cross (cf. Jn 19:34), “speaks more graciously” than the blood of Abel; indeed, it expresses and requires a more radical “justice”, and above all it implores mercy, it makes intercession for the brethren before the Father (cf. Heb 7:25), and it is the source of perfect redemption and the gift of new life.

The blood of Christ, while it reveals the grandeur of the Father’s love, shows how precious man is in God’s eyes and how priceless the value of his life. The Apostle Peter reminds us of this: “You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Pt 1:18-19). Precisely by contemplating the precious blood of Christ, the sign of his self-giving love (cf. Jn 13:1), the believer learns to recognize and appreciate the almost divine dignity of every human being and can exclaim with ever renewed and grateful wonder: “How precious must man be in the eyes of the Creator, if he gained so great a Redeemer’ (Exsultet of the Easter Vigil), and if God gave his only Son’ in order that man should not perish but have eternal life’ (cf. Jn 3:16)!”.
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter *Redemptor Hominis *(4 March 1979), 10; AAS 71 (1979), 274.’

[snip]

The Gospel of life is not for believers alone: it is for everyone. The issue of life and its defence and promotion is not a concern of Christians alone. Although faith provides special light and strength, this question arises in every human conscience which seeks the truth and which cares about the future of humanity. Life certainly has a sacred and religious value, but in no way is that value a concern only of believers. The value at stake is one which every human being can grasp by the light of reason; thus it necessarily concerns everyone.

(continued)
 
(page 2 of 3)

Consequently, all that we do as the “people of life and for life” should be interpreted correctly and welcomed with favour. When the Church declares that unconditional respect for the right to life of every innocent person-from conception to natural death-is one of the pillars on which every civil society stands, she “wants simply to promote a human State. A State which recognizes the defence of the fundamental rights of the human person, especially of the weakest, as its primary duty”.

The Gospel of life is for the whole of human society. To be actively pro-life is to contribute to the renewal of society through the promotion of the common good. It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop. A society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized. Only respect for life can be the foundation and guarantee of the most precious and essential goods of society, such as democracy and peace.

There can be no true democracy without a rec ognition of every person’s dignity and without respect for his or her rights.

Nor can there be true peace unless life is defended and promoted. As Paul VI pointed out: “Every crime against life is an attack on peace, especially if it strikes at the moral conduct of people… But where human rights are truly professed and publicly recognized and defended, peace becomes the joyful and operative climate of life in society”.137

The “people of life” rejoices in being able to share its commitment with so many others. Thus may the “people for life” constantly grow in number and may a new culture of love and solidarity develop for the true good of the whole of human society.

(continued)
 
(page 3 of 3)
  1. At the end of this Encyclical, we naturally look again to the Lord Jesus, “the Child born for us” (cf. Is 9:6), that in him we may contemplate “the Life” which “was made manifest” (1 Jn 1:2). In the mystery of Christ’s Birth the encounter of God with man takes place and the earthly journey of the Son of God begins, a journey which will culminate in the gift of his life on the Cross. By his death Christ will conquer death and become for all humanity the source of new life.
**The one who accepted “Life” in the name of all and for the sake of all was Mary, the Virgin Mother; she is thus most closely and personally associated with the Gospel of life. **Mary’s consent at the Annunciation and her motherhood stand at the very beginning of the mystery of life which Christ came to bestow on humanity (cf. Jn 10:10). Through her acceptance and loving care for the life of the Incarnate Word, human life has been rescued from condemnation to final and eternal death.
[snip]

Peace ~

Isabus 😃
 
[IThis idea confuses me because protestants often claim that their relationship with Jesus is much more personal and that a Catholic’s relationship is just based on some rote way of living. Of course there are many devout Catholics (and many lazy protestants too) but that reality is not taken into consideration when a protestant offers their opinion of the catholic way of life.
[/QUOTE]"

No sir, being an catholic guarantees you nothing.There are catholics in hell as wel as in heaven.The only person whose salvation is guranteed is one incapable of sin.If you die before you make your debut at sin as a baby or as a village idiot then you can gurantee your salvation but you merit in heaven will be nil. .
 
spurgeon: If you die before you make your debut at sin as a baby or as a village idiot then you can gurantee your salvation but you merit in heaven will be nil. . [/QUOTE said:
I’m confused by your statement. :confused: Are you saying a village idiot or a baby that have never sinned are guaranteed salvation though it won’t be of value to them in heaven? How can that be the truth? It doesn’t make sense to me. :hmmm:

Isabus
Click to expand...
 
heb. 9:12- christ’s sacrifice secured our redemption, but redemption is not the same thing as salvation.we participate in and hope for salvation. our hope in salvation is a guarantee if we are faithful to christ to the end. but if we lose hope and fail to persevere,we can lose our salvation. thus, by our own choosing (not by god’s doing),salvation is not a certainty. while many protestant churches believe in the theology of once saved,always saved", such a novel theory is not found in scripture and has never been taught by the church. bless you all:)
 
Hecd2,

I missed your response here, so I’m jumping back into this discussion after it’s probably gone cold. But I’ll respond nonetheless.

You wrote: “So would you say that the urgency and good reaon for infant baptism can be interpreted, to put it crudely, as an insurance policy against the posibility that God does distinguish between baptised and unbaptised infants and allocates different eternal fates to either class.”

An “insurance policy”? What an odd and gross concept. One takes out insurance as protection against unforeseen calamities. Are you saying, then, that God’s judgement of unbaptized infants constitutes a calamity? All I can say is that your concept of “God”, then, is not in keeping with the Catholic understanding of God as the ultimate Good. In an earlier post I gave you a view of “limbo” that hardly constitutes a calamity. I would say, in answer to your question, that we are given (through Scripture and Tradition) the importance and necessity of Baptism as being a necessary element of salvation. We baptize because we wish for that certainty. That does NOT mean that, in absence of that certainty, that “calamity” befalls the unbaptized soul. I think that you are insisting on certainty where the Church does not have certainty, and then you are ignoring the concept of God as Good, and go from there to making uncertainty equal calamity.

You wrote: “If on the other hand, we think that God finds a way to save unbaptised infants and the invincibly ignorant, well that rather runs counter to the notion of Original Sin (and good riddance, I say, to another grotesque concept).”

Umm, no it does not. God’s ways are not our own. And I don’t know why you find the concept of Original Sin “grotesque”. Have you read C.S. Lewis or Chesterton on the subject of Original Sin? If not, then I would encourage you to do so.

I am the offspring of an alcoholic mother, who was herself the daughter of a brutal mother. My Grandmother had her own burdens to bear from her childhood…I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of Original Sin: I can see, more plainly than I could wish to, the result of a falling away from the good path, and how that falling away carries its effects for generations. I am, like it or not, the product of my ancestors’ failings. But I take it that you think that is “grotesque”? Yeah, it is, but what are you going to do about it? Do you have the ability to redeem me?
 
Sherlock, oh…it breaks my heart to think that you must have had a childhood filled with pain from having an alcoholic Mom. I’m so sorry. Really I am. Here is a big cyberhug for you and it’s filled with tons of LOVE.

God Bless YOU,

Mary aka Isabus
 
40.png
Sherlock:
Hecd2,

I missed your response here, so I’m jumping back into this discussion after it’s probably gone cold. But I’ll respond nonetheless.

You wrote: “So would you say that the urgency and good reaon for infant baptism can be interpreted, to put it crudely, as an insurance policy against the posibility that God does distinguish between baptised and unbaptised infants and allocates different eternal fates to either class.”

An “insurance policy”? What an odd and gross concept. One takes out insurance as protection against unforeseen calamities. Are you saying, then, that God’s judgement of unbaptized infants constitutes a calamity?
Click to expand...
Of course, if that judgement banishes the infant to hell or limbo or some other state outside heaven. I wrote earlier in this thread:

'If baptised infants who die in infancy enjoy a better eternal fate than unbaptised infants, then there is urgency and good reason to baptise them. In that case, I find the idea perverse and disturbing, in that the doctrine holds that the eternal fate of sentient beings is determined by the accident of place and time of birth and the will of nearby adults, and not at all by the will or virtue of the infant soul.

If on the other hand, the fate of the souls of infants who die young does not depend on whether they are baptiised or not, then there absolutely no urgency to baptise them. That sits comfortably with me, but makes a mockery of the doctrine of Original Sin (itself a grotesque concept).’

You replied that that the fate of the baptised infant is certain, but that the fate of the unbaptised infant is uncertain - perhaps God will allow that soul into heaven and perhaps not, and therein lies the urgency for baptism. If this is not an insurance policy in practice (I admit the term is rather gross but it is accurate) then I don’t know what is.
All I can say is that your concept of “God”, then, is not in keeping with the Catholic understanding of God as the ultimate Good. In an earlier post I gave you a view of “limbo” that hardly constitutes a calamity. I would say, in answer to your question, that we are given (through Scripture and Tradition) the importance and necessity of Baptism as being a necessary element of salvation. We baptize because we wish for that certainty. That does NOT mean that, in absence of that certainty, that “calamity” befalls the unbaptized soul. I think that you are insisting on certainty where the Church does not have certainty, and then you are ignoring the concept of God as Good, and go from there to making uncertainty equal calamity.
Click to expand...
Turning uncertainty into certainty is the function of an insurance policy. Either we follow the conventional Feenian doctrine of EENS that the fate of baptised infants is different from that of unbaptised infants which is a concept I find disturbing and perverse; or we believe not, which appears not to be an option in Catholic doctrine; or we hold out the hope that there is a way that unbaptised infants are saved but we are not certain so we’d better baptise them anyway as tradition (rooted historically in the doctrine of EENS) demands, which is the application of the insurance policy (cf Pascal’s wager).

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm
 
40.png
Sherlock:
Hecd2,

You wrote: “If on the other hand, we think that God finds a way to save unbaptised infants and the invincibly ignorant, well that rather runs counter to the notion of Original Sin (and good riddance, I say, to another grotesque concept).”

Umm, no it does not. God’s ways are not our own. And I don’t know why you find the concept of Original Sin “grotesque”. Have you read C.S. Lewis or Chesterton on the subject of Original Sin? If not, then I would encourage you to do so.

I am the offspring of an alcoholic mother, who was herself the daughter of a brutal mother. My Grandmother had her own burdens to bear from her childhood…I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of Original Sin: I can see, more plainly than I could wish to, the result of a falling away from the good path, and how that falling away carries its effects for generations. I am, like it or not, the product of my ancestors’ failings. But I take it that you think that is “grotesque”? Yeah, it is, but what are you going to do about it? Do you have the ability to redeem me?
Click to expand...
I am sorry for your family history which is sad, but you yourself show our ability to rise above unpromising beginnings. Human beings are, of course, capable of extremes of goodness and heroism on the one hand and evil on the other hand, although most of us occupy a middle ground where we make our bewildered way through the undergrowth of the world’s ways as best we can. If by Original Sin we mean the proclivity of people to fall away from all that’s best and holiest in us then I have no problem with the concept.

I am sorry for your story but others live deeply loved, happy and integrated childhoods, some of which flower into grand adulthood while others fail.

The Catholic doctrine of Original Sin does not describe a tendency but a universal state - the idea that we are born with a stain that no acts of good will can remove but only, as in the case of an infant, an unwilled and entirely fortuitous ceremony, which moreover might be instrumental in determining the eternal fate of the infant’s soul, well this strikes me as meretricious mumbo-jumbo - this is what I call a grotesque concept.

You are not the product of your ancestors’ failings but the product of their genetic heritage, the environment of your childhood and your will to good or evil (assuming you believe in free will). None of us have the ability to redeem others - although we all have the ability to influence the fate of those we come into contact with. Redemption is ultimately a matter for each of us - we each have to find a way to work with the raw material of our genes, our environment and the events and people we encounter to create a life worth living. It’s a life’s task.

Alec
http://www.evolutionpages.com
 
can we lose salvation once you accept jesus as lord and savior? mt 24:13 tells us that we must " endures to the end" in order to be saved. st paul says the same thing in 2 tim 2:12: that we must hold out to the end if we want to reing with christ. in rom 11:22, christians are warned that they will be cut off if they don’t persevere in the kindness of god. hebrews 6:4-6 described people who shared in the holy spirit but then fall away from god. remember st paul’s advice :" work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (phil 2:12). who should have more assurance of salvation than st paul? yet he says: " i pommel my body and subdue it,lest after preaching to others i myself should be disqualified" ( 1 cor 9:27). scripture is very clear: christians can lose their salvation.:blessyou:
 
Isabus,

You wrote: “Sherlock, oh…it breaks my heart to think that you must have had a childhood filled with pain from having an alcoholic Mom. I’m so sorry. Really I am. Here is a big cyberhug for you and it’s filled with tons of LOVE.”

Oh, Isabus—you are a sweetheart! However, my childhood was not filled with pain. I have had a very blessed life, and I am thankful for those blessings. The world is crammed with others who have far greater need of a cyberhug than I—but thank you for the sentiments.

God bless!
 
Hecd2,

Perhaps one of the problems we have understanding one another is that our concept of God is obviously very different. This reminds me of Socrates’ dialogue with Euthyphro, in which he asks, “Is what is holy holy because the gods approve it, or do they approve it because it is holy?” Substitute here the God of Abraham for the gods of Greece, and use “good” instead of holiness for the purposes of our discussion. Now, some (not all) Jews, Christians, and Muslims would embrace a version of “it is good because God approves it”. (This is why extremist Muslims can commit murder and mayhem, for example—in their eyes, God approves this and therefore it is good). However, the classic Catholic understanding is that God IS good (or holy, if you want). God’s will IS holiness. Holiness is God’s eternal nature, and thus God always wills in accordance with his nature. Catholics do not see God as a tyrant, acting arbitrarily. I’m not sure you understand that. We can have trust in God’s goodness. So when, in response to my question, “Are you saying, then, that God’s judgement of unbaptized infants constitutes a calamity”, you answer, “Of course, if that judgement banishes the infant to hell or limbo or some other state outside heaven”, you can see that our concepts of God are far apart. I can trust that God will not banish unbaptized infants to hell. But no, I cannot make a “calamity”, as you do, of limbo or some other state. I trust in God as good. Saying this does not remove the necessity of baptism as the normative “doorway” to salvation, for reasons that I’ve stated earlier.

You wrote: “Turning uncertainty into certainty is the function of an insurance policy.”

Nonsense. Having an insurance policy does not give me the certainty that a calamity will not befall me (it may). It merely attempts to give me some kind of aid when it happens. Baptism is not some sort of insurance policy, but a vehicle of grace and a doorway to salvation—sorry, but the analogy just doesn’t work within the Catholic understanding of God.
 
Hecd2,

To continue with our discussion: you wrote: “The Catholic doctrine of Original Sin does not describe a tendency but a universal state - the idea that we are born with a stain that no acts of good will can remove but only, as in the case of an infant, an unwilled and entirely fortuitous ceremony, which moreover might be instrumental in determining the eternal fate of the infant’s soul, well this strikes me as meretricious mumbo-jumbo - this is what I call a grotesque concept.”

Catholic doctrine does describe a tendency AND a universal state: a universal tendency, you might say. I haven’t found that this contradicts anything I’ve seen in the world around me. Here is a passage from “Gaudium et Spes” which I think puts it quite well:

“What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn toward what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end; and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as between himself and other men and all creatures.”

No, no act of good will can remove this—you’re right. One person, Christ, removed it, and baptism imparts Christ’s grace. I would recommend reading the Catechism’s section on original sin and its effects, and the effects of baptism. Baptism confers grace—since we can’t “will” grace (it is a gift), then whether or not the recipient is an unaware infant or a very aware convert matters not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top