Does it really matter being Catholic?

[Alizarin]

Believing the right way should not be “easy”.

Matthew 11:30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

 

[floresco]

Matthew 11:30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

If we are going to play proof-versing, I’ll see your Matthew 11:30 and raise you a Matt 7:13-14:
13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy,[a] that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

I used to be a Fundamentalist. I can do this all day.

 

[John_Q_Sinner]

I used to be a Fundamentalist. I can do this all day.

 

[Back2Church]

Just thinking outloud

If baprism automatically makes one Catholic and “in the Church” them Protestants regardless of stripe who have been baptised, could walk off the street and receive the sacraments of Penance, & particularly Eucharist in the Catholic Church. Since they can’t just walk off the street as a non Catholic, and do that, at least not untill they successfully go through RCIA and are received into the Church, then without that, they are outside the Church. As the bishops say, to be able to receive those sacraments as a non Catholic, would be to acknowledge a union that isn’t there. iow they are outside the Church

Let me quote a post I made earlier in this thread in which I quoted some relevant information from the questions section of Catholic.com:

Validly baptized Protestants are regarded as true Christian brothers and sisters who are in imperfect relationship with the Church. The nature of the imperfections is as varied as Protestantism itself. The idea at work here is that the faith is an incarnational thing, not just a “spiritual” (disembodied) thing—just like Jesus himself. Thus, it is possible to be out of union with the Church “bodily” (structurally, sacramentally, liturgically), yet still have a spiritual unity with the Church.http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-the-relationship-between-the-church-and-baptized-protestants

I hope that helps clarify what I mean. We only believe that one church exists. If someone believes in Christ, then he is part of that church, whether he realizes agrees with it or not. Whether you realize or agree with it or not. That person might not be in full communion with the church, but he’s still a Christian and Christ only has one church.

Part of, but not in the Church. And that has consequences

I never said otherwise.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The Church teaches that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. I do not subscribe necessarily to a Feenyist belief that anyone who has never receieved the sacrament of water baptism or is outside visible communion with the Church is necessarily damned without doubt, but I think there is a tendancy to treat this teaching extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" too lightly. This is a perilous position to take because it downplays the necessity of belonging to the Church to outsiders and discourages those inside to evangelize.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks in the most optimistic possible terms about the prospect of salvation for non-Catholics (of course all those who are truly not Catholic are damned by definition, but I am speaking according to outward appearances). However, even the Catechism is notable for what it does not say.

“[O]ne 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, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”
(CCC 818, quoting Unitatis Redintegratio)

The Catechism says that those born by no fault of their own into communities separated from the Catholic Church cannot be charged by “sin of separation” (which paragraph 817 specifies as heresy, apostasy, and schism), however, this is not saying that they are without any guilt in any respect. It seems more to say that they are free from the guilt of actively severing ties from the Church, similar to how we are free from Adam’s guilt of eating the apple, but not that they are any freer from the consequences of their ancestors’ active separation than we are free from the consequences of original sin. This is borne out by the emphasis in the Vatican II documents that these “separated communities” are in no way equal to the Church.

Regarding the second part of the paragraph, it states that those who have been justified by baptism are incorporated in Christ. Of course this is true, but this is no sweeping declaration that the baptized outside the Church are on the path to salvation. If there are so many Catholics who are baptized and who are not numbered among the elect, it is certain that the corresponding number of those baptized outside the Church and are baptized is far smaller. Baptism alone is not sufficient for salvation. There are many “Christian brethren” in the Catholic Church who will not see the kingdom of heaven.

The Catechism goes on to say:

“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church…”
(CCC 819)

However, the existence of such elements in no way means that they will profit to salvation.

“Outside the Catholic Church, is is possible to have everything except salvation. It is possible to have honor, it is posible to have Sacraments, it is possible to sing Alleluia, it is possible to respond Amen, it is possible to have the Gospel, it is posible to have faith and preach in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: but never has it been possible to find salvation except in the Catholic Church.”
(St. Augustine, Sermon to the People of the Caesarean Church, ch. 6)
augustinus.it/latino/discorso_cesarea/index.htm

Unitatis Redintegration and the CCC insist on the capability of the separated communities of giving access to “the community of salvation,” but it speaks about this possibility in very unclear terms and it is not clear to me what this means in practice. As far as I recall, there is no statement that bars the interpretation (though this is most doubtful the intention of the authors) that this only means that Christ works through these other communities to lead their members out of these communities and into visible communion with the Catholic Church, which even Unitatis Redintegratio solidly affirms is the only community of salvation.

“Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God.”
(Unitatis Redintegratio 3 § 5)

I read these sorts of statements as a prayerful hope in God’s mercy than any promise based in revelation.

 

[Alizarin]

If we are going to play proof-versing…

Is proof-texting a bad thing? Seems the CCC is full of references to biblical verses and quotes from Church Fathers. But if you’d rather we not do that, that’s okay by me.

Besides, I didn’t chime in with the hope of changing anyone’s mind. I just wanted to add my 2 cents to the thread. Sorry if any offense was taken.

 

[floresco]

Is proof-texting a bad thing? Seems the CCC is full of references to biblical verses and quotes from Church Fathers. But if you’d rather we not do that, that’s okay by me.

Besides, I didn’t chime in with the hope of changing anyone’s mind. I just wanted to add my 2 cents to the thread. Sorry if any offense was taken.

The Church is the proper interpreter of Scripture. It is perfectly natural and appropriate for Church teaching to contain references to the Bible because these will be used correctly. When a private individual pulls verses out of context to use as debate points (especially when arguing against Church teaching) that is often a bad thing.

But I didn’t say I would rather not do it. I merely implied that I would be better at it than you. Playing at proof-versing does not offend me. I just think it is a bit silly. But I do not object to showing off my useless skills. I can do Star Trek trivia too.

 

[steve_b]

Hi Steve and good post.
Here are a few of my thoughts. If a protestant or other is validly baptized in their church and if baptism makes one a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, and the Mystical Body of Christ is the Catholic Church, I do not see how this protestant or other can be at one and the same time a member of the Mystical Body of Christ and not a member.
It seems we need to acknowledge that there are degrees of membership or communion in the Catholic Church. A practicing catholic who is receiving the sacraments and adhering to the teaching of the Church has full membership or communion in the Church. The sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is a sign of this full communion. Our seperated brethern who have been validly baptized have a lesser degree of membership and communion with the Catholic Church.
I’m not saying at all that it doesn’t matter whether one is Catholic or not. Quite obviously, it is Jesus’ will that all people be in full communion with His Mystical Body which is the Catholic Church.

:tiphat: howdy

To your point, just thinking outloud,

a non-Catholic even though baptised, can’t receive penance catholic.com/quickquestions/as-a-protestant-who-wishes-to-stay-focused-on-the-lord-may-i-confess-my-sins-to-a-pri and Eucharist in the Catholic Church. The exception is only in extraordinary conditions such as that person’s close proximity to death.

I would observe from this, that baptism alone, isn’t enough. Faith in the true faith and obedience to it, is required as well. If a non-Catholic can’t participate in the central sacraments of the Catholic Church until they come fully into the Church, that means to me, while a member in some way by virtue of baptism, non-Catholics becaue they can’t participate in the sacraments until they come fully into the Church, remain outside the Church looking in.

 

[steve_b]

Let me quote a post I made earlier in this thread in which I quoted some relevant information from the questions section of Catholic.com:

I hope that helps clarify what I mean. We only believe that one church exists. If someone believes in Christ, then he is part of that church, whether he realizes agrees with it or not. Whether you realize or agree with it or not. That person might not be in full communion with the church, but he’s still a Christian and Christ only has one church.

as you pointed out in your post, by virtue of baptism, at best non-Catholics “are in imperfect relationship with the Church”. I agree. All I’m saying is, the relationship is so imperfect they are not invited to receive sacraments in the Catholic Church. And also, once they know their history, and why their relationship is so imperfect, they have to correct it, by coming home to the Catholic Church.

btw, I couldn’t open up the link you provided.

 

[Jon_S_1]

But I didn’t say I would rather not do it. I merely implied that I would be better at it than you. Playing at proof-versing does not offend me. I just think it is a bit silly. But I do not object to showing off my useless skills. I can do Star Trek trivia too.

 

[Pulvis]

Many very good and well thought out replies here. Yet reading the O.P.'s question and many responses to it, I find my wish for unambiguous language and yes and no answers reinforced. It was much simpler when we had less wiggle room, even if that wiggle room does not truly exist, but just seems to due to the language used in the C. C. C. and the documents of Vatican Council II.
When one reads the Encyclicals and writings of the Early Church Fathers and the Popes and Saints Pre-Vatican Council II, there was rarely any doubt as to the point or teaching being made. Now… not so much.

I would direct the O.P. to find a good, orthodox Priest to discuss and work out this doubt.

Pax

 

[Jon_S_1]

Many very good and well thought out replies here. Yet reading the O.P.'s question and many responses to it, I find my wish for unambiguous language and yes and no answers reinforced. It was much simpler when we had less wiggle room, even if that wiggle room does not truly exist, but just seems to due to the language used in the C. C. C. and the documents of Vatican Council II.
When one reads the Encyclicals and writings of the Early Church Fathers and the Popes and Saints Pre-Vatican Council II, there was rarely any doubt as to the point or teaching being made. Now… not so much.

I would direct the O.P. to find a good, orthodox Priest to discuss and work out this doubt.

Pax

I thought someone posted it in this thread but I don’t see it perhaps I overlooked it or it was another thread. Good thing I bookmarked it!

The apparent PERCEIVED ambiguity in the Catechism or Vatican 2 documents is easily cleared up by reading the clarifying documents from the Congregation of the Doctrine if the Faith, the magesterium. These paragraphs should clear it up, and a whole reading of this document definitively clears it up.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

DECLARATION
“DOMINUS IESUS”
ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY
OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

1. Not infrequently it is proposed that theology should avoid the use of terms like “unicity”, “universality”, and “absoluteness”, which give the impression of excessive emphasis on the significance and value of the salvific event of Jesus Christ in relation to other religions. In reality, however, such language is simply being faithful to revelation, since it represents a development of the sources of the faith themselves. From the beginning, the community of believers has recognized in Jesus a salvific value such that he alone, as Son of God made man, crucified and risen, by the mission received from the Father and in the power of the Holy Spirit, bestows revelation (cf. Mt 11:27) and divine life (cf. Jn 1:12; 5:25-26; 17:2) to all humanity and to every person.

Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”.77 This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.78

Certainly, the various religious traditions contain and offer religious elements which come from God,85 and which are part of what “the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures, and religions”.86 Indeed, some prayers and rituals of the other religions may assume a role of preparation for the Gospel, in that they are occasions or pedagogical helps in which the human heart is prompted to be open to the action of God.87 One cannot attribute to these, however, a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy, which is proper to the Christian sacraments.88 Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors (cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21), constitute an obstacle to salvation.89

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

 

[Back2Church]

as you pointed out in your post, by virtue of baptism, at best non-Catholics “are in imperfect relationship with the Church”. I agree. All I’m saying is, the relationship is so imperfect they are not invited to receive sacraments in the Catholic Church. And also, once they know their history, and why their relationship is so imperfect, they have to correct it, by coming home to the Catholic Church.

btw, I couldn’t open up the link you provided.

Yes, I believe we are in complete agreement!

Strange about the link. I probably did something wrong. It’s to one of the “quick questions” in the library section of this site.

 

[Alizarin]

The Church is the proper interpreter of Scripture. It is perfectly natural and appropriate for Church teaching to contain references to the Bible because these will be used correctly. When a private individual pulls verses out of context to use as debate points (especially when arguing against Church teaching) that is often a bad thing.

Well, I’m not sure why you thought that verse was pulled “out of context”. Maybe you could elaborate upon that point?

Also, I gotta say, I’m sincerely stumped as to how to have a discussion with a Catholic here when by the nature of the system it always comes down to an appeal to authority. If we agreed on the legitimacy of that authority, that would be one thing, but we don’t, so where does that leave us? At an impasse, I believe.

Of course, you can quote the scripture verses that support your position about Peter and the keys etc., but then I can claim proof-texting and improper context, and then you say, “No, the Church has the context right”, but that’s the appeal to authority again, in particular the authority which I – as a Protestant – can’t accept. Again, impasse.

Makes me think I should just give up on internet forums

 

[Jon_S_1]

Well, I’m not sure why you thought that verse was pulled “out of context”. Maybe you could elaborate upon that point?

Also, I gotta say, I’m sincerely stumped as to how to have a discussion with a Catholic here when by the nature of the system it always comes down to an appeal to authority. If we agreed on the legitimacy of that authority, that would be one thing, but we don’t, so where does that leave us? At an impasse, I believe.

Of course, you can quote the scripture verses that support your position about Peter and the keys etc., but then I can claim proof-texting and improper context, and then you say, “No, the Church has the context right”, but that’s the appeal to authority again, in particular the authority which I – as a Protestant – can’t accept. Again, impasse.

Makes me think I should just give up on internet forums

I am so glad you realize this impasse! Lets talk about it.

You do not deny authority, you have to give authority to someone you just choose to give yourself authority rather than the Church. Here is the problem with that. Its not Biblical, and it makes no sense, and it causes disfunction as everyone being their own Pope has caused the immense division among protestants today.

So you may claim, “No my authority is the Bible alone”

Ok

There is a problem with that. Every Christian claims the Bible as Authority. Catholics, Evangelicals, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, even Mormons and cult groups like the Branch Davidians.

So there is a problem there. And the problem is the Bible cannot interpret itself. It needs an instructor, the author, the compiler, to hold to the truths that the book originally presented. It is not a free for all.

The book was written by first century Christians. I

It was written to established churches in and around the mediterranean, who were ALREADY PRACTICING CHRISTIANITY.

The Bible supplemented their practice, not defined it.

The Church has continued to protect the truth that it received from Christ and the Apostles and they have held the interpretation the Bible gives because they heard it from the mouths of the Apostles. And we have documents and evidence in the first century supporting this FACT.

So I appeal to history here, but also the Bible.

Plain as day it tells us how to handle and resolve this dispute.

MAtt 18:15-17

“If your brother or sister** sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Now what greater sin would there be than preaching and teaching heresy?

We discuss this issue together, and cannot resolve it, so we take it to two or three others and still an impasse. Then WE MUST TAKE IT TO THE CHURCH!

What church, yours mine, the mormon church, which church???

The church that CHRIST ESTABLISHED AND FOUNDED in the first century. The CHURCH that compiled the Bible, THE CHURCH THAT HAS BEEN THE CUSTODIAN OF GODS WORD FOR 2000 years!!!

Its plain as day.

I like the way Ignatius of Antioch said it regarding schizmatics. He said this around 110AD, not long after Polycarp and John died of who he was their successor.

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again.** They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes”** (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).**

 

[Alizarin]

I am so glad you realize this impasse! Lets talk about it.

You do not deny authority, you have to give authority to someone you just choose to give yourself authority rather than the Church. Here is the problem with that. Its not Biblical, and it makes no sense, and it causes disfunction as everyone being their own Pope has caused the immense division among protestants today.

So you may claim, “No my authority is the Bible alone”

Ok

There is a problem with that. Every Christian claims the Bible as Authority. Catholics, Evangelicals, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, even Mormons and cult groups like the Branch Davidians.

So there is a problem there. And the problem is the Bible cannot interpret itself. It needs an instructor, the author, the compiler, to hold to the truths that the book originally presented. It is not a free for all.

The book was written by first century Christians. I

It was written to established churches in and around the mediterranean, who were ALREADY PRACTICING CHRISTIANITY.

The Bible supplemented their practice, not defined it.

The Church has continued to protect the truth that it received from Christ and the Apostles and they have held the interpretation the Bible gives because they heard it from the mouths of the Apostles. And we have documents and evidence in the first century supporting this FACT.

So I appeal to history here, but also the Bible.

Plain as day it tells us how to handle and resolve this dispute.

MAtt 18:15-17

“If your brother or sister** sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Now what greater sin would there be than preaching and teaching heresy?

We discuss this issue together, and cannot resolve it, so we take it to two or three others and still an impasse. Then WE MUST TAKE IT TO THE CHURCH!

What church, yours mine, the mormon church, which church???

The church that CHRIST ESTABLISHED AND FOUNDED in the first century. The CHURCH that compiled the Bible, THE CHURCH THAT HAS BEEN THE CUSTODIAN OF GODS WORD FOR 2000 years!!!

Its plain as day.

I like the way Ignatius of Antioch said it regarding schizmatics. He said this around 110AD, not long after Polycarp and John died of who he was their successor.

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again.** They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes”**** (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

I know the arguments. I used to make the same ones when I was Catholic I got them from Hahn, and Belloc, and Sheen. Good company. But I just don’t believe them anymore. So back to the impasse.

And it’s an insurmountable one. Neither one of us will convince the other. One day, something in you clicked and you believed Catholicism was the fullness of the truth, while one day something in me clicked and made me believe the opposite.

The good news is this: While I went one way, you went the other, so we did our part to keep the teams balanced

Well, it was nice talking to ya…

 

[HelenRose]

I am Catholic and Christian and that will never change! In my heart of hearts I cannot believe that we as Catholics are the only followers of Christ (Christians) that will ever get the opportunity to gain heaven if free of sin because we are solely Catholic Christians. I truly believe it is both arrogant and sinful to believe that WE as Catholics preempt any/all other followers of Christ (Christians) and His Word in getting into Heaven.

No one should second guess God’s Will in matters of who goes to Heaven and why, if we do then aren’t we guilty of casting the first stone?

I heard a homily once where the PRIEST said, and I quote, " There are people in this Church that will not be in Heaven. There are people who are not in this Church that will be in Heaven…"

Mike

I have come to realize that the Catholic Church is just what that means. Universal and eternal. Heaven is the Church. If a soul is in the presence of God, which is heaven, he or she is the loving arms of Christ’s bride the Church.

I agree with you that we can not second guess God’s mercy. We can not possibly know the journey that a soul is making toward or away from God.

Why be a Catholic if God’s mercy also reaches out to those who are not Catholics? For me the answer is because the Church teaches us that very thing. She also teaches us to be merciful. The Catholic Church teaches the truth and gives us a sure path to follow. I love the Church just as I love standing on a mountain looking at the beauty of God’s creation. Why be anywhere else? Here is where mercy originates. Here is where love begins. Here is where the Eucharist is. Here is the beginning of all the goodness I have found. Do I begrudge God’s love radiating from His Church to the souls of all the world? Of course not.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I know the arguments. I used to make the same ones when I was Catholic I got them from Hahn, and Belloc, and Sheen. Good company. But I just don’t believe them anymore. So back to the impasse.

And it’s an insurmountable one. Neither one of us will convince the other. One day, something in you clicked and you believed Catholicism was the fullness of the truth, while one day something in me clicked and made me believe the opposite.

The good news is this: While I went one way, you went the other, so we did our part to keep the teams balanced

Well, it was nice talking to ya…

Well I just encourage you to think about how Matt 18 has any bearing in Protestantism. I watched churches split and disagreements. People founding their own churches because no one else agreed.

It’s a state if relativism. And it’s dysfunctional. God knew and he taught us a better way.

 

[steve_b]

I know the arguments. I used to make the same ones when I was Catholic I got them from Hahn, and Belloc, and Sheen. Good company. But I just don’t believe them anymore. So back to the impasse.

And what exactly is it that you don’t believe anymore?
A:

And it’s an insurmountable one. Neither one of us will convince the other. One day, something in you clicked and you believed Catholicism was the fullness of the truth, while one day something in me clicked and made me believe the opposite.

The good news is this: While I went one way, you went the other, so we did our part to keep the teams balanced

Well, it was nice talking to ya…

That’s not good news and that’s not balance. That’s relativism.

 

[floresco]

Also, I gotta say, I’m sincerely stumped as to how to have a discussion with a Catholic here when by the nature of the system it always comes down to an appeal to authority. If we agreed on the legitimacy of that authority, that would be one thing, but we don’t, so where does that leave us? At an impasse, I believe.

Of course, you can quote the scripture verses that support your position about Peter and the keys etc., but then I can claim proof-texting and improper context, and then you say, “No, the Church has the context right”, but that’s the appeal to authority again, in particular the authority which I – as a Protestant – can’t accept. Again, impasse.

Makes me think I should just give up on internet forums

Well, if your goal is to try to convince us that your disagreement with Church teaching is right, then you should give up. This is a Catholic forum and it is not appropriate to come here to persuade us to turn against the Church. If your goal is to understand us better, then you do not need to share our assumptions, you just need to know what they are. So it is up to you to decide what your purpose for posting is.