Doesn't your relationship with God matter more than your denomination?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jackrl98
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This subject always brings me back to the beginning of Matt 25, that parable of the 10 virgins best demonstrates that knowing the name of Jesus, though it’s powerful, is simply not enough.

Per Jesus Himself, if that was the important item, that’s what would have been taught. That’s contrary to a thick Bible, with hoards of info (much related to instruction and process), which houses only parts of the life of Christ.

I’m sure everyone has heard -

BASIC
instruction
before
leaving
earth

Basic indicates there is more!

Prepare well and properly the parable teaches.
Hi ffg,

Indeed, the parable says that religion, even toting a bible, or engaging in sacraments, can be false security. I believe the parable teaches this one immutable fact, that every one must personally account for themselves, and we can not rely on "others’’, even tradition (formed by others) for our graces. One must be born again, be filled with the Holy Ghost, even knowing Jesus. This is true for every Catholic, or P, or O, including laity and all clergy.

So how do you prepare well, but by the receiving the grace of new life in Christ, being filled with the Holy Ghost.

I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. Rev 3:18

Be born again, born of God, born of the Spirit, regenerated…this is a (the) work of God.

He can not reject Himself in us.

He prepares us (with white raiment).

Self clothing is inequity.

Blessings
 
Hmm. I’m not sure if this is a fair characterization of what the Church teaches on salvation outside of the Church. Best description of the teaching on this is in Lumen Gentium, par. 14:

A link to the whole document is here

Best way to put it is that God will hold you accountable for what you know, and will not hold you accountable for what you don’t know. So, as long as one *knows *that the Church is necessary for salvation, and refuses to enter or remain, one’s salvation is in peril. Where a person “is” in this regard is not for us to say. It is between God and that person. I don’t think the teaching has been anything more (or less) than this.

Peace,
Robert
Hi r,

Thank you. Yes am aware of this quote. The *knowing the necessity of the CC *is vague, and can certainly be taken by hard and soft liners in the CC.

It is problematic for CC for how can one say that one must eat the Body, and confess to a priest a mortal sin, yet say that someone who does not may still possibly be saved by God’s omniscienct graces ?

Blessings
 
Hi r,

Thank you. Yes am aware of this quote. The *knowing the necessity of the CC *is vague, and can certainly be taken by hard and soft liners in the CC.

It is problematic for CC for how can one say that one must eat the Body, and confess to a priest a mortal sin, yet say that someone who does not may still possibly be saved by God’s omniscienct graces ?

Blessings
Hi Ben

Why would it be problematic?

Each case is different. Thief on the cross didn’t need sacraments but others do, etc.

Jesus told the Pharisees that if they were blind they would have no sin.

The catechism rightly states that while God gives us sacraments…he, himself is not bound to them.
 
Which denomination teaches the true presence in the Eucharist….that’s all that matters.
Remarkable what you learn on a discussion forum … Just wish we had known that all those centuries ago before we wasted tons of effort on the Arian controversy, the Nestorian controversy, papal authority, justification, etc.

Oh well. :o
 
It is problematic for CC for how can one say that one must eat the Body, and confess to a priest a mortal sin, yet say that someone who does not may still possibly be saved by God’s omniscienct graces ?
Hi Ben, It is truly more problematic for you than a Catholic. We know we have Christ’s guarantee through His Church if we do these things we will have eternal life. In His own words, we have life in us.

The Church nowhere teaches that if you do NOT do these things that you will have eternal life, nor does Christ. So truly, in the Church’s hope for your soul, we hope that your refusal to believe what she teaches, is because of ignorance on your part. There is no guarantee from Christ that such ignorance will lead to salvation.

One last thing. I know many Protestants who have read what the Church teaches on this subject. Every one of them thinks the teaching is clear. So it surprises me that you think it is vague.
 
Which denomination teaches the true presence in the Eucharist…that’s all that matters.
Indeed…for as we are told the Eucharist is the Source and Summit of the Christian life!

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; John 6:53

Looking at your post count you probably don’t need the advice but pay no mind to snarky comments directed at you.
 
All Christians believe that outside the Church there is no salvation.
OK, I can see your point here; BUT what does Jesus Himself think about what “we think?”🤷

Asked another way:

Can even GOD hold more than one set of faith beliefs?:o

GBY
 
This subject always brings me back to the beginning of Matt 25, that parable of the 10 virgins best demonstrates that knowing the name of Jesus, though it’s powerful, is simply not enough.

Per Jesus Himself, if that was the important item, that’s what would have been taught. That’s contrary to a thick Bible, with hoards of info (much related to instruction and process), which houses only parts of the life of Christ.

I’m sure everyone has heard -

BASIC
instruction
before
leaving
earth

Basic indicates there is more!

Prepare well and properly the parable teaches.
WELL DONE!

Thanks and no I had never see the “BASIC”
 
Which denomination teaches the true presence in the Eucharist…that’s all that matters.
CAUTION here:)

The better question IMO, is not which teach it; rather which Church actually HAVE it:thumbsup: … that my friend is quite a difference.

GBY
 
Leaving the Church would, according to Catholic teaching, definitely be a grave sin (schism).

The Church will not say that a given individual has committed a “mortal” sin, because that implies knowledge and intent. A person who genuinely believes that they are following God in leaving the Church might well be in a state of grace even while committing the objectively grave sin of schism.

Edwin
Here is what the bible foretells for ALL those who for any reason leave the RCC

Heb.6: 1 to 8

"Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, with instruction about ablutions, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits.** For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened [BAPTIZED AND RECEIVED THE GRACES[/COLOR], who have tasted the heavenly gift,[CATHOLIC HOLY COMMUNION:JESUS HIMSELF] and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,[BEEN CONFIRMED IN THE RCC] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God [BEEN EXPOSED TO CHRIST TRUTHS] and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.

And here is what the Catechism teaches:

1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches 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, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

AMEN

GBY**
 
Hi ffg,

Indeed, the parable says that religion, even toting a bible, or engaging in sacraments, can be false security. I believe the parable teaches this one immutable fact, that every one must personally account for themselves, and we can not rely on "others’’, even tradition (formed by others) for our graces. One must be born again, be filled with the Holy Ghost, even knowing Jesus. This is true for every Catholic, or P, or O, including laity and all clergy.

So how do you prepare well, but by the receiving the grace of new life in Christ, being filled with the Holy Ghost.

I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. Rev 3:18

Be born again, born of God, born of the Spirit, regenerated…this is a (the) work of God.

He can not reject Himself in us.

He prepares us (with white raiment).

Self clothing is inequity.

Blessings
THANK YOU

So my friend, a question:

Can even GOD hold more than one set of faith beliefs; or does what one chooses to believe supersede the reality of the first part of the question?🤷

GBY!
 
Hi r,

Thank you. Yes am aware of this quote. The *knowing the necessity of the CC *is vague, and can certainly be taken by hard and soft liners in the CC.

It is problematic for CC for how can one say that one must eat the Body, and confess to a priest a mortal sin, yet say that someone who does not may still possibly be saved by God’s omniscienct graces ?

Blessings
HERE’S A THOUGHT FOR ALL:

God will, because as GOD, He must pass final judgment upon each of us based NOT on what we have chosen to believe, accept or live; NO, rather it will be in Divine Justices based upon what HE, GOD has made POSSIBLE for each of us to know, accept and live.:o

As to your final question; PLEASE read my POST above this one for what the RCC actually teaches on salvation.

GBY

Patrick
 
Hi Ben

Why would it be problematic?

Each case is different. Thief on the cross didn’t need sacraments but others do, etc.

Jesus told the Pharisees that if they were blind they would have no sin.

The catechism rightly states that while God gives us sacraments…he, himself is not bound to them.
My friend, for MY edification: WHERE does the bible say Christ is not bound by the Sacraments? {He instituted them]

Thanks

Patrick
 
Hi Ben, It is truly more problematic for you than a Catholic. We know we have Christ’s guarantee through His Church if we do these things we will have eternal life. In His own words, we have life in us.

The Church nowhere teaches that if you do NOT do these things that you will have eternal life, nor does Christ. So truly, in the Church’s hope for your soul, we hope that your refusal to believe what she teaches, is because of ignorance on your part. There is no guarantee from Christ that such ignorance will lead to salvation.

One last thing. I know many Protestants who have read what the Church teaches on this subject. Every one of them thinks the teaching is clear. So it surprises me that you think it is vague.
PLEASE READ Post #131
 
Hi ffg,

Indeed, the parable says that religion, even toting a bible, or engaging in sacraments, can be false security. **I believe **the parable teaches this one immutable fact, that every one must **personally account **for themselves, and we can not rely on "others’’, even tradition (formed by others) for our graces. One must be born again, be filled with the Holy Ghost, even knowing Jesus. This is true for every Catholic, or P, or O, including laity and all clergy.

So how do you prepare well, but by the receiving the grace of new life in Christ, being filled with the Holy Ghost.

I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. Rev 3:18

Be born again, born of God, born of the Spirit, regenerated…this is a (the) work of God.

He can not reject Himself in us.

He prepares us (with white raiment).

Self clothing is inequity.

Blessings
Thanks Ben, good to catch up.

I bolded I think the key where we differ. We have to take parables at face value. If it was a message to individuals, don’t you think it would have been the parable of the 2 virgins?

I don’t think we can ignore that we have a situation where you start with a congregation (10) and that half the congregation prepares one way, the other prepares differently (pointed out as unprepared).

It’s easy to conflate sin and preparation, but we must remember Sin is where we “personally account”.

If preparation was included in that logic, that would conflict with 12 Apostles, serving 2x2, feeding many. Working together, working out the Way together is heavily taught.

From an individual perspective, be alert about avoiding sin certainly, as that is yours you own.

But from a preparation perspective, God made people to work well together.

Take care,
 
Hi r,

Thank you. Yes am aware of this quote. The *knowing the necessity of the CC *is vague, and can certainly be taken by hard and soft liners in the CC.

It is problematic for CC for how can one say that one must eat the Body, and confess to a priest a mortal sin, yet say that someone who does not may still possibly be saved by God’s omniscienct graces ?

Blessings
I don’t really see the problem. For those who know that the Eucharist is the real presence of Christ, and that Christ has given the Church the power to forgive sins in His name, why would you stay away from the Sacraments since Christ has given them to us? For those who, because of their upbringing, background, or whatever other personal reasons, remain unconvinced there is Christ’s mercy. What is in someone’s heart is between that person and God. It’s not a problem for Catholics because we are not required to judge who is saved and who is not. I’ll leave that to my Baptist friend who tells me I’m going to Hell because I worship a cracker… God love him. 😉
 
PLEASE READ Post #131
Notice the Catechism says the ignorant can be saved, not will be saved. Christ never said one way or the other.
OK, I can see your point here; BUT what does Jesus Himself think about what “we think?”🤷

Asked another way:

Can even GOD hold more than one set of faith beliefs?:o

GBY
At it’s core, what is the Church? Is it not the mystical body of Christ? And in Christ’s own words no one can come to the Father but through Him. So you must be part of His body for salvation. You cannot have Jesus without the Church. That is why with confidence we say extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

You might find this article interesting shamelesspopery.com/jesus-without-the-church/
 
Hi Ben

Why would it be problematic?

Each case is different. Thief on the cross didn’t need sacraments but others do, etc.

Jesus told the Pharisees that if they were blind they would have no sin.

The catechism rightly states that while God gives us sacraments…he, himself is not bound to them.
Hi La,

No, some Catholics would say problematic. Either one must "eat’’ or “confess”, as Jesus said, or it is *optional *? The most you could say that CC view is a better option, but it is still an option, not a must anymore. Or is there indeed a optional way of “must” eating ? Is it really up to one’s beliefs, that both are saved? Is it really necessary for one to belong to the CC to be saved then ?

One can not escape the dilemma by citing exceptions to the rule, for as you know , sometimes the exception also proves the rule.

Blessings
 
Hi Ben, It is truly more problematic for you than a Catholic. We know we have Christ’s guarantee through His Church if we do these things we will have eternal life. In His own words, we have life in us.

The Church nowhere teaches that if you do NOT do these things that you will have eternal life, nor does Christ. So truly, in the Church’s hope for your soul, we hope that your refusal to believe what she teaches, is because of ignorance on your part. There is no guarantee from Christ that such ignorance will lead to salvation.

One last thing. I know many Protestants who have read what the Church teaches on this subject. Every one of them thinks the teaching is clear. So it surprises me that you think it is vague.
Hi duane,

Thanks for your response.

If I may say, it appears you viewpoint is on the hard line side, that not all would agree. Yet not sure you word it the way decrees do. Another words, i understand the decrees that say we are not in fullness, or that we are in a dingy, and not the Big mother ship etc, but can u cite any decree or catechism that puts it as you do, that there is no guarantee for P’s but only for those in the graces of the CC church ? Again the CC teaches these other are brethren(and really there is not guarantee for anyone , even CC, unless one believes in OSAS).

Still think the term ignorance (of CC) is very subjective, and the gospel fruit is quite objective , that one knows of his salvation, as per john’s epistle. I mean do you think I am ignorant of CC and her teachings and her call for men’s souls ? Do you really think I do not understand the teaching of CC "eating’’ , or confession ? Remember, many reformers were steeped in CC, even clergymen. (of course I understand the rarer exception , where one has heard nothing , or little of Catholic church, just as a missionary may encounter folks who have heard nothing of any gospel, C or O or P.)

Blessings
 
THANK YOU

So my friend, a question:

Can even GOD hold more than one set of faith beliefs; or does what one chooses to believe supersede the reality of the first part of the question?🤷

GBY!
Hi PJM,

Actually my post was far from being anything “relative”, and wholly on the side of absolute truth. One must absolutely be born again, born of the Father/the Spirit, regenerated.

Absolutely, no two ways about it, as the judgement day (and the parable) will reveal.

Blessings
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top