Explain salvation to me, please

  • Thread starter Thread starter D0UBTFIRE
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Church no longer teaches strictly according to 154 above
This is in the later Catechism of the Catholic Church: ** VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM **

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For *catechumens *who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

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."63 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.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
 
The Church no longer teaches strictly according to 154 above
The Church teaches that it’s possible to be saved apart from Baptism, but the Church has absolutely no idea how that works. The criteria is unknown. The Church doesn’t know if many have been saved apart from Baptism, or few, or even if anyone has ever been saved this way. Just because it’s possible doesn’t mean it has ever happened.

That’s why the CCC (1257) says
The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude
This is why the Church emphasizes the importance of Baptism. It would be wrong to neglect the 100% guaranteed ministry of Baptism because some other way is possible.

BTW, the Baltimore Catechism is not your best available resource. First of all, is not a teaching of the full Magesterium (it’s the teaching of the Archdiocese of Baltimore). Its target audience were American school children, so it sometimes is not as theologically precise and complete as the modern CCC. It’s informative, but not as authoritative as other available sources.
 
This is in the later Catechism of the Catholic Church: ** VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM **

Yes, like I said. the Church no longer teaches according to paragraph 154 BC.
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
Yes, like I said. the Church no longer teaches strictly according to question 154 of the BC.
 
Yes, like I said. the Church no longer teaches strictly according to question 154 of the BC.
It can be stated differently because it is not a matter of faith but of common doctrine. And even at the time of the Baltimore Catechism was written, this was so.40. In summary: the affirmation that infants who die without Baptism suffer the privation of the beatific vision has long been the common doctrine of the Church, which must be distinguished from the faith of the Church.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
The same practice is taught and the belief was, in both, that they would not be in Hell:

154 … Think, then, what a terrible crime it is to willfully allow anyone to die without Baptism, or to deprive a little child of life before it can be baptized!

1261 … All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

154 … Those who through no fault of theirs die without Baptism, though they have never committed sin, cannot enter Heaven neither will they go to Hell.

1261 … the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God…
 
It can be stated differently because it is not a matter of faith but of common doctrine. And even at the time of the Baltimore Catechism was written, this was so.40. In summary: the affirmation that infants who die without Baptism suffer the privation of the beatific vision has long been the common doctrine of the Church, which must be distinguished from the faith of the Church.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
The same practice is taught and the belief was, in both, that they would not be in Hell:

154 … Think, then, what a terrible crime it is to willfully allow anyone to die without Baptism, or to deprive a little child of life before it can be baptized!

1261 … All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

154 … Those who through no fault of theirs die without Baptism, though they have never committed sin, cannot enter Heaven neither will they go to Hell.

1261 … the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God…
154 was quite different from para 1261-unbaptized infants were definitively excluded from heaven. I’ve long appreciated the fact that this was never a de fide doctrine of the Church. But I believe the reason it’s no longer a common teaching is simply that the Church has grown in her understanding-her knowledge-of God.
 
154 was quite different from para 1261-unbaptized infants were definitively excluded from heaven. I’ve long appreciated the fact that this was never a de fide doctrine of the Church. But I believe the reason it’s no longer a common teaching is simply that the Church has grown in her understanding-her knowledge-of God.
The International Theological Commission states the reason:100. Before Vatican II, in the Latin Church, there was no Christian funeral rite for unbaptised infants and such infants were buried in unconsecrated ground. …
  1. … (Mk 10:14; cf.1Tim 2:4), allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. …
  2. Within the hope that the Church bears for the whole of humanity and wants to proclaim afresh to the world of today, is there a hope for the salvation of infants who die without Baptism? We have carefully re-considered this complex question, with gratitude and respect for the responses that have been given through the history of the Church, but also with an awareness that it falls to us to give a coherent response for today.
    vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
 
Cyberseeker.

On your link you cited in post 47 you said:

QUOTE:
In fact, he even asks us not to do anything - only believe!

Then you quote a verse that says (bold and ul mine):

QUOTE:
God will accept you and save you, if you truly believe this and tell it to others.

Do I HAVE TO “tell it to others”, or is that portion of that exact same verse you quoted optional, but the portion you quoted about “believe(ing)” not optional? . . . . . After all, you said we are “not to do anything - only believe”.

(bold and ul above mine)

Then you quote a verse that says to DO something to back up your tradition that we are NOT to do anything.

Also, do I HAVE TO say the Sinners Prayer you offered (or some reasonable facsimile of this) or is THIS optional too?

QUOTE:
PRAYER

Father in Heaven,

I realise that my life is sinful and selfish in your sight, and that as . . .

If we “believe” . . . . will this “earn” us Heaven?

WHY bother to believe in Jesus? (I agree we need to believe but I might not agree with “why”)

Didn’t Jesus accomplish “all” on Calvary? Why do we have to have faith?

Isn’t Jesus the “author” and “finisher” of our faith" (Hebrews 12:2)? So WHY do I need to worry about “faith” and “believing”?

Isn’t this need for faith “adding to the work of Christ?” If not, why not?

Do I HAVE to Confess my sins (as you said I should do) . . . . or is THAT an OPTIONAL item too?

QUOTE:
Therefore I confess my sin and ask that you forgive me.

And why did you say in your paper in “Step 4” (bold and ul mine) . . . .

QUOTE:
If you do these things, the Spirit of Christ will come into your life . . .

What about NOT “doing” things?

I’m not trying to be insulting to you Cyberseeker, but your 5loaves2fishes.net link is a partial truth that seems to have some stark self-contradictions. (And you or someone else possibly saying, “Catholicism is full of self-contradictions too” will not answer my questions)

I think if you are going to link to your “How to become a Christian” tradition here at CAF, my suggestion is to clarify concerning the points I brought up.

I’ll watch this thread for this clarification.

God bless.

Cathoholic

PS There is what I thought was a very good article by Jimmy Akin on this very subject here. As long as you recommended your article to me and others here at CAF, I think it is just as fair for me to recommend Akin’s Catholic Answers Magazine article to you as well.
 
The International Theological Commission states the reason:100. Before Vatican II, in the Latin Church, there was no Christian funeral rite for unbaptised infants and such infants were buried in unconsecrated ground. …
  1. … (Mk 10:14; cf.1Tim 2:4), allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. …
  2. Within the hope that the Church bears for the whole of humanity and wants to proclaim afresh to the world of today, is there a hope for the salvation of infants who die without Baptism? We have carefully re-considered this complex question, with gratitude and respect for the responses that have been given through the history of the Church, but also with an awareness that it falls to us to give a coherent response for today.
    vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
Yes, that basically aligns with my thoughts on the matter.
 
40.png
Cathoholic:
… you said:

QUOTE:
In fact, he even asks us not to do anything - only believe!

Then you quote a verse that says (bold and ul mine):

QUOTE:
God will accept you and save you, if you truly believe this and tell it to others.
Do I HAVE TO “tell it to others”, or is that portion of that exact same verse you quoted optional, but the portion you quoted about “believe(ing)” not optional? . . . . . After all, you said we are “not to do anything - only believe”.

(bold and ul above mine)

Then you quote a verse that says to DO something to back up your tradition that we are NOT to do anything.
The tone of your reply suggests that you may spend too much time in pedantic discussion with Calvinists. 😦 Perhaps we should simply read the verse referred to, without a ‘wooden’ formulaic application to every clause.
" If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved." Romans 10:9-10
There seems to be a natural connection between our heart and our lips. So, I see the* “confess with your mouth”* part simply as the natural response from a persons believing heart.
40.png
Cathoholic:
Also, do I HAVE TO say the Sinners Prayer you offered (or some reasonable facsimile of this) or is THIS optional too?
Of course not. It was only a sincere prayer suggestion :gopray2: for a genuinely seeking person who might have wanted help articulating the appropriate words.
 
I have produced a paper on the Internet for people asking this question. It is not antagonistic toward Catholics or Protestants, and I hope that it may be of help. 🙂
Thanks, Cyberseeker!

Looking at your web page, it appears to me that, while it seems to you not to be ‘antagonistic’, it nevertheless either omits or rejects Christ’s calls for sacramentality in His Church.
40.png
Cyberseeker:
Perhaps we should simply read the verse referred to, without a ‘wooden’ formulaic application to every clause.
Quote:
" If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved." Romans 10:9-10
There seems to be a natural connection between our heart and our lips. So, I see the “confess with your mouth” part simply as the natural response from a persons believing heart.
But, aren’t you simply proof-texting here? After all, that verse is routinely used to assert that all we have to do is say “I believe!” and mean it, and all is good. Yet, Jesus Himself said, “not all who say ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven”…! Rather, this passage is talking about those who view Jesus as someone after whom they have to chase – they have to reach up to heaven ('cause Jesus is there, not here) or down to Hades ('cause Jesus went there, and isn’t here). “No!” Paul says, emphatically! Jesus is here and He’s now and you need to know and believe that He is, in order to be saved! Jesus is with us! And, rather than a simplistic formula, this merely points to the fact that Jesus is alive and ministering to us today! In His Word, in His Sacraments, He is here, among us!

In other words, it’s not that Paul is saying “just say ‘I believe’”… it’s that he’s saying “realize that Jesus is real, and present, and in our midst – believe this, rather than believing that He’s separated from us, and salvation is in your midst” …! :extrahappy:
 
Cyberseeker. You said to me (bold mine):

QUOTE:
The tone of your reply suggests that you may spend too much time in pedantic discussion with Calvinists.

I think the **“tone of (my) reply” **was reasonable and deserves an answer to all the points.

Instead of trying to change the issue . . . . to being about “me” and my “tone”, . . . . which only obfuscates the issue of what Scripture is saying . . . I think it is important to address the questions.

I don’t want any Catholics who may be under-catechized coming to this site, lurking here on this thread, going to what you have linked to and your tradition of “How to become a Christian”, and think this tradition represents the fullness of Christian teachings on this.

I don’t want any readers looking at your tradition of “How to become a Christian”, and thinking this is the fullness of what the Bible teaches, when in fact it is a tradition of men that makes void the Word of God by presenting partial truths (and denying other truths).

Your salvation tradition picks and chooses elements of Scripture, then ignores and rejects other elements of Sacred Scripture, and plain-old invents things like the sinners prayer (which is found nowhere in Sacred Scripture in the context of being born anew or born from above) while substituting this invented sinners prayer for being “born of water and the Spirit”.

As you acknowledged, it doesn’t HAVE TO be YOUR “Sinners Prayer”.

QUOTE:
Of course not. It was only a sincere prayer suggestion

But WHY do ANY “sinners prayer” at all? (Incidentally, I am not disagreeing with asking Jesus into your heart etc. I just want to know the “whys” of you putting this forth because that’s where the clarification is needed.)

Also, the reason the sinners prayer purveyors need to invent their own, is because there isn’t a “sinners prayer” explicitly laid out within Scripture. This is why there are so many invented sinners prayer traditions.

And naturally there are many other traditions invented that go along with this sinners prayer tradition, such as giving us high school kids a little business card after coming forth at the campfire telling us “this” is "the day you were saved.” . . . . . “Keep this card always, and cherish this date for all eternity.”

These are partial truths. The evangelization of this tradition occurred to me at Bible camp as a youth.

And I am saying, this faith alone routine etc. is a tradition of men.

And I don’t want any Catholic being confused by you or anyone else coming here to CAF, linking to this tradition of men concerning salvation, and getting confused.

I don’t want one Christian reading what you are linking to here without at least pointing out the appropriate flaws in this tradition that you are here sharing.

You also said:

QUOTE:
There seems to be a natural connection between our heart and our lips.

I’m glad you said that because Catholic Christians see the necessary (not optional) integration of this (our heart and actions). Do you see this as “necessary” too or “optional”?

I’m glad you said there is a natural connection between our heart and our lips. But does there HAVE to be this connection?

Or is “confessing with your lips” optional? This is a simple enough question Cyberseeker. It is not a trick question.

Do you believe that you HAVE TO believe in your heart AND confess with your lips or don’t you believe this teaching?

Here is Romans 10:8b-9.

**ROMANS 10:8b-9 ** The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart (that is, the word of faith which we preach); 9 because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Does this mean . . .

A. because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. But the “believing” part is merely a natural response from a persons act of confessing with their lips, so the believing in Jesus is not required.

Or . . . .

B. because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. But the “confess with your mouth” part simply is the natural response from a persons believing heart so the confessing Jesus is not required because it is a “work”.

Or do you affirm the verse for what the verse says. . . .

C. because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Here again is the passage (bold and ul mine).

ROMANS 10:9 9 because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

I’ll await your response and proceed as indicated.
 
If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord . . . you will be saved.

We saw St. Paul teach this earlier contextually brought out in Romans 10:9.

ROMANS 10:9 9 because, **if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord **and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

When St. Paul tells us to “believe” AND “confess with our lips” what could the “Confess” Christ with your lips mean?

Does it mean you MUST share (“confess”) Christ to be saved?

I think it DOES mean that for SOME people.

Let’s go deeper.

“Each disciple of Christ has the obligation of spreading the faith to the best of his ability.” — Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 17

St. Paul talked about bringing a “woe” unto himself if he did not “preach the Gospel” and calls this preaching expected of him in this context a . . . . “necessity”.

1st CORINTHIANS 9:16 16 For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!

The CCC puts it this same teaching this way . . . .

CCC 1270 “Reborn as sons of God, [the baptized] must profess before men the faith they have received from God through the Church” and participate in the apostolic and missionary activity of the People of God.80

Vatican II also echoes this teaching stating . . .

Incorporated into the Church by Baptism, the faithful are appointed by their baptismal character to Christian religious worship; reborn as sons of God, they must profess before men the faith they have received from God through the Church.— VATICAN II Lumen Gentium section 11

Do we need “faith”? Yes of course (and we received the graces of supernatural faith, hope, and charity at Baptism and we NEED these graces and to persevere [also a grace but includes our cooperation too] to be saved).

So the Church affirms BOTH aspects of Romans 10:9.

ROMANS 10:9 9 because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord . . . you will be saved.

But the Bible never teaches “confess ALONE”.

Likewise the Bible never teaches “faith ALONE”.
 
What does a person have to do to be saved, according to Catholicism?
obey Jesus commandments (see G of John eg faith/love in action)
The Catholic Church teaches what she received from Christ re salvation 👍
 
I have produced a paper on the Internet for people asking this question. It is not antagonistic toward Catholics or Protestants, and I hope that it may be of help. 🙂

How to become a Christian
The point being, the necessity of becoming a certain kind of Christian.

For example

The following are Christians.
  • the Great Heresies of the world?
  • Titus 3:10 “As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.” Paul is addressing **“Christians” **concerning **“Christians” **who are heretics
  • those who divide ( διχοστασίας* dichostasia* )from the Church. That same Greek word is used in both Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21 . The consequence for those Christians who commit that sin “they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God” iow they go to hell.
One certainly doesn’t want to be THAT kind of Christian.

Therefore,

Who determines heresy? What Church is being talked about that one can’t be divided from? It is the only Church Our Lord established and gave all His promises to. #34
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top