Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and Protestants

[Starwarsfan2]

You’re not writing to me Starwarsfan, But I’d like to add.

You’re leaving out sanctification. How then, would you explain that?

Justification brings us to God. He has justified us through our faith and we become a child of God, enter the fold, become a member of the Church - think of it as you may. He sees us as a new creature, born of the H.S. and a believer of Jesus and thus God.

Sanctification is the ongoing process by which we learn our faith, learn to BELIEVE it (the greek believe), learn to walk in it - it might be called our works as in James. We each reach a different level of sanctification - I’m never going to be on the level of, let’s say, St. Francis or maybe Luther or Wesley, for instance. Add your own name…

Would you agree with the above?

Fran
p.s. I see you you’re going to help along with the 2 bil that’ll be taken in!

Sanctification is the process of becoming more like Christ , and growing in the faith , and obeying Christ.

Keep the faith , Starwars

 

[guanophore]

There’s a rule here that I have to cite my sources.

Could you please give me your source for that statement?

Forum Rules

"If you wish to reference an article on the web, link to its web address

"I realize you were posting material that was asked of you that does not represent your view. The purpose of the threads is discussion, so if you can point your readers to your source it improves the experience.

How about this:  I cite my brain - which has been absorbing christian doctrine for 40 years.  If you don't agree with something specific, you could say so.  Trouble is you doubt EVERYTHING I say so it's impossible to discuss with you since I have little time.

not everything, but you are right that your credibility has suffered from some of your assertions.

I guess these priests and I need to go back to catechism classess...

I would hope that faith formation would last a lifetime.

It’s good that you keep studying Guanophore.
You have the right not to agree with me.

Just will comment on the following which you say above:

Church is the universal (which is also known as catholic, believe it or not but not the catholic you understand) Church or the Body of Christ.

Fran, you are making erroneous assumptions about what I know, and what I believe. It is very difficult to have a dialogue when you do this. This practice has complicated this entire discussion. You have never once asked me what I meant by my words. Instead you have assigned me a position that I do not hold, and have tried to argue based upon this strawman.
frangiuliano115;13418883:

It’s made up of believers. People who believe in Christ are members of the Body of Christ, no matter what religion.

Yes, of course. I am glad we can agree on something!

So your statement that there is no salvation outside the Church is wrong.

We are having a semantics problem, Fran, because of the way you are defining Church. I am responding to the Thread title.

As a Catholic I believe that the Church founded by Christ was intended to be sheperded by Bishops. One Bishop in particular is the Successor of Peter, whose See is in Rome. He is responsible to feed and care for the entire flock. So you see, I cannot separate the Succesor of Peter in Rome from the church down the street.

Didn't you say everyone outside the catholic church is not saved??   It must be me.

It is you, Fran. I never took such a position, but you did create a strawman by assigning it to me. It is one of the reasons we are not making very good progress with each other.

Didn’t you say many times that only catholics are saved? I give up.

Fran

No, that is a strawman you created.

It would be best if you did give it up. A much more productive exchange can occur when you actually listen to the other person, rather than assigning them a point of view.

Also, you could reject a teaching of the church and still be Catholic. Is this ideal? No. But do you think EVERY catholic believes EVERY doctrine? The churches would be empty…

When one is validly baptized, one becomes a member of the One Church founded by Christ. I agree that many reject the faith into which they were bapitzed. They may be poorly formed in their faith, heretics, apostates, cafeteria Catholics, Protestants, or separated from God through mortal sin. Those who reject the Teachings of the Church have forsaken their Catholicity, to one degree or another. In the CCC we read:

834 Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome “which presides in charity.” “For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord”

That means that the faithful are not at liberty to pick and choose which doctrines they want to accept, and which they won’t. It is ONE FAITH, and every thread is woven together.

And may I say that it has been a unique experience to be schooled by a person who claims to be a Catholic and a Catechist who does not believe that the Church founded by Christ is Catholic!

 

[Peter_J]

Actually we are separated from each other

Oh bother. I was hoping we could have one of those conversations like in the early church where I say “We’re not your separated brethren, you’re our separated brethren.” and then you say “No, we’re not your separated brethren, you’re our separated brethren.” and then I say “What do you mean we’re your separated brethren? We’re not your separated brethren, you’re our separated brethren.” and then you say “But we’re *not *your separated brethren, you’re our separated brethren.” and then I say “No, we’re not your separated brethren, you’re our separated brethren.” and then you see the error of your ways and become RC.

 

[benhur]

Oh bother. I was hoping we could have one of those conversations like in the early church where I say “We’re not your separated brethren, you’re our separated brethren.” and then you say “No, we’re not your separated brethren, you’re our separated brethren.” and then I say “What do you mean we’re your separated brethren? We’re not your separated brethren, you’re our separated brethren.” and then you say “But we’re *not *your separated brethren, you’re our separated brethren.” and then I say “No, we’re not your separated brethren, you’re our separated brethren.” and then you see the error of your ways and become RC.

Live, it’s Saturday night !

blessings

 

[frangiuliano115]

Forum Rules

"If you wish to reference an article on the web, link to its web address

"I realize you were posting material that was asked of you that does not represent your view. The purpose of the threads is discussion, so if you can point your readers to your source it improves the experience.

not everything, but you are right that your credibility has suffered from some of your assertions.

I would hope that faith formation would last a lifetime.

Fran, you are making erroneous assumptions about what I know, and what I believe. It is very difficult to have a dialogue when you do this. This practice has complicated this entire discussion. You have never once asked me what I meant by my words. Instead you have assigned me a position that I do not hold, and have tried to argue based upon this strawman.

Yes, of course. I am glad we can agree on something!

We are having a semantics problem, Fran, because of the way you are defining Church. I am responding to the Thread title.

As a Catholic I believe that the Church founded by Christ was intended to be sheperded by Bishops. One Bishop in particular is the Successor of Peter, whose See is in Rome. He is responsible to feed and care for the entire flock. So you see, I cannot separate the Succesor of Peter in Rome from the church down the street.

It is you, Fran. I never took such a position, but you did create a strawman by assigning it to me. It is one of the reasons we are not making very good progress with each other.

No, that is a strawman you created.

It would be best if you did give it up. A much more productive exchange can occur when you actually listen to the other person, rather than assigning them a point of view.

When one is validly baptized, one becomes a member of the One Church founded by Christ. I agree that many reject the faith into which they were bapitzed. They may be poorly formed in their faith, heretics, apostates, cafeteria Catholics, Protestants, or separated from God through mortal sin. Those who reject the Teachings of the Church have forsaken their Catholicity, to one degree or another. In the CCC we read:

834 Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome “which presides in charity.” “For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord”

That means that the faithful are not at liberty to pick and choose which doctrines they want to accept, and which they won’t. It is ONE FAITH, and every thread is woven together.

And may I say that it has been a unique experience to be schooled by a person who claims to be a Catholic and a Catechist who does not believe that the Church founded by Christ is Catholic!

Why are we still discussing?

I’m not schooling you - just telling you what I believe. I was going to write “and what the church teaches” but that’s going to get this thing going again. Read CCC no. 1271.

I’m afraid my christianity is far more ranging and much wider in its inclusion of Jesus believing people. I agree with 1271. I agree with the N.T. I’m all for grace. I don’t believe ONLY catholics are going to heaven and, once again, I understand (I may be wrong) that you have contradicted yourself again.

You kept using the word “church” wrongly. Most people do. So I tried to explain the difference to you between church and Church. But, I see, it didn’t help since you say you knew the meaning all along.

It’s okay Guanophore. Let it go.

I already said:

Just Follow Jesus.

Fran

 

[guanophore]

Why are we still discussing?

I suppose that depends upon how you define “discussion”. Previously you seemed to categorize it as “argue”, which does not seem to have the potential benefits of a discussion. Discussion also cannot happen if I am assigned a strawman position.

 I'm not schooling you - just telling you what I believe.  I was going to write "and what the church teaches" but that's going to get this thing going again.  Read CCC no. 1271.

The Church teaches what is written in the Title of this thread. Our understanding of what this means has changed over the centuries.

 I'm afraid my christianity is far more ranging and much wider in its inclusion of Jesus believing people.  I agree with 1271.  I agree with the N.T.  I'm all for grace.

By phrasing this comparatively “my christianity is far more…” you imply comparison with “christianity is far less”. This is an example of the strawman to which I was referring. In fact, you know very little about what I believe about Christianity, and have made some massive assumptions that lead you to this erroneous comparison.

 I don't believe ONLY catholics are going to heaven and, once again, I understand (I may be wrong) that you have contradicted yourself again.

I know it seems that way to you. I think it is because you have very black and white thinking, and seem to have a hard time accepting that God can adopt anyone from anywhere into His One Body. This is not much of a surprise, since you don’t even believe he established His Church while on earth, so how could so many become members of a non-existent entity?

**

You kept using the word “church” wrongly. Most people do. So I tried to explain the difference to you between church and Church. **

This is an example of what I meant by “schooling”. You have a position that you think is “right” and have assessed my position as “wrong”. You are trying to “explain” the differences so that I can be corrected. You claim you are not schooling, but talking about your beliefs, but it does not come across that way.

frangiuliano115:

But, I see, it didn’t help since you say you knew the meaning all along.

It did not help because I disagreed with your definitions.

I cannot accept your basic premise, because I believe the Bible is the inspired inerrant Word of God. Definitions that contradict what is written in it, and contradict the Catechism, will not work for me. I believe that Jesus founded One Church during his life on earth, and it is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.

It’s okay Guanophore. Let it go.

I can see that you do not like being accountable for what you have said, especially when it can be shown that you have contradicted what the Church teaches.

I already said:

Just Follow Jesus.

Fran

More schooling?

 

[Peter_J]

Live, it’s Saturday night !

blessings

In all seriousliness, though, I don’t really care whether *you’re *described as *our *brethren or vice versa … but my experience strongly indicated that there are many who care very deeply.

 

[benhur]

In all seriousliness, though, I don’t really care whether *you’re *described as *our *brethren or vice versa … but my experience strongly indicated that there are many who care very deeply.

Understand.Thank you for the light brevity.