How would YOU respond to this statement?

[GodsGrace154]

Sin. In the OT sacrifices were offered for various things. The most important was the sin offering. St. Paul tells us that such offerings were the foreshadowing of the one sacrifice of Christ who paid for our sins with his blood, instead of the blood of bulls and goats. Having made that purchase we belong to Christ in baptism, but we are not saved. That is something we determine by our cooperation with God’s grace throughout our lives.

Yes. That all sounds really good.
Also re being saved, but you know what Catholics say:

I am being saved
I will be saved

But if you are BEING saved, it means you are!
I spoke to a priest about this and he said that we could be sure of our salvation if we are at the foot of the cross.

And yes, it does require our cooperation (sanctification).

THANKS!

GG

 

[Della]

There is another option:

It could be that there is A TRUTH, but we do not know it yet.

No doubt there are many truths about God that we don’t yet know. After all, he’s God and we aren’t. We can’t possibly know everything about him. However, everything we need to know about him in order to be saved from our sins and from damnation, he has told us in Christ, his last revelation to man, and in his Church, founded by Christ.

If there was an undeniable “truth” that was strong enough and obviously stood above all the other claims…everyone would believe it.

You have to know that this isn’t true. Even in the most mundane matters you can’t get everyone to know the truth, let alone in matters of faith and morals. You are speaking as if everyone is open to learning the truth, would embrace it eagerly, and have no reasons not to. Again, that’s simply not true. We humans are fallen creatures whose nature has been corrupted by the fall, our intellect darkened, so we can’t see clearly unless we humble ourselves to hear it, and our will is weakened so that even the good we would like to do we can’t always do. The assumption that everyone everywhere is even-handed and open-hearted enough to admit when they are wrong, goes against common sense and the plain facts of history.

 

[Della]

I was working with the dictionary of “indifferentism”, which says: the belief that differences of religious belief are of no importance.

Is there a different definition than that?

That wasn’t my point. I agree with that definition. I merely wanted to say that the discussion isn’t about who is and who isn’t a Christian.

But…you just made one claim, and then opposed it.
If different beliefs don’t define who is Christian and who isn’t…then the belief that baptism determines who is Christian would not be correct.
There might be people who follow all that Jesus taught, but have never had the ritual with the water…and they call themselves “Christian.” There may be people who are baptized, who never follow what Jesus taught–and they say they are not Christian.
Comparing those two scenarios, I would say that the unbaptized person is the Christian and that it takes much more than a ritual to make a person so.
If that were the case, then people on this forum would have to stop arguing that Hitler–who was baptized and was an altar boy–is not only Christian, but also Catholic.

You also defined “Christian” according to what one church believes, which is not what the others believe.

I didn’t contradict myself at all. No matter what this person or that person believes, there is truth, solid truth no matter who believes it or doesn’t believe it. This holds true in the Christian faith, as well. And yes, Hitler was a Christian, a very poor one, but a Christian due to his baptism. Only God can judge how he violated his baptismal promises. As I wrote, the Church doesn’t say who is saved since she cannot know that. She can say that some people are blessed saints in heaven, but she does not say who is damned, not Hitler, not even Judas.

Yes, but as we have shown time and time again…humans make mistakes. Many people on this forum think the pope is making mistakes in his words and teachings. So then, is it not possible that people on those councils have made mistakes, too?

No, councils convened to decide matters of faith and morals cannot make mistakes because the Holy Spirit has been given to the Church by Christ to “lead [her] into all truth” [concerning matters of faith and morals]. There is a big difference between the pope’s personal comments and doctrinal pronouncements, which his latest encyclical isn’t. We’ve had some popes who skated pretty close to the edge, but none who ever contradicted Church teachings when pronouncing what is and what isn’t doctrine. Again, what people think the pope means and/or do not like his actions have nothing to do with his charism as the pope nor the doctrines of the Church. He did not violate any Church teaching. The onus is on those who make that claim to prove it.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the Church once “ruled” that those who were not Catholic could not reach salvation/heaven. That is one of many opinions/rules–and it’s a whopper–that have changed in time because the earlier decision or teaching needed amending.
There may be more to come.

You are wrong. And no, the teaching didn’t change with time, so no “whopper” for Catholics to have to avoid or pretend didn’t happen. If you want to know what the Church teaches about salvation outside the Church, you need to consult the CCC, “Possible salvation of non-Christians: #s 846-848”, not people’s opinions, especially not those who cherry pick statements with no understanding of what makes for doctrinal pronouncements that are binding and what doesn’t. People who make such claims only display their ignorance–I speak of those from whom you heard this idea, not of you, dear friend.

 

[GodsGrace154]

That wasn’t my point. I agree with that definition. I merely wanted to say that the discussion isn’t about who is and who isn’t a Christian.

I didn’t contradict myself at all. No matter what this person or that person believes, there is truth, solid truth no matter who believes it or doesn’t believe it. This holds true in the Christian faith, as well. And yes, Hitler was a Christian, a very poor one, but a Christian due to his baptism. Only God can judge how he violated his baptismal promises. As I wrote, the Church doesn’t say who is saved since she cannot know that. She can say that some people are blessed saints in heaven, but she does not say who is damned, not Hitler, not even Judas.

No, councils convened to decide matters of faith and morals cannot make mistakes because the Holy Spirit has been given to the Church by Christ to “lead [her] into all truth” [concerning matters of faith and morals]. There is a big difference between the pope’s personal comments and doctrinal pronouncements, which his latest encyclical isn’t. We’ve had some popes who skated pretty close to the edge, but none who ever contradicted Church teachings when pronouncing what is and what isn’t doctrine. Again, what people think the pope means and/or do not like his actions have nothing to do with his charism as the pope nor the doctrines of the Church. He did not violate any Church teaching. The onus is on those who make that claim to prove it.

You are wrong. And no, the teaching didn’t change with time, so no “whopper” for Catholics to have to avoid or pretend didn’t happen. If you want to know what the Church teaches about salvation outside the Church, you need to consult the CCC, “Possible salvation of non-Christians: #s 846-848”, not people’s opinions, especially not those who cherry pick statements with no understanding of what makes for doctrinal pronouncements that are binding and what doesn’t. People who make such claims only display their ignorance–I speak of those from whom you heard this idea, not of you, dear friend.

Actually Della, Daddy Girl is right.
The meaning has softened somewhat.

Here’s a link that could help Daddy Girl:
catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means

It might be from this very site and explains everything well.
The CC strives to explain this, but it’s not easy because it still feels it is the one and true church so every other church must not be true.

GG

 

[Della]

Actually Della, Daddy Girl is right.
The meaning has softened somewhat.

Here’s a link that could help Daddy Girl:
catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means

It might be from this very site and explains everything well.
The CC strives to explain this, but it’s not easy because it still feels it is the one and true church so every other church must not be true.

GG

No, the teaching hasn’t “soften a bit.” It’s what it has always been. I can’t make the link work. But I know that from the time St. Peter declared that anyone who seeks God is acceptable to him (it’s in Acts), the Church has endeavored to win converts through presenting the truth, not by the sword or by threats. There was a time when all of Europe was Catholic. When the reformation was happening the pope had every right to condemn those who were enticing people away from the faith. He stated it quite clearly that what they were doing was mortal sin, but it was meant for those who knew better but left the faith knowing it was Christ’s Church and who were drawing other away, as well. There was an American priest in fairly recent times who tried to teach that non-Catholics are lost, and the SSPX teaches this, as well, but the Church corrected that priest and disagrees with the SSPX concerning this teaching. Evangelization has always been an invitation to enjoy the fullness of the truth that subsists within the Catholic Church. That invitation still stands. What the writers of CCC have done is explain it in modern terms that people can understand, not explain it away or “soften” it.

 

[HelenRose]

No, the teaching hasn’t “soften a bit.” It’s what it has always been. I can’t make the link work. But I know that from the time St. Peter declared that anyone who seeks God is acceptable to him (it’s in Acts), the Church has endeavored to win converts through presenting the truth, not by the sword or by threats. There was a time when all of Europe was Catholic. When the reformation was happening the pope had every right to condemn those who were enticing people away from the faith. He stated it quite clearly that what they were doing was mortal sin, but it was meant for those who knew better but left the faith knowing it was Christ’s Church and who were drawing other away, as well. There was an American priest in fairly recent times who tried to teach that non-Catholics are lost, and the SSPX teaches this, as well, but the Church corrected that priest and disagrees with the SSPX concerning this teaching. Evangelization has always been an invitation to enjoy the fullness of the truth that subsists within the Catholic Church. That invitation still stands. What the writers of CCC have done is explain it in modern terms that people can understand, not explain it away or “soften” it.

This is one of the many reasons I became a Catholic.

 

[GodsGrace154]

No, the teaching hasn’t “soften a bit.” It’s what it has always been. I can’t make the link work. But I know that from the time St. Peter declared that anyone who seeks God is acceptable to him (it’s in Acts), the Church has endeavored to win converts through presenting the truth, not by the sword or by threats. There was a time when all of Europe was Catholic. When the reformation was happening the pope had every right to condemn those who were enticing people away from the faith. He stated it quite clearly that what they were doing was mortal sin, but it was meant for those who knew better but left the faith knowing it was Christ’s Church and who were drawing other away, as well. There was an American priest in fairly recent times who tried to teach that non-Catholics are lost, and the SSPX teaches this, as well, but the Church corrected that priest and disagrees with the SSPX concerning this teaching. Evangelization has always been an invitation to enjoy the fullness of the truth that subsists within the Catholic Church. That invitation still stands. What the writers of CCC have done is explain it in modern terms that people can understand, not explain it away or “soften” it.

The church has softened its position in other matters too.
Before 1917 divorced persons were not allowed to enter church - they were ex-communicated. After Vat II they were invited to go to church but could not receive Communion. Now with Amores Leatitia some will be not only going to Mass but receiving Communion.

Why is it so difficult to accept change??

Here’s the article. It’s not what you think, so I’ll post it even though it’s pretty long for here.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

What “No Salvation Outside the Church” Means
By: Jim Blackburn

One of the most misunderstood teachings of the Catholic Church is this one:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation” (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus).

Those trying to grasp the meaning of this teaching often struggle with its formulations by various Church Fathers and Church Councils down through history. Of course, to understand an isolated formulation of any Church teaching, one must study the historical context within which it was written: why it was written, what was going on in the Church at the time, who the intended audience was, and so on. One must discover how the magisterium (teaching office) of the Church understands its own teaching. If someone fails to do this and chooses, rather, to simply treat a particular formulation as a stand-alone teaching, he runs the risk of seriously misunderstanding it.

In recent times, the Church has recognized that its teaching about the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation has been widely misunderstood, so it has “re-formulated” this teaching in a positive way. Here is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church begins to address this topic: “How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Reformulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846).

In keeping with the Church’s current spirit of ecumenism, this positive reformulation comes across less harshly than previous negative formulations. Even so, it remains quite controversial. So, let’s see how this new formulation squares with Scripture.

Jesus, the Way

ONE

 

[Della]

This is one of the many reasons I became a Catholic.

Thanks be to God. Truth matters, doesn’t it? In today’s Gospel reading Jesus declares: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” And it’s true. All who are saved are saved because Christ redeemed the whole world, every person in it. Because he did this, salvation is open to everyone who cooperates with God’s grace, whether they’ve ever heard of Jesus or not. God’s mercy cannot be matched since he came to us to redeem us. What more does anyone need to know to be happy in this life?

 

[GodsGrace154]

TWO DELLA

The first part of the reformulated teaching—“all salvation comes from Christ the Head”—is quite easy for all Christians, even non-Catholics, to understand and embrace. It echoes Jesus’ own words recorded by John: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me” (Jn 14:6). So, Christians unanimously agree on this first part. But is this all that needs to be said about how one may be saved? The Catholic Church has historically recognized the importance of explaining further the means through which salvation is offered through Christ.

When speaking of salvation, Jesus offered more details than just his words quoted above. For example, consider these three verses:

He who believes and is baptized will be saved. (Mk 16:16)
nless you repent you will all likewise perish. (Lk 13:3)
[H]e who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (Jn 6:54)
Notice that in these three verses Jesus associated salvation with baptism, confession, and the Eucharist, respectively. Catholics recognize that these sacraments are administered through the Church. In fact, in the case of the latter two, a validly ordained priest is necessary for their administration, so the sacrament of ordination must also be associated with salvation. A primary role of the Catholic Church in conjunction with salvation is becoming quite clear.

This brings us to the second part of the Catechism’s formulation of the doctrine being considered: “. . . through the Church which is his Body.”

With Him or Against Him

Since the sacraments are the ordinary means through which Christ offers the grace necessary for salvation, and the Catholic Church that Christ established is the ordinary minister of those sacraments, it is appropriate to state that salvation comes through the Church.

This is not unlike the situation that existed prior to the establishment of the Catholic Church. Even before it was fully revealed that he was the Messiah, Jesus himself taught that “salvation is from the Jews” (Jn 4:22). He pointed the woman of Samaria to the body of believers existing at that time, through which salvation would be offered to all mankind: the Jews.

In a similar fashion, now that the Messiah has established his Church, Jesus might say, “salvation is from the Catholics”!

Recognizing this, we can see why the Church, especially during times of mass exodus (such as has happened in times when heresies have run rampant), has been even more forceful in the way it has taught this doctrine. Instead of simply pointing out how God offers salvation from Christ, through the Church, the Church has warned that there is no salvation apart from Christ, outside his Church.

Since Jesus established the Catholic Church as necessary for salvation, those who knowingly and willingly reject him or his Church cannot be saved. We see this in Jesus’ teaching: “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters” (Mt 12:30). Also: “*f he [a sinning brother] refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Mt 18:17). Paul warned similarly: “As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned” (Ti 3:10-11).

TWO*

 

[GodsGrace154]

THREE AND LAST DELLA

Having said all this, we must recognize that this doctrine is not as far reaching as some imagine it to be. People will sometimes ask, “Does this means non-Catholics are going to hell?” Not necessarily.

Invincibly Ignorant

The Church recognizes that God does not condemn those who are innocently ignorant of the truth about his offer of salvation. Regarding the doctrine in question, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (quoting Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, 16) states:

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. (CCC 847)

Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spesteaches similarly on the possibility of salvation:

All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. (22)

This teaching is consistent with Jesus’ own teaching about those who innocently reject him: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin” (Jn 15:22).

But once a person comes to know the truth, he must embrace it or he will be culpable of rejecting it. We see this in Jesus’ words to the Pharisees: “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” (Jn 9:41). Paul taught likewise concerning the Gentiles:

When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom 2:14-16)

Notice Paul’s carefully chosen words: “their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them.” Paul did not say that those who are innocently ignorant of the truth will be saved; he simply keeps open the possibility of it.

Similarly, he wrote: “*s God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith” (Rom 3:29-30).

Necessary for Salvation

As we have seen, God introduced salvation to the world through his chosen people, the Jews. God’s revelation to the Jews found its fulfillment in Christ, the Messiah, who established the Catholic Church. The grace necessary for salvation continues to come from Christ, through his Church. Those who innocently do not know and embrace this might still attain salvation but those who knowingly and willingly choose to reject it, reject salvation on God’s terms.

The Catechism (once again quoting Lumen Gentium) summarizes all this as follows:

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. (CCC 846)

Jim Blackburn is a Catholic Apologist, Author, and Speaker. He holds a Masters Degree in Theology from John Paul the Great Catholic University and is the author of several books including 101 Quick Questions With Catholic Answers: Marriage, Divorce, and Annulment, 20 Answers:*

 

[Della]

The church has softened its position in other matters too.
Before 1917 divorced persons were not allowed to enter church - they were ex-communicated. After Vat II they were invited to go to church but could not receive Communion. Now with Amores Leatitia some will be not only going to Mass but receiving Communion.

Why is it so difficult to accept change??

I’m afraid you are confusing disciplinary matters with doctrinal ones. These things that you cite have not changed the Church’s teachings about divorce and remarriage. Rather, they are how the Church has decided to exercise governance over God’s people in they way she handles the divorced and the divorced and remarried. Many people conflate doctrine with disciple, but they are not the same thing.

Here’s the article. It’s not what you think, so I’ll post it even though it’s pretty long for here.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

What “No Salvation Outside the Church” Means
By: Jim Blackburn

One of the most misunderstood teachings of the Catholic Church is this one:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation” (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus).

Those trying to grasp the meaning of this teaching often struggle with its formulations by various Church Fathers and Church Councils down through history. Of course, to understand an isolated formulation of any Church teaching, one must study the historical context within which it was written: why it was written, what was going on in the Church at the time, who the intended audience was, and so on. One must discover how the magisterium (teaching office) of the Church understands its own teaching. If someone fails to do this and chooses, rather, to simply treat a particular formulation as a stand-alone teaching, he runs the risk of seriously misunderstanding it.

In recent times, the Church has recognized that its teaching about the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation has been widely misunderstood, so it has “re-formulated” this teaching in a positive way. Here is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church begins to address this topic: “How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Reformulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846).

In keeping with the Church’s current spirit of ecumenism, this positive reformulation comes across less harshly than previous negative formulations. Even so, it remains quite controversial. So, let’s see how this new formulation squares with Scripture.

Jesus, the Way

ONE

Nothing in the article in any way contradicts what I wrote. In fact, it backs up all that I contend. :tiphat:

 

[GodsGrace154]

I’m afraid you are confusing disciplinary matters with doctrinal ones. These things that you cite have not changed the Church’s teachings about divorce and remarriage. Rather, they are how the Church has decided to exercise governance over God’s people in they way she handles the divorced and the divorced and remarried. Many people conflate doctrine with disciple, but they are not the same thing.

Nothing in the article in any way contradicts what I wrote. In fact, it backs up all that I contend. :tiphat:

Yes. I know. That’s why I told you in my other post that it did not say what you might have thought it did from your reply.

I do want to take issue with something you said that I think is very important but I don’t intend to debate back and forth.

You say doctrine has not changed regarding D & R and that it is only disciplinary. I really don’t understand how you could believe this. I have a friend who calls me every day because she’s so upset over this last encyclical (book!).

How is it only disciplinary? If Jesus, and the church, declared that divorce is wrong, then someone gets divorced and then they get remarried - isn’t that breaking a doctrine? There’s no such thing as divorce in Christianity. You still would be married to your first spouse. So now when getting remarried you’d be living in an adulterous affair. So how could it be that now some could receive communion??

Here is the Catholic Doctrine on Divorce:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

VIII. More precisely, what is the Catholic Doctrine on the Indissolubility of Marriage?

"The indissolubility of the marriage contract is emphatically declared by Christ Himself when He says, 'What God hath joined together let no man put asunder' (Matth. XIX. 6) and 'Every man that putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery; and he that marrieth her that is put away committeth adultery' (Luke XVI. 18). 

And this attribute of marriage is assigned by St. Augustine to the blessing called Sacrament in the following passage: 'Sacrament signifies that the bond of wedlock shall never be broken, and that neither party, if separated, shall form a union with another, even for the sake of offspring' (St. Augustine: De Gen. ad Litt., L IX; ch VII; n 12.).  But this inviolable stability, though not always in equal measure nor always with the same degree of perfection, is the attribute of every true matrimonial bond; for the words of the Lord, 'What God hath joined together let no man put asunder', were spoken concerning the nuptial union of our first parents, the prototype of all future marriages, and are consequently applicable to every true marriage.  It is true that before the coming of Christ, the perfection and strictness of the original law were modified to the extent that Moses, because of the hardness of their hearts, allowed even the members of God's people to give a bill of divorce for certain reasons.  But Christ, in virtue of His power as supreme Lawgiver, revoked this concession and restored the law to its original perfection by those words which must never be forgotten: 'What God hath joined together let no man put asunder' (Matth. XIX. 6.)."  (Pius XI: Encyclical Casti Connubii, 31 December, 1930, M. 294-295.)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This is absolutely a change in doctrine. My friend accepts this and is trying to work it out. It won’t be an easy task.

Then I speak to persons such as yourself who speak of this disciplinary idea. i think it goes far beyond discipline… It’s doctrine and doctrine has been changed.

GG

P.S. The above is from this site:
catholicapologetics.info/morality/family/divorce.htm#VIII.

 

[Della]

Yes. I know. That’s why I told you in my other post that it did not say what you might have thought it did from your reply.

I do want to take issue with something you said that I think is very important but I don’t intend to debate back and forth.

You say doctrine has not changed regarding D & R and that it is only disciplinary. I really don’t understand how you could believe this. I have a friend who calls me every day because she’s so upset over this last encyclical (book!).

How is it only disciplinary? If Jesus, and the church, declared that divorce is wrong, then someone gets divorced and then they get remarried - isn’t that breaking a doctrine? There’s no such thing as divorce in Christianity. You still would be married to your first spouse. So now when getting remarried you’d be living in an adulterous affair. So how could it be that now some could receive communion??

Thank you for quoting the Catholic teaching about divorce, but I don’t need the reminder.

What some pastors may decide to do, on the strength of Francis’ encyclical, is allow divorced and remarried couple who are petitioning for annulments to receive communion, if they are living as brother and sister. This is a disciplinary matter.

On another topic that is also a disciplinary matter. My nephew has MD and so does his wife. The Church teaches that couples who cannot consummate their marriage cannot be married. I don’t know if my nephew and niece-in-law meet that criteria or not–it’s none of my business. But I trust that their pastor, who knows their situation better than I, does know and so allowed them to marry in the Church.

We cannot judge these matters wholesale or from the outside looking in. In disciplinary matters the Church allows the bishops and the priests under their authority to decide if Church teaching is being violated or not. I leave all such matters to their discretion, since it is their responsibility before God not mine.

 

[GodsGrace154]

Thank you for quoting the Catholic teaching about divorce, but I don’t need the reminder.

What some pastors may decide to do, on the strength of Francis’ encyclical, is allow divorced and remarried couple who are petitioning for annulments to receive communion, if they are living as brother and sister. This is a disciplinary matter.

On another topic that is also a disciplinary matter. My nephew has MD and so does his wife. The Church teaches that couples who cannot consummate their marriage cannot be married. I don’t know if my nephew and niece-in-law meet that criteria or not–it’s none of my business. But I trust that their pastor, who knows their situation better than I, does know and so allowed them to marry in the Church.

We cannot judge these matters wholesale or from the outside looking in. In disciplinary matters the Church allows the bishops and the priests under their authority to decide if Church teaching is being violated or not. I leave all such matters to their discretion, since it is their responsibility before God not mine.

Remarrieds were not allowed to receive Communion until the annulment went through.
If two are living as brother/sister they were always allowed to receive.

I agree that we cannot judge these matters from the outside looking in.
What if we’re not on the outside??
I also leave it to the priest’s descretion - even though it’s a bad testimony - until now. NOW it’s doable and no one can complain (parishoners, I mean).

Also, I see that you’re very knowledgeable, I posted the doctrine for those reading along and so that I wouldn’t have to explain it!

GG

 

[TonyBS]

There is another option:

It could be that there is A TRUTH, but we do not know it yet.

If there was an undeniable “truth” that was strong enough and obviously stood above all the other claims…everyone would believe it.

I also note that no one considers that they will be challenged to find that Truth outside popular doctrine and belief.

That God doeth as He willeth.

Thus who is to say That a Muslim or a Baha’i is not more True to the Word of Christ than a “Christain” is? This adds considerable dimension to the OP Question.

I am 100% a folllower of Christ.

Regards Tony

 

[GodsGrace154]

I also note that no one considers that they will be challenged to find that Truth outside popular doctrine and belief.

That God doeth as He willeth.

Thus who is to say That a Muslim or a Baha’i is not more True to the Word of Christ than a “Christain” is? This adds considerable dimension to the OP Question.

I am 100% a folllower of Christ.

Regards Tony

Hello Tony,
I understand how a person of the Baha’i faith could be more true to the Word of Christ than a Christian but how can you say this of a Muslim? They think Jesus was a prophet and dislike Christians for believing He was God or Divine - and some even hate, we see to what point. Christians are the “cross wearers”. Do they dislike/hate because they feel we will never give in to demands of converting to Islam? Is it because they see Westerners as being very immoral? (and they may even be right). They serve Muhammad and not Jesus. So how could you say that they are more true to the Word of Christ?

Shalom
GG

 

[TonyBS]

Hello Tony,
I understand how a person of the Baha’i faith could be more true to the Word of Christ than a Christian but how can you say this of a Muslim? They think Jesus was a prophet and dislike Christians for believing He was God or Divine - and some even hate, we see to what point. Christians are the “cross wearers”. Do they dislike/hate because they feel we will never give in to demands of converting to Islam? Is it because they see Westerners as being very immoral? (and they may even be right). They serve Muhammad and not Jesus. So how could you say that they are more true to the Word of Christ?

Shalom
GG

A complex question that would lead off topic. I can say I personally can see how this is so from my research.

Basically be Following the Koran is also submitting to the Word and Purpose of Jesus the Christ.

May we all give our lives to service in this Love to all humanity.

Regards Tony

 

[ComplineSanFran]

They serve Muhammad and not Jesus. So how could you say that they are more true to the Word of Christ?

Shalom
GG

Muslims serve the one God, not the Prophet Mohammed, just as Jews serve the one God, not the Prophet Moses, just as Christians serve the same one God.

 

[TonyBS]

Muslims serve the one God, not the Prophet Mohammed, just as Jews serve the one God, not the Prophet Moses, just as Christians serve the same one God.

There is the true Christain. Love of our God by serving our fellow man.

Right to a name can only be manifested in action, as words can not bare fruit without deeds.

God bless you all Regards Tony

 

[PJM]

If I’m not mistaken, redeemed means “to be purchased back from”.
What are we purchased back from??

GG

Salvation is always a Process.

Thus Christ Instotuted just One Church which He gave the ONLY Key’s to heavens gate.

Mt 16: 18-19
[18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19]** And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.** And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Then later so that this choice would be clear and unambigioius, Jesus added this

Mt 28:19-20
[19] Going therefore, teach YOU! all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU!: and behold I am with YOU! all days, even to the consummation of the world"

Now my friend I am aware how inconvenient these teaching from our GOD to the positions you CHOOSE to hold, as they are far more convenient, than what the BIBLE and Jesus actually taught, desired and accomplished.

Redemption refers to ALL of humanity, regardless of race, creeds or religion. WHY?

Because it’s Universal effect EFFECT, was to unlock the gate of Heaven which had been closed By and FROM the time Of Adams Original sin.

While salvation apples as an OFFER to all humanity, BUT as a reality, is limited highly conditionally on things like:

The 2 above Matthew passages, like Acts 20:28 - 30from the Douay Bible: [28] Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed YOU! bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. [29] I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. [30] And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

And then their is this:
John 17:17-20
[17] Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. **[18] As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent THEM [only]into the world. **[19] And for THEM [only] do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. [20] And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;

** NO OTHER FAITH NO OTHER RELIGION, NO OTHER CHURCH HAS JESUS HIMSELF PERSONALLY ACTING AS THE WARRANTY OF THAT CHURCH, THAT FAITH, TEACHING WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF ER ROE ON FAITH BELIEFS AND MORAL MATTERS. AMEN!**

So in order to accept popular Protestant beliefs, one HAS TO ignore ALL of the above:shrug:

Where my friend is the evidence that somehow magically negates all of the above:shrug:

Would Jesus actually have Instituted Sacramental Confession, IF He truly was OK with just allowing P’s to say “I know Jesus” and He has done everything for my salvation AND THEN SHARED THIS message FOUR TIMES

SUFFERING
Take Up your Cross and Follow Me
Phil.2: 8 “And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross Luke.9 :23 And he said to all, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.Mark.8: 34 And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. Luke.9: 23 And he said to all, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. Luke.14: 7 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.”

It seems to ME, my friend that Protestants have invented by necessity a fantasy -world, where EVERYTHING touching on salvation is EASIER, Simpler, Less-complex, and more appealing…

Could that not have been the intent of the Reform-leaders:shrug:

CAF exist to expose and share the truth. I pray that you non-Catholics will avail yourselves of the opportunity to discover it. THAT is WHY the Holy Spirit has lead you to this site.

Easter Blessings,

Patrick [PJM]