In one sentence: tell me how are saved

[T.A.Stobie_SFO]

YinYangMom:

I get that he’s putting his foundation of Catholic understanding on the Pope’s writings themselves, but I don’t understand why if one can be so Catholic and believe so fervently in the infallability of the Popes that they could so easily dismiss the teachings of those same Popes throughout subsequent years which has resulted in the Catechism. That is where the Catechism comes from, isn’t it? The overall teachings of the Church over the years in one place? Maybe I’m wrong.

Yes! No you are not wrong.

 

[YinYangMom]

T.A.Stobie:

Yes! No you are not wrong.

Thanks, T.A. I needed to hear that because I have two teenage children who are starting to reflect upon getting confirmed and I’ve been insisting they begin their preparation by reading the Catechism. It’s been a great start for me - a cradle catholic who thought I understood my faith until I had kids

 

[T.A.Stobie_SFO]

You are welcome. I would get them each their own private copy.

 

[Ham1]

In answer to the original question:

We are saved through the Infinite Mercy of Our Lord Jesus Christ who came down from Heavan, died on the Cross, rose from the dead and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

 

[Catholicguy]

Open your Roman Missal to the Feast for January 23rd. That is the Feast Day of St. Emerentiana who died a Catechumen - that is, not a member of the Catholic Church.

I guess according to your magisterial pronouncements about the Magisterium, the Missal is in error and St. Emerentiana really isn’t a Saint.

The Council of Trent advised immediately Baptisin infants. They were not so insistant when it came to adult converts teaching the desire for Baptism by the adult Catechumens sufficied unto Righteousness. In other words, were they to die outside the church they would nevertheless be saved.

These actions of Holy Mother Church ought to tell you what you understand about Magisterial Pronouncements is insufficient when it comes to EENS. It should also remind you we have a Living Magisterium which explicates and explains what the Christian Faith is and what it means.

Again, you EENS’ers ought pay more attention ot the Magisterium than acolytes of Feenyism or the personal opinions of the “Catholic Family News” or “The Remnant” or any of the other members of the Rad Pack.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Im saved by grace,through the precious blood of Jesus.

 

[Catholicguy]

Daily Missal , Dom Gaspar Lefebvre, O.S.B. of the Abbey of St. Andre

Jan 23rd - St. Emerentiana, Virgin, Martyr - Red Vestments -

A foster-sister of St. Agnes, the virgin Emerentiana, while still a catechumen shed tears on the tomb of her friend who had just been martyred. Some pagans mocked at her grief. She, full of the Divine virtue of which Jesus is the source (Collect), reproached the idolaters with their cruelty towards Agnes, and they in their fury stoned her on that very tomb. Baptised in her own blood , she went to join for evermore her Spouse and her sister (about 304).

(end of quote)

I think you are confused about what EENS entails. Try reading “Dogmatic THeology for the Laity” by Rev Matthias Premm who notes that EENS explains it means those who… "of his own fault" cannot actually attain eternal salvation, cannot reach heaven; but whoever is not a member of the Church, through no fault “of his own, can still be saved.”

Please read this link. I think it will be helpful…

matt1618.freeyellow.com/desire.html

 

[Salena]

I’m saved when I walk (or float) through the pearly gates. At the end of my life I could turn my back on God, so I can not be saved as long as I’m here on this earth.

 

[DeniseTOCarm]

Melchior:

Let me push this a little further.

If someone were on their deathbed and they asked you: What must I do to be saved? How would you answer?

Mel

I wold asked them to pray with me, Jesus have mercy on me, a sinner

 

[EENS]

Whereas, current teaching says that, yes someone not formally a Catholic can receive graces and yes that person can be saved BUT salvation if it happens somehow (in ways we don’t completely understand) comes through the Church.

It is clear that this theory is not true. The Church has not taught that throughout history. I have left quotes form councils that are infallible. I have not been shown something that is infallible listing exceptions. Rather, the Council of Florences leaves NO room for exceptions: “No one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unlesshe remain within the bosom and unity of the Roman Catholic Church.” Even if one dies for the Name of Christ, he WILL NOT be saved unless he is Catholic, period. There are no exceptions: not invincible ignorance, not “baptism” of desire, not “baptism” of blood, not “not through my own fault,” none of that. To say that this passage means anything different would constitute what St. Peter called “wresting words,” as many do with St. Paul’s epistles, which he specifically notes. No exceptions are listed here and none are listed in any infallible document from Holy Mother the Church.

Catholicguy:

Again, you EENS’ers ought pay more attention ot the Magisterium than acolytes of Feenyism or the personal opinions of the “Catholic Family News” or “The Remnant” or any of the other members of the Rad Pack.

First of all, Father Feeney died in full communion with the Church. He was never validly excommunicated. You should read the full story on that. His supposed “excommunication” was rescinded. In addition, SAINT Athanasius was not only “excommunicated” but he even DIED in that state. However, he is canonized. His excommunication, as Fr. Feeney’s, was neither binding nor valid. In fact, I was going to choose for my username Father Feeney, but it would not fit. He was a very holy man who taught the Church’s doctrine as strongly as anyone.

Secondly, the Remnant?! They are liberals… Catholic Family News, however, is very good, and I have a subscription.

God bless.

 

[YinYangMom]

EENS, I still don’t understand how you can be so Catholic and believe so fervently in the infallability of the Pope (all of them) yet so easily dismiss the teachings of those same Popes throughout subsequent years which has resulted in the Catechism.

How can you justifiably pick and choose which Popes to believe along with their teachings and yet disregard others’ teachings?

 

[DrCat]

EENS:

God doesn’t use the Bible to tell us anything. Nay, He uses the Church, for our faulty interpretation of the Bible has led to the various creeds of heretics. God bless.

John

 

[Borncath]

lepanto:

I’m debating with a lapsed (now anti-) Catholic. I need a one sentence summary of how we are saved. Without any flowery language, please.

THANKS

Okay! Remember we believe in saved by faith and works… So, your one liner should be.

Believe in Jesus and do His will.

Now, this should lead you into some discussion. Remember, faith is uncontested by Protestants or so they think… I can explain at another time if you like.

But the thing you want to nail down in this discussion is… Works does not mean “works of man saves”. Works to a Catholic means “works of God save”. That means that God’s will moves through us.

I can go a lot further with this, but I see by your post you wanted a simple answer. Please let me know if I can be of any other assistance.

Peace,

Vinny

 

[EENS]

YinYangMom:

EENS, I still don’t understand how you can be so Catholic and believe so fervently in the infallability of the Pope (all of them) yet so easily dismiss the teachings of those same Popes throughout subsequent years which has resulted in the Catechism.

How can you justifiably pick and choose which Popes to believe along with their teachings and yet disregard others’ teachings?

It is easy: either what I am saying is right or the “new theologians” are right. If either has been stated infallibly, we are bound by Catholics to believe it. Since the former IS defined by infallible councils, we must believe it. Since the latter has NOT been defined infallibly, we cannot believe it (for it contradicts an Article of Faith already defined). I don’t see why many people see it as such a hard decision. It comes down to this: infallible or fallible?

God bless.

 

[T.A.Stobie_SFO]

EENS:

Since the latter has NOT been defined infallibly, we cannot believe it (for it contradicts an Article of Faith already defined).

I see no contradiction between both infallible teachings.

 

[YinYangMom]

EENS:

Since the former IS defined by infallible councils, we must believe it. Since the latter has NOT been defined infallibly, we cannot believe it (for it contradicts an Article of Faith already defined). I don’t see why many people see it as such a hard decision. It comes down to this: infallible or fallible?

God bless.

It certainly appears ‘easy’ … but how do I know what parts of the Catechism is infallible or not, since it’s an overall picture of all that the Church believes and teaches?

 

[Vincent]

I don’t think Pope Pius IX wrote the following as a “new theologian”:
“Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching.”
…which is compatible with the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council’s Lumen Gentium (as quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846):
“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.”
Pope Pius IX continues,
“There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”
…which sounds awfully similar to Vatican II (as quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 847):
“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.”
Was Pope Pius IX guilty of “wresting words”? I don’t think so. How about the Council of Trent, which declared that the justification of the impious “cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof” (emphasis added)? No “wresting words” there, either.

 

[Lepanto]

Poisson:

God took the whole Bible to tell us how to we can be saved what makes anyone think that they can do it in one sentence?

My friend won’t touch a Bible, but he “may” read one sentence that I email him. That’s why.

 

[Poisson]

lepanto:

My friend won’t touch a Bible, but he “may” read one sentence that I email him. That’s why.

I would say “Isn’t the prospect of eternity in hell versus eternity in heaven important enought to warrant at least some discussion”

 

[Ham1]

lepanto:

My friend won’t touch a Bible, but he “may” read one sentence that I email him. That’s why.

If he is anti-catholic he most likely doesn’t understand the actual teachings of the Church. He just believes that trash that many people spew about Catholicism.

Tell him:

“We are saved only by the grace of God.”

That should get him asking questions.