Is Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church the only way to salvation?

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Technically, we don’t even know that for sure, but I would hope they are. Remember, the title of “saint” is given my man. Only God makes the determination whether somebody is in heaven or not.

Every Saint canonized by the Church, by the virtue of Peter being given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, is declared to be in Heaven. That is why the canonization process is not easy. There are almost certainly others in Heaven that are not formally canonized, but the canonized Saints are definitely in Heaven. This is the teaching of the Church (cf. CCC 946-962).

 

[sodak]

Just curious, have always wanted to know… where in the Bible is the doctrine of Purgatory taught?

Do a search, there are lots of good threads pointing out the Biblical support for Purgatory, if you feel that it’s necessary.

Just curious, why do you feel it’s necessary to see it in the Bible?

 

[mikew262]

Hello,

Every Saint canonized by the Church, by the virtue of Peter being given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, is declared to be in Heaven. That is why the canonization process is not easy. There are almost certainly others in Heaven that are not formally canonized, but the canonized Saints are definitely in Heaven. This is the teaching of the Church (cf. CCC 946-962).

I repeat, God is the ultimate authority on who is in Heaven. I suspect and hope that all saints canonized by the Church are indeed in Heaven. However, God decides that, not the Church.

BTW, I reviewed the CCC reference you gave me, and I saw nothing that disputes what I said. It talks about the Communion of Saints and the Church’s relationship with them, but thats it.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I repeat, God is the ultimate authority on who is in Heaven. I suspect and hope that all saints canonized by the Church are indeed in Heaven. However, God decides that, not the Church.

BTW, I reviewed the CCC reference you gave me, and I saw nothing that disputes what I said. It talks about the Communion of Saints and the Church’s relationship with them, but thats it.

God is the final authority, but he gave that authority to His Church. In the same way, only God can forgive sins ultimately, but he gave that authority to His Church, thus we have the Sacrament of Confession, in which this authority is exercised by the Church.

I think it would be borderline sacrilegious to suggest that the Saints may not be in Heaven. That automatically opens up the possibility that they could be in hell. To even think that Saint Francis, Saint Joseph, or even the Theotokos could be in hell is the apex of arrogance if not outright heresy (definitely in the case of the Theotokos, it IS heresy).

Where have you ever heard the Church teach that the Saints proclaimed may not be in Heaven?

If you read the Catechism section, it refers to the Intercession of Saints - that is what we call it when we pray to those Saints that have been canonized.

956 The intercession of the saints. “Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness… They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus… So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped.” (LG 49; cf. ⇒ Eph 4:16.)

957 Communion with the saints. “It is not merely by the title of example that we cherish the memory of those in heaven; we seek, rather, that by this devotion to the exercise of fraternal charity the union of the whole Church in the Spirit may be strengthened. Exactly as Christian communion among our fellow pilgrims brings us closer to Christ, so our communion with the saints joins us to Christ, from whom as from its fountain and head issues all grace, and the life of the People of God itself” (LG 50; cf. ⇒ Eph 4:1-6.)

And the Vicariate Apostolic of Kuwait says this:

Blessed

In Catholicism, beatification is a recognition accorded by the Church of a dead person’s accession to Heaven and capacity to intercede on behalf of individuals who pray in their name (intercession of saints). One miracle must be proven to have taken place through the intercession of the person to be beatified, though this requirement is waived for those who died a martyr. A person who is beatified is given the title “Blessed.” The feast day, however, is not universal, but is celebrated only in regions where the Blessed receives particular veneration. The Blessed may also be honored in a particular religious order. Beatification is considered to be a step towards being declared a saint, usually following the step of being declared venerable and preceding the step of canonization as a saint.

Saint

An additional miracle is required for Canonization. After a second miracle is attributed to the intercession of the “Blessed,” the Pope may then declare the Blessed a “Saint.”

 

[justasking4]

JMJ_coder;3377367]Hello,

When someone makes that claim (Peter was never in Rome) - I find it hard to take their scholarly credibility serious any longer. But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is what you were taught.

Peter was in Rome

.

Here what a catholic scholar says about Peter being or founding the church in Rome.

“Paul never hints in Romans that he knows that Peter has worked in Rome or founded the Christian church there before his planned visit (cf. 15:20-23). If he refers indirectly to Peter as among the ‘superfine apostles’ who worked in Corinth (2 Cor 11:4-5), he says nothing like that about Rome in this letter. Hence the beginnings of the Roman Christian community remain shrouded in mystery. Compare 1 Thess 3:2-5; 1 Cor 3:5-9; and Col 1:7 and 4:12-13 for more or less clear references to founding apostles of other locales. Hence there is no reason to think that Peter spent any major portion of time in Rome before Paul wrote his letter, or that he was the founder of the Roman church or the missionary who first brought Christianity to Rome. For it seems highly unlikely that Luke, if he knew that Peter had gone to Rome and evangelized that city, would have omitted all mention of it in Acts.” [Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 30].

 

[postwriter]

Allyson, Catholicism is a work of man.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Allyson, Catholicism is a work of man.

Hello postwriter, are you a big fan of sound-bites? what does the sound-bite “Catholicism is a work of man” mean?

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_50.gif

 

[Nita]

Allyson, Catholicism is a work of man.

Yes, the God incarnate Man - Jesus Christ. It continues to be His work. He is our High Priest in heaven, the Holy of Holies. His work is made present in history and is “assisted” through cooperation of priests and believers on earth. .

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

.

Here what a catholic scholar says about Peter being or founding the church in Rome.

“Paul never hints in Romans that he knows that Peter has worked in Rome or founded the Christian church there before his planned visit (cf. 15:20-23). If he refers indirectly to Peter as among the ‘superfine apostles’ who worked in Corinth (2 Cor 11:4-5), he says nothing like that about Rome in this letter. Hence the beginnings of the Roman Christian community remain shrouded in mystery. Compare 1 Thess 3:2-5; 1 Cor 3:5-9; and Col 1:7 and 4:12-13 for more or less clear references to founding apostles of other locales. Hence there is no reason to think that Peter spent any major portion of time in Rome before Paul wrote his letter, or that he was the founder of the Roman church or the missionary who first brought Christianity to Rome. For it seems highly unlikely that Luke, if he knew that Peter had gone to Rome and evangelized that city, would have omitted all mention of it in Acts.” [Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 30].

I don’t know of Joseph Fitzmyer to know the general context of this quote, but I don’t see anything in it to prove the Saint Peter was never in Rome. It says that there were believers in Rome before Saint Peter and Saint Paul arrived and that Saint Paul beat Saint Peter there. Well, duh!

That is different than the fact that Saint Peter and Saint Paul were the founders and organizers of that Church, though (as Saint Irenaeus mentions in his Adversus Haereses (3,3,2).

 

[mikew262]

Hello,

God is the final authority, but he gave that authority to His Church. In the same way, only God can forgive sins ultimately, but he gave that authority to His Church, thus we have the Sacrament of Confession, in which this authority is exercised by the Church.

I think it would be borderline sacrilegious to suggest that the Saints may not be in Heaven. That automatically opens up the possibility that they could be in hell. To even think that Saint Francis, Saint Joseph, or even the Theotokos could be in hell is the apex of arrogance if not outright heresy (definitely in the case of the Theotokos, it IS heresy).

Where have you ever heard the Church teach that the Saints proclaimed may not be in Heaven?

/QUOTE]

I haven’t heard from anybody that the Church teaches that some saints may not be in heaven. They don’t teach that. You are missing my point.

Again, God and only God decides who is in heaven and who isn’t. The Church makes a presumption, after much study, that this particular person is indeed in heaven, and because of the life they led should be proclaimed a saint. I assume every person made a saint by the Church is in heaven, but God decides that, not the Church.

 

[mikew262]

Hello,

God is the final authority, but he gave that authority to His Church. In the same way, only God can forgive sins ultimately, but he gave that authority to His Church, thus we have the Sacrament of Confession, in which this authority is exercised by the Church.

I think it would be borderline sacrilegious to suggest that the Saints may not be in Heaven. That automatically opens up the possibility that they could be in hell. To even think that Saint Francis, Saint Joseph, or even the Theotokos could be in hell is the apex of arrogance if not outright heresy (definitely in the case of the Theotokos, it IS heresy).

Where have you ever heard the Church teach that the Saints proclaimed may not be in Heaven?

If you read the Catechism section, it refers to the Intercession of Saints - that is what we call it when we pray to those Saints that have been canonized.

956 The intercession of the saints. “Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness… They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus… So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped.” (LG 49; cf. ⇒ Eph 4:16.)

957 Communion with the saints. “It is not merely by the title of example that we cherish the memory of those in heaven; we seek, rather, that by this devotion to the exercise of fraternal charity the union of the whole Church in the Spirit may be strengthened. Exactly as Christian communion among our fellow pilgrims brings us closer to Christ, so our communion with the saints joins us to Christ, from whom as from its fountain and head issues all grace, and the life of the People of God itself” (LG 50; cf. ⇒ Eph 4:1-6.)

And the Vicariate Apostolic of Kuwait says this:

Blessed

In Catholicism, beatification is a recognition accorded by the Church of a dead person’s accession to Heaven and capacity to intercede on behalf of individuals who pray in their name (intercession of saints). One miracle must be proven to have taken place through the intercession of the person to be beatified, though this requirement is waived for those who died a martyr. A person who is beatified is given the title “Blessed.” The feast day, however, is not universal, but is celebrated only in regions where the Blessed receives particular veneration. The Blessed may also be honored in a particular religious order. Beatification is considered to be a step towards being declared a saint, usually following the step of being declared venerable and preceding the step of canonization as a saint.

Saint

An additional miracle is required for Canonization. After a second miracle is attributed to the intercession of the “Blessed,” the Pope may then declare the Blessed a “Saint.”

I haven’t heard from anybody that the Church teaches that some saints may not be in heaven. They don’t teach that. You are missing my point.

Again, God and only God decides who is in heaven and who isn’t. The Church makes a presumption, after much study, that this particular person is indeed in heaven, and because of the life they led should be proclaimed a saint. I assume every person made a saint by the Church is in heaven, but God decides that, not the Church.

 

[justasking4]

Hello,

I don’t know of Joseph Fitzmyer to know the general context of this quote, but I don’t see anything in it to prove the Saint Peter was never in Rome. It says that there were believers in Rome before Saint Peter and Saint Paul arrived and that Saint Paul beat Saint Peter there. Well, duh!

That is different than the fact that Saint Peter and Saint Paul were the founders and organizers of that Church, though (as Saint Irenaeus mentions in his Adversus Haereses (3,3,2).

Your last quote is the issue. Even if Peter was there that does not mean he founded or established the church there. There is no proof that he did. If a person is going to say he did then he-she needs to present the evidence. So far that has never been done.

 

[justasking4]

I haven’t heard from anybody that the Church teaches that some saints may not be in heaven. They don’t teach that. You are missing my point.

Again, God and only God decides who is in heaven and who isn’t. The Church makes a presumption, after much study, that this particular person is indeed in heaven, and because of the life they led should be proclaimed a saint. I assume every person made a saint by the Church is in heaven, but God decides that, not the Church.

Would you agree then that the catholic church is only specualting on who is in heaven since only God knows?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Your last quote is the issue. Even if Peter was there that does not mean he founded or established the church there. There is no proof that he did. If a person is going to say he did then he-she needs to present the evidence. So far that has never been done.

All the Early Fathers attest to the fact that Saint Peter founded the Church of Rome. I trust their word infinitely more than yours.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I haven’t heard from anybody that the Church teaches that some saints may not be in heaven. They don’t teach that. You are missing my point.

Again, God and only God decides who is in heaven and who isn’t. The Church makes a presumption, after much study, that this particular person is indeed in heaven, and because of the life they led should be proclaimed a saint. I assume every person made a saint by the Church is in heaven, but God decides that, not the Church.

The Church has been given that authority by God. Do you say that while the Priest in the confessional can assume and make a presumption of forgiveness, ultimately we don’t know whether are sins are really forgiven or not? No, Christ gave His authority to the Apostles!!! The Church has been given that authority - by God!!! It is in the Church’s God-given authority of binding and loosing with the keys of Heaven to declare Saints.

 

[justasking4]

Hello,

The Church has been given that authority by God. Do you say that while the Priest in the confessional can assume and make a presumption of forgiveness, ultimately we don’t know whether are sins are really forgiven or not? No, Christ gave His authority to the Apostles!!! The Church has been given that authority - by God!!! It is in the Church’s God-given authority of binding and loosing with the keys of Heaven to declare Saints.

Where in the NT do we see any apostle or bishop hearing confessions and giving absolution?

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Your last quote is the issue. Even if Peter was there that does not mean he founded or established the church there. There is no proof that he did. If a person is going to say he did then he-she needs to present the evidence. So far that has never been done.

JMJ_coder
Hello,
All the Early Fathers attest to the fact that Saint Peter founded the Church of Rome. I trust their word infinitely more than yours.

You are putting to much faith in the early fathers. Here is what a catholic historian says:

The Jesuit scholar Joseph Fitzmyer has stated,
“Paul never hints in Romans that he knows that Peter has worked in Rome or founded the Christian church there before his planned visit (cf. 15:20-23). If he refers indirectly to Peter as among the ‘superfine apostles’ who worked in Corinth (2 Cor 11:4-5), he says nothing like that about Rome in this letter. Hence the beginnings of the Roman Christian community remain shrouded in mystery. Compare 1 Thess 3:2-5; 1 Cor 3:5-9; and Col 1:7 and 4:12-13 for more or less clear references to founding apostles of other locales. **Hence there is no reason to think that Peter spent any major portion of time in Rome before Paul wrote his letter, or that he was the founder of the Roman church or the missionary who first brought Christianity to Rome. **For it seems highly unlikely that Luke, if he knew that Peter had gone to Rome and evangelized that city, would have omitted all mention of it in Acts.” [Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 30].

Not only the Scriptures do not support the claim Peter founded the church there but there are no historical facts to support the claim either.

 

[moondweller]

Hello, I don’t know of Joseph Fitzmyer to know the general context of this quote, but I don’t see anything in it to prove the Saint Peter was never in Rome. It says that there were believers in Rome before Saint Peter and Saint Paul arrived and that Saint Paul beat Saint Peter there. Well, duh!

That is different than the fact that Saint Peter and Saint Paul were the founders and organizers of that Church, though (as Saint Irenaeus mentions in his Adversus Haereses (3,3,2).

Let’s read him again:

“Hence there is no reason to think that Peter spent any major portion of time in Rome before Paul wrote his letter, or that he was the founder of the Roman church or the missionary who first brought Christianity to Rome.”

His conclusion is formed based on lack of evidence.

When someone makes that claim (Peter was never in Rome) - I find it hard to take their scholarly credibility serious any longer. But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is what you were taught.

(1) I didn’t say Peter “was never in Rome.” Based on lack of evidence I question the Roman teaching that Peter held the alleged position of “Bishop of Rome” and that he ministered there for some 25 years prior to his death. There simply is no historical evidence.

(2) The “scholarly” work that must be questioned is that which makes a statement without providing an adequate source to back it up. I would even question a religion that forms its “faith” on such unprovable claims.

That’s why Jesus provided eyewitnesses to all that He said and did (Acts 1:8; 1 Jn. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:16). And then sent the Holy Spirit to preserve this witness in divinely inspired writings through the same men who eyewitnessed it all (Jn. 14:26). The N.T. Scriptures weren’t written some 1-4 hundred years after the fact.

 

[mikew262]

Would you agree then that the catholic church is only specualting on who is in heaven since only God knows?

Perhaps speculating is too weak a word. The Church does extensive research on a prospective saint’s life before beginning the sainthood process. Obviously, by documenting how that person went the “extra mile” in living God’s word, the most likely assumption is that person is indeed in Heaven. However, only God makes that final judgment, and only he truly knows for sure.

 

[mikew262]

Hello,

The Church has been given that authority by God. Do you say that while the Priest in the confessional can assume and make a presumption of forgiveness, ultimately we don’t know whether are sins are really forgiven or not? No, Christ gave His authority to the Apostles!!! The Church has been given that authority - by God!!! It is in the Church’s God-given authority of binding and loosing with the keys of Heaven to declare Saints.

IMO, God forgives those sins through the priest. If the person truly is not repentant in his/her heart, then I do not believe the sins are truly forgiven.