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

[Claudius]

Jesus is the only salvation, and the Church is the only one with the full means to achieving what Jesus intends for us. You must be Catholic in order to get into heaven. This is true theologically but also practically. Every saint, EVERY LAST ONE, every single saint in heaven is Catholic. Getting into heaven automatically makes you a Catholic even if you were not seen as part of the Catholic Church in this life.

Just for the record though, those outside of the Catholic Church have a very slim chance of getting into heaven. The Catholic Church has a much better success rate then of getting you there then anyone else. Being not Catholic is a very big gamble, and being Anti-Catholic is in reality a big “I don’t want to go to heaven” shouted up at God.

 

[sodak]

One would have to prove Peter wasn’t speaking literally. Expositors are divided on “Babylon” being a “code word” for Rome.

I love this quote. There was a famous Catholic, whose name escapes me at the moment, who said that the problem that Protestants have with the Catholic Church are those areas where the Catholic Church lets Scripture stand on it’s own, or something like that. Very good illustration of that here.

I see a lot of people here slinging the term “Roman” as a perjorative, as I hear on “Christian” radio all the time. It is one of many different types of Catholic Churches, all of whom are in communion with the Pope. To a Catholic, it’s merely descriptive. The implied insult of the term “Roman” falls flat when viewed in it’s proper context.

 

[moondweller]

I don’t think you read your history well or whatever reference you have now except the bible. Inorder for you not to say that I am bias by using books authored by catholics, I’d still use a book authored by a none-catholic.

quote: “Paul in Rome 2 years (Acts 28: 30)…A.D. 61 - 63”
(Halley’s Bible Handbook 24th edition pp. 560)

Now, my question still remains unanswered intelligently. (use any reference book if you can and kindly put a corresponding page of the book, if there is any). My previous posts stated that Paul had written the epistle to the Romans sometime in 57-58 A.D. while in Corith, who then formed the nucleus of the christian church in Rome before his arrival? ( who? means obviously a particular person. If you cannot answer it intelligently, just ignore this question.)

You answered your own question in post #117 when you quoted Halley:

Here is another quotation from a none-catholic author;

" Date and Occasion of the Epistle to the Romans - In the spring of A.D. 57 (or perhaps in the winter of A.D. 57 - 58), Paul was in Corinth, at the end of his third missionary journey. Paul wrote to the Roman Christians to let them know that he was on his way to Rome (Acts 23: 11). Paul had not been to Rome. He finally arrived there three years after he wrote this letter. The nucleus of the church in Rome was probably formed by the Jews who had been in Jerusalem on the Pentecost (Acts 2: 10)."
Halley’s Bible Handbook 25th Edition pp. 762 - 763.

I have nothing more to add to this. We have no history documents which follow the early formation of the church at Rome. But Paul, through the Holy Spirit, did provide them with one of the most doctrinally packed Epistles in the Bible (the Book of Romans), and we know he remained there for two full years.

 

[moondweller]

Hi moonweller,

All five of my questions did address assertions that you made in your post. Could you please answer my five questions? I tried to limit my questions to five, to make things easier. I’m sorry, when I have more time I will address your entire post, I first wanted to know what it was that you actually “believed”. This will be really helpful for me and enable me to provide you with a proper respond.

Thank you, God Bless

I can’t, because your questions do not pertain to the invisible church, which was the context of my post.

 

[moondweller]

I love this quote. There was a famous Catholic, whose name escapes me at the moment, who said that the problem that Protestants have with the Catholic Church are those areas where the Catholic Church lets Scripture stand on it’s own, or something like that. Very good illustration of that here.

I’m letting the Scriptures stand on their own. The interpretation that Peter meant “Babylon” to be a code word for Rome is just that.

 

[mikew262]

Jesus is the only salvation, and the Church is the only one with the full means to achieving what Jesus intends for us. You must be Catholic in order to get into heaven. This is true theologically but also practically. Every saint, EVERY LAST ONE, every single saint in heaven is Catholic. Getting into heaven automatically makes you a Catholic even if you were not seen as part of the Catholic Church in this life.

Just for the record though, those outside of the Catholic Church have a very slim chance of getting into heaven. The Catholic Church has a much better success rate then of getting you there then anyone else. Being not Catholic is a very big gamble, and being Anti-Catholic is in reality a big “I don’t want to go to heaven” shouted up at God.

Oh for heaven’s sake, you don’t know who’s in heaven and who isn’t.

It’s just this kind of narrow-minded thinking that tends to alienate the Church from fellow Christians, and why many are leaving.

 

[moondweller]

and the Church is the only one with the full means to achieving what Jesus intends for us.

And what is He now achieving for us in respect to entrance into heaven?

Every saint, EVERY LAST ONE, every single saint in heaven is Catholic. Getting into heaven automatically makes you a Catholic even if you were not seen as part of the Catholic Church in this life.

Just for the record though, those outside of the Catholic Church have a very slim chance of getting into heaven. The Catholic Church has a much better success rate then of getting you there then anyone else.

Lots of contradictions here.

On what is this Catholic Church “success rate” based? How is it measured?

Being not Catholic is a very big gamble,

Yet you say EVERYONE who goes to heaven IS a Catholic. So what’s the big gamble?

and being Anti-Catholic is in reality a big “I don’t want to go to heaven” shouted up at God.

What’s “Anti-Catholic?”

 

[submittedjoy]

If you know Jesus, then you will become a Catholic before you are saved - either here in this life, or else in Purgatory.

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

 

[Singinbeauty]

I haven’t read this whole thread though I bet there are a lot of good responses here and I look forward to reading them…

My first thought at the title and question of this thread:

It is not Jesus AND the RCC that are the only way…

The bible makes it clear, it is ONLY Jesus and none other.

Plus, we are all part of the Catholic (universal) Church. And part of that Church is the RCC. But we only obtain salvation from the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[submittedjoy]

Do you really believe that any and all sincere, devout Jews since the time of Christ will be denied entrance to Heaven?

Jesus said in John 14:6 “… I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” No one… period… Not Budda, Not Mahamad, not the Pope (of course), not even Mary the mother of Jesus. Even his own mother knew and realized that there was no salvation without Jesus.

 

[submittedjoy]

<<<It is His perogative to draw, and not ours. It is not our place to try to pull up the tares in the wheat field.>>> You are right about the tares… but this does not exclude one from witnessing to others or telling them the truth. See… Luke 14:23

 

[submittedjoy]

Oh for heaven’s sake, you don’t know who’s in heaven and who isn’t.

It’s just this kind of narrow-minded thinking that tends to alienate the Church from fellow Christians, and why many are leaving.

Amen…

 

[Jimmy_B]

I can’t, because your questions do not pertain to the invisible church, which was the context of my post.

Hello Again moonweller, my friend,

Ok, so on an unrelated subject, here are five new questions not related to a particular post of yours,

1. Why are there 36,000 + different non-Catholic Christian denominations or 36,000 + different groups of “true believers”?

2. Does what a particular person or religion “believe” or preach make a difference?

*3. Are you asserting that Baptism by water and the Holy Trinity are unnecessary? *

4. Do you believe that there exists conflict in the Bible, or between Bible verses?

5. Why do some Christians “Church shop”?
“Be not afraid”
**

 

[moondweller]

Hello Again moonweller, my friend,

Ok, so on an unrelated subject, here are five new questions not related to a particular post of yours,

1. Why are there 36,000 + different non-Catholic Christian denominations or 36,000 + different groups of “true believers”?

2. Does what a particular person or religion “believe” or preach make a difference?

*3. Are you asserting that Baptism by water and the Holy Trinity are unnecessary? *

4. Do you believe that there exists conflict in the Bible, or between Bible verses?

5. Why do some Christians “Church shop”?
“Be not afraid”
**

You answered ALL these questions yourself to your full satisfaction in post** #134**. And you figured yourself far more qualified than I to answer these questions by ending your post with:

This is not fair because I am Roman Catholic, so I have a distinct advantage…

How could I, a disadvantaged, non-Catholic possibly add anything to your answers, or even begin to enlighten you?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I agree there is only one church. But that church is the Body/Bride of Christ which is made up of every true believer since Pentecost. The Scriptures teach this.

The Church, which indeed is the Mystical Body of Christ and His Bride, has a definite visible nature.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P27.HTM
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9301fea2.asp
ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/churb1.htm

If that’s your criterion, then neither are the Latin and Greek. And within these there are many internal “fractures.”

The church Christ has been building since Pentecost is spiritual, each of its members being now “in Christ,” its Head, its Lord, its Savior.

I cannot speak for the Orthodox Churches, but the Catholic Church is not internally fractured. In essential teaching we are of one faith (which is different than teachings on discipline). If a baptized Catholic were to obstinately deny or doubt an essential teaching of the Church, that Catholic would be what is known as a heretic (formal definition - CCC 2089; CIC 751). We could go on to discuss the wounds that this causes - though, this is different than the internal fractures that I take you to mean.

Well, let’s see. Since Jesus was born in about 4 b.c., and He began to build His church with the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (those believers being the first to be baptized into the body of Christ), I would say it is approx. 1,971 years old. Now that predates, by centuries, when the western “church” name itself “Catholic” and the eastern “Orthodox.” And based on your criterion, neither of these can qualify as the “one universal church” because both were part of a “fracture.”

If you are a Protestant, your ecclesial community is no older than approximately 500 years old. That is a historically verifiable fact. There was no Protestant group before Martin Luther.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

To many RCs a heretic is anyone who disagrees with anything taught by the church of Rome.

Here is the formal definition of heresy:

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same. (CCC 2089; CIC 751)

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Yes, I’ve seen all of these many times before. However, there are no writings contemporary with Peter that testify of his alleged position in the church at Rome. Nor do any of these people give the source of their assertions. None were contemporaries of Peter.

I don’t think you read my posts. I said we know without a doubt that Paul was in Rome for 2 years. We get that from the Book of Acts, last chapter.

What I have a problem with is the RC teaching that Peter was “Bishop of Rome” (Pope) for 25 years. From what contemporary source is this found?

No one knows exactly how the church in Rome started. Many believe Roman Jews in Jerusalem during the time of Pentecost took the message of Christ back with them. For this reason, it is believed, Paul wrote his doctrinally filled letter to that church (the Book of Romans). It is also believed that in the beginning Rome, like all the early churches, had a board of elders - not a “Pope.” That whole system of “Patriarchs” developed later.

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.

catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp

Now, ask yourself, did anyone before Protestantism (and I think this thought even in Protestantism is only around 100 - 200 years old) ever think that Peter wasn’t in Rome? Did any Christian group ever deny that Peter was the founder of the Church of Rome?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Did it ever occur to you, though, that attacking and condemning the beliefs of others might be part of the reason for Christians not getting along? Or do you even care? Also, how come Catholics (some of them) have a problem acknowledging their own flaws? And ours are not philisophical. Saying so equates us to Aristotle and Plato. I think we are a little different from them.

What are we talking about? Are we talking about personal flaws or about flaws of a particular Church or ecclesial community?

If it is about personal flaws, I agree, don’t condemn. Now, condemning is different than admonishing - which is a work of mercy. And Catholics acknowledge their flaws - can we use the name SIN here, I mean it is Lent! - all the time, in the Sacrament of Confession.

If it is about a particular Church or ecclesial community, Catholics have a moral obligation to witness to the truth in love. We cannot let Protestants think that we think that they are o.k. right were they are and that they don’t have to join full communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Oh for heaven’s sake, you don’t know who’s in heaven and who isn’t.

It’s just this kind of narrow-minded thinking that tends to alienate the Church from fellow Christians, and why many are leaving.

We don’t know who is not in Heaven (though we could make some educated guesses on some people ) - but we know with 100% certainty that every Saint proclaimed by the Catholic Church is in Heaven!

 

[mikew262]

• but we know with 100% certainty that every Saint proclaimed by the Catholic Church is in Heaven!

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.