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

[KJK80]

Woah, back the train up… Where did I say ANYTHING about his final destination?

Although the Church does not teach that any particular individual is in hell, I believe that Scripture indicates that Judas Iscariot is in hell. Jesus says, “The Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born” (Matt. 26:24). If Judas ended up in heaven rather than hell, it would be difficult to see how it would have been better for him not to have been born. Going through any amount of temporal pain and disgrace is not worth comparing to the joys of heaven (Rom. 8:18), and, if Judas went to heaven, matters still came out infinitely to his benefit. Only if Judas went to hell, it seems to me, would it have been better for him not to have been born.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

 

[c659smith]

Woah, back the train up… Where did I say ANYTHING about his final destination?

You said “Judas like us”

There is no confusion there Judas was a thief of the worst kind, betrayed Jesus with a kiss, and committed suicide.

Do not put me in that catergory or relate what he did to me or anyone else for if one is in hell scripture tell us it is Judas.

your quote below in purple

but I think Judas, like us, got his own ideas of how Jesus’ kingdom was to come about; and attempted to circumvent the timeline a bit to force Jesus to “play his hand”…

For we can very well speculate what judgement was placed upon Judas and the bible tells us so.

your quote below in purple
But I don’t think we can judge him, what his actual thought pattern was, or what happened to lead him to betray Jesus. Hindsight is 20/20, and we can speculate all we want about all the details… but in the end, that is for God to know

That where I got the idea.

 

[KJK80]

OK understand why you got confused, I’m sorry.

When I say “like us” I did not mean Judas’ entire story… I meant that sometimes we attempt to circumvent God’s timeline–correct? I think this is shown throughout the Bible–examples of folks trying to circumvent God’s plan or timeline, thinking they know best… I’m guilty, I know that.

Next, when I say we can’t judge him, I thought I made it clear that we can’t judge him UP TO HIS BETRAYAL… Do you know WHY Judas betrayed Jesus? Is it outlined somewhere Biblically? I don’t think we can necessarily say that Judas was “out for blood.”

I don’t think we can say, either that Judas could not have been forgiven (though, the suicidal death kinda eliminates that possibility in our eyes).

Per the Catechism:

**597 **The historical complexity of Jesus’ trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles’ calls to conversion after Pentecost. Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders. Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd’s cry: “His blood be on us and on our children!”, a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence. As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council:

. . . [N]either all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. . . [T]he Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.

 

[c659smith]

Judas betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver as stated in the old and new testament.

Blood Money.

It is the new liberal yahoo’s that are trying to circumvent a reason what and why Judas did what he did.
Not Sacred Scripture, Sacred Teachings, or Sacred Traditions.

 

[KJK80]

Yes, and?

You and I killed Jesus with our sins… He died for our sins…

I think Jesus dying for our/because of our sins is no smaller thing than Judas betraying Jesus for 30 pieces of silver.

Maybe you just like placing blame on someone else, to make yourself look better… maybe not–but I’d be careful throwing stones at Judas too much.

Judas betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver as stated in the old and new testament.

Blood Money.

It is the new liberal yahoo’s that are trying to circumvent a reason what and why Judas did what he did.
Not Sacred Scripture, Sacred Teachings, or Sacred Traditions.

 

[c659smith]

Yes, and?

You and I killed Jesus with our sins… He died for our sins…

I think Jesus dying for our/because of our sins is no smaller thing than Judas betraying Jesus for 30 pieces of silver.

Maybe you just like placing blame on someone else, to make yourself look better… maybe not–but I’d be careful throwing stones at Judas too much.

Now your confusing giving up your life for another as Jesus did for us. (LOVE)

We did not kill Jesus but Jesus took our sins upon Himself for God loved us so much. we did not ask for this but He did this of His own free will and the will of the Father.

Their is a difference as it may relate to

If my son committs a crime and is repentant and sorry for committing such a crime and at the trial he gets 30 years.

Now because I love my son I would take his punishment upon myself and serve the 30 years.

My son owes me nothing and has done nothing to me for I serve the time freely of my own free will out of love.

The betrayal and hurt comes in when my son re-committs the same crime and meets me in prison.

In other words I deny Jesus as God or trade Him for an act of pleasure or thing.

 

[guanophore]

I agree. Since there are no longer any Apostles or prophets on what is the church functioning on?

The Apostles and Prophets were the Foundation, with Christ as the Cornerstone. They chose faithful men who were able to teach others also. These preserved the Sacred Tradition, just as it was handed on to them:

6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." 2 Thess 3:6

How is the church the foundation and pillar of the Truth when it is responsible for so much evil?

You erroneously ascribe evil to the pure bride of Christ, ja4. Evil does not come from the purified bride, but from individuals giving in to evil temptation:

James 1:14-15
each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death.

The Church is not dead, but there are many sinful men who have died in their sins, though they were members of the Church at one time, they profaned the Blood of the Covenant.

Are you saying that the church also produced the OT?

To the extent that the Church determined which books were used by Jesus and the apostles and pronounced them canonical only.

What is Jesus referring to here? Is He speaking of the church or something else?

He is speaking of the Kingdom of God, which is synonomous with the Church He built.

Thank you for being sensitive to my wounds… :bowdown2: uch:

I pray for you every day, ja4. I understand, because I was raised in a home that was also "catholic’ but did not behave that way. It is a very difficult situation to surmount. Fortunately, all things are possible with God!

Where in Acts does it speak of the “relics of Sts. Peter and Paul”?

Technically, I think they are not considered “relics” until after the person is dead, but it was believed by the early Church that the bones of saints could heal.

Acts 19:11-13

11 And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.

The catholic is the only church that i know that promotes relics.

That is probably because it belongs to the Sacred Tradition.

I familar with the requirements for a deacon in scripture but i have never seen it used in the context of a sacrament. Was it known at this time as a sacrament?

A sacrament describes a ritual through which graces are passed, and that is what it was considered. At the time, I do not think that term was applied.

Where do we see priests mentioned in this passage? An elder is not a priest. These are 2 different and distinct offices.

No. “priest” is the English translation for “presbyter” (elder).

Where do we see any mention of purgatory i.e. “is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions” mentioned in Scripture?

Don’t you think we should do purgatory on another thread? Or, use one of the threads already open?

Where do we see an apostle himself passing on his office and authority to another man in Scripture ?

2 Tim 2:2
what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also

but the Apostle counsels Timothy not to be too hasty:

1 Tim 5:22
22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man’s sins; keep yourself pure.

2 Tim 1:6-7
6 Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; 7 for God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self-control.

Titus 1:5

5 This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you,

Shouldn’t we do apostolic succession in another thread?

 

[submittedjoy]

This is in reference to the second coming of the Messiah. Not Christ being present in his Church. But, if you would like to think of it that way (without context of course) you believe Christ is not present in your Church?

Ok… first of all… I see the RCC as an institution, an organization… not THE church. I believe that all, true, born again, blood washed, forgiven christians are the CHURCH… the body of Christ. In this since, we are one with Christ as he is with the Father.

 

[jmcrae]

Ok… first of all… I see the RCC as an institution, an organization… not THE church.

History and Scripture show otherwise - the Catholic Church is the one that was started by Jesus (Matthew 16:18-19), who put St. Peter in charge of it (John 21:15-19) at the time of His ascension into Heaven, and then we see the unbroken line of succession that starts with St. Peter and ends with Pope Benedict XVI.

I believe that all, true, born again, blood washed, forgiven christians are the CHURCH… the body of Christ. In this since, we are one with Christ as he is with the Father.

In a sense, that’s true - but then we have to figure out how one gets to be born-again and blood-bought - Jesus tells us in the Bible that it’s through the Sacraments of His Church (John 20:21-23; Matthew 28:16-20); not merely by means of wishing it to be so.

 

[distracted]

Didn’t know that, huh?

No, i was confused about what the post meant…

 

[Lampo]

No, i was confused about what the post meant…

Do you understand now?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3512735]
Originally Posted by justasking4
I agree. Since there are no longer any Apostles or prophets on what is the church functioning on?

guanophore
The Apostles and Prophets were the Foundation, with Christ as the Cornerstone. They chose faithful men who were able to teach others also. These preserved the Sacred Tradition, just as it was handed on to them:

6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." 2 Thess 3:6

Would you agree that the “traditions” in 2 Thes 3:6 whatever they were not the marian dogmas, purgatory, indulgences or treasury of merits since these came about centuries later. Correct?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3512735]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Where do we see an apostle himself passing on his office and authority to another man in Scripture ?

guanophore
2 Tim 2:2
what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also

but the Apostle counsels Timothy not to be too hasty:

1 Tim 5:22
22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man’s sins; keep yourself pure.

2 Tim 1:6-7
6 Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; 7 for God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self-control.

Titus 1:5

5 This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you,

Where in these passages is Paul making any reference to these things being specifically about an apostle? Where does he ever refer to Timothy or anyone else that they to were going to be apostles?

Shouldn’t we do apostolic succession in another thread?

Not necessarily. Note this papal Bull:
In his papal Bull Unam Sanctam (1302), Pope Boniface VIII declared: “We are obliged . . . to believe . . . that outside [the Roman Catholic church] there is neither salvation nor remission of sins. . . . Furthermore we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.”

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3514735]History and Scripture show otherwise - the Catholic Church is the one that was started by Jesus (Matthew 16:18-19), who put St. Peter in charge of it (John 21:15-19) at the time of His ascension into Heaven, and then we see the unbroken line of succession that starts with St. Peter and ends with Pope Benedict XVI.

How are you using the word “pope” here? If you mean by it the supreme leader of the church we know that it took some time before there was one recognized person who was head of the church. It actually took centuries.

In a sense, that’s true - but then we have to figure out how one gets to be born-again and blood-bought - Jesus tells us in the Bible that it’s through the Sacraments of His Church (John 20:21-23; Matthew 28:16-20); not merely by means of wishing it to be so.

The way one “gets to be born-again and blood-bought” can be found in Romans 10:9-10:
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

You don’t need a sacrament to become born again and have new life in Christ.

 

[submittedjoy]

How are you using the word “pope” here? If you mean by it the supreme leader of the church we know that it took some time before there was one recognized person who was head of the church. It actually took centuries.

The way one “gets to be born-again and blood-bought” can be found in Romans 10:9-10:
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

You don’t need a sacrament to become born again and have new life in Christ.

100% aggreement…

 

[Jimmy_B]

100% aggreement…

Wow, justaskin4 did you see this? What is **submittedjoy **going to do when you convert to Catholicism…

Peace

 

[peary]

Ok… first of all… I see the RCC as an institution, an organization… not THE church. I believe that all, true, born again, blood washed, forgiven christians are the CHURCH… the body of Christ. In this since, we are one with Christ as he is with the Father.

First of all, it is the CATHOLIC CHURCH, not the ‘Roman’ Catholic Church. NO WHERE IN ANY OFFICIAL VATICAN DOCUMENTS will you find the Catholic Church referred to as the ‘Roman’ Catholic Church.

Second, even Vatican II states that the institutional Church subsists within the CHURCH which means that the existence of the Catholic Church on earth reflects the existence of the Church Triumphant in Heaven.

Thirdly, Christians of any denomination who have received a VALID baptism and baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” are part of the ‘church’ of all believers. On that there is no argument. But because they are disassociated with the Catholic Church, they do not have the ‘fullness’ of Faith, yet they are offered a life of grace and have the Scriptures.

 

[Brian_Millar]

Peary, I used to think as you do, trying to unify Catholics with protestants, yet they clearly are different religions and are not of the Church Christ formed. Only the Catholic church is the one true Christian religion, the others came afterwards and are to be considered as outsiders, for they do not believe 100% in what Jesus taught. Even basic elements, such as baptism, comunion, confession, etc. are largely rejected by protestants, they are to be considered as the heathen, for they are not part of the church, nor ever will until they become Catholic and turn away from their old beliefs.

It’s hard to hear, I know, but it’s the truth and believe me, I’ve tried my absolute best to create some form of unity, only to be kicked in the teeth by them in the first place.

Along God, of course they, including jews and muslems beleive in the same one as we, but the rejection of Christ is the pivotel element which seperates them from him, for no man comes to the father except through Christ, no if and’s or buts, and if you reject Christs church, you are rejecting him.

 

[peary]

Peary, I used to think as you do, trying to unify Catholics with protestants, yet they clearly are different religions and are not of the Church Christ formed. Only the Catholic church is the one true Christian religion, the others came afterwards and are to be considered as outsiders, for they do not believe 100% in what Jesus taught. Even basic elements, such as baptism, comunion, confession, etc. are largely rejected by protestants, they are to be considered as the heathen, for they are not part of the church, nor ever will until they become Catholic and turn away from their old beliefs.

It’s hard to hear, I know, but it’s the truth and believe me, I’ve tried my absolute best to create some form of unity, only to be kicked in the teeth by them in the first place.

Along God, of course they, including jews and muslems beleive in the same one as we, but the rejection of Christ is the pivotel element which seperates them from him, for no man comes to the father except through Christ, no if and’s or buts, and if you reject Christs church, you are rejecting him.

Oh, I agree with you, of course. But I give God’s grace the benefit of the doubt. Some of them ARE so far disassociated with Christianity (even though they call themselves ‘christian’) that it is only by the grace of God that they might have the opportunity to be saved. I am not saying that one denomination is as good as another, not at all. What I am basically saying that because of a valid baptism (and it must be a valid baptism) and because of the Scriptures (OUR Scriptures, by the way), and because of Christ’s promise that “where two or more are gathered in my Name there I am in the midst of them,” I am convinced that they ARE offered a life of grace, and they can gain an understanding of Christ through Scripture, thereby having an opportunity to be saved. But the criteria is invincible ignorance that outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Like I said, I err on the side of God’s grace and His understanding of one’s predicament.

 

[justasking4]

Brian Millar;3516148]Peary, I used to think as you do, trying to unify Catholics with protestants, yet they clearly are different religions and are not of the Church Christ formed. Only the Catholic church is the one true Christian religion, the others came afterwards and are to be considered as outsiders, for they do not believe 100% in what Jesus taught.

If the catholic church believed 100% what Jesus taught it would not look like the catholic church. Jesus never taught much of what the catholic church teaches.

Even basic elements, such as baptism, comunion, confession, etc. are largely rejected by protestants, they are to be considered as the heathen, for they are not part of the church, nor ever will until they become Catholic and turn away from their old beliefs.

Baptism or taking the Lord’s supper is rejected by protestants that i know of. It is the catholic church that needs to turn from its unbilical doctrines and practices…

It’s hard to hear, I know, but it’s the truth and believe me, I’ve tried my absolute best to create some form of unity, only to be kicked in the teeth by them in the first place.

True unity can only be based on the truth.

Along God, of course they, including jews and muslems beleive in the same one as we, but the rejection of Christ is the pivotel element which seperates them from him, for no man comes to the father except through Christ, no if and’s or buts, and if you reject Christs church, you are rejecting him.

How can you say that Musliums believe the same God as Christians when they deny a fundamental characteristic of the nature of God as to make Him another god?