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

[peary]

i agree… & the Church does not teach that people ignorant of Christ go to Hell… It is just easier (etc) to get to Heaven when one is in the Church established by Christ. That is why he died for us. It is why He established the Church. It is why He made the Church the way He made it… & promised to protect it despite its weak human ministers… (St. Matthew 16:18… etc.). He knew how weak we are…
“To whom more is given, more is required” (can’t recall where that is in Bible) so if anything, it is we Catholics all the more who need to be concerned about our salvation…

**By the way, it’s Matthew 25:29 **

 

[submittedjoy]

I think once you pass, for all practical purposes, linear time ceases to exist for the individual soul, which might help explain it better, so no waiting around for things to happen…

This is a VERY good explaination! )

 

[submittedjoy]

I’d like to know how difficult it is to acquire a bible in India. Surely it can’t be that hard, there are also plenty of christian churches to choose from as well. They cannot say they have no chance at exposure to the gospel, it’s everywhere these days.

No… there still are remote places that haven’t heard. Persecution of Christians still takes a heavy toll in many places in the world.

 

[submittedjoy]

Less than three percent of the population in India is Christian. They are continually bombing Catholic churches and murdering Catholic priests, because they are a threat to the caste system, and to the system of oppression against women. It’s difficult to convince a woman that she is merely a talking farm animal when a Catholic priest is offering to baptize her and teach her the Catechism just like a regular human being.

Are the Hindus really that bad when it comes to women?

 

[Phil12123]

**By the way, it’s Matthew 25:29 **

No, actually it is Luke 12:48. Let’s look at the entire passage:

Luke 12:
40. "Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.’’
41. Then Peter said to Him, "Lord, do You speak this parable only to us, or to all people?’’
42. And the Lord said, "Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his master will make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season?
43. "Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes.
44. "Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all that he has.
45. "But if that servant says in his heart, `My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the menservants and maidservants, and to eat and drink and be drunk,
46. "the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware; and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
47. "And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48. "But he who did not know, yet committed things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

As you can see, the key is knowing God’s will. The more you know, the more you are responsible for. The issue is accountability for what light you have. Notice also, both servants—the one who knew His will and the one who knew it not—were beaten, because they both committed things worthy of stripes (beating). So everyone is a sinner deserving punishment and some will receive greater punishment than others, all based on their accountability and the amount of light they have received and what they did with that light. If you are an Indian or African, you’re a sinner like everyone else and worthy of eternal punishment for your sins, like everyone else. But your punishment is “few” stripes if you have less accountability, compared to those with “many” stripes who knew more.

 

[lazylong6]

youtube.com/watch?v=Jmj-_BB6zWY

 

[elt1956]

You know this is certainly not the first time people have made these accusations that I’m not following the church. This week as I was arguing this I picked up my bible and opened it at random and I came to the story of St Paul’s imprisonment in Jerusalem in the Acts of the Apostles, what particularly struck out at me in his defence was when he was saying that he was upholding the entirety of the faith of their ancestors that he was being accused of corrupting. I don’t think it was coincidence that I opened to that either.

No, my friend, the tradition is that they did indeed go to hell, or sheol, or the underworld, I have heard it said though that this hell is understood to be a different place than final damnation, which as you say there is no return, what I would point out though is that there does not appear to be differentiation between where the wicked and the righteous go before Jesus:

Psalm 6:4 Turn, O LORD, and deliver me; save me because of your unfailing love. 5 No one remembers you when he is dead. Who praises you from the grave?

In the first verse we see here that where they go when they die they no longer remember God and do not praise him.

Psalm 16:8 I have set the LORD always before me. Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken. 9 Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, 10 because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay

In the second verse I quote we discover the hope that those in the old covenant had that they would not be abandoned to sheol, but would raise up from it.

Psalm 49:10 For all can see that wise men die; the foolish and the senseless alike perish and leave their wealth to others. 11 Their tombs will remain their houses forever, their dwellings for endless generations, though they had named lands after themselves. 12 But man, despite his riches, does not endure; he is like the beasts that perish. 14 Like sheep they are destined for the grave, and death will feed on them. The upright will rule over them in the morning; their forms will decay in the grave, far from their princely mansions. 15 But God will redeem my life from the grave; he will surely take me to himself. Selah

Third verse, the same hope is present, that the life of the righteous person will be redeemed from the grave while the tombs of the ‘foolish and senseless’ ‘will remain their houses forever’. I think this implies that both the righteous and wicked went to the same place prior to Jesus does it not? I say this because there is no differentiation anywhere that I can find, and they even use the same words and wording for describing where they both go, the difference is that one suffers final damnation while the other will be one day redeemed from that place.

Psalm 88:3 For my soul is full of trouble and my life draws near the grave. 4 I am counted among those who go down to the pit; I am like a man without strength. 5 I am set apart with the dead, like the slain who lie in the grave, whom you remember no more, who are cut off from your care. 6 You have put me in the lowest pit, in the darkest depths… 10 Do you show your wonders to the dead? Do those who are dead rise up and praise you? Selah 11 Is your love declared in the grave, your faithfulness in Destruction? 12 Are your wonders known in the place of darkness, or your righteous deeds in the land of oblivion?

Fourth verse, ‘land of oblivion’, ‘place of darkness’, ‘remember no more’, ‘who are cut off from your care’, ‘in the lowest pit, in the darkest depths,’ - in a word, hell

I could keep quoting but I’ll stop.

We cannot go to heaven unless we are freed from sin, and we cannot be freed from sin in any other way than Jesus. Hence, all these righteous men in the old testament, despite their faithfulness nevertheless having inherited original sin and committed sins died in that sin without His grace which had not come to the world. The same is likewise true of all non-christians, no matter how righteous they may be.

I am not in opposition to what the church teaches, because I do think that these people in the words of the catechism may indeed somehow find salvation if given opportunity, but I know for a fact that you need to be christian in order to enter heaven. I don’t know how they will get there, I simply put forward theories that perhaps they go through something like what Abraham went through, or perhaps they will believe at the resurrection and then inherit salvation. I don’t deny that they may indeed find salvation (which is what the catechism says) at same point in the future, but I know that unless they become christian somehow, they cannot inherit eternal life.

How do you suppose that the tradition of the church holds that infants dying without baptism do not inherit salvation? I think that must be considered similarily to people who never encountered the gospel.

And I agree God is the only judge of this and all things are possible with God.

Peace be with you,

First of all don’t call me friend unless I am. Secondly ,the church used to teach the existence of Limbo where unbaptised children went when they died. The church has done away with the concept of Limbo so where do these children now go?

 

[Freshman88]

First of all don’t call me friend unless I am. Secondly ,the church used to teach the existence of Limbo where unbaptised children went when they died. The church has done away with the concept of Limbo so where do these children now go?

The Church has not done away with limbo.

Limbo is a theory that explains what happens to unbaptized children. It is a theory which has been quite popular in the past. The only reason why the theory of limbo exists is because we do not know what happens to unbaptized infants.

Recently the international theological commission looked into the subject of unbaptized babies. One of the conclusions this commission came to was that we can hope that babies enter into the beatific vision but we can not know for certain.

 

[elt1956]

The Church has not done away with limbo.

Limbo is a theory that explains what happens to unbaptized children. It is a theory which has been quite popular in the past. The only reason why the theory of limbo exists is because we do not know what happens to unbaptized infants.

Recently the international theological commission looked into the subject of unbaptized babies. One of the conclusions this commission came to was that we can hope that babies enter into the beatific vision but we can not know for certain.

Thank you. And just as we can’t be certain about this, there are many other things which we cannot judge. I leave those up to God. Peace.

 

[Freshman88]

I leave those up to God.

Don’t forget His Church too

 

[elt1956]

Don’t forget His Church too

Although I accept the Church in its limitations, no human using our finite understanding can possibly interpret ALL that God knows in a language we would understand. We mortals need the security of knowing we know what God’s Will is. That is given to us through human understanding of God through the church. We must have the Faith that God will tell His church all we need to know here on Earth, but there are no limitiations to God’s knowledge such as is the limited knowledge and understanding we have because we are human. Peace…

 

[D_M]

First of all don’t call me friend unless I am. Secondly ,the church used to teach the existence of Limbo where unbaptised children went when they died. The church has done away with the concept of Limbo so where do these children now go?

I’m sorry I was too presumptious. You said ‘peace’ and I took this to be a friendly gesture… my error.

My understanding is that the church says that they are ‘left to the mercy of God’ but it not understood how they are saved.

The church teaches, however, that heaven is open to those who die in God’s grace and either enter immediately or are purified. People who die without the faith also die without God’s grace, if they are adults they die in their sins, if they are infants they simply die in original sin, and hence they could not enter heaven by any means known to the church. The same applies to non-christians, which is why the catechism states that those who would believe the gospel may find salvation ‘in ways known to God’.

They are sinners when they die and they need to be purified from that sin like all of us do in order to enter the Father’s presence. But they cannot be purified from that sin until they have accepted the gospel and God’s grace with it. Therefore, they must invariably be outside God’s presence until they become christians (how this occurs is unknown to the church, I put down two thoughtful theories for consideration that perhaps like Abraham the gospel is preached to them in hell, or perhaps they are given a chance to believe at the resurrection). Although like infants who die without God’s grace it is not really known what exactly happens.

What is certain, which the church teaches is that one must become completely freed from all sin before they can enter the presence of the Father, and the only way to become freed from sin is by Christ and the grace that comes to those who believe in him.

Would you prefer if I called you enemy? You can call me friend if you like…

 

[submittedjoy]

First of all don’t call me friend unless I am. Secondly ,the church used to teach the existence of Limbo where unbaptised children went when they died. The church has done away with the concept of Limbo so where do these children now go?

The church “used to teach”… The church has “done away with”??? Why did they ever teach this? What Council, what Pope, why higharchy? I’m glad I serve a God that “Changes not” but is the same “yesterday, today, and forever”

 

[Freshman88]

The church “used to teach”… The church has “done away with”??? Why did they ever teach this? What Council, what Pope, why higharchy? I’m glad I serve a God that “Changes not” but is the same “yesterday, today, and forever”

Then join the Church of Rome, we are the body who belongs to this unchanging God

The Church has not done away with limbo.

Limbo is a theory that explains what happens to unbaptized children. It is a theory which has been quite popular in the past. The only reason why the theory of limbo exists is because we do not know what happens to unbaptized infants.

Recently the international theological commission looked into the subject of unbaptized babies. One of the conclusions this commission came to was that we can hope that babies enter into the beatific vision but we can not know for certain.

 

[elt1956]

I’m sorry I was too presumptious. You said ‘peace’ and I took this to be a friendly gesture… my error.

My understanding is that the church says that they are ‘left to the mercy of God’ but it not understood how they are saved.

The church teaches, however, that heaven is open to those who die in God’s grace and either enter immediately or are purified. People who die without the faith also die without God’s grace, if they are adults they die in their sins, if they are infants they simply die in original sin, and hence they could not enter heaven by any means known to the church. The same applies to non-christians, which is why the catechism states that those who would believe the gospel may find salvation ‘in ways known to God’.

They are sinners when they die and they need to be purified from that sin like all of us do in order to enter the Father’s presence. But they cannot be purified from that sin until they have accepted the gospel and God’s grace with it. Therefore, they must invariably be outside God’s presence until they become christians (how this occurs is unknown to the church, I put down two thoughtful theories for consideration that perhaps like Abraham the gospel is preached to them in hell, or perhaps they are given a chance to believe at the resurrection). Although like infants who die without God’s grace it is not really known what exactly happens.

What is certain, which the church teaches is that one must become completely freed from all sin before they can enter the presence of the Father, and the only way to become freed from sin is by Christ and the grace that comes to those who believe in him.

Would you prefer if I called you enemy? You can call me friend if you like…

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I apologize. When I use the “my friend” gesture I usually use it in sarcasm. My husband is always telling me I take things the wrong way. I am sorry. You can call me Friend, my Friend. Peace.

 

[D_M]

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I apologize. When I use the “my friend” gesture I usually use it in sarcasm. My husband is always telling me I take things the wrong way. I am sorry. You can call me Friend, my Friend. Peace.

That’s ok, I don’t judge you, friend.

 

[Brian_Millar]

Someone is going to need to help me find the verse, but doesn’t it say in the word about how young children that are too young to know Christ, are living in grace under their guardian angels? Something like that, if I look to the number of aborted infants, I can’t help to ponder, does God make exception to these, doesn’t Jesus specifically tell us to be like little children in these regards to our faith, he clearly set’s them up as examples for us to follow, I wouldn’t think he would do so knowing they are never going to enter the kingdom of heaven. Cannot Christ intervene here, and absolve them of original sin, knowing full well they have no chance at baptism, baptising them in the spirit, rather then with water?

 

[peary]

We cannot go to heaven unless we are freed from sin, and we cannot be freed from sin in any other way than Jesus. Hence, all these righteous men in the old testament, despite their faithfulness nevertheless having inherited original sin and committed sins died in that sin without His grace which had not come to the world. The same is likewise true of all non-christians, no matter how righteous they may be.

**That is a very narrow (and wrong) conclusion that you draw. The Church does not presume to know who will be in heaven with God. It makes no judgments in this matter whatsoever. Paul also said that “God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all” (Rom. 11:32). God’s ultimate purpose is not condemnation but salvation. The fact is, we don’t know what God will do for those outside the Church, so it’s best not to presume to judge. We can only hope and pray that God will have mercy on them. Also, God’s grace existed from the beginning of Creation.

I am not in opposition to what the church teaches, because I do think that these people in the words of the catechism may indeed somehow find salvation if given opportunity, but I know for a fact that you need to be christian in order to enter heaven. I don’t know how they will get there, I simply put forward theories that perhaps they go through something like what Abraham went through, or perhaps they will believe at the resurrection and then inherit salvation. I don’t deny that they may indeed find salvation (which is what the catechism says) at same point in the future, but I know that unless they become christian somehow, they cannot inherit eternal life.

How do you suppose that the tradition of the church holds that infants dying without baptism do not inherit salvation? I think that must be considered similarily to people who never encountered the gospel.

The Church does NOT teach that. Back in the middle ages, theologians tackled this question, but there was never agreement on it. Some believed the ‘place’ was what they called Limbo of the Fathers. Others believed that infants dying without baptism would enter heaven on the Faith of their parents. Still others, earlier, like Augustine, believed as you do, even going further and stating that they would go to hell.

 

[D_M]

**That is a very narrow (and wrong) conclusion that you draw. The Church does not presume to know who will be in heaven with God. It makes no judgments in this matter whatsoever. Paul also said that “God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all” (Rom. 11:32). God’s ultimate purpose is not condemnation but salvation. The fact is, *we don’t know ***what God will do for those outside the Church, so it’s best not to presume to judge. We can only hope and pray that God will have mercy on them. Also, God’s grace existed from the beginning of Creation.

The Church does NOT teach that. Back in the middle ages, theologians tackled this question, but there was never agreement on it. Some believed the ‘place’ was what they called Limbo of the Fathers. Others believed that infants dying without baptism would enter heaven on the Faith of their parents. Still others, earlier, like Augustine, believed as you do, even going further and stating that they would go to hell.

The church does teach that you must be free from sin to enter God’s presence and you cannot become freed from sin without the grace that comes from Jesus. I haven’t judged anyone, I would indeed very much like that every last person in existence inherited salvation, and I know that the church (not being God Himself) is not the judge and cannot say exactly who and who will not make it as we can only judge by the flesh. It has nevertheless been revealed to us that we must enter by the narrow gate to find life, that few will be saved and that there is no way to the Father but through the Son.

You seem to find this offensive, as do many people; as did many people in Jesus’ own time when He said these things.

You say that the church has never had agreement on the question of infant baptism, I suggest to the contrary you consider the following authorities:

Council of Carthage - Pope Zosimus I

Can. 2 “If any man says that new-born children need not be baptized, or that they should indeed be baptized for the
remission of sins, but that they have in them no original sin inherited from Adam which must be washed away in the
bath of regeneration, so that in their ease the formula of baptism ‘for the remission of sins’ must not be taken literally,
but figuratively, let him be anathema; because, according to Romans 5:12, the sin of Adam (in quo omnes
peccaverunt) has passed upon all.”

Council of Constance - Pope Martin V (15th century condemnation of Jan Hus)

1. Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.

Council of Trent fifth session number four

1. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Catechism of St Pius X

11 Q: When should infants be brought to the Church to be baptized?
A: Infants should be brought to the Church to be baptized as soon as possible.

12 Q: Why such anxiety to have infants receive Baptism?
A: There should be the greatest anxiety to have infants baptized because, on account of their tender age, they are exposed to many dangers of death, and cannot be saved without Baptism.

I don’t know… unless councils of the church and the catechism of the papacy are not valid authorities, I tend to think that the church has said this

Peace be with you

 

[peary]

You seem to find this offensive, as do many people; as did many people in Jesus’ own time when He said these things.

I do not find it offensive, but as I believe that the Church speaks for Christ here on earth, it is the Church which teaches:

847 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.(LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872.)

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

You say that the church has never had agreement on the question of infant baptism, I suggest to the contrary you consider the following authorities:

Council of Carthage - Pope Zosimus I

Can. 2 “If any man says that new-born children need not be baptized, or that they should indeed be baptized for the
remission of sins, but that they have in them no original sin inherited from Adam which must be washed away in the
bath of regeneration, so that in their ease the formula of baptism ‘for the remission of sins’ must not be taken literally,
but figuratively, let him be anathema; because, according to Romans 5:12, the sin of Adam (in quo omnes
peccaverunt) has passed upon all.”

Council of Constance - Pope Martin V (15th century condemnation of Jan Hus)

1. Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.

Council of Trent fifth session number four

1. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Catechism of St Pius X

11 Q: When should infants be brought to the Church to be baptized?
A: Infants should be brought to the Church to be baptized as soon as possible.

12 Q: Why such anxiety to have infants receive Baptism?
A: There should be the greatest anxiety to have infants baptized because, on account of their tender age, they are exposed to many dangers of death, and cannot be saved without Baptism.

I don’t know… unless councils of the church and the catechism of the papacy are not valid authorities, I tend to think that the church has said this

**I don’t think that was the concern. The concern I have is babies, having never committed sin in their lives, are sent to eternal punishment because of the stain of original sin on their souls. I do not think that the Church is actually saying that in its theology here, and this was a dilemma for theologians for a long time. Particularly now, with abortion as prevelent as it is, what happens to the souls of aborted babies? The Church is now teaching that they go immediately to Heaven because of Baptism by Blood. And you must also remember that the ‘stain’ of original sin is quite different than having original sin, which none of us actually possesses, but the effects of such, which, without sanctifying grace, would close God off from us completely. And a more contemporary teaching on unbaptized babies (infants) dying is that they may go to Heaven on the faith of their parents.