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

[D_M]

**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.

I’m afraid I’m not familiar with what you’re speaking about, I know that the church teaches that God can bestow grace outside his sacraments but I thought that referred to cases when the person involved was like a catechumen or a believer who was obviously in a position to receive God’s grace without the actual sacrament, hadn’t heard anything about this ‘baptism of blood’ wherein the infant is automatically saved, the lines I quoted looked very straight-forward to me…

I would also wonder how you interpret those lines I just quoted as being in conformance with what you are speaking about as well?

 

[jmcrae]

The church “used to teach”… The church has “done away with”???

He is playing the idiot. The Church has never taught anything officially about where unbaptized babies go. Many unofficial theories abound, including the theory of Limbo. St. Augustine believed that they went to Hell and suffered the punishments of the damned; the majority of modern theologians believe that God in His mercy finds a way to give them Baptism, and welcomes them into Heaven.

The Church has never had an official teaching on this subject. The Church only knows two things: that no one can go to Heaven without being baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; and that God is both just and merciful.

 

[guanophore]

the majority of modern theologians believe that God in His mercy finds a way to give them Baptism, and welcomes them into Heaven.

The Church has never had an official teaching on this subject. The Church only knows two things: that no one can go to Heaven without being baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; and that God is both just and merciful.

Well, I hope this settles the issue that one does not have to be Roman to be saved! And for the sake of all those who are Catholics but non-Roman, I plead with the OP to please make concession that there are those that don’t share your cultural and linguistic heritage but are still in union with the bishop of Rome.

 

[DylanO]

Then you will have to explain why Jesus Himself was a devout Jew who practiced Judaism.

Christ did not practice “Judaism” as Judaism is Pharisaism. The religion of the ancient Israelites/Judahites was Mosaism, of which Judaism is a corrupt offshoot and Christianity is the fulfillment of.

 

[Brian_Millar]

Mosaism is the religious system present in the Tanach (specifically the Torah), or Old Testament of the Christian Bible. It is built on the revealed word of God to His servant Moses at Mount Sinai, and in the years following. It consists of purity laws and rites of status, but most importantly it describes the righteous way for the people of God to behave, and the system of sacrifices established to maintain a right relationship between the people and their God when the people fail to live up to the expectations of God.

NOTE: This is the primary difference between ancient Jewish practice and current, that is, the necessity of sacrifice to atone for sins. Mosaic law reflects that man has fallen short of the will of God, and because God is the source of life, separation from Him (sin) can only be rectified through death, mercifully allowed to be representative. A sacrifice was more than just the death of an animal, it was akin to giving something very important and close to ones heart as recompense for mercy and restored relationship, an apology really.

everything2.com/title/Mosaism

 

[elt1956]

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.

Since no one seems to really KNOW the answers to all these questions, let’s leave it to God. Peace.

 

[D_M]

Since no one seems to really KNOW the answers to all these questions, let’s leave it to God. Peace.

That sounds like an excellent idea:

Those who read this post are welcome to repeat the following themselves:

Lord God, who alone is wise, we pray that you place your blessing upon this internet forum thread ‘Is Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church the only way to salvation?’; so that you may enlighten our discussion and make is as you would have it be. We pray if possible that you work out these issues that cause us confusion and argument, and if it please you, may you reveal to us the truth concerning it. We ask you also to keep forum members at peace and respectful to one another. We ask through and in Jesus Christ your Son, so far as it is according to thy will.

In the name of the Father, and the Son and Holy Spirit, Amen.

 

[Phil12123]

The Church has never taught anything officially about where unbaptized babies go. Many unofficial theories abound, including the theory of Limbo. St. Augustine believed that they went to Hell and suffered the punishments of the damned; the majority of modern theologians believe that God in His mercy finds a way to give them Baptism, and welcomes them into Heaven.

The Church has never had an official teaching on this subject. The Church only knows two things: that no one can go to Heaven without being baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; and that God is both just and merciful.

Since no one seems to really KNOW the answers to all these questions, let’s leave it to God. Peace.

**That seems like a reasonable conclusion, but that raises questions:

1. WHY hasn’t the Church ever taught something official about where unbaptized babies go? WHY are there so many unofficial theories abounding?
2. WHY hasn’t the Magisterium taught the Church the truth of these matters, and settled it once and for all, if that is what it is supposed to do?

Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide us [the apostles?] into all truth, right? When Protestants try to let the H.S. guide them, they are accused of private interpretations that lead to hundreds of churches or denominations, “unofficial theories abounding.” While it is true that the many theories among Catholics haven’t led to hundreds of little Catholic sects, it would still seem that, for a church that claims to have a teaching office that everyone can rely on and submit to, that office doesn’t seem to be doing its job in this case. Comments?**

 

[holy_wood]

Over 1,000 post.

Has there been any progress?

 

[rinnie]

He is playing the idiot. The Church has never taught anything officially about where unbaptized babies go. Many unofficial theories abound, including the theory of Limbo. St. Augustine believed that they went to Hell and suffered the punishments of the damned; the majority of modern theologians believe that God in His mercy finds a way to give them Baptism, and welcomes them into Heaven.

The Church has never had an official teaching on this subject. The Church only knows two things: that no one can go to Heaven without being baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; and that God is both just and merciful.

There is your answer. The last sentence of your quote. God is both Just and Merciful. God can, will, and always has, done what is right. But this is just my opinion on the subject at hand why would anyone not, give a baby to God as soon as possible? I know my Mother didnt let her babies leave the house until they were baptised. But lets just pray for all the ones that arent, that somehow their care takers whoever they may be will find the wisdom to do so.

 

[jmcrae]

That seems like a reasonable conclusion, but that raises questions:

1. WHY hasn’t the Church ever taught something official about where unbaptized babies go? WHY are there so many unofficial theories abounding?

Because God has not revealed it, either in the Scriptures, or in the Holy Tradition.

1. WHY hasn’t the Magisterium taught the Church the truth of these matters, and settled it once and for all, if that is what it is supposed to do?

See above; it is because God has not revealed it to the Magisterium. God has His own reasons for doing this, and I would speculate that if we knew the answer, either we would find it too hard to bear (if it turns out that unbaptized children go to Hell) or that we would become lax in the practice of our faith (if it turns out that unbaptized children go to Heaven). Whatever God’s reasons are for not revealing this information to us, they are good reasons.

 

[Lampo]

This doesn’t prove anything.

It doesn’t prove that the Church upholds and defends the truth?

Each denomination is striving to find out how to conduct themselves and seek the foundation of truth and each one thinks they have it.

Where is this in scripture? Jesus did not set up His Church with conflicting doctrines. He did not found Churches; He founded a Church. Let me ask you, does Jesus and God agree 100% on doctrine? Do you think Jesus says, “Look at those Episcopalians! They shouldn’t be baptizing infants!.” Then God says, “Oh yes they should Son.” ? Does that make sense to you? Now let me ask you, is Jesus God? Is the body of Christ the Church? Is Jesus the Head of the Church? Does 1 Tim. 3:15 say that the Church is the pillar and bullwark of truth?

 

[distracted]

**By the way, it’s Matthew 25:29 **

Thank you. I will remember it from now on, just because you went to the trouble of telling me.

 

[mikew262]

It doesn’t prove that the Church upholds and defends the truth?

Where is this in scripture? Jesus did not set up His Church with conflicting doctrines. He did not found Churches; He founded a Church. Let me ask you, does Jesus and God agree 100% on doctrine? Do you think Jesus says, “Look at those Episcopalians! They shouldn’t be baptizing infants!.” Then God says, “Oh yes they should Son.” ? Does that make sense to you? Now let me ask you, is Jesus God? Is the body of Christ the Church? Is Jesus the Head of the Church? Does 1 Tim. 3:15 say that the Church is the pillar and bullwark of truth?

You are not going to find everything in Scripture Lampo. Some of this is just human nature. Many interpret the Bible differently, the Catholic Church has one way, others see things differently, and all claim the Holy Spirit is leading them. Who are we to say it isn’t? However, all are following Scripture and Christ the best way they know how.

 

[Lampo]

You are not going to find everything in Scripture Lampo.

I couldn’t agree with you more!

Some of this is just human nature. Many interpret the Bible differently, the Catholic Church has one way, others see things differently, and all claim the Holy Spirit is leading them. Who are we to say it isn’t? However, all are following Scripture and Christ the best way they know how.

What a shame…

 

[rinnie]

You are not going to find everything in Scripture Lampo. Some of this is just human nature. Many interpret the Bible differently, the Catholic Church has one way, others see things differently, and all claim the Holy Spirit is leading them. Who are we to say it isn’t? However, all are following Scripture and Christ the best way they know how.

I guess one way to say it without hurting anyone is, Why? Why do we feel we need to interpret it ourselves when Jesus left his Disciples to do that for us. No disrepsect to anyone but why did he leave us Peter, Why did he say that to Peter? The second thing why didnt he just say Here Im going to give you all a book and you figure it out for yourselves. He could have you know? But he didnt. He knew we needed someone to guide us. He knew if we didnt have someone to guide us we would be lost. He picked these People himself? Why ? If not to teach us. Why did he say go out and Teach my word. Go start my Church. Just something to really and truely think about. And then why would he say go start my Church it will prevail, if he didnt mean it.

 

[Lampo]

I guess one way to say it without hurting anyone is, Why?

Because of pride and lack of humility.

 

[justasking4]

rinnie;3561025]I guess one way to say it without hurting anyone is, Why? Why do we feel we need to interpret it ourselves when Jesus left his Disciples to do that for us.

How can you not interpret it when you read it? The only to get around not interpreting the scriptures is not to read and study them.

No disrepsect to anyone but why did he leave us Peter, Why did he say that to Peter?

Do you think Peter and the apostles were the only ones intended to interpret the scriptures?

The second thing why didnt he just say Here Im going to give you all a book and you figure it out for yourselves. He could have you know? But he didnt. He knew we needed someone to guide us. He knew if we didnt have someone to guide us we would be lost. He picked these People himself? Why ? If not to teach us. Why did he say go out and Teach my word. Go start my Church. Just something to really and truely think about. And then why would he say go start my Church it will prevail, if he didnt mean it.

Actually it is the teaching-pastor, bishops and everyone who names the name of Christ is to teach in some capacity.

 

[jmcrae]

How can you not interpret it when you read it? The only to get around not interpreting the scriptures is not to read and study them.

Good point, but we can either interpret them according to the teachings of the Church, or according to our personal opinions. We have to interpret them according to Church teaching, since although a person could doubt that Church teachings come from God, he knows that his personal opinions don’t come from God. There is at least an off-chance that the Church is right, but there is no chance that our personal opinions could be right, except by sheer luck.

Do you think Peter and the apostles were the only ones intended to interpret the scriptures?

They gave us the original Church interpretations, which the Church has faithfully kept, and follows to this very day.

Actually it is the teaching-pastor, bishops and everyone who names the name of Christ is to teach in some capacity.

Again, good point - but everyone who teaches has to teach according to the Church’s interpretation, and not according to their personal opinions.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3562916]Good point, but we can either interpret them according to the teachings of the Church, or according to our personal opinions. We have to interpret them according to Church teaching, since although a person could doubt that Church teachings come from God, he knows that his personal opinions don’t come from God. There is at least an off-chance that the Church is right, but there is no chance that our personal opinions could be right, except by sheer luck.

Why would you say that a peson’s personal interpretation could not be right if it disagrees with the church? Could not God work through one individual if He so chose to?
In fact there are actually are at least a couple of examples of this:
Joan of Arc and Galileo. Both had interpretations that were at odds with church teachings and later to be found correct.

They gave us the original Church interpretations, which the Church has faithfully kept, and follows to this very day.

What about things they never taught or things the catholic church has chosen to change?

Again, good point - but everyone who teaches has to teach according to the Church’s interpretation, and not according to their personal opinions.

I agree that there will some kind of “worldview” i.e. background that will influence our interpretation of scipture. For example the more you study something the greater understanding you will be and this understanding will impact your interpretation. Do you have catholic commentaries of the scriptures? If so, do you think there interpretations of the scriptures are always in line with catholic teachings?