Most Catholics saved?

[Deacon_Ed_B]

That is correct, I have not read her diary and know nothing about “the Divine Mercy devotion.” The RCC has not always agreed with, or attested to, the authenticity of apparitions, so are you saying that, because her diary has an imprimatur and nihil obstat, the RCC has officially authenticated that apparition?

That is exactly what I am saying. The Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, issued a decree on May 5, 2000 at the directive of Pope John Paul II which established the Sunday after Easter as DIVINE MERCY SUNDAY. This is a feast that the Church wants celebrated universally She (St. Faustina) had multiple aspirations which are recounted in her diary.

**Interesting, and what form would this “devotion” take that you are spending so much time trying to spread? **

This is a devotion that is comprised of Confession, Benediction, Adoration, recitation of the Chaplet of Divine Mercy, the Rosary (during a Eucharistic procession,) culminated with Mass and Communion. Those who go to this devotion on Divine Mercy Sunday and fulfill its requirements are promised a plenary indulgence upon its completion. This is the format for the celebration of the feast established by the church to be celebrated on the 2nd Sunday of Easter. Living the devotion, entails a way of life centered around Jesus in the Eucharist and all that goes with it.

BTW, I have never heard of a “cenicle” and could not find the word in any dictionary. Did you mean “cenacle”? Dictionary.com says that means, “the room where the Last Supper took place” or one of two other meanings, “1. A clique or circle, especially of writers. 2. A small dining room, usually on an upper floor.” So you must not mean “cenacle” either. Whatever it is, you say it is “official” so perhaps you can explain it and enlighten me in my ignorance.

Pardon my misspelling of CENACLE. (My mother always told me I could not spell. Was she right?) Look at the first definition given. It is a clique or circle especially of writers. Note, it does not say it has to be of writers. In this sense, it is a circle of people with a common interest and goal. This is the sense in which the term is used. Our common interest is the spread of this devotion. This we do by giving presentations at different parishes in the Archdiocese, with the permission of the pastor, to those who are interested in learning more about it. We also give presentations to deanery meetings for the priests of that deanery. Part of the practice of living Divine Mercy, is visiting the sick, bringing them Communion and praying the Chaplet of Divine Mercy with and/or for them. Many times people of our group are with priests, nuns or laypeople when they are dying, praying for them at that time. Beautiful and holy deaths have been witnessed as a result. As I said in a previous post, we meet weekly to read portions of the diary and study how that reading relates to Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I thought what I said was clear enough. Simply put, are you trusting 100% in Jesus or are you trusting in Jesus PLUS something else, such as those things you mentioned?

As to the answer of this question, I think the statement, "MY JESUS I TRUST IN YOU" is adequate. Learn the devotion, and you will understand the completeness of this statement. To learn more about the devotion, go to any good Catholic book store and ask for books, information, etc. about St. Faustina Kowalska. There is a book named “Mercy My Mission”. There is her diary, and others. As I said before, learn before you criticize. Prayers and blessings.
Deacon Ed B

 

[Cara_Serrano]

Deacon,
Technically, the Divine Mercy Sunday Devotion is not the same as a plenary indulgence. We already had plenary indulgences long before Sr Faustina was born. I couldn’t find it in the diary yet, but it is not the same thing. I’ll keep looking for a better explanation.

 

[Static]

Hey Phil,

You stated:

Static, I will try to answer each question you asked above. I also am limited in time, so please forgive me if I don’t respond to every point you make in all your posts.
…
Thanks, because the ones I really want you to answer you haven’t touched on. You seem to be quite busy on here for not having much time. ( LOl ) I kinda sneak on here and there to see what’s up because I don’t have time to post, and you, are a busy body, yes you are !
//////////////////////////
You answered:

Where is Jesus now? At the right hand of God, making intercession for us believers, who still sin and therefore need it. Read 1 John 1:8 to 2:1, written to believers.
…

I know the answer to this Phil ! You’r killin’ me ! My point being is, where should He be if He took our place for our punishment ? Jesus redeemed the whole world, did he not ? Or did he just redeem the saved ? If that makes any sense at all.
///////////////////////////
You again answered:

We punish our children to correct them and to show them their bad behavior was not acceptable and has consequences, and we hope thereby that they will want to avoid such behavior in the future. We punish criminals to make them pay for their crimes and to remove them from society to protect society from any future crimes they may commit. Jesus’ payment for sins, whether crimes or whatever, has to do with God not man, satisfying the demands of a holy God not the demands of a society of sinful men.
…

Where do you think society picked all this up from? Did they just happen to come up with a plan of discipline that happens to resemble how God does with us . Pleeeeez, kinda glance over Heb 12 a few times, thanks.
////////////////

Why would anyone have to go to hell if He did the punishment for the whole world? He paid for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2), but that payment is not effective for anyone who rejects it.
…
Nor one that neglects it either. Same condemnnation as one who rejects. Hmmmmm. How bout them that live and die never, ever hearing of who this Jesus is ?
//////////
You stated :

The efficacy of His payment is received by sinners by repentance and faith…
…

Faith is the beginning of salvation, not the end. Isn’t the repentence part you mentioned here something we have to “do”
not just once, but daily. What happens if you don’t follow what Mt 6:14f states ? Will you still be saved on judgement day ?
////////////////////////////
You continued…:

… and is not received by drowning sinners who reject it and in effect say to God, I don’t want your life-saver, I will do it my way. The result for them is, they will be doing their own payment for all their sins for all eternity, after rejecting His payment.
…
Now, you are confusing me. How will they have to do their own payment for all their sins if Jesus already did that for all mankind 2000 years ago ? Will he require double punishment for the same sins that have already been done away with once and for all by Him ? Doesn’t the scriptures say he will remember their sins no more ? ( Heb 8:12 quoting Jer 31 ) But read the whole chapter, it’s really good.
///////

Thanks Phil ! Will try to get back soon, Seems this thread is straying a bit off and then back on subject. Looking forward to you answering the other things I asked in previous posts. I didn’t forget the rest of you either !

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Deacon,
Technically, the Divine Mercy Sunday Devotion is not the same as a plenary indulgence. We already had plenary indulgences long before Sr Faustina was born. I couldn’t find it in the diary yet, but it is not the same thing. I’ll keep looking for a better explanation.

I see that by this you too are not familiar with the devotion. What I said was that for those who complete the Divine Mercy Celebration on this Sunday, that they are granted a plenary indulgence. Believe me, I know what one is and the conditions to get them. This is just one more. If you want the references in the diary for the plenary indulgence, check paragraph #'s 300, 699 and 1109.
Deacon Ed B

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

She (St. Faustina) had multiple aspirations which are recounted in her diary.

This is what was in post # 60. it should read she had multiple apparitions, not aspirations.
Deacon Ed B

 

[Phil12123]

Static, sometimes I have trouble understanding the points you are making, even after I’ve answered you, as you will see from the following. But I will try to accommodate you, for now. No promises to you for the future, lol.

Hey Phil,

You answered:

Where is Jesus now? At the right hand of God, making intercession for us believers, who still sin and therefore need it. Read 1 John 1:8 to 2:1, written to believers.
…

I know the answer to this Phil ! You’r killin’ me ! My point being is, where should He be if He took our place for our punishment ? Jesus redeemed the whole world, did he not ? Or did he just redeem the saved ? If that makes any sense at all.

Sorry if I am “killin’” you with my answer, but my answer remains the same and I will not repeat it. Why not make your point, if you have one, by stating it, rather than asking questions?

You again answered:

We punish our children to correct them and to show them their bad behavior was not acceptable and has consequences, and we hope thereby that they will want to avoid such behavior in the future. We punish criminals to make them pay for their crimes and to remove them from society to protect society from any future crimes they may commit. Jesus’ payment for sins, whether crimes or whatever, has to do with God not man, satisfying the demands of a holy God not the demands of a society of sinful men.
…

Where do you think society picked all this up from? Did they just happen to come up with a plan of discipline that happens to resemble how God does with us . Pleeeeez, kinda glance over Heb 12 a few times, thanks.

OK, I glanced over Heb. 12 a few times. NOW WHAT? What is your point? Why not make your point instead of asking questions and making (so far) pointless suggestions that I glance over scripture?

Why would anyone have to go to hell if He did the punishment for the whole world? He paid for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2), but that payment is not effective for anyone who rejects it.
…
Nor one that neglects it either. Same condemnnation as one who rejects. Hmmmmm. How bout them that live and die never, ever hearing of who this Jesus is ?

That is a whole other question that needs a separate thread. This one is about Catholics and are most saved, not about those who live and die and never hear of who Jesus is. If you want to start that thread, go for it and perhaps I will join you there.

You stated :

The efficacy of His payment is received by sinners by repentance and faith…

[My post was too long and I had to delete some of it. Sorry.]

You continued…:

… and is not received by drowning sinners who reject it and in effect say to God, I don’t want your life-saver, I will do it my way. The result for them is, they will be doing their own payment for all their sins for all eternity, after rejecting His payment.
…
Now, you are confusing me. **How will they have to do their own payment for all their sins if Jesus already did that for all mankind 2000 years ago ? Will he require double punishment for the same sins that have already been done away **with once and for all by Him ? Doesn’t the scriptures say he will remember their sins no more ? ( Heb 8:12 quoting Jer 31 ) But read the whole chapter, it’s really good.

**Hmmm… maybe I do have to repeat myself. Jesus’ one, once-for-all-time, sacrifice at Calvary is sufficient for all mankind’s sins. I think that is what 1 John 2:2 says:

1 John 2:2 (New Revised Standard with Apocrypha):** "and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

That sacrifice is sufficient, but not ultimately effective, for anyone who rejects it. The payment was made once at Calvary, never needing to be repeated again. He sat down (His Work was done) at the right hand of the Father, Who accepted His payment for all sinners who come to Christ in repentance and faith and who thereby accept that payment for themselves individually and personally. It is a two-way transaction. God did His part in sending His sinless Son to die for sinners, and Jesus did His part in willingly leaving the glories of heaven, taking upon Himself a body in the likeness of sinful flesh, and going to the Cross to pay for everyone’s sins. That is all God’s part of the two-way transaction. Man’s part is to accept that payment. Without a man’s acceptance, the payment does not accrue to his benefit. The Gift does not pass from God to man unless man accepts, receives, that Gift. Only upon man’s acceptance, by repentance and faith, does the Gift pass to the man and his sins are removed and God remembers them no more. At that point there will never be “double punishment”— the payment (and punishment) was forever made at Calvary and the sinner is free of all guilt and punishment for his sins, temporal and eternal. If there were any temporal punishment still due, to be paid for by man here or in purgatory, we could not say, "He remembers them no more."

 

[kam1953f]

I’d like to clarify something that was sort of glossed over earlier in the discussion.

If a book carries an imprimatur, impimi potest and/or nihil obstat,it simply means that the writer’s local bishop, religious superior or diocesan censor saw nothing in it contrary to faith or morals. It is “approved” in a limited sense, meaning that it’s okay for Catholics to read it, but most such books do not fall under the magisterium, the official teaching of the RCC.

The best explanation I’ve seen on these terms is on a site called “fisheaters.com.”

(No, I didn’t make that up. It’s here:

fisheaters.com/imprimatur.html)

 

[BRB]

**Yeah, I guess that sounds like what we’re talking about. I don’t have any insistence on any one translation. I like to see what they all say, perhaps to get a better sense of the meaning of a passage. When in doubt, look at the Greek and how it is used elsewhere in the N.T., especially by the same writer. Context, of course, is perhaps the most important consideration, along with using exegesis (getting out of a verse or passage what is in it) rather than eisegesis (reading into a verse or passage something that was not there to begin with). Also, when you have two passages with what appear to be contradictory statements, you must allow the clearer to rule over the less clear. Unambiguous must control over ambiguous.

In relation to the last idea, if eternal life and salvation and getting to heaven is a free gift, and “free gift” is clear and unambiguous, we cannot change it into a non-gift requiring our payment of anything (works) in spite of passages that exhort us to good works. We must conclude that the good works are not to be done to earn us the “free gift” or make us deserving of it or of keeping it or of maintaining it, but are to be done for other reasons, such as to demonstrate our saving faith or to simply please the Giver out of our gratitude for the “unspeakable gift” (2 Cor. 9:15) He has given us.**

Just back from weeks vacation away from computer. Open up a new ‘salvation’ thread … and lets come to consensus on what the scriptures say.

Again, our initial salvation in Christ is not at issue. Everyone is accepted by Christ … w/o any works of our own. Thief on Cross is best example of salvation via faith alone.

What’s at issue is our Christian obligation thereafter ?

Fruits of spirit, gracious works, attention to old testament commandments, suffering for our faiths, etc … what role [if any] do they play in SECURING / PROTECTING our salvations over time.

For example:

Person comes to Christ in adulthood. Is baptized, confirmed in H.S… Exhibits some initial fruits in Christ. Is steadfast for 3-4 years as Christian. Then, they hit some hard times, and stop growing. Over time he/she grieves H.S., quits attending Church/Mass, falls back into the world bigtime. Breaks the big 10 with impunity. Shows no true remorse. Become a full fledged, selfish materialist … is spiritually bankrupt. This goes on for 20-30 years. They meet death w/o repentance.

What is their fate ?

Yes, only God knows their heart. But, if it’s as I describe above … w/o any deathbed repentance/sacraments … the Catholic Church teaches this person is Hell Bound, w/o a prayer @ purgatory / heaven.

Now, many Pauline Protestants will say that person still goes to heaven … but, all their worldly ‘endeavors’ will be burned up. “Saved as by fire”. Yet, they still say there is no purgatory. One would think that the Protestants would be the group that should be believers in Purgatory. But no, they don’t go there with their Theology.

Either the Protestants or Catholics have got it wrong. Since the Protestants came out of the Catholic Church [after 1600 years] … I think history/tradition favor the Catholic interpretation.

 

[PapaBennySix]

Just back from weeks vacation away from computer. Open up a new ‘salvation’ thread … and lets come to consensus on what the scriptures say.

Again, our initial salvation in Christ is not at issue. Everyone is accepted by Christ … w/o any works of our own. Thief on Cross is best example of salvation via faith alone.

What’s at issue is our Christian obligation thereafter ?

Fruits of spirit, gracious works, attention to old testament commandments, suffering for our faiths, etc … what role [if any] do they play in SECURING / PROTECTING our salvations over time.

For example:

Person comes to Christ in adulthood. Is baptized, confirmed in H.S… Exhibits some initial fruits in Christ. Is steadfast for 3-4 years as Christian. Then, they hit some hard times, and stop growing. Over time he/she grieves H.S., quits attending Church/Mass, falls back into the world bigtime. Breaks the big 10 with impunity. Shows no true remorse. Become a full fledged, selfish materialist … is spiritually bankrupt. This goes on for 20-30 years. They meet death w/o repentance.

What is their fate ?

Yes, only God knows their heart. But, if it’s as I describe above … w/o any deathbed repentance/sacraments … the Catholic Church teaches this person is Hell Bound, w/o a prayer @ purgatory / heaven.

Now, many Pauline Protestants will say that person still goes to heaven … but, all their worldly ‘endeavors’ will be burned up. “Saved as by fire”. Yet, they still say there is no purgatory. One would think that the Protestants would be the group that should be believers in Purgatory. But no, they don’t go there with their Theology.

Either the Protestants or Catholics have got it wrong. Since the Protestants came out of the Catholic Church [after 1600 years] … I think history/tradition favor the Catholic interpretation.

Have you ever read Paul Whitcomb? I made a lil’ movie explaining Purgatory from the book, “The Catholic Church Has the Answer.”

youtube.com/watch?v=j1NvdBhUDwI

Anyhow, how did this thread I started evolve into such a long Faith/Works battle. I haven’t read it all through… but bottom line is to not be lukewarm once saved by the grace Christ bought with His crucifixion. Once you take to the plow, you may not look back. Once you put on the new man, you cannot go back and do the things you did as the old man. You live and breath for Christ now…and you must cooperate with the divine inspirations you are given. Should you do nothing with the grace you get, should you ignore it…should you grow lukewarm, you get vomitted out on the last day. Faith or no faith, without perseverance and loving God with all your heart and soul… you lose, and the article is about that. Catholics, who have been born into the truth, are NOT living up to their calling. Like the Jews who had a birthright to the Kingdom, who when they were in the midst of their messiah, offered Him up to be crucified because He called them to the cross, not an earthly throne.

Ave Maria.

 

[Static]

Sorry Papa,

When I joined this thread I might not of read it through before I started posting. Sorry Phil & others. Will try & catch you on another thread. Didn’t mean to make the water cloudy by not staying on subject.

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

Heb 2:3 -…how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation ?
we have to remain faithful ( Rev 2:10 ) if we don’t ? ( Nm 20:12,
Dt 32:51f ) we will not enter into the promised land ( Col 2:17 )

 

[Static]

Jn 6:47, has been used as a belief alone=saved ?

vs. 47 -Amen, Amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.

Believes what ?

vs. 48 - that Jesus is the bread of life !

vs. 54 - Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day…

Do you believe ?

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

Sorry, had to sneak one more in there folks.

 

[BRB]

A poll in USA in 80’s found that 2/3 of Catholics think their Eucharist is only symbolic. This is tragic … after Baptism, there is no more important sacrament.

Have the Protestants had this much corrupting influence on the Universal Church ?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

A poll in USA in 80’s found that 2/3 of Catholics think their Eucharist is only symbolic. This is tragic … after Baptism, there is no more important sacrament.

Have the Protestants had this much corrupting influence on the Universal Church ?

information that I have says that number is only about 30-35% and comes from Catholic sources. No agenda here. I find that number alone extremely disturbing. What is the source of the poll figures you cite. i.e., not who published, who took it?
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[BRB]

information that I have says that number is only about 30-35% and comes from Catholic sources. No agenda here. I find that number alone extremely disturbing. What is the source of the poll figures you cite. i.e., not who published, who took it?
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

1994 Poll / N.Y. Times / CBS … 34 % Catholics believe in Body/ Blood of Christ via Hosts.

Thus, 66 % of those polled don’t accept Christ presence … except in symbolic terms.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

1994 Poll / N.Y. Times / CBS … 34 % Catholics believe in Body/ Blood of Christ via Hosts.

Thus, 66 % of those polled don’t accept Christ presence … except in symbolic terms.

The info I have is exactly reversed. I get mine from members of our Magisterium I don’t know where they get it. I for one would not use the New York Times as a reliable source for anything. I think USCCB says 30-35% to not believe, which equates to 65-70% that do believe. That alone disturbs me greatly. I only pray that your info is incorrect, if not, there are going to be hard times ahead.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Static]

Makes me think of Dan 12:11 when y’all talk numbers like that. Scary !

I had one teacher in religious ed make the statement that the bread that we break was a symbol of the body of Christ & I had to bite my tongue. After I did that I couldn’t talk, but anyway, the other teacher corrected him real quick which brought a smile to my soul. That just led me to believe that he did not understand what really happens in the liturgy of the Eucharist. I will leave it at that otherwise I could end up writing a book on things I heard being taught in error. Ugh !

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )