You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
lutherlic
Guest
Good points Vico, I could have said this better.I have never read that it includes the non baptised, only that we can hope for God’s mercy for the unbaptised.
Having access to the Sacrament of Penance is also very important after Baptism.
It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person: 1) has as been validly baptized; 2) Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and 3) Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul. We say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, because the necessary conditions are not often found, especially that of dying in a state of grace without making use of the Sacrament of Penance. (Baltimore Catechism No 3)
A temporary alternative to the Sacrament of Penance when it is not readily available is perfect contrition (with the intention of receiving the sacrament asap). I couldn’t find anything online how this might apply to non-Catholic Christians. I assume that in almost all cases that they, like us, have at some point committed mortal sins yet we do not hold that they are therefore condemned to hell. Any thoughts or references on this would be appreciated.
On the issue of baptism, I was thinking of the sacrament (as most would unless specifically qualified otherwise). There is the special case of baptism by blood, but also the far more broad baptism by desire. That applies not only to catechumens but much more broadly as the catechism says in 1260:
It is probably debatable if such individuals are in the Church Militant. I would think they are but would be very interested in any reference. In the very least, I would say that after death they are in the Communion of Saints (Church Suffering or Church Triumphant) by definition.“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
This whole subject area is something I have been focusing on lately and I must say it still isn’t completely clear. Any help would be sincerely appreciated!
C
Christ_First
Guest
Here are a few quotes from popes who also contradicted other popes, catechisms and catholic books written by catholics.
Outside the Church there is no hope for salvation. Pius IX, D.1717
True morality and salvation are only in the Church.
Gregory XVI, D.1613
Salvation is found only in the Catholic Church.
Boniface VIII, D.468-469
No one can be saved who is not in the Church.
Pius IX, D.1716
Outside the Church there is no hope for salvation. Pius IX, D.1717
True morality and salvation are only in the Church.
Gregory XVI, D.1613
Salvation is found only in the Catholic Church.
Boniface VIII, D.468-469
No one can be saved who is not in the Church.
Pius IX, D.1716
V
Vico
Guest
Since baptism is the sacrament of Christian membership, it is very important topic. So important that many clarifications have been issued by the Magisterium. Trinitarian belief is important as well as the form of baptism. For example:Good points Vico, I could have said this better.
A temporary alternative to the Sacrament of Penance when it is not readily available is perfect contrition (with the intention of receiving the sacrament asap). I couldn’t find anything online how this might apply to non-Catholic Christians. I assume that in almost all cases that they, like us, have at some point committed mortal sins yet we do not hold that they are therefore condemned to hell. Any thoughts or references on this would be appreciated.
On the issue of baptism, I was thinking of the sacrament (as most would unless specifically qualified otherwise). There is the special case of baptism by blood, but also the far more broad baptism by desire. That applies not only to catechumens but much more broadly as the catechism says in 1260:
It is probably debatable if such individuals are in the Church Militant. I would think they are but would be very interested in any reference. In the very least, I would say that after death they are in the Communion of Saints (Church Suffering or Church Triumphant) by definition.
This whole subject area is something I have been focusing on lately and I must say it still isn’t completely clear. Any help would be sincerely appreciated!
2001 The sacramental basis of communio is the one Baptism through which we are:
- baptised in the one body of Christ (1 Co 12:12f; cf. Rm 12:4 f; Ep 4:3f) and
- through which we are one in Christ (*Ga *3:26-28)
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011117_kasper-prolusio_en.html
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni_en.html
*2006 *“Baptism in the Holy Spirit” (totally distinct from the Sacrament of Baptism) is neither the loftiest nor fullest form of experience of the Holy Spirit.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/eccl-comm-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20060126_pentecostals_en.html
2007 Hope of salvation for infants that die without baptism, with comments on:
- Baptism of water (which is the sacramental incorporation into the mystery of Christ dead and risen)
- Baptism of blood (incorporation into Christ by witness of martyrdom for Christ)
- Baptism of desire (incorporation into Christ by the desire or longing for sacramental Baptism).
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
«I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier» and «I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer»
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20080201_validity-baptism_en.html
R
Robbinson
Guest
No suprise there. Popes are human, just like the rest of us, and are capable of errant viewpoints, sinful behavior, etc. They are infallible only when officially declaring teaching on faith or morals in an encyclical or other pronouncement intended to be binding.Here are a few quotes from popes who also contradicted other popes, catechisms and catholic books written by catholics.
Outside the Church there is no hope for salvation. Pius IX, D.1717
True morality and salvation are only in the Church.
Gregory XVI, D.1613
Salvation is found only in the Catholic Church.
Boniface VIII, D.468-469
No one can be saved who is not in the Church.
Pius IX, D.1716
Just as Peter (and the other authors of scripture) were fallible, they were made inerrant by the Holy Spirit when writing scripture - but otherwise were fallible and “human”.
Blessings,
Brian
N
Nicea325
Guest
I can understand your position. Did you read in Catechism on what the CC says about salvation? I think the issue is the entire heading: No Salvation outside the CC. Many non-Catholics are offended,which is understandable,but need to reaearch as to what the CC teaches,not what we assume is official CC teaching.Okay. What about someone like me, who comes from a mixed Catholic-Protestant background? I am well aware that the Catholic church claims to be the one true church. I follow EWTN, read such Catholic publications as Our Sunday Visitor, America, US Catholic, and Commonweal, am well-versed in everything from the Church Fathers to the Catechism, wrote my undergraduate thesis on Aquinas, etc. Still, I do not believe for a minute that I need to be a Catholic to be saved.
I have to disagree. The Church is Christ and one cannot separate Him from His Church. I know many Christians and including Catholics who believe they need NO church at all. Sorry,but that is a false premise.In fact, I find that idea alien to the heart of Christ’s message and helps keep me from being part of the Catholic church.
This is where we part ways. As Catholics we believe and teach that Jesus gave us His church and its leaders to be guided by the HS on matters of faith and morals. The problem I have with ‘diverse views’ is that the church becomes democractic and Christ did not build a church n everyone’s views,but moreover what HE taught and bestowed on His Apostles.I would find Catholicism far more attractive to me personally if it was more accepting of diverse views.
Another area where we differ. Christ never came to earth to build His church FROM the Bible,but vice versa. The Bible was not written,claiming everything Jesus said and did must be in the Bible in order to be true. Where does scripture say to use wedding rings or bride’s maids?Was Mary a perpetual virgin, for example? Frankly, I don’t care. There’s nothing in the Bible about that - and she was married to Joseph.
Actually,Jesus himself bestowed that to the Apostles,to forgive or retain sins and their successors.Why is that doctrine so paramount? Or, this whole transubstantiation teaching. I can accept that Christ is everywhere - ‘lo, I am with you always’ - so he certainly is present in the Eucharist. But he is equally present anywhere we happen to be. Or, confession. Yes, I know what Christ told the disciples, but I find it hard to believe that a priest can declare sins forgiven. That strikes me as God’s job, not that of any man, even the most saintly priest.
I get your point. God BlessAnd we could go on. But you get my point.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Hello Newbie, you have not made it clear from your post of who and what the Catholic “universal” church is? Does your understanding of the Catholic Church agree with these particular Eastern and Western Catholic saints? Who all by the way in full communion with the Popes, many went to their martyrdom proclaiming this Catholic Faith. Does your “Catholic” definition or understanding agree with these Catholic Saints and martyrs?Again, we have to be careful of how we define these terms. “Catholic” means “universal”.
St. Ignatius of Antioch “letter to the Smyrnaeans” chapt 8
(Shun schisms, as the source of troubles.) Let all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ did the Father, and the priests, as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Apart from the bishop, let no one perform any of the functions that pertain to the Church… Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church…
St. Irenaeus "against heresies bk. 3 chapt.24
But is has on the other hand been shown that the preaching of the Church is everywhere consistent, and continues in an even course, and receives testimony from the prophets, the apostles, and all the disciples… and that well grounded system which tends to man’s salvation, namely, our faith; which, having been received from the Church… For in the Church, God as set apostles, prophets, teachers (1cor.12:28) and all the other means through which the Spirit works;…. For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God, there is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is Truth.
St. Cyprian “on unity of the Catholic Church, chapt. 6”
The spouse of Christ cannot be defiled; she is uncorrupted and chaste…Who ever is separated from the Church and is joined with an adulteress is separated from the promises of the Church, nor will he who has abandoned the Church arrive at the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy.** He cannot have God as a father who does not have the Church as mother.** If whoever was outside the ark of Noe was able to escape, he too who is outside the Church escapes…He who breaks the peace and concord of Christ acts against Christ; he who gathers somewhere outside the Church scatters the Church of Christ…Does anyone believe that this unity which comes from the divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the Church and be separated by the divisions of colliding wills? He who does not hold to this unity, does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.
Lactantius “Divine institutes, bk 4. Chapt 30”
**Therefore it is the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth, this is the abode of faith, this is the temple of God; into which if any one shall not enter, or from which if any shall go out, he is estranged from the hope of life and eternal salvation…**But, however, because all the separate assemblies of heretics call themselves Christians in preference to others, and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, it must be known that the true Catholic Church is that in which there is confession and repentance, which treates in a wholesome manner the sins and wounds to which the weakness of flesh is liable.
St. Jerome “letters, No. 15”
(To Damasus, 374-379) As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter.** For this , I know, is the rock on which the Church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails**.
St. Fulgentius “On faith, to Peter Chapt 3”
… without the sacrament of baptism- apart from those who without baptism in the Catholic Church shed their blood for Christ- no one can receive the Kingdom of God or eternal life. Either in the Catholic Church or any old heresy or schism one can receive the sacrament of baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and he receives the entire sacrament.** But he will not have salvation, which is the strength of the sacrament, if he has that sacrament outside the Catholic Church. So therefore he must return to the Church, not to receive the sacrament of baptism again…but in order that he may receive life eternal in a Catholic society, which no one can attain, who with the sacrament of baptism remains a stranger to the Catholic Church…**
(Chapt. 37)Firmly hold and never doubt that every baptized person outside of the Catholic Church cannot share in eternal life, if before the end of his life he does return and is incorporated into the Church…
(Chapt.38) Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only all pagans but also all Jews, all heretics and schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into eternal fire, prepared for the devil and angels (Mt> 25:41)
Peace be with you
T
thomasf
Guest
This is how I look at it. Jesus Christ created His church on earth and left it here for us as the best means of salvation. That is the catholic church today. A persons first, best hope for salvation is through the church. However, God is the final decider of these things and no man on earth can tell anyone whether they are saved or not. That’s God’s judgment in the end.
R
Robbinson
Guest
Indeed - simple and clear statement. I agree.This is how I look at it. Jesus Christ created His church on earth and left it here for us as the best means of salvation. That is the catholic church today. A persons first, best hope for salvation is through the church. However, God is the final decider of these things and no man on earth can tell anyone whether they are saved or not. That’s God’s judgment in the end.
As to the early Church fathers quoted by Gabriel, this is certainly evidence of how these great and sincere minds understood “salvation through the Church” . However, these were not infallible teachings of the Church and the Catechism of the Catholic Church asserts the doctrinal position (salvation through the Church) but with a broader application of what that means. Ultimately, Thomas hit the nail on the head - The Church is the fullest expression of the faith and our best means of salvation. The rest is up to God who will be the judge of our hearts, and the level of revelation to which we are accountable.
Blessings,
Brian
C
Christ_First
Guest
How can a man (pope) be Christ’s representative and forgive sins when he isn’t perfect as Christ was (on earth) and still is today? How can one get such a statement incorrect when he is the highest authority in the church? That is not only unscriptural but dangerous to ones salvation. These things should be cleared using the Bible, because we now see that when anything else is used it can be very misleading and wrong.No suprise there. Popes are human, just like the rest of us, and are capable of errant viewpoints, sinful behavior, etc. They are infallible only when officially declaring teaching on faith or morals in an encyclical or other pronouncement intended to be binding.
Just as Peter (and the other authors of scripture) were fallible, they were made inerrant by the Holy Spirit when writing scripture - but otherwise were fallible and “human”.
Blessings,
Brian
R
Robbinson
Guest
How did the human, fallible and at times sinful, authors of scripture, write inerrantly God’s word? Through the act of the Holy Spirit.How can a man (pope) be Christ’s representative and forgive sins when he isn’t perfect as Christ was (on earth) and still is today? How can one get such a statement incorrect when he is the highest authority in the church? That is not only unscriptural but dangerous to ones salvation. These things should be cleared using the Bible, because we now see that when anything else is used it can be very misleading and wrong.
When a priest or bishop forgives sins, He does so, in persona Christe (as representative of, and as, Christ) - it doesn’t matter if the celebrant (priest or bishop) is sinful, the sacrament remains effective.
Catholic teaching is express and clear that the Pope, any bishop, or any Christian, in their personal capacity, is capable of sin and error. Indeed, the doctrine of infallibility is very limited - limited to the Pope, or the Pope and Bishops in an official declaration of doctrine relating to faith and morals - other than that, its personal opinion and not necessarily right. The Pope is not inerrant as a person.
Re: your statement - bible alone - that is the problem - you read a verse one way, your pastor, perhaps another, and someone else another, etc. etc. etc. The deposit of faith includes scripture, oral teachings of Jesus to the apostles (preserved by the Church) and the Magisterium teaching body of the Church which interprets scripture in the light of historical teachings of the apostles.
If we read scripture our own, without this larger context, we do what Peter warned, for example in his epistles in describing Pauls’ teachings which are “hard to understand” - we twist his words to our own destruction.
Blessings,
Brian
C
Christ_First
Guest
“We” obviously do not see things in the same context. So what’s hard for you to understand (Paul’s writings) may not be hard for me. That my friend is where the problem starts. Thinking that one needs the Catholic church to understand the Bible is what took place in the dark ages and it led to persecution of Christians by the Catholic church.How did the human, fallible and at times sinful, authors of scripture, write inerrantly God’s word? Through the act of the Holy Spirit.
When a priest or bishop forgives sins, He does so, in persona Christe (as representative of, and as, Christ) - it doesn’t matter if the celebrant (priest or bishop) is sinful, the sacrament remains effective.
Catholic teaching is express and clear that the Pope, any bishop, or any Christian, in their personal capacity, is capable of sin and error. Indeed, the doctrine of infallibility is very limited - limited to the Pope, or the Pope and Bishops in an official declaration of doctrine relating to faith and morals - other than that, its personal opinion and not necessarily right. The Pope is not inerrant as a person.
Re: your statement - bible alone - that is the problem - you read a verse one way, your pastor, perhaps another, and someone else another, etc. etc. etc. The deposit of faith includes scripture, oral teachings of Jesus to the apostles (preserved by the Church) and the Magisterium teaching body of the Church which interprets scripture in the light of historical teachings of the apostles.
If we read scripture our own, without this larger context, we do what Peter warned, for example in his epistles in describing Pauls’ teachings which are “hard to understand” - we twist his words to our own destruction.
Blessings,
Brian
If a person (pope) makes such errors concerning salvation, then that person is not a representative of Jesus Christ because Christ would not make an error, let alone that one. How can a sinful person forgive sins? It can’t be done.
Popes or any religious leaders making these such errors is the exact reason why we should use the Bible only.
R
Robbinson
Guest
Christ First.“We” obviously do not see things in the same context. So what’s hard for you to understand (Paul’s writings) may not be hard for me. That my friend is where the problem starts. Thinking that one needs the Catholic church to understand the Bible is what took place in the dark ages and it led to persecution of Christians by the Catholic church.
If a person (pope) makes such errors concerning salvation, then that person is not a representative of Jesus Christ because Christ would not make an error, let alone that one. How can a sinful person forgive sins? It can’t be done.
Popes or any religious leaders making these such errors is the exact reason why we should use the Bible only.
You agree, I assume (as scripture shows us) that Peter was not perfect - he denied Christ three times, he was rebuked by Jesus at one point and told “Satin, get behind me” and after Christ, he was rebuked by James for Hypocracy over eating with Gentiles and then not doing so with Jewish Chrisitans. Yet, we see Jesus expressly giving Peter the keys to the kingdom and expressly giving Peter and the apostles the ability to forgive sins.
How do you reconcile that with your statement that the Pope can’t forgive sins if he is not perfect?
To be fair, you have created in your mind a strawman of the Catholic teaching (asserting beleiving that the Pope is supposed to be without error, and therefore, if he is shown to be in error, then the doctrine of infallibility can’t be correct). This is not what the Church believes or teaches. We are assured that doctrine and teaching will be preserved and that the Chruch will stand until the end of time. The truth is preserved in the Magisterium of the Church - Interestingly, it is the Catholic Church alone which has not changed core doctrine since birth, which alone traces its authority back to the apostles.
As you reject authority expressly given by Jesus to the apostles and their successors (which is in scripture), how do you determine “correct” interpretation of scripture and doctrine? Anticipating (plain reading or guidance of the holy spirit), how do you reconcile that view with the 40,000 plus sincere Holy Spirit filled Christian denominations that almost certiainly disagree with your “reading” of scripture on numerous doctrinal verses?
Blessings,
Brian
C
Christ_First
Guest
If a man other than Christ can forgive sins then that person that has been forgiven does not need Christ, right? That forgiven person can make it to Heaven through the pope, with no knowledge of Christ, right? How can that be? You are putting the pope in the spot of Christ. Once again thinking that one needs the Catholic church to understand the Bible is what took place in the dark ages and it led to persecution of Christians by the Catholic church.Christ First.
You agree, I assume (as scripture shows us) that Peter was not perfect - he denied Christ three times, he was rebuked by Jesus at one point and told “Satin, get behind me” and after Christ, he was rebuked by James for Hypocracy over eating with Gentiles and then not doing so with Jewish Chrisitans. Yet, we see Jesus expressly giving Peter the keys to the kingdom and expressly giving Peter and the apostles the ability to forgive sins.
How do you reconcile that with your statement that the Pope can’t forgive sins if he is not perfect?
To be fair, you have created in your mind a strawman of the Catholic teaching (asserting beleiving that the Pope is supposed to be without error, and therefore, if he is shown to be in error, then the doctrine of infallibility can’t be correct). This is not what the Church believes or teaches. We are assured that doctrine and teaching will be preserved and that the Chruch will stand until the end of time. The truth is preserved in the Magisterium of the Church - Interestingly, it is the Catholic Church alone which has not changed core doctrine since birth, which alone traces its authority back to the apostles.
As you reject authority expressly given by Jesus to the apostles and their successors (which is in scripture), how do you determine “correct” interpretation of scripture and doctrine? Anticipating (plain reading or guidance of the holy spirit), how do you reconcile that view with the 40,000 plus sincere Holy Spirit filled Christian denominations that almost certiainly disagree with your “reading” of scripture on numerous doctrinal verses?
Blessings,
Brian
How do you know which of your interpretations are right if the popes can barely agree?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
The problem with Sola - and Solo - Scriptura is that it makes every man a pope, and as Christ said to Peter “You know the things of man, and not of God.” Only the Church Entire can authoritatively interpret scripture.
C
Christ_First
Guest
So basically, you only want one incorrect interpretation instead of thousands because the catholic church is the true church right (just like in the dark ages)? Because a person is not in the CC it does not make that person wrong. When popes can’t agree, which interpretation is correct? How do you know that the catholic church is right when they can’t agree? There are numerous interpretations in the catholic church. We know this just from this website.The problem with Sola - and Solo - Scriptura is that it makes every man a pope, and as Christ said to Peter “You know the things of man, and not of God.” Only the Church Entire can authoritatively interpret scripture.
R
Rocky
Guest
Matt 9:1-8 Then he renetered the boat, made the crossing, and came back to his own town. There the people at once brought to him a paralyzed man lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith he said to paralytic, “have courage, son, your sins are forgiven.” At that some of the scribes said to themselves, “The man blasphemes.” Jesus was aware of what they were thinking and said: “Why do you harbor evil thoughts? Which is less trouble to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven’ or ‘Stand up and walk’? To help you realize that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”–he then said to the paralyzed man— “Stand up! Roll up your mat, and go home.” The man stood up and went toward his home. At the sight, a feeling of awe came over the crowd, and they praised God for giving such authority **to men.If a man other than Christ can forgive sins then that person that has been forgiven does not need Christ, right? That forgiven person can make it to Heaven through the pope, with no knowledge of Christ, right? How can that be? You are putting the pope in the spot of Christ. Once again thinking that one needs the Catholic church to understand the Bible is what took place in the dark ages and it led to persecution of Christians by the Catholic church.
How do you know which of your interpretations are right if the popes can barely agree?
**John 20:22-23 Then he breathed on them and said: “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive men’s sins, they are forgiven them; if you hold them bound, they are held bound.”
*
The Bible does not say that being forgiven by those whom Christ has given authority means that men do not need Christ. The Bible says that God is to be praised for giving such authority to men. (my emphasis)
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Well I’m not Catholic, so my argument is against anyone assuming that sort of right. I agree with your arguments against a single pope, that doesn’t invalidate my arguments against everyone being a pope.So basically, you only want one incorrect interpretation instead of thousands because the catholic church is the true church right (just like in the dark ages)? Because a person is not in the CC it does not make that person wrong. When popes can’t agree, which interpretation is correct? How do you know that the catholic church is right when they can’t agree? There are numerous interpretations in the catholic church. We know this just from this website.
T
Third_Day
Guest
How do you explain these bible verses that say God gave men the authority to forgive sins?How can a man (pope) be Christ’s representative and forgive sins when he isn’t perfect as Christ was (on earth) and still is today? How can one get such a statement incorrect when he is the highest authority in the church? That is not only unscriptural but dangerous to ones salvation. These things should be cleared using the Bible, because we now see that when anything else is used it can be very misleading and wrong.
Matt 9:8 “…they glorified God who had given such authority to men.”
John 19:23 “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven, if you do not forgive the sins of any, they are not forgiven.”
C
Christ_First
Guest
Not only did you quote half a verse, but you forgot one.How do you explain these bible verses that say God gave men the authority to forgive sins?
Matt 9:8 “…they glorified God who had given such authority to men.”
John 19:23 “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven, if you do not forgive the sins of any, they are not forgiven.”
Mark 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.