No Salvation Outside The Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I posted this earlier in the thread, but perhaps it was missed.

From Fr. Frederick William Faber’s The Precious Blood, p. 74

“Let us tease ourselves with one more imaginary case, and then we will have done. To many persons the great burden of life is the secret of predestination; and most men have at times felt the uncertainty of salvation as a weight upon their spirits. To a good man, whatever increases this uncertainty is a grave misfortune. Without a private revelation, no one can at any time say absolutely that he is in a state of grace, not even although he may just have received absolution in the best dispositions in his power. Nevertheless he feels a moral certainty about it, which for all practical purposes is as good as an assurance. We are not then always absolutely certain that the Precious Blood has been applied to our souls in absolution. But whence is it that we derive that moral certainty which is our consolation and our rest? From the fact that, when properly received, the operation of the Precious Blood is infallible. What an unhappiness it would be, if this were not so ! The power of the Blood of Jesus is never doubtful, its work never incomplete. Moreover God has gathered up its virtue in a very special way into certain Sacraments. He has made its application almost visible. He has tied its miracles as it were to time, and place, and matter, and form, so as to bring us as near to a certainty of our being in a state of grace as is compatible with His laws and our own best interests. If we could be no more sure that we had validly received absolution in confession, than we can be sure we have ever madean act of perfect contrition, we should be in a sad plight, and go through our spiritual exercises and our inward trials in a very downcast and melancholy way. Our state would be, at least in that one respect, something like the state of those outside the Church, who are not living members of Christ, nor partakers in His saving jurisdiction in the Sacrament of penance. If the Precious Blood had been shed, and yet we had no priesthood, no Sacraments, no jurisdiction, no sacramentals, no mystical life of the visible unity of the Church,—life, so it seems, would be almost intolerable. This is the condition of those outside the Church ; and certainly as we grow older, as our experience widens, as our knowledge of ourselves deepens, as our acquaintance with mankind increases, the less hopeful do our ideas become regarding the salvation of those outside the Roman Church. We make the most we can of the uncovenanted mercies of God, of the invisible soul of the Church, of the doctrine of invincible ignorance, of the easiness of making acts of contrition, and of the visible moral goodness among men; and yet what are these but straws in our own estimation, if our own chances of salvation had to lean their weight upon them ? They wear out, or they break down. They are fearfully counterweighted by other considerations. We have to draw on our imaginations in order to fill up the picture. They are but theories at best, theories unhelpful except to console those who are forward to be deceived for the sake of those they love, theories often very fatal by keeping our charity in check, and interfering with that restlessness of converting love in season and out of season, and that impetuous agony of prayer, upon which God may have made the salvation of our friends depend. Alas! the more familiar we ourselves become with the operations of grace, the further we advance into the spiritual life, the more we meditate on the character of God, and taste in contemplation the savour of His holiness, the more to our eyes does grace magnify itself inside the Church, and the more dense and forlorn becomes the darkness which is spread over those outside. Yet, not indeed to this state, God forbid ! but to a painful partial resemblance of it should we be brought, if God’s tender considerate love had not as it were localized the Precious Blood in His stupendous Sacraments. Truly the Sacraments are an invention of love, yet are they not also as truly a necessity of our salvation, not only as applying the Precious Blood to our souls, but as enabling faith to ascertain its application? Would not the divine assurance of our salvation be a very heaven begun on earth ? Yet the Sacraments are the nearest approach to such a sweet assurance as the love of our Heavenly Father saw to be expedient for the multitude of His children. The Precious Blood, then, is the greatest, the most undeniable of our necessities. There is no true life without it.”
 
:rolleyes:

Anti-Catholic websites quote Popes and Councils all the time. It’s nothing new.
It’s not an anti Catholic website. They claim to be true Catholics and use the same references as you do. No guts to check it out. If that’s the case. YOU ARE DEFEATED IN THIS WHOLE DEBATE.

They quote Eugene IV, and many other of your references many times. They quote Popes John xxiii, Paul vi, JPII, and Benedict XVI to show their flawed and, as they claim, "heretical"teachings. They claim to be the true Catholic Church. Just like you do. Afraid to read about what they consider your misunderstandings? You shouldn’t be. You’ve been preaching to us for days. I know they’re wrong, but they use your logic.

Come on now, just check it out.
 
It’s not an anti Catholic website. They claim to be true Catholics and use the same references as you do. No guts to check it out. If that’s the case. YOU ARE DEFEATED IN THIS WHOLE DEBATE.

They quote Eugene IV, and many other of your references many times. They quote Popes John xxiii, Paul vi, JPII, and Benedict XVI to show their flawed and, as they claim, "heretical"teachings. They claim to be the true Catholic Church. Just like you do. Afraid to read about what they consider your misunderstandings? You shouldn’t be. You’ve been preaching to us for days. I know they’re wrong, but they use your logic.

Come on now, just check it out.
Pope John XXIII, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI were/are not heretics. I have never said such a thing in this thread (or any other!). I attend a Novus Ordo Mass… I don’t claim a new (true) Catholic Church. There is only one. The Church has always taught, and continues to teach that there is No Salvation Outside the Church.

I’ve seen the website before, it’s been posted many a time on the CAF forum.

You have acted in a more similar manner to the Dimond Brothers than I have in this thread… what, with your name calling and assertions that the Popes acted “proud” and “out of control”. I’m sure they say the same things about our current Holy Father. They are just as wrong as you are in asserting such slanderous statements, no matter which Popes we’re talking about.
 
Pope John XXIII, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI were/are not heretics. I have never said such a thing in this thread (or any other!). I attend a Novus Ordo Mass… I don’t claim a new (true) Catholic Church. There is only one. The Church has always taught, and continues to teach that there is No Salvation Outside the Church.

I’ve seen the website before, it’s been posted many a time on the CAF forum.

You have acted in a more similar manner to the Dimond Brothers than I have in this thread… what, with your name calling and assertions that the Popes acted “proud” and “out of control”. I’m sure they say the same things about our current Holy Father. They are just as wrong as you are in asserting such slanderous statements, no matter which Popes we’re talking about.
I don’t consider them heretics at all. What this site is saying and QUOTES all these popes for saying that salvation can be obtained outside the CC. Since you won’t read their explanation, and their quotes of these popes, then yours are also invalid. Per your own set of standards. Enough said.
 
What this site is saying and QUOTES all these popes for saying that salvation can be obtained outside the CC. Since you won’t read their explanation, and their quotes of these popes, then yours are also invalid. Per your own set of standards. Enough said.
Except, if you were to read the documents quoted, you would find the necessary context conveniently left out.

None of the Popes have denied the Dogma of No Salvation Outside the Church.
 
Except, if you were to read the documents quoted, you would find the necessary context conveniently left out.

None of the Popes have denied the Dogma of No Salvation Outside the Church.
You clearly have not read anything on their website. They quote those popes. You’re afraid. You’re afraid to be subjected to the same criticism that you’ve put a number of us through. You’re afraid to be told you are not Catholic by people that firmly believe that the Catholic faith has been convoluted since VII. You challenge us, but shy away from those that challenge you.

What a theologian you are. 👍
 
You clearly have not read anything on their website. They quote those popes. You’re afraid. You’re afraid to be subjected to the same criticism that you’ve put a number of us through. You’re afraid to be told you are not Catholic by people that firmly believe that the Catholic faith has been convoluted since VII. You challenge us, but shy away from those that challenge you.

What a theologian you are. 👍
I have read the website. You fail to understand that the people who run that website have purposely excerpted from particular writings what suits their purpose (and included personal writings that are not a part of Magisterial teachings). The modern Popes have not taught heresy.

I don’t understand what you want me to do, cathdoki. The Dimond Brothers are wrong in their criticisms of Vatican II and the post-V2 Popes. It doesn’t take a rocket science to figure out that they aren’t viewing things in context. I am not afraid of anything the Dimond Brothers have to say because they don’t speak for the Church, or God.

Instead of attacking my character and courage, why not point out where I’ve gone wrong in this thread with official Papal or Conciliar documents? That would be edifying.
 
I have read the website. You fail to understand that the people who run that website have purposely excerpted from particular writings what suits their purpose (and included personal writings that are not a part of Magisterial teachings). The modern Popes have not taught heresy.

I don’t understand what you want me to do, cathdoki. The Dimond Brothers are wrong in their criticisms of Vatican II and the post-V2 Popes. It doesn’t take a rocket science to figure out that they aren’t viewing things in context. I am not afraid of anything the Dimond Brothers have to say because they don’t speak for the Church, or God.

Instead of attacking my character and courage, why not point out where I’ve gone wrong in this thread with official Papal or Conciliar documents? That would be edifying.
I’m not attacking your character. They quote all those popes. All of them. Indicating that salvation can be obtained outside the Catholic Church. There is NO WAY you could have read much in that short amount of time.

When you take the time the read their arguments ( which are very similar to yours) get to me.
 
I’m not attacking your character. They quote all those popes. All of them. Indicating that salvation can be obtained outside the Catholic Church. There is NO WAY you could have read much in that short amount of time.
Because the writings they quote from, I have already read (I did mention I studied theology in college)… and I own nearly every book written by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Wojtyla and Cardinal Ratzinger). I read. A LOT. I own the books and several of the articles which the Dimond Brothers cite. I can see the rest of the context, which they leave out. They make it seem as though the Popes say one thing which they do not.

Also, the writings of either Pope, as a Cardinal, have no bearing on the official teaching of the Catholic Church. The Vatican website doesn’t publish the books they wrote as Cardinals for that very reason-- they are not Magisterial (i.e., infallible) teachings, nor even are they authoritative/binding on the Church. Thus, any argument the Dimond Brothers make from the personal writings of any Pope are invalid because they don’t matter.

There. Website refuted.
When you take the time the read their arguments ( which are very similar to yours) get to me.
Read above.

EDIT to add:
Here, I took a pic of part of my “Ratzinger” bookshelf:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
There are at least 26 of his books there.
 
So, cathdoki… what’s your point? You think the website is correct? Have you read the documents and books they cite? 🤷

Do you think the Church has changed her teaching on No Salvation Outside the Church?
 
So, cathdoki… what’s your point? You think the website is correct? Have you read the documents and books they cite? 🤷

Do you think the Church has changed her teaching on No Salvation Outside the Church?
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
 
Semi autonomous congregations??? What does that mean? Look, here it is. There was one church, just one. Jesus said He would establish a church not a bunch of semi autonomous churches. Go read it it in your bible, Matthew 16:18:

And I say (5719) also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. " [Mt 16:18]

The Greek word for church is Ekklesia and it is singular not plural. As further proof that it is singular notice the pronoun that Jesus uses to refer to the church he will establish. The pronoun is “it” as in “…the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” If there were churches the pronoun would be the plural, “them”.

As for the council of Jerusalem you could not be more wrong. The problem in Antioch was caused by the Judiacizers who insisted that the Gentiles first become Jews then Christians. They demanded that the Gentiles be circumcized. It was the Judiacizers who were the sola scripturists of their day insisting that the OT Mosaic circumcision laws be applied. Paul said no but the Judiacizers would not accept his authority as an APostle so the matter was referred to the Apostles in Jerusalem. Did they consult scripture? NO!!! They debated the issues and scripture says there was much debate. Then something happened. Peter stood up and addressed those assembled. And everyone shut up. Yeah, the scripture says:

“12 And all the assembly kept silence;” [Acts 15:12]

WHY? Because the boss was speaking and they knew it. After Peter speaks there is no more debate. John crafts an answer and Acts 15:28 tells us:

“28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:” [Acts 15:28]

Did they mention scripture? Nope! They claimed a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. There was no reference to scripture. In fact they contradicted the very scripture that the sola scripturist Judiacizers used.

And if we are hung up on church membership it is because Jesus only established one church and if you ain’t in it then what are you? Does your defiant tone mean that you want to remain blind to the truth and will remain in your 16th century man made tradition?
Each congregation had its own group of elders responsible for running their own congregation. Read Rev 2 you will see each church is called by their own name and responsible for their own actions. Believers make up their own congregation and in turn make up the greater body of Christ.

I like how you try to connect the Judizers with sola scriptura. The fact is they failed to realize that NT grace was revealed in the OT. They were more for legalism than grace seekers. Remember by the works of the law no flesh is saved.

In Acts 15:15-19 the OT is used by James to coroberate Peters testimony. You must of missed this.

15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16“‘After this I will return

and rebuild David’s fallen tent.

Its ruins I will rebuild,

and I will restore it,

17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,

and all the Gentiles who bear my name,

says the Lord, who does these things’b

18that have been known for ages.c

19“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.

That is what James used to render his decision on the Gentiles.
 
Ecclesiasticus 21:23 “A fool lifteth up his voice in laughter: but a wise man will scarce laugh low to himself.”
(Sirach 21:20)
drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=26&ch=21&l=23&f=s#x

I can’t force you to answer. I have backed up my claims throughout this thread. Anyone who has actually read anything the Popes have written can see for themselves that the Church has not changed one iota on EENS, and that the Dimond Brothers take things out of context.

So if you have nothing more than childish smiley faces to add to this thread, I don’t think we have anything left to discuss.
 
Ecclesiasticus 21:23 “A fool lifteth up his voice in laughter: but a wise man will scarce laugh low to himself.”
(Sirach 21:20)
drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=26&ch=21&l=23&f=s#x

I can’t force you to answer. I have backed up my claims throughout this thread. Anyone who has actually read anything the Popes have written can see for themselves that the Church has not changed one iota on EENS, and that the Dimond Brothers take things out of context.

So if you have nothing more than childish smiley faces to add to this thread, I don’t think we have anything left to discuss.
Yep! 🙂

It must be a great feeling to know you are always right, and that everyone that disagrees with you is wrong.
 
When you open up baptism of desire to anyone, you strip (not only the necessity of Baptism, and membership in the Church) the necessity of explicit faith in Jesus Christ. There is no support of any kind for such thinking.
Your response here about the baptism of desire is a good example of how you spin everything so it come out different than what was said and intended, and more to your liking.

Clearly, you are fighting against what the Church teaches, in order to make the doctrine of “No salvation outside the Church” conform to your extremely narrow and inaccurate interpretation. Your enthusiasm makes you go so far as to discount Father John Hardon, and also the fact Pope Pius IX made a clear exception for “invincible ignorance”.

Obviously, there is nothing anyone can say that will cause you to look at the subject with an objective eye. As for myself, I go with what the Church teaches, and not your interpretative spin on Catholic Tradition.
 
Yep! 🙂

It must be a great feeling to know you are always right, and that everyone that disagrees with you is wrong.
:rolleyes:

So show me where I have made a mistake. What Papal encyclical did I overlook? What Conciliar text did I leave out?

You can insinuate things all you want, but it’s pointless if you refuse to actually enter the discussion and offer evidence for your assertions. Pointing me to a sedevacantist website and telling me to “refute” it without offering any reason why their arguments (#1 are even worth refuting…) are valid in opposition to my own presented here. You claim they offer quotes from the Popes (without pointing to a specific one… there are numerous on the website). I have told you they are taken out of context, yet you offer nothing to the contrary to demonstrate that they aren’t-- and can’t even tell me which you are most concerned with. In fact, you refuse to even engage in discussion at all, posting smiley faces and sarcastic one-liners.

Your sarcasm is not edifying. Do you have anything useful to add to the discussion or not?🤷
 
:rolleyes:

So show me where I have made a mistake. What Papal encyclical did I overlook? What Conciliar text did I leave out?

You can insinuate things all you want, but it’s pointless if you refuse to actually enter the discussion and offer evidence for your assertions. Pointing me to a sedevacantist website and telling me to “refute” it without offering any reason why their arguments (#1 are even worth refuting…) are valid in opposition to my own presented here. You claim they offer quotes from the Popes (without pointing to a specific one… there are numerous on the website). I have told you they are taken out of context, yet you offer nothing to the contrary to demonstrate that they aren’t-- and can’t even tell me which you are most concerned with. In fact, you refuse to even engage in discussion at all, posting smiley faces and sarcastic one-liners.

Your sarcasm is not edifying. Do you have anything useful to add to the discussion or not?🤷
Several of us have shown you where you are wrong. When we do, you discount it. YOU ARE INFALLIBLE! 😃

I personally have had enough of this. You’ve been 100% correct in everything. Almost like a little god.
 
Your response here about the baptism of desire is a good example of how you spin everything so it come out different than what was said and intended, and more to your liking.
So correct me. I apologize if I misunderstood your intention.
Clearly, you are fighting against what the Church teaches, in order to make the doctrine of “No salvation outside the Church” conform to your extremely narrow and inaccurate interpretation.
By posting Papal and Conciliar documents?
Your enthusiasm makes you go so far as to discount Father John Hardon,
Is he infallible? I discount St. Thomas Aquinas when he denies the Immaculate Conception…

There are other theologians (in good standing with the Church) who defend the doctrine in the manner that I have.
and also the fact Pope Pius IX made a clear exception for “invincible ignorance”.
This has not been demonstrated. I posted the rest of the context. Do you disagree the rest of it makes a difference? You say I am wrong and putting my own spin/interpretation on things, yet you refuse to show me how I am wrong or why the surrounding context has no bearing on your interpretation of the document.
Obviously, there is nothing anyone can say that will cause you to look at the subject with an objective eye. As for myself, I go with what the Church teaches, and not your interpretative spin on Catholic Tradition.
:rolleyes:
I say the same thing. I go by what the Church teaches. I have said it before, and I say it again… show me any Papal or Conciliar document that mentions “baptism of desire” and I’ll concede it’s Catholic doctrine. I am open to correction… and I don’t think asking for an official Magisterial document is too much to ask.:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top