No Salvation Outside The Church?

[itinerant1]

Obviously, some of us in this thread think we are dealing with an attitude situation. But let’s not forget to be charitable, despite the situation. Afterall, absolutely none of us are saints and absolutely none of us are infallible.

 

[guanophore]

I can’t make this stuff up…

I think you can.

However, I am happy to be corrected, if you can produce evidence of your claim.

Even YOU, guanophore asserted that there are non-Catholics Heaven:

Here is the thing, Anne. Being “Catholic” is an earthly parameter. It describes the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ. It is described this way to distinguish it from imposters, heretics, schismatics, etc. There won’t be any of those in heaven, and there will not be a need for a “church”, because “church” means “called out”. In heaven we are not called out from the children of this world. We are united forever with Christ. There is no need anymore to use human terms to distinguish or describe anyone.

Everyone who is in heaven will have the faith and concept of God that we know of as “catholic”.

Moses and Elijah were not members of the visible Catholic Church on earth, yet they dwell with Him there.

etc.

Our semantic differences prohibit any further productive discussion on this point.

I never said such a thing.

You keep repeating that there is no remission of sins for those who are not visible members of the Catholic Church.

Abraham died before the institution of the New Law, as such, he was not bound by it. But, considering that Jesus descended into Hell to preach to the souls of the just before His Ascension (which opened Heaven), I would contend that Abraham embraced Jesus Christ for Who He is.

Exactly. And all who embrace Jesus for Who He is may dwell with Him in eternity in the same manner.

So then enlighten me.

I think your prejudice will make this impossible.

 

[guanophore]

As far as church structure goes they were semi autonomus congregations. And the structure of each congregation is to self rule. Each is to have elders plural.There is no priesthood as defined by Rome.

You are sadly mistaken, jericho. The Apostles appointed bishops (episkipos) and elders (presbyters - priests) and deacons.

The priesthood is defined by Christ, not by “Rome”.

The Catholic church is not “Roman”. It was not when the book of Rev was written, and it is not now.

The council in Jerusalem was concerened with Jews first and uncertain about the gentiles ability to become christians. When you read Acts 15 remember they consulted scripture to see how they shoul decide the issue.

The Magesterium never decides without scripture. This is how Jesus set things up.

First I’m not protesting anything. You all can do what ever you want.

This is, in itself, a protest. If you will not become Catholic, then you are protesting the Church founded by Christ.

And as to the direction of the Holy Spirit you all are hung up on denominationalism and church membership.

No, jericho. The Catholic Church is not a denomination.

People become members of Christ when they are validly baptized. When one is joined to Christ as Head, one becomes a member of His One Body, the Church.

You are missing the greater point that God is not a respector of persons or denominations.

No, jericho, we are not. We just don’t misunderstand the teaching like you do. Salvation is open to everyone, of every status. There are no valid “denominations”. All those who are separated from Catholicism are lacking in part of the Apostolic Truth. Jesus does not give us leave to reject parts of the Truth.

Just look at the Jews in the new testament saying they were the seed of Abraham. God uses people who are willing to do His will apart from denominational affiliation.

Yes, He does. He can even speak through the mouth of a donkey. However, He has commanded that all those who claim Him to be obedient to the authority He has appointed.

 

[guanophore]

There are over 100 times in the NT when scripture is used as the basis and authority for the positions held by believers. They were constantly searching scripture to find the will of God. Any decision the early church made was made based on the authority or scripture see Acts 15.

No, jericho. Scripture is an integral part of the Church, but the Church made decisions based upon the guidance of the HS, and the authority appointed to them by Christ. The scriptures reinforce these things, but they are not an “authority”. The Scriptures are authoritative, because they are God breathed, but they cannot exercise authority, because that is something only persons can do. That is why Jesus left the Apostles in charge, instead of books, however Holy.

 

[AnneElliot]

Here is the thing, Anne. Being “Catholic” is an earthly parameter.

No, it’s not. The Saints in Heaven are Catholic. They are also members of the Catholic Church. They make up the Church Triumphant.

Lumen Gentium #48, #49
“The Church, to which we are all called in Christ Jesus, and in which we acquire sanctity through the grace of God, will attain its full perfection only in the glory of heaven, when there will come the time of the restoration of all things… Until the Lord shall come in His majesty, and all the angels with Him and death being destroyed, all things are subject to Him, some of His disciples are exiles on earth, some having died are purified, and others are in glory beholding “clearly God Himself triune and one, as He is”; but all in various ways and degrees are in communion in the same charity of God and neighbor and all sing the same hymn of glory to our God. For all who are in Christ, having His Spirit, form one Church and cleave together in Him.”
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Moses and Elijah were not members of the visible Catholic Church on earth, yet they dwell with Him there.

They also died under the Old Law…

You keep repeating that there is no remission of sins for those who are not visible members of the Catholic Church.

Can you demonstrate by way of Papal or Conciliar text that there is remission of sin for those who are not “visible members of the Church”?

 

[guanophore]

Here is my short answer to your post. When churches are mentioned in the NT they are in reference to location and deed see Rev 2. They were only bound by their love for Christ.

No. They were bound by unity of doctrine

Even in 3 John1:9-10 there was a bad leader who refused the true fellowship. How come no one was sent from the head church to remove him?

3John.1
[9] I have written something to the church; but Diot’rephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority.

If he will not listen to an Apostle appointed by Christ, who would you suggest be sent?

Heretics and schismatics do not recognize the authority of those appointed by Christ.

 

[guanophore]

Once again, Abraham was under the Old Law…

What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that, because He was not Catholic, he cannot be saved?

No one is saved by the Law- Old or New.

This is new… most would suggest that they are really in the Church (somehow) other than through Baptism. The Dogma is “No salvation outside the Church”… are you suggesting the Dogma is wrong?

No, just your understanding of it.

Regarding Singulari Quadem:
“It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in *this *matter before the eyes of the Lord” (my emphasis)

I guess this means that all of the Eastern Catholics, who do not follow the Roman (Latin) Rite are not saved?

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments…”

Once again, God will not punish persons for sins they are not culpable for… but their other sins are still upon them (even if only Original Sin). Should we lose hope for their possible salvation? No, because God can reveal to them what is necessary for their salvation by “the efficacious virtue of divine light [knowledge] and grace”. We have evidence of such miracles in the lives of the Saints. Ven. Mary of Agreda bilocated more than five hundred times to convert the Native Americans in the New Mexico area (cf. Joan Carroll Cruz’ Mysteries, Marvels, Miracles in the Lives of the Saints, etc.).

In your mind, this seems to mean they will become members of the visible Catholic Church - Roman rite only!

... or that such ignorant persons are thereby members of the Church because they are ignorant. We cannot read more into the Papal and Conciliar documents than what is already there.

This is a strawman, Anne. No one here except yourself is claiming anyone is saved by ignorance. You keep using this argument, and it has no merit whatsoever. We are all in agreement that ignorance does not save anyone.

Human beings are saved by grace, through faith. People are judged in the light of what has been revealed to them. Some are more ignorant than others, but all are judged by what they have been given, and how they have responded to it.

 

[guanophore]

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.

All of those elders also in submission to the Bishop, who was appointed by the Apostles.

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.

Scripture always corroborates Sacred Tradition.

It was not James’ decision. He did not make it singularly, or in a vacuum. It was a decision of the Church, which He wrote to the beleivers.

 

[cathdoki]

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

Nope. You have refuted anything and everything that anyone has to say that you do not agree with. What’s the point in trying to carry on a discussion with the all knowing?

 

[itinerant1]

For those folks in this thread who are open to learning more about the mind of the Catholic Church on the topic at hand, I have letter from the Vatican to post. I have taken the letter from a book on Catholicism.

“Of those helps to salvation that are ordered to the last end only by divine decree, not by intrinsic necessity, God, in His infinite mercy, willed that such effects of those helps as are necessary to salvation can, in certain circumstances, be obtained when the helps are used in desire or longing…The same, in due proportion, should be said of the Church insofar as it is a general help to salvation. To gain eternal salvation it is not always required that a person be incorporated in fact as a member of the Church, but it is required that he belong to it at least in desire and longing.” ~ Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing of Boston; August 8, 1949. (Emphases are in the original letter).

FYI: Responses to this post that I will consider unacceptable due to unwarranted bias or prejudice are ones of the nature that tend to indicate in any way that this letter does not mean what it clearly states, that the Vatican did not know what it is talking about, or a discounting of the letter entirely because it is not a papal encyclical.

 

[AnneElliot]

What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that, because He was not Catholic, he cannot be saved?

How many times do I have to talk about Christ’s desecent into Hell?

No one is saved by the Law- Old or New.

I did not suggest that anyone was.

I guess this means that all of the Eastern Catholics, who do not follow the Roman (Latin) Rite are not saved?

In your mind, this seems to mean they will become members of the visible Catholic Church - Roman rite only!

I have not stated any such thing.

Eastern Catholics are still in UNION with the Roman Church.

This is a strawman, Anne. No one here except yourself is claiming anyone is saved by ignorance. You keep using this argument, and it has no merit whatsoever. We are all in agreement that ignorance does not save anyone.

Human beings are saved by grace, through faith. People are judged in the light of what has been revealed to them. Some are more ignorant than others, but all are judged by what they have been given, and how they have responded to it.

So, in light of the above… are you claiming that God has different standards in Judgment? One for Catholics, and one for those who are ignorant?

itinerant1:

FYI: Responses to this post that I will consider unacceptable due to unwarranted bias or prejudice are ones of the nature that tend to indicate in any way that this letter does not mean what it clearly states, that the Vatican did not know what it is talking about, or a discounting of the letter entirely because it is not a papal encyclical.

In other words, any responses that disagree with you are unacceptable? How does that encourage discussion? No matter…

The letter still says they have to belong to the Church, doesn’t it?

The letter also says:
“Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.”
“… these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church” (AAS, 1. c., p. 243).”
“…But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith”
“… therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.”

 

[jericho777]

No, jericho. Scripture is an integral part of the Church, but the Church made decisions based upon the guidance of the HS, and the authority appointed to them by Christ. The scriptures reinforce these things, but they are not an “authority”. The Scriptures are authoritative, because they are God breathed, but they cannot exercise authority, because that is something only persons can do. That is why Jesus left the Apostles in charge, instead of books, however Holy.

The Holy Spirit inspired scripture in the first place. Therefore it carries His full authority and was suitable to make the decision in Acts 15:19

 

[inkaneer]

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.

I took you up on your challenge, pal. The website you referenced [mostholyfamilymonastery.com/]](http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/]) is a website of a heretical group who appears to follow the heresy of Feeneyism. It is anti protestant as well as anti Catholic. Just look at some of their topics:

The heresies of Vatican II
Antipopes Benedict XVI, JPII etc.
The invalid New Mass

Feeneyism was denounced by Pope Pius XII as heretical. That is a point these Feeneyists seem to forget as they believe Pope Pius XII was a valid pope. The thing to remember is that while these are heretical Catholics they do claim to be Catholic and as such alleged Catholics they use some valid Catholic arguments to combat protestantism. In other words they did not need to reinvent the wheel to further their cause. All they need is to change their interpretation.

By the way in case no one knows what the heresy Feeneyism is about; it was proposed by a Catholic priest, a Jesuit named Leonard Feeney, who claimed that protestants could not attain heaven. It was denounced as heretical by Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston who issued a decree in 1949 which stated thusly:

"Decree Regarding Leonard Feeney, April 18, 1949

Rev. Leonard Feeney, S.J., because of grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching of religion.

Any Catholics who frequent St. Benedict’s Center, or who in any way take part in or assist its activities forfeit the right to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Eucharist.

Given at Boston on the 18th day of April, 1949."

In 1953 Pope Pius XII issued the confirmation decree:

"Decree Excommunicating Leonard Feeney, 13 February 1953

Prior to the excommunication, Feeney received the following summons to appear before the Holy Office from Cardinal Pizzardo on November 22, 1952.

The Holy Office has been obliged repeatedly to make your teaching and conduct in the Church the object of its special care and attention, and recently, after having again carefully examined and calmly weighed all the evidence collected in your cause, it has found it necessary to bring this question to a conclusion.

DECREE

THE PRIEST LEONARD FEENEY IS DECLARED EXCOMMUNICATED

Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience toward church authority, has not, despite repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.

On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law."

If you are a follower of this group you have incurred an automatic excommunication also.

 

[cathdoki]

I took you up on your challenge, pal. The website you referenced [mostholyfamilymonastery.com/]](http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/]) is a website of a heretical group who appears to follow the heresy of Feeneyism. It is anti protestant as well as anti Catholic. Just look at some of their topics:

The heresies of Vatican II
Antipopes Benedict XVI, JPII etc.
The invalid New Mass

Feeneyism was denounced by Pope Pius XII as heretical. That is a point these Feeneyists seem to forget as they believe Pope Pius XII was a valid pope. The thing to remember is that while these are heretical Catholics they do claim to be Catholic and as such alleged Catholics they use some valid Catholic arguments to combat protestantism. In other words they did not need to reinvent the wheel to further their cause. All they need is to change their interpretation.

By the way in case no one knows what the heresy Feeneyism is about; it was proposed by a Catholic priest, a Jesuit named Leonard Feeney, who claimed that protestants could not attain heaven. It was denounced as heretical by Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston who issued a decree in 1949 which stated thusly:

"Decree Regarding Leonard Feeney, April 18, 1949

Rev. Leonard Feeney, S.J., because of grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching of religion.

Any Catholics who frequent St. Benedict’s Center, or who in any way take part in or assist its activities forfeit the right to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Eucharist.

Given at Boston on the 18th day of April, 1949."

In 1953 Pope Pius XII issued the confirmation decree:

"Decree Excommunicating Leonard Feeney, 13 February 1953

Prior to the excommunication, Feeney received the following summons to appear before the Holy Office from Cardinal Pizzardo on November 22, 1952.

The Holy Office has been obliged repeatedly to make your teaching and conduct in the Church the object of its special care and attention, and recently, after having again carefully examined and calmly weighed all the evidence collected in your cause, it has found it necessary to bring this question to a conclusion.

DECREE

THE PRIEST LEONARD FEENEY IS DECLARED EXCOMMUNICATED

Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience toward church authority, has not, despite repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.

On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law."

If you are a follower of this group you have incurred an automatic excommunication also.

I agree with you 100%. The challenge was to AnneElliot. They use the same arguments against her that she uses for no salvation outside the church. BTW, I’m glad you consider me your pal.

 

[guanophore]

How many times do I have to talk about Christ's desecent into Hell?

It is your strawman arguement. I guess you will have to offer it as often as it makes you feel better to do so.

It is not going to have an effect of pursuasion on anyone around here.

We all know that Abraham was not a member of the visible Catholic Church, which you claim is required in order to be saved. You can claim he became one when Christ descended into hell to preach, but this is not the case.

I did not suggest that anyone was.

When persons we know to be saved that were not members of the visible Catholic Church are mentioned, you profer straw arguements, like “he was under the Old Law”, by which I guess you intend to demostrate that your “rule” did not apply?

I have not stated any such thing.

You are quoting statements that clearly do. If you are unwilling to broaden your understanding of them even to apply to those Catholics in union of the successor of Peter that are not “Roman” then we are not going to get very far, are we?

Eastern Catholics are still in UNION with the Roman Church.

But non of us claim to be Roman Catholic. It would not be proper. Yet, the writings clearly say “Roman Catholic”. How do we receive this? We understand them more broadly, in that they DO apply to those of us who are in union with the successor of Peter in Rome.

You seem to be unable to make this intellectual leap about what you are reading.

So, in light of the above… are you claiming that God has different standards in Judgment? One for Catholics, and one for those who are ignorant?

Of course!

To those whom much is given, much is required.

Luke.12
[48] But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.

Catholics have received the fullness of the revelation of God in Christ. Our separated brethren have received only truncated versions of the Gospel. It is not their fault.

In other words, any responses that disagree with you are unacceptable? How does that encourage discussion?

I think there are sound psychological reasons for espousing fundamentalism. It is incumbent upon us to appreciate and tolerate them.

 

[guanophore]

The Holy Spirit inspired scripture in the first place. Therefore it carries His full authority and was suitable to make the decision in Acts 15:19

Yes, the HS inspired Scripture in the first place, but Scriputre cannot “carry” authority. This can only be done by persons, not writings, however Holy.

2Tim.3
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and [SIGN]profitable[/SIGN] for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Scripture is “profitable” to use when one is engaged in the exercise of authority that Jesus gave to the Church. But Scripture cannot exercise authority, which requires decision making, taking responsibility, the ability to be held accountable, discernment, and other qualities that Scripture does not have.

This notion that Scripture is an authority is one of the most damaging heresies of the Reformation, because belieiving it has caused millions to make of themselves their own authority (believing it is the HS) and doctrinal errors continue to splinter the Church.

 

[AnneElliot]

We all know that Abraham was not a member of the visible Catholic Church, which you claim is required in order to be saved. You can claim he became one when Christ descended into hell to preach, but this is not the case.

You are putting words in my mouth which I never said.

Yes, one does have to be a member of the Church in order to be saved. I made no distinction between visible/invisible-- that was YOUR distinction, remember?

Also, Abraham is a member of the Church. He is a member of the Church Triumphant. Secondly, because Abraham died before the promulgation of the Gospel, the requirements of the Covenant established in Christ do not apply to him in the same manner which they apply to those born after it.

When persons we know to be saved that were not members of the visible Catholic Church are mentioned, you profer straw arguements, like “he was under the Old Law”, by which I guess you intend to demostrate that your “rule” did not apply?

Do you know what a strawman argument is? I have addressed your concerns… if I have misquoted you and set up a fabricated argument, you should be able to point out the posts/quotes, etc. which I have made up.

Stating facts… facts like, “he was under the Old Law” is not a strawman. It’s a qualifier.

But non of us claim to be Roman Catholic. It would not be proper. Yet, the writings clearly say “Roman Catholic”. How do we receive this? We understand them more broadly, in that they DO apply to those of us who are in union with the successor of Peter in Rome.

The underlined portion is what I have been saying several times to you previously…

Eastern Catholics are still in UNION with the Roman Church.

Ah, but you miss the point. The Eastern Catholics ARE in union with the Roman Church.

etc.

The Latin(/western) rite and the Eastern rites (all of them) are all in union, under the successor of St. Peter (i.e., the Pope).

Or do you deny that Eastern Catholics are in union with the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[guanophore]

You are putting words in my mouth which I never said.

Actually, you put the words in your own mouth. You quoted liberally and repeatedly from the Popes and the councils that people cannot be saved lest they become members of the Roman Catholic Church.

When we tried to suggest that you might be too restrictive in your understanding of the words, you demanded concilar and papal documents.

There is nothing wrong with having your mouth filled with such words. They are part of the infallible teaching of the Church.

 Yes, one does have to be a member of the Church in order to be saved. I made no distinction between visible/invisible-- that was YOUR distinction, remember?

No, not mine, but of the Apostles.

And since you seem to be unable to distinguish, and we know that Abraham was NOT a member of the visible Catholic Church, that must mean he is not saved.

 Also, Abraham is a member of the Church. He is a member of the Church Triumphant.

We know this by faith, not by sight. He was not a member of the visible Catholic Church.

Secondly, because Abraham died before the promulgation of the Gospel, the requirements of the Covenant established in Christ do not apply to him in the same manner which they apply to those born after it.

So, are you saying that God has changed the way people get saved?

How come all of the sudden there are “different requirements” for some people?

Are you saying that God’s standards don’t apply equally to all?

Do you know what a strawman argument is? I have addressed your concerns...

So far as I can understand it, it is when you make up something that your opponent has not said like:

“People are saved if they are ignorant”

then set about refuting the statement as if it were claimed by the opponent.

if I have misquoted you and set up a fabricated argument, you should be able to point out the posts/quotes, etc. which I have made up.

Are you denying that you have made the repeated statement “people are not saved by ignorance”?

Frankly, it is not important enough to me to go back and find them. In fact, if you wish to continue using this strawman, be my guest. I just wanted to point it out for the benefit of others who are reading the thread.

Stating facts... facts like, "he was under the Old Law" is not a strawman. It's a qualifier.

So, now, all the sudden we have a “qualifer”. The one who started out mouthing the words of the Popes and the councils that “There is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church”, along with your addition that this is a visible membership, suddenly has a “qualifier”. I find that very interesting. especially in the light of all the qualifiers that were brought up here, that you previously rejected based on the premise that there WERE no qauliifers.

The underlined portion is what I have been saying several times to you previously…

Yes, and it is a qualifier too, isn’t it?

Roman Catholic does not literally MEAN only Catholics that are Latin Rite.

This is why I say that it is not the Teaching of the Church with which I take issue, but your interpretation of it.

The Latin(/western) rite and the Eastern rites (all of them) are all in union, under the successor of St. Peter (i.e., the Pope).

Or do you deny that Eastern Catholics are in union with the Roman Catholic Church?

I deny your interpretation of the documents as authoritative.

 

[cathdoki]

First of all AnneElliot,

This has gone on long enough. You don’t listen to ANYONE!!! You have all the answers.

There is salvation for those who are not members of the CC. If they are devout followers of Christ that is all that matters. You have thrown out anything that you disagree with. It’s called arrogance.

That’s it. I’m done. No pope is God. No pope is Jesus. I don’t care what they say! To be a follower of Jesus and to worship Him and live by His commandments as you understand best is what matters.

And yes AnneElliot, as quanaphore has explained, God does have different standards for different people. IT’S BIBLICAL. YOU ARE NOT.

 

[AnneElliot]

So, are you saying that God has changed the way people get saved?

The Just of the Old Testament had to await the coming of Jesus… Those in the Old Testament (under the Old Law) were justified through circumcision. In the New Covenant, after the promulgation of the Gospel by Jesus Christ, Baptism has replaced circumcision.

Salvation is only in Jesus Christ.

Lastly, the Popes and Councils state that one must be a member of the Catholic Church. Eastern Catholics ARE members of the Catholic Church. I have not cited any Papal or Conciliar document that said a person had to be “Roman Catholic”. Read Pope Eugene IV’s Papal Bull again… he says the “Holy Roman Church… professes… that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church… can have a share in life eternal”. Eastern Catholics are Catholics. Whether one is a Latin Catholic or Byzantine Catholic is irrelevant on that matter… one is STILL a Catholic, and that’s the point.