No Salvation Outside The Church?

[The_Reginator]

Charity!
I came to this thread a long time ago as it relates to most of my protestant family background.

I’ve become very disappointed with many posts as they are starting to attack the person rather than the argument. (Once or twice almost with joy it would seem.)

Let’s try a little harder to stick to the topic at hand rather than taking sides. Why should there be any personal ridicule here? Everyone is stating their interpretation of the Church’s teachings. And then pride starts to creep in … sigh.

 

[Pitcharan]

WHOA! …Anne is correct in holding with the ECFS and successive Popes who made the proclamation and stipulated the means of salvation! How can it be wrong if the documents and citations are from the ‘root’ source…as opposed to ‘opinions’ of non-authorities?!..

Right becomes wrong when quoted out of context. A Papal bull issued years ago in specific response to heretic doctrines of deserters, if quoted to-day, will only send out a wrong message that all non-catholics will go to hell.

Where is the need to carefully avoid all contemprorary and current Papal teachings and statements and selectively quote very old ones out of context?

 

[Pitcharan]

I’ve become very disappointed with many posts as they are starting to attack the person rather than the argument. (Once or twice almost with joy it would seem.)

Let’s try a little harder to stick to the topic at hand rather than taking sides. Why should there be any personal ridicule here? Everyone is stating their interpretation of the Church’s teachings. And then pride starts to creep in … sigh.

Do read my posts too. I’ve neither attacked nor strayed away from the topic.

 

[JM3]

Charity!
I came to this thread a long time ago as it relates to most of my protestant family background.

I’ve become very disappointed with many posts as** they are starting to attack the person rather than the argument. ** (Once or twice almost with joy it would seem.)

Let’s try a little harder to stick to the topic at hand rather than taking sides. Why should there be any personal ridicule here? Everyone is stating their interpretation of the Church’s teachings. And then pride starts to creep in … sigh.

A quote from Br. J.R.'s thread ‘Are Catholics really Catholic?’:

“When you disagree with someone, you lay out the opposing point. When you hate, you try to show the world that your opponent is a fool, a hypocrite, a liar. You paint him in the worse possible light.”

 

[JM3]

Right becomes wrong when quoted out of context. A Papal bull issued years ago in specific response to heretic doctrines of deserters, if quoted to-day, will only send out a wrong message that all non-catholics will go to hell.

Where is the need to carefully avoid all contemprorary and current Papal teachings and statements and selectively quote very old ones out of context?

Originally Posted by The Reginator
I’ve become very disappointed with many posts as they are starting to attack the person rather than the argument. (Once or twice almost with joy it would seem.)

Let’s try a little harder to stick to the topic at hand rather than taking sides. Why should there be any personal ridicule here? Everyone is stating their interpretation of the Church’s teachings. And then pride starts to creep in … sigh.

Do read my posts too. I’ve neither attacked nor strayed away from the topic.

 

[Pitcharan]

After failing to find anyhting that can be called “attack” or “a deviation from topic” all that you could do was to reproduce my post and make a sarcastic face. It only smacks of hypocrisy

 

[itinerant1]

Can you deny that the likes of Anne can put-off many non-catholics who will only further distance themselves from the CC? If the very purpose of the CC is to gather the lost children and restore them to God, is it not a harm to the CC to drive people further away from the main source of salvation?

I was assuming that visitors and participants of this thread have their wits about them enough to know that Anne does not speak authoritatively for the Church.

I grant that a non-Catholic can be turned off from the Catholic Church by the attitude of a particular Catholic. It happpens everyday and everywhere. Perhaps one can look on it as a type of scandal caused by the Catholic in question.

For example, St. Augustine spoke in serious tones against those Catholics who used the Bible to contradict what men of science know to be the case about nature or the cosmos. St. Augustine’s warning is relevant for our time as well. There are a number of fundamentalist Catholics on CAF, who use the Bible to attack what scientists know to be true. This very kind of situation is the cause of many scientific minded people today to reject Church teachings and the Bible as false, just as they did in Augustine’s day.

However, in a forum (as well as in a university), I believe we should allow the free exchange of ideas, within reason, regardless of the falsity of some ideas. Do you think we should only allow discussion of true ideas, and all false opinions are to be forthwith censored?

Allowing the expression of false opinions and consequently arguing for the truth of the matter has a good side to it. Even though the advocate of the false opinion may remain unmoved and unchanged, others will come to understand better the truth of the matter. We understand the truth more fully and more deeply when we better understand the opposing error.

Look at any article in the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas. St. Thomas articulates the false opinions before he presents his own. Why does he bother to explain the views that he opposes? In fact he can explain the opposing views even better than his opponents can.

Since I have been posting in this thread, I have learned more about the position I hold, and more about the one I am opposing. How about you?

In sum, I will continue to support Anne’s right to post her understanding of “No salvation outside of the Church.” Whether she causes anyone scandal is between her and God. The important thing is to argue charitably. That is a challenge when some posters can really try one’s patience.

Furthermore, I think CAF has reasonable rules for posting, and I do not see that Anne has violated any rules. So, I have nothing to complain about.

Also, whether she should post her particular opinion is not up to me to decide. I have given you my take on it. But if you do not agree with my position, and you think it is a serious problem, I suggest that you contact a Forum Moderator and discuss the matter with him or her. Select post numbers for the Moderator to review and give you a decision.

Peace

 

[itinerant1]

This is not what the Church teaches.

The post said:
“Contrary to a few elitists, there is Salvation being a Christian even if they are not in full communion with the CC. To be a Christian is to be at least in some way part of Catholic or Universal Church.”

To this statement above you replied, “This is not what the Church teaches.”

1. Can you explain briefly what the Church teaches that contradicts the foregoing statement?
2. Do you think it is possible for some non-Christians to have the grace of Christ, that is santifying grace?

 

[itinerant1]

Seeing through colored lenses:

Some people see all topically relevant Papal documents as excluding salvation to those who are not formal members of the Church.

How about the opposite error? For the interest of comparison, there is heretical “Catholic” website that teaches all men will be saved. Ironically, the website posts a page of quotes from Pope John Paul II to justify their own spin on “universal salvation”: Has the Pope been giving us to Hope that All will be Saved?

It seems folks can use papal writings, like they use the Bible, to justify any opinion whatsoever. I think the linked page is instructive because the person(s) responsible for the site truly believe Pope John Paul II actually taught that “all” will be saved. We see only what we want to see in life and in texts.

 

[itinerant1]

Thank you. Your point is well taken. My somewhat over-reaction was because a very old Papal Bull was quoted out of context. I felt it had very high potential of harming the CC by sending out exactly the opposite message of what the CC really believes.

Good enough! I’m out for now. I have to finish a book by Josef Pieper. Till next time, take care.

 

[Deconi]

Can you deny that the likes of Anne can put-off many non-catholics who will only further distance themselves from the CC? If the very purpose of the CC is to gather the lost children and restore them to God, is it not a harm to the CC to drive people further away from the main source of salvation?

With all due respects, ‘Pitch,’ people distance themselves from The Church for the same multitude of reasons that others are ‘attracted’ to Her.

We aren’t trying to sell used cars or cheaper Bibles that we have to somehow resort to, or settle for touchy-feely or a diluted ‘nicer’ version of Catholicism. We are not to coerce, trick or drag people into The Church. We cannot be ‘nice’ until after conversion and then pull out the harder sayings or teachings of our faith, like; ‘No salvation outside The Church,’ or ‘Real Presence’ means we are literally consuming Our Lord’…etc. etc

There are HARD SAYINGS in The Church. If you cannot accept them BEFORE entrance, how can you hope to remain within Her Bossom in times of trial?

We simply proclaim and profess our faith through our lives, what we practice and HOW we speak or communicate. As our first Pope teach us; *“Always be ready to have an answer to those who enquire about the faith within you,…but be charitable.” *

It has been said that our Father does the drawing! What then can ANY PERSON do against that?..let alone Anne who, for mine, HAS NOT been doing any such thing? She has simply stated the Popes and the ECFS and she takes her stance with them!

Multitudes within Catholicism alone disagree with it, but their beef is really with themselves and their own understanding.

The dogma is pretty clear! The efforts of Pius, JP2 and Ben16, to name a few, to illuminate the dogma fully so as to ‘see’ the unseen aspect of it…is also pretty clear!

 

[Pitcharan]

With all due respects, ‘Pitch,’ people distance themselves from The Church for the same multitude of reasons that others are ‘attracted’ to Her.

We aren’t trying to sell used cars or cheaper Bibles that we have to somehow resort to, or settle for touchy-feely or a diluted ‘nicer’ version of Catholicism. We are not to coerce, trick or drag people into The Church. We cannot be ‘nice’ until after conversion and then pull out the harder sayings or teachings of our faith, like; ‘No salvation outside The Church,’ or ‘Real Presence’ means we are literally consuming Our Lord’…etc. etc

There are HARD SAYINGS in The Church. If you cannot accept them BEFORE entrance, how can you hope to remain within Her Bossom in times of trial?
…

No Deconi, you are sadly mistaken in your view. You have learnt nothing from salvation history. The Jews like you and Anne, believed that salvation was their sole privelege as they had the Law (passport to salvation). What happened because of it is again part of salvation history. The CC is truly universal and inclusive and is growing in knowledge every day. All the Annes and Deconis cannot take it back in time and it will only move forward. His kingdom will never end

 

[AnneElliot]

The CC is truly … growing in knowledge every day.

Dei Filius “Let intelligence, and science, and wisdom increase, but only according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same meaning.”

 

[Deconi]

No Deconi, you are sadly mistaken in your view. You have learnt nothing from salvation history. The Jews like you and Anne, believed that salvation was their sole privelege as they had the Law (passport to salvation). What happened because of it is again part of salvation history. The CC is truly universal and inclusive and is growing in knowledge every day. All the Annes and Deconis cannot take it back in time and it will only move forward. His kingdom will never end

Uhmm…o.k.!? Now that you’ve made your strawman, here’s a lighter…

Which ONE dogma of The Church has ‘moved forward’ - whatever that means - since ?

 

[chosen_people]

No Deconi, you are sadly mistaken in your view. You have learnt nothing from salvation history. The Jews like you and Anne, believed that salvation was their sole privelege as they had the Law (passport to salvation). What happened because of it is again part of salvation history. The CC is truly universal and inclusive and is growing in knowledge every day. All the Annes and Deconis cannot take it back in time and it will only move forward. His kingdom will never end

There is only the one God, and He is the God of all, Jews and Gentiles alike. All are His children and all are equal in His eyes. God gave Torah before the entire Jewish people at Mt. Sinai. Torah teaches that the Gentile as Gentiles are judged by the seven categories of Noahide laws. They are exempt from the laws of holiness so it is easier for the Gentile than for the Jew to get into the world to come. (Deuteronomy 5:7-9;5:17,16:18;Genesis 9:4;Leviticus 19:11,24:15) see and compare Acts 15:20,21:25- also the book of Yonah (Jonah) where Yonah is sent by God for the salvation of a Gentile city.

A Gentile does not have to believe and convert to Judaism to get into the world to come. The world to come is open to every Gentile who behaves according to God’s laws of ethics, no matter whether he or she calls themselves Christian or Moslem or Hindu or whatever.

It is the Christian Gentile who created the concept that only those who profess faith in their messiah can find salvation (the Chrisitian messiah was given the status of god in Christianity in 325 c.e. and in 381 c.e the holy spirit was added to the Christian godhead).

 

[JM3]

The post said:
“Contrary to a few elitists, there is Salvation being a Christian even if they are not in full communion with the CC. To be a Christian is to be at least in some way part of Catholic or Universal Church.”

To this statement above you replied, “This is not what the Church teaches.”

1. Can you explain briefly what the Church teaches that contradicts the foregoing statement?
2. Do you think it is possible for some non-Christians to have the grace of Christ, that is santifying grace?

Read my previous posts and you will see what the Church teaches and why.

My reply was for this part of the statement ‘there is Salvation being a Christian even if they are not in full communion with the CC.’

This part of the statement is correct 'To be a Christian is to be at least in some way part of Catholic or Universal Church." ’

#2 - It doesn’t matter what I think, the Church teaches that it is possible.

 

[JM3]

And if by grace, it will be said, how came we all not to be saved? Because you would not. For grace, though it be grace, saves the willing, not those who will not have it, and turn away from it, who persist in fighting against it, and opposing themselves to it.

St. John Chrysostom

 

[twb1621]

.

*There is definitely structure and authority in the NT but there is no elevated clergy. You all look and act more like Pharisees than servants of God. There are supposed to be overseers not rulers.

Perhaps you condemn the traditions of the Chosen nation, Israel, as well… How they practiced and continue to practice their faith? Or do you also consider Judaism invalid? Many of the Catholic traditions were generated from Judaism. Are they no longer God’s chosen people?

Are you saying you want to ignore the verses that validate the hierarchal positions and just concentrate on the word “overseer”? even overseer… look at that verse once more and explain what these overseers were to oversee…. “of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.***”***what exactly do you think the role of the overseer is and what are their obligations and responsibilities?

Philippians CH1; 1 Paul and Timothy, slaves 2 of Christ Jesus, to all the holy ones in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the overseers and ministers.

You speak highly in trust for the salvation of your eternal soul in the Bible as the Inspired Word of God, (which Bible version I do not know) but you respond overeagerly to reject what passages your opinions oppose and refuse any acceptance of the fact your opinions are not justifiable by scripture at all, nor are you able to explain the verses supporting the hierarchy of the Universal Church of Jesus Christ as it was initially established and as it is commanded until His return. Perhaps it is just that you are without the knowledge of the works of the ECFs. That is crucial to the lineage and consistency of Christ’s teachings. That these writings were collected, passed on, and selectively preached based on the determination of there validity prior to the existence of the Bible by the Early Church Fathers from the first century onward; that they were compiled, translated, interpreted, and canonized by the Catholic Church. There were many writings that had been reviewed with a limited number chosen by them (ECFs), the unacceptable of which being rejected as found lacking validity, in order to finally establish the Holy Bible at the order of Pope Damasus in 384 AD. The very men Guided by the Holy Spirit (if not we’re all in trouble) as Christ said would be, to show you, yes you, what is the truly Inspired Word of God. But you choose to take all this “with a grain of salt”.

For 2000 years they (The Church elect) protected and preserved those teachings verified while others within the last 500 years took the Holy Bible of the Catholic Church and began to present a distorted view based on individual opinions while having only the Holy Bible of the Catholic Faith to relate to. They didn’t have the faith to live it. You say there is no elevated clergy in opposition to the scriptural content of the Inspired word including those many verses I presented to you, so explain the differences between each of the stations of the religious positions listed in the Gospels if what you say is true. Or, provide the verses that say there is no elevated order and those reading will be able to accept your opinions.

*The only priesthood in the NT is the priesthood of all believers. Jesus is the end of the priesthood as such because He is the ultimate high priest because He offered His own blood once forever. It is the perfectly complete sacrifice wiping away all sins forever. Never having to be offered over and over again as with an earthly high priest.

Definition of Priest - A priest is a person having the authority or power to administer religious rites.

Are not the apostles authorized or empowered to administer religious rites? Are not their successors and are not those empowered by their successors? There are priests by the very actions of scripture and the ministry of the priesthood. Were you taught that if scripture doesn’t use a particular word, it is not valid? That could create many more problems for one who believes that.

Continued next post…

 

[twb1621]

.

Continued from previous post;

*Elders and deacons are to be the husband of one wife. The context that it is written in makes it a prerequisite for the office.

First, Celibacy is not a Dogma, it is a Church practice of the Latin Rite which every candidate knows of and willingly accepts to abide by in becoming a priest. They may choose the priesthood in the Eastern Rite if they wish to be married. Catholic Deacons can be married. With that said, show me support for your opinion that they must be married and I will provide you proof it is not a requirement in the following:

Matthew CH19; “12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

“…… 29 And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life.”

1 Corinthians CH7; 7 Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. 8 Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.

…32 I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. 33 But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and he is divided.”

…."38 So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.”

Rev CH14; 4 “These are they who were not defiled with women; they are virgins 3 and these are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They have been ransomed as the firstfruits of the human race for God and the Lamb.”

Isaiah CH56; 4 For thus says the LORD: “To the eunuchs who observe my sabbaths and choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant, 5 I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name Better than sons and daughters; an eternal, imperishable name will I give them.”

*So now you are saying it is satan who is doing these miracles. Why because your church doesn’t think God will work outside of itself.

ridiculous

*I have never seen any miracles done in a CC in my 28 years of attending. On a regular basis I see miracles done in my church. Demons cast out cancer healed the deaf hearing and more. Should you ever need a miracle from the hand of God in the name of Jesus let me know, you have an open invitation. As to the apostolic tradition you speak of, someone here told me God can use a donkey to accomplish His will.

John CH10; 41 “Many came to him and said, “John performed no sign, but everything John said about this man was true.” (was John not the messenger of God?)

I have had my miracle, I have been enlightened to my ignorance, learned the truth and returned to the Catholic Church I thought I knew all about, but never knew at all and have been accepted lovingly by Christ. True faith does not require the witness to miracles. However,…

continued one more time…

 

[twb1621]

.

Continued from previous post;

And you very well may have witnessed miracles, it is not for me to judge the authenticity of miraculous events, nor do I maintain my faith based on their occurrences before me. But then you didn’t choose to leave the Catholic Church because you didn’t see miracles. I left for 25 years and know better than that. You left very obviously because you, just as I, thought you knew the faith but knew little at all. Hopefully you will come to that awakening as I did while time permits. As far as God using a donkey, He has accepted this donkey in His service.