No Salvation Outside The Church?

[cathdoki]

This is not what the Church teaches.

Matthew 25:31-46. Have you considered that some Catholics may not find salvation IN the Church?

I wonder what happened to charity.

I know that some people don’t trust it, but check out the CCC. It’s quite clear and has been posted several times by various people including myself.

But what the heck, what does Cardinal Ratzinger know?

 

[cathdoki]

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).

That’s not at all true. Jesus said that He is God. He made it very clear when He said that God (our Heavenly Father) and He are one. Jesus allowed people to worship Him. When Jesus asked Peter who Peter thought Jesus is, Peter replied The Christ, the Son of God. God. Jesus told Peter that was revealed to him by God the Father.

 

[cathdoki]

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?

Please understand that I am in no way accusing Anne of being a liar. She really believes what she states. But throwing around papal bulls and statements out of context is for me a man of science similar to the saying:

Statistics don’t lie, but liars use statistics.

Again, I am in NO WAY accusing Anne of lying. It’s merely an analogy of how things can be used out of context.

 

[JM3]

So, what was his intent in writing the CCC and putting some of the statements regarding salvation for non-Catholics? To confuse us?

Perhaps it would help if you read the CCC paragraphs 836 - 848 and learned the difference between a non-catholic and a non-christian.

 

[JM3]

I know that some people don’t trust it, but check out the CCC. It’s quite clear and has been posted several times by various people including myself.

But what the heck, what does Cardinal Ratzinger know?

I forgive you.

 

[cathdoki]

Perhaps it would help if you read the CCC paragraphs 836 - 848 and learned the difference between a non-catholic and a non-christian.

I’m not sure what you are getting at.

Protestants and Orthodox can achieve salvation. Paragraph 838.

 

[JM3]

I’m not sure what you are getting at.

Protestants and Orthodox can achieve salvation. Paragraph 838.

Maybe you have a different CCC. 838 - With the Orthodox christians, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

838 says nothing about salvation.

 

[cathdoki]

Maybe you have a different CCC. 838 - With the Orthodox christians, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

838 says nothing about salvation.

The Church knows that she is JOINED

 

[JM3]

The Church knows that she is JOINED

Perhaps you should read what the catechism says and not what you want it to say.

 

[JM3]

Karl Adam wrote :

The Catholic Church as the Body of Christ, as the realization in the world of the Kingdom of God, is the Church of Humanity. Of her essential nature she aims at the incorporation of the men of all times and all places in the one Body of Christ. Hence inevitably her external and internal catholicity, her accessibility and comprehensiveness. And hence also her exclusiveness, that is her claim to be the Church of Humanity, the exclusive institution wherein all men shall attain salvation. Because the Church is conscious that she is the Church of humanity and that Kingdom of God to which all men whatsoever by the will of Christ fundamentally belong, she cannot admit that men can be saved by membership in other societies established by the side of and in antagonism to the primary Church of Humanity founded by Christ. Even Heiler cannot deny the cogency of this position. "So far as Catholicism is genuinely universal and represents fully all religious values, it must be exclusive. But this exclusiveness is not the exclusiveness of narrowness, but of inexhaustible wealth.[1] The Church would belie her own deepest essence and her most outstanding quality, namely her inexhaustible fullness and that which guarantees and supports this fullness, her vocation to be the Body of Christ, if she were ever to recognize some collateral and antagonistic Christian church as her sister and as possessing equal rights with herself. She can recognize the historical importance of such churches. She can designate them as Christian communions, yes, even as Christian churches, but never as the Church of Christ. One God, one Christ, one Baptism, one Church. There can never be a second Christ, and in the same way there cannot be a second Body of Christ, a second manifestation of His spirit. When some American Christians went to Rome in the Spring of 1919 to invite Pope Benedict XV to take part in a “World Conference on Faith and Order,” they misunderstood the Catholic conception of the Church and this its fundamental claim. The Catholic Church can and will appraise generously, and will countenance, all the communities of non-Catholic Christendom. She can and will recognize in them the first rudiments of a preparation for that re-union of all Christians which is demanded by the present state of Christendom in general and of the West in particular. But she cannot recognize other Christian communions as churches of like order and rights with herself. To do so would be infidelity to her own nature, and would be the worst disloyalty to herself. In her own eyes the Catholic Church is nothing at all if she be not the Church, the Body of Christ, the Kingdom of God. This exclusiveness is rooted in the exclusiveness of Christ, in His claim to be the bringer of the new life, to be the way, the truth and the life. The fullness of the Divinity was revealed to us in Christ. The Incarnate God is the last and most perfect self- revelation of God. God’s wisdom, goodness and mercy became incarnate in Him. “Of His fullness we all have received, and grace for grace” (Jn. i, 16). And therefore there is no other road to God except through Christ. There is “no other name under heaven given to men, whereby they must be saved” (Acts iv, 12). But we can grasp Christ only through His Church. It is true that He might, had He so willed, have imparted Himself and His grace to all men directly, in personal experience. But the question is not what might have been, but what Christ in fact willed to do. And in fact He willed to give Himself to men through men, that is by the way of a community life and not by the way of isolation and individualism. He willed that His grace should come to men who were conjoined in a single compact fellowship, and that it should come to them through this fellowship, not without it, and still less in opposition to it. It was not His will to sanctify a countless multitude of solitary souls, but a corporate kingdom of saints, a Kingdom of God. And this method of communicating Himself corresponds entirely to His fundamental requirement, the commandment of fraternal love. For that commandment implies a community, implies the union of the brethren, and there can be no fraternal love without such a community. And it corresponds also to the essential nature of divine grace, which is offered to all men at once. The grace of God in its manifestation is a catholic power, comprehending and grasping all men. So that it cannot manifest itself otherwise than in absolute unity. There can be no contradiction, or dissension, or schism where God is. His truth cannot be otherwise than one truth, one life, one love. And therefore it can be realized in but one form, in a comprehensive fellowship that binds together all men in intimate unity.

 

[cathdoki]

Perhaps you should read what the catechism says and not what you want it to say.

Likewise.

 

[jericho777]

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.

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…

Israel was is and will always be God’s chosen people. God always has a remnant apart from the greater number,even when the religious leadership goes astray.

When I present passages that show my position you ignore them. There is definitely leadership in the church but your version leaves people as subjects of the religious leadership not co laborers. They are in bondage to a religious system that limits their service rather than being ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is preposterous to think that God would wait 325 years after the birth of Jesus before revealing scripture to His people. The Holy Spirit inspired men to write His word. From that time onward it is scripture apart from the will or actions of men.

Then the priesthood of believers qualifies all believers to administer religious rites. As we are a nation of priests before our God. 1Peter 2:9

 

[The_Reginator]

I have never seen any miracles done in a CC in my 28 years of attending.

If you were at church and saw the preacher call down the Holy Spirit to, say, turn a stone into water, would you not call that a genuine miracle?

At each and every Catholic Mass a far more amazing miracle takes place. One that makes physical healing look like ‘small potatoes’.
The God who created all things changes simple bread and wine into His very Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. The God who saves us, the God who is so enormous that He cannot be contained by the universe He created, changes every small particle of bread and droplet of wine into His very Self.
THAT IS SO HUMBLING AND AMAZING. All who truly believe are awed as we adore Him and receive Him into our mouths.
That happens at each and every Mass.
Pray, my friend, that one day you too may experience our Lord in this very intimate way.

It is preposterous to think that God would wait 325 years after the birth of Jesus before revealing scripture to His people. The Holy Spirit inspired men to write His word. From that time onward it is scripture apart from the will or actions of men.

Jericho, you are obviously too intelligent to believe that Jesus left behind a neatly printed book for us to follow. So just where do you think the New Testament came from?
As I’ve said before, Jesus left us a Church NOT a bible. The New Testament came from the oral Tradition and written Tradition (the letters in the N.T.) that the Catholic Church holds onto today.

“The Holy Spirit inspired men to write His word.” That was not the end of it. The Holy Spirit inspired men, ie His Church, to decide which written works He wants included in the bible and, most importantly, the Holy Spirit uses Apostolic Succession to continue to inspire His Church in the infallible interpretation of this holy (Catholic) book.

 

[itinerant1]

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 ?

How about dealing directly with the issues? What a novel idea!!

Also, I noticed Anne has been avoiding my posts. There are several posts that have been avoided, but the posts in question will magically re-appear, several times.

Now, tell us what you think Pope John Paul II is saying here, and how does your own understanding of “No salvation outside the Church” agree or disagree with any of the statements made by the pope?

“This affirmation of the Savior’s “uniqueness” derives from the Lord’s own words. He stated that he came “to give his own life in ransom for the many” (Mk 10:45), that is, for humanity, as St. Paul explains when he writes: “One died for all” (2 Cor 5:14; cf. Rom 5:18). Christ won universal salvation with the gift of his own life. No other mediator has been established by God as Savior. The unique value of the sacrifice of the cross must always be acknowledged in the destiny of every man. …

"For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10).

"It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. … In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a yes to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church.

"… Religions can exercise a positive influence on the destiny of those who belong to them and follow their guidance in a sincere spirit. … The Church does not exist nor does she work for herself, but is at the service of a humanity called to divine sonship in Christ (cf. RM 19). She thus exercises an implicit mediation also with regard to those who do not know the Gospel.” (All Salvation Comes through Christ; General Audience — May 31, 1995)

[paragraphing added for easier reading]

 

[guanophore]

Buttin’ in…

The misunderstanding or misconceptions are NOT HER’S though.

Buttin’ out.

Do you mean to tell me that you ALSO believe a person must be a visible member of the Catholic Church on earth in order to be saved?

 

[itinerant1]

Do you mean to tell me that you ALSO believe a person must be a visible member of the Catholic Church on earth in order to be saved?

I think Anne and Deconi will say others in this thread are attributing views to them that they do not hold. However, if there is any truth to that, and I am not sure that there is, it is largely due to the fact that both Anne and Deconi are somewhat evasive. Try to pin them down on exactly what they believe and they slip away behind a barrage of quotes or unrelated responses. It can make one long for the old days of the Inquisition.

 

[guanophore]

I believe the blanket statement that there is “No Salvation Outside the Church” is an incorrect statement – there can be exceptions.

No, Emerite, there are no exceptions, and the gift of infallibility prevents the Church from making any such “incorrect statements”. The statement is 100% accruate. There is only one name under heaven by which we may be saved, and that is Jesus. He only has ONE BODY, the CHURCH. He did not found “churches” or “bodies”. Anyone who is connected to HIm as head is a member of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

There is salvation outside the Church if you don’t know any better.

Only the visible boundaries. All salvation happens through the Church. For those who are invicibly ignorant, God joins them mysteriously in a way we may not see.

 

[JM3]

I have noticed , in this thread, a misunderstanding of what the Church means by ‘No salvation outside the Church’ or, perhaps, you all just like to argue.

I will state it simply: No salvation outside the Church applies to Catholics who leave the Church, whether physically, mentally or spiritually, and those who are not Catholic, but know that the Church has the fullness of sanctifying Grace within her. This is what the Church has always taught.

" Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." Lumen Gentium (14)

 

[Pitcharan]

I think Anne and Deconi will say others in this thread are attributing views to them that they do not hold. However, if there is any truth to that, and I am not sure that there is, it is largely due to the fact that both Anne and Deconi are somewhat evasive. Try to pin them down on exactly what they believe and they slip away behind a barrage of quotes or unrelated responses.

You can pin down a genuine debator, not slippery crooks and artful dodgers who evade your pinning posts. I quote below one of my posts that was conveniently evaded by both.

This is how Anne’s simple statement of fact was done Deconi: A Papal bull issued years ago in specific response to heretic doctrines of deserters is quoted to-day, to send out a wrong message that all non-catholics will go to hell. Where was the need to carefully avoid all contemprorary and current Papal teachings and statements and selectively quote very old ones out of context?