only one correct religion with the truth?

[PRmerger]

No dear friend

The Catholic Faith says that a certain verse of the Gospel means ABC, there is no “maybe” or “is it possible that”

Indeed. For some things.

The Orthodox Faith says that the same verse means DEF, there is no “maybe’s”

I’ve never heard the Orthodox say that a verse that the CC says is ABC deny that it means ABC. It may add that it can also mean DEF (although I can’t think of a single example of this).

Can you tell us where the CC says ABC and the Orthodox say, “No! It does not mean ABC. It means DEF!”

Thanks.

Matthew is saying “maybe” or “is it a possibility” (I saw the word possible/possibility at least 3 times in his post)

.

Well, Servant, either he believes what he is saying is true, or he doesn’t. Or he doesn’t know.

If he is claiming that he doesn’t actually know a thing about this topic, then I have nothing more to say to him. I don’t speak to clueless people. What a waste of time that would be, eh?

And if he does believe what he is proposing to be true (and I am sure he does, else he would not be posting here), then he is doing exactly what he opposes in the CC.

QED.

 

[Sochi]

Yes, it is indeed a doctrine of the Church.

Jesus the only way, the only means for our salvation.

I am quite certain that he never said, “It is commonly accepted by many that I am the way, the truth and the life, but not the ONLY way.”

So the Church says, in its official capacity, that those who never heard of Jesus because he hadn’t been born yet, or had never heard of him for lack of news, or who sincerely maintained their faith when hearing only a passing mention of Him, none of these people have any smidgen of hope of salvation. That is the absolute doctrine of the Church, say you?

 

[marywarfield]

So the Church says, in its official capacity, that those who never heard of Jesus because he hadn’t been born yet, or had never heard of him for lack of news, or who sincerely maintained their faith when hearing only a passing mention of Him, none of these people have any smidgen of hope of salvation. That is the absolute doctrine of the Church, say you?

The Doctrine of the Church is very clear. There is
NO salvation without the Holy Mother Church.
None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Can someone who has never heard of the Church
be saved? You betcha. Can someone ignorant of Christ
be saved? You betcha.
Just as there is no salvation without the Church
there is no condemnation without her participation
either. For the Church is heart of Christ’s mercy and
compassion.

So if a Christian condemns a Muslim it is a judgement
on the Christian for that Muslim might very well
be saved. And if a Muslim declares the condemnation
of that Christian it is to his own judgement as well.
If a Jew says off with their heads he may lose his
and if a Muslim condemns the Jew it falls back on
his own head. For God is merciful.

For the power to loose or bind is with the Church as
it always was, way back to the House of David.
And no where else.

Without the Church there is NO salvation for Christ
gave Peter the keys to the historic House of David/the
new Heaven and Earth.

 

[Sochi]

The Doctrine of the Church is very clear.

So, functionally, there is salvation outside the Church. Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[Matthew_Light]

I hope that you do see the irony in this proposal, yes?

You see that you are reserving for yourself the right to say, “This is the right way!”* while objecting to Catholicism proclaiming, “This is the right way!”.

*Here, “This” means: the Bahai view of looking at all religions as just fine.

I’m not coming at this from a position of religious dogmas. This is not a matter of which religion you belong to. It’s a matter of how you choose to interpret your religion.

In fact, there are some Baha’is who interpret the Baha’i Writings in such a way as to feel that only Baha’is are right and if someone does not decide to become a Baha’i that is a reflection on their own spiritual station (and not a positive one!)

On the other hand, I also know quite a few Catholics who do not view their own Faith as the exclusive and only path of truth - and some of them even post to CAF!

 

[PRmerger]

So the Church says, in its official capacity, that those who never heard of Jesus because he hadn’t been born yet, or had never heard of him for lack of news, or who sincerely maintained their faith when hearing only a passing mention of Him, none of these people have any smidgen of hope of salvation. That is the absolute doctrine of the Church, say you?

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/facepalm/grand/disappointed_gif_44556.gif

This is not a correct explication of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, or Outside the Church there is No Salvation.

If you look at what I wrote above, I did not even come close to saying anything at all, not even remotely, about “these people” not having “any smidgen of hope of salvation.”

Of course we can hope for their salvation!

See this article for a better understanding of what we profess here as Catholics:
catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means

 

[PRmerger]

The Doctrine of the Church is very clear. There is
NO salvation without the Holy Mother Church.
None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Can someone who has never heard of the Church
be saved? You betcha. Can someone ignorant of Christ
be saved? You betcha.
Just as there is no salvation without the Church
there is no condemnation without her participation
either. For the Church is heart of Christ’s mercy and
compassion.

So if a Christian condemns a Muslim it is a judgement
on the Christian for that Muslim might very well
be saved. And if a Muslim declares the condemnation
of that Christian it is to his own judgement as well.
If a Jew says off with their heads he may lose his
and if a Muslim condemns the Jew it falls back on
his own head. For God is merciful.

For the power to loose or bind is with the Church as
it always was, way back to the House of David.
And no where else.

Without the Church there is NO salvation for Christ
gave Peter the keys to the historic House of David/the
new Heaven and Earth.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not coming at this from a position of religious dogmas.

Statements like this always give me pause.

One has to wonder why someone who cares about truth would reject a “position of religious dogmas”.

For what is “religious dogmas” except facts explicating our beliefs in God?

And who could be against facts, when one is a truth-seeker?

This is not a matter of which religion you belong to.

It ought to matter. What religion one belongs to ought to be of supreme import, if one is a seeker of Truth.

It’s a matter of how you choose to interpret your religion.

Well, in the end, of course, every intellectual act is the choice of the human person, is it not?

So your statement seems rather inutile.

In fact, there are some Baha’is who interpret the Baha’i Writings in such a way as to feel that only Baha’is are right and if someone does not decide to become a Baha’i that is a reflection on their own spiritual station (and not a positive one!)

Is this a correct way to look at things, or an incorrect way to look at things?

On the other hand, I also know quite a few Catholics who do not view their own Faith as the exclusive and only path of truth - and some of them even post to CAF!

You could probably find some Catholics who believe that abortion is the moral thing to do–and some of them even post to CAF!

Not sure why you think the fact that there are Catholics who have divorced themselves from the faith is important to mention in this dialogue?

 

[Sochi]

PRmerger:
Love the gif! Thanks!

Of course we can hope for their salvation!

Wow. That is generous.

 

[PRmerger]

Wow. That is generous.

I don’t see it as generous.

It’s simply a fact.

 

[Matthew_Light]

One has to wonder why someone who cares about truth would reject a “position of religious dogmas”.

I don’t reject them completely. I just believe that dogmas must always be subservient to love, as Saint Paul wrote so eloquently. And that when dogmas lead to fear and division and conflict, those dogmas are either untrue, or understood incorrectly.

It ought to matter. What religion one belongs to ought to be of supreme import, if one is a seeker of Truth

I interpret the parable of the good Samaritan as a blunt rejection of the notion that religious membership is the touchstone of acceptability to God. Christ elaborates on this by saying calling Him “Lord, Lord” isn’t very important, while doing the will of the Father is paramount. And near-death experiencers given a life-review by Christ all relate that He doesn’t care much about our beliefs, but that how we view others and treat them is all-important.

Is this a correct way to look at things, or an incorrect way to look at things?

Judging people by their religious membership is a very popular way of looking at things, but not the highest and best way.

As Saint Paul wrote:

"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away childish things… " - 1 Cor 13:11

Again, this isn’t a matter of me being a Baha’i. Some Baha’is judge negatively those of other faiths or no faith, and some Catholics view those of other beliefs as following legitimate pathways to God.

Not sure why you think the fact that there are Catholics who have divorced themselves from the faith is important to mention in this dialogue?

That’s a pretty harsh judgment for someone to make against fellow Catholics, simply because they interpret their faith differently.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t reject them completely. I just believe that dogmas must always be subservient to love, as Saint Paul wrote so eloquently.

Heh. You do realize that you have just proposed a religious dogma here, yes?

And that when dogmas lead to fear and division and conflict, those dogmas are either untrue, or understood incorrectly.

And here is another religious dogma you have posited!

I interpret the parable of the good Samaritan as a blunt rejection of the notion that religious membership is the touchstone of acceptability to God

And yet another one!

One has to wonder why you get to espouse and proclaim religious dogmas, while objecting to Catholicism doing the same thing…

 

[PRmerger]

And near-death experiencers given a life-review by Christ all relate that He doesn’t care much about our beliefs, but that how we view others and treat them is all-important.

That is, frankly, ridiculous. Jesus doesn’t care much about our beliefs as long as we view others with high esteem?

That sounds like a belief to me.

Judging people by their religious membership is a very popular way of looking at things, but not the highest and best way.

Ah. So it is incorrect for a Bahai to judge negatively others of different faiths.

So you do hold a view that there is a correct way to look at other faiths. And that those who don’t have the same view as you are…incorrect.

That is the logical conclusion of what you have been proposing, Matthew.

That’s a pretty harsh judgment for someone to make against fellow Catholics, simply because they interpret their faith differently.

And yet you seem to be reserving for yourself the right to offer “pretty harsh judgment” on me for doing this, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

I think the above limns quite well that anyone who posts here believes that there is a correct view, and that there is an incorrect view.

And anyone who posts comments here in the vein of “This is what we ought to do as Believers” and “This is how we ought to act as believers” and “This is what we ought to believe as Believers” is, indeed, professing religious dogma.

So it seems a little hypocritical to object to Catholicism believing that certain beliefs/views/practices are correct…and to object to Catholicism proclaiming dogmas, while reserving for himself the right to do this at will.

 

[marywarfield]

I don’t reject them completely. I just believe that dogmas must always be subservient to love, as Saint Paul wrote so eloquently. And that when dogmas lead to fear and division and conflict, those dogmas are either untrue, or understood incorrectly.

I interpret the parable of the good Samaritan as a blunt rejection of the notion that religious membership is the touchstone of acceptability to God. Christ elaborates on this by saying calling Him “Lord, Lord” isn’t very important, while doing the will of the Father is paramount. And near-death experiencers given a life-review by Christ all relate that He doesn’t care much about our beliefs, but that how we view others and treat them is all-important.

Judging people by their religious membership is a very popular way of looking at things, but not the highest and best way.

As Saint Paul wrote:

"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away childish things… " - 1 Cor 13:11

Again, this isn’t a matter of me being a Baha’i. Some Baha’is judge negatively those of other faiths or no faith, and some Catholics view those of other beliefs as following legitimate pathways to God.

That’s a pretty harsh judgment for someone to make against fellow Catholics, simply because they interpret their faith differently.

Your view of Catholicism is: very secular, very PC, very
in line with the L.A. Times but it seems to lack any
grasp of what the Church is actually.

 

[HelenRose]

For the non-Christians contributing to this thread: I assume you have read the New Testament and reject Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. As I understand it your destiny is one of eternal punishment: vessels of God’s judgement.

I feel sorry for you because I am grateful to God. But you have chosen your path.

I feel grateful that God has shown me such mercy because I could have resisted grace as you non-Christians have and presumably will until the very end of your lives. I know that works won’t save you but Faith alone will. And of course from Faith is Love and Love springs Hope and Works. I should also more sincerely realize that the word Eucharist means thanksgiving.

Sometimes I wonder about the anonymity of the internet. It is really my hope that this miserable post is not written by a Catholic but by someone posing as a Catholic.

As a Catholic, I find this a rather miserable way to show forth God’s love.

 

[Sochi]

Sometimes I wonder about the anonymity of the internet. It is really my hope that this miserable post is not written by a Catholic but by someone posing as a Catholic.

As a Catholic, I find this a rather miserable way to show forth God’s love.

Thank you, HelenRose

 

[Matthew_Light]

That is, frankly, ridiculous. Jesus doesn’t care much about our beliefs as long as we view others with high esteem?

I find near-death experiences as a whole very credible, faith-affirming, not ridiculous.

And yet you seem to be reserving for yourself the right to offer “pretty harsh judgment” on me for doing this, yes?

No, I don’t think for a second that you are a heretic outside the religion of God, like you called those Catholics you disagree with. I think you are a sincere believer.

 

[Matthew_Light]

Your view of Catholicism is: very secular, very PC, very
in line with the L.A. Times…

You seem like a sincere soul who cares very much about Christ, Mary.

God bless

 

[marywarfield]

I find near-death experiences as a whole very credible, faith-affirming, not ridiculous.

No, I don’t think for a second that you are a heretic outside the religion of God, like you called those Catholics you disagree with. I think you are a sincere believer.

I find near death experiences very affirming also.

But I find his objection to your statement on esteem
more correct. Simply because I can’t quite view
Heaven as a Transactional Analysis seminar with Christ as Erik Fromm
teaching everyone I’m ok, you are ok.
And that is how it comes across.

About as odd ball as "Love means never having to
say your sorry. "

1960 and 70’s bumpers tickers.