Outside the Church there is no salvation

[Ludovicus]

I have a question I hope you dont mind but I didn’t want to open a thread for one question, this must have been asked before, Lets say a man or a woman contracts aids and they are married and young, lets say he or she got it by blood transfusion, so now there is no sin here. Can they use contraceptions to avoid the other mate from getting this terrible disease? That was a good question, got an answer? Thank You Nancy

The answer to this is no, they could not use contraceptions for such a purpose. The marital act of its very nature must be open to procreation; if this openness is violated, than the act becomes disordered.

On a practical note, the evidence shows that even if they were to use condoms, this would not seriously diminish the probability of the partner getting aids. thesop.org/index.php?article=11165

God bless,

 

[MacGregor1991]

In answer to the first question: There is no way of knowing with certainty whether or not that person is sinning in turning away from the Catholic Church. It may be extremely probable in that case, given the nature of Buddhism, but nevertheless it could not be known with certainty. That would not be something that we would be judging; our only concern would be to try and inform that person of his errors, and show him what he is missing about Catholicism.

Why would it be more probable in case of Buddhism? As far as i understood converting to another religion for selfish purposes (for example because it allows things the roman cath. church doesnt allow) is a sin, but what if someone by heart believes another religion is to be the true one. (i must admit the concept of karma does sound fairer then eternal damnation) So is there any official scripture saying in which cases salvation for converts is more likely then in others? (I am especially refering to non-abrahamistic ones like all those far eastern and pagan/neopaganistic ones)

And what happens to those people who hear about the catholic faith and its view on certain things but stay with they religion they have choosen previously due to them, while admitting that we have some good points, not thinking that roman catholicism is the true religion (due to the scriptuer/arguments of their religion)?

 

[Ludovicus]

Why would it be more probable in case of Buddhism? As far as i understood converting to another religion for selfish purposes (for example because it allows things the roman cath. church doesnt allow) is a sin, but what if someone by heart believes another religion is to be the true one. (i must admit the concept of karma does sound fairer then eternal damnation) So is there any official scripture saying in which cases salvation for converts is more likely then in others? (I am especially refering to non-abrahamistic ones like all those far eastern and pagan/neopaganistic ones)

Because some religions have more or less truth in them. For example, a religion which teaches us that we should murder our neighbors, steal from them, and promote self above all else is discernibly false from one’s own natural inclinations. Most people realize that it is wrong to kill ones neighbor, and they don’t need advanced studies to know that.

Obviously one could say generally that non-Catholic religions that remain Christian have more of the helps for salvation in them, and thus it would be more probable that one could be saved in them. (Cf. Lumen Gentium 14-16) Once you get to the realm of non-Christians, however, the question becomes more complicated. The principal question would probably be how allied their religion is to the natural law. Does it promote justice, and a seeking after truth?

In any case, the question in a certain way is irrelevant, at least with respect to our duties as Catholics. Regardless of what religion they are in, we pray for them, and try and bring them to the truth. If God wills to save them where they are, that is up to Him. For our part, we have to try and bring them to the truth.

And what happens to those people who hear about the catholic faith and its view on certain things but stay with they religion they have choosen previously due to them, while admitting that we have some good points, not thinking that roman catholicism is the true religion (due to the scriptuer/arguments of their religion)?

God knows. Maybe they are at fault, maybe not. Maybe they will sincerely seek the truth and love God in their religion, maybe not. We are not the arbiters of this kind of thing. Our duty is to evangelize, to bring all peoples to the Catholic faith, where they may find the fullness of what they seek.

God bless,

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

The answer to this is no, they could not use contraceptions for such a purpose. The marital act of its very nature must be open to procreation; if this openness is violated, than the act becomes disordered.

On a practical note, the evidence shows that even if they were to use condoms, this would not seriously diminish the probability of the partner getting aids. thesop.org/index.php?article=11165

God bless,

YO! you can’t use condoms? But you can have sex and give your partner the death sentence? You are a murderer, are you not? So your asking 2 people maybe in their 20’s to sustain from relations and stay married and, WOW this is insain. your life ends before it begins. Might as well have sex and die happy right? And they say hell is not on earth? Nancy

 

[John_one_one]

YO! you can’t use condoms? But you can have sex and give your partner the death sentence? You are a murderer, are you not? So your asking 2 people maybe in their 20’s to sustain from relations and stay married and, WOW this is insain. your life ends before it begins. Might as well have sex and die happy right? And they say hell is not on earth? Nancy

I have to agree this is an example of not keeping the Spirit of the law to keep traditions of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices–mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law–justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

 

[Ludovicus]

YO! you can’t use condoms? But you can have sex and give your partner the death sentence? You are a murderer, are you not?

If you look at my post, you will see that I make no assertions about this matter. Thus, please refrain from making false implications about what I said.

So your asking 2 people maybe in their 20’s to sustain from relations and stay married and, WOW this is insain. your life ends before it begins. Might as well have sex and die happy right? And they say hell is not on earth? Nancy

I suppose it is true that for those people who believe that happiness consists in having sex, it would be a kind of hell on earth. For those people who put their entire happiness in God, I don’t think it would be quite on the same level with hell.

Of course, it would be a hard situation, I do not deny that. Nevertheless, God gives the grace to manage. If the partners felt that they could not restrain themselves, the Church would probably allow them to live apart from one another.

God bless,

 

[buffalo]

Luke: Please justify your terms. Does the Church actually teach that people refusing to seek the truth cannot be saved? I think at least some (if not more) people just can’t be bothered. Their lives are complicated enough already. Therefore, what does the Church actually teach?

If you find yourself in heaven it will have been through the Catholic Church which Jesus founded for that very reason.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

I have to agree this is an example of not keeping the Spirit of the law to keep traditions of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices–mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law–justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

Welcome John, the commandment is that you love one an other as i have loved you. That when you are maried the 2 bacome one flesh and the wife does not own her body and the husband does not own his own body and so John we would die toghther because of a blood transfusion. GEE, It’s been an unusual night,very sad.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Buffalo, you stated if they go to heaven it would be because of the catholic church right? Well the protestants use the bible the church wrote so that means they will go to heaven to. that is a good thought gee you made my night. thank you Nancy

 

[CentralFLJames]

I have a question I hope you dont mind but I didn’t want to open a thread for one question, this must have been asked before, Lets say a man or a woman contracts aids and they are married and young, lets say he or she got it by blood transfusion, so now there is no sin here. Can they use contraceptions to avoid the other mate from getting this terrible disease? That was a good question, got an answer? Thank You Nancy

Let’s modify it a step further. What if one partner got an infectious non-sexual disease like leprosy? Wouldn’t the normal expectation be to cloister one from the other to prevent infecting the other?

Why is intimacy always held sacrosanct as if it was a stable of life without which one can not live and relate to others?

Living as Christian brothers and sisters would be one way to prevent infecting the other and there are many other ways to give affection outside of intimate sex.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

look,
You mentioned that CCC teaches only Catholics are saved.
Question, do you have a scripture to provide from the Bible that teaches this?

Please read Rom.2:11
God loves all that he has called to Himself.
Not all of these believers are Catholics.

God bless,
jean

Do you have a scripture verse that says “please refer all questions to scripture?”

No?

If you want to read scripture then read the one that tells us “the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth” ( 1 Tim 3:15). So why go dig through 35,000 verses of scripture to find answers and risk misinterpreting the verses that Peter tells us can’t be privately interpreted when we can Go to the same Church that Christians have always gone to for 1,400 years before the Protestant sects even existed?

The Catholic Church is that very same original One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. As such the Catholic Church as the pillar and foundation of truth teaches us that God calls ALL people to himself through His Church.

*CCC 100
The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

CCC 760
Christians of the first centuries said, “The world was created for the sake of the Church.” 153 God created the world for the sake of communion with his divine life, a communion brought about by the “convocation” of men in Christ, and this “convocation” is the Church. The Church is the goal of all things, 154 and God permitted such painful upheavals as the angels’ fall and man’s sin only as occasions and means for displaying all the power of his arm and the whole measure of the love he wanted to give the world:

Just as God’s will is creation and is called “the world,” so **his intention is the salvation of men, and it is called “the Church.” **155

CCC 811
“This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” 256 These four characteristics, inseparably linked with each other, 257 indicate essential features of the Church and her mission. The Church does not possess them of herself; it is Christ who, through the Holy Spirit, makes his Church one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, and it is he who calls her to realize each of these qualities.

CCC 772
It is in the Church that Christ fulfills and reveals his own mystery as the purpose of God’s plan: “to unite all things in him.” 189 St. Paul calls the nuptial union of Christ and the Church “a great mystery.” Because she is united to Christ as to her bridegroom, she becomes a mystery in her turn. 190 Contemplating this mystery in her, Paul exclaims: “Christ in you, the hope of glory.” 191

CCC
**845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” **She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood. 334
==
**Incomplete Christianity Is Not Enough **
Over the last few decades many Catholics have left the Church, many dropping out of religion entirely, many joining other churches. But the traffic has not been in only one direction.

The traffic toward Rome has increased rapidly. Today we are seeing more than a hundred and fifty thousand converts enter the Catholic Church each year in the United States, and in some other places, like the continent of Africa, there are more than a million converts to the Catholic faith each year. People of no religion, lapsed or inactive Catholics, and members of other Christian churches are “coming home to Rome.”

They are attracted to the Church for a variety of reasons, but the chief reason they convert is the chief reason you should be Catholic: The solid truth of the Catholic faith.

Our separated brethren hold much Christian truth, but not all of it. We might compare their religion to a stained glass window in which some of the original panes were lost and have been replaced by opaque glass: Something that was present at the beginning is now gone, and something that does not fit has been inserted to fill up the empty space. The unity of the original window has been marred.

When, centuries ago, they split away from the Catholic Church, the theological ancestors of these Christians eliminated some authentic beliefs and added new ones of their own making. The forms of Christianity they established are really incomplete Christianity.

Only the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus, and only it has been able to preserve all Christian truth without any error—and great numbers of people are coming to see this.

More here: Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth

God Bless,
James

 

[anon5216]

…
For example, a religion which teaches us that we should murder our neighbors, steal from them, and promote self above all else is discernibly false from one’s own natural inclinations. Most people realize that it is wrong to kill ones neighbor, and they don’t need advanced studies to know that.
…

You mean like the OT where God allegedly told the Hebrews to murder the Canaanites - including all women and children - and take their possessions, all the while claiming they were specially chosen by ‘god’ above all other humans?

(Yes, I’m aware of the standard spin attempting to whitewash this).

The more straightforward interpretation is that the Hebrews were ungodly and either made up a religion to justify their actions, or actually genuinely worshipped a ‘god’ who supported this type of behavior.

 

[CentralFLJames]

You mean like the OT where God allegedly told the Hebrews to murder the Canaanites - including all women and children - and take their possessions, all the while claiming they were specially chosen by ‘god’ above all other humans?

(Yes, I’m aware of the standard spin attempting to whitewash this).

The more straightforward interpretation is that the Hebrews were ungodly and either made up a religion to justify their actions, or actually genuinely worshipped a ‘god’ who supported this type of behavior.

Would you have felt better about it if the utterly debased Canaanites who had devolved to a subhuman form of existence with human sacrifice and demonic worship and gross abandonment of natural moral law had been directly annihilated by hell fire rather than indirectly through the instrument of Israel?

Do you object to the fact that the Creator reserves for himself the supreme right to give and take life when and how He sees fit or are you just upset that you don’t get a vote in approving any of it?

The more straightforward read of your objections here is that you simply don’t trust God or believe He should have any say in his own Creation without consulting His creatures and developing a consensus or committee action. Did you come out of “Corporate America” by chance?

James

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Let’s modify it a step further. What if one partner got an infectious non-sexual disease like leprosy? Wouldn’t the normal expectation be to cloister one from the other to prevent infecting the other?

Why is intimacy always held sacrosanct as if it was a stable of life without which one can not live and relate to others?

Living as Christian brothers and sisters would be one way to prevent infecting the other and there are many other ways to give affection outside of intimate sex.

James

That is well spoken if you are an older person not sowing your oats, but if you are young you do not want to live as a priest after you are married, and you see each other every day and have feelings to be close and hug ETC Only an old person could feel like that, and you’d be surprized at some old people who like to be close and still have relations. Do not tell me it is a sin to want and desire your mate? That is un natural, and God did not make us to with hold from each other. Love makeing is a beautiful thing, and it does draw 2 people closer. What you are saying is good for people who no longer have an intrest in or the feelings for the blessings that our heavenly Father gve to us. Love of Christ Nancy

 

[CentralFLJames]

That is well spoken if you are an older person not sowing your oats, but if you are young you do not want to live as a priest after you are married, and you see each other every day and have feelings to be close and hug ETC Only an old person could feel like that, and you’d be surprized at some old people who like to be close and still have relations. Do not tell me it is a sin to want and desire your mate? That is un natural, and God did not make us to with hold from each other. Love makeing is a beautiful thing, and it does draw 2 people closer. What you are saying is good for people who no longer have an intrest in or the feelings for the blessings that our heavenly Father gve to us. Love of Christ Nancy

Remove the conditionals. What is old? Speaking personally I have as high a sex drive as I ever had as a teenager (which is quite high indeed). What changes is priorities and discipline and depth of relationship. Superficiality and self-gratification is not “intimacy” - that is not much different than mutual masturbation if there is not passion, and relational energy in the union. I know the difference and in this day and age where women are as robust and demanding in that department as the men ever where – frankly, its rather simple these days for a man to find a woman (or vise versa) at most any age who will have recreational sex for just “the recreational thrill of it”. Bbeen there done that - repented - and not interested in that shallowness and superficiality thank-you.

Prayer works literally miracles and can cause a person to not only develop self-discipline but to also draw on other avenues of bonding where intimacy is more reserved and special (and becomes more intense in desire frankly by self denial) relative to “having fun” in non sexual ways. Relating to each other through deeper spiritual-emotional and shared interests can be very intense and is really much more pleasing longer term. The truth is IT ALL GETS MUCH BETTER with age when one gets past the superficiality of a simple “hormone fix” who’s high is forgotten an hour or so later but one actually knows the other’s true inner passions and feelings. Afterall, most of us humans want to feel special and unique and have a deeper connection than what “anyone” could easily substitute by mechanical devices (BTW a modern phenomena that goes on a lot in today’s secular “feel good” world) or causal relationships. There is always that “sick feeling” of being used or using somone else in those shallow one-nighters.

But I digress…

So, “hooey” on the comment that only an “old person” could enter into a reserved non-intimate relationship - have you forgotten that ALL Catholics are called to be chaste during single life and many these days do not marry till well into their mid 30’s and 40’s just to “get ahead” in a career? Even within marriage we are called to be “Chaste” and not abuse the marital embrace for selfish pleasure anyway. There are some couples who later in life do discover that they are called to a more consecrated life and agree to life as brother’s and sisters. As well there are some who are in illicit marriages due to lack of knowledge about the church not approving secular-marriage and remarriages and who later find out that they are living in an improper and marriage the church does not recognize. These MUST, irrespective of age and ability, then live as brothers and sisters or seperate from each other to avoid grave sin until prior divorced spouses pass away or the Church can grant a nullity of prior marriage (assuming a legitimate reason).

BTW I did not say it was a sin to desire and want one’s mate (if it is a licit marriage). But don’t think for a moment that one can not commit the grave sin of lust even within the marriage. If one is seeing their mate as a sex-toy and not respecting them in their personal dignity one is probably sinning gravely or has a disordered relationship anyway.

What I am saying has nothing to do with not loving and wanting the other person. I am addressing YOUR rare case where one of the married individuals develops an ultra-rare case of post-marital HIV through no fault of their own (unheard of now days in a loyal marriage with blood testing standards BTW) . This would make intimacy NOT an act of love but an act of Russian Roulette and putting God to the test or else suicidal.

Why is it that liberal minds must seek the .1% extreme cases to redefine the norms for everyone??? See it for what it is - an attempt to rationalize away morality and use the exceptional case to set the precedence for the general case that they want to get an exception to. NO - condoms and contraceptives are illicit no matter how you try to circumvent and game the teachings to serve your own interests.

Sorry - NO.

James

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Boy Central, sex sure gets you riled up. Did i hit a nerve? Perhaps you should read 1st Corinthians chapter 7 All of it! Thank You Nancy

 

[Des]

Welcome John, the commandment is that you love one an other as i have loved you. That when you are married the 2 become one flesh and the wife does not own her body and the husband does not own his own body and so John we would die together because of a blood transfusion. GEE, It’s been an unusual night,very sad.

Hmm, so you would risk the life of your husband and use a condom just to have sexual intimacies with him? That drive is so powerful you couldn’t refrain from making love to him if you had aids and could possibly transfer it to him? If your husband couldn’t have sex anymore, you’d look elsewhere or get a divorce because it’s too powerful a drive to control for the greater good?

The correct thing to do it seems is to not have sex at all of course and not risk a death sentence on your husband or wife.

Boy Central, sex sure gets you riled up. Did i hit a nerve? Perhaps you should read 1st Corinthians chapter 7 All of it! Thank You Nancy

CF did a fine job of explaining things Nancy. It seems it’s just not what you want to hear.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Hmm, so you would risk the life of your husband and use a condom just to have sexual intimacies with him? That drive is so powerful you couldn’t refrain from making love to him if you had aids and could possibly transfer it to him? If your husband couldn’t have sex anymore, you’d look elsewhere or get a divorce because it’s too powerful a drive to control for the greater good? You will say anything to make your point

The correct thing to do it seems is to not have sex at all of course and not risk a death sentence on your husband or wife.You are right there but, why should both of them suffer? Are you that noble to stay in a cave with your husband or wife and die with them if you could find a way out for yourself? Would that be taking you own life?

CF did a fine job of explaining things Nancy. It seems it’s just not what you want to hear.

you cannot explain something God did not put in his book. I do not listen to much to man. I have found them to be wrong alot.Why did Paul say if you are going to burn then you should get married? Now i ask why should you get married to burn?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Boy Central, sex sure gets you riled up. Did i hit a nerve? Perhaps you should read 1st Corinthians chapter 7 All of it! Thank You Nancy

Nancy - sex discussion riles me up? Really? There was not even a single exclamation mark in my post. Don’t equate “going the distance” with a lot of verbiage and lots of deliberate thought on the topic as emotional. Now, what does rile me up are liberal attitudes that always want to make special exceptions for themselves and cross-link unrelated topics to bend things their way.

Read 1 Cor 7?

You mean this part?
*
Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. *

Or this part?
The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.

But notice that this is NOT a commandment - it is a suggestion ( ‘But this I say by way of concession, not of command.’) just as this part is:

**But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.

But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. **

Perhaps you should take my serious reply and the time I took to say what I said seriously and give me the courtesy of a rebuttal if you do not agree with it rather than trying to duck and run…

James

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Nancy - sex discussion riles me up? Really? There was not even a single exclamation mark in my post. Don’t equate “going the distance” with a lot of verbiage and lots of deliberate thought on the topic as emotional. Now, what does rile me up are liberal attitudes that always want to make special exceptions for themselves and cross-link unrelated topics to bend things their way.

Read 1 Cor 7?

You mean this part?
*
Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. * Only if your Gay!

Or this part?
The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.

But notice that this is NOT a commandment - it is a suggestion ( ‘But this I say by way of concession, not of command.’) just as this part is:God said in genisis"Be plentyful and multiply and subdue the earth"

**But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. Paul was short, fat and Bald.

But if they do not have self-control**, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. Why would you need self control for each other? Love is fun and healthy for you. What’s up with you?

Perhaps you should take my serious reply and the time I took to say what I said seriously and give me the courtesy of a rebuttal if you do not agree with it rather than trying to duck and run… That would be a cold day in hell that I would run.

James

Nancy