Outside the Church there is no salvation

[tqualey]

Hi, Golfjack,

If this response of yours is your idea of ‘burst’ James’ bubble… you have a loooooooong way to go! From my assessment, James’s bubble is stronger then anything known to man - it is the Chruch of Christ (and…that would be the Catholic Church)

Religious hoops are what Catholics call the seven sacraments, being good exterrnally, and so forth.

James, I think your problem is that Jesus doesn’t believe what you do. It is up to you by using God’s Word that Jesus believed in things like praying a rosary.

I am sorry to burst your bubble, but I thought you guys believed in the truth of the Word. One more thing that bothers me is this belief that one has to be a Catholic to be saved. At least PJM has pretty much the answer. Peace, Golfjack

Really, all you have done is make assertions, evade direct questions and just tell everyone you are doing great. For example, your derogatory statement about jumping through ‘hoops’ - and these would be Sacraments - is really out of line for this list. Chances are there are other lists that would enjoy hearing how you have ‘broken free’ of these ‘hoops’ but, they are probably the ones who don’t believe the Bible’s statement that:

1.) Baptism is necessary (John 3:5)
2.) Confirmation - receipt of the Holy Spirit by laying on hands (Acts 8:17)
3.) Eucharist - eating the actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ (John 6:55)
4.) Confession - forgiveness of sin by God through consecrated men (John 20:22)
5.) Marriage - a figure of the union of Christ with the Chruch (Gal 5:18)
6.) Holy Orders - to offer the Sacrifice and the Sacraments (Luke22:19, Matt 28:18, John 20:20-23)
7.) Anointing of the Sick - to pray over those who are sick or in danger of death (Mark 6:13)

A really good source of information on the Sacraments - from the people entrusted by God to provide God’s Truth through accurate teaching - The Catholic Church - is newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm. I think you will find this not only logically consistent, but flows directly from the Bible (that you got from the Catholic Church) and Apostolic Tradition.

Like a Good Mother, the Catholic Chruch takes us through all stages of our life. With Baptism, we are permanently marked with the Seal of Christ - identifying to all for all eternity that we are a Child of God. Remember this in your rants about ‘hoops’ - this one was done for you, I’m sure.

Just a suggestion… you may want to re-read James’ post to you. There is a lot of good material in there. And, oh, by the way, do answer Matarel, she, too, has provide some excellent insights that you truly should not ignore. Me? Well… when you get around to it is just fine…

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Matariel,

Nice response

Sacraments were of divine institution, they’re not “religious hoops” and it’s wrong to trivialise them. As for good works, St. James says, like we do, that “faith without works is dead”. The rosary didn’t exist until much later. It’s a devotional practice, not a doctrine, I fail to see what this has to do with our discussion. The Bible you have was compiled, codified, and canonised by the Catholic Church (in the Synod of Carthage, Council of Rome, and and finally in the Council of Trent). The doctrine of the Trinity which you belief (I assume) was affirmed in the Catholic Church’s Council of Nicea. I could go on, but you get the point.The Catholic Church is God’s Church on Earth, but people who are in ignorance outside of the visible structure of the Catholic Church are only held accountable for what they know. It is possible for people to be saved outside of the visible Catholic Church, but only through the graces and truths which come from the Catholic Church. In this sense, only Catholics can be saved.

God bless,

 

[lookaround]

This may fail to distinguish between personal awareness and psychological certainty. One may indeed possess a personal awareness (“knowledge”) that the Catholic Church is the true faith. However, at the same time, he may lack the psychological certainly (the internal conviction) that this is so in fact.

An analogous situation would be the difference between logical “proof” and psychological “proof” in apologetics. This is why the apologist can present an air-tight logical case for a particular point of Christian truth, and his opponent may nevertheless remain psychologically unconvinced.

Likewise with the scenario under discussion. One may personally “know” (be objectively aware) that Catholicism is true, and yet remain (through his own fault, perhaps) psychologically uncertain (subjectively unconvinced).

In other words, he willfully refuses to take what he knows to heart. Faith, after all, is an act of the will.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

This makes a lot of sense. Except for this:
In other words, he willfully refuses to take what he knows to heart. Faith, after all, is an act of the will.

Every Priest I know has told me faith is a gift from God.

 

[lookaround]

No other group can claim Christ as their Founder

Can the Orthodox?

 

[Pookie_Dupre]

Going back to the first post, about souls leaving the Church and salvation through the Body of Christ on earth “The Church”!

Maybe if one gave it this truth … it would be best understood … All 'christian" assemblies are under the “umbrella” of the Catholic Bishop in any given diocese! That is why we accept “one” Baptism … all Baptisms are preformed under the “umbrella” of the Church because they are preformed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit … for the express purpose of initiation into the family of God. No matter which congregation the baptism took place … it is understood and accepted by the Church. Also that is why marriage at other churches are accepted by the Church. Matrimony is the only Sacrament preformed by the recipient … the clergy is the witness … so vows taken at any congregation under the “umbrella” of a Catholic Bishop is a vow taken and blessed. This gives you the understanding of how the “Catholic” Church teaches that all Christian Churches fall under the “umbrella” of the One and Only Church established by Jesus Christ!! EVEN SPECIFIC CONGREGATIONS WHO PERSECUTE ‘CATHOLICS’ are under the protection of the “Mystical Body of Christ”!

So even our brothers and sisters who walk away … have HIS blessing and may return or enter on their death beds … or at the moment of death and Jesus beckons and they follow … that is why The Roman Catholic Church does not EVER condemn any soul to damnation and we pray for everyone … and witness to all men.

And scripture tells us there are those who who walk away and refuse to follow the proper dictates of God’s laws … and those are the “lost” souls! For them there is no salvation outside of The Church! Even should you walk away from the “Catholic” Church … into another “christian” church (it is like leaving home but remaining in the family) in ignorance of what you are doing and can always reconcile … however, if done, under false pretense and willful stubbornness in refusing to abide in authority to HIS true Church … may heaven help you! But, only God, may judge the heart of any man or woman!!

Respectfully, Pookie

 

[Rustyxcv]

(Edited)

I just have to say something, There is salvation out side the Catholic church and i know there are people who wont agree but I realy could care less. the truth is God is everywhere and he lives in people’s hearts not in a building. And that is how I realy feel. Love of Christ Nancy Now I feel like a real Christian.

Nancy, Nancy, Nancy,
I love your posts and your godly and cheerful optimism. But . . . be careful of talking apples and oranges here. Please, realize that the Catholic Church deals with these questions most seriously and on the highest and most careful levels of philosophy, theology, and scriptural analysis and not (forgive me) at the level of a Hallmark greeting card.
OF COURSE, one does NOT have to go inside a Catholic Church BUILDING to be saved. However, God DOES reside in a completely real way inside Catholic Church buildings, in person, in the flesh! One of the many heresies of Protestantism is what I call “spirit-ism” – I forget the official name of it. That God is ONLY spiritual, and ONLY works in spiritual ways, and only requires a “spiritual” obedience or a fond emotional disposition towards Him to fulfill His will. Not so!
The Protestants who favor this approach, though they may be saved and headed for heaven, are usually theologically “flabby” with regards to the Incarnation. Their Trinity tends to come up a bit short in the Son “corner.” Their Jesus tends to be more ghost-like than fully human.
I would like to invite you, Nancy (and anyone else following this string) to come visit Our Lord, in person, in the flesh, in a Catholic Church building. It does require the eyes of faith to see Him, so be sure to ask one of the humble Catholics there to point Him out to you. (You needn’t go during mass. Ask a good Catholic friend to take you for prayer before the Tabernacle or before the monstrance at Expostion – even better!).
God’s blessings and peace to all! – Rusty
PS – Those “outside” the formal structures of the Roman Catholic Church who are saved are nonetheless, unbeknownst to them, members of Her – our many brothers and sisters in the Eastern Orthodox communions, for example.

 

[f_Paul_Francis]

M

In reading the varying posts on this subject, I am struck by how much is merely opinion, or personal interpretation of the new Catechism, and lack of reliance on the defined teaching of the Church.

With respect to people’s “not knowing” what is the true Church we need to keep in mind two concurrent mysteries:

1. it is not possible for us to judge with certitude what is the dosage/time schedule of, or perseverence of any soul, including our own in the graces, both actual and sanctifying, God sends us. That sinners reject truth comes as no surprise to anyone who has made a sincere confession.
2. What we do know, however, is that everyone is given this opportunity at some point: the last Gospel tells us explicitly, “He was the true Light Who enlightens every man coming into the world.”

So eventually, “ignorance” isn’t going to be a workable defence.

Moreover, there are, indeed, necessary means of salvation which can be had only in the Catholic Church. While some of them might be obtained through persons separated from the Church, the whole of them cannot be had outside Her. This is why there is no salvation outside the Church.

I suspect that some here would never have come across this expression and might be led to ask, “What are the necessary means of salvation,” so in anticipation, I offer the list as succinctly as I can:

1. Supernatural Faith - which is divine and Catholic. If one has but human faith, one lacks the spiritual “hemoglobin” which draws the “oxygen” of divine life into the soul. A great deal more could be said about this, but I did promise to attempt brevity.
2. Sanctifying grace - big difference between the kick in the pants from the Holy Spirit which moves us toward the necessary means and the divine indwelling which transforms us from being creatures of God into His adopted children.
3. Baptismal character - in addition to freeing us from the guilt of Original Sin and the punushments of eternal loss, the sacrament imparts a permanent seal which configures us to the priesthood of Christ. It is because of this seal that we have two of the priestly powers connected with the Holy Eucharist: of offering the divine Victim and of consuming Him in Holy Communion.
4. Physical union with the body of Christ - if you have ever lost a baptized baby sibling, you can yet look forward to his/her First Holy Communion. Their souls are in heaven, but for their bodies to be joined them on at the Judgment, they must still receive the seed of Resurrection as our Lord taught. He may be a man, but that wounded side will enable Jesus to nurse a lot of babies on the Last Day.
5. Prayer - without prayer, graces are withheld; without graces, we are in deep peril.
6. Works of Mercy - this isn’t a question of operating on a merely human level - as Paul might describe “the works of the Law” - rather of, living, suffering, in Christ so that everything in our life becomes a service to God and neighbor in a manner - because of the divine life in the soul making this possible - something worthy of Christ Himself.
7. Union with Peter - Apart from all the NT references about authority in the Church, this, too, was defined in 1302 by Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam.

Some posters have identified themselves as “young” - Since I didn’t get to read it until I was 30, I mention the solemn definition of Eugene IV in his document Cantate Dominum, which was included in the ecumenical council of Florence (1441). It’s a real eye-opener.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I want to say that merely recognizing Invincible Ignorance as a valid means to escape some or even all culpability DOES NOT IN AND OF ITSELF CONFER SUPERNATURAL GRACE. Invincible Ignorance is not some new fetish or new sacrament onto itself that will save anyone. To possibly gain heaven a human person MUST be:

1. Free of all serious guilt at death at the time the soul leaves the body.
2. The Soul must also be elevated from a natural soul to a supernatural soul through the spiritual reconfiguration of baptism (either by water, by desire or by blood/martyrdom).
3. The soul so elevated must also retain sanctifying grace and BE in a relationship with Christ both Incarnate (His Church) and the Trinity (God in His Three Persons).

A person who is in a condition of invincible ignorance however is NOT excused from the obligation and duty of the supernatural moral order that God writes an every soul. God is not mocked and God does not create that which is not capable of giving free assent to His Love. EVERY single soul ever created has the capacity to have its nature elevated through consent to God and His grace.

Thus NO ONE gets to heaven unless He has through cooperation with the Holy Spirit’s incessant pleading to ‘work out its salvation with fear and trembling’ to attain theosis - a condition where the natural soul is transformed into a supernatural divine-human soul that is of the character of Christ himself so that is may be received at the bosom of Jesus himself and joined forever through Him with the Father.

There is NO ignorance in heaven or any other thing deficient or defective.

James

 

[f_Paul_Francis]

M

(name removed by moderator) has described Pope Boniface VIII as “a real piece of work.” I do not doubt that any number of popes through history would rate to rank as an interesting clinical study.

However, the charism of infallibility does not depend on a pope’s psychological profile, but on the work of the Holy Spirit. To denegrate a successor of Peter without reference to what he taught, particularly when he rose to the height of Petrine authority to teach the universal Church is less than cautionary.

Having read the proffered article authored by Fr. Stravinkas, I would simply say that many of the things which he averred there are historically inaccurate. (name removed by moderator) would probably be unaware that Fr Feeney’s “reconciliation” so-called involved absolutely no change in his position, and further that the Holy See through the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did, in fact endorse his position when responding explicitly to an inquiry from the Worcester diocese in the late 1980’s/early 1990’s.

For those who wish to make of “ignorance” an excuse, James, a poster here, has done a fine job of pointing out the inconsistencies of that position, in particular the problem of defect owing to ommision by way of Bronson’s observation. I simply would add to his remarks that Jn 1:9 stands, no matter what (name removed by moderator) may happen to think or claim, or take his/her entertainment. I notice that despite “amusement,” no objection to the brief description of the necessary means was made.

Solemn, defined teaching enjoys pride of place in the statements of the Magisterium and any attempt to twist them is precisely the crime Piuses IX and X warned against. “Development” does not engender a mutation of truth.

Any one who denies some truth Christ has revealed and His Church proclaims has at best human faith in God, and as Piux XII reminded us explicitly in Mystici Corporis Christi, the Holy Spirit refuses to dwell in a soul steeped in heresy, schism or apostasy.

fpf

 

[CentralFLJames]

There are a number of things going on here that I think make ignorance not an excuse. The idea of treating one’s spouse as chattel - as if a wife’s pleasures could be horse-traded for personal gain is itself a failure to recognize the universal dignity of the human who is created in God’s image who made them both male and female - not to mention the failure to supernaturally recognize the potential for Christ in every person (a teaching). This would be a case of a sin against the natural moral order. Similar cultures like the Aztecs Canaanites etc. had similar disregard for the natural order (morally below animal level - human sacrifices etc.) and were rightly obliterated and lost in history. Yet other primitive cultures maintained some reasonable morality. I don’t know how to account for why some ancient cultures start off more moral than others and how some get going down a definate bad path and others remain closer to civility. But even among the American Indians there was a lot of “spiritualism” in their lives - they knew there was one “Great Spirit” and tried to connect to Him in their primitive way. Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha is one inspirational N. American Indian who was among the first to be recognized by the Church - but she responded to the grace she saw in French Missionaries and almost got murdered by her savage family (an uncle) for converting to Christianity. I have often wondered if the contempt for Christianity by some peoples is a function of Xenophobia for foreign ideas and cultures or a true evil vs good contest.

I note that in the modern West it is very very common for corporate CEO’s and “big-wigs” to have “trophy wives” or mistresses at their arms to impress their fellow peers and advance themselves socially. And lets not forget that most of Europe was organized around marriages of conveniences between Kings giving their daughters or relatives to foreign rulers in marriage almost as chattel as a means to bond the kingdoms into a commonwealth and alliance. At what point is it morally wrong vs. expedient to advancing society to get to a point where is has enough civility and peace to gain higher ordered morality?

I guess I don’t know how to answer your questions.

James

 

[Donald45]

This makes a lot of sense. Except for this:
In other words, he willfully refuses to take what he knows to heart. Faith, after all, is an act of the will. Every Priest I know has told me faith is a gift from God.

In a sense, that’s certainly true. It’s only by God’s grace that we can have the will to do what we ought (Phil. 2:12-13). And yet, we must still make a free choice to act according to that enabling grace (since it is not coersive) in doing what pleases God. This is what renders some who reject or leave the Church “without excuse,” since they have been extended this gift of grace, and yet refuse to act in accordance with it.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[lookaround]

In a sense, that’s certainly true. It’s only by God’s grace that we can have the will to do what we ought (Phil. 2:12-13). And yet, we must still make a free choice to act according to that enabling grace (since it is not coersive) in doing what pleases God. This is what renders some who reject or leave the Church “without excuse,” since they have been extended this gift of grace, and yet refuse to act in accordance with it.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

I would be interested in having a discussion on what “without excuse” means.
This once again is connected to the first post and along the lines of what I was thinking when I made this thread.

 

[lookaround]

In a sense, that’s certainly true. It’s only by God’s grace that we can have the will to do what we ought (Phil. 2:12-13). And yet, we must still make a free choice to act according to that enabling grace (since it is not coersive) in doing what pleases God. This is what renders some who reject or leave the Church “without excuse,” since they have been extended this gift of grace, and yet refuse to act in accordance with it.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

cont.
This also sound like you are describing Actual Grace and from what I understand Actual Grace is sent by God over, and over, and over, until we die or blaspheme the Holy Spirit.
ie. Leaving the Church is not blaspheming the Holy Spirit since (at the strictness of the strict) people do come back to the Church.

 

[Donald45]

I would be interested in having a discussion on what “without excuse” means.

The phrase has to do with personal culpability in moral matters. It stands in contrast to the Church’s oft-used phrase “through no fault of their own.” In short, it has to do with one’s willfull ignorance, denial, or rejection of divine truth, including (as per the discussion) the knowledge that the Catholic Church is Christ’s historic Church.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[lookaround]

The phrase has to do with personal culpability in moral matters. It stands in contrast to the Church’s oft-used phrase “through no fault of their own.” In short, it has to do with one’s willfull ignorance, denial, or rejection of divine truth, including (as per the discussion) the knowledge that the Catholic Church is Christ’s historic Church.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

So if I told a Calvinist, “the Catholic Church is Christ’s historic Church”. He would be without excuse?

 

[Donald45]

cont.
This also sound like you are describing Actual Grace and from what I understand Actual Grace is sent by God over, and over, and over, until we die or blaspheme the Holy Spirit…

Yes, this describes a rejection of actual grace. And as long as one willfully rejects this grace in a particular area (such as denying that the Catholic Church is Christ’s authoritative Church), he stands culpable before God for actual sin.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[lookaround]

Yes, this describes a rejection of actual grace. And as long as one willfully rejects this grace in a particular area (such as denying that the Catholic Church is Christ’s authoritative Church), he stands culpable before God for actual sin.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

Interesting
and whether or not it is mortal or venial would depend on if they believe that the Catholic Church is Christ’s authoritative Church.

 

[Donald45]

So if I told a Calvinist, “the Catholic Church is Christ’s historic Church”. He would be without excuse?

Not necessarily, though possibly. I discussed earlier the distinction between objective awareness and subjective conviction (Post #120). For example, when I was still a Calvinist, I was for years objectively aware that the Catholic Church considered itself to be the one true Church of Jesus Christ on earth. However, I remained subjectively unconvinced (uncertain) that this claim was in fact true. Later, after much study and prayer, I arrived at the subjective certainty (along with the objective awareness) that the Catholic Church is indeed Christ’s historic Church.

Now I had a decision to make. I could (a) choose to make whatever changes were necessary in myself and my life to comport with that truth of which I had come to be convinced, or (b) choose to deny and suppress that truth with self-serving justifications and an obstinate refusal to accept what I now knew to be true. (Obviously, by God’s grace, I chose the latter.)

Believe me, sticking with Calvinism would have been far more convenient and comfortable, especially regarding career opportunities and financial stability. But my choice was clear and unavoidable (at least for me).

I hope these brief comments have adequately addressed your question. God bless.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[Donald45]

Interesting, and whether or not it is mortal or venial would depend on if they believe that the Catholic Church is Christ’s authoritative Church.

It would depend on whether they possessed the subjective convinction that the Catholic Church is Christ’s Church. If, in this sense, they “knew” that Catholicism were true, then, like me, they’d have a vital decision to make. What they chose to do with that knowledge would determine their personal culpability before God.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[lookaround]

Not necessarily, though possibly. I discussed earlier the distinction between objective awareness and subjective conviction (Post #120). For example, when I was still a Calvinist, I was for years objectively aware that the Catholic Church considered itself to be the one true Church of Jesus Christ on earth. However, I remained subjectively unconvinced (uncertain) that this claim was in fact true. Later, after much study and prayer, I arrived at the subjective certainty (along with the objective awareness) that the Catholic Church is indeed Christ’s historic Church.

Now I had a decision to make. I could (a) choose to make whatever changes were necessary in myself and my life to comport with that truth of which I had come to be convinced, or (b) choose to deny and suppress that truth with self-serving justifications and an obstinate refusal to accept what I now knew to be true. (Obviously, by God’s grace, I chose the latter.)

Believe me, sticking with Calvinism would have been far more convenient and comfortable, especially regarding career opportunities and financial stability. But my choice was clear and unavoidable (at least for me).

I hope these brief comments have adequately addressed your question. God bless.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

Thank you. Yes, this does make a lot of sense and I am glad that you went where God told you.