J
jean8
Guest
They would? Are you judging others again.
“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone…”
Do you know who said this?
jean
- Status
“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone…”
Do you know who said this?
jean
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Lookaround,
Good point…
God bless,
Good point…
The best that I can say is that as a result of the Eastern Schism, the Orthodox decided to leave the Founder’s (Christ) arrangement.
God bless,
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Lookaround,
You are so right - Faith is a gift!
We are free to choose - and this is ultimately how God shows His Love for His creatures. Christ suffered and died for each of us - but, each of us must ACCEPT Christ and then follow His commands. None of this just happens. God freely provides the Grace and we freely choose His Love by accepting our responsibility to follow Christ.
God bless
You are so right - Faith is a gift!
The issue, however, is our ACCEPTANCE of this gift from God - and that is an act of the will. The Grace of God can be refused, rejected and despised - and God will not force anyone to violate their Free Will…
We are free to choose - and this is ultimately how God shows His Love for His creatures. Christ suffered and died for each of us - but, each of us must ACCEPT Christ and then follow His commands. None of this just happens. God freely provides the Grace and we freely choose His Love by accepting our responsibility to follow Christ.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Pookie,
Welcome to the list! This was a nice post … enjoyed reading it.
God bless
Welcome to the list!
This was a nice post … enjoyed reading it. God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Donald45,
Like Lookaround, I, too, am glad you went where God told you to go. We have all been enriched by your experience and commitment to follow Christ.
God bless
Like Lookaround, I, too, am glad you went where God told you to go. We have all been enriched by your experience and commitment to follow Christ.
God bless
P
PJM
Guest
Let me see if I understand your logic
You gave up God and are settling for the Word of God?
You gave up the ONLY Translator of God Word, so you could do it yourself
You gave up Jesus the Christ in Person (Eucharist} for the Spirit of God
You gave up Known forgiveness of sin; I guess in your hope that God woun’t notice
Jack my friend what’s the problem with this analysis?
P
PJM
Guest
***Very well done! Thank you!
I spend about four hours today digging and culling nearly 15 pages of evidence that is current, valid and licit, including your V II quote, in support of this position.
Again thank you!***
I spend about four hours today digging and culling nearly 15 pages of evidence that is current, valid and licit, including your V II quote, in support of this position.
Again thank you!***
D
Detales
Guest
Logic: If A=B and B=C. then C=A, right?
If A = Protestantism and C = Catholicism, and B = Beleif (Adult "let’s pretend, interpret, behave as if, etc,), then A=C. So both being beliefs, nothing is gained or lost as only one belief was exchaged fo another. Argue what you will about A being better or whatever than C, your argument is, in the end, a belief.
By the same token, if C remains Catholicism, and A = Atheism, Then A=C as both are beliefs, equally useful in the face of Reality. Reality is at right angles to the field in which you argue beleifs.
Not so?
If A = Protestantism and C = Catholicism, and B = Beleif (Adult "let’s pretend, interpret, behave as if, etc,), then A=C. So both being beliefs, nothing is gained or lost as only one belief was exchaged fo another. Argue what you will about A being better or whatever than C, your argument is, in the end, a belief.
By the same token, if C remains Catholicism, and A = Atheism, Then A=C as both are beliefs, equally useful in the face of Reality. Reality is at right angles to the field in which you argue beleifs.
Not so?
D
davidv
Guest
Not so.
Neither A=B nor C=B can be shown to be true, because the B is not the same for A as it is for C.
L
lookaround
Guest
I think instead of ‘belief’ ‘Christian’ can be substituted.
S
steve_b
Guest
scripture says the same thing
Paul says
to the Church of Rome
Rm 15:
17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.
Okay, looks and sounds bad, but one might ask, what are the consequences for those who divide?
Gal 5:
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God
D
Detales
Guest
Davidd,
“Neither A=B nor C=B can be shown to be true, because the B is not the same for A as it is for C.”
If you stood in Grand Central Station with a form that had a space on it for “faith” you would certainly get many answers, from Azura-Mazdahist to Zen Buddhist. But at the end, you would notice that they all put thier faiths names, regardless of obvious differences, in to the same box marked “faith.”
Here are four entries frm a dictionary under “faith:”
So, again, in that all religons are faiths, they are equal to each other, Atheism, Republicanism, Marxism, etc, may still fit this catagory, or a broader one called “belief.”
So, even if we go a step lower to the catagory of “beleif,” the eqation still holds. It is only when we say "Let us look at the contents of the class called “faith” that we can start applying distinctions within the class. No matter what we find in there, it will bear the tag “faith.” And solely in that aspect are all members of tha class equal.
I feel that all religionists, Catholics included, make a grave and potentially deadly error by failing to distinguish at their gut level between faith and knowledge. For instance, people believe that the words of the Bible in English are accurate, but we know that camel, eg, could be “rope.” Likewise, some believe that Elijah was fed by ravens in the desert, but we know that that word could as easily and more likely be “Arabs” or the people of nearby “Oreb.” Almost everyone believes that statements of Jesus attributed to Him in the Bible are originally His. Yet it can be shown that about half may have come from other sources or are quotes. So we know that some of those statements may not be His. Is He any less the Son of God therefore? No.
So, given that kind of discrepancy beteween belief and knowldege, we also know that there are other schools of thought, especially experiential ones, that fit what might be the actual meaning of the words and import of Jesus’ teachings. This is especially a posibility since we have Mark 4:33, 34, if we believe it. We therefore know that what the Church claims them Jesus’ teaching to be may be at variance with what they might in fact be.
However, because people of the christianist religions who are pious and convinced of their rightness substitute the idea of knowing for the idea of faith or belief, they cannot adopt the impersonal stance needed to verify or discard certain aspects of their particular churches teachings. Catholics are necessarily included in this set.
So, again, it is necessary to examine the origins and contexts of the ideas inherent in “no salvation outside the Church” from a perspective that allows the Curch itself to be critically studied, particularly in terms of origin, with or without Jesus as founder or not founder of it.
Neither God nor Jesus will be damaged or even effected by such a sincere inquiry. In fact, they may be found. Then, salvation in or out of anything will cease to be a question as it will be seen to not apply. Vamos a ver. (Let’s go see)
“Neither A=B nor C=B can be shown to be true, because the B is not the same for A as it is for C.”
If you stood in Grand Central Station with a form that had a space on it for “faith” you would certainly get many answers, from Azura-Mazdahist to Zen Buddhist. But at the end, you would notice that they all put thier faiths names, regardless of obvious differences, in to the same box marked “faith.”
Here are four entries frm a dictionary under “faith:”
- belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.COLOR] (note it wasn’t, yet, if at all.)
- belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings (not knowledge) of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
- belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
- a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith."
So, again, in that all religons are faiths, they are equal to each other, Atheism, Republicanism, Marxism, etc, may still fit this catagory, or a broader one called “belief.”
So, even if we go a step lower to the catagory of “beleif,” the eqation still holds. It is only when we say "Let us look at the contents of the class called “faith” that we can start applying distinctions within the class. No matter what we find in there, it will bear the tag “faith.” And solely in that aspect are all members of tha class equal.
I feel that all religionists, Catholics included, make a grave and potentially deadly error by failing to distinguish at their gut level between faith and knowledge. For instance, people believe that the words of the Bible in English are accurate, but we know that camel, eg, could be “rope.” Likewise, some believe that Elijah was fed by ravens in the desert, but we know that that word could as easily and more likely be “Arabs” or the people of nearby “Oreb.” Almost everyone believes that statements of Jesus attributed to Him in the Bible are originally His. Yet it can be shown that about half may have come from other sources or are quotes. So we know that some of those statements may not be His. Is He any less the Son of God therefore? No.
So, given that kind of discrepancy beteween belief and knowldege, we also know that there are other schools of thought, especially experiential ones, that fit what might be the actual meaning of the words and import of Jesus’ teachings. This is especially a posibility since we have Mark 4:33, 34, if we believe it. We therefore know that what the Church claims them Jesus’ teaching to be may be at variance with what they might in fact be.
However, because people of the christianist religions who are pious and convinced of their rightness substitute the idea of knowing for the idea of faith or belief, they cannot adopt the impersonal stance needed to verify or discard certain aspects of their particular churches teachings. Catholics are necessarily included in this set.
So, again, it is necessary to examine the origins and contexts of the ideas inherent in “no salvation outside the Church” from a perspective that allows the Curch itself to be critically studied, particularly in terms of origin, with or without Jesus as founder or not founder of it.
Neither God nor Jesus will be damaged or even effected by such a sincere inquiry. In fact, they may be found. Then, salvation in or out of anything will cease to be a question as it will be seen to not apply. Vamos a ver. (Let’s go see)
F
f_Paul_Francis
Guest
M
Much in these paragraphs by (name removed by moderator) leaves a great deal to be desired as what is averred relies on a sociological/political interpretation of Church history, rather than reliance on Revelation and the Magisterium. Responses given attempts to make underline their weaknesses and the unreliability of the conclusions they claim.
“The brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion. Undoubtedly, in ways that vary according to the condition of each church or community, these actions can truly engender a life of grace, and can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation . . . It follows that these separated churches and communities, though we believe they suffer from defects already mentioned, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.”
These lines are generously irenic, but cannot be absorbed in blanket fashion as (name removed by moderator) proffers them. A world of difference exists and ought be acknowledged between the Orthodox churches, yet believing and possessing the apostolic succession by which the Divine Victim continues to be mystically immolated in their liturgical assemblies, and the Protestant communities which either reject the reality of the sacramental priesthood, or if believing in it, have lost the apostolic power to enact it. For this reason, the celebrant continues prudent practice when receiving a convert from any of these latter into the Catholic Church to administer Holy Baptism at least conditionally, if not absolutely. How does one who rejects that God remains with us as a Victim receive even that fundamental share of priesthood which the First Sacrament bestows by its sacramental seal?
With that distinction in mind, it is altogether reliable to accept that those who, invoking the Holy Name of Jesus, and acknowledging Him to be the Eternal Son of God made Man, Christ and Savior exhibit evidence of the operation of grace prevenient to the divine indwelling and likewise often manifest other signs that actual grace, disposing a soul to supernatural Faith which alone can accomplish justification, is very much at work in their lives. That such dynamics exist and can prepare one to full communion with the Church in no way substitutes for the necessary means of salvation themselves which begin and perfect the gift of sanctification whose end is salvation.
Concluded in following post
Much in these paragraphs by (name removed by moderator) leaves a great deal to be desired as what is averred relies on a sociological/political interpretation of Church history, rather than reliance on Revelation and the Magisterium. Responses given attempts to make underline their weaknesses and the unreliability of the conclusions they claim.
“The brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion. Undoubtedly, in ways that vary according to the condition of each church or community, these actions can truly engender a life of grace, and can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation . . . It follows that these separated churches and communities, though we believe they suffer from defects already mentioned, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.”
These lines are generously irenic, but cannot be absorbed in blanket fashion as (name removed by moderator) proffers them. A world of difference exists and ought be acknowledged between the Orthodox churches, yet believing and possessing the apostolic succession by which the Divine Victim continues to be mystically immolated in their liturgical assemblies, and the Protestant communities which either reject the reality of the sacramental priesthood, or if believing in it, have lost the apostolic power to enact it. For this reason, the celebrant continues prudent practice when receiving a convert from any of these latter into the Catholic Church to administer Holy Baptism at least conditionally, if not absolutely. How does one who rejects that God remains with us as a Victim receive even that fundamental share of priesthood which the First Sacrament bestows by its sacramental seal?
With that distinction in mind, it is altogether reliable to accept that those who, invoking the Holy Name of Jesus, and acknowledging Him to be the Eternal Son of God made Man, Christ and Savior exhibit evidence of the operation of grace prevenient to the divine indwelling and likewise often manifest other signs that actual grace, disposing a soul to supernatural Faith which alone can accomplish justification, is very much at work in their lives. That such dynamics exist and can prepare one to full communion with the Church in no way substitutes for the necessary means of salvation themselves which begin and perfect the gift of sanctification whose end is salvation.
Concluded in following post
F
f_Paul_Francis
Guest
Having surveyed the history of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, we stand in a position to see how this doctrine has developed over the centuries. And indeed, a close look at history shows that the doctrine has developed, and not reversed. The earliest uses of the slogan were aimed at those who apostatized from the Good News and who were thus fully conscious in their rejection of it.
Who’s “we?” In point of fact, the earliest use of the doctrine comes from Sacred Scripture in which the Apostle demonstrates how the call to ancient Israel to separate itself from the idolatry of the pagan nations is taken up in the New Covenant such that all nations abjure idolatry and give way to the true worship which can alone be had in the Catholic Church.
As the Faith spread across the world, many Catholics assumed all had heard the Gospel, and those who remained non-Christian did so from obstinacy and sin. Though their general assumption was incorrect, it pointed to an important truth: those who consciously reject Christ are barred from salvation.
Who has proven there was such an “assumption” let alone that it was “incorrect?” Rather, it is contradicted by the words of Christ Himself, who told foretold that all the cities of Judah would have yet to be reached before His coming.
When the New World was discovered, however, the old assumptions had to be revised; clearly, there were people who had not heard the Gospel preached. With that came the understanding that God could, in His mercy, save those who never knew of Christ, but nevertheless sought to follow God. None of these points contradict the doctrine enunciated in the Second Vatican Council.
Whence such an “understanding?” Or rather came there to be an embarrassment over/an unwillingness to accept the Catholic doctrine of predestination, and that of necessary means for salvation? God is faithful to Him word and “illumines every man coming into the world.” (Jn1:9). He doesn’t always make it clear to man how He fulfills this truth in every circumstance, but how is it anything but presumption to attribute to God something which He has not revealed, in this case, some other means of salvation?
Valid doctrinal development involves the gradual growth in understanding of a core, unchanging truth. At the heart of extra ecclesiam nulla salus is the fundamental dogma that the Church is absolutely necessary for salvation. Through Christ’s body, God’s grace is channeled into the world. In the words of Lumen Gentium, the Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation.” All salvation comes through Christ’s Church; apart from that grace, there is no hope for eternal life. This point has been understood in different ways throughout the history of Christianity, and yet the doctrine has remained intact.
Understood in difference ways? This is the heart of modernism: to admit many truths and then to introduce a false, or at least an ambigous, proposition, Where in the consistent patrimony of Scripture, the Fathers, the Councils, Doctors and solemn pronouncements of the Roman Pontiffs has there been a fudging of the necessary means of salvation uniquely provided by the Mystical Body? It is not to be found. The dogma is “No Salvation Outside the Church,” not “No Salvation Without the Church.” That this distinction may escape the appreciation of some does not change the fact the distinction is a real one.
Those who claim the Church has changed its stand on extra ecclesiam fail to recognize this core truth in the midst of its various interpretations.
No, those who believe EENS, insist not that the Church has changed Her teaching, but that many others, claiming to speak for the Church have attempted to change the doctrine. The Church, by Her divinely invested incorruptibility cannot deny that which She has always taught.
In doing so, they ignore the development that occurs in the doctrinal life of the historic Church.
It is never “development” to declare “not A= A.” It is not development to say that “No salvation outside the Church” really means “There is salvation outside the Church.”
Who’s “we?” In point of fact, the earliest use of the doctrine comes from Sacred Scripture in which the Apostle demonstrates how the call to ancient Israel to separate itself from the idolatry of the pagan nations is taken up in the New Covenant such that all nations abjure idolatry and give way to the true worship which can alone be had in the Catholic Church.
As the Faith spread across the world, many Catholics assumed all had heard the Gospel, and those who remained non-Christian did so from obstinacy and sin. Though their general assumption was incorrect, it pointed to an important truth: those who consciously reject Christ are barred from salvation.
Who has proven there was such an “assumption” let alone that it was “incorrect?” Rather, it is contradicted by the words of Christ Himself, who told foretold that all the cities of Judah would have yet to be reached before His coming.
When the New World was discovered, however, the old assumptions had to be revised; clearly, there were people who had not heard the Gospel preached. With that came the understanding that God could, in His mercy, save those who never knew of Christ, but nevertheless sought to follow God. None of these points contradict the doctrine enunciated in the Second Vatican Council.
Whence such an “understanding?” Or rather came there to be an embarrassment over/an unwillingness to accept the Catholic doctrine of predestination, and that of necessary means for salvation? God is faithful to Him word and “illumines every man coming into the world.” (Jn1:9). He doesn’t always make it clear to man how He fulfills this truth in every circumstance, but how is it anything but presumption to attribute to God something which He has not revealed, in this case, some other means of salvation?
Valid doctrinal development involves the gradual growth in understanding of a core, unchanging truth. At the heart of extra ecclesiam nulla salus is the fundamental dogma that the Church is absolutely necessary for salvation. Through Christ’s body, God’s grace is channeled into the world. In the words of Lumen Gentium, the Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation.” All salvation comes through Christ’s Church; apart from that grace, there is no hope for eternal life. This point has been understood in different ways throughout the history of Christianity, and yet the doctrine has remained intact.
Understood in difference ways? This is the heart of modernism: to admit many truths and then to introduce a false, or at least an ambigous, proposition, Where in the consistent patrimony of Scripture, the Fathers, the Councils, Doctors and solemn pronouncements of the Roman Pontiffs has there been a fudging of the necessary means of salvation uniquely provided by the Mystical Body? It is not to be found. The dogma is “No Salvation Outside the Church,” not “No Salvation Without the Church.” That this distinction may escape the appreciation of some does not change the fact the distinction is a real one.
Those who claim the Church has changed its stand on extra ecclesiam fail to recognize this core truth in the midst of its various interpretations.
No, those who believe EENS, insist not that the Church has changed Her teaching, but that many others, claiming to speak for the Church have attempted to change the doctrine. The Church, by Her divinely invested incorruptibility cannot deny that which She has always taught.
In doing so, they ignore the development that occurs in the doctrinal life of the historic Church.
It is never “development” to declare “not A= A.” It is not development to say that “No salvation outside the Church” really means “There is salvation outside the Church.”
D
Detales
Guest
So then, where does the Church exist, that there is “no salvation” outside of it?
F
f_Paul_Francis
Guest
Ubi Petrus est, ibi Ecclesia. (Where Peter is, there is the Church.)
That adumbration can be fleshed out in something comparably pithy: The Church is where there is the faith of Peter, in union with Peter.
P
PJM
Guest
I’d be willing to bet a cup of coffee [even at todays HIGH prices] that if 1,000 Catholics were polled, less than have would know this fact
D
Detales
Guest
So, where is Peter?
L
laurenharper
Guest
I just wanted to clarify the way the word ‘Catholic’ is being used. Please state when you mean Roman Catholic, or when you mean catholic=universal. Also, the Catechism, at least after Vatican II, does NOT teach that only Roman Catholics will be saved. It clearly states that members of various Protestant denominations that are raised in the faith and are obeying God to the best of their knowledge/ability should be respected as true Christians. So…protestants, for example, may be part of the catholic/universal church, though not a member of the Roman Catholic Church.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
“The Catholic Church” means all those churches of various Catholic rites collectively under the pasturage of an apostolic bishop who is in full obedience and communion to the Vicar of Christ (the Pope). “Churches” as it is used in the Catechism generally refers to those apostolic Churches which are in schism but have a valid apostolic succession and substantially the same faith and Creed. "Ecclesial Communities or “Faith Communities” refers to those assemblies of peoples (generally Protestant) who may rightfully be called “Christian” by their baptism into the Body of Christ - The Catholic Church. These are “related” to The Catholic Church as seperated brothers. “Churches” who enjoy all 7 of the apostolic sacraments but who are in schism with The Catholic Church have a closer relationship than do “ecclesial communities”. All that said, NONE, whether they are in the formal Catholic Church or in a Church or in an ecclesial community who are in grave/mortal post-baptismal sins are in the Body of Christ and will go to hell if they die impenitent. Protestants, or those who lack valid apostolic succession (i.e. Anglican) and Holy Orders are in very grave danger of eternal damnation without having a sacrament of penance/reconciliation for grave sins committed post baptismally. Those “baptized” non-Catholics who die without grave sins are saved with caveat. The caveat is that anyone who is not in the Formal Catholic Church is invincibly ignorant of the necessity to be in the Catholic Church. Thus the risk of not attaining sanctification/theosis and falling to hell is HIGH for all those who remain outside of the Catholic Church.
Catholics may not judge any soul’s final disposition but we can of course judge behavior so that we may warn others who are not living according to teaching - which imposes an obligation to warn EVERY non-Catholic that they are at high risk of eternal damnation.
James
- Status