B
buffalo
Guest
If you find yourself in heaven you will have gone through the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (the only one Jesus founded) and you will be Catholic at that point.
- Status
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
YEAH! right! HIS WORDS
luthers works 4:189
Now just take a look at the** perverse lauders of the mother of God.** If you ask them why they hold so strongly to the virginity of Mary, they truly could not say. These stupid idolators do nothing more than to glorify only the mother of God; they extol her for her virginity and practically make a false deity of her. But Scripture does not praise this virginity at all for the sake of the mother; neither was she saved on account of her virginity. Indeed, cursed be this and every other virginity if it exists for its own sake, and accomplishes nothing better than its own profit and praise.
The Spirit extols this virginity, however, because it was needful for the conceiving and bearing of this blessed fruit. Because of the corruption of our flesh, such blessed fruit could not come, except through a virgin. Thus this tender virginity existed in the service of others to the glory of God, not to its own glory
G
guanophore
Guest
It does make a difference. Because individual person’s in the church can teach misunderstanding or misinformation without the church itself being guitly of it. Such was the case with Luther, who was a Catholic priest and was teaching gradually more and more errors until he had to be excommunicated.
G
guanophore
Guest
And good points made all. A person who places Mary above Jesus would properly be called an idolator, and anyone who praises Mary’s virginity for it’s own sake certainly doesn’t “get it”. Mary was exalted by God, not by herself, or by her devotees. It was the lack of corruption in her flesh that also made it possible for her to be assumed, not for her own sake, but for the glory of her Son.
J
John_Hiner
Guest
Laudatur Iesus Christus.
The Church teaches that there is some possibility for such salvation. However, one should not over-estimate its scope.
The theories that presuppose that God merely “overlooks” sin do lack substance. They treat sin as a sort of “legal fiction.” I think most people sense that if this were the case, then God would just make the whole problem go away, or they reach the conclusion that God is arbitrary and cruel and they reject Him. The other possibilities are to say “He just has not fixed it yet, wait,” or “God does not exist, there is something else, either indifferent to our suffering or malignant which is really in charge.”
None of this makes sense. God must have significant issues constraining Him, given the means that He chose for our salvation. We know of some of these constraints, e.g.: “If we believe not, he continueth faithful, he can not deny himself” (2 Tm 2:13); and “he went and prayed, saying: My Father, if this chalice may not pass away, but I must drink it, thy will be done” (Mt 26:42).
These passages suggest that the issues of salvation and the methods to effect it are constrained. Arguments that suggest that God could chose “any way” to effect salvation do not seem to take the problem seriously.
Certainly we would not accept such an argument regarding diseases of the body – one cannot claim that “any cure” will do or that merely ignoring the disease is an acceptable cure. Also, if one is authentically interested in curing a disease and desperately searching for the correct treatment, one has a serious challenge. If one chooses in good faith, but undertakes the wrong treatment, one is not “credited” for good effort and saved from the disease in spite of the actual treatment chosen. One should acknowledge that the “reality” which entails these serious consequences for mistaken judgment is the very reality that God created. There is no serious reason to conclude that the supernatural order is less definitive or demanding.
These considerations suggest extreme caution about assuming a person’s “good intentions” are sufficient to cover any defect in his Sacramental life or other aspects of his unity with the Church. To put the matter too simply: if the intention to sacrifice himself was not sufficient for Jesus to be excused from the Crucifixion, then one must assume that there is an issue of reality at stake with Baptism, Confirmation, Confession, Eucharist, Holy Orders, Extreme Unction, and Marriage as well. Further, given the statements of the Savior, Baptism, Confession, Eucharist, and Holy Orders are necessary to salvation.
All of this leaves some hope for those who are formally outside the Church, but not enough to casually leave them outside. I suspect that “exceptions” to the strict requirements of the Faith are only valid ex post facto. If one counts on an exception prospectively, the warnings of Ecclesiasticus come to mind:
Be not without fear about sin forgiven, and add not sin upon sin: And say not: The mercy of the Lord is great, he will have mercy on the multitude of my sins. For mercy and wrath quickly come from him, and his wrath looketh upon sinners. Delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day. For his wrath shall come on a sudden, and in the time of vengeance he will destroy thee. (Sirach 5:4-9.)
The issue at the heart of so much of this thread seems to be the objective and public nature of Revelation.
Pax Christi nobiscum.
John Hiner
B
Bishopite
Guest
So where’s your “church” historically?
Not all councils nor papal bulls are pronounced under the charism of infallibility, therefore they can be in error in some portion of the statement OR their statement may be infallible in its content yet need clarification in later times as some may falsely interpret its application; the Apostles creed where the Catholic church clarified and expounded upon that creed and created a more developed Nicean creed at the council of Nicea 325 AD. No salvation outside the Catholic church (extra ecclesiam nullu salum) is true when one looks at it correctly.
This is a speech given by the late John Paul ll on May 31, 1995…
“Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus”–“outside the Church there is no salvation”–stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351). The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14). For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship.** It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her.** It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church the Savior founded."
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19950531en.html
B
Bishopite
Guest
And who tells you if you are outside Christ? The Bible says in 1 Tim 3:15 that the pillar and support of truth is the church. 2 Tim 2:15 says to rightly divide the word of God, so…since the Bible points to “the church” as the guardian of truth, tell me, which “church” does one follow which rightly divides the word of God?
C
Calvinator
Guest
Is this how your church has understood “outside the church there is no salvation” for all of it’s history?
I don’t believe it is, as the first few posts in this thread clearly shows there has been a change (you guys call it a development) in your church’s understanding of this issue.
C
Calvinator
Guest
guanophore,
Thanks for your reply.
I don’t see how you guys can recognize, on a practical level at least, what is and what isn’t the “teaching of the church” and I think this example (outside the church there is no salvation) illustrates this.
Many Catholics I encounter harp on the infallibility of the church (I of course don’t believe your church to be infallible) but fail to see that as your grows, things do change which seems to make it very difficult to recognize what is and what isn’t part of the doctrine of your church.
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, sometimes we are slow to understand the teaching of Jesus, just like the Apostles were at times. Jesus has to get mud in our eye and take it out more than once before we can “see” properly. In the beginning, everyone was Catholic. After the great schism, both the Orthodox and the Catholics still understood that the Church is the Body, and all that were saved belonged to that Body. Things needed more clarification after the reformation, because people that did seem sincere about their faith in Christ were still not in union with the Teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. This condition persists today in a way that it was never present for the first 1500 years of the Church.
G
guanophore
Guest
This makes sense to me. Most Catholics are uneducated about the Magesterium, infallibility, and a number of other important Apostolic Teachings. I think they have been poorly catechized in their faith. Some of them are here on this board, or come here as raving fundamentalists who have een sucked away from their weak Catholic foundation into greivious doctrinal errors. Since there are 2000 years of teachng and theology to absorb, I think it is impossible for any Catholic to know all there is. I learn new things every day! However, I think that Jesus wanted faith to be simple also, so both things (study and scholarship) and faith as a little child need to be present. We accept the basic tenents of the faith, then study to show ourselves approved. Fortunately we do not have to be in darkness or confused about the truth of the Church’s teaching, but just need to follow the Magesterium, because they have worked it all out. These teachings we find in the catechism, which helps us to understand the basics in a straightforward manner.
C
Calvinator
Guest
Guanaphore, thanks for your replies. I’ll see I have any more questions after I get done reading them.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
I truely do believe that anyone not formally united with the Catholic Church who Resists the Holy Spirit urging them to check out the truth of its teachings committs the Sin of Blaspehmy against the Holy Spirit if they Resist until death.
Those people die in a state of mortal sin and as a result do go to Hell!
Who makes the judgement as to whether they Resisted the Holy Spirit or not? Jesus!
So yes it is possible for anyone from any religion to go to Hell if they do indeed Resist the Holy Spirit drawing them to the Catholic Church.
If they are so invincibly ignorant that they do not resist the holy spiritt–in other words they utterly can’t understand it–then those people can go to Heaven.
Those people die in a state of mortal sin and as a result do go to Hell!
Who makes the judgement as to whether they Resisted the Holy Spirit or not? Jesus!
So yes it is possible for anyone from any religion to go to Hell if they do indeed Resist the Holy Spirit drawing them to the Catholic Church.
If they are so invincibly ignorant that they do not resist the holy spiritt–in other words they utterly can’t understand it–then those people can go to Heaven.
J
joshua_b
Guest
I stated before (but unfortunately did not elaborate) that the statements made by the Church must be taken in context. Not only literary, but also historical and social context.
Prior to 1054 there was only one universal Christian Church. The only way to be a Christian was to be a member of that Church. To profess you were a Christian and reject the only Christian institution that existed carries a willful defiance that simply can not be equated with a person who was raised in a faith tradition that has existed for centuries before they were born, and has always been the Truth that they have been presented with.
This is hard for alot of people to understand and accept (Catholics included), but the fact of the matter is that Catholic doctrine does not, or rather CAN NOT change. What appears to be a contradiction is not contradictory but rather a change in its practical applications given the changed context of the social and political realities that human history has produced.
T
The_Catholic
Guest
I don’t know, maybe my heart is just too forgiving or I am just too humble, always wishing that everyone would just be as God intended us to be, children of His. I am SO SICK of all the spiritual fighting, I’m so tired of Protestant bashing Catholic, especialy when Protestants hold such utterly ridiculous doctrines (stealing a pencil is the same as raping a child). I know this is an unGodly thing to say, but I feel like stoning a Protestant who says that. How utterly evil an UNSCRIPTUAL that is. Our God-given spirit tells us that’s wrong. But anyway, I’m just sick of everything regarding religon and all the negativity surrounding it. Self-rightoues Catholics bashing Protestants or non-Catholics, people always trying to take God out of the picture. I guess I’m not equipped for this like most believers are. I long for the day of the Lord when all know the ultimate truth, no more pathedic arguments, pride, of selfishness, but all will live in harmony with God, as we were suppossed to be orginaly.
I sometimes just want to live a quiet live in my catholic faith, and stay awayfrom all the arguing. Leave that up to those with stronger and wiser spirits. It would be awesome to live as st. Francis of Assisi did too, humble, quiet, helping others with our actions, etc. Whatever.
God bless.
T
The_Catholic
Guest
I agree you you 100% It’s plain and simple and even logical. Because it would be as if they would deny God’s truth to His face. No different. But others may be like you said, ignorant and they too have a chance of salvation. Because if they did understand, they would gladly and rejoicingly accept it. Who wouldn’t?
J
John_Hiner
Guest
Laudatur Iesus Christus.
I appreciate your weariness. One can become tired answering intellectual arguments, when they are not the issue at stake. This is often the case in “pseudo-religious” discussions. The intellectual elements are needed, and for a truly religious person they are essential, however, for the great majority of people who are engaged in such discussions motivations are not well enough integrated with intellect for these discussions to be decisive or even honest. This has two sources: First, this “un-chastity” has been adopted as a way of life by many people in society, and so may be a mark of popular culture; second, it is an element of both the heresy of Modernism and of many strains of the Protestant approaches to adopt “sentiment” rather than reason as the rule of “faith.”
We must remember that we are not at war with men, but with principalities and powers. However, the people who do the speaking for these spiritual powers are like “human-shields” put in harms way by the demons, and vastly complicating the demands of the war. Often in a discussion of religion the attitude of the un-chaste conversant is to point a spiritual gun at his own head and announce, “if you do not take that back, I will damn myself.”
The battlefield on which spiritual warfare is waged has changed: Before the 1960s communication was focused and personal. The Church could know her audience and cast her language to serve actual understanding in a given context. However, the first artificial satellite orbited the earth in 1958. Within a decade or so, men walked on the surface of the moon and this was televised in real time. Mass communication became the worldwide norm rather than a dream of science fiction. This is probably the change that occasioned the Holy Spirit to convene the Second Vatican Council.
Suddenly, for the first time in her history, when the Church spoke, people who were neither culturally nor spiritually prepared read and heard each word. Things which a spiritually mature Catholic needed to hear, could not be said easily, for fear that thousands of others would predictably misconstrue what was said and be injured. Diabolically, the task of tending the flock was put at odds with the mission to make disciples of all nations.
One can experience this tension immediately on “Catholic Answers.” If one judges that a Catholic needs to be reassured that “the Holy Spirit spoke through the Fathers of Vatican II,” which encourages and refreshes for the good Catholic, one has to weigh this against the hundreds of people who might read it and say, “Catholics are so pompous; they think they have the Holy Spirit in their pocket; I am not going to read this stuff any more.”
The Church is now like a mother whose teenaged daughter needs a serious and explicit discussion about sex, but whose alert and attentive five-year-old is sitting wide-eyed on her knee, listening to every word, and likely to be confused and upset by the things the teen-ager needs to hear. Sadly, this is not all, this conversation is also being overheard by a mob of other teenagers, most of whom also need this serious discussion, but who are in rebellion, unwilling to listen to a mother or to believe that she is interested in their best interests – they accuse her of trying to take control of them and rob them of their “freedom” so they ferociously resist her word.
This bind is a trick of the Devil. The Church has determined a tactic and is learning it now: the laity must be well versed in the Faith and willing to propagate it one on one and in public to those who do not know it (both inside and outside of the Church). “Now the laity are called in a special way to make the Church present and operative in those places and circumstances where only through them can it become the salt of the earth” (LG, 33) – originally this was demanded because of the Iron Curtain, but now because of the Mass Media and its “popular culture” as well.
But, even the Apostles needed rest: “And the apostles coming together unto Jesus, related to him all things that they had done and taught. And he said to them: Come apart into a desert place, and rest a little. For there were many coming and going: and they had not so much as time to eat. And going up into a ship, they went into a desert place apart." (Mk 6:30-32).
Pax Christi tecum.
John Hiner
J
joshua_b
Guest
It is important to remember that people may not necessarily be rejecting Christ and his True Church, but rather rejecting the version of Christ and His Church that WE present them with.
For many people, we (as individuals) may be the only Jesus they ever encounter in their entire lives. If I think about “no salvation outside the Church” in those terms, it’s pretty uncomfortable.
The honus to be a member of the Church may not necessarily be on those outside as much as it is on us that are inside.
B
Bishopite
Guest
What you are saying is like saying every theological truth was completely understood in the first century but this is NOT what transpired. That’s why councils were conviened i.e., Nicea to better explain the once for all revelation passed down to the Apostles like the who Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Spirit were in their relationship to one another (homoosius—means of the same nature). The Catholic church has to better clarify what has always been taught most of the time because of a dispute just as the Trinity was a dispute, if one actually reads Christian history, so it works the same way as deos extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
If you believe that, then you NEED to better understand your own theology. As with the Trinity it was NOT completely understood until the council of Nicea 325 (homoosius—of the same substance). The development of Christian doctrine as I explained with the Trinity is the same as clarifying extra ecclesiam nulla salus where Jesus’ church remains consistant and better explains what has always been taught. The truth is the same, there is no salvation outside the Catholic church, however that there are those who are actually “Catholic” unbeknownist to them is also true, therefore it is irrelivant if you believe it and the onus isn’t on us to prove it to you, but for you to show “YOUR” church as being established from Christ.
G
guanophore
Guest
I was meditating on this verse in Corinthians this morning:
1 Cor 12:12-17
12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body.
Those who do not believe there is only one Church are unscriptural. Those who don’t want to believe they are Catholic in some way are those who are saying “I am not a hand”, or “I am not an eye”.
Jesus did not say “I will establish my churches”. Or “my bodies”. Therefore, all true believers are members of the same Church, the same Body. Since the early first century that Church was called Christian, and from the early second century it was also called Catholic.
- Status