Roman Catholic Church = "Christ's One Church." Do you mean to exclude all other Christians by saying this?

[duckbill]

Grace is our ALL. I don’t agree with your formula for attaining it either. Love, charity and hope are all in there as well - in other words Christ.

The other aspect of Grace is keeping it and also progressively using it to increase grace within us. There is a hierarchy in heaven and the more grace we obtain the deeper into beatitude we may go. Our souls are finite but not equal in capacity. We can ask for more grace and are rewarded as we cooperate with it more - but also increase expectations and there is a certain risk-reward principal herein. Not all souls avail themselves of all the grace they could attain to through cooperation with sanctification. Holiness is a thing utterly abandoned by Protestants and that contagion has also found its way into the Catholic Church - we need to get it back so we may “be all we may be”. Protestants, the ones who gain heaven will be for the greater part the “least in heaven” for lack of much grace.

James

My goal wasn’t to write a treatise on Sanctify Grace.I agree one can grow in it. It is basically relational. Our relationship with Jesus. The point is there is NO Sanctifying Grace outside the Church, therefore no one outside the Catholic Church can be saved. It is the ONLY Ark of Salvation and those who do not enter or don’t remain on board are lost to hell.

 

[duckbill]

Of course.

While it is normatively necessary to be a formal member of the Catholic Church to be saved, it is not absolutely necessary to be a formal member of the Catholic Church to be saved.

This is the position of the Catholic Church.

For more information:

The Necessity of Being Catholic
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

I have read Atkins Article and find it faulting in basic theology. Dogma is never NORMATIVE, (i.e. a general rule, true 90-98% of the time) Dogma is a definition of what is TRUE. It NEVER can mean usually , normative etc…

Lets illustrate it with another Dogma: If one says “The Eucharist is normally the body of Christ but not always, for example when some one wants to commit sacrilege with a Consecrated Host either it never was His Body or ceases to be His when attempting the act” That doesn’t sound right does it?

I have enjoyed much of what Atkins has written in the past and his hosting CA Live Radio. But I fail to see any logic in his article above, an attempt to prove a dogma false ( though maybe with good will). Since if there are exceptions to a dogma, then it is false. He doesn’t back-up his CLAIM that it is normative with any Church documents; we are to take his word for it.

As a matter of fact, the dogmatic statement he is trying to explain says **the exact opposite **of normative or words mean nothing. Look at the key words:

“Now, therefore, **we declare, say, define, and pronounce **that for every human creature it Is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.” Unam Sanctam, 1302, Pope Boniface VIII.

Vatican I—Chapter 4. On faith and reason
14." Hence, too,**that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which **has once been declared ****by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

"May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding"

There is no proof that the Church understood Unam Sanctam in 1302 as being normative, when its words are clearly saying the opposite:** every( =all); altogether necessary(= absolutely needed)**

The definition don’t just say necessary as many dogmatic statements do, but it says: "altogether necessary"

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have read Atkins Article and find it faulting in basic theology. Dogma is never NORMATIVE, (i.e. a general rule, true 90-98% of the time) Dogma is a definition of what is TRUE. It NEVER can mean usually , normative etc…

Lets illustrate it with another Dogma: If one says “The Eucharist is normally the body of Christ but not always, for example when some one wants to commit sacrilege with a Consecrated Host either it never was His Body or ceases to be His when attempting the act” That doesn’t sound right does it?

I have enjoyed much of what Atkins has written in the past and his hosting CA Live Radio. But I fail to see any logic in his article above, an attempt to prove a dogma false ( though maybe with good will). Since if there are exceptions to a dogma, then it is false. He doesn’t back-up his CLAIM that it is normative with any Church documents; we are to take his word for it.

As a matter of fact, the dogmatic statement he is trying to explain says **the exact opposite **of normative or words mean nothing. Look at the key words:

“Now, therefore, **we declare, say, define, and pronounce **that for every human creature it Is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.” Unam Sanctam, 1302, Pope Boniface VIII.

Vatican I—Chapter 4. On faith and reason
14." Hence, too,**that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which **has once been declared ****by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

"May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding"

There is no proof that the Church understood Unam Sanctam in 1302 as being normative, when its words are clearly saying the opposite:** every( =all); altogether necessary(= absolutely needed)**

The definition don’t just say necessary as many dogmatic statements do, but it says: "altogether necessary"

So, is it your position, then, that in order to be saved, one must be a formal member of the Catholic Church and subject to the Pope?

 

[wlychan64]

Jesus founded one church and put Peter in Charge of it. I’m sure you are familiar with the scriptural references. During the reformation, Luther and his cohorts decided that certain teachings of the Church weren’t to their liking and created an alternate theology, one that is still splintering today. Now we aren’t excluding other churches. What we are saying is that there is one one truth and where these other churches deviate from it, they are in error. This error can and in many cases will lead to a loss of salvation to those that share in that error.

What is the basis for your belief that other Churches are equal to that of the Catholic Church? What are the credentials of those that you follow that put them on equal footing with the one , holy catholic, and Apostolic church . Afterall, we can draw a continual line of doctrine back to the apostles through the Early church fathers. What would make us believe your position? Afterall, we’d be betting our salvation that you are right…

Dear sir,.
thank you for your reply. I follow your point and it is not the first time that I heard this argument which makes good sense. Give me some time to think over the matter and may i come back to you again.

Now, I see your argument on how Martin Lurther left the RCC and set up his own ‘church’. how about the Church of England? What would you say about it? I have read some articles prepared by the English bishops and they strongly disagree with the RCC as the only church of Christ? What would you say?

Once again, thanks for your sharing and please do not take that I am challenging but through discussions, I could learn more and appreciate more.

In Chirst,
wlychan64

 

[wlychan64]

Did you read the article that I referenced?

Here is the core of the argument:

1. To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
2. To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ’s Church.
3. To be a member of Christ’s Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.
4. To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
5. Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

In this argument, the necessities are all normative necessities and the kind of membership being discussed is formal membership. The argument has a logically valid form (in fact, it expresses a variation on what is known as the “hypothetical syllogism” argument form), meaning that the truth of its conclusion depends only on the truth of the premises it contains.

Thank for your the reply Sir.
I could only accept the argument up to the 2nd point.
Sorry, I am not convinced the rest of the arguments would stand in my view.
In any event, thanks for the sharing.
God bless
wlychan2004

 

[duckbill]

So, is it your position, then, that in order to be saved, one must be a formal member of the Catholic Church and subject to the Pope?

What do you mean by formal?

 

[guanophore]

Salvation is a gift from God. Men are not fit to justify the worthiness of their neighbour.

Well said!

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have read Atkins Article and find it faulting in basic theology. Dogma is never NORMATIVE, (i.e. a general rule, true 90-98% of the time) Dogma is a definition of what is TRUE. It NEVER can mean usually , normative etc…

I have enjoyed much of what Atkins has written in the past and his hosting CA Live Radio. But I fail to see any logic in his article above, an attempt to prove a dogma false ( though maybe with good will). Since if there are exceptions to a dogma, then it is false. He doesn’t back-up his CLAIM that it is normative with any Church documents; we are to take his word for it.

As a matter of fact, the dogmatic statement he is trying to explain says **the exact opposite **of normative or words mean nothing. Look at the key words:

“Now, therefore, **we declare, say, define, and pronounce **that for every human creature it Is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.” Unam Sanctam, 1302, Pope Boniface VIII.

There is no proof that the Church understood Unam Sanctam in 1302 as being normative, when its words are clearly saying the opposite:** every( =all); altogether necessary(= absolutely needed)**

The definition don’t just say necessary as many dogmatic statements do, but it says: "altogether necessary" (edited due to space limitations)

Mr. Akin addressed your concerns as follows:

"Canon four of Trent’s “Canons on the Sacraments in General” states, “If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them . . . men obtain from God the grace of justification, let him be anathema [excommunicated].” This is an infallible statement because anathemas pronounced by ecumenical councils are recognized as infallibly defining the doctrine under discussion.

"Trent teaches that although not all the sacraments are necessary for salvation, the sacraments in general are necessary. Without them or the desire of them men cannot obtain the grace of justification, but with them or the desire of them men can be justified. The sacrament through which we initially receive justification is baptism. But since the canon teaches that we can be justified with the desire of the sacraments rather than the sacraments themselves, we can be justified with the desire for baptism rather than baptism itself.

"This is confirmed in chapter four of Trent’s Decree on Justification. This chapter defines justification as “a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the sons’ of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.” Justification thus includes the state of grace (salvation). The chapter then states that “this translation, after the promulgation of the gospel, cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’ [John 3:5].” Justification, and thus the state of grace, can be effected through the desire for baptism (for scriptural examples of baptism of desire, see Acts 10:44-48, also Luke 23:42-43).

"Only actual baptism makes one a formal member of the Church; baptism of desire does not do so. Since justification can be received by desire for baptism, as Trent states, justification and thus the state of grace can be received without formal membership in the Church. The desire for baptism is sufficient.

"In the same chapter that it states that desire for baptism justifies, Trent defines justification as “a translation . . . to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God” (Decree on Justification 4). Since whoever is in a state of grace and adopted by God is in a state of salvation, desire for baptism saves. If one dies in the state of grace, one goes to heaven and receives eternal life.

"As Trent also states: “Justification . . . is not merely remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts, whereby an unrighteous man becomes a righteous man, and from being an enemy [of God] becomes a friend, that he may be ‘an heir according to the hope of life everlasting’ [Titus 3:7]” (Decree on Justification 7). Thus desire for baptism brings justification and justification makes one an heir of life everlasting. If one dies in a state of justification, one will inherit eternal life. Period. This question of whether formal membership is necessary for salvation is thus definitively settled by Trent. It is not. Informal membership, the kind had by one with desire for baptism, suffices.

“The question of whether desire for baptism needs to be explicit or implicit is a separate issue which was not raised by Trent, but which has been dealt with repeatedly by popes and councils since that time. Still, Trent alone shows that the statement in Unam Sanctam teaches a normative necessity for formal membership, not an absolute one. Those who desire but do not have baptism are not formally members of the Church, yet they are linked to the Church by their desire and can be saved.”

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[wlychan64]

Salvation is a gift from God. Men are not fit to justify the worthiness of their neighbour.

Thanks for the reminder, sir.
I agree. Humble and show respects to others is what we should always bear in mind.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thank for your the reply Sir.
I could only accept the argument up to the 2nd point.
Sorry, I am not convinced the rest of the arguments would stand in my view.
In any event, thanks for the sharing.
God bless
wlychan2004

Mr. Akin anticipated your objection and answered it thusly:

"When a Protestant objects to the above argument, it will be to the third proposition – that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. Both sides agree on the other three points. While it is beyond the scope of this article to give a full proof of the third proposition (this is one of the major tasks of Catholic apologetics), we can offer a limited proof.

"Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Christ founded some Church and that this Church will remain forever (Matt. 16:18). The question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved. If it is a visible communion, the Catholic Church is the only plausible candidate, since only this Church extends back far enough (the Eastern Orthodox communion did not finally break with Rome until the 1450s, a mere sixty years before the Protestant Reformation). We can thus give a limited argument for the third proposition by showing the Church Christ founded is a visible communion.

"This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

"First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

"Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

"Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

"Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

"Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

“There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.”

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[wlychan64]

Mr. Akin anticipated your objection and answered it thusly:

"When a Protestant objects to the above argument, it will be to the third proposition – that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. Both sides agree on the other three points. While it is beyond the scope of this article to give a full proof of the third proposition (this is one of the major tasks of Catholic apologetics), we can offer a limited proof.

"Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Christ founded some Church and that this Church will remain forever (Matt. 16:18). The question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved. If it is a visible communion, the Catholic Church is the only plausible candidate, since only this Church extends back far enough (the Eastern Orthodox communion did not finally break with Rome until the 1450s, a mere sixty years before the Protestant Reformation). We can thus give a limited argument for the third proposition by showing the Church Christ founded is a visible communion.

"This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

"First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

"Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

"Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

"Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

"Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

“There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.”

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Dear Sir,

I am in the middle of something that demands my concentration
I will read your message fully and carefully.
Thank you for your help and sharing that would be most helpful and useful.
Blessing of God be with you and your family, always

wlychan64

 

[CentralFLJames]

Dear sir,.
thank you for your reply. I follow your point and it is not the first time that I heard this argument which makes good sense. Give me some time to think over the matter and may i come back to you again.

Now, I see your argument on how Martin Lurther left the RCC and set up his own ‘church’. how about the Church of England? What would you say about it? I have read some articles prepared by the English bishops and they strongly disagree with the RCC as the only church of Christ? What would you say?

Once again, thanks for your sharing and please do not take that I am challenging but through discussions, I could learn more and appreciate more.

In Chirst,
wlychan64

The Anglican Church as you know was a very proud and respected branch of the Catholic Church. They were full members of the Catholic Church with apostolic succession bishops. The problem came when Henry VIII in a royal temper tantrum over not getting his way with sanctioned adultery decided he was in charge of the Church in his nation by divine right (very bad move) so he could make the rules. He was actually originally a good Catholic and defender of the faith - but he totally usurped the Church and made the bishops subject to him. Of course Catholics objected and so he started imprisoning and murdering those who would not yield and then took over all the monasteries and the rest of the nasty history. But even so during this time while the Anglicans had valid priests and taught Catholic doctrine they were still Catholic - just under brutal oppression. The problem comes in with his son King Edward who decides he wants to go along with the Protestant rebellion that is sweeping Europe like his contemporaries and elects to revise all the ordination rites and Protestantize The Church. At this point in time Catholic priests and bishops having valid holy orders are dieing off with no one left to ordain new Catholic Bishops with valid apostolic succession (a real spiritual authority). The new rites are completely heretical and to force them on the church he appoints his own bishops around the remaining true Catholic clergy who then start ordaining new “Church of England” priests according to a bogus rite and a bogus authority that has no merit with God at all since its self appointed through the crown. That killed The Anglican Church since they lost their apostolic succession - even when Catholics wanted to be loyal and still retained a Catholic identity as best they could.

Pope Leo XIII later makes a proclamation to declare his finding that Anglican orders are utterly null and void - not just by papal decree but by actual finding of fact since once a bishop is ordained validly they are always a bishop even if not in communion with Rome and licitly in service. But the papal commission found that there was no apostolic succession in fact since it could not be traced to any recognized apostolic bishop. Since then the Anglicans have tried to approach fringe apostolic churches like Old Catholics and Coptics to regain their apostolic succession but its failed. Most don’t want to become entangled in the whole affair and frankly are fearful that in God’s eyes it would be sacrilegious to re-ordain Anglicans while the professed Protestant beliefs.

On the Nullity of Anglican Orders - Apostolicae Curae

James

 

[wlychan64]

What do you mean by formal?

Yes, what is ‘formal’ and why is ‘formal’?

wlychan64

 

[BCH]

Salvation is a gift from God. Men are not fit to justify the worthiness of their neighbour.

You are correct on both points but it helps to go a bit further.

Salvation is a gift obtained by the Jesus - The Son of God- crucified. Jesus established His Church on Earth to impart this grace to His true belivers. This gift is indeed free but that does not mean nothing is required on our part. Our part is to cooperate fully with the Church and the Grace of God. It is the sacraments of the Church that have a tranforming effect deep within out hearts. The grace received thought the Sacraments help strengthen us to keep His commandments and remain obedient. They truly have the power to help us love God and our neighbor.

If we knowingly reject His Church and refuse to cooperate, we cut ourselves off from the grace needed to become true Sons of God, in Jesus. For this sonship, the Holy Spirit must dwell in our hearts.

Can we judge another, NO!. Jesus gives us a grave warning about such action. However, we are still called to preach the revealed truth of God found in the Catholic Church.

God will judge our hearts and actions based on what we know or did not know.

 

[graceandglory]

The label “Christ’s One Church for the salvation of the world” is often attached to the Church of Rome by Roman Catholics. I will ask this as directly as I possibly can: Do you, like the current Pope, claim that all Christians outside the Church of Rome are not part of Christ’s church and consequently do not have the “means of salvation?”

Here’s his link. msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094/

Yes. I think so. Jesus said He is" the way, the truth, and the life, and no man comes to the Father except through Him." He gave us His way. For 1400 years people knew which way that was. Scriptures weren’t mass produced for lay people for more than 1400 years. 100 yrs after the printing press, Martin Luther came along and thought his ideas were better than 1500 yrs of Church teaching. I think people assume that people in years past were somehow dummies or something and not until the printing press did people “start thinking for themselves.” People were just as intelligent and discerning before the printing press as they are today.

If Jesus said, “this is the way, walk in it,” which is basically what he did when he gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom and declared “upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH, (hello!)
and the gates of hell will not prevail against it,”
then I think it’d be wise to listen up.

 

[paul_c]

Dear sir,.
thank you for your reply. I follow your point and it is not the first time that I heard this argument which makes good sense. Give me some time to think over the matter and may i come back to you again.

Now, I see your argument on how Martin Lurther left the RCC and set up his own ‘church’. how about the Church of England? What would you say about it? I have read some articles prepared by the English bishops and they strongly disagree with the RCC as the only church of Christ? What would you say?

Once again, thanks for your sharing and please do not take that I am challenging but through discussions, I could learn more and appreciate more.

In Chirst,
wlychan64

I commend you on the way you are handling this discussion - always polite and to the point and always in the interest of full communications.

As for your question about the Church of England, well you must recognize that every Christian church must claim to be a Church of Christ to have any validity to their members. This does not make it so, however. As CentralFlJames stated above, the Church of England separated from the Catholic Church in 1535, when King Henry VIII decided to break from Rome when the Pope would not grant him a divorce, which of course was a direct violation of the Jesus’s sanctions against divorce. Henry claimed full control over the church of England and required an oath of loyalty from his subjects on pain of Death. His Prime Minister, St. Thomas More, was among those that followed their consciences to the death. In subsequent years, a brutal purge of the Catholic Church followed in England, resulted in many Catholic martyrs. Over the centuries, the Church of England has liberalized its views, allowing divorce, married priests, women priests and finally homosexual priests. At this point, the Anglican conference is in disarray with tremendous loss in its following. Many are returning to the Catholic Church. In England itself, recent statistics indicate that less than 7% of Anglicans actually go to Sunday services on a weekly basis.

 

[guanophore]

I maintain my view that in the eyes of God…

I am open to be criticised but I will not withdraw my view

At first when I read this, I thought of the serpent in the Garden of Eden. “I maintain my view” sounds very much like “did God say?”

It is a way of rejecting the point of view of those who were given authority by God. Much like Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, God has ordained that we should have the freedom to rebel against those He has appointed.

It is your perogative to refuse to withdraw your opinion.

One has to wonder, why would you be here having discussion, if you have made up your mind in advance that you will not change it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, what is ‘formal’ and why is ‘formal’?

wlychan64

Mr. Akin defined his terms at the outset of his article:

"A person who has been baptized or received into the Church is fully and formally a Catholic. Vatican II states: “Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who – by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion – are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops” (Lumen Gentium 14, Catechism of the Catholic Church 837).

"But it is also possible to be “associated” with or “partially incorporated” into the Catholic Church without being a fully and formally incorporated into it. Vatican II states: “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter” (Lumen Gentium 15). Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” (Unitatis Redintegratio 3; CCC 838).

"Those who have not been baptized are also put in an imperfect communion with the Church, even if they do not realize it, if they possess the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. Pope Pius XII explains that the “juridical bonds [of the Church] in themselves far surpass those of any other human society, however exalted; and yet another principle of union must be added to them in those three virtues, Christian faith, hope, and charity, which link us so closely to each other and to God. . . . *f the bonds of faith and hope, which bind us to our Redeemer in his Mystical Body are weighty and important, those of charity are certainly no less so. . . . Charity . . . more than any other virtue binds us closely to Christ” (Mystici Corporis 70, 73).

“Understanding this distinction between perfect and imperfect communion with the Church is essential to understanding the necessity of being a Catholic. It is an absolute necessity – no exceptions at all – to be joined to the Church in some manner, at least through the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. However, it is only normatively necessary to be fully incorporated into or in perfect communion with the Catholic Church.”

C’mon, people…read the article for yourself!

The Necessity of Being Catholic
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm
*

 

[guanophore]

It all comes down to sanctifying grace.

But I don’t personally know ANY Protestants who have any notion of “holiness”

This is a shame, since there are many that are totally dedicated to holiness. From the Calvanist perspective, this is the duty of obedience.

it is highly doubtful that any Protestants even attempt to form a perfect contrition

I don’t agree with this. It seems to me that most devout Protestants are very sincere in confessing their sins. They take sanctification (holiness) very seriously.

Given the moral decadence of the world and the west in particular it is highly probable that a vast majority of us fall into grave sin now and then unless we are consciously and diligently attempting to remain holy.

…and even then…

I don’t believe for an instant that Invincible Ignorance can be the norm otherwise it becomes a virtue.

good point

If we want to camp out on the hope of ignorance for salvation then we might want to declare it a new sola (sola ignoramus indomitable ?)

I love that!

That would be about the only way I know of to guarantee anyone the right to say “I am saved” before God gets to judge the matter (assuming the procedure didn’t turn the aspirant into a drooling and speechless drone).

 

[wlychan64]

Mr. Akin anticipated your objection and answered it thusly:

"When a Protestant objects to the above argument, it will be to the third proposition – that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. Both sides agree on the other three points. While it is beyond the scope of this article to give a full proof of the third proposition (this is one of the major tasks of Catholic apologetics), we can offer a limited proof.

"Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Christ founded some Church and that this Church will remain forever (Matt. 16:18). The question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved. If it is a visible communion, the Catholic Church is the only plausible candidate, since only this Church extends back far enough (the Eastern Orthodox communion did not finally break with Rome until the 1450s, a mere sixty years before the Protestant Reformation). We can thus give a limited argument for the third proposition by showing the Church Christ founded is a visible communion.

"This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

"First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

"Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

"Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

"Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

"Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

“There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.”

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Dear Sir

Thank again for youre reply.
I understand your arguments but with some reservations.

wlychan64