Salvation outside Catholicism

[MagdalenaRita]

That they all bring their part of the truth to the table and that none hold the whole truth at once.

There can only be one truth. If all are bringing a different truth, you no longer have one truth but a mixture of truth and lies. Jesus said we would be led into all truth, not partial truths.
Also if what you are saying is correct then each denomination has just a little bit of the truth, not the whole truth as Jesus promised us we would receive.
The Catholic church only holds the fullness of truth.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

When we say that all salvation is through the Catholic Church, that does not mean only members of the Catholic Church will be saved. It means that the Catholic Church is the spiritual agency by which salvation occurs, whenever and wherever it occurs. Nor does the Church place any limitations on God’s mercy. The exclusive role of the Catholic Church is a spiritual mystery and should not be taken as a legalistic rule that can be applied by man.

Even though C.S.Lewis was not a Catholic, he is often credited with bringing more people to the Catholic Church through his writings than anyone else of his time. One example in his Narnia series, in The Last Battle, Lewis illustrates the mystery I mentioned in the character of Emeth, who thinks of himself as a devoted follower of Tash (the enemy of Aslan, the Christ figure). But strangely enough, at the end of time, Emeth is granted salvation by Aslan because of the way he served Tash. He was actually serving Aslan, though he didn’t know it.

 

[lonegreywolf20]

Also if what you are saying is correct then each denomination has just a little bit of the truth

Now, finally, someone is understanding what I am saying!

The Catholic church only holds the fullness of truth.

I don’t believe that it does!

 

[MagdalenaRita]

. The Church does not announce which of its teachings are infallible and which are not

Yes they do. There are dogmas, doctrines and disciplines. There are different categories or levels that councils and documents fall in.

 

[Crusader13]

If you had read my post fully you would have seen where I stated, “That they all bring their part of the truth to the table and that none hold the whole truth at once.”

So now the problem is trying to determine what is biblical truth and who gets the final word on its validity.

Either one needs to be baptized to enter heaven or they don’t. It can’t be both and the Holy Spirit is not leading two separate churches into these competing views.

 

[lonegreywolf20]

That goes above my pay grade at this point.

Look, I never said that the Catholic church isn’t a Christian church. It certainly is. Any church that denies the core doctrines of Christianity certainly isn’t.

All I am saying is that I don’t believe that the Catholic church is the one true church. No brick and mortar church is the one true church. They all have pieces of the truth and when it is brought to the table by all Christian churches, it becomes the whole truth.

I also do not believe that God calls all Christians to the Catholic church. I am more at home in a ELCA Lutheran church and an Episcopal church than I ever was at a Catholic church. Those churches when I have attended them was where Jesus was more real to me than in any Catholic church ever!

This is going to be my last post in this thread. I have said about all I can say without chasing my own tail in the process.

Have an awesome night and I will be sure to do the same!

 

[MagdalenaRita]

They all have pieces of the truth and when it is brought to the table by all Christian churches, it becomes the whole truth.

Who decides what is true in all those denominations?

No brick and mortar church is the one true church.

The Catholic church is not brick and mortar. It is our Holy Mother, the visible sign of Christ here on Earth.
It includes the Catholic people here on earth, the souls in purgatory, all the saints in heaven and of course our Lord.

 

[Fauken]

I believe that each of the Christian churches make up the whole true Church together. That they all bring their part of the truth to the table and that none hold the whole truth at once.

Funny enough, I once believed that as a Protestant. Then my mind changed as I went church hopping for the reason @MagdalenaRita gave:

Most hold to different truths about Christianity.
Such as what baptism is. Whether it is a symbol or does it cleanse us of sin. They have different beliefs about salvation, sin, communion, . …on and on.
They cant all be right because there can only be one truth and Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would lead us to it.

 

[lonegreywolf20]

Okay, truly my last post and then I am done responding.

You missed the point of me saying brick and mortar because all you are willing to do is toe the party line. The party being the Catholic church.

Nothing anyone says will change my mind on what I believe. As I have said several times within this thread. There is too much that I disagree with when it comes to the Catholic church. Stuff that I am not willing to compromise on.

Funny enough, I once believed that as a Protestant. Then my mind changed as I went church hopping for the reason

That is the reason that I said, I wouldn’t have chosen the Catholic church if I had the choice. I am more non-Catholic Christian in my beliefs than I was ever Catholic in my beliefs. The older I get and the more I read the Bible and see Catholic dogma played out, the more I realize that I should have never been baptized Catholic nor meant to be Catholic!

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Nothing anyone says will change my mind on what I believe. As I have said several times within this thread. There is too much that I disagree with when it comes to the Catholic church. Stuff that I am not willing to compromise on.

Okay, well I will keep you in my prayers because I do understand what you are saying.
As I said earlier, I too was once where you are and thought and said the very same things.
Perhaps God has led you to CAF for a reason.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

Think of a cafeteria… better yet a department store.

Now imagine Amazon. I’m pretty sure that’s how this works.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

They had the same chances as the man above. That is, not much of one according to the teaching of the Church. Soooo, convert while you have time because all of us eventually run out of that precious commodity.

/////

But they were victims and witnesses of those who were Baptised, Hitler and other German Christians, so if they had a chance to get Baptized and rejected it would be understandable and I’m sure God would have mercy on them.

The cause of many people rejecting Christianity, isn’t the Gospel, but us Christians

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

Baptized people sin too, that’s true. And God is merciful, that’s also true. But they did spend a lifetime rejecting the truth. There’s no Church teaching that people are saved through the poor witness of Christians. You can scandalize people into hell. Remember the mill stone.

 

[OneSheep]

I believe in God’s mercy and justice. If someone never had the opportunity to join or never heard of the church, they can be saved due to God’s mercy.

I do wholeheartedly agree with that statement!

With that being said, why are some Catholics so insistent that Protestants, or non Catholic Christians, convert?

I hope you get the idea from many respondents: Because we think it’s the best place! (hopefully not… in the mean time… saying that people belonging to other denominations are not part of the Church!)

On top of that, if other churches do have the tools for salvation, and the Magisterium states it, how does that jive with the whole thought process: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus?

I think someone said it here. In the creed, we say we believe in the catholic church, small “c” on catholic, meaning universal. It would be a very difficult position to say “this is the Church, and this is not” in a very specific way. So yes, it is a bit nebulous, not having the clear lines that so many want. God wants everyone to be with Him in the afterlife, and Bataar speaks of His mercy. On top of that, all things are possible, a merciful possible, so we can truly pray that all be saved. Given that salvation also involves choice, we can pray that all make the best choice, and I think they will!

In His Love

OneSheep

 

[Gorgias]

THIS is what I was referring to.

Perhaps. And yet, in the passage you quote, Jesus is essentially admitting that we’re not “perfectly one”, and is praying that it might happen. He knows that His teachings will divide; and He’s praying for unity.

Re: (aware and know )

OK. If you’d like to pick nits, let’s pick nits.

Do you mean “you’ve made them aware of what you believe”, or “you’ve created in them an awareness of their own personal belief that it’s true”? The latter rises to the standard that the Church asserts; the former does not.

If one sins “after receiving knowledge of the truth”… [Heb 10:26]

in that case, after one receives knowledge of truth and sins anyway…what happens?

So, like you say, Steve: “context, context, context”!

Here, what’s being discussed seems to be apostasy. See verse 29. So, we’re talking not about a non-Catholic who’s been informed of what the Church teaches or a Catholic who doesn’t know what the Church teaches: we’re talking about a Catholic who knows the content of the faith and yet has walked away from the truth.

Moreover, we’re seeing a description of mortal sin. One who does not know the gravity of the sin and freely choose it, do not sin mortally.

So, I don’t think that this passage says what you’re suggesting it does.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

THIS is what I was referring to.

Perhaps. And yet, in the passage you quote, Jesus is essentially admitting that we’re not “perfectly one”, and is praying that it might happen. He knows that His teachings will divide; and He’s praying for unity.

He tells us what He wants. Therefore that is what we are to do. It is not a suggestion.

HOW SO?

Division/dissension, depending on one’s translation they are using, is condemned elsewhere as well.

διχοστασίαι,​

That Greek word is used in both the following passages Rm 16:17-21 & Gal 5:19-21
διχοστασίαι, = dissension, sedition, stand apart, divisions which wrongly separate people into pointless (groundless) factions.

The consequences for one who does it and won’t return to unity? "I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." [Gal 5:21] IOW one won’t go to heaven.

Does that sound like a suggestion or a command?

Re: (aware and know )

Gorgias:

OK. If you’d like to pick nits, let’s pick nits.

Do you mean “you’ve made them aware of what you believe”, or “you’ve created in them an awareness of their own personal belief that it’s true”? The latter rises to the standard that the Church asserts; the former does not.

YOU were the one picking nits not me.

If one sins “after receiving knowledge of the truth”… [Heb 10:26]

in that case, after one receives knowledge of truth and sins anyway…what happens?

Gorgias:

So, like you say, Steve: “context, context, context”!

Here, what’s being discussed seems to be apostasy. See verse 29. So, we’re talking not about a non-Catholic who’s been informed of what the Church teaches or a Catholic who doesn’t know what the Church teaches: we’re talking about a Catholic who knows the content of the faith and yet has walked away from the truth.

Actually, the quote I used came from Hebrews, (as I said) And the context of that quote was one who deliberately fails to meet for mass AFTER one is given the knowledge of truth to NOT deliberately fail to meet…

Gorgias:

Moreover, we’re seeing a description of mortal sin. One who does not know the gravity of the sin and freely choose it, do not sin mortally.

That’s why I quoted the passage I did. HERE

I said

"If one sins “after receiving knowledge of the truth”… [Heb 10:26]

SO

in that case, after one receives knowledge of truth and sins anyway…what happens?

Given the consequences mentioned, in Hebrews, THAT describes one committing a mortal sin.

Gorgias:

So, I don’t think that this passage says what you’re suggesting it does.

I think it says exactly what I said it says

 

[TMC]

Yes they do. There are dogmas, doctrines and disciplines. There are different categories or levels that councils and documents fall in.

Yes there are differences between categories of teachings. That is not the same as saying which teachings are infallible and which are not. The Church does not list out the infallible and fallible teachings. If you maintain that it does, kindly point to an official Church document that lists the fallible teachings. There is no such thing. There is plenty of speculation about what is infallible in the Church’s teachings, but the Church has never definitively listed the infallible teachings or set out the contours of the infallible doctrines.

 

[GLam1761]

I know that Christians under threat of execution/torture
have denied the faith, esp. under the Roman Empire, but
the Church has found a WAY OF RECONCILIATION for
those who repented of their apostasy. SO, hence, today
there is room for re-uniting w/ the RCC after one has
left the Faith, provided that the CIRCUMSTANCES under
which the “falling away” happened.
The Catholic Church is the our Mother, who is the “pillar
and support of the Truth” 1 Tim 3:15 She is the Normal
Way for a person to enter Heaven. There are exceptions
to the rule, but those are not common. That is why it is
vital that we keep the Faith, which Saints and Martyrs
and heroes of the Faith give examples of and cheers
us on. Heb. 12:1

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Yes there are differences between categories of teachings. That is not the same as saying which teachings are infallible and which are not. The Church does not list out the infallible and fallible teachings

While yes, I agree the Church has not a list, at least that I know of, of what is infallible and what is not but some teachings are declared definitively infallible meaning they are free from error, are binding on the entire Church and some are non-definitive or have not been declared infallible, though do require a submission of mind and will, they are not guaranteed to be free of error.

Paul Paul VI, January 12, 1966:
In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.

Truth and Infallibility in the Catholic Church | beginningCatholic.com

The Catholic doctrine of infallibility rests on a deep faith in the Holy Spirit. Learn what infallibility is, and what it's not.

www.beginningcatholic.com

https://jimmyakin.com/2005/05/noninfallible_t.html

Which Church teachings have been declared infallible?

The Church has not yet compiled a list of all infallible teachings or dogmatic definitions. However, all of the teachings you name are infallible. Some of them—...

www.catholic.com

It certainly does not mean that a Catholic is free to ignore any Vatican II teachings.

I don’t believe that anyone is saying we are free to ignore any Vatican II teachings and I personally am not saying that there are errors in the Vatican II documents, that would be way above my paygrade, though as the Pope said none of the documents were declared to be definitively infallible, meaning free from error.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

If there is nothing new and nothing dogmatic is it even necessary?