Salvation outside the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sure. Divine Providence must act in a way which conforms with your finite mind. Don’t be ridiculous. God is not bound by the Sacraments. The reason I ask, is that you seem to espouse the Institutional, rather than the Sacramental, model of the Church.
There lies the problem with people, God is bound by the sacraments and what He says, that is not to say that He can’t do anything that He wants but that God becomes a liar. What God says is what He means. We don’t get to interpret, its the teaching magisterium that interprets, being protected by the Holy Spirit, it there that we get the meaning of things of God.
 
I don’t want to get involved in this discussion directly on the particular topic, but I will note that marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics are heavily discouraged by the Church and always have been historically.

In fact I have heard it said it is only permitted because otherwise the Catholic might leave the Church or live in sin, and so, it would be worse harm completely forbidding them.

Now people might not appreciate this in the loose morals time we are living but that is the stance towards such marriages I am familiar with.

So I don’t think that the above in and of itself is necessarily a particular reason to weigh in this argument that way Pitcharan.

Baptism of desire, et all, well, that’s something else.
 
To All on this thread,
Those of you who say that the Feeney’s position is NOT licit to hold as a Catholic I draw your attention to the fact that there are now FOUR! Feeneyite communities approved of by the Church. ( Yes I said 4! This last week the fourth community was regularized see this thread here-link)
The “Feeneyites” are light years ahead of the SSPX, this was the final group waiting for approval.
They were ALWAYS Catholics they were just waiting for official approval for their community.

So there have been 4 groups approved of under Popes: Paul VI, JPII, Pope B16 so these Popes in their official capacity have not denied that the Feeney position is valid.

I am not a member or associated with any of the groups–just for the record 😃

How is it that all 4 groups are accepted by the Church but many on this thread say that the Feeney position is not a valid understanding of EENS? Didn’t people speak about Traditionalists in the 1980’s the same way accusing them of “knowing more than the Pope”; when they would say the TLM was never forbiden? Now we know they were right and most Catholics have no problem in seeing trads as Catholics.

Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, says they are in FULL communion
ewtn.com/library/curia/cedsspx2.htm

1974 regularized —priests and brothers (Benedictine rule)
St. Benedict Abbey,

1988 -regularized—MICM - sisters ( Franciscan rule)
Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary
(Saint Anne’s House)

2003–regularized–MICM – brothers --( Franciscan rule)
Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary
(Immaculate Heart of Mary School)
[link for all above 3 groups here in official church website]

2010–regularized-- brothers and sisters (Saint Augustine rule)
Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary----Richmond New Hampshire

How is it that “Feeneyites” keep getting approved of by the Church but many here will not accept them as Catholic and a valid understanding of EENS?

PS very inspiring testimony of one former student of their school link–here
 
To All on this thread,
Those of you who say that the Feeney’s position is NOT licit to hold as a Catholic I draw your attention to the fact that there are now FOUR! Feeneyite communities approved of by the Church. ( Yes I said 4! This last week the fourth community was regularized see this thread here-link)
The “Feeneyites” are light years ahead of the SSPX, this was the final group waiting for approval.
They were ALWAYS Catholics they were just waiting for official approval for their community.

So there have been 4 groups approved of under Popes: Paul VI, JPII, Pope B16 so these Popes in their official capacity have not denied that the Feeney position is valid.

I am not a member or associated with any of the groups–just for the record 😃

How is it that all 4 groups are accepted by the Church but many on this thread say that the Feeney position is not a valid understanding of EENS? Didn’t people speak about Traditionalists in the 1980’s the same way accusing them of “knowing more than the Pope”; when they would say the TLM was never forbiden? Now we know they were right and most Catholics have no problem in seeing trads as Catholics.

Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, says they are in FULL communion
ewtn.com/library/curia/cedsspx2.htm

1974 regularized —priests and brothers (Benedictine rule)
St. Benedict Abbey,

1988 -regularized—MICM - sisters ( Franciscan rule)
Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary
(Saint Anne’s House)

2003–regularized–MICM – brothers --( Franciscan rule)
Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary
(Immaculate Heart of Mary School)
[link for all above 3 groups here in official church website]

2010–regularized-- brothers and sisters (Saint Augustine rule)
Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary----Richmond New Hampshire

How is it that “Feeneyites” keep getting approved of by the Church but many here will not accept them as Catholic and a valid understanding of EENS?

PS very inspiring testimony of one former student of their school link–here
THis has no earing on the discussion. There are thousands of communities that are not Ffeneyites.
 
some one brouht up Father Most’s writings of Fr. Feeney. I read and appreciate almost all the work Fr. Most wrote but he had a human weakness when it came to Feeney. It is impossible to call him honest when dealing with the issue of Feeney. He accused Fr. Feeney of saying ‘everyone needed to have their name in a parish register to be saved.’ This could have been considered an honest mistake but he was repeatedly corrected for it and he never retracted nor offered ANY proof that Feeney said such a thing.

He is aptly answered in these two articles:
First reply
catholicvox.blogspot.com/2009/03/apostle-of-sentimental-theology-father.html

Second reply
catholicvox.blogspot.com/2009/03/second-reply-to-father-most-this.html
 
I notice none of the Feeneyites address my comments about the threefold nature of the Church. Could it be because if they do, their argument disintegrates?
 
…I will note that marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics are heavily discouraged by the Church and always have been historically.

In fact I have heard it said it is only permitted because otherwise the Catholic might leave the Church or live in sin, and so, it would be worse harm completely forbidding them.
In fact they were merely permitted at one time and now encouraged in a big way
…Now people might not appreciate this in the loose morals time we are living but that is the stance towards such marriages I am familiar with. So I don’t think that the above in and of itself is necessarily a particular reason to weigh in this argument that way Pitcharan.
I am a roman catholic married to an orthodox christian in a protestant church, with full dispensation from the CC. No one has questioned or commented about my morality.

A major seminary and many parishes across dioceses regularly invite me to teach / preach. I even conducted Bible study in my parish for three years.

In their homilies, our priests clearly acknowledge salvation for followers of all religions and only stress on having God’s law written in our hearts. If you still have doubts, try reading 1Tim 2:1-4 & Rom 2:6-29.
Baptism of desire, et all, well, that’s something else.
I know that’s something else and have already said so in my post

Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (1Cor 1:17)
 
Can a person be saved if…
They live a repentant lifestyle
They are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (like in the bible)
They are filled with the holy spirit and speak in tongues (like in the bible)
They attend a church that resembles the new testament churches in the bible?
 
Can a person be saved if…
They live a repentant lifestyle
They are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (like in the bible)
They are filled with the holy spirit and speak in tongues (like in the bible)
They attend a church that resembles the new testament churches in the bible?
They can be saved with or without any or all what you stated, provided they bear good fruit during their sojourn on earth
 
They can be saved with or without any or all what you stated, provided they bear good fruit during their sojourn on earth
This is true provided that they are not aware that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ and contains the fullness of Truth.
 
This is true provided that they are not aware that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ and contains the fullness of Truth.
I am aware that anyone on the side of truth will listen to Jesus. But there are many on the side of truth but stay far away from the church because their perception of the church is based on the example set by christians whom they encounter.

My spiritual instinct tells me, that the God whom I worship will not damn any human merely because he/she refused to join His church while on earth
 
We baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as per the instructions of Jesus Christ
Did the Apostles follow the same instructions? It seems they baptized everyone in “Jesus’ name”. I can’t find anywhere in the bible where some one was baptized using three titles. It was always in Jesus name.
 
I am aware that anyone on the side of truth will listen to Jesus. But there are many on the side of truth but stay far away from the church because their perception of the church is based on the example set by christians whom they encounter.

My spiritual instinct tells me, that the God whom I worship will not damn any human merely because he/she refused to join His church while on earth
“he who rejects you rejects me, and He who sent me”
 
Did the Apostles follow the same instructions? It seems they baptized everyone in “Jesus’ name”. I can’t find anywhere in the bible where some one was baptized using three titles. It was always in Jesus name.
The baptisms mentioned in the Acts may not spell out exactly every minute detail. Our Lord’s instruction is clearly there in the gospel. It is meaningless to debate this
 
“he who rejects you rejects me, and He who sent me”
Those who rejected the worthy apostles attested by our Lord are not the same as those who today reject many name sake christians who are worse than pagans

You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men. (Matt 5:13)
 
My spiritual instinct tells me, that the God whom I worship will not damn any human merely because he/she refused to join His church while on earth
Do not play with the refusal.

The flooding waters were roaring and treated to wash out the tree, on which the man was sitting.

He was a good man, and god promised him, to save his life.

A boat was coming, offering to take him. He refused: God will save me. A helicopter was coming and offered to take hum. He again refused, God will save me.

The tree was fallen and the man died. When he met God, he asked: Lord, why did you not save me?

I sent you the doat and helicopter, you refused.

Same is with the salvation. The Church is the device for rescue. If someone refuses this help, it is his fault.

The Church is the mystical body of Jesus Christ, and the ones who understand this and intentionally for cowardice, pride or any reason refuse to accept the real presence of Jesus Christ through his Church, reject God himself.

The freedom is the highest immanent value, and God honors the freedom.
 
Those who rejected the worthy apostles attested by our Lord are not the same as those who today reject the millions of name sake christians who are worse than pagans
The apostles represent the Church…to willingly, knowingly reject the Catholic Church is to reject God
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top