Salvation outside the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Pitcharan,Cordial greetings and thankyou kindly for your response above. If our Lords words in St. John 3: 6 mean anything, then surely they teach unequivocally that men must be sacramentally regenerated if they are to enter the church. That is the Dominical means whereby men are baptized into the Body of Christ (I Cor. 12: 13). Of course God desires that all men should be saved and come unto a knowledge of the Gospel, but obviously not all men will be saved (they are endowed with free will), to assert otherwise is to fall into the heresy of a wishy-washy universalism.Warmest good wishes,Portrait Pax
Thank you Portrait. I never doubted whatever our Lord said about attaining salvation and have experienced personally what happened when I believed Him. I am not a universalist either. But my doubt and concern is about people who are clearly lovable and true practioners of christian values. Yet they have no inclination or attraction whatsoever for formal membership of Christ’s church. I am unable to comprehend their damnation ever. Another thing that baffles me is the presence of significant number of wicked lovers of darkness in all religious communities and so also lovable children of God. This is the reason why I was trying to know about the exact meaning of “baptism of desire”. Many times I felt, that our Lord spoke of the same thing when He mentioned “circumcision of heart”. His frequent appreciation and praise of non-jews for their humility and faith, made me feel that salvation apart from baptismal regeneration was a possibility. Our Lord’s description of the last judgment and the basis for damnation which He spoke of, further strengthened my thinking.
 
Some of the examples I cited may be mere practices. If you consider “circumcision” a mere practice then what about the Sacrament of Baptism?
Where did the Church EVER teach that circumcision was required for salvation? The Apostles, in fact, declared the exact opposite. See Acts 15:5-11.
what about the Sacrament of Baptism? Salvation history shows that truths too are revealed partially to begin with and gradually we are led to perfect truth.
Jesus, Himself, said that one needs to be baptized with the Spirit AND water in order to be saved. See John 3:3-5. I don’t see how anything can be added to and change the teaching of the Son of God.
Salvation history shows that truths too are revealed partially to begin with and gradually we are led to perfect truth. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. (1Cor 13:9-10)
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”
 
Where did the Church EVER teach that circumcision was required for salvation? The Apostles, in fact, declared the exact opposite. See Acts 15:5-11.

Jesus, Himself, said that one needs to be baptized with the Spirit AND water in order to be saved. See John 3:3-5. I don’t see how anything can be added to and change the teaching of the Son of God.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”
Do you deny that doctrine can develop?
 
Sirach,

The main authority you continue to site is Vatican II which is a council which intentionally chose not to engage the charism of infallibility; explicitly stated by every conciliar and post conciliar pope. So you are pitting an uninfallible Council that dealt with pastoral considerations (a new mode of engaging the world) with Councils that did engage infallibility. I’ll let you think out the ramifications of this - but it’s clear to all with even a spoonful of a sensus fidei that V2 was a disaster for the Church and the world and is ushering in such religious indifference that it could very well be the introduction to the great apostasy.

It’s very sad to see good Catholics loose their Catholic identity and have their faith ebbed from them through exterior practices which deny their interior convictions. Yet that is the scenario we’re in today.

I don’t agree with Chypmonk concerning BOD and BOB - at least not to the extent of completely denying them but I do think they’re overstated and misapplied in such a way today that is sickening.

Something I’ve noticed in your posts, Sirach, is that you incessantly try to interpret the 2000 year history of the Church in light of Vatican II when Pope Benedict XVI (through his hermeneutic of continuity) has stated the opposite is true and that Vatican II must be interpreted in light of tradition. You really need to keep this in mind. The Church wasn’t born at a new pentecost in the 60’s - it was born on Pentecost 2000 years ago by the Holy Ghost.

What it boils down to is this: God gave us the Church and He established it as necessary (which even V2 states) as well as baptism. God may use an extraordinary way to save someone through miraculous means but he did not leave that as part of the deposit of faith so we have to preach and teach the only means we know of which is the Church. If you’re telling people anything different you’re preaching a different gospel.
Well said, thank you. It is frustrating to try to discuss things with people like Sirach2. He just doesn’t seem to want to see that my position is acceptable (need to be Sacramentally Baptized for salvation, which is the Feeney strict position) to the Church at this time and free to be discussed. Otherwise there would not be 4 different “Feeneyite” groups approved of by the Church.
post #322
link

post #12

Fr. Lawrence A. Deery, JCL, at the time the Diocese of Worcester’s
Judicial Vicar and Vicar for Canonical Affairs and acting in his official capacity, wrote the
following:

"In our discussions with the
Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith **it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict
interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as
those who would hold more liberal views. Summarily, Mother Theresa and her community in no
manner abandoned Father Feeney’s teachings.”
scribd.com/doc/24283795/Official-Letter-from-the-Diocese-Of-Worcester-regarding-communities-founded-by-Fr-Leonard-Feeney

Need I remind you that the man who was Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith at the time of this consultation is now Pope Benedict XVI, the Church’s Supreme Pontiff?"
 
Hello all, I searched the forum trying to get more information on the subject but failed. I have read all I can and wonder with amazement why 1960 years worth of searching the word by the great men of God, why the church changed the outside the church no salvation apparent theory. I have read things like “if” a man would have agreed with the church “if” he knew it and “if” he would have accepted Christ then he has attained salavation outside the church. Are you kidding me? Did Vatican II change the church just to make it easier to accept. I’m a bit confused and I know there are many here who know much more than a new Catholic. God bless you all.
this has never changed. outside of the christian church there is no salvation because Jesus is our salvation. you have to belong to his church to be saved.
 
Chypmonk,

Once again, we witness you preparing an ala-carte, pick-and-choosing of specific documents in the manner of sola-scripturists, soley to make the church agree with what you want Her to say. You completely glossed over Lumen Gentium’s specific teachings regarding those outside the fold, as we have discussed ad nauseum in other threads. I will not waste any more time in conversation with you. Your mind is completely closed, made up, fixated, obsessed … and it will cause further harm to give you yet another opportunity to spread your errors for innocent readers. You may now talk with yourself.
Could you please quote the “specific teaching”?
No, because there is no specific teaching that there is salvation outside “institutional church” as you have said. So unable to support your point with authoritative documentation you fluster at me ? :whistle:
 
Do you deny that doctrine can develop?
It depends on what you mean by this.
Theology can develop but dogmas can’t change their meaning nor can there be a new revelation since the death of the last apostle. The point of declaring a dogma is not the creation of something new but it says that we have always believed it.
 
The Church has not changed her stance on those outside of the Church, however it has thusly explained: if a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buhdist, Sihk, Athiest, Agnostic, or a fellow Christian is saved, it is because of the intercession of the Catholic Church! It is the Catholic Church that ministers to the world the grace and mercy of Christ via the Sacraments! United with Christ, who is the Head of the Church, Holy Mother Church continues to bare witness to HIm who is our Saviour and Redeemer. Though the human aspect of the Church may not know the heart of man, and can only discern the actions of others, Christ who knows all, will judge all. Christ have mercy on us all!

It is our responsibility as Christians to continue to shine forth the Light of Christ in a world that seeks truth. It also has to be understood that ignorance is not held against people; however, willful ignorance is. That is to say, if someone knows and understands that the Catholic Church is necessary for Salvation and yet denies the Church, then his salvation at risk. HOWEVER, one who is has not been taught of the necessity of the Church, only Christ Lord know his heart and will judge him accordingly. The Church militant will pray for the Salvation of all souls.
 
To put it simply, if a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buhdist, Sikh, Athiest, Agnostic, or a fellow Christian is saved, it is because of the intercession of the Catholic Church! It is the Catholic Church that ministers to the world the grace and mercy of Christ via the Sacraments! United with Christ, who is the Head of the Church, Holy Mother Church continues to bear witness to HIm who is our Saviour and Redeemer. Though the human aspect of the Church may not know the heart of man, and can only discern the actions of others, Christ who knows all, will judge all. Christ have mercy on us all!

It is our responsibility as Christians to continue to shine forth the Light of Christ in a world that seeks truth. It also has to be understood that ignorance is not held against people; however, willful ignorance is. That is to say, if someone knows and understands that the Catholic Church is necessary for Salvation and yet denies the Church, then his salvation at risk. HOWEVER, one who is has not been taught of the necessity of the Church, only Christ Lord know his heart and will judge him accordingly. The Church militant will pray for the Salvation of all souls
Yes, this is the fullness of truth that resonates with the words of our Lord: Salvation is from the Jews. Catholics are really Jews in the true sense. See Rev 2:9 and 3:9.
 
40.png
Pitcharan:
This is the reason why I was trying to know about the exact meaning of “baptism of desire”. Many times I felt, that our Lord spoke of the same thing when He mentioned “circumcision of heart”. His frequent appreciation and praise of non-jews for their humility and faith, made me feel that salvation apart from baptismal regeneration was a possibility.
Yes, how well you understand! Praise God! This, among others, is the Church’s teaching:

Pius IX, in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore addressed to the Italian bishops, said:
It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.

The scriptures are full of examples of Jesus’ compassion, healing, and forgiveness of sin. These few come to mind, and I note strongly that Jesus did not send these people afterwards to the Jewish leaders, commanding that they become a Jew, in order to be officially part of His flock. I note also in this first example from Luke, that Jesus angered the Jews when He explained that outsiders received God’s blessings, and not those in Israel. I suspect it was a matter of the heart being “circumcised”, as you put it.

Luke 4:25, In truth I say to you, there were many widows in the days of Elias in Israel, when heaven was shut up three years and six months, when there was a great famine throughout all the earth. And to none of them was Elias sent, but to Sarepta of Sidon, to a widow woman. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet: and none of them was cleansed but Naaman the Syrian. And all they in the synagogue, hearing these things, were filled with anger.

Luke 8:26, Now the man, out of whom the devils were departed, besought him that he might be with him. But Jesus sent him away, saying: Return to thy house, and tell how great things God hath done to thee. And he went through the whole city, publishing how great things Jesus had done to him.
[Jesus did not permit him to follow him, nor did he instruct him to become a Jew and be circumcised. He became an apostle in his own land, and although scripture does not teach us what happened to these folks, I rather doubt that after the graced encounter with Our Lord, that they failed to live uprightly and become damned.]
Jn. 4:28, The woman therefore left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men there: Come, and see a man who has told me all things whatsoever I have done. Is not he the Christ? They went therefore out of the city, and came unto him.

Lk. 7:47, Wherefore I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less. And he said to her: Thy sins are forgiven thee. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves: Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman: Thy faith hath made thee safe, go in peace.
[If this woman was Mary Magdalene, as we believe, we know she became a saint – yet she, too, was not instructed to “go therefore and become a Jew.”]
I’m not advocating that one should not enter the Catholic Church if they receive the gift faith from God to do so, and I believe we are entrusted with a mission to evangelize as far as we are able. However, I oppose those who, from these examples of Jesus, say that the scriptures *prove *entrance into the RCC is the only way of salvation.

God bless you.
 
The problem appears to be that some do not understand (or do not agree) that the Church teaches that you can be saved by Christ through His Church without ever realizing that you are part of that Church. That is because the Church is broader than our human understanding of the institutional Church. Here is an analogy that I have found helpful. If a house is on fire and firemen are running into the fire and saving people, it is certainly possible that in the smoke and confusion a fireman can grab a victim and haul them to safety without the victim ever knowing who carried them out - at least not until they meet later when all is safe. We are taught to look for the fireman and obey his instructions, so we have a better shot at being hauled out alive. But some may be saved without knowing with any precision who is doing the saving. Christ saves all, but some may not learn His name during the smoke and confusion of this life.
 
The sad thing is if you apply the butchering of EENS to any other dogma it would be preposterous (when I say butchering - it’s the people butchering not the Church in Her infallible pronouncements).

Take the Immaculate Conception, for example.

The Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin.

We have a dogma that is quite explicit in it’s meaning. (It’s also one of the most beautiful and sublime promulgations in my opinion: papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm).

So now let’s apply the EENS Effect to it:

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is not excluding others from participating in this “singular” grace.You see, we have a better understanding of the time it was written and who it was written to. In fact it does not mean that Mary was given a singular grace at all. The singular is in reference to the human beings present at that time. Mary was the single person this grace was given to then. We now know that God has, through mysterious means, granted this grace to the people of God which encompasses all of humankind. As Vatican II stated all people, in some way, are related to the Church, the people of God, and that God desires all people to be saved (Lumen Gentium 13). Ordinarily people are free from original sin through baptism but God is not bound by the Sacraments, so we know that God could very easily preserve His elect from the stain of original sin through immaculate conceptions instead of through Baptism.

We must understand that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception rightfully and fully subsists in the Blessed Virgin’s singular grace. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception reformulated positively means all immaculate conceptions come through the singular grace of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Prior to Vatican II the Church’s understanding of the Immaculate Conception was under-developed. We now have a full understanding of the dogma and how it pertains to all people of good will.
 
The sad thing is if you apply the butchering of EENS to any other dogma it would be preposterous (when I say butchering - it’s the people butchering not the Church in Her infallible pronouncements).

Take the Immaculate Conception, for example.

The Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin.

We have a dogma that is quite explicit in it’s meaning. (It’s also one of the most beautiful and sublime promulgations in my opinion: papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm).

So now let’s apply the EENS Effect to it:

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is not excluding others from participating in this “singular” grace.You see, we have a better understanding of the time it was written and who it was written to. In fact it does not mean that Mary was given a singular grace at all. The singular is in reference to the human beings present at that time. Mary was the single person this grace was given to then. We now know that God has, through mysterious means, granted this grace to the people of God which encompasses all of humankind. As Vatican II stated all people, in some way, are related to the Church, the people of God, and that God desires all people to be saved (Lumen Gentium 13). Ordinarily people are free from original sin through baptism but God is not bound by the Sacraments, so we know that God could very easily preserve His elect from the stain of original sin through immaculate conceptions instead of through Baptism.

We must understand that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception rightfully and fully subsists in the Blessed Virgin’s singular grace. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception reformulated positively means all immaculate conceptions come through the singular grace of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Prior to Vatican II the Church’s understanding of the Immaculate Conception was under-developed. We now have a full understanding of the dogma and how it pertains to all people of good will.
LOL so true:thumbsup:

PS You BoDers just ignore this pronouncement 'outside the Church there is NO REMISSION OF SIN:

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin"

No BoDer has explained this yet?
 
LOL so true:thumbsup:

PS You BoDers just ignore this pronouncement 'outside the Church there is NO REMISSION OF SIN:

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin"

No BoDer has explained this yet?
Dear chymonk,

Cordial greetings.

Is it possible that when Pope Boniface uttered theses words he was addressing those within the bosom the church, rather than those without, and warning the faithful not to align themselves with heretical sects or abandon their faith?

Moreover, is it feasible that Pope Boniface, who inhabited a much smaller world geographically, could simply not have envisaged the discoveries of new regions and continents, with their billions of pagans? Clearly, that has all changed, and was it for this reason that Vatican II also changed its whole approach to non-Christians and why Pope John Paul II, the Catechism, Council documents and other Catholic sources speak of the possiblity, at least, of salvation outside of the Church, and even outside of organized Christianity? Father John J. Dietzen, even goes so far as to state that “it seems to me we should rejoice, not be resentful, if we now better recognize the possibility that Jesus did not fail a major part of His mission, but really did accomplish what he set out do, to save the world” (Catholic Q & A All You Want to Know About Catholicism, The Crossroad Publishing Company, New York, p. 103). This seems to smack of universalism and the “larger hope”, so beloved of liberal Protestantism.

To be quite frank I am very perplexed about this whole issue of salvation outside the Church and there appears to this new convert to be deep division within the Church, though most, including Catholic Answers, follow the Vatican II position. So are people like us who adopt a more exclusive view out of step with and being disobedient to current Church teaching?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
Dear chymonk,

Cordial greetings.

Is it possible that when Pope Boniface uttered theses words he was addressing those within the bosom the church, rather than those without, and warning the faithful not to align themselves with heretical sects or abandon their faith?

Moreover, is it feasible that Pope Boniface, who inhabited a much smaller world geographically, could simply not have envisaged the discoveries of new regions and continents, with their billions of pagans? Clearly, that has all changed, and was it for this reason that Vatican II also changed its whole approach to non-Christians and why Pope John Paul II, the Catechism, Council documents and other Catholic sources speak of the possiblity, at least, of salvation outside of the Church, and even outside of organized Christianity? Father John J. Dietzen, even goes so far as to state that “it seems to me we should rejoice, not be resentful, if we now better recognize the possibility that Jesus did not fail a major part of His mission, but really did accomplish what he set out do, to save the world” (Catholic Q & A All You Want to Know About Catholicism, The Crossroad Publishing Company, New York, p. 103). This seems to smack of universalism and the “larger hope”, so beloved of liberal Protestantism.

To be quite frank I am very perplexed about this whole issue of salvation outside the Church and there appears to this new convert to be deep division within the Church, though most, including Catholic Answers, follow the Vatican II position. So are people like us who adopt a more exclusive view out of step with and being disobedient to current Church teaching?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
Welcome to the Church!
Don’t be scandalized the Church is usually full of these kind of “battles.” The Immaculate Conception was heatedly debated for centuries! Now it is debated if St. Thomas rejected it (he did but you will find many Thomists who deny it).

As I posted before the Church is allowing discussion on this topic so there isn’t a question of disobedience [see post here click]

As for Pope Boniface referring to only those in the Church the full quote will reveal that he was talking about all those outside her will perish thus in the same breath equating forgiveness of sins with necessity of Church membership:

“Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,’ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that,** outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.”**papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

The final line I think points out that he was teaching that all outside the Church will perish like the human’s did outside of the Ark and the only survivors will be Noah and his family.

It isn’t as bad as it may sound. We all believe Jesus is saviour and that we need to have his redemption communicated to us the only vehicle for this is the Church, His Mystical Body. When Saul persecuted the Church Jesus said he was persecuting Him. So there is an intimate connection. To reject the Church is to reject Christ and together with this is Jesus SEEKS the lost, so that there will be one flock and one Shepard. He also said to Pilot ALL who are in the truth hear my voice. And in Acts it says that: Acts 2:47: “Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.”bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Acts+2%3A47&passage2=&passage3=&passage4=&passage5=&version1=9&version2=0&version3=0&version4=0&version5=0&Submit.x=27&Submit.y=7

All those who appear to be Protestant are not necessarily damned. (Validly baptized babies for example.) For adults all that is need by them before they die ( if validly baptized) is a perfect act of repentance of all their sins in whatever may have offended God. This could take place at the moment of death without any of us knowing. But without rejecting heresy they will not save their souls. They may not be condemned for denying the Catholic Faith, if ignorant of this fact,but for other sins they had not the graces necessary to resist because they were not Catholic.
 
Yes, how well you understand! Praise God! This, among others, is the Church’s teaching:

Pius IX, in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore addressed to the Italian bishops, said:
It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.
The scriptures are full of examples of Jesus’ compassion, healing, and forgiveness of sin. These few come to mind, and I note strongly that Jesus did not send these people afterwards to the Jewish leaders, commanding that they become a Jew, in order to be officially part of His flock. I note also in this first example from Luke, that Jesus angered the Jews when He explained that outsiders received God’s blessings, and not those in Israel. I suspect it was a matter of the heart being “circumcised”, as you put it.

Luke 4:25, In truth I say to you, there were many widows in the days of Elias in Israel, when heaven was shut up three years and six months, when there was a great famine throughout all the earth. And to none of them was Elias sent, but to Sarepta of Sidon, to a widow woman. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet: and none of them was cleansed but Naaman the Syrian. And all they in the synagogue, hearing these things, were filled with anger.

Luke 8:26, Now the man, out of whom the devils were departed, besought him that he might be with him. But Jesus sent him away, saying: Return to thy house, and tell how great things God hath done to thee. And he went through the whole city, publishing how great things Jesus had done to him.
[Jesus did not permit him to follow him, nor did he instruct him to become a Jew and be circumcised. He became an apostle in his own land, and although scripture does not teach us what happened to these folks, I rather doubt that after the graced encounter with Our Lord, that they failed to live uprightly and become damned.]
Jn. 4:28, The woman therefore left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men there: Come, and see a man who has told me all things whatsoever I have done. Is not he the Christ? They went therefore out of the city, and came unto him.

Lk. 7:47, Wherefore I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less. And he said to her: Thy sins are forgiven thee. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves: Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman: Thy faith hath made thee safe, go in peace.
[If this woman was Mary Magdalene, as we believe, we know she became a saint – yet she, too, was not instructed to “go therefore and become a Jew.”]
I’m not advocating that one should not enter the Catholic Church if they receive the gift faith from God to do so, and I believe we are entrusted with a mission to evangelize as far as we are able. However, I oppose those who, from these examples of Jesus, say that the scriptures *prove *entrance into the RCC is the only way of salvation.

God bless you.
Thank you and God bless you Sirach. I wonder why Portrait hasn’t responded
 
The sad thing is if you apply the butchering of EENS to any other dogma it would be preposterous (when I say butchering - it’s the people butchering not the Church in Her infallible pronouncements).
I believe that you may be on a slippery slope here. The so-called butchering as you call it was done by popes, not by some Johnny Come Lately. These are men who are well aware of their theology, Tradition and the history of these teachings. They know exactly what theu can restate explain, clarify and interpret and what they cannot.

Do not put yourself in the dangerous position of appearing as if you know more than the popes, espeically popes who have been known for their knowledge of theology, history and their fidelity to the Church.

The minute you get into the position “me vs the pope” you’re in trouble.

Unless a pope says something that is heresy, what he teaches is part of the Ordinary Magisterium and requires assent and an honest effort to undertand what he’s saying. Don’t ever assume that these men do not know what they’re talking about. That’s a dangerous assumption. Avoid presenting an opinion to others that would suggest that the popes are wrong in their proposals and comments on the matter. When you do that, you create a situation that is antagonistic between you and the pope and you’re leading others into the same position.

As St. Francis always taught his brothers, “Teach what the pope teaches, even when you believe that you know better. Such obedience is pleasing to God and man.” We must lead people to Peter, not away from him. Creating suspicion is not helpful.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
40.png
Pitcharan:
Dear RosaryCrusader, Chypmonk and others who strongly advocate EENS and “no-remission of sins outside church”,
A worthy try, Pitcharan, but I believe your effort will fall on deaf ears. It astounds me that Chypmonk demands to be listened to, according to Fr. Deery’s letter which states, “it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who would hold more liberal views.”

However, he refuses to render the “same latitude to those who would hold more lilberal views.” :rolleyes:
His proselytizing is extreme as noted in the continual carping, not only in this thread with his multiplicity of repeats, but in several others. His intent is crystal clear. It seems to me that proselytizing is against forum rules. I will check on this.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7140256&postcount=15
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7146970&postcount=32
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7147137&postcount=34
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7153553&postcount=49
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7154286&postcount=55
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7157212&postcount=79
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7157412&postcount=82
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7159502&postcount=122
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7169705&postcount=194
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7170616&postcount=201
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7176643&postcount=278
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7190221&postcount=452
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7191097&postcount=454
 
Dear RosaryCrusader, Chypmonk and others who strongly advocate EENS and “no-remission of sins outside church”, I am not finding fault with your intention or understanding. I humbly urge you to review your position after reading my these posts:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7185062&postcount=407
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7188422&postcount=440
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7188653&postcount=448
and TMC’s post #450
Pitcharan (and others),

I’ll urge you to listen to this Catholic Priest on audiosancto lay things down the way they are. His sermon is probably the most balanced I’ve heard on the subject and I would urge you to take a listen to it:

audiosancto.org/sermon/20091115-Salvation-is-Only-in-the-Catholic-Church.html

Also, be careful with the way you say things. In trying to defend all the so called exceptions to EENS many refute it entirely as appears to be the case in your reply. Replace EENS, in what you posted above, with another dogma and see how it sounds.

Example:
Dear RosaryCrusader, Chypmonk and others who strongly advocate the Immaculate Conception, I am not finding fault with your intention or understanding. I humbly urge you to review your position after reading my these posts:
In discussing this topic one must always remember that it is a dogma of the faith that is being discussed, It’s something necessary to be believed to be called Catholic. So it’s of the utmost importance that you never write anything that would imply you reject it outrightly as so many do in these threads (unless, of course, you do reject it). If you wanted to address the post concerning Chypmonk, myself and others “who strongly advocate the strict interpretation of EENS…” that would be more acceptable as then there would be no question as to whether or not you’re rejecting it completely in this statement and we would know that you hold the ‘liberal’ view of the dogma.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top