Salvation outside the church

[QuickCat]

I would say to those that doubt the Catholic Church has the authority to make Dogma (and make rulings of Salvation Outside the Church), this fact. If we believe in an all powerful God and Jesus Christ, we must also believe the teachings of Christ completely. Those that did not believe completely, Jesus rejected.

Jesus promised the guidance of his Church with Holy Spirit. He also gave the Keys the the Kingdom to Peter and his early Church. They were the first Catholics. We also know that Jesus promised him that the gates of Hell would never overpower it, that those given authority in the Church had the authority to ‘bind things on earth and they would be bound in heaven’. We also know that the core beliefs of the Catholic church have never changed. This in itself is a proof of the inspiration and guidance by Holy Spirit, for if one changes a belief, does not that mean that the belief being changed was not from God because we know God does not change.

Given these facts, if one claims to be Catholic and does not CHOOSE to believe all the core teachings of the Catholic Church are true, why do you continue to be Catholic? You are already a protestant at heart, their are 35,000 different options available to you out there.

The problem is, you will be leaving Jesus chosen vessel of salvation. The problem is, we want to rely on our own thinking. Just because something seems logical in our own mind doesn’t make it so. Extermination of the Jews was perfectly correct in Hitlers mind, but it wasn’t. We MUST rely on a higher authority.

I left the church as a young man and searched for that truth in many of those ‘Protestant’ churches as well as some eastern religions. When it was all done, I realized I was allowing my own desires and thinking to guide me. My ideas are nothing, it is only Gods ideas that matter. There is only one religion that has stayed united over the centuries and that is the Catholic Church. It is a billion strong and has a direct line of history leading to Jesus Christ. What more do I need? I leave my soul in the hands of God.

The “keys of the kingdom” will be used when the Lord Jesus Christ returns to establish that earthly kingdom promised to Israel by many, many O.T. Scriptures. Notice: Mt 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (KJV). We have a foretaste of this in early Acts before Peter offers the kingdom to Israel in Acts 3:19-21.
BTW, we don’t join the church to get saved, the moment we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ we are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ. See 1 Cor. 12:13. This is not water baptism.
Grace and Peace,
QC

 

[Hamlet123]

The catechism is a wonderful guide for understanding the Catholic dogma in depth, but it is not the sole universal way to salvation; Jesus is! The word catholic (small “c”) meant and means the universal christian church which can vary from place to place with its rites and rituals.

I consider myself a christian evangelical catholic.

If one were to make a special effort to be a christian evangelical catholic the first place he should go to is the Catechism. The Catechism will answer the question, “What is the sole universal way to salvation?” It will enchance the answer, “What is the sole universal way to salvation?”, it will clarify issues that object to, “What is the sole universal way to salvation?”.

Jesus Christ gave us the Apostles to help us get closer to the sole universal way to salvation. Thier predecessors gave us the bible. Your answer, I believe, is a slippery slope leading those who would like to know more about the One, Jesus Christ, away from the source of this answer: these documents you implicidly denigrate. If we love someone, we want to know all about them. That is why these documents firstly are so very important to know Jesus.

 

[Hamlet123]

ve a foretaste of this in early Acts before Peter offers the kingdom to Israel in Acts 3:19-21.
BTW, we don’t join the church to get saved, the moment we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ we are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ. See 1 Cor. 12:13. This is not water baptism.
Grace and Peace,
QC

When we are baptized, we join the church; we are bapized to be saved; therefore, when we join the church we join to be saved.

 

[grannymh]

BTW, we don’t join the church to get saved, the moment we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ we are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ. See 1 Cor. 12:13. This is not water baptism.
Grace and Peace,
QC

The context of 1 Corinthians, chapter 12 begins with the spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit which are in addition to the Catholic Sacrament of Baptism. Verse 13 refers to the Sacrament of Baptism which brings us into the “one body” as further explained in verses 14 - 26. Verses 27 - 31 returns to the opening theme of different gifts from God which are in the one Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Note that in the “great commission” it is the Sacrament of Baptism which is being described. Matthew 28: 16 - 20. This directive is played out in Acts, Chapter 10 especially where water Baptism is specified in verses 44 -49.

In shorter words. Belief in Jesus Christ is followed by the action of the Sacrament of Baptism.

 

[grannymh]

If one were to make a special effort to be a christian evangelical catholic the first place he should go to is the Catechism. The Catechism will answer the question, “What is the sole universal way to salvation?” It will enchance the answer, “What is the sole universal way to salvation?”, it will clarify issues that object to, “What is the sole universal way to salvation?”.

Jesus Christ gave us the Apostles to help us get closer to the sole universal way to salvation. Thier predecessors gave us the bible. Your answer, I believe, is a slippery slope leading those who would like to know more about the One, Jesus Christ, away from the source of this answer: these documents you implicidly denigrate. If we love someone, we want to know all about them. That is why these documents firstly are so very important to know Jesus.

I just did a quick search of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition,
CCC 161, 846, 1129, 1257, which are about the importance of the Sacrament of Baptism. They do **not **use the word sole.

While one could say that the Sacrament of Baptism is the universal means for salvation, one has to consider that God, not man, is the Creator. Therefore, CCC 1258 - 1260 presents the other means for salvation.

In my humble opinion, the word sole is a human limitation of the power of the Holy Spirit to offer to all human beings the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Pascal mystery. Source: footnote 63, section “The Necessity of Baptism”, CCC 1257 - 1261.

 

[Hamlet123]

I just did a quick search of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition,
CCC 161, 846, 1129, 1257, which are about the importance of the Sacrament of Baptism. They do **not **use the word sole.

While one could say that the Sacrament of Baptism is the universal means for salvation, one has to consider that God, not man, is the Creator. Therefore, CCC 1258 - 1260 presents the other means for salvation.

In my humble opinion, the word sole is a human limitation of the power of the Holy Spirit to offer to all human beings the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Pascal mystery. Source: footnote 63, section “The Necessity of Baptism”, CCC 1257 - 1261.

I AGREE with you “sole” is a wrong term; and very wrong. I was copying your comment and not thinking. However, the Catechism is a source of the sole way to get to Jesus, our Savior, our Lord. It is more than an excellent way to get to Jesus. And it gives us the way to stay with Him.

Correction taken

 

[Jehannette]

I AGREE with you “sole” is a wrong term; and very wrong. I was copying your comment and not thinking. However, the Catechism is a source of the sole way to get to Jesus, our Savior, our Lord. It is more than an excellent way to get to Jesus. And it gives us the way to stay with Him.

Correction taken

As the Catechism makes clear, one cannot choose not to baptized:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

 

[Hamlet123]

As the Catechism makes clear, one cannot choose not to baptized:

YOu are not inferring that bapism of DESIRE and / or BLOOD are not valid, are you?

 

[Jehannette]

YOu are not inferring that bapism of DESIRE and / or BLOOD are not valid, are you?

Of course, not! However, one cannot choose to be “baptized by desire” or be “baptized by blood” (the latter would be suicide, if one willingly agreed to be killed and tried to “engineer” that.). The Council of Trent infallibly declared:

“If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Canon 5)

By the above, Trent means that one cannot choose not to be sacramentally baptized and still go to Heaven in the same sense that one can choose not to be sacramentally married and still go to Heaven.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Church teaching:

• Baptism is necessary for salvation (but does not ensure it as you must die in a state of grace).
• There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

So how can you be baptised and Catholic/deemed to be Catholic? There are 4 ways:

• Sacramental Baptism as a Catholic
• Baptism of Blood (non-Catholic dying for the Catholic Faith)
• Baptism of Desire - Explicit (e.g. a catechumen going through RCIA)
• Baptism of Desire - Implicit (invincible ignorance which means those who through no fault of their own do not know Christ, His Gospel, or His Church but still live a life according to the teachings of Christ in that ignorance)

You can debate who may or may not be included under invincible ignorance but outside the above 4 there is no salvation.

Not all Catholics go to Heaven but everyone in Heaven is Catholic.

Thank you, Thistle. This is very helpful. :flowers::thankyou: I too, as a fairly new adult convert, wondered about this.

I believe that what troubles many of us are the very strong, early statements of the Church juxtaposed/read side by side in comparison with the new ecumenism and openness. Yet look at the beautiful work being done by outreach, regarding The Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, whereby we are now welcoming tens of thousands abroad and many entire Anglican or Episcopalians back Home, to the Catholic Faith. This work took decades to come to fruition. How patient God is with us!
*
The real source of the confusion may be, (regarding the original poster’s question) not knowing whether or not Holy Church is allowed to re-interpret. * As a new Catholic, this interests me greatly too.

THE KEYS HANDED TO ST PETER, COULD THIS HELP ANSWER US? Our Lord, in handing the Keys of the Kingdom to St. Peter realized that there would be a succession of Popes. Still, he said to Peter that “Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven. Whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.” Could that be our answer?

I’m beginning to think these re-interpretations* are* allowable then, since God in His wisdom knew that successive Popes, whether by a growing understanding or evolving wisdom, would in fact* need* to be able to re-interpret. Not change, but grow in understanding, while keeping to basic tenets. Is this possible?

Re-interpretations, then, may cause alarm, understandably, if we think the new language has completely lost all of the original meaning. But has it, in this case?

I might add that I like one of the poster’s here who mentioned the innocent animals on the ark who were welcomed on board, who had no idea even of the concept of an ark, yet they were of prime importance.

And Noah did his best to warn all the people, wanting them to believe, wanted them to be sheltered from the coming storm, if my memory serves me correctly.

Comparing this to the former language excluding “heathens, Jews, Muslims” from Heaven, can we look to the Ark of the Church as one that is now welcoming all who, in their own way, desire to move toward God in a way written on their hearts, if not otherwise? This would include your excellent points on those with invincible ignorance, and the Baptism of Blood, Desire, etc.

Could you possibly help me with the one nagging question, which is: Is it lawful for the Church to re-interpret her sayings (such as those spoken Ex-Cathedra) or whatever would apply here? I think it’s the strong language of the earlier Church Fathers versus all the new ecumenical leanings which confuse me, and perhaps others.

I’m tending towards thinking that it can re-interpret, in light of new knowledge, just as Christ said that He came “not to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them.” The Keys have been handed to the Successors of St. Peter, after all, to bind or loose…

I would be very grateful if you had time to address this.

I agree with the original poster that this issue can be confusing. I completely agree with your statement that not all Catholics may go to Heaven, but everyone in Heaven is Catholic.

One might add, “one way or another,” in describing how they come to be Catholic, and your four points seem to answer that well and are very helpful.:angel1:

Gratefully,
Kathryn Ann:heaven:

 

[Jehannette]

Could you possibly help me with the one nagging question, which is: Is it lawful for the Church to re-interpret her sayings (such as those spoken Ex-Cathedra) or whatever would apply here? I think it’s the strong language of the earlier Church Fathers versus all the new ecumenical leanings which confuse me, and perhaps others.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #14, ex cathedra: “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.”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 4, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.”

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

QUOTE=Jehannette;9563108]

Quote:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #14, ex cathedra: “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.”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 4, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.”

Jehannette, thank you so much for finding these very important quotes. Seeing the above in answer to my question regarding re-interpretation makes one pause.

One might parse, **(I would not, **just an example here…) and say “the meaning” of the sacred dogmas, if not changed, gives room for different expression or language which truly sustains the original meaning. I don’t know the answer to that. I believe this is the crux of the entire question. The quotes above speak of “meaning” and “sense of understanding.”

The question remains then, are St. Peter’s successors changing** “the* meanings*** of the sacred dogmas” regarding the issue of allowing some outside the Church to enter Heaven or changing the original** “sense” **spoken of here? Are the meaning and the understanding of original dogma changed merely by expounding upon it or clarifying it through the ages? I wonder what others here think about that too.

Blessings and peace,

Kathryn Ann

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Jehannette, thank you so much for finding these very important quotes. Seeing the above in answer to my question regarding re-interpretation makes one pause.

One might parse, **(I would not, **just an example here…) and say “the meaning” of the sacred dogmas, if not changed, gives room for different expression or language which truly sustains the original meaning. I don’t know the answer to that. I believe this is the crux of the entire question. The quotes above speak of “meaning” and “sense of understanding.”

The question remains then, are St. Peter’s successors changing** “the* meanings*** of the sacred dogmas” regarding the issue of allowing some outside the Church to enter Heaven or changing the original** “sense” **spoken of here? Are the meaning and the understanding of original dogma changed merely by expounding upon it or clarifying it through the ages? I wonder what others here think about that too.

Blessings and peace,

Kathryn Ann

Let me offer some thoughts for consideration here.

(1) Regarding the factual question, I would argue that it is clear the CC has not changed its teaching on no salvation outside the church =EENS] in Vatican II. See quotes I provided below (Jul 17, '12, 12:30 pm).

(2) Regarding abstract possibilities, in addition to (a) the reinterpretation of dogmas and (b) the reformulation of dogmas there is the separate possibility of (c) contextualizing dogmas and (d) changing emphasis. Vatican II in some instances engaged in (c) and (d).

As an example of (c) some theologians today see Revelation, Grace, and the Beatific Vision as inextricably linked and seek to develop this link. Without disputing the dogmas regarding each of these three, viewing them in the context of being tied together brings out deeper insights into them individually.

For (d) pre-conciliar teaching re EENS emphasized that the
(i) mind is ordered to truth,
(ii) all religions are not equal (God has spoken His complete saving word to the whole of humanity and transmits it through one true church He founded.),
(iii) a human does not have a right to error any more than they have a right to poison.
Minor emphasis was given to
(vi) the human right (with respect to the will) not to be coerced in to believing or not believing,
and (v) that people invincibly ignorant of the one true faith are not faulted by God in this regard and may be saved notwithstanding their extremely disadvantaged situation re the means of salvation.

Vatican II while affirming (i)-(iii) nonetheless chose to highlight and emphasized (iv)-(v).

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Let me offer some thoughts for consideration here.

(1) Regarding the factual question, I would argue that it is clear the CC has not changed its teaching on no salvation outside the church =EENS] in Vatican II. See quotes I provided below (Jul 17, '12, 12:30 pm).

(2) Regarding abstract possibilities, in addition to (a) the reinterpretation of dogmas and (b) the reformulation of dogmas there is the separate possibility of (c) contextualizing dogmas and (d) changing emphasis. Vatican II in some instances engaged in (c) and (d).

As an example of (c) some theologians today see Revelation, Grace, and the Beatific Vision as inextricably linked and seek to develop this link. Without disputing the dogmas regarding each of these three, viewing them in the context of being tied together brings out deeper insights into them individually.

For (d) pre-conciliar teaching re EENS emphasized that the
(i) mind is ordered to truth,
(ii) all religions are not equal (God has spoken His complete saving word to the whole of humanity and transmits it through one true church He founded.),
(iii) a human does not have a right to error any more than they have a right to poison.
Minor emphasis was given to
(vi) the human right (with respect to the will) not to be coerced in to believing or not believing,
and (v) that people invincibly ignorant of the one true faith are not faulted by God in this regard and may be saved notwithstanding their extremely disadvantaged situation re the means of salvation.

Vatican II while affirming (i)-(iii) nonetheless chose to highlight and emphasized (iv)-(v).

Thank you Fr. of Jazz, this is quite interesting and I shall study it all carefully.

I look forward to pondering all these things, as I think the original poster’s questions are ones that many of us think about and to which we long to know the answers. Your quotes are very helpful on all this.

Blessings and peace,
Kathryn Ann

 

[awolbob]

It was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger who gave the Imprimi Potest to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Sorry I thought he was the pope

 

[awolbob]

If one were to make a special effort to be a christian evangelical catholic the first place he should go to is the Catechism. The Catechism will answer the question, “What is the sole universal way to salvation?” It will enhance the answer, “What is the sole universal way to salvation?”, it will clarify issues that object to, “What is the sole universal way to salvation?”.

Jesus Christ gave us the Apostles to help us get closer to the sole universal way to salvation. Their predecessors gave us the bible. Your answer, I believe, is a slippery slope leading those who would like to know more about the One, Jesus Christ, away from the source of this answer: these documents you implicitly denigrate. If we love someone, we want to know all about them. That is why these documents firstly are so very important to know Jesus.

I’m sure that was just a slip of your keyboard, saying “predecessor” instead of “successors”. Be that as it may, I did not mean to denigrate any document of the Catholic church and do not believe I did so. As for that slippery slope, so long as you put the catechism ahead of the “Word of God”, It is not I who is on that slope. That document is a well-written guide to the Catholic faith. What it is not is the Word of God; Jesus was and is.

I have the new catechism of the Catholic church and read it, but I would in no way put it ahead of the Bible, the Word of God, or the Holy Spirit. The Catechism is a very well-written and useful document, but I would not put any man-made document, no matter how “well-'written”, ahead of the Word of God.

I am asking myself if you are perhaps thinking the Catechism is over the Bible rather than that it is a very good expository on the Bible, christian tradition, and the magisterium of the Catholic church.

I am a “cradle Catholic” and was sent to parochial school. I believed what I was taught, and still do. I have also attended Conservative Baptist and other non-denominational community churches in which the Holy Spirit is obviously active (…you will know them by their fruits). I was asked by a pastor to lead adult bible study. I found I was teaching from a Catholic perspective and did not realize it at the time.

I also learned, from several who attended the study, one may know chapter and verse to perfection, but if one is not familiar with the forms in which each “book” of the Bible is written, one can misconstrue meaning when verses are taken out of context.

The heart of the issue here then is whether there is any way to salvation outside of the Catholic church. You seem to say not. Pope Benedict would disagree with you, and has in at least one encyclical.

 

[awolbob]

QUOTE=Jehannette;9563108]

Quote:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #14, ex cathedra: “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.”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 4, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.”

Jehannette, thank you so much for finding these very important quotes. Seeing the above in answer to my question regarding re-interpretation makes one pause.

One might parse, **(I would not, **just an example here…) and say “the meaning” of the sacred dogmas, if not changed, gives room for different expression or language which truly sustains the original meaning. I don’t know the answer to that. I believe this is the crux of the entire question. The quotes above speak of “meaning” and “sense of understanding.”

The question remains then, are St. Peter’s successors changing** “the* meanings*** of the sacred dogmas” regarding the issue of allowing some outside the Church to enter Heaven or changing the original** “sense” **spoken of here? Are the meaning and the understanding of original dogma changed merely by expounding upon it or clarifying it through the ages? I wonder what others here think about that too.

Blessings and peace,

Kathryn Ann

Perhaps there is some confusion here about the definition of “Church”, or universal (catholic) church. Our current Pope has stated that the scattered [christian] churches must come back together for the sake of Christ’s mystical body (the Church) here on earth.

The Bible of the catholic (universal) church was codified around the 400’s AD in order to dispel heresies, which were many, and to give the whole church a valid manual from which to operate and teach. This compilation of letters and oral traditions are all the church has to go on with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. There may, from age to age, be different emphasis by each Pope in order to address the needs of each age. It was many many years until the first printing press made Bibles available to the laity. And that is when all the quarrelling really started. The Catechism was meant to inform and to dispell heresy, not to continue to divide Jesus’ Church.

The current catechism of the Church was meant, said its writer, for teachers and leaders, so they would teach a consistant doctrine. But bishops thought it to be so well-written, they ordered copies for their parishoners, too.

The christian faith, whether Catholic or protestant, is a gift from God. It is not for each one of us to posit under which title the true Body of Christ exists.

 

[awolbob]

I AGREE with you “sole” is a wrong term; and very wrong. I was copying your comment and not thinking. However, the Catechism is a source of the sole way to get to Jesus, our Savior, our Lord. It is more than an excellent way to get to Jesus. And it gives us the way to stay with Him.

Correction taken

I would rather one says the catechism is “a way to help us to stay with Him”. Still, one must always remember that the work of Jesus and the Holy Spirit “precede” any work of man. The catechism is not the means of salvation; the finished work of Christ is…we are merely on the receiving end of that finished work if we will receive it.

The catechism is a wonderful guide, by the magisterium of the Church, to help enlighten believers on the Catholic faith.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Quoting awolbob:

Perhaps there is some confusion here about the definition of “Church”, or universal (catholic) church. Our current Pope has stated that the scattered [christian] churches must come back together for the sake of Christ’s mystical body (the Church) here on earth.

The Bible of the catholic (universal) church was codified around the 400’s AD in order to dispel heresies, which were many, and to give the whole church a valid manual from which to operate and teach. This compilation of letters and oral traditions are all the church has to go on with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. There may, from age to age, be different emphasis by each Pope in order to address the needs of each age. It was many many years until the first printing press made Bibles available to the laity. And that is when all the quarrelling really started. The Catechism was meant to inform and to dispell heresy, not to continue to divide Jesus’ Church.

The current catechism of the Church was meant, said its writer, for teachers and leaders, so they would teach a consistant doctrine. But bishops thought it to be so well-written, they ordered copies for their parishoners, too.

The christian faith, whether Catholic or protestant, is a gift from God. It is not for each one of us to posit under which title the true Body of Christ exists.

Greetings in Christ, awolbob,

I appreciate your thoughts here, and your gentle replies. I can see you have a grasp of the entire picture. I am more childlike in my approach, and enjoy learning.

For that reason, when I write that there is One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, it is of course not because I have declared it so, and not in a spirit of personal superiority over other believers. (I am nothing in my small self) but I declare it the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic because Christ made it so.

He prayed so fervently before His Passion, “That all may be One.” At the Last Supper, many left Him because they could not believe His statement was literal, that they should feed on His Body and His Blood. “Many left Him.” after that, unable to believe.

Centuries later, few of these scattered “churches” teach the Real Presence, and this is the summit of our Faith.

True, The Church allows for “invincible ignorance,” and only God can judge the hearts of men. I do agree that in God’s Divine Mercy, He desires that all come to him in the fullness of His Church. In fullness, that is the key! All do not realize how glorious is that gift!

** A little analogy:** I think of the story of the Prodigal Son, who was outside the realm of his father’s house, having sinned greatly, having felt that he could not anticipate being anything but a servant. He somehow felt worthy enough to be just that, a servant. But his father would not hear of it! He declared to his son that he was not born to be his servant, but his son! Notice too that the “justified” son out in the fields would have gladly barred his Prodigal brother from his full inheritance. This is a lovely story, illustrating how the father had set the celebration and invited both sons to join him inside the house! And not to a simple meal, but to a banquet. That is the difference: The Church has prepared the Banquet of Christ’s Real Presence, here and now, and some want only to step back into something lesser. No Sacraments, no Saints, no veneration of Our Blessed Mother. A church, with a little c that although just as welcome to the banquet, seems not to know the fullness of what God has prepared for us, now and in eternity!

If others go to Heaven some other way, perhaps not being taught of the joy of full Communion with the Church, others of us realize now, at this moment, that they are drawn, they are absolutely longing for their Father’s lavish gifts of love, of Holy Communion, His Real Presence inside His Ark-like House, His Church. Why would we not want to go to Heaven as Christ’s Bride, His Holy Church?

Of course it is all too big for me to understand on a doctrinal level. I hope my analogy makes sense. You and others here have a good grasp of these things. Yet one thing I know is that even a child senses the different levels of joy offered, and with childlike faith, do we not all grasp for all God’s blessings?

I only know His Holy Church, and no other, gives me Sacraments, Magisterium, Catechism, Traditions and His Real Presence, and only with these can I even hope to make it to Heaven. Because I sinned more, I love more, in my pitiable state, as the scripture says. Maybe others feel perfectly acceptable in their own goodness to attain Heaven. I need His Holy Church and His Real Presence to have a hope of entering in.

The Church is the Bride of Christ. God our Father, in His Divine Mercy, has given us the Divine Continuity of Apostolic Succession. Christ handed the Keys to St. Peter, establishing The Chair of St. Peter, declaring that whatsoever Peter and his successors bound on earth would be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever they loosed on earth would be loosed in Heaven. This is a literal proclamation of power. The Catholic Church was THE ONLY Church for over 1500 years, before the “wicked schism” (words of St. Ambose of Milan.)" The gates of Hell will shall not prevail against it." This is the glory of the Church Christ gave us, knowing we would need all of His power to save us.

Many blessings,
Kathryn Ann

 

[Hamlet123]

I’m sure that was just a slip of your keyboard, saying “predecessor” instead of “successors”. Be that as it may, I did not mean to denigrate any document of the Catholic church and do not believe I did so. As for that slippery slope, so long as you put the catechism ahead of the “Word of God”, It is not I who is on that slope. That document is a well-written guide to the Catholic faith. What it is not is the Word of God; Jesus was and is.

I have the new catechism of the Catholic church and read it, but I would in no way put it ahead of the Bible, the Word of God, or the Holy Spirit. The Catechism is a very well-written and useful document, but I would not put any man-made document, no matter how “well-'written”, ahead of the Word of God.

I am asking myself if you are perhaps thinking the Catechism is over the Bible rather than that it is a very good expository on the Bible, christian tradition, and the magisterium of the Catholic church.

I am a “cradle Catholic” and was sent to parochial school. I believed what I was taught, and still do. I have also attended Conservative Baptist and other non-denominational community churches in which the Holy Spirit is obviously active (…you will know them by their fruits). I was asked by a pastor to lead adult bible study. I found I was teaching from a Catholic perspective and did not realize it at the time.

I also learned, from several who attended the study, one may know chapter and verse to perfection, but if one is not familiar with the forms in which each “book” of the Bible is written, one can misconstrue meaning when verses are taken out of context.

The heart of the issue here then is whether there is any way to salvation outside of the Catholic church. You seem to say not. Pope Benedict would disagree with you, and has in at least one encyclical.

The bible is God breathed, infallible and one of the three legs of the church.
The magisterium is infallible when speaking on matters of F and M
And the Pope is infallible when speaking on matters of Fand M
Now, there is a lot of discussion regarding WHEN the magisterium and Pope are “speaking on matters of F and M” but be that as it may, we would not have a bible without the Pope and the Magisterium. The bible is an example of the development of doctrine; it came from sacred Tradition. Interpretation of the bible is from the Magisteriium. Those interpretation can be found in different documents but with highest authority the encyclicals.

The bible and the Magisterium says one should not interrupt the bible on their own. Propisciation (spelling??) is a sin.

I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that I understand that there is no salvation outside the formal Catholic church. The CCC is clear on that, one can be a Catholic by DESIRE and / or BLOOD.

I as well taught Sunday School for five years and ran the department for three. I was a Southern Baptist. One can not tell if the Holy Spirit is in a group. Feeling are the worse thing to rely on when making decisions. When Jesus said to “judge not” He was referring to ones’ heart, not ones’ actions. We are to judge others’ actions, but not their heart. How can we know if the Holy Spirit is somewhere? Who says it is not the devil doing exta-ordinary things.

Fact, Faith and Feelings were on a tight rope. As long as Faith kept his eyes on Facts all was well, but when Faith started looking at Feelings; Faith and Feeling fell. But Fact? Facts never fall. Facts are facts.