Salvation outside the church

[QuickCat]

Sorry, I came in very late to this thread, and am responding to the last couple of posts.

To limit Jesus’s words confined to the Israelites, is to finger-point scripture to make it say what a person believes, regardless of other scriptures which contradict the verse. A couple of examples would be after the Resurrection when Jesus commissioned the apostles in Mark 16:15, “Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature.”

And another in John 1016, “And **other **sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one Shepherd.”

Our Blessed Lord had his reasons for limiting the scope to Israel, initially, but his passion and resurrection opened the door to world-wide ministry to all.

I think QC was on track by mentioning the scriptures in Galations, et al.

Mark 16:15 is after the DBR of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is speaking to 11 Jews. Prophetically the Jews were to be [and will be] the messengers to evangelize the world. But Israel was set aside in Acts 28 and now the Gentiles [thru Paul] are to proclaim the gospel of the grace of God to the world. Our Lord gives the order of progression to these 11 Jews in Acts 1:8 [Israel, Samaria, World]. This, of course looked forward to the setting up of Israel’s kingdom. You will note that the 11 asked our Lord about this kingdom in Acts 1:6. This after He had spent 40 days explaining this kingdom to them. It is of note that the 11 make it their first order of business to bring their number back up to 12 and Peter actually offers the kingdom to Israel in Acts 3:19-21. Israel rejected their Messiah and they were set aside [temporary]. Now the kingdom is held in abeyance until the church-age comes to an end. At that time God will once more take up dealing with Israel and our Lord Jesus Christ will return to set up the kingdom for Israel.
John 10:16 should be considered along with Ezek. chapters 34 and 37 in determining who the “other fold” are. This study will reveal that Israel is in mind here and not the Gentiles. Gentiles are never called “sheep” in Scripture.
I pray that you find this challenging and informative. BTW the 12 apostles of the circumcision never fulfilled their “Great Commission” of Mark - that’s where Gal. 2:9 comes in.
QC

 

[PRmerger]

Mark 16:15 is after the DBR of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is speaking to 11 Jews. Prophetically the Jews were to be [and will be] the messengers to evangelize the world. But Israel was set aside in Acts 28 and now the Gentiles [thru Paul] are to proclaim the gospel of the grace of God to the world. Our Lord gives the order of progression to these 11 Jews in Acts 1:8 [Israel, Samaria, World]. This, of course looked forward to the setting up of Israel’s kingdom. You will note that the 11 asked our Lord about this kingdom in Acts 1:6. This after He had spent 40 days explaining this kingdom to them. It is of note that the 11 make it their first order of business to bring their number back up to 12 and Peter actually offers the kingdom to Israel in Acts 3:19-21. Israel rejected their Messiah and they were set aside [temporary]. Now the kingdom is held in abeyance until the church-age comes to an end. At that time God will once more take up dealing with Israel and our Lord Jesus Christ will return to set up the kingdom for Israel.
John 10:16 should be considered along with Ezek. chapters 34 and 37 in determining who the “other fold” are. This study will reveal that Israel is in mind here and not the Gentiles. Gentiles are never called “sheep” in Scripture.
I pray that you find this challenging and informative. BTW the 12 apostles of the circumcision never fulfilled their “Great Commission” of Mark - that’s where Gal. 2:9 comes in.
QC

QC, did you note, in my previous post, that none of the Bibilical quotes you proffered had the word “ONLY”?

You added that, yes?

 

[Sirach2]

QuickCat:

Mark 16:15 is after the DBR of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is speaking to 11 Jews. Prophetically the Jews were to be [and will be] the messengers to evangelize the world.
True, he was speaking to the eleven, but his message has changed from going only to the lost sheep of Israel to embrace the whole world.

But Israel was set aside in Acts 28 and now the Gentiles [thru Paul] are to proclaim the gospel of the grace of God to the world. Our Lord gives the order of progression to these 11 Jews in Acts 1:8 [Israel, Samaria, World].

This not a progression as you imply, first to Israel, then to Samaria, but it is an inclusive statement embracing all, “even to the ends of the world.”

John 10:16 should be considered along with Ezek. chapters 34 and 37 in determining who the “other fold” are. This study will reveal that Israel is in mind here and not the Gentiles. Gentiles are never called “sheep” in Scripture.

Again, that should be qualified as your understanding, not necessarily the meaning Jesus intended. The USCCB website in referring to this verse states: * 10:16] Other sheep: the Gentiles, possibly a reference to “God’s dispersed children” of Jn 11:52 destined to be gathered into one, or “apostolic Christians” at odds with the community of the beloved disciple. The reference is to one fold, which is the ultimate vision of the Kingdom Jesus prays to the Father in John 17:20-21, “that all may be one, even as we are one.”

I pray that you find this challenging and informative. BTW the 12 apostles of the circumcision never fulfilled their “Great Commission” of Mark - that’s where Gal. 2:9 comes in.

You glean some strange ideas from your meditation on scripture. In reality, Gal. 2:9 simply decided the evangelization missions of those who would go to Israel and the others to the gentiles. Peter was well aware of the status of gentiles back in Acts 10 with the special vision of the sheet and encounter with Cornelius. He did not learn of this anew later on from St. Paul and change direction. I believe Our Lord was specific in his mandate of Acts 1:8, but Peter had to be disciplined via a vision to finally ‘get it.’

QC

 

[Gorgias]

Here’s that quote from Saint Thomas again:

No one ever has challenged Saint Thomas’ statement, not the Catechism, nor anyone else, so far as I can tell. Indeed, the Catechism references the declaration made at the Council of Florence:

You’re missing the context of the question that Thomas was answering. That context can be found in the question: “Whether the children who died in original sin were delivered by Christ?” – that is, he’s only talking about children who had died in original sin prior to Christ’s descent to the dead, as is obvious from objection 1: “It would seem that the children who died in original sin were delivered from hell by Christ’s descending thither. For, like the holy Fathers, the children were kept in hell simply because of original sin. But the holy Fathers were delivered from hell, as stated above (Article 5). Therefore the children were similarly delivered from hell by Christ.” In other words, he’s not talking about the general question of children who die without baptism, and therefore, not addressing the question you’re trying to make him answer here…!

Likewise, I do not believe that the Catechism is teaching about the existence of “null sets” either:

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God

But unfortunately, you’re making a logical error here. The fact that nothing impedes the entry into the Kingdom for those who are baptized does not, on its face, state what (if anything) impedes entry for those who are not baptized (in this case, the particular case of those who die before the age of reason and are not baptized). If this particular paragraph addressed that particular question, you’d have a leg to stand on. As it doesn’t, neither do you. In fact, 1261 disproves your assertion.

So, clearly, the teaching of the Church is that there are souls who end this life “in original sin alone.”

True… but the Church isn’t reaching the conclusion – that they (or some portion thereof) must necessarily be damned – that you are.

 

[triumphguy]

For those who literally believe that outside the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation:

1. If the Scripture or Magisterium definitely and definitively taught that outside the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation this would be one result.

Our own immortal soul would be in grave peril unless we strove to ensure that every soul we encountered met the Risen Lord , either explicitly through our teaching and preaching, or implicitly through our behaviours and actions.

The whole way we behaved as a Church would be entirely different. We would actively proselytize and evangelize. Our focus as Christians would be far more evangelical.

1. If you personally believe that outside the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation then will you not be judged by how well you proselytize every soul you encounter? By how well you preach and teach and LIVE Jesus? By how many converts you make?

 

[PRmerger]

For those who literally believe that outside the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation:

1. If the Scripture or Magisterium definitely and definitively taught that outside the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation this would be one result.

Our own immortal soul would be in grave peril unless we strove to ensure that every soul we encountered met the Risen Lord , either explicitly through our teaching and preaching, or implicitly through our behaviours and actions.

The whole way we behaved as a Church would be entirely different. We would actively proselytize and evangelize. Our focus as Christians would be far more evangelical.

1. If you personally believe that outside the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation then will you not be judged by how well you proselytize every soul you encounter? By how well you preach and teach and LIVE Jesus? By how many converts you make?

I have really no comment to make about what you say above except this: the Catholic Church is not Roman. There are 23 rites, and the Latin, or Roman rite is the most populous, but all rites are Catholic. And as such, it is incorrect to say that anyone, even those with a literal understanding of EENS, believes that one is only saved by the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[triumphguy]

I have really no comment to make about what you say above except this: the Catholic Church is not Roman. There are 23 rites, and the Latin, or Roman rite is the most populous, but all rites are Catholic. And as such, it is incorrect to say that anyone, even those with a literal understanding of EENS, believes that one is only saved by the Roman Catholic Church.

They are in communion and so not outside…

For arguments sake, it is a valid question, is it not?

Often we can press FOR a certain argument without taking into consideration the consequences of being right.

Eg., what if “Sola Scriptura” was right, then you had better apply John Chapter 6 (The Bread of Life Discourse) in full, and Jesus’ words at the Last Supper literally!

What if there is no communion outside the church (Roman and all those in Communion)? Then we’d better be doing a d**** sight better job of winning converts than we are doing now.

What if children who are aborted are denied heaven? Then we had better stop the slaughter now in order to save millions of souls.

If Hindus and Buddhists do not go to heaven the we Catholics had better be OUT IN FORCE in India and China.

 

[Jehannette]

In fact, 1261 disproves your assertion… but the Church isn’t reaching the conclusion – that they (or some portion thereof) must necessarily be damned – that you are.

This is not what Pope Sixtus V taught in his Papal bull Effraenatam:

Noticing that frequently by various Apostolic Constitutions the audacity and daring of most profligate men, who know no restraint, of sinning with license against the commandment “do not kill” was repressed; We who are placed by the Lord in the supreme throne of justice, being counseled by a most just reason, are in part renewing old laws and in part extending them in order to restrain with just punishment the monstrous and atrocious brutality of those who have no fear to kill most cruelly fetuses still hiding in the maternal viscera. Who will not detest such an abhorrent and evil act, by which are lost not only the bodies but also the souls? Who will not condemn to a most grave punishment the impiety of him who will exclude a soul created in the image of God and for which Our Lord Jesus Christ has shed His precious Blood, and which is capable of eternal happiness and is destined to be in the company of angels, from the blessed vision of God, and who has impeded as much as he could the filling up of heavenly mansions…

You can read it here:

iteadjmj.com/aborto/eng-prn.html

 

[Sirach2]

This is not what Pope Sixtus V taught in his Papal bull Effraenatam:

iteadjmj.com/aborto/eng-prn.html

For a document to be of the magnitude of solemn teaching, wouldn’t one expect to find it at the Vatican website? You spawn quotations like confettti in a windstorm, expecting that with the sheer volume of proof-texts you provide, it therefore becomes infallible Jehannette teaching.

Nevertheless, the Church always develops in her understanding of the realities and words which have been handed down. Through the Holy Spirit’s guidance, the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her. The task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the LIVING teaching office of the Church. (Dei Verbum)

You ardently cite isolated papal texts from antiquity, but miss the mark entirely because you fail to listen to what the Church teaches in these later days. Your firm stand on EENS and other issues, thereby becomes erroneous deviations leading others astray from Divine Truth.

My prayer is that you would spend as much time trying to understand the Holy Mind of the Church … today … and become an ardent defender of error, rather than one who promotes it. Your posts are audacious, not as one hoping to learn and be corrected, but as teacher possessing fullness of truth who cannot err. I realize that you believe your knowledge to be true, and that is lamentable; with such assurance, you do not need instruction from anyone else.

 

[Jehannette]

For a document to be of the magnitude of solemn teaching, wouldn’t one expect to find it at the Vatican website? You pull quotations like confettti in a windstorm, expecting that with the sheer volume of proof-texts you provide, it therefore becomes infallible Jehannette teaching.

Nevertheless, the Church always develops in her understanding of the realities and words which have been handed down. Through the Holy Spirit’s guidance, the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her. The task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the LIVING teaching office of the Church. (Dei Verbum)

You ardently spawn isolated papal texts from antiquity, but miss the mark entirely because you fail to listen to what the Church teaches in these later days. Your firm stand on EENS and other issues, thereby becomes erroneous deviations leading others astray from Divine Truth.

My prayer is that you would spend as much time trying to understand the Holy Mind of the Church … today … and become an ardent defender of error, rather than one who promotes it. Your posts are audacious, not as one hoping to learn and be corrected, but as teacher possessing fullness of truth who cannot err. I realize that you believe your knowledge to be true, and that is lamentable; with such assurance, you do not need instruction from anyone else.

It was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, who said:

“The faith, as such, is always the same. Therefore, St. Pius X’s catechism always retains its value, … There can be persons or groups that feel more comfortable with St. Pius X’s catechism. … that Catechism stemmed from a text that was prepared by the Pope himself [Pius X] when he was Bishop of Mantua. The text was the fruit of the personal catechetical experience of Giuseppe Sarto, whose characteristics were simplicity of exposition and depth of content. Also because of this, St. Pius X’s catechism might have friends in the future.” (See zenit.org/article-7161?l=english)

Paragraph #1261 can be fully reconciled with Effraenatam, in that Tradition has clearly enunciated that “a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism” does exist, namely, martyrdom in the Name of Christ. (Abortion is, of course, not martyrdom but premeditated murder, as the mother is almost always acting out of her own free will and volition to end the life of her unborn child.) Here is what #1261 does not say:

1. All children who die without sacramental Baptism are saved.
2. Children who die without sacramental Baptism have an assurance of salvation.

By the way, you seem to be of the opinion that Papal bulls from the past have “expiration dates.” Just curious, “How long is a Papal bull ‘good for’”? And, what defines “antiquity”? Is anything, say, from the 19th-century still relevant? What value does Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum have for us today? Is there anything in the Catholic Faith that, in your view, is immutable and unchangeable?

 

[Sirach2]

I have nothing further to say to you Jehannette. You are taunting for dissension and argument and your mind is completely closed.

 

[Jehannette]

I have nothing further to say to you Jehannette. You are taunting for dissension and argument and your mind is completely closed.

My questions to you were made in complete sincerity.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you proposing that there are those here who claim that “all children who end this life without sacramental Baptism in Water will go to heaven”?

Hiya, Jehannette. Just wondering if you could answer this question I posed a few pages back? Thanks.

 

[PRmerger]

They are in communion and so not outside…

No, not outside. You are correct about that.

But you incorrectly offer the assignation of Roman Catholic Church to the Catholic Church. Just trying to show you this so you don’t make that error again.

For arguments sake, it is a valid question, is it not?

Well, not really. I don’t think that our “immortal soul is in grave peril” if we don’t convert every soul we meet to Christ or the CC.

Our own immortal soul would be in grave peril unless we strove to ensure that every soul we encountered met the Risen Lord , either explicitly through our teaching and preaching, or implicitly through our behaviours and actions.

 

[PRmerger]

It was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, who said:

“The faith, as such, is always the same.

True. The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

However, doctrine develops.

That is Catholic teaching, too.

By the way, you seem to be of the opinion that Papal bulls from the past have “expiration dates.” Just curious, “How long is a Papal bull ‘good for’”?

I don’t think that anyone here is proposing that Papal documents have expiration dates.

But I do believe what someone here posted a while ago on the CAFs: if someone has to cite a papal document from centuries ago in order to prove her point, one ought to be quite suspect about the position she’s arguing for.

That paradigm makes sense to me.

 

[Jehannette]

Hiya, Jehannette. Just wondering if you could answer this question I posed a few pages back? Thanks.

I do not know; I have read others who have proposed it, but I cannot say for sure if anyone here has.

 

[PRmerger]

I do not know; I have read others who have proposed it, but I cannot say for sure if anyone here has.

Then you are arguing against a straw man.

It’s like an atheist coming to the CAFs and saying, “Not all atheists are wife-beaters! Here’s an example of a good atheist. And here’s an example of a Christian who’s beat his wife!”

To which Catholics would respond, “Ok. Who ever said that all atheists are wife-beaters???”

 

[triumphguy]

No, not outside. You are correct about that.

But you incorrectly offer the assignation of Roman Catholic Church to the Catholic Church. Just trying to show you this so you don’t make that error again.

Well, not really. I don’t think that our “immortal soul is in grave peril” if we don’t convert every soul we meet to Christ or the CC.

I know that - just trying to provoke a reaction

What I am trying to point out is that those who assert that outside the Church there is no salvation must also be willing to take the responsibility that proceeds from that.

It’s no good being right, if you end up in the wrong.

If I spend my energy saying outside the Church there is no salvation and spend no energy trying to save souls then my soul is in peril.

Those who shout the loudest must strive the hardest.

IMNSHO People spend a lot of time trying to prove how right they are, instead of living as if their opinion is right.

Not referring to you PRmerger

 

[QuickCat]

QC, did you note, in my previous post, that none of the Bibilical quotes you proffered had the word “ONLY”?

You added that, yes?

Pr, did you notice that you ignore all the Scriptures I cite? Question: Is the church Israel?
QC

 

[QuickCat]

Sirach2:
Peter was sent to Cornelius, a devout man who worshipped Israel’s God. Peter, after being given all the “Great Commissions” noted that it was “unlawful” for him to come to the Gentiles. He asked: “Why did you send for me?” He preached the gospel of the kingdom to Cornelius, the same gospel that our Lord Jesus Christ, John the Baptist and the 12 preached to Israel in the gospels. This account would picture Gentiles coming into Israel’s kingdom once it is established on this earth at the Lord’s 2nd advent. Jews will evangelize the Gentiles in this earthly kingdom. And the 12 apostles will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.

Ac 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. (KJV)

Ac 10:29 Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me? (KJV)

Ac 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. (KJV)
Ac 10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all

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.

QC