So what's the point in being Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter archangel04
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

archangel04

Guest
In my current assignment I am having to do research on the effect of the salvation of Christ with non-catholics. From what I’ve gathered the two authors explain that “outside the Church is no salvation” is in grave err. They state that the salvific work of God has been in works since the beginning of human history. An example is given with Lady wisdom or Sophia in the OT. They also state that Vatican 2 says there are many truths found in other faiths that are graces from God. Also arguing that the morality naturally given to humanity are graces from God which will lead them to salvation. To make it short they basically state that one does need to join the Church because it is not the sole ark of salvation. That one may follow their religion and reach salvation. So then I ask what’s the point of being Catholic? If one lives a moral life and believes in God what’s the point of being part of a religion?

Please don’t respond with the usual answers like the Church has the whole truth or it’s the one Church of Christ. These two priest (authors) refute those answers by acknowledging the ambiguity of Vatican 2. So what say you?
 
It all depends on how the church is viewed. It may be viewed as two parts: the jurisdictional part, or the spiritual soul part. Everyone that is saved is saved in the church, and those not officially in the jurisdictional part are saved if they belong in some way to the soul of the church. But these only belong to the soul of the church if they do not understand that the church has also the jurisdictional side which God has intended for all to belong to as well. This would hold for anyone who innocently did not know God’s will and thought that they were correct in God’s mind for only being a part of the soul of the church.

Therefore who is in and who is out is a mute question because noone really knows when all is said and done, except for those who acknowledge and fall under the jurisdictional part of the church which is visible.

I guess it all pretty much comes down to sincerety of the individual whether or not they
ascertain that they are following God’s will. Which if sincere, would fall under the
baptism of desire.

Just a thought or two.
 
Just curious… Are we doing your homework for you?

Well… To me, the point is to Please God. It pleases God that I am a Catholic and in the Church He established. Sure I could be just as saved in the WestGate Chapel around the corner, and it’d be a shorter walk on Sunday… But it pleases God that I’m a Catholic, so I am…

God bless, and I hope we get a good grade
 
archangel04 said:
In my current assignment I am having to do research on the effect of the salvation of Christ with non-catholics. From what I’ve gathered the two authors explain that “outside the Church is no salvation” is in grave err. They state that the salvific work of God has been in works since the beginning of human history. An example is given with Lady wisdom or Sophia in the OT. They also state that Vatican 2 says there are many truths found in other faiths that are graces from God. Also arguing that the morality naturally given to humanity are graces from God which will lead them to salvation. To make it short they basically state that one does need to join the Church because it is not the sole ark of salvation. That one may follow their religion and reach salvation. So then I ask what’s the point of being Catholic? If one lives a moral life and believes in God what’s the point of being part of a religion?

Please don’t respond with the usual answers like the Church has the whole truth or it’s the one Church of Christ. These two priest (authors) refute those answers by acknowledging the ambiguity of Vatican 2. So what say you?
Click to expand...
The question is founded on the perverted notion that religion is only good insofar as we personally get something out of it. If the outcome for me is the same either way, this mindset goes, then there is no conceivable basis on which to prefer one course to another. Continuing along this line, one might say that if the Catholic Church considers both murder and robbery to be mortal sins for which one might be sent to Hell, then if you are going to commit a robbery this leaves no reason, according to the Church, not to go ahead and kill the witnesses too – “So then I ask what’s the point of sparing the witnesses?”

Or let’s pose a different hypothetical, one which I’ve often seen trip amateur thinkers up. Suppose you know a Catholic who engages in some harmless-to-others sin, let’s say masturbation. He is a convert to the religion and was raised in an atheistic Soviet culture; his instruction in Catholicism, while good, was not complete, and you know he is entirely unaware that we consider masturbation a sin, or even that we regard it as having a moral aspect at all. Because of this, when he does it it does not constitute a mortal sin. So, ignoring the awkwardness of broaching the topic, should you tell him? If you don’t, he will keep doing it, albeit without gravely sinning thereby. If you do, he will probably cut back and possibly even quit, yet, realistically, it is very likely that he will sinfully continue doing it, at least to an extent. It is not altogether unthinkable that he might even wind up in Hell because of it. Which course should you choose?

I suggest to you that if you can answer the (easy) question posed in the first paragraph, then you have the seeds to the answer of the second paragraph; and if you have that, then you have all the elements necessary to answer such questions as why we should contact a peaceful, aboriginal society to convert them to Christ, even though many of them might reject the message, when if we held back they would all continue in “invincible ignorance” of the truths of the Catholic faith.
 
Myqyl said:
Just curious… Are we doing your homework for you?

Well… To me, the point is to Please God. It pleases God that I am a Catholic and in the Church He established. Sure I could be just as saved in the WestGate Chapel around the corner, and it’d be a shorter walk on Sunday… But it pleases God that I’m a Catholic, so I am…

God bless, and I hope we get a good grade
Click to expand...
No you are not doing my homework for me trust me. This is a curious question that really has me thinking.
 
archangel04 said:
In my current assignment I am having to do research on the effect of the salvation of Christ with non-catholics. From what I’ve gathered the two authors explain that “outside the Church is no salvation” is in grave err. They state that the salvific work of God has been in works since the beginning of human history. An example is given with Lady wisdom or Sophia in the OT. They also state that Vatican 2 says there are many truths found in other faiths that are graces from God. Also arguing that the morality naturally given to humanity are graces from God which will lead them to salvation. To make it short they basically state that one does need to join the Church because it is not the sole ark of salvation. That one may follow their religion and reach salvation. So then I ask what’s the point of being Catholic? If one lives a moral life and believes in God what’s the point of being part of a religion?

Please don’t respond with the usual answers like the Church has the whole truth or it’s the one Church of Christ. These two priest (authors) refute those answers by acknowledging the ambiguity of Vatican 2. So what say you?
Click to expand...
Sucha big confusion that one does not know where to start.
  • Christ saved all men.
  • all including non-RCC members
  • the church is a building
  • the Church is Jesus Christ
  • The church is Jesus Christ with all those who follow his teaching as said in the NT
  • the Church is Christ with all those whom He saved.
  • Those He saved do not know Him but, if ther are “unknown chirstians”, had they known really, I repeat, really, christ, they would have followed Him and they would enter the Church.
  • In the RCC, you have got the whole banquet: baptism, confession, Eucharist, the NT and the Cicle and the Community.
  • So, it is not the same to be a christian in the middle of the desert or a crhistian in a luxuriant oasis.
This comes by topics I hope I made myself understood…
 
In my current assignment I am having to do research

With the above in mind how is it that you are not asking us to do your homework for you?

You speak of “two priests” , did you happen on them in the course of your research or were the arguments presented in their texts part of your assignment? Who are these authors and what are the names of their books?
 
MarkThompson said:
The question is founded on the perverted notion that religion is only good insofar as we personally get something out of it. If the outcome for me is the same either way, this mindset goes, then there is no conceivable basis on which to prefer one course to another. Continuing along this line, one might say that if the Catholic Church considers both murder and robbery to be mortal sins for which one might be sent to Hell, then if you are going to commit a robbery this leaves no reason, according to the Church, not to go ahead and kill the witnesses too – “So then I ask what’s the point of sparing the witnesses?”

Or let’s pose a different hypothetical, one which I’ve often seen trip amateur thinkers up. Suppose you know a Catholic who engages in some harmless-to-others sin, let’s say masturbation. He is a convert to the religion and was raised in an atheistic Soviet culture; his instruction in Catholicism, while good, was not complete, and you know he is entirely unaware that we consider masturbation a sin, or even that we regard it as having a moral aspect at all. Because of this, when he does it it does not constitute a mortal sin. So, ignoring the awkwardness of broaching the topic, should you tell him? If you don’t, he will keep doing it, albeit without gravely sinning thereby. If you do, he will probably cut back and possibly even quit, yet, realistically, it is very likely that he will sinfully continue doing it, at least to an extent. It is not altogether unthinkable that he might even wind up in Hell because of it. Which course should you choose?

I suggest to you that if you can answer the (easy) question posed in the first paragraph, then you have the seeds to the answer of the second paragraph; and if you have that, then you have all the elements necessary to answer such questions as why we should contact a peaceful, aboriginal society to convert them to Christ, even though many of them might reject the message, when if we held back they would all continue in “invincible ignorance” of the truths of the Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
I get what you’re saying but not really thinkin that’s what Christ wants. Our mission is to spread His word and His will to the four corners of the globe. Kind of hard to do if we ignore entire civilizations of people just so that they can continue possibly getting to Heaven based on invincible ignorance or whatever the term is. That’s not evangelizing. We should still be bringing/sharing the Good News with them. Evangelizing them, Baptizing them. Welcoming them into Christ’s Church. Just as Christ leads us to the Father, His Church leads us to Him. That’s why he built the darn thing lol
 
BigFellaMick said:
I get what you’re saying but not really thinkin that’s what Christ wants. Our mission is to spread His word and His will to the four corners of the globe. Kind of hard to do if we ignore entire civilizations of people just so that they can continue possibly getting to Heaven based on invincible ignorance or whatever the term is. That’s not evangelizing. We should still be bringing/sharing the Good News with them. Evangelizing them, Baptizing them. Welcoming them into Christ’s Church. Just as Christ leads us to the Father, His Church leads us to Him. That’s why he built the darn thing lol
Click to expand...
Yes, but what’s the point of having it build if the Spirit continues to work on bringing salvation to others? According to the book those “truths” that other religions and peoples share with the Church are graces (gifts) from God. So I say what’s the point of being part of an organized religion? One could easily acknowledge God and as saviour and live a decent moral life without being part of an organized religion.
 
yinekka said:
In my current assignment I am having to do research

With the above in mind how is it that you are not asking us to do your homework for you?

You speak of “two priests” , did you happen on them in the course of your research or were the arguments presented in their texts part of your assignment? Who are these authors and what are the names of their books?
Click to expand...
How is what they’re doing NOT research?

Asking real Catholics is perfectly legitimate research.
 
yinekka said:
In my current assignment I am having to do research

With the above in mind how is it that you are not asking us to do your homework for you?

You speak of “two priests” , did you happen on them in the course of your research or were the arguments presented in their texts part of your assignment? Who are these authors and what are the names of their books?
Click to expand...
If you’d ready archangel’s past posts, you’d know it is a topic that is a source of concern and confusion for him. It has nothing to do with “getting over” so that he can get his research assignment done.

It isn’t like one is not required to cite sources for an assignment, so he can’t use only CAF answers for his assignment. Anything we say here will only add some clarity.
 
The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X contains a concise summary of the dogma, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I point you towards it - it can be found in it’s entirety online.

My short answer is that being saved outside of the visible confines of the Catholic Church is the exception rather than he rule. Due to the effects of original sin, when left to ourselves we readily fall into sin and error. Moreover, even if one is not a formal member of the Church the only way such a one can be saved is through either explicit or implicit desire for baptism accompanied by invincible ignorance. With the presence of these factors, God can make someone spiritually a member of the One True Chirch necessary for salvation.
 
If we are to climb the mountain to God,

We can get a car (baptism) with a nice engine (confirmation) and occasionally stop for gas (eucharist) and travel up a 5 lane freeway to heaven, with repair shops (confession) road signs (holy orders) and assistants (marriage) along the way. In the end, there is nice parking structure (anointing of the sick).

OR

We can start going up a goat path, with lots of twists and turns, trails going this way than that way where you may find a path that leads to the top (protestantism).

OR

We can climb straight up the hill, with our petons (bible) and rope (prayer)

OR

We can climb through the brambles and thorns (atheism) and maybe find a way to the top.

Yes you don’t need to be in the Church, but with the aid of the teachings, Holy Spirit, the connection to Christ, it’s a lot easier to do the will of God since it is revealed to you, confession to get back if you err (even when you don’t have perfect contrition).

Take the easy, through the Church, with the help of the Saints, Sacraments, Tradition, Bible, Priests, and Holy Spirit.
 
archangel04 said:
In my current assignment I am having to do research on the effect of the salvation of Christ with non-catholics. From what I’ve gathered the two authors explain that “outside the Church is no salvation” is in grave err. They state that the salvific work of God has been in works since the beginning of human history. An example is given with Lady wisdom or Sophia in the OT. They also state that Vatican 2 says there are many truths found in other faiths that are graces from God. Also arguing that the morality naturally given to humanity are graces from God which will lead them to salvation. To make it short they basically state that one does need to join the Church because it is not the sole ark of salvation. That one may follow their religion and reach salvation. So then I ask what’s the point of being Catholic? If one lives a moral life and believes in God what’s the point of being part of a religion?

Please don’t respond with the usual answers like the Church has the whole truth or it’s the one Church of Christ. These two priest (authors) refute those answers by acknowledging the ambiguity of Vatican 2. So what say you?
Click to expand...
I am confused how the the fact that the “salvific work of God has been in the works since the beginning of human history” undermines the teaching "outside the Church there is not salvation? What do these authors suggest about the necessity of Christ’s incarnation and sacrifice? Is salvation possible without it? Do you see? It’s been in the works–it culminated with Christ’s incarnation, death and resurrection and his establishment of his Church.

How does the fact that others have a part of the truth negate the teaching? Is it better to have the whole painting or a piece of it? If you are trying to make Kentucky Fried Chicken–do you want part of the recipe or the whole recipe? Which give you a better chance of actually making Kentucky Fried Chicken? Sure you might be able to make KFC without the recipe but why should you take that chance if you don’t need to? Can you get Kentucky Fried Chicken without there being a Kentucky Fried Chicken recipe?

Is it better to have some of the truth or all of the truth? If all these other “arks of salvation” are hitched (through God and his Churches moral teaching) to the Church in some way isn’t the Church in reality the sole arc of salvation?

From what you have said it doesn’t seem like these two priests have refuted what you claim they have–perhaps more information would be helpful.

How do you define being a part of the Catholic Church? Is it possible to be a part of it and not realize it? If you are Protestant did you not get your Bible from the Catholic Church and many of your beliefts–are you not in someway connected to the Church and if you get the heaven is it not in someway through the Catholic Church and her teaching–even if you do not know it or believe it? Isn’t an adopted child still in some way connected to their unknown biological siblings and biological parents–even if they never see them?

One should join the Church because it gives them the best chance of getting to heaven. It’s why one stays on the main road when crossing the mountains–those fun looking side roads–while they can get you over the mountains–usually get you lost or stuck in the snow. Happens all the time around here (and eventually those side roads lead to the main road and the destination).

Peace of Christ,
 
archangel04 said:
In my current assignment I am having to do research on the effect of the salvation of Christ with non-catholics. From what I’ve gathered the two authors explain that “outside the Church is no salvation” is in grave err. They state that the salvific work of God has been in works since the beginning of human history. An example is given with Lady wisdom or Sophia in the OT. They also state that Vatican 2 says there are many truths found in other faiths that are graces from God. Also arguing that the morality naturally given to humanity are graces from God which will lead them to salvation. To make it short they basically state that one does need to join the Church because it is not the sole ark of salvation. That one may follow their religion and reach salvation. So then I ask what’s the point of being Catholic? If one lives a moral life and believes in God what’s the point of being part of a religion?

Please don’t respond with the usual answers like the Church has the whole truth or it’s the one Church of Christ. These two priest (authors) refute those answers by acknowledging the ambiguity of Vatican 2. So what say you?
Click to expand...
Having spent time (20+) years outside the Church…I may have tried my best but never really thought about sin and avoiding it as I do now. The sacraments lead us to a holier life.

Of course the number one answer…the Eucharist!
 
“There are millions in this world who are carving the pleasure earthly things afford,
but none can match the wonderous treasure that I find in the Bread from heaven, JESUS THE LORD.” Hymn

THE answer.

What other thought is there?
 
archangel04 said:
In my current assignment I am having to do research on the effect of the salvation of Christ with non-catholics. From what I’ve gathered the two authors explain that “outside the Church is no salvation” is in grave err. They state that the salvific work of God has been in works since the beginning of human history. An example is given with Lady wisdom or Sophia in the OT. They also state that Vatican 2 says there are many truths found in other faiths that are graces from God. Also arguing that the morality naturally given to humanity are graces from God which will lead them to salvation. To make it short they basically state that one does need to join the Church because it is not the sole ark of salvation. That one may follow their religion and reach salvation. So then I ask what’s the point of being Catholic? If one lives a moral life and believes in God what’s the point of being part of a religion?

Please don’t respond with the usual answers like the Church has the whole truth or it’s the one Church of Christ. These two priest (authors) refute those answers by acknowledging the ambiguity of Vatican 2. So what say you?
Click to expand...
To me that is like asking what is the point of rejoicing in a beautiful sunset?
Or what is the point of loving my children and grandchildren?
Or what is the point of life?
Or what is the point of love?

I am a Catholic because I LOVE the Catholic Church. I Love everything about it. I want to share Her beauty with everyone. That is the point of being a Catholic for me.

I may also ask you. What is the point of your question?
 
Marocchino said:
The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X contains a concise summary of the dogma, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I point you towards it - it can be found in it’s entirety online.

My short answer is that being saved outside of the visible confines of the Catholic Church is the exception rather than he rule. Due to the effects of original sin, when left to ourselves we readily fall into sin and error. Moreover, even if one is not a formal member of the Church the only way such a one can be saved is through either explicit or implicit desire for baptism accompanied by invincible ignorance. With the presence of these factors, God can make someone spiritually a member of the One True Chirch necessary for salvation.
Click to expand...
A very good answer Marocchino. Last night I attended catechism and our priest discussed this topic. He gave some examples but stated that salvation outside the church by a baptism of desire coupled with invincible ignorance, is very difficult if not impossible.
 
archangel04 said:
In my current assignment I am having to do research on the effect of the salvation of Christ with non-catholics. From what I’ve gathered the two authors explain that “outside the Church is no salvation” is in grave err. They state that the salvific work of God has been in works since the beginning of human history. An example is given with Lady wisdom or Sophia in the OT. They also state that Vatican 2 says there are many truths found in other faiths that are graces from God. Also arguing that the morality naturally given to humanity are graces from God which will lead them to salvation. To make it short they basically state that one does need to join the Church because it is not the sole ark of salvation. That one may follow their religion and reach salvation. So then I ask what’s the point of being Catholic? If one lives a moral life and believes in God what’s the point of being part of a religion?

Please don’t respond with the usual answers like the Church has the whole truth or it’s the one Church of Christ. These two priest (authors) refute those answers by acknowledging the ambiguity of Vatican 2. So what say you?
Click to expand...
I suggest you read this document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church (2007), along with its commentary.

That would answer most of your questions.

The pull quote is from the answer to Question 2: It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.

You can read the documents for yourself and see the answers there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top