SS practicing Christian: What do you say Scripture is?

[alwayswill]

She is, but she isn’t a Pope or a Bishop. Do you have anything from a Pope or a Bishop that says most Protestants are definitely saved?

:

we were discussing what good and faithful Catholics believe> post #448

in post 449 you said “In order to be saved, I must be in full communion with the Church established by Jesus Christ, and while there may be a question about whether that Church is some form of Eastern Orthodoxy, or the Roman Catholic Church, it definitely isn’t any form of Protestantism.”

in post 450 i pointed out other Catholics disagree with you

and now you want a Pope or Bishop (not just other Catholics) that says most (not just some) Protestants are definitely (not just possibly) saved.

The CONTEXT was and still is differing interpretations on an authoritative teaching…
If you want to point out that SS practicing Christians disagree with each other over the interpretation of their authority’s teaching; that’s fine.

But don’t pretend that Catholics don’t disagree with each other over the interpretation of their authority’s teaching.

FYI:
I don’t think most Protestants will definitely be saved

 

[jmcrae]

we were discussing what good and faithful Catholics believe> post #448

I already pointed out that not everyone is well taught.

in post 449 you said “In order to be saved, I must be in full communion with the Church established by Jesus Christ, and while there may be a question about whether that Church is some form of Eastern Orthodoxy, or the Roman Catholic Church, it definitely isn’t any form of Protestantism.”

in post 450 i pointed out other Catholics disagree with you

And it was demonstrated that they don’t - we just word things differently.

and now you want a Pope or Bishop (not just other Catholics) that says most (not just some) Protestants are definitely (not just possibly) saved.

The CONTEXT was and still is differing interpretations on an authoritative teaching…
If you want to point out that SS practicing Christians disagree with each other over the interpretation of their authority’s teaching; that’s fine.

But don’t pretend that Catholics don’t disagree with each other over the interpretation of their authority’s teaching.

If you ask the students of any subject what they are learning, you will find that large numbers of them didn’t fully understand what they were taught, especially when it comes to details they don’t think of or use on a regular basis.

You have to ask the teachers what is being taught, if you really want to know whether the teaching is consistent from teacher to teacher in a specific institution.

I don’t think most Protestants will be saved

The visionaries at Fatima saw souls falling into Hell as thick and fast as snowflakes in a November blizzard, and the heavenly messenger told them that the only remedy is the Rosary. That was in 1917 - I can only imagine that the situation has gotten worse since then.

 

[jmcrae]

How do we know who has this authority?

That’s a really important question.

What is authority, to begin with, and where does it come from? Can just anybody come to the school and pick up my kids, or am I the only one with the authority to do that?

If I pass that authority on to their grandmother or to a babysitter, does that open it up to just anybody who wants to come along and pick up my kids, or does it remain with only those to whom it is given by me?

Clearly, authority can only by given by someone who has it, to begin with, and only those to whom it is given actually have it, no matter how badly someone else might want it, or think they deserve it more.

He said that to the Apostles who died in the 1st century. Obviously this wasn’t the end of the command to: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”

You’re right. They must have passed that authority on to someone else, who then in their turn also passed it on to others.

We know that Ananias wasn’t an Apostle, but he baptized Paul. Is baptizing allowed by non-apostles/bishops, but all other teaching only done by a certain few?

Ananias was obviously authorized by the Apostles to celebrate Baptisms. He may have been a Bishop or a priest, or even a Deacon.

I had never heard that this command was limited to only a select few and that everybody wasn’t supposed to help spread the word of God.

All of us are supposed to help spread the Word of God, but then we bring them to the Church to receive formal instructions and the Sacraments. We don’t just leave them out there in the wilderness.

This is probably off-topic, but I am brand new to knowing about Apostolic Succession and it seems very confusing to me. Why couldn’t anybody who has been taught by and baptized by a believer continue this command?

Because Jesus left us a Church, with leaders, and with an organization to regulate the teachings and the Sacraments, in order to preserve them intact and without misinterpretations or misunderstandings until the end of the world when Jesus returns.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

How do we know who has this authority? He said that to the Apostles who died in the 1st century. Obviously this wasn’t the end of the command to: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” We know that Ananias wasn’t an Apostle, but he baptized Paul. Is baptizing allowed by non-apostles/bishops, but all other teaching only done by a certain few? I had never heard that this command was limited to only a select few and that everybody wasn’t supposed to help spread the word of God. This is probably off-topic, but I am brand new to knowing about Apostolic Succession and it seems very confusing to me. Why couldn’t anybody who has been taught by and baptized by a believer continue this command?

Jesus established offices that never die.

Anybody can baptize in a emergency situation.

Otherwise, it should be left to clergy who are trained to do it properly.

Keep in mind our Lord’s recommendation that people should weigh the cost before they decide to follow Him. Luke 14:28-29

In RCIA you are informed and left with a decision to make,

Pax

 

[Tommy999]

Name even one Pope or Bishop who teaches that, outside of invincible ignorance, anyone can be saved without belonging to the Church?

Hi jmcrae,
How does your statement above reconcile with the Catechism of the Catholic Church 817-819 below? I interpret it to mean that Catholic leadership considers non-Catholic Christians to indeed be fellow Christians that can be called brothers.

*"In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and **the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity.“276” ***

 

[Abu]

susanlo #459
How do we know who has this authority?

From Christ as He taught His Catholic Church, and which She conveys.

We know that Ananias wasn’t an Apostle, but he baptized Paul. Is baptizing allowed by non-apostles/bishops, but all other teaching only done by a certain few? I had never heard that this command was limited to only a select few and that everybody wasn’t supposed to help spread the word of God. This is probably off-topic, but I am brand new to knowing about Apostolic Succession and it seems very confusing to me.

To avoid confusion and possible error, the Church stipulates that baptism is normally performed by a bishop, priest or deacon, but anyone can baptise in an emergency.

“Everybody” feeling that they are spreading the Word of God is what has produced the chaos of confusion and error in the thousands of different sects – which is so obvious. Now that you know that Jesus established His very own Catholic Church and authorised Her to teach in His Name, it need not be confusing in any way, but clearly the way to avoid confusion and error.

Why couldn’t anybody who has been taught by and baptized by a believer continue this command?

What you are taught and knowing how to convey the teaching of Christ’s Church, teaching which counteracts all of the modern evils, can come only through Christ’s Church, as the multitudinous differing sects graphically illustrate.

 

[rcwitness]

How do we know who has this authority?

To preach? One can indeed have an inner calling by the Spirit, yet there is the need to be “sent” by the Church, through Laying on of Hands.

He said that to the Apostles who died in the 1st century. Obviously this wasn’t the end of the command to: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”

Bishops are the successors of the Apostles in an unbroken line. Each having a Bishop ordain them through Laying on of Hands.

We know that Ananias wasn’t an Apostle, but he baptized Paul. Is baptizing allowed by non-apostles/bishops, but all other teaching only done by a certain few?

Good question. Jesus Himself commanded this event. It is not necessary for a priest to Baptize. Permission can be given for anyone to Baptize. And Confirmation is done by the Bishop or who he gives permission. For adults, Confirmation is usually done by the priest at Baptism. Paul’s Baptism was unique because Jesus appeared personally to Him and gave Him a great Revelation (even taken up to heaven, whether bodily or in Spirit Paul did not know). He was anointed an Apostle this way.

I had never heard that this command was limited to only a select few and that everybody wasn’t supposed to help spread the word of God.

Yes! I was asking about “preaching” as a vocation and pastor, and specifically when one preaches interpretations which are in contrast to the Church’s. We are called to share, fellowship, strengthen, with love!

This is probably off-topic, but I am brand new to knowing about Apostolic Succession and it seems very confusing to me. Why couldn’t anybody who has been taught by and baptized by a believer continue this command?

because it is a Sacrament which requires the Church to “send” one through the Laying on of Hands. It is a Holy Order.

 

[benhur]

If by His Word, you mean Jesus Christ, who is the source of both Tradition and Scripture, you would be right.
If by His Word you mean written word, it is simply nonsensical to assert the New Covenant is based, comes from, and out of, the written word.
Because it didn’t always exist in written form. Christ had already fulfilled the New Covenant, and there was no written word as such. You know that.

A covenant is different from a contract in that a person pledges his very self, rather than stipulates written conditions, rules, formulas.
The New Covenant is Jesus Christ the person.

Hi clem,

Some think the early church took the “Word of God” to strictly mean Writ. I mean there was to be no new revelation, so it did not apply to a prophet’s ''words". The other authority was apostolic tradition, which was called such (or “rule of faith”). So you had the *Word of God *(Writ), and apostolic tradition (their oral teaching). Writ did not leave anything out from apostolic tradition. That is Writ covered apostolic tradition. Writ contained the apostolic tradition.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Name even one Pope or Bishop who teaches that, outside of invincible ignorance, anyone can be saved without belonging to the Church?

Hi j,

I think this is what got Luther onto his historic path. That indeed he belonged to the Church, but was not yet justified, before God. Later thru faith he believed himself justified, then truly placed into the Church.

Blessings

 

[jmcrae]

Hi jmcrae,
How does your statement above reconcile with the Catechism of the Catholic Church 817-819 below? I interpret it to mean that Catholic leadership considers non-Catholic Christians to indeed be fellow Christians that can be called brothers.

*"In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and **the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity.“276” ***

This means that, if they are saved, it is because they are, in some sense, already members of the Church.

This in no way signifies that you can be completely or definitely outside of the Church, and yet be saved. It simply provides the hope that perhaps non-Catholic Christians can be saved, because by means of their Trinitarian Baptism and their lively faith in Jesus Christ, they have a kind of invisible or undetectable membership in the Church that can be known by God.

 

[jmcrae]

Hi j,

I think this is what got Luther onto his historic path. That indeed he belonged to the Church, but was not yet justified, before God. Later thru faith he believed himself justified, then truly placed into the Church.

Blessings

This is complete nonsense.

God bless you.

 

[jmcrae]

Hi clem,

Some think the early church took the “Word of God” to strictly mean Writ.

May I recommend to you that you read “The Faith of the Early Fathers” which is a collection of the writings of the leaders of the Early Church - their sermons, their essays, and their letters to one another and to the various Christian communities during the era between the death of the Apostle John and the beginning of the Middle Ages.

I think you will find it absolutely fascinating.

 

[Abu]

jmcrae #469
This means that, if they are saved, it is because they are, in some sense, already members of the Church.

This in no way signifies that you can be completely or definitely outside of the Church, and yet be saved. It simply provides the hope that perhaps non-Catholic Christians can be saved, because by means of their Trinitarian Baptism and their lively faith in Jesus Christ, they have a kind of invisible or undetectable membership in the Church that can be known by God.

Correct.
Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus (literally, “outside the Church, there is no salvation”). Some people have wished to understand this saying in the most literal sense: that is, that the person who is not formally a practicing Catholic cannot be saved. The Church has condemned such an interpretation (cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873).

This is not to say that the maxim is false. Properly understood, it is quite true. The Latin word extra can mean either “without” or “outside.” The correct interpretation and sense of the maxim is that we cannot be saved without the Church. **It is through the Church, which carries on and makes present the salvific work of Jesus Christ in the world, that all who are saved reach heaven (even if it is perhaps only there that they realize it). Those who, through no fault of their own, have never known Christ or his Church can still be saved. But their salvation, too, is the effect of Jesus working through his Church. In a positive sense, this theological principle “means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846). **[My emphasis]
Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, OSV].

 

[benhur]

This is complete nonsense.

God bless you.

HI J,

Actually your post "Name even one Pope or Bishop who teaches that, outside of invincible ignorance, anyone can be saved without belonging to the Church? can be read two ways. One that a baptized person must then exist in and by the ecclesia , the community of believers. I agree here .A baptized soul living as an island will probably have his light extinguished. The other way is that* in the church , one finds salvation, one finds the need to be baptized.(thru the church yes, but not in*) Like you join the church then get saved. This I disagree with. Joining a church is usually the last thing an unsaved person does. You believe and get baptized ,then Christ puts you in the church, the Body, the Bride.

As far as Luther, not sure what you call nonsense. It was my understanding that although a monk, baptized and all, doing everything sacramental and institutional, he still felt unjustified before God, till by faith he grasped salvation, justification.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

HI J,As far as Luther, not sure what you call nonsense. It was my understanding that although a monk, baptized and all, doing everything sacramental and institutional, he still felt unjustified before God, till by faith he grasped salvation, justification.

Blessings

Hey ben,

I suppose jm should have expressed his disagreement with your post more kindly. I didn’t have a response because I didn’t know what you were trying to say about ML.

After this follow up, I think I have a better idea. My thought is that it gets into territory which we cannot know, right? Did he really confess his serious failings in the Sacrament? We’re his “feelings” justified, and who was compelling him to “feel” unjustified? I heard his confessor directed him to read Romans, or which ever book of Scripture.

I realize it’s a common opinion that he indeed struggled with uncertainty. And many of us do at times! And it was a compelling reason why I changed my signature to John’s wisdom on the matter.

In the end, we don’t know if it was a devil, men, or himself which caused his doubts. Neither do we always know our own.

 

[SyroMalankara]

HI J,

Actually your post "Name even one Pope or Bishop who teaches that, outside of invincible ignorance, anyone can be saved without belonging to the Church? can be read two ways. One that a baptized person must then exist in and by the ecclesia , the community of believers. I agree here .A baptized soul living as an island will probably have his light extinguished. The other way is that* in the church , one finds salvation, one finds the need to be baptized.(thru the church yes, but not in*) Like you join the church then get saved. This I disagree with. Joining a church is usually the last thing an unsaved person does. You believe and get baptized ,then Christ puts you in the church, the Body, the Bride.

or one is baptized as a child, learns something, falls away, goes through some soul searching, and hopefully renews and restores that broken relationship

As far as Luther, not sure what you call nonsense. It was my understanding that although a monk, baptized and all, doing everything sacramental and institutional, he still felt unjustified before God, till by faith he grasped salvation, justification.

Blessings

Felt. But was he really? Feelings don’t necessarily correspond to reality. Monk Luther was known as a scrupulous fellow, no? For someone with that condition, feelings should be run past a spiritual elder to make sure it’s not neurosis.

 

[jmcrae]

As far as Luther, not sure what you call nonsense. It was my understanding that although a monk, baptized and all, doing everything sacramental and institutional, he still felt unjustified before God, till by faith he grasped salvation, justification.

Blessings

We are not saved by how we feel. We are saved through and in the objective reality of Christ on the Cross, whose body and blood wash us clean by means of the Sacraments.

We are washed clean first of all in Baptism, which incorporates us into Christ’s Body, the Church.

If we sin after Baptism, we have the Sacrament of Reconciliation, in which the priest, with the authority given to him by Jesus Christ (John 20:23) gives the Absolution for the sins confessed.

We don’t have to feel forgiven in order to know that we are forgiven of our sins, and justified in the sight of God.

We only have to ask ourselves, “Was I baptized?” A certificate of Baptism shows the date, the Church, the minister of Baptism, and the witnesses, thus reassuring us that we were indeed baptized.

Did I sin after Baptism? If so, did I go to Confession and confess all of my most serious sins by kind and number? Did the priest give me the Absolution? Did I complete my penance? If “yes” to all of these, then my feelings have nothing to do with it. I am justified, and I am saved. If I die today, I am certain that I will go to Heaven - not because I feel good about myself, but because of objective, measurable realities.

If “no” then the remedy is simple enough - go, be present, and receive the Sacrament.

Does this mean that I can save myself?

By no means, since the Sacraments are not my work, but rather, they are the work of Jesus Christ on the Cross, transmitted through the Sacraments, pouring into my life and purifying my soul.

 

[jmcrae]

HI J,

Actually your post "Name even one Pope or Bishop who teaches that, outside of invincible ignorance, anyone can be saved without belonging to the Church? can be read two ways. One that a baptized person must then exist in and by the ecclesia , the community of believers. I agree here .A baptized soul living as an island will probably have his light extinguished. The other way is that* in the church , one finds salvation, one finds the need to be baptized.(thru the church yes, but not in*) Like you join the church then get saved. This I disagree with. Joining a church is usually the last thing an unsaved person does. You believe and get baptized ,then Christ puts you in the church, the Body, the Bride.

Right, exactly. When I speak of becoming a member of the Church, I’m not talking about registering with the parish. As you rightly point out, being registered with the parish can’t save you, and it normally doesn’t happen until after Baptism.

Rather, we become members of the Church (the Body of Christ) when we are Baptized, and our sins are washed away for the first time. Membership with the parish is a side effect of this, and joins us to the earthly community of believers - the Church Militant.

 

[benhur]

Right, exactly. When I speak of becoming a member of the Church, I’m not talking about registering with the parish. As you rightly point out, being registered with the parish can’t save you, and it normally doesn’t happen until after Baptism.

Rather, we become members of the Church (the Body of Christ) when we are Baptized, and our sins are washed away for the first time. Membership with the parish is a side effect of this, and joins us to the earthly community of believers - the Church Militant.

Ok .Good

 

[benhur]

We are not saved by how we feel. We are saved through and in the objective reality of Christ on the Cross, whose body and blood wash us clean by means of the Sacraments.

We are washed clean first of all in Baptism, which incorporates us into Christ’s Body, the Church.

If we sin after Baptism, we have the Sacrament of Reconciliation, in which the priest, with the authority given to him by Jesus Christ (John 20:23) gives the Absolution for the sins confessed.

We don’t have to feel forgiven in order to know that we are forgiven of our sins, and justified in the sight of God.

We only have to ask ourselves, “Was I baptized?” A certificate of Baptism shows the date, the Church, the minister of Baptism, and the witnesses, thus reassuring us that we were indeed baptized.

Did I sin after Baptism? If so, did I go to Confession and confess all of my most serious sins by kind and number? Did the priest give me the Absolution? Did I complete my penance? If “yes” to all of these, then my feelings have nothing to do with it. I am justified, and I am saved. If I die today, I am certain that I will go to Heaven - not because I feel good about myself, but because of objective, measurable realities.

If “no” then the remedy is simple enough - go, be present, and receive the Sacrament.

Does this mean that I can save myself?

By no means, since the Sacraments are not my work, but rather, they are the work of Jesus Christ on the Cross, transmitted through the Sacraments, pouring into my life and purifying my soul.

Hi j,

Thanks for the explanation. I know “feel” is a weak word and I am not sure I represent Luther properly . Yet I think most of us have read some of his story about this. Certainly he did listen to a confessor and read Romans and faith/grace did "something’’ to him. A very similar thing happened to one of the Wesley brothers. He agonized for months about his salvation, even got sick, and finally had an epiphany of sorts with same faith and grace that Romans speaks of.

One is either born again or they are not. Is baptism always effectual, that is automatic “regeneration” ? That is why I like believe first, which I think can only happen if you are already regenerated, then get baptized. Don’t get me wrong all “methods” are not fail safe.

I always think of Nicodemus , a priest/rabbi of the One, true covenant of the time, and fully circumcised, barmitzvahed, and very religious. Yet he was not born again, regenerated, born of the spirit. I think this is like Luther, or Wesley, and many ,many folks of today.

I think some Catholics have similar experiences per their testimony on the radio. They do not call it born again (and really can not) , but they are definitely changed, claiming to have had a deep, personal encounter with Jesus, like never before. They may still do the same religious things, but they claim to have a deeper understanding and passion of spiritual things and life after the “encounter”.

Blessings