M
MJCamp
Guest
How do you arrive at this conclusion? Sources?
- Status
L
L_Marshall
Guest
Please provide primary and secondary sources for this position, keeping in mind that universal salvation was condemned a heresy as early as the Fifth Ecumenical Council.
D
dandy1822
Guest
how did the priest work that out, was jesus a catholic, or was he a jew? i take it the priest knows he is in heaven. also why then does he hail mary? does he know she was not a catholic either.I will tell you what a priest said to me one time. So, if there are objections to what I am about to post, please do not take it up with me. I am merely repeating what I was told.
Everyone in Heaven is Catholic. Why? Because no matter what you are when you die, when you do die and are at your Particular Judgment, you will know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church. This does not mean that those who were not actual members of the Church will be excluded from Heaven.
How that will all pan out, I do not know. But, one thing I do know for certain. We will all one day find out. Be ready!
C
cmodrmac
Guest
the Body of Christ consists of all Christains -not just one denomination-Even the Catholic Church states their is salvation outside of the Church-
A devout Budhist who practices Charity -lives an honorable life -no heaven -absurd (then again they believe in r:thumbsup:eincarnation)
I think Protestants may be more likely to support no salvation without faith in Jesus than Catholics-
A devout Budhist who practices Charity -lives an honorable life -no heaven -absurd (then again they believe in r:thumbsup:eincarnation)
I think Protestants may be more likely to support no salvation without faith in Jesus than Catholics-
C
cerad2
Guest
Stay calm everyone. It’s a trick response.
The notion of forever requires time. Heaven/Hell and God in general exists outside of space and time. No time no forever.
What exactly that means if of course something that sophisticated theologians term a “mystery”.
A
Alizarin
Guest
In her defense HERE are some interesting thoughts from the Church Fathers about that. Sounds like they tend toward universalism, actually…
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
P
PJM
Guest
HI RANDY;
CHANGE “MUST BE” TO “SHOULD BE” [IMPROVED OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH OUR SEVEN SACRAMENTS] AND YOUR FAR CLOSER TO WHAT WE TEACH AND BELIEVE:
FROM THE CATECHISM:
780 The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men.
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
847 *This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.*
ONLY God can make this call and include or exclude others from competing Christian Faiths" in this broad statement.
God Bless you my friend:thumbsup:
D
dandy1822
Guest
are protestant churches christs churches?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
No, but Jesus is the builder of the Church which became known as the “Catholic Church” before the end of the first century. (cf. Mt 16:18)
All others are spin-offs from there.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
No, all I have to do is to prove that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Jesus based on Matthew 16:18.
All others must try to scratch out some legitimacy for themselves.
A
Alizarin
Guest
The Orthodox would have it the other way around… Who do I believe then? Who spun off from whom?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Of course not.
The church founded by Jesus has a visible head who is the successor of Peter whom Jesus promised to build the Church upon.
Here’s the whole thing:
Peter – The Rock, Keeper of the Keys and Royal Steward
"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:13-19)
Peter’s understanding that Jesus was the Son of God did not come from working it out on his own; God the Father infused this revelation into Peter’s mind thus imprinting His seal of approval upon the humble fisherman. In turn, Jesus recognized that Simon had already been anointed by His Father in this way, and He declared, “Blessed are you” because the Father had already blessed Simon with knowledge of the Son. Speaking in His native tongue, Aramaic, Jesus gave Simon a new name, “Kepha”, the Aramaic word that means “rock”. Jesus declared, “You are kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.”
Although Jesus spoke Aramaic, the New Testament was written in Greek, and “Kepha” would have been translated into the Greek words for “rock” which are “petra” or “petros”. “Petra” is the feminine form of the masculine word, “petros”, and obviously, “petros” is the more suitable form for a man’s name. From “petros” we derive the English name, “Peter”. For us modern readers then, Jesus’ pronouncement reads, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church”, but we must never lose sight of the fact that in the original language used by Jesus, Simon is clearly identified as the rock upon which the Church would be built by Jesus. Jesus announced His intention to establish His Church (singular – not “churches” plural) and His choice of Peter as its leader.
What is it about Peter’s character that caused Jesus to compare him to something as solid as rock? Isn’t this the same Peter who Jesus called “Satan” just a few verses later? (cf. Mt 16:23) Isn’t this the same Peter who would deny the Lord three times after his arrest? (cf. Lk 22:34) Surely this unstable character is anything but solid rock upon which a Church could be built; yet, Jesus sees something deeper in Peter’s character, and His choice would be vindicated when Peter ultimately received a martyr’s crown via crucifixion.
Matthew also tells us that Jesus gave Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven”. In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:22)
In the passage above, God is speaking, and He confirms the existence of the office, the key, and the continuation of the office despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else.
How does this relate to what we have learned from Matthew? In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.
Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.
Thus, we know that Jesus is a king who will reign forever. Matthew tells us that that King Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Although Peter died as a martyr (as Jesus foretold), the successors of Peter have taken his place in the eternal office of royal steward that Jesus established in His royal court.
In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:
"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)
Jesus was thoroughly familiar with the Old Testament scriptures, and He intentionally referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter as His royal steward. Peter received authority from Jesus to speak in His name, and to do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error. Therefore, Peter (and his successors who are the leaders of Jesus’ Church) are protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals. This is called “infallibility”.
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Jesus reveals the infallible nature of the Church when he declares, “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." What does this curious passage mean? There are two possible interpretations.
First, if God reciprocates the binding and loosing of Church on earth with an identical binding or loosing in heaven, then the binding and loosing done on earth must of necessity be free from all error. If this were not so, God would have put Himself in the impossible situation of having to affirm that which is not true whenever the Church taught error.
A second interpretation would be that the authority of the church is to carry out the will and decisions of God upon earth as they have been established in heaven. This is in perfect accord with the way Jesus instructed us to pray: “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10).
Thus, the Church must either be prevented from teaching error in order that God may ratify its decisions in heaven or the Church must be proclaiming here below those things that are already true in heaven. Either way, the decisions and actions of the Church can be seen to be infallible with regard to matters of faith and morals. Anything less would make Jesus a liar for He also declared, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13) and “I am with you always till the end of the world.” (Matthew 28:20)
In conclusion, we have seen that Matthew has packed an incredible amount of information into one brief passage. We know that Jesus promised that He Himself would build a single Church with Peter as the rock upon which that Church would be built, that the office of head of the Church would be eternal, and that the Church itself must be protected from ever teaching error.
First, if God reciprocates the binding and loosing of Church on earth with an identical binding or loosing in heaven, then the binding and loosing done on earth must of necessity be free from all error. If this were not so, God would have put Himself in the impossible situation of having to affirm that which is not true whenever the Church taught error.
A second interpretation would be that the authority of the church is to carry out the will and decisions of God upon earth as they have been established in heaven. This is in perfect accord with the way Jesus instructed us to pray: “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10).
Thus, the Church must either be prevented from teaching error in order that God may ratify its decisions in heaven or the Church must be proclaiming here below those things that are already true in heaven. Either way, the decisions and actions of the Church can be seen to be infallible with regard to matters of faith and morals. Anything less would make Jesus a liar for He also declared, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13) and “I am with you always till the end of the world.” (Matthew 28:20)
In conclusion, we have seen that Matthew has packed an incredible amount of information into one brief passage. We know that Jesus promised that He Himself would build a single Church with Peter as the rock upon which that Church would be built, that the office of head of the Church would be eternal, and that the Church itself must be protected from ever teaching error.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Got pope?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
BTW, something I should have mentioned earlier and forgot is that there is an important distinction to be made between absolute necessity and normative necessity.
It is not absolutely necessary to be a formal member of the Catholic Church to get into heaven, but it is a normative necessity.
I’m indebted to Jimmy Akin on this.
A
Alizarin
Guest
They would argue that “first among equals” means something different than you think it means. So again, who do I believe?
Then why bother with normative necessity at all? If one doesn’t need to be a formal member, then why should anyone convert? As Jon pointed out, it might – in theory at least – be better not to. Then you wouldn’t have canon law to deal with and all that comes with it, and the ever-present threat of hell via mortal sin.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Happily, both of your questions are answered here:
The Necessity of Being Catholic
by James Akin
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3447
P
PRmerger
Guest
Since Christian make up only 33% of the world population, do you believe that the other 67% of the world are hell-bound?
Or do you believe that people can be in heaven without Christ?
- Status