To Be in Heaven, You Must Be Catholic

[Jozefo]

Let me ask you this: if your daughter came home from school and said that she believed that the above was a square, would you tell her, “Who am I to deny you that right? You are not required to believe that it is a circle”?

I am an artist of sorts. It’s more than a hobby, although I enjoy working in different media from time to time. But my work requires me to have good visual skills when dealing with customers. Part of what I’ve learned is that people see things differently. It’s possible that someone might view that object and perceive a square. Anyone who has seen a painting by Picasso would realize that he perceived the physical world differently than most other people.

Now you made a remark, posing me as saying: You are not required to believe…

That is very interesting, because belief is agreement. You want everyone to agree that it’s a circle. But what if someone perceives something else? Are they required to accept your perception? and agree that it’s a circle, even though they might actually see a square?

 

[PRmerger]

I am an artist of sorts. It’s more than a hobby, although I enjoy working in different media from time to time. But my work requires me to have good visual skills when dealing with customers. Part of what I’ve learned is that people see things differently. It’s possible that someone might view that object and perceive a square. Anyone who has seen a painting by Picasso would realize that he perceived the physical world differently than most other people.

Now you made a remark, posing me as saying: You are not required to believe…

That is very interesting, because belief is agreement. You want everyone to agree that it’s a circle. But what if someone perceives something else? Are they required to accept your perception? and agree that it’s a circle, even though they might actually see a square?

I will answer your questions, after you answer mine.

Would you really tell your daughter that she doesn’t have to believe that the above shape is a circle?

And let’s take the artistic angle out of this. How about if we change it to math? Or even spelling? Or just plain old truth.

Let’s say your daughter comes home with an F in math because she can’t add. Are you going to tell her that she doesn’t need to learn her math facts? That she can come to any conclusion she wants about how much 2 quarters equal?

Or that she can spell “Missouri” any way she wants?

Or that she can believe in Santa Claus when she’s 21, as long as it makes her happy and good?

 

[JonNC]

Ninja Catholic.

lol

Jon

 

[Jozefo]

I will answer your questions, after you answer mine.

Would you really tell your daughter that she doesn’t have to believe that the above shape is a circle?

And let’s take the artistic angle out of this. How about if we change it to math? Or even spelling? Or just plain old truth.

Let’s say your daughter comes home with an F in math because she can’t add. Are you going to tell her that she doesn’t need to learn her math facts? That she can come to any conclusion she wants about how much 2 quarters equal?

Or that she can spell “Missouri” any way she wants?

Or that she can believe in Santa Claus when she’s 21, as long as it makes her happy and good?

I see you’re unwilling to accept the answer I gave, or answer the questions I asked, unless I first answer these additional questions. Hmm…

I decline that offer. You posed an absurd question, to which I answered in good faith. Now you want me to answer a different set of questions, without honoring my answer from before.

If you answer my questions first, then I will answer these new questions.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I see you’re unwilling to accept the answer I gave, or answer the questions I asked, unless I first answer these additional questions. Hmm…

I decline that offer. You posed an absurd question, to which I answered in good faith. Now you want me to answer a different set of questions, without honoring my answer from before.

If you answer my questions first, then I will answer these new questions.

PR has been around a long time and plays fair.

I think the questions you were asked deserve a response.

 

[PRmerger]

I see you’re unwilling to accept the answer I gave, or answer the questions I asked, unless I first answer these additional questions. Hmm…

I decline that offer. You posed an absurd question, to which I answered in good faith. Now you want me to answer a different set of questions, without honoring my answer from before.

If you answer my questions first, then I will answer these new questions.

K. Answers forthcoming

 

[Jozefo]

PR has been around a long time and plays fair.

I think the questions you were asked deserve a response.

I will answer them after my questions are answered.

 

[PRmerger]

That is very interesting, because belief is agreement. You want everyone to agree that it’s a circle. But what if someone perceives something else? Are they required to accept your perception? and agree that it’s a circle, even though they might actually see a square?

Yes, they are actually required to see it as a circle.

Imagine what would happen if an engineer decided, for the sake of following his own rules, to say, “I don’t want to view geometry as the accepted rules dictated by math. I want now to base my foundations for the bridge on my own conventions, and how I see things.”

Would you let your daughter drive over this bridge, knowing that this engineer saw a square where a circle actually existed?

 

[Billy_Buescher]

Provocative title, eh?

I hoped to get your attention, because I’m floating this argument which I put together this morning.

1. Jesus only has one body.
2. To be in heaven, one must be a member of the body of Christ
3. The body of Christ is the Church.
4. The Church instituted by Christ has a name – the Catholic Church.
   Therefore, to be in heaven, one must be a member of the Catholic Church.

I anticipate some possible objection to 1 and much rejection to 4, but let’s see how it unfolds.

I look forward to reading your thoughts for and against.

 

[Alizarin]

Really? Do you not think that everyone is subject to Christ?

Christ? yes, Pope? no.

Who established the Roman Pontiff as the head of His Church?
(I gave you a hint: the H is capitalized.)

I wonder what Jon would say about that one

1. It is absolutely necessary to be in some communion with the Catholic Church. (Outside the Church, there is no salvation.)

The Church does not teach that, and previous posts and quotes from the CCC and Popes have gone up to illustrate the point.

Hi Alizarin,
I heard the same as a fundamentalist years ago.
On the other hand, isn’t it true that our personal way of life, opinions, ect. display what we clearly believe? I mean, can we truly separate the two? Belief and actions?

This would be a good topic for another thread. By the way, good to see ya again

As an apostate non-denominational Christian, I won’t be in heaven

Looks like we’re in the same boat, my friend…

Catholics don’t teach we know for sure who is in heaven or not.

Take another look at this thread

 

[Jozefo]

Yes, they are actually required to see it as a circle.

Imagine what would happen if an engineer decided, for the sake of following his own rules, to say, “I don’t want to view geometry as the accepted rules dictated by math. I want now to base my foundations for the bridge on my own conventions, and how I see things.”

Would you let your daughter drive over this bridge, knowing that this engineer saw a square where a circle actually existed?

Okay, first I want to thank you for answering. I was a bit put off when the topic was Christian freedom, and you reduced it to questions about kindergardeners and circles. But now that we’re back on track, I’ll answer your questions.

Would you really tell your daughter that she doesn’t have to believe that the above shape is a circle? And let’s take the artistic angle out of this. How about if we change it to math? Or even spelling? Or just plain old truth. Let’s say your daughter comes home with an F in math because she can’t add. Are you going to tell her that she doesn’t need to learn her math facts? That she can come to any conclusion she wants about how much 2 quarters equal? Or that she can spell “Missouri” any way she wants? Or that she can believe in Santa Claus when she’s 21, as long as it makes her happy and good?

Yes, I would tell my daughter that if she sees something different than other people, that’s ok, but she needs to learn how to cooperate with others.

Math is another, similar kind of question. Remember that movie Rain Man? My dad was like that. He couldn’t explain how he did it, but he could multiply and divide numbers like the rain man did in the movie. At any rate, when living in society, people need to learn the skills it takes to cooperate with others. So if someone comes to a different solution, I think that’s fine. But if they’re going to work with numbers and other people, then they need to learn how to do that.

Spelling is another thing. I reserve the right to change spelling any time I want. If it’s a problem, then let me know. I can assure you that if I purposely veer from the common spelling, I have a good reason.

Now, you said,

Yes, they are actually required to see it as a circle.

My response is another question: by what authority? It’s possible you said that rhetorically, but taken together with your other responses, I doubt it.

Also, we’re way off track from Christian freedom, my assertion that set this present conversation in motion. Now I’m wondering if the notion of people being endowed with a right of conscience somehow contradicts with Church teaching, especially in light of #1782 (I think it was). It seems to me that arguing against Christian freedom is very counter productive.

 

[Billy_Buescher]

Provocative title, eh?

I hoped to get your attention, because I’m floating this argument which I put together this morning.

1. Jesus only has one body.
2. To be in heaven, one must be a member of the body of Christ
3. The body of Christ is the Church.
4. The Church instituted by Christ has a name – the Catholic Church.
   Therefore, to be in heaven, one must be a member of the Catholic Church.

I anticipate some possible objection to 1 and much rejection to 4, but let’s see how it unfolds.

I look forward to reading your thoughts for and against.

Let see what Jesus said:

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

The Catholic Church is the only Church, to my knowledge, where on can go to eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ. You have eternal life when you do this in a worthy manner.

Can a person get into Heaven if :Christ does not dwell in them and you in Him?

 

[jmcrae]

Unless you think that 6 of the 7 billion humans currently on earth are hell-bound you have believe there’s room for non-Catholics. Maybe not those who make it their mission to turn the world against The Church, but, ultimately it’s up to God.

Out of the billions alive and the billions who will ever live, there is only one person who actually has to go to Heaven - and She is already there. God does not “grade on the curve” and if only a few people go to Heaven, it is not His failure, but ours.

 

[jmcrae]

Ah, invincible ignorance. A question on this:

While certainly no expert, I believe I have a pretty fair knowledge of what the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome teaches. I have made a point to do so. Even so, I remain Lutheran. Some might say I have voided any hope of salvation on the claim of invincible ignorance.

Would it be better, more charitable, if Catholics went out of their way NOT to share the Catholic faith with non-Catholics, therefore ensuring their invincible ignorance?
(Maybe this should be a separate thread?)

Jon

Ignorance is not a Sacrament. And vincible ignorance is not the only sin.

If you know about the Church, you can choose to make your Profession of Faith and First Reconciliation.

But if you are invincibly ignorant of the Church, and at the same time you commit a mortal sin, then what hope have you got? None whatsoever - especially if you subscribe to easy-believe-ism.

 

[Alizarin]

Let see what Jesus said:

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

The Catholic Church is the only Church, to my knowledge, where on can go to eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ. You have eternal life when you do this in a worthy manner.

Can a person get into Heaven if :Christ does not dwell in them and you in Him?

For every point you made, a Protestant has 500 years worth of counterpoints. And some of them actually make sense (enough to have brought me back to my own Protestant roots).

This is why I think debate is pointless. The best we (all of us-- protestant and Catholic etc) can do is describe what we believe, why we believe it, and leave it at that. This constant campaign of trying to beat people into submission with a truuth they don’t believe in does nothing but create an environment conducive to uncharitable comments.

Which is why I think that’s it for me…

 

[jmcrae]

But when Paul speaks of the body in 1 Cor 12, the context is spiritual gifts and how no one should think their gift (prophecy, teaching, etc) superior to another’s. The whole thing is an admonition against pride. And the language he uses starts with "For as the body is one…" which shows it’s a simile Paul’s employing. The language is metaphorical. The CCC even states this at one point in paragraph 789: "the comparison of the Church with the body… Of course, later it makes the leap to Mystical Body and membership, but it’s unclear how.

John 17 shows it more clearly, I think.

And when Christ speaks of His body, it’s at the Last Supper, in reference to the bread. A Catholic can use it to make the case for Transubstantiation, a Protestant can claim metaphor (or something in between), but in either case, membership isn’t the subject of Christ’s words.

A Protestant can claim that Jesus intended it as a metaphor, but given that such a metaphor did not exist in the original languages at that time, and given that the Apostles taught that it was the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ under the appearances of bread and wine (reference: Justin Martyr, Apologia) the Protestants are therefore incorrect.

“Follow Me” implies membership in the group that is following Him.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Out of the billions alive and the billions who will ever live, there is only one person who actually has to go to Heaven - and She is already there. God does not “grade on the curve” and if only a few people go to Heaven, it is not His failure, but ours.

Welcome to the Funhouse!

 

[MJCamp]

For every point you made, a Protestant has 500 years worth of counterpoints. And some of them actually make sense (enough to have brought me back to my own Protestant roots).

This is why I think debate is pointless. The best we (all of us-- protestant and Catholic etc) can do is describe what we believe, why we believe it, and leave it at that. This constant campaign of trying to beat people into submission with a truuth they don’t believe in does nothing but create an environment conducive to uncharitable comments.

Which is why I think that’s it for me…

These 500 yrs of roots don’t seem to hold water. Thus 40,000 different beliefs and counting. There’s a difference between the truth and what one believes is true

Here in St. Faustina’s vision of Heaven & Hell, we can see that, unfortunately, many souls are lost to Hell. I know this is just a private revelation, and as a Catholic we aren’t required to believe but it does shed some light on what we could be facing after death.
christtotheworld.blogspot.com/2011/02/st-faustina-vision-of-heaven.html

 

[dandy1822]

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.

the one church jesus would have been talking about would have been jewish. although i do
agree about one church. are catholic churches christs churches? to me they always seem more like marys churches.

 

[jmcrae]

the one church jesus would have been talking about would have been jewish. although i do
agree about one church. are catholic churches christs churches? to me they always seem more like marys churches.

The Mass is all about Jesus dying on the Cross for our sins, and coming to us in His body and blood, soul and divinity, to feed us both spiritually and physically.