To Be in Heaven, You Must Be Catholic

[Randy_Carson]

Melkite bishop John said it well.

According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

An Orthodox Bishop is saying that the Bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction???

 

[steve_b]

An Orthodox Bishop is saying that the Bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction???

btw, Bp John is a Melkite Bp. Melkites as you know were first Catholic, then E Orthodox, then back to Catholic. I take his statement as him saying,** if** an Orthodox can ascribe to canon 43

“The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.”

(Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

Then what bishop John is saying, that person is no longer E Orthodox but Catholic. And they no doubt will make the appropriate move, because at that point, they won’t be welcomed in any E Orthodox Church, holding those views. That’s how I understand him.

 

[Tomdstone]

According to the papal bull Unam Sanctam you have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved. This bull was infallible, was it not? It says that the pope is declaring, proclaiming and defining the teaching:
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
However, today it is taught that a Jew and other non-Christians can be saved. Did the Catholic Church make a mistake and fall into error when it declared, proclaimed and defined that you have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved?

 

[Randy_Carson]

According to the papal bull Unam Sanctam you have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved. This bull was infallible, was it not? It says that the pope is declaring, proclaiming and defining the teaching:
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
However, today it is taught that a Jew and other non-Christians can be saved. Did the Catholic Church make a mistake and fall into error when it declared, proclaimed and defined that you have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved?

Well, this was discussed at length throughout the thread, but for starters, I posted this link in post #97:

The Necessity of Being Catholic
by James Akin
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3447

And check this out:

Just Exactly Where is the Church?
By Mark Shea
mark-shea.com/unam.html

Both articles discuss Unam Sanctam at length in light of other Church teachings.

 

[PRmerger]

According to the papal bull Unam Sanctam you have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved. This bull was infallible, was it not? It says that the pope is declaring, proclaiming and defining the teaching:
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
However, today it is taught that a Jew and other non-Christians can be saved. Did the Catholic Church make a mistake and fall into error when it declared, proclaimed and defined that you have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved?

Everyone is subject to the Roman Pontiff, Tomdstone. They may be rebellious subjects, or clueless subjects, or passive subjects, but they are subject to the Roman Pontiff.

As you are a member of the flock of God, the Roman Pontiff, who is the successor of Peter, was given the charge to feed and care for the flock of God. And you are therefore subject to him.

Just as Christ is Lord of the heavens and the earth, and therefore the Lord of all, even those who are rebellious, or clueless or passive.

In the same way, the Roman Pontiff has been given responsibility for all the sheep, whether they know it or not, and whether they acknowledge it or not. And whether they rebel against him or not. They are subject to him.

 

[JonNC]

Okay.

1. To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
2. To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ’s Church.
3. To be a member of Christ’s Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.
4. To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
5. Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

1) To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
So far as we know. God is not confined to what we know.

2) To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ’s Church.
Agreed.

**3) To be a member of Christ’s Church it is necessary to be -]a member of the Catholic Church/-] baptized. **

**4) To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. **
I don’t know exactly what “subject to” entails, but clearly there are members of the Church Catholic who are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. They (We) are Christian, and Catholic, and members of the Church.

**5) Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff **
Scripture tells us it is necessary to salvation that one be baptized, that one believe/ have faith, but no where does it mention the necessity of being in communion with one particular bishop, even though it would be desirable that all Christians be in communion with all the bishops.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

****3) To be a member of Christ’s Church it is necessary to be -]a member of the Catholic Church/-] baptized. ****

Baptized into what, Jon? Christ. And where and how does this happen? We are baptized into Christ and become members of His body, the Church.

I mean, I could argue that Jesus only founded one Church and that it has a name given by its members before the end of the first century beginning in Antioch…but you already know all this.

**5) Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff **

 

[JonNC]

Baptized into what, Jon? Christ. And where and how does this happen?

I mean, I could argue that Jesus only founded one Church and that it has a name given by its members before the end of the first century beginning in Antioch…but you already know all this.

Now, Jon, you know the quotes from the ECF’s concerning the chair of Peter, etc. Scripture may not tell us these things explicitly, but the ECF’s certainly did.

Randy,
Do you believe it likely or possible that ALL members of Orthodoxy since 1054 were condemned since they were not subject to the Roman Pontiff? After all, while * “Salus extra ecclesiam non est”* has its origin in St. Cyprian, its most notable use is in Unam Sanctam, and later Pope Eugene IV

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the “eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,
Do you believe it likely or possible that ALL members of Orthodoxy since 1054 were condemned since they were not subject to the Roman Pontiff? After all, while * “Salus extra ecclesiam non est”* has its origin in St. Cyprian, its most notable use is in Unam Sanctam, and later Pope Eugene IV

Jon

The fate of those troubles me…it really does.

And it seems to me that the Catholic Church has worked far harder at finding a way to keep them connected than they have themselves.

That is even more troubling.

I’m going with the idea that God is merciful and will save some (even many) despite their efforts to avoid Rome at all costs…but I think it is a perilous journey that they have chosen to undertake.

The wheat and the tares grow up together, Jon, but there will be gleaning and burning in the end.

 

[JonNC]

The fate of those troubles me…it really does.

And it seems to me that the Catholic Church has worked far harder at finding a way to keep them connected than they have themselves.

That is even more troubling.

I’m going with the idea that God is merciful and will save some (even many) despite their efforts to avoid Rome at all costs…but I think it is a perilous journey that they have chosen to undertake.

The wheat and the tares grow up together, Jon, but there will be gleaning and burning in the end.

One thing (among many) that I like about you, Randy, is your honesty. I think you express here with charity and care what many Catholics believe. I respectfully disagree, of course, in that I don’t believe that communion with one Bishop is a deciding factor. The ECF’s, or course, spoke long before the Schism or the later divisions, so spoke without knowledge of them.

OTOH, equally problematic for me is the approach by some non-Catholics that Catholics, simply because they are Catholic in communion with the pope, are condemned.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

One thing (among many) that I like about you, Randy, is your honesty. I think you express here with charity and care what many Catholics believe. I respectfully disagree, of course, in that I don’t believe that communion with one Bishop is a deciding factor. The ECF’s, or course, spoke long before the Schism or the later divisions, so spoke without knowledge of them.

OTOH, equally problematic for me is the approach by some non-Catholics that Catholics, simply because they are Catholic in communion with the pope, are condemned.

Jon

Thank you, Jon. I wish I had your gift for diplomacy. You represent your church admirably.

 

[SteveVH]

I was the president and owner of a small company. If there were matters that were going to require an official signature, committing my company to certain obligations, and I could not be present to complete the transaction, I would give Power-of-Attorney to a trusted employee. In other words, I was giving this person my own authority, my own official capacity, to sign on behalf of my company. I would certainly not give this authority to more than one person for obvious reasons. I appointed one voice to speak on my behalf.

Peter was not just another bishop. It was upon Peter that the Church would be built and it was Peter, specifically, who received authority not given to the other Apostles. Why did Christ not say “These are my Apostles and upon them I will build my Church”? In Christ’s wisdom he knew that in order to have unity, there must be a final authority within the Church.

 

[chimo]

So just to be clear, you think earth dwelling humans can be perfect?

Perhaps our definitions of perfect are not the same.

What is impossible for man is possible for God! Yes you can become to be more perfect in this life. The grace of God is what is necessary and to love within the measure He loves you. It is primarily found in His love for you that you can become perfect. Perfection is not properly understood by us. We think of been perfect by not sinning. This is not the way to think of what perfection is. Yes we need not to sin seriously and if we do not sin seriously at all in this life which the Church calls mortal than yes you are in the first stage of perfecting yourself. The next stages of perfection relies on how you recognize what your venial sins are and to come to the truth that you are going to live this life by committing venial sins again and again. But perfection is contained when you decide to take these venial sins to the One who can carry these burdens of yours unto Himself. Jesus can normally carry all of our venial sins to be made into something that will turn into His Glory. The point is to come to realise this Jesus can do this for you. Now I am referring to our normal day to day growth here. Those who constantly commit mortal sins will never understand how powerful is the Grace of God if they constantly commit mortal sin one after another. You need to stop committing these type of sins if you want to discover perfection. Those who only commit venial sins have conquered the desires to commit any mortal sins and to these people I am addressing to. And these can include those who have committed mortal sins only to be transformed and touched by the Grace of God to enable them not to commit these type of sins again so they are now learning to deal with their venial sins.

You can become a great saint if you only give preference to God to handle your life in such a way that in His eyes you are becoming more perfect. You give Him priority to acknowledge your weaknesses and you will be a great saint. It doesn’t matter if you are still committing venial sins in this life. You are dealing with these sins by giving God priority over them. When you die your immortal soul leaves your physical body. The human will which is part of our immortal soul becomes naturally fixed at the separation of the soul from the body. This fixation of the will at death means you will not be sinning anymore. However the state of your being at death determines where you will go. If Heaven is your state at death then Heaven is where you will go. If you are still in a Purgatory state at death than God continues this Purgatory for you until Heaven is acquired. If you are in a state of hell at death than sadly because of the way your disposition and attitude is at death this condition just increases in you after death. Why? Because of the will been fixed at death.

So by this you can see that souls can have this Heaven before they die. If souls enter Heaven right away after death it is because they are in this state before they die. So these souls are in a right disposition before they die in other words are perfected enough to enter immediately Heaven.

 

[chimo]

No, you must be baptized into Christ to be a member of His body in heaven.

Formal baptism or baptism of desire (implicit or explicit) - doesn’t matter which, but you have to have one.

I am saying the same thing. You have misunderstood my words. When I say you need the Holy Spirit can you not see in these words that I am saying you need to be baptised as well. Why can’t you see in my words that I am saying the same thing as you do.

 

[jmcrae]

There ya go. According to that line of thought, He did only some of the work, despite the fact He said “it is finished”.

The final Passover was finished. The Old Covenant came to an end and was finished.

The New Covenant is now in effect. The New Covenant is *One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. *

 

[jmcrae]

1) To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
So far as we know. God is not confined to what we know.

2) To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ’s Church.
Agreed.

**3) To be a member of Christ’s Church it is necessary to be -]a member of the Catholic Church/-] baptized. **

**4) To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. **
I don’t know exactly what “subject to” entails, but clearly there are members of the Church Catholic who are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. They (We) are Christian, and Catholic, and members of the Church.

**5) Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff **
Scripture tells us it is necessary to salvation that one be baptized, that one believe/ have faith, but no where does it mention the necessity of being in communion with one particular bishop, even though it would be desirable that all Christians be in communion with all the bishops.

Jon

It is assumed throughout the New Testament that Christians are subject to the Apostles, who in their turn are subject to Peter.

Peter has a Successor; his name is Pope Francis. The Apostles also have Successors, they are the Bishops in communion with the Successor of Peter.

 

[jmcrae]

Randy,
Do you believe it likely or possible that ALL members of Orthodoxy since 1054 were condemned since they were not subject to the Roman Pontiff?

Why would it be shocking if this were so?

Jesus Christ, our Creator, established one Church, with the expectation that we would be members of it. He did not authorize schism, or say, “Oh well, if you don’t like Peter’s Successor you can start your own Church.”

The people didn’t like David’s successor, so they started their own Israel, and we see how that worked out - they disappeared from history.

 

[JonNC]

=jmcrae;11155816]It is assumed throughout the New Testament that Christians are subject to the Apostles, who in their turn are subject to Peter.

These assumptions, particularly the second, are a bit of a stretch. Even assuming them, there seems to be some dramatic disagreement with Christendom as to what exactly that means.

Peter has a Successor; his name is Pope Francis. The Apostles also have Successors, they are the Bishops in communion with the Successor of Peter.

Not all bishops are in communion with the Bishop or Rome, or, the Bishop of Rome is not in communion with all bishops. I’m not sure which.

Jon

 

[JillianRose]

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.

My Humans side says “Darn Straight”. My Catholic side tells me to not worry about it, God is a just God, and he is bigger then anything our puny little minds can understand.

If you are becoming Catholic, you might want to pray that you become a little more in line in Catholic Teachings. Catholic do not believe they will be the only ones in heaven.

Now that being said, I am happy that I am Catholic because I know the Repose of my Soul will be prayed for.

Remember Jesus said “I leave you my Peace”. We are Catholic and can not be assured of our own salvation, let alone judge someone else’s, So, that peace should be enough comfort for our human brains lack of understanding of our FATHER.

Love,
His work in Progress,
Jillian

 

[jmcrae]

These assumptions, particularly the second, are a bit of a stretch. Even assuming them, there seems to be some dramatic disagreement with Christendom as to what exactly that means.

Not all bishops are in communion with the Bishop or Rome, or, the Bishop of Rome is not in communion with all bishops. I’m not sure which.

Jon

Judas was also not in communion with Peter; I don’t think we mean to include him when we say that we are to follow the Apostles - even though he was an Apostle.

Yes, there are schismatic Bishops; there have always been schismatic Bishops. We are not to have any part with them.