To Be in Heaven, You Must Be Catholic

[Jafar]

Not just catholic. God is so beautiful , full of Love and he does not want to send people to hell unless they must go there
He always find a way to save them and he has not and probably does not want us know how he do it.

Believing in our Lord Jesus Christ is the shortcut and the right way. Being a catholic is not the issue having faith and a real faith is important.

I am going to heaven. I know where I am going because I never dishonor the blood of song of God who paid for my sins by not believing that he accomplished.

It is a sin to have the slightest doubt that you won’t go to heaven ( as long as you have full faith and your deeds are according to his will)

 

[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.

The only people experiencing confusion are those outside the Church. Inside the Church there is no confusion.

 

[PRmerger]

I am going to heaven. I know where I am going because I never dishonor the blood of song of God who paid for my sins by not believing that he accomplished.

It is a sin to have the slightest doubt that you won’t go to heaven ( as long as you have full faith and your deeds are according to his will)

It is curious that you say that you know that you are going to heaven, when even St. Paul could not profess that he was certain he was going to heaven.

Even St. Paul.

 

[JonNC]

The only people experiencing confusion are those outside the Church. Inside the Church there is no confusion.

I didn’t say confusion. I said disagreement.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=jmcrae;11155871]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.

Of course not, though I wouldn’t be so bold as to compare any bishop, east, west, to Judas.

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

That’s a curious comment. Are Catholics not permitted to receive the sacrament at an Orthodox church (not that an Orthodox church would permit it)? Are Orthodox not permitted to receive at a Catholic church, with permission of their bishop?

Were not Orthodox and other bishops, including Lutheran, at Pope Francis’ installation as pope?

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

Of course not, though I wouldn’t be so bold as to compare any bishop, east, west, to Judas.

Not directly, of course! But they separate themselves for their own reasons, whatever they may be.

That’s a curious comment. Are Catholics not permitted to receive the sacrament at an Orthodox church (not that an Orthodox church would permit it)?

Are Orthodox not permitted to receive at a Catholic church, with permission of their bishop?

Since no Orthodox Bishop would ever permit either one, it’s more of a theoretical statement affirming the validity of their Sacraments, rather than an actual invitation to inter-commune.

Were not Orthodox and other bishops, including Lutheran, at Pope Francis’ installation as pope?

I’m sure anyone who wanted to could go. I’m not sure that it really means anything.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Were not Orthodox and other bishops, including Lutheran, at Pope Francis’ installation as pope?

Yes, we continue to invite you to dinner in order to keep peace in the family.

 

[Tomdstone]

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.

So, the Eastern Orthodox are subject to the Roman Pontiff, according to Roman Catholicism? I don’t think that the EO like this idea and that they might see it as a barrier to any eventual reunion with the RC Church.

 

[PRmerger]

So, the Eastern Orthodox are subject to the Roman Pontiff, according to Roman Catholicism? I don’t think that the EO like this idea and that they might see it as a barrier to any eventual reunion with the RC Church.

Let me just extend the circle a little bit, Tomdstone and ask you this:

How would you respond to a Muslim who tells you:

So, you think that I am subject to Jesus Christ, according to Christianity? I don’t think my fellow Muslims like this idea, and they might see this as a barrier to any eventual union we may have with Christianity.

Before you say, “This thread is not about Muslims”, please just indulge me a bit here.

 

[Tomdstone]

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.

These articles seem to be saying that if you are in imperfect union with the Catholic Church, you are then subject to the Roman Pontiff? In other words, are they simply watering down what was formerly meant by being subject to the Roman Pontiff? One blogger here says that everyone, even those not in imperfect union with the Pope, are subject to the Roman Pontiff, which is not acceptable to a Jew or Muslim.

 

[Tomdstone]

Let me just extend the circle a little bit, Tomdstone and ask you this:

How would you respond to a Muslim who tells you:

So, you think that I am subject to Jesus Christ, according to Christianity? I don’t think my fellow Muslims like this idea, and they might see this as a barrier to any eventual union we may have with Christianity.

Before you say, “This thread is not about Muslims”, please just indulge me a bit here.

If you are trying to make the analogy:
Muslims are subject to Jesus Christ
Eastern Orthodox are subject to the Roman Pontiff,
then I don’t think that the Eastern Orthodox accept any analogy between Jesus Christ, who is the second Person of the Trinity, and the Roman Pontiff. To them, the Roman Pontiff is just another bishop, who yes does have a certain primacy, but does not (according to the EO) have infallibility, universal supremacy or universal jurisdiction. In any event, the EO deny that they are subject to the Roman Pontiff and still they are allowed to receive Holy Communion in the RC Church, according to RC teaching (but not their own).
Further how is a Hindu in India subject to the Roman Pontiff? Please explain how that would work?

 

[PRmerger]

If you are trying to make the analogy:
Muslims are subject to Jesus Christ
Eastern Orthodox are subject to the Roman Pontiff,
then I don’t think that the Eastern Orthodox accept any analogy between Jesus Christ, who is the second Person of the Trinity, and the Roman Pontiff.

This is not how analogies work, Tomdstone.

The 2 analogs do not have anything to do with each other.

Take this very simple analogy:

Christmas tree : ornament :: Earlobe : earring.

You are saying: the above is a false analogy because earrings are not ornaments.

That is not how analogies work.

So, please answer the question. How would you respond to a Muslim who tells you that he is not subject to Christ, and that this would inhibit any kind of Christian/Muslim union?

 

[Randy_Carson]

These articles seem to be saying that if you are in imperfect union with the Catholic Church, you are then subject to the Roman Pontiff? In other words, are they simply watering down what was formerly meant by being subject to the Roman Pontiff? One blogger here says that everyone, even those not in imperfect union with the Pope, are subject to the Roman Pontiff, which is not acceptable to a Jew or Muslim.

Tom-

Previously in this thread, I posted on the Royal Steward. It’s a big deal, because Jesus, as King, has re-established not only the office of the Queen Mother but that of the Royal Steward, as well.

So, would you agree that anyone in heaven must be subject to the King? Would you further agree that anyone in heaven must be subject to the Steward that the King has set over His household?

Regardless - irregardless - of how or why someone is ultimately judged worthy of heaven, they will be subjects of the King, His Queen and His Royal Steward.

 

[Tomdstone]

Tom-

Previously in this thread, I posted on the Royal Steward. It’s a big deal, because Jesus, as King, has re-established not only the office of the Queen Mother but that of the Royal Steward, as well.

So, would you agree that anyone in heaven must be subject to the King? Would you further agree that anyone in heaven must be subject to the Steward that the King has set over His household?

Regardless - irregardless - of how or why someone is ultimately judged worthy of heaven, they will be subjects of the King, His Queen and His Royal Steward.

This is not acceptable to Hindus who deny that they are subject to the Roman Pontiff. Please explain how a Hindu is a subject of the Roman Pope?

 

[Tomdstone]

This is not how analogies work, Tomdstone.

The 2 analogs do not have anything to do with each other.

Take this very simple analogy:

Christmas tree : ornament :: Earlobe : earring.

You are saying: the above is a false analogy because earrings are not ornaments.

This is a false analogy because the history of the Christmas tree indicates that it is related to the worship of the winter tree in Druidic and Nordic folklore. The earlobe does not have such historical significance. Further, generally you would hang several dozens of ornaments on a Christmas tree, whereas, generally, you would hang at most one earring on an earlobe, although there might be exceptions in some unusual cases.

 

[jmcrae]

This is not acceptable to Hindus who deny that they are subject to the Roman Pontiff. Please explain how a Hindu is a subject of the Roman Pope?

The Pope has been placed in spiritual authority over the whole world (every human being who has ever lived and who ever will live) by Jesus.

This means that in order to be saved, we must become in visible unioin with him and do as he commands.

If a Hindu lives in India, he is subject to the Indian government, even if he disagrees with their policies. The Indian government has the right to arrest him and put him in prison if he disobeys their laws - even if he says, “I don’t like the government and I disagree with their policies.”

It has nothing to do with what an individual person might wish were true; it has to do with who God has placed in authority over us.

 

[PRmerger]

This is a false analogy because the history of the Christmas tree indicates that it is related to the worship of the winter tree in Druidic and Nordic folklore. The earlobe does not have such historical significance. Further, generally you would hang several dozens of ornaments on a Christmas tree, whereas, generally, you would hang at most one earring on an earlobe, although there might be exceptions in some unusual cases.

The fact that you say that this very, very simple analogy is false indicates that you do not have a grasp of analogies. At all.

But could you please ignore any kind of analogy and just pretend that a Muslim asked you the question, as posited earlier. You have been trying to have a religious dialogue with him and have told him that Jesus Christ is Lord. He tells you that he is not subject to him, and that if you keep saying that Jesus is Lord it will inhibit unity.

How do you respond to him?

 

[jmcrae]

This is a false analogy because the history of the Christmas tree indicates that it is related to the worship of the winter tree in Druidic and Nordic folklore.

This would come as a complete shock to Martin Luther, the inventor of the Christmas tree. He thought the evergreen boughs were reminders of the tree of life, Jesus, and that the ornaments were reminders of the fruit of the tree (the Eucharist). :christmastree1:

 

[SteveVH]

This is a false analogy because the history of the Christmas tree indicates that it is related to the worship of the winter tree in Druidic and Nordic folklore. The earlobe does not have such historical significance. Further, generally you would hang several dozens of ornaments on a Christmas tree, whereas, generally, you would hang at most one earring on an earlobe, although there might be exceptions in some unusual cases.

Oh, my…

 

[PRmerger]

This is not acceptable to Hindus who deny that they are subject to the Roman Pontiff. Please explain how a Hindu is a subject of the Roman Pope?

The same way that a Hindu must give obeiance to Christ, even if she does not acknowledge Christ as Lord. He is deserving of her obeiance, even if she says Jesus is not God.