To Be in Heaven, You Must Be Catholic

[yogosans14]

It is a mystery, but we can know some things about God, yes?

So, is that you will never know because it’s too deep for us humans?

Or is it because you don’t want to study and learn?

I believe hes spirtually and physcially there, but I dont completly understand it. I know God is triuine but I cant completly comprehend his nature. I dont think God will be angry for me for not completly understanding him. I put my complete trust in him, thats all that matters

 

[Randy_Carson]

Irrelevant, I want nothing to do with that backwards denomation. I put that denomation in the same cartegory as the Jehovahs Witnesses.

Episcopalians and Jehovah’s Witnesses are in the same category?

JW’s have a demonstrably false translation of the Scriptures. Episcopalians do not.

How do you lump them together?

 

[yogosans14]

So, everyone who claims the name of Jesus is a Christian - except for some people, whose beliefs about Jesus are obviously wrong …

Where, exactly, do we draw the line, then?

Well if they let openly homosexuals preach then they obviously disregard the Word of God.

 

[yogosans14]

Episcopalians and Jehovah’s Witnesses are in the same category?

JW’s have a demonstrably false translation of the Scriptures. Episcopalians do not.

How do you lump them together?

Yes I know the Espicoplaians believe in a lot of the things Catholics believe in but atleast the RCC doesnt confrom to liberal society so I applaud the RCC and its leader for that

 

[jmcrae]

Well if they let openly homosexuals preach then they obviously disregard the Word of God.

No argument from me.

Of course, in the majority of other things, they do follow the Word of God. For example, they are faithful to baptize their children, and they have a complete Bible, including all 46 books of the Old Testament.

But they fail on one point of the Word, which is that they allow persons who commit sexual sin to be ordained as priests - and this is enough to disfellowship them from the whole of Christianity.

And on its own, that makes sense. After all, we are to follow the whole Word; not just the parts that don’t happen to interfere with our lifestyle choices.

What about people who remove certain books from the Old Testament, though? Can they still be considered to be following the Word of God?

What about people who disregard the example of the early Christians to baptize their whole household? Can they still be considered to be following the Word of God?

 

[Tomdstone]

That’s why they are in…

wait for it…
wait for it…

SCHISM.

That is from the POV of the RC Church. However, the Orthodox Church says that the Roman Church is in schism from them. Still, though, it does not answer the question as to why the three Patriarchs would freely choose to align themselves with Cerularius after he had excommunicated Rome. They were free to choose either Rome or Constantinople, and yet, they chose Constantinople. Why would they do so unless they did not believe that it was necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff? Wouldn’t they have chosen Rome instead of Constantinople if they thought and believed that you had to be subject to the Pope of Rome in order to be saved?

 

[PRmerger]

I dont know ANY denomation that would ok that (maybe the Espicopal church but they allow open gay ministers)

Just so you know, MOST denominations would permit that. Not just the Episcopal church.

Other Christian denominations, including the Eastern Orthodox Church and many Protestant churches, will allow both divorce and remarriage even with a surviving former spouse, at least under certain conditions.source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_divorce

 

[steve_b]

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.

Aside from what Jesus does for Simon Alone [Matthew 16:16-19 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Matthew Chapter 16) which alone would be enough

• The apostles in the upper room after the last supper, get in an argument over who among THEM is the greatest.

Luke 22:24 a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 26 the greatest μείζων ] among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules γούμενος ] like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you ς plural] as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you singular],Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen στήρισον ]your brothers.”

…] words in red brackets are operable links for descriptuion of the words.

Notice how Jesus settles their argument?

Jesus confirms one of them will be greatest. It’s Peter. Jesus prays for Peter specifically because he leads, & strengthens, the others. Case closed

1) to lead /

a) to go before
b) to be a leader
1) to rule, command
2) to have authority over
3) a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
4) used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
5) the leader in speech, chief, spokesman

Sterizo (Simon is to)
1) to make stable, place firmly, set fast, fix
2) to strengthen, make firm
3) to render constant, confirm, one’s mind

​

And let’s not forget** [Jn 21:16]**

Peter is to feed & tend

tend = Poimaino

definitionDefinition

1. • to feed, to tend a flock, keep sheep
   a)to rule, govern
   1. of rulers
   2. to furnish pasture for food
   3. to nourish
   4. to cherish one’s body, to serve the body
   5. to supply the requisites for the soul’s need
      Add up the traits referring to Peter. Peter is to lead, feed, rule, command, have authority over the others, govern, and control in counsels… make stable his brothers, strengthen them, and confirm them…and be the chief spokesman. And it goes without saying, Jesus expects the apostles to follow Peter’s lead. That ends their argument…right?
      Scripturally, Jesus used these terms only with Peter. And that should answer your point about communion with 1 bishop.
   Gee, Sounds like Jesus describes and defends the papacy and the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

That is from the POV of the RC Church.

Certainly.

And when we say to a Muslim that Jesus Christ is Lord he will respond: well, that is from the POV of a Christian.

Now, do you believe that just because a Muslim says it’s only a “POV” that this means it’s not true?

Of course not. Whether he believes it’s our POV or not, the fact is: Jesus Christ is Lord.

Similarly, whether it’s a Catholic POV or not, the fact is: the Orthodox are in schism with us.

However, the Orthodox Church says that the Roman Church is in schism from them. Still, though, it does not answer the question as to why the three Patriarchs would freely choose to align themselves with Cerularius after he had excommunicated Rome. They were free to choose either Rome or Constantinople, and yet, they chose Constantinople. Why would they do so unless they did not believe that it was necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff? Wouldn’t they have chosen Rome instead of Constantinople if they thought and believed that you had to be subject to the Pope of Rome in order to be saved?

Why do Muslims not believe Jesus is divine?

I don’t know.

Doesn’t change the fact that Jesus is. Billions of folks chose to deny this truth.

 

[jmcrae]

That is from the POV of the RC Church. However, the Orthodox Church says that the Roman Church is in schism from them. Still, though, it does not answer the question as to why the three Patriarchs would freely choose to align themselves with Cerularius after he had excommunicated Rome.

They didn’t. They became independent churches.

There are several different Orthodox churches, each of which is self-governed.

 

[Alizarin]

Ah, of course.

But I have a question…

Suppose a Methodist man marries a Baptist woman and they have a child. The father wants to baptize his child immediately (as he was baptized as an infant), but the mother disagrees because Baptists do not baptize infants. Despite the claims from both sides, scripture does not give us a specific instruction on baptism of infants.

To which “congregation” should they take the matter for resolution? Which “congregation” has authority to decide what is right and what is wrong? They both claim to be led by the Spirit into all truth…

So, does doctrine matter, Yogo? Or would you say that conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable in the one Body of Christ?

You have to admit, though, Randy, you can find the same amount of division within the Catholic Church, each Sunday at Mass, right there in the pews. The RCC has a veneer of unity, granted, but in all reality Catholics are deeply divided in what they believe. Each Cafeteria Catholic is a Pope unto himself, and there are a lot of those out there. Unity is an illusion.

 

[jmcrae]

You have to admit, though, Randy, you can find the same amount of division within the Catholic Church, each Sunday at Mass, right there in the pews. The RCC has a veneer of unity, granted, but in all reality Catholics are deeply divided in what they believe. Each Cafeteria Catholic is a Pope unto himself, and there are a lot of those out there. Unity is an illusion.

It’s true that many Catholics simply don’t know their faith. This is the sad result of years of poor teaching, when it was believed that as long as they were taught to love Jesus, everything else would take care of itself.

 

[PRmerger]

You have to admit, though, Randy, you can find the same amount of division within the Catholic Church, each Sunday at Mass, right there in the pews. The RCC has a veneer of unity, granted, but in all reality Catholics are deeply divided in what they believe. Each Cafeteria Catholic is a Pope unto himself, and there are a lot of those out there. Unity is an illusion.

But when they are doing this they are being bad Catholics. It is not the Catholic paradigm that each man may read the Bible and interpret for himself what doctrine to glean from its pages.

However, when Protestants do this, they are simply being good Protestants and following in the model of “I don’t need any Magisterium to guide me. I just need the Bible!”

 

[Tomdstone]

They didn’t. They became independent churches.

There are several different Orthodox churches, each of which is self-governed.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches are all in communion with one another. Originally, in 1054it was only Cerularius who was excommunicated. The other Eastern Churches were not affected. However, as time went by, the other Eastern Churches chose to align themselves with Constantinople, not Rome (with the possible exception of the Maronite Church). Did the other Eastern Churches know that by refusing to subject themselves to the Roman Pontiff, they were putting their salvation at stake? Did they know that the Pope of Rome had universal and supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church? This was a serious decision on their part, because they were not involved in the initial excommunication of Cerularius. And yet all three ancient Patriarchal Sees, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria decided that they would go with Constantinople, not Rome. It seems possible that they did not accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome over them and they believed that Rome was in error when it excommunicated Cerularius. In other words, getting back to the original question, it seems like these Eastern Churches believed that you could be saved and go to heaven without being in communion with the Roman Catholic Church

 

[Tomdstone]

But when they are doing this they are being bad Catholics.

However, I have heard the expression that someone has excommunicated himself by believing such and such. For example, there is the case of the ex-Jesuit seminarian, Gary Wills, who on a TV program said that he did not agree with the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. And subsequently, a priest went on you tube to announce that the former Jesuit seminarian had excommunicated himself from the Roman Catholic Church.
youtube.com/watch?v=G775nlSQk1I
Does that mean that all those Catholics who do not object to artificial birth control or abortion rights have excommunicated themselves from the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[Randy_Carson]

You have to admit, though, Randy, you can find the same amount of division within the Catholic Church, each Sunday at Mass, right there in the pews. The RCC has a veneer of unity, granted, but in all reality Catholics are deeply divided in what they believe. Each Cafeteria Catholic is a Pope unto himself, and there are a lot of those out there. Unity is an illusion.

Ah. “You are also.”

Because of the divisions with Protestantism, its advocates typically do not attempt to defend the indefensible. Instead, they commonly resort to a form of tu quoque (Latin, “You are also!”) argument in which they attempt to tar Catholics with similar disunity.

For example, they might say, “Look at the Dominicans and the Jesuits. They typically hold different views of predestination. This shows that Catholics as well as Protestants disagree on essentials, and thus are no more credible than Protestants.”

In response, a number of points may be made: First, Catholicism has a functioning magisterium that can decide that these matters are not essential differences. Second, the relevant schools adhere to the teachings of the magisterium and, if their views were reprobated, would accept the results (or cease to be faithful Catholics). Third, the differences between Catholic schools of thought have nowhere near the magnitude of the difference among Protestant schools. Compared to the differences among Protestant groups, differences among orthodox Catholic groups are trivial. Finally, the fact that the Catholic Church has a magisterium means that there can be—and on the most important theological matters there is—an official Catholic position. There is no parallel standard in Protestant circles that can speak for Protestantism.

Other times, advocates of Protestantism will attempt to construct a parallel argument against Catholics by pointing to the existence of ostensible Catholics who refuse to acknowledge the magisterium’s teachings.

In response, it should be pointed out that the difference among Catholic dissidents is frequently far less than among individuals in the sweep of Protestant belief. Furthermore, individuals’ refusal to accept the magisterium’s teachings does not challenge the Christ-given authority of the magisterium any more than the refusal to accept some of Paul’s teachings undermines Paul’s authority as an apostle. Moreover, Protestant churches also have individuals who refuse to honor the teachings of their denominations. The difference is that for Catholicism there is a body—the bishops teaching in union with the pope—who “speak for the Church” and who can articulate what “the Catholic position” is, while in Protestantism there is nothing comparable.

 

[PRmerger]

In other words, getting back to the original question, it seems like these Eastern Churches believed that you could be saved and go to heaven without being in communion with the Roman Catholic Church

Muslims believe they can get to heaven without Christ.

Are they right or wrong, Tomdstone?

 

[PRmerger]

However, I have heard the expression that someone has excommunicated himself by believing such and such. For example, there is the case of the ex-Jesuit seminarian, Gary Wills, who on a TV program said that he did not agree with the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. And subsequently, a priest went on you tube to announce that the former Jesuit seminarian had excommunicated himself from the Roman Catholic Church.
youtube.com/watch?v=G775nlSQk1I

Ok.

Does that mean that all those Catholics who do not object to artificial birth control or abortion rights have excommunicated themselves from the Roman Catholic Church?

No.

No one is automatically excommunicated for any offense if, without any fault of his own, he was unaware that he was violating a law (CIC 1323:2) or that a penalty was attached to the law (CIC 1324:1:9). The same applies if one was a minor, had the imperfect use of reason, was forced through grave or relatively grave fear, was forced through serious inconvenience, or in certain other circumstances (CIC 1324) source

 

[PRmerger]

Ah. “You are also.”

Because of the divisions with Protestantism, its advocates typically do not attempt to defend the indefensible. Instead, they commonly resort to a form of tu quoque (Latin, “You are also!”) argument in which they attempt to tar Catholics with similar disunity.

For example, they might say, “Look at the Dominicans and the Jesuits. They typically hold different views of predestination. This shows that Catholics as well as Protestants disagree on essentials, and thus are no more credible than Protestants.”

In response, a number of points may be made: First, Catholicism has a functioning magisterium that can decide that these matters are not essential differences. Second, the relevant schools adhere to the teachings of the magisterium and, if their views were reprobated, would accept the results (or cease to be faithful Catholics). Third, the differences between Catholic schools of thought have nowhere near the magnitude of the difference among Protestant schools. Compared to the differences among Protestant groups, differences among orthodox Catholic groups are trivial. Finally, the fact that the Catholic Church has a magisterium means that there can be—and on the most important theological matters there is—an official Catholic position. There is no parallel standard in Protestant circles that can speak for Protestantism.

Other times, advocates of Protestantism will attempt to construct a parallel argument against Catholics by pointing to the existence of ostensible Catholics who refuse to acknowledge the magisterium’s teachings.

In response, it should be pointed out that the difference among Catholic dissidents is frequently far less than among individuals in the sweep of Protestant belief. Furthermore, individuals’ refusal to accept the magisterium’s teachings does not challenge the Christ-given authority of the magisterium any more than the refusal to accept some of Paul’s teachings undermines Paul’s authority as an apostle. Moreover, Protestant churches also have individuals who refuse to honor the teachings of their denominations. The difference is that for Catholicism there is a body—the bishops teaching in union with the pope—who “speak for the Church” and who can articulate what “the Catholic position” is, while in Protestantism there is nothing comparable.

From Jimmy Akin?

eboards4all.com/813467/messages/88993.html

 

[steve_b]

*Not a position I agree with, but definitely the position clearly stated in the CCC, if by Catholic Church you mean universal community of baptized, believing Christians. *

Originally Posted by steve b
That’s NOT my understanding of what Catholic means.

A:

Then you have to take it up with the authors of that paragraph of the CCC.

Since you reference the following http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11149693&postcount=660 what part of this says non Catholics are Catholic? Especially considering non Catholics are not permitted to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church.

Some Anglicans try and call themselves Catholic. They aren’t http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-cant-anglo-catholics-receive-the-eucharist-at-a-roman-rite-mass

Some Lutherans try and call themselves Catholic . They aren’t. The same is true for them as it is for Anglicans
A:

And I was only saying what Jesus said. It is finished

.
What Jesus did is finished. We otoh, aren’t finished till we take our last breath. Up until that time our testing period is in play. Since God desires all to be saved, He desires all to be in His Church, the ONLY one He started and made all His promises to. The Catholic Church.