To Be in Heaven, You Must Be Catholic

[PRmerger]

Which goes to underline my initial point: unity is an illusion.

No. The Church is One, Alizarin.

It exists only in theory, not in practice.

Perhaps.

But with Protestantism there is not even unity in theory.

At least with Catholicism there is unity in orthodoxy, although there may be rebellion/deviance and heteropraxis exists where orthopraxis ought to.

Which is why I agree with Randy’s echoing of Benedict XVI’s sentiment that possibly the best thing the RCC could do is to prune its branches; become smaller, holier.

I don’t think anyone can ever argue that the Catholic Church can’t strive for greater holiness.

 

[PRmerger]

I’d wager that to the naked eye of the average person, it would be hard to tell a zirconium from a diamond. And it would be foolish to believe someone who walked up and told them their gem was not a real diamond–that person who walked up and looked at the gem and pronounced it a zirconium could very well be mistaken himself, regardless of his sincerity, charity, and confidence that he is correct. The wearer of the alleged zirconium could, however, subject the gem to various tests to definitively determine what it is.

And there’s the rub. Unlike doing lab tests on a gem, until after death, until our Judgment, there is no definitive test for which religion exactly is true. There is only the available evidence, which itself requires interpretation.

I think the analogy is being taken a bit too far.

Point being made is that when Catholics offer a truth to a Protestant, offense need not be taken. No one is saying that we are inherently superior to Protestants.

It would be like a person being told, “Your diamond is actually cubic zirconia” and instead of the receiver responding with, “Oh! You think so? Let me investigate. Thanks so much for letting me know!”…

the receiver states, “How dare you! You think that you’re so much better than me because you have a real diamond!”

If I were in that situation, having told the person that her “diamond” was actually a fake one, I would respond with, “I am simply giving you some good news. You need not walk around with a false diamond anymore. It is in no way to be interpreted as saying that I am superior to you.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

“I am simply giving you some good news. You need not walk around with a false diamond anymore. It is in no way to be interpreted as saying that I am superior to you.”

And it won’t cost you a dime to have the real deal.

OTOH, suppose that zirconium is actually carcinogenic or radioactive…

Oh, geez…there I go again…

 

[Tomdstone]

At least with Catholicism there is unity in orthodoxy, …

Not really, there is disunity on a number of topics:

1. Limbo. Some people believe in it others do not.
2. Capital punishment.
3. Should the filioque be in the creed or not. Roman Catholics say yes. Eastern Catholics say no.
4. Should women wear headcovering in Church as directed by the inspired word of God, the Epistle to the Corinthians.
5. Slavery. Was slavery justified in the early Church or later on?
6. Purgatory. Is the fire of purgatory similar to the fire of hell, or is this fire to be taken figuratively and not literally?

 

[ffg]

And thus the beauty of authority.

Where there are minds to think, a safe bet is that they are not all aligned.

But with authority, good discussion can help with alignment, or at least a better understanding of the Church’s teaching.

The alignment is personal responsibility.

 

[PRmerger]

Not really, there is disunity on a number of topics:

1. Limbo. Some people believe in it others do not.
2. Capital punishment.
3. Should the filioque be in the creed or not. Roman Catholics say yes. Eastern Catholics say no.
4. Should women wear headcovering in Church as directed by the inspired word of God, the Epistle to the Corinthians.
5. Slavery. Was slavery justified in the early Church or later on?
6. Purgatory. Is the fire of purgatory similar to the fire of hell, or is this fire to be taken figuratively and not literally?

All of the above have definitive teachings.*

That there are dissidents on these beliefs is no indictment of the unity in doctrine that exists.

1. We need not believe in it.
2. We do not exclude recourse to it.
3. Yes (Please cite where Eastern Catholics say “no”. And who represents these Eastern Catholics?)
4. There is no “should” but we “may”.
5. Racial slavery–never. Indentured servitude–yes.
6. Both/and

 

[ffg]

Doesn’t that then imply that Jesus didn’t die for our salvation so much as for a chance at salvation? It seems to belittle the work of our Lord on the Cross, doesn’t it?

It implies that sin is real and meaningful, and it is a human’s responsibility to avoid it. Since avoidance is impossible considering our nature as human and thus sinners, we have information on how to deal with sins, taught by Jesus directly.

Jesus paid for our sins in pain, through torture and death after choosing to take on our nature.

Before he did so, he gave instruction to those who would spread the Church on earth.

He didn’t tell them that there would come an event that would render sins meaningless.

I think God is probably pretty smart. If the intention was to make sins meaningless, that’s a simple but important message.

Rather he gave them the authority to teach about sins effects and what can be done as humans, in nature, to deal with them.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not really, there is disunity on a number of topics:

1. Limbo. Some people believe in it others do not.
2. Capital punishment.
3. Should the filioque be in the creed or not. Roman Catholics say yes. Eastern Catholics say no.
4. Should women wear headcovering in Church as directed by the inspired word of God, the Epistle to the Corinthians.
5. Slavery. Was slavery justified in the early Church or later on?
6. Purgatory. Is the fire of purgatory similar to the fire of hell, or is this fire to be taken figuratively and not literally?

And these things rise to the level of infant baptism, ordination of women and practicing homosexuals, and the classic once saved always saved - none of which Protestants agree on?

But since you obviously missed this previously, I’ll post it again:

“You Are Also!”
Adapted from “Disunity on the Essentials” by Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0312bt.asp
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.

 

[chimo]

I beg to differ on what constitutes authority. Rome may have her Pope and Bishops but they are only part of this whole picture. The Orthodox Church has also a authority that is just as important as Rome. No one Church has absolute responsibility to know the truth. If the early Church got it right it is because everyone contributed to the discovery of truth. The problem today is this refusal to accept help from each other. This is the problem the East has with the West. The West will not look to the East anymore in defining truth. They want to do this without the help of the East. This is why the Orthodox feel like when they approach the Catholic Church. Since the Catholic Church has forgotten how the East can help they figure they can go on without them. The last 1000 years has shown us this relationship needs more than recognition of the Pope to finally heal it. If Rome will just look to see that their policies of the past 1000 years have never work to accomplish unity. This tells us something is wrong. Until they decide to put the East in a more equal footing as they are this relationship will just be the same. The solution to this is very simply another avenue we have not looked at to be discovered.

 

[ffg]

When Paul said the following

Gal 5: 19 Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Because of the topic of the thread, I selected just one of those sins mentioned. In the Greek, that word dissension = διχοστασίαι, I left the link operable for the explanation.

If one dissents / divides / leaves the Catholic Church, and remains so, they will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Q: Is that Paul making that judgement?

Paul is teaching about sin and effects of it. That’s important because there are people who think Jesus’ death rendered sin meaningless.

Teaching that sin is meaningful is important, the rest of the story not quoted above is to teach that there is a place one can go / action to take to help remedy the fact we are all sinners and we can respond to God’s love.

It’s been a few days, but I don’t think my message has changed. We are not to point fingers.

We all have to work to deal with our own sins, and as long as each person is breathing, they have the chance to respond to God’s call. Thus by default telling someone they are going to hell is not Church teaching or healthy.

Teaching about sin and effects vs pointing fingers are two different subjects being confused here, I think

 

[AbideWithMe]

Right. So, if someone says to you, “Protestantism is a false religion; you should become Catholic,” your correct response would in fact be to see why he thinks so, and test the claim for yourself with an open mind.

Yes, absolutely; but particularly if I have some reason to take that person seriously—we are bombarded with the truth claims of various religions from all sides; it would be a waste a time to try to explore every one.

But, my main point was that, unlike going to a gemologist who can tell us beyond any question if a gem is a fake or real diamond, with no faith, no beliefs, no convictions needed, before death we walk by faith, with limited evidence…all of us. So, pretending that I’m Catholic for the purposes of this post, rather than tell someone that his faith is wrong and that I can give him the true faith (or that I know he’s wearing a fake diamond ring and I can give him a real one), it makes more sense to me to simply lay on the table whatever evidence I have that my faith is true, and discuss why I think I’ve interpreted the evidence correctly…and then stand back. The other person may very carefully, openly, and honestly look at the evidence, but not come to the same conclusion or conviction that I did (as a theoretical Catholic for this post).

And so, ISTM, if his correct response is as Jmcrae stated above (and I believe it is), and he does that open honest searching for truth but remains with different conclusions that my Catholic ones, conversely my correct response to him is to respect his convictions, his thought processes, his integrity, as much as my own, and await the definitive proof we will see after our death.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I think the analogy is being taken a bit too far.

Point being made is that when Catholics offer a truth to a Protestant, offense need not be taken. No one is saying that we are inherently superior to Protestants.

It would be like a person being told, “Your diamond is actually cubic zirconia” and instead of the receiver responding with, “Oh! You think so? Let me investigate. Thanks so much for letting me know!”…

the receiver states, “How dare you! You think that you’re so much better than me because you have a real diamond!”

If I were in that situation, having told the person that her “diamond” was actually a fake one, I would respond with, “I am simply giving you some good news. You need not walk around with a false diamond anymore. It is in no way to be interpreted as saying that I am superior to you.”

I more or less agree, PRmerger–there’s no need to take someone’s efforts at evangelization as a reason for offense.

I hope my above post will explain better where I’m coming from regarding the real/fake diamond analogy.

 

[AbideWithMe]

And it won’t cost you a dime to have the real deal.

OTOH, suppose that zirconium is actually carcinogenic or radioactive…

Oh, geez…there I go again…

Randy, Randy, Randy… I guess you haven’t read Bonhoeffer’s Discipleship (aka The Cost of Discipleship). Getting real, when is any kind of Christian faith not costly?

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, absolutely; but particularly if I have some reason to take that person seriously—we are bombarded with the truth claims of various religions from all sides; it would be a waste a time to try to explore every one.

I think in the case of “fly by night” religions - religions that were invented relatively recently, and religions with almost no adherents, this makes sense, but when we’re talking about world religions that have stood the test of thousands of years, with millions of adherents, there aren’t very many of them, and it’s easy enough to find out what their essential claims are.

Islam, Judaism, two or three different forms of Buddhism, and two or three different forms of Christianity would be all a person needed to get into.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I think in the case of “fly by night” religions - religions that were invented relatively recently, and religions with almost no adherents, this makes sense, but when we’re talking about world religions that have stood the test of thousands of years, with millions of adherents, there aren’t very many of them, and it’s easy enough to find out what their essential claims are.

Islam, Judaism, two or three different forms of Buddhism, and two or three different forms of Christianity would be all a person needed to get into.

Yes, I agree, and I’ve done that with Judaism and to a lesser extent some forms of Buddhism and some of the varieties of Hinduism. Although, while I think the essential claims can be understood fairly easily, a real understanding of their deep, nuanced core mindsets and perspectives is very hard to come by for a non-adherent, IMO.

 

[yogosans14]

The Lord really spoke to my heart today about his infinite love for us, he love us so much that he isnt going to look at a non catholic and think of them as any different from a Protestant.

Romans 10:9-10
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
9 because,*** if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.*** 10 For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved.

I’m saved, so are Catholic Christians. Enough strife

 

[steve_b]

Paul is teaching about sin and effects of it. That’s important because there are people who think Jesus’ death rendered sin meaningless.

Teaching that sin is meaningful is important, the rest of the story not quoted above is to teach that there is a place one can go / action to take to help remedy the fact we are all sinners and we can respond to God’s love.

It’s been a few days, but I don’t think my message has changed. We are not to point fingers.

We all have to work to deal with our own sins, and as long as each person is breathing, they have the chance to respond to God’s call. Thus by default telling someone they are going to hell is not Church teaching or healthy.

Teaching about sin and effects vs pointing fingers are two different subjects being confused here, I think

The point I was making is that there are some sins (Paul specifically mentioned) that will send one to hell if one dies with them on their soul. One of those sins mentioned in a string of sins mentioned in Galatians 5:19-21 , is to condemn dividing from the Church. The only Church Jesus established is the Catholic Church.

I wrote

“If one dissents / divides / leaves the Catholic Church, and remains so, they will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11152610&postcount=669

I’m not the one telling anyone they are going to hell.

While Paul wrote Galatians 5:19-21 it’s the Holy Spirit inspiring Paul to write. Which means it’s ultimately from Jesus because the HS takes from Jesus when He’s teaching others.John 16:12-15

Therefore, Jesus the judge of all souls, is telling us in advance, through the HS, through Paul, how He will judge those sins mentioned in Galatians 5:19-21 if one dies in any of them. IOW, all those sins mentioned are mortal sins. And in the case mentioned, the warning from Jesus, don’t die seperated from the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

The Lord really spoke to my heart today about his infinite love for us, he love us so much that he isnt going to look at a non catholic and think of them as any different from a Protestant.

Romans 10:9-10
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
9 because,*** if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.*** 10 For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved.

I’m saved, so are Catholic Christians. Enough strife

Do you really think it doesn’t matter what we believe? We can believe anything we want as long as we declare Jesus to be our savior we are saved?

 

[yogosans14]

Do you really think it doesn’t matter what we believe? We can believe anything we want as long as we declare Jesus to be our savior we are saved?

No, I believe that Jesus died for me at the Cross. God sent his only begotten son to save all of US. Of Course accepting the Trinity etc etc is necessary for salvation.

We should rejoice that he loves us this much!

 

[PRmerger]

No, I believe that Jesus died for me at the Cross. God sent his only begotten son to save all of US. Of Course accepting the Trinity etc etc is necessary for salvation.

But what constitutes the “etc”?

We should rejoice that he loves us this much!

Amen!