Very confused on "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church."

[paul_c]

by the way I am curious,

I have been nothing short of being what i believe to be true with you.

Since I am not a practicing catholic, does anyone believe that the only way for me to enter heaven is to come back to the catholic church?

I would not presume to judge you but I will give you the advice that if you have deliberately separated yourself from the Catholic Church and the sacraments it administers, you have also deliberately separated yourself from Christ, who put these in place. That is not a position I would like to be in if I were you.

 

[fxcc]

by the way I am curious,

I have been nothing short of being what i believe to be true with you.

Since I am not a practicing catholic, does anyone believe that the only way for me to enter heaven is to come back to the catholic church?

No.

But you **should **be terrified of not having the grace and protection of the Church’s sacraments, most especially Reconciliation and the Most Holy Eucharist, on your journey to that wonderful place where God so lovingly awaits you and Satan is so determined none of us should get to!

God bless,

Francis

P.S. I’m so tempted to ask why you left the Church, but mama always told me curiosity killed the cat!

 

[inkaneer]

by the way I am curious,

I have been nothing short of being what i believe to be true with you.

Since I am not a practicing catholic, does anyone believe that the only way for me to enter heaven is to come back to the catholic church?

God will be the judge of whether you go to heaven or hell. But just out of curiosity what excuse are you planning on giving?

 

[mpjw2]

If you are not a practicing Catholic you are failing to live up to your baptismal vows. Will a vow breaker enter heaven?

If you are not a practicing Catholic you are failing to live up to your baptismal vows. Will a vow breaker enter heaven?

David the problem is …I did not choose to be baptized, my parents made the choice for me.

and yes since leaving the catholic church I made a decision to be baptized.

I was baptized 12-31-99

It was one of the most awesome experiences of my life.

since being baptized I have not lived my life without sin. I am a commandment breaker…I thank God for His forgiving grace when I confess and ask for forgiveness

I answered your question, you have not answered mine.

Since I am not a practicing catholic, do you believe that the only way for me to enter heaven is to come back to the catholic church?

thank you

God bless

 

[davidv]

David the problem is …I did not choose to be baptized, my parents made the choice for me.

and yes since leaving the catholic church I made a decision to be baptized.

I was baptized 12-31-99

It was one of the most awesome experiences of my life.

since being baptized I have not lived my life without sin. I am a commandment breaker…I thank God for His forgiving grace when I confess and ask for forgiveness

I answered your question, you have not answered mine.

Since I am not a practicing catholic, do you believe that the only way for me to enter heaven is to come back to the catholic church?

thank you

God bless

Since I am not God, I cannot answer your question.

 

[mpjw2]

Since I am not God, I cannot answer your question.

ok fair enough thank you for your honesty

 

[fxcc]

also consider this… the amount of non believers in the world who deny the ONE voice of God as truth far outnumber the ones who believe God.

If the majority (non believers) does not become the minority real fast, they will be in for a rude awakening when they meet death…the truth will be revealed and then it will be too late to believe

They will be found guilty of all their sins and be sentenced by God to spend eternity in hell.

I’m not so sure. Are you?

A whole billion of us Catholics, along with stacks of people in heaven are offering the timeless Sacrifice of Calvary every day at Mass, offering the **pleasing **sacrifice of the perfect Lamb of God to God, seeking to appease His just wrath and earn His mercy and pardon for the entireworld. Jesus is doing the same thing too (in fact, He’s personally leading the Masses, being both the victim Lamb and the High Priest of the Sacrifice), so I reckon our chances of success must be pretty good, no?

 

[Pete_Holter]

Greetings, Beth Martin!

None of these are speaking of the “Roman Catholic Church” and on the quote above you cited is not only circular reasoning it violates the very words of Jesus.

Augustine specifically stated that the Church that he was talking about was spread all over the world and in union with the apostolic chair founded in Rome. That would make it the Roman Catholic Church. Augustine is cited in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church more than any other Church Father, including Aquinas! He’s as Catholic as you can get! As an example, he taught that the “[h]eretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary, and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (quoted in Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers). Sounds Catholic to me! I’ve not read anything of Augustine’s that has been condemned by the Church of our Lord.

Jesus specifically said that salvation is from the Jews. We did He not say salvation is from the Catholics?

Because salvation was from the Jews, not the Samaritans.

***Joh 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. ***

Amen!

Joh 6:45 "It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. -------- This eliminates the notion of the magisterium being one on protecter of the truth for God the Father, by the Trinity, teaches the individual not the “Church”. He may lead one to a church to hear the gospel and from that remove the blindness, but He could just as easily have someone pick up the Bible and begin reading for themselves and give them sight to see.

God teaches us directly through His indwelling Spirit (cf. 1 John 2:27), and He also corrects any misapprehension of this internal Witness by appointing human teachers in the Church (cf. 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph 4:11; James 3:1) who guard us against the doctrines of false teachers (cf. 2 Pet 2:1). Failing to listen to the teaching authority of the Church results in our falling from the faith and becoming “a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17).

***And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” ***

Joh 10:29"My Father, who has given {them} to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch {them} out of the Father’s hand.

***Joh 14:6 Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. ***

***Joh 14:21 “He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.” ***

Amen!

The reason I said that the cited quote is curcular is because Catholics claim their authority comes from the Bible and they also claim they are the authority to put the Bible together and to interpret that Bible. That is having it both ways and is a fallaous argument. Also, the passages above are among a few of the many that can be cited that salvation is outside the walls that men build.

That would be a circular argument, but Augustine didn’t make it.

We believe that the authority of the Church comes from Jesus Christ and that the Bible bears an infallible witness to this delegation. Our faith does not rest on human argumentation but on the authority of God revealing through the Church (cf. Eph 3:10). If the Church was not able to identify and interpret Scripture, then it could not rightly be called a “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15), because the truth of Scripture lies in its interpretation.

He tells us that the heretics also call themselves “Christian” as when writing against the Manichean he mentions “the name of Christian, in which you [Faustus] also glory” (Contra Faustum, Bk. 12, No. 24).

Sorry, that should have been “Manichaean.”

Please enjoy Isaiah 61 by Matt Maher!

In Christ,
Pete

 

[Beth_Martin]

Augustine wonders how many non Catholic Christians ran the risk of being cut off from the promises of God by failing to return to unity with the Catholic Church:

“How many would have entered earlier had not the calumnies of slanderers, who declared that we offered something else than we do upon the altar of God, shut them out! How many, believing that it mattered not to which party a Christian might belong, remained in the schism of Donatus only because they had been born in it, and no one was compelling them to forsake it and pass over into the Catholic Church!” (Letter 93)

And again:

“How can we be sure that we have indisputable testimony to Christ in the Divine Word, if we do not accept as indisputable the testimony of the same Word to the Church? For as, however ingenious the complex subtleties which one may contrive against the simple truth, and however great the mist of artful fallacies with which he may obscure it, anyone who shall proclaim that Christ has not suffered, and has not risen from the dead on the third day, must be accursed— because we have learned in the truth of the gospel, ‘that it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead on the third day’ (Luke 24:46); — on the very same grounds must that man be accursed who shall proclaim that the Church is outside of the communion which embraces all nations: for in the next words of the same passage we learn also that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem; and we are bound to hold firmly this rule, ‘If any preach any other gospel unto you than that you have received, let him be accursed’ (Galatians 1:9)” (Letter 93).

He laments over the divisions caused by Christians who break from the Catholic Church:

“‘There was a coat’ there: let us see what kind; ‘woven from the top throughout.’ What does the coat woven from the top signify, but charity? What does this coat signify, but unity? Consider this coat, which not even the persecutors of Christ divided. For it says, ‘They said among themselves, Let us not divide it, but let us cast lots upon it.’ Behold that of which the psalm spoke! Christ’s persecutors did not rend His garment; Christians divide the Church!” (The Gospel of John, Tractate 13)

–cut–

Note here that, to Augustine’s mind, to be in communion with Christ’s Church requires being in communion with the local churches established in the times of the apostles. For schismatics “themselves are swept away who read in the Holy Scriptures the names of churches to which the apostles wrote, and in which they have no bishop. For what could more clearly prove their perversity and their folly, than their saying to their clergy, when they read these letters, ‘Peace be with you,’ at the very time that they are themselves disjoined from the peace of those churches to which the letters were originally written?” (Letter 53).

Thomas Jefferson wrote a reply letter to the Anabaptist in which he assured them there would be a “seperation between religion and the the state” and to this day those who have specific agendas have perverted the meaning of this to the detriment of a nation. Likewise, a careful study and understanding, beginning with what constitutes a ecumenical council or ecumenical decree that is binding on the entire church and providential council or decree.

Consider the following: Source
It is the contention of the Roman Catholic Church that it is the prerogative of the Church to establish the canon and that those who reject the Church’s authority have by that act logically cut themselves off from the principle that alone undergirds the appropriateness of the NT canon. “Scripture was produced by and attested in the Church,” they say, “not the Church by Scripture.”

1. Positively. There is here a remarkably simple answer to the question, “What is the NT canon?” This answer is the following: “Check with the Church that has the authority to establish it.” This is something that the most simple can understand and do.

It is true that God gave his word to his people and that the question of the canon is to be settled in the community of faith.

The Roman Catholic Church certainly does have an appropriate NT canon.

1. Negatively. There are several fallacies in the Roman Catholic argument: (1) The OT existed before the NT Church. (2) The Church is under the authority of the Word and has no authority over the Word. (3) The Church’s authority is at most designative, not constitutive. It may be compared to the power of the bailiff who announces: “Here comes the judge.” (4) The rights of the eastern churches appear to have been overlooked in this argument.

The Roman Church has made an egregious mistake in this area by invading the realm of the OT canon and legislating the canonicity of the OT Apocrypha*** in spite of Jerome’s clear warnings.***

 

[Beth_Martin]

Hi Beth!

Again, please forgive my typos and other mistakes in this and the following posts.

“[Emeritus] cannot have salvation, except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church he can have everything except salvation. He can have honor, he can have Sacraments, he can sing alleluia, he can answer amen, he can possess the gospel, he can have and preach faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; but never except in the Catholic Church will he be able to find salvation” (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesiae Plebem, translation taken from Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).

There were many heresies in the early church. We call them Manichees, Donatists, Pelagians, Arians, Valentinians, Montanists, Tertullianists, Ebionites, Marcionites, etc. and we miss the fact that these are the Christians of the early church who had broken unity with the Catholic Christian Church. Since the reformation of the 16th century, we have Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, Pentecostals, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Amish, Mennonites, Anglicans, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. and they are called Christians, or call themselves Christians, in our own day.

In the quote above, Augustine was talking about membership in the Catholic Church specifically. For example, in writing a response to a Rogatist (another sect of Christians who themselves had separated from the sect known as the Donatists), he says to Vincentius, “I have received a letter which I believe to be from you to me: at least I have not thought this incredible, for the person who brought it is one whom I know to be a Catholic Christian.” In the same letter, he refers to the Roman “emperors, especially those who are Catholic Christians” (Letter 93). He tells us that the heretics also call themselves “Christian” as when writing against the Manichean he mentions “the name of Christian, in which you [Faustus] also glory” (Contra Faustum, Bk. 12, No. 24). And so we see Augustine distinguishing between Christians who are Catholic and Christians who are not.

For every link you provide; I can provide one that refutes from some of the very same people and in the end unless one does a careful study of the Bible; one will never come to the truth. Once the Catholic Church proclaimed itself as infallible; it put itself in the same category as God and this is a fatal error on its part. Not fatal on the Church in and of itself, for it is its own authority, but for those that hold onto those doctrines that relate to salvation apart form the gospel of Jesus in my opinion based on my knowedge and understanding of gospel on the basis that it is all of god and not by the works or Sacraments of men. I do understand you disagree with that completely, but that is why we all walk by some faith or another, even the atheist. The question is which faith will prevail in the end on the day of judgment. My faith is not based on well God did it all and I just need to sit back and believe, no that is not what God commands the believer; He has work for the Christian and expects us to carry out that work which he preordained that the Christian would walk in them in order to give testimony to the unbelieving world of His glory, majesty and His justice.

 

[fxcc]

For every link you provide; I can provide one that refutes from some of the very same people and in the end unless one does a careful study of the Bible; one will never come to the truth. Once the Catholic Church proclaimed itself as infallible; it put itself in the same category as God and this is a fatal error on its part. Not fatal on the Church in and of itself, for it is its own authority, but for those that hold onto those doctrines that relate to salvation apart form the gospel of Jesus in my opinion based on my knowedge and understanding of gospel on the basis that it is all of god and not by the works or Sacraments of men. I do understand you disagree with that completely, but that is why we all walk by some faith or another, even the atheist. The question is which faith will prevail in the end on the day of judgment. My faith is not based on well God did it all and I just need to sit back and believe, no that is not what God commands the believer; He has work for the Christian and expects us to carry out that work which he preordained that the Christian would walk in them in order to give testimony to the unbelieving world of His glory, majesty and His justice.

Did the Catholic Church “proclaim itself” as infallible or did Jesus Christ, her divine founder, when He said “the gates of Hell **shall not **prevail against it”?

Now **that **sounds like a proclamation to me!

:yup:

 

[fxcc]

For every link you provide; I can provide one that refutes from some of the very same people and in the end unless one does a careful study of the Bible; one will never come to the truth. Once the Catholic Church proclaimed itself as infallible; it put itself in the same category as God and this is a fatal error on its part. Not fatal on the Church in and of itself, for it is its own authority, but for those that hold onto those doctrines that relate to salvation apart form the gospel of Jesus in my opinion based on my knowedge and understanding of gospel on the basis that it is all of god and not by the works or Sacraments of men. I do understand you disagree with that completely, but that is why we all walk by some faith or another, even the atheist. The question is which faith will prevail in the end on the day of judgment. My faith is not based on well God did it all and I just need to sit back and believe, no that is not what God commands the believer; He has work for the Christian and expects us to carry out that work which he preordained that the Christian would walk in them in order to give testimony to the unbelieving world of His glory, majesty and His justice.

“Fatal error” meaning it’s going to die? Wow!
In that case she’s sure taking her time, given that she’s considered herself infallible on matters of faith and morals, ever since Christ assured her she was! In 33 AD in fact!
Her membership is growing and growing, even now, year on year, despite all the scandals, mishaps and concerted efforts of her enemies. You might say more and more sheep are drifting to one particular fold…
Hey, tell you what! Wanna have a decent sized bet that this “fatally flawed” Church is going to around long. long, long after Beth Martin is no more on this planet? Like, to the end of the age in fact?

 

[paul_c]

Thomas Jefferson wrote a reply letter to the Anabaptist in which he assured them there would be a “seperation between religion and the the state” and to this day those who have specific agendas have perverted the meaning of this to the detriment of a nation. Likewise, a careful study and understanding, beginning with what constitutes a ecumenical council or ecumenical decree that is binding on the entire church and providential council or decree.

Consider the following: Source
It is the contention of the Roman Catholic Church that it is the prerogative of the Church to establish the canon and that those who reject the Church’s authority have by that act logically cut themselves off from the principle that alone undergirds the appropriateness of the NT canon. “Scripture was produced by and attested in the Church,” they say, “not the Church by Scripture.”

1. Positively. There is here a remarkably simple answer to the question, “What is the NT canon?” This answer is the following: “Check with the Church that has the authority to establish it.” This is something that the most simple can understand and do.

It is true that God gave his word to his people and that the question of the canon is to be settled in the community of faith.

The Roman Catholic Church certainly does have an appropriate NT canon.

1. Negatively. There are several fallacies in the Roman Catholic argument: (1) The OT existed before the NT Church. (2) The Church is under the authority of the Word and has no authority over the Word. (3) The Church’s authority is at most designative, not constitutive. It may be compared to the power of the bailiff who announces: “Here comes the judge.” (4) The rights of the eastern churches appear to have been overlooked in this argument.

The Roman Church has made an egregious mistake in this area by invading the realm of the OT canon and legislating the canonicity of the OT Apocrypha*** in spite of Jerome’s clear warnings.***

Frist of all, your source is not authoritative and not very sophisticated.

Now lets got through the points.

1. Sure the old testament existed before the Catholic Church. Its purpose in the Bible is to point to the new testament. And while Catholics did not write the Old Testement, they included it for its prophetic and moral value. And by the way, there are 46 Old testament books, not 39. Luther deleted 7 books and wanted to delete several more include St. James Epistle because they disagreed with his theology. His argument for the 7 deleted books was that the Jewish leaders also eliminated them in 100AD. this was for the very same reason that Luther wanted to delete them - because they supported the Catholic Faith.
2. The church is under the Authority of Jesus Christ, the word of God, not the bible, which was written / compiled by the Church as a teaching and liturgical tool.
3. The church indeed teaches what it was told to teach. That is why it is infallible.
4. The Eastern church’s canon is identical to the Catholic Canon and includes the deuterocanonical books deleted by Luther. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books

 

[paul_c]

For every link you provide; I can provide one that refutes from some of the very same people and in the end unless one does a careful study of the Bible; one will never come to the truth. Once the Catholic Church proclaimed itself as infallible; it put itself in the same category as God and this is a fatal error on its part. Not fatal on the Church in and of itself, for it is its own authority, but for those that hold onto those doctrines that relate to salvation apart form the gospel of Jesus in my opinion based on my knowedge and understanding of gospel on the basis that it is all of god and not by the works or Sacraments of men. I do understand you disagree with that completely, but that is why we all walk by some faith or another, even the atheist. The question is which faith will prevail in the end on the day of judgment. My faith is not based on well God did it all and I just need to sit back and believe, no that is not what God commands the believer; He has work for the Christian and expects us to carry out that work which he preordained that the Christian would walk in them in order to give testimony to the unbelieving world of His glory, majesty and His justice.

Beth,
you have now reached the state where I can ask you three questions that I have asked many before you.

1. What do you believe you do toward Salvation that a devout Catholic doesn’t also do?
   Can you list even one item?
2. What do you believe Catholics do towards their salvation that you don’t do?I’ll bet you can name several things, including partaking of the sacraments.
3. Can you say that anything extra a Catholic does for his/her salvation is actually detrimental to his soul?

I have asked these questions dozens of times. There has never been one person who could identify something they do that the Catholics lack. Everyone can identify things Catholics do that other Christians don’t but no one has ever been able to show that any of these things are detrimental to the soul. So why then, are you trying to teach Catholics to do less?

 

[Beth_Martin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
But what Paul preached is not the issue. I say Paul preached the gospel but did not write ithe full gospel in his letters. You are trying to put words in my mouth that Paul did not preach and write the full gospel. That is not what I said Nor is it what you said initially either. Your exact words were:

“If you claim as you did that the writings of Paul do not contain the full gospel, then you are spiritually appraised and know not the gospel.”

Now you want to back off of that statement and try to say that he preached the full gospel. This is not about what Paul preached, its about what he wrote. I stand by my original sttaement which is that the writings of Paul are remedial in nature and do not contain the full gospel. Now if you are so vain that you cannot admit you are in error then further discussion with you by anyone is an exercise in futility.

You say, “There is every indication that what he spoke is also what he wrote.” All you have to do to convince me is show me from an authoritative source where Paul stated that. Of course that means from scripture. Quite frankly you can tell me, “There is every indication that what he spoke is also what he wrote.” till you are blue in the face and it would be only your opinion and worth absolutely nothing. You are a sola scripturist are you not? Then show me where Paul said everything he preached he also wrote.

I cannot convince or convict you of anything and never claim to be able for that is the power of God. But if you are able and are willing you can see the value that Jesus Himself put on the nature of Scripture all the way down to each stroke of the pen. (Matthew 5:18 & Luke 16:17) If what Jesus says concerning the Scriptures cannot contend for your mind, then who can?

In case you were to confuse the “law” as also being referred to as Scripture, the I refer you to Psalm 19 abd Psalm 119.

I could say to you; show me from Scripture many things your church teaches and you would not be able for they are not contained in the Scripture and in my opinion, that which God has not said is not from God.

 

[I_Fortuna]

I think some people are confusing dogma with doctrine.

I was taught, to be a Catholic you need not believe in dogma, however, one must submit to the doctrine of the church.

Answer from Roman Army Oct 12, 09, a CAF member" Dogmas are those doctrines which are mysteries that are directly connected with the Deposit of Divine Revelation (e.g. Scripture and Apostolic Tradition). These demand an assent of faith. Dogmas are defined with great precision solemnly by an infallible exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium. They demand the assent of faith and are irreformable in the sense that they cannot be further developed but only clarified so as to be comprehensible as much as possible."

“Doctrines are those teachings which are definitively taught but not as divinely revealed (cf. The Holy Spirit Assists the Roman Pontiff, General Audience, by Pope John Paul II). They require definitive assent. They are those things which are indirectly connected with the Deposit of Divine Revelation but are nevertheless necessary for faithfully guarding the Deposit of Faith. Such teachings would perhaps include the Church’s inerrant interpretation of the Natural Law which every individual can arrive at through human reason alone with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Examples would be the Church’s teachings against contraception, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, fornication, homosexual civil unions, etc. These would be morals which should already be plainly obvious to all, but due to concupiscence and an impaired conscience, it must be taught, restated, and proclaimed to man. . .”

A dogma would be the appariton of Our Lady of Fatima for example. It is not required to believe this nor is it required to believe in any saint.

I, personally, am for most dogma and all doctrine of the church. I believe in the dogma of those mysteries that the church accepts as bona fide.

 

[fxcc]

I like your answer.

ok so you as a catholic believe once in purgatory, and after a certain time being purged, Heaven is guaranteed right?

i assume yes

That said, do you believe there are catholic teachings which, if followed, God will definitely not sentence you to hell?

Matthew 19

16 Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?”
17 He answered him, " … ] If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."
18 He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, " ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness;
19 honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’"
20 The young man said to him, “All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to (the) poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad, for he had many possessions.

There you have it! Straight from the mouth of the Good Teacher Himself!

But wait a minute!

When you seriously contemplate what Jesus is saying (and He’s **not **saying “Simply profess your faith in me”, He’s actually asking us to **do **a whole bunch of stuff - “good works” actually!) you quickly realise how well nigh impossible it is to do **most **of these things, let alone **all **of them, by our own strength! You yourself have written so many times on this thread how hard our struggle for holiness is!

Now do you imagine Jesus didn’t know all this when He said these things? Hadn’t the people of God already tried and tried and failed so consistently to keep the commandments? So what was different this time around? What would ensure that we would have every help we’d need not to fail so miserably again, or even if we did fail occasionally, and began to despair of our abilities, we would have a sure pick-me-up…? What **did **Jesus have in mind? That He’d only send the Holy Spirit into our lives to impart to us greater wisdom and understanding? Would that be enough? Why, the “pillar of fire” went right before the Israelites in the desert. It stared them in the face day and night, and still they sinned and went apostate!

So…

The Good Master must have had something different in mind to help us with this time, to make sure we weren’t going to have to keep crying out to only an unreachable, distant, spirit God in heaven for help. What could that (or those) thing(s) be? Can you figure it out?

Here’s a clue to get you started (the biggest clue of all) … How about Jesus Christ - Himself, in person? Jesus Christ, our most beloved Brother and Saviour, really and truly present to us in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. Emmanuel … God with us … the God who promises, “I will not leave you orphans … !” “Behold, I am with you even unto the end of the age … !” Remember? OK, so now you get the drift. So keep thinking this through … very quietly, when no one’s around, seated preferably in front of a tabernacle in some beautiful little Catholic church near you! What have you to lose? See what happens! Be persistent - God is notoriously slow at times! But eventually … let us all know what happens!

God bless you.

Francis

 

[mpjw2]

First of all, I actually never worry about whether I will go to heaven. The thought never crosses my mind unless someone like you brings it up. My focus is completely on trying to follow Jesus in my daily life because that is the only thing I can effect. Who am I to judge my own worthiness?

**none of us are worthy…that is why God gave us Jesus Christ so that all our unworthyness may be forgiven when we confess. **

Secondly, your statement above " I believe all devout Christians, who realize the truth of God’s word and promise, can declare that they are saved " is you opinion, but it is without merit or support. Sure they can claim they are saved, but they are not the judge.

**we are not the judge , but the judge (God) said we are forgiven when we believe and confess and the only way to heaven is by the saving grace of the blood jesus shed for us

What is is that you do not agree with?

If I an unworth sinner do not confess my sin then yes i will go to hell

But I know who I am in Christ Jesus.

Even though I hate sin I do fall at times…and all of us do…right?

Confession is there to make our souls pure again …right?

so right now as I am typing this I just made a confession my soul is pure and if I should die I am going to heaven.

1 hour from now i may fall into sin once again…Guess what I wont go to heaven unless I confess once again.

So yes right now if i die, I am sure i will go to heaven.**

St. Paul, after all he did, after all, preached perseverence in the faith, claiming that if he fell from his duties, he would not be given the heaven he preached.

where is that?

 

[mpjw2]

Matthew 19

16 Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?”
17 He answered him, " … ] If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."
18 He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, " ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness;
19 honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’"
20 The young man said to him, “All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to (the) poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad, for he had many possessions.

There you have it! Straight from the mouth of the Good Teacher Himself!

But wait a minute!

When you seriously contemplate what Jesus is saying (and He’s **not **saying “Simply profess your faith in me”, He’s actually asking us to **do **a whole bunch of stuff - “good works” actually!) you quickly realise how well nigh impossible it is to do **most **of these things, let alone **all **of them, by our own strength! You yourself have written so many times on this thread how hard our struggle for holiness is!

absolutely

I also expressed our good works are meaningless if we do not first and foremosr have the faith and belief in Jesus. When Jesus gave the commandments to follow to gain eternal life, He realized that this person believed in Him, otherwise the person would not ask Jesus for advice.

 

[Beth_Martin]

Quite the contrary it is easy to show that Peter was indeed the bishop of Rome. We have the testimony of the early christian writers on that very point. For instance the early church historian Eusebius bishop of Caesarea writes:

“[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years” (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).

Then there was Optatus who wrote in 367 AD:

“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

There is also the The Poem Against the Marcionites

"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus. After his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful martyr . . . " (Poem Against the Marcionites 276–284 [A.D. 267]).

And there is this from The Little Labyrinth:

“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Many of the writers also write of Peter’s death in Rome also but I’ll save them.

Pete, try applying common sense and see the date used; it would be impossible for Peter to be in Rome as a Bishop, nonetheless, during that timeframe. AD 42 and for 25 years. This can be refuted just by the dates of the NT letters. If one actually believes the Bible to be infallible, then all of Pauls letters, especially to the Romans and the Galatians would have to be removed and declared fradulent. The Catholic church admits their is scarce evidence for the first 2 centuries, which is another way of saying we cannot show this from Scripture. Therefore they must rely on writes that were generations removed and we would have to also conclude that Peter was either not a true Apostles, a messenger of Christ sent for a specific purpose to reach the Jews or that Peter paid little to no attention to his orders given by the Chief Commander Jesus.

Read all of this carefully from you own churches teacing on the matter and if I presented this “piece-meal” evidence to you; you would rightfully tear me to shreds.
HERE

This is one of my favorite presumptions to which they make an argument.
"In the first quarter of the century (about 220) Tertullian (On Modesty 21) mentions Callistus’s claim that Peter’s power to forgive sins had descended in a special manner to him. Had the Roman Church been merely founded by Peter and not reckoned him as its first bishop, there could have been no ground for such a contention." -In other words just based on this contention that is mythological at best, they admit the whole thing sits on this. If I told you that all of what Calvin said must be true because someone bestowed on John Doe the power of Isaiah to prophecy that Calvin would be correct. You would laugh and rightly so.

Look if you believe that Peter was the bishop of Rome in direct contradiction to the Lord and to the direction that Paul was assigned and based on a tiny shred of evidence that contracdicts the Word of God, then that is your faith; just not mine. For succession is not even how God told or instructed the church to assigne deacons and overseers and there are no priests in positions as described in Catholicism as Hebrews would then also have to be dismissed from being inspired by God.

I am done with this arguement; if you have to rely on men that are several generations removed to make a point and I do not think it is accidental that it is around the time of Constantine that all this begins to mainifest itself. There is good reason to rely soley on Scripture; it is what we know to be actually and really from God; that is my faith and I’m stickin’ to it.