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

[davidv]

Thank you Robert Matthew Pete and Paul for answering my questions.

Robert I could take your advice and read the chatechism…but I am sure you will agree it will take a long time to read…that is why I question my concern here.

From all your answers I can draw some solid conclusions…correct me if I am wrong

first and foremost here is one of my largest misunderstandings about what a catholic believes or does not believe…

Catholics as a a whole are taught they can read the bible on their own and communicate with God directly
yes or no?

you said

Robert thank you for asking…

on another thread I made the following response to a catholic who is on this thread .they will recognize it I am sure…I do not feel the need to mention names

Posted by mpjw2

this catholics’ only response with no added verification…

this sure contradicts you saying…

well can you or can’t you communicate with God directly?

Do you believe a non catholic can?

and if a non catholic can communicate with God directly, then God does not ever lie…right?

So why would a non catholic need to go the the catholic church to comfirm anything God had to say?

I believe it is a slap in God’s face to do so.

If God were to tell me something directly…

How do you believe God will feel if I were to say to Him…

“God, before I believe you let me check with Father Jones at the catholic church down the street church”

And you believe the Catholic Church is the only church which has the authority to interpret the bible correctly…yes or no?

ok I be lot more specific …

If a non catholic adult (never been catholic) wants to join the catholic church he needs to be baptized, need to confess his sins, needs to receive communion…

A priest or above is the only people in the church who can minister these sacraments
yes or no?

Here is one main reason I am not catholic.

I have ministered communion, I have led another in confession prayer, and should the opportunity be there, I look forward to the day when I baptize someone.

If a catholic is not appointed (priest or higher) they can not minister the sacraments …right or wrong?

When it comes to salvation…

A catholic is saved but it is only temporary…

you answered

salvation is temporary right?

you went on to say…

I understand what you believe here:thumbsup:

but at any moment immediately after confession of all sin, a catholic is saved and their soul is in a state of grace… yes or no?

however, that condition will not last for long because there is a good chance in the near future one will sin again and no longer be in a state of grace…yes or no?

if a non catholic says they are saved, the catholic church does not recognize the validity in that…yes or no

Ok…I for one believe I am saved

I have received a lot of objection from posters on these threads
One even posted that I will never hear a catholic say they are saved

I wonder why?

If a catholic has just confessed ALL their sin and believe in their heart that their soul is in a state of grace at that precise moment only…they are saved and should they die right at that moment only they will go to at least purgatory and then to heaven …right or wrong

What is that doctrine that underlies the declaration “I’m saved.”, please explain if you can?

I will rephrase the following …I believe you misread something…

OSAS can be described as …a person living their life any way they want to and believing that God will save them at the end because… at one time in the past, they said a prayer of confession and they no longer have to confess.

Does this pretty much describe OSAS in your opinion yes or no?

and if it does…

what I was asking…too many non catholics believe in OSAS… yes or no?

there are many non catholics who take confession and maintaining a state of grace as serious as you do too.

it is in those times only, being in a state of grace, that I will declare I am saved.

And I do not believe that the only way anyone can achieve being in a state of grace is if they were catholic.

If that were true…only catholics go to heaven

Thank you for your tiime all in answering my concerns.

It is my hope that we all can gain a better knowledge about each other from our communication on these threads

God bless

mpjw

You ask for yes/no answers to questions that cannot be answered that way. You propose a definition of OSAS that many non-catholics would not agree with and ask Catholics if we concur. How could we, there is no accepted definition.

See bold. If you make it to heaven, you will be Catholic.

 

[paul_c]

mpjw
I know the catechism is long, but it is also organized in a way that you can find specific answers to your questions without reading the entire book… It is authoritative so you can believe what it says.

Here is my simplified version of salvation from the Catholic point of view.

To go to heaven, you need to die in the state of Grace. If you are in the state of grace, but still have sinful tendencies, you will be purified in Purgatory on the way to heaven so that nothing sinful will enter heaven.

Now, You do you get in the state of Grace? Well, you need to be baptized in water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit to get in the state of grace. This can be done only once and does not need to be administered by a priest. If you desire to be baptized but are physically restrained from doing so, like St. Dismas, the good thief next to Jesus on the cross, you will be counted as having baptism of desire. Similarly, if you you die for the faith without being baptized but had the desire, you will also be counted as baptized. Catholics further believe that if you are invinsibly ignorant, (i.e., never had knowledge that baptism was possible) but lived a life free from sin, than salvation is possible.

Once you are in the state of grace, you need to stay there. This is done by avoiding Mortal sin. For a sin to be mortal, it must involve grave matter (i.e., serious, not trivial- a single $2 sin will not drive you to hell directly), must be intentionally done (i.e, mistakes, accidents, and actions uder duress are not sins), and must be done with full knowledge that you are doing this against God’s will and will separate you from God. Keep in mind that everyone has a conscience to guide them to understand . In general, we are called to love God and our neighbor to stay in the state of grace.

You can gain additional grace, which can help in your quest for holiness, through the eucharist.

If you fall from Grace, through God’s mercy you can be reconciled to him and ener back in the state of Grace through the sacrament of reconciliation which involves contrite confession to a priest, repentence, and penance.

So can non-Catholics be saved. Yes, Catholic believe they can be saved if they avoid mortal sin and love God and Neighbor. This means they follow Catholic teaching without actually becoming Catholics. This is much more difficult from outside the Catholic church because an outsider doesn’t have the advantage of direct Catholic teaching and most importantly, access to the sacraments which provide God’s grace. If someone has been told this and still doesn’t become Catholic, they condemn themselves because this is a willful act of separating themselves from God.

So can a Catholic know they are saved? Well, no because even if we know the current state of our soul we don’t know what our state will be at the point of Death.

Be very careful in that your reason to not be Catholic is because you want to carry out priestly actions without being a priest. You need to be content with what you have been given and not try to be something you aren’t

 

[inkaneer]

To Catholics on this forum thread:

Here is a good reason as to why there is no salvation outside the church. First you take protestantism which is based on sola scriptura. The scriptura, of course, being the Bible with 66 books [the abridged protestant version]. This you hold up originally as the God inspired only authority but lately as the final authority. Somehow sola scriptura became fini scriptura. Maybe they thought** Latin Rite **Catholics would not notice? Yet no protestant can actually prove that any one of those 66 books they claim are inspired is actually God inspired. They are just accepted. No reason given so don’t ask. So unless protestants are willing to acknowledge that those books are inspired because someone with authority determined they were inspired [which history proves is the Catholic Church] they got a problem. Obviously they can’t say that the scriptures are inspired because the Catholic Church, back before there were any protestants, used its God given authority to determine which books were inspired because that presents some really, really, really big problems for them. Not only do they have to account for seven books missing from their version of the bible but present from the beginning in the Catholic Bible, a minor problem compared to the second problem, but they have to admit that there is another authority other than than scripture. They can’t do that and can never do that because that would be the wooden stake in the heart of the vampire that is sola [fini] scriptura. For then sola [fini] scriptura dies and with it all of protestantism dies with it. I think to liken sola scriptura to a vampire is indeed fitting because just as vampires are alleged to drain the life out of their victims so too sola scriptura drains the spiritual life from its victims. Armed with the vanity of their own perceived infallibility they abandoned sound doctrine for their own personal opinion.

It seems that to many protestants the scriptures came floating down from heaven, leather bound with gilt edged pages, written in the king’s English and the words of Jesus in red ink. If that were the case then protestantism would not have a problem. Unfortunately that is not the case and the problem is very real. Ask any protestant how they know that what they call scripture is really God inspired and not just a guess by someone long ago who had no authority and in which case they could and probably would be following a fairy tale. The usual response you will get is the the scripture verse from 2 Timothy 3:16. You know, the one that starts out, " All scripture is given by inspiration of God…" Well yeah but what exactly is “All scripture”? At this point they have no answer so they change the subject. The reason that protestantism has divided like an amoeba into the thousands of sect, cults and denominations that they have is obvious. With no one authority to interpret scripture every protestant has to reinvent the wheel, so to speak, for himself. Armed with the catchy phrase of “spirit led” each one determines doctrine. Take three protestants with two different doctrinal opinions and the result is another denomination. That has been th ehistory of protestantism. And lost in all this chaos that is protestantism is Jesus’ prayer to His heavenly Father in John 17:11, “…that they may be one, even as we are one.” St. Augustine had the answer to protestantism over a millenium before Luther. Isn’t it ironic that Luther was an Augustinian monk and apparently didn’t know or maybe did not care about what Augustine wrote about the Catholic Church:

“There are many other things which most properly can keep me in the Catholic Church’s bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

And so there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. There certainly is no salvation in a demonic doctrine from the depths of hell like sola scriptura. Divide and conquer is a well known military tactic. The Gates of Hell are certainly doing a good job with sola scriptura. Nice to know that the Catholic Church prevails.

 

[Pete_Holter]

well can you or can’t you communicate with God directly?

Do you believe a non catholic can?

and if a non catholic can communicate with God directly, then God does not ever lie…right?

So why would a non catholic need to go the the catholic church to comfirm anything God had to say?

I believe it is a slap in God’s face to do so.

If God were to tell me something directly…

How do you believe God will feel if I were to say to Him…

“God, before I believe you let me check with Father Jones at the catholic church down the street church”

Hi mpjw2!

We communicate with God through prayer, the reading of Scripture, participation in the sacraments, spiritual gifts, and in all ways fitted to our salvation through the providence of God in our daily lives. Some people have the gift of prophecy. It sounds like you may have this gift. But this gift needs to be regulated by what we know to be of the Christian faith. If you receive a prophetic word, it needs to be tested against the Catholic faith to know whether it truly came from God. Peter was eyewitness to the Transfiguration and he himself “heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain” (2 Pet 1:18). This goes beyond the surety of the internal witness of a prophetic word, and yet Peter says that even in the case of an audible voice from the Father bearing directly on our physical senses, “we have something more sure, the prophetic word” of the Sacred Scriptures (2 Pet 1:19). But there are “some things in them that are hard to understand” (2 Pet 3:16), which we cannot comprehend “unless someone guides” us (Acts 8:31).

This is why God established a teaching office in the Church that teaches “with all authority” (Titus 2:15), and which gift is passed on through the laying on of hands in unbroken chain from the apostles and their associates (cf. Acts 6:6, 14:23; 1 Timothy 4:14, 5:22 ; 2 Timothy 1:6, 2:2; Titus 1:5). This teaching office was given the gift of infallibility to determine what is the true interpretation of Sacred Scripture in such a way that whatever the Church binds on earth, we understand to have proceeded from a heavenly binding (cf. Matthew 16:19, 18:18). It is binding on all Christians so that the one who does not submit to this authoritative teaching is no longer a Christian but “a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17). This teaching office is part of the Church (cf. 1 Cor 12:28; Ephesians 4:11), the “body of Christ” (1 Cor 12:27). Therefore, if we are not submitted to this teaching authority through the rejection of it, we are not in the body, we are not in Christ.

And you believe the Catholic Church is the only church which has the authority to interpret the bible correctly…yes or no?

Christian groups rooted in the reformations of the 16th century are able to interpret the Bible correctly, and this they do so long as they do not contradict the Catholic faith. But these groups were not authorized by God to determine what is the true sense of the Scriptures. Their interpretation is not determinative. It only testifies as a witness to their Catholicity when they agree with the Church, and to their heresy when they contradict the Church.

ok I be lot more specific …

If a non catholic adult (never been catholic) wants to join the catholic church he needs to be baptized, need to confess his sins, needs to receive communion…

An adult convert who has not been baptized will be baptized, confirmed, and receive Jesus’ Body and Blood in the Eucharist. Our Lord instituted the sacrament of confession for sins committed after baptism. Prior to baptism we prepare our hearts to receive the grace of regeneration by expressing our sorrow for our past life of sin, and our joy and love for God when we consider the salvation won for us by Him.

A priest or above is the only people in the church who can minister these sacraments
yes or no?

A priest or bishop is appointed by God for celebrating confession and communion. Deacons can baptize and marry people. And in case of necessity, anyone can baptize. At all times, all Christians can and must evangelize and bring people to conversion by the prevenient grace of God working through them.

Here is one main reason I am not catholic.

I have ministered communion, I have led another in confession prayer, and should the opportunity be there, I look forward to the day when I baptize someone.

If a catholic is not appointed (priest or higher) they can not minister the sacraments …right or wrong?

If you were not ordained a priest in the Catholic Church or Orthodox Churches, then you are not celebrating the sacrament of the Lord’s Body and Blood when you celebrate communion. In spite of your heartfelt desire and good intentions, you are practicing the mere form without the power. If you feel called to celebrate the Eucharist, then God may be calling you to the priesthood. He is definitely calling you into the Catholic Church!

 

[Pete_Holter]

I for one believe I am saved

You seem to reject a number of articles of faith and without caring much about it. I have little hope for you in your current state. I say this to you because I am concerned for you and I want you to know the seriousness of your situation. May the Lord have mercy on you in such a way that you are not at rest in your soul for a single day until you come home to His Church.

What is that doctrine that underlies the declaration “I’m saved.”, please explain if you can?

When Catholics say we “are saved,” we mean that we were saved from all the consequences of all our past sins when we were baptized in the Catholic faith. At that time, we believe that we were also saved from the dominion of sin, alienation from God, and enmity with God having “received the Spirit of adoption” (Rom 8:15). We also believe that we “are saved” in hope from God’s wrath at the judgment, from the presence of sin in heaven, for the reception of our glorified bodies, and for all the other future rewards of salvation won for us by our Savior.

there are many non catholics who take confession and maintaining a state of grace as serious as you do too.

it is in those times only, being in a state of grace, that I will declare I am saved.

And I do not believe that the only way anyone can achieve being in a state of grace is if they were catholic.

If that were true…only catholics go to heaven

You seem to me to be deceiving yourself. You seem to think you have plenty of time to mull these things over all the while withholding your consent and feeling secure about rejecting what God has revealed. Distracting and busying yourself with many things when only one thing is needful. Please come into the Catholic Church and we’ll talk about all of these side issues later. The time is short!

In Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

The Catholic Church can not and will not change anything in the Bible because the truth doesn’t change. The Catholic Church recognizes an authentic interpretation of the written word that was passed on by the authors through the church. This is where you differ. You do not hold to the authentic interpretations of the written word. When you deviate from them in your own interpretations, you incorrectly assume your interpretation is correct and the interpretation handed down through the church for 2000 years is wrong. Can’t you see the folly in this. Do you really think the Holy Spirit would inspire you uniquely over the Church [He] founded?

Just thought I’d piggyback this with the way that St. Francis de Sales said it, reinforcing what you said:

The Councils, after the fullest consultation, when the test has been made by the holy touchstone of the Word of God, decide and define some article. If after all this another test has to be tried before their determination is received, will not another also be wanted? Who will not want to apply his [own] test, and whenever will the matter be settled? After the test has been applied by the Council, Beza and his disciples want to try again? And who shall stop another from asking as much, in order to see if the Council’s test has been properly tried? And why not a third to know if the second is faithful? – and then a fourth, to test the third? Everything must be done over again, and posterity will never trust antiquity but will go ever turning upside down the holiest articles of the faith in the wheel of their understandings.

We are not hesitating as to whether we should receive a doctrine at haphazard, or should test it by the application of God’s Word. But what we say is that when a Council has applied this test, our brains have not now to revise but to believe. Once let the canons of Councils be submitted to the test of private individuals, – as many persons, so many tastes, so many opinions.

…]

Behold the iniquitousness of these judges; to give liberty to their own opinions they lower the ancient Councils, while with their own opinions they would bridle those of others. They seek their own glory, be sure of that; and just as much as they take away from the Ancients do they attribute to themselves (The Catholic Controversy, pp 228-230).

Your brother in Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

I’ve seen Augustine being quoted in Bk. 5 of his work On Baptism, Against the Donatists by several authors, but I do not believe that they have hit upon his meaning.

Here is the quote:

“When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body … All who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark”

What is misleading here is that this quote is being used as if Augustine’s meaning is that there will be people who are considered to be in the Church even though they never physically come into the Church.

Augustine’s meaning, however, is that those who were baptized in a heretical sect, who later find their way into the Catholic Church, can consider themselves to have been baptized “in” the Church because once they come into the Church by repenting of their former heresy their baptism “begins to be profitable to them unto salvation.” And those who were baptized in the Church, who later fall away through sin, can consider themselves to have been baptized “outside” the Church because once they fall away, their baptism will work to their greater ruin. This is why Augustine speaks of the “foreknowledge of God” in this section because he is considering the state of these people based on a reality that has not yet come to pass in history, but which is already known to God by His foreknowledge.

In the previous book, Augustine wrote about the same thing, saying that “if those only are to be called tares who remain in perverse error to the end, there are many ears of grain outside, and many tares within” (, Bk. 4, Ch. 10On Baptism, Against the Donatists). Again, the reason why there is grain on the outside of the Church is that it will find its way into the Church before it dies. When Augustine says that “all who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark,” he is talking about those who are in the Church both physically and in heart. In this passage of Augustine, there is no one who is “within in heart” who is physically without when they die. When Augustine says that “When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body,” he means that there are some who are in the Church now who will not be found in the Church by the time they die, and some who are outside now, but who will find their way in. To draw a broader conclusion from this passage is, I think, to go beyond what the context allows.

In Christ,
Pete

“Hence, therefore, we have now set before us an easier and more simple consideration of that ark of which Noah was the builder and pilot. For Peter says that in the ark of Noah, “few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God).” Wherefore, if those appear to men to be baptized in Catholic unity who renounce the world in words only and not in deeds, how do they belong to the mystery of this ark in whom there is not the answer of a good conscience? Or how are they saved by water, who, making a bad use of holy baptism, though they seem to be within, yet persevere to the end of their days in a wicked and abandoned course of life? Or how can they fail to be saved by water, of whom Cyprian himself records that they were in time past simply admitted to the Church with the baptism which they had received in heresy? For the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, “The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale.” If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. It is therefore possible that some who have been baptized without may be considered, through the foreknowledge of God, to have been really baptized within, because within the water begins to be profitable to them unto salvation; nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water. And again, some who seemed to have been baptized within may be considered, through the same foreknowledge of God, more truly to have been baptized without, since, by making a bad use of baptism, they die by water, which then happened to no one who was not outside the ark. Certainly it is clear that, when we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body, since all who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark through the same water, through which all who are in heart without, whether they are also in body without or not, die as enemies of unity. As therefore it was not another but the same water that saved those who were placed within the ark, and destroyed those who were left without the ark, so it is not by different baptisms, but by the same, that good Catholics are saved, and bad Catholics or heretics perish” (, Bk. 5, Ch. 28On Baptism, Against the Donatists).

 

[Tomb54]

Paul I am sorry for the long reply yesterday…I kept typing as words came to me answering your questions

I have come to a conclusion after all our discussion with you and others and reading other threads on this site,

See if you agree or not

when it cames to salvation…

Catholics believe they are saved, as Des posted, at the precise moment after a sincere confession of any mortal sin committed or unconfessed sin. There soul for that moment only would be restored to a state of grace and they would enter heaven** if they would die **right at that moment only.

It is not a common practice for catholic to declare salvation because being in a state of grace is temporary until sin enters one’s life again.

do I have it basically correct?

as far as non catholic christians…

If one were to declare they are saved…a red flag will rise…OSAS.( a protestant belief)

Paul, I believe in my heart that non catholic christians take confession as serious as you do.

You do not believe in OSAS

Are there christians who do? … absolutely.

there are Christians who take being saved the wrong way with the OSAS attitude…

Do all non catholic christians believe in OSAS? … absolutely not

Paul you did not make a comment on my reference to OSAS in my last post so here it is again…

Unity in the way…

we can accept each other independant of what the other believes

we do not have to accept the belief of the other

yes our believes have common threads but they are also apart in lot of areas

the main thing is …we christians all say Jesus is the center of our life

As long as we are focused on Jesus, we win.

you agree?

So mpjw2 which is right OSAS or not? They say they are right too and God talks to them so therefore they are right and their attitude is what the bible teaches. Who is right and how do you know? Still wondering how Protestants figure which of their interpretation is right or can the Holy Spirit contradict Himself because if the Holy Spirit told both what they believe as claimed then He must be contradicting Himself.

 

[Tomb54]

The Eastern Orthodox church does not recognize the supremacy and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome. That is one of the main differences. The point is that they go back to the Apostles, and differ on many points of the RC Church.

Peter and the apostles were out establishing new churches and proclaiming the Gospel (the good news of Jesus Christ). Peter never claimed to be infallible on any offical teachings. In Acts 15, the Council at Jerusalem, Peter was first to speak. Then Paul spoke, and the James. They all agreed upon the decision. Peter did not hold any official primacy.

The word Presbyter can mean priest, pastor, elder, or minister. The word that can refer to a Bishop is episkopos. It is an overseer. It is used to describe a clergyman who is in charge of a religious community. These terms are also used in the Presbyterian and Episcopol church. There is nothing uniquely Roman Catholic about these terms. right it is not unique because it can be seen that both of these churches took their set up from the model of the church they broke away from which is the church Christ stated Himself

They Apostles listened to the word preached in the synagogues and then broke bread together in home churches. Not one word was spoken about the apostles hearing confession and granting absolution. Nothing was mentioned about the sacrifice of the Mass being performed.

In chapter 7, when Stephen was about to die from stoning, he saw a glimpse of heaven, and Jesus, sitting at the right hand of the Father. Hebrews ch 10 vs 12-14 state

12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
13 then to wait until his enemies should be made a stool for his feet.
14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

This seems to directly contradict the “Sacrifice of the Mass”. Many Catholic apologists such as Scott Hahn will say that the sacrifice in the Mass is a re-presentation of the one time sacrifice, or that it is a perpetual sacrifice. This makes sense. However, I believe that the Catholic church teaches that each sacrifice at the Mass is propitiatory, an expiation for sins. It is necessary to apply the merits of Christ’s original sacrifice. However, if each Mass is a separate expiation, it would need to include a separate atonement, which seems to indicate a new sacrifice, not just a re-presentation of the orignial sacrifice, in a non-bloody manner.

I think others have answered most of this better than I could have so I will not go into answering this all the way but there are many verses in the Bible that support the Eucharist as a sacrifice because the OT says that only the Todah (sacrifice) will remain after the Christ has come. So if Jesus came to fulfill the prophecies of the OT there must be a sacrifice that is pure that we offer to the Father. The thing you do not understand is it is not a new sacrifice as you wish to state but you need to understand it how the Jew understand the passover. Without this understanding you can not understand the Mass or how the 4th cup ties these 2 events together.

 

[mpjw2]

If you make it to heaven, you will be Catholic.

Hi dave… Dave If I die as I am typing this ,I am going to heaven.

I am not catholic now so how can you say I will be when I get to heaven?

Do yoou believe a miraculous change takes place between my death and before I enter the gates of heaven?

thank you

God bless

mpjw

 

[Tomb54]

mpjw2 I saw your post comparing how several Catholics answered your questions and I wish to point out something that is different between Catholic and Protestants. If Pete, Inkaneer, Paul, Robert or myself answer a question we can and might be wrong in what the Churches teaches as we know we are not perfect and can understand some of our interpretation might be wrong but all we have to do is go see what the churches official teaching is on a subject and point it out to the others it will be a learning experience for us all and we will then know what is true because the church said so. On the other hand if you, Beth, or some one like EdwardJL says this is what the bible tells me “based on what the Holy Spirit is telling me” then if any of you are wrong or disagree on even one interpretation you have nothing to stand on because you have nothing to prove which of you are right or if you say you are all right then you are saying the Holy Spirit contradicts Himself. Jesus gave us the Church to guide us and it is the Church that has been around for almost 2000 years. If you want to say it is the Orthodox Church instead of the Catholic so be it but remember the Orthodox church believes the same as the Catholic church does about the Eucharist being a sacrifice and the true Body, Blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. You need to really look into one of these churches because they are the only ones that have the test of time no matter how you argue it. I will say the Orthodox split from the Catholic church but I know they will say the opposite but I know all the other main churches in existence today started much latter than either of these 2 churches as they both have their roots in Jesus, who started the church, and Peter as the first head of the church on earth.

 

[mpjw2]

mpjw2 I saw your post comparing how several Catholics answered your questions and I wish to point out something that is different between Catholic and Protestants. If Pete, Inkaneer, Paul, Robert or myself answer a question we can and might be wrong in what the Churches teaches as we know we are not perfect and can understand some of our interpretation might be wrong but all we have to do is go see what the churches official teaching is on a subject and point it out to the others it will be a learning experience for us all and we will then know what is true because the church said so. On the other hand if you, Beth, or some one like EdwardJL says this is what the bible tells me “based on what the Holy Spirit is telling me” then if any of you are wrong or disagree on even one interpretation you have nothing to stand on because you have nothing to prove which of you are right or if you say you are all right then you are saying the Holy Spirit contradicts Himself. Jesus gave us the Church to guide us and it is the Church that has been around for almost 2000 years. If you want to say it is the Orthodox Church instead of the Catholic so be it but remember the Orthodox church believes the same as the Catholic church does about the Eucharist being a sacrifice and the true Body, Blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. You need to really look into one of these churches because they are the only ones that have the test of time no matter how you argue it. I will say the Orthodox split from the Catholic church but I know they will say the opposite but I know all the other main churches in existence today started much latter than either of these 2 churches as they both have their roots in Jesus, who started the church, and Peter as the first head of the church on earth.

thank you tomb…I am fully aware of everything you said and believe

especially …all we have to do is go see what the churches official teaching is on a subject and point it out to the others it will be a learning experience for us all and we will then know what is true because the church said so.

I can not say enough how much I admire catholic’s faith to the churches teaching as truth.

However, I have no doubt you heard this before, I do not believe all the Catholic church teaches.

 

[mpjw2]

Hi mpjw2!

We communicate with God through prayer, the reading of Scripture, participation in the sacraments, spiritual gifts, and in all ways fitted to our salvation through the providence of God in our daily lives.

Pete…yes or no? to the following…

Have you ever heard from God directly when you did not expect it and you were not communicating with God through prayer, or reading of Scripture, or participation in the sacraments.

 

[mpjw2]

Hi inkaneer

I do not know if you saw this…

Originally Posted by inkaneer

Well that is not all that is missing. There is the NT reference made by Paul in 1 Cor 3:11-15:

“11 For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw-- 13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”

Here is a saved man going through a purifying fire. A perfect scriptural reference for purgation.*** Protestantism has no explanation for this ***because the only fire in protrestantism is hell fire and saved men do not experience it.

Inkaneer…
"fire"is the fire of God and this event happens in heaven not purgatory.

we will be rewarded in heaven for all the works we did which honor God and His Kingdom

consider this

God does not care that you earn a paycheck for a living…

God cares about while you are at work…how many employees did you offere a helping hand too, How many did you let know you appreciate them, how many lunches did you buy for them, how many employees did you invite to church, did you invite to church that one employee that gets on your nerve all the time

that is why God says …

and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done

God does not care that I bowl in a league but if I pay for a teammates dues without him knowing who did it …there will be an award for me in heaven

If I share the gospel message to a stranger there will be an award

many things we can do in which there will not be an award …in that there is a loss sufffered because we are not awarded for work which are not in honor of God.

hope that helps

mpjw

 

[davidv]

Hi dave… Dave If I die as I am typing this ,I am going to heaven.

I am not catholic now so how can you say I will be when I get to heaven?

Do yoou believe a miraculous change takes place between my death and before I enter the gates of heaven?

thank you

God bless

mpjw

I don’t know how.

If you aren’t Catholic and not alive you won’t be in heaven. In heaven all are united in Christ. There will be no division as there is in this life.

 

[mpjw2]

I don’t know how.

If you aren’t Catholic and not alive you won’t be in heaven. In heaven all are united in Christ. There will be no division as there is in this life.

Wow David we getting somewhere…yessssssssssssssssssssssss

Let me see if I understand what you just said

If I did right now…as a non catholic…

Do you believe I will not get to heaven?

Or do you believe getting to heaven may still be possible for me however you do not have an answer on how that would be possible

Is that what you are saying?

thank you and God bless you dave

 

[davidv]

Wow David we getting somewhere…yessssssssssssssssssssssss

Let me see if I understand what you just said

If I did right now…as a non catholic…

Do you believe I will not get to heaven?

That is a possibility. I don’t know. Jesus asked me not to judge.

Or do you believe getting to heaven may still be possible for me however you do not have an answer on how that would be possible

I know how it is possible. Principly this would be that you have not rejected the Bride of Christ with full knowledge of doing so. I cannot know if you have met this condition.

Is that what you are saying?

thank you and God bless you dave

 

[Tomb54]

thank you tomb…I am fully aware of everything you said and believe

especially …all we have to do is go see what the churches official teaching is on a subject and point it out to the others it will be a learning experience for us all and we will then know what is true because the church said so.

I can not say enough how much I admire catholic’s faith to the churches teaching as truth.

However, I have no doubt you heard this before, I do not believe all the Catholic church teaches.

I figured that since it has been that way since the Apostle were even writing their letters.

I guess you know that I do not believe the conflicting believes of those well meaning Protestants who all tell me the Spirit is who is guiding them in the bible interpretationso therefore they are right and every body else is wrong.

 

[mpjw2]

paul …

thank you for you concern

Be very careful in that your reason to not be Catholic is because you want to carry out priestly actions without being a priest.

in due respect…they are only priestly actions if I was catholic.

As a non catholic…I can …however catholicism teaches you can’t

In due respect…I believe God does not place limits on anyone as to what they can do.

for God’s word says

we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us…Phil 4:13

I laughed at the male giving birth to a child comment…this verse is not talking about all physical things…please

why do you believe God says …we can do all things?

---

Here is another point paul…no matter how I try I can not get eye to eye with you or anyone else…I am sorry but you are not seeing my point about salvation…

Let’s look at what you posted recently…

So can a Catholic know they are saved? Well, no because even if we know the current state of our soul…l we don’t know what our state will be at the point of Death.

Paul now follow along with me

So can a Catholic know they are saved?

I believe yes you can …however you said…

Well, no

why don’t you believe paul?

because even if we know the current state of our soul

Paul before I comment on your next part …lets STOP right here and deal with the here and now.

you just stated you **can know **the **current state **of your soul

ok then

correct me if I am wrong…

Does that mean whether your soul is in **a state of grace **or not?

And if yes, does that mean…
… should you die at the **exact point in time **your soul is in a **state of grace ****you are saved **and you will at least go to purgatory and then eventually to heaven?

Once you answered that then I agree with you about…

…l we **don’t know **what our state **will be at **the point of Death.

Paul I agree with this 100%

paul we do not know what state our soul will be at

but as you said …

we can know what state our soul is in right NOW…yes?

And

if you die right now and your soul is in a state of grace then you are saved and going to heaven …

yes?

or

no?

That is the question I am trying to get you catholics to answer.

Thank you

mpjw

 

[mpjw2]

Pete

God bless you for your concern

The teaching of the catholic church has you believeing that my soul is in a serious situation.

I **have little hope **for you in your current state. I say this to you because I am concerned for you and I want you to know the seriousness of your situation. May the Lord have mercy on you in such a way that you are not at rest in your soul for a single day until you come home to His Church.

And If I never do Pete…what is your belief

thank you