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

[inkaneer]

I kinda resent you calling me a Protestant as if my people ever protested from something. My people were being fed to the lions by the RC before Martin Luther, Menos, etc ever came about. As a matter of fact we were fed to the lions so much that they became tired of human flesh and wouldn’t eat us. No sir we have never bowed the knee to any Papacy nor any man for that matter.

Actually I believe that most of your Protestants will return to the Catholic church and really never departed too far from it. That one day they will completely come back under the umbrella of the RC’s reign. Just as mentioned in II Peter 2:22. “…The dog is turned to his own vomit again…”

First, if you resent being called a protestant then why do you use the term RC? That stands for Roman Catholic, doesn’t it? The correct name is The Catholic Church. But you are protestant because you believe in the basic protestant doctrines of sola scriptura and private interpretation plus Baptists are a derivative of protestantism. Your founder, John Smythe was a former Church of England minister who in 1605 adopted the baptismal doctrine of the Mennonites. You were never fed to any lions by us or anyone else. Baptists came too late to be victims of any persecutions. They did, however, play a key role in the organization of the Klu Klux Klan and persecuted Blacks, Jews and Catholics. Baptist ministers were the grand dragons of the KKK. Modern day [1605-present] Baptists have no relationship to the anabaptists of the third and fourth centuries other than the name. The early anabaptists regarded any baptism conferred by heretics to be invalid. To these people the minister of the sacrament of baptism (they did regard it as a sacrament) had to be done by a valid minister which a heretic was not. Any baptism thus performed bu an alleged invalid minister was invalid itself and the person had to be rebaptized. This view differed from that of the church which held that as long as the proper form and matter were employed the minister did not matter. These early anabaptists believed in baptizing infants. The anabaptists of the 17th century did not believe in baptizing infants and repudiated their infant baptism and sought to be rebaptized as adults. By the way the Trail of Blood. by Mr. Carroll is a farce. Those other groups never believed anything that modern Baptists do. Unless, of course, you want to admit to believing that Jesus was not God or that He was created not Begotten, Or that there were two gods one good and one evil. And about that bending the knee bit… If you won’t bend your knee to the chief steward of the king then you won’t bend it to the king either. Other than that, have a good day.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Do they? How can you say protestants eat and drink Jesus’ body and blood when none of the protestant denominations claims that their communion is the actual body and blood of Jesus? They all claim their communion is only a symbol of and not the Real Presence.
And Yes Jesus did speak in “parables, allegories, and the like” but He never did so when He said the words, “Truely, truely, I say unto you…” as he does in John 6:53-58:

"So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

That is no allegory, my friend. Jesus was being very serious. Jesus may have spoken in parables but He also explained those parables to His disciples. But was He speaking a parable? Notice in verse 60 it says:

"Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

and verse 61says:

61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” The only explanation Jesus gives is that his words were spirit. That doesn’t mean hypothetical or allegorical. It means spiritually. You see the Jews understood about the manna from heaven that their fathers ate in the dessert. It was real food so they understood Jesus to be speaking about material food. But Jesus says he is not speaking of material food. He is speaking of spiritual food. That is why the only explanation He offers to His disciples is that His words are spirit.

And one more thing the charge against protestantism is not that you are doctrinally poor. The charge is you doctrines are wrong. Big difference.

Exactly! Jesus’ words were spiritual and not literal. If He really did mean it literally, then the apostles should have bit Him and take a chunk out of Him! I mean, he was still alive when he said that. He was still there with them in the flesh. So it’s obvious that He did not mean it literally.

Wrong. Since when is spirit the opposite of literal? The opposite of literal is figurative and the opposite of spirit is material. Get a dictionary and check it out. Then look at the passage. The Jews and Jesus disciples understood Jesus to be speaking literally and materially for they knew that the OT manna was material food was actually bread from heaven that sustained the Israelites in the dessert. But Jesus is speaking about the NT manna which is spiritual food for the soul not material food for the body. He is speaking literally of spiritual food. That is why He says His words are spirit. Remember, His disciples are walking away from Him because they misunderstand Him. They are thinking material food just like the manna. As a teacher, Jesus owes them an explanation. He is obligated to teach so they could understand. If He doesn’t, He is committing a sin. But Jesus doesn’t call them back and say that He was using figurative speach. He knows they understood Him literally because He was speaking literally. But they understood Him to be speaking of material food That is why the only explanation Jesus gives is to say that what He said was spiritual. That is all the explanation that is needed.

As to being doctrinally poor, there was an earlier post that said so. Maybe you could check it out.

I think it was a poor choice of words. Doctrine is either correct or its wrong. Richness and poorness have nothing to do with doctrine.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

That’s easy… His church. Jesus instituted the church, Catholics instituted denominations.

Is that right… And what church is HIS CHURCH ? And what church did Christ INSTITUTE ?
and what DENOMINATIONS did catholics institute ?

Matthew

 

[Sherry_G]

FXCC! That was an absolutely beautiful post. Thank you for the gift you expressed so well. :flowers:

 

[Abu]

OneVoice
My people were being fed to the lions by the RC before Martin Luther, Menos, etc ever came about.

The ignorance is staggering! "There are several theories on the origin of the Baptists. The most convincing theory, and the one that most Baptist historians hold, is that Baptists originated from the English Separatist (Congregationalist) movement at the end of the Sixteenth Century. Robert Browne and John Smyth are often viewed as fathers of the Baptist church.[See http://www.orlutheran.com/html/baptist.html].

Luther developed the rot to extreme ends, and his efforts later to try to contain it failed dismally. “Luther was an avowed enemy of reason…Luther propounded a doctrine more in line with late twentieth-century notions of ‘self-esteem’ – and of lawlessness for the proud.” Triumph – The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church, H W Crocker III, Forum Prima 2001, p 244].

Luther ruled: “Christianity is nothing but a perpetual exercise in feeling that you have no sin, although you committed sin, but your sins are attached to Christ.” A History of the Church: An Introductory Study, Sheed & Ward, 1947, vol 3, p 513].

Such is the “pick and choose” anarchy which Luther unleashed.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

FXCC! That was an absolutely beautiful post. Thank you for the gift you expressed so well. :flowers:

That was good. The kind of posts that helps you see things from different angles and defend the the truth better me thinks…

Matthew

 

[anthony022071]

Yes all will be of one accord in Heaven!

That is the reason why the doctrine of no salvation outside of the Catholic Church is true.

 

[JustaServant]

I kinda resent you calling me a Protestant as if my people ever protested from something. My people were being fed to the lions by the RC before Martin Luther, Menos, etc ever came about. As a matter of fact we were fed to the lions so much that they became tired of human flesh and wouldn’t eat us. No sir we have never bowed the knee to any Papacy nor any man for that matter.

Actually I believe that most of your Protestants will return to the Catholic church and really never departed too far from it. That one day they will completely come back under the umbrella of the RC’s reign. Just as mentioned in II Peter 2:22. “…The dog is turned to his own vomit again…”

You know what is so funny about this? This dude created a usergroup called: BTLC (Baptist That Love Catholics). :bigyikes:

 

[fxcc]

FXCC! That was an absolutely beautiful post. Thank you for the gift you expressed so well. :flowers:

That was good. The kind of posts that helps you see things from different angles and defend the the truth better me thinks…

Matthew

Thank you!

One could take the analogy further.

Up on that mountain the ice has to constantly form - materialise, be continually made “real” as it were.

It then has to melt… be “broken” and “fall into the ground”, so that it can become available to all as life giving water, even to those who might be say, 2000 years away in terms of time and space.

The life in this water is comprised of a vital mix of nutrients and minerals - at least 7 essential ones. Woe to the man who removes any of these from his drink! Indeed, he is wise who recognises it for what it is - the very source, summit and centre of his life! That is why, taking an enthusistic dip in the river just once will not do! To keep on living, ever refreshed, ever healthy, and ever growing, one must continually imbibe of it!

It is therefore logical that this whole phenomenon of the water being formed and becoming available to us is a continuous and ongoing process - timeless as it were - so all may come to the water, drink and live. If it had been just a one off, (i.e. limited only as a particular event at one time in the past), the river might’ve long since ceased to flow, or evaporated in the relentless heat of the day.

The Master Designer of the scheme certainly knew what He was doing, wouldn’t you say?

 

[Desertsailor]

There are no non-Catholics in Heaven. No, not even one.

 

[Proud2baNerd]

**Catechism of St. Pius X: **
**29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? **
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation

 

[Desertsailor]

**Catechism of St. Pius X: **
**29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? **
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation

And when he stumbles into heaven he immediately becomes Catholic.

 

[Beth_Martin]

I was a Baptist, but have been attending a Catholic Church for the past 3 years. I really felt like the Catholic Church might be the true Church, but I am hopelessly hung up on the “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” dogma, and haven’t been able to figure it out.

As I understand it, “No Salvation Outside CC” is a dogma. That means that once it is set in place, it can’t be changed, right? As I read old “classic” Catholic literature (Alphonsus Ligouri, Theresa of Avila, Augustine, etc), I see a literal “no nonsense” understanding of “No Salvation Outside CC”. I have many pages of quotes and Church writings that say so. This teaching began (as far as I can tell) even before the year 100, and had been taught consistently up until about the last 50 years or so.

Okay, here’s the confusing part. In the modern Catholic Church, this isn’t taught anymore. In fact, the opposite it now taught. I talked to “my priest” and asked him about it, and he said that the CC realized that had been too harsh, and had changed it’s mind - they are more “merciful” since Vatican II. I didn’t think that dogma could be changed like that, can it?

I’m very confused about the whole dogma thing. Can dogma change? Can ex-cathedra dogma be wrong? Is my priest wrong? Is this just something that I’m not supposed to understand?

Also, am I the only Catholic that is hopelessly confused about this topic? I’ve looked for information about this, and all I can find is sedevacantist stuff, which has it’s own set of big problems. It seems everyone else I talk to (several other priests included) is satisfied with the explanation that 1900 years of beliefs have changed in the last 50 years. Am I the only one who is frustrated with this?

I can post some of the saints’ and Popes’ quotes if requested, but I didn’t want to make this post go unnecessarily long.

Can anyone help me, please?

I cannot help you, but Jesus can.

John 5:38 "You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. 39***"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.*** 41 "I do not receive glory from men; 42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. 43 "I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the {one and} only God?

May God bless you in your search for the peace that only Jesus provides…amen.

Beth

 

[QuickCat]

I was a Baptist, but have been attending a Catholic Church for the past 3 years. I really felt like the Catholic Church might be the true Church, but I am hopelessly hung up on the “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” dogma, and haven’t been able to figure it out.

As I understand it, “No Salvation Outside CC” is a dogma. That means that once it is set in place, it can’t be changed, right? As I read old “classic” Catholic literature (Alphonsus Ligouri, Theresa of Avila, Augustine, etc), I see a literal “no nonsense” understanding of “No Salvation Outside CC”. I have many pages of quotes and Church writings that say so. This teaching began (as far as I can tell) even before the year 100, and had been taught consistently up until about the last 50 years or so.

Okay, here’s the confusing part. In the modern Catholic Church, this isn’t taught anymore. In fact, the opposite it now taught. I talked to “my priest” and asked him about it, and he said that the CC realized that had been too harsh, and had changed it’s mind - they are more “merciful” since Vatican II. I didn’t think that dogma could be changed like that, can it?

I’m very confused about the whole dogma thing. Can dogma change? Can ex-cathedra dogma be wrong? Is my priest wrong? Is this just something that I’m not supposed to understand?

Also, am I the only Catholic that is hopelessly confused about this topic? I’ve looked for information about this, and all I can find is sedevacantist stuff, which has it’s own set of big problems. It seems everyone else I talk to (several other priests included) is satisfied with the explanation that 1900 years of beliefs have changed in the last 50 years. Am I the only one who is frustrated with this?

I can post some of the saints’ and Popes’ quotes if requested, but I didn’t want to make this post go unnecessarily long.

Can anyone help me, please?

XBaptist: It is obvious that the Baptists and the Catholics do not agree as to the way to salvation. Were you saved as a Baptist? Or, are you now saved as a Catholic?
QC

 

[Sherry_G]

It is a nonsensical question! It takes a lot more to be saved in the end than you would care to admit! Wrongheadedness once the truth of the one true Body of Christ is known is a path to destruction. If through no fault of your own, you do not know the truth of the one true Church of Jesus Christ, the Lord will have mercy on your soul provided you do more than run down a center aisle declaring that Jesus is Lord and Saviour.

This question is a very serious one and deserves more than cheap shots and platitudes from anyone who joins the discussion. We pray for all who seriously seek the truth.

 

[inkaneer]

XBaptist: It is obvious that the Baptists and the Catholics do not agree as to the way to salvation. Were you saved as a Baptist? Or, are you now saved as a Catholic?
QC

Well as I understand it there are no Baptists in heaven because Baptists have no way to deal with the expiation of sin. The Baptist method of treating Jesus as just a carpet under which they sweep the dirt [sin] so they can say that Jesus covered their sin is not biblical. Jesus said He was the Door, the Good Shepherd, the Vine and the Bread come down from heaven but He never said He was a carpet.

 

[Beth_Martin]

Well as I understand it there are no Baptists in heaven because Baptists have no way to deal with the expiation of sin. The Baptist method of treating Jesus as just a carpet under which they sweep the dirt [sin] so they can say that Jesus covered their sin is not biblical. Jesus said He was the Door, the Good Shepherd, the Vine and the Bread come down from heaven but He never said He was a carpet.

Jesus said the following:
*"The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil {man} out of the evil {treasure} brings forth what is evil; ***for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart. ****
No Baptist in heaven as though salvation does not transcend all denominations. I know many Baptist and do not know one that believes that sin is not an issue to be taken seriously; in fact until you deal with your sin issue before God you will not see the Kingdom; what a callous blanket statement to make; it speaks of your heart more than you know. I pray God will convict you of your sin against other brothers and sisters in Christ and for some humility and to love your neighbors, the baptist Christians, as yourself.

May God both forgive and bless you!!

Beth

 

[Beth_Martin]

It is a nonsensical question! ***It takes a lot more to be saved in the end than you would care to admit! ***Wrongheadedness once the truth of the one true Body of Christ is known is a path to destruction. If through no fault of your own, you do not know the truth of the one true Church of Jesus Christ, the Lord will have mercy on your soul provided you do more than run down a center aisle declaring that Jesus is Lord and Saviour.

This question is a very serious one and deserves more than cheap shots and platitudes from anyone who joins the discussion. We pray for all who seriously seek the truth.

What is that path; for Jesus said their are two paths that say they lead to heaven, but only one actually does lead; so which path is the correct one?

Can you please elaborate in some detail as to what it takes to be saved in the end than “someone” cares to admit as you stated above with a degree of certainty and apparent confidence. Please share this so none of us miss the mark. Thanks!

Beth

 

[Sherry_G]

What is that path; for Jesus said their are two paths that say they lead to heaven, but only one actually does lead; so which path is the correct one?

Can you please elaborate in some detail as to what it takes to be saved in the end than “someone” cares to admit as you stated above with a degree of certainty and apparent confidence. Please share this so none of us miss the mark. Thanks!

Beth

Please go back and read all the posts on this thread which is quite detailed and does elaborate fully. Many people have taken a lot of time and spent considerable time in prayer to develop this thread. May God bless you and may the Holy Spirit be with you.

 

[Abu]

Beth Martin
Can you please elaborate in some detail as to what it takes to be saved in the end

Jesus of Nazareth is very clear in giving us His Church to show us the way.

His Church teaches, and emphasises in Her Sacred Scriptures that to live as Christ wants we must love and obey:
“Love is the fulfilling of the law.” (Rom 13:10). The new commandment is: “Love one another as I have loved you.” (Jn 13: 34-35). If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” (Jn 14:15). “If a man loves Me, he will keep My word and My Father will love him and we will come to him and make Our home with him.” (Jn 14:21).
“He became the source of salvation to all who obey Him.” (Heb 5:9). “It is not those who say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord’, who will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the person who does the will of My Father in heaven.” (Mt 7:21).
When asked “What must I do to have eternal life?” Jesus answered, “Keep the commandments.” (Mt 19:16-17).

Two warnings: “Unless one be born of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” (Jn 3:5). To the Galatians (3:7): For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Secondly, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.” (Jn 6:53).
Thus, from the first, the faithful “remained faithful to the teaching of the Apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread, and to the prayers.” (Acts 2:42). So, as Jesus commanded, His Church has the Eucharist (Holy Mass), His seven sacraments, the primacy and infallibility of the pope, Her Tradition and Her Sacred Scriptures.

Christ’s Catholic Church teaches that all may be saved if they try to seek truth, do good and follow their consciences, being linked to His Church in some way, even pagans, through baptism of desire, implicit faith etc.

She knew this from the first: Pope St Clement knew that non-Catholics could be saved from the beginning, for he wrote in about 95 A.D. to the Church in Corinth: “Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God.” Catholic Apologetics Today, 1986, Fr William G Most, p 145].