Was Jesus a Sedevancist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tomch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tomch

Guest
I’ve been a Catholic less than a year, and used to be Baptist. Maybe I don’t totally understand what the Sedevancists believe, but I think I’m starting to agree with them. I’ve been surprised by almost ridiculous levels of Ecumanism lately. And it seems that a lot of this “anything goes” philosophy seems to find its foundation on Vatican II.

Almost all my family are staunch Baptists including my wife and children. They have been told by many well-meaning Catholics that converting to Catholicism is not necessary for salvation, and that the saying “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church” is meant to be interpreted very loosly. (ie: “You’re Catholic, but just don’t know it.”)

Yet John 6:53 says “Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” Note: Baptists do not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

My family has been told that “God is bigger than His Sacraments” and that He can save whomever He wishes, even if they don’t believe in the Eucharist and Confesion to a priest (among other things). While I agree that God can do whatever He wishes, I don’t buy the logic that Jesus can go back on what He says in John 6 - that would make Him a liar, wouldn’t it?

As I look back in Church history, I don’t see nearly the “casual” interpretation of “There is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church” as I do now. Am I misunderstanding things?
 
It sounds like you’ve been exposed to the new “dogma” of Ecumenism.:rolleyes:
 
tomch said:
I’ve been a Catholic less than a year, and used to be Baptist. Maybe I don’t totally understand what the Sedevancists believe, but I think I’m starting to agree with them. I’ve been surprised by almost ridiculous levels of Ecumanism lately. And it seems that a lot of this “anything goes” philosophy seems to find its foundation on Vatican II.

Almost all my family are staunch Baptists including my wife and children. They have been told by many well-meaning Catholics that converting to Catholicism is not necessary for salvation, and that the saying “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church” is meant to be interpreted very loosly. (ie: “You’re Catholic, but just don’t know it.”)

Yet John 6:53 says “Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” Note: Baptists do not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

My family has been told that “God is bigger than His Sacraments” and that He can save whomever He wishes, even if they don’t believe in the Eucharist and Confesion to a priest (among other things). While I agree that God can do whatever He wishes, I don’t buy the logic that Jesus can go back on what He says in John 6 - that would make Him a liar, wouldn’t it?

As I look back in Church history, I don’t see nearly the “casual” interpretation of “There is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church” as I do now. Am I misunderstanding things?
Click to expand...
There’s no “casual” interpretation; it has always been the case that those who know the true Church of Christ, and break from it, cannot be saved. That truth will never and can never change.
 
These people are liberals and dissenters and they are wrong. Conversion is still necessary but the new ecumenism attempts to do this in a gentler more friendly way.

There is no salvation outside of the Church - we are still required to believe that.

It is necessary for all who know of the Catholic Church to convert - we still believe that.

The people who have told your family these things are wrong. Read the catechism and the encyclicals and find the truth.
 
There is absolutely no salvation outside the Church. But this saying is not aimed at people who are ignorant of what God wants
 
No, He was not.

Jesus cannot be divided up or cubbyholed into our little parochial niches and clubs. To say He was a Sedevancist is no more accurate than to say He was a progressive, or a liberal, or a conservative. All groups can point to something Jesus said that they think supports their position, if they couldn’t they wouldn’t have joined that group!

As far as ecumenism goes, the Church has had a lot to say on this topic in the last few decades. I recommend you read it yourself.
 
tomch said:
I’ve been a Catholic less than a year, and used to be Baptist. Maybe I don’t totally understand what the Sedevancists believe, but I think I’m starting to agree with them. I’ve been surprised by almost ridiculous levels of Ecumanism lately. And it seems that a lot of this “anything goes” philosophy seems to find its foundation on Vatican II.

Almost all my family are staunch Baptists including my wife and children. They have been told by many well-meaning Catholics that converting to Catholicism is not necessary for salvation, and that the saying “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church” is meant to be interpreted very loosly. (ie: “You’re Catholic, but just don’t know it.”)

Yet John 6:53 says “Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” Note: Baptists do not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

My family has been told that “God is bigger than His Sacraments” and that He can save whomever He wishes, even if they don’t believe in the Eucharist and Confesion to a priest (among other things). While I agree that God can do whatever He wishes, I don’t buy the logic that Jesus can go back on what He says in John 6 - that would make Him a liar, wouldn’t it?

As I look back in Church history, I don’t see nearly the “casual” interpretation of “There is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church” as I do now. Am I misunderstanding things?
Click to expand...
Grace and Peace,

My wife is Baptist but I am raising our daughter ‘Catholic’ as per our vows before God at Baptism. Are you in the position to raise your child Catholic? What is your situation? I have Catholic and Baptist family members and I’d be glad to offer any advice I can.

Peace and God Bless.
 
tomch said:
I’ve been a Catholic less than a year, and used to be Baptist. Maybe I don’t totally understand what the Sedevancists believe, but I think I’m starting to agree with them. I’ve been surprised by almost ridiculous levels of Ecumanism lately. And it seems that a lot of this “anything goes” philosophy seems to find its foundation on Vatican II.

Almost all my family are staunch Baptists including my wife and children. They have been told by many well-meaning Catholics that converting to Catholicism is not necessary for salvation, and that the saying “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church” is meant to be interpreted very loosly. (ie: “You’re Catholic, but just don’t know it.”)

Yet John 6:53 says “Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” Note: Baptists do not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

My family has been told that “God is bigger than His Sacraments” and that He can save whomever He wishes, even if they don’t believe in the Eucharist and Confesion to a priest (among other things). While I agree that God can do whatever He wishes, I don’t buy the logic that Jesus can go back on what He says in John 6 - that would make Him a liar, wouldn’t it?

As I look back in Church history, I don’t see nearly the “casual” interpretation of “There is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church” as I do now. Am I misunderstanding things?
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, sedevacantism has nothing to do with the teaching “No salvation outside the Church”. Sedevacantism is the belief that there is no Pope because the one who calls himself Pope is, in fact, a heretic. It is a fringe idealogy based on a thorough misunderstanding of Church teaching. The Church still teaches EENS (extra ecclesia nulla salus) just as she always has. Stay away from sedevacantists. Instead read the catechism, explore the footnotes, read the documents of Vatican II in the context of previous documents. And remember, the Catholic Church is the One True Church and Benedict is our Pope.
 
Sure said:
Just to be clear, sedevacantism has nothing to do with the teaching “No salvation outside the Church”. Sedevacantism is the belief that there is no Pope because the one who calls himself Pope is, in fact, a heretic. It is a fringe idealogy based on a thorough misunderstanding of Church teaching. The Church still teaches EENS (extra ecclesia nulla salus) just as she always has. Stay away from sedevacantists. Instead read the catechism, explore the footnotes, read the documents of Vatican II in the context of previous documents. And remember, the Catholic Church is the One True Church and Benedict is our Pope.
Click to expand...
I’m a Sede, at least I have been branded as such here.

It is true, is it not, that a heretic cannot be a pope or hold any other office in the Catholic Church?
RE:
The Church still teaches EENS (extra ecclesia nulla salus) just as she always has.

Of course you are referring to the Catholic Church of Christ. That would then be true.
But in the church of say, Cardinal Kasper et al, that would be an intolerable stretch, would it not?

In the question as to whether Jesus was a sede; that would be an oxymoron. He would have to define Himself as being heretical or apostate, and outside His own Mystical Body, which IS the Church.
 
Great question. This is going deeper than most responders seem to be willing or able to go. Some old Catholics seem to think that new ones can’t have a lot of insight. You are so right that the lax teaching of no salvation outside the Church is rampant and evidenced by JP2 at Assisi. The unwillingness to stand up for the faith is displeasing to God. Our last few Popes are unwilling to step on toes, let alone not willing to be a martyr for the truth as St. Peter and all the others. Our Lord may very well think that the past Popes were not real Vicars of Christ with the false teachings that have been going on like the one you mentioned. They are in the position, but are they real when teaching error? Great question. Canon Law does indicate that they may not.
 
TNT said:
Originally Posted by JuanCarlos View Post
There is absolutely no salvation outside the Church. But this saying is not aimed at people who are ignorant of what God wants
Click to expand...
Maybe what is meant is that “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” should not be used as a stick with which to threaten non-Catholics. Particularly if they are not too well-informed.

However substantial number of non-Catholics do in fact accept this teaching. Richard Dawkins would be the first to agree that non-Catholics do not go to heaven.
Click to expand...
 
chrisb said:
Grace and Peace,

My wife is Baptist but I am raising our daughter ‘Catholic’ as per our vows before God at Baptism. Are you in the position to raise your child Catholic? What is your situation? I have Catholic and Baptist family members and I’d be glad to offer any advice I can.

Peace and God Bless.
Click to expand...
My youngest daughter (9) is mildly interested, but won’t get too close to Catholicism due to ridicule from the rest of the family. I don’t think any of my kids (9, 13, and 15) would even think about it unless my wife also became Catholic, and that’s not likely… her family is “ultra” Baptist. Her brother-in-law is the pastor of their church, her Dad is the chairman of the Elder board, and her ancestors were the founders of their church. The Baptist fervor in her family is cult-like.

I’ve been sharing with my wife, but it’s not going very well. She doesn’t know WHY she believes the Baptist doctrines - she has always been told what to believe by her very close-knit family, and trusts the people who told her what to believe, and doesn’t worry about the logic. Basically, she’s been brainwashed by the Baptists.

Also, I’m the “black sheep” of the family. I started questioning Baptist doctrines 15 years ago, which has resulted in the loss of respect and credibility among my wife and her family. Result: I’m an “outsider” and considered an “unbeliever,” and she is emotionally closer to her family than to me. Their advice carries more weight than any evidence I present.

If her brother-in-law (the pastor) were to convert, she would most likely follow, but her bro-in-law is unapproachable, and just won’t discuss Catholic beliefs - I’ve tried, and he simply tells me that he will pray for me. They’re locked into their Baptist faith by their hatred of Catholicism, and yet their understanding of Catholicism is unbelievably distorted - and unchangeable.

I’d love to believe in the liberal interpretations of “no salvation outside the Catholic Church” for the benefit of all my closed-minded Baptist family and friends, but in light of Scripture, I can’t. As it is, this liberal interpretation simply reinforces the stereotype of “Catholics not knowing what they believe” in my familys’ minds.
 
tomch said:
My family has been told that “God is bigger than His Sacraments” and that He can save whomever He wishes, even if they don’t believe in the Eucharist and Confesion to a priest (among other things). While I agree that God can do whatever He wishes, I don’t buy the logic that Jesus can go back on what He says in John 6 - that would make Him a liar, wouldn’t it?
Click to expand...
It sounds like the people you’ve been talking to place a lot of emphasis on hope and mercy while you are looking for some balancing justice. Nothing wrong with either until they are taken to the extreme. In a world filled with secularism and humanism, people hope in God’s mercy for their children, spouses, parents, and friends.

We don’t need someone damning them all to hell with a broad stroke of a brush anymore than we need someone assuring them of heaven. Moderation in all things. God is both mercy and justice.
tomch said:
As I look back in Church history, I don’t see nearly the “casual” interpretation of “There is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church” as I do now. Am I misunderstanding things?
Click to expand...
How far back are you looking? The Orthodox on the Eastern Christianity board were just having this same discussion. The common Orthodox line you’ll hear today is, “We know where the Church of God is, not where it isn’t.” An Orthodox priest said he wasn’t happy with that explanation and offered the traditional view, which is the same as the Catholic teaching, about the boundaries of the Church and the salvation of those outside it. Do you think he was infected by Vatican II? I don’t. I think the problem is the people who are trying to be nice by hoping on God’s mercy to the exclusion of seeing His justice. It doesn’t have anything to do with Vatican II. The Orthodox have it right now as well. It has to do with our secular times.

We do need to bring back a sense of justice, but not to the exclusion of mercy.
40.png
Fr_Ambrose:
I must admit I’ve never been happy with this idea. Does anybody know where it originated? Wasn’t it with Eulogy of Paris a few decades ago?

The Church has always been well aware of her boundaries. A quick reading of the canons of the Ecumenical Councils leaves no doubt about that. She knows, for example, that the Church is not among the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the neo-pagans although she also knows that these people are able to be saved.

So I think that when we want to say, “people may be saved without visible membership of the Church and without baptism” we do not need to go so far as to imply that the Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Primitive Presbyterians are part of the true Church.

I think that Khomiakov says it nicely, without blurring the boundaries of the Church:

‘Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts
and knows only within her own limits; and … does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day’ (“The Church is One”)
Click to expand...
40.png
Fr_Ambrose:
In the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man:

"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who *knowingly *pervert the truth… They have been born and raised and are living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not been a moment of *personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. *The Lord, “Who will have all men to be saved” (I Tim. 2:4) and “Who enlightens every man born into the world” (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation In His own way."

orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/metphil_heterodox.aspx
Click to expand...
^^Same thing Rome teaches.
 
latinmass said:
Our Lord may very well think that the past Popes were not real Vicars of Christ with the false teachings that have been going on like the one you mentioned. They are in the position, but are they real when teaching error? Great question. Canon Law does indicate that they may not.
Click to expand...
tomch said:
I’d love to believe in the liberal interpretations of “no salvation outside the Catholic Church” for the benefit of all my closed-minded Baptist family and friends, but in light of Scripture, I can’t. As it is, this liberal interpretation simply reinforces the stereotype of “Catholics not knowing what they believe” in my familys’ minds.
Click to expand...
I am confused by both of these posts. Are we now allowed to pick the Popes to follow or not? If the last few Popes weren’t for real, how do we know that the first 260 were for real? Doesn’t rejecting John Paul and Benedict require rejecting the entire doctrine of Apostolic Succession?

And I am not aware that there is a ‘liberal’ and a ‘traditional’ teaching on EENS. There is only the Church’s teaching. We may disagree on the details of that teaching, but it is plain that the Church extends hope to your Baptist family, who are a part of the Body of Christ. From the catechism:
1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."80 "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."81
Click to expand...
 
tomch said:
I’d love to believe in the liberal interpretations of “no salvation outside the Catholic Church” for the benefit of all my closed-minded Baptist family and friends, but in light of Scripture, I can’t. As it is, this liberal interpretation simply reinforces the stereotype of “Catholics not knowing what they believe” in my familys’ minds.
Click to expand...
It can’t be true that you have to receive communion to be saved, because baptised infants are saved.

The teaching hasn’t really changed. It’s just that where something isn’t as simple as it seems, today we opt for the way of putting things that is less likely to push people away.

It’s always been understood that ‘no salvation outside the church’ included people who weren’t formally in the church. We don’t know the specific limits of who can be considered to be saved, and what kind of ignorance makes them not culpable for their heresy. We phrase things today in a way that gives hope and that is less likely to put people off. Many people just aren’t smart enough to understand all the ins and outs of it, and their simplified understanding comes across as heretical.
 
Marc1152 said:
The Eastern Church has a saying. We know where the Church is but we can’t say with absolute certainty were it is not.

ourlifeinchrist.com
Click to expand...
That probably wasn’t the best comment to make considering my post above that contains an Orthodox priest correcting that statement and my comparing it to the “liberal ecumenism” the OP is concerned about. 😛
 
TMC said:
I am confused by both of these posts. Are we now allowed to pick the Popes to follow or not? If the last few Popes weren’t for real, how do we know that the first 260 were for real? Doesn’t rejecting John Paul and Benedict require rejecting the entire doctrine of Apostolic Succession?

And I am not aware that there is a ‘liberal’ and a ‘traditional’ teaching on EENS. There is only the Church’s teaching. We may disagree on the details of that teaching, but it is plain that the Church extends hope to your Baptist family, who are a part of the Body of Christ. From the catechism:
Click to expand...
Of course not. The Vicar of Christ is to defend the Deposit of Faith. We know Popes are true when they defend the Deposit of Faith and do not deviate. JP2 did not defend all of the Deposit (He did on some issues) but not all. Ecumenism and EENS are good example.
Is he in error and the Pope, or not the Pope because he is teaching error. This is a legitamate question.
 
Marc1152 said:
The Eastern Church has a saying. We know where the Church is but we can’t say with absolute certainty were it is not.

ourlifeinchrist.com
Click to expand...
Perhaps you didnt understand it then.

We dont say all religions can save and that we are confused on the matter. We just make a positive statement of where the Church is and we dont every discount God’s mercy on others…Do you??.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top