G
guanophore
Guest
The Church has always taught (and still does) that there is no salvation outside the Church.
Yes it is the cause for many misunderstandings.
- Status
Yes it is the cause for many misunderstandings.
LaughingBoy1503
Well-known member
No, it never taught that only Catholics can be saved. It has always taught that there is “No Salvation outside The Church” there is a difference… sounds complicated, huh?
Christ IS The Church. Remember in scripture when St Paul, while he was still Saul, was going to kill some Christians and Jesus asks “Saul, why do you persecute ME?” even though Saul had never met Jesus? The Church always taught that Jesus and His Church are insperable. That The Church is The Mystical body of Christ…
Now, The Church has always taught that it is possible to be JOINED to His Church in different ways than being a self proclaimed Catholic.One can be joined to The Church by their Baptism, even if they were Baptized in a protestant Church. One that has not has a chance to be Baptized but was Martyred for their belief in Christ are joined to The Church (We call this baptism by blood) If someone desires Baptism but dies by freak accident before they have a chance, they are joined to The Church (We call this Baptism by Desire)
The Church has ALWAYS taught that God does not condemn people who by no fault of their own are ignorant of him. That is why it is possible for even non-Christians (Neither protestant or Catholic) to be saved. It is only when one REJECTS Christ that one is condemned." No Salvation outside The Church, " and CHRIST is The Church. Reject The Church… that equals rejecting Christ. Rejecting Christ, equals being Outside The Church. That is a little different that saying only Catholics can be saved, is it not? That is where misunderstanding comes from. Vatican 2 did not change any teaching. People just run with what they think they know but as you can probably see, it is quite complex.
T
TonyBS
Guest
Dear Fran - You have hit a very good point in our relationship with God and our path to Salvation. You may be not aware that there are other religious scriptures that warn us that Love and Attachment to Names and Promises can also become a veil to knowing and loving God. To me this is one of those strange things that Christianity has now woven into their belief. An attachment to a promise on Salvation, may indeed be a veil to understanding what it really means to be Saved! I would ask how can one continue in search for the Full Love of God if the search for All fruit is on but one Apple Tree.
This I think is a strange thing that happens in all religions, so it is not limited to any one Faith. This is a big subject that would not be in tune with this thread.
Dear Fran, Look at the world, this world is as it is as we have forgotten our God and what it is He has asked us to do. Do you consider that we have the answers? We now know what is required to do away with sin, but what does the World really need to find Salvation? This to me is why Christ was to return, to remind us about our veils of sin and to give the key to unlock the door to bring man to a collective Unified Salvation.
Regards Tony
S
SilverLight
Guest
I find it strange that they removed books from the Bible. If some think they are false or not true then what keeps them from removing others?
Why does it also seem like half the things we do can be considered sins?
Why does it also seem like half the things we do can be considered sins?
T
TonyBS
Guest
Patrick, thank you for both your replies, which really need no follow up. My post to fran above noted few more concepts to considerTony,
Salvation outside of the Catholic Church is MUCH more rare than within its ranks.
ONLY those who THROUGH NO FAULT of their own; who God has not made it possible for them to know that Him and His Church are literally NECESSARY [essential] for salvation; MAY have a possibility of attaining their eternal salvation.
It’s God’s way or in nearly every case: no way
God Bless you,
Patrick
God Bless all - Regards Tony
T
TC3033
Guest
Thanks, that makes sense and may ease some tension for me personally. My confusion may have come from so many considering the Catholic Church as The Church, rather than Christ Himself.No, it never taught that only Catholics can be saved. It has always taught that there is “No Salvation outside The Church” there is a difference… sounds complicated, huh?
Christ IS The Church. Remember in scripture when St Paul, while he was still Saul, was going to kill some Christians and Jesus asks “Saul, why do you persecute ME?” even though Saul had never met Jesus? The Church always taught that Jesus and His Church are insperable. That The Church is The Mystical body of Christ…
Now, The Church has always taught that it is possible to be JOINED to His Church in different ways than being a self proclaimed Catholic.One can be joined to The Church by their Baptism, even if they were Baptized in a protestant Church. One that has not has a chance to be Baptized but was Martyred for their belief in Christ are joined to The Church (We call this baptism by blood) If someone desires Baptism but dies by freak accident before they have a chance, they are joined to The Church (We call this Baptism by Desire)
The Church has ALWAYS taught that God does not condemn people who by no fault of their own are ignorant of him. That is why it is possible for even non-Christians (Neither protestant or Catholic) to be saved. It is only when one REJECTS Christ that one is condemned." No Salvation outside The Church, " and CHRIST is The Church. Reject The Church… that equals rejecting Christ. Rejecting Christ, equals being Outside The Church. That is a little different that saying only Catholics can be saved, is it not? That is where misunderstanding comes from. Vatican 2 did not change any teaching. People just run with what they think they know but as you can probably see, it is quite complex.
G
glad2bhome
Guest
Thank you for that explanation! Our family is in a similar situation with my husband attending mass with us for 18 years. He was baptized, full dunking, in the Pentecostal faith. He still doesn’t feel fully welcome due to not being able to receive communion, but that’s another story.No, it never taught that only Catholics can be saved. It has always taught that there is “No Salvation outside The Church” there is a difference… sounds complicated, huh?
Christ IS The Church. Remember in scripture when St Paul, while he was still Saul, was going to kill some Christians and Jesus asks “Saul, why do you persecute ME?” even though Saul had never met Jesus? The Church always taught that Jesus and His Church are insperable. That The Church is The Mystical body of Christ…
Now, The Church has always taught that it is possible to be JOINED to His Church in different ways than being a self proclaimed Catholic.One can be joined to The Church by their Baptism, even if they were Baptized in a protestant Church. One that has not has a chance to be Baptized but was Martyred for their belief in Christ are joined to The Church (We call this baptism by blood) If someone desires Baptism but dies by freak accident before they have a chance, they are joined to The Church (We call this Baptism by Desire)
The Church has ALWAYS taught that God does not condemn people who by no fault of their own are ignorant of him. That is why it is possible for even non-Christians (Neither protestant or Catholic) to be saved. It is only when one REJECTS Christ that one is condemned." No Salvation outside The Church, " and CHRIST is The Church. Reject The Church… that equals rejecting Christ. Rejecting Christ, equals being Outside The Church. That is a little different that saying only Catholics can be saved, is it not? That is where misunderstanding comes from. Vatican 2 did not change any teaching. People just run with what they think they know but as you can probably see, it is quite complex.
LaughingBoy1503
Well-known member
The Two are inseperable. It is hard to expalin how. It is a mystery how we are THe Body of Christ. But it says we are in scripture. And If Christ said He is The Church, it means he somehow is The Church, just like when he said “This is my body” Lots of mysteries. The Catholic Church IS the Church as well.
T
TC3033
Guest
Understand the belief, but now we’re kinda getting down to what does “Is” mean in the context of this conversation.
LaughingBoy1503
Well-known member
That is where I go by what The Catholic Church teaches about it all. Otherwise, I would not be Catholic.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well, there are Catholics who disagree with other Catholics – that has always been the case. Heck, at Vatican I (1870) my Patriarch rejected a claim that was made not only by the Pope but by the majority of Bishops at the council.
See also what I said here.
LaughingBoy1503
Well-known member
My mother threw a fit when I told her that she could not receive communion when she went to my Baptism (I was a unbaptized protestant convert) and she said she would respect that but just talk to God about it (I think she was basically saying that she was going to “tell on” The Catholic Church to God for not allowing her to receive
)If feeling “Welcome” was a requirement for me to become Catholic I would have never become Catholic
Not that anything made me feel “unwelcome”. But it is no secret that the church setting is generally friendlier in protestant churches than your average Catholic parish. I understood why I could not receive communion until I was Baptized (I attended Mass for a year before I was Baptized and never received once)I would explain to your husband, if he does not already know, that Catholics believe when we receive communion it is also affirming that we agree with everything The Catholic Church teaches that one is required to Believe (Hence being IN communion with The Church) I am sure he knows we believe in The True presence of Christ in The Eucharist. I am sure he believe’s it to just be symbolic (if he believed in The True presence he would most likely belong to The Catholic Church or at least a denomination that somehow believes in The True presence even if the theology is a little different, like the Lutherans) Now when a priest says “The Body of Christ” one responds “Amen” in other words “IT IS SO!” in other words “I BELIEVE IT IS!” if he does not believe this… why would he want to receive? He would be lying if he said “Amen” when he went up to receive. My mother says she believes communion is the body of Christ because he said so, but not in the same way we do. I bet she would consider it idolatry if she heard me say “My Lord and my God” at consecration when I am looking at The Eucharist and I know she would not do the same. My guess is that your husband, if he is Pentecostal would not either. My Grandmother is also Pentecostal and I was talking with her about communion one day. She claimed to believe communion is The body of Christ too. But then she told me to put my trust in Jesus, not a piece of bread. In other words… she did not understand what she was even talking about lol. She views communion as a symbol even if she claims to believe it is really the body of Christ.
Being able to receive for the sake of feeling welcomed in a Church that you do not belong to is a bad reason to want to receive. Maybe one day he will get that. I hope he comes to feel welcomed in other ways one day though.
M
Michael68
Guest
I think people say we are unfriendly because there’s no socializing in the sanctuary.
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
A great many things, but I’ll go with two for now.
- infant baptism - making a child Catholic before he or she reaches the age of reason or even have any real clue about Catholicism. Add to that, baptism technically places certain obligations later in life.
- “Once Catholic Always Catholic” (OCAC) - as I understand it there is no formal way to leave the Church. There used to be, but for some reason that was rescinded several decades ago. It seems very odd to have an organization that presumes a member can never resign.
M
Michael68
Guest
As far as infant baptism, we believe baptism removes original sin and allows you to become a member of the church. Jesus did not place an age restriction since baptism is not a symbol. I’m not sure about your second point since I would not want to leave the Church that Jesus Christ himself founded
P
Peter_J
Guest
It is true that a change was made in canon law, but what you’re saying here is a (sadly rather common) misconception. Anyone who has left the Catholic Church is an ex-Catholic (if you like, we can classify everyone as “Catholic, ex-Catholic, or never-been-Catholic”) and this was just as true before the change was made in canon law as after.
P
PJM
Guest
I responded to it earlier today:thumbsup:
God Bless you,
Patrick
P
PJM
Guest
Our faith is “a living faith”. Meaning that while neither Doctrine nor Dogma’s are changeable; it is possible that guided by the Holy Spirit; our UNDERSTANDING can be enlarged.
Such is the case here.
But before I get into that; I personally suspect the culprit is the OLD [pre Vatican II] church position where the laity went to Confession and Mass, and that was about the extent of our [NORMAL] participation. Sure we might have been an Usher???
Then almost over night it seems that the Laity TOOK over the Church; CCD, PSR, RCIA Teachers, [now ordinary] - Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist [a term meaning to “Give Thanks”; Lay Lectors; and so on…
Oldsters like me [71] remember the Old Church. And in that Church participation meant Confession and Mass. And little more.
So with the innovations of the Post Vatican II period; some different terminology seems to have been inevitable.
So now in stead of "Holy Communion:; we have Eucharist.
Instead of Mass we have the “Eucharistic Celebration”
What we see here is both the definition AND therefore OUR [needed] understanding have grown to acknowledge our necessary THANKFULNESS for Jesus being in Catholic Holy Communion.
Our 1992 & 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church #1345 may well have had a great deal to do with this?
1345 As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:
On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.
The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.
When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.
Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.
When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.
Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.
He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.
When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: ‘Amen.’
When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.
God Bless you and thanks for asking!
Patrick
M
Michael68
Guest
Wow! Patrick, sir, that is an amazing description and I feel blessed for reading it!
E
eazyduzit
Guest
I wish you could tell me what I am misunderstanding. Is the mass a sacrifice or not? Could Catholics be forgiven without the sacrifice of the mass? I listened to a lecture by Scott Hahn in which he spoke of " both sacrifices". Is there a sacrifice at the hands of the priest as claimed in the liturgy or not?
My faith is much different. I have a part in the sacrifice of the cross because I was “in Christ” and He carried my sins, not a “re-presentation” The communion for me is to do what Jesus asked, that is to remember Him. I do not find “representation” in scripture.
Thanks for your help!
My faith is much different. I have a part in the sacrifice of the cross because I was “in Christ” and He carried my sins, not a “re-presentation” The communion for me is to do what Jesus asked, that is to remember Him. I do not find “representation” in scripture.
Thanks for your help!
- Status