What do Catholics believe crucifixion accomplished?

[Gamera]

You can’t “gain access” by sacraments… that’s called work.

Nope. Sacraments are not works. They are something we receive, not something we do.

When Jesus healed the blind man by smearing mud on his eyes, was the blind man’s passive receipt of mud a “work”? Of course not! Neither does receiving baptismal water constituted a “work.” It is the passive acceptance of a gift given by Jesus.

We receive this redemption by faith alone.

“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” James 2:24.

 

[PBPGNFWMY]

Wowsie! I took a break to clean the kitchen and this thread went crazy! It’s all good though! I find it interesting that attention was directly taken off of my argument that Jesus was clarifying to Nicodemus what type of birth actually saves you… That’s fine, I just want to say this one last thing on the subject. This is not just my interpretation! It’s not a clever rearrangement of meaning or anything of the sort…it is what many many Christians believe. I went to private school for 6 years…trust me…this is a widely accepted interpretation and I find it amazing that you are just now hearing it!

 

[PBPGNFWMY]

I’m all confused now as to where this thread is going, but I just need some clarification…

The Catholic view is that salvation is attained through faith AND works. I hear that even though the Bible states many times that salvation is attained through faith, your response is that it doesn’t say “faith alone” (which to me is like saying “Go pick up my dry cleaning” when I really want you to pick up my dry cleaning AND wash my car–gee couldn’t you tell that’s what I meant?!)

Someone just pointed out that sacraments actually aren’t works! Really? Sacraments are something you receive? Or is it better said that they are an intended action that one believes will result in a receipt of some kind. Sounds like “works” to me, but you claim they’re not.

Fine. But which is it? Do you believe in works or not? If sacraments aren’t works, what are?

Also, someone was asking me to answer some question, but I honestly am not sure what the question was at this point…can you repeat?

 

[Contarini]

Wowsie! I took a break to clean the kitchen and this thread went crazy! It’s all good though! I find it interesting that attention was directly taken off of my argument that Jesus was clarifying to Nicodemus what type of birth actually saves you… That’s fine, I just want to say this one last thing on the subject. This is not just my interpretation! It’s not a clever rearrangement of meaning or anything of the sort…it is what many many Christians believe. I went to private school for 6 years…trust me…this is a widely accepted interpretation and I find it amazing that you are just now hearing it!

It’s widely accepted in a very narrow circle. I grew up around evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants and never heard it (we would have said that the “water” was symbolic). I first encountered it in Surprised by Truth, which is a collection of Catholic conversion stories. I actually was annoyed with the writer who cited it, because I thought she was raking up some obscure and obviously ridiculous view to make Protestants seem ridiculous. I have since encountered it many times, mostly on Internet discussion forums!

To be fair, I also encountered it in the last place one would expect–in an Anglo-Catholic devotional tract which my priest made available during the Holy Thursday vigil before the Blessed Sacrament. Since the author of the tract almost certainly believed in baptismal regeneration, I accept that tract as evidence that someone can come to this interpretation without being impelled by a desperate desire to deny the obvious. But I still find it very strange and don’t think it fits the context at all (Jesus doesn’t say “born not only of water but also of the spirit”–everything about the context indicates that water and the spirit are two requirements specifically for entrance into the kingdom of heaven).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I’m all confused now as to where this thread is going, but I just need some clarification…

The Catholic view is that salvation is attained through faith AND works. I hear that even though the Bible states many times that salvation is attained through faith, your response is that it doesn’t say “faith alone” (which to me is like saying “Go pick up my dry cleaning” when I really want you to pick up my dry cleaning AND wash my car–gee couldn’t you tell that’s what I meant?!)

Actually, I think it’s more like meaning “Go pick up my dry cleaning and bring it back here, trying not to lose or damage it in the process.” In other words, the works necessary for salvation are works that naturally flow from faith, just as Protestants have always maintained. The problem is in saying that these works are in no way causally necessary for final salvation. In order not to fall into heresy, proponents of “sola fide” have to make all sorts of contorted explanations of how works are always going to happen but aren’t necessary. As far as I’m concerned, that’s OK if you really have to do that, but it seems a bit excessive.

Someone just pointed out that sacraments actually aren’t works! Really? Sacraments are something you receive?

Really. Note that Martin Luther, surely a person with some right to talk about what “faith alone” means, believed this. This is why the discussion of baptismal regeneration is completely separate from the faith/works issue.

Or is it better said that they are an intended action that one believes will result in a receipt of some kind.

No, it’s not better said. Your formulation is both clumsier and less accurate.

Fine. But which is it? Do you believe in works or not? If sacraments aren’t works, what it?

I’m a Wesleyan theologically, not a Roman Catholic (though I’m a very Catholic-leaning Wesleyan). But I would say that sacraments and works are different because sacraments are means of grace–works flow out of the grace administered to us by means of the Word and Sacraments and received by faith. Works are not things we do to enter a relationship with God. But if our faith does not produce works, it withers and dies and we have no relationship with God.

I will let the Catholics say whether this is an accurate summary of their belief or not.

Also, someone was asking me to answer some question, but I honestly am not sure what the question was at this point…can you repeat?

I don’t know if I’m the one you have in mind, but I was asking you to explain how baptism (as a means of receiving regenerating grace) nullifies the Crucifixion while faith and repentance do not.
In other words, if you really think we have to do nothing, then faith and repentance can’t be necessary and everyone should be saved automatically by virtue of the Crucifixion (at least, everyone for whom Jesus died–we probably both believe that He died for all human beings). If faith and repentance are necessary, then obviously there are things that we “do” that are not “works” in the theological sense. To me baptism fits this even more easily than faith and repentance. All you have to do to be baptized is not resist–in fact someone could conceivably baptize you kicking and screaming, though such a baptism wouldn’t be valid (well, it’s valid in the case of infants, because the infant isn’t intending to resist baptism per se, but that’s another issue). The point is that baptism is done to you, though of course you have to consent. Faith and repentance are, to all appearances, quite active things that you do. I don’t mean to push this point, since it would suffice for my argument to show that baptism was no more a “work” than faith or repentance.

Edwin

 

[HailMary]

The Catholic view is that salvation is attained through faith AND works.

Its really not that simple.

Baptism, Eucharist, Confession…
see the Catechism for a better understanding

scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a4p2.htm#II

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s1c1a2.htm#IV

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#II

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#III
etc

 

[Gamera]

Someone just pointed out that sacraments actually aren’t works! Really? Sacraments are something you receive? Or is it better said that they are an intended action that one believes will result in a receipt of some kind. Sounds like “works” to me, but you claim they’re not.

Fine. But which is it? Do you believe in works or not? If sacraments aren’t works, what are?

That was me. “Works” are good deeds, and when Protestants say “works” they usually think of something done to “earn credit.” Sacraments are not good deeds, nor are they done to “earn credit” or to “earn our way to heaven” or anything of the sort. They are gifts which we receive from God, and through which God conveys grace.

Yes, we believe in works, but not in the sense that we often are accused of. Nobody could ever do enough “good deeds” to “earn” their way to heaven, if that’s what you’re thinking. Grace is God’s free gift. Once we receive that gift, though, we must do good and not evil, because if we sin we can lose that grace through our own misconduct.

 

[PBPGNFWMY]

It’s widely accepted in a very narrow circle. I grew up around evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants and never heard it (we would have said that the “water” was symbolic). I first encountered it in Surprised by Truth, which is a collection of Catholic conversion stories. I actually was annoyed with the writer who cited it, because I thought she was raking up some obscure and obviously ridiculous view to make Protestants seem ridiculous. I have since encountered it many times, mostly on Internet discussion forums!

To be fair, I also encountered it in the last place one would expect–in an Anglo-Catholic devotional tract which my priest made available during the Holy Thursday vigil before the Blessed Sacrament. Since the author of the tract almost certainly believed in baptismal regeneration, I accept that tract as evidence that someone can come to this interpretation without being impelled by a desperate desire to deny the obvious. But I still find it very strange and don’t think it fits the context at all (Jesus doesn’t say “born not only of water but also of the spirit”–everything about the context indicates that water and the spirit are two requirements specifically for entrance into the kingdom of heaven).

Edwin

It seems interesting to me that this interpretation has been called clever, ridiculous, obscure, a stre-e-e-tch and I’m sure I missed a few. But honestly, do you really believe that? It’s right there in black and white (and maybe red if you’re using King James…). Don’t allow your good judgment to be clouded. Jesus was so intent that Nicodemus didn’t misunderstand him again that he clarified for him instead of mystifying him. If what he said was not a clarification then was Jesus ignoring the fact that Nic didn’t get it?! That would be like a teacher answering a student’s question with yet another statement the student didn’t understand. Jesus was the most awesome teacher…he would not lead his student into more “confusion”. Instead he was saying “No, Nicodemus, I don’t mean you have to be born of your mother’s womb again I mean you have to be born of the Holy Spirit.” It really really does make sense no matter how badly you don’t it to.

Guys, Jesus really wants this to be simple. That is why the temple curtain tore upon his death so we could throw out all the mumbo-jumbo, rituals, traditions, sacrifices, etc. His message was simply “come to me”–that’s it! He took care of all the hard stuff for us by sacrificing himself on the cross! This is awesome! And we don’t deserve it, but the Bible is clear…we don’t have to “earn” it either! To attempt to earn our way to salvation belittles what Christ did on that cross!

I’m out for now…

 

[savedsinner]

(my argument that Jesus was clarifying to Nicodemus what type of birth actually saves you.) It’s not a clever rearrangement of meaning or anything of the sort…it is what many many Christians believe. I went to private school for 6 years…trust me…this is a widely accepted interpretation and I find it amazing that you are just now hearing it!

Well, most of have heard it, but we don’t accept it.

Though spiritually, you could say that Jesus might be referring to a “birth” where the Church is the Christian’s mother, and her water broke like in a natural birth, but unfortunately, most Christians in the world don’t hold to your interpretation of the passage.

You might need to widen your circle of Christian acquaintances.
I would hold that even not all Protestants hold your view of John 3.
I would say that all Catholics don’t, and I think that the eastern orthodox also don’t.

Let’s break down of the Christian Population of the World.
Catholic - 1116 million - 57%
Protestant - 590 million - 30%
Eastern Orthodox - 225 million - 11%
Other - 2%

So though this is a widely accepted view in your circles, it is only partially believed by 30% of Total number of Christians in the World.

 

[Church_Militant]

Guys, Jesus really wants this to be simple. That is why the temple curtain tore upon his death so we could throw out all the mumbo-jumbo, rituals, traditions, sacrifices, etc. His message was simply “come to me”–that’s it! He took care of all the hard stuff for us by sacrificing himself on the cross! This is awesome! And we don’t deserve it, but the Bible is clear…we don’t have to “earn” it either!

To attempt to earn our way to salvation belittles what Christ did on that cross!**

I’m out for now…**I agree that it’s simple, but not in a Sola Fide sort of way. The Catholic Church does not teach that we have “to earn it either.”

As you said, It’s right there in black & white.

In places like Acts 2:38, 22:16, John 20:19-23, 1st John 1:9, James 5:16, 1st Corinthians 11:23-30, Matthew 25:31-46, and a host of other passages. It has nothing to do with earning salvation, but has everything to do with obeying Our Lord (John 14:15) and in so doing taking up our crosses daily and following Him.

It is erroneous to believe that Catholics believe that we earn our salvation. We follow scripture, and in checking our beliefs against the writings of the early church one finds that they taught what we believe today, but you I didn’t find the same to be true with regard to the majority of modern n-C teachings.

May the peace of the Lord be always with you.

 

[HailMary]

Christ established a NEW COVENANT inaugurated at the Last Supper.

There is not much discussion worthy of critical thought without the covenant as the backbone.

 

[Mike_Brick]

Actually, I think it’s more like meaning “Go pick up my dry cleaning and bring it back here, trying not to lose or damage it in the process.” In other words, the works necessary for salvation are works that naturally flow from faith, just as Protestants have always maintained. The problem is in saying that these works are in no way causally necessary for final salvation.

I’m a Wesleyan theologically, not a Roman Catholic (though I’m a very Catholic-leaning Wesleyan). But I would say that sacraments and works are different because sacraments are means of grace–works flow out of the grace administered to us by means of the Word and Sacraments and received by faith. Works are not things we do to enter a relationship with God. But if our faith does not produce works, it withers and dies and we have no relationship with God.

I will let the Catholics say whether this is an accurate summary of their belief or not.

Edwin

PBPGNFWMY, see how easy it is, even our just barely separated brethern can pretty well answer your questions on Catholic teaching. (That’s a little humor, but also true too.) There are dozens of threads most of the time on this forum on Faith and Works and Faith Alone, etc. You can search them out and get a lot more info. in them.

But remember the only place in Holy Scripture where “Faith Alone” is found is in James 2:24, but I suggest you read from verse 14 through 26, and you will clearly see why we have that belief in Faith and Works too. But remember some to many non-catholics, especially the more recent evangelicals and fundamentalists use a different definition for works that we do, and that is the cause of the confusion. They believe works preceed faith, we believe that works flow from faith.

Peace

 

[RobNY]

It seems interesting to me that this interpretation has been called clever, ridiculous, obscure, a stre-e-e-tch and I’m sure I missed a few. But honestly, do you really believe that? It’s right there in black and white (and maybe red if you’re using King James…). Don’t allow your good judgment to be clouded. Jesus was so intent that Nicodemus didn’t misunderstand him again that he clarified for him instead of mystifying him. If what he said was not a clarification then was Jesus ignoring the fact that Nic didn’t get it?! That would be like a teacher answering a student’s question with yet another statement the student didn’t understand. Jesus was the most awesome teacher…he would not lead his student into more “confusion”. Instead he was saying “No, Nicodemus, I don’t mean you have to be born of your mother’s womb again I mean you have to be born of the Holy Spirit.” It really really does make sense no matter how badly you don’t it to.

Guys, Jesus really wants this to be simple. That is why the temple curtain tore upon his death so we could throw out all the mumbo-jumbo, rituals, traditions, sacrifices, etc. His message was simply “come to me”–that’s it! He took care of all the hard stuff for us by sacrificing himself on the cross! This is awesome! And we don’t deserve it, but the Bible is clear…we don’t have to “earn” it either! To attempt to earn our way to salvation belittles what Christ did on that cross!

I’m out for now…

Really. It’s something that would have never occurred to me if Protestant apologists had never mentioned it.

Personally, I think if you want to force that interpretation then you’re going to need to explain away the verses which says, ‘be baptized and have your sin washed away.’ Those verses so closely connect baptism to forgiveness of sin that it seems rather impossible to think otherwise.

But I’d like to discuss this post of yours with you:

I’m all confused now as to where this thread is going, but I just need some clarification…

The Catholic view is that salvation is attained through faith AND works. I hear that even though the Bible states many times that salvation is attained through faith, your response is that it doesn’t say “faith alone” (which to me is like saying “Go pick up my dry cleaning” when I really want you to pick up my dry cleaning AND wash my car–gee couldn’t you tell that’s what I meant?!)

Someone just pointed out that sacraments actually aren’t works! Really? Sacraments are something you receive? Or is it better said that they are an intended action that one believes will result in a receipt of some kind. Sounds like “works” to me, but you claim they’re not.

Fine. But which is it? Do you believe in works or not? If sacraments aren’t works, what are?

Also, someone was asking me to answer some question, but I honestly am not sure what the question was at this point…can you repeat?

The real reason we deny, “faith alone” is not because the bible says just, “faith” and not faith alone, but because is also says, “See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:25). Since the Bible flat out rejects this position, we find it prudent to do likewise. However, let’s take things back a step and start from common ground-- why one cannot work oneself to God.

What’s wrong with works salvation?

I really mean it. Think about it. For all that I hear so many Protestants (rightly) deride a works salvation, I find that so few of them really think about it, and locate why it’s so bad.

I think Paul has a pretty succinct way of saying it.

Let’s refer to Romans 4:4.

A worker’s wage is credited not as a gift, but as something due.

Not as a gift, but as something due. Let that sink in for a moment. Realize this is in the middle of a sermon where he’s telling us why Abraham was *not *justified by works and was justified by faith.

What is the relationship of a worker to an employer? It’s a legalistic relationship-- the worker works, and by the law, the employer must pay him. It’s no strange thing that one of the sins that cries out to heaven is depriving the working man of his due. He has a strict right to his earnings from his work.

 

[RobNY]

This is what we call commutative justice. This is on the level of person to person, and basically what it says is, I do this for you, you do this for me. This Dominican site has a helpful definition of commutative justice, “Commutative justice - which inclines one individual to render to another individual (or group which constitutes a moral person) what is strictly due.”

What’s the problem with this? Well… commutative justice is, “strictly due.” One party obligates the other.

Catholic theology strictly and firmly denies that commutative justice ever enters into the relationship between Creator and created. Period. End of sentence. The created can never obligate God based on work to give him anything, let alone salvation.

So what’s wrong with, ‘works salvation’-- it is absurd-- how could one obligate God to give one something? How could entering into a legal relationship with God ever be fruitful? We all know it is absurd.

Hence Paul proceeds to say, " But when one does not work, yet believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" (v. 5). When one does not work, i.e., one one does not do as the preceding verse says and try to enter into a relationship with God whereby they try to obligate God.

However, there are verses which, “faith alone” proponents find very difficult to understand, but which can be understood very simply within this framework.

These are passages which speak of rewards on behalf of God. This, after all, is the God who, “give each of you what your works deserve” (Rev 2:23).

It is constant in Scripture that God judges us or repays us according to our deeds. In the Last Judgment scene Christ very powerfully and forcefully announces that those who do good works, the corporal works of mercy, will enter into eternal life, and those who wickedly sin by omitting such works will be damned eternally (Matt 25:31-46). Our Lord says, “I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds” (Rev 22:12).

And so this sits uneasily with simple reductions of the James passage, as if James is the aberration and Paul’s is the rule (in the context of those who take Paul and James as these two irreconcilable things, and seem to have no solution except to say: James really didn’t mean what he said [ridiculous, and only driven by a preset theological agenda!]). Clearly the words of our savior show that this is more complex. Jesus gives a very large position to works.

But perhaps Paul too is a traitor-- or at least schizophrenic-- for he uses the same line that our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, does.

Indeed, what is most unsettling for an oversimplified view is the parallelism-- those who do good works are rewarded with eternal life, and those who do evil works are damned eternally. This is especially troublesome because then one must ask: but is one saved, not by works, but by faith?

But perhaps Paul too is a traitor-- or at least schizophrenic-- for he uses the same line that our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, does.

In the second chapter of the Epistle to the Romans he warns those who, by their evil works, “are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of” judgment. Why? “For he will render to every man according to his works” (v. 6).

This is especially unsettling, because he not only says this, and implies the parallelism found in Our Lord’s words, but he goes further. In full, he says,

who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness (vv. 6-8)

Indeed, I think most pass over the tremendous import of these words, namely, that God repays those who do good works with the reward of eternal life. Paul’s line is unmistakable.

But, then, doesn’t this somehow violate Paul’s principle? That one cannot work and so obligate God?

 

[RobNY]

This is where Paul’s principle (Rom 4:4) is important in relation to Paul’s teaching on grace. There is a difference between a grace relationship and a works relationship (in the sense that we have defined it).

In a works relationship, of the type Paul condemns, one is working so as to obligate God to repay oneself. This is not only fruitless, it is foolish. As if man could obligate God to do anything! It is an insult against the divine.

But in a grace relationship, one cries to God, “Abba, Father!” (Rom 8:15) in a “spirit of sonship” (8:14).

We often miss the importance of the familial import of these verses. Here is the essential difference between the two relationships. In the works relationship, one is engaging with God in a legalistic relationship, trying to obligate God by one’s work. In the grace relationship one becomes a member of God’s family and approaches him as an adopted son.

Picture how a father acts in regards to his child. A father is not harsh, he is loving. And picture a son-- he does not approach his father as an unloving master, but as benevolent. Above all, the son tries, no matter how inadequately, to please his father.

Now, this is no surprise. Speaking of faith, the letter to the Hebrews proclaims:

But without faith it is impossible to please him, for anyone who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him (Heb 11:6).

This occurs after the famous definition of faith offered just verses before (11:1). Now, it is peculiar to note the interplay between faith and works here. Why is it impossible to please God without faith?

In the first, one must believe God exists. How can one please God if one doesn’t believe God exists? Who would even try?

In the second, the person of faith must believe God ‘rewards those who seek him.’ Wouldn’t it be pointless to seek God if we didn’t think that he would reward us for doing so?

And so this is exactly the position of the adopted son-- he believes that God the father exists, and tries to please him by his works.

In the strict sense-- that of commutative justice-- he can never please God the Father, for he can never obligate Him. But, coming to God in faith, in the system of grace, God will look upon him and his works, and he will benevolently bestow upon him rewards-- not because of strict justice, but out of the overabundance of His love.

Hence Augustine’s beautiful passage, adopted by the Council of Trent and used in the recent Catechism:

                           You are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts.

Truly the mystery of salvation is a mystery of God’s great love and benevolence.

And so, the James passage-- was Abraham justified by faith or works?

It’s a false dilemma really. He was justified by faith *and *works. (And Scripture clearly says so.)

Put in this light, James’s comments on justification are commonsense, for when we come to God in a relationship of grace, believing fervently that he exists and will reward us, it is no mystery that we are, “justified by works” as James attests, and further, it is no mystery how faith is then related to this process, “active along with” the works, because one must come to God believing that He exists and that he will reward us (what Hebrews calls faith). Nevertheless, they are two seperate realities, as James attests, being, “active along with” each other, and not some monstrous amalgam of, “saving faith,” which is not Biblical.

Understood in this way, we understand that neither faith nor works obligate God out of strict justice to give us grace, but because God is a loving Father, who first loved us, and gave us the grace so that we could come to Him, when we are adopted sons of His, He graciously rewards us for what we do-- and that’s gospel truth, as Jesus says (Matthew 25), as James says (James 2) and as Paul says (Rom 2:6-8).

Now, as for sacraments, the answer is simple. Do the sacraments represent man obligating God to give him something? Of course not. The sacraments are promises of grace instituted by God. If anything, they are God giving us His solemn promise that He will give us grace. Since sacraments are the work of God, and not the work of man, they are not works at all.

In fact, Catholic theology is very strict about saying that Jesus Christ is the true minister of all the sacraments, and he works through the priest who is only a minister. The sacrament’s efficacy is purely because of Jesus and not at all because of the minister.

-Rob

 

[malachi_a_serva]

This interpretation is a recent tradtion of men, pure and simple. You cannot find it taught before the Reformation. Doesn’t that give you pause?

I do not know if there were any interpretations previous to the reformation but lets say there weren’t.

That would just be evidence that the Bible was in the hands of the catholic church - the catholic church told people what it meant. It was not until the movement to get the Bible in peoples’ hands that they read it themselves and perhaps deduced that it what it means.

Interesting enough when I first read that verse - before I was “born again” it made total sense to me - it was totally logical that it referred to the natural birth(womb). Yes I realize that is my fallible interpritation but it hit me like a ton of bricks.

When reading it after to see how someone can think it refers to baptism it is difficult for me to see - but I can see it. Yet the natural one to me appears to be the natural birth.

Then IMHO I experienced exactly what it was referring to so that solidified it.

Just explain my experience with a reason why no interpritations of it that way before the reformation.

 

[Gamera]

I do not know if there were any interpretations previous to the reformation but lets say there weren’t.

That would just be evidence that the Bible was in the hands of the catholic church - the catholic church told people what it meant. It was not until the movement to get the Bible in peoples’ hands that they read it themselves and perhaps deduced that it what it means.

Interesting enough when I first read that verse - before I was “born again” it made total sense to me - it was totally logical that it referred to the natural birth(womb). Yes I realize that is my fallible interpritation but it hit me like a ton of bricks.

When reading it after to see how someone can think it refers to baptism it is difficult for me to see - but I can see it. Yet the natural one to me appears to be the natural birth.

Then IMHO I experienced exactly what it was referring to so that solidified it.

Just explain my experience with a reason why no interpritations of it that way before the reformation.

Under this theory, Jesus’ basic teaching of how one can enter heaven was lost to humanity between the first century and the sixteenth. Does that really seem plausible?

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Let’s break down of the Christian Population of the World.
Catholic - 1116 million - 57%
Protestant - 590 million - 30%
Eastern Orthodox - 225 million - 11%
Other - 2%

This always gave me thought of the exact opposite. Fewer = perhaps more accurate.

Matt. 7:14 "Because narrow is the gate…and there are few who find it" NKJV

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Under this theory, Jesus’ basic teaching of how one can enter heaven was lost to humanity between the first century and the sixteenth. Does that really seem plausible?

I see your point.

Yet I believe - as the Jews did (I think) that a Savior was there way to Heaven. So trust in him would suffice.

 

[Gamera]

Alright, well, to narrow the issue to the OP, by now it must be clear that Catholics do not believe that baptism “adds” anything to Jesus’ sacrifice. We believe that baptism is simply the method by which we claim the forgiveness which Jesus won for us on the cross. Whether baptism is necessary for salvation is really a separate debate — I think the OP’s question has been answered pretty thoroughly. “What do Catholics believe the crucifixion accomplished?” Catholics believe that the crucifixion accomplished the payment for our sins. We don’t believe that water baptism “adds” to that payment.