Who isn't saved?

[4_marks]

4 Marks: Without prejudice to the supreme authority of the Holy Father, one can still be respectfully critical of his actions. The Popes are not impeccable…and recall that St. Paul opposed the Prince of the Apostles to his face. (Though it is true that St. Paul and St. Peter are together proclaimed the “Princes of the Apostles”).

Respectfully critical, yes, but also reasonably critical. The man has Parkinson’s. He has limitations and is not some superhuman figure. I’m sure similar demands were placed on Jesus. In fact, he was taunted: “If you are truly the Son of God then prove it to us by…” Jesus did not live up to the expectations of many and they became scandalized. In fact, I know many practicing Jews that do not accept Jesus as Messiah because he didn’t fulfill all of the expectations that the Jewish people have of the Messiah.

You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.

Besides we are all commissioned as Catholics to go into the world and live the Good News. This includes influencing the political arena and on those who do not share our faith. The Pope is appointed the Vicar of Christ to all the world, Catholic and non-Catholic alike. Just because others don’t accept his authority over them doesn’t mean that it isn’t legitimate.

 

[Katholikos]

Have you ever seen the Pope hold up a picture of the poor starving to death and then say to one billion Catholics, “See, I told you so. You did not tithe and now people are starving to death”. No! the Pope will not treat Catholics the way he treats the world.

JP2 doesn’t need to be told how to be Pope!

Your allegation that the poor and starving people of the world are the result of Catholics not tithing is bull-oney. Many factors cause and perpetuate poverty, most of them political.

JMJ Jay

 

[JKirkLVNV]

john654:

JKirkLVNV,

I enjoyed reading the story that you posted. BUT here comes the BUT!

T When you add thye word MOST to your statment above, it becomes absolutly false and against the very word of God. Most people are not going to Heaven, acording to Jesus Christ anyway.

I live in the “Bible Belt”, Nashville Tennessee. I am around Protestants ALL the time. This is lip service country. it reminds me of my catholic Church in California. Everyone is going straight to heaven because they believe it their heart. You may bellieve what you said in your heart about most people living a life of charity, BUT you would just be sincerly wrong.

THANK GOD your grandfather is cooperating with the grace he received at baptism!

John

John: I assume that you are speaking of Our Lord’s Words:“Narrow is the way and few are they that find it.” I don’t dispute that at all. I was talking about the people that I saw, that surrounded me. I understand what you mean: the “name it and claim it crowd,” etc. And I’m talking “moral assurance,” which I know you cannot infallibly have about another person, not absolute assurance. But the evidence before my eyes leads me to believe that my grandfather and grandmother (who died in 1997) and that old pastor will be in Heaven with Jesus. I’m speaking of “walk matching talk” here, not “they’ll get in because, relatively speaking, they were sincere in what was, unfortunately, a misguided belief,” though I do believe in what the Church teaches as the mitigating factor of “invincible ignorance.” I’ve seen and heard people who are “secure” in their faith of presumption. You’d have to know these people to get what I mean, though I bet you know some as well. I don’t deny the narrowness of the Way, as I hope I would never contradict Our Savior. In the passage you quoted, I was trying to explain that “most” (and I should have said “of my aquaintance”) people don’t cling to “Sola Fide” because they want an easy “in.” They cling to it because they see what Jesus did on the Cross as being all-sufficient (which it is and they don’t understand that we believe that, too, and they can’t seem to grasp that we don’t think we can work our way into heaven). Of THOSE people, most (again of my limited aquintance in a VERY small Northeast Texas town) most go on to live lives of great charity and faith. I’m not saying most people go to Heaven. That just ain’t so! Yes, I do thank God and I have always been grateful for the fidelity of my grandparents. If it hadn’t been for them, I doubt I would be a Christian at all, let alone come to see the Truth of Holy Mother Church. My name is John, too, by the way. God bless you.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Steven Merten:

Hello 4 marks,

Have you ever seen the Pope hold up a picture of the poor starving to death and then say to one billion Catholics, “See, I told you so. You did not tithe and now people are starving to death”. No! the Pope will not treat Catholics the way he treats the world.

You’re kidding, right? He is CONSTANTLY after us about just this sort of thing. Our old Holy Father is ever poking and proding with the end of his pastoral staff, getting his Master’s sheep in line and headed in the right direction. Unfortunately, we’re willful and moody and easily distracted sheep (not to mention downright dumb). My heart breaks open with gratitude every time I see him on TV or in the paper, for his love and fidelity for his Lord and for us. May you live forever, Holy Father!

 

[john654]

John Kirk,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. My experience hasn’t been the same as yours. I too hope that that old paster is in Heaven. I do think however that if he was still alive, and I had the oportunity to talk to him, I could ask him about the Eucharist and he would give me all the reasons why it wasn’t the body and blood of Christ. He would, I bet, tell me it was a symbol. I personaly have NEVER met a Protestant that doesn’t tell me that. In California, at St Columbans Church, that’s what the Pastor and Nuns there taught and thought. MOST ALL the world is Protesting the word of God. Protestants and most Catholics contracept ETC. I don’t disagree with you second post. I think that an over welming majority of Protestants can be described as the MANY in John 6:66.

Peace,
John

 

[Exporter]

twf,

Your Profile states that “You are seeking full communion”.

What in the world does that mean?

You said that to seek full communion was your religion. Did you mean this to be a Catholic position? I have never heard of it.

 

[Exporter]

4 Marks: Without prejudice to the supreme authority of the Holy Father, one can still be respectfully critical of his actions. The Popes are not impeccable…and recall that St. Paul opposed the Prince of the Apostles to his face. (Though it is true that St. Paul and St. Peter are together proclaimed the “Princes of the Apostles”).

---

St. Peter was NOT opposed or lectured to in any way. Go back and read…who had the final say in the matter. In fact I believe St. Peter didn’t speak until last. He had the last word. And St. Peter was never called “Pope” to his face. That is a Latin word. It was started to be used to designate the Bishop of Rome as the leader of all Bishops long after Peter’s death.

 

[Pace]

twf:

It seems to me that many Catholics today almost seem to think that almost anyone can have “invicible ignorance” and still be saved. The Apostles, the Fathers, and Catholics for the vast majority of Church history saw an urgency in evangelizing the Pagans. Today it is almost suggested that unless you outright reject the Catholic Church, knowing that it is Christ’s Church, you shall be saved. This, when taken to the extreme, suggests it really isn’t that hard for pagans and members of various non-Catholic religions to obtain salvation. I don’t believe that this view can be reconciled with the Fathers, the Popes down through the ages, nor Scripture. Sure, we must accept a possibility of salvation for those outside the visible confines of the Church…but many priests and laity have reached the point in which there are almost no benefits in being in the Church.

I truly believe that the perfect balance required in reconciling modern pagans with modern Christians has been accomplished through the movie Mulholland Drive .

This ‘person’ disguised as a movie delivers both the pagan and the christian to the face of Ultimate Reality. The pagan learns that this face belongs to a living person, and the christian learns …well, probably that the pagan is a “very good” creation (i.e. how to overcome the ‘pornography’ of the pagan and the anger over the increasingly comfortable existence of that pagan in today’s world). Perhaps the main thing it teaches both is the reality of Mortal Sin; a thing I think may be the key to it all …down here. In short, the movie unites everything that is divided in our modern world.

You all should give it a try and see what you think.

 

[twf]

twf,

Your Profile states that “You are seeking full communion”.

What in the world does that mean?

You said that to seek full communion was your religion. Did you mean this to be a Catholic position? I have never heard of it.

I am seeking full communion with the Catholic Church. This is the expression typically used to describe Christians who are entering the Catholic Church, but have not yet been confirmed. (Whether or not I am properly a Christian is uncertain, as I will be conditionally baptized, but that is not the point).

It is commonly used by Catholic Answers and the like.

 

[twf]

****************************************************************************
St. Peter was NOT opposed or lectured to in any way. Go back and read…who had the final say in the matter. In fact I believe St. Peter didn’t speak until last. He had the last word. And St. Peter was never called “Pope” to his face. That is a Latin word. It was started to be used to designate the Bishop of Rome as the leader of all Bishops long after Peter’s death.

I never said that Peter was called “Pope”. I’m not sure why you mentioned that.

The incident I am referring to has nothing to do with Peter speaking. It was his actions that St. Paul was critical of. You told me to “go back and read…what had the final say in the matter”. Do you know what matter I am referring to? From Galatians 2:11-21 (NRSV):

*But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.
The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?
"We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles;
nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
"But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be!
"For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor.
"For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.
"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
“I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” *

Of course St. Peter had the final say in matters of faith and morals. This does not mean that he was perfect, and St. Paul clearly felt he had the right to point out his superior’s fault.

 

[redeemed1]

Of course St. Peter had the final say in matters of faith and morals. This does not mean that he was perfect, and St. Paul clearly felt he had the right to point out his superior’s fault.

A little name study is in order here;
Simon = Shimon in Hebrew
Peter = petros = little stone in Greek
Cephas = little stone in Aramaic

Offence taken when you take away the authority of Jesus and the authority given to Paul as well as Peter.
1 Peter 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
1 Peter 5:3-4 Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
Peter never felt superior to Paul or he would not have commended Paul for his writings even though they were difficult to understand.

2 Peter 3:9-18 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.** And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.** Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

---

Now here we have a vouch safe for Scripture too. So say it again that the Holy Bible was not canonized before the rcc got hold of it. The RCC was not even in existence at that time. Hello?

 

[JGC]

redeemed1:

Peter = petros = little stone in Greek
Cephas = little stone in Aramaic
]

Rubbish. Many protestant scholars acknowledge this just isn’t true. Also, read on

From Ask an Apologist
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=332269&postcount=2

The following is excerpted from the article
“Peter the Rock” by Jimmy Akin

“One of the key discoveries in Scripture that led to my conversion to the Catholic faith was the realization that Peter is the “rock” that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 16:17–19. I can still remember when, one afternoon in August 1991, I was reading a Catholic book quoting the passage and my eyes fell on a structural feature of the text that required me to revise my views on it. Up to this point, I had always said to myself that Catholics were wrong in supposing Peter to be the rock on which Christ would build his Church. That rock, I held, was the revelation of Jesus’ identity as the Messiah. In the passage, I thought, the “small stone” Peter (petros) was being contrasted with the “large rock” (petra) of Jesus.

What I did not know at the time was that the linguistic argument made by some Protestants regarding the Greek text’s use of the terms petros and petra was off base. There had been a distinction between the meanings of these terms in some early Greek poetry, but that distinction was gone by the time of Jesus. In the first century, when Matthew’s Gospel was composed, the two terms were synonyms (cf. D. A. Carson’s treatment of the passage in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan).

I also had not devoted sufficient attention to the fact that Jesus and Peter did not speak Greek in everyday language, but Aramaic. (Greek was the language of commerce in first century Palestine; Aramaic was the language of everyday life.) Behind the Greek text of Matthew 16:17–19 there was an Aramaic conversation, and in the conversation there would have been no distinction between the terms representing petros and petra. In both cases, the same word—kepha (from which we get “Cephas”)—would have been used. Hermeneutically, one should read a translation text in harmony with the language that underlies it since the translation is simply a means to understanding what originally was said. Consequently, Jesus’ statement in Aramaic—“You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church”—should be decisive for our interpretation.

Basically, Jesus’ speech to Peter consists of three statements. The first of the three statements is a clear blessing on Peter. Jesus says, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!” The third is also a blessing: “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” But if the first and third statements are blessings then the middle statement—“And I tell you, you are Peter”— taken in its immediate context, must be a blessing as well. Jesus thus is not contrasting and belittling Peter as a small, insignificant stone with the second statement. It, like the ones before and after it, is a blessing that builds him up.

I noticed that the structure of the three statements required Peter to be the rock. Each statement consisted of two parts: first a basic declaration and then a longer explanation which unpacked the meaning of the declaration. (The explanations also had two parts, an assertion followed by a contrast, but this need not detain us since it does not affect the fact that Peter is the rock.) Jesus’ first statement, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!” is explained by “for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” This is a reason why Simon is blessed. The third statement, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” is explained by Jesus’ remarks on binding and loosing. The power to bind and loose is part of what it means to have the keys to the kingdom. That being the case, the second statement, “And I tell you, you are Peter” is explained by “and on this rock I will build my Church.”

No two ways about it. Peter is the rock.”

 

[abcdefg]

Who isn’t saved? those who have no desire to be saved are the 1st to be damned