Why is the Catholic Religion the truth?

[donnak]

You claim that the Protestants do not know the teachings of the Catholic Church and that we ‘distort your belief, like we do the Bible’.

I am an ex-Catholic turned Protestant. Do you know anything about Protestants ? (By the way, we do believe Mary was the mother of Jesus; it’s in the Bible).

You claim we ‘distort’ your belief as well as the Bible. Please explain.

Since you are a self proclaimed expert on Protestants, please explain what we believe so that I can understand what I believe.

I am so sorry you feel this way. You have no idea how much we have in common.

 

[Mannyfit75]

You claim that the Protestants do not know the teachings of the Catholic Church and that we ‘distort your belief, like we do the Bible’.

I am an ex-Catholic turned Protestant. Do you know anything about Protestants ? (By the way, we do believe Mary was the mother of Jesus; it’s in the Bible).

You claim we ‘distort’ your belief as well as the Bible. Please explain.

Since you are a self proclaimed expert on Protestants, please explain what we believe so that I can understand what I believe.

I am so sorry you feel this way. You have no idea how much we have in common.

Some Protestants claimed that we worship saints and Mary. We Catholics say we don’t. We honor and venerate them.

We Catholics believed in the Real Presence. While the majority of Protestants say Jesus is symbolic in the bread.

Protestants say there is no Biblical proof of Purgatory. Yet, we Catholics has show verses that support it exist.

So yes, Protestants do say that we distort the Bible. It’s not their fault, and they do not acknowledge our faith as both Biblical and consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I know there are good Protestants who respect our belief and try to understand Catholicism, but those who say we got it wrong are sadly mistaken.

 

[jburgherr]

It would appear that you are looking for the “magic bullet” as it were. You are wanting some one to say…“Go here, look at this…all of the questions of the universe are answered here, and you will have no doubts.”

Sorry, you are going to be disappointed. No religion has such a thing or place as that. If they did, there wouldn’t be so many different religions in the world. There would only be one!

Now your logical mind mind might try to deduce that if no religion has such non-refutable, scientific evidence that proves “their religion” is the only true religion, then maybe all this religion stuff is just a bunch of hooey.

On the other hand, maybe God just doesn’t work the way YOU want Him to and He doesn’t spoon-feed man with all knowledge…of Himself, or the world and universe in general. Maybe you have to put in effort, and maybe you also have to have faith. Maybe God’s way is not your way! Maybe God decided there is something to be learned in the search! Something necessary and essential.

Everyone approaches religion with (one would hope) an amount of logic. Things need to make sense. Things need to add up. But sometimes where things don’t add up initially, one must have faith.

Slowly…if you wish to continue your “search” as you would an undergraduate, graduate thesis, or some other sociological experiment, and in your heart you are really wanting an answer, you will not find what you are looking for…Not here…not in any religion.

If you are truly looking for God, you must allow for the fact that not all answers of the universe reside with science or what can be proved by reading books. Please don’t mistake that I am saying science and books are no help, they are. I am saying they don’t have all answers. They can’t. If God is omnipotent and omnipresant…how do you quantify the un-quantify-able?

Open your heart along with your brain. Spend time at a Catholic Church in an adoration chapel where the Most Blessed Sacrament - Jesus Christ is present in a physical way…body, blood, soul and divinity. Ask God to help guide you on your journey…and then shut up long enough to hear his small still voice!

 

[proudcatholic2]

Dear slowly;

You said: "**I am looking for a few good reasons why Catholics believe that their Religion is true: **

My account was suspended 3 times (Now they blocked my IP, so I can’t even access this site, Why all this?) because Catholics hate me for saying that there is such a thing as a Catholic (Christian) Terrorist. Some hate me because I am a Muslim (remember Jesus Loves us All). To those who are angry with me I say that I am very sorry, but I had to tell the truth, and believe me I feel your pain (It hurts). For those who say there is no such a thing as a Catholic (Christian) terrorist I have no apology at all.

You must face it, Catholic (Christian) terrorist exist…and here we go again, very sad news:

Thursday, 8 September 2005
Rwanda
Several Rwandan priests (Catholic Terrorists) and nuns have been convicted of participating in the killing of some 800,000 minority Tutsis and moderate Hutus.
For details, please visit: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/4225366.stm

Feel free to email me your questions: proudcatholic@minister.com

Seek the truth, tell it but do not hide it. I Share You Decide

 

[Maranatha]

I can see from all the responses here that Catholics regard the historical evidence for the authority of the Church in great regard and also as crucial for their faith.

The fact is that seemingly rational and intelligent historical scolars from not only Protestant Religions but also from the Mormon Religion, with access to the same historical documents and reasearch techniques that Catholic scolars have, are able to confirm their own interpretation of God’s will within history.

I am sure it gives great comfort to Catholics to disregard such sincere efforts by scolars outside the Church as incompetent, corrupted or obviously erronous. And I am sure Protestants and Mormons similarly have the same attitude to scholars outside of their Religions.

For myself, I find it impossible to consciously disregard or trivialize the problem and challenge that such conflicting historical interpretations bring. If I am to be sure of the truth of any Religion, there has got to be another way.

Yes, Catholics regard historical evidence as important. Jesus rose form the dead in the fullness of time. He also started a Church. These are important historical facts.

Catholics also think philosophy, morality and spiritual evidence is important. All of our separated brothers and sisters disagree with the historical evidence that Christ fonded a church that has lasted 2,000 years and subsists in the Catholic Church today. That is why we can start by discussing history with all protestants.

Depending on the denomination, we agree in part or in full with the arguments from these other supporting evidences. (These could each have a thread of their own.)

One philosophical proof is the consistency of faith and reason. Catholic hold that both reveal truth and truth can not contradict itself. Since this is true then science and religion can never contradict.

One moral proof that Catholicism is the Church Christ founded on the Apostles (the Apostolic Church) is the teaching against contraception. If you research this teaching you’ll see that Christians who have abandoned this teachings have not held to the Apostolic teachings. If we allow contraception we will, for consistency, have to allow for abortion or unplanned pregnancies. Also allowing abortion in the case of rape and incest is inconsistent with the teaching that an unborn human is a person.

One spiritual proof for Catholicism is the obvious guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit the Catholic Church would not have survived longer then any other earthly institution even in the face of some incompetent leadership.

 

[Robert902]

You have no idea what the Catholic Church teaches. The head of the Church is Jesus. The Church is called the Mystical Body of Jesus. Peter is the Prime Minister, to be the Vicar of Christ.

This is a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

669 As Lord, Christ is also head of the Church, which is his Body. Taken up to heaven and glorified after he had thus fully accomplished his mission, Christ dwells on earth in his Church. The redemption is the source of the authority that Christ, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, exercises over the Church. “The kingdom of Christ [is] already present in mystery”, “on earth, the seed and the beginning of the kingdom”.

*666 Jesus Christ, the head of the Church, precedes us into the Father’s glorious kingdom so that we, the members of his Body, may live in the hope of one day being with him for ever.

548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis:

It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi).
Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ. *

So again, the Protestant as always, do not know the teachings Catholic Church. They distort our belief, like they do the Bible…

How have I distorted the Bible? The Bible tells me that God’s elect are a royal priesthood and also saints. In otherwords I am a priest and a saint according to the Bible. Do you disagreee? I can provide versus (NKJ) if you would like me to.

God Bless,
Robert

 

[Neithan]

Do not rule out the virtue of Faith. God will not directly tell you the truth (reveal it to you) because then you would be denied the exercise of this valuable virtue, among others. So we must search out the Truth with the tools given to us.

Catholicism is the religion of Logos. Reason, rationality. We worship the rational personification of Divinity (as in, actually a Person) incarnate (i.e. became a human being). So, we arrive at our faith by way of reason, but we also have to *start *with faith, in order to establish the validity of reason.

In order to arrive at any kind of belief, you have to start with some assumptions–things you cannot prove with reason alone.

Two of these basic assumptions are:

**1.) **Existence Is

This is arguably the most subtle and most vital to your entire worldview, and will rule out all the *Dharmic *religions, the oriental faiths–Buddhim, Taoism, Hinduism etc.–whose adherents do not hold this assumption. This is the belief–unprovable–that there *is *something rather than nothing. That existence truly is, and is not an illusion, and that *you *exist as a true self-identity.

**2.) **Everything which is has a reason why it is

This assumption, known as the Principle of Sufficient Reason, is the second most critical and pervasive point of a person’s worldview. If you accept this, which is simple common sense to 99% of human beings, then you must abandon the perspective of absolute skepticism and will inevitably arrive at the logical proof of an uncaused rational Cause of existence… a.k.a. ‘God.’ This assumption effectively rules out atheism. Note that denying this principle also denies the validity of the modern scientific method.
Further note that atheistic science is inherently self-contradictory.

Now, the major faiths which hold both of these crucial assumptions are the three main occidental *Abrahamic *religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. So we can start with these three.

I think you are on the right track: examining historical evidence is probably the most effective way of deciding which of these three religions is true, however, keep in mind that any belief or acceptance of historical facts demands a certain degree of faith, since none of it can any longer be observed directly.

With that said, I offer my personal interpretation:

Islam purports to be a kind of corrective addendum to Judaism and Christianity; however, its venerated historical writings demonstrate fundamental misconceptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition and doctrines, particularly concerning the latter, and arbitrarily change the historical accounts given 500 years earlier concerning the life of Christ. Why believe a single account from a single author (Koran) about the life of Christ written ~600 years after his death and deny the validity of various corroborating accounts from various authors (Gospels) written ~30-60 years after his death? Historical evidence is invariably in favour of Christianity here.

Deciding for Christianity over Judaism is trickier, and all I can point to is the historicity of the Incarnation, Life, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. It’s a rational faith grounded in a firm hope.

Within Christianity, the most poignant argument in favour of Catholicism (Roman and Eastern(!)) is simply that it is the only Church still existing since the time of Christ. That’s some pretty solid historical evidence. You might be surprised how little historical basis any current Protestant denomination really has.

I strongly recommend a book called The Everlasting Man, written by one of the greatest 20th century Catholic Apologists, G.K. Chesterton. This will offer you a powerful historical argument in favour of Catholic Christianity, and it’s very entertaining.

God Bless You

 

[slowly]

Hi Neithan

Thanks for these ideas.

In order to arrive at any kind of belief, you have to start with some assumptions–things you cannot prove with reason alone.

Some posters here seem to think that this issue could be solved in a couple of minutes, so I am glad to see some kind of acknowledgement of the limitations of a purely historical approach (if I understand you correctly). Is this official Church policy? I ask because other posters seem to be less concerned/aware about the requirement of faith.

You might be surprised how little historical basis any current Protestant denomination really has.

Seemingly enough to keep the Protestant theologians and scholars happy.

 

[ltravis]

I can see from all the responses here that Catholics regard the historical evidence for the authority of the Church in great regard and also as crucial for their faith.

The fact is that seemingly rational and intelligent historical scolars from not only Protestant Religions but also from the Mormon Religion, with access to the same historical documents and reasearch techniques that Catholic scolars have, are able to confirm their own interpretation of God’s will within history.

I am sure it gives great comfort to Catholics to disregard such sincere efforts by scolars outside the Church as incompetent, corrupted or obviously erronous. And I am sure Protestants and Mormons similarly have the same attitude to scholars outside of their Religions.

For myself, I find it impossible to consciously disregard or trivialize the problem and challenge that such conflicting historical interpretations bring. If I am to be sure of the truth of any Religion, there has got to be another way.

I can tell this is the crux of your discernment right now, so perhaps we should explore it a bit more. You suggest that non-Catholic scholars can also justify their faith through history just as Catholics. I would like to challenge that. Could you give us some concrete examples of a non-Catholic argument based on historical evidence? I have a hard time understanding how anyone can get around the historical evidence for Catholicism. I am not saying there isn’t, but if there is it would be most helpful to see the arguments up front so we can address them. I think that would really help us all.

I have to refer to that great link provided earlier:

No other ancient writings have manuscripts available today that were written at a time as close to the originals as scripture. That, and the corroboration of other non-scriptural historical knowledge, gives the bible a firm foundation as being historical and accurate. Catholics use that historical authenticity (and not just faith) to support scriptural basis for the infallibility and authority of the Church, and with that authority, the Church claims the bible is truly inspired - on historical grounds.
Proving Inspiration

Now, what about the question of the value of the guidance of the Spirit in discerning the truth? Well, here is what I think. I believe that when you submit to reason and faith, provided you are open to the truth if it is faithfully presented to you, you will be guided to the truth, which subsists in the Catholic Church. In good faith, you still may not arrive there (as many don’t). However, if you really tried you best, God will not hold you accountable and you will still be able to attain salvation. The downside is that it will be more difficult for you without access to the sacraments and community. You will also be depriving yourself of full membership on Christ’s kingdom on earth now, which is a real loss in and of itself. In short, humbly submit to God and use all the gifts he avails you (faith, intellect, reason, perseverence, humility, community…) in finding the truth and you will do alright.

LT

 

[slowly]

…
Could you give us some concrete examples of a non-Catholic argument based on historical evidence?
…

The Protestant Religion teaches that the Catholic Church is a distortion of the original church that was founded by Christ and that this corruption started when the church came under the patronage of the Roman emperor Constantine.

Protestants believe that they have rediscovered the true Church by going back to the Bible and by using that as the only source for their understanding of what the true Church must be like, its organizational structures, its doctrines and beliefs, its ceremonies, its sacraments etc.

Now regardless of whether this account is true, I find this a plausible theory. History could in principle have turned out like this. The original Church could have been corrupted. There is some symmetry with the way in which the Israelites have strayed from God and the possibility of the original church’s corruption.

I also find the Catholic explanation plausible. There is definitely something satisfying about the idea of the Church’s continuity from the original founding until now.

Now in principle this disagreement could be resolved by historical analysis of the Bible, since both churches lay claim to the Bible as the true foundation of their Religions. But in practice it does not appear to be that easy. This argument has been going on since the 15th and 16th centuries. In our age this argument has become quite sophisticated. It involves interpretations of words in the original languages, contextualization of phrases, understanding of the limitations and processes of ancient translation methods, cross references between different books and other researching techniques of which I know very little.

Now I am sure that Catholics can make a very convincing argument against this Protestant interpretation of history. I know there must be a convincing argument or else the Catholic Church would have stopped existing long ago. But I also know that I should not make my mind up before also listening to the arguments from the Protestant apologists. (Making a decision before listening to both sides of a story would be like a judge finding the defendant guilty before hearing his plea.)

I also know their arguments will be convincing or otherwise the Protestant churches would have died out as well.

And this is where I get stuck with the historical arguments: If the experts with all their knowledge and techniques cannot reach consensus with their interpretations of the Bible in this regard, what chance do I have? I might as well try to choose between two conflicting theories in quantum physics, of which I also know very little.

Is it unreasonable for me to expext these scholars to reach consensus? I think not. For example in the field of science there appears to be a definite convergence of human thinking. There are differences as well, but in the more established areas of science convergence is evident and the resulting scientific models have been used successfully (at least in a scientific way) in many areas of modern life.

I have a hard time understanding how anyone can get around the historical evidence for Catholicism. I am not saying there isn’t, but if there is it would be most helpful to see the arguments up front so we can address them. I think that would really help us all.

I am not a Protestant and neither am a historical scholar so I am not going to make their case here but I am sure that if you are really interested it shouldn’t be too difficult to get hold of these arguments.

Strictly speaking no one really has to get around the historical evidence for Catholicism. Other believers just have to make a convincing case for the historical truth value of their own. And since no two distinct Religions can be a hundred percent truth we have a dilemma. This is the problem I am having. If you consider any Religion in isolation and assume that no other Religion existed, mostly you will find they make a convincing argument for being the true Religion, regardless of whether it is a historical or logical argument. (OK maybe this is just me, but I would not even discard Hinduism or Buddhism as quickly as some posters here seem to do). But put two of the most convincing Religions next to each other and you have to start questioning your ability to judge the convincingness of either.

…
However, if you really tried you best, God will not hold you accountable and you will still be able to attain salvation.
…

If I understand this correctly you are saying that even with my best and honest effort I may still end up choosing the wrong Religion. By saying this you are in a sense acknowledging the complexity of really finding the true Religion. I appreciate you saying that since as long as believers are trivializing the issue I cannot find any useful answers.

 

[DeFide]

Now in principle this disagreement could be resolved by historical analysis of the Bible, since both churches lay claim to the Bible as the true foundation of their Religions. .

Actually, as you might have picked up from the “Proving Inspiration” article, the Catholic Church could not possibly claim the Bible as its foundation, since the Church predates the New Testament.

Christ is the foundation of the Catholic Church. He promised that it would be protected from officially teaching error and that it’d be everlasting. Christ, being God, always keeps his promises.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Thanks, this gives me something to work with.

As far as I understand it the authority of the Church is based on the historicity of the Bible, and the Church tells us that the Bible is the inspired word of God. I think I get it.

This argument is still based on the historical validity of the Bible, not? If that goes away then the Church has no authority, am I right? It appears also that this argument is directed against other Christian based Religions but I am also considering Islam, Hindu, Jewish faiths etc.

If I understand this correctly then I still have to compare the historical arguments for Catholicism with the historical arguments for all other the other Religions. I was hoping to avoid this.

What I am looking for is some piece of doctrine or belief or sign that clearly points to Catholicism as the one true Religion amongst all 10 000 Religions.

At the end of all this study comes faith. If you’re truly truly interested, why don’t you go to your local parish and discuss some of your questions with a Priest? You might want to go into the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, (RCIA). I am an RCIA minister, and we have a couple people each cycle who have come in for the Inquiry stage, and then decided to leave. There is no pressure. In fact, our inquirers are routinely interviewed regarding their progress and whether they want to move on. We also have those who decide to stay in the iquiry stage longer than usual because they’re not yet confident of the truth. Most though, once exposed to the truth on a regular basis at our weekly RCIA journey meetings, and after Mass dismissal scripture and homily (Liturgy of the Word) discussions, DO decide that it all rings true, and take the next step. You are also given a sponsor during this whole process to help you understand things as well. There’s SO much to it that I don’t think any single little reference here in this Forum is going to do it for you. It’s a big decision. Take a look at the Vatican website. The wealth of information confirming the truth of the Catholic Church is overwhelming. It’s links to links to links to links to links, each one loaded with info. It’s almost infinite.

Serious inquiry should be with a Priest at a minimum, and RCIA with a sponsor optimally. If you try that and end up somwhere else, hey, it’s okay. But at least you’ll be secure in the fact that you took an in depth look at this. I can guarantee you one thing. Even if you don’t end up Catholic, the exposure to all the rich history, philosophy, and theology will add great depth to your mind and give you a far richer context from which to understand all faiths.

That’s my 2 cents. (well maybe a nickel)

Peace,

Steve

 

[slowly]

…
Christ is the foundation of the Catholic Church. He promised that it would be protected from officially teaching error and that it’d be everlasting. Christ, being God, always keeps his promises.

This is a historical claim, right? You believe this because you have some historical evidence for God saying this?

 

[Brenda4God]

Matt 16:18

Eph 3:5, 2:20

John 21:15-17

Matthew 18:18, Luke 10:16

John 16:13

 

[Robert902]

Eph 1:4-5 “Just as he chose us in Him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love. Having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself according to the good pleasure of His will”.
Romans 8:29 “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren”.
Romans 8:30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called these He also justified and whom He justified, these He also glorified".
John 10:28 “And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of my hand”.
John 10:29 “My Father who has given them to me is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Fathers hand”. NKJV

If I understand this correctly God chose me, justified me, glorified me and has given me eternal life. It’s a done deal. I didn’t have to earn it, and I can’t lose it. Catholicism teaches that “outside the Catholic church there is no salvation”. So if I’m not a Catholic, I go to hell. But according to the scriptures no one can snatch me out of God’s hand.
If the Catholic church is the only true church, how can they snatch me out of God’s hand for not joining their church? Why can’t I attend a Protestant church and still be saved?
I hope this ties in with this thread “Why is the Catholic religion the truth”?

 

[Theodora]

As I remember from my catechism from many years ago the four marks of Jesus’ church are as follows:

1. ONE. Christ taught: “And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one fold and one Shepherd.” (Jn 10,16)
2. HOLY - The Church is holy because its founder, Jesus, is holy. “…that He might present it to Himself, a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” (Ephesians 5:27)
3. CATHOLIC (universal) “…preach the Gospel to every nation.” (Mk 16:15)
4. APOSTOLIC - The title deed of this Church is chronicled and can be traced back to the first title holder. “And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail agaisnt it. And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.”
   (Mat.16, 17-19)

I you would search for the Church Jesus founded, what would you look for?

 

[StevenFrancis]

Why can’t I attend a Protestant church and still be saved?

You CAN! Or at least there is no earthly authority to tell you that you can’t. It is in God’s providence alone upon your earthly death. Here’s the thing. You are responsble for what you know and what you have discerned to be the truth. If you believe with all your heart and soul, and are living His commandments, loving your neighbor as yourself, and Loving the Lord God with all your heart and soul to THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE through what YOU HAVE DISCERNED through the INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE BEEN PROVIDED, then I would think that you haven’t much to fear. It when you have in fact found something out. Learned that it was a FACT, and then willfully turned away from that truth that you bring danger upon your soul.

 

[Robert902]

Dear Steven Francis,

But according to Vatican ll’s document Lumen Gentium and the Catholic church’s document Humanae, there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church (Catholicism is the only true religion). So if I die outside the Catholic Church, I am damned.
But…according to the Bible no one can snatch me out of God’s hand, not even the Catholic Church. So if it as you say, I can attend a Protestant Church and never become a Catholic, according to Catholic dogma, I will be Damned to hell.
They can’t both be right, the Bible and Catholicism.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Robert:

First, here is a MUCH better explanation of what I was trying to say in my last post:

Outside The Church There Is No Salvation

---

The doctrine that “Outside the Church there is no salvation” is one that is constantly misinterpreted by those who won’t submit to the Magisterium of the Church. Faith does not depend upon our ability to reason to the truth but on our humility before the Truth presented to us by those to whom Christ entrusted that task. This is why the First Vatican Council taught that it is the task of the Magisterium ALONE to determine and expound the meaning of the Tradition - including “outside the Church no salvation.”

Concerning this doctrine the Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, spoke on two different occasions. In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 he said:

We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?

Again, in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore of 10 August, 1863 addressed to the Italian bishops, he said:

It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.

These statements are consistent with the understanding of the Church contained in the documents of Vatican II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as explaining why the rigorist position of Fr. Feeney (that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved) has been condemned by the Magisterium. It is ironic that precisely those who know their obligation to remain united to the Magisterium, and thus on whom this doctrine is morally binding, keep themselves from union with the Roman See on this point.

---

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING

 

[StevenFrancis]

CONTINUED FROM MY PREVIOUS POST:

This explanation is consistent with the Lumen Gentium. So…since the CCC and Vatican II documents are valid in their interpretation you can simply go to your CCC at 836 to see who is IN the Catholic Church, which includes protestants if they follow certain criteria.

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

---

I, myself was in pretty bad shape prior to my conversion, as I was a Buddhist. I was REALLY playing with fire. I have been forgiven, but I would have had some ‘splainin to do’ for sure had I died during this time.

Here’s my question. Here’s what I don’t get from the defensive type Protestants. I’m truly and honestly puzzled. I’m not just trying to be contrary. Why BE a protestant, once you know these things? Just for starters, You miss out on the full spectrum of sacraments that Jesus, the High Priest wanted you to have. To share in ALL the sacraments in and of itself was reason enough for me and many others I know, to come to full communion with the Church. Also, you end up missing a bunch of books of the bible, you lack an infallable authority for interpretation, and so there’s a different church made up every time 10 or 20 people or so have a different iterpretation of the scriptures. Jesus clearly just wants us in ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Finally, by having knowledge of the Gospel and turning away from teachings that you DO know to be true (or could through prayer and discernment), you MAY be putting your salvation in danger. You’re doing damage to your own faith. Why? Is there some justification in the satelite churches for something that you don’t want to give up in your personal temporal life? I will continue to pray for unity. I dream of a day when all my brothers and sisters in Christ will share in all the richness of His Church. I have faith that it will happen in the fullness of time. Peace be with you,