No Salvation Outside The Church

[Hananiah]

[quote name='Dave' date='May 4 2004, 11:04 PM'] Wait a minute ... there's a huge difference between knowing about the Catholic Church and knowing it's the Church Jesus founded. For a person not to be saved because they're not Catholic, they'd have to know the Church is the one Jesus founded and reject it despite that knowledge. And you have no authority to say that the majority of Protestants and Eastern Orthodox are culpably reject the Church. You can't possibly know that unless you're like St. Jean-Marie Vianney or St. Padre Pio, both of whom had the gift of reading souls [/quote]
You're treating the 1994 Catechism as if it were the only source for Catholic teachings. However, the only questions the Catechism addresses are the fate of those who do not know of the true Church, and the fate of those who know that the Catholic Church is the true Church but reject her anyway. It says absolutely nothing about the fate of those who know of her, but reject her because they believe they have the truth somewhere else. To answer this question you will have to look elsewhere, for example to Unam Sanctam, Cantate Domino, IV Lateran Council, etc.

Also, you seem to misunderstand exactly what invincible ignorance does. All it does is excuse one from the guilt of the sin of heresy. It does not excuse one from any other sins. One who is not a member of the Catholic Church, the only ark of salvation, will be washed away in the flood whether his ignorance is invincible or no.

You are correct in saying that I do not have the gift of reading souls. I can not make certain judgment upon any individual Protestant or Eastern Orthodox person just as I can not make certain judgment upon any Jew, Muslim or Pagan. However, I can know that, as a rule, most such persons do not go to heaven.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 5 2004, 09:19 AM']good.  got those covered.

along with the others that Christ commanded in the Bible.

thanks.

God bless.

Salvation! 

Don't leave earth without it![/quote]
But, L. J., the Bible came to us through the Church. The Church was God's agent in writing the New Testament, selecting and canonizing its contents, canonizing the Old Testament writings received from Jesus and the Apostles, and putting the entire collection together to produce "ta Biblia" -- the Bible. Those are the facts of history. The Church was nearly 400 years old before the Bible as we know it existed.

The Church had four criteria for the selection of the canon of the NT, one of which was that [u]the writings could not be included unless they agreed with the teaching of the Church.[/u]

Jesus Christ -- Second Person of the Blessed Trinity -- established the [b][i]Church[/i][/b] to continue his work of salvation on earth.

Christ's legacy to the world was the Church. The Church produced the Book. The Church -- acting in Christ's place -- sanctifies us through the Sacraments -- the channels of His Grace -- and helps us get to heaven.

The NT is the record of the spiritual life of the newborn Church during the first 100 years or so of its existence. It is a collection of documents the Church wrote to itself. It is not an instruction book on Christianity or how to get to heaven.

No Church - no Bible.

No Church - no salvation.

Ave Cor Mariae, Likos

[Hananiah]

[quote name='Katholikos' date='May 5 2004, 07:58 AM'] Hail, friends, Romans, and . . . (Byzantines?) [/quote]
Yep.

[the lumberjack]

[quote]The Church was nearly 400 years old before the Bible as we know it existed.[/quote]

very true...as we know it.

this does not mean that the scriptures were not around...and being used by the local churches.

yet, so many "alleged" epistles started to circulate as well...so the brothers decided that they should sit down and make a list of which ones they should and shouldn't use.

even Paul wrote and said that they should exchange the letters that were written to them and the surrounding churches.

no church=no bible? by no means

no church=no salvation...NEVER!

Christ established His church, yes...but we are not saved by going to church or by being part of some organization...we are saved by Christ, and living in an active relationship of faith with Him and thru Him... we DO, however, need the church to be guided in doctrine and growth, so we don't err. but it is not the church that saves us.

[quote]It is a collection of documents the Church wrote to itself. It is not an instruction book on Christianity or how to get to heaven.[/quote]

the early churches all erred in their own way in doctrine, which is why the writers of the epistles wrote to them all on their different subjects...and the early church wrote nothing to itself...they were being "raised" in truth and correct doctrine by the discples and Apostles of Christ... if this were not so, would they have not written one letter and distributed that?

"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path."

God bless.

Christ first and only.

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote]Christ established His church, yes...but we are not saved by going to church [/quote]

Ahhh.... cough uhmmm....


You need to go to Church to recieve the Sacraments. Confession to have your sins forgiven, and Holy Communion to have eternal life!

[the lumberjack]

according to your rules and regulations of religion.

again Jason...thank you for your response, but I'll wait for someone else to respond.

God bless.

[cmotherofpirl]

God's rules and regulations, not ours.

[XIX]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='May 5 2004, 09:56 AM'] You're treating the 1994 Catechism as if it were the only source for Catholic teachings. However, the only questions the Catechism addresses are the fate of those who do not know of the true Church, and the fate of those who know that the Catholic Church is the true Church but reject her anyway. It says absolutely nothing about the fate of those who know of her, but reject her because they believe they have the truth somewhere else. To answer this question you will have to look elsewhere, for example to Unam Sanctam, Cantate Domino, IV Lateran Council, etc.

Also, you seem to misunderstand exactly what invincible ignorance does. All it does is excuse one from the guilt of the sin of heresy. It does not excuse one from any other sins. One who is not a member of the Catholic Church, the only ark of salvation, will be washed away in the flood whether his ignorance is invincible or no.

You are correct in saying that I do not have the gift of reading souls. I can not make certain judgment upon any individual Protestant or Eastern Orthodox person just as I can not make certain judgment upon any Jew, Muslim or Pagan. However, I can know that, as a rule, most such persons do not go to heaven. [/quote]
Now, this might be coming from me because I don't [b]want[/b] to believe that most people go to hell (which is what you seem to believe.) The fact is that we don't know that.

However, I have a question for you. I find myself very tempted to despair when people say that hell is a crowded place. My two greatest desires should be in this order:

ONE: To save my own soul, and then saves others as a result (first because that' is what I control)
TWO: For Satan to garner as few sould as possible, that all the others can know salvation also.

For the world of me, I can't see how somebody can live in peace while convinced that his brothers and sisters is Christ are mostly headed to hell. I can barely keep myself together without knowing for a fact what happens. I don't mean this to be a personal attack on anybody, but doesn't this depress anybody? Can Christ's final victory really come in the form of destroying the majority of his beloved human creation?

[cmotherofpirl]

It doesn't depress me because hell is a deliberate choice people make. You don't get there by accident.

I also trust in the Divine Mercy of Almighty God and pray for others souls, and leave the rest up to God.

Eye has not seen, nor ear heard what God has waiting for those who love Him.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='XIX' date='May 5 2004, 12:22 PM'] Now, this might be coming from me because I don't [b]want[/b] to believe that most people go to hell (which is what you seem to believe.) The fact is that we don't know that. [/quote]
I don't much like it either.

[quote]However, I have a question for you.  I find myself very tempted to despair when people say that hell is a crowded place.[/quote]
It is sometimes difficult not to despair, however this is a sin which one must avoid at all costs.

[quote]My two greatest desires should be in this order:

ONE: To save my own soul, and then saves others as a result (first because that' is what I control)
TWO: For Satan to garner as few sould as possible, that all the others can know salvation also.[/quote]
Those would be my desires as well.

[quote]For the world of me, I can't see how somebody can live in peace while convinced that his brothers and sisters is Christ are mostly headed to hell.  I can barely keep myself together without knowing for a fact what happens.  I don't mean this to be a personal attack on anybody, but doesn't this depress anybody?  Can Christ's final victory really come in the form of destroying the majority of his beloved human creation?[/quote]
Well, for one thing I do not consider non-Catholics brothers and sisters in Christ. I consider them heretics and schismatics in need of evangelization. This is often saddening, however I think in the long run this attitude will save more souls than the "we possess the fullness of Christ's Church whereas you only possess part" approach.

[the lumberjack]

[quote]Well, for one thing I do not consider non-Catholics brothers and sisters in Christ. I consider them heretics and schismatics in need of evangelization. This is often saddening, however I think in the long run this attitude will save more souls than the "we possess the fullness of Christ's Church whereas you only possess part" approach.[/quote]

its all to the grace...I don't mind if you don't consider me saved...or a brother or sister in Christ....though it is kinda sad.

I spoke to one of the associate pastors at my church ([url="http://www.therocksandiego.org"]www.therocksandiego.org[/url]), who consequently used to be a catholic, and has a masters in church history. he opened my mind to many things that I would not have paid much mind to before. as long as you keep Christ the center, and seek and follow only Him, you are my brother or sister in Christ...regardless of what your documents say.

I don't seek to convert you to any religion or denomination, but to correct....and to be corrected. and you guys have helped in more ways than you'll ever know.

but know this:

[b]my walk with Christ is something that you or the whole Roman Catholic Church can not deny me.[/b]

God bless.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote]
You're treating the 1994 Catechism as if it were the only source for Catholic teachings. However, the only questions the Catechism addresses are the fate of those who do not know of the true Church, and the fate of those who know that the Catholic Church is the true Church but reject her anyway. It says absolutely nothing about the fate of those who know of her, but reject her because they believe they have the truth somewhere else. To answer this question you will have to look elsewhere, for example to Unam Sanctam, Cantate Domino, IV Lateran Council, etc.
[/quote]

I mean no personal offense by this, but I think you're looking at this matter too simplistically. What do you think that "know" means? Sure, just about everyone knows that Catholicism exists, but there are non-Catholics who do not know Catholicism to be the truth. If that were the case, they'd probably be Catholic. There is a difference between knowing that Catholicism is the truth and rejecting it (in which case salvation is not possible) and knowing that Catholicism exists but sincerely believing that Catholicism is not fully true. Many Protestants, because of a variety of social, psychological, and educational factors, [i]sincerely[/i] believe that what they believe is true -- and that Catholicism is false. Many of them, also, love God and wish to follow Him. The Catholic Church has said that salvation is [i]possible[/i] for those who are not [b]official[/b] members of the Catholic Church if they love God, follow Him, and are invincibly ignorant. If a Protestant, for example, was raised to believe that the Eucharist was just symbolic, that Catholics were heretical to believe otherwise, and that he was doing God's work in trying to convert Catholics from their "error" out of love, then I think it'd be pretty reasonable to say that they're invincibly ignorant. Many Protestants who later convert to Catholicism testify that, had they been convinced of the truth of Catholicism sooner, they would have certainly been Catholic. Ever read [i]Lumen Gentium[/i] and [i]Dominus Iesus[/i]? Those who do not know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church [i]can possibily[/i] be saved. If a Protestant does not know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, then they can possibily be saved. If they do not believe that the Catholic Church is the true Church, it is probably because they do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, in which case they can possibly be saved.

[quote]Also, you seem to misunderstand exactly what invincible ignorance does.  All it does is excuse one from the guilt of the sin of heresy.  It does not excuse one from any other sins.  One who is not a member of the Catholic Church, the only ark of salvation, will be washed away in the flood whether his ignorance is invincible or no.
[/quote]

Then you'd disagree with the Catechism, which says that one must have [b]full knowledge[/b] that something is sinful (along with grave matter and full consent of the will) for someone to be guilty of mortal sin, no? If someone is a Protestant and does not have full knowledge that the Catholic Church is the truth, how can they be held accountable? If they sin, then truthfully and sincerely repent and are fully contrite, why wouldn't they be able to be saved, presupposing their invincible ignorance of the truth of the Catholic Church? Your position seems too close for comfort to rigorist Feeneyism (which the Catholic Church condemns).

[quote]You are correct in saying that I do not have the gift of reading souls.  I can not make certain judgment upon any individual Protestant or Eastern Orthodox person just as I can not make certain judgment upon any Jew, Muslim or Pagan.  However, I can know that, as a rule, most such persons do not go to heaven.[/quote]

How is it that you can feel certain that you know that "as a rule?"

Take care,

Jennifer

Edited May 5, 2004 by BeenaBobba

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='May 5 2004, 04:09 PM'] Well, for one thing I do not consider non-Catholics brothers and sisters in Christ. [/quote]

Then what do think of their Trinitarian water baptisms? If they're not "Christian" because of that, do you believe that they need to be re-baptized? I certainly hope you're not a Donatist.

If you do believe their baptisms to be valid, then how is it that you can't see them as brothers and sisters in Christ? Were they not baptized in the name of the Father, and of the [b]Son[/b], and of the Holy Spirit? Yes!

Take care,

Jennifer

Edited May 5, 2004 by BeenaBobba

[Katholikos]

lumberjack, May 5 2004, 10:11 AM]

Lumberjack: blue
Likos: bold

[b]The Church was nearly 400 years old before the Bible as we know it existed.[/b]

[color=blue]
very true...as we know it.
this does not mean that the scriptures were not around...and being used by the local churches[/color].

[b]Lots of writings were being used by the local Churches. The NT contents were selected from among some 200 writings that circulated in the early centuries of Christianity and were read aloud to the congregation during the Liturgy. That was one purpose of the canon: to discern which among many writings were "inspired Scripture" and therefore should be read during the Liturgy. An estimated 90% of people in the Apostolic Age were illiterate.[/b]

[color=blue]yet, so many "alleged" epistles started to circulate as well...so the brothers decided that they should sit down and make a list of which ones they should and shouldn't use[/color].

[b]Those "brothers" were the Catholic bishops, meeting at the Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). The decrees of the Council of Carthage were approved by Pope Innocent I in A.D. 405.[/b]

[color=blue]even Paul wrote and said that they should exchange the letters that were written to them and the surrounding churches[/color].

[b]Yes, and Paul's letters were the first to be recognized as Scripture. However, if -- as Protestants believe -- the Bible is the sole rule of faith and morals, you've got a problem 'cause three of Paul's "inspired" letters are missing.[/b]

[color=blue]no church=no bible? by no means[/color]

[b]Quizito:
The Bible fell out of the sky. T/F Answer: F
The Bible was produced by the Catholic Church. T/F Answer: T[/b]

[color=blue]no church=no salvation...NEVER! [/color]

[b]Quizito:
Jesus wrote the New Testament as the means of salvation. T/F Answer: F
Jesus never told the Apostles or anyone else to write. T/F Answer: T
Jesus founded the Catholic Church as the means of salvation. T/F Answer: T [/b]

[color=blue]Christ established His church, yes...but we are not saved by going to church or by being part of some organization...we are saved by Christ, and living in an active relationship of faith with Him and thru Him... we DO, however, need the church to be guided in doctrine and growth, so we don't err. but it is not the church that saves us[/color].

[b]Christ saves us [i]through His Church[/i]. The Catholic Church, His agent, is "the household of God, the church of the living God, the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

Which of thousands of churches with conflicting and competing doctrines are we to follow so we don't err? [You made my case!][/b]

[color=blue]the early churches all erred in their own way in doctrine, which is why the writers of the epistles wrote to them all on their different subjects...and the early church wrote nothing to itself...they were being "raised" in truth and correct doctrine by the discples and Apostles of Christ... if this were not so, would they have not written one letter and distributed that?[/color]

[b]Christ founded the Catholic Church. He established it's operating plan, the philosophy by which it was to operate, gave it its policies and procedures, taught it its doctrines, told it the purpose for which it was created, and gave it its marching orders. He left it in the hands of its "board of directors," its leaders, the Apostles. The Apostles, in turn, founded branches of the Church all over the then known world. These were the local Churches. They had the same beliefs and practices, the same doctrines, the same Sacraments, as all the other Churches -- they were all sprang from the Mother Church.

The Church wrote the NT to itself (to believers, to her own children), and not to outsiders. These branches, the local Churches, were founded by one or more Apostles who taught their converts the Faith [i]orally.[/i] The letters were written to address problems that had arisen at a particular location, not to teach doctrine, which the Christians already knew full well. The recipients were [i]reminded[/i] of certain beliefs and doctrines, to be sure. The letters are different because the problems that arose in Corinth were not the same as those that developed in Galatia, for example.

The problem with the Scriptures is that outsiders try to interpret them!

Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 250) states succinctly: “One cannot have God as a father who doesn’t have the Church as a mother.” [I] St. Cyprian, De Ecclesiae Catholicae unitate 6: CCL 3, 253: “Habere iam non potest Deum patrem qui ecclesiam non habet matrem.”

Ave Cor Mariae, Likos[/b]

[Katholikos]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 5 2004, 02:17 PM']

I spoke to one of the associate pastors at my church ([url="http://www.therocksandiego.org"]www.therocksandiego.org[/url]), who consequently used to be a catholic, and has a masters in church history. he opened my mind to many things that I would not have paid much mind to before. as long as you keep Christ the center, and seek and follow only Him, you are my brother or sister in Christ...regardless of what your documents say.



[/quote]

This is very, very sad news. The worst thing that could happen in my life is not my death, but the death of my Catholic Faith.

People don't usually leave the Church over doctrine but over moral issues, such as divorce and remarriage or contraception. [i]Then[/i] they seek to justify their action by attacking the doctrines. Private interpretation of the Scriptures promotes this kind of thinking. I don't know the circumstances here, but that is often how it happens.

It's a package deal. Christ acts in and through his Church. The way that Christ provided of knowing him is through His Church. "He who hears you, hears me . . . he who rejects you, rejects me" (Lk 10:16). It is [i]possible[/i] to "know" him outside the Church he founded and sustains -- His Bride, His very Body -- but self-deceit is an even greater possibility.

"How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few" Mt 7:14.

"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you." Such is the state your associate pastor finds himself in, whether he recognizes it, or believes it, or not, having rejected the Eucharist. Let us pray.

Ave Cor Mariae, Likos