No Salvation Outside

[GodChaser]

I love this debate.

You debate this and that based upon a church that is influenced by the Babylonian world system, and you don't realize this is all fruitless, because God is going to pour out his wrath on the organized religious world, and the Satanic Babylonian System the governments of the world have adopted.

Good luck with that.

God's only requirement is that we endure to the end, and I am going to endure to the end. Nobody is going to make me accept this world system, and it is all going to burn for all of the soceries and blasphamies!

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Salvation-Outside-Church-Catholic-Response/dp/1592440088"]http://www.amazon.com/Salvation-Outside-Ch...e/dp/1592440088[/url]

i'm not sure if they said for sure that they defined strict sounding cause they didn't know of other worlds. but, they at least speculated as much.

i recomend reading the reviews for the book.

Edited October 14, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1402393' date='Oct 14 2007, 01:59 PM']I love this debate.

You debate this and that based upon a church that is influenced by the Babylonian world system, and you don't realize this is all fruitless, because God is going to pour out his wrath on the organized religious world, and the Satanic Babylonian System the governments of the world have adopted.

Good luck with that.[/quote]

actually, there is no bigger blasphemy than rejecting the authority that Jesus passed on when He established the Universal Church in the Gospel of Matthew. unless you believe Jesus to be a Babylonian hethen, then you should be careful with your slanders.

[quote]God's only requirement is that we endure to the end, and I am going to endure to the end. Nobody is going to make me accept this world system, and it is all going to burn for all of the soceries and blasphamies![/quote]

if you only see one requirement in the Bible, my friend, then you are missing quite a lot. in Mark 16:16, for example, Christ proclaims salvation for those who "believe [i]and are baptized[/i]."

[mortify]

Ultimately it's the Magisterium which reserves the right to interpret herself.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well alright. just as i suspected, this whole thread was much adu about nothing, really...

[Deo Iuvente]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1402393' date='Oct 14 2007, 02:59 PM']I love this debate.

You debate this and that based upon a church that is influenced by the Babylonian world system, and you don't realize this is all fruitless, because God is going to pour out his wrath on the organized religious world,[/quote] God said: "On this rock I will build MY church."
Who built the church?
Whose church is it?
1Timothy 3:15 says that the church is the "pillar and foundation of truth" How can it be the pillar and foundation of falsehood and lies?how can it be corrupt?
Eph. 5:23-27, Col. 1:18, Christ died for the church, he is the head of the church.How can he be the head of an organization that he despises? If scripture says that the church is holy,blameless,without spot or wrinkle, how do you claim that is is unholy, filled with falsehood and deception,with every spot or wrinkle imaginable?If God loves the chuch and died for it,why is he pouring out his wrath upon it?
[quote]and the Satanic Babylonian System the governments of the world have adopted.[/quote]
Proof please,thanks.



[quote]God's only requirement is that we endure to the end,[/quote]"Unless a man is born again of water and the spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." (John 3:3-6 ) are you sure? what about "Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood,you shall have no life in you." (John 6:53-54) The bible gives other requirements.
[quote]and I am going to endure to the end. Nobody is going to make me accept this world system, and it is all going to burn for all of the soceries and blasphamies![/quote]So,in the end, you believe that Jesus set up blasphemous world system which he hates and will pour his wrath upon? How do you reconcile this with holy scripture?

[GodChaser]

[quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1402416' date='Oct 14 2007, 03:50 PM']actually, there is no bigger blasphemy than rejecting the authority that Jesus passed on when He established the Universal Church in the Gospel of Matthew. unless you believe Jesus to be a Babylonian hethen, then you should be careful with your slanders.
if you only see one requirement in the Bible, my friend, then you are missing quite a lot. in Mark 16:16, for example, Christ proclaims salvation for those who "believe [i]and are baptized[/i]."[/quote]

When Pope Benedict says that Man-Made Global warming is happening, and says if you don't do your best to reduce green house emissions than you are going to hell, which is basically said when he said it was all catholics world wide moral obligation to do so, then I can quiet easily say, Jesus didn't make Pope Benedict perfect in his understanding of science, and if I were Catholic I would give him the finger for saying that, just as I leave the Roman Catholic Church I heard it at. So Pope Benedict is a Babylonian Heathen, not Jesus. He would be telling Pope Benedict he was wrong, if he was here. That I am sure of!

Go bark up another tree. God only expects us to obey the truth, and then go on. He says any church influenced by the world, like the Catholic Church's stance on global warming, and evolution, and many other things, then you leave it behind.

[Mateo el Feo]

Repeating lies doesn't help your cause, GodChaser. Please provide proof or take back your libelous and un-Christian words.

[Deo Iuvente]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1402505' date='Oct 14 2007, 07:43 PM']When Pope Benedict says that Man-Made Global warming is happening, and says if you don't do your best to reduce green house emissions than you are going to hell,[/quote] Could you provide evidence that he said that?
[quote]which is basically said when he said it was all catholics world wide moral obligation to do so,[/quote] WRONG. The pope's personal opinion wouldn't count as an Ex Cathedra doctrinal definition. You don't understand papal infallibility. It doesn't mean that whatever the pope says is right, or whatever he teaches catholic have to beleive. It means that when the pope [b]proclaims as a dogma [/b] anything regarding faith or morals, then and only then are catholics to believe it.
[quote]then I can quiet easily say, Jesus didn't make Pope Benedict perfect in his understanding of science, and if I were Catholic I would give him the finger for saying that,[/quote] Then you;d be a very dishonest christian, showing calumny toward fellow believers for difference in opinion.
[quote]just as I leave the Roman Catholic Church I heard it at. So Pope Benedict is a Babylonian Heathen, not Jesus. He would be telling Pope Benedict he was wrong, if he was here. That I am sure of![/quote] "I will be with you until the end of time" ring a bell?Jesus founded the catholic church, any honest historian will tell you that. To call the pope a babylonian heathen is to call Christ one, since it was he who set up the papacy ( Matt.16-18-20,John21;15-18)

[quote]Go bark up another tree. God only expects us to obey the truth, and then go on.[/quote] We've given bible verses that say he expects you to get baptized and receive communion. You can't just put the Word of God on ignore when it contradicts you.
[quote]He says any church influenced by the world,[/quote] Where does he say that? Book/Chapter/Verse please? [quote]like the Catholic Church's stance on global warming, and evolution,[/quote]
1) The catholic church does'nt even [i]have[/i] a stance on global warming. Catechism number please?
and as far as I know, it's stance on evolution isn't much different than what most other bible Christians teach.
[quote]and many other things, then you leave it behind.[/quote]Meaning..........?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1402303' date='Oct 14 2007, 12:26 PM']as for the recent quotes by golden. i see, and appreciate that Innocent III said that someone who was in the church but somehow happened to be not baptized was implicitly baptized. he's from the middle ages, so it shows some leniency.[/quote]

Not just from the Middle Ages though. The three quotes from the three early Church Fathers are important as well and teach the exact same thing, though probably don't go into quite as much detail. The essential point is the same though.


[quote]but, what i am searching for is that the man who is on an island could be saved or not.
maybe that a man who's heard vaguely of christianity could be saved without being christian. but this starts getting into grayer areas, such as how much they've heard etc.
mainly the stuff about being on an island.[/quote]

You are right that is getting into very gray areas and I don't believe it is something the Church would ever officially speak on. The fact remains that there are three aspects to the sacrament of baptism. Baptism by water is the most obvious and publicly puts someone into the Church. Baptism of blood is what happens to martyrs, people who die for their faith in the Catholic Church before they are able to recieve a water baptism. Examples of such a baptism would be any of the Roman Catechumens who were killed during the Roman executions before they could be baptised. These people fully accepted the Church and its teachings, but had not yet been baptised by water. Then there is baptism of desire which depends on a desire for the sacrament but who die before receiving it. These "forms" of baptism exist, but who they apply to in every situation is a gray area and something the Church doesn't speak formally on.

Here's the point though. This teaching of the baptism of blood and baptism of desire does NOT at all deny the teaching of No Salvation Outside the Church. Even with this teaching, it is believed that ALL people who go to heaven will do so because of the graces given to the Catholic Church alone by Christ. Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood simply allow for cases where someone becomes a member of the Catholic Church in a less than conventional fashion. Such a person is a part of the Catholic Church, but became so without having the joy of recieving water baptism.

[quote]i read one academic books say they never considered men on islands cause they thought all knew of christianity, so they thought they were speaking to people who knew. only people who were obstinante.
but this is just a theory, i'm not sure about assuming that. you'd think you'd see more about "refusing" "obstinence" etc.
i appreciate the texts qouted tho.[/quote]

I don't know anything about any of that, and honestly I don't care to bother with it. For me personally, when people start trying to determine how a person can be saved even if they aren't a part of the Church, they oftentimes lose sight of the bigger picture: doing what they can to bring people into the Church so that there is no questions such as this, no gray areas at all.


But overall, I think your concern (and correct me if I'm wrong) was how Catholics try to reconcile the belief in No Salvation Outside the Church and the belief that some non-Catholics can be saved. I answer it this way: No one who is not a Catholic is saved, anyone who goes to heaven receives the necessary graces of baptism whether that be through the actual water baptism, or by dying for the faith, or through the sole desire for such a baptism. I don't pretend to know, or care to know, just how many people this applies to or to how many people this has happened to in history. All I know, and all I need to know, is that it IS possible, and that a certain level of hope should be maintained for the salvation of a soul, whether they were a known member of the Church up until their death or not. I would say, and I believe the Church supports this as well, that it is not good or reasonable to expect the salvation of anyone outside the Catholic Church, but to simply take solace in the fact that, although its certainly not a sure thing, and not necessarily even very likely, it is at least possible.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1402306' date='Oct 14 2007, 12:28 PM']see, "no one at all" "absolutely necessary". pretty strong stuff.[/quote]

And I agree. Anyone that recieves baptism of blood or of desire IS a part of the Catholic Church. So there is no contradiction.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1402309' date='Oct 14 2007, 12:31 PM']also golden, i'm still not sure how you differ from the CC now. they beleive baptism by desire.[/quote]

They do. As I said in a recent post, this is not my beef with them on the subject of grace and salvation.

[quote]they say it's hard to be saved if you're not an actual catholic.[/quote]

Many do. However, I'm not so sure that's the official policy of the Vatican anymore.


[quote]they say i think that you can be saved if you're the man on the island, and i think you are saying it might be possible.[/quote]

Purely conjecture either way. My problem with them regarding grace and salvation really has nothing to do with baptism of blood or desire.

[quote]so i don't see how you differ other than maybe you're saying maybe it's possible and they are saying it is possible. (though to add to confusion, some argue the CC only teaches it MAY be possible but we don't know. this is still problemaatic though if the strict texts are truly strict in intention)[/quote]

We don't differ so much of baptism of blood or of desire. This I already said in a previous post. My beef is on another aspect of salvation and grace that doesn't really have anything to do with this particular area of the subject.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1402388' date='Oct 14 2007, 02:49 PM']Vatican II was certainly know change if you read Karl Adam and Ludwig Ott considered to be classic theologians before Vatican II. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917 is also in line with what the CCC teaches today. Affirming a teaching in the positive sense for those who hear what God commans in a way that is understandable is not a contradiction to saying that those who do not have the grace to know certain things may not be damned. Luke 12 confirms that we don't have to all be perfect theologians like you trads to go to heaven.[/quote]

Ok . Unfortunately I can't agree, but I'm not going to debate it on Phatmass, so you've got the last word on it here, peace. No "trad" theologian is perfect, which I know you didn't mean seriously but instead as a thinly veiled slam . We are sinners like anyone else.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='mortify' post='1402428' date='Oct 14 2007, 04:17 PM']Ultimately it's the Magisterium which reserves the right to interpret herself.[/quote]

Very true. But in cases where the Magisterium has already interpreted something one way in the past, no future magisterium can re-define it another way.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1402906' date='Oct 15 2007, 04:06 AM']Ok . Unfortunately I can't agree, but I'm not going to debate it on Phatmass, so you've got the last word on it here, peace. No "trad" theologian is perfect, which I know you didn't mean seriously but instead as a thinly veiled slam . We are sinners like anyone else.[/quote]


Forgive me if I have a hard edge toward trads but I just read a long letter from my brother calling me a neo-catholic or whatever the deragotory term is, a bunch of carp twisting words of Cardinal Hoyos at the vatican, justifying schism which they say isn't schism, because of course all schismatics go to hell according to their very own doctrine, and so they must rant when they are called schimsatic as my brother did over the phone one time when I said "you are in danger of schism" when he first headed down this path, and generally slamming and denying the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass. With not one mention in 5 pages of the name of Jesus Christ, and the scandal that division, forgive me if I am a bit harsh with trads. By the way he's sspx.

Blessings