Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation??
Ask Father Murray Watson ^ | Father Murray

Posted on 01/02/2002 1:15:38 PM PST by Theresa

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 401-412 next last
To: rface
Why do you spend so much energy and effort persecuting Christians?

I spend no time and effort doing so. I do spend some time and effort searching for the truth, however.

Of your last 50 posts, more than 40 of them have been attacking Christians.

Utter nonsense. Prove it if you are going to make a serious charge like that. Unless you consider me posting many examples of Roman Catholic dogma as "attacking Christians". If you are RC this should please you, not bother you. Your personal questions about me do tell me some things about you though. 1)You have too much time on your hands that would be better used. 2) Your faith seems to be very weak if you consider my question as an attack upon Christians. Read Luke 6:46-49 and consider if your faith is in the real "rock" (Jesus). When the tests of your faith come, He will never let you down.

What is your relationship with "sirgawain"?

Never heard of him/her. Why did he/she ask tough questions that you can't answer too?

Are you entered here under two names,

Just this one.

or are you just one of the members of the "Hit Squad"?

Quick take off your tinfoil hat and look outside to make sure the black helicopters are not there.

Ashland, Missouri

Thanks that explains a lot. BTW do I need to apologize for the thrashing the the U of I Hawkeye basketball team laid on Pretty Boy's team on your homecourt? Maybe that's what's got you so sore at me.

151 posted on 01/03/2002 3:10:38 PM PST by Iowegian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon
That expression seems to encapsulate the belief pretty much spot-on. And the determination of whether the encounter of Christ is "full" or not, would, of course, from the outside be a subjective assessment, and no doubt entirely impossible for anyone, save God.
152 posted on 01/03/2002 6:23:25 PM PST by Proud2BAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Proud2BAmerican
I am surprised at the diversity of opinion on this topic shown by the Catholics here. I would have thought that the Catholic educational system would have provided for more consistent responses. It could be that this topic is of no great consequence to the life of the average Catholic. That being the case, the educational system does not dwell on it as much as other more important issues.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

153 posted on 01/03/2002 6:37:10 PM PST by Jeff Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: k2blader
See #140 & the link above. "The Bible" (the collection of books we have come to understand as "the Bible") was compiled and edited by the Catholic Church (Christians who understood themselves as "Catholic" Christians in church councils) during the first 400 years of Christian history.
154 posted on 01/03/2002 6:46:02 PM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity; all
For a different point of view on the development of the canon of Scripture GO HERE
155 posted on 01/03/2002 6:54:14 PM PST by Iowegian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity ; All
There was, in fact, an operative "canon" (Grk: kanon) of sacred scripture (i.e., "the Bible") in the 4th century A.D. It is first noted by St. Athanasius in his Epistola de decretis Nicaeni Synodi (c. A.D.350). St. Augustine uses the term "canonical" to refer to the books of sacred scripture. Both Augustine and Athanasius professed the "Catholic" Christian faith. This is just simply an historical fact. Everyone, of course, is free to depart from their understanding of Revelation, sacred scripture, and the meaning of the teachings of Christ. "The Church" compiled, edited, and authorized the official books of "the Bible." The Bible presupposes the existence of an authoritative Church, a body of believers following the teachings passed down by the Apostles and their successors. That is the historic reality of early Christianity. To argue from "the Bible" while denigrating the early Church is a contradiction. One can find in the 59th canon of the Church's Council of Laodicea (c. A.D. 360) the instruction not to use or read non-canonical books. What these Christians believed is well-documented in any civilized library.
156 posted on 01/03/2002 7:43:00 PM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Iowegian
"First of all, the Councils of Carthage and Hippo did not establish the canon for the Church as a whole. The New Catholic Encyclopedia actually affirms the fact that the Canon was not officially and authoritatively established for the Western Church until the Council of Trent in the 16th century and that even such an authority as Pope Gregory the Great rejected the Apocrypha as canonical:
St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon)."
157 posted on 01/03/2002 8:01:45 PM PST by Iowegian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Iowegian
Is there a book you are recommending? (I will read it, etc.). :o)
158 posted on 01/03/2002 8:13:07 PM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
See #140 & the link above. "The Bible" (the collection of books we have come to understand as "the Bible") was compiled and edited by the Catholic Church (Christians who understood themselves as "Catholic" Christians in church councils) during the first 400 years of Christian history.

Thanks for the link. While I've yet to study the history of the Bible in full detail, I don't doubt that early "Catholic" Christians played an important role in the development of New Testament canon. Bible Basics - New Testament - Origins provides succinct background:

Christianity arose within Judaism. The earliest Christians, were Jews, so their hopes and expectations of a Messiah foretold in Jewish Scriptures (the Old Testament) were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. These Christians already understood what 'scripture' was, and how to use it in the context of teaching and worship from their Jewish roots. Consequently, the formation of 'scripture' to be used for teaching and worship of the Christian faith was a logical requirement. The review of Christian writings to determine what was 'scripture'; that is valid, authoritative and holy led to the development of the New Testament and can be seen in three major stages: 1) the rise of Christian literature to the status of scripture, 2) the conscious grouping of various writings into collections, and 3) the revision and approval of these collections as a 'New Testament' - this being called a 'canon'. Canon comes from the Greek word 'kanon' meaning measuring rule. Only certain books passed the measuring rules required for 'canonization'.

Christians who considered themselves "Catholic" likely participated in stages 1 through 3 as mentioned above. (I'm a tad hazy as to when exactly the Roman Catholic church began, but it seems to have started with Peter as the "first Pope," according to Early Christian History as Viewed by Roman Catholics.

"Catholic" Christians may have helped to compile & edit the Bible, but in no instance does the Bible, as God-breathed Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17 NIV), state specifically that "the Roman Catholic church is the only church."

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.
For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

- 2 Peter 1:20-21 (NIV) -

159 posted on 01/03/2002 9:22:53 PM PST by k2blader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon
The teaching is clear and readily available for any Catholic (or anyone else) to find out. The majority of Catholics though, I would guess, have enough on their plates as far as working out their own salvation in fear and trembling than to go off pontificating on whether this or that person is going to Hell. Most tend to want to try to imitate Christ, spread the Gospel, and trust in God's mercy for themselves and others. The habit of determining who is going to Hell, to me at least, usually seems to be born out of an insecure spirit regarding the prospects of their own salvation.
160 posted on 01/03/2002 9:43:30 PM PST by Proud2BAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: k2blader
"Please tell me where the Bible says specifically that the Catholic church is the "only" Church?"

Okay, how bout....."You are the rock and upon this rock I will build by church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "

Catholic means UNIVERSAL. The Catholic Church is generic Christianity. It's Christianity without additions or subtractions.

161 posted on 01/03/2002 10:36:54 PM PST by Theresa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Sophie
"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (KJV)"

Right!! But did you read the article? No where in it does it say that anyone is saved except by Jesus. Nowhere!!!! How could anyone be saved unless Jesus was doing the saving? Some are exposed to the gospel who are able to accept it but they reject it knowing or suspecting it is true, simply because they just don't want to give up their sins or even admit they sin. That's different. That is not what we are talking about.

If Buddah is in heaven he's a Christian. If Lao Tsu is in heaven he's a Christian. If Ghandi is in heaven he's a Christian. WE are not saying that Buddah is in heaven sitting on the clouds preaching Buddism. We do not say that he saved himself by his works. That would be utterly impossible. IMPOSSIBLE.

We are not saying that everyone who rejects the gospel is laboring under ignorance. We just believe that God is fair and that he will take into consideration obstacles that prevent some, through no fault of their own, from hearing or understanding the good news. We are saying whoever gets to heaven would not get there unless they finally in the end, (though we don't see him going up to the altar for an altar call or being baptized, or at Sunday service) is shown the truth of Christ by some supernatural means, maybe at the hour of death or just after death.

At that time those obstacles are removed. And the person makes his choice. I would not think that they will so awed by the experience that it would amount to not having to take a leap of faith. They will still be operating with a free will to accept or reject.

To me it's like after Jesus died on the cross and before he rose, when he went to the netherworld and preached to the prophets like Moses and Abraham. He did that for them so they could chose, because they never really were preached the good news in it's fullness.

Whew!! Well I am going over to the Wet Canvas web site and talk about art. Bye guys!!

162 posted on 01/03/2002 11:57:25 PM PST by Theresa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
I can assure you that no Diocese taught that the Pope was without sin.

You Sir are blessed with a conservative diocese

More or less, yes.

Rochester is not so fortunate

I will say some extra prayers. Rochester is one of those that can barely even claim to be Catholic anymore.

However, this argument strikes me as strange. The liberal diocese would be the last place where I would expect the Pope's infallibility to be construed as impeccibility. This would seem to be more of a conservative conceit. It is the liberals who would wish to diminish the role of Pope to "figurehead" so they can go on destroying the Faith in their jurisdiction.

SD

163 posted on 01/04/2002 5:00:01 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: k2blader
There is only one Church, the Catholic one. All other Chrstians have at some point deviated from Her.

Please tell me where the Bible says specifically that the Catholic church is the "only" Church? I have never seen God's Word yield such a statement.

You are correct that the Bible does not contain the word "catholic." It is apparent in the New Testament, however, that Jesus is setting up a singular Church with leaders (Apostles) who should be heeded. If the leaders of the Church were not to be figures of authority, then why did the Corinthians, for example, heed the letters from Paul?

The argument then becomes "what happened to this Church in history?" We have to take our noses out of the Bible and look at human history. There are two possible choices for authoritative Churches which have existed since the beginning. Either the Catholics or Orthodox can point to the other and claim that they "broke away" from them first. All other Churches in the West at some point in history broke away from the original Catholic/Orthodox Church.

SD

164 posted on 01/04/2002 5:05:10 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
However, this argument strikes me as strange. The liberal diocese would be the last place where I would expect the Pope's infallibility to be construed as impeccibility. This would seem to be more of a conservative conceit. It is the liberals who would wish to diminish the role of Pope to "figurehead" so they can go on destroying the Faith in their jurisdiction.

It wasnt so liberal 30 years from which I am drawing my experiences - The liberalism happened under Bishop Clark - to the point where he was tolerating same sex unions performed at Corpus Christi -until the Pope slapped him. They later split to form Spiritus Christi under Jim Callan and Mary Ramerman - who was just recently named a priest in this new church we affectionately call Corpus Callan here in Rochester. So yes - my experiences before my departure and afterwards are jaded by both a very conservative basis, then an extremely liberal one- hence my departure

165 posted on 01/04/2002 5:27:43 AM PST by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
Bump
166 posted on 01/04/2002 5:33:37 AM PST by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon
I am surprised at the diversity of opinion on this topic shown by the Catholics here. I would have thought that the Catholic educational system would have provided for more consistent responses. It could be that this topic is of no great consequence to the life of the average Catholic. That being the case, the educational system does not dwell on it as much as other more important issues.

LOL

Becky

167 posted on 01/04/2002 5:55:20 AM PST by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
So yes - my experiences before my departure and afterwards are jaded by both a very conservative basis, then an extremely liberal one- hence my departure

OK, then. I find it hard to look down upon one who sould flee from Bishop Clark. Remember "the floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."

SD

168 posted on 01/04/2002 6:19:56 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
can we call it a hug and a handshake - ?

Thanks for understanding and puttin up with my beefs - a worthy Christian you are.

169 posted on 01/04/2002 6:31:31 AM PST by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
can we call it a hug and a handshake - ?

OK. It is nice to end amicably every once in a while, rather than picking at scabs.

SD

170 posted on 01/04/2002 7:12:01 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Proud2BAmerican
#160 It's true that in Catholic subcultures there are certain personality types who become obsessed with Hell and there's a tendency among these to brood on who is damned, etc. Usually this habit was an integral feature of the way their parents presented the faith to them. Not all Catholics think this way, obviously.

For what it's worth, some historians suggest this actually intensified during the controversies of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Luther, for instance, was completely obsessed with damnation issues and had been constantly worried that he might be damned.

But talking about the idea of someone being damned, speculating that they might be, etc., is actually a temptation of pride. This is not the focus of Christianity (or Catholicism particularly). Forgiveness was supposed to be central to faith. Usually it is bitter, unhappy, and angry people who suggest in conversation that other people are damned. They are using Christian ideas as a form of hostile aggression against other people. What you end up having in denominational discussions on this issue is people spending an inordinate amount of time brooding on and deducing all sorts of things from the supposed teachings on Hell and damnation. "Well, if such and such a sin is mortal, etc., then someone guilty of such a sin, must be damned..." (IF they don't repent and are forgiven, etc.). That's a BIG assumption to leap to - that God would not forgive someone. Clearly, presumption is at work in all such leaps of judgment. The offender is trying to put limits on God's mercy, love, and forgiveness. Wild, loose, and uneducated discussions about Hell and damnation are a menace to a healthy life of faith. Or job is never to damn someone (for God).

The threat of damnation has always been a weird weapon in polemical religious controversies in Western culture and in the power struggles of denominational subcultures. But, of course, the uneducated and intemperate nonsense continues wherever someone perceives an apparent momentary advantage in suggesting someone else is damned. Weird. One could add that wild fantasies that Catholics are in league with the Devil and agents of the Antichrist are a similar pathology and a perverted expression of the ignorant and the sadistic.

171 posted on 01/04/2002 7:34:20 AM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Since when did I "earn" grace through a sacrament? It is freely given. I obtain grace from God by asking for it. So do you. I ask and receive through the signs Jesus gave us. You ask through prayer. We are both "acting" when we receive grace.

The Council of Trent
Seventh Session: Decree Concerning the Sacraments
(says)

For the completion of the salutary doctrine on Justification...it hath seemed suitable to treat of the most holy Sacraments of the Church, through which all true justice either begins, or being begun is increased, or being lost is repaired. After this Catholic doctrine on justification, which whosoever does not faithfully and firmly accept cannot be justified.


It seems to me that you need top see what was determined at the Council of Trent, and stop asking me to explain your doctrine.  It's right here.  You can throw out your analogies, but it's real plain what they are saying.

It sounds to me like you need to teach what you say you believe to your leadership, as they are not saying what you are saying.  You are providing terrible spin and it shows all around you.

172 posted on 01/04/2002 8:06:12 AM PST by AlGone2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Iowegian
So I ask, do we believe what they say (or write) or what they teach and hold as true?

Follow the money...

I've said that some Christians are catholic, but not all catholics are Christian.

Ex-catholic, now Christian.

173 posted on 01/04/2002 8:47:29 AM PST by packrat01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Theresa;SoothingDave
Catholic means UNIVERSAL. The Catholic Church is generic Christianity. It's Christianity without additions or subtractions.

We agree that "catholic" (at least with a small 'c') means "universal."

However, I'd make a distinction between saying "Catholic Church" vs. saying "Church." Once you add the adjective "Catholic" in front of "Church," it confuses rather than clarifies. I assume most people, upon hearing the word "Catholic," tend to think specifically of the Roman Catholic church, along with its general doctrines & traditions. There may be a handful who *do* hear "Catholic" primarily as "Universal," but those folks are likely pretty difficult to find.

The "Church" cannot be not limited to "Catholics/Roman Catholics" or to any other denomination. IMO, the "Church" has nothing to do with denomination. If some want to argue that the Catholic/Roman Catholic church was the "first church" and thus every other "church" (group of believers) broke away from the "first church," we may simply disagree on the definition of "church" and/or "Church."

When speaking of the "Church," I believe it to be "the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation," as defined in The Baptist Faith and Message.

Christianity without additions or subtractions is best defined by the following, which can also be found in The Baptist Faith and Message:
"Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord."
Having said that, my hope is that all Christians of whatever denomination remember to test what their fellows or leaders say against the divinely inspired Word of God.

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."
- Luke 21:33 (NIV) -

174 posted on 01/04/2002 9:01:01 AM PST by k2blader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon; Iowegian
Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ, would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved.

There is a lot of wiggle room in this statement created by the word knowing. Certainly if one was never exposed to the RC teachings, one could not know. If were exposed (as might be the case for a Muslim) they may still not know in the sense that they do not believe.

Does this Vatican II fuzzy statement supercede the previous black and white statements?

Pick the weakest statement, and attack syntax and grammar. Which of the previous infallible statements most closely parallels this statement?

Can't tell from your argument whose side you're taking.

175 posted on 01/04/2002 9:14:15 AM PST by packrat01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave; Iowegian
Everyone should then, to assure their salvation, be a formal member of this Church and profess what She professes. However, we make allowances for God to have mercy on those, who for reasons beyond their control, do not formally join the Catholic Church.

That's it. Those not formally part of the Catholic Church who are not culpable for this fact can be saved anyway. But this salvation is only possible because these people will be, in some mystical way, "inside" of the Church.

So, excatholics are going straight to hell, because we should know better? Or, am I misinterpreting your statements?

176 posted on 01/04/2002 9:23:02 AM PST by packrat01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Before Vatican II, we took a dim view of Protestants and their culpability for being such. Now we have a more accepting view.

Might white of you...

So, all protestants who died before Vatican II went to hell, and those since you are more accepting of? i.e. Not, maybe going to hell?

The prior infallible popes were (gasp) wrong?

177 posted on 01/04/2002 9:27:38 AM PST by packrat01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: rface
You are wrong.

Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: "As regards ‘Catholic’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church" (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1).

.N.D. Kelly, writes in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines (HarperSanFrancisco, 1978) :

"According to him [St. Augustine], the Church is the realm of Christ, His mystical body and His bride, the mother of Christians [Ep 34:3; Serm 22:9]. There is no salvation apart from it; schismatics can have the faith and sacraments....but cannot put them to a profitable use since the Holy Spirit is only bestowed in the Church [De bapt 4:24; 7:87; Serm ad Caes 6]....It goes without saying that Augustine identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome....By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms....The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan." (Kelly, page 412, 413, 417)

Augustine

"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard" (The True Religion 7:12 [A.D. 390]).

"We believe in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches. But heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God, and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor" (Faith and Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).

...

""If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so" (ibid., 5:6).

In the Catholic Church . . . a few spiritual men attain [wisdom] in this life, in such a way that . . . they know it without any doubting, while the rest of the multitude finds [its] greatest safety not in lively understanding but in the simplicity of believing. . . . [T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in her bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

178 posted on 01/04/2002 9:30:46 AM PST by electron1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
LOL. You got me there. I should have said priests are not supposed to ad lib during Mass. You will find little of this in the Latin Mass, as few can ad lib in Latin.

Oh yeah!?

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?

179 posted on 01/04/2002 9:33:51 AM PST by P8riot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
One is not saved through the church, but saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

Ah, but is not the Church the body of Jesus Christ?

Elsewhere, the apostles teach that once one has accepted Christ, they are automatically added to the universal church of Jesus Christ

Where do you find this at?

(not a visible organization, but the invisible entity known as the Body of Christ). Hence, it is impossible to become saved, and not also become a member of the universal Body of Christ.

To me, the word BODY implies visible. If Christ wanted to imply an invisible Church, he would have used SPIRIT.

180 posted on 01/04/2002 9:34:02 AM PST by electron1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
queen of england, pope, vatican

They'll take into account my American ancestry, culpability, and ignorance.

She's their queen, not mine. I have no queen, but a living King.

181 posted on 01/04/2002 9:34:44 AM PST by packrat01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: packrat01
So, excatholics are going straight to hell, because we should know better? Or, am I misinterpreting your statements?

So, all protestants who died before Vatican II went to hell, and those since you are more accepting of? i.e. Not, maybe going to hell?

I suggest you look up the word "culpability." Everything hinges on that.

SD

182 posted on 01/04/2002 9:44:25 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: P8riot
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?

You cribbed that from probably the same place I stole this:

Lex clavatoris designati delenda est

SD

183 posted on 01/04/2002 9:45:22 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Theresa
Hello Theresa,

I liked your article, and generally I agree with it.

However, by printing that article there is a danger that the readers will get the wrong understanding. They will take it to far. They may conclude that the Church basically says that ALL who follow their conscious are saved, they dont really need to follow the Church or anything. This is obviously wrong. Given todays grave misunderstandings on what it means to say "follow your conscious" you can pretty much gurantee there will be more confusion than enlightenment on this issue.

Also, although one theoretically can be saved by not being a full fledged member of the Catholic Church, this doesnt in anyway say they will be saved. The Church offers soo many graces(through sacraments) and forms the conscious so well that one may say that one is very unlikely to be saved outside the Church. THe risks are too great. Even Augustine believed in the "Massa Damnata" which basically means the great majority of people will be damned.

Another problem with publishing this paper, is it fails to notice that following your concscious would lead you to joining the Catholic Church. Hence anybody who doesnt act upon the intuition to investigate the Church, or does not join when they may feel it is true, is directly violating their conscious. So they would not be saved.

In conclusion, the "salvation outside the Church" doctrine is very complicated and not as simple as this article portrays. GIven our culture we are in, and our current presuppositions, publishing that article would lead people to more misunderstandings of Catholic theology than understandings.

184 posted on 01/04/2002 9:51:16 AM PST by electron1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?

You cribbed that from probably the same place I stole this:

Lex clavatoris designati delenda est

Glad it's only in the American League


Sic semper tyranosaurus!

185 posted on 01/04/2002 10:09:54 AM PST by P8riot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
The reference to "the Bible" assumes some accepted form of canonical texts of sacred scripture arrived at in church council through deliberation with "the Church" understood as also under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Welcome to the Catholic Church, my friend!

Not for me, thanks. catholics have their "extra-canon" books; which are not recognized by protestants as being inspired writing. Some were added to your canon waaaay late, to drum up support for the practice of issuing indulgences.

Follow the money.

186 posted on 01/04/2002 10:12:15 AM PST by packrat01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: packrat01
Gee, thanks for the defamatory bigoted response. For the record, the basic "canon" of texts you use was in place in the early Church of Augustine and Athanasius. The "creed" they believed has the same articles of "faith" that binds on Catholic Christians today. Boy, I guess Protestants would never do anything corrupt with "money" in your book, would they? Like that perverted creep FDR and his buddies who imposed the socialist income tax on all of us!
187 posted on 01/04/2002 10:26:33 AM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Lex clavatoris designati delenda est

Or did you mean

Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est?

188 posted on 01/04/2002 10:30:00 AM PST by P8riot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: AlGone2001; SoothingDave
If SD isn't following the doctrine; is he anathema?

Does that mean "not catholic anymore"?

WELCOME ABOARD SD, I'm not either!

189 posted on 01/04/2002 10:37:07 AM PST by packrat01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: P8riot
Or did you mean

Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est?

Doesn't it work either way?

SD

190 posted on 01/04/2002 10:37:07 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: packrat01;algone2001
If SD isn't following the doctrine; is he anathema?

WELCOME ABOARD SD, I'm not either!

It's all about culpability.

SD

191 posted on 01/04/2002 10:38:34 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
I suggest you look up the word "culpability." Everything hinges on that.

I'd rather we use your definition. I don't want to part with a hug and a handshake.

Truth cannot be different, for different people. If your truth is not the same as my truth; one of us is wrong.

192 posted on 01/04/2002 10:44:00 AM PST by packrat01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Pablo64
But one of the many reasons I left the Catholic church.

You and I, as well -- and a veritable HOST of others -- I might add.

193 posted on 01/04/2002 10:51:25 AM PST by BenR2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: packrat01
I suggest you look up the word "culpability." Everything hinges on that.

I'd rather we use your definition. I don't want to part with a hug and a handshake.

You mean this definition from Trent?

After this Catholic doctrine on justification, which whosoever does not faithfully and firmly accept cannot be justified.

What of it? Those who don't accept our teaching cannot be justified. Does that mean that small children and the feeble can not be justified? No. There are always exceptions for culpability.

SD

194 posted on 01/04/2002 10:52:22 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Theresa
...and to share with them the truth as we have discovered it in Christ.

"the truth"...there is false truth--generic truth---and top shelf TRUTH---

give me a fresh bottle---throw out the cap and pour me a double!

195 posted on 01/04/2002 11:07:42 AM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
I suppose you are right

Die dulci freure

196 posted on 01/04/2002 11:13:30 AM PST by P8riot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
and to share with them the truth as we have discovered it in Christ.

"the truth"...there is false truth--generic truth---and top shelf TRUTH---

give me a fresh bottle---throw out the cap and pour me a double!

veritas semper veritas

197 posted on 01/04/2002 11:17:18 AM PST by P8riot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity; BRAAD
'reckon I AM biggoted.

I'm not the pot calling the kettle black. We agree that nasty things have been done in the name of God; by a whole passle of denominations.

The "creed" they believed has the same articles of "faith" that binds on Catholic Christians today.

but y'all catholics have them "extra" books that even the early church didn't recognize as inspired.

Boy, I guess Protestants would never do anything corrupt with "money" in your book, would they?

In my Book, EVERY man is totally depraved until God extends grace and they accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. Matters not his religion.

Like that perverted creep FDR and his buddies who imposed the socialist income tax on all of us!

Amen! Like those other perverted creeps, JFK, and WJC.

You GO!

198 posted on 01/04/2002 11:21:23 AM PST by packrat01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
That'll do.

I'll be justified by faith in Jesus, but not faith in the RCC, thank you.

Handshake?

199 posted on 01/04/2002 11:25:18 AM PST by packrat01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: packrat01
Fair enough. Have a great weekend.

SD

200 posted on 01/04/2002 11:28:48 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 401-412 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson