"Salvation" as defined by the Catholic Catechism

Catholic Catechism, - US Conference of Catholic Bishops ^ | Leap Day - 2-29-2012 | The Catholic Church

[fishtank]

If you look up "salvation" in a Catholic Catechism, what does one find?

I'll show you....

Several years ago, I had an authoritative catechism that didn't even have a glossary entry for "salvation", but the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has a catechism that DOES have an entry for "salvation".

Let's see what they say:

[aruanan]

In any event there is no need to search for an antecedent in :7, since the verb phrase is natural and immediate. Further, all the English translations have "that" not "those/these" which would be required in English if "riches" (plural) were the antecendent.

The Greek word translated as "riches" is singular as is the singular "that" refers back to it. And the current translation, such as seen in something like the NIV, screws up the parallelism in this group of verses, the parenthetical "by grace are you saved" that is then repeated and expanded as "for by grace are you saved through faith."

Like this, using the KJV as a template:

But God, who is rich (πλουσιος) in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved) and raised us up together and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding richness (το υπερβαλλον πλουτος) of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus (for by grace you have been saved through faith) and that [exceeding richness of His grace] is the gift of God, not of yourselves, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Funny how this keeps mysteriously getting scrubbed from FR on Google searches over the past ten years or so while posts about Monica and the cigar are preserved.

[Not gonna take it anymore]

Gospel According to Saint John
Chapter 1

The divinity and incarnation of Christ. John bears witness of him. He begins to call his disciples.

[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. [4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [5] And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Jesus is God. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one. Jesus was always there at the beginning. He is God.

[Lera]

I'm not the one denying his deity.
I'm not the one denying he came in the flesh ,died and was raised .


He had to come in the flesh to be a kinsman redeemer . Anything short of that would not have been able to redeem anyone . What does redeem a debt mean ? It means to PAY THE DEBT IN FULL . That means HE DIED TO PAY THE PRICE FOR YOUR SINS , ALL OF THEM , FOR EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES .



Titus 3:9 but avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law. For they are unprofitable and vain.

Titus 3:9 is not scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit . The GOSPEL is in the OLD TESTAMENT hidden in the names in the genealogy and the Law was given to POINT to CHRIST and TESTIFY of HIM


Hebrew names in the geneology , English meaning in parentheses
Adam (Man)
Seth (Appointed)
Enosh (Mortal)
Kenan (Sorrow)
Mahalalel(The Blessed God)
Jared (Shall come down)
Enoch (Teaching)
Methuselah (His death shall bring)
Lamech (The Despairing)
Noah (Rest, or comfort.)
Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring (the) despairing rest.
There is the Gospel hidden within a genealogy in Genesis. There is some proof that Titus was written by some mortal man that was NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit


NO those who mock HIM are the ones who say HIS BLOOD was not enough to cover our sins . The ones who say that are the liars .

[johngrace]

LERA REPLIES:

Titus 3:9 but avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law. For they are unprofitable and vain.

"Titus 3:9 is not scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit . The GOSPEL is in the OLD TESTAMENT hidden in the names in the genealogy and the Law was given to POINT to CHRIST and TESTIFY of HIM"

Revelation 22:19

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

[Rashputin]

Lera says, "Titus 3:9 is not scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit"   ROTFLMAO . . . 

What a clear and definitive example of where, "Your Own Personal Interpretation of Scripture" always leads.

When "that's what Scripture says, but that's not what it means isn't enough, and adopting the Pharisee canon rather than the Christian canon isn't even enough, the "Scripture Alone" folks who call Jesus Christ a liar by denying what Christ said about His flesh and His blood have no problem throwing out portions of the New Testament right along with the portions they've torn out of the Old Testament.

Obviously those who worship their own, Most High and Holy Self while claiming to be Christian don't believe in the Bible or Christ. Yet, they pretend to be Christian when they show up and defame true Christians and otherwise slander the name of Christ, the Bible, and everything else that Christians believe.

A great many Christians have long recognized that it was only a matter of time before the folks who refuse to accept the Christian canon started throwing out parts of the New Testament when they were on the spot for reinterpreting and twisting Scripture or, as in this case, calling Jesus Christ a liar by denying what He said about His flesh and His blood. Well, here we see the Lego Block Method of Scripture Interpretation in it's purest form. The same form that led to dispensationalism which deliberately hides proof of the deity of Christ, the same form that led to rewrites of the Bible by fringe groups such as the Watchtower crowd, and the same form that led to the Mormon addition of an entire new collection of books they claim is equal to the Scriptures.

Obviously, trying to talk with such folks is just like throwing pearls before swine because they simply muck the pearls around in their wallow, gobble them down, digest them, and pass them out into their comfortable wallow as more waste they can lie in.

[MarkBsnr]

Titus 3:9 is not scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit .

[Rashputin]

"NO those who mock HIM are the ones who say HIS BLOOD was not enough to cover our sins ."

The only folks who deny His blood is sufficient are those who also deny what Christ said about His flesh and His blood being present in the Eucharist.

While such deniers refuse to accept His blood as atonement for their sins, those of us who are Christian take Christ at His word and share in His flesh and His blood at every Eucharist because we know He died for us and shed His blood for us.

Those who do not even recognize the Christian canon of either the Old or New Testament, however, are only worshiping their own, Most High and Holy Self while pretending to believe that His blood is sufficient. After all, if someone denies what Christ said about His flesh and His blood they are calling Him a liar and by definition they don't believe His blood is sufficient because they don't believe Christ is God.

The only ones around here who deny Christ is God are the same ones who claim Titus isn't a part of the inspired Word of God. Now, who could that be?

[johngrace]

Dear Lera- We will be praying for you.

[Lera]

woops my mistake
mistook it for tobit

[nonsporting]

The Greek word translated as "riches" is singular as is the singular "that" refers back to it. And the current translation, such as seen in something like the NIV, screws up the parallelism in this group of verses, the parenthetical "by grace are you saved" that is then repeated and expanded as "for by grace are you saved through faith."

(I replied earlier this morning, but my post is not showing?! So here is an abbreviated followup.)

A translator ought to produce coherent and grammatical statements. Thus, my previous post. If "that" (English) refers to "riches" (English), THEN it is ungrammatical--an agreement error. 2:8 would need to be written:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and these (riches) not of yourselves: they are the gift of God.

But, it is not.

Verses :7,8 (KJV) are written:

That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches (plural; not "richness") of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that (singular) not of yourseves: it (singular) is (3rd person singular) the gift of God.

The English translations all reflect the understanding that [touto] does NOT refer to [ploutos], since it renders the demonstrative pronoun as English singular "that" and not "these" and the subsequent verb phrase ("it is") is singular.

[MarkBsnr]

Tobit is found not only in the Septuagint, but in the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran (in both Hebrew and Aramaic). Jerome’s translation of the Bible into Latin is from an Aramaic source. It is contained in the Codex Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Venetus, and Sinaiticus, to name a few.

The Council of Carthage in 397 declared it canonical and Trent in 1546 confirmed it. Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint and so did all the early Christians, which contains Tobit. They all believed it to be Scripture every bit as much as Genesis. On whose authority do you declare Tobit non canonical?

[Jvette]

Just came in from work and was checking this out due to a ping.

Thank you for the belly laugh this induced:)

[aruanan]

The English translations all reflect the understanding that [touto] does NOT refer to [ploutos], since it renders the demonstrative pronoun as English singular "that" and not "these" and the subsequent verb phrase ("it is") is singular.

But "ploutos" is not plural. It is singular. It is translated in English as "riches" but it could just as easily be translated as "wealth."

[Rashputin]

"woops my mistake"

Good, now we know without a doubt that the folks who ignore what Christ Himself said believe the the Pharisees but not Jesus Christ and His Apostles.

That's always the starting point for those who apply the Lego Block Method of Scripture Interpretation as part of their pretending to be Christian while at the same time denying deity of Jesus Christ by calling Christ a liar. First they throw out the Christian canon, then they reinterpret or ignore whatever doesn't fit with their worship of their Most High and Holy Self, and finally they openly admit that they believe in Their Own Personal Interpretation of Scripture even when doing so denies the deity of Christ by calling Christ a liar.

I'm glad we've finally gotten a complete, clear, and open, admission that when someone claims to believe in "Scripture Alone" it doesn't mean they believe in the Bible as the Word of God. It really means they believe in their own Most High and Holy Self and whatever portions of the Scripture they can twist to suit their own preconceptions and preferences. Not only can they rationalize any sort of behavior, they believe they are their own God and Savior in spite of their pretense of being Christian. Otherwise, they'd accept the same Scriptures Christ and the Apostles accepted, quoted, and preached from.

Christ not making note of there being any errors in the Septuagint proves a) "Scripture Alone" is a bogus concept because Christ didn't make an issue of what was contained in the Scriptures, b) the Scriptures as embodied by the Septuagint are the true Scriptures because if they were not Christ and the Apostles would surely have taken issue with them, and c) those who like the Pharisees remove part of the Scriptures Christ and the Apostles accepted do so for the same reason the Pharisees removed those portions of the Scripture, to obscure The Word as embodied in Jesus Christ our King.

have a nice day

[happygrl]

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/omegamanradio/2012/02/23/episode-579-petrus-romanus—the-final-pope-1

From your link, an entire four hour program. WOW. Listened to the entire program, still digesting the information presented.

Much is happening in this world below the radar....

Powers and principalities are at work against human kind.

What I love about Steve Quayle, is that he always presents the gospel, no matter the venue.

Thanks for the link, Quix. You know that we share a common viewpoint on these matters.

[Quix]

Thanks for your kind reply.

Here’s a thread about the Vatican slant and direction toward the one world religion and the ‘spritiuality’ proffered by the fallen angels:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2853399/posts?page=17#17

[Quix]

Here's the frightful points from the OP on that thread, hosted by Steve Quayle. I agree--he's very good to emphasize Salvation through Christ every chance he not only gets but can create (Quixicated emphases):

If people want to email me,

tomhorn@defenderpublishing.com

I’m glad to send them the actual publications from some of the highest placed astronomers inside the Vatican—Uhh—in which they’re talking about us soon being greeted by extraterrestrial civilizations and how we will need to respect those intelligences who are going to have, according to these documents from the Vatican, they’re going to have, let’s say a "HIGHER" level of understanding of God--and the reason is because they’re not fallen according to this theology—we’re fallen—they’re not—they’re closer to God than we are—

And therefore, they’re going to have a non-terrestrial intelligence that offers "BETTER" understanding of the relationship between God and the whole of Creation. Uhh And that ann ann and let me just quote—let me just quote this document from the Vatican.

“This would not immediately oblige the Christian to renounce his own faith in God simply on the basis of the reception of new unexpected information of a religious character from extraterrestrial civilizations. But such a renunciation could come soon after as the new religious content originating from outside the earth is confirmed as reasonable and credible--once the "trustworthiness" of the information has been verified.”

.

Tom H:
Let me stop for a moment in this quote and ask if anybody can explain to me HOW IT CAN BE VERIFIED? HOW it could be verified? How would you verify an extraterrestrial message? This really kinda sets me aside. Anyway--

.

Tom H:
“The believer would have to reconcile such new information with the truth he or she already knows and believes on the basis of the Revelation of the One and Triune God conducting a re-reading of the Gospels inclusive of the new data.”

.

Tom H:
So how this information’s going to be confirmed as reliable is beyond me. How this more complete ET Gospel is going to de-emphasize or significantly modify our understanding of Salvation through Jesus Christ This is something that is also beyond me. But you have Vatican Observatory Directors—From ummm Christopher Corballi for instance, in his article:

.

Tom H:
WHAT IF THERE WERE OTHER INHABITED WORLDS concluding that “Jesus simply might not remain the only word of Salvation.” That’s his words. “I would try to explore the alien by letting it be what it is [i.e. the DELUSION it is proffered as--from hell] without rushing for a classification category—not even presuming 2 genders.” Corballi said. And then he drops this bombshell:

[QUIX: FOLKS, the TRANSGENDER/ DUAL GENDER/ CONFUSED GENDER/ NO GENDER press by the globalists in society is NOT "merely" rampant hedonism and confusion from hell. There's a method to the madness . . . and an agenda beyond the 'mere' sexual chaos.] .

Tom H:
“While Christ is the first and last word—the Alpha and Omega spoken to humanity—He is not necessarily the only word spoken to the universe. So the word spoken to us does not seem to exclude an equivalent word spoken to aliens. They too could have had their "logos event"—whatever that event might have been. It does not have to be a repeated death and Resurrection. If we "allow God more imagination" than some religious thinkers [i.e. By the way, let me insert here—Steve Quayle, Tom Horn, Chris Putnam et al Ahh] some religious thinkers seem to have. For God as omnipotent is not restricted to one form of language with the human.”

[Quix: How magnanimous of the Vatican to 'allow' God to be SO UNBIBLICALLY CHANGEABLE from HIS WORD and CHARACTER which change NOT! . . . "Heaven and earth will pass away but my Word will never pass away." What blasphemous lunacy! Alamo-Girl--what's your perspective on this issue?] .

Tom H: So--what we have are very high ranking spokespersons for the Vatican who uhh in recent years including in 2011—and we’ll see what they say in 2012—are offering language acknowledging first of all the likelihood of the extraterrestrial intelligence. And secondly, a dramatic role that ETs’ introduction to civilization is going to play in regard to altering established creeds about anthropology, philosophy religion, uhh uhh redemption, but uh specifically a re-reading of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And uh by the way, this could be consequential to the very near future.

[Quix: May God have mercy and protect from such a huge delusion from hell all those who seek THE LORD JESUS, FATHER, SPIRIT AND GOD'S WAYS with their whole hearts.]

FROM A FREEPER:

That ufo light thing has appeared over the vatican , the white house and the dome of the rock in jerusalem

BTW Tom Horn is on Chuck Misslers 66/10 radio show today talking about transhumanism

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/66-40/listen/02-29-2012-the-hybrid-age-part-3-261662.html

[Joya]

Thank you for this info & for your comments.

[Cronos]

Quix -- you've been told before not to post Alien UFO theories like your statement And secondly, a dramatic role that ETs’ introduction to civilization is going to play in regard

[Cvengr]

Thank you for the link.