No Salvation Outside the Church

Catholic Answers ^ | 12/05 | Fr. Ray Ryland

[knarf]

The church (ecclesia) is the called out body of believers .... sort of like we in FR, we are a body of like minded believers, gathered in one place (FR) to discuss and be taught.

We (are) call(ed) ourselves Freepers ... so in a broad sense, we are a church, an ecclesia ... a body of believers.

The Catholic ecclesia makes claim to be the only true church, unlike FR that makes no such claim, yet we recognize that others of like mindedness are also "in the battle" for truth and Freedom.

SJ writings can be pretty impressive, but it all boils down to just another elitist mindset.

[cva66snipe]

If the Holy Spirit leads everyone to the same Truth, then why are there so many DIFFERENT sects of Protestantism? They can't all be right!

Why did Paul and Barnabas have such a sharp disagreement? What came from it? Two men of basically equal knowledge going to different lands rather than as one. The chosen 12 had problems enough with the theology of their day and there were divisions. Paul's teachings were not the same as Peter although both believed and served the same Christ.

Some of the Protestant churches have left behind the teachings of the Bible as have some Roman and Orthodox variants Catholic. This is true with any church. Most however do not commit the unforgivable sin which is the denial or rejection of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior the Son of GOD.

Personally I've found intercession prayer unneeded. I can ask of GOD what I need and it is given if I need it. I don't as such think persons need to prove their salvation by showing spiritual gifts like speaking in tongues as Charismatics say must happen. But I do however know first hand the experience of being overwhelmed or in the presence of the Trinity as a message was given me at a very difficult time that gave me strength for what was to be. This was at a laying on of hands. No one heard that message but me as I was the one it was intended for. I had some real difficult decisions facing me then and months following that had GOD's Hand and blessing not been in it a very bad outcome would have happened for several persons. Most Baptist don't admit to such :>}

Some feel the only way they can be close to GOD is to be in church every time the doors open. Some need that. Some need the worshiping structure of the Roman catholic Church, some need the Charismatic doctrines, some may just need to hear a sermon, some may need a hell fire and damnation sermon, and some may not. Some may feel the need to pick up snakes to show their faith Not Me unless GOD tells me to do so.

The only way I can even pray or rather hold enough concentration to pray is by talking a walk alone along a favorite river path. Some may say there is no scriptural basis for this yes there is. Even the LORD went out alone to pray. He also took his chosen away from the cares of their surroundings to pray.

I've seen persons receive salvation at church alters in tears and I've seen them receive the same calling out hunting or fishing. Where were Christ chosen 12 when He called them?

I have no beef with the Roman Catholic church as half my family is such including a Priest. Some as well are Baptist preachers one or two may even be Mormons I'm not certain. No church is 100% right none are not one. If any church or it's leaders were 100% right then Christ death was in vain.

I believe Protestant Churches are a End Times Prophecy brought on by the expansion of knowledge and communication. Some of it by Divine Revelation and some by finds like The Dead Sea Scrolls and a better understanding of ancient language and Hebrew Traditions. I don't see it as an evil but rather as a means of more persons spreading the Gospel to all nations thus the same way Paul and Barnabas were divided.

[Semper Mark]

“As for Confession, the Catholics follow Christ in their approach to Confession. Jesus gave to the Apostles and their successors the power to forgive sins, reconciling sinners to God after Baptism.”

There's not one instance in the Book of Acts or in the Epistles of an Apostle remitting the sins of anyone.

The power to forgive sins is Christ's, and Christ's alone.

May I ask a question? What is it that forgives sins?

[melsec]

Confession time - I have heard the expression used many times by some Catholics as a way to exclude others from the Church and from Salvation - I would be lying if I said anything else - so it is good to have this explanation and and a fuller understanding of ‘The Church’ in this post.

Thanks

Mel

[driftdiver]

“...Praying to any man (or woman) who is not the Son of God is not my ideal....

Don’t ever ask anyone to pray for you.”

There is a HUGE difference between praying FOR someone and praying TO someone.

[fire4effect]

The Catholic Church has done as much or more to protect and perpetuate the existence of Western culture over the centuries than any other institution.

[Petronski]

Pray means “ask.” Asking the Blessed Mother or St. Peter to pray for us is no different than asking Auntie Elsa to pray for us.

If the former is wrong, so is the latter.

[redgolum]

Most Christian Churches believe in similar things.

The biggest issue is “What do you mean by the Church?”

And not all Roman Catholic theologians agree with the article, some on catholic.com are a lot more limited on who outside the Roman Catholic Church can be saved.

[alnick]

No church is 100% right. None are, not one.

Exactly. Churches (denominations) are comprised of fallible human beings. Catholic and protestant alike are run by fallible human beings.

In all Christian denominations -- Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal, non-denominational, etc. -- there are saved believers and unsaved pretenders. Those of us in the body of Christ (all believers) should celebrate what we share in common (devotion to Christ) rather than argue about where we differ.

:-)

[Iscool]

No one comes to God except through Christ, absolutely -- and, if you read St. Paul, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ on earth. So, no one comes to Christ except through the Body of which He is the Head -- the Church.

What a bunch of clap-trap....What a Satanic lie

In Christianity, no one can get into the body/church unless they first go thru the Head of the body, Jesus Christ...Just the opposite of what you are stating...

Joh 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

Jesus is the door...Your religion is NOT the door...Jesus never cliamed any church being the door...

You claim you are the 'sheepfold' and you claim you are the 'door' to get to the sheepfold...And when you get thru the door into the sheepfold, you can then see Jesus...

For those of you who are interested in what Jesus says, Jesus has a far different version...

Joh 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
Joh 10:8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
Joh 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
Joh 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

You guys that spew this stuff are a large pack of wolves, as Jesus says...

No one gets into the sheepfold/church until they first come to Jesus...Jesus is the door...

[TheDon]

Every man who is ignorant of the gospel of Christ and of his Church but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity (CCC 1260).

Thanks for the post. It makes a point regarding catholic belief of the salvation of those who never heard of Jesus Christ that I've heard catholic FReepers make before. It goes well with the belief in a merciful and loving Father in Heaven.

[TheDon]

Where do you think the Bible came from? You think it dropped from the sky?

Some FReepers think so. They insist if you believe otherwise you are disparaging the Bible.

[bdeaner]

There is a HUGE difference between praying FOR someone and praying TO someone.

YES. And there is a HUGE difference between ASKING someone to pray FOR you and praying TO that person.

Catholics ask others -- including the Saints and Mary -- to pray FOR them, we do not pray TO them (not unless we are heretics).

[Quix]

Not the construction on reality I find in the Bible.

A mixture . . . can actually be seductively deadly.

[Quix]

A mixture . . . can actually be seductively deadly.

In all “Christian” and Christian groups.

[Quix]

Nope.

[bdeaner]

In Christianity, no one can get into the body/church unless they first go thru the Head of the body, Jesus Christ...

The Church is the means on earth that Christ gave us to preserve and teach the Good News revealed in His Word -- and ALL those who comprise His adopted Children comprise His Mystical Body. That is exactly what the article says, and it is absolutely correct. If you have a problem with that, take it up with St. Paul. He taught it.

But if every Christian is part of the Mystical Body, why do they all have differences of opinion on doctrine? They cannot all be right. There can only be one Truth. And so, as the Church accurate teaches, not all Christians are in FULL communion with the Mystical Body of Christ. Those in FULL communion are those whose beliefs and practices are one with the Word of God in the Bible and the infallible teachings of those Scriptures by the Magisterium of the Church. Every heresy that claims it is inspired by the Holy Spirit cannot logically be, and of course, are not each right.

If you look at the history of the early Church, you will see that it continually struggled against heresies and those who promited them. We also see the Church responding to those threats again and again by convening councils and turning to Rome to settle disputes in matters of doctrine and discipline. For example, Pope Clement intervened in a controversy in the Church at Corinth at the end of the 1st century and put an end to a schism there. In the 2nd century, Pope Victor threatened to excommunicate a large portion of the Church in the East because of a dispute about when Easter should be celebrated. In the earlier part of the 3rd century, Pope Callistus pronounced the condemnation of the Sabellian heresy.

In the case of these heresies and/or conflicts in discipine that would arise, the people involved would defend their erroneous beliefs by their respective interpretations of Scripture, apart from Sacred Tradition and the teaching Magisterium of the Church. A good illustration of this point is the case of Arius, the 4th-century priest who declared that the Son of God was a creature and was not co-equal with the Father.

Arius and those who followed him quoted verses from the Bible to "prove" their claims. The disputes and controversies which arose over his teachings became so great that the first Ecumenical Council was convened in Nicaea in 325 A.D. to settle them. The Council, under the authority of the Pope, declared Arius' teachings to be heretical and made some decisive declarations about the person of Christ, and it did so based on what Sacred Tradition had to say regarding the Scripture verses in question.

Here we see the teaching authority of the Church being used as the final say in an extremely important doctrinal matter. If there had been no teaching authority to appeal to, then Arius' error could have overtaken the Church. As it is, a majority of the bishops at that time fell for the Arian heresy. Even though Arius had based his arguments on the Bible and probably "compared Scripture with Scripture," the fact is that he arrived at an heretical conclusion. It was the teaching authority of the Church--hierarchically constituted--which stepped in and declared he was wrong.

I hope you do not believe Arius was correct in his belief that the Son was created. Do you? Of course not. So let me emphasize again: Arius presumably "compared Scripture with Scripture," but nonetheless arrived at an erroneous conclusion. If this was true for Arius, what guarantee do you, or does ANY Protestant have, that this is not also true for your (their) interpretation of a given Bible passage? If you know for certain that Arius' interpretations were heretical, this implies that an objectively true or "right" interpretation exists for the Biblical passages he used.

The issue, then, becomes a question of how we can know what that true interpretation is. The only possible answer is that there must be, out of necessity, an infallible authority to tell us. That infallible authority, the Catholic Church, declared Arius heretical. Had the Catholic Church not been both infallible and authoritative in its declaration, then believers would have had no reason whatsoever to reject Arius' teachings, and the whole of Christianity today might have been comprised of modern-day Arians.

It is evident, then, that using the Bible alone is not a guarantee of arriving at a doctrinal truth -- and so even your claims to base your authority solely in Jesus are based on the Bible, and assume a doctrinal truth that comes from your particular Protestant tradition. But there are THOUSANDS of them, all with conflicting claims on doctrinal matters. If this is the "church," it is not the "pillar and ground of truth" promised to us by Christ, and Christ is not a liar -- a claim that would truly Satanic.

There is ONE Truth and Christ gave the Catholic Church, and ONLY the Catholic Church, the authority to teach it infallibly. BUT remember, the Mystical Body of Christ includes ALL Christian believers, whether or not they are in full communion with the Church. Christ comes into the world through anyone who sincerely loves and serves the Lord -- but without full communion in the Church, they lack the special grace the Church's teaching provides in helping to preserve them from falling into heresy -- a pathway that could potential endanger their souls because it can eventually lead them to grave violations of morality.

[Quix]

Well put.

[bdeaner]

Can you elaborate? I am not following your point.

[Ottofire]

Perhaps you can give me the interpretation of the following from the Council of Florence, which I believe is considered to be an Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church, which is in line with the article?

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Denzinger 714).

Wow, shedding blood for Christ! That is a doozy for the Catholic Church to defend with its new Vatican II veneer. Is that one of those two thousand year old unchanging traditions taught by Christ to the apostles? Auigh!

Father, forgive them for they know not what they do in Your name...