A troubling confession - Extra ecclesiam nulla salus!

[ozso]

Better to avoid statements that you will regret.

Well considering how often I get snapped at, that would be a whole lot of statements.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Well considering how often I get snapped at, that would be a whole lot of statements.

None will snap if no provocation is given.

 

[tampasteve]

---

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:​

​

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336​

​

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:​

​

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337​

​

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338​

---

Since you, yourself, are not embraced by "This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:" I do not see how it can provide for you an "out".


I do not think that the Catholic Church teaches the damnation of anyone, but it does state that for those who knowingly and wilfully break with the Church there is grave danger. That is sufficient I would think, to make anyone of sound mind stop and take note. But if what the Catholic Church says does not matter and you are persuaded that the warning she gives may be safely ignored because you think that they are in error, then the risk is yours and you are in all likelihood unable to participate in this discussion constructively, because Catholics know full well that former-Catholics who are now protestants are persuaded that their current perspective is true and right.

Thank you so much for taking the time to write out that reply, it was actually going really well and I was "on board" with, I actually thought we were going to be able to have a discussion until you wrote the below part:

and you are in all likelihood unable to participate in this discussion constructively, because Catholics know full well that former-Catholics who are now protestants are persuaded that their current perspective is true and right.

In all due respect, if seems as if you are the one that cannot have a constructive conversation about the subject. Of course I believe my perspective is true and right, just as you do. Honestly, that should be our starting point, me a Protestant and you a Catholic - each of us knowing the other's perspective on what is "true and right". But that does not mean we can't have a conversation about it in a constructive manner, at least I thought that we could.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In all due respect, if seems as if you are the one that cannot have a constructive conversation about the subject. Of course I believe my perspective is true and right, just as you do. Honestly, that should be our starting point, me a Protestant and you a Catholic - each of us knowing the other's perspective on what is "true and right". But that does not mean we can't have a conversation about it in a constructive manner, at least I thought that we could.

Well, you see, it is not so much that you think you're right and I think I'm right. I started this thread to show, with proper qualifications, that Catholics do not, in fact, think all protestants are doomed to hell - a point of view I have seen expressed by a number of protestants on CF. But what the CCC has to say on the matter does not include those who are apostates, or who claim to be such by claiming to have knowingly and willingly parted company with the Catholic Church because they studied Catholic teaching and found it wanting, having grasped it well and fully.

 

[tampasteve]

Well, you see, it is not so much that you think you're right and I think I'm right. I started this thread to show, with proper qualifications, that Catholics do not, in fact, think all protestants are doomed to hell - a point of view I have seen expressed by a number of protestants on CF. But what the CCC has to say on the matter does not include those who are apostates, or who claim to be such by claiming to have knowingly and willingly parted company with the Catholic Church because they studied Catholic teaching and found it wanting, having grasped it well and fully.

Fair enough, thanks for the added information. I sincerely pray you have a blessed week.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Fair enough, thanks for the added information. I sincerely pray you have a blessed week.

I am always willing to be informative and helpful when I can.

 

[fhansen]

Right but I'd also be interested in hearing from someone who didn't resolve their objections even though they understand the Catholic faith.

Ok. There should be plenty-who haven't read much history for themselves- .

 

[ozso]

Ok. There should be plenty-who haven't read much history for themselves- .

I only had the one a couple of posts above in mind. Maybe you and he could go though matters in another thread since the OP doesn't want him in this one. That said, I'm always happy to converse/debate with you in this thread. I've enjoyed our past conversations.

 

[ozso]

Well, you see, it is not so much that you think you're right and I think I'm right. I started this thread to show, with proper qualifications, that Catholics do not, in fact, think all protestants are doomed to hell - a point of view I have seen expressed by a number of protestants on CF.

That's because there are hardcore old school Catholics who have a less magnanimous view of salvation outside of being a Roman Catholic. Listening to the RC apologist Tim Staples was my first in depth experience with that. His assessment struck me as pretty much being some non-catholics might escape hell by the skin of their teeth if they work really hard at it. Quite frankly at the time when I was experiencing spiritual turmoil I found what he said quite upsetting. To the point that when I started on CF I was basically leery of Catholic members and even put several on ignore because I didn't want to end up crossing paths with them.

 

[ozso]

None will snap if no provocation is given.

They will when they're irascible and snap at the drop of a feather.

 

[fhansen]

I only had the one a couple of posts above in mind. Maybe you and he could go though matters in another thread since the OP doesn't want him in this one. That said, I'm always happy to converse/debate with you in this thread. I've enjoyed our past conversations.

Thank you

 

[ozso]

Thank you

You're welcome. Would you say that the view regarding this topic is pretty wide ranged among Catholics? For instance I find that when I compare what the Catholic apologist Tim Staples says about it, to what I've heard Pope Francis say about it, it goes from very difficult at best, to very easy.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You're welcome. Would you say that the view regarding this topic is pretty wide ranged among Catholics? For instance I find that when I compare what the Catholic apologist Tim Staples says about it, to what I've heard Pope Francis say about it, it goes from very difficult at best, to very easy.

I suggest that Mr Tim Staples is not really an authority on what the Catholic Church teaches regarding this topic, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church is an authority on it.

 

[Valletta]

That's because there are hardcore old school Catholics who have a less magnanimous view of salvation outside of being a Roman Catholic. Listening to the RC apologist Tim Staples was my first in depth experience with that. His assessment struck me as pretty much being some non-catholics might escape hell by the skin of their teeth if they work really hard at it. Quite frankly at the time when I was experiencing spiritual turmoil I found what he said quite upsetting. To the point that when I started on CF I was basically leery of Catholic members and even put several on ignore because I didn't want to end up crossing paths with them.

The Narrow Gate​

Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy,[a] that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

It sounds like you misunderstood Tim Staples:

" . . .that anyone who is ever saved is not saved by his or her false religious beliefs (i.e. Judaism that rejects Christ, Islam that denies Jesus is the Son of God, etc.); rather, they can be saved in spite of them. If they are ignorant of the truth through no fault of their own (they have never had the opportunity to either hear or understand the truth), then the limited amount of truth that they do have “among shadows and images,” and “all goodness and truth found in these religions [serve] as ‘a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life’” (CCC 843)."

Is There Really "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church?"

The Catholic Church teaches infallibly, “extra eccle...

www.catholic.com

 

[fhansen]

It is his will that we accept Jesus.

Salvation was God's idea - he could have destroyed Adam and Eve on the spot. He didn't; he clothed them in an animal skin to cover their nakedness. He escorted them from the Garden, but he didn't give up on them.
God gave the Hebrew slaves his covenant. They broke it, again and again, he still spoke to them and urged them to repent and turn to him.
Eventually God sent Jesus - his Son, the Lamb chosen from the foundation of the world, 1 Peter 1:19-20. He wants us to accept his free gift, his Son and what he has done for us. He wants a relationship with us - that is his will.

Ok. Yes, God certainly wants a relationship with us, the relationship that Adam effectively rejected in Eden. And that's really the point: faith has to do with more than believing in and professing a certain fact about Jesus; it has to do with entering union with God because that union, itself, is the essence or basis of righteousness or justice for man; it's our very created purpose.,

"Through Him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God." 1 Pet 1:21

So, in the "fullness of time", Jesus came to reconcile man with God, by definitively revealing His true face, so that we may know Him, and by knowing Him we might believe, in hope in, and, most importantly, love Him. Then obedience begins to flow of its own accord. When we see Jesus, by everything He said and did, by everything that He is, we see a God truly worth knowing. And that's why He can say in John 17:3:
"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Man was made for communion with God and is lost, dead, helpless to the extent that we're apart from Him. Faith is the doorway to God. To believe is not the end but the beginning of a journey, with Him, to a destination that involves our becoming more and more like Him, if we stay on that road. That is salvation.

The commandment Jesus gave us is to love one another as he loved us.
We cannot love with Jesus' divine, agape love until we have first received divine love from God.

Exactly! And that's how the commandments which Jesus referred to when speaking to the young man are authentically fulfilled, just as the commandments that Paul lists in Rom 13 are fulfilled by love-that’s the only way, in fact.

Forgive as, and because, God forgave us.
As Jesus said, "love one another as I have loved you."

Yes, that's the idea. But it's not automatic that we do it-that's why Jesus told them that they must.

We are saved from sin when we accept that Jesus died - gave his life - for us.

From sin? Do you mean from the consequences of sin? The way we're saved from the consequences of sin is to be empowered now to overcome it. And if we don't, then we die. You should read the bible for yourself-not through the lens of novel theologies.

It is Jesus who gives us the right to become children of God, John 1:12, his Spirit who assures us that we are children of God, Romans 8:16 and Jesus who gives the victory over sin and temptation.

Of course we need to remain in the vine - in Jesus. But he can help us to do that too. It's never achieved by our own works and efforts.

He'll always help us to do that. But He never overwhelms the human will, whether in our coming to Him, or in our remaining in Him. Grace is always resistible. God wants your will, you participation-involved-and increasingly so. Faith, hope, and love are at one and the same time gifts-and human choices -to accept and act upon those gifts.

No idea - I don't do long words.
Anyone who has received God's grace and amazing love will WANT to remain in him, serve him and love him.

That's the ideal- but no guarantees on that. Again, He will not force us to love Him, or to persevere in loving Him. It's contingent-on our response to Him and His will, and our continued response.
Rev 3:20, Heb 6:4-6, Heb 10:26-31, 2 Pet 2:20-22, John 15:5-6, Rom 11:19-22,

We'll be asked to account for how we've used our gifts and time; certainly.
We won't be judged for our sins - Jesus has already taken those.

Not if we continue in sin.

No.
Baptism is an outward sign of what takes place when we become believers. We go under the water - figuratively, death; dying to sin - and we are raised to new life.
Jesus saves us, makes us clean and new creations. If someone accepted Christ but died before they were able to be baptised, they would still be saved. Conversely, someone may be baptised but not really believe. For some non Christians, having their child baptised is almost a superstition - "to make sure they get to heaven." JWs and Mormons baptise their followers - and they don't accept the Trinity or who Jesus was.

God can save us however He wants, with or without baptism, with or without faith, with or without works. Either way we simply do as He commands. Every ancient church baptized for the remission of sin; they knew no other way. They didn’t engage in theological speculation about it, they simply did what Jesus modeled and told them to do. There was never even a controversy over this matter. That would come later when Protestants divided with each other over baptismal regeneration, based on Scripture alone.

We’re expected to do what we know we should do, and have the opportunity or ability to do. The thief on the cross did the best he could with the lot he’d been given-and presumably more would be expected if he’d been given more-more time and opportunity, more knowledge, grace, whatever.

We are saved from sin when we accept that Jesus died - gave his life - for us.

Nonsense. It has nothing to do with just accepting that He died for our sins. It has to do with entering fellowship with God knowing that we're forgiven, and then living like it, like His children should. The obligation in the following passage doesn't change one iota with the new covenant:
"He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God." Micah 6:8

The new covenant simply gives us the ability to accomplish it now. If we'll cooperate with His work in us.

Whoever is in Christ IS a new creation, 2 Corinthians 5:17.

Well, yeah! Because through and because of Him we are justified.

When someone accepts God's amazing love, grace and free gift of eternal life, they are saved.
We don't become perfect when we are saved - but we know the One who will forgive us and make us clean.
If someone walks away/backslides, only God really knows whether they have deliberately turned their back on, and rejected, him - or whether they are going through a really bad time and have been led astray by the devil.

Once saved always saved is not a doctrine that affects how we live as Christians.
Anyone who has experienced God's amazing love, grace and many blessings will WANT to live for him, please him and remain in him. I don't know about you, but I have no intention of walking away from God and sinning, just to test whether or not he would receive me back again afterwards.

He does the judging, not us. God, alone, knows whose names are written in the Book of Life and whose are not. But to the extent that we love Him and neighbor, born out by fruit in our lives, not wanton sinning in grave manner that contradicts and opposes that love, we can have a healthy assurance that we're within His will and that we're His. Talk, by itself, is cheap.

 

[fhansen]

You're welcome. Would you say that the view regarding this topic is pretty wide ranged among Catholics? For instance I find that when I compare what the Catholic apologist Tim Staples says about it, to what I've heard Pope Francis say about it, it goes from very difficult at best, to very easy.

Everyone comes from different backgrounds and with different gifts. Pope Emeritus Benedict was more of an intellectual, while also spiritual.
But Francis seems to come mostly from the heart. At best they're all saying the same thing in different ways, while some may appeal to and resonate with some audiences better than others.

 

[ozso]

Everyone comes from different backgrounds and with different gifts. Pope Emeritus Benedict was more of an intellectual, while also spiritual.
But Francis seems to come mostly from the heart. At best they're all saying the same thing in different ways, while some may appeal to and resonate with some audiences better than others.

Have you heard that there are Catholics, including clergy, who say that Pope Francis isn't even Catholic? And that there are Catholics who say that Pope Pius XII was the last legitimate Pope? That there are Catholics who reject Vatican II?

 

[Valletta]

Have you heard that there are Catholics, including clergy, who say that Pope Francis isn't even Catholic? And that there are Catholics who say that Pope Pius XII was the last legitimate Pope? That there are Catholics who reject Vatican II?

They are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[fhansen]

Have you heard that there are Catholics, including clergy, who say that Pope Francis isn't even Catholic? And that there are Catholics who say that Pope Pius XII was the last legitimate Pope? That there are Catholics who reject Vatican II?

Of course-they’re all over the board. Liberals, ultra-tradionalists, conspiracists, lukewarms, zealots, pro-abortionists, ordinary Catholics- we have them all. But at the end of the day the church defines Catholicism, regardless of good or bad popes, laity, et al, and regardless of agreement or disagreement with it. Where you find the catechism, for example, you find Catholicism.

 

[ozso]

Of course-they’re all over the board. Liberals, ultra-tradionalists, conspiracists, lukewarms, zealots, pro-abortionists, ordinary Catholics- we have them all. But at the end of the day the church defines Catholicism, regardless of good or bad popes, laity, et al, and regardless of agreement or disagreement with it.

When someone, the OP I think, was pointing out divisions among Protestants, I pointed out that I've seen divisions among Catholics as well. But that was shot down. It seems like basically anything I say about Catholicism amounts to Protestant ignorance and lies and hatred of Catholics, according to some.

Where you find the catechism, for example, you find Catholicism.

Are there differing interpretations of what the catechism says?