He who isn't a member of the Catholic Church, unless not knowing it, is against it

[concretecamper]

Jesus is not nuanced so I fail to see why we must cloud the issue. Say yes when you mean yes and no when you mean no, anything else is from the evil one.

A Catholic who dies in a state if grace is saved. There is no "may" about it. That is what the Church teaches.

The question is can a Protestant die in a state of grace?....who knows...they "may" but as you said I think the "may" is a high bar. So it is imperative we do everything we can do to convert them to the Catholic faith.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

You make it so complicated and I'll leave it at that.

 

[Martinius]

I understand ecumenism as acknowledging other faiths and their value, as well as working with them for the good of all. I don't see it as a merging of faiths, or of one denomination being incorporated into another. This view comes from reading many books and articles, mostly by Catholic prelates involved in ecumenical programs and initiatives. With that view, ecumenism is far from dead. There is certainly less animosity and prejudice than existed 50 or more years ago. We have the last several popes to mostly thank for that.

 

[rockytopva]

He who isn't a member of the Catholic Church, unless not knowing it, is against it... Well I would reword that....

He who isn't a member of the X Church, unless not knowing it, is against it

Where X is a variable representing a lot of denominations. I was brought up a radical Baptist and thought as a boy within my heart that all Catholics would end up in hell. As a matter of fact I could not imagine any but Baptist in heaven. I had a Catholic friend in school by the name of Bob who tried to tell me that what I was taught was all wrong. I have since tried to look Bob up to apologies but have never been able to locate his address.

I am not saying that every denomination out there is right. But there are many that teach our way or the wrong way. I think they do this so folk won't leave their church.

 

[chevyontheriver]

What about us?

You Orthodox are our brothers and sisters in Christ. We accept your baptism, accept all of your your sacraments, we call your groupings true Churches in the one Church of Christ, we would allow shared communion tomorrow. We await the big shots on both sides figuring out how to get over their accumulated differences so we can party.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I understand ecumenism as acknowledging other faiths and their value, as well as working with them for the good of all. I don't see it as a merging of faiths, or of one denomination being incorporated into another. This view comes from reading many books and articles, mostly by Catholic prelates involved in ecumenical programs and initiatives. With that view, ecumenism is far from dead. There is certainly less animosity and prejudice than existed 50 or more years ago. We have the last several popes to mostly thank for that.

I used to hang out around a Lutheran seminary quite a bit. They had a big bookstore and I am a bibliophage. They also had a magnificent pipe organ, and a good library, and I had to bicycle or walk through their campus every day going to my classes at the university just over the hill. At that bookstore they carried the books for the Catholic seminary as well, so it was a treasure trove of theological books. It was all very ecumenical. But I overheard some of the Lutheran seminarians talking one day, and it made me see how the distance between Lutheran and Catholic was expanding rather than contracting. They were not measuring their distance by older Lutheran polemics, now happily retired, but by newer secular polemics.

There is maybe a bit less animosity. But there is also a new and different animosity from the more liberal side. The fundies I suspect retain their old fashioned animosity as strong as ever. The evangelicals have worked side by side on pro-life issues so their animosity may have lessened. I think Catholic animosity has decreased markedly to the point of being almost gone. And I too thank popes John, Paul, John Paul, Benedict, and now Francis for that.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Jesus is not nuanced so I fail to see why we must cloud the issue. Say yes when you mean yes and no when you mean no, anything else is from the evil one.

A Catholic who dies in a state if grace is saved. There is no "may" about it. That is what the Church teaches.

The question is can a Protestant die in a state of grace?....who knows...they "may" but as you said I think the "may" is a high bar. So it is imperative we do everything we can do to convert them to the Catholic faith.

Not every simple question can be answered with a 'yes' or a 'no'. If you would ask a complicated question just so, perhaps it could be answered with one word. The Holy Office and the Biblical Commission used to do their statements that way. One big long 20 line question and a one word answer. But that was 'nuance' in the best sense. That was not to cloud the issue but to clarify. That's what we need now.

My point about Catholics is that not all will die in a state of grace. Quite a few could care less.

A baptized protestant who prays? I have not been assigned to determine such a person's salvation. Nor had Father Feeney been assigned that job even though he took it upon himself. And he was excommunicated for saying what he did. If you want to believe that only one tenth of one percent of Protestants will be saved, fine. If the next guy wants to think 99% are saved, fine. Feeney said 0%. He was wrong. I think it will be less than the number of those who think they will be saved. Many will say "Lord, Lord" among the Protestants and even among the Catholics, thinking they were in a state of grace but not being in such a state.

 

[thecolorsblend]

It is all the more important now that ecumenism has all but collapsed. There was a time, in the 1970's, when we could believe that the Catholics and the Anglicans would come together, that the Catholics and the Lutherans would, maybe the Baptists, Methodists, and all sorts of others too. But what happened?

There may not be anything those congregations can do to stave off extinction. And I'm not sure those congregations long term survival is necessary a good thing. To me, ecumenism should focus on catechesis; show people what the Church teaches so that when their denomination comes crashing down around their ears (which will be soon at the current rate of things) they'll know what the Church stands for. If I lived two centuries ago, I might've assumed that reunification would come as corporate unity. But Catholics these days need to accept the probability that it's more likely to come by attrition. There simply won't be anything else out there to choose from except maybe the odd non-denominational congregation.

He who isn't a member of the Catholic Church, unless not knowing it, is against it... Well I would reword that....

He who isn't a member of the X Church, unless not knowing it, is against it

I'm not sure you completely understand the Church's teaching on this so here it is from the Catechism.

"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

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#846

There is maybe a bit less animosity. But there is also a new and different animosity from the more liberal side. The fundies I suspect retain their old fashioned animosity as strong as ever. The evangelicals have worked side by side on pro-life issues so their animosity may have lessened. I think Catholic animosity has decreased markedly to the point of being almost gone. And I too thank popes John, Paul, John Paul, Benedict, and now Francis for that.

This much is true. I forget who but someone from the Southern Baptist Convention ages ago said that he believed he had more in common with Pope John Paul II than he did with Jimmy Carter. That would've been a fairly radical statement back in 1982. In 2002, though, it was the accepted state of affairs.

That having been said, the evangelicals as fellow travelers on pro-life issues is one of the historic near misses of American Protestantism... and ultimately helped cement my decision to join the Catholic Church.

In the late 1960's, contraception and abortion were religious issues just as much as they are today. But unlike today a lot of Protestant congregations had no real idea on how to address those issues. And the Southern Baptist Convention came THIS close to officially supporting contraception and abortion. They'd had the documents drawn up and were going to ratify them accordingly. Literally the only thing that stopped them was the Catholic Church at the last minute announcing their full rejection of those things. The SBC read the Church's arguments about those issues... and then very quietly abandoned their support of those things. They've been our allies on that stuff ever since. But it might not have turned out that way if not for Pope Paul VI coincidentally acting when he did.

I'll spare you the in's and out's of my history from there but that started me wondering just what else Protestant bodies "infallibly declared" and then changed their minds about later. The list is pretty long (and arguably will include homosexual unions pretty soon). When I compared that to what the Church has infallibly declared and then walked back later... well, there's nothing. They got it right the first time; there's no need to change direction. That can only happen when the Holy Spirit guides and inspires the Church.

My point is that unity on political and social issues is fine in it's place but we must continue evangelizing the Protestants while we can because I don't think their congregations will be around much longer and it would be a tragedy if they were adrift without a spiritual home. Call me crazy but I believe 2017 won't mark 500 years and counting of Protestant stamina. It will be a funeral for heresy.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I forget who but someone from the Southern Baptist Convention ages ago said that he believed he had more in common with Pope John Paul II than he did with Jimmy Carter. That would've been a fairly radical statement back in 1982. In 2002, though, it was the accepted state of affairs.

This may not be the same thing at all, but Archbishop Chaput spoke a few years ago in front of the same Houston Baptist University that JFK did in 1960. JFK was explaining how his faith would not influence his positions. And the Baptists were comforted. Archbishop Chaput repudiated the JFK speech in 2010 and the Baptists cheered him. Things DO change. This speech is so good that even if you have heard it before you might want to listen again.

In the late 1960's, contraception and abortion were religious issues just as much as they are today. But unlike today a lot of Protestant congregations had no real idea on how to address those issues. And the Southern Baptist Convention came THIS close to officially supporting contraception and abortion. They'd had the documents drawn up and were going to ratify them accordingly. Literally the only thing that stopped them was the Catholic Church at the last minute announcing their full rejection of those things. The SBC read the Church's arguments about those issues... and then very quietly abandoned their support of those things. They've been our allies on that stuff ever since. But it might not have turned out that way if not for Pope Paul VI coincidentally acting when he did.

Very interesting. They listened. They would not have heard had not Paul VI dared to speak up.

My point is that unity on political and social issues is fine in it's place but we must continue evangelizing the Protestants while we can because I don't think their congregations will be around much longer and it would be a tragedy if they were adrift without a spiritual home. Call me crazy but I believe 2017 won't mark 500 years and counting of Protestant stamina. It will be a funeral for heresy.

I think some of those congregations are financially endowed, so that as long as one person remains they can keep the building going. I saw some stats on how the number of old line ministers is up even as their lay numbers are in free fall. But I agree that practically 2017 will be the end of the old line Protestants.