Posted on 01/02/2002 1:15:38 PM PST by Theresa
There is considerable confusion about the Catholic teaching of salvation. I found this on the internet. It was written by a former Presbyterian who became Catholic as an adult. It should be easy to understand he explains the docterine very well. .........
The phrase (in Latin, "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" or "Outside the Church there is no salvation") is a very ancient one, going back to the very early days of Christianity. It was originally meant to affirm the necessity of baptism and Christian faith at a time when
(a) A number of Christians were being tempted under torture to renounce their faith and deny Christ. (He's talking about the Roman Empire and Nero's persecution of Christians, throwing them to lions and such.) (b) Large groups of Christians were being led into "pseudo-Christian" cult-type groups, which were actually just a front for pagan philosophy and religion. (Such as the cult of Mithras which I think was practiced around the time after Jesus died.)
In response, bishops repeated that, if a person were to be aware of the meaning of Christ and then freely deny him or reject him, they had essentially turned away from God and the salvation he offers.
As Christians, we believe that we are saved only through Jesus. As St. Peter reminds his audience in Acts 4:12: "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved." In most cases, this means that we believe baptism in water, in the name of the Trinity, is the fundamental requirement for salvation.
However, even from the beginning, the great Christian writer and teacher St. Augustine said that the salvation imparted through baptism can also be imparted through other means: specifically, through the "baptism of blood" (a non-Christian who dies defending Christian beliefs or holy places) and "the baptism of desire" (a non-Christian who has expressed a firm desire to become a Christian, and who shows all the signs of living a Christian life, but who dies before baptism). In both of those cases, the Church has always recognized that the Holy Spirit leads people to God in ways which we cannot always explain or document.
God is able to save anyone he chooses. We trust that he often does this is ways that are not obvious to us, within the hearts of individuals who are sincerely seeking the truth. Otherwise, it would imply that all of humanity was excluded from salvation before Christ came, and that much of humanity (which has not had the opportunity to hear the Christian message until recently) was doomed to be eternally separated from God. This would imply a very cruel and elitist God. Our belief as Christians and Catholics is that God desires the salvation of all people … even those who are not Christian. How he achieves that, however, is a mystery. But we know that our God is a loving God who would not allow people to suffer on account of an ignorance that they were not responsible for.
The Church teaches that baptism, faith, and a life lived in Christ are necessary for salvation. However, Vatican II also taught that, within every human heart, God places the law of conscience. Everybody has a deep sense of right and wrong which ultimately comes from God, and which will lead people to God if they attempt to follow their conscience faithfully. Because Jesus is God, those who move in the direction of God (even non-Christians) are ultimately moving in the direction of Jesus. And if they are moving in the direction of Jesus and His truth, ultimately they are expressing a desire for the salvation that God gives. The Church teaches that, while it is certainly easier to receive salvation as a Christian, it is not impossible to receive salvation in other religions.
This is a challenging situation: on one hand, we must be respectful of the good things to be found in other faiths, and encourage people to live their faiths with sincerity and love.
On the other hand, this does not mean that all religions are the same. We believe that Christ is the ultimate revealing of God to the world, and that the more we know about his message, the greater the chance that we will accept his offer and be saved. We must therefore continue to preach the message of the Gospel, and encourage interested non-Catholics to examine the claims of our faith, without in any way coercing or intimidating them.
Father Feeney was an American priest who, back in the 1940s, taught that if a person was not a Roman Catholic, they were condemned to hell. This has never been the accepted teaching of Catholicism, and Father Feeney was reprimanded by the Vatican for his mistaken understanding.
Nevertheless, there are groups which continue to hold to this strict interpretation, even after the Pope and bishops have specifically rejected it.
The phrase "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" teaches us that salvation is only through Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life. But God is able to save whomever he pleases, whether they are baptized in the Roman Catholic Church or not.
It is important to remember that "the Church" in this phrase does not refer exclusively to the Roman Catholic Church. Salvation is a great gift, and God is a loving Father who wants all of his children to receive it. How he works this out, however, we will only understand in heaven. That is why, whenever we quote "Outside the Church, there is no salvation", we should also remember that "God is in no way bound by the sacraments."
Until then, we continue to proclaim Jesus as Lord (evangelization) and engage in respectful dialogue with followers of other religions, to discover the truths that God had revealed to them to guide them toward salvation, and to share with them the truth as we have discovered it in Christ.
Every denomination has that; but my problem with the RCC is that their doctrine doesn't differentiate.
The chillruns are taught that in order to get to Heaven; they do the rosary thing, the stations of the cross thing, the nine-first fridays thing, the seven-first saturdays thing, the "Say 12 Hail Marys" thing...
Re: a few replies back (317?); we're mostly in agreement for the first paragraph. You lose me on adoration of Mary in the second.
Becky
Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our rihteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind have taken us away.
I do not believe that once we are 'saved' that we have to do nothing
IMO, you are correct, but we need to realize that even the tiniest little bit of good we manage to accomplish is not really our accomplishment but the HS working through us. The hardest thing for us to do is stand back and let the HS do his work through us, and then give the credit to the HS. We like to think that we can please God, the only thing we can do to please God is believe on Jesus Christ.
John 6:28-29 Then said they unto him what shall we do that we might work the work of God. Jesus answered and said this is the work of God, believe on him who he has sent.
Becky
Wrong. To call a priest Father is ENTIRELY biblical. Look up the passage by St. Paul who tells his flock that he is their "father in the faith." That is the sense in which Catholics call their priests "Father." This is so easy!!! How could you make something so innocent into something sinister? Your flaw is the result of "proof texting." As we can see by Paul's assertion that he is our "father in the faith" it seems Paul himself is being unbiblical and ignoring the injunction against calling any man your father. But we know that Paul would not preach anything unbiblical. Therefore these opposing passages only seem to oppose each other and can be harmonized.
Reading the bible can be like interpreting inkblots, you will see what you are pre-disposed to see and ignore things that don't square with things you don't want to see. That is why private interpretation is not a good thing.
Not quite right. You don't HAVE to preform these devotions. However the Stations of the Cross is like a trip to the Holy Land. Each station commemorates an event in the Passion of Christ. In one station, he is brought before Pilate. We meditate on this and what that event holds for us and tells us about Christ. In another station, Simon helps Jesus carry the cross. We meditate on this and learn that we must help each other bear our crosses in life. On it goes as we follow the way of the cross with Jesus. He fall the first time, the second time, the third time, he is nailed to the cross, he dies. What in the world could be wrong with this?
This is exactly what Catholics believe.
I am asking a legitmate question here...What is the purpose, and do you receive grace for participating in the station of the cross?
Becky
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you al all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you ye shall abide in him.
Becky
Maybe you should have tried to brush up on Catholic doctrine about Mary. Everything about Mary points to Jesus. We revere her because she said yes to God. She was "full of grace", she bore the Savior of the cosmos in her womb. That is a big deal! It elevates all humanity that a human woman bore the savior in her womb. It elevates women, motherhood and family life. Jesus came into the world and lived in a human family. One can only imagine how much Jesus loved her and she him. What's wrong with thinking about this and learing from it and using Mary as an example of devotion and obedience. What's wrong with asking her to pray for us to her son? I would ask you to pray for me. Why can't I ask Mary to pray for me?
I pray to Jesus and only Jesus. He intercedes to God on our behalf - and I need no one, including the Mother of Christ to get His ear.
Look this passage up too. "But how can I know unless some man teach me?" If the passage applies as you think it does then there is no need for pastors. You could just pass out bibles to Christians and everyone would understand them and agree on everything. But we know that the apostles appointed teachers to follow after them. We know those teachers were men. And we know that teaching continues after conversion and annointing. If your pastor has to consult another pastor over a certain passage does that mean he does not have the Holy Spirit? I do not presume to understand everything in the bible. I guess you do.
Well then you should never ask anyone to pray to Jesus for you. Because if you do, you are using other people to get His ear.
I never said that:)
I do have faith that as I study God's word the HS will show me what I need to know. It's funny how I can read over a passage numerous times and see no significant message for me in it, that one day bam it has special meaning that works in my life at that moment.
I believe we benefit from preachers and teachers of the bible. But we also must be diligent in the study of scripture ourselves or we can be led astray.
2 Tim. 2:15 Study to show thy self approved unto God, a workman that needth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of God.
Becky
The bible teaches us to pray for each other.
Roms. 1:9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers."
But we are not to communicate with the dead.
Deut. 18:10-11 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a with, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
Necromancer" From a Greek word meaning to divine with the dead; one who tries to cmmunicate with the dead.
Becky
Berean Beacon is a website for those who have found the Truth.
Well he never told them not to call him father either. I stole the below passages from a thread on the internet where the father controvery was being discussed. You are interpreting the passage too strictly. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. In these passages below Christians were calling other Christians, and old Testament persons father.
"I write unto you, FATHERS, because ye have known him..." (1 Jn 2:13) "I write unto you, FATHERS, because ye have known him..." (v. 14)
"For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not MANY FATHERS: for in Christ Jesus I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU [i.e. become your FATHER] through the gospel....
"...as a SON [Timothy] with the FATHER [Paul], he hath served with me in the gospel" (Phil 2:22 KJV)
"we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a FATHER doth his children" (1 Thess 2:11 KJV)
"Look unto ABRAHAM YOUR FATHER, and unto Sarah that bare you: For I called him alone, and blessed him and increased him." (Isaiah 51:2 KJV)
Neither Paul nor Abraham literally "fathered" -- in the sense of human fatherhood -- all those believers that would come after them. Paul was not the natural father of Timothy. He was his spiritual or RELIGIOUS "father." That is the basis of the Catholic teaching.
Your interpretation of Christ's words in Matthew 23:8-11 therefore cannot be correct. Christ was engaging in hyperbole, as he often did, and attacked the MISUSE or ABUSE of the title "father." He was specifically talking about the Pharisees who
"love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be CALLED OF MEN, RABBI, RABBI. But be not ye called Rabbi..." (Matthew 23:6-8 KJV)
Jesus was a faithful Jew and he certainly wasn't condemning the mere use of the title "Rabbi" which means "Master" or "Teacher" -- a title still used by Jewish people today. He was specifically condemning the improper use of the title for the Pharisees who were hypocrites "for they SAY, but DO not" (Matthew 23:3 KJV).
The same with the title "father." There is nothing inherently wrong with calling a MAN "father" (as proven with all the verses I quoted for you) whether natural fathers, ancestral fathers, or even spiritual fathers (as Paul was) -- so long as we recognize that it is the FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ "of whom the whole family [or all FATHERHOOD] in HEAVEN and EARTH is NAMED" (Eph 3:14-15; cf. Matthew 23:9).
But if I understand you correctly, you said calling a man "father" in a "religious sense" is wrong. Is that so? MATTHEW 23:30 -- "And say, if we had been in the days of OUR FATHERS..." LUKE 16:24,30 -- "And he cried and said, FATHER Abraham.....And he said, nay, FATHER Abraham...." ACTS 7 : 2,11,12,15,32,38,39,44,45,51,52 -- "Men, brethren, and FATHERS...unto our FATHER Abraham" (v. 2) "...and our FATHERS found no sustenance" (v. 11) "...he sent out our FATHERS first" (v. 12) "So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our FATHERS" (v. 15) "Saying, I am the God of thy FATHERS, the God of Abraham...." (v. 32) "spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our FATHERS..." (v. 38) "To whom our FATHERS would not obey..." (v. 39) "Our FATHERS had the tabernacle..." (v. 44) "...our FATHERS that came after...before the face of our FATHERS" (v. 45) "as your FATHERS did, so do ye" (v. 51) "Which of the prophets have not your FATHERS persecuted?" (v. 52)
"Men, brethren, and FATHERS...." (Acts 22:1) "...according to the perfect manner of the law of the FATHERS" (v. 3) "And he said, the God of our FATHERS hath chosen thee" (v. 14)
"...so worship I the God of my FATHERS..." (Acts 24:14)
"...hope of the promise made of God unto our FATHERS..." (Acts 26:6)
"...nothing against the people, or customs of our FATHERS" (Acts 28:17)
"What shall we say then that Abraham our FATHER..." (Rom 4:1) "...that he might be the FATHER of all them that believe..." (v. 11) "...the FATHER of circumcision...faith of our FATHER Abraham" (v. 12) "...the faith of Abraham; who is the FATHER of us all" (v. 16) "I have made thee a FATHER of many nations" (v. 17,18)
"yet have ye not many FATHERS: for in Christ Jesus I have BEGOTTEN you [or "become your FATHER"] through the gospel" (1 Cor 4:15)
"...not that ye should be IGNORANT, how that all our FATHERS" (1 Cor 10:1)
"...exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my FATHERS" (Gal 1:14)
"...as a son [Timothy] with the FATHER [Paul], he hath served with me in the gospel" (Phil 2:22)
"we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a FATHER doth his children" (1 Thess 2:11)
"Unto Timothy, MY OWN SON IN THE FAITH [that makes Paul his FATHER IN THE FAITH]" (1 Tim 1:2,18)
"Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a FATHER" (1 Tim 5:1)
"To Timothy, my DEARLY BELOVED SON [again, that makes Paul his SPIRITUAL FATHER IN THE FAITH]" (2 Tim 1:2; 2:1)
"To Titus, MINE OWN SON AFTER THE COMMON FAITH [once again, that makes Paul his SPIRITUAL FATHER IN THE FAITH]" (Titus 1:4)
"...received by tradition from your FATHERS" (1 Peter 1:18)
"...the FATHERS fell asleep, all things continue..." (2 Pet 3:4)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to Apologetics Articles --- Return to PhilVaz Index
The ONLY thing that I have seen work is to set youreslf as an admirable example. Badgering, lecturing, pleading, debating, etc do not work. You need to be a perfect example of what you want them to become. You need to make yourself into someone they want to be like. IMHO
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.