Posted on 05/27/2004 7:10:58 AM PDT by AskStPhilomena
Actually, salvation is only through the catholic Church, whether those who are saved understand it in this world or not.
Don't infer "abandon" from my weak command of the language. I know what Scripture says about teachers, believe me, I'm no teacher.
You are, however,teaching, in this forum, that inclusion of the Catholic Church is the only way to know God... I insist that simply is wrong.
Christ, being the head of the body, the church and the means of salvation......Sure seems clear to me that salvation is through the Church if He is the head of the Church.
When will you recognize the spiritual church, the spiritual message, and the spiritual God that MANY of us serve?
What do you think of this:
Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.
In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.
Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never?even in the past?had the slightest doubt of that fact?what will become of him?
If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if he ever committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister?not being a true priest?has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition?that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic?with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts?might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God?s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.
If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.
I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.
I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.
I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church. -
That's an assumption on your part as the Bible says no such thing. My only evidence is the word of God.
Bishoprick means 'oversight'. For the church to be established (which was yet to happen at this time), God wanted 12 apostles in place. If your hypothesis were true, however, then we would see a replacement for James after he was killed by Herod and for every apostle that was killed.
If that's the message you received, it is not what I intended to say. Of course, I'm not a teacher for a reason. The Catholic Church does not teach that She is the only way to know God. Hokey smokes, that would contradict Scripture.
How ridiculous to imply that ANY MAN be able to forgive us our sins!!!No person, priest or otherwise, is capable of such... if there is proof to the contrary, in Scripture, pleaseeeee... Show me.
Try as he might, he can't get in. He does have some success in convincing some people that they are their own infallible magisterium though...
Is this not the present argument?
Do you presently feel the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ? I do, and I dont go to Catholic church, I pray on my knees, and I accept that the only way to enter the Gates Of Heaven is by the knowledge and faith of Christ. Do you deny my salvation as being unworthy? Or believe that my message is of the Evil One? I hope not, But if you do then I would only be persecuted for His Names sake, to Christ be the glory!!!
The utter uniqueness of the Lord's church is beyond debate. This is in fact why the Lord's church has no man-given name. All designations in the scripture are simply descriptions. The debate is which, if any, of the denominations created by men are that church. The Lord's church can be identified by it's adherance to scripture and it's similarity to the church described in the New Testament.
So what was Peter doing? What is the "office" occupied by Matthias?
God wanted 12 apostles in place.
And Paul made 13.
If your hypothesis were true, however, then we would see a replacement for James after he was killed by Herod and for every apostle that was killed.
True enough, if the Acts of the Apostles were a highly detailed history book in the 21st century manner of historical documentation.
Then we could put aside all the discussion and get down to the real work, prayer.
The fact is that the church was built upon the Rock of Jesus. Not the person of Peter. See the previous verse.
John 20:21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Now show me the dogma of sola scriptura in the Bible.
I believe that you believe in what you profess.
"As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."
Well, they are "any" men.
And James the brother of the Lord would have made 14, but my comment was that 12 seemed to be required to be in place for the start of the church (Acts 2). No doubt reflecting the nation of Israel (12 tribes) which the church would replace.
True enough, if the Acts of the Apostles were a highly detailed history book in the 21st century manner of historical documentation.
If we are using scripture for a basis of our arguments, it doesn't make much sense to discount it when it doesn't support our assumptions. But since the NT is the only 'inspired' word that we have, that's the only evidence we may use for such conclusions. If it were that important, would God have been silent since Judas' replacement?
Then we could put aside all the discussion and get down to the real work, prayer.
Amen. I merely answered the question that was being asked in the post as I see it defined in scripture.
((((((((((((((Must READ)))))))))))))))))))))
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.