No Salvation Outside the Church

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

[bdeaner]

Why does the Catholic Church teach that there is "no salvation outside the Church"? Doesn’t this contradict Scripture? God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). Peter proclaimed to the Sanhedrin, "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

Since God intends (plans, wills) that every human being should go to heaven, doesn’t the Church’s teaching greatly restrict the scope of God’s redemption? Does the Church mean—as Protestants and (I suspect) many Catholics believe—that only members of the Catholic Church can be saved?

That is what a priest in Boston, Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J., began teaching in the 1940s. His bishop and the Vatican tried to convince him that his interpretation of the Church’s teaching was wrong. He so persisted in his error that he was finally excommunicated, but by God’s mercy, he was reconciled to the Church before he died in 1978.

In correcting Fr. Feeney in 1949, the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a document entitled Suprema Haec Sacra, which stated that "extra ecclesiam, nulla salus" (outside the Church, no salvation) is "an infallible statement." But, it added, "this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church itself understands it."

Note that word dogma. This teaching has been proclaimed by, among others, Pope Pelagius in 585, the Fourth Lateran Council in 1214, Pope Innocent III in 1214, Pope Boniface VIII in 1302, Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI, the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul II, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Dominus Iesus.

Our point is this: When the Church infallibly teaches extra ecclesiam, nulla salus, it does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved. In fact, it affirms the contrary. The purpose of the teaching is to tell us how Jesus Christ makes salvation available to all human beings.

Work Out Your Salvation

There are two distinct dimensions of Jesus Christ’s redemption. Objective redemption is what Jesus Christ has accomplished once for all in his life, death, resurrection, and ascension: the redemption of the whole universe. Yet the benefits of that redemption have to be applied unceasingly to Christ’s members throughout their lives. This is subjective redemption. If the benefits of Christ’s redemption are not applied to individuals, they have no share in his objective redemption. Redemption in an individual is an ongoing process. "Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling; for God is at work in you" (Phil. 2:12–13).

How does Jesus Christ work out his redemption in individuals? Through his mystical body. When I was a Protestant, I (like Protestants in general) believed that the phrase "mystical body of Christ" was essentially a metaphor. For Catholics, the phrase is literal truth.

Here’s why: To fulfill his Messianic mission, Jesus Christ took on a human body from his Mother. He lived a natural life in that body. He redeemed the world through that body and no other means. Since his Ascension and until the end of history, Jesus lives on earth in his supernatural body, the body of his members, his mystical body. Having used his physical body to redeem the world, Christ now uses his mystical body to dispense "the divine fruits of the Redemption" (Mystici Corporis 31).

The Church: His Body

What is this mystical body? The true Church of Jesus Christ, not some invisible reality composed of true believers, as the Reformers insisted. In the first public proclamation of the gospel by Peter at Pentecost, he did not invite his listeners to simply align themselves spiritually with other true believers. He summoned them into a society, the Church, which Christ had established. Only by answering that call could they be rescued from the "crooked generation" (Acts 2:40) to which they belonged and be saved.

Paul, at the time of his conversion, had never seen Jesus. Yet recall how Jesus identified himself with his Church when he spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus: "Why do you persecute me?" (Acts 9:4, emphasis added) and "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting" (Acts 9:5). Years later, writing to Timothy, Paul ruefully admitted that he had persecuted Jesus by persecuting his Church. He expressed gratitude for Christ appointing him an apostle, "though I formerly b.asphemed and persecuted and insulted him" (1 Tim. 1:13).

The Second Vatican Council says that the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church and the mystical body of Christ "form one complex reality that comes together from a human and a divine element" (Lumen Gentium 8). The Church is "the fullness of him [Christ] who fills all in all" (Eph. 1:23). Now that Jesus has accomplished objective redemption, the "plan of mystery hidden for ages in God" is "that through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places" (Eph. 3:9–10).

According to John Paul II, in order to properly understand the Church’s teaching about its role in Christ’s scheme of salvation, two truths must be held together: "the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all humanity" and "the necessity of the Church for salvation" (Redemptoris Missio 18). John Paul taught us that the Church is "the seed, sign, and instrument" of God’s kingdom and referred several times to Vatican II’s designation of the Catholic Church as the "universal sacrament of salvation":

"The Church is the sacrament of salvation for all humankind, and her activity is not limited only to those who accept her message" (RM 20).

"Christ won the Church for himself at the price of his own blood and made the Church his co-worker in the salvation of the world. . . . He carries out his mission through her" (RM 9).

In an address to the plenary assembly of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (January 28, 2000), John Paul stated, "The Lord Jesus . . . established his Church as a saving reality: as his body, through which he himself accomplishes salvation in history." He then quoted Vatican II’s teaching that the Church is necessary for salvation.

In 2000 the CDF issued Dominus Iesus, a response to widespread attempts to dilute the Church’s teaching about our Lord and about itself. The English subtitle is itself significant: "On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church." It simply means that Jesus Christ and his Church are indivisible. He is universal Savior who always works through his Church:

The only Savior . . . constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: He himself is in the Church and the Church is in him. . . . Therefore, the fullness of Christ’s salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord (DI 18).

Indeed, Christ and the Church "constitute a single ‘whole Christ’" (DI 16). In Christ, God has made known his will that "the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity" (DI 22). The Catholic Church, therefore, "has, in God’s plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being" (DI 20).

The key elements of revelation that together undergird extra ecclesiam, nulla salus are these: (1) Jesus Christ is the universal Savior. (2) He has constituted his Church as his mystical body on earth through which he dispenses salvation to the world. (3) He always works through it—though in countless instances outside its visible boundaries. Recall John Paul’s words about the Church quoted above: "Her activity is not limited only to those who accept its message."

Not of this Fold

Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus does not mean that only faithful Roman Catholics can be saved. The Church has never taught that. So where does that leave non-Catholics and non-Christians?

Jesus told his followers, "I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:16). After his Resurrection, Jesus gave the threefold command to Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Tend my sheep. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:15–17). The word translated as "tend" (poimaine) means "to direct" or "to superintend"—in other words, "to govern." So although there are sheep that are not of Christ’s fold, it is through the Church that they are able to receive his salvation.

People who have never had an opportunity to hear of Christ and his Church—and those Christians whose minds have been closed to the truth of the Church by their conditioning—are not necessarily cut off from God’s mercy. Vatican II phrases the doctrine in these terms: 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 consciences—those too may achieve eternal salvation (LG 16).

Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery (Gaudium et Spes 22).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:

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).

Obviously, it is not their ignorance that enables them to be saved. Ignorance excuses only lack of knowledge. That which opens the salvation of Christ to them is their conscious effort, under grace, to serve God as well as they can on the basis of the best information they have about him.

The Church speaks of "implicit desire" or "longing" that can exist in the hearts of those who seek God but are ignorant of the means of his grace. If a person longs for salvation but does not know the divinely established means of salvation, he is said to have an implicit desire for membership in the Church. Non-Catholic Christians know Christ, but they do not know his Church. In their desire to serve him, they implicitly desire to be members of his Church. Non-Christians can be saved, said John Paul, if they seek God with "a sincere heart." In that seeking they are "related" to Christ and to his body the Church (address to the CDF).

On the other hand, the Church has long made it clear that if a person rejects the Church with full knowledge and consent, he puts his soul in danger:

They cannot be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or remain in it (cf. LG 14).

The Catholic Church is "the single and exclusive channel by which the truth and grace of Christ enter our world of space and time" (Karl Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism, 179). Those who do not know the Church, even those who fight against it, can receive these gifts if they honestly seek God and his truth. But, Adam says, "though it be not the Catholic Church itself that hands them the bread of truth and grace, yet it is Catholic bread that they eat." And when they eat of it, "without knowing it or willing it" they are "incorporated in the supernatural substance of the Church."

Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR



Fr. Ray Ryland, a convert and former Episcopal priest, holds a Ph.D. in theology from Marquette University and is a contributing editor to This Rock. He writes from Steubenville, Ohio, where he lives with his wife, Ruth.

[bdeaner]

Do you speak Greek?

Speak, no -- read, yes. Even so, another red herring argument. A person doesn't need to read Greek to have access to vast scholarship on early Church history, particularly the writings of the early Church Fathers.

[MarkBsnr]

***This thread poses an interesting juxtaposition of Bible Thumpers(protestants, or anyone else not Roman Catholic) and Church Thumpers (Roman Catholics), as I will reference. I will abbreviate BT or CT, accordingly. ***

Fascinating terminology.

***The RCC states that they obtain their authority from Scripture, and alleged a tradition starting with Peter. They state their churches authority allows only their church to determine salvation. Membership is required to achieve salvation, and can only be maintained by eating bread and wine on a regular basis, contributing funds to the church, and doing all the rites and rituals as specified by their church. They believe they only achieve a ticket into heaven by working their way through Rome’s legalism (seat of the RCC).***

Fascinating thesis. If you apply this to the Catholic Church, you of course are wrong on all counts. I wonder why. You have of course been exposed to the beliefs and doctrines of the Church over lo these past few months. The interesting thing is that in spite of that you post this.

***It boggles the mind that they quote Scripture and have no clue about Christ’s simple plan of salvation... ***

I love these plans that the Protestants throw around like mothballs in a closet full of wool. Matthew 5-8 is a pretty good synopsis of Christ’s requirements for salvation.

Matthew 25 is not bad either. But the point is that we know Scripture; we also know the interpretation of that Scripture. It’s amusing and sad at the same time to look at the butchery many Protestants visit upon innocent Scripture. The various Confessions of the Protestants are a case in point.

[MarkBsnr]

***But you can’t seem to address the issue when directly confronted about the apparent discrepancy between the fact that you are doing ministry on a computer and claiming at the same time that a legitimate Christian should evangalize with nothing but a staff and sandals. How hypocritical is that?!?!?

It’s not hypocritical at all. It is incongruous that you should appeal to such a low point that you stoop to that equation. I dodged nothing. If you wish to equate me to your Pope, then whatever?***

On one hand, you claim that the Pope should walk shod in only sandals, carrying no money and with a staff. Yet you yourself are fine with your worldly wealth and tools in order to, in your own way, spread the Good News of Jesus.
How do you explain this?

***I don’t havge a staff. I follow Paul’s advice...***

Does the Pope get to follow Paul’s advice, or only non Catholics?

[bdeaner]

Galen was the Authority concerning medicinal practice for a millenium. The door to innovation was slammed shut by the "Church" and innovations were forbidden.

Your ignorance of history is showing. The inventor of modern anatomy, Vesalius, was a Catholic in good standing with the Church who was never charged with heresy for his groundbreaking work. His anatomical work became the foundation for modern medicine, overthrowing Galen's medical worldview.

The Catholic Church provided the theological foundation from which modern science became possible, which is why science emerged in the West rather than in any other, non-Christian culture.

I suggest folks read valid historical scholarship in the history of science by relatively objective historians rather than getting your history from anti-Catholic propaganda.

[Radix]

Please.....

I would say that Vesalius came along more than a THOUSAND YEARS after Galen had died.

Did you miss the point(s) deliberately?

The real difference between progress in western civilization and other parts of the world was plain and simply competition.

The Schism provoked by Luther just so happened to occur when your Vesalius was just about out of his diapers.

Rome discouraged medical advancements for centuries. It was only after Luther came into prominence that such as Vesalius could accomplish anything.

[Semper Mark]

“Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father, but by me.”
John 14:6

Jesus said “I am the way”, He personally is the way.
No church can bring you to God, no ceremony can bring you to God. Christ alone can bring you to God. You either have Him or you don’t. Either you trust Him, or you don’t.

“the truth”, not only does He speak the truth, but He is the truth.

“the life”, He is the origin of all life. He is God the creator.

“No man cometh to the Father but by Me.” This dogmatic statement ruins the party for all of the cults and ism’s.
The only way to the Father, the only way to salvation, and the only way to heaven is by and through Christ.
There is no way around Him.

[bdeaner]

Paul makes it clear that only men with wives should be within the leadership of Christ's only church.

Jesus said (Matthew 19:12):
For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.

Other modern translations use the phrase others have renounced marriage. One might argue that Jesus was merely describing this state of affairs, not sanctioning it, but this is made implausible by His concluding comment, He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.

But if it is to be denied that Jesus taught the desirability of celibacy for those called to it, there can be little doubt about St. Paul's position, expressed in great detail in 1 Corinthians 7:7-38:

7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. 8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.
9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion . . .
20 Every one should remain in the state in which he was called . . . . .
27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage.
28 But if you marry, you do not sin . . . Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . .
32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
33 But the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,
34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord . . .
38 So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

These verses form the scriptural rationale for the much-maligned Catholic requirement of celibacy for priests, monks, and nuns. St. Paul's argument is clear enough, for anyone able to receive it. The celibate priest can singleheartedly devote himself both to God and his flock. The practical advantages of having more time and not being burdened by multiple loyalties are obvious to common sense.

[Iscool]

John 14:6 is a classic Judaic works-based salvation formula the Protestants reject. It pins our conduct, what people do, how they think and how they live, where they go (metaphorically speaking) to their salvation; their conduct determines if they fulfill God's requirements for it.

You are adding a tremendous amount of words to that scripture to make it mean what you want it to mean...

Nothing in the verse says that God cannot save a non-Christian or that a non-Christian cannot walk the metaphorical way of Christ, or "know" the metaphorical truth of God.

That's true...God can do anything He wants...But what the verse says is that God 'will' not save anyone in this age who doesn't pass the muster with Jesus first...

The scripture is so clear that one is saved by Grace thru faith in Jesus Christ and will accept it freely, OR one will live by the law and be judged by the law which will result in Hell...

A Hindu may as well pack his tropical clothes if he goes thru this life without Jesus Christ...

What Jesus is saying in John 14:6 is simply "do/think/live this way and you will be saved." No faith required here, and no limits placed on God's will to save whomever he wills to save for his own reasons.

You can't pick a single verse, add words to it and build a doctrine on it...Jesus says you must be born again...Born from above...No one will make it to Heaven without Faith in Jesus Christ...

[Iscool]

The key is to understand the meaning of the term "Church" in Vatican II.What the term 'Church' means in Vatican II is completely insignificant and irrelevant...

What the term 'church' means in the scripture is what's important...

The "Church" includes ALL of the instrumental means of salvation operating in the world through Christ and the Holy Spirit, no matter where that may be occurring. Protestants who have rejected the Catholic Church are still part of the Church, as long as they follow Christ and Scripture, but Protestants are not in FULL communion with the Church.

Sure...And if we go to the Mental Ward, the patients will tell us we're bonkers and they're normal...

What's mind boggling is how did they get you people to repeat this nonsense???

You may as well be telling a commercial fisherman how to rig his nets; or telling Tiger Woods that he should be driving with his sand wedge...

By refusing to learn from the infallibility teachings of the Magesterium

When your magisterium disagrees with the scripture (which it far too often does), we can and do throw them into the trash heap where they belong...

The teaching is coherent with Scripture, Tradition, and logic; the reasoning is not fallacious or contradictory when understood appropriately.

Fixed it for ya...Your tradition and your logic can not be found in scripture and it has no place in scripture...It has no place in Christianity...

God gave no one 'logic' to figure out the scripture...He gave us the Holy Spirit and more scripture to understand the scripture...

[MarkBsnr]

***Paul makes it clear that only men with wives should be within the leadership of Christ’s only church.

Jesus said (Matthew 19:12):
For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.***

I am having a conversation with a gentleman who believes that Paul supersedes Jesus; Jesus is the milk and Paul is the meat. But debating with correct interpretations of Paul is not accepted either by our apostate brethren; certain passages of Paul fall into the Reformation black hole of theological manufacturing.

***These verses form the scriptural rationale for the much-maligned Catholic requirement of celibacy for priests, monks, and nuns. St. Paul’s argument is clear enough, for anyone able to receive it. The celibate priest can singleheartedly devote himself both to God and his flock. The practical advantages of having more time and not being burdened by multiple loyalties are obvious to common sense.***

The Catholic Church does not permit married bishops; can you imagine such as Bishop D’Arcy (Fort Wayne - South Bend), a great man that I have been privileged to meet several times, or the Pope married and taking time away from the Church? Very unfair to his flock and to the Church. Many great Saints and Doctors of the Church were either unmarried or were widowed.

[kosta50]

Jesus said “I am the way”, He personally is the way.

No, Markos, the Bible says that Jesus said that. How do you know that he said that? Because the Bible says so. (circular reasoning)

But how do you know that what's in the Bible really happened? Because the Bible says so and because the Bible is the word of God? And how you you know the Bible is the word of God?

We are back on square one which you never answered (but promised you would in the morning!).

Christ alone can bring you to God

How do you know that?

“the truth”, not only does He speak the truth, but He is the truth

How do you know that?

“the life”, He is the origin of all life. He is God the creator

How do you know that?

“No man cometh to the Father but by Me.” This dogmatic statement ruins the party for all of the cults and ism’s.

Dogmatic statements are not necessarily true, they are just dogmatic. Without proving that it is true, it remains a dogmatic statement of dubious credibility. There is no proof because there is no objective knowledge. What's left is blind faith that it is true. Just because you choose to believe something is true doesn't make it true.

Other religions quote equally dogmatic statements form their holy books which they believe are from God. In fact, they claim they are from God.

So, let's go back to square one, Markos, and start again with how do you know...

[bdeaner]

I am having a conversation with a gentleman who believes that Paul supersedes Jesus; Jesus is the milk and Paul is the meat. But debating with correct interpretations of Paul is not accepted either by our apostate brethren; certain passages of Paul fall into the Reformation black hole of theological manufacturing.

Cherry-picking scripture is almost a fine art among Protestant circles. Of course, Luther already threw out seven inspired Books -- the deuterocanonicals -- when they were not convenient to his theology and he tried to put the Book of James in an appendix because he didn't like the second chapter. Pathetic.

Many great Saints and Doctors of the Church were either unmarried or were widowed.

The very strict vows of chastity and poverty represented by the clergy of the Catholic Church surely do not fit the ridiculous claim by some, such as WVKayaker, that the Church is only out for the money. If no one can personally claim the money for himself, obviously the Church is not driven by personal greed. No single organization on the planet consistently contributes as much to charity as the Catholic Church. Many have come to the Church simply by witnessing first-hand the self-less charitable actions of the Body of Christ. No one can doubt our clergy in the Church are truly set apart from the world--the very meaning of sanctification--, to the extent that they maintain fidelity to their vows.

[kosta50]

You are adding a tremendous amount of words to that scripture to make it mean what you want it to mean...

And if I were a Protestant I would probably say the Holy Spirit taught me...Clearly, the verse is metaphorical and not literal, and as such pertains to our conduct, i.e. if we imitate Christ, what Christ stood for. There is not a word of any faith or belief in it, just as there is none at the end of Matthew 25.

That's true...God can do anything He wants...But what the verse says is that God 'will' not save anyone in this age who doesn't pass the muster with Jesus first...

Passing the muster had to do with their conduct. Jesus was referring to what people did (works), and the Bible leaves no doubt that he will base his judgment on that.

 ⁴⁵"Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'  ⁴⁶"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." [Mat 25:45-46]

The scripture is so clear that one is saved by Grace thru faith in Jesus Christ and will accept it freely, OR one will live by the law and be judged by the law which will result in Hell...

No, that is what Paul preached. Jesus preached otherwise, at least in the first three Gospels. 

A Hindu may as well pack his tropical clothes if he goes thru this life without Jesus Christ...

A Hindu may feel the same way about a Christian because his holy books say so.

You can't pick a single verse, add words to it and build a doctrine on it...Jesus says you must be born again...Born from above...No one will make it to Heaven without Faith in Jesus Christ...

That's what he appears to be saying in that verse. The Bible is full of salvational formulas which are not always in synch, including that a woman is saved by having children.

[kosta50]

You can't pick a single verse, add words to it and build a doctrine on it

Apropos, adding words, even whole verses, is precisely what took place in the process of creating the Christian canon.

[Semper Mark]

“( but you promised you would in the morning!)”

No, I said on the morrow, or something similar to that.

I work long hard hours that begin in the morning and end in the evening, so I couldn’t promise something for the morning.

The day is almost over though, so I’ll get to it. It may take a little while.

[kosta50]

God gave no one 'logic' to figure out the scripture...He gave us the Holy Spirit and more scripture to understand the scripture

How do you understand anything without logic? Sounds like blind faith to me.

[kosta50]

I am sorry if I misunderstood. Take your time, by all means.

[bdeaner]

What the term 'Church' means in Vatican II is completely insignificant and irrelevant...

LOL. I think you missed the context of the discussion, Iscool. The meaning of "The Church" for Vatican II IS unquestionably relevant if the subject under discussion is the meaning of the "Church" for Catholics! The Vatican II council spent considerable energy clarifying the meaning of the Church.

It's simply not possible to mount a valid criticism of the Catholic doctrine on the Church without an understanding of the meaning of "Church" developed by Vatican II. On this thread, you Protestants have offered nothing more than straw man arguments of Church doctrine. So, I am telling you what in fact the Catholic Church professes, so that at least your criticisms are based on actual Church doctrine rather than straw men of your own wild imaginations. I really hope for your sake that you are not content to mount straw man arguments, because unless you are willing to address Church doctrine on its own terms, and criticize it from within its own logic using Scripture and reason, I don't think you are going to be persuading anyone to join you in your position. And even if you did, you'd just end up persuading them to become Catholic, because that's what you would end up becoming, if you followed the Truth of the Lord's Word.

You may as well be telling a commercial fisherman how to rig his nets; or telling Tiger Woods that he should be driving with his sand wedge...

!!!!! HAHAHAHA!!!! Ok, ok. So you're telling me that I should dispense with 2000 years of Church teachings, and the teachings of the early Church fathers who were contemporaries of the Apostles, and the work of many theologians, and the infallible teachings of the Magesterium --- just throw it all in the trash -- and instead listen to the "Tiger Woods" of Biblical hermeneutics, the gransmaster flash of Bible study, Iscool, some dude who hangs around on Free Republic bashing Catholics? Because after all, it's Iscool who canonized the Scripture and was promised by Christ to be the pillar and foundation of all Truth so that hell would not prevail against it? Right. Gee, how could I have missed your genius for so long, Iscool? You are actually the infallible one and us Catholics and the Pope really have no idea what we're talking about. Thanks for straightening us out. /sarc

Unbelievable.

[bdeaner]

How do you understand anything without logic? Sounds like blind faith to me.

Iscool has said on numerous occasions that he rejects logic. Of course that goes without saying, if one simply reads his posts. But at least he's consistent in his embrace of illogic. Credit where credit is due, and all that...

[Religion Moderator]

Do not make this thread "about" individual Freepers. That is also a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.