Posted on 05/02/2008 2:09:51 PM PDT by Augustinian monk
Everyone in heaven is a member of One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, Church.
That would be by definition.
Not all people who are members of the Church( that is, the baptized with water in the name of the Trinity) will go to heaven. Not all in heaven were baptized as described above.
So it is not absolutely required to be a member of the Church on earth to be saved.
A fortiori it is not not required to be in communion with the See of Rome to be saved.
(But it helps.)
This is based on the catechism's teaching about baptism, but it finds echoes in Dante, who was not a great theologian but was a great propounder of the theological work of others.
I wish I could find the quote, but I can't. But recently Benedict XVI said that we have to start thinking about Protestantism differently. It's one thing to make a schism. It's quite another, he was suggesting (I stress "suggesting") to be an 8th generation Protestant, or to have been brought up in a Protestant or pluralistic culture and to have made a commitment to Christ but not to an organization in communion with the See of Rome.
In addition I often use as an example the poor people of Ceylon who were told by the conquering Portugese (I think it was), "Hi: we're giving you a choice today. YOu can be Christian or dead." And then the Dutch came in and said, "Hi, you can be Protestant or dead."
It's hard to imagine how someone moved by the Spirit to a deep love and yearning for Divine love and justice wouldn't be pardonable for thinking Xtians were murderous dopes. A few might have been given an extraordinary grace and by it enabled to see the beauty and truth of the Gospel. But many of the people who first presented the Gospel to them did almost everything they could to pervert it and obscure it.
Even Baptsts can be saved. I know that's hard to believe. But we have a Lord so incredibly more gracious and loving than human hearts would dare imagine that there are even one or two lawyers in heaven!
So , as a Cat'lick, I have to admit that anything is possible.
PART of the problem is that this is how we sound:
Baptism is ordinarily necessary to salvation.and, mutatis mutandis, so also for other similar declarations.
Last Fall I wrote an informal paper, more an article, at the request of the most rigorous of the Dominicans here. In it I made a functional equivalence between "validity" and "reliability". He liked it enough to pass it on to some folks. So maybe it wasn't too wrong.
But what our claim is, as I presented it, is this: you can take our "sacraments" to the bank. When I as an Episcopal priest pronounced absolution to someone who was appropriately penitent and who, by grace, trusted in the love and forgiveness of God, MAYBE that person was forgiven. ( I would even say "probably".) But when an appropriately penitent and faithful RC receives absolution, he is sure enough absolved.
Experience is always a totally lousy datum. But my experience is that as a Catholic, I find myself being surprised all the time by little evidences of God's love. Most of my adult life I have said, one way or another, "Oh God, you are my God, I seek you, my soul thirsts for you."
Now I feel like God, more clearly than ever, is saying, "Step back and watch this. I'm gonna SHOW you some grace." If anything, personally, I am more aware of my meritlessness than ever. But, praise God, I am also more aware of how that doesn't seem to matter much to God.
So that's why I, aware of the unsatisfactory nature of the argument from experience, am nonetheless willing to agree with the Catholic claim that some kind of "fullness" of "Church" and of the means of Grace are here. It just keeps on sneaking up on me!
Forest Keeper asked if the Roman Catholic thinks the Holy Spirit ever speaks directly to the individual, but through all your self-congratulation I didn’t find your answer to that question.
"... And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."
This is a full filtering middleman.
That it is. Sadly. In contradiction to God's word.
"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" -- Acts 10:47
The Church teaches that private revelation happens all the time; sometimes the individuals even interpret the revelations correctly, giving rise to all sorts of new vocations and devotions.
But the Church doesn’t just automatically stamp its approval on anything someone dreams up at the Knights of Columbus and feels “inspired” to share with everyone else.
I am not aware that “private revelation” is the same thing as the indwelling Holy Spirit.
It’s not.
But the indwelling is not a constant conscious communication, which is what seemed to be at issue.
Men are called to read the Scriptures, and if they've been given eyes to see and ears to hear and a new heart with which to believe in Jesus Christ, all as gifts of free, unmerited grace from God alone, they will understand God's word and His will for their lives.
A behemoth, authoritarian magisterium far across mountains and oceans is not required for a man to know what God wants for him.
All that is required is the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit which is a gift from God.
Nothing "private" about it. But very "personal."
And Christ's church on earth is made up of like-minded "personal" believers who come together to worship God and to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Why did St. Paul write the fourteenth chapter of I Corinthians, then? Shouldn’t the Spirit interpret, then? Or did St. Paul err in preaching that prophesy independent of Scriptures was profitable?
Where did anyone in Scripture claim that all members of the Church would be infallible in their interpretations?
I Cor 12:7-11
“To each individual the manifestation of the Spirit is given for some benefit. To one is given through the Spirit the expression of wisdom; to another the expression of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit; to another mighty deeds; to another prophecy; to another discernment of spirits; to another varieties of tongues; to another interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit produces all of these, distributing them individually to each person as He wishes.”
And, of course, the inevitable verses 27-31 of same:
“Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it. Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? Strive eagerly for the greatest spiritual gifts. But I shall show you a still more excellent way.”
Which in turn raises the question:
Does the Church have Apostles in the present day?
“Why, when Evangelicals search the “ancient” Church, do they find beliefs that contradict their own? If an evangelical “church” is the “true church” of Christ, shouldn’t they find validation of their beliefs in the first thousand years of Christianity?”
NO! They found validation of their beliefs in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. ie: from the Year One. Period, end of story.
I didn’t find your post #1101 to be self-congratulatory.
It is very likely the description of Everyman as he passes through his days on the way to Glory.
Without theological dissertations and Biblical references, the Holy Spirit can and does reach the heart of one who believes in Christ and all that He promises, including the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. What matters isn’t that we can describe it, or that we recount it , but that we accept the mystery of it.
Too often, we Christians want to have everything answered and everything neatly cataloged and accounted for. We run the risk of not wanting to let mystery remain until the Lord chooses to reveal it to us. And even then, He may prefer that we remain silent and “ponder it in our hearts” as Mary did.
“Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Thy faithful and inkindle in them the fire of Thy love”.
ROE
I consider this post gratuitous abuse. If this is whining make the most of it.
It isn’t whining.
It’s protecting the principle of 1Peter 2:17 “You must esteem the person of every man”.
Did I say there was no church???
There was no abuse in my post, and I didn't use the word "whining." Please don't put words in my post that I didn't write.
The point being discussed is whether you believe the Holy Spirit works primarily through the individual or the collective church.
Sorry, I did not realize that your emphasis was on the article ‘a’ in ‘a Church’.
No.
Apostles are no longer required to spread the word of God. According to the Great Commission, we who believe on His name are to make disciples of all the world.
Christ has risen. The sacrifice is complete.
Therefore there is no further need for the signs and miracles of the Apostles. Christ risen from the cross is the only sign any man needs to confirm the truth found in Scripture.
The only "infallibility" required for salvation is that of Jesus Christ.
No church on earth has everything 100% correct, and men still die sinning. By the grace of God, if that man is a member of Christ's flock, those sins have been covered by His one-time, perfect, accomplished sacrifice on the cross.
Everything you say was true when St. Paul was writing. Why did St. Paul call himself an apostle, then, if none were needed after the Resurrection and descent of the Holy Ghost?
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.