No Salvation Outside the Church

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

[bdeaner]

I wouldn’t take the bet if I were you, because you would lose big time — that is, if you were a gamblin’ man.

[bdeaner]

The Calvinist threads are like a frickin ghost town. I think I’m the only Catholic that ever responds to them.

[driftdiver]

“I wouldn’t take the bet if I were you, because you would lose big time”

I don’t think so, and I don’t gamble. Not even bingo which Catholics seem to love.

[bdeaner]

Not even bingo which Catholics seem to love.

yes, we sure do. ;)

[bdeaner]

Glad someone else sees the double-speak tendency!

It's sad when someone cynically takes an ecumenical gesture as "double-speak."

[bdeaner]

You nor anyone from your religion is any more qualified to interpret the scriptures any more than anyone on this forum...

You wish. The Catholic Church is the ONLY Church qualified to infallibly interpret Scripture -- ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE!

[bdeaner]

[The Bible] is verified in the heart of each individual believer by the Holy Spirit...

No. Nowhere does the Bible say so, Mr. Sola Scriptura.

[Quix]

Straddling the fence . . . to whatever significant degree . . .

seems to qualify as double-speak, to me.

I certainly realize mileage may vary.

[Quix]

You wish. The Catholic Church is the ONLY Church qualified to infallibly interpret Scripture — ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE!

= = =

NO WAY.

NOT THE LEAST BIT TRUE.

NOT BY A VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY LONG SHOT.

[driftdiver]

“You wish. The Catholic Church is the ONLY Church qualified to infallibly interpret Scripture — ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE! “

Really? Where does the Bible say the Catholic church is the only church qualified?

[Mr Rogers]

“I would bet very big dollars that Catholic threads get at least 75% more negative remarks from Protestants than Protestant threads get negative remarks from Catholics. Wanna bet? “

I’ve never seen a Protestant thread, other than one a few days ago on Calvin.

And some of the Catholic threads exist to attack Protestants. Salvation has posted 2 in the last few days - one that started with silliness that equated the LDS & 7th Day Adventists with Baptist and Lutherans. There is one today with 150 reasons to be a Catholic...basically, all 150 are, “Catholics are right, so everyone else is stupid”.

I thank you for starting this thread, but there has been plenty of mud slung in both directions. That has been true through history. Anabaptists tended to be caught in the middle, but on at least one occasion they gained political power and behaved badly as well.

And I’ve been a Baptist long enough to know I wouldn’t want to live in a country run by Baptists...

[driftdiver]

“Mr. Sola Scriptura.’

Sometimes I wonder if certain posters aren’t really the same person.

[Semper Mark]

Yes, Col. 1:24 is a startling verse when taken out of context, especially in light of what Paul had just said before hand.

“Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of His body, which is the church.”

What are afflictions? Pain and distress. Does this speak of redemptive death? By no means. Christ still suffers affliction through his church because it is His body and it will not end until we are out of this world, they're still lacking. This is what Paul means by still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions.

“Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute Me?”
When the church is persecuted, Christ suffers affliction.

Paul said that he did this for the sake of Christ's body, which is His church.

Could Paul do any redemptive work for you, me, or himself?
No. Paul was in prison for the Gospel. A man will suffer in the measure that he identifies himself with Christ.
And even today, when the Gospel is being preached, someone will suffer.

You haven't heard the Gospel if you're looking for something to do...the Gospel is something to believe.
And if you don't believe it, then you're lost.

[driftdiver]

Doesn’t the bible say all men are sinners? That must mean they are fallible.

Isn’t the Catholic church full of men?

[driftdiver]

“And I’ve been a Baptist long enough to know I wouldn’t want to live in a country run by Baptists...”

HEY I’m baptist,,,,well I go to a baptist church. I aint perfect but I am saved.

[Marysecretary]

No you aren’t.

[Quix]

Certainly.

While they may note it when pressed on it . . .

Some sure seem to pontificate as though they are not!

But then that’s true in most denominations, if not all.

[seoul62]

On Judgement Day will the Lord ask us whether we are Catholic or Protestant?/Just Asking - seoul62........

[bdeaner]

God is the pillar and ground of the truth...

YES -- and the Lord's BODY is the CHURCH -- the pillar and ground of the Truth.

1 Cor 12:12-31
As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit. Now the body is not a single part, but many.

If a foot should say, "Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body," it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.

Or if an ear should say, "Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body," it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.

If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?

But as it is, God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended. If they were all one part, where would the body be? But as it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I do not need you," nor again the head to the feet, "I do not need you." Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary, and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety, whereas our more presentable parts do not need this. But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another. If (one) part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy.

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.

1 Cor. 1:18
And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

1 Cor. 2:18-20
Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules:

Eph. 1:22-23
And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

Eph. 4:13
until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

[bdeaner]

Doesn’t the bible say all men are sinners? That must mean they are fallible.

Isn’t the Catholic church full of men?

Papal infallibility means that the pope, when pronouncing definitively and dogmatically on matters of faith and morals is protected from teaching errors. This protection comes from the Holy Spirit and was promised by Jesus Christ when He said that He would send the Holy Spirit to the Apostles to teach them all truth. The pope only enjoys this special protection when he is speaking in union with the other bishops (the successors of the Apostles) as the successor to Saint Peter (the leader of the Apostles).

This is what infallibility means, but there are many things which it does not mean, although a number of non-Catholics would like it to mean this – as these things are easy to argue against!

Firstly, infallibility is not the ability to always be right or know the correct answer to a matter of history, science or some academic discipline. Although the popes are generally very well-educated men their intellects are not perfect, and they are capable of having gaps in their knowledge or of making mistakes. Thus, if a pope were to say that two plus two is five this would not mean that, for Catholics, two plus two equals five. It would mean that the pope has to take some more math lessons! The pope is only infallible when he speaks on matters of faith or morals – he is not always right and the Holy Spirit does not “teach him all truth” when it comes to academic matters.

Secondly, infallibility is only conferred on papal pronouncements which are solemnly and dogmatically defined, and does not apply to remarks made by the pope as a private individual, or even as a priest, the bishop of Rome or the pope. Only when he speaks as the pope ex cathedra (literally “from the chair” - meaning that he is formally defining something as infallible) is infallibility invoked. Such instances are very rare indeed – far rarer than many non-Catholics think.

Thirdly, and most importantly, infallibility should not be confused with impeccability. Impeccability is best defined as being sinless, or never making a moral mistake – Jesus and Mary were impeccable, for example. As we read in Saint Paul's letter to the Romans, all have sinned and fallen short of the grace of God. We read in the Gospels how Peter himself sinned by denying Christ, and in Acts how he fell short of his own teaching regarding eating with gentiles and had to be rebuked by Paul. But infallibility and impeccability are not the same thing, and Jesus never promised that the pope would be impeccable. The number of times Jesus speaks of there being sinners in the Church (such as the tares among the wheat, or the bad fish in the catch) should be enough to make this clear.