The “Necessity” of Being Catholic (Ecumenical Caucus)

One of the most controversial papal documents ever released was the bull Unam Sanctam, issued in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII. Today the most controversial part of the bull is the following infallible pronouncement: "Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it Is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff."

This doctrine is extraordinarily controversial. Some Catholic extremists claim (contrary to further Church teaching, including a further infallible definition) that this means everyone who is not a full fledged, professing Catholic is damned. Non Catholics find the claim offensive, sectarian, and anti Christian in sentiment.

Most Catholics who are aware of the definition find it embarrassing, especially in today's ecumenical age, and many try to ignore or dismiss it, though even liberal Catholic theologians admit it is a genuine doctrinal definition and must in some sense be true.

Its truth was reinforced by Vatican II, which stated: "This holy Council ... [b]asing itself on Scripture and Tradition ... teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation.... [Christ] himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16, John 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it" (Lumen Gentium 14).

Many modems explain this doctrine in a way that robs it of its content. In the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, who admitted the possibility of salvation for non Catholics, lamented that some Catholic theologians were "reducs an exclusivist view of salvation, this teaching does not mean that anyone who is not a full fledged Catholic is damned. As further Church teaching has made clear, including a further doctrinal definition, it is entirely possible for a person to be saved without being a professing Catholic. Formally belonging to the Church and formally being subject to the Roman Pontiff are normative rather than absolute necessities,

An absolute necessity is a necessity which holds in all cases with no exceptions. A normative necessity is usually required, though there are exceptions. An example of normative necessity in everyday American life is the practice of driving on the right hand side of the road. This is normally required, but there are exceptions, such as emergency situations. For example, if a small child darts out from behind parked cars, it may be necessary (and legally permitted) to swerve into the left hand lane to avoid hitting him. Thus the necessity of driving on the right hand side of the road is a normative rather than an absolute necessity.

Whether it is a normative or an absolute necessity to be united to the Catholic Church depends on what kind of unity with the Church one has in mind, because there are different ways of being associated with the Catholic Church.

A person who has been baptized or received into the Church is fully and formally a Catholic. Vatican II states: "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops" (Lumen Gentium 14, Catechism of the Catholic Church 837).

But it is also possible to be “associated" with or "partially incorporated" into the Catholic Church without being a fully and formally incorporated into it. Vatican II states: "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter" (Lumen Gentium 15). Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3; CCC 838).

Those who have not been baptized are also put in an imperfect communion with the Church, even if they do not realize it, if they possess the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. Pope Plus XII explains that the "juridical bonds [of the Church] in themselves far surpass those of any other human society, however exalted; and yet another principle of union must be added to them in those three virtues, Christian faith, hope, and charity, which link us so closely to each other and to God.... [I]f the bonds of faith and hope, which bind us to our Redeemer in his Mystical Body are weighty and important, those of charity are certainly no less so.... Charity ... more than any other virtue binds us closely to Christ" (Mystici Corporis 70, 73).

Understanding this distinction between perfect and imperfect communion with the Church is essential to understanding the necessity of being a Catholic. It is an absolute necessity no exceptions at all to be joined to the Church in some manner, at least through the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. However, it is only normatively necessary to be fully incorporated into or in perfect communion with the Catholic Church. There are exceptions to that requirement, as the Council of Trent taught (see below), though it is still a normative necessary.

In our discussion below, the word "necessary" will mean "normatively necessary," not "absolutely necessary."

When it comes to the question of being a Catholic, that is both a necessity of precept and a necessity of means. It is a necessity of precept because God commands it, for "the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ," Lumen Gentium 14 (CCC 846). It is a necessity of means because the Catholic Church is the sacrament of salvation for mankind, containing all the means of grace. "As sacrament, the Church is Christ's instrument. 'She is taken up by him also as the instrument for the salvation of all, ''the universal sacrament of salvation, 'by which Christ is' at once manifesting and actualizing the mystery of God's love for men... (CCC 776, citing Vatican II's Lumen Gentium 9:2, 48:2, and Gaudiam et Spes 45: 1).

To many this teaching sounds extremely offensive, sectarian, and anti Christian. But is it really? While non-Catholic Christians balk at the claim one must be a Catholic to be saved, many do not balk when it is said that one be a Christian to be saved. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are well known for claiming precisely this. Many say it is an absolute necessity no exceptions allowed and are critical of Catholics for saying some non-Christians may make it into heaven. They claim that in allowing this possibility the Church has compromised the gospel.

(For a scriptural rebuttal to this, see Acts 10:34 35, in which Peter declares that anyone who fears God and works righteousness is acceptable to the Lord. See also Acts 17:23, in which Paul says some Greeks worshipped the true God in ignorance. And see Rom. 2:13 16, in which Paul states that some gentiles who do not have the law of Moses meaning non Christian gentiles, since they do have the law of Moses may be excused by their consciences and declared righteous on the day of judgment.)

Vatican II stated: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ, 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 conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation. Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life . . . . But very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasoning, having exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the world rather than the Creator (c.f Rom. 1:21 and 25). Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. Hence, to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord’s commands, ‘preach the Gospel to every creature’ (Mark 16:16) takes zealous care to foster the missions” Lumen Gentium 16).

We would cite the works of any number of popes prior to Vatican II to show this (for example, Pius IX’s allocution, Singulari Quadem, given the day after he defined the Immaculate Conception in 1854, or his 1863 encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, or Plus XII's 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis), but to make short work of the matter, let us look at an infallible definition from the Council of Trent, whose teachings were formulated in one of the most bitterly polemical and least ecumenical periods in history, and which to radical traditionalists is an absolutely unimpeachable source.

Canon four of Trent's "Canons on the Sacraments in General" states, "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them ... men obtain from God the grace of justification, let him be anathema [excommunicated]." This is an infallible statement because anathemas pronounced by ecumenical councils are recognized as infallibly defining the doctrine under discussion.

Trent teaches that although not all the sacraments are necessary for salvation, the sacraments in general are necessary. Without them or the desire of them men cannot obtain the grace of justification, but with them or the desire of them men can be justified. The sacrament through which we initially receive justification is baptism. But since the canon teaches that we can be justified with the desire of the sacraments rather than the sacraments themselves, we can be justified with the desire for baptism rather than baptism itself.

This is confirmed in chapter four of Trent's Decree on Justification. This chapter defines justification as "a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the sons' of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior." Justification thus includes the state of grace (salvation). The chapter then states that "this translation, after the promulgation of the gospel, cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God' [John 3:5]. " Justification, and thus the state of grace, can be effected through the desire for baptism (for scriptural examples of baptism of desire, see Acts 10:44 48, also Luke 23:42 43).

Only actual baptism makes one a formal member of the Church; baptism of desire does not do so. Since justification can be received by desire for baptism, as Trent states, justification and thus received without formal membership in the Church. The desire for baptism is sufficient.

Later Catholic teaching has clarified the nature of this desire and shown it can be either explicit or implicit. One has explicit desire for baptism if he consciously desires and resolves to be baptized (as with catechumens and others). One has an implicit desire if he would resolve to be baptized if he knew the truth about it.

How does implicit desire work? Consider the following analogy: Suppose there is a person who is sick and needs a shot of penicillin to make him better. He tells his physician, "Doc, you've got to give me something to help me get well!" The doctor looks at his chart and says, "Oh, what you want is penicillin. That's the right drug for you." In this case the man had an explicit desire for a drug to make him better whatever that drug might be and the appropriate one was penicillin. He thus had an implicit desire for penicillin even if he had not heard of it before. Thus the doctor said: "What you want is penicillin." This shows that it is possible to want something without knowing what it Is.

A person who has a desire to be saved and come to the truth, regardless of what that truth turns out to be, has an implicit desire for Catholicism and for the Catholic Church, because that is where truth and salvation are obtained. By resolving to pursue salvation and truth, he resolves to pursue the Catholic Church, even though he does not know that is what he is seeking. He thus implicitly longs to be a Catholic by explicitly longing and resolving to seek salvation and truth.

Papal and conciliar writings in the last hundred years have clarified that those who are consciously non Catholic in their theology may still have an overriding implicit desire for the truth and hence for Catholicism. Pope Plus XII stated that concerning some of "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church ... by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer" (Mystici Corporis 103).

How does this work? Consider our example of the sick man who needs penicillin. Suppose that he thinks that a sulfa drug will cure him and he explicitly desires it. So he tells the doctor, "Doc, I'm real sick, and you've got to give me that sulfa drug to make me better." But the doctor notices on his chart that he has an allergy to sulfa drugs, and says, "No, you don't want that; what you really want is penicillin." In this case the person's primary desire is to get well; he has simply mistaken what will bring that about. Since his primary desire to be well, he implicitly desires whatever will cause that to happen. He thus implicitly desires the correct drug and will explicitly desire that drug as soon as he realizes the sulfa would not work.

As papal and conciliar writings have indicated, the same thing is possible in religion. If a person's primary desire is for salvation and truth then he implicitly desires Catholicism even if he is consciously mistaken about what will bring him salvation and truth. He might be a member of some other church, yet desire salvation and truth so much that he would instantly become a Catholic if he knew the truth concerning it. In this case, his primary desire would be for salvation and truth wherever that might be found rather than his primary desire being membership in a non Catholic church.

However, the situation could be reversed. It is possible for a person to have a stronger desire not to be a Catholic than to come to the truth. This would be the case when people resist evidence for the truth of Catholicism out of a desire to remain non Catholic. In this case their primary desire would not be for the truth but for remaining a non-Catholic. Thus their ignorance of the truth would not be innocent (because they desired something else more than the truth), and it would constitute mortal sin.

Even though some radical traditionalists are disobedient to the papal and conciliar documents which teach the possibility of implicit desire sufficing for salvation, the Church has still taught for centuries that formal membership in the Church is not an absolute necessity for salvation. This was the point made by Trent when it spoke of desire for baptism bringing justification. The issue of whether desire for baptism saves and the issue of whether that desire can be explicit or implicit are two separate subjects which radical traditionalists often confuse. If we keep them separate, it is extremely clear from the Church's historic documents that formal membership in the Church is not necessary for salvation.

To avoid this, some radical traditionalists have tried to drive a wedge between justification and salvation, arguing that while desire for baptism might justify one, it would not save one if one died without baptism. But this is shown to be false by numerous passages in Trent.

In the same chapter that it states that desire for baptism Justifies, Trent defines Justification as "a translation ... to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God" (Decree on Justification 4). Since whoever is in a state of grace and adopted by God is In a state of salvation, desire for baptism saves. If one dies in the state of grace, one goes to heaven and receives eternal life.

As Trent also states: "Justification ... is not merely remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts, whereby an unrighteous man becomes a righteous man, and from being an enemy [of God] becomes a friend, that he may be 'an heir according to the hope of life everlasting' [Titus 3:7]" (Decree on Justification 7). Thus desire for baptism brings justification and justification makes one an heir of life everlasting. If one dies in a state of justification, one will inherit eternal life. Period. This question of whether formal membership is necessary for salvation is thus definitively settled by Trent. It is not. Informal membership, the kind had by one with desire for baptism, suffices.

This was also the teaching of Thomas Aquinas. He stated that those who have no desire for baptism "cannot obtain salvation, since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through whom alone can salvation be obtained. Secondly, the sacrament of baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill chance he is forestalled by death before receiving baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for baptism, which desire is the outcome of 'faith that worketh by charity' [Gal. 5:6], whereby God, whose power is not tied to the visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: 'I lost him whom I was to regenerate; but he did not lose the grace he prayed for... (Summa Theologiae 111:68:2, citing Ambrose, Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian [A.D. 392]).

The question of whether desire for baptism needs to be explicit or implicit is a separate issue which was not raised by Trent, but which has been dealt with repeatedly by popes and councils since that time. Still, Trent alone shows that the statement in Unam Sanctam teaches a normative necessity for formal membership, not an absolute one. Those who desire but do not have baptism are not formally members of the Church, yet they are linked to the Church by their desire and can be saved.

What is absolutely necessary for salvation is a salvific link to the body of Christ, not full incorporation into it. To use the terms Catholic theology has classically used, one can be a member of the Church by desire (in voto) rather than in actuality (in actu).

In A.D. 400, Augustine said, "When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body ... All who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark" (Baptism 5:28:39).

And in the thirteenth century, Aquinas stated a person can obtain salvation if they are "sacramentally [or] mentally. . . incorporated in Christ, through whom alone can salvation be obtained," and that "a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for baptism, which desire is the outcome of 'faith that worketh by charity' [Gal. 5:6], whereby God, whose power is not tied to the visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly" (ST 111:68:2).

What the radical traditionalists have forgotten is that they are not the interpreters of previous papal statements; the Magisterium is, and their personal interpretations may not go against the authoritative teaching of the current Magisterium.

The idea that they can by private conscience interpret centuries old papal decrees puts them in the same position as Protestants, interpreting centuries old biblical documents. The radical traditionalist simply has a larger "Bible," but the principle is the same: private interpretation rules! This completely defeats the purpose of having a Magisterium, which is to provide a contemporary source that can identify, clarify, and explain previous authoritative statements, whether from the Bible, Apostolic Tradition, or itself

Much of the current flap over Feeneyism could be avoided if conservative Catholics would remind themselves of the fact that it is the Magisterium, not them and their private judgment, which is the interpreter of previous Magisterial statements,

The same is true of those who misuse papal and conciliar statements on the other side, privately interpreting them in a way contrary to what they explicitly state that all religions are equal, that every religion leads one to God, and that there is no need for evangelism. The Church teaches the exact opposite!

While elements of truth may be found in other religions (for example, the truth that there is a supernatural world), elements of truth do not make equality in truth.

In fact, it can be the presence of elements of truth which make a counterfeit believable and lead one away from God. A lie is not credible if it bears no resemblance to reality, as illustrated by the serpent's lie to Eve, which most definitely contained elements of truth Adam and Eve did become "as God, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:5, 22) but it was the believability of the serpent's lie that led Adam and Eve away from God.

So though it is possible for a person to be led toward God by elements of truth that are found in a false religion, this does nothing to diminish the need for evangelism.

Vatican II may teach that it is possible for "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church" to receive salvation, but it immediately follows it up by stating that, despite that fact, "very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the world rather than the Creator (cf. Rom. 1:21 and 25). Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. Hence, to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord’s command, 'preach the Gospel to every creature' (Mark 16:15) takes zealous care to foster the missions" (Lumen Gentium 16).

And Pope Pius XII stated concerning "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church ... we ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in he Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the society of glorious love" (Mystici Corporis 103).

These quotes show the Church's insistence on people's need to receive evangelization to hear the good news but most fundamentally evangelism is necessary because Christ calls us to dispel all ignorance concerning him and the means of salvation he has established (including the Church), for Christ commands, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:19 20). We are to dispel all ignorance, including innocent ignorance, for we are to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation" (Mark 16:15).

Those who represent, even through silence, the Magisterium as not requiring and stressing the urgent need for world wide evangelism are distorting the teaching of the magisterium as much as those who represent it as saying absolutely no one who is not formally a Catholic can be saved.

(For a look at what the early Church Fathers believed, and how they supported both the necessity of being Catholic and the possibility of salvation for non Catholics in some circumstances, see "The Fathers Know Best: Who Can Be Saved? ", This Rock, Nov. 94.)

Paul was at that council in Jerusalem, and Peter would not have been able to get the full scoop on what was happening with the Gentiles without the Apostle Paul.

You don't have to convince me. I am not Catholic.

Peter, being a minister to the circumcision (Galatians 2), fades in emphasis, while the emphasis on the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, expands.

Well, if Matthew's Great Commission has any credibility (which it doesn't), the eleven disciples were told to go to all the "nations/tribes" which could be understood any way you wish, either as all the people of the world or just the tribes of Israel, the word ehtne is not specific.

So, there would have been no reason for anyone to only deal with the circumcision, In addition to that, Acts 13:26 clearly tells you why Paul went to the Gentiles: the Jewish rejection! But if he and Barnabas were already apostles to the Gentiles, why did it matter what the circumcision believed; it was not their concern! or it shouldn't have been.

Bottom line is, Jesus never said anything about going to the gentiles; on the contrary, he forbade it. He also specifically picked 12 disciples for each tribe of Israel. He never said anything about having more. The whole thing is a story that was ad-libed as time went on.

As for Peter and Paul receiving "messages" in different chronological order, that is just pure nonsense: the HS was supposed to teach them all things they needed to know. They sure didn't act like they did.

None of them knew that there would be a “Church Age,” much less one that would last for 2,000 years,

Oh, yeah, the HS kept that from them. That was a special surprise reserved for other times...Rather, it seems to me the HS let Paul teach that Christ was coming back soon...

I am n to sure what your point is, but thanks anyway.

We are writing, of course, as non-Catholics. I am also non-Protestant. Non-Catholic and any sense related to the Vatican; non-Protestant in any sense related to Geneva.

Oh, well, I protest a whole lot of clerical, sacramental, and formal religion. According to people like Ian Paisely, that would make me a “PROTESTant.” But in the sense of Geneva Protestantism . . . I am not one.

I don’t know where the passage in Matthew ch. 28 ever first got the description, “The Great Commission.” When comparing the four Gospel accounts, the commissions at the end of each are different, and for a purpose.

Believing Israelites, those who accepted Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of Messianic Prophesy, headed by the Twelve Apostle of the Lamb, under that commission of Matthew 28, were to go to the nations with that message of the King. It was the Gospel of the Kingdom, which has nothing to do with either Vatican or Genevan theology.

The Gentile nations would be blessed in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as they would believe in the Seed of those three, Jesus Christ. This was nothing new in Matthew. The Old Testament was clear that as Israel believed, obeyed, and received the national promises, the Gentiles who followed suit would be blessed as well.

The commission was to go to dispersed Israel among the nations and then to the Gentiles of those nations. It had nothing to do with the Church (Body of Christ) of the current dispensation. It is not the Catholic Church, it is not ANY Protestant church or denomination, nor any Baptist or Brethren church or denomination. The Eleven who heard the commission new nothing of these things.

There is no requirement to day to preach anything special to the Circumcision, for today is not their day. Any Jew must receive Jesus Christ as the Sin-Bearer/Saviour, on the same basis as any Gentile. In the matter of Gospel evangelism today, there is no distinction.

There was a Gospel of the Circumcision and a Gospel of the Uncircumcision. Three men continued in the former, and Paul and others went on to the other (Galatians 2). It was a time of transition, and revelation by the Holy Spirit was progressive; God did not make everything known to all of the Apostles at the same time.

God did hide some things from the original Twelve. The Gospels and the epistles will attest to it. Just run the words “hide” and “hid” and “hidden” in the New Testament.

Example: When Christ first told the original Twelve that He was going to Jerusalem, would be killed, and rise again the third day, the text clearly states that they understood NONE of these things, and these things were “HID” from them.

The doctrine of the Body of Christ was a “hidden” from ages and generations before being revealed first to the Apostle Paul (Ephesians ch. 3).

There is no evidence that they understood that there would be a “Church Age.”

My point? Bible-literalism.

FWIW - and I know you will disagree, and that is OK - I tried hard in the first phrase to get it IAW Catholic teaching. However, when someone believes this ‘multiple participation’ results in multiple forgiving of sins, and that it is a requirement for forgiveness of sin as one goes through life, I think the Catholic Church in fact, if not in word, considers them multiple sacrifices. At a bare minimum, the Catholic Church teaches that God views the sacrifice of Jesus as an ongoing sacrifice, always before Him (since He is supposed to be outside of time, and seeing all times at once).

However, there is no place in scripture where it is described thus. Even when speaking from the perspective of God in Heaven, it is always ‘the Lamb that WAS slain’. Or it says ‘AFTER his sacrifice, he sat down at the right hand of God and waits...’ - indicating that either God’s nature involves a sequential perspective, or that God has completely shut up the sacrifice of Christ and refuses to look at it.

In practice, Catholics treat it as a repeated sacrifice. There are Vatican approved books talking about a repeated sacrifice, offered again and again - which I think more accurately reflects what the Catholic Church believes. I find the whole ‘re-presentation’ argument disingenuous.

That is why I sometimes speak of it two different ways. One is what the Catholic Church - which has had Hebrews stuffed in its face many times - SAYS. The other is what I believe the Catholic Church PRACTICES.

And even when one uses the first phrasing, I think it doesn’t appreciate what Jesus did at the cross. When it says he has made us perfect forever, that means he has forgiven our sins - if we have truly believed, and are born again as a new creation. If the ‘re-presentation’ is for remembrance and thanksgiving, as Eucharist suggests, then it is fine. If it is for atonement, then it misses what Jesus has done.

multiple forgiving of sins

Because there are multiple sins. That does not multiply Calvary. The Mass applies the one historical sacrifice to the faithful. When the Eucharist is consecrated, the language is both in the past tense and in the present tense, and it is straight from the scripture:

Priest: ...On the night he was betrayed, he took the bread and gave youthanks and praise. He broke the bread gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take this all of you and eat it; this is my body which will be given up for you.” ...When supper was ended, he took the cup; again he gave you thanksand praise; gave the cup to his disciples and said, “Take this, all of you, anddrink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlastingcovenant. Do this in memory of me.
Priest: Let us proclaim the mystery of faith.
Everyone: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Priest: Through Him, with Him, in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, allglory and honor is yours, almighty Father, forever and ever.
Everyone: Amen.
Priest: Let us pray for the coming of the kingdom as Jesus taught us.
Everyone: Our Father...
Priest: Deliver us Lord from every evil, and grant us peace in our day. In your mercy keep us free from sin and protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior Jesus Christ.
Everyone: For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours, now and forever.
Priest: The peace of the Lord be with you always.Everyone: And also with you.
Priest: Let us offer each other a sign of peace.
Priest: This is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.Happy are those who are called to his supper.
Everyone: Lord I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word andI shall be healed.

Further, the Mass is a celebration of sacrifice and through it the victory of Christ. It does not itself absolve any sin, at least not any serious sin, for that a separate sacrament exists, Confession.

“Bottom line is, Jesus never said anything about going to the gentiles; on the contrary, he forbade it. He also specifically picked 12 disciples for each tribe of Israel. He never said anything about having more. The whole thing is a story that was ad-libed as time went on.”

You won’t be surprised that we disagree again!

“17The LORD said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, 18seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?” - Gen 18:18

The prejudice of the Jews didn’t negate God’s plan. The ministry of John the Baptist was a sign. Jews had started baptizing converts to their faith, but didn’t baptize themselves since they had already arrived, so to speak. For John to insist they needed baptism and repentance and a new start was radical.

Jesus concentrated on ministry to the Jews, because it was through the Jews that all nations would be blessed. He had to get them ready for the indwelling Holy Spirit, who would take them where they needed to go - reluctantly, at times, but I can be pretty reluctant in following God myself, so I can’t point fingers!

Nor was it just Jesus that concentrated on the Jews. Paul ALSO went first to the Jews: “Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”

Yes, Jesus’ earthly ministry was to Jews only, with the exception of one Gentile woman and one Gentile man who confessed their position under Israel.

And the “church” discussed in Matthew 16 describes the called out assembly of a believing Israeli nation, and that will take place in the future.

The “church” of Matthew 16 doesn’t describe anything we see on earth today that calls itself a church.

That was during His earthly ministry to the nation who should have received Him first.

Paul went to Jews first because Israel should have received Christ first. Then Israel would have been the evangelistic people to the remainder of the world.

The temple was supposed to be a house of prayer for ALL nations. It was unbelieving Israel that prevented this.

I don’t know if you quoted Geneis 18:17, 18 as a proof text that God doesn’t hide anything from anybody. That reference refers only to Abraham about the matter of Sodom. It doesn’t refer to every one of His servents in every situation in all times.

The disciples asked Christ (just prior to His Ascension) whether He would AT THAT TIME restore the kingdom TO ISRAEL. Our Lord told them that God was keeping that in His own power. Christ didn’t tell them whether it was now or later. The timing remained hid — a mystery.

I may be confused by terminology. You write:

“Further, the Mass is a celebration of sacrifice and through it the victory of Christ. It does not itself absolve any sin, at least not any serious sin, for that a separate sacrament exists, Confession.”

The Council of Trent said:

“CHAPTER II. That the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory both for the living and the dead.

And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propritiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the [Page 155] grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits indeed of which oblation, of that bloody one to wit, are received most plentifully through this unbloody one; so far is this (latter) from derogating in any way from that (former oblation). Wherefore, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it rightly offered, agreebly to a tradition of the apostles.”

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct22.html

Religious beliefs are often more deeply held than political ones. And it is also true that conservatives can be in complete agreement on political issues and at the same time, bitterly disagree with each other's religious beliefs.

Also, when one belief spawns from a previous one it is common for each of them to condemn the other in the harshest terms possible, e.g. heretic, anathema, apostate, cult, Satanic.

Those terms often become part of the official doctrines and Freepers' deeply held religious beliefs - and whereas some conservatives take no offense at the use of the terms against their beliefs, others do.

For all these reasons, the Religion Forum approximates the venues available for free religious speech by providing these thread types in the RF:

1. No debate of any kind is tolerable on RF threads tagged "prayer" or "devotional." These are treated as if they were invocations, services or benedictions. For the same reason it is inappropriate to disrupt a funeral service or a prayer in Congress, these threads must not be disrupted.

2. Only members of a specified caucus are to post on RF threads tagged "caucus" - e.g. "Catholic Caucus." These are treated as if they were occurring behind the closed doors of a church. It would be inappropriate to tear down the doors of another's church in order to protest his beliefs. But because a cyber-church is transparent or visible, the beliefs of any non member must not be mentioned in either the article or in the replies. When that happens, the thread must be "opened" so that the non-members can speak for themselves.

3. Antagonism is not allowed on threads labeled "ecumenical." These threads are treated as if they were an open panel among polite academicians. Loud, abusive, antagonistic behavior is inappropriate for that venue and thus disruptors are instructed to leave the thread.

4. All other threads are "open" and are treated like a town square. Antagonistic beliefs can be aired. Posters may argue pro or con. Deities, religious authorities, authors and documents may be cruelly ridiculed. It can become rowdy and contentious. Thick skin is required. Thin skinned posters are the disruptors on open RF threads and they may also be instructed to leave the thread.

In the end, thick skinned or thin skinned, academician or not, reverent or irreverent, every Freeper has a "niche" on the Religion Forum.

Since both of you are "old-timer" Freepers, you may find the open threads more to your liking.

>>These are treated as if they were occurring behind the closed doors of a church.<<

Yeah, I read the rules when I started seeing those early morning things from Vision. I have a problem with the phrase above becuase of the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Specifically, they are NOT behind closed doors.

What they potentially allow is someone to say anything they want in their “not closed door” area and nobody is allowed to call them on it. No problem, I just ignore the threads. I responded today to a new post on an old thread, but kept it out of the context of the thread itself to obey the rules.

>>Since both of you are “old-timer” Freepers, you may find the open threads more to your liking.<<

That’s been my MO on these. My only concern is that it implies that one really could open an Islamic “devotional” thread and pretty much say whatever they want and the rest of us would be forced to “ignore” it. Without getting into specifics, that sort of thing - but at a much “reduced” level - has sometimes happened in the religious “closed door” threads.

You can’t ignore them because they come up in “recent posts”. Yet you are required to.

Anyway, just sayin’.

I’d love to see a feature where “devotional, etc.” threads did not show up in “recent posts”. But I ramble. I’m done here and will continue to ignore these threads until I think someone actually does cross a line. Then I’ll just post something to the religious moderator in freepmail.

Because I have learned, in over a decade of FReeping, the "spelling cop" is wiser in his own eyes than seven men that can give a discreet answer

That's about as lame as it gets...

For example: your definition of "heresy" above is as ludicrous and self-negating as the statement "there are no absolutes,"

My definition of heresy is correct: teaching that which is contrary to the teaching of the Church. The only thing that is ridiculous is your negation of it.

but demonstrating that fact for you would be "teaching a pig to sing" so I'll keep my pearls to myself despite your numerous fatuities after post #200

So instead of substance you have to resort to insults (never even attempting to answer or document any of your answers), I suppose in hopes that you will bait me to respond in kind. I won't stoop down to your level. In fact, I couldn't even if I wanted to.

Your replies are void of any substance, or meaning. You fail to answer straightforward questions such as why do you persistently write Greek with a lower-case letter g, or how many languages do you know expertly. You don't reply to historical facts with historical facts but with out-of-context fables. You claim that you studied Greek, yet you are unfamiliar with variant transliterationsal forms of the same. You use well known words in a supposedly colloquial manner when such colloquial usage is not documented in dictionaries. You insinuate that I said apostasy is dependent on geography, yet you will not provide where I supposedly make such a claim. In short, you don't answer anything. You just spill out your vomit and insults for whatever reason once a week. That's pathetic.

In short, you don't answer anything. You just spill out your vomit and insults for whatever reason once a week.

How much effort am I suppose to expend on you? If you will not acknowledge patristic silence is not the same thing as contradicting those fathers, you are accepting the same false logic of the sola scriptura crowd. That's not insult: that's fact.

You get the insults when you refuse to acknowledge such simple, straightforward, self-evident facts.

Furthermore, it is not my responsibility to powder your bottom everytime you wet yourself over my references to what other posters have claimed (like the geography comment).

You use well known words in a supposedly colloquial manner when such colloquial usage is not documented in dictionaries.

Gee, you're right. It would be pretty stupid to try to find colloqialisms in a dictionary. Maybe that means the inquirer needs to look up "colloquialism" first.

Be that as it may, would telling you to add something like "personality" to "solipsistic" as a search term satisfy your appetite for citation, or would you prefer I make your petulance even more explicit with copy/paste?

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.