Is there salvation outside of the Church? I mean for one who has heard the Catholic Faith but denies it and believes his/her denomination? And just what exactly is Christ teaching in Mark 9:38-41?

-- Jason (enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), February 09, 2005

Answers

"I mean for one who has heard the Catholic Faith but denies it and believes his/her denomination?"

Or maybe the real question could be "Are YOU willing to bet YOUR Soul on it?"

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 09, 2005.

Yes, there is and I am betting my soul on it.

I have seen the corruption and I have seen those who should root it out, deny that there is corruption or refuse to find out, both of which responses are implicitly anticatholic. So those in charge meaning the Pope and the Bishops fail in there jobs to be good shepherds. No one expects them to be perfect but they deny even factual proofs. This is grave and serious error, so I cannot abide with them but do pray that they come to their senses.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), February 09, 2005.

But Karl, if the pope is the the visible head of the church, who are you to say that he is in error and you are not? What do you base your standard on? Btw I'm not Catholic, but I'm just curious. Do you follow traditions ? If so, whose? How do you know whose traditions are correct and whose are wrong?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 09, 2005.

Thats what God says about been saved, no talks about, churches, denominations, traditions, etc..

Romans 10:9 KJV) (9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

-- nolan (nolannaicker@webmail.co.za), February 10, 2005.

Oliver

you can test this for yourself.

Google "invincible ignorance" and see how may times you find a Father arguing "for" it. you will plenty of stuff against it, some infallible [the real crux].

here's a start:

http://www.romancatholicism.org/ignorance-quotes.htm

yet the Church teaches invincible ignorance can save. in doing so, it cuts across Dogmatic Original Sin/ Necessity of Baptism, the Dogmatic necessity of membership of the Church, .........

invincible ignorance is a novelty. the Church, or to be more precise, the Deposit of Faith, is anchored in 2033AD-ish; and was known in its entirety then to the Apostles [this is Dogmatic itself]. it is fixed in time for ever. [Dogmatic] there can be no new understandings of it. [Dogmatic] no modifications. [Dogmatic] even if they are well-meaning.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 10, 2005.

..i hasten to add, Oliver, that this is work in progress for me. i am reading a book that argues "for" and provides nothing to back it up. i am looking myself to see what's there.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 10, 2005.

Nolan, pay attention to what I ask. You quote Romans 10:9, but let me ask you this. Do you really believe that one who believes with his heart that Jesus was raised from the dead and confesses Him as Lord is saved EVEN if he/she continues in sin? That's the problem with so many churches today. The believe as long as you have made a "true" confession to God, your saved no matter what. Even if you just can not stop your lustful desires of the flesh for lets say a woman or women. You just are not strong enough to cease from going to strip clubs and coming home and doing you know what when no ones around, etc, etc!

Thats sad news if that's what you rreally believe. Just because one claims to be a follower or believer in Christ DOES NOT garuntee their salvation as Christ said many call him "Lord, Lord" but WILL NOT enter the kingdom of heaven because of their bad fruits. We must REPENT from our sins and follow Christ! No if, and, or BUTS!!

God give you peace:)

-- Jason (enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), February 10, 2005.

Nolan, pay attention to what I ask. You quote Romans 10:9, but let me ask you this. Do you really believe that one who believes with his heart that Jesus was raised from the dead and confesses Him as Lord is saved EVEN if he/she continues in sin?

Read this again, Jason

Romans 10:9 KJV) (9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

One can not confess that Jesus is Lord over our lives, and still continue to live in sin, for His Word say, how can we call Him, Lord, Lord and not do the things He says.

But God knows us for He created us, and He knows that we are going to sin. For when He died on the cross, He died for the sins of Adam, the present day sins, and the sins our children are going to commit until the end times.

And NO, this is not a licences to continue living in sin, but it mean that if we do confess our sin before Him (not any priest) He will forgive us.

I hope that answers your question.

-- nolan (nolannaicker@webmail.co.za), February 10, 2005.

Dear Ian,

The Orthodox were also around in 33 A.D. and do not deny that God's grace is absent to the unbaptized: rather they would say that, by the gracious economy of salvation from the compassionate Christ, who redeemed infants by becoming an infant, they too may be saved.

Perhaps my wife's miscarriage has influenced my thinking a lot here. Ian, I am convinced, Vatican II is right on: Florence is *wrong*. (At least in a rigoristic interpretation of the same.)

Furthermore, Florence was not accepted by the Christians of the East, and may not have been an ecumenical council. Note that in that Council Eugenius also dogmatically defined the Sacraments in such a way as to invalidate most all the ordinations, confirmations and confessions of Christian history: which is a problem.

Regards, Michael

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), February 10, 2005.

Vatican II is right on: Florence is *wrong*

Florence = *dogmatic* statement on salvation.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), February 10, 2005.

Hello Isabel.

So tell me, how do *you* interpret Florence, in the words about heretics, schismatics, and Jews being headed for eternal punishment unless they enter the Catholic Church?

And what do you think of the teachings of Vatican II on this same subject?

Regards,

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), February 10, 2005.

Interpret? I don't.

Dogmatic statements need no interpretation. They are what they are. They say what they mean.

Truth.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), February 10, 2005.

Salvation for those who deny Catholicism but love Christ?

Jason,

I interpret by reading that your question presupposes one knows Catholicism and then denies it but loves Christ -in such case the answer would be no --as one can not truly love Christ and deny His Church and all she provides after knowing her.

In my opinion the claim to "love Christ" is tantamount to claims to "be born again" or "receive Christ as personal savior" etcetera - -I have problems of conscience with these terms as they are but ambiguous concept and easily corrupted by moral relative reasoning or individual delusion...

How can I objectively state whether these things are completely understood and observed of and by themselves and that they alone provide the path to grace and salvation? If not sure myself, how can I say YES to another?

Such ambiguous terms are prone to ignorant dissent, moral relative derision, and moral righteous one upsmanship. I see these terms used innocuously, used self righteously or sometimes used in rabid anti-Catholic attacks by all flavors of non-Catholic. God does not intend nor cause derision -if there is derision is portends division -division from Truth. Derision comes from fear or doubt - it is the work of Satan. In derision against Christ's Church what is usually said is something to the effect of: yes you were baptized, yes you go to Church, yes you have Faith, yes you read the Bible, etcetera, etcetera, blah, blah, blah...

BUT do you love Christ!

BUT have you been born again!

BUT have you received Christ as personal savior!

Of course I say yes -yet it as is if we speak different languages as just what do these things mean specifically? If these things are Truth then how can these terms be so ambiguously defined differently by each individual or group defining them. Would Christ have left His sheep to scatter in such a way without providing something clear -some definition -deposit of a Faith and teaching authority led by the Holy Spirit -something that provides the complete body of Truth that these ambiguous terms were and still are actually rooted and succinctly defined within?

Considering the ambiguous terms, I know they are not sacrament or charism -otherwise one could not choose them by one self -they must therefore just be matters of Faith (I have Faith) -Faith which must be practiced daily moment by moment -not just in one moment and not just in love of Christ....

My answer is therefore NO -as one must belief in all Christ teaches -for that obedient FAITH is required -with obedience that is not ambiguous -obedience that leads to grace and building up of Christ's Church....

And what does the Church teach that I may learn and teach others about this obedient Faith required for salvation -so as not to be ambiguous or offer others an ambiguous path?

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

"I KNOW WHOM I HAVE BELIEVED"

To believe in God alone

150 Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed. As personal adherence to God and assent to his truth, Christian faith differs from our faith in any human person. It is right and just to entrust oneself wholly to God and to believe absolutely what he says. It would be futile and false to place such faith in a creature.

To believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God

151 For a Christian, believing in God cannot be separated from believing in the One he sent, his "beloved Son," in whom the Father is "well pleased"; God tells us to listen to him. The Lord himself said to his disciples: "Believe in God, believe also in me." We can believe in Jesus Christ because he is himself God, the Word made flesh: "No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known. Because he "has seen the Father," Jesus Christ is the only one who knows him and can reveal him.

To believe in the Holy Spirit

152 One cannot believe in Jesus Christ without sharing in his Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit who reveals to men who Jesus is. For "no one can say 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit," who "searches everything, even the depths of God. . . . No one comprehends the thoughts of God, except the Spirit of God." Only God knows God completely: we believe in the Holy Spirit because he is God. The Church never ceases to proclaim her faith in one only God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

"WE BELIEVE"

166 Faith is a personal act - the free response of the human person to the initiative of God who reveals himself. But faith is not an isolated act. No one can believe alone, just as no one can live alone. You have not given yourself faith as you have not given yourself life. The believer has received faith from others and should hand it on to others. Our love for Jesus and for our neighbor impels us to speak to others about our faith. Each believer is thus a link in the great chain of believers. I cannot believe without being carried by the faith of others, and by my faith I help support others in the faith.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 10, 2005.

Hello again Michael!

nice to hear from you. interested in your comment on the Sacraments/ Florence. if at some point you get a chance, do tell me more.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 10, 2005.

And NO, this is not a licences to continue living in sin

nolan,

Why not? Do you suggest there is more teaching than the several verses you pick and choose for each 'point' you push? Should we just obey that which suits the moment or should we obey the complete teachings? When there is apparent contradiction or when we are unable to reconcile the totality of teachings do we ignore or discard that which is not well understood upon our own authority?

Can you reconcile it all -if not it would be best to stop attempting to teach as you teach not Truth...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 10, 2005.

Isabel,

I'm sorry I threaten you so much that you will not answer my question. BTW, who defined dogmatically that Florence is a dogmatic Council? Just wondering.

Michael

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), February 10, 2005.

Dear Ian,

I would love to talk to you more about this, but I will not on this forum. If you want to chat more, use my e-mail.

Blessings, Michael

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), February 10, 2005.

Dear Daniel,

I deeply respect you and your beautiful, strong faith in Christ and in His Church. Many thanks for your words, as always.

Peace!

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), February 10, 2005.

I'm sorry I threaten you so much that you will not answer my question.

Did I not answer it? I had presumed my post was self-explanatory. IOW, I believe exactly what a dogmatic statement says. I have to, if I want to save my soul. I don't have to understand it, or try to figure out all the who's, what's, why's, when, where and how's.......I just have to accept it and believe it. It's an extra oppurtunity for me to pray for and grow in the graces of faith and hope.

BTW, who defined dogmatically that Florence is a dogmatic Council?

I took the liberty of pasting these phrases from the Council of Florence.

.....it believes, professes, and declares ........

It believes, professes, and proclaims ...........

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims .............

It, moreover, anathematizes, execrates, and condemns .........

It firmly believes, professes, and teaches ........

Do you know what the aforesaid are? They are absolutes. They are the words used by the Roman Pontiff, in the chair of Saint Peter, teaching faith and morals. Making the statement infallible. Dogmatic. Hence the following:

"It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Kind of like a large pill. Hard to swallow. But, nonetheless, true. Dogmatic.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), February 10, 2005.

Thank you, Isabel!

Just a couple thoughts.

1. In the first official printing of the Acts of the Council of Florence, it was called "the eighth ecumenical council", which means that the earlier Medieval synods (even Lateran IV) was not considered ecumencial. It follows, then, that even Trent and Vatican I need not be seen as ecumencial, with great implications. Yet even Florence failed in its goal of reunion; God's people in the East did not receive it.

2. But if you are correct in your approach, it seems to me we really do have another problem, namely, that Vatican II doesn't seem to take the same absolutist line as Florence. Protestants and Jews and Moslems are seen as capable of gaining eternal salvation, unlike in a strict reading of Florence.

You could of course just say, well, Vatican II wasn't a dogmatic council. But will you, then, deny the holy fathers of Vatican II the ability and the right to *interpret* the Church's teaching? If you will not, you are not following the very Magisterium that came up with the idea of dogmas in the first place. I don't think you can validly say, well, "The Holy Spirit guided the Church in 1431 but not in 1965." Remember the encyclicals of Pius XII, where he reminded us that even the ordinary magisterium demanded our assent; and his own interpretation of Florence given via the Holy Office in 1949 seems to be not as severe as yours.

The longer I have read things on this forum, the more I realize what a conundrum we have. Folks like Emerald and you are way over in one direction, while other folks are on the opposite end on this question.

It is disturbing to me.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), February 10, 2005.

Oops, sorry for my bad grammar in the last post. Hope you get my meaning.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), February 10, 2005.

Why would Isabel greet a simple question like:

''do *you* interpret Florence, words about heretics, schismatics, and Jews being headed for eternal punishment unless they enter the Catholic Church --

And what do you think of Vatican II on this same subject?''

With: ''Interpret? I don't.

Dogmatic statements need no interpretation. They are what they are. They say what they mean. --Truth.''

Then it's TRUE, Jews are going to hell? I would associate such a dogmatic sense to be true about ALL unrepentent sinners; because they die in some sin. Not because they're Jews. Not because they aren't Catholics particularly.

In such judgments, the dogma applies not to a faith, but to SIN. I know heresy was always deemed sinful; it opposes the Holy Gospel. --Schism might be sinful, because it denounces the apostolic Church. But not necessarily (or always) to live in sin. Basically it means the Primacy of Peter, not rejection of the Gospel.

I think these are ''chinks'' in the armor of those who raise dogma up, superior to God's divine Wisdom. God is capable of ''interpreting'' dogma, even if Isabel won't. God tells US what's Truth; pseudo-trads don't tell God.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 10, 2005.

Well then Nolan I'm at least very happy to know that you do not believe that you can continue in sin but are still saved as long as you made a confession. Thank the Lord! Because I personaly know many, especialy from my old Church who strive on this idea. Yes, they confess Christ to be Lord and believe in their hearts that he was raised from the dead for them, but also believe that they are in a body of sin and so therefor cannot be perfect.

It comes to the point of saying "I have put my faith in Jesus Christ and confes Him as Lord, but as of right now I cannot stop drinking alcohol and getting drunk or I cannot stop having sex before I am married, but God understands and will get me through this in the future. But nevertheless, I am still saved." This is the point I am making because now a days NUMEROUS Churches and Christians believe AND teach this.

-- Jason (enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), February 11, 2005.

Dear Jason:
I'm a faithful catholic and have been taught everything from the apostles. Your ancestors all were catholics; and somehow you're now outside the true church. But I can understand and sympathize with you & many upright christians of the non- Catholic faith.

I heard Johnny Cash explaining the same things you say here to Nolan; in a very touching way. I admired him a lot. He did what his ministers were telling him; and I pray he's been judged worthy of heaven. I really do. The same as I'd hope for you and Nolan.

But what you're saying in this last post isn't true. There's a fraction of truth; but misinterpreted in the main subject.

"I have put my faith in Jesus Christ and confess Him as Lord, but right now I cannot stop getting drunk or I cannot stop having sex before I am married,''

This is FALSE. ''--but God understands and will get me through this in the future. But nevertheless, I am still saved'' That's false.

God understands; we all know that; and yes, our sins are a result of Original Sin (Adam) which keeps us prone to falling. But we CAN be perfect; as faithful catholics. Not as Baptists or Methodists or the others; but in the catholic faith.

There's a way; and it actually saves our souls; because it's true faith. Not watered-down, or in presumption, as you've described here.

We must be in UNION with Jesus Christ; by loving him completely as members of his body-- in the Eucharist he gave His Church. The same Eucharist your ancestors all have partaken of to everlasting life. When you love him in this holy Communion, not only are you cleansed immediately of all sin, but fortified in sanctifying grace, to continue without sin. In other words, to perfection. No more will you say, I have no choice, I sin no matter what. You WON'T sin if Jesus is abiding actually in your soul. That's a tall order; but it CAN be. John 14, :23 says--''If anyone love me he will keep my word and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him.'' (This is the Holy Eucharist)

You have been called back into the Church of your blessed ancestors. They knew what it was to give an abode in their souls to Our Saviour. They obeyed Him by believing every truth spoken to them in the apostle's Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 11, 2005.

Gene,

I believe you need to go back and read Jasons' post again! You are a bit confused mate. He was giving an example.

And don't mess with Isabel, or she will spank you and make you look silly.:-)

-- - (David@excite.com), February 11, 2005.

I see the part I confused; OK. --The post is still valid, I hope Jason and Nolan appreciate it.

You could have waited for Jason to show me. Don't hurry. BTW, Dave, --Spank me yourself whenever you feel capable (you do it in your dreams, I think). Isabel might like seeing that.

Why don't you ask her, (Mate.)?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 11, 2005.

"--Spank me yourself whenever you feel capable..."

Calm down "little man"! No need to take it personal. I thought you knew Jason better than that. Didn't he get married not to long ago? Don't be so willing to correct people all the time if you can't take it, when you are shown a BLUNDER you make.

"(you do it in your dreams, I think). Isabel might like seeingthat..."

I don't understand. You lost me.

-- - (David@excite.com), February 12, 2005.

My-- I lost him. IF ONLY.

''--if you can't take it, when you are shown a BLUNDER you make.''

You showed me; go open some champagne. I took the advice. It's you, acting cute, who mentioned Isabel. Brave boy, and HE calls me silly. Little cheap shots as usual, and from a Catholic, no less. No class.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 12, 2005.

Oh Boy! LOL Ha Ha! Silly how could you have misunderstood what I was saying GENE? HeHe! I though it was pretty clear enough. My point is that just because you say Christ is your lord and believe He raised you from the dead, doen't mean you will go to heaven. It's all where your heart is. You must believe in Him AND obey Him. Stop sinning and follow Him. I was only making a point. I know many Christians who believe they are "ssved" and God "understands" that they just cannot stop smoking pot or getting drunk or having sex etc. I do not believe that though. Let us do what James says and SHOW our Faith BY OUR WORKS!

-- Jason (enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), February 13, 2005.

what is so wrong with getting drunk or having sex?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 13, 2005.

Ok Sdqa, I meant sex before marriage and not sex in general. If you still wonder whats wrong with that then that's a whole other matter. As for getting drunk, well what happens when you get drunk? You lose control! Men beat their wives, people have unsafe sex and get aids or pregnet when not ready to or when are not married, you damage your liver, heart, and brain, you kill THOUSANDS in automobile accidents, etc, etc! It leads to nothing but Chaos and eventualy it can control your body if you become a slave to alcoholism. Note I didn't say you cannot drink wine or a beer, I said "getting drunk."

-- Jason (enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), February 13, 2005.

but jason,i don't do such things when i'm drunk...for sure i act crazy...but i still know who i am...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), February 13, 2005.

and there's nothing wrong with sex before marriage...why forcing young couples direct in the direction of getting married,settling down,having kids ...etc,it's their own thing,let them organise their own lives and enjoy it!

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), February 13, 2005.

sdqa, we consider our bodies to be God's temple. We are also restricted by the divine life which dwells in us. Not by outward conformity to rules, but an inner regulating which causes us to grow in life.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 13, 2005.