Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

[GodsGrace]

lol I understand the Catholics claiming Christ as the first Pope and all.... That was done before the terms Catholic or Christian came to be... So a little soft on truth. Anyone that moved against a female in Christ's presence He was quick to respond....so....

So lets start from the beginning, Manners 101.... take notes....there will be test.....

Basic Table Manners to Teach Your Kids
1. Come to the table properly dressed and groomed.

2. Come to the table with her hands and face clean.

3. Do not start filling your plates until the person that cooked the meal is sitting with

you.

4. Politely pass the food around to fill the plates.

5. Say Grace, either by selection or by the senior member of the family.

6. Never, chew with your mouth open.

7. Never stuff your mouth.

8. Do not talk with your mouth full.

9. Do not interrupt when someone else is talking.

10. Never reach across a person or their plate.

11. Never put your elbows up on the table.

12. Turn your head and cover your mouth if you cough or sneeze.

13. Do not blow your nose at the table.

14. Keep conversations cordial and pleasant.

15. Pace your eating so that you finish with the others at the table.

16. When you are finished remain at the table until all have finished.

17. Always push your chair in when finished.

18. Offer to help clean up.

Wow. Except for no. 11, I've tried to teach my family this and now it's my daughter's turn. We do pretty good.

If the Queen ever comes over for dinner...
we'll also go for no. 11 !

 

[GodsGrace]

@Grailhunter

Maybe if the Queen comes over, we'll have something formal for her?

• 

 

[Enoch111]

If the Queen ever comes over for dinner... we'll also go for no. 11 !

How about No 10, 11, and 12 Downing Street?

 

[Philip James]

God save the Queen!

 

[prism]

Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?
Define the Catholic Church.

 

[Philip James]

Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?
Define the Catholic Church.

Hello prism,

'where the bishop is, there is the catholic Church' - St. Ignatius

Peace be with you!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Buddy, we did our homework and actually quoted from the CCC. Now it is your turn to admit that the RCC went off the rails a long time ago and the CCC is full of FALSE DOCTRINES. Were the apostle Peter to return to earth, he would insist that the Vatican be torn down.

And yet - YOU'VE never been able to prove one.
Gee - I wonder why that is.

I also wonder why you couldn't prove your asinine claim that we've "replaced" Jesus with Mary when I asked you for proof of the doctrine back in post #112 . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

lol I understand the Catholics claiming Christ as the first Pope and all.... That was done before the terms Catholic or Christian came to be... So a little soft on truth.

That has NEVER been a teaching of the Catholic Church - so you're right on schedule with a great, big fat LIE like all of the other anti-Catholics here . . .

Anyone that moved against a female in Christ's presence He was quick to respond....so....
So lets start from the beginning, Manners 101.... take notes....there will be test.....

Basic Table Manners to Teach Your Kids
1. Come to the table properly dressed and groomed.
2. Come to the table with her hands and face clean.
3. Do not start filling your plates until the person that cooked the meal is sitting with you.
4. Politely pass the food around to fill the plates.
5. Say Grace, either by selection or by the senior member of the family.
6. Never, chew with your mouth open.
7. Never stuff your mouth.
8. Do not talk with your mouth full.
9. Do not interrupt when someone else is talking.
10. Never reach across a person or their plate.
11. Never put your elbows up on the table.
12. Turn your head and cover your mouth if you cough or sneeze.
1. Do not blow your nose at the table.
14. Keep conversations cordial and pleasant.
15. Pace your eating so that you finish with the others at the table.
16. When you are finished remain at the table until all have finished.
17. Always push your chair in when finished.
18. Offer to help clean up.

He was faster to move against hypocrites and liars.

Anyway - you FORGOT one that's actually a Commandment from God:
19. Don't LIE (Exod. 20:16).

That way, I won't have to expose you . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well, BoL
I think you missed my post no. 129.
In that post I had already taken you up on your offer to discuss
remarrieds receiving communion and how that changes the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

You claim this is a Discipline and not a doctrine.

Here is my comment from post 129:

Could you find something written that states that
REMARRIEDS NOT BEING ABLE TO RECEIVE COMMUNION
is a discipline?

You have posted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church
Paragraph 1650.
I thank you for posting this because, as we shall see, it is to MY advantage.

Paragraph 1650:
1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

Now, as you, and anyone reading along can see,
A person that is DIVORCED AND REMARRIED is not allowed to receive the Holy Eucharist.

Perhaps, for the sake of those not well-versed in this doctrine...I can explain WHY,,,since YOU haven't.

In the Catholic Church...a marriage is forever. Divorce is allowed under very strict guidlines....the physical abuse of a spouse or child...the husband or wife spends money that belongs to the family thus throwing them into poverity (gambling) and, actually, this is all that comes to mind right now.

A marriage may also be declared ANNULLED. This is also in rare cases, some examples are:

One of the spouses married under false pretense and does not desire children.
One of the spouses married under mental strain or force, under pain of danger.

If, OTOH, two are divorced they can ONLY receive communion if they remain celebate, which of course means not remarrying.

IF one of the parties remarries,,,that party is COMMITTING ADULTERY.
ADULTERY in the catholic church is MORTAL SIN.

A person that remarries IS LIVING IN CONSTANT MORTAL SIN AND THIS CANNOT BE FORGIVEN EVEN IF CONFESSED.

Before proceeding any further----and much further WE WILL GO...
PLEASE confirm that all of the above is to your understanding.

I mean TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING....

I know FOR SURE that I am 100% correct and will continue to be correct in this discussion.

And the fact STILL remains that withholding the Eucharist from ANYBODY is a a matter of discipline - not doctrine.
I also gave you an excerpt from the book, John Paul II for Dummies where is id explicitly referred to as a "discipline".

All you are doing by insisting that it is a doctrine is compounding your lie.
Since you can't seem to understand the difference - I'll give you an example . . .

Priestly celibacy is a DISCIPLINE. this is NOT a matter of doctrine and it could theoretically change at the will of the Magesterium.
If a priests engages in marital relations - he is committing a MORTAL SIN - even though priestly celibacy is a discipline.

I understand that you don't like to be proven wrong and that this is all embarrassing for you - but continuing to LIE about it only weakens your case . . .

 

[prism]

Hello prism,

'where the bishop is, there is the catholic Church' - St. Ignatius

Peace be with you!

OK. So no Bishop, no Church?

 

[Grailhunter]

That has NEVER been a teaching of the Catholic Church - so you're right on schedule with a great, big fat LIE like all of the other anti-Catholics here . . .

He was faster to move against hypocrites and liars.

Anyway - you FORGOT one that's actually a Commandment from God:
19. Don't LIE (Exod. 20:16).

That way, I won't have to expose you . . .

So are you ready for your next lesson in manners. I take it that you really do not have a grip on reality. Who says I would not like being exposed. With this poor attitude people are just going to pick on you. I do not see too many liars on this site. To error is human. You have to come up with a different word other than liar, your use of it just make you look stupid. This site could use another knowledgeable Catholic, but the way you interact with people no one is going to take you seriously. And you still owe GodsGrace an apology. So I am working on your next lesson in manners.

 

[GodsGrace]

How about No 10, 11, and 12 Downing Street?

Sure. He's welcomed to.
Escape...from the closed off street at 10 Downing....

 

[GodsGrace]

And the fact STILL remains that withholding the Eucharist from ANYBODY is a a matter of discipline - not doctrine.
I also gave you an excerpt from the book, John Paul II for Dummies where is id explicitly referred to as a "discipline".

All you are doing by insisting that it is a doctrine is compounding your lie.
Since you can't seem to understand the difference - I'll give you an example . . .

Priestly celibacy is a DISCIPLINE. this is NOT a matter of doctrine and it could theoretically change at the will of the Magesterium.
If a priests engages in marital relations - he is committing a MORTAL SIN - even though priestly celibacy is a discipline.

I understand that you don't like to be proven wrong and that this is all embarrassing for you - but continuing to LIE about it only weakens your case . . .

Good Morning BoL
In post no. 118, YOU challenged ME to an educated conversation regarding a change in the CC.

You don't seem to understand what the challenge is:
It is NOT whether remarrieds receiving communion is a
TEACHING....DISCIPLINE...or
a DOCTRINE.

YOU have made the claim, repeatedly, that there has been no change in
catholic Doctrine/Discipline.

I maintain that there HAS BEEN.

You quoted something from John Paul II for dummies...
which I did read.

As I stated, it actually helps my case because Pope John Paul II
affirmed that it is not within Catholic doctrine/discipline to allow remarrieds to receive communion.

The very fact that NOW THEY ARE ABLE TO proves my point and no further discussion should be necessary.

However, for those reading along, I DO believe we should give them a good lesson in Catholic theology.

YOU posted something from John Paul for Dummies.

I am going to post A FORMAL DOCUMENT FROM THE VATICAN...
where it is emphatically stated that communion to remarrieds IS FORBIDDEN.


PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS

DECLARATION

II. CONCERNING THE ADMISSION TO HOLY COMMUNION OF FAITHFUL WHO ARE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED


PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS

DECLARATION






II. CONCERNING THE ADMISSION TO HOLY COMMUNION OF FAITHFUL WHO ARE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED

The Code of Canon Law establishes that "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion" (can. 915). In recent years some authors have sustained, using a variety of arguments, that this canon would not be applicable to faithful who are divorced and remarried. It is acknowledged that paragraph 84 of the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, issued in 1981, had reiterated that prohibition in unequivocal terms and that it has been expressly reaffirmed many times, especially in paragraph 1650 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1992, and in the Letter written in 1994 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Annus internationalis Familiae. That notwithstanding, the aforementioned authors offer various interpretations of the above-cited canon that exclude from its application the situation of those who are divorced and remarried. For example, since the text speaks of "grave sin", it would be necessary to establish the presence of all the conditions required for the existence of mortal sin, including those which are subjective, necessitating a judgment of a type that a minister of Communion could not make ab externo; moreover, given that the text speaks of those who "obstinately" persist in that sin, it would be necessary to verify an attitude of defiance on the part of an individual who had received a legitimate warning from the Pastor. Given this alleged contrast between the discipline of the 1983 Code and the constant teachings of the Church in this area, this Pontifical Council, in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments declares the following:

1. The prohibition found in the cited canon, by its nature, is derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church. The scriptural text on which the ecclesial tradition has always relied is that of St. Paul: "This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord. A man should examine himself first only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself."

This text concerns in the first place the individual faithful and their moral conscience, a reality that is expressed as well by the Code in can. 916. But the unworthiness that comes from being in a state of sin also poses a serious juridical problem in the Church: indeed the canon of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches that is parallel to can. 915 CIC of the Latin Church makes reference to the term "unworthy": "Those who are publicly unworthy are forbidden from receiving the Divine Eucharist" (can. 712). In effect, the reception of the Body of Christ when one is publicly unworthy constitutes an objective harm to the ecclesial communion: it is a behavior that affects the rights of the Church and of all the faithful to live in accord with the exigencies of that communion. In the concrete case of the admission to Holy Communion of faithful who are divorced and remarried, the scandal, understood as an action that prompts others towards wrongdoing, affects at the same time both the sacrament of the Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage. That scandal exists even if such behavior, unfortunately, no longer arouses surprise: in fact it is precisely with respect to the deformation of the conscience that it becomes more necessary for Pastors to act, with as much patience as firmness, as a protection to the sanctity of the S

source: Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv


You DID NOT reply to my post no. 139..
so I can only ASSUME that you AGREE WITH WHAT I POSTED.

This will take us to the next step.

 

[Philip James]

OK. So no Bishop, no Church?

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God.... and to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

Peace be with you!

 

[GodsGrace]

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God.... and to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

Peace be with you!

Hi PJ,,,,
The above is all good, except that some reading along may think that your last sentence is alluding to universalism.

Let's say that men are CALLED BY GOD'S GRACE TO SALVATION...
But not ALL MEN accept God's conditions.

Ephesians 2:8-9
John 3:16
John 8:51

 

[Philip James]

Hi PJ,,,,
The above is all good, except that some reading along may think that your last sentence is alluding to universalism.

Let's say that men are CALLED BY GOD'S GRACE TO SALVATION...
But not ALL MEN accept God's conditions.

Ephesians 2:8-9
John 3:16
John 8:51

Hi GG,

All men are free to reject the life that's offered fo them of course..

'this day I set before you life and death, choose life therefore that you might live'
Has ever been what God holds out for men..

Personally, i think most will be saved...

Those that knowingly and willfully reject the gift of life will be lost...

My personal opinion is that Jesus changed the default setting from death to life and that one must willfully and knowingly choose death to be forever lost..

I hope in HIS merciful judgement for all.

Peace be with you!

 

[bbyrd009]

God save the Queen!

listen to them, and give them a king

 

[bbyrd009]

Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?
Define the Catholic Church.

ha pls, define salvation imo. "Catholic" was irretrievably stolen two eternities ago

 

[bbyrd009]

Hello prism,

'where the bishop is, there is the catholic Church' - St. Ignatius

Peace be with you!

may he rot in hell imo

 

[bbyrd009]

OK. So no Bishop, no Church?

according to St Vampire anyway, yeh