Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

[BreadOfLife]

I've decided not to prove anything to you or any other catholic.
Why should I?

Because you keep getting caught trying to pass off your moronic lies as the truth - and WE keep exposing you for it.

If you would just do your homework BEFORE you post - uou might have something interesting to add to the conversation . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Council of Florence

“The holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches that … With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians. ”

Thomas Aquinas, following Augustine's lead, wrote:

“I respond, As the Apostle says (Rom. 5:17), “if by one man’s offense death reigned through one,” namely Adam, “much more they who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ.” Now children contract original sin from the sin of Adam; which is made clear by the fact that they are under the ban of death, which “passed upon all” on account of the sin of the first man, as the Apostle says in the same passage (Rom. 5:12). Much more, therefore, can children receive grace through Christ, so as to reign in eternal life. But our Lord Himself said (Jn. 3:5): “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Consequently it became necessary to baptize children, that, as in birth they incurred damnation through Adam so in a second birth they might obtain salvation through Christ. Moreover it was fitting that children should receive Baptism, in order that being reared from childhood in things pertaining to the Christian mode of life, they may the more easily persevere therein; according to Prov. 22:5: “A young man according to his way, even when he is old, he will not depart from it.” This reason is also given by Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iii).”

Augustine himself said unbaptized babies could not be saved, but their "condemnation" would be light.

It may therefore be correctly affirmed, that such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all. That person, therefore, greatly deceives both himself and others, who teaches that they will not be involved in condemnation; whereas the apostle says: Judgment from one offense to condemnation, Romans 5:16 and again a little after: By the offense of one upon all persons to condemnation. Romans 5:18 When, indeed, Adam sinned by not obeying God, then his body — although it was a natural and mortal body — lost the grace whereby it used in every part of it to be obedient to the soul. Then there arose in men affections common to the brutes which are productive of shame, and which made man ashamed of his own nakedness. Genesis 3:10 Then also, by a certain disease which was conceived in men from a suddenly injected and pestilential corruption, it was brought about that they lost that stability of life in which they were created, and, by reason of the mutations which they experienced in the stages of life, issued at last in death. However many were the years they lived in their subsequent life, yet they began to die on the day when they received the law of death, because they kept verging towards old age. For that possesses not even a moment's stability, but glides away without intermission, which by constant change perceptibly advances to an end which does not produce perfection, but utter exhaustion. Thus, then, was fulfilled what God had spoken: In the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die. Genesis 2:17 As a consequence, then, of this disobedience of the flesh and this law of sin and death, whoever is born of the flesh has need of spiritual regeneration — not only that he may reach the kingdom of God, but also that he may be freed from the damnation of sin.

Augustine and Thomas Aquinas weren't infallible. These were their opinions.
@epostle has stated what the Church has officially taught - not the opinions of some.

 

[Giuliano]

Augustine and Thomas Aquinas weren't infallible. These were their opinions.
@epostle has stated what the Church has officially taught - not the opinions of some.

If the Catholic Church adopted an idea from Augustine and made it official doctrine, what then? They took an opinion from from a fallible man and said it was infallible doctrine. There is no evidence that this doctrine was passed down from the Apostles.

 

[Grailhunter]

I made a generalization: It requires honest investigation and study. These things are anathema to anti-Catholics. I didn't specifically mean you. It's Ok for you to make false generalizations about the Council of Nicae of 325, because you have no concept of development. That council did not "change" anything in the deposit of faith, and I challenge to you prove otherwise, not just make unsubstantiated assertions.

You still have failed to prove Augustine where he departed from the original essence of apostolic teaching, and you stubbornly stand by your false assertions with no proof. Furthermore, Nicae affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity by defending the identity of Christ (which was already believed) due to the heretic Arius, but you claim "change" took place after 325, again, with no proof. A "change" after 325 AD is a theory professed by the SDA, the JW's, the Mormons, Baptist Secessionists, and fundamentalists, all based on false histories. Funny how nobody noticed this so called "change" until the middle of a revolt in the 16th century.

Augustine is in full agreement with all the ECF before his time. The writings of the ante-Nicene fathers are available on line for all to see. Pasting them all would be a waste of time because you stubbornly stand by your false assertions with no proof, and you would just scroll past pages of quotes.

Hold on a minute epostle, I will bet dollars to donuts that GodsGrace has a concept. That warrants an apology. You are not the only one that has studied Christian history. But you are right people in general misunderstand what went on at Nicaea. Some try to lump other councils in on that one. And Augustine had some serious issues, but he was preaching to the choir, but that does not make them right either. His teachings perpetuated the mind set for misogynism and the following Witch-hunts and inquisitions, the horrors and images of which do not need to be in the minds of good Christians. Belief control and world domination is nearly a cultural expression of the time period. The modern Catholic Church is better today than it has ever been, but it stands on a heap of lessons learned.

 

[GodsGrace]

That is indeed a beautiful book. She is one of my favorite saints.

I believe most of them, especially those with the stigmata or possessing other signs of being born of the spirit. Such saints can move like the wind -- truly born of the spirit as Jesus mentioned to Nicodemus. People may think they know what that means, but they can't explain how someone born of the spirit can move like the wind. I think we can look at the saints and see.

Indeed, I'd say they had spiritual eyes and ears while most of the theologians did not. The theologians might have been wise to rely more on the saints who knew what they talking about than on their ideas.

It is said too that Isaac was given the right to get any of his offspring out of Gehinnom. How many wounds did he have? That might depend on whether the knife pierced his skin. The marks on his feet and hands were said to have lasted his whole life. Do I believe St. Francis of Assisi could get any Franciscan out of purgatory. It makes sense to me. He has enough in the "plus" column to do it. He would also wiling to take responsibility for them after they are released from Purgatory.
I also think indulgences work; but I would warn the people issuing them. They may have to bear the burden of the sins remitted. The Law of Christ says we can bear each others' burdens; so I think it is true indulgences work although unwise to overdo it. The people who sold them could be in purgatory for centuries, that's what I think. Indulgences also damaged the Church's reputation, so they were a bad idea for that reason too.

What do you mean by bearing the sins that are remitted by persons issuing the indulgence?

I studied the book by St. Theresa for a whole year with a teaching friar in a sanctuary near my home. About 15 of us...it was very nice.

 

[BreadOfLife]

If the Catholic Church adopted an idea from Augustine and made it official doctrine, what then? They took an opinion from from a fallible man and said it was infallible doctrine. There is no evidence that this doctrine was passed down from the Apostles.

If the Church took an idea from Augustine and adopted it as infallible truth - that STILL doesn't make Augustine infallible.
It simply means that he proclaimed an infallible truth.

YOU and I proclaim infallible truth every day when we proclaim that Jesus Christ is God.
That doesn't mean that WE are infallible.

As for the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration for infants - YOU claim that there is "no evidence" that this was passed down by the Apostles.
The writings of the Early Church say differently . . .

Irenaeus
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: INFANTS, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
"Baptize first the CHILDREN, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The APOSTOLIC Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to INFANTS. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
"The Church received from the APOSTLES the tradition of giving baptism even to INFANTS. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Gregory of Nazianz
"Do you have an INFANT child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the INFANT be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

John Chrysostom
"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even INFANTS,
" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine
"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing INFANTS is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except APOSTOLIC"
(The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

 

[Taken]

I agree. It IS a mystery....
What did I see that made me believe?
What did YOU see that made you believe?

I think one believes or not.
I don't think it can be attributed to something we see,,,although this IS possible also.
For instance, I'm sure many in concentration camps got saved and believed in God because of some sacrifice a believer made.

It just doesn't seem like a normal occurance to me.

Belief comes to a man About Anything, BY that which Convinces the man "IS" the most "RIGHT"/"CORRECT" choice.

All day long men make "choices" based on what LOGICALLY makes "sense" to their "MIND" to be the best choice...
Choosing Between "this and that".

A man IN CHRIST, doesn't CONSIDER the LOGIC of his MIND, but rather CONSIDERS the "thoughts" of his HEART, that the ONLY choice is to CHOOSE Thee Heavenly God, who has given us Christ, God with us, THROUGH WHOM, we have the Option to Heartfully Choose God.
Our "Choosing" is Limited...
It is not Between this thing and that thing.
Our "Choice" is to CHOOSE God...and forever BE WITH Him.
Or to NOT CHOOSE God...and forever BE WITHOUT Him.

I never remember a time of Not Believing IN God, IN Jesus.

But I do remember the time I decided to pursue after ALL I could Learn About God, About Jesus.

And I do remember the time I decided to GIVE my Life TO thee Lord God, ONCE and Forever.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[GodsGrace]

I made a generalization: It requires honest investigation and study. These things are anathema to anti-Catholics. I didn't specifically mean you. It's Ok for you to make false generalizations about the Council of Nicae of 325, because you have no concept of development. That council did not "change" anything in the deposit of faith, and I challenge to you prove otherwise, not just make unsubstantiated assertions.

What false accusations did I make of the council of Nicea? I didn't even discuss it.
DID I SAY the council changed anything? It was the first council...how could it have changed anything?

Which assertions did I make?
I think I'll have to stop talking to you since you seem to have a problem with communication.

You still have failed to prove Augustine where he departed from the original essence of apostolic teaching, and you stubbornly stand by your false assertions with no proof.

Oh for goodness sake. Don't you know any church history?
Do you think the ECFs agreed with the following?

ST. AUGUSTINE'S IDEA OF ORIGINAL SIN 163 His change of view about original sin is already effected in his writings of 396-397, which inaugurated his epis- copal career in Hippo, namely the De Divinis Quaestio- nibus ad Simplicianum and the collection De LXXXIII Quaestionibus. From that time mankind appeared to Augustine identified with Adam, in his sin and in his condemnation. Original sin is then described as an infection which propagates itself from father to son through the act of generation, which being an act of organic trouble caused by the sin, is a sin itself and determines the transmission ipso facto of the sin to the new creature. The stigma of original sin is impressed upon the body of the human being through the persistent stimulus of an unreasonable sensuality, and it is equally impressed upon his soul, because - for the logical exi- gencies of the system-it is considered as transmitted with the body through the material act of generation and therefore guilty itself of the guilt of the first father. Mankind is thus an agglomeration of condemned creatures which cannot acquire any merit before God, and whose hopes for forgiveness and atonement are only in the benevolent grace of the Father and the infallible decree of his predestination

source: Accept Terms and Conditions on JSTOR



The formalized Christian doctrine of original sin was first developed in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyon, in his struggle against Gnosticism.[2] Irenaeus contrasted their doctrine with the view that the Fall was a step in the wrong direction by Adam, with whom, Irenaeus believed, his descendants had some solidarity or identity.[20]However, Irenaeus did not believe that Adam's sin was as severe as later tradition would hold, and he was not wholly clear about its consequences.[21] While the belief that all human beings participate in Adam's sin and share his guilt are not totally foreign concepts for Irenaeus, still his doctrine of Original Sin is rather mild compared with what would later be found in the writings of Augustine. One recurring theme in Irenaeus is his view that Adam, in his transgression, is essentially a child who merely partook of the tree ahead of his time.[22] For Irenaeus, knowing good and evil was an integral aspect of human nature; the 'sin' of Adam was snatching at the fruit of the tree rather than waiting for it as a gift from God.[23]

source: Original sin - Wikipedia



But Augustine did not devise the concept of original sin. It was his use of specific New Testament scriptures to justify the doctrine that was new. The concept itself had been shaped from the late second century onward by certain church fathers, including Irenaeus, Origen and Tertullian. Irenaeus did not use the Scriptures at all for his definition; Origen reinterpreted the Genesis account of Adam and Eve in terms of a Platonic allegory and saw sin deriving solely from free will; and Tertullian’s version was borrowed from Stoic philosophy.

Though Augustine was convinced by the arguments of his earlier patristic peers, he made use of the apostle Paul’s letters, especially the one to the Romans, to develop his own ideas on original sin and guilt. Today, however, it is accepted that Augustine, who had never mastered the Greek language, misread Paul in at least one instance by using an inadequate Latin translation of the Greek original.

source: The Original View of Original Sin





2
Thus the scandal of Augustine’s doctrine of original sin: to Julian and Pelagiusin his day, as to many others since, it has seemed unjust to blame infants foran inherited condition. Yet that is what Augustine proposed. In Rowan Greer’sfine summary, for St. Augustine the doctrine actually “means that all humansare born moving away from God” (Greer 2001, 120). Thus, the doctrine doesnot merely claim that all adult human beings are sinners, having sinned atsome point or another; more radically, it maintains that all human beings are
born
culpably misrelated to God

source: St. Augustine's Doctrine of Original Sin



The idea of O.S. always existed in the early church.
But it was understood to be an effect of the fall.
AUGUSTINE changed this theology and stated that ALL HUMAN BEINGS are BORN IN SIN, including infants, as they bear the ACTUAL GUILT of Adam's sin.
AFTER Augustine, the church declared it imperative that babies be baptized ASAP,,
BEFORE Augustine, they were baptized but for different reasons.

How could a knowledgeable catholic not know the above???

Furthermore, Nicae affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity by defending the identity of Christ (which was already believed) due to the heretic Arius, but you claim "change" took place after 325, again, with no proof. A "change" after 325 AD is a theory professed by the SDA, the JW's, the Mormons, Baptist Secessionists, and fundamentalists, all based on false histories. Funny how nobody noticed this so called "change" until the middle of a revolt in the 16th century.

WHO mentioned ANYTHING about the identity of Christ?

You must be reading and daydreaming.

Augustine is in full agreement with all the ECF before his time. The writings of the ante-Nicene fathers are available on line for all to see. Pasting them all would be a waste of time because you stubbornly stand by your false assertions with no proof, and you would just scroll past pages of quotes.

AUGUSTINE IS NOT in agreement with the ECFs.
Perhaps YOU would like to paste some early church fathers that stated that
babies must be baptized BECAUSE THEY WOULD GO TO HELL IF NOT.[/QUOTE]

 

[GodsGrace]

Belief comes to a man About Anything, BY that which Convinces the man "IS" the most "RIGHT"/"CORRECT" choice.

All day long men make "choices" based on what LOGICALLY makes "sense" to their "MIND" to be the best choice...
Choosing Between "this and that".

A man IN CHRIST, doesn't CONSIDER the LOGIC of his MIND, but rather CONSIDERS the "thoughts" of his HEART, that the ONLY choice is to CHOOSE Thee Heavenly God, who has given us Christ, God with us, THROUGH WHOM, we have the Option to Heartfully Choose God.
Our "Choosing" is Limited...
It is not Between this thing and that thing.
Our "Choice" is to CHOOSE God...and forever BE WITH Him.
Or to NOT CHOOSE God...and forever BE WITHOUT Him.

I never remember a time of Not Believing IN God, IN Jesus.

But I do remember the time I decided to pursue after ALL I could Learn About God, About Jesus.

And I do remember the time I decided to GIVE my Life TO thee Lord God, ONCE and Forever.

Glory to God,
Taken

Beautiful post.
I also remember always knowing about God and Jesus....Jesus was a different person to me than God.

I'm talking about my childhood...I went to the Catholic Church.
I was 10 or so and do remember this.

But it wasn't until about the age of 28 when it all became real to me.
Jesus became real.
This is when I would say I accepted God and became born again, or saved.

 

[Grailhunter]

This entire thread though is about Rome and the question of religious freedom... Not so much is there salvation outside of Rome, but are we allowed to be saved outside of Rome, according to Rome? History tells us no. Declarations today say yes. But based on history and the dogmatic declarations of the past and infallibility, I don't believe the modern declarations. Maybe the average Catholic in the pews believe their Vatican masters...I don't.

And yes, there have always been Christians throughout history... More often than not the ones who Rome persecuted and claimed were heretics... There you will find the church of history.

lol, ya know they say that if you want to know the truth, look to the heretics, but that does not hold water. At that time Gnosticism was on the rise and the church of Alexandria was gaining strength. Constantine chose the religious beliefs of the Christians in Rome and the seven churches of Asia Minor. If he had not, Christianity as we know it may not have survived. He was the one that ordered the Christian manuscripts to be preserved and bound in the first Bibles. So if that had not happened, it would have been the Gnostic texts that were preserved and our Bibles today may have been written by Gnostics. In that era preserving texts was a costly affair. Protecting them took power.

We tend to look back on history with a critical eye, not understanding that the culture of the period was nearly alien to anything we could imagine. The Flavian Amphitheatre and other arenas are a standing testament to the time period. It was not just the empires that were cruel and violent. These arenas were the entertainment of the period. Christians and others were herded into these and crowds clapped and yelled in approval as the most horrible things were done to them. Then you also had gladiator tournaments and other forms of violent entertainment. This would be like a stadium of football fans cheering on their perspective teams. It was not just the empire, the populace was cruel and violent. Those crucified with Christ were thieves. If you entered a large Roman city you were likely to walk past those that had been crucified and stood as a warning to those entering the city.

This is the atmosphere that early Christianity evolved in. Constant fear and persecutions that lasted for centuries. Since it was the norm, it affected Christianity. Suffering became a testimonial to Christ, who suffered and it continues on to this day. In the Middle Ages you had groups called Flagellants who whipped themselves and each other. In Mexico and South America people allow themselves to be crucified and stigmata has deep religious significance. Catholic clergy practicing what is called self mortification in different forms. Again it was a cultural thing, but even today, Catholic and Protestants see suffering as having a religious context.

It does not take a deep study of ancient history to see a cultural lust for world domination in all of the empires, one after another. This was the norm, and the Catholic Church adopted it, not as much as the church was evil, but it was the cultural mind set. So then since the Church had the ear of the Roman Empire so they got into the desire of belief control and domination. From there, the Church was in bed with whatever empire ruled. Sound all horrible and by our standards it was, but only because we do not understand the cultural environment. We know that slavery is bad, back then, it was the norm and Christ spoke of it. In the beginning, Christianity was the religion of the slaves.

Still condemning the Catholic Church for past sins is very short sighted. There is no reality in attempting to deny that the Catholic Church was Christ's Church on earth, during this time period. The Protestants came into being during the Renaissance Era, a time when society was intellectually removing themselves from the desire for world domination and cruelty, even though the the desire continued on with Neapolitan and Britain. But still the history within the Protestant ranks was not always peaceful. It is wiser to learn from history than to condemn it. More Christian to forgive, than to hold a grudge.

 

[GodsGrace]

lol, ya know they say that if you want to know the truth, look to the heretics, but that does not hold water. At that time Gnosticism was on the rise and the church of Alexandria was gaining strength. Constantine chose the religious beliefs of the Christians in Rome and the seven churches of Asia Minor. If he had not, Christianity as we know it may not have survived. He was the one that ordered the Christian manuscripts to be preserved and bound in the first Bibles. So if that had not happened, it would have been the Gnostic texts that were preserved and our Bibles today may have been written by Gnostics. In that era preserving texts was a costly affair. Protecting them took power.

We tend to look back on history with a critical eye, not understanding that the culture of the period was nearly alien to anything we could imagine. The Flavian Amphitheatre and other arenas are a standing testament to the time period. It was not just the empires that were cruel and violent. These arenas were the entertainment of the period. Christians and others were herded into these and crowds clapped and yelled in approval as the most horrible things were done to them. Then you also had gladiator tournaments and other forms of violent entertainment. This would be like a stadium of football fans cheering on their perspective teams. It was not just the empire, the populace was cruel and violent. Those crucified with Christ were thieves. If you entered a large Roman city you were likely to walk past those that had been crucified and stood as a warning to those entering the city.

This is the atmosphere that early Christianity evolved in. Constant fear and persecutions that lasted for centuries. Since it was the norm, it affected Christianity. Suffering became a testimonial to Christ, who suffered and it continues on to this day. In the Middle Ages you had groups called Flagellants who whipped themselves and each other. In Mexico and South America people allow themselves to be crucified and stigmata has deep religious significance. Catholic clergy practicing what is called self mortification in different forms. Again it was a cultural thing, but even today, Catholic and Protestants see suffering as having a religious context.

It does not take a deep study of ancient history to see a cultural lust for world domination in all of the empires, one after another. This was the norm, and the Catholic Church adopted it, not as much as the church was evil, but it was the cultural mind set. So then since the Church had the ear of the Roman Empire so they got into the desire of belief control and domination. From there, the Church was in bed with whatever empire ruled. Sound all horrible and by our standards it was, but only because we do not understand the cultural environment. We know that slavery is bad, back then, it was the norm and Christ spoke of it. In the beginning, Christianity was the religion of the slaves.

Still condemning the Catholic Church for past sins is very short sighted. There is no reality in attempting to deny that the Catholic Church was Christ's Church on earth, during this time period. The Protestants came into being during the Renaissance Era, a time when society was intellectually removing themselves from the desire for world domination and cruelty, even though the the desire continued on with Neapolitan and Britain. But still the history within the Protestant ranks was not always peaceful. It wiser to learn from history than to condemn it. More Christian to forgive, than to hold a grudge.

Interesting remark about catholics and protestants still seeing suffering in a religious context even today.

In the catholic church it's taught that we can offer our suffering for others...maybe those in purgatory, or maybe for others that are suffering in some way.

I don't think God wants His children to suffer.
I think of this more in the sense of Romans 8:28...
we can take anything and make it work for the good with God's help.

 

[Giuliano]

What do you mean by bearing the sins that are remitted by persons issuing the indulgence?

If a priest tells someone his sins are forgiven, I think that person is freed from them; and if his confession was inadequate, the priest will bear the burden and pay the price according to the Law of Christ which says we can bear each other's burdens. I also believe if the Pope or a bishop wants to issue indulgences, whether for money or not, he is taking on the burden of those sins even if he doesn't know it.

I studied the book by St. Theresa for a whole year with a teaching friar in a sanctuary near my home. About 15 of us...it was very nice.

Her writing style was a little problem for me with the ornate language of Spain of the time; but I also loved it. I could almost imagine her presence when reading it. There is a shrine to Mother Drexel about two blocks from where I live, and I've also felt her presence a few times walking past the church it's in -- so it seemed to me. It felt protective, like an umbrella spread out to protect from rain. The first time that happened struck me by surprise! I could feel something but couldn't see anything.

I found St. John of the Cross more difficult to understand; but my guess is he understood the Crucifixion better than the theologians.

 

[Grailhunter]

Interesting remark about catholics and protestants still seeing suffering in a religious context even today.

In the catholic church it's taught that we can offer our suffering for others...maybe those in purgatory, or maybe for others that are suffering in some way.

I don't think God wants His children to suffer.
I think of this more in the sense of Romans 8:28...
we can take anything and make it work for the good with God's help.

Valid point. But I do question that a God as loving as Christ would go through what He did, to provided suffering as an example. His was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Our suffering is not a continuation of sacrifices, that would nullify His sacrifice. I do not believe He enjoys the suffering of others or meant to establish the belief thereof.

 

[GodsGrace]

If a priest tells someone his sins are forgiven, I think that person is freed from them; and if his confession was inadequate, the priest will bear the burden and pay the price according to the Law of Christ which says we can bear each other's burdens. I also believe if the Pope or a bishop wants to issue indulgences, whether for money or not, he is taking on the burden of those sins even if he doesn't know it.
Her writing style was a little problem for me with the ornate language of Spain of the time; but I also loved it. I could almost imagine her presence when reading it. There is a shrine to Mother Drexel about two blocks from where I live, and I've also felt her presence a few times walking past the church it's in -- so it seemed to me. It felt protective, like an umbrella spread out to protect from rain. The first time that happened struck me by surprise! I could feel something but couldn't see anything.

I found St. John of the Cross more difficult to understand; but my guess is he understood the Crucifixion better than the theologians.

I like John of the Cross too...but haven't learned enough about him.
He seems to have a deep understanding about everything.
Maybe I'll see if I could get something written in English.
St. Theresa was translated into up to date Italian so it was very understandable.

 

[GodsGrace]

Valid point. But I do question that a God as loving as Christ would go through what He did, to provided suffering as an example. His was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Our suffering is not a continuation of sacrifices, that would nullify His sacrifice. I do not believe He enjoys the suffering of others or meant to establish the belief thereof.

I agree.
We could use Him as an example in ACCEPTING suffering...
but I can't say that God could possibly be happy with seeing us in this world system.

This did remind me, however, of Jesus being an example for us in the Atonement Theory that is called "Moral Influence Theory".


#1 The Moral Influence Theory
One of the earliest theories for the atonement is the Moral Influence theory, which simply taught that Jesus Christ came and died in order to bring about a positive change to humanity. This moral change comes through the teachings of Jesus alongside His example and actions. The most notable name here is that of Augustine from the 4th century, whose influence has almost single-handedly had the greatest impact upon Western Christianity. He affirmed the Moral Influence theory as the main theory of the Atonement (alongside the Ransom theory as well).

Within this theory the death of Christ is understood as a catalyst to reform society, inspiring men and women to follow His example and live good moral lives of love. In this theory the Holy Spirit comes to help Christians produce this moral change. Logically, in this theory the Eschatological development too becomes about morality, where it is taught that after death the human race will be judged by their conduct in life. This in turn creates a strong emphasis on free will as the human response to follow Jesus’ example. Although Augustine himself differs here in that he did not teach free will, but instead that human beings are incapable of change themselves, and require God to radically alter their lives sovereignly through the Holy Spirit.

This theory focuses on not just the death of Jesus Christ, but on His entire life. This sees the saving work of Jesus not only in the event of the crucifixion, but also in all the words He has spoken, and the example He has set. In this theory the cross is merely a ramification of the moral life of Jesus. He is crucified as a martyr due to the radical nature of His moral example. In this way the Moral Influence theory emphasizes Jesus Christ as our teacher, our example, our founder and leader, and ultimately, as a result, our first martyr.

source: 7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D Morrison

 

[Grailhunter]

I agree.
We could use Him as an example in ACCEPTING suffering...
but I can't say that God could possibly be happy with seeing us in this world system.

This did remind me, however, of Jesus being an example for us in the Atonement Theory that is called "Moral Influence Theory".


#1 The Moral Influence Theory
One of the earliest theories for the atonement is the Moral Influence theory, which simply taught that Jesus Christ came and died in order to bring about a positive change to humanity. This moral change comes through the teachings of Jesus alongside His example and actions. The most notable name here is that of Augustine from the 4th century, whose influence has almost single-handedly had the greatest impact upon Western Christianity. He affirmed the Moral Influence theory as the main theory of the Atonement (alongside the Ransom theory as well).

Within this theory the death of Christ is understood as a catalyst to reform society, inspiring men and women to follow His example and live good moral lives of love. In this theory the Holy Spirit comes to help Christians produce this moral change. Logically, in this theory the Eschatological development too becomes about morality, where it is taught that after death the human race will be judged by their conduct in life. This in turn creates a strong emphasis on free will as the human response to follow Jesus’ example. Although Augustine himself differs here in that he did not teach free will, but instead that human beings are incapable of change themselves, and require God to radically alter their lives sovereignly through the Holy Spirit.

This theory focuses on not just the death of Jesus Christ, but on His entire life. This sees the saving work of Jesus not only in the event of the crucifixion, but also in all the words He has spoken, and the example He has set. In this theory the cross is merely a ramification of the moral life of Jesus. He is crucified as a martyr due to the radical nature of His moral example. In this way the Moral Influence theory emphasizes Jesus Christ as our teacher, our example, our founder and leader, and ultimately, as a result, our first martyr.

source: 7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D Morrison

All true. This opens up a lot of topics for me but I am not going to get into it all. One of the ways that you can tell the Bible is true is all the confusion. As opposed to the Koran that is very well written, because it is a novel, not a lot to do with the truth. The same with Christ, He had knowledge and morels that extended past the time period. He knew His actions would have a direct impact on the future....because He is a God.

 

[Taken]

Beautiful post.
I also remember always knowing about God and Jesus....Jesus was a different person to me than God.

I'm talking about my childhood...I went to the Catholic Church.
I was 10 or so and do remember this.

But it wasn't until about the age of 28 when it all became real to me.
Jesus became real.

This is when I would say I accepted God and became born again, or saved.

It's not "either or" friend.
We have Three things to consider and contend with and agree with that become MADE DIFFERENT By the Power of God;
when we decide to BE WITH the Lord Forever....
Our body ...crucified with Christ
Our soul ...restored / saved via Gods Power
Our spirit...quickened with Gods SEED

God Bless,
Taken

 

[prism]

That is as idiotic as saying that you starved to death because the local grocery store wouldn't bring you any food.

I nearly starved to death because those who were commissioned to send me the bread of life...did not. Nice try at twisting things.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Mat 28:19-20)

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
(Act 1:8)

Admit it, Rome does not evangelize except to bring others in subjection to their Church system.

 

[prism]

Acts 2:39 is about ALL children - not just yours.

Nice try, but the Holy Spirit is CLEAR:
Baptismal Regeneration if for ALL - not just adults.

No it's not...

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Act 2:38)

Or are you going to claim infants can repent?

 

[GodsGrace]

I nearly starved to death because those who were commissioned to send me the bread of life...did not. Nice try at twisting things.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Mat 28:19-20)

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
(Act 1:8)

Admit it, Rome does not evangelize except to bring others in subjection to their Church system.

Did you hear about the New Evangelization?
This is the catholic church supposedly trying to evangelize their own people because they did such a terrible job in the past....
And this isn't looking much better to me since people are leaving the church all the time.