Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

[epostle]

The case looks easy to understand since Mother Teresa was so popular and so many people wanted for her on the path to being declared a saint. That put pressure on the Vatican which seems to have taken some shortcuts.

September 2007 Mother Teresa 'miracle' patient accuses nuns

An Indian woman blah, blah, blah...
I don't know what her motives were originally; but when the money stopped, she raised a fuss. It gets more interesting.

However several groups, blah, blah, blah...

March 2015 Rosa Rubicondior: Mother Teresa's Fake Miracle

I told you before; you need to be careful about your sources. Your link is an atheist site, featuring a quote from Christopher Hitchens, who hates God, hates the Church, and hates St. Mother Teresa. Nice try.

Rev. Anthony Cekada reached the conclusion there was no such vision.
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Russia-Leonine.pdf

Rev. Anthony Cekada is of the schismatic Sede Vacant, a fringe hyper-traditionalist bunch of nut jobs; apostates, who think Pope Pius X was the last legitimate Pope. Anti-Catholic garbage proliferates the internet; it's easy to find.
That's three strikes, you're out. ​

 

[BreadOfLife]

The question may also be how much responsibility the Catholic Church has when it tolerates some things.

The news from two days ago is that the annual drag show at John Carroll University got cancelled. Is that a good thing or a bad one?

New President at Jesuit University Cancels Drag Queen Show

A new president at a Jesuit university in Ohio has canceled a drag queen show, leading to mixed reactions and activism among students.

Michael Johnson, Ph.D., became president of John Carroll University (JCU) in University Heights, Ohio, June 1, 2018, where an annual drag queen show had been occurring since 2013. Johnson canceled the show largely in response to an op-ed piece published in The Carroll News Oct. 1, 2018.

It is a scandalous attempt at the corruption of Catholic youth by the very priests and laypeople charged with their education.Tweet
Declan Leary, the author of the op-ed titled "Drag queens and Jesuits," discussed the contradictory nature of having a drag queen show on a Catholic campus:

I can't help but wonder who thought it would be a good idea to hire grown men to dress up as women on a Catholic campus for the deviant entertainment of misguided young people. It is a terrifying testament to the decay of our faith and our University that, throughout the approval process for this event and the six years for which it has now continued, not a single person in a position of authority stood up (or at least stood with sufficient strength) to suggest that perhaps such a flagrant celebration of sexual perversity might just be wrong.

This offense, and the many like it being perpetrated on other nominally Catholic campuses across the world, is more than just a deviation from doctrine, though that in itself is sufficient cause for condemnation. It is an assault on the dignity of the human person and the divine gift of ordered sexuality. Even further, it is a scandalous attempt at the corruption of Catholic youth by the very priests and laypeople charged with their education.

This video is from 2017:

And I agree with you. There are FAR too many liberal and outright leftist universities and colleges that operate under the guise of “Christian”. However – the Pope isn’t in charge of the University system.

So, are the Protestant colleges just as guilty??

Syracuse University:
Pride seeUnion announces finalists for 17th annual Drag Show ...

Wake Forest University:
Drag Show - Wake Forest University Events

Your hypocrisy is pathetic.
Clean up your own back yard before you start pointing fingers at the Catholic Church . . .[/QUOTE]

 

[BreadOfLife]

Argue about that with Jesus.

Mark 10:20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

Matthew 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Spoken like a person who is completely devoid of understanding of Scripture.

Jesus wasn’t telling the rich Man to sell everything and starve to death. He was telling him that he cannot depend on his wealth to save his SOUL. Having money isn’t sinful. It’s the LOVE of money.

1 Tim. 6:10
For the LOVE of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

NO need to argue with Jesus . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your memory is failing. The post where this topic began was in post # 837.

Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

I wrote this:

I once had a Catholic cite the Second Council of Nicea as his way of justifying statues. Not that I care either way about images; but he had been talking about the "Ten Commandments" so I asked him about the statues. Back came the reference to the Second Council of Nicea. Funny that the Orthodox agreed with everything in that Council; but they don't permit statues. If you read what's actually written, you see it approved flat pictures/ images; and that remains a source of schism between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

If I were Pope and thought it would help repair the breach with Constantinople, I'd give up the statues. I like them and don't see them as sinful; but I don't need them that much. Go back to what was agreed to.

Pay attention, or better yet get that sixth grader to go over your responses before you post them. I said I didn't care either way about images and even liked statues; but some Catholics seemed to have heart palpitations at the words "images" and "statues." If they bother you that much, why have them? They don't bother me. I've about had enough of your silliness.

No goal post was moved. It was about an Ecumenical Council that approved flat pictures but not statues. Don't blame me if the Catholic Church seems to think the two are identical.

Uhhhhh, speaking of BAD memories – it was YOU who moved the goals posts.

The conversation about statues and images became an argument about statues in CHURCHES.

You had to be reminded that there weren’t many church buildings until AFTER the persecutions – AFTER the FOURTH century. BEFORE that, however – there WERE carvings that adorned graves and catacombs during the persecutions, as you were shown.

This is when you changed the debate to be exclusively about statues in “church buildings” . . .

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

Rev. Anthony Cekada reached the conclusion there was no such vision.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Russia-Leonine.pdf

A. An Alleged Vision A pamphlet dealing with a diabolical possession, written in the early 1930s and still popular in traditional Catholic circles, relates the following about the St. Michael prayer: A rather peculiar circumstance induced Pope Leo XIII to compose this powerful prayer. After celebrating Mass one day he was in conference with the Cardinals. Suddenly he sank to the floor. A doctor was summoned and several came at once. There was no sign of any pulse-beating[;] the very life seemed to have ebbed away from the already weakened and aged body. Suddenly he recovered and said: “What a horrible picture I was permitted to see!” He saw what was going to happen in the future, the misleading powers and the ravings of the devils against the Church in all countries. But St. Michael had appeared in the nick of time and cast Satan and his cohorts back into the abyss of hell. Such was the occasion that caused Pope Leo XIII to have this prayer recited over the entire world at the end of Mass.

The foregoing passage appears as a digression in an account of an exorcism. The author gives no date for the alleged vision. An article written in 1933 repeats the same account, virtually word for word, adding: “And so, shortly after 1880, Leo decreed the general prayer to St. Michael.”
15 Note the date given for the supposed vision: 1880 — four years before Leo XIII prescribed the Prayers after Low Mass without the St. Michael prayer, and six years before the prayer itself was actually prescribed. A more recent variant of the story adds another detail: It quotes a dialogue between Our Lord and Satan that Pope Leo supposedly heard during the vision. One writer says the dialogue occurred at the foot of the altar, where Leo stopped after Mass. He gives no date.16 Another writer tells the same story, but he gives a date: 13 October 1884.
17 Still another writer tells essentially the same variant of the story as these two writers, but he has the event taking place when “the aged Pontiff was in a conference with the Cardinals.”
18 And the most recently circulated version of the story gives yet another date for the supposed vision: 25 September 1888.
19 Here again, remember that the St. Michael prayer in fact appeared two years earlier (in 1886) than this account would have it.
20 Now while all six accounts cited connect the St. Michael prayer with a supposed vision, they differ as to when, where, and how the alleged vision took place. None of them, moreover, gives a source, even the two accounts from the 1930s. All six authors merely assert that the incident took place.

There are no credible sources and the timing is off.

Michael prayer and a supposed vision of Leo XIII may be summarized as follows:
• Writings which promote the story give no references to sources.
• The various accounts contradict each other as to where the vision supposedly took place — after Mass at the foot of the altar, or in a conference with cardinals.
• The various accounts are inconsistent about the date of the vision.
• The dates the accounts give for the alleged vision (1880, 1884 and 1888) do not correspond with the date when the St. Michael prayer was actually instituted (1886).
• There appears to be no corroboration for the story in a contemporary account which one would expect to have mentioned the event, had it indeed taken place. These considerations all tend to support the conclusion Father Bers arrived at in the 1930s: “that the ‘vision’ had been invented in later times for some reason,” and that the story was simply feeding upon itself.

What I want to know is the exact time and date of it happening only and not the regard for it's significance .

 

[Philip James]

Rev. Anthony Cekada reached the conclusion there was no such vision

With this, as with anything, one who goes looking for reasons to doubt will find them..

So i will again mention that no one is bound to accept or believe any private revelation (even one expressed by a pope)

Thus knowing that no new public revelation will be forthcoming, regarding any private relevation to a bishop, again I ask:

Do you think this would be shared with any to whom it did not pertain?

Peace!

 

[Giuliano]

I didn't say there were no fake relics; I said find some and we can discuss it rationally. A lot of crazy things went on in the middle ages, but that does not discredit the thousands of miracles, mostly undocumented, from authentic relics. I like the last line: It adopted the view that all the rival foreskins were frauds, and in 1900 made it a crime punishable by excommunication to write or speak about the Holy Foreskin.
I don't believe such a relic ever existed in the first place, just crazy midaeval legends. I agree the whole thing is a fraud. But what about other relics? Does the practice have any scriptural warrant?

Exodus 29:37
Exodus 30:28-29
Leviticus 6:27
The altar is a physical object, a vehicle of God's grace, that by touching it, makes you holy, as scripture clearly states.
2 Kings 2:11-14
Elijah’s mantle is an example of a “second-class” relic: items that have power because they were connected with a holy person.
2 Kings 13:20-21
The bones or relics of Elisha had so much supernatural power or “grace” in them that they could even cause a man to be raised from the dead. His bones were a “first-class” relic: from the person himself or herself.
Mark 5:25-30
Luke 8:43-48
Jesus did say that the woman’s faith made her well, yet the instrumentality of a physical object in contact with Jesus was also a factor: as indicated precisely by its effect of causing “power” to go “forth from him.” God used the physical object for spiritual (and supernatural physical) purposes: a healing. We see it again, when Jesus heals the blind man:
John 9:6-7
Jesus could have simply declared him healed, with no material object used. But, interestingly enough, Jesus didn’t do that. He used a bodily fluid (his own), and also clay, or dirt, and then the water of the pool, and rubbed the man’s eyes, to effect the miracle (two liquids, solid matter, and physical anointing action of fingers). The Bible thus teaches that physical things related to a holy person in some fashion can be channels to bring about miracles. This is exactly how Catholics view relics. There are several other examples of the same thing, with touch or matter of some sort being utilized to heal.
Acts 5:15-16
St. Peter’s shadow is another example of a “second-class” relic. Jesus’ garments and saliva are also in this category.
Acts 19:11-12
This is a third-class relic: a thing that has merely touched a holy person or a first-class relic (St. Paul’s handkerchiefs and aprons).
Relics: A Collection of Explicit Biblical Proofs & Evidences
Relics are not classed as doctrinal, they are classed as devotional, so real or fake, they have nothing to do with infallibility.

I do believe some relics are holy. My interest in this is not to discuss fraudulent relics or faked miracles. My interest is why bishops lack the spiritual discernment to be able to tell the difference. If an object is holy, why can't they tell that it is by picking it up? Sometimes I can "sense" something when I pick up an object. Why can't they?

I also agree that at times it's the person's faith that works the miracle, not the object. The object could be a fake, but the person's faith could heal him. I've seen something like that happen but with an object a woman thought was involved in a magic spell. No spell had been made, but she thought it had. Indeed I'd say a lot of the "black magic" in some areas of the world seems to depend mostly on people believing in it.

But my question is why bishops can't discern the difference? I think I asked that, and you challenged me about fake miracles and relics. I'd rather not continue with those; I prefer an answer to my question.

 

[Giuliano]

With this, as with anything, one who goes looking for reasons to doubt will find them..

So i will again mention that no one is bound to accept or believe any private revelation (even one expressed by a pope)

Thus knowing that no new public revelation will be forthcoming, regarding any private relevation to a bishop, again I ask:



Peace!

The question I have is if Pope Leo XIII ever had such a vision.

 

[Giuliano]

I told you before; you need to be careful about your sources. Your link is an atheist site, featuring a quote from Christopher Hitchens, who hates God, hates the Church, and hates St. Mother Teresa. Nice try.​

You dismiss his article solely on the basis of who he was? I don't particularly like him myself; but I can tell you this: I'll wager they're more careful with the facts than the Catholic Church has been at times. All that site did was collect information from other sources, something the Vatican apparently failed to do.

Rev. Anthony Cekada is of the schismatic Sede Vacant, a fringe hyper-traditionalist bunch of nut jobs; apostates, who think Pope Pius X was the last legitimate Pope. Anti-Catholic garbage proliferates the internet; it's easy to find.
That's three strikes, you're out.

Any reputable source that says he's wrong on this point? I think your bias is showing. You appear to think only Catholics can tell the truth. How many times will Catholics go down that path? I remember when Bishop Paprocki tried to accuse the victims of child abuse by saying in 2007 the devil was behind the lawsuits that were showing up. He went into denial. In his mind, anyone who said anything critical about the Catholic Church was inspired by the devil. Was he right, or was the attitude he displayed actually part of the problem that helped create the climate of cover-ups which then encouraged bad priests to do what pleased because they knew the Church would try to hush things up?

Love your "enemies". Sometimes they'll tell you the truth when your friends are reluctant to. Look at the situation in Chile. At first Pope Francis was defensive and criticized the people raising the fuss. More facts came in; and to his credit, he didn't double down. He looked into things and found out there were problems in church hierarchy. It seems people inside the Church had misled him. Then he was able to correct the situation. I see him as a true Christian for that. He reminds me of Peter who could admit when he was wrong. If your adversary is right, admit it.

Matthew 5:25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

One thing I've learned about some highly partisan sites is that they often make unpleasant inferences; but when it comes to actual facts, they are careful lest someone prove them wrong. You produced zero evidence, instead you launched an ad hominem argument -- and that's a logical fallacy. That's what people do when they lack evidence. That's what Bishop Paprocki did in 2007 when he wanted people to believe there was no problem with child abuse.​

 

[Giuliano]

Uhhhhh, speaking of BAD memories – it was YOU who moved the goals posts.

The conversation about statues and images became an argument about statues in CHURCHES.

You had to be reminded that there weren’t many church buildings until AFTER the persecutions – AFTER the FOURTH century. BEFORE that, however – there WERE carvings that adorned graves and catacombs during the persecutions, as you were shown.

This is when you changed the debate to be exclusively about statues in “church buildings” . . .

Ha, ha, I knew that all along. You were the one pretending paintings and statues had always existed in churches.

 

[Giuliano]

Spoken like a person who is completely devoid of understanding of Scripture.

Jesus wasn’t telling the rich Man to sell everything and starve to death. He was telling him that he cannot depend on his wealth to save his SOUL. Having money isn’t sinful. It’s the LOVE of money.

1 Tim. 6:10
For the LOVE of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

NO need to argue with Jesus . . .

Who's devoid of understanding? Read it again. He told him to sell everything he owned. Money was his idol, he would have benefited from being penniless for a while. God would have provided; and then he would have been putting his faith in God and not in his idol of money.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Read it again. He told him to sell everything he owned.

And if that's all you got out of Christ's exchange with the Rich Man - you missed the point entirely.
You have a literalist understanding of the Word instead of a spiritual understanding . . .

 

[Giuliano]

And I agree with you. There are FAR too many liberal and outright leftist universities and colleges that operate under the guise of “Christian”. However – the Pope isn’t in charge of the University system.

So, are the Protestant colleges just as guilty??

Syracuse University:
Pride seeUnion announces finalists for 17th annual Drag Show ...

Wake Forest University:
Drag Show - Wake Forest University Events

Your hypocrisy is pathetic.
Clean up your own back yard before you start pointing fingers at the Catholic Church . . .

Okay, so the Protestants are as bad. Does that make you feel better? Do you go to confession and say you sinned but other people do the same things? Does your priest let you off without penance because other people do the same things?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ha, ha, I knew that all along. You were the one pretending paintings and statues had always existed in churches.

They did.

YOU moved the goal posts to a conversation about churches in the first few centuries of the Church. there WEREN'T any. Christians were being persecuted and martyred. They worshiped in secret.

That's what the Catacombs were for, Einstein . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Okay, so the Protestants are as bad. Does that make you feel better? Do you go to confession and say you sinned but other people do the same things? Does your priest let you off without penance because other people do the same things?

Nope.
Does God led let YOU off the hook for attacking the Catholic Church for things YOU and YOUR fellow Protestants are guilty of??

 

[BreadOfLife]

Okay, so the Protestants are as bad. Does that make you feel better? Do you go to confession and say you sinned but other people do the same things? Does your priest let you off without penance because other people do the same things?

Enough with your hypocrisy already . . .

 

[Giuliano]

Nope.
Does God led let YOU off the hook for attacking the Catholic Church for things YOU and YOUR fellow Protestants are guilty of??

If I ever start promoting any denomination as perfect, feel free to cut my claims to ribbons.

Enough with your hypocrisy already . . .

Can't answer the question? Does it make you feel better inside to tell me I'm a hypocrite? Who's the hypocrite with the excuse, "But look at what the Protestants do!" That's no defense of the Catholic Church. That's saying the Catholic Church is no better than they are. Weak. . . .

 

[Giuliano]

They did.

YOU moved the goal posts to a conversation about churches in the first few centuries of the Church. there WEREN'T any. Christians were being persecuted and martyred. They worshiped in secret.

That's what the Catacombs were for, Einstein . . .

I was having fun with you since you were pretending there had always been statues in churches. You said it. You live with it.

 

[Giuliano]

And if that's all you got out of Christ's exchange with the Rich Man - you missed the point entirely.
You have a literalist understanding of the Word instead of a spiritual understanding . . .

I guess you're blessed then since you know what phrases can be crossed out of our Bibles.

Have you ever heard of monks and nuns who don't own anything? They don't starve to death.

 

[epostle]

I do believe some relics are holy. My interest in this is not to discuss fraudulent relics or faked miracles. My interest is why bishops lack the spiritual discernment to be able to tell the difference. If an object is holy, why can't they tell that it is by picking it up? Sometimes I can "sense" something when I pick up an object. Why can't they?

I also agree that at times it's the person's faith that works the miracle, not the object. The object could be a fake, but the person's faith could heal him. I've seen something like that happen but with an object a woman thought was involved in a magic spell. No spell had been made, but she thought it had. Indeed I'd say a lot of the "black magic" in some areas of the world seems to depend mostly on people believing in it.

But my question is why bishops can't discern the difference? I think I asked that, and you challenged me about fake miracles and relics. I'd rather not continue with those; I prefer an answer to my question.

In some cases, bishops cannot deny the obvious. The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, or the Miraculous Image of Guadalupe, or Fatima, believers and skeptics alike where thousands witnessed the spinning of the sun that dried everything up during a rain storm, for example. But even those, common sense demands that investigations be carried out, it doesn't mean bishops have no discernment. Mary on a taco or stains on a cement wall are silly and not worth the time. Bishops usually step in when a large number of people are affected. Bishops can only determine if something is worthy of belief, they never say they must be believed.