Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

[Giuliano]

I have access to Catholic scholars --- 2 to be precise.
I still have to ask about levitation being demonic because someone mentioned St. Teresa levitating and brought this up.

I will also ask about Joachim da Fiore and this idea of man becoming perfect with time.
I can't remember much about it but thought, at the time, that it was an interesting idea but that it would not happen that way.

I don't think I have read about St. Teresa levitating; but from the other things I know about her, I'd almost expect it. Here's what I believe.

Resurrection is often seen as a single event; and while it's true that it can be seen that way; I think it is also a process that prepares each of us for that final dramatic event. The saint is involved in it.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

If you can believe the bread and wine are really changed while still appearing as ordinary bread and wine to mortal eyes, the same type of change occurs in the body of the saint. When researching the idea of the Real Presence, I did more than look at the Bible and Tradition. I also noticed that certain types of miracles did not occur (with any frequency that I could discern anyway) outside the various original churches which still retain this doctrine.

The spiritual body is not something God is going to "create" later out of nothing. It is "sown in corruption" and the corruption takes on an incorruptible attributes. In this world, such transformations better kept hidden for the most part. Later however, the transformations made during this life will be revealed. Everyone will be able to see. (Then shall the righteous shine.) The spiritual body is not enslaved by gravity. The idea situation is to be able to make it lighter or heavier at will.

The easiest way to encourage this process is through Communion; but there are other ways too as we can see from the Old Testament.

 

[Philip James]

That would depend on how you define "contradiction," wouldn't it?

Haha. Pick one: Definition of CONTRADICTION

In a hundred years, what you see as evil may be seen as good; and most people may look back and wonder how people in our age could be so blind and backwards.

We don't need another 100 years, the world now calls many things good that are contrary to Christian civilization.

Here's just a few: abortion, homosexual acts, pornography, divorce and remarrige, the rule of men with no regard to the rule of God...

St JohnPaul II pegged it when he called the mostrosity our civilzation has degenerated into 'the culture of death'

And we will reap what we have sown.

Pax!

 

[Giuliano]

Haha. Pick one: Definition of CONTRADICTION

For some reason, those definitions don't stop people from denying there are contradictions.

Jesuit superior general: Satan is a 'symbolic reality'

Vatican City, Aug 21, 2019 / 01:44 pm (CNA).-The superior general of the Society of Jesus said Aug. 21 that the devil is a symbol, but not a person.

The devil, “exists as the personification of evil in different structures, but not in persons, because is not a person, is a way of acting evil. He is not a person like a human person. It is a way of evil to be present in human life,” Fr. Arturo Sosa, SJ, said Wednesday in an interview with Italian magazine Tempi.

“Good and evil are in a permanent war in the human conscience and we have ways to point them out. We recognize God as good, fully good. Symbols are part of reality, and the devil exists as a symbolic reality, not as a personal reality,” he added.

Sosa’s remarks came after he participated in a panel discussion at a Catholic gathering in Rimini, Italy, organized by the Communion and Liberation ecclesial movement.

The Catechism of the Catholic teaches that “Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: ‘The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.’”

Angels, the Catechism says, are “spiritual, non-corporeal beings.”

“They are personal and immortal creatures,” it adds, who “have intelligence and will.”

Sosa, 70, was elected the Jesuits’ superior general in 2016. A Venezuelan, he has a pontifical licentiate in philosophy and a doctorate in political science. He served as a Jesuit provincial superior in Venezuela from 1996 to 2004, and in 2014 began an administrative role at the general curia of the Jesuits in Rome.

Sosa has offered controversial comments about Satan in the past. In 2017, he told El Mundo that “we have formed symbolic figures such as the Devil to express evil.”

Just have a spokesman who denies you contradicted anything.

After his 2017 remark generated controversy, a spokesman for Sosa told the Catholic Herald that “like all Catholics, Father Sosa professes and teaches what the Church professes and teaches. He does not hold a set of beliefs separate from what is contained in the doctrine of the Catholic Church.”

Something is afoot when the head of the Jesuits can speak so.

We don't need another 100 years, the world now calls many things good that are contrary to Christian civilization.

Here's just a few: abortion, homosexual acts, pornography, divorce and remarrige, the rule of men with no regard to the rule of God...

St JohnPaul II pegged it when he called the mostrosity our civilzation has degenerated into 'the culture of death'

And we will reap what we have sown.

Pax!

You have a dim view of the future.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You seem to enjoy bashing people. Wet noodles would be a way for you to get a greater thrill without much risk of injury to me.
You tempt me to post from it more. I wouldn't want you to run out things to call lies when your whole purpose in life seems to be combating things you perceive as lies.

You can post from that sight all you want. What do I care if you post from a renegade pseudo-Catholic site.
Just know that it's not orthodox Catholic teaching.

Pretending that it is simply shows your ignorance of all things Catholic . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Are you forgetting what you believe about the keys given to Peter?

What does that have to do with the fact that sin will always be sinful??

 

[BreadOfLife]

NO!!!!!!!

And what did we discuss for pages?
Being divorced also makes one ineligible to receive IF,,,,IF,,,,IF?
Go away BoL.
I don't need you teaching me anything.

No - you're wrong.
Being divorced does NOT make one ineligible to receive the Eucharist - unless they remarry.

I will never "go away" as long as YOU continue to spew nonsense against the Church . . .

 

[Giuliano]

What does that have to do with the fact that sin will always be sinful??

Surely a Pope could say that what used to be a sin isn't anymore and then it wouldn't be.

 

[Giuliano]

You can post from that sight all you want. What do I care if you post from a renegade pseudo-Catholic site.
Just know that it's not orthodox Catholic teaching.

Pretending that it is simply shows your ignorance of all things Catholic . . .

You need to be kept busy. I wouldn't want you to run out of "anti-Catholic lies" to expose.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You need to be kept busy. I wouldn't want you to run out of "anti-Catholic lies" to expose.

On a site like THIS??
Believe me - exposing anti-Catholic lies around here is a FULL-TIME job.

I'm only here part-time . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Surely a Pope could say that what used to be a sin isn't anymore and then it wouldn't be.

Such as??

 

[BreadOfLife]

Surely a Pope could say that what used to be a sin isn't anymore and then it wouldn't be.

Sin is a moral issue.
If it's wrong - it's ALWAYS wrong.

No Pope has ever changed a sin into a "non-sin".

 

[Giuliano]

Sin is a moral issue.
If it's wrong - it's ALWAYS wrong.

No Pope has ever changed a sin into a "non-sin".

What about the consumption of blood? An ecumenical council and a Pope said the Apostles were outdated about that. Things were "relative." It had been wrong when the Apostles said it, but later it became okay.

What about needing dispensations for things? Remember Henry VIII? If it was wrong for him to marry his dead brother's wife, why did a Pope say it was okay?

What about William the Conqueror who married his third cousin, Matilda of Flanders, after Pope Leo IX and the Council of Reims said he couldn't?
Ha, ha, that got fixed after they built two churches as penance. Build two churches, and what had been a sin wasn't anymore!

 

[Giuliano]

Such as??

Anything he wants, of course. He has the keys, not you or me. Do you think you have the right to determine what the Pope can do?

 

[BreadOfLife]

What about the consumption of blood? An ecumenical council and a Pope said the Apostles were outdated about that. Things were "relative." It had been wrong when the Apostles said it, but later it became okay.

What about needing dispensations for things? Remember Henry VIII? If it was wrong for him to marry his dead brother's wife, why did a Pope say it was okay?

What about William the Conqueror who married his third cousin, Matilda of Flanders, after Pope Leo IX and the Council of Reims said he couldn't?
Ha, ha, that got fixed after they built two churches as penance. Build two churches, and what had been a sin wasn't anymore!

Concerning the consumption of blood - the Council of Jerusalem never deemed this a sin.

They mentioned not eating blood (Acts 15:20, 29) as a pastoral provision suggested by James to keep Jews from being scandalized by the conduct of Gentile Christians. These provisions were only temporary. One of them was about abstaining from meat offered to idols. HOWEVER, Paul later says eating idol meat is fine - as long as it didn't scandalize others (Rom 14:1-14, 1 Cor 8:1-13).

As to dispensations - again - sin is about INTENT. Form example, if the Pope declares a dispensation on a Holy Day of Obligation - the people are not obliged to attend mass that day. This wouldn't be sinful because missing mass is only sinful if the person INTENT was to abandon his obligation. Besides, in the case of Henry VIII - his brother was dead. The dispensation was probably for some other reason.

Finally - as to William the Conqueror - I'd have to do some further reading on the reasons. However - I'm not sure why marrying a third cousin would not be allowed.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Anything he wants, of course. He has the keys, not you or me. Do you think you have the right to determine what the Pope can do?

Then you have absolutely ZERO grasp on the meaning of the Keys . . .

This doesn't make him God - and it doesn't make him impeccable.

 

[Giuliano]

Concerning the consumption of blood - the Council of Jerusalem never deemed this a sin.

They mentioned not eating blood (Acts 15:20, 29) as a pastoral provision suggested by James to keep Jews from being scandalized by the conduct of Gentile Christians. These provisions were only temporary. One of them was about abstaining from meat offered to idols. HOWEVER, Paul later says eating idol meat is fine - as long as it didn't scandalize others (Rom 14:1-14, 1 Cor 8:1-13).

That's a feeble excuse. Why didn't they also get circumcised?

As to dispensations - again - sin is about INTENT. Form example, if the Pope declares a dispensation on a Holy Day of Obligation - the people are not obliged to attend mass that day. This wouldn't be sinful because missing mass is only sinful if the person INTENT was to abandon his obligation. Besides, in the case of Henry VIII - his brother was dead. The dispensation was probably for some other reason.

Yes, the Kings of Spain and England wanted it.

Finally - as to William the Conqueror - I'd have to do some further reading on the reasons. However - I'm not sure why marrying a third cousin would not be allowed.

It comes from Leviticus, doesn't it? Mayor Guiliani claimed he didn't know he was marrying his second cousin!

Regina Peruggi - Wikipedia

Giuliani filed for legal separation from Peruggi on August 12, 1982; a civil divorce was issued by the end of the year. A Roman Catholic Church annulment of the Giuliani-Peruggi marriage was granted at the end of 1983 on the grounds that they had not obtained a church dispensation for second cousins to marry; Giuliani later said he had believed they were third cousins. The exact relationship was that Peruggi was the daughter of Giuliani's father's first cousin.

Marrying cousins has changed over time. Nothing seems to stay the same in the Catholic Church.

Cousin marriage - Wikipedia

In Roman Catholicism, all marriages more distant than first-cousin marriages are allowed, and first-cousin marriages can be contracted with a dispensation. This was not always the case, however: the Catholic Church has gone through several phases in kinship prohibitions. At the dawn of Christianity in Roman times, marriages between first cousins were allowed. For example, Emperor Constantine, the first Christian Roman Emperor, married his children to the children of his half-brother. First and second cousin marriages were then banned at the Council of Agde in AD 506, though dispensations sometimes continued to be granted. By the 11th century, with the adoption of the so-called canon-law method of computing consanguinity, these proscriptions had been extended even to sixth cousins, including by marriage. But due to the many resulting difficulties in reckoning who was related to whom, they were relaxed back to third cousins at the Fourth Lateran Council in AD 1215. Pope Benedict XV reduced this to second cousins in 1917, and finally, the current law was enacted in 1983. In Catholicism, close relatives who have married unwittingly without a dispensation can receive an annulment.

Is it a sin then to marry your first cousin? Yes, but not if you can get a dispensation. . . .

 

[Giuliano]

Then you have absolutely ZERO grasp on the meaning of the Keys . . .

This doesn't make him God - and it doesn't make him impeccable.

If he used those keys and proclaimed something ex cathedra, how could he make a mistake?

 

[Grailhunter]

@Giuliano
Having fun! I wrote a 1900 page book...before I started I took the advise of Paul Harvey and Zig Ziglar. You have to write at the 6th grade level unless you are only expect professors to buy your book. lol You are shooting over their heads, you need to lower your aim lol

But I do have a question for the Catholics....when you were in Catholic school did the nuns teach you the Infancy Gospels? They were mentioned a lot when I was in Catholic school.

 

[BreadOfLife]

That's a feeble excuse. Why didn't they also get circumcised?

Yes, the Kings of Spain and England wanted it.

It comes from Leviticus, doesn't it? Mayor Guiliani claimed he didn't know he was marrying his second cousin!

Regina Peruggi - Wikipedia

Giuliani filed for legal separation from Peruggi on August 12, 1982; a civil divorce was issued by the end of the year. A Roman Catholic Church annulment of the Giuliani-Peruggi marriage was granted at the end of 1983 on the grounds that they had not obtained a church dispensation for second cousins to marry; Giuliani later said he had believed they were third cousins. The exact relationship was that Peruggi was the daughter of Giuliani's father's first cousin.

Marrying cousins has changed over time. Nothing seems to stay the same in the Catholic Church.

Cousin marriage - Wikipedia

In Roman Catholicism, all marriages more distant than first-cousin marriages are allowed, and first-cousin marriages can be contracted with a dispensation. This was not always the case, however: the Catholic Church has gone through several phases in kinship prohibitions. At the dawn of Christianity in Roman times, marriages between first cousins were allowed. For example, Emperor Constantine, the first Christian Roman Emperor, married his children to the children of his half-brother. First and second cousin marriages were then banned at the Council of Agde in AD 506, though dispensations sometimes continued to be granted. By the 11th century, with the adoption of the so-called canon-law method of computing consanguinity, these proscriptions had been extended even to sixth cousins, including by marriage. But due to the many resulting difficulties in reckoning who was related to whom, they were relaxed back to third cousins at the Fourth Lateran Council in AD 1215. Pope Benedict XV reduced this to second cousins in 1917, and finally, the current law was enacted in 1983. In Catholicism, close relatives who have married unwittingly without a dispensation can receive an annulment.

Is it a sin then to marry your first cousin? Yes, but not if you can get a dispensation. . . .

WRONG.

In Guiliani's case - HE was ignorant of the fact that she was his 2nd cousin. If he felt that he has been duped or that the truth had not been revealed to him PRIOR to his marrying her - then a sacramental marriage NEVER took place. This would be perfect grounds for a Declaration of Nullity.

You have a LOT to learn about Catholic marriage. Marriage is a COVENANT to us - we take it seriously.
If a person enters into a marriage where they have not been made aware of the pother person's intent NOT to have children or that they are homosexual - or that they are related, etc. - then it is NOT a sacramental marriage.

As for your charge of a "feeble excuse" above - that's simply because you reject Scripture.
As I said - this were TEMPORARY pastoral commands - and NOT universal declarations of sin. If they were sin - then Paul NEVER would have later said it was okay to eat meat offered to idols . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

If he used those keys and proclaimed something ex cathedra, how could he make a mistake?

As I stated before - the Pope has never declared a sin, no longer a sin - and definitely NOT ex cathedra.
So, I'm not sure what you've getting at . . .