Salvation loss. Is it possible?

amadeus · Aug 18, 2017

kepha31 said:

I don't think such individualism can work. Either truth is objective, or it ends up subject to personal opinions.

Personal opinions are always likely to be filled with things that are wrong. There really is a leading by the Holy Ghost, but when I point out the scriptures to knowledgeable Catholics, they say that those verses were not directed to me.

So what. There have always been dissent and rebellion. That doesn't change Church teaching. The Church had to reformulate (not change) the manner in which her teachings were implemented. 500 year old methods and language of spreading the gospel doesn't cut it in a modern world.

Pope JP2 proclaimed that the “Redeemer of Man” (the title of his first encyclical letter), Jesus Christ, is the path to authentic personal, social and universal freedom!
He authored more encyclical letters, apostolic exhortations, constitutions and letters than any Pope in the two thousand year history of the Christian Church. In these writings and so many allocutions, this marvelous man has given us a treasury to unpack for centuries.

He has meticulously and brilliantly developed themes during his service to the Church and the world. Among them; "The Culture of Life", "The Civilization of Love", "The New Evangelization", "The New Springtime of world missions ", "The Universal Call to holiness"; "Christian Marriage and family life as a domestic church";

And further: "A Spirituality of Communion"; "The Theology of the Body"; "The Common Good"; "The Unity of Life"; "The New Humanism"; "The New feminism and the Feminine Genius"; "The Two Lungs of East and West"; “A New Catholic Action", and a “New Advent” for all of humanity in Jesus Christ. There are several and they are all available on line. The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council - Papal Encyclicals

I have seen and read much from marvelous men, but we could also say that Einstein was a marvelous man. God's truth only comes through men by the Holy Ghost. People only understand God's truth by the Holy Ghost as I see it. The best educated men, even educated in scriptures can be in error. The Apostle Paul was an intelligent and very well educated man, but until he met Jesus on the road to Damascus, his understanding of God's Way was very wrong. This is why I fall back on the Bible and the Holy Spirit to be led into more of Truth.

It's a common Protestant argument that tries to disprove unity. The schism has nothing to do with unity of belief, meaning we are one in doctrine. If whole communities break off in varying degrees of separation, claiming their own authority, the Church sees that as an injury to unity.

So do I see it an injury to unity, but I do not see ecumenism as the way to unity either. This direction of discussion between you and I will likely lead us no where. I believe that I am right, but so do you believe that you are right. God knows whether one or neither of us is correct.

The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13, CCC 813–822)

Click to expand...

Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches . The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse.

I believe that the Church is one, but we would certainly disagree on the details of who or what the Church is. I also believe that the Bride comes out of the Church but is not the whole Church. Arguments on things that only God can decide are likely to accomplish little.

His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2).

You have said nothing with which I disagree except you are apparently meaning something different with the word, Church, than I would accept. As a Catholic you make certain presumptions or follow official beliefs where I would not. I have a number of gray areas, which in my vision of things is supported in what the Apostle Paul called "seeing through a glass darkly [I Cor 13:12]. Paul did not claim to be at the "face to face" yet, nor do I.

Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers—the pope and the bishops united with him—

have never changed any doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.

I'm no expert such matters. The Bible does say to live by faith, but should a man by faith accept as true something that another man says without God's confirmation? How does God confirm the truth in a man's heart? I have answer to that question but won't elaborate here.

We have a single commission whose sole function is ecumenism.
Protestants attended Vatican II Well aged like fine wine.

I find myself opposed to the ecumenical movement as it exists. That is not where I would expect unity or truth to come from...

epostle1 · Aug 18, 2017

Copperhead said:
Vatican II reaffirmed the Council of Trent, and in the Justification Cannons of the Sixth Session, it declared that anyone who claims justification is by faith alone is anathema. Copied here for you....

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

By default, if justification is not of faith alone, then it must require works. That is works righteousness.

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

And in just one session of Trent, there are roughly 23 anathemas against a belief in salvation by faith alone. And we haven't even gotten into saints and other stuff.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (NKJV) For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Romans 3:28 (NKJV) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Anathemas only apply to Catholics, not Protestants.

mjrhealth · Aug 18, 2017

kepha31 said:
Anathemas

And that has what to do with Jesus ill never know.

epostle1 · Aug 18, 2017

amadeus said:
kepha31 said:
Personal opinions are always likely to be filled with things that are wrong. There really is a leading by the Holy Ghost, but when I point out the scriptures to knowledgeable Catholics, they say that those verses were not directed to me.

Not all Catholics take up apologetics as a hobby and don't have snappy answers to every Protestant challenge. There are no professional apologists on this forum, I wish there was. You can ask questions here Home | Catholic Answers or go to the forum.

I have seen and read much from marvelous men, but we could also say that Einstein was a marvelous man. God's truth only comes through men by the Holy Ghost. People only understand God's truth by the Holy Ghost as I see it. The best educated men, even educated in scriptures can be in error. The Apostle Paul was an intelligent and very well educated man, but until he met Jesus on the road to Damascus, his understanding of God's Way was very wrong. This is why I fall back on the Bible and the Holy Spirit to be led into more of Truth. There is nothing in the Bible that says to fall back on the Bible alone, and literally thousands claim the Holy Spirit leads them into conflicting "truths".

So do I see it an injury to unity, but I do not see ecumenism as the way to unity either. This direction of discussion between you and I will likely lead us no where. I believe that I am right, but so do you believe that you are right. God knows whether one or neither of us is correct.
I believe that the Church is one, but we would certainly disagree on the details of who or what the Church is. I also believe that the Bride comes out of the Church but is not the whole Church. Arguments on things that only God can decide are likely to accomplish little.

Click to expand...

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church 811-820
Wounds to unity
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Toward unity

820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279

You have said nothing with which I disagree except you are apparently meaning something different with the word, Church, than I would accept. As a Catholic you make certain presumptions or follow official beliefs where I would not. I have a number of gray areas, which in my vision of things is supported in what the Apostle Paul called "seeing through a glass darkly [I Cor 13:12]. Paul did not claim to be at the "face to face" yet, nor do I.
I'm no expert such matters. The Bible does say to live by faith, but should a man by faith accept as true something that another man says without God's confirmation? How does God confirm the truth in a man's heart? I have answer to that question but won't elaborate here.

Click to expand...

I find myself opposed to the ecumenical movement as it exists. That is not where I would expect unity or truth to come from...

Click to expand...

That depends on how you define ecumenism.
The authoritive teaching function of the Church and the learning function of her members are not one and the same. Jesus commissioned the Apostles to teach, and by extension, their successors. Individuals teaching apart from the historic Church is nowhere to be found in the Bible, except for the heretics.

Everything you believe that is true originated with the Catholic Church.

Copperhead · Aug 19, 2017

kepha31 said:
Anathemas only apply to Catholics, not Protestants.

Would that history supported that view. Trent didn't make that distinction.

epostle1 · Aug 19, 2017

Copperhead said:
Would that history supported that view. Trent didn't make that distinction.

It would be redundant for Trent to make that distinction because its impossible to anathematize people who are not in the Church.

Of special interest are Paul’s ecclesiastical uses of anathema—Galatians 1:8–9 and 1 Corinthians 16:22—in which Paul says that if a person is guilty of certain faults then "let him be anathema." Minimally, this directed the Christian community to hold the offender in a certain regard. This involved his exclusion from fellowship, as clearly must be done in the case of a person preaching a false gospel. Such exclusion—for a variety of offenses—is attested to elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., Matt 18:15–18), and often spoken of as "handing [the offender] over to Satan" so that he might suffer without the Church’s protection and thus be driven to repentance (1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 2:5–11; Tit. 3:10).

Later in Church history, this exclusion to provoke repentance received the name "excommunication." Originally, the Church did not differentiate between excommunication and anathema, which is why ecumenical councils have traditionally constructed their dogmatic canons using the formula "If anyone says . . . let him be anathema," meaning that anyone teaching the condemned proposition is to be anathematized or cut off from Christian society.

Anathema | Catholic Answers
It does not mean condemned to hell, as some Protestants think. The term anathema has not been used in over 200 years.

Whether a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone depends on what sense the term “faith” is being used in. If it is being used to refer to unformed faith then a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone (which is the point James is making in James 2:19, as every non-antinomian Evangelical agrees; one is not justified by intellectual belief alone).

However, if the term “faith” is being used to refer to faith formed by charity then the Catholic does not have to condemn the idea of justification by faith alone. In fact, in traditional works of Catholic theology, one regularly encounters the statement that formed faith is justifying faith. If one has formed faith, one is justified. Period.

This leads me to why Catholics do not use the formula “faith alone.” Given the different usages of the term “faith” in the Bible, the early Church had to decide which meaning would be treated as normative. Would it be the Galatians 5 sense or the Romans 14/James 2 sense? The Church opted for the latter for several reasons:

First, the Romans 14 sense of the term pistis is frankly the more common in the New Testament. It is much harder to think of passages which demand that pistis mean “faith formed by charity” than it is to think of passages which demand that pistis mean “intellectual belief.” In fact, even in Galatians 5:6

itself, Paul has to specify that it is faith formed by charity that he is talking about, suggesting that this is not the normal use of the term in his day.
Justification by Faith Alone

What did the reformers mean by "faith" alone? I dunno, you tell me.
The CC does not teach good works apart from the grace of Christ. That heresy is called Pelagianism and was condemned in the 5th century, 1000 years before the first Protestant was born. Salvation by works is a myth that won't go away.

mjrhealth · Aug 19, 2017

Copperhead said:
Would that history supported that view. Trent didn't make that distinction.

well they can only excommunicate people out of the RC church not our Lords, so who cares. I can just imagine our Lord filling man with Fear becasue He we throw them out. Simple thing is men just never enter in. You cant be thrown out of what you dont belong to.. Besides Kepha wont read my posts teh truth got teh better of Him, and he realised he cant convert an ex catholic who found Christ out side there religion. Funny isnt it. actually is sad.

Copperhead · Aug 19, 2017

kepha31 said:
It does not mean condemned to hell, as some Protestants think. The term anathema has not been used in over 200 years.

Maybe in common usage, but Vatican II reaffirmed the entirety of Trent. If it is reaffirmed, it is as good as said.

epostle1 · Aug 19, 2017

Copperhead said:
Maybe in common usage, but Vatican II reaffirmed the entirety of Trent. If it is reaffirmed, it is as good as said.

I don't see how that matters; anathemas don't apply to Protestants. The Church cannot undo any teaching, but can clarify and develop doctrines.

Francis Beckwith, former President of the Evangelical Theological Society (very Protestant) said this in an interview after his reversion:

"...Then I read the Council of Trent, which some Protestant friends had suggested I do. What I found was shocking. I found a document that had been nearly universally misrepresented by many Protestants, including some friends.

I do not believe, however, that the misrepresentation is the result of purposeful deception. But rather, it is the result of reading Trent with Protestant assumptions and without a charitable disposition.

For example, Trent talks about the four causes of justification, which correspond somewhat to Aristotle’s four causes. None of these causes is the work of the individual Christian. For, according to Trent, God’s grace does all the work. However, Trent does condemn “faith alone,” but what it means is mere intellectual assent without allowing God’s grace to be manifested in one’s actions and communion with the Church. This is why Trent also condemns justification by works.

I am convinced that the typical “Council of Trent” rant found on anti-Catholic websites is the Protestant equivalent of the secular urban legend that everyone prior to Columbus believed in a flat earth."
Francis Beckwith Interview
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If we accept the Council of Trent as an authentic expression of Catholic Tradition (as Catholics are obliged to do), then such objections fail to take into account Catholic Tradition. For in the documents of Trent’s thirteenth session, we read:

The sacred and holy, general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost … grants, as far as regards the holy Synod itself, to all and each one throughout the whole of Germany, whether ecclesiastics or seculars, of whatsoever degree, estate, condition, quality they be, who may wish to repair to this ecumenical and general Council, the public faith and full security, which they call a safe-conduct … so as that they may and shall have it in their power in all liberty to confer, make proposals, and treat on those things which are to be treated of in the said Synod; to come freely and safely to the said ecumenical Council, and there remain and abide, and propose therein, as well in writing as by word of mouth, as many articles as to them shall seem good, and to confer and dispute, without any abuse or contumely, with the Fathers, or with those who may have been selected by the said holy Synod; as also to withdraw whensoever they shall think fit.

We should make several important observations here.

First, the Council of Trent both invited and offered safe passage to Protestants who wished to come and participate at this ecumenical council.

Second, Trent invited Protestants of all social and ecclesiastical rank to share their theological views, propose topics for debate, and generally participate in the daily affairs of this ecumenical council.

Finally, Trent invited Protestants to be more than simply observers.

Clearly, at Trent the Church issued an invitation to ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. And since Lutheranism enveloped most of the German nation around the time of the council, this invitation was much broader than the invitation extended to a handful of Protestant theologians at Vatican II. Trent even permitted the Protestants attending the Council a greater level of participation than was allowed to the Protestant theologians observing Vatican II.
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6056

Today's Protestants almost universally misrepresent Trent. Is that fair?

tabletalk · Aug 19, 2017

kepha31 said:
From Francis Beckwith: "For, according to Trent, God’s grace does all the work."

Doesn't Trent say a person's cooperation is required along with God's grace? If so, its definition of grace is synergistic, I think, and does not do "all the work".

epostle1 · Aug 19, 2017

tabletalk said:
Doesn't Trent say a person's cooperation is required along with God's grace? If so, its definition of grace is synergistic, I think, and does not do "all the work".

"God does all the work" corresponds somewhat to Aristotle’s four causes. None of these causes is the work of the individual Christian. Cooperating with God's grace is not in the same ball park. So what are the 4 causes that SOMEWHAT correspond???

amadeus · Aug 19, 2017

kepha31 said:
Not all Catholics take up apologetics as a hobby and don't have snappy answers to every Protestant challenge. There are no professional apologists on this forum, I wish there was. You can ask questions here Home | Catholic Answers or go to the forum.

Thank you for your kind response and consideration.

BreadOfLife · Aug 19, 2017

amadeus said:
When we are in doubt about who is due respect or honor or even double honour, we do need to be careful in how we treat them.

I agree that every sect, Catholic or Protestant of my experience has had a hierarchy of some kind. I believe that it would be wrong to speak against a person holding a position in any church group simply because we are biased [with or without good reason] against the group itself. We should be able to recognize the fruits of the individual as to whether he/she is of God or not. But...this would normally, I believe be necessary if we must deal with that person personally. If not, it wouldn't be our business and we should leave them to God, for then is it not between the person and God?

Not really sure what you're asking - but how we behave or misbehave is always between the person and God. Scripture tells us to respect and to honor their position over us in Christ.

BreadOfLife · Aug 19, 2017

ScottA said:
"All is vanity." But what was done for the glory of God, "is finished." Now, by doing what once was for His glory, since He has made His glory known...is to deny that "Christ has come in the flesh." 1 John 4:2

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 John+4:2&version=NKJV
Yhere you go again, perverting the Scriptures.

You sound like Judas, who became angry when the woman came and broke an expensive jar of perfumed oil (John 12:5) and poured it on the Lord's head. He said that she wasted it and that it could have been sold and the money given to the poor. Jesus rebuked him and said that she had done this for the glory of God.

EVERYTHING we do should be for the glory of God. For YOU to say that this time is "finished" is complete and total Scriptural bankruptcy.

ScottA said:
The kingdom "is within." Without, is "outer darkness."

We're not in Heaven yet because NOTHING imperfect or impure can enter (Rev. 21:27).
The Heavenly liturgy that I presented from Scripture is mirrored in the Mass.

BreadOfLife · Aug 19, 2017

Copperhead said:
Vatican II reaffirmed the Council of Trent, and in the Justification Cannons of the Sixth Session, it declared that anyone who claims justification is by faith alone is anathema. Copied here for you....

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

By default, if justification is not of faith alone, then it must require works. That is works righteousness.

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

And in just one session of Trent, there are roughly 23 anathemas against a belief in salvation by faith alone. And we haven't even gotten into saints and other stuff.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (NKJV) For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Romans 3:28 (NKJV) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

WRONG.

The anathemas issued at Trent do NOT apply to Protestants - but to CATHOLICS.
The people they applied to were your Protestant Fathers, who were once Catholic and rebelled against Christ's Church.

The same would apply to Catholics today who rebel against the Church.
An anathema is an excommunication - not a curse.

You can't be excommunicated from the Church unless you belong to it.

amadeus · Aug 19, 2017

BreadOfLife said:
Not really sure what you're asking - but how we behave or misbehave is always between the person and God. Scripture tells us to respect and to honor their position over us in Christ.

My point is, unless for some known reason, God has made it to be our business, it is really none of our business.

What I do is between me and God. If I am submitted to a minister of God, then it may also be his business. If God has spoken to another person to get involved in it, then it is his business as well.

BreadOfLife · Aug 19, 2017

amadeus said:
My point is, unless for some known reason, God has made it to be our business, it is really none of our business.

What I do is between me and God. If I am submitted to a minister of God, then it may also be his business. If God has spoken to another person to get involved in it, then it is his business as well.

Okay - but I don't know what this has to do with respecting and honoring the Church leadership, as commanded by Scripture.
Exactly what are you referring to that is "none" of our business?

amadeus · Aug 19, 2017

BreadOfLife said:
Okay - but I don't know what this has to do with respecting and honoring the Church leadership, as commanded by Scripture.
Exactly what are you referring to that is "none" of our business?

God does not force feed anyone and neither should we. To discuss can be a good thing, but then both parties to the discussion have opened themselves up to it.

People can live like the devil for the devil and that is there choice. God may talk to them about it, but if they choose to contradict Him or ignore His advice, He will let them do it. The consequences of going against God are of their own making. No arm twisting by God, so neither should there be any by His people.

The door to a person must be opened by that person.

BreadOfLife · Aug 19, 2017

amadeus said:
God does not force feed anyone and neither should we. To discuss can be a good thing, but then both parties to the discussion have opened themselves up to it.

People can live like the devil for the devil and that is there choice. God may talk to them about it, but if they choose to contradict Him or ignore His advice, He will let them do it. The consequences of going against God are of their own making. No arm twisting by God, so neither should there be any by His people.

The door to a person must be opened by that person.

I agree - we should NOT force feed anybody.

What I object to are all of the lies people around here tell about the Catholic Church. It's like a disease with them - they simply cannot stop. Bearing false witness against ANYBODY - whether you perceive them to be good or bad - is a sin in God's eyes, period. It is a direct violation of God's Commandment.

amadeus · Aug 20, 2017

BreadOfLife said:
I agree - we should NOT force feed anybody.

What I object to are all of the lies people around here tell about the Catholic Church. It's like a disease with them - they simply cannot stop. Bearing false witness against ANYBODY - whether you perceive them to be good or bad - is a sin in God's eyes, period. It is a direct violation of God's Commandment.

This is unfortunate, but I know it is so. As in the law of man, "ignorance is no excuse". In the OT it is made clear that even for sins committed in ignorance, when the offender becomes aware of his sin, he must make atonement for it. God has never changed the way He looks at things.

Sometimes we do not realize that we are ignorant. This is all the more reason to be careful about opening our mouth without thinking carefully. It is certainly better to remain silent than to open out mouths spouting our ignorance.

Salvation loss. Is it possible?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads