Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

[Grailhunter]

I have never denied someone to believe what they want to believe. When I sound harsh, I am attacking their system or systematic doctrine, not the person. Evidently those that continue to question my faith, equally won't respect my right to believe what I want to believe.
Thanks for your service. Was that the Nam war?
When Jesus died for my sins, He died that I might believe. I am not beholden to any military action for that freedom, even if I must die for my convictions.

No not Vietnam...I am not that old. All good.

 

[brakelite]

I agree about the baby being baptized.

But, as I've said,,,I'm starting to believe that baptism is more than what we think.
Why would Jesus tell us to be baptized if it's only symbolic?

I don't think it's symbolic.

Oh, it is symbolic alright, because our commitment, our acceptance of the gospel, our repentance, our recognition of the need for a new life in Christ, can all be made only in the mind. Going through a physical baptism means nothing without first having been converted in the mind, and then publically demonstrated by our submission to baptism. But it is more than that... It is an act of obedience... It is a fulfillment of righteousness as Jesus spoke of when He was baptised although He did not spiritually need to be born again nor did He have anything to repent of, yet as our example submitted humbly to John allowing him to lower the Lord of glory into burial...a type of His coming death on our behalf.​

 

[Giuliano]

Oh, it is symbolic alright, because our commitment, our acceptance of the gospel, our repentance, our recognition of the need for a new life in Christ, can all be made only in the mind. Going through a physical baptism means nothing without first having been converted in the mind, and then publically demonstrated by our submission to baptism. But it is more than that... It is an act of obedience... It is a fulfillment of righteousness as Jesus spoke of when He was baptised although He did not spiritually need to be born again nor did He have anything to repent of, yet as our example submitted humbly to John allowing him to lower the Lord of glory into burial...a type of His coming death on our behalf.​

Israel, we are told, walked on "dry land" though the sea; so we can't believe the waters of the physical sea made them wet or did anything else. Yet we are told they were baptized:

1 Corinthians 10:2 and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

I believe the physical event is meant to impress something on the mind about the spiritual baptism.

Did Jesus need to baptized? I think maybe he did. If he was to take on the role as head of the Body of Christ known as the head, he had to commit himself to the other members of the Body. I think he was obeying the Will of the Father by taking on that responsibility. Thus the Father was pleased.

Christians when baptized also become members (if the intent is right, as you say), and they are then obliged to honor the head and other members.

 

[brakelite]

I could care less about Rome. And I am not asking you to cowtow to anything. Not asking you to agree with anything but your own beliefs. I am asking, as Christians, do we have to condemn each other? Is it enough to say, we do not agree? When I was overseas I fought side by side with men and women of different faiths. We fought for your right to believe what you want. Is that enough?

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.

 

[brakelite]

Israel, we are told, walked on "dry land" though the sea; so we can't believe the waters of the physical sea made them wet or did anything else. Yet we are told they were baptized:

1 Corinthians 10:2 and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

I believe the physical event is meant to impress something on the mind about the spiritual baptism.

Did Jesus need to baptized? I think maybe he did. If he was to take on the role as head of the Body of Christ known as the head, he had to commit himself to the other members of the Body. I think he was obeying the Will of the Father by taking on that responsibility. Thus the Father was pleased.

Christians when baptized also become members (if the intent is right, as you say), and they are then obliged to honor the head and other members.

Yes, we are baptised into Christ... In this instance I take that as His body, His church. As you said, Israel was baptised into Moses, the church in the wilderness.

 

[GodsGrace]

This is the same old problem as the Pharisees, who elevated the traditions of men above the Word of God, and were soundly rebuked by Christ.

I agree.
It was good at the beginning...then I don't understand what happened....
the church got mixed up with politics...the power went to its head...men who are filled with the sin nature got into power...I don't really know and no one can...maybe it's a little of each.

All I know is that at the beginning things were good and the early theologians were honest men trying to follow in the footsteps of the Apostles and then it all went askew.

I mean, think of all the martyrs. They died horrible deaths and still preached till the end,,,knowing what would come. The patron saint of my hometown was 33 when he was killed for his belief in Christ in the 3rd century. Horrible death -- what men can do to each to each other; slaves to satan instead of to God.

 

[GodsGrace]

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.

The catholic church teaches that those that are baptized in the name of Jesus are saved persons but they do not have the "entire truth".

 

[brakelite]

The catholic church teaches that those that are baptized in the name of Jesus are saved persons but they do not have the "entire truth".

I would suggest that is a fairly weak excuse for waging war against them using secular armies, killing them, persecuting and torturing the survivors, confiscating their property, and condemning their children to several generations to destitution.

 

[GodsGrace]

I quoted Augustine to prove he made no changes to the essence of apostolic teaching. You keep making false assertions with no quotes and no evidence.

What would be the point of quoting the ECF when you reject Augustine's quotes that proved you wrong? The ECF wrote truckloads on baptism, and agreed unanimously, but do you agree with any of them? Augustine was an ECF, that you say I didn't quote. You're not making sense. For the second time, the early church did not know the fate of the souls of unbaptized babies because it had not been divinely revealed. These things take centuries of discernment.
Because my 2 short quotes proved you wrong, and you can't take the time to refute it because it can't be done.
Your blanket judgment of "most Catholics" is as pathetic as your take on Augustine.
Perhaps I am. The Church is Christ on earth; you fall in love with her or you don't. That goes for lapsed Catholics who have every opportunity to have a profound relationship with Jesus Christ, but don't. Blaming the Church for that is just laziness.

I can't answer to you E,,,because you TOTALLY did not address my post.

As to Augustine,,,,I did say ECFs, of which he is not one.
Some theologians will accept that the ECFs go up to about 400 or even 600...
MOST will stop at 325 because that's when the church began to CHANGE.

I make sense...if you care to read my post to you again...it's below....
I can prove anything to you BUT you should really reply to what I'm saying.
I can't spend time telling you HOW you misunderstood me...I'd rather deal with the facts and not telling you how you misunderstood.

Here is your post no. 720 which DOES NOT REPLY to my post...
Oh, and PLEASE stop telling me how I learned about Catholicism by liberal protestants.
This is an interesting concept....actually I learned from the catholic church in very recent times...I could tell you how and why if you like,,,but I don't know what difference it makes. How do YOU know catholic doctrine since you seem to still be living in the times of Trent?


post 720...
BLUE IS MINE.

↑
No, it does not WHAT?
It does not go beyond the reasons of the early church.

Augustine developed what was already there.
OK.
Original Sin always existed.
Was it taught by the CC that one was personally RESPONSIBLE for O.S?
Never. Original sin is inherited from Adam and Eve, it is not committed by a conscious choice, therefore it can be removed without a conscious choice.

Was it taught by the CC that even a baby went to hell if he was not baptized because of this O.S.?
In the early centuries, the Church did not know the fate of unbaptized babies because it had not been divinely revealed. Now, the Church commends them to the mercy and care of God. The Church has NEVER said who is in hell and who isn't.

Perhaps you could quote an ECF that said babies went TO HELL if they were not baptized? This would be BEFORE 325 AD and definitely before Augustine, who changed a lot about the CC and none of which I agree with.
Why don't you quote Augustine where he departed from the original essence of apostolic teaching, instead of making things up.

Sorry, but I'm done reading Augustine.

Why? Because you have been proven wrong?
He messed up the church badly, very badly with all his unorthodox beliefs.

Why don't you quote Augustine where he departed from the original essence of apostolic teaching, instead of making things up.

As I've requested, WE BOTH KNOW that Augustine CHANGED the church teaching on baptism...you'll have to post something PRE 325 AD.
Development does not mean "change". Augustine did not "change" anything, and you cannot, and have not, proven otherwise.

Right.
There's change.
But there's no change.
I got it.
No, you haven't "got it" at all. Development does not mean "change". It's straightforward denial on your part.
And really, don't post links to me about what the CC teaches.
Not for anything...but I DO believe I know what it teaches.

You believe you know without looking, by your own admission. That's called prejudice.
[the above is soooo funny, I have to restrain myself]

Most of what you know about Catholicism has been taught to you by liberal Protestants who divide and separate from their own reformers. Links are a valuable tool for explaining Catholicism, because it cannot be adequately expressed by sound bytes, carnival barkers, bumper stickers and T shirts, or even forums. It requires honest investigation and study. These things are anathema to anti-Catholics.


[I'm an anti-Catholic?

]

 

[GodsGrace]

I would suggest that is a fairly weak excuse for waging war against them using secular armies, killing them, persecuting and torturing the survivors, confiscating their property, and condemning their children to several generations to destitution.

When did this happen and where??

 

[Giuliano]

I would suggest that is a fairly weak excuse for waging war against them using secular armies, killing them, persecuting and torturing the survivors, confiscating their property, and condemning their children to several generations to destitution.

What I see in history is that most denominations of Christianity (and most religions) become oppressive and even wicked when they go to bed with politicians. Both Lutherans and Catholics took money from the Nazis and had a motive for not speaking up. Catholic bishops even took an oath to support the Nazi Party. They were seduced by power and money. We can see the same problem in the history of some Protestant churches too. When will people learn we can't serve God and mammon?

 

[GodsGrace]

I see two stages in spiritual life. The first is when we depend on others and on books. If we have followed the right men and read the right books (even if they may be somewhat flawed), the time may come (God knows when) that we cease being a herb like the mustard plant and become a tree with our branches reaching up into the heavens. If and when that happens, then we understand what the holy men and holy books were trying to show us. If that doesn't happen, we remain closer to the earth and still cannot know with certainty.

Think of the lives of the saints in the Catholic Church. Some came to see and know for themselves. I think one of the strongest arguments in favor of the Real Presence is what the saints who reached a higher level said of it. I see three types of witnesses there: Scripture, Tradition and the lives of the saints. The saints had needed holy books and holy men, but they reached a stage where they knew for themselves.

I do not see that kind of witness among those who say Communion is a mere symbol. I don't see their position in the Bible or in any tradition either.

And some of those saints went on to write their own books.

I agree with two of your witnesses: Scripture and Tradition.
I would replace the saints with the Early Church Fathers....I trust them.

As to saints...I see my catholic friends depending too much on saints...
some saints had weird ideas...some had beautiful ideas.
I'm thinking of St. Theresa and the Book of the Seven Rooms (or castles).

But what about those that say they've been to heaven, or hell, or purgatory?
Or that believe in indulgences? How is ANY church allowed to tell persons to do indulgences? I'd say this is not what a church is for...so I'm not sure about saints.
Although I love them for their lives and their devotion.

 

[GodsGrace]

You are speaking after 2,000 years of learning ...

John 20:29
[29] Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

It is a difficult thing to believe without seeing...

It is a mysterious thing to believe without seeing...

Can't understand it for you.

God Bless,
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.

 

[GodsGrace]

Oh, it is symbolic alright, because our commitment, our acceptance of the gospel, our repentance, our recognition of the need for a new life in Christ, can all be made only in the mind. Going through a physical baptism means nothing without first having been converted in the mind, and then publically demonstrated by our submission to baptism. But it is more than that... It is an act of obedience... It is a fulfillment of righteousness as Jesus spoke of when He was baptised although He did not spiritually need to be born again nor did He have anything to repent of, yet as our example submitted humbly to John allowing him to lower the Lord of glory into burial...a type of His coming death on our behalf.​

OK,,,but you said above that IT IS MORE than symbolic.
You said it's an act of obedience,
it's a fulfillment of righteousness, as Jesus spoke of when being baptized...

Jesus meant that He wanted to follow all the rules as any of us should do. I like your thought that it was like a coming to death on our behalf....

So the symbol is only in the mind...as you said...
but then you went on to say there is more.

I'm trying to understand what more there is,,,,The Catholic CCC gives really good explanations for baptism...maybe I'll never understand it the way I'd like to. Maybe it's like trying to understand the Trinity...I could explain it....but I don't really grok it.

 

[Giuliano]

And some of those saints went on to write their own books.

I agree with two of your witnesses: Scripture and Tradition.
I would replace the saints with the Early Church Fathers....I trust them.

As to saints...I see my catholic friends depending too much on saints...
some saints had weird ideas...some had beautiful ideas.
I'm thinking of St. Theresa and the Book of the Seven Rooms (or castles).

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

But what about those that say they've been to heaven, or hell, or purgatory?

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.

Or that believe in indulgences? How is ANY church allowed to tell persons to do indulgences? I'd say this is not what a church is for...so I'm not sure about saints.
Although I love them for their lives and their devotion.

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.

 

[epostle]

When did this happen and where??

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.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I guess you are much denser than I first imagined. I said for my first 25 years I never stepped into a Church. So how in the world was I to hear a homily, three readings or take part in the Mass?
It took some non Roman Catholic Evangelicals to at least attempt to share the Gospel with me while the Roman Church was too busy doing 'hocus pocus dominocus' with the Mass and infant baptism to give a hoot for the perishing souls outside their four walls.
Good grief!

Sooooo, you sat on your behind for 25 years - and because a Protestant got to you first - that means the Catholic Church wasn't sharing the Gospel??
That is as idiotic as saying that you starved to death because the local grocery store wouldn't bring you any food.

Don't blame the Church because it took YOU 25 years to listen to God's call . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

My children are over thirty years old. Next.

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.

 

[Giuliano]

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.

I posted material from Augustine in case you missed it, looking for a response from GodsGrace. Here's a link to that post.

Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

I can find no precedent for his idea. Some theologians derived the idea of Limbo, something never endorsed officially by the Catholic Church. The current position is far more humane than Augustine's. From the 1992 Catechism:

"As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God. . . ."

They never officially adopted the idea of infant damnation from Augustine; but his conclusion was based on his idea of original sin. The Catholic Church did adopt that, and I think it's created confusion.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Thank you GH.
I could add more but some catholics like to stick their head in the sand and stay there.
The catholic church was considering halting the practice of baptizing babies about 10 years ago. I wonder if our catholic friends here...WHO SEEM TO KNOW EVERYTHING...even know this.

And some love Augustine...
WHY is a good question since he was one of the first important thinkers to ruin this church.

That's all I'll say.
I'm just getting tired of all this ignorance as to their own faith.

Why do you persist in telling these kinds of idiotic lies (in RED)?
Just curious . . .