No Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church

[Resurrexi]

Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est ut teneat Catholicam fidem, quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in æternum peribit.

Memorizing the Athanasian Creed in Latin over the summer was sooooo worth it.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='13 October 2009 - 01:09 PM' timestamp='1255399755' post='1984241']
Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est ut teneat Catholicam fidem, quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in æternum peribit.

Memorizing the Athanasian Creed in Latin over the summer was sooooo worth it.
[/quote]

What have you got against English?

[OraProMe]

Latin is the official language of the Church and, according to Pius XII, prevents the spread of doctrinal error through ambiguous translations.

The law of prayer is the law of belief.

[reyb]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='12 October 2009 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1255387404' post='1984128']
Why are you asking good questions when you've already got your mind made up as to what the answer is?

I've wasted my time here, then.
[/quote]

We are in the Internet and I do expect many Catholics or even non-Catholics are watching us. Thus, whatever I posted here, I am speaking not only to you but also to them. So please do not take it personally.

Now, if you really feel you are wasting your time. It is your call not mine. I wish I did my part so that I will be happy leaving while hoping for your best. Goodluck.

I am just thinking, in what other way a believer will come into realization that he is sleeping while he truly believes that he is not? If you tell him, ‘Wake-up, Brother! Do not let yourself be deceived’. Sometimes, it brings harm than good because, eyes in the dark while seeing candlelight will think he can see clearly and thus, hardness will follow notwithstanding the disaster it brings when true light comes - he will surely become blind.

The cause of total darkness is not the absence of light. Close your eyes and try to defeat a little light in the dark and you will never succeed. But, if you live in the dark all the days of your life and then you suddenly expose in the sun, there you will see total darkness. Total darkness therefore is in the light but the cause of it is not the light – it is in your eyes that never learn to live in the light. While eyes that learn to live in the light will never be defeated because darkness cannot prevail over the light.

Is it not everything was already given to you? Everything you need to attain salvation is in your hand - the letters, testimonies, teaching, and warnings, even prophecies made by witnesses . Thus, again, I am just thinking, in what way you will come into realization? I am just thinking. Do I really need to tell you what to ask? And do I need to tell you again, why?

Edited October 13, 2009 by reyb

[reyb]

This is just a correction in my previous post. Sorry, I miss the word 'Not' (in bold letter)

[quote name='reyb' date='12 October 2009 - 09:31 AM' timestamp='1255357902' post='1983934']
I am hoping, you do [b]not[/b] want me to post the whole Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church in order to show you that whatever your Church is claiming, nothing can stand without killing herself – meaning, she will be defeated and in her own lips she will be caught – and the only reason why she continue to live is because of faith in mysteries.

Roman Catholic Church and her teaching for 2000+ years is not the ‘revelation of Christ’ but a collective talent and knowledge of morally honest, faithful and strong-willed believers who read, studied and discussed the testimony of witnesses - such as that of the epistles of Apostle Paul and the letters of the Holy Prophets - but, they failed to see the Truth since they learned to put their faith on their own understanding to the scripture which they carelessly confessed and claimed to be apostolic in its very nature but, it is not. It is not a witness teaching, because only a witness can understand another witness since only by the same spirit that the message of the writer can only be made known by the reader.

The ‘Truth’ I am talking about is not the truth based on our own mental ability, capability or whatever talent we may have which we used in trying to understand the scripture. But, this ‘Truth’ can only be made known to us thru God’s revelation – meaning, unless a man see God himself then, he can never know the message of the writers or the light of the Gospel, who is the Christ and thus, everything he may get in the scripture is just a mere ‘interpretation and a counterfeit Christ’.

This is what I am trying to say.
[/quote]

[reyb]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='13 October 2009 - 02:28 AM' timestamp='1255418931' post='1984478']
Latin is the official language of the Church and, according to Pius XII, prevents the spread of doctrinal error through ambiguous translations.

The law of prayer is the law of belief.
[/quote]

Why not start another topic regarding this issue?
Maybe Pius XII is much confortable in speaking latin than in english.

[dairygirl4u2c]

this shows aquinas taught implicit baptism too. i can't say i knew that. he's a church father who taught during the times, or there abouts, of the 'strict' teachings of no salvation outside the CC. it does show context that perhaps they weren't being so strict after all.
in fact, i was one of those people he mentions who said that aquinas must have only taught explicit desire for baptism counted.


[b] Thomas Aquinas Contra the Feeneyites[/b]



St. Thomas Aquinas is very clear that the effect of baptism can be received by desire for the sacrament without it, and also that a man does not necessarily need to receive baptism by water before he dies. Aside from his teaching authority as Doctor of the whole church, his teaching on this matter is also useful to consider because the fathers of the Council of Trent drew heavily from his writings. During the council, St. Thomas's Summa Theologiae was placed on the main altar together with the Holy Bible.

Let us see what St. Thomas has to say:

"In a case of necessity anyone may baptize. And since nowise ought one to sin, if the priest be unwilling to baptize without being paid, one must act as though there were no priest available for the baptism. Hence the person who is in charge of the child can, in such a case, lawfully baptize it, or cause it to be baptized by anyone else. He could, however, lawfully buy the water from the priest, because it is merely a bodily element. But if it were an adult in danger of death that wished to be baptized, and the priest were unwilling to baptize him without being paid, he ought, if possible, to be baptized by someone else. [b]And if he is unable to have recourse to another, he must by no means pay a price for Baptism, and should rather die without being baptized, because for him the baptism of desire would supply the lack of the sacrament.[/b]"(ST. SS. Q.100 A.2 Ad.2)

Clearly St. Thomas is not talking about being "pre-justified" by desire for the sacrament, and then later receiving it.

"I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
[b]Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism[/b], which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."(ST. TP. Q.68 A.2 C.)

Pretty self explanatory.

"The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57)."(ST. TP. Q.68 A.2 Ad.3)

"So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their [b]desire[votum] for Baptism, implicit or explicit[/b]: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Ps. 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism."(ST. TP. Q.69 A.4 Ad.2)

[b]I should mention here that St. Thomas says here that one can have an implicit desire[votum] for the sacrament of baptism. Occasionally I run into a person who accepts baptism of desire, but wants to say that it must be explicit, and they argue that because the council of Trent uses the latin word "votum," they had in mind an explicit vow or promise to receive it. While it may be true that they were primarily considering the case of an explicit desire, the word itself is open to both possibilities, as St. Thomas uses it here.[/b]

[dairygirl4u2c]

here is augustine, though, basically saying that even those who haven't heard, are condemned. i didn't know this quote existed.

"For if, according to the word of truth, no one is delivered from the condemnation which was incurred through Adam except through faith in Jesus Christ, and yet from this condemnation they shall not deliver themselves who shall be able to say that they have not heard the gospel of Christ, on the ground that "faith cometh by hearing," how much less shall they deliver themselves who shall say, "We have not received perseverance!" [...] thou mightest persevere if thou wouldest. And, consequently, both those [b]who have not heard the gospel[/b], and those who, having heard it and been changed by it for the better, have not received perseverance, [...] are not made to differ from that mass which it is plain is condemned, as all go from one into condemnation." (On Rebuke and Grace)

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/tradition-eens.htm"]http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/tradition-eens.htm[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

[size="3"][font="Book Antiqua"]"Our Predecessor, [b]Benedict XIV[/b], had just cause to write: "We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of [b]ignorance[/b] of those mysteries of faith which [b]must be known and believed[/b] in order to be numbered among the elect."" (Acerbo Nimis)[/font][/size]

[Papist]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1327006919' post='2371568']
[url="http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/tradition-eens.htm"]http://www.romancath...dition-eens.htm[/url]
[/quote]

Glad I am Catholic then.

But seriously, romancatholicism[dot]org?

Edited January 19, 2012 by Papist

[thessalonian]

Not sure what is so hard to understand what the Catechism says about this statement. The statement is an affirmation that one must belong to Christ's Church which is the Catholic Church. That is the positive affirmation of the doctrine for those who are trying their best to come to know Christ fully. The Church however recognizes that there are those who are imperfectly joined to the Church through baptism and also those who do not willfully and knowingly separate themselves from her. These it does not say are saved. They leave them up to the mercy and justice of God. The confusion of this world and sins of this world by which we are affected cause some to not be in a culpable state. They cannot be charged with the sin of separation from the Church. Only God can judge these. No the CC is whom Christ said she was and leaves the judgement in God's hands alone of all mankind.

By the way protestantism has this same doctrine. They just extend the bounds of "Church" further than the Catholic Church (and some put Catholics outside of those bounds). And for many if not most of them who did not have a chance to know Christ go to hell including women and children, even babies. I do not believe this is the root of why you won't become Catholic dairy.

[Groo the Wanderer]

gee. double mortal sins here.

rezzing old threads

cut/paste of old docs


time for confession, DG

[Aloysius]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1327009624' post='2371601']
[size=3][font=Book Antiqua]"Our Predecessor, [b]Benedict XIV[/b], had just cause to write: "We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of [b]ignorance[/b] of those mysteries of faith which [b]must be known and believed[/b] in order to be numbered among the elect."" (Acerbo Nimis)[/font][/size]
[/quote]there is culpable ignorance and then there is inculpable ignorance. we can never judge a specific case, but indeed people can go to hell for culpable ignorance.

the inculpably ignorant may be given the chance to know and believe when they die (in God's mercy if He so wills it), but of course if you are culpably ignorant in this life then you will remain culpably ignorant if given a chance to know upon death.

[Dennis Tate]

I personally have serious leanings toward the idea that the God of Abraham is out to accomplish nothing less than universal salvation, eventually!

Time is something that was actually invented a long long time ago....I assume that the reason was to give angels and humans the experience of learning over time. I strongly suspect that the Jewish festival of Yom Kippur holds a clue as to the identity of the fallen angel who will become the metaphorical General Abner who will begin the process of bringing the fallen angelic kingdom back into alignment with the Creator. Look up Leviticus 16:10 in the RSV for more information on this theory.

Oh....when Rabbi Jesus/Yahushua called Jerusalem the city of the great king...do you think that he was speaking about himself or about his grandfather King David....who is specifically mentioned in the book of Acts as NOT having ascended into the highest heaven!?!?

Is Rabbi Jesus in his glorified form at this very moment raising up King David for the Jewish people exactly as promised in the prophets?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1327576779' post='2375615']
there is culpable ignorance and then there is inculpable ignorance. we can never judge a specific case, but indeed people can go to hell for culpable ignorance.

the inculpably ignorant may be given the chance to know and believe when they die (in God's mercy if He so wills it), but of course if you are culpably ignorant in this life then you will remain culpably ignorant if given a chance to know upon death.
[/quote]

i had at first thought that this was too easy an out. a cop out to draw a distinction after the fact.
but then i looked into it, and i see that it was pius X who was quoting his predecesser saying ignorance damns. yet, pius IX said this...
""Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."

i would admit, that one would think pius X would be aware of what pius IX said too. so the cop out thing might not be so much after all. hmm

[Nihil Obstat]

Oh not this thread again.
[img]http://cdn.polfurs.org/chanfiles/p/src/p_PFchan_130921627252.png[/img]

[Selah]

[quote]Yahushua [/quote]

I think you forgot an h in there somewhere