Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

[BreadOfLife]

The point is you deny what Christ said . You deny that He who is God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He is not like man who lies, nor does he need to repent nor does he change his mind, what he says He does, and what He means He says. Take it up with Him, He is for sure taking you to task on this.

Talking about the crucifixion.

No – I’m not calling Isaiah a “Liar”.

I’m saying outright that he never prophesied that it would rain at the Crucifixion. I’m saying that you have falsely interpreted his words by twisting them to mean what you WANT them to mean.

And once again – you have dodged the question about the millions of aborted babies. If you are saying that God does NOT make exceptions and that EVERYBODY must be water-Baptized, like the Thief supposedly was by the rain – then what about those babies??

This is absolutely relevant to the conversation about the Thief on the cross . . .

 

[Philip James]

The Gates of hell shall not prevail etc. But when you fellas speak of the church, we are all well aware that you actually mean the Catholic church

Hello brakelite,

There is and has always been only ONE Church, the body of Christ. St.Paul makes this quite clear in his letters 'one Faith, one baptism, one Lord of all..'
This one Church was planted in various locations by the apostles (each in his allotted territory). So then you have the Church in Jerusalem, the Church in Antioch, the Church in Alexandria, the Church in Rome, the Church in Corinth.... etc...
Now each of these particular churches are all members of the one Church, led by the overseers and presbyters that the apostles (or overseers ordained by them) ordained through the laying on of hands...
This one Church was early on referred to as the catholic Church to distinguish it from those who taught contrary from the Church as a whole.

The issue is on what basis do Catholics claim that their church is the one God preserved. The Catholic church wasn't the only church in town Philip.

Those who rejected the authority of their bishops and taught contrary to the catholic faith were various and many, but where are they now? That these (the churches with valid bishops) continue while all others fall into ruin is clearly evidence that the Holy Spirit works through the authority of the bishops.

Where can you find communities today that have an unbroken chain of authority from Christ and the apostles down to today?
I suggest that there at least three who retain legitimate authority: the bishops in communion with the bishops of Rome, of Constantinople, and of Alexandria...
All of these continue to preserve apostolic authority and offer the pure offering of Malachi 1:11 and thus can rightly be called churches.
I would suggest that the things they hold in common demonstrate clearly the 'deposit of faith once delivered to the saints'

If you accept this, then we can move on to the primacy of Rome. If you reject this then there's not much point in doing so.

If you know of others and you would suggest that theirs is the one that has been preserved, demonstrate their claims...

Peace!

 

[Giuliano]

Why would you not equate Christ with the waters of life? What flowed out of Him when He was pierced? And what flows from His and the Father's throne?

That does not make them the same thing. The blood and water were part of him -- the way my liver and kidneys are part of me. My liver is not me, I'm not my liver.

He is the Bread of life which comes down from heaven. He is the Rod which budded which the Rod of Aaron denotes. And every word spoken from Him is living waters.

If you go down this road far enough, everything equals everything else.

As for satan being chained in hell His chains reach to hell HE is CHAINED IN THE KNOWLEDGE he CHOSE- HELL . Just because he moves about does not mean his portion is not in hell. That is a kingdom in which he is chained to. I suppose now you know how long his spiritual chains are?

I have some idea about it from personal experience; and that agrees with Scripture. He is not at present chained in Hades or Hell.

And still this does not discredit Christ's words.
"Unless a man be born of both water and spirit he can not enter the kingdom of heaven". PERIOD!

And if His believers shall have living waters flow from them, this means the Holy Spirit is not just fire but water.

Yes, the Living Waters are spirit! They are not Jesus.

John 7:37-39
Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'" But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.1Corinthians 12:13For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

So why say these waters are Jesus?

Rev.22:1
The River of Life
1Then the angel showed me a river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb

It would seem with speculation doctrine like that BOL and you cling to is not a strong enough case for you to be arguing against me . I am simply stating facts concerning God's word. I will take Him at His word you can go with speculation. And no matter how you turn it is ONLY speculation you cling to. PERIOD!

When I see someone get dogmatic -- and especially when he writes something like "PERIOD!" in all capitals, that tells me he's out of rational arguments.

You convinced me of nothing just as I have not convinced you of the truth.
God Bless!

Something is not the "truth" because you proclaim it. The way you write invites further disagreements. I could agree with you if you had written, "You convinced me of nothing just as I have not convinced you anything." Your dogmatic attitude does not lend itself to convincing anyone else. "I have the truth, you don't."

 

[Giuliano]

I gave up a long time ago.
As to sin....before it was a sin to remarry and receive communion.
Now it is no longer a sin....according to this very Pope...
Amores Laetitia chapter 8 footnote 351 (maybe 350).

Before you had to go to confession every time before receiving communion...
Now you only have to go to confession for mortal sins.

I seem to see changes BoL doesn't see.

There are times I think the people in the pews have to have parts of their minds stunned if they want to be "good Catholics." For some, I suppose it's base on fear. If they fail to believe whatever they're taught, they risk being damned. If they're told things never changed, they'd better believe it. They might go to hell if they doubted it.

Church hierarchy knows this is a scam. They feel free to contradict Church teachings; and if asked about respond by saying they never disagree with Church doctrine. It may get published in the news; but the people in the pews say, "He didn't disagree with Church doctrine -- see, he just said he doesn't."

 

[Giuliano]

Just as Jesus died on behalf of man, and live a righteous life on behalf of man, His baptism also was on behalf of those who couldn't be baptised themselves for whatever reason. I think the idea of Jesus baptizing the thief rather far fetched myself. After all, baptism is a response to the heart decision to die to self and surrender to the Saviour... This the thief did.

Yes, I believe God judges by our hearts.

 

[Giuliano]

No He didn't. He said that day, that they would meet on Paradise. Neither of them went to Paradise that day. The thief may not even have died for another day or two. And Jesus testified that He didn't go to heaven/Paradise at least until after He met with Mary.
KJV Revelation 2
7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
KJV Revelation 22
Jesus Is Coming Soon
1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

You mention maths and logic... Use those gifts to understand where Paradise is from the above scripture.

No. But note that Jesus didn't give the command to baptise anyone until after the resurrection.

The word "paradise" means "garden." That's how Jews used it then and how they use it now. You can see from Revelation also that Paradise is not Heaven itself but the Garden of Eden since the tree of life is in Eden.

 

[Giuliano]

Ummmmmm, YOU’RE the one who proudly stated that Protestants were the ones who “first” taught that marriage was a Covenant –

You are becoming duller and more irrational as we go along. I was not "proudly" stating that Protestants invented the idea of marriage as a covenant. I was scoffing at them and also mocking Catholics who imitated them.

then you couldn’t tell me WHOSE blood was spilled in the marriage Covenant. WHY us that??
Sooooooo – if YOU claim that ALL Covenants require the spilling of blood – WHOSE blood gets spilled in a marriage Covenant, hmmmmmm??

I said marriage isn't a covenant. Now you ask me to prove something I don't believe? I think you need mental help. My advice is to get it soon.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No He didn't. He said that day, that they would meet on Paradise. Neither of them went to Paradise that day. The thief may not even have died for another day or two. And Jesus testified that He didn't go to heaven/Paradise at least until after He met with Mary.
KJV Revelation 2
7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
KJV Revelation 22
Jesus Is Coming Soon
1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

You mention maths and logic... Use those gifts to understand where Paradise is from the above scripture.

A couple of problems with that statement.

First of all – Jesus told the Thief:
"Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."
OR, did He say:
"Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise."
There was no punctuation in the Greek, so it all depends on where you insert the comma.
The first example shows that he would be with Christ THAT day.
The second example states that he would be with Christ – at SOME point in the future.

If it’s the second scenario – then there’s no problem.
If it’s the first scenario – then we have to understand where “Paradise” was at the time.

We know from the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man that “Paradise” or the Bosom of Abraham was located near the placed of suffering – separated by a great chasm (Luke 16:26). Peter tells us that Christ went to preach to the “spirits in prison” (1 Pet. 3:19).

So, scenario 2 makes sense in this light . . .

 

[ScottA]

A couple of problems with that statement.

First of all – Jesus told the Thief:
"Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."
OR, did He say:
"Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise."
There was no punctuation in the Greek, so it all depends on where you insert the comma.
The first example shows that he would be with Christ THAT day.
The second example states that he would be with Christ – at SOME point in the future.

If it’s the second scenario – then there’s no problem.
If it’s the first scenario – then we have to understand where “Paradise” was at the time.

We know from the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man that “Paradise” or the Bosom of Abraham was located near the placed of suffering – separated by a great chasm (Luke 16:26). Peter tells us that Christ went to preach to the “spirits in prison” (1 Pet. 3:19).

So, scenario 2 makes sense in this light . . .

No... That would be like saying "behold now, the day of salvation" without meaning "today."

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are becoming duller and more irrational as we go along. I was not "proudly" stating that Protestants invented the idea of marriage as a covenant. I was scoffing at them and also mocking Catholics who imitated them.
I said marriage isn't a covenant. Now you ask me to prove something I don't believe? I think you need mental help. My advice is to get it soon.

In your infinite ignorance – you are conflating “Covenant” with “Sacrifice”.

Without the shedding of blood – there is no remission of sins. A Covenant, by definition has NOTHING to do with the shedding of blood. SOME Covenants have involved blood – but others haven’t.

God made a COVENANT with Noah not to destroy the earth again with water – and not ONE drop of blood was shed.
It was simply a mutual promise – an oath.

Abimelech and Isaac settled a land dispute through a COVENANT that did NOT include the shedding of blood. It was simply a mutual promise – an oath.

Joshua and the Gibeonites made a COVENANT to settle their disputes and bring peace that did NOT include the shedding of blood.
It was simply a mutual promise – an oath.

A Covenant is an OATH – not a bloodletting.
Do your homework . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

No... That would be like saying "behold now, the day of salvation" without meaning "today."

Actually – no.
The context doesn’t fit here.

2 Cor. 6:2
For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.

You have to look at everything, Scott – wording AND context. He is repeating the fact that he is talking about NOW. In the case of the Thief – it could go either way.

 

[Giuliano]

In your infinite ignorance – you are conflating “Covenant” with “Sacrifice”.

Without the shedding of blood – there is no remission of sins. A Covenant, by definition has NOTHING to do with the shedding of blood. SOME Covenants have involved blood – but others haven’t.

God made a COVENANT with Noah not to destroy the earth again with water – and not ONE drop of blood was shed.
It was simply a mutual promise – an oath.

Abimelech and Isaac settled a land dispute through a COVENANT that did NOT include the shedding of blood. It was simply a mutual promise – an oath.

What do you think they ate?

Joshua and the Gibeonites made a COVENANT to settle their disputes and bring peace that did NOT include the shedding of blood.
It was simply a mutual promise – an oath.

A Covenant is an OATH – not a bloodletting.

I assume myself that either an animal was sacrificed or the two parties cut themselves -- the way some native American tribes did to become blood brothers.

Do your homework . . .

Practices varied, to be sure; but the essence of the covenant was that the two would act as one being. If one of the parties betrayed that, he was agreeing to pay with his own life. The person who makes covenant with Jesus is agreeing to terms where he is no longer independent of Jesus -- he is part of the Body of Christ.

Hebrews 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

How can you not know this? How can the Protestants not know it? One is risking damnation if he breaks the covenant he made with Jesus.

 

[ScottA]

Actually – no.
The context doesn’t fit here.

2 Cor. 6:2
For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.

You have to look at everything, Scott – wording AND context. He is repeating the fact that he is talking about NOW. In the case of the Thief – it could go either way.

No...the context here is "Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.’'

There is no other day after the cross...not in the correct context. "Today" was "that day" (that "third day") foretold all throughout the scriptures.

 

[aspen]

I grew up in the states.
I read something once about Jesus making a dead bird come back to life when He was a little boy.
These accounts could be true....
The writers of the gospels were not interested in Jesus' boyhood and could very well have left it out even though they knew some details about it...especially Luke since he actually studied Jesus' life from those that knew Him.

I just don't know, really, what good it would do to know anything about Him when He was little.
I guess it could be interesting. Have never really thought about it.

I believe you may have read that in the infant Gospel of Thomas....
I was interested in the Gnostic books that were left out of the Bible
After researching, I discovered that the many Gnostic books were written long after the other gospels
Apparently, Christians were interested in what Jesus’s childhood was like, just like we are
So they simply wrote about it - no one knew what happened so the authors filled in the blanks

By the time the Bible was canonized, there was a lot of material out there that was made up to satisfy people’s need to know.
The church council had to sort through the truth from the soap operas about Jesus.
Personally, I think the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas probably should have been included but
I can see why the Gnostic books were not - especially because they promoted ideas from Gnosticism

 

[BreadOfLife]

No...the context here is "Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.’'

There is no other day after the cross...not in the correct context. "Today" was "that day" (that "third day") foretold all throughout the scriptures.

Wrong.

Not ONE commentary relates 2 cor. 6:2 with Luke 13:32 because they’re NOT contextually related.

You are once again trying to prove me wrong simply because I’m Catholic – and Catholics couldn’t possible know as much about Scripture as Protestants.

Well, you’re wrong again, Scott. . .

 

[GodsGrace]

I believe you may have read that in the infant Gospel of Thomas....
I was interested in the Gnostic books that were left out of the Bible
After researching, I discovered that the many Gnostic books were written long after the other gospels
Apparently, Christians were interested in what Jesus’s childhood was like, just like we are
So they simply wrote about it - no one knew what happened so the authors filled in the blanks

By the time the Bible was canonized, there was a lot of material out there that was made up to satisfy people’s need to know.
The church council had to sort through the truth from the soap operas about Jesus.
Personally, I think the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas probably should have been included but
I can see why the Gnostic books were not - especially because they promoted ideas from Gnosticism

I'm not sure about the Shepherd of Hermas but I agree that the Didache should have been included. It would have taken care of many debates we have today.

I have the extra-biblical books and tried to read them. I stopped after a while. They make no sense and yes, they are gnostic (many of them).

It must not have been easy to deal with who Jesus was at the time. It took the Fathers to sort it out.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What do you think they ate?

I assume myself that either an animal was sacrificed or the two parties cut themselves -- the way some native American tribes did to become blood brothers.
Practices varied, to be sure; but the essence of the covenant was that the two would act as one being. If one of the parties betrayed that, he was agreeing to pay with his own life. The person who makes covenant with Jesus is agreeing to terms where he is no longer independent of Jesus -- he is part of the Body of Christ.

Hebrews 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

How can you not know this? How can the Protestants not know it? One is risking damnation if he breaks the covenant he made with Jesus.

The Covenant made with Jesus is one NOT made with human hands. There is NO shedding of blood (Col. 2:11-12). Why don’t YOU know this??

The Covenant with Christ is made through BAPTISM – not circumcision of the flesh – but circumcision of the heart.
Do your HOMEWORK . . .

 

[GodsGrace]

The ONLY sins you were ever “required” to confess to a priest are mortal sins. It was even that way when YOU were a little girl. Venial sins have NEVER been required to be confessed to a priest.

This is a PRIME example of what I mean when I tell you that you are VERY ignorant of ALL things Catholic. You try to pass yourself off as an “expert” on Catholic issues because you claim to have been a catechist. This explains a LOT.

There were MANY bad catechists in the wake of Vatican II – and the Church is STILL recovering from this. The fact that YOU claim to have been one makes a heck of a lot of sense to me . . .

Why didn't you post that terrible, lying post of mine? Number 1337?
Did you reread it and find that I was right after all?

As to the above: It's rather difficult for a 10 to 12 year old to know the catholic church is teaching them wrongly. I'm telling you what the church taught ME when I was that age.

If it was wrong, you should take it up with the nuns and priests that taught this.
There were plenty of priests around back then to hear confession BTW...they weren't so few that they had to teach THE CORRECT METHOD...IF it existed. I really don't care to find out.

And I don't know things because I USED TO BE A CATECHIST.
There are other reasons which YOU do not need to know.

And YOU, my dear sir, are a TERRIBLE EXAMPLE of a catholic.
It would behoove you to remove yourself from ANY forum.

And, I agree with @Giuliano ...
You need help,,,really.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why didn't you post that terrible, lying post of mine? Number 1337?
Did you reread it and find that I was right after all?

As to the above: It's rather difficult for a 10 to 12 year old to know the catholic church is teaching them wrongly. I'm telling you what the church taught ME when I was that age.

If it was wrong, you should take it up with the nuns and priests that taught this.
There were plenty of priests around back then to hear confession BTW...they weren't so few that they had to teach THE CORRECT METHOD...IF it existed. I really don't care to find out.

And I don't know things because I USED TO BE A CATECHIST.
There are other reasons which YOU do not need to know.

And YOU, my dear sir, are a TERRIBLE EXAMPLE of a catholic.
It would behoove you to remove yourself from ANY forum.

And, I agree with @Giuliano ...
You need help,,,really.

Yes - I need help because YOU can't stop lying.

Ummmmmm, and I'm the "terrible" example . . .

 

[GodsGrace]

Hello brakelite,

There is and has always been only ONE Church, the body of Christ. St.Paul makes this quite clear in his letters 'one Faith, one baptism, one Lord of all..'
This one Church was planted in various locations by the apostles (each in his allotted territory). So then you have the Church in Jerusalem, the Church in Antioch, the Church in Alexandria, the Church in Rome, the Church in Corinth.... etc...
Now each of these particular churches are all members of the one Church, led by the overseers and presbyters that the apostles (or overseers ordained by them) ordained through the laying on of hands...
This one Church was early on referred to as the catholic Church to distinguish it from those who taught contrary from the Church as a whole.



Those who rejected the authority of their bishops and taught contrary to the catholic faith were various and many, but where are they now? That these (the churches with valid bishops) continue while all others fall into ruin is clearly evidence that the Holy Spirit works through the authority of the bishops.

Where can you find communities today that have an unbroken chain of authority from Christ and the apostles down to today?
I suggest that there at least three who retain legitimate authority: the bishops in communion with the bishops of Rome, of Constantinople, and of Alexandria...
All of these continue to preserve apostolic authority and offer the pure offering of Malachi 1:11 and thus can rightly be called churches.
I would suggest that the things they hold in common demonstrate clearly the 'deposit of faith once delivered to the saints'

If you accept this, then we can move on to the primacy of Rome. If you reject this then there's not much point in doing so.

If you know of others and you would suggest that theirs is the one that has been preserved, demonstrate their claims...

Peace!

Hi PJ,

Everything you've said above is correct,,,
I'd just like to make one correction that will help you explain it better....

When you capitalize Church,,,it DOES mean the Body of Christ.
This includes all those that have ever believed in Christ.
The CC calls this the Communion of Saints:
The Church Militant
The Church Penitent
The Church Triumphant

You could easily look this up.


What you're describing above is church with a small c.
That would be the institution and not the Communion of Saints.