Catholic Question: Can One Find Salvation Without the Sacraments?

Hi Tuor,

I don't have the time to follow up on any replies to my answer (I'm reading a 550 page book on the Enlightenment that must be accomplished), but I would like to give you my answer in any case.


Is it possible to achieve salvation, knowing full well what the Catholic Church teaches, yet rejecting it?

It's possible "for all things are possible with God" (Mark 10:27b), but very unlikely.

Jesus is very clear when he established his Church and gave his authority to men, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." (Luke 10:16)

When you hear the Magisterium, you hear Jesus Christ. When you reject the Magisterium, you reject Jesus Christ. When you reject Jesus Christ, you reject God the Father.

Solution? Follow Christ and His Church! All are welcome!

Is it possible to receive salvation without the Sacraments?

God has bound his action to the sacraments, but God himself is not bound by the sacraments.

God bless,

Carson

[ November 10, 2002, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following:

"1129. "The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.[Cf. Council of Trent (1547)...."

The seven sacraments are: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders and Matrimony.

So according to the Church of Rome one cannot be saved without the sacraments. Of course though this teaching is contrary to Scripture.

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (John 20:31)

In Christ
Tony

 

I am not answering for Carson obviously but here is what the Church of Rome has to say on this:

"824....It is in the Church that 'the fullness of the means of salvation'[UR 3 # 5.] has been deposited. It is in her that 'by the grace of God we acquire holiness.'[LG 48.]"

The "Church" in the above portion of the Catechism is referring to the Roman Catholic Church, not the universal Church. So yes, the Church of Rome teaches that salvation is attainable only through them.

 

Hi Tuor,

That was the answer I believed to be true, but I didn't think any Catholic would actually come out and say it.

In the religious pluralism that our 21st c. American culture admits, it's not "sociable" or "politically correct" to be a believing, practicing Catholic. It's a radical life lived for Jesus Christ.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are saying that all the people who post on this board, other than the Catholics, are most likely not going to heaven. Assuming of course they do not convert to Catholicism.

I do not believe that any of the non-Catholics on this board are so much attacking the Church as they are attacking what they think is the Church. As clarifications are made and knowledge grows, so too does the clarity of the household of God and her Spouse. Guilt is imputed according to one's personal knowledge, and only the One Judge can make judgments on that level.

Blessings,

Carson

 

No Roman Catholic can keep all the sacrements. One cannot keep Holy orders and Matrimony at the same time of course. So the best one can do is at least six. What a ridiculous false system, all geared for power and control of the masses.

 

This is utter blasphemy. No man takes the place of Jesus Christ. There is one mediator between
God and man, the man Christ Jesus. There is none other. He is the propitiation for our sins. The magesterium is a group of sinful depraved men in need of a Saviour. It is impossible that they should take the place of Christ.
DHK

[ November 10, 2002, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

Just an aside Tony: you quoted "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (John 20:31), implying that simple belief that Jesus is the Son of God effects salvation.

I'm very wary of this sort of proof-texting because it disregards the whole of revelation. We read elsewhere, "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe -- and shudder." (James 2:19) And I wouldn't say that the demons deny who Jesus is. It is the "obedience of faith" that effects salvation; it is recognition that Christ is the Son of God (a Semitic term for Kingship) in your life by deed and word that saves. This includes baptism by which we are clothed in Christ's life after confessing his sonship in the creed and the life lived in Christ thereafter that brings about our formation in the image of the Son (Gal 4:19).

It's also a little problematic for one to acknowledge Jesus as King while rejecting his Kingdom (the Catholic Church). I understand that you disagree with my ecclesiology and soteriology; a defense here is not requested from you. I simply would like to demonstrate how throwing out such proof-texts is superfluous.

your brother,

Carson

 

I wrote, "when you hear the Magisterium, you hear Jesus Christ" and DHK responded with "This is utter blasphemy. No man takes the place of Jesus Christ."

Christ himself told the seventy he appointed, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." (Luke 10:16)

It seems that Jesus thinks quite differently than DHK, and DHK needs to conform his thinking to that of the one he professes.

[ November 10, 2002, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

That's hardly proof-texting. John 20:31 is the theme around which the entire Gospel of John is written. "But these are written..." This entire book is written around this one theme. "That ye might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through His name." That is the theme of the book. Quoting that verse is not proof-texting, since that is what the book is all about. Quoting a verse out of context from James may be called proof-texting.
DHK

 

So you are saying that although some might believe they have been properly exposed to the truth of the Catholic Church, they really have not and therefore fall under the category of those who have never heard.

I am saying that we will be judged according to what we know, and that I am not the Judge and it is not my position to judge.

I am also alluding to Luke 12:47-48, "And that servant who knew his master's will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more."

 

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

God speaks to us through His Son. His Son is revealed through His Word, not the magesterium. Pay attention, Carson.
DHK

 

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "God speaks to us through His Son. His Son is revealed through His Word, not the magesterium."

Magisterium means "teaching authority".

Pray tell, DHK, how did God speak to the Christians who became Christians after His Son ascended into heaven and before a word of the New Testament was penned?

???

Bless you,

Carson

 

Eyewitnesses, Carson.

A little different than the tradition of the RCC.

 

Paul wrote to Timothy, "O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you." (1 Tim 6:20)

Guard what? The deposit of faith.
Who was Timothy? A bishop.

Why didn't Paul write to Timothy, "O Timothy, you are just a sinful man and you cannot guard anything that has been entrusted to you because nothing has been entrusted to you. In fact, God speaks to us through his Son and you are not his Son. God read your Bible."?

Answer: Because Paul is a Catholic Apostle writing to his disciple, a Catholic Bishop, about what he has received from the Lord and entrusted to Timothy (Tradition).

Blasphemy? No, it's the Word of God.

 

Hi Helen,

You wrote, "Eyewitnesses, Carson. A little different than the tradition of the RCC."

Oh, but Timothy wasn't an eyewitness.

God bless you,

Carson

 

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

iCor.12:8-11 gives a list of spiritual gifts that were operational during the first century. Some of these gifts had directly to do with "revelation." Paul mentions three of them in 1Cor.13:8, "prophecy, tongues, and (revelatory) knowledge." These were temporary gifts given to the church until the canon of Scripture was completed, which it was at the end of the first century with the completion of the Book of Revelation (ca. 98 A.D.).
Verse nine says "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part." The part that they knew was the Old Testament. They had only part of the Word of God. God gave them prophecy (and tongues and revelation) as temporary gifts until "that which is perfect is come." "That which is perfect," refers to the perfected (O.E. completed) Word of God. When the Word of God was complete, the church had no more need of these temporary gifts. They ceased as verse 8 said they would, at the end of the first century. That is how the early Christians heard the Word of God.
DHK

[ November 10, 2002, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]