RCC Requirements for Salvation

There is "no salvation outside of the Catholic Church".

In Christ,

Bob

 

non-Catholics "Can not be saved under the New Covenant" because the "New Covenant is the Cahtolic Mass - " they claim that when Christ said this is the "New testament in My blood" that gave what eventually evolved into the RCC - the sole rights to the New Covenant.

Since Vatican II they claim that while the New Covenant is for Catholics only and is the "ordinary" means of grace... non Catholics find a non-Biblical "extraordinary" path to salvation imagined by the RCC for them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The Church Necessary for Salvation," chapter 10, pp.169-186 of The Spirit of Catholicism, by Karl Adam (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1924, translated by Dom Justin McCann).


This book is one of the very best expositions of Catholicism ever written: very eloquent, biblical, imaginative, appealing, and orthodox. In it is found the following excellent treatment of the complex and multi-faceted question of how non-Catholic Christians are regarded by the Catholic Church

The "ecumenical" teaching concerning non-Catholic Christians given at Vatican II (1962-1965)

Karl Adam wrote this book in 1924, forty years before that Council, and there is a long Tradition stretching all the way back to the Apostles, to which Adam makes reference within the chapter. The Catholic Church assuredly does - as most people are fully aware - condemn heresy, as she claims all Christian groups must.

In Vatican II she claims that she would not do so in such a way as to exclude all who hold heretical beliefs from the Body of Christ or, necessarily, from ultimate salvation - though she admits to killing heretics in the dark ages as we see the Vatican study group of 1998 confessing and as EWTN's Dr Carroll admits -- that even Billy Graham himself would be regarded as a heretic worthy of death if judged by the RCC in the dark ages.

Ignoring the clear witness of the RCC as they specifically burned and tortured the saints with curses upon the soul being victimized – the author of the book adds his own opinion as follows ….

P 181
.In these pronouncements the Church is not deciding the good or bad faith of the individual heretic. Still less is she sitting in judgment on his ultimate fate. The immediate purport of her condemnation is that these heretics represent and proclaim ideas antagonistic to the Church. When ideas are in conflict, when truth is fighting against error, and revelation against human ingenuity, then there can be no compromise and no indulgence.......Dogmatic intolerance is therefore a moral duty, a duty to the infinite truth and to truthfulness[/quote]

As “IF” the RCC had only burned the BOOKS READ by the heretic at the stake – and not the heretic him/her-self..


In Christ,

Bob

 

First off, let me say that as a Catholic I don't take much stock in such lists. As a Catholic I believe the Church teaches the full and infallible truth of faith and morals, so I believe everything that the Church teaches in this capacity (note that not everything the Church pronounces on is an infallible teaching on faith and morals). It makes no sense to me to believe that the Catholic Church teaches the full truth, and then want to choose which part of that truth one wants to believe.

Anyway, to answer your question, The first 3 items are indeed matters of dogma (but Mary was assumed, she did not ascend, and the pope's infallibility is fairly restricted).

The last item is not a teaching of the Church, although it is sloppily-enough worded to be debatable. The Catholic Church is not a denomination, it is simply the Church. If you are baptised in the name of the Trinity you are in communion, however incomplete, with the Church. If you read Scripture you are being taught, however incompletely, by the Church. Whatever you know of the Triune God, you have learned, however imprecisely, from the Church. Thus, all Christians are in varying degrees of communion with the Church. That includes non-Catholic Christians, as well as Catholic Christians who reject some parts of the Church's teaching.

As to people who have never heard of Christ or the Gospel, the Church expresses its hope that in some unknown manner these too may be saved. This leads to the subject of natural law, the law of God written into every human heart.

Now, I may have gotten some of this wrong, and if I did it is because, as I said above, I don't think much about it. I submit to the teaching authority of the Church as a natural result of my faith in Christ and His promises, so these kinds of lists are not an issue. Of course, I want to understand the teachings of the Church, but simply so that I may possess a greater understanding of the truth, not to decide which beliefs I will accept and which I will reject. I find pick-and-choose cafeteria Catholicism to be grossly hypocritical.

Belief in Jesus and acceptance of Him as Lord and Savior is not simple, as you suggest. It entails accepting the teachings and commands He gave us, and the Church He gave us. Not everyone who crys "Lord, Lord" will be saved, because that alone is not the belief Christ requires of us. We must submit and act, not just give intellectual assent.

 

No matter on what subject he posts, Mr. Ryan cannot help but grab handsful of [....] and fling them everywhere. What is his fascination with the sins of the Catholic people in the Church? Why doesn't Mr. Ryan mention the thousands and thousands of good deeds done by Catholics -- hospitals, orphanages, charity work, and many other notable works which speak of a love of humanity and of Christ.

Naaaaaaaaa...he would rather play in his little sandbox with [....].

[Deleted personal attack. Remember folks debate the issues and do not attack the character of the person you are debating.]

[ November 04, 2003, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

These are not prerequisites for salvation in the RCC. They are, however, requirement to be a member of the church. Big difference.

We Baptists have requirements to be in our church. For example, we require all members to be baptized by immersion. That should not mean that we require it to be saved. It's not required for salvation, but is required to be a Baptist.

 

You must believe the 12 articles of faith in the Apostles Creed as believed, defended, and expounded by Christ's Church.

An excellent and updated Creed that includes these 12 articles in detail was written by Pope Paul VI, and it is entitled Credo of the People of God. You may view it here:

http://www.cin.org/docs/credo.html

 

What is his fascination with the sins of the Catholic people in the Church?

He is an adherent of the SDA sect, whose tradition is inherently Anti-Catholic. Ipso facto, this aberration of Christianity defines itself by means of its Anti-Catholicism, which is a stance inherent in the very fiber of its being. It is a raison d'etre for Seventh Day Adventism, without fortune.

 

Of course, the Catholic Church does not believe any of its doctrines to be "extra-Scriptural," or, more precisely, to go against the entire deposit of faith left in its care.

First I'll mention that "RCC" is simply a name assigned to the Catholic Church by English Protestants, to imply that it was somehow "foreign" to England. The Church calls itself the Catholic Church.

Secondly, from the Catholic perspective you're saying that you have faith in Jesus and His teachings, but you insist on rejecting the Church through which His story and His teachings have come to you. I know it's necessary to for Protestants to show that the Catholic Church somehow became apostate in year N (for one of many different values of N), despite the promise of Christ, but we still see it as accepting the teachings as authoritative while rejecting the authority of the teacher. It just makes us scratch our heads...

Have you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church? I ask not as a challenge but because anybody asking serious questions about the Catholic faith need to include the CCC in their inquiry. It's online all over the web.

BTW, welcome to the board. It's nice to have well-mannered people here, whatever their stripe.

 

Well, CalvinG, after you've been here a while you'll realize that these discussions go round and round, so I'm not going to defend the entire Catholic Church here one more time. Maybe when I have more energy!

As I said, to us it appears that you accept the teachings but reject the teacher. Or will you argue that the Catholic Church did not determine the canon of Scripture? Or that the apostles and early church fathers were not clearly Catholic in belief? I know, you can and must argue these things in order to defend your own faith path, so it's really just a rhetorical question.

Odd that you would prefer to refer to the Catholic Church by a 16th century name invented by its opponents rather than by the name the Church has called itself by since at least the 2nd century.

 

Hi Calvin,

Catholics regard tradition as a source of doctrine.

Yes we do. This is what Scripture teaches in places such as 2 Thes 2:15 & 2 Thess 3:6. There are many more instances of Scripture, which attest to a living, verbal transmission of the deposit of revealed faith.

Tradition which is not in the form of a fixed writing can be [changed or mutated to reflect a particular person's self interest or world view] and would be expected to be over a period of hundreds of years

This is precisely the view that numerous liberal Historical Critical scholars take with regard to the very content of New Testament Scripture. "They" would say that much of what you read in the New Testament is actually an aberration of what was originally a pristine amount of preaching proposed by Jesus Christ - that the Early Christian Church made long stories longer and created the Christ of Faith as opposed to the Historical Jesus.

In fact, it is very clear that much of the content of the four Gospels is almost a rewriting of the Old Testament; this allows the liberal Biblical scholar to demonstrate even further that the NT authors were warping their account of the Jesus of History in the task of creating the Christ of Faith.

You must remember that the faith of Christianity was for decades passed down orally before it was committed to the texts you have today in your New Testament, so it isn't a matter of whether Sacred Tradition is to be accepted. It is simply a matter of being consistent and accepting all of Sacred Tradition and not just that which happens to fit the portion of Sacred Scripture that you have inherited from the Catholic Church.

I will reject teachings that do not seem to fit Scripture.

This is precisely the standpoint of Catholicism.

I do deny that the RCC determined the canons of Scripture with respect to the Old Testament. This was determined by the Jews, to whom the keeping of OT Scripture was entrusted by God. All books in the OT canon were set forth as canon and grouped together before there were Christians or any church of Christ.

Then why do you reject the Deuterocanonical texts, which belonged to the canon of the OT which Jesus and his Apostles used?

A great amount of the OT quotations in the NT are from the Greek Old Testament (due to the differences between the Masoretic and Septuagint manuscripts, this is easily verified), which contained those Deuterocanonical texts, which were later rejected by the Rabbis at the particular Council of Jamnia long after Jesus Christ ascended to heaven; this same council rejected the Messiah.

As I see it, the early church determined the Scripture.

Yes, it did. And the individuals who made this "determination" were bishops in council who sought the ratification of their decision from the Bishop of Rome. Incidentally, the canons of these particular councils included the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal OT texts, which you reject today.

Canon 29 of the Synod at Hippo in Northern Africa [393 AD] reads:

“Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in the church under the title of divine writings. The canonical books are:---Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings [i.e., 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings], the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon [i.e., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus], the twelve books of the Prophets [i.e., Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi], Isaiah, Jeremiah [including Baruch], Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras [i.e., Ezra, Nehemiah], two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:---the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church [i.e., the Roman church] shall be consulted.”

There appears to be near-unanimity as to what would constitute the canon among most of the prolific, learned theologians of the time with regard to most of the NT books.

This depends on what you mean by "near-unanimity" and "most".

The disputed texts - in the Early Church - of James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Hebrews, Jude, Revelation, the Didache, Barnabas, and the Shepherd [among others, which I omit here] - I would say - hardly constitude a portion of the canon as to say the rest is a "near-unanimity". This is a significant portion of the NT canon.

I prefer to see it this way: the Holy Spirit, acting through the body of believers which constitute the Church of Christ, recognized those books which were sound doctrine and which were "God-breathed."

We Catholics would agree with your statement, except for the clarification that those who did the "recognizing" constituted bishops acting in unison in council by virtue of their office as overseers of the same Church of Christ. This comprises the content of verifiable history.

 

Hmm let me guess where you find that model... "dark ages"??

The details "again" - are that the title of this thread is "RCC REQUIREMENTS for salvation".

The details "again" - that I posted were the RCC's OWN STATEMENTS about "NO SALVATION outside the church".

Your "rant" above - that these two are NOT related - would need to be "proven" rather than simply plastered on the thread. Consider making a point specific to the thread topic next time - leave the dark ages behind you - step into the light of day.

The "instructive" point is that merely quoting RC sources is considered "dung" by our RC bretheren WHEN the RC content (being held accountable for WHAT IT publishes) does not reflect positively on the RCC if read by Christians in the freedom of the light of day.

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 04, 2003, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

Actually the "detail" is that the quotes given were of "RCC origin" - they are in fact "RC quotes".

Instead of dealing with the salient point of the RCC's own statements posted here - your attempt to simply respond "in rant form" as if an ad hominem response is the only thing "Available to you" when dealing with RC sources that you hope to supress - merely exposes the weakness of your position. Surely you can move beyond simply "ranting" instead of addressing the RC quote. We are talking about RC church councils in the quote - and it is THEY who are doing the talking.

So why not try mustering the Christian dignity of "making a point" when you post? I have never argued that simply "being RC" requires you to use such "tactics" as you do above. My point has been that the RCC itself makes ITS OWN position clear in the documents that IT publishes.

You seem to be making the case that RC members themselves can not respond "to the details" or with "substance" but must simply "rant" when RC sources are quoted that they can not explain.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

You seem to ignore the fact that as far as the Catholic Church is concerned that there are separated brethern not in full communion with the Church, but they are none the less part of the Church, thus included in the statements you posted. They are merely not in full communion. They are in partial communion, still part of the Church. Where they draw that line, you will have to ask them. But the statements you quoted are nowhere near as condemning as you make them out to be.

In Christ,
Neal

 

Neal - I am called "a pig" by our RC bretheren for posting those RC quotes.

I did not evaluate the quote to say that this alone is the horrific condemnation of the doctrines of the Catholic church over time.

Rather - I posted the statements to show the related-data on the subject of what the RCC has "on the record" claimed as specific requirements for salvation.

When the RCC claims that all non-Catholic denominations are condemned (but then goes on to burn millions of heretics "personnally" rather than simply burning the books they read) she is "admitting" that she views the PEOPLE as lost. (Note the list of curses pronounced on the souls of those she chose to torture and burn).

Revisionist histories that try to obscure the statements of the RCC regarding the salvation (or lack thereof) of heretics - are hardly credible.

Neither can it be argued that those positions say "nothing" about what the RCC views as "requirements" for salvation.

I fully admit the change in course - the RCC took at Vatican II - where although she "still" forbids participation in the New Covenant to non-Catholics - she does "officially" confess a "non-Biblical way" of salvation that she has opened for non-Catholics.

This is not the kind of whining that the RC members are doing - it simply observing purely catholic statements and admitting to their applicability to this subject - rather than obfuscating them or trying to "revise history".

In Christ,

Bob

 

In Christ,

Bob